Enough Democratic Hypocrisy : Bush Won.... Get Over It

[ulTRAX]

Some months ago I posed the question whether extremism was a form of irrationality indistinguishable from psychosis. Extremists tend to forsake principles and divide the world into "what helps the cause" or "what hurts the cause". Take some in the Iraq insurgency. Their game plan seems to be to destabilize the nation at any cost, including targeting innocent Iraqis and aid workers. While there is no doubt a legitimate resistance to occupation, the extremists have forsaken their own humanity.

There's a less virulent form of such irrationality in American politics but the underlying pathology is the same. People have no core principles. Their only imperative is to see their side win.

Many Democrats and people on the Left disparaged Bush's win in 2000 as morally illegitimate, not that Gore won 50%+1. I'd like to believe this objection was based upon some higher principle that government derives its just powers from the consent of the people. That the EC is an unaccountable and anti-democratic star chamber. That certainly was my view. But many objected based on extreme partisanship. Those people are now talking about how Kerry should have should have won in 04 but had the election stolen in Ohio.

I don't know about you but if I found Bush's win in 2000 to be MORALLY illegitimate even if it were legal under immoral federal law... then I certainly will NEVER say Kerry should have won win in 2004 after losing the popular vote by some 3 million. Bush won a big enough majority that anyone who claims to believe in democracy MUST accept it even as they actively oppose him and all he stands for.

Unfortunately this is just another example of some so-called Democrats having no respect for Democratic principles. But, hey, that's consistent with the Democratic Party, itself, being devoid of democratic principles.

[ET Awful]

1. It's not just Ohio, there are instances of disenfranchisement,

irregularities, voter suppression, and outright fraud in many states, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Washington, etc.

[ulTRAX]

9. if the election were close......

If the election were close I think all those irregularities have to be looked into.... but I don't think anyone would find them all on the GOP's side. The big hope for the partisans I'm referring to is that if it can be proved that Kerry won Ohio then Kerry should win even if his win would be just as morally illegitimate as Bush's 2000 win... and I'd argue MORE illegitimate since even picking up 120,000 Ohio votes would still install Kerry, a bigger vote loser than Bush, as President.

If Democrats are EVER to start to bring democratic reforms to the US, they will have to start with some adherence to basic democratic principles. A good start would be remembering that the whole point of an election is a democratic exercise in which the majority expresses its will... even if we disagree.

[ET Awful]

12. LOL . . . you did know that of errors reported, over 80% favored Bush

didn't you?

The odds of a huge majority of errors favoring Bush are pretty slim.

I trust by "democratic principles" you mean things like not trying to suppress voting, actually COUNTING the votes, and actually having the ability to verify votes, i.e. a verifiable paper trail?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

14. Can you prove fraud DIDN'T happen?

OH NO--theres no paper trail so NO.

I'm sorry, but with so many fuck-ups, its pretty clear shenanigans went down Nov. 2nd.

Prove to me they didn't cause all i keep seeing is proof they did.

[ET Awful]

21. BINGO! n/t

[Darknyte7]

32. Exactly!!!

I watched John Conyers on Countdown Wednesday night. He listed a number of the shenanigans and then said something to the effect that given his experience as a legislator, going back to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Conyers was first elected to Congress in 1964), that there's WAAAAAY too much smoke here for this thing to be discounted so quickly.

[ulTRAX]

33. surely you've heard.....

that it's not logical to try to disprove a negative. From the viewpoint of democratic principle, the burden of proof is to prove that any voting irregularities will affect the popular vote. If all one is interested in is the Ohio vote... hoping that Kerry can win though the anti-democratic EC... then that goes back to my original comments on Democrats being devoid of democratic values.

But let's look at it from another vantage point. Since the political trend the past 10 years has been away from the Democrats... why is it so impossible to believe this trend was suddenly reversed in 04?

What about other factors... that the DNC made some strategic blunders? Or that Kerry was a terrible candidate?

Or is this 10 year trend all due to fraud?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

41. what "10 year trend"? maybe slightly on a national level

but certainly not on a state level.

And surely you've heard that where there's smoke, there's fire. And there SURE seems to be a lot of smoke coming from Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Washington, North Carolina, etc.

When do too many coincidences add up to something else? How many things do their need to be to show something was a miss on Nov. 2nd?

And the 10 year trend includes 4 years of problem voting (2000, 2002, and 2004)which are all cases where fraud decided the election.

OK, how about this trend...even the MSM has said, Kerry won:
Blacks
Hispanics
Women
Young People

who did bush win? White Middle aged men? is that enough to give 3.5 million votes more?

How is it they were neck and neck with Kerry coming closer and closer to Bush every week before the election, when suddenly there was a HUGE shift to bush? Does that make that trend make sense?

[WI_DEM]

46. Bush also made big inroads with white married women

Where Gore won the female vote by 11-points, Kerry won it by only 5--the loss of ground with females is what cost him the election.

[ulTRAX]

82. let me ask you

MadAsHellNewYorker wrote: "How is it they were neck and neck with Kerry coming closer and closer to Bush every week before the election, when suddenly there was a HUGE shift to bush? Does that make that trend make sense?"

Are you suggesting that my original post was based upon the hope I wanted to see Bush or the GOP win? If so GFYS.

OK... assuming you're a rational person... why do you believe polling based on very SMALL samples which unverifiably assumes the respondents are representative AND are telling the truth must be more accurate than actual votes that are counted?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

126. I don't believe that any poll is accurate really

im trying to point out the fact that no offical story of what happend on Nov. 2nd makes any sense.

And don't forgot what stalin said, those who count the votes have the power.

[kamqute]

133. They were not 'counted'

Lose that assumption and then we can talk.

[Ms_Mary]

104. Somewhere last week, I found a comparison of the 2000/2004

elections. I know how the popular vote count came out, but as I looked over it and saw that Bush's percentage of votes increased by about 2% in each state, I was dumbfounded. How was that possible? The man has done nothing right and had done a lot of horrible things, yet he got more popular???? It makes no sense.

He undisputably has run up the national deficit.

The trade deficit keeps hitting new highs as well.

He started a war based on false premises. It will take years to extricate ourselves from Iraq.

The rest of the world thinks horribly of Bush and worse of the US for voting him back in.

He supports the outsourcing of jobs.

He doesn't believe in global warming or anything benefitting the environment.

I could go on for HOURS about the horrible things he has done. And yet, he not only "won" the election, he increased his voter popularity? HOW?

[kamqute]

132. You Know Very Well How

[gulogulo]

138. How? It is not rocket science.

1. You assume that all people who vote think like you, care about same things, and interpret things the same way. They don't.
2. You forgot to mention Muslim terrorism against the US, war in Iraq and Bush being the "war president". That apparently trumped all the stuff you mentioned.

[Ms_Mary]

141. You know nothing of what I assume. It's a rhetorical question.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

20. by democratic principles I mean.....

I certainly am appalled by the lack of voter-verified audit trails.

By democratic principles I mean.....

* Maximum citizen participation
* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government (proportional repesentation).
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect. (run-off elections)

I dare say the Democratic Party does not truly stand for much of the above. If they did we'd see them push for reforms to put such principles into practice.

[ET Awful]

22. Seems to me that you are willing to discuss everything EXCEPT

the fact that fraud occurred.

[ulTRAX]

26. fraud on what level?

I think the burden is on those who believe the election was "stolen" to actually prove Bush got 3 million extra votes though fraud. I know, I know... BBV is often unverifiable. Or are they just to prove that Bush got 110,000 extra votes in Ohio? Maybe they can. But that was never my point. It was about how partisans have no principles and only want to win at any costs even if it's a morally illegitimate win though the anti-democratic EC. That's the BEST the people who focus on Ohio can hope for.

I despise Bush and fear for the nation now that the GOP has complete control. But that hardly means I'm going to give up my belief in democratic values to hope an incompetent Democratic Party will win though anti-democratic means.

[ET Awful]

34. So how exactly is having an election that is legitimate, Constitutional

and which counts all votes fairly and accuratel (without, for instance, votes for Kerry showing up in the Bush column on numerous occasions) not moral?

It seems to me that a "moral" election requires fairness and equality for ALL voters and that ALL votes be counted accurately. To not do so is immoral.

[mgr]

39. More in line with direct democracy, not constitution

Our government is a representational democracy, not a direct democracy, which is the gist of your list. I certainly would not expect the Democratic Party to adhere to principles not keeping with our present government.

The Constitution includes the archaic electoral college, so to seek the electoral votes from Ohio that many of believe were erroneously voted to Bush based on election discrepancies is hardly illegitimate in our government. Nor is it hypocritical.

I might also point out that proportional representation and respect for the majority are potentially contradictory positions. You might also take a look at how well other countries' parliaments work to weigh these principles against the general stability of our system.

Mike

[genius]

128. Bush lost the popular vote by a landslide. It was rigged and

we knew in advance it would be rigged this way. I can't believe anyone is surprised they did what they could do to steal it.

[shraby]

146. It's a little hard to do if

the Republican dominated house won't bring things out of committee for a vote.
You can believe what you want about the election, but it was outright stolen. Bush pissed off too many people to have won it.
the:
NAACP
Muslims
Cubans
Hispanics
pro-choice women (and men)
unemployed from outsourcing
elderly with the prescription drug bill
young people because of the draft and college costs increases
librarians (Patriot Act)
teachers
first responders (lack of funding)
people in Nevada because of nuclear waste storage
environmentalists
scientists
gays

I cannot believe he won the popular vote. He couldn't even carry New York where the planes hit the twin towers.

