How to steal an election with Diebold...

[Qdrop]

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/how-to-steal-an-election-with-a-diebold-machine-200693.php

scary shit.

[QueenAdrock]

It seems like only voting officials and election judges would be the ones who would be able to do this, though. Just because how would someone be able to pick the lock or remove "a few screws" (which looked like around 10 to me) without being detected? I don't see people being able to pull it off when there's other voters around.

[Echewta]

The biggest flaw in this country is how we vote. There is no bigger issue in this country that needs to be addressed asap. If we cant get that right, then I will continue to laugh at spreading democracy around the world. If I could throw tea in the harbor, I would. Misrepresentation.

What a joke. "I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free." Give me a break.

[Qdrop]

It seems like only voting officials and election judges would be the ones who would be able to do this, though. Just because how would someone be able to pick the lock or remove "a few screws" (which looked like around 10 to me) without being detected? I don't see people being able to pull it off when there's other voters around.

you're in a privacy booth i beleive, like any other election.

[QueenAdrock]

I just know that in Maryland, people could still see you. You're standing up and they can see where your arms are, and they can see if you're just lifting it up to hit the button or if you'd be actually dismantling the machine (which takes a lot more movement and effort). Like this. (http://www.transformdesign.com/voteincases2.gif) If you were to screw around with the machine, they'd be able to catch you.

After-hours would be less tricky, but still seems unlikely. Election judges aren't allowed alone anywhere near the equipment, they have to be with others. So the others would have to be in on it too...but the hire multiple judges from different party affiliations, or they go out of their way to hire non-partisan judges.

Not saying the fact that the machines can be hacked isn't scary and could happen in reality, just saying that it seems kind of improbable given the circumstances. I'm still completely for a paper trail though. I'd rather be 100% sure that my vote is being counted and have proof.

[valvano]

The biggest flaw in this country is how we vote.

nope, the biggest flaw is that not enough people vote

[fucktopgirl]

nope, the biggest flaw is that not enough people vote


Like it make a difference anyway!!!

[Echewta]

nope, the biggest flaw is that not enough people vote
Its pretty discouraging if you are one of the few people voting and your vote might not count. That doesn't encourage people to come to the polls if the Dems and Reps are going to fight on how i push a pin or button for my vote.

[sam i am]

I disagree that it's not enough people voting : it's more that those who vote are often misinformed or uniformed on whom or what they are voting for or against.

Almost makes you want to have mandatory voting I.Q. tests prior to allowing people to vote....



Almost....

[QueenAdrock]

Brett and I were having the discussion over whether it's better to have people not vote, or have misinformed voters. I said it's better to have misinformed voters because it won't really affect the results (people vote wrongly in both directions, though I AM inclined to think more misinformed voters went for Bush ;) ), but their intentions are in the right place. I hate the people that say they don't give a shit about politics and make a point NOT to vote because they "don't care" and I want to be like...HOW CAN YOU NOT CARE? It's your LIFE! Health care, taxes, employment, oil prices, everything. And you can have input on it! They take democracy for granted...there's so many people out there that would love to have a say in their government, but don't have the option.

So even if misinformed voters are dumbasses, at least their hearts are in the right place. They want to have a say, some sort of input on what happens to them. It's at least better than saying you don't care.

[Echewta]

I
Almost makes you want to have mandatory voting I.Q. tests prior to allowing people to vote....

Almost....

Then you and I probably wouldn't be able to vote :(

[Dorothy Wood]

I volunteered to help out on voting day with my old college roommate in her hometown in Indiana a few years back. we were near the voting machines (manual ones, but still) and handling ballots all the time, sure...judges were milling about, but so were tons of other people. and even though it was bumfuck indiana, I really don't think that there is a lot of security surrounding voting. it may seem like it, but most of the people running things are volunteers. it would be incredibly easy to infiltrate and tamper with machines before the voting.

I'm not saying their should be armed guards at the door...but there should definitely be more safeguards in place.

