"Rational" and "Gingrich supporter" do not belong in the same sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Printable View
"Rational" and "Gingrich supporter" do not belong in the same sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Doesn't need to be. It's adequately functional as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
define "adequately functional" as it seems to me you have a number of massive flaws which potentially could be (and probably are) being exploited...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"adequately functional" as in people get elected and nobody has any reason to suspect foul play.
except for the articles linked to in this thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
did my sarcasm detector fail?
Can you point to a specific article describing a case of the misrepresentation of the popular election results?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Foul play happens in all areas of life. To assume that the electoral system is never abused would have to be a large assumption.
I know that Australia has issues and safeguards and still has dodgy deals been done.
I'm pretty sure the UK has had a few Rotten Boroughs in years gone pass.
I remember reading here about machines punching holes in the wrong spot, disputes about the number of votes going to various candidates.
I'm sure there is some politician who has gotten to power in a modern democracy by unethical means.
There's no logical reason to assume otherwise in the absence of evidence pointing in the other direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Can you pinpoint a specific US politician though?Quote:
I'm sure there is some politician who has gotten to power in a modern democracy by unethical means.
Forging elections is difficult because of the everpresent opinion polls and exit polls. Those tend to be pretty accurate. There's absolutely no reason to question the outcome of any election result that conforms to the opinion polls and exit polls.
Bush won fair and square. If a bunch of old Jewish Florida retirees can't tell a difference between Al Gore and Pat Buchanan on the ballot, that's not Bush's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
All opinion polls except for rasmussen predicted Obama's victory. So yeah, they're pretty damn accurate.Quote:
As for Opinion Polls, not accurate at all RVG. Just ask Romney's campaign.
Two thoughts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
1. The polling for the 2012 election was as clear as day. The problem with Romney's campaign (and the conservative media complex) was that they deliberately chose to ignore the polls, claiming they were biased by librul biasy stuff. Hence the hilariously wrong Unskewed Polls site, which was actually taken seriously. (Not to mention various pundits who would declare at length why all of the polls were wrong, and Mittens would win.)
2. Polling is not a good way to detect election fraud, unless it is exit polling.
Not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Despite what the actual results were, it ultimately came down to SCOTUS, not the people, to decide who won. Granted, there have been much sketchier ways in which a president has been elected....Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No, Bush won because he got extra 500 votes in Florida. That's what got him elected, not the Supreme Court. SCOTUS merely stopped the recount.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
As far as we know, Bush had 500 extra votes since the recount was stopped. I'm not saying the world would have been better under Gore, but ultimately the due process was declared over by SCOTUS, and hence the decision was made by 9 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No, Bush won because of Fox news announcing he won before the counts were even finished, so people were celebrating before the actual results. Then there was the whole butterfly ballot scandal, the overvotes/undervotes, and a bunch of various factors. The actual real result would have to involve completely redoing the vote from scratch. The difference was completely within the margin of error. Single misrecordings could have sent the vote in different directions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Speculation is speculatory...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Dubya won Florida and with it the presidency. The rest is history.
No, he won by 2000 votes, no 300, no 900, no 500. To be fair, the 300->900 was oversea votes, so that wasn't caused by a recount.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Let's put it this way. Was the winning margin small enough that some fiddling could change the result?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Certainly. But there is no evidence of any fiddling whatsoever, aside from tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
The margin was about 500 votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
It was within the Margin of Error. Simply honest mistakes would have been enough to skew it in either direction. Don't need any tinfoil theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Though there was a big issue with the butterfly ballots employed and it is known that the margin of error of those were very significant, and a source I read too long ago for my internet history was suggesting something like 500 votes meant for Bush were incorrectly done, and 3000ish for Gore (the numbers might have been bigger..)
That very well may be, but once again, we need specific examples of mistakes leading to miscounts. Example: the initial result in Florida gave Bush his victory. After a month of recounts the numbers were still in Bush's favor. The SCotUS did the sensible thing and stopped that exercise in futility in order for the winner to emerge and for America to have her president-elect. It was the right thing to do, it was the legal thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Don't get me wrong, it was probably the best decision to do at the time. There are multiple complications which could have arisen from alternative scenarios. However, the main point of contention is this statement "Bush won fair and square". That implies there are zero issues or problems which did not present themselves. However, issues did present themselves in the Florida election and this had major impact on the final result. I haven't said "Gore should have been president", I am more questioning the legitimacy of the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I disagree. It does not imply lack of issues, it merely implies lack of foul play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
What would make you question its legitimacy? Yes, it was a close election, but so what? A very close result in an of itself does not imply any problems with the process. It amplifies certain issues that usually do not matter, but beyond that there's nothing wrong with it. There will always be people who can't properly fill out a ballot or what have you. Those ballots were invalidated and rightfully so.Quote:
I haven't said "Gore should have been president", I am more questioning the legitimacy of the event.