[TankLV]

67. I didn't know of ANY "errors" that favored ANY democrat.

Can you cite some.

What I heard/read was that ALL errors favored repukes.

[gulogulo]

101. Here is a pretty substantial one

http://www.atsnn.com/story/97250.html

[kamqute]

116. Of course not

The transparency infrastructure is so objective that it obviously totally favors the left, and therefore the left itself has tended to mingle with certain aspects of it, and thus some confuse the two. So, you've only heard of the republican-leaning errors. Of course, since there are so many more of those, it may very well be the law of averages :).

[clutchcargo]

44. UNTIL WE MAKE ROOM IN OUR SYSTEM FOR

MORE PARTIES TO FIELD VIABLE CANDIDATES WE WILL NOT MUCH MOVEMENT BY THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES TOWARD ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US. ALSO UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY NEED OUR VOTE THERE IS NO REASON TO COMPROMISE WITH US ON ANY ISSUE. IF A THIRD AND FOURTH PARTY HAD JUST ENOUGH LEGISLATORS THAT THE NEITHER OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES HAD A MAJORITY THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE COMPROMISES WITH US AND WE COULD SLOWLY START TO INCLUDE THINGS IN LEGISLATION THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US. MOST OF THE POST I READ SEEM TO ASSUME THAT IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN WE WILL GET EVERYTHING WE WANT. THAT IS NOT TRUE. THE ONLY WAY SOME REFORMS WILL EVER BE ENACTED IS WHEN THE NEAR MAJORITY WANT TO PASS A KEY PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND HAVE TO HAVE THE VOTES OF A THIRD PARTIES REPRESENTATIVES IN ORDER TO WIN. THEN THEY CAN HIDE BEHIND THE COVER OF BEING FORCED TO INCLUDE WHAT WE WANTED AS AN EXCHANGE FOR PASSING THE BIG BILL. ALL POLITICIANS WORRY MORE ABOUT RE-ELECTION THAN ANY THING ELSE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL RALPH NADER SAYS BUT HE IS RIGHT ABOUT ADDING A THIRD PARTY TO THE MIX IN ORDER TO SHAKE UP THE SYSTEM SOME. JUST IMAGINE A DAY WHEN THE RE PUBS AND DEM'S ONLY HAD 40 PERCENT ON EACH SIDE OF THE ISLE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DEALS AND COMPROMISE WITH EACH OTHER AND THE THIRD PARTY MAKING THE LEGISLATION BETTER AND LESS ONE SIDED.

[ulTRAX]

57. multi-party system

I have some thoughts on how to move towards a multi-party system: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

65. ROTF

Harry S Truman wrote "alarm bell rings. Hey dishrag, we have a multiparty-system now. Now get back to your Bush worship."

Obviously you are clueless about the difference between a two-party system and a true multi-party system. Show me ONE representative or Senator in Washington who belongs to a third party. At best there's a a few independents.

As for my being a Bush worshiper.... you need to consider professional help if you actually believe ANYTHING I've ever said is pro-Bush.

[Royal Observer]

47. Only in States we lost.

Don't you think that is strange? Improbable?

[okieinpain]

143. yeah, but that's are leadership's fault. bush kicked our asses.

whether he cheated or not, kerry and company knew the game, but for some reason they didn't seem to care.

[DireStrike]

2. Diebold run by felons

Programmers with multiple convictions for installing backdoors into their programs that allow for easy fraud.

Easy manipulability of the GEMS program.

Means, motive, opportunity.


I do agree that there are a lot of "loyalists" on both sides. I try very hard not to be one. However, it would have been very easy to steal this election, and I cannot believe that more Americans would vote for that lying criminal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Well

"I do agree that there are a lot of "loyalists" on both sides. I try very hard not to be one. However, it would have been very easy to steal this election, and I cannot believe that more Americans would vote for that lying criminal."

The problem with intense partisans on the left and right is that they only talk to people who think like them and get their own views shouted back at them.... Therefore they end up thinking everybody thinks like they do....


I unfortunately meet people every day who love Bu$h....

[grumpy old fart]

3. Agree and Disagree....

Agreed that it looks fairly clear that a slight majority of voters decided that war and deficits were preferable to our vision challenged candidate. Bush won.
Where I disagree is that it's extremely important that we fix the extremely broken voting system in this country. There may have been actual active fraud in Ohio. Whether it affected the outcome is irrelevant. It's just plain wrong to have an election system run by partisans without any paper trail. It needs fixing. Now.

[ulTRAX]

17. we can't gloss over Kerry's failures

Kerry ran a terrible campaign... and it reflects a deeper problem in the Democratic Party. As long as they keep moving to the middle, they set in motion a self-perpetuating dynamic simply because they no longer are advocating for and building up a constituency for progressive issues. One example, Kerry never tried to educate the public on the deficits or debt... or how they pose a threat to Social Security. Kerry even refused to use the correct Bush deficit number of 560 billion but used the lower "unified" budget number of 420.

So when Bush tries to privitize Social Security... there will be that much less resistance from informed citizens.

[liberalpragmatist]

66. I disagree that it was a "terrible" campaign

It certainly wasn't perfect. But you don't come this close to a sitting president in a time of war without doing some things right. He was a very effective critic of the President's Iraq policies, esp. in the last 2 months, and polls showed voters largely agreed with what he said. He beat Bush in 3 debates and made a number of smart, sensible proposals on issues such as health care and fighting terrorism.

It's very easy in hindsight to pinpoint mistakes, but campaigns don't occur in a vacuum. You'll never have a perfect campaign, and especially when running against an incumbent you're going to be faced with a situation where the incumbent can define the terms of the debate b/c s/he's more well-known.

We could have won. But if you look at the historical indicators they favored a narrow Bush reelection. His approval ratings were in the mid-to-high 40s - the cutoff point, similar to Truman's, not like Carter's or Bush Sr.'s which were in the 30s.

And I don't really feel like Kerry really moved to the middle. There were some pretty explicit differences between Kerry and Bush (although I certainly agree he should've voted no on the IWR and at least said he wouldn't have voted yes knowing what he knew now - he became overly concerned with trying to beat the Republicans flip-flop theme, so he wound up trying to never flip-flop, which was unattainable and only made him look more awkward and more flip-floppety). The key difference is that I wish he had shown more passion. He did in the last 2 months, but he probably should have done so in the spring when voters were first forming their perceptions of him.

You want an example of a terrible campaign, I present to you Dukakis 1988, which, yes, really was a far worse campaign in that it was eminently winnable and it wasn't even competitive in the final 2 months. It's easy to forget now but in the last month of this race Kerry pretty much had Bush on the defensive full-time. Mistakes, yes. An imperfect campaign? certainly. But a "terrible" one? No.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shraby]

147. Kerry's campaign was a good one

but got no media coverage. I saw him on CNN one day and Georgie was in the upper corner and we could hear George but not Kerry. Other times if they showed a Kerry speech, the commentator was all we could hear..not what Kerry had to say.

[kamqute]

134. It was clearly terrible

But Bush's presidency was a terrible campaign for him, and that was reflected in the polls in the run-up to the election and in the exit polls.

[aquart]

4. Democratic principles such as one man, one vote?

Didn't happen here.

I'm sorry you can't get your mind around massive fraud. It's a lot to take in. But they count on that.

See, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. Which are you?

[ulTRAX]

58. who am I?

I'm just trying to comment on the hypocrisy of declaring Bush morally illegitimate after losing the popular and plurality vote in 2000.... yet partisans would accept a Kerry "win" in the same manner.

I think if Kerry won in the EC after losing the popular vote he, too, would be morally illegitimate.

Ya, it pains me to say that knowing that Bush and the GOP are going to be a disaster. I happen to believe in democracy which puts me at odds with the so-called Democratic Party and party partisans.

[cali]

5. Whoa. Prepare for major incoming.

I think you could have phrased this better. Telling people to get over it, hardly helps matters. I actually tend to believe that bushco did win, but I also believe that there's enough evidence of fraud to make election reform a vital issue. Not enough machines in dem precincts, vote suppression, lack of paper trail and other bbv issues, are damn important. There are a lot of good people here who genuinely believ that the election was stolen. I don't agree with them, but I think you're being far too harsh in your assessment of their motives.

[EVDebs]

51. Bush "won" by ....

either not counting Democratic votes either through vote manipulations or voter harassment (long lines, 4 hour waits, etc etc). A 60% voter turnout nationwide means also that 40% of all registered voters DIDN'T even bother to try to vote.

In Australia you get fined for not voting. We ought to have required voting here too.

\

[clutchcargo]

120. WHY WOULD YOU WANT SOMEONE WHO IS

UNINTERESTED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS TO BE REQUIRED TO VOTE. I WOULD AT LEAST PREFER AN INFORMED VOTER ALTHOUGH I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IS A MISNOMER WITH MANY REPUBS.

[EVDebs]

123. How do I know 'who is' ? Are you...I'm just assuming...

but just as an experiment, let's disenfrancise you if you're an evil liberal or progressive....we know how to determine this, as in the FL and OH recent examples....and the CIA has been 'influencing' votes for years like this in foreign countries, so WHY NOT do it at home, especially when there's a war on ?

I think having a 60% voter turnout in what's supposed to be the world's flagship democracy is crazy. At Bush's winning margin, only 51% of the 60% total voter turnout, means that a little over 30% of the most committed morons in this country--I assume you weren't voting for Bush--showed up and did the dirty deed.

I happen to believe the vote was rigged and that Americans aren't THAT stupid.

