So I was thinking about Dean's election report...

[FreedomAngel82]

I was disappointed like a lot of you. I haven't read all of it but from my understanding Dean didn't mention the big "f" word and I saw his interview on PBS and he didn't mention it there either. I was thinking about "why not?" He's such a gusty guy and everything. The only resonable explaination I could come up with is crediability. If you come out and say that Bush didn't really win the last election you would be easily called a "consperiacy theorist." Nobody likes a "consperiacy theorists" so he couldn't mention the "f" word. If we ever want to be taken seriously on why we should get rid of the machine's the only way to do that is to show how unrealiable they are. I remember earlier this year in one of the "M" states (I think Missouri maybe?) they did a presentation of why the voting machine's were so unreliable. The state has a democratic governor and he banned all voting machine's from this state forever. That's what we have to do. We have to present a case that people can see with their own eyes and believe why the machine's aren't good. That's the only reason why I can think Dean didn't mention the "f" word.

[Darkhawk32]

1. It was in Montana, not Missouri.

We have a baby-Bush repuke a-hole as governor.

[Radical Activist]

2. There isn't

enough proof of intentional fraud widespread enough to change the election. There is evidence, but that isn't proof. Yes, it does make someone sound crazy and stuck in the past to talk about it that way.

Arkansas and Illinois didn't use electronic voting machines. Kerry did worse in both of those states than Gore. People just need to accept that we lost and focus on the next election instead of obsessing over the last one. Stop living in 2004.

[Eloriel]

3. Electronic voting machines aren't the only way to commit widescale

fraud depending on what you mean by the term. A lot of people don't include scanners, which should be included as electronic voting machines, and most people don't even realize that punch card tabulators have a software component as well. They're not purely mechanical.

And there were many, many other things aside from the mechanics of voting: not enough machines (of whatever type), intentional voter intimidation, all kinds of games in Ohio about precincts and such (several precincts in the same building, and insufficient information about which one's where while there are many-hours-long waits just to find out you're in the wrong one after all, etc., etc., etc.)

They shaved off points for Bush in those places Bush was expected to win, and they shaved off votes for Bush in those places where Kerry was expected to win (and did) to come up with their 3 million + vote advantage over Kerry. And then there were those where Bush won when he shouldn't have.

People who doubt this should check out the 2004 Election Results forum in depth. There's been some absolutely amazing -- and more than just "persuasive" work done.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. Oh yeah

I think that's mainly why Dean didn't mention the big "f" word. I think they're concentrating on getting up a case for getting rid of the machine's. Only thing I can think of, and to the person who told the correct state thanks. I couldn't remember which one it was.

[CTLawGuy]

6. for some people that's a little too much to ask

unfortunately.

I, as well as Dean, feel strongly about the need for our voting systems to be able to independently recounted by hand to ensure accuracy.

[bklyncowgirl]

5. Bottom line: They couldn't make an air tight case for fraud.

The only way they could have done this was if they'd uncovered a smoking gun and indisputable proof that massive fraud had been committed.

They didn't have it and so they focused on what they could prove--i.e. supression, and on strategies to fix the problem of unverified electronic voting.