2004 U.S. Elections

Satori

Regular Member
Messages
367
Reaction score
21
Points
0
I am really worried about how close this year's presidential race has become. For the life of me, I cannot understand how half of this country can even considering voting for Bush. In addition, I am now worried about the new electronic voting systems that are in place in many counties. Considering the voting fiasco of 2000, I can only imagine what is going to happen this year. :eek2:

This is what happened at the last election:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Also, take a look at this:

Electronic Election:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/electronic.html

Let's just hope there's not another rigged election this year by Bush & Co. ... :eek2:

Fortunately, as you can see from the following newsletter I recently received, there are people around the world who are as concerned about this year's election as many of us are here in America, and they are determined to see that it proceed in a fair manner:

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * [email protected]
___________________________________________________

Friday, September 17, 2004

International Election Monitors Arrive in the U.S.

BRIGALIA BAM, http://www.fairelection.us
Dr Brigalia Bam is the Chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa. She is the former General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches. She said today: "We are civic leaders, parliamentarians, diplomats, academics, electoral officials, journalists, and veteran election monitors. We come from 15 countries on all five continents. We have worked for decades in our home countries to reform our electoral systems, to make them more responsive, more open, and more fair. We have been invited by the U.S. non-governmental organization Global Exchange with the aim of assisting Americans in the effort to increase confidence in the electoral process. ... Our experience in dozens of countries around the world has shown that the presence of non-partisan, non-governmental observers from other countries can help ensure fair and transparent elections and build trust in democratic processes. ... Through sharing with Americans the democratic innovations and advances occurring around the world, we hope to bring to light the best practices that may benefit the U.S. political system."

JASON MARK, [email protected]
Jason Mark works with Fair Election, a project of Global Exchange. He said today: "Electoral experts from 14 countries will arrive in the United States this week to begin an unprecedented international monitoring of the U.S. elections. The 20-person team consists of distinguished pro-democracy advocates who have spent much of their lives creating and improving electoral systems in their home countries. The electoral observers will spend two weeks in the U.S. investigating controversies that appear to be undermining public faith in the U.S. political process. ... The pre-electoral fact-finding team will spend four days in Washington, D.C. ... The delegation will then split into five groups to conduct further investigations in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Missouri, and Ohio. In those states the monitors will meet with secretaries of state, hear from county voting registrars, talk with community organizations, observe voter registration drives, and hold town hall meetings to get a full picture of American democracy."

Other members of the delegation include the following:

* Oscar Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez received the UNESCO Award for Human Rights in 2002, and he has been president of the Mexican Academy of Human Rights (1997-2002).

* Pansy Tlakula. She is chief Electoral Officer of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) of South Africa, a position that makes her the overall head of elections in the country.

* Terence Humphreys. He is currently the Chief Executive of Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS), where he provides overall direction for all ERIS programs worldwide.

* Ms. Somsri Hananuntasuk. She is the Executive Director for Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) and has extensive experiences in election monitoring in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Laos and Vietnam.

* David MacDonald. MacDonald is a former Minister of Communications of the Canadian Parliament. He served as a Conservative under the Pearson, Trudeau, and Clark governments from 1965 to 1980.

* Victoria Somers. Ms. Somers has observed elections in South Africa, Bosnia, Tanzania, Kosovo and Sri Lanka on behalf of the Irish Government, United Nations and European Union.

* Damaso Guerrero Magbual. He is a member of the National Council and concurrently Chairman of the National Capital Region and Deputy Secretary General for the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), which was the very first election monitoring organization in Asia.

* K.J. Rao. Mr. Rao is currently the Elections and Training Advisor to the Election Commission of India.

* Shanta Martin. She is an international legal advisor currently working for the Commission for the Verification of Codes of Conduct (COVERCO) in Guatemala.

* Horacio Boneo. Since 2000, Boneo has served as a consultant on issues of democratic governance and elections for the United Nations, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Swedish International Development Agency, the National Democratic Institute, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, as well as a visiting professor at the Universidad Nacional de San Martin.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

:souka:
 
Satori said:
For the life of me, I cannot understand how half of this country can even considering voting for Bush.

Oddly enough, those of us who can consider it, can't understand how anyone could consider voting for Kerry. (Except that no one is voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush).

Let's just hope there's not another rigged election this year by Bush & Co. ... :eek2:

Give the sour grapes a rest already.