[gulogulo]

139. Having a "right" to vote implies

being able not to exercise the "right". If you make voting compulsory, it becomes an "obligation", and not a "right". I prefer that voting remains a "right".

[ulTRAX]

59. when Kerry conceded......

When Kerry conceded he was essentially saying to his followers Bush won, get over it. My comments were more about the double standard of those partisans who declared Bush morally illegitimate in 2000 but would easily accept a Kerry win in the same manner.

There's a difference between people of principle and extreme partisans. The latter have no problem compromising principle if it can help their cause. It's hardly a new observation. Such partisan behavior is the norm in Washington.

[cornermouse]

6. And the suppression of votes...?

No biggie, right?

[ulTRAX]

30. just what is voter suppression?

Given that there's a huge segment of the population that refuses to vote just what is "voter suppression"? Remember Reagan's "landslide" in 84? He actually only got the votes of about 26% of the voting age population. Yes there may strategic issues used to discourage voters from coming to the polls. Elsewhere I proposed some wedge issues Kerry could have used. There might be dirty tricks of trying up get out the vote phones. Minority precincts might not have adequate voting machines of ballots. Republicans might have more umbrellas should it rain on election day. But how much of the so-called "suppression" is self-imposed by the voter themselves?

I'd argue that the Democrats have their own form of voter suppression. By opposing democratic reforms that can bring about a multi-party system that would be more responsive to the people, they are suppressing votes that could help them. Here's more on that topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548

[cornermouse]

36. People standing in line for hours at a time is voter suppression,

especially if they're still in line trying to get a chance to vote at that time when the polls are required by law to close.

People who signed up to vote through voter registration program only to find that they aren't on the rolls. This can happen when, as happened in this state, those signing up voters are informed that if they signed up people with beliefs other than their own, they have no legal obligation to turn in that particular voter registration card.(re: Republican Secretary of State public statement as reported by the media)

[ulTRAX]

111. I understand your points

But you've ignored mine.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

7. A majority of what votes?

fake, stolen, fraudulent, suppressed votes?

I DON'T THINK SO.

Bush lost in 2000. Bush lost in 2004. GET OVER WHAT? the END of democracy?

REAL democratic principles are standing up and making sure every vote is counted.

REAL democratic principles are making the voting process transparent enough so ANYONE can see what happened on Nov. 2

REAL democratic principles are fighting for the oppressed, suppressed, repressed, and frauded.

Hypocrisy is rolling over and saying, even though we know what happened in 2000 was a sham, this election is LEGITIMATE.

[aquart]

19. What the other New Yorker said.

I couldn't agree more.

[fob]

8. Your argument hangs on the premise that bush* WON in 2000.

Of course if you WIN the popular vote but LOSE the EC vote that is a big case of SUCK. But that's not what happened in 2000. Anyone with any sense of morals and the slightest desire to look at the facts knows that bush* STOLE the EC. He was and is illegitimate. Since he STOLE the first election the second election is up to HIM to be 1000% transparent and flawless, HE must remove any doubt IF he desires legitimacy. He has not done so and in fact appears to have ramped UP the fraud this time around.

So with that I reject IN WHOLE your smear of "so-called Democrats", I reject your assertion that we "have no respect for Democratic priciples" and I REBUKE you for your undeserved mudslinging on MY Democratic Party.

Good day to you sir.

[ulTRAX]

23. Bush was illegitimate because

By democratic standards Bush in 2000 was morally illegitimate for two reasons.

First is because the majority was opposed Bush but he won in a plurality election.

Second despite his failure to win 50%, he was installed by an anti-democratic vote-weighing scheme called the EC. This system gave every vote in Bush's Florida lead 1000x the weight of a vote in Gore's national lead.

As for my comments about the so-called Democratic Party... I've done enough threads on how they oppose democratic reforms. Here's a few
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1189523

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

Maybe you'd like to present evidence that the Dems DO value democracy.

[fob]

52. Your thesis that "The Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy"

is based on your feeling that since the Democratic Party won't rewrite/amend the Constitution to your liking then they obviously have do desire to further democracy. You actually touch on some valid criticism but your overall theme is completely misplaced. You take lack of action on your grand plan as EVIDENCE that the entire Democratic Party is against democracy. Don't you see the flaw in that argument?

I suppose that in 2000 since no Democratic Senator signed on to object that means the Democratic Representatives that did stand up and protest were/are irrelevant?

Go ahead and pick any point you disagree with and blow it up to systemic proportions and I can see why you have a problem. Geez, talk about cutting off your HEAD to spite your face.

Because you've "done some threads" about your false argument, doesnt' make it any truer. As for evidence of Democrats valuing democracy, go see F9/11 and watch all those Democrats get up in Congress and plead for democracy. I figure you know that your thesis is purely hyperbole and inflammatory, I just hope it's purpose is to push the message that democracy is worth fighting for NOT simply to piss on OUR party.

[ulTRAX]

64. the work of creating a democratic america is not done

fob wrote: "Your thesis that "The Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy is based on your feeling that since the Democratic Party won't rewrite/amend the Constitution to your liking then they obviously have do desire to further democracy."

No... what I'm saying is that if someone or group DOES value something, then it becomes a prism though which they analyze the world.... and they will then strategize how to overcome obstacles to bring that value to life. It brings on behavioral changes.

Just take the example of a person who desperately wants a job... and the steps they'll take to insure they get to the interview on time, look good, go prepared etc. Do we see ANY of such determination on the part of Democrats to work on democratic reforms? They care so little about democracy that the subject doesn't even come up. It's in THAT light that I see the so-called Democrats being AWOL on democracy. There's no empirical evidence they give a damn about this topic. In fact it's alien even to most DUers.

So all I'm doing is analyzing the world from a perspective of democratic values and seeing our anti-democratic institutions for what they are. We all have a choice... to pursue these values or to just blindly believe that the Framers did all our thinking for us and
there's no need to revisit their decision.

I'm reminded of a question asked by Constitutional scholar Robert Dahl: "Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?"

Fortunately, citizens who opposed slavery and fought for universal suffrage didn't place blind Framer worship above decency and democracy. But since our system is STILL not producing morally legitimate government, America's work is not yet done. But you'd never know that listening to the Democratic Party.

[shraby]

149. Don't put all the onus on the Democratic

Party, there is a missing in action Republican Party where it comes to election reform. So missing that they wouldn't even let the vote on having machines with either paper ballots or paper trail come to the house floor.

[kamqute]

100. Democratic party does suck but it's all we have

[shraby]

148. Bush won in 2000 because the Supremes

handed him the win. If all the votes had been counted in Florida, he lost..plain and simple.
The Supremes are NOT supposed to appoint a president. Not then, not now, not ever. That is NOT their field of authority.

[demnan]

10. I don't think there's any good disputing the election results

But I would like to see voter fraud, irregularities and electronic voting with no paper trail come to an end. We need election reform and I hope the people who are putting energy into this cause will continue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Agree In Part...... Disagree In Part....

"Unfortunately this is just another example of some so-called Democrats having no respect for Democratic principles. But, hey, that's consistent with the Democratic Party, itself, being devoid of democratic principles. "



That's just bullshit....


There are many Democrats who realize Bu$h won the election though they are a minority on this board...


I want to fight harder and smarter next time....

[Inland]

13. Oh, please, who is actually thinking Bush isn't going to be president?

Not many, even as they post their wildest dreams here.

The recounts are 1) for the next elections, to make them work 2) to punish any criminals who tampered and 3) because votes should be counted even for a losing candidate, because voting even for the loser is a sacred right of participation.

Seems plenty principled to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Um, but DID he win by 3 million? Or were those votes fraudulent?

how difficult would it have been to not only work on Ohio and Florida, but to pad the votes by a good margin in solid red states? Would anyone look for extra Bush votes in OK or AL?

I remain skeptical. Call me nuts if you like, you wouldn't be the first.

[eridani]

95. Given NO AUDIT TRAIL--

--for 1/3 of votes, and secret proprietary tabulation software even where there is a paper trail, howthefuck would anyone know one way or another?

[JerseygirlCT]

103. That's just it

what would it take -- and extra 50,000 Kerry votes switched to Bush in 30 states? Seems easily enough done.

[UpsideDownFlag]

16. diiiiiiebold. say it again!

Diiiiieeeebold.

[ohioan]

78. Did you know that there were no Diebold machines in Ohio?

So, that boogeyman doesn't fly - at least where Ohio's concerned.

[kamqute]

136. SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCC..SEEEQUOOOIIIAAA...EEEEESSSSS&&SSSSS..

TRIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD...EEELECTIOOOOOOOON CENTERRRRRRRRRRRRR...CIIIPHERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.....WIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE

[stopbush]

24. Bad logic unsupported by facts.

Because we don't yet know the facts because the votes haven't yet been counted. You're saying that bush "won by 3-million votes" in the popular vote so we should "get over it." But the fact is that the popular vote does not decide US elections. It certainly didn't decide the 2000 vote. And 2000 was never about the popular vote. It was about the electoral votes in Florida.

If we are to follow democratic principles, the candidate who gets 270 electoral votes wins. If Ohio goes to Kerry, he's president. it doesn't matter if Bush "won" the popular vote by 10-million votes. Indeed, if Kerry wins the EC and bush tried to use the "but I won the pop vote by 3 million" strategy, then Al Gore could step forward and say "then why wasn't I president for the last 4 years?"

And the above assumes that there wasn't massive fraud that could have given bush those extra 3 million votes. The fact is that we don't know who won. But if you wanted to be objective *at this point*, you'd have to say that Kerry won because every *traditionally utilized" determinate of the vote says he won (ie: exit polls, final popular polls, etc.).