A close election of that kind of magnitude inherently carries with it suspicion. The United States is no stranger to rigged elections and ultimately you had what is culturally viewed as a public election ending by a court decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Why do you go to such extremes to toss aside common sense and plead ignorance on the controversy of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be called one of the most controversial decisions made by the court.
Boss Tweed? Seriously, that's your example? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
/Tribesman mode off
It's a bit dated.
Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.Quote:
Why do you go to such extremes to toss aside common sense and plead ignorance on the controversy of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be called one of the most controversial decisions made by the court.
Yeah....I don't know whether you should be the first person I ignore on the org or not. You always seem to derail a conversation from the substance of the matter by either brushing off someone entirely or by diving into trivialities. Obvious to anybody coming into this conversation on a fair level is that the reference is to cement the point that the US is far from the shining example of one man, one vote. Quite frankly, whats even more obvious (except to you) is that such manipulation is to be expected when we are talking about elections concerning the most powerful positions on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Star Trek: TNG S3 Ep.10 The DefectorQuote:
Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: I don't know, Data, my gut tells me we ought to be listening to what this guy's trying to tell us.
Lt. Commander Data: Your gut?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: It's just a... a feeling, you know, an instinct. Intuition.
Lt. Commander Data: But those qualities would interfere with rational judgment, would they not?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: You're right, sometimes they do.
Lt. Commander Data: Then... why not rely strictly on the facts?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Because you just can't rely on the plain and simple facts. Sometimes they lie.
False. I do not brush off anyone. Those whose opinion I do not value are on my ignore list, and I never engage in any conversation with them. Let's just say that your example of shady US electoral practices wasn't great. It's 140ish years old, well over its expiration date as far as relevant evidence is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You say that citing evidence from the 19th century.Quote:
Obvious to anybody coming into this conversation on a fair level is that the reference is to cement the point that the US is far from the shining example of one man, one vote.
There is a world of difference between the possibility of something happening and it actually happening. You say that such manipulations are probable based solely on the fact that they are possible. That's just not good enough.Quote:
Quite frankly, whats even more obvious (except to you) is that such manipulation is to be expected when we are talking about elections concerning the most powerful positions on the planet.
And before the recounts started, there was 1784 votes in favour of Bush. And if you red the bottom parts of your link, you'll see that Gore could've won depending on the standard of counting. Let me put it this way, Bush's victory was within the margin of error for an election and that's a problem, even if you do have a fair win.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
What you do want is to get a system, where there's one standard, so that a recount does give the same result and not an official 1200 vote difference. You also want a system where you can follow the recount, rather than "this machine with substandard encryption says so".
1-2% systematic difference only done during close elections and you can do it for decades before you'll see a clear tilt in the margin of error for the polls.
Repeating myself, but I don't think there is a lot to take away from Bush v. Gore. The margin of victory was always going to be smaller than the margin of error. It was just a sad, unfortunate episode. Our system is not well-designed for close national elections.
Could've, bu didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
How is a fair win a problem?Quote:
Let me put it this way, Bush's victory was within the margin of error for an election and that's a problem, even if you do have a fair win.
Floridians can apportion their electoral votes whichever way their heart desires. If they want to use "this machine with substandard encryption", then more power to them. Florida gets her say in the presidential election regardless of the method, as long as the method is indicative of the will of the Floridians (and it is).Quote:
What you do want is to get a system, where there's one standard, so that a recount does give the same result and not an official 1200 vote difference. You also want a system where you can follow the recount, rather than "this machine with substandard encryption says so".
It's not a big deal, unless the result is consistently slanted one way or the other.Quote:
1-2% systematic difference only done during close elections and you can do it for decades before you'll see a clear tilt in the margin of error for the polls.
And that means that it was decided by the court of law afterwards, since the preset rules weren't accurate enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You were very close to something like this: Bush, Gore, Bush, Gore, Gore, Bush. Good luck talking about fair elections after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That was my point. You can have consistent slanting by only having a few key persons involved and cover it up due to lack of transparency. The only way to detect it would be to dectect that chance isn't chance anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Have you never thought about all the evidence you might be missing out on?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I don't think a rational, fact-based world view goes well with selecting the facts you want to read or hear about.
If you select the facts you're exposed to according to your own opinion then you may not be influenced by a lot of opinions but only by your own. While I can understand that you value your own opinion, it's nowhere near as factual as your statement about a reliance on facts suggests because the facts are apparently hand-picked.
As for the Bush v. Gore, maybe a new election would've helped. Or, ahem, not using FPTP. ~;)