I got my absentee ballot yesterday, by the way.
 
mikecash said:
Let's just hope there's not another rigged election this year by Bush & Co. ...
Give the sour grapes a rest already.
I have to agree with Mike on this one. It wasn't 'rigged' by Bush any more than Gore was trying to 'rig' it the other way. It was incompetantly carried out and (later) overrun by lawers but that's a rather different matter.
 
I'd say 'rigged' is pretty fair. Thousands of black voters were effectively denied their right to vote and its not too difficult to guess who they were going to vote for. Call it 'incompetence' if you wish but the fact that the people running things benefitted from that 'incompetence' makes me a little suspiscious.
 
senseiman said:
I'd say 'rigged' is pretty fair. Thousands of black voters were effectively denied their right to vote and its not too difficult to guess who they were going to vote for. Call it 'incompetence' if you wish but the fact that the people running things benefitted from that 'incompetence' makes me a little suspiscious.

Me too. And we're apparently not the only ones, since people are coming from all around the world to make sure our election this year is carried out fairly. :)
 
senseiman said:
I'd say 'rigged' is pretty fair. Thousands of black voters were effectively denied their right to vote and its not too difficult to guess who they were going to vote for. Call it 'incompetence' if you wish but the fact that the people running things benefitted from that 'incompetence' makes me a little suspiscious.
Isn't it also the case that Gore did everything he could to get Absentee ballots thrown out? It just happened that he was less successful in this than Bush was with his lawyers.
 
It is also the case that the polling places where thousands of black voters were allegedly denied their right to vote (the original claim was "millions") were by and large run by Democrats.

It is also the case that the SCOTUS didn't "select" Bush. They told the Florida court that it was necessary to apply Florida state election law as it existed at the time of the election.

It is also the case that several news organizations went to Florida in the aftermath of all this and recounted and recounted and recounted and couldn't come up with a count that put Gore ahead.

It is also the case that in the US presidential election system, bizarre though it may be, the nationwide popular vote total is utterly meaningless.

It is also the case that Alec Baldwin won't leave America after this election either.
 
I look at the 2000 election like a close football game that was lost due to a missed call an official. Complain all you want, but the outcome can't be changed. Dems da rules.

As unfortunate as the outcome was, the rules are the rules. Mikecash is absolutely right in his assessment of the Supreme Court decision.

The rules exist to avoid a mess like this- elections are certified for each state- usually by the secretary of state. The Constitution (Article II Clause 2) leaves the actual state process up to the states themselves (it doesn't actually even require a popular vote). So whatever the (Fla. GOP) secretary of state decided within the rules is what the supreme court accepted.

The Republicans may have "stolen" the election, but they didn't break any rules

Yes thousands of black voters were allegedly denied their right to vote. More than enough to turn the election. Polling places are not partisan though, they are run by the secretary of state.

Vote recounts count only ballots, not intentions. (Which might be difficult) Many knowlegeable experts conclude that Gore should have won. Point is, who cares? The election follows rules.

Gore didn't win his home state. That would have given him the victory. So waaah. send me a waaambulance.

The republican party ran a better race. Spent better and smarter and concentrated resources where they needed to be. They continue to be better strategists and tacticians. Even Alec Baldwin and Ben Affleck can't counter this advantage. Bush may not be the smartest exec we have ever had, but he's got the better team.

So Bush is president now. Look what he did with his four years.

Does he deserve four more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
sabro said:
Gore didn't win his home state. That would have given him the victory. So waaah. send me a waaambulance.

Tell me about it. As a Tennessean myself, I wanted to see another Tennessean in the White House. Not at the expense of voting for Al Gore, though.
 
It is also the case that in the US presidential election system, bizarre though it may be, the nationwide popular vote total is utterly meaningless.

THANK YOU! I'm tired of people complaining about the popular vote...if you want your vote to count, try pushing for reforms of the electoral college. I want proportional representation for states, but the likliehood of this country going from a republic to a true democracy is tiny at best. Maybe it's for the best, especially considering how many people want either Bush or Kerry.

The republican party ran a better race. Spent better and smarter and concentrated resources where they needed to be. They continue to be better strategists and tacticians. Even Alec Baldwin and Ben Affleck can't counter this advantage. Bush may not be the smartest exec we have ever had, but he's got the better team.

The republicans STILL have a better team. They know what they're doing, and it's readily apparent that Kerry doesn't...getting people like James Carville and Steve Jobs isn't doing anything.

It would almost have been worth Bush's 4 years if all those damn Hollywood know-nothings would have actually left. Scientologist morons.
 
Just saw this on Reuters the other day:

Millions Blocked from Voting in Election

Wed Sep 22, 4:50 PM ET
By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been released.