Count all the votes. I can live with that. But have me believe that bush won based on tainted voting machines and biased network news coverage? Give me a break!

[ulTRAX]

27. speaking about "bad logic"

stopbush wrote: "If we are to follow democratic principles, the candidate who gets 270 electoral votes wins. If Ohio goes to Kerry, he's president. it doesn't matter if Bush "won" the popular vote by 10-million votes. Indeed, if Kerry wins the EC and bush tried to use the "but I won the pop vote by 3 million" strategy, then Al Gore could step forward and say "then why wasn't I president for the last 4 years?"

Since you appear to be one of those Democrats who has problems understanding democratic principles let me remind you that a election win though an anti-democratic vote weighing scheme like the EC is NOT democracy. The same with the US Senate where 15% of the population gets 50% of the seats. In theory, Senators representing a small minority of US citizens can prevail in a vote.

Is THAT what you consider "democratic principles"?

[saracat]

37. You seem to be suggesting that it is alright to let stand

the electoral college argument against us in 2000, but we are hypocrites if we utilize that same argument in 2004. You leave out the fact that 2000 was actually decided by SCOTUS. Furthermore, as no action has been taken against the EC, whether it is a "democracy "or not, that is the method of election currently in place. Gore was forced to concede on that basis. Yet , we should concede based on the popular vote? I happen to agree with you about the EC, but we must work with the system that is currently in place.
In this particular situation, and actually in all others of recent memory, this kind of ideological purity that you espouse, adhering to the popular vote stance, without any precedence in law,because it is "morally right" is what results in our losses. This reminds me of the old saying"I'd rather be right than president". I Think we should utilize the legal tools at hand, expose election fraud and elect Kerry. I wouldn't worry about charges of hypocrisy. They will say worse. And the electoral College can be fixed later. I would "rather be president than morally sanctimonious"!

[ulTRAX]

77. the real culprit in 2000 was not the USSC

saracat wrote: "You seem to be suggesting that it is alright to let stand the electoral college argument against us in 2000, but we are hypocrites if we utilize that same argument in 2004."

I have no idea what you've just said. I'm ONLY suggesting that those who rightly decried Bush as morally illegitimate in 2000 should not now try to claim Kerry as a morally legitimate winner should the Ohio recounts show he won there. I oppose ALL attempts to justify minority rule. That being said I also think the American political system is as dysfunctional as it is anti-democratic. It's no wonder we don't have higher voter-age turnout.

saracat "You leave out the fact that 2000 was actually decided by SCOTUS."

That's pretty irrelevant. The REAL culprit in the 2000 election was the EC... that means the Constitution itself. Many blame Sue Harris, GOP thugs, and the USSC because they can't come to ever criticize the Constitution. It has some strengths but damn it, it wasn't handed down on a slab. From a democratic standpoint, it remains deeply flawed

Saracat: "I happen to agree with you about the EC, but we must work with the system that is currently in place.
In this particular situation, and actually in all others of recent memory, this kind of ideological purity that you espouse, adhering to the popular vote stance, without any precedence in law,because it is "morally right" is what results in our losses. This reminds me of the old saying"I'd rather be right than president". I Think we should utilize the legal tools at hand, expose election fraud and elect Kerry. I wouldn't worry about charges of hypocrisy. They will say worse. And the electoral College can be fixed later. I would "rather be president than morally sanctimonious"!

Since you raised the same points in another post let me just repost my reply:

I can't remember the last time I voted Democratic for president. Probably McGovern in 72. But I did vote Kerry this time, made numerous contributions to MoveOn, and spent countless hours trying to get him elected. So your notion that I prefer ideological purity to losing doesn't hold true... at least for this election.

Since I believe in democracy not the Democratic Party, my goal is to work toward a multi-party system that produces morally legitimate government. This may require an insurgency in the Party but clearly no one, not DU, MoveOn, DFA, has any intent to move to a multi-party system. Without such a plan, they will fall into to the 2-Party trap which I summed up here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/demopedia/index.ph...

[GOPBasher]

25. Bush probably didn't win the popular vote.

Votes were stolen. It was all over the country, and Bush probably did NOT win the popular vote, if our votes weren't stolen by programming code that can't be verified.

[mgr]

28. Nice rhetoric, some definitions, concepts?

What are these democratic principles that the Democratic Party is devoid of? The right to have your vote counted?

If all votes are to be counted, then what is occurring in Ohio represents adherence to a fundamental democratic principal. To my mind there are three types of election fraud that have been identified: voter suppression in Cayuga County, possible ballot stuffing in three southwestern Ohio Counties, and possible tampering with tabulators.

More importantly, in Florida we have the likely collusion of operators of vote counting with vested interests regarding a initiative regarding gambling (see Madcowprod.com)

I would agree that the election as it appears right now suggests that Bush should be recognized as the winner of a second term, but appearances are deceiving.

I think our partisan bias may blind us to a simpler explanation for what may have happened with the vote, and one that is far more plausible, and that is the corruption associated with the vote tabulating firms and their vested interests. Corruption affects individual republicans and democrats alike.

Until the electoral college votes, and confirms his victory, I think the democratic party should hold its recognition that G.W. Bush won the election legitimately in abeyance.

Mike

[ulTRAX]

35. democratic principles

mgr wrote "Nice rhetoric, some definitions, concepts? What are these democratic principles that the Democratic Party is devoid of? The right to have your vote counted?"

Welcome to DU. Voter fraud is already illegal so that's a separate issue. I addressed the matter of democratic principles here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

I think it's pretty obvious that the Democratic Party does not stand for any of those principles... at least not enough to actively support political reforms to institute them.

[mgr]

42. Apology for the 'rhetoric' slam, still disagree.

Having looked at this post, I would agree that some of these reforms would be nice, but on the whole would produce a poorly functioning government, that may be destabilized by any crisis. I am not all that convinced that reforming the constitution from representational to direct democracy is an answer.

The concerns that probably divide you and I is that I am probably an 'old school' liberal, I still believe that it is the Democratic Party's responsibility to complete the reforms it has already undertaken ala LBJ, and not those tantamount to to what I consider political suicide, since in our democracy, we are for all intents and purposes, a coalition party.

The reforms or principles you propose might better be applied within the Party, rather than the government as a whole. I do not even begin to think that the Party is the champion of Civil Rights that it once was.

I think the one Quaker principle you could add would be government by a consensus greater than 50% assent.

Mike

[ulTRAX]

74. red herring alert!!

Apology accepted.

mgr wrote: "I am not all that convinced that reforming the constitution from representational to direct democracy is an answer."

This is the red herring that never dies. Same with the old phrase "we're a republic not a democracy".

Democratic principles are at the HEART of republics and it's PERFECTLY possible to have a multi-party system without moving to the dreaded "direct democracy". Ever hear of proportional representation? As for a poorly functioning government... we already have that.

[Lostnote03]

29. TRAX.....

......How are you?.....I recall your position from yrs ago at alt:discuss, I found your arguments well reasoned.....One person One vote is the very foundation of a democracy and the "gaming" of the EC vote has resulted in HAVA and "proprietary software"....It is certainly an American "catch 22" when the tools by which election fraud is to be unearthed remain in a locked box while at the same time claiming that no problems exist....I agree that if Kerry had positioned himself more as a populist by addressing the nuts and bolts of the GOP intent his chances of a mandate would have increased geometrically.....Such as it is however he chose the "symbols theme" since it appears to have worked very well for our puppet-in-charge....Best Wishes

[ulTRAX]

31. those were the days

Ya, those debates in alt.discuss were quite a lot of fun. I archived quite a lot of old threads which I keep meaning to put up on one of my sites someday.

In fact I think alt.discuss made me a NG addict. LOL

[Lostnote03]

38. I would be interested in looking back if....

...you should decide to repost those archived threads....Alt:discuss was my first foray into the webs political discussion groups....I feel like a fly in a moving car, the topography has changed dramatically however here I still sit...lol....Best Wishes

[Mutley]

40. well....

If Bush legitimately won the popular vote then i agree with you. However, if in fact votes for bush were won illegitimately i will NOT accept it.

But i don't know enough facts about the situation to make a judgment on whether or not votes were stolen. My gut feeling is that they were, but since i do not like bush i would probably tend to believe anything bad i hear about him.

[WI_DEM]

45. It took guts for you to write that on this page

but I agree. But I do think that despite Bush winning the popular vote (yes 3 million + is not all caused from fraud) that the Ohio result is still in doubt given the problems there. While Bush won the popular vote nationally, I'm still not convinced he legitimately won the electoral vote.

[ulTRAX]

56. The EC is not morally legitimate

I'm not concerned about the EC because from a democratic standpoint, all vote weighing schemes are morally illegitimate. I certainly don't want to have my candidate under a cloud like Bush was in 2000.

This nation was built on the belief that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Unfortunately that principle was compromised away in the Constitutional Convestion... and the Framers created a system in which the minority can occasionally rule.

Today most have been indoctrinated to believe the politics of 1787 should remain the rationale for government today. I don't.

I believe Democrats should actually believe in democratic principles.

[MISSDem]

48. I agree. The whole thing has become tiresome.

Let's use our energy in useful ways.

[saracat]

49. Democracy is "tiresome?" Protecting the vote is "tiresome"?

Perfect example of why the Ukraine can get a revote and people here won't get up off their asses!

[ulTRAX]

55. who here is defending democracy?