[yeahwho]

It's 2006 and we're being treated like it's 1906.

I would think the machine could print a reciept or some other such document that would be identical to your vote. This could be a verification voucher with a randomly generated number for the voter to double-check his choice, that voucher will show your choices twice. It will be perforated, this way a paper ballot box would be set up for one of the sections of your voucher. This would keep the machine count honest. If any of the numbers are beyond a certain ratio difference in a particular precinct a red flag should be raised for ballot tampering.

The voucher you keep can be checked online/and by all media to see if it properly reflects your vote, this is done by the randomly generated number.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense, but these machines are doing nothing but breeding a widening sense of mistrust, which makes the machines value useless. It needs be triple checked.

Get a machine count,
Then the paper count
And your voucher number easily accessed by public media to doublecheck.

[fucktopgirl]

Election is a illusion created for the population to make them believed that they live in a democratic system and therefore have the right and power to change things.

Really, we got no power whatsoever on things as elections all often falsified.
And if you look at the "genealogy" of primes ministers elected, in general they all are family/business connected at one extent.

You think you got the power to deciced but really YOU dont!

[yeahwho]

Election is a illusion created for the population to make them believed that they live in a democratic system and therefore have the right and power to change things.

Really, we got no power whatsoever on things as elections all often falsified.
And if you look at the "genealogy" of primes ministers elected, in general they all are family/business connected at one extent.

You think you got the power to deciced but really YOU dont!


Lee Harvey Oswald said that exact same thing November 21st, 1963.

[fucktopgirl]

Lee Harvey Oswald said that exact same thing November 21st, 1963.

What that supposed to implied?

[sam i am]

Then you and I probably wouldn't be able to vote :(

I was thinking more along the lines of political I.Q., not general I.Q.:)

It could be an easy multiple choice type quiz (like all the questions would be the $100 questions on Who Wants to be a Millionaire) :

Who is the Prez of the U.S.?

a) George Bush b) Osama bin Laden c) John Kerry d) None of the above and I don't care

If you have someone who can only get 70% correct, they don't get to vote.

It's kinda like means testing for the body electorate.(y)

[sam i am]

What that supposed to implied?

Implied is it that not prone to getting sarcasm you are.

[fucktopgirl]

Implied is it that not prone to getting sarcasm you are.

i can get sarcasm but i dont really make the link of my saying with Oswald because i know shit about his existence really only that He was supposedly the Murder who shot kennedy.

[yeahwho]

i can get sarcasm but i dont really make the link of my saying with Oswald because i know shit about his existence really only that He was supposedly the Murder who shot kennedy.

Sometimes your dialogue is very abstract. I thought you were being sarcastic. Having spent some time writing up a solution oriented post I was sort of hoping for input, I already understand the problems with voting. Being pro-active not re-active is healthy human behaviour, the political process needs your input.

The idea is to make it better while your alive.

[sam i am]

It's 2006 and we're being treated like it's 1906.

I would think the machine could print a reciept or some other such document that would be identical to your vote. This could be a verification voucher with a randomly generated number for the voter to double-check his choice, that voucher will show your choices twice. It will be perforated, this way a paper ballot box would be set up for one of the sections of your voucher. This would keep the machine count honest. If any of the numbers are beyond a certain ratio difference in a particular precinct a red flag should be raised for ballot tampering.

The voucher you keep can be checked online/and by all media to see if it properly reflects your vote, this is done by the randomly generated number.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense, but these machines are doing nothing but breeding a widening sense of mistrust, which makes the machines value useless. It needs be triple checked.

Get a machine count,
Then the paper count
And your voucher number easily accessed by public media to doublecheck.

BTW, Nevada already gives you a paper voucher of your votes prior to them being permanently on file.:)

[yeahwho]

BTW, Nevada already gives you a paper voucher of your votes prior to them being permanently on file.:)

Nevada is getting there, I know it must be cumbersome and time consuming to have paper reciepts. It would be great if the voucher was perforated with your personal vote, then tallied by paper. I like the idea of a random number generator designating the vote. It would be assigned to one voter and checked in triplicate.