In total, 13 percent of all black men are barred from voting due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Conservatives disagree. "Society is not required to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has a criminal record. Someone who was not willing to follow the law and was sent to prison should not be in a position to make the law for others by electing lawmakers," said Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity think tank.

Millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

'DISCOURAGED' FROM VOTING

Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University.

"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

Courtenay Strickland of the Americans Civil Liberties Union testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week that at a primary election in Florida last month, many people were wrongly turned away when they could not produce identification.

BLACKS' BALLOTS REJECTED

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush (news - web sites) won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.

Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised.

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, which seeks to ensure fair multiracial elections, recently reported that registrars across the country often claimed not to have received voter registration forms or rejected them for technical reasons that could have been corrected easily before voting day if the applicant had known there was a problem.

Beasley said that many voters who had registered recently in swing states were likely to find their names would not be on the rolls when they showed up on Election Day.

Copyright ? 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Copyright ? 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=8&u=/nm/20040922/pl_nm/campaign_vote_dc

:souka:
 
Ex-felons does not have the right to vote?! Is the US society moving towards such Nietzsche-like ideals (which maybe, in a sense, is unavoidable in such a corperate controlled enviroment)..??

:eek:kashii:
 
lose hope all. you must all realise that the war chests of both candidates are aqtually well over $250 million... what does this mean I hear you say? well, this means their agenda is allready set beyond change, and however good they sound, however much good will they want to spread, the chances are that the corporations that supplied them with the money, will have the last say and any policy benifiting the majority will get chucked out of the window.

I've lost hope; as soon as a president is elected who didn't practically crucify himself in front of companies for campain money, I will have a hope rekindled for America. Until then, screw the arguments, they are both idiots who should not even be close to an opportunity to be president.
 
Ex-felons does not have the right to vote?! Is the US society moving towards such Nietzsche-like ideals (which maybe, in a sense, is unavoidable in such a corperate controlled enviroment)..??

Well, this has been the case for awhile, so I wouldn't say we're really moving at all.

I've lost hope; as soon as a president is elected who didn't practically crucify himself in front of companies for campain money, I will have a hope rekindled for America. Until then, screw the arguments, they are both idiots who should not even be close to an opportunity to be president.

I agree, though I think apathy or hopelessness is incredibly wasteful at any time during this election. Giving up means you've lost any power your opinion may have had. I don't think debates should ever stop, because it comforts me to know people are thinking and reasoning. The second that people in America stop disagreeing will be the day this country becomes unbearable. But I definitely side with you on the opinion of our two main candidates.

Truly depressing figures about the black vote. In a country where less than half of the people turn out, we need all the opinions we can get. Those that don't try to vote don't deserve to complain EVER. Those that cannot vote are being denied rights I find to be as American as apple pie...then again, I'm young.
 
MeAndroo said:
I agree, though I think apathy or hopelessness is incredibly wasteful at any time during this election. Giving up means you've lost any power your opinion may have had. I don't think debates should ever stop, because it comforts me to know people are thinking and reasoning. The second that people in America stop disagreeing will be the day this country becomes unbearable. But I definitely side with you on the opinion of our two main candidates.

ah, debates shouldnt stop, but the candiadtes should participate in debates during the campaign, not just bashing the opponent. I know there are 3 that are going to happen, but I myself think these debates are far too rigid: only rhetorical questions? why cant someone just ask straight out? would that kill the candidates?

about hope, just that the candidates both seem to be cruddy, and even if kerry wins (in my opinion good), the country will only be marginally better off. and so if its a choice betwen two donkeys, I dont really care.
 
Kerry would be good in a way. I'd be sure to agree with him half the time. Not on half the issues, but on his position on any given issue half the time. If I don't like his current one, all I have to do is wait about 30 minutes.
 
lolife said:
Ex-felons does not have the right to vote?! Is the US society moving towards such Nietzsche-like ideals (which maybe, in a sense, is unavoidable in such a corperate controlled enviroment)..??

:eek:kashii:
Not just that... they rigorously filtered out lots of other people, like people which stood in any relation to the felons (family-wise), and even people which just happened to have the same surname as some felon, while being completely unrelated to them :eek:kashii: (there's a flash about it)
Let's see if they dare to do the same this year as well...
 
Don't fret, Lina. The Democrats make up the difference by following their motto "vote early, vote often".

Why do I get the impression that people outside the US think that only the Republicans are ever accused of (or guilty of) election irregularities?
 

This thread has been viewed 2571 times.

Back
Top