If they were they'd be advocating for true democratic reforms. But I think it's clear that many would gladly accept a Kerry win though the EC even if he clearly lost the popular vote. Yes the people in the Ukraine DO put the sheeple in the US to shame. Most so-called Democrats haven't a shred of democratic principle in them. I say that not to bash the Democrats, but to just accurately state a problem Progressives must face when proposing true democratic reforms.

[saracat]

61. If Kerry doesn't win, the likelihood of getting electoral reform is

diminished. But I guess you would rather be ideologically pure, and lose the whole kit and caboodle. We are arguing to preserve democracy. I feel you suggest it didn't rally matter who won Bush or Kerry because either would have won via the electoral system.

[ulTRAX]

71. me being ideologically pure?

I can't remember the last time I voted Democratic for president. Probably McGovern in 72. But I did vote Kerry this time, made numerous contributions to MoveOn, and spent countless hours trying to get him elected. So your notion that I prefer ideological purity to losing doesn't hold true... at least for this electio.

Since I believe in democracy not the Democratic Party, my goal is to work toward a multi-party system that produces morally legitimate government. This may require an insurgency in the Party but clearly no one, not DU, MoveOn, DFA, has any intent to move to a multi-party system. Without such a plan, they will fall into to the 2-Party trap which I summed up here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/demopedia/index.php/Two-party_system

[demokatgurrl]

50. ASSUMING for the moment that Bush won legit in 2004

he won based on an illegitimate incumbency.
So does that mean he should be there now? I don't think so. And I have yet to get over it. And I don't know if I ever will. And I don't know whether our country and our democracy ever will. I am really really worried.

[ulTRAX]

80. I've often said in the past

That because of our anti-democratic political system.. the minority can, on occasion, rule. So Bush "wins" in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. He's then able to leverage the power of his office to get a majority in the Senate. In 2004 he plays the role of an indispensable war president standing up for decency and the Bible and wins it all.

The entire course of US history has been changed. So who's responsible for Bush's initial win? Surely it's not "The People".

We have to go back to the EC which means it's REALLY the fault of our anti-democratic Constitution.

If we don't face that simple fact the very concept of democracy is doomed.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. Bush did not legitimately win Florida in 2000

the votes were never fully recounted. He only won in the surpreme court. When the media actually counted all the ballots, Gore won no matter what standard was used.
So I am wondering what the purpose of this post is.

[ulTRAX]

54. would you have been happy if........

Gore won? Not by democratic standards. Gore merely won a plurality, not a majority. No doubt he would have if we have a provision for run-off elections.

So in 2000 would you have been satisfied if Bush won Florida with 100,000 votes and won in the EC yet still lost to Gore by 450,000? I dind't think so. So what's YOUR point?

The EC is a vote weighing scheme. As long as there's no true popular vote with a run-off provision.... then we're going to have cases where the popular vote loser or the plurality vote loser can win in the EC and be imposed upon the People.

I think the absurdity of this system is self-evident... yet the so-called Democratic Party refuses to even think aloud about basic democratic reforms.

[saracat]

62. We can't do anything about it until we win!

[saracat]

63. But according to your reasoning if the election had been called for Kerry,

by the Ohio vote, he should have turned it down because the electoral college doesn't meet "your" ideological standards? You wrongly analyze 2000 as well. The argument there was that Gore won not only the popular vote but the EC as well. There was the issue of the Florida Recount that was stopped. If Florida hadn't been highjacked ,Gore would have won both the EC and the poular vote. But Bush V Gore was still about EC votes. We are consistant. You just don't like the EC. Maybe its time has past, but it is what we have.

[ulTRAX]

68. gore didn't win the popular vote.

Gore won some 48%+ but did not win 50%. He won the plurality vote over Bush by some 550,000 votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

The problem with plurality voting is what we saw in 2000... a united minority can win over a divided majority. This is made worst by the anti-democratic EC. Gore would have won if we had a popular vote with a run-off provision. THEN people could have voted their conscience without risking Nader would be a "spoiler". But moving to such a system requires amendments to the Constitution.

Yes, this is what we have... but unless we get back to core principles and develop a vision for where we want to take the US in, say 20-50 years, then 50 years from now we'll STILL be stuck with an anti-democratic system than can not produced morally legitimate government. We need to get back to basic principles to clear our heads and see where we want to take this nation FREE from political concerns. Politics can come later. Here's some ideas on a start: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[The Straight Story]

89. Just a question on something

In a multi-party system would any party likely win a plurality of the vote? Would such a state of things make it easier to get someone like Falwell as president - ie, if the dem party fractured and we have the big tent become many little tents, would that weaken the base to the point that the right would become more powerful?

Not really disagreeing/agreeing with anything brought up yet, still reading over it all (but I do take note of what I see as one main argument - that there are some folks in the party which are fundamentalists of the 'democrat' type in some areas and don't want reform because it goes against their fundamental interpretation of things).

Personally I think the system we have can work - but it takes a lot of involvement on the local/grassroots level. People must be aware, active, and getting their elected officials to pay attention, read bills, and know what all is going on. A lazy democracy will never work-and before we rush off changing things I think we need to change ourselves first and work to solidify a method to educate and participate.

Schools should be more involved - less sex ed and more government (a bit of a joke in that). The populace in general should be more aware and feel more empowered - which goes to a responsible MSM reporting the things we see on thomas.loc each day (and I often post here, though I get less responses on those threads than I would on sex ones, hence the earlier jest).

[Rockerdem]

91. There's a tradeoff

There are benefits and downsides to each system. The parliamentary system is more responsive, as a whole. Elections are not always held at fixed times. There can be changes made when the iron is hot, not just after 2-4-6 years, depending upon the office.

Our system is one more of stability and blandness. Third parties always die because of the way it is gamed in reality. Therefore, parties are always trying for 50%+ 1 vote. That means catering to the center.

In parliamentary systems, even minority parties can form a coalition with other minority parties to form a government. Although that means a little compromise, they're usually compromising with someone with similar values; in our system, we compromise with the enemy.

My feeling is that if a parliamentary vote of no confidence was held on * in May or June (or even earlier), he would have been bounced and shamed. Howeverm the economy improved just enough -- it took only about a million new jobs to swing the deal by November in a very close call.

[The Straight Story]

92. Thanks for the insightful response (n/t)

[Rockerdem]

94. Also, dont forget about the Senate

It is almost structurally undemocratic. Besides the unequal representation construct and its 6 year terms, its rules preclude just about any progressive action escaping its claws. On top of that, the system almost guarantees the presence of millionaires from both parties. How friendly to the average person are they going to be consistently?

[ulTRAX]

127. the Senate is one of the more objectionable parts of the Constitution

We need to expose this nonsense that states deserve equal representation. In reality Senators represent CITIZENS in each state... not some abstract legal entity.
Currently about 15% of the US population gets 50% of the seats. Soon that will be down to 10%. The Senate is one of the most unrepresentative representative bodies on the planet. It's nothing but a vote weighing scheme as is the EC and the amendment process.

MoJo wrote a good article on the topic back in 98: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind.html

I'd prefer to see the Senate converted into a national parliament based on national party elections. If the Greens and Libertarians each get 10% of the vote... they each get 10% of the seats. This is the only way to ever break the stranglehold of the 2 party system. It would place an ideological check on the House.

The current formula was based entirely on the politics of 1787. Surely we can benefit from the advanced in political theory that have come since that time. But first we have to stop thinking like residents of states... or as a member of one of the 2 parties. To see the flaws of the current system we have to evaluate it from the perspective of core democratic values. Once that happens, the problems and the path to reform are self-evident.

[ulTRAX]

112. Falwell as President?

The Straight Story wrote: "In a multi-party system would any party likely win a plurality of the vote?"

Do you mean a majority of the vote? Sure... it's possible. If not, then the plurality winner is usually charged with trying to form a coalition government.

"Would such a state of things make it easier to get someone like Falwell as president - ie, if the dem party fractured and we have the big tent become many little tents, would that weaken the base to the point that the right would become more powerful?"

That might be easier if a president were elected by the representative body... as are prime ministers. But in a popular vote with a provision for a run-off, I'd expect a more mainstream candidate. There can be some disadvantages to a multi-party system if structured poorly. I like the idea of checks and balances... only our system has most of these checks state-based as opposed to an ideological check over a geographically-based House or representatives.

[liberalpragmatist]

70. I agree

It's getting quite frustrating trying to talk about strategies about why we lost when every reply is something about how "we didn't lose." Certainly we need to work on verifiable voting and any allegations of fraud need to be fully investigated, but it's not going to change the outcome. DU'ers seem to expect that Kerry should be leading protests in the streets. How deluded are some of us? If Kerry didn't concede on Nov. 3 does anybody really believe he could have done what they insist he could have done? What did they expect? For him to stand up, refuse to accept the results then bang his fist on the table and go marching through the streets demanding Bush's resignation?

[ulTRAX]

72. I wish

liberalpragmatist wrote: "What did they expect? For him to stand up, refuse to accept the results then bang his fist on the table and go marching through the streets demanding Bush's resignation?"

I wish Gore and Nader did that to Bush in 2000 LOL

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

75. what's YOUR formula?

So you object to the principle that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? If so, what's your formula for morally legitimate government?

[robbedvoter]

76. Consent of the governed - actual consent, not Diebold manufactured

Sophistry won't get you around this one: were are the "glithces" favoring Kerry?

Any forther comments I'll male herehttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=132
I don't want to feed such a vile thread.