We have advanced beyond this technology by many years, it is simple, honest and as accurate a way to vote I can currently think of.

Also the proprietary information on these machines should not be proprietary. It is a goverment spec, chips are all common and the bids to manufacture split among a dozen different contractors.

Diebold has screwed the pooch (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm)in the trust dept. No one company should be allowed to run the will of the USA.

[DJ_Skrilla]

Didnt it come out over a year ago that there was a giant backdoor in the diebold system? Is this the same thing?

In Oregon we ARE FORCED to vote by mail.... do u think that could be a problem? :rolleyes:

[TimDoolan]

ITs how Bush stole the election!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOL sore losers

[D_Raay]

Nevada is getting there, I know it must be cumbersome and time consuming to have paper reciepts. It would be great if the voucher was perforated with your personal vote, then tallied by paper. I like the idea of a random number generator designating the vote. It would be assigned to one voter and checked in triplicate.

We have advanced beyond this technology by many years, it is simple, honest and as accurate a way to vote I can currently think of.

Also the proprietary information on these machines should not be proprietary. It is a goverment spec, chips are all common and the bids to manufacture split among a dozen different contractors.

Diebold has screwed the pooch (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm)in the trust dept. No one company should be allowed to run the will of the USA.
Especially not a company whose CEO guaranteed a Bush win in 2004.

It really gets no plainer than that. There is a huge conflict of interest and it goes against what democracy is supposed to be about.

No one can have their cake and eat it too can they? For thousands of years people have been trying to do that and failing for the good of humanity, and now Diebold should be able to pass out the forks?

[sam i am]

Especially not a company whose CEO guaranteed a Bush win in 2004.

It really gets no plainer than that. There is a huge conflict of interest and it goes against what democracy is supposed to be about.

No one can have their cake and eat it too can they? For thousands of years people have been trying to do that and failing for the good of humanity, and now Diebold should be able to pass out the forks?

Where's the quote to backup your first sentence, D_Raay? I'd really like to see where that's in print.

[fucktopgirl]

Having spent some time writing up a solution oriented post I was sort of hoping for input, I already understand the problems with voting. Being pro-active not re-active is healthy human behaviour, the political process needs your input.

The idea is to make it better while your alive.

I guess i am pessimist in that we can changed things, too much corruption all around BUT if people wake up and rise up, a lots of changes could happen, maybe!

[D_Raay]

Where's the quote to backup your first sentence, D_Raay? I'd really like to see where that's in print.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

[Qdrop]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
^that's pretty much THE definition of "conflict of interest".

[yeahwho]

I just read another in a long line of e-voting articles (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20061020/ELECTION01/610200330) that came out today on the google news generator. They tend to dance around the obvious and give much creedence to the corporate engineers rather than the voting public.

Here is one foolproof way to vote, seems easy enough but, NO!

1. vote
2. get a perforated voucher with a random generated number that verifies your choices.
3. put one copy of voting voucher in a ballot box at the precinct before you leave.
4. On a website, put up the RGN's so the USA can verify their votes.

This isn't rocket science, Diebold is not the US, as voters we're being told to just trust the system. Fuck that, they had to count our Governor's race 3 times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004) last election, she won after a second recount by 00.0045% votes or 129 votes. This has been a point of contention for everybody in our state and I wanted Gregoire to win, but not after 3 seperate ballot counts. :mad:

Gregoire-1,371,153 (48.86%)
Rossi- 1,372,442 (48.8702%)

Some were mail-in ballots others were machines, it is a shame that this mess cannot be fixed. Now we're trusting some corporate entity to do the right thing? Let's bid out to multiple companies a spec'd machine that does the right job. In the name of all those who are dying in wars we have let our freedoms dwindle to the point of not even protecting the only way out. The ballot box.

