Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Peter Tatchell writes on The Independent's blogs today:

Will next week's US presidential vote be free and fair? Based on the conduct of the last election, possibly not. The 2004 election was marred by vote-fixing that would disgrace a banana republic. Four years later, few new safeguards have been implemented to prevent a re-run of the voter exclusion and ballot tampering of 2004.

This is the conclusion of Robert F Kennedy Jr, civil rights lawyer and nephew of JFK. In one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent years, published in Rolling Stone magazine in 2006, he revealed how voting irregularities in 2004 were enough to steal the presidency for the Republicans. You can read his meticulous 14,000-word expose here. It is essential reading for everyone who cares about the fate of US democracy. Read more.

Question: Do you worry for the integrity of the election?


( Comment )
siliconshaman wrote:
Oct. 28th, 2008 10:06 pm (UTC)
I'm not going to list them all, you can google it yourself. If you're really interested in a comprehensive list and not just filibustering then you'll find out as I did that there is far more reports of grievous fraud being committed by one side than the other.

And it could be the reason there's rather more noise about right-wingers cheating than democrats.. is because there are more right-wingers cheating! [Occam's razor.]

[you will note, I did not say it was all one sided however.]

randy_68 wrote:
Oct. 28th, 2008 11:51 pm (UTC)
Well, I can't say I'm surprised that no attempt was made. Most of the people I ask to expound upon their point and provide some facts usually don't. And yours is the most typical response, "google it yourself".

Unfortunately I don't get the same treatment when I suggest to search and enlighten your self. I usually get told that I have no facts and I'm just an asshole.

But hold on I'll go look...

OK. In a brief run of google. ("election fraud" and "voter fraud")
I found 8 articles indicating some sort of fraud. 4 mentioned ACORN specifically, 2 were ubiquitous, and the last 2 were GOP related.

ACORN has ties to the DNC and democratic candidates so we'll count that as 4 for the Dems.

2 were GOP, and to be "fair" we'll say the other two were GOP as well, although the stories never mentioned affiliation. So that brings the GOP to 4.

So, test case results in a tie.

Note: All 4 ACORN items were this year, the GOP stories ranged from 2000 to 2006.
siliconshaman wrote:
Oct. 29th, 2008 01:07 am (UTC)
Of the first ten result, 5 were Republican, 3 were on Fraud in general and 2 were relating to ACORN. Of the GOP results, 4 related to current events, although they all mentioned the 2000 and 2004 elections citing it as previous evidence. So that's 4 separate incidents of Republican fraud, to one example of democrat vote suppression, mentioned twice.

And that was using your own search string "election fraud", "voter fraud". Which would not pull up articles on voter suppression, voting irregularities or related items. Please, do go ahead and check my numbers if you wish.

And lets look at the qualitative as well as quantitative results shall we. ACORN, stands accused of using write in registrations with false names, such as Mickey Mouse, which will not be voted upon and will not make a difference obviously.

Whereas the GOP are pulling tricks like this:

As well as voter suppression and and purging the electoral rolls based on simple typos, voters being listed as absent or incorrect addresses when their houses have been foreclosed and so on and so forth. [please, google those ta your leisure.]

You want to argue who's more corrupt and who's trying to steal the election? Try and get your facts right first, because now you have been educated.
randy_68 wrote:
Oct. 29th, 2008 01:31 am (UTC)
1) The link you provide does not indicate it was GOP induced, but merely a flyer attempting to fool democratic voters. It states the general assembly of the state.

2) As for voter suppression. I used your guideline. First 10 items, excluding repeating instances of the same website.

a) definition (wiki)
b) definition (wiki)
c) ACORN records seized (seemingly neutral, maybe right leaning)
d) NY Times Commentary: ACORN issue not vote fraud, but vote suppression (left leaning source)
e) ACORN vs. GOP in Kentucky (seemingly nuetral source, local paper)
f) anti-GOP voter supression (left leaning source Alternet)
g) anti-GOP voter supression (no surprise, Huffington Post, way left leaning)
h) NPR bit with no factual information but link to some audio.
i) anti-GOP voter supression (ABC news, take that for what you will.)
j) Seems to be a article on bad voting machines.

Now discounting HP and Alternet, whom most people know as very left and leaning left(alot). I don't mind using a source when it leans a bit one way or the other, but both of those are way out on the edges.

That leaves:

2 definition sites
2 ACORN articles (current)
1 GOP suppression (with factual info)
2 articles with no seemingly pertinent info.

So, I have been educated? OK. I'll let that float in your bubble I guess.

As for the registration fraud by ACORN, this could have voting implications depending on how many bad registrations make it into the system and who knows about them. Ohio already has ~200K going into the system because SCOTUS said they don't have to be verified.

I believe we should have a voter ID law. You wouldn't mind a few of your tax dollars going towards making all elections fair and just? Would you?
siliconshaman wrote:
Oct. 29th, 2008 01:44 am (UTC)
"The link you provide does not indicate it was GOP induced"
Whom else would benefit from misdirecting voters?

That says all I need to know about you. No proof is sufficient for you because your mind is already made up. However much you may pretend to be neutral, you are nothing but a right-wing shrill.

This discussion is terminated as a waste of time and your user name has been kill-filed as a possible troll.

Edited at 2008-10-29 01:46 am (UTC)
randy_68 wrote:
Oct. 29th, 2008 02:38 am (UTC)
So grown up of you.

The link doesn't indicate the GOP was involved. Sorry, it just doesn't. That's not to say that someone who voted republican didn't do it, but you want to tie it to the GOP which it doesn't do.

I'm sorry that a troll is someone whose logic escapes your own. There must be alot of people on your list then.

Well, you have an enjoyable life in your little bubble there.

BTW, I'm not "right-wing", I usually vote 3rd party as I will probably do this year if a worthwhile candidate can make the roll. I'm just tired of people drinking the Obama kool-aid, or believing republican is the only way to vote. I usually take the opposite stance from the poster to see if they know what they're posting about. But I will admit I think Obama will not be the president people think he will, or will McCain for that matter.
splitting_minds wrote:
Oct. 30th, 2008 11:00 pm (UTC)
Who else would benefit? As much as I'd like to sprinkle fairy dust everywhere and hold hands while we wish and hope, this election is going to be between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. 3rd parties will barely get a look-in.

No matter where it's going, if it's going, it has to be stopped. If Obama votes are going to McCain, or vice-versa, it's a problem. Most votes are Obama--> McCain, which is ridiculous and a travesty. And nobody would have a bigger motivation to switch votes than McCain supporters, as polls and the media everywhere are basically giving it to Obama. But I'd be surprised if Obama won...
( Comment )