[ulTRAX]

79. do exit polls reflect reality

It's easy to look at exit polls and claim Kerry the winner. But exit polls are only as accurate as the samples taken, questions asked, and those who chose to answer. While we all want voter-verifiable BBV we don't have the same standards for exit polls. We all want to believe they are scientific.. who really knows.

I remember Zogby's last 5pm prediction that Kerry was going to win the EC vote 311 to 213. Thinking Kerry was going to win, I saved the page as a souvenir from this election.

Oh well. Zogby was wrong. Kerry lost.

[Rockerdem]

81. Those old guys 200 years ago were smart.

They set up their preferred rules to the game, and then made it tough to change the core of it. Some tinkering has been done peacefully (direct elections of Senators + women's suffrage being the most important for this thread's theme). But something only half as radical (freeing the slaves) took a civil war.

With you in spirit, friend. But it won't be done in my lifetime. There's always one side that is happy, and they won't be part of the supermajority needed. Why don't we try prohibition again -- it might be easier.

[ulTRAX]

83. I don't deny they were "smart"

Rockerdem wrote: "Those old guys 200 years ago were smart. They set up their preferred rules to the game, and then made it tough to change the core of it. Some tinkering has been done peacefully (direct elections of Senators + women's suffrage being the most important for this thread's theme). But something only half as radical (freeing the slaves) took a civil war.

With you in spirit, friend. But it won't be done in my lifetime. There's always one side that is happy, and they won't be part of the supermajority needed. Why don't we try prohibition again -- it might be easier."

I fully understand the ideological resistance to finally making the US a nation based upon democratic principles. Most Americans today are still stuck in the politics of 1787. Those who have a vision for a democratic America better have a 50 year plan.

[Rockerdem]

85. Ultrax

The hurdle is a H-U-G-E one.

I can count, and I see too many small states that would lose in a truly democratic system. The Senate would have to disappear along with the EC. Imagine trying to convince the Democratic power structure in Delaware, RI, Maine, and Vermont to get on board, even for only a part of the changeover.

I need at least 27 advil for the headache I'm getting after thinking about it for only a few minutes. Thump-thump-thump . . .

[ulTRAX]

107. I fully realize the hurdles

But that doesn't mean we must give up on a vision for a nation based upon democratic principles. I fully expect this to be a 50 year process that has to proceed on numerous front simultaneously.

I believe anyone who believes in democratic principles SHOULD be actively be trying to reform the Constitution. The EC and Senate are nothing but vote weighing schemes hidden in the concept of state suffrage. Worst, the formula for amending the Constitution now gives a mere 4.5% of the population the ability to stop all reform.

The Constitution is anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. It is failing to provide morally legitimate government. Election 2000 proved the world's only superpower is outside the control of its own people.

Sadly, no one, not even the so-called Democratic Party is even talking about it.

[The Judged]

84. Democracy in America? Americans are not guaranteed the right to vote!

Without such a guarantee and recourse to ensure that right, it is foolhardy to believe that the American people can impose their political will on their governments whether they be local, state, or federal.

How can the American people exercise supreme power over their republican system of representation if they have no guaranteed right to vote or recourse to ensure that their vote is counted correctly?

ANSWER: They can't!

[ulTRAX]

122. we DO need federal voting rights

It's certainly another aspect of democracy that I may have omitted on my brief laundry list. Voting should be a right of citizenship and self-serving politicians should NEVER have the ability to disenfranchise citizens. Currently some 2-3 million ex-felons have been stripped of the vote by states. Most are racial minorities. Where is the so-called Democratic Party on this issue?

But this right alone will not guarantee a democratic America.

[Laurab]

86. Get over it? No way

I'm not an "extremist", nor even really a democrat. Matter of fact I hadn't voted in 20 years or so up until this year. One day I woke up and saw what was happening to this so called "democracy", and I became involved and hopefully, somewhat educated. How can you say Kerry ran a bad campaign? Compared to WHAT? Do you really think delving into the issues would have helped him? Do you think Bush's campaign was effective? Invitation only rallys? Looking like an idiot in 3 debates? Running on his record - record deficit, record deaths in his pre-emptive war? Do you actually believe Kerry delving deeply into the issues you mentioned would have changed the typical voters mind? I don't.

Then there are the little voting "irregularities" - as many have mentioned, ALL in *'s favor. In a number of states. I don't think it takes a great leap of the imagination to think maybe it was in ALL the states, but we'll probably never know. 3 million votes my ass. I have too much faith in my fellow citizens to believe that - combined with too much distrust in this administration.

I'm normally a pretty rational person, and I would love to believe that this election was fair and honest, and it was the will of the people to elect * but I just cannot. If I DID believe he was elected fairly, I'd get over it, but I cannot. I am far too aware of what this administration is capable of, and also aware of the damage they've done to our democracy already to "get over it".

A final thought: why all the stonewalling, game playing, with the recount efforts? Do honest people do that? I would think if there was nothing to hide, they would just do it.

I actually wish I could get over it. I wish I still thought I lived in a democracy. Everything I see or read about this administration tells me otherwise.

[Griffy]

87. its the FRAUD stupid... now get onboard or get outa the way! nt

[Rockerdem]

88. Take it easy on Ultrax

His/her end point is where most DUers would want to end up: the system that most other democracies use. Responsive and flexible. And more in tune with the will of the governed.

Now we have an old archaic structure. It's main function was to provide stability. And although it's structural design components allow for more parties in theory, it will always boil down to two. Worse still, the design ensures in practice that centrist pros people the power institutions. Translation: somewhat principled parties and platforms, but vanilla scalawags occupying offices.

The trouble in fixing it is with the numerous small states. Only a constitutional convention could sneak through such reforms. If tried frontally, the political mayhem would make the 3rd rail of Social Security look like one of low voltage.

-Edited once for syntax errors.

[ulTRAX]

109. thanks

But I disagree that most DUers actually give much thought about democratic values or how to implement them. I present as evidence this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162 and the vacuous responses. The same is true with similar posts in forums at Dean's misnamed Democracy For America.

I think the two party system is an unintended consequence of single district plurality voting... a system most advanced democracies reject. I posted some thoughts in Demopedia http://www.democraticunderground.com/demopedia/index.php/Two-party_system

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kamqute]

93. No one gives a bloody damn about who won

The issue is the integrity of the system, honey..it doesn't matter who won, the person who pretends to care or the one with no pretentions. I am not suggesting these candidates are interchangeable and I clearly supported Kerry, but I don't believe the popular sentiment is with either. I would, however, like to put some ideas on the table, in vengeance for the general tone of invective you have taken:

1. We cannot possibly investigate fraud in all 50 states, but the popular vote may have been different.

2. The legally elected person is what matters.

3. The point of state-based elections is to facilitate multi-level conversation, because the idea is that in a small enough unit powerful demagoguery can prevail, and by a compartmentalization system some of that can be averted..I don't really support that thinking but the argument can be made.

4. If we think about this like a 'game,' Bush's whole last 4 years to make a media case are illegitimate--think what would happen in the aftermath of a Gore term.

5. Democracy is not the beautiful system that it is because we have more people expressing their opinions, but because of the fact that because we have widespread enfranchisement, there is a widespread national dialogue which is edifying and allows the part of human nature that 'wants to grow up'* to express itself and inform people. 2000 idiots are no better than one, but 2000 idiots are more likely to raise their own level of thinking by critically examining each other. But in a huge country like this with so many lazy people in it, media are needed to facilitate this dialogue..the preferred media are..the media and religious organizations. In case you haven't noticed, both are severely compromised in their 'mainstream' (accessible) expressions, so why we should hold stock in the Jen of this eludes me..thusly, follow the Li. See #2.

*-Ken Wilber

[kamqute]

97. Sorry for being nasty

I was angry at the time--sorry. I stand by the content what I said in my previous post, but I am sorry for the tone I took. Indeed you are right that the burden of proof WOULD BE on 'us' WERE WE to take the position that John Kerry certainly won the popular vote through IRREGULARITIES..not all of which or even most of which necessarily occurred through fraud. I take the position that much of this was unintentional, and caused by the ridiculously inequitable wealth-distribution which rests upon our warlord economic structure--I speak of course of ballot spoilage and other social phenomena summarized very well on gregpalast.com--but I think you cannot deny that

a. If there was fraud in one place there was probably fraud in others, because
1. Motive-the ranks of people like you and me who value the popular vote have, if anything, swelled over the past 4 years in response to the Gore situation and
2. Evidence-the exit polls in ALL 'computerized' areas were out of whack, and
3. The companies in question are totally ubiquitous with the exception of Triad which is nonetheless ubiquitous within Ohio, which is not only pivotal but large

and

b. The vast majority of the errors reported (so far) lean towards Bush, including the 'big ones'--this would not surprising if there were fraud given that those with leverage over the proceedings of these companies are high-income

and

c. There was a HUGE number of irregularities; technological, statistical, procedural, legal, governmental; many of which follow a similar direction

and

d. There was the intention to cause irregularities as evidenced by Jeff Dean's triple-books and backdoors which were clearly known to exist by his department through numerous revisions and were known to have been challenged and not fixed

and

e. Our certification labs are extremely lax and our certifier extremely incompetent--at least it is as though our certifier is extremely incompetent because of its secretariat which takes lots of money from, and is very close with, the voting machine companies against which so many allegations have been made

and

f. The oversight sucks at all levels

and

g. HAVA was a fiasco in not implementing proper standards for provisional ballots and for its mandate that all states replicate Florida's wonderful purge list system which effectively annihilates the purge restrictions of the Voter Registration Act (as many have pointed out)

[kamqute]