I'm all fired up over this issue now...thanks Qdrop, fuckin' shitstirrer

[chrisd]

scary is the habit of finding articles in the heap of shit internet news and sticking it in my face

[yeahwho]

scary is the habit of finding articles in the heap of shit internet news and sticking it in my face

you need to get off the internet, NOW!

[chrisd]

yeah who?

[sam i am]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

Here's the quote from your link : "The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is 'committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.'"

Now....I know this upsets you, D_Raay, but that's NOT a guarantee. It's disingenuous to say it is, and you know it.

The scare tactics you are employing have to stop somewhere, man : come back to us, D_Raay.

[D_Raay]

Here's the quote from your link : "The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is 'committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.'"

Now....I know this upsets you, D_Raay, but that's NOT a guarantee. It's disingenuous to say it is, and you know it.

The scare tactics you are employing have to stop somewhere, man : come back to us, D_Raay.
Scare tactics? And who's talking about staw men?

The head of the company who makes the security flawed voting machines and then is quoted as saying he is "committed" to deliver votes to Bush.
It's reading between the lines. Scare tactics have nothing to do with it.

It always amazes me when right wingers bring up the "just trust us" argument. "We really aren't that bad, and we are looking out for you, and we can protect you". Meanwhile every week one is in the news negatively for a variety of reasons, but it's the Democrats fault. We are a society built on a straw man right now and someone needs a match.

[sam i am]

Scare tactics? And who's talking about staw men?

The head of the company who makes the security flawed voting machines and then is quoted as saying he is "committed" to deliver votes to Bush.
It's reading between the lines. Scare tactics have nothing to do with it.

It always amazes me when right wingers bring up the "just trust us" argument. "We really aren't that bad, and we are looking out for you, and we can protect you". Meanwhile every week one is in the news negatively for a variety of reasons, but it's the Democrats fault. We are a society built on a straw man right now and someone needs a match.

I didn't blame the Democrats and I didn't say to "just trust me."

Sorry to put you off on that rant, but you're not making logical sense here.

Emotion and passion are great, but without action they don't mean much...

Are you looking to go anarchist on us now, D?

You and I both have kids that we want a "great" society for. Just because we look at things differently doesn't mean we can't figure out how to get along.

No offense, dude, but maybe you need to have a drink and stop reading blogs. Relax a bit and have some fun. Don't blow a gasket over what is not (arguably) the most important thing in your life.

Peace, D.

[Schmeltz]

Yeah D_Raay. Stop thinking and don't worry about it.

Oh wait, you already pointed out why you don't like that. Sorry.

[sam i am]

Yeah D_Raay. Stop thinking and don't worry about it.

Oh wait, you already pointed out why you don't like that. Sorry.

Yeah, Schmeltz....get in the middle of something you don't know the history behind and look like a complete ass...

Oh, wait...you already did that.

[Schmeltz]

Uh... I read through the whole thread... what other history is there that I should be investigating?

[sam i am]

Uh... I read through the whole thread... what other history is there that I should be investigating?

D and I have had this debate in the past. Often, he goes ballistic and I try to talk him back to some sense of moderation. He and I have talked about the primacy of our relationships with our families and, therefore, I mentioned it above so that he could engage in some more rational, rather than entirely sarcastic, debate about the issue.

Thanks for trying to understand, but watch where you stick your nose in the future....it makes you unappealing as a boardmate.

[Schmeltz]

Yes, I've seen you go through this before. I've never seen D_Raay "go ballistic," though... or at least I don't recall it. And it's always seemed to me that your attempts at "bringing him back to moderation" consist solely of advising him to ignore the issue. Which strikes me as disingenuous and a poor substitute for actual debate.

And I'm really not here to prove myself appealing to anyone. So fuck you. :)

[D_Raay]

I didn't blame the Democrats and I didn't say to "just trust me."

