Report: 2004 Election Corrupted

<<cute filter dodge, welcome to strikeland>>

goodsmitty wrote: 1. Many of the voting precincts have machines that leave no paper trail. 2. People are corrupt, or corruptable. 3. Big businesses have money, the common man does not. Which way are the results going to swing? My guess is for big business, which has the money. In Ohio there were 25 machines in Youngstown that were caught giving votes from the Kerry column to the Bush column. The machines were fixed, but how many other machines did like "mistakes." Just about two months ago Ukraine had a revolution based on rigged elections. Is it not possible here also?

Is election fraud possible?  Sure - heck, it is a near-certainty.  Up here in Wisconsin, people like to vote three or four times, especially when they get bribed with cigarettes.

Is election fraud more likely with paperless machines?  Uncertain.  People have been rigging elections for centuries just fine without machines.  It occurs to me that machines do not necessarily add or subtract risk, but merely changes the nature of the risk.

Who are these "big businesses" of which you speak, and why do you appear to presume that they would swing to Bush?  And who are these "common men"?  I presume you are suggesting that Halliburton (or whatever) bribed a programmer to tweak the code in a machine, or something to that effect.

I have a two-part comment - first, that is just bizarrely unlikely.  The cost/benefit analysis doesn't even come close to panning out in their favor.  Corporate decisions are made for profit.  Moreover, I am sure you aren't suggesting that the Halliburton board actually had a vote on the subject, so it would really in the end be a rogue executive acting on his own, not really "big business".  Businesses are ultimately made up of individuals, who make individual decisions.  Blaming things on this vague "big business" is a bit of a bogeyman situation, once you start honing in on exactly what would have to happen on the corporate management level for this to happen.

Second, why do you believe that "big business" would favor Bush?  Sure, Halliburton would, but what about the entertainment business?  Music, TV, video games, etc.  And what about industry groups?  The Teamsters (always a major player when corruption is involved), teachers' union, the ABA, the trial lawyers - lots of money and power, and almost universally Democratic-leaning.

I could make an equal argument that Bush actually won Ohio MORE, but the Democrats just didn't cheat enough, and the fake exit polls were put out by cocky cheaters.

Perhaps not surprisingly it is always the losers that complain of cheating, even though it is not always the winner that is the cheater.

A quick reference for the video game generation...   Anybody who has ever played a significant amount of multi-player online games knows what happens when somebody wins a lot.  Within minutes the cries begin:  "cheater", "aimbotter", "he's got radar", and other entirely unfounded crap, based solely on the simple fact that these can't admit to themselves that they are simply getting spanked by a superior player.

Does cheating occur, both in online gaming and US elections?  Absolutely.  Does it happen as often or as pervasively as losers claim?  Absolutely no way.

I read the first page then jumped the last because I was getting sick of hearing the liberals cry. Kerry lost get the  over it already. Its been 5 months already who cares. Kerry is a flip flopping fool who didn't deserve to win.