Re: Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results

From: Richard Ulrich (Rich.Ulrich_at_comcast.net)
Date: 11/12/04 

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:47:35 -0500

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:18:21 GMT, "Phil Sherrod"
<phil.sherrod@REMOVETHISsandh.com> wrote:

[snip, most]

> Do you really think there is a wide-spread conspiracy to falsify voting
> results in a U.S. election?

Didn't need to be so widespread -- just Florida and Ohio would
do, this time ...

> Do you know how many years you would have to be
> willing to spend behind bars to take that chance? Every state that I'm
> aware of has bipartisan election commissions that oversee setting up voting
> machines, testing them and counting the results.

That seems awfully optimistic, if not just naive.

Jimmy Carter has helped to oversee elections in various
countries.

Jimmy Carter has said that the international group for
overseeing elections would refuse to come to into
the U.S. *because* what you just said (bipartisan oversight)
is not generally true. Not "sufficiently" true? I think that
the local polls have to allow observers, but that is just a start.
I don't think that "testing" the machines would be covered
by that sort of law. Counting?

The whole thing in Florida-2000 was charged with partisan
interests, where (as it happened) the courts were blamed for
partisan decisions acting against the (more-clearly?) partisan
decisions of the Republican election officials.

> While it isn't impossible,
> it is highly improbable that tampering could take place on any sort of
> wide-spread basis without being caught.

What was the line from one of Nixon's Watergate conspiracy ....
Whatever you do, it's not really wrong, even if you get caught,
if you never have to serve time for it.
 - I think it was one of the really popular guys; who later wound
up as a radio talk show host, after he got out of jail. (When he said
it, he wasn't counting on running into an unusually hard-nosed judge.)
(I figure that this hardline philosophy is one of the distinctions
remaining between Republicans of Right-wing Conspiracy, lately
servicing Bush, and everyone else.) (And thus, generic Republican
"unity" is another reason why this election outcome is scary.) 

-- 
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why are they trying to assassinate Senator Hillary Clinton?
    ... will either be President Clinton or President McBush. ... about counting all the votes, they are not about staging the biggest ... This is supposed to be an election, ... The Democratic Primary is about counting the voting delegates. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Of elections and vote counting
    ... The second round of presidential elections, with two candidates remaining, ... All votes were given on paper ballots, on which the voter wrote the number ... 