Sorry to put you off on that rant, but you're not making logical sense here.

Emotion and passion are great, but without action they don't mean much...

Are you looking to go anarchist on us now, D?

You and I both have kids that we want a "great" society for. Just because we look at things differently doesn't mean we can't figure out how to get along.

No offense, dude, but maybe you need to have a drink and stop reading blogs. Relax a bit and have some fun. Don't blow a gasket over what is not (arguably) the most important thing in your life.

Peace, D.
Sorry the bottom paragraph was not directed at you personally sam, just in the direction of some of these people you are apt to defend.

Anarchist? hehehe. Do I think the government needs an enema? Yes. Do I want to burn and loot and pillage to force this? No. I think it can be done but only when the American people have had enough, and we are closing in on that.

[sam i am]

Sorry the bottom paragraph was not directed at you personally sam, just in the direction of some of these people you are apt to defend.

Anarchist? hehehe. Do I think the government needs an enema? Yes. Do I want to burn and loot and pillage to force this? No. I think it can be done but only when the American people have had enough, and we are closing in on that.

You may be correct that it is well-nigh time for a new revolution...what that would entail and what the outcome would be is anyone's guess, but there certainly is a perception in the blogosphere/internet reality that a civil war is in the offing.

[sam i am]

And I'm really not here to prove myself appealing to anyone. So fuck you. :)

Right back at ya, kiddo :) :D

[Echewta]

The way the U.S. votes is a mess and it can be partly blamed on the Constitution. Requiring States to be responsible means that there are 50 different states with dozens to hundreds of counties with thousands of cities. The lack of standards and worse off, the lack of transperency in elections makes me snicker when I hear politicians talk about spreading democracy. Our political parties even make laws to prevent recounts, make it complicated to vote or even worse, require proof of ID when going to the polls but not requiring any proof for absente voters which baffles me.

Sad.

[sam i am]

The way the U.S. votes is a mess and it can be partly blamed on the Constitution. Requiring States to be responsible means that there are 50 different states with dozens to hundreds of counties with thousands of cities. The lack of standards and worse off, the lack of transperency in elections makes me snicker when I hear politicians talk about spreading democracy. Our political parties even make laws to prevent recounts, make it complicated to vote or even worse, require proof of ID when going to the polls but not requiring any proof for absente voters which baffles me.

Sad.

Agreed partly.

The electoral college is really the "voting" body in Presidential elections, so there's some protection against fraud there.

In other races, a paper trail is the only real solution, which is coming closer and closer to reality in most states.

[Echewta]

Agreed partly.

The electoral college is really the "voting" body in Presidential elections, so there's some protection against fraud there.

In other races, a paper trail is the only real solution, which is coming closer and closer to reality in most states.

I'm not following you on the electoral college.

And what good is a paper trail if its against the rules or made extremely difficult to do a recount? What a freaking mess in Florida. How sad there couldn't be an independent "get the hell out of here political parties" group that handled the recount plain and simple.

Its not that difficult to have fair elections that everyone can be assured of.

Granted, there are a lot of places in the U.S., if not most, where volunteers and elected officials are very fair.

[sam i am]

I'm not following you on the electoral college.

And what good is a paper trail if its against the rules or made extremely difficult to do a recount? What a freaking mess in Florida. How sad there couldn't be an independent "get the hell out of here political parties" group that handled the recount plain and simple.

Its not that difficult to have fair elections that everyone can be assured of.

Granted, there are a lot of places in the U.S., if not most, where volunteers and elected officials are very fair.

On the electoral college : the popular vote for President means absolutley zero. The only votes that count for the Presidential election are the electoral votes...which are cast by electors that are selected by each individual state in a "slate." Said electors can be counted on to vote the way they're supposed to because they are party operatives (barring the extremely rare "faithless" elector).