98. Sorry for being nasty

I was angry at the time--sorry. I stand by the content what I said in my previous post, but I am sorry for the tone I took. Indeed you are right that the burden of proof WOULD BE on 'us' WERE WE to take the position that John Kerry certainly won the popular vote through IRREGULARITIES..not all of which or even most of which necessarily occurred through fraud. I take the position that much of this was unintentional, and caused by the ridiculously inequitable wealth-distribution which rests upon our warlord economic structure--I speak of course of ballot spoilage and other social phenomena summarized very well on gregpalast.com--but I think you cannot deny that

a. If there was fraud in one place there was probably fraud in others, because
1. Motive-the ranks of people like you and me who value the popular vote have, if anything, swelled over the past 4 years in response to the Gore situation and
2. Evidence-the exit polls in ALL 'computerized' areas were out of whack, and
3. The companies in question are totally ubiquitous with the exception of Triad which is nonetheless ubiquitous within Ohio, which is not only pivotal but large

and

b. The vast majority of the errors reported (so far) lean towards Bush, including the 'big ones'--this would not surprising if there were fraud given that those with leverage over the proceedings of these companies are high-income

and

c. There was a HUGE number of irregularities; technological, statistical, procedural, legal, governmental; many of which follow a similar direction

and

d. There was the intention to cause irregularities as evidenced by Jeff Dean's triple-books and backdoors which were clearly known to exist by his department through numerous revisions and were known to have been challenged and not fixed

and

e. Our certification labs are extremely lax and our certifier extremely incompetent--at least it is as though our certifier is extremely incompetent because of its secretariat which takes lots of money from, and is very close with, the voting machine companies against which so many allegations have been made

and

f. The oversight sucks at all levels

and

g. HAVA was a fiasco in not implementing proper standards for provisional ballots and for its mandate that all states replicate Florida's wonderful purge list system which effectively annihilates the purge restrictions of the Voter Registration Act (as many have pointed out)

[kamqute]

99. Oh yeah and exit polls conducted in the manner in which they were nov. 2

have a near perfect record unless people are voting on electronic systems, and don't come to me about how different systems are distributed to different areas because there are anomalous cases of distribution which prove the point and anyway the correlation coefficients of non-ubiquitous variables of what voting system you're using are almost nil except with regard to corporate boundaries;

exit polls are what people have USED to determine the legitimacy of elections

and don't tell me the pollsters are partisan

and even if they are the polled are not

and no one is going to be 'ashamed' of the person they voted for

and if they are how legitimate is that person's victory?

[ulTRAX]

108. polls are only as good as the pollsters

You make it sound as if pollsters have some monopoly on truth. That's quite an act of faith to believe questioning a few thousand people will always accurately reflect the behavior of 110 million.

Polls are only as good as the depth and diversity of their sampling methods, the questions they ask, and whether people tell the truth. As for pollsters being partisan.... many are funded directly by the parties... and you may recall that MoveOn certainly thought Gallop was too partisan.

I bet the more conscientious pollsters are trying to figure out where they went wrong. Perhaps you should protest that effort.

[kamqute]

113. You're absolutely right, but with a caveat

Here the burden of proof is on you..what evidence do you have that our polling infrastructure has made a radical shift in its objectivity? Indeed, in places with hand counts or other secure voting methods, the exit polls are extremely tight with the actual results almost across the board, even in this election. History is on the side of exit poll accuracy, internationally but particularly in the United States. Pollsters should certainly think about what went wrong, but only if fraud is proven not to have taken place. Exit polls really have the far superior history, especially in recent times, compared to electronic and punchcard voting systems. The organization that conducted the exit polls was more than happy to go along with the 'calibration' of the exit poll data, and one would suspect that if they had some hidden agenda they would not have been so spinelessly complicit in this process. Given that, it seems that only incompetence or coercion would have been the cause of a MASSIVE and TARGETED set of incongruities. With respect to incompetence, there has not been an unexpectedly massive exodus of personnel or change of management or anything of the sort within the past 2 years, and with respect to coercion, can you list ONE of the major news outlets affiliated with VNS that is left-leaning? AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and FOX? Come on..I respect your position but get real.

[gulogulo]

140. "The exit pols have always been accurate" -

this has become one of those myths that get repeated and repeated, while being clearly incorrect. Final exit polls, weighted and calibrated, are usually pretty accurate. Raw exit polls (which is what keeps getting cited as "proof" that 2004 elections were fraudulent) can be and have been wildly off-mark.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

He looks at the previous four presidential elections' exit polls

"As you can see, the raw exit poll results always overstate the Democratic vote, sometimes by as much as eight percentage points. So the fact that the raw results this year overstated Kerry's actual vote tally is hardly cause for alarm."

[saracat]

119. You might also recall that John Zogby defends his work . He is generally

respected by both sides and he says he was correct and something is wrong. He sent a representative to the Conyers hearing. He has unequivocally stated that he was NOT wrong!

[autorank]

96. This is a bull shit post.

I have never made a comment like this before but I find this post reaching the height of dis ingenuity. Democracy is about enfranchisement. If the franchise is tampered with, electronically, through voter suppression, etc., then democracy is under attack. Well there is rampant voter disenfranchisement and their is evidence galore (particularly from statisticians with no ax to grind) that something very strange happened with the vote tallies.

The fact that you leave these out it noteworthy and makes your entire point without any merit.

[ulTRAX]

105. the Democratic Party is not about democracy

The Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy itself... to the point it doesn't even try to institute basic democratic reforms such as proportional representation, run-off voting or abolishing the EC. The Democratic Party is committed to maintaining our dysfunctional two party system that deprives many citizens of the basic right to voting their conscience and being represented in government.

If you want to know where I'm coming from here's some of my other threads

DO DEMOCRATS STAND IN THE WAY OF PROGRESSIVE CHANGE?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548

Oon Long Term Strategy to bring democracy to the US:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

[autorank]

142. After reflection, this is still a BULL SHIT POST.

You know nothing of psychosis, seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about in that regard. In addition, i re read your post a couple of times and my original response is entirely on point. There are multiple sources, not all partisan, questioning the legitimacy of this election. They have compelling arguments. The evidence has not even begun to be fully examined. Therefore, getting over it is not even remotely close to the appropriate remark. This post is bull shit.

[kamqute]

131. Leaving something out that is integral, while stupid, is forgivable

ultraX (sorry I forgot the capitalization scheme) wants to talk about this aspect of the issue, not another..let's try adding aspects integral to the debate, if you're willing to stay with this thread

[Peter Frank]

102. I Understand...

...it's unimportant to verify results.

I'm an Independent. I wanted McCain in 2000 & I want him in 2008.

It's quite disheartening to hear a Democrat accept the results of a monumentally charged election prima facia.

You're assuming that Bush won the popular vote, while giving no thought to the possibility that the figures were manipulated. I'm not saying they were -- but it seems a little shallow for a Dem to not question the results.

What's the point of questioning... It's all over & Kerry lost -- right?

Wrong. The point of questioning is to insure results we can trust -- hopefully in the 2006 midterm!

Critics pretend to be realists while realists criticize what needs to be fixed.

If you believe that an un-auditable election process is good for our democracy -- then it appears that it is you who has abandoned our democratic principles (which you so proudly espouse).

There are people who are possibly putting themselves at great risk in order to discover the truth about issues that you simply dismiss out of hand.

You may be entirely correct in your assumptions; but I'm certainly glad that you don't command a leadership position.

[ulTRAX]

106. Kerry Conceded

Let's not forget that this issue is not about me. Kerry Conceded. Deal with it. And no matter what a few voter fraud investigations may reveal... and I'm in favor of all such investigations... Bush IS going to be reinstalled in office. There's no way these investigations will reverse Bush's 3 million vote lead so the only alternative is to pin all hopes on Ohio... not that this will reverse the election either.

The point I was making that seems to elude you is simply that since the only goal of extreme partisans is to win, they find it easy to bend the principles to the point of hypocrisy. They'll decry Bush as illegitimate in 2000 yet they'd be happy to see Kerry win in the same manner. This is the norm for politics but that hardly makes it admirable.

At SOME point it would be preferable if the Democratic Party and Democrats were committed to democratic principles.

[kamqute]

115. I was being respectful but this post reveals your ignorance

A concession has no legal weight--I assumed you had been doing your homework but I was clearly wrong and the fact that you continue parroting your single line of "if the Democratic Party and Democrats were committed to democratic principles" I think reveals your true agenda.

I continue to respect you but I respectfully withdraw my respect for your thread.

[Rockerdem]

117. Ultrax is a liberal who is thinking outside the box

The title of this thread is unfortunate and too upsetting. It should have read: "The outcome of this election is going to result in Bush -- progressive Dems should work for future long-range goals."

His points are valid. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can investigate this election, but more energy should be put into the future. A rational person will agree with him/her. One month, six months, 3 years from now, * is likely to be the one living at 1600 Penn Ave. And, unless we get to work, 30 years from now the US will still not have a more democratic parliamentary system. Instead, along with the complicity of people who call themselves liberals, we still will be wrangling with the outcome of another Electoral College fustercluck. Respectfully, wouldn't you have to agree?

[ulTRAX]

121. thanks

While other topics out of necessity have to come into the discussion and I've started plenty of thread on the developing a long term roadmap to a multi-party system, this thread started as a denunciation of extreme partisans who would condemn Bush as illegitimate in 2000 yet would, if Kerry won in the same manner... rationalize it as GOPers did in 2000.

