Butthole Bandits 7 and a throwback to Jim Crowe

[Ironside]

Certainly. But there is no evidence of any fiddling whatsoever, aside from tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

The margin was about 500 votes.

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Fisherking]

There's an awful lot to take away from Bush v. Gore. Our system was unable to let the people speak, even with all the little amendments and additions over the last 200 years to try and emulate direct democracy. The people lost, and the Court went with the reactionary option because, honestly, did you think they wouldn't? Huge lessons to take away from Bush v. Gore. When they write the history books, they'll point to that election on the timeline and say "Right there. That's where it went sideways."

I don’t know how you can say that. Our elections have been going sideways for a long time.

We know there was vote fraud in the 1960 election. It is highly likely that there was enough to make a difference in most elections since then.

We know an awful lot of registered voters don’t vote yet in many states we find voter turnout over 100% and you think it is the people?

The Florida election was much like a Washington State election, some how the more times you count the votes, the more the Democrats seem to gain. It is not that Republicans don’t try it, they just are not very good at it.

It is also a problem in registering people ineligible to vote. Something the Democrats are very apt at. That is not counting the dead, who are always said to vote Democrat.

My self, I think the best way to represent the people’s views is to call up a sample of the population like we do for jury duty, but I am sure that would be manipulated too.

[Lemur]

the complaints over the Florida results are just sour grapes.

Depends on the complaint, doesn't it? If you say, "Bush v. Gore illustrates how poorly we are set up for super-close national elections," well, that seems legit.

It is also a problem in registering people ineligible to vote. Something the Democrats are very apt at.

Indeed, look at all of the damn dirty Democrats cited in this thread, attempting to vote twice, purging the rolls of legitimate voters, illegally disposing of voter registrations, altering ballots, signing fake names in primaries ...


... oh, wait ...

[Fisherking]

So, as I said, the Dems are good at it and the Repubs a’int.

[Lemur]

Well, as I have said, I suspect both parties would sell toddlers into slavery if they thought it would help them win and they could get away with it.

That said ... the Repubs seem to be more obsessed with vote fraud, and they seem to get caught more. This indicates more of a "him who smelt it dealt it" sorta thing.

[Fisherking]

One could say that, except that is the Democrats who actively pass legislation to make it easier for fraudulent votes to be cast.

The whole process needs to be redone. Vote security needs to be taken seriously not winked or snickered at.

Why is it illegal to check voters ID or to purge rolls? Why dose 100% plus voter turn out not void a precincts results rather than just go into the count? Why are we using voting machines which give us no clue as to the legality of the vote cast or even if the votes cast were not tampered with.

Go back to paper ballots in ink with a human tally that is verifiable.

[rvg]

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.

Could've, bu didn't.

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.

How is a fair win a problem?

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".

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).

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.

It's not a big deal, unless the result is consistently slanted one way or the other.

[Ironside]

Could've, bu didn't.

And that means that it was decided by the court of law afterwards, since the preset rules weren't accurate enough.

How is a fair win a problem?

You were very close to something like this: Bush, Gore, Bush, Gore, Gore, Bush. Good luck talking about fair elections after that.

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).

It's not a big deal, unless the result is consistently slanted one way or the other.

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.