The problem with that whole recount mess in Florida was that there was little to no accountability of those doing the recount. IF (and that's a very big IF) we could have "independent" groups to do recounts, the cost of having them nationwide, especially in rural areas where travel costs, lodging, meals, etc. can be prohibitive, could stretch elections out for endless amounts of time.

Perhaps online voting or strictly mail-in voting is more apropos in this day and age.

Lastly, a very good point that the vast majority of election workers seem to be quite capable and fair.

Always a pleasure to have your participation in these discussions, echewta.

[Schmeltz]

the cost of having them nationwide, especially in rural areas where travel costs, lodging, meals, etc. can be prohibitive


I find that very difficult to believe considering the enormous sums routinely expended by both sides in American elections. It would be fairly simple to craft a law requiring all parties to set aside a portion of donations to support an independent watchdog charged with recounting close races - funds that could simply be reimbursed to the parties in question should a recount prove unneeded. And I doubt that any recount would consume large amounts of time or resources, especially when most American voting trends seem so clear-cut that candidates won't even bother campaigning in many areas, having given them up for lost, and close races are a feature of relatively few places.


Its not that difficult to have fair elections that everyone can be assured of.


In theory it isn't. But it all depends what's at stake. When we're talking about control of the most powerful society in history, nothing ends up being simple.

[D_Raay]

On the electoral college : the popular vote for President means absolutley zero. The only votes that count for the Presidential election are the electoral votes...which are cast by electors that are selected by each individual state in a "slate." Said electors can be counted on to vote the way they're supposed to because they are party operatives (barring the extremely rare "faithless" elector).

So all of those smear ads I remember seeing in 04 were what exactly?
So they could entertain us while silently giggling over how our votes don't mean anything anyway?

[sam i am]

So all of those smear ads I remember seeing in 04 were what exactly?
So they could entertain us while silently giggling over how our votes don't mean anything anyway?

Of course our votes KINDA matter : the majority in a given state puts the slate from one party or another. That's it, though. We DO NOT directly elect our Presidents on a nationwide majority basis.

[sam i am]

BTW, I voted today and got my paper ballot.

Sweet!

[Schmeltz]

Oddly enough, Canada's system is kind of the same way: we don't directly elect our head of state on a majority basis, and our votes really only kind of matter (it is theoretically possible for a Canadian political party to gain power with a minority of the popular vote, although I don't believe it's ever happened).

[sam i am]

Here's something to ponder....

All the blathering and bleating about how the elections have been "stolen" in the past by Republicans.

But when the Democrats win, all's fair and square and the Republicans give gracious concession speeches instead of whining and complaining endlessly about crap.

Where's all the rending of garments and crying over spilt milk?

Could it be that Republicans are better at losing than Democrats and greater believers in the efficacy of the voting system here in the US?

Hmmmm...

The silence, in this case, is truly deafening.

[QueenAdrock]

Like I pointed out in the other thread, it's not that Republicans are gracious losers. It's that you guys don't have any evidence of voter fraud. We raised our voices against voting machines when we were SHOWN that they didn't work - there were cases down in Florida of a lady punching the screen for "Kerry" and it coming up with a confirmation of "Bush," and once she pressed the button to cancel that vote, it instead cast it.

There was also evidence that exit polls (which are 99% correct and used as backup voting in 3rd world countries) were WAY off from the voting machines, whereas the states with paper ballots were nearly synched up.

We didn't complain just to complain. We had palpable evidence of voters having trouble with the machines and the machines voting the wrong way.

If none of this stuff happened in the elections last week, Republicans shouldn't have a reason to complain - not that they're "gracious losers," it's just that they'd have nothing to go on. If they DO have this kind of stuff appearing from last week, then they're lazy idiots for just rolling over and taking it and not fighting back.

[Schmeltz]

Could it be that Republicans are better at losing than Democrats


Let's hope so! 2008 is two long years away, though.

[sam i am]

Let's hope so! 2008 is two long years away, though.

Well said, Schmeltz.

You got me on that one.:)