[kamqute]

130. I totally agree with that aspect of the criticism..

..but I think it's a little unfair to make pronouncments as to who won the election, and totally unfair to speak of moral legitimacy in victory--I will tell you now that I am coming from a mangled Jurgin Habermas-type theory of democracy, and thus see democracy as legitimate because of the widespread conversation that takes place, not as a result of the greater number of people who have a say. If I thought that, I would have everyone in the world vote for our president (which would, nonetheless, be very fun :)). How can ANY candidate claim moral legitimacy when the very facilitators of our national conversation are so severely compromised. I also agree that a Kerry win without the popular vote, which is quite likely (but not a done deal) even if all fraud were investigated, would be rationalized and that rationalization would be very hollow and disingenuous and unfair. But I reiterate that phrasing the debate in Bush-Kerry terms is probably the most destructive of the subtexts of the thread you have started, along with the tone you have taken. As I watch the developments of this post, I applaud your willingness to engage the issues, but I wish you would be more sensitive and more intelligent about it.

[femme.democratique]

110. either you're totally naive...

or you just don't see that Bush really didn't win by 3 million votes. The fraud and suppression were systemic, not just in Ohio and Florida, and remember black box voting machines make it very easy to misrepresent results, every vote for Kerry equals 3 votes for Bush, there are so many ways to slice it and dice it it makes one dizzy! The actual fact of the matter is that WE DONT KNOW who won the 2004 election and we need a RE-VOTE on all paper ballots! So, get your head out of your ass and realize there is more to this (and to "democratic principles") than your simplistic logic! Based on your BS we should all just shut the fuck up and not question all of these injustices, when in reality it is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

[Rockerdem]

114. The poster is trying to get Democrats to think beyond this election

There are two points being made:

1. This election was imperfect. The poster concedes it, but is unsure of whether there was enough to swing. So? Not an illogical conclusion, since nobody knows for sure.

2. But even given that, the point being made is that future elections should be structured more democratically. Given the present system, even if every vote was pristine, the outcome is less than desirable. In the best of circumstances (when we win), it puts bland, centrist Democrats in power instead of principled progressive ones. How anyone can argue otherwise while looking at the results of progressive parliamentary systems overseas escapes me.

The poster is frustrated with Democrats willing to keep re-patching the old spare tire, after years of front-wheel blowouts. So much energy is being channeled on the past that the future rarely gets considered, according to Ultrax. My point in this discussion is that the proposed reform is gonna be a tough one, given the landmines laid by the Founders in the Constitution.

[ulTRAX]

129. the difficulty in amending the Constitution

Rockerdem wrote: "The poster is frustrated with Democrats willing to keep re-patching the old spare tire, after years of front-wheel blowouts. So much energy is being channeled on the past that the future rarely gets considered, according to Ultrax. My point in this discussion is that the proposed reform is gonna be a tough one, given the landmines laid by the Founders in the Constitution."

The path to reform is not just made tough by the obstacles in the Constitution.... they have been overcome before... though no amendment has really changed the anti-democratic nature of the document. I believe the biggest obstacle is ideological. It's in our heads.

The vast majority in the US have been brought up to believe Founders/Framers belong up on a pedestal. That they were so exceptional, there's no reason to revisit their decisions. They gloss over all the Constitution's deep flaws. I'd go as far as to say there's a secular cult of the Constitution with all the dynamics of a religion.

There's no real way to propose real democratic reforms as long as even the majority of so-called Democrats remain locked in the politics of 1787 where they blindly accept all those historical rationalizations that justify how democracy was compromised away.

The ONLY way I know to deal with these ideological blinders is to revisit basic principles and to base compelling arguments upon them. Only then will some start to rethink the blinders they wear and see the dysfunctional reality of the US political system for what it is. Once they do, the path to reform is self-evident.

[ulTRAX]

124. let the investigations continue

femme.democratique wrote: "either you're totally naive... or you just don't see that Bush really didn't win by 3 million votes. The fraud and suppression were systemic, not just in Ohio and Florida, and remember black box voting machines make it very easy to misrepresent results, every vote for Kerry equals 3 votes for Bush, there are so many ways to slice it and dice it it makes one dizzy! The actual fact of the matter is that WE DONT KNOW who won the 2004 election and we need a RE-VOTE on all paper ballots! So, get your head out of your ass and realize there is more to this (and to "democratic principles") than your simplistic logic! Based on your BS we should all just shut the fuck up and not question all of these injustices, when in reality it is the exact opposite of what we need to do."

My thread was more about those who condemned Bush as illegitimate in 2000 yet would gladly accept a Kerry win in the same manner. It's this sort of hypocrisy that will always get in the way of implementing basic democratic reforms because extreme partisans will always place winning over principle. But since they need to believe they are justified, they'll also always rationalize away their hypocrisy.

My own opinion is I think it's incredulous to believe that 3 million votes were stolen... or since voters are counted, that they were switched from Kerry to Bush. But let the investigations continue. If there was voting fraud, show no mercy to the bastards.

[Laurab]

145. Bush WAS illegitimate in 2000, but who said

that people would "gladly accept a Kerry win in the same manner"? I haven't seen that said anywhere. I would happily accept a Kerry win if it is proven that the election was fraudulent (and I firmly believe it was), and that he was ELECTED President. I would accept a Bush win, albeit not happily, if it is proven that the election was honest. With this administration's track record on honesty, I don't see how anyone who has done any research at all on their M.O. can have any doubt that they are more than capable of fixing an election. I certainly don't see a Republican controlled court handing Kerry the election, as they so nicely did for * in 2000, and I really don't believe that's what anyone is asking for. I believe we are asking for an honest and transparent election - something we really shouldn't have to ask for. I also see a lot of people who don't want to assist in our endeavor - matter of fact, trying to thwart it in any way possible. I think that alone speaks for itself. What are they trying to hide? I think your assumption that we would accept Kerry, no matter the circumstances, is just plain wrong.

Incredulous to believe 3 million votes were stolen? You must not be too familiar with the Bush administration.

[kamqute]

135. HALLELUJAH THANK YOU

That doesn't make ulTRAX (got it now :)) disingenuous though. I think there are serious, glaring, rather dumb kinks in the way in which (s)he is thinking, but that doesn't mean the criticisms (s)he raises are invalid or worth postponing.

[bush_is_wacko]

118. I AM ONE WHO CONSIDERS MYSELF DISENFRANCHISED

and I don't live in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, or Washington State! I watched my vote jump to Bush! when I asked my husband if he had experienced thsi he said yes, he selected Kerry and his vote registere as *. Both of us were able to change it back, but neither of us beleives it stayed there! I had two poll workers whisper (loud enough for me to hear, I suspect they didn't realize those of us w/ younger ears can hear them even halfway across the room) that I "looked determined." They had to let me vote, because I brought my voter registration card AND two forms of ID! While I voted they stood three feet to the right of me and discussed two voters who had come in the previous day. They were really very nasty with their comments. Claimed one "stunk to high heavan" and asked the poll worker how she should vote, and the other was so illiterate one of the poll workers was afraid he would be accused of guiding his vote! I don't know what they thought they were accomplishing by this conversation, but I consider what they did, at the VERY least unethical! My honest opinion was that it was intended to be voter intimidation. I "looked determined" apparently because I always come prepared with my peice of paper with my decision on the issues written down. I find it helps me get through the process faster and I don't have to rethink the question that I have already reviewed a million times at home. One local media station on election night reported hispanic voters in one county were being told they were in the wrong precinct after they waited in line for hours and sent to another polling place that then told them they needed to go back to the ORIGINAL polling place. I'm sure many of them just gave up! Before you conclude that * won by a mile, consider the fact that DESPITE many reports of this type of behavior on election night by our local newscasters. NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of either party has contested my states votes on the basis of voter intimidation. THIS ELECTION WAS FRAUGHT FULL OF INTIMIDATION, FRAUD, AND OUT AND OUT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR BY REPUBLICAN BACKED COMPANIES WILLING TO PROVIDE UNACCOUNTABLE ELECTRONIC MACHINES TO THE MASSES! If you choose to give up on this issue that is your business, but DON'T ASK ME TO DO THE SAME!

On edit: I will not move past this issue, until I am ASSURED it will never, ever happen in this country agin. I don't care if Kerry or any other Democrat is in the WH or not! it isn't about my damn party, it's about my damn VOTE!

Sorry had to edit because I didn't complete the sentaence re: hispanics above. "One local media station on election night".. reported was edited.

[Cha]

144. Wow! Thank you for your post and

vivid description of what happened to you on election day. I had read(on DU) right after the election that this happened to someone in Florida..and now we hear from you that it occurred right there in Colorado.

Anyone who doesn't believe that bush stole the election AGAIN is totally Naive!

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Did Kerry Win? I Don't know. Did Fraud Happen? YES

I don't have enough evidence to prove that Kerry really won this election, so I never claim that. However, are there serious problems with our voting system? Absolutely, and they MUST be fixed to ensure FAIR elections. BTW Chimpy's electoral college win in 2000 was illegitimate because they SCOTUS got involved in denying a recount which they should've left up to the state of Florida.

[frustrated_lefty]

137. The phrase "Get over it."makes no ground with me. How 'bout you get over

it?

The rest of us are busy apologizing to the rest of the world for electing such a moron.

[greenohio]

150. Uhhh, "get over it?"

Some here believe the election has been stolen again and that BBV is killing us. The problem is cries about BBV immediately after an election screams of sore loser even though there may be legitimate concerns about our election process.

If people really do care about the process, they would contact their state reps and ask for :

Hand counting at the precinct, the night of the election, on video tape with representatives from each candidate on the ballot present. The vote is certified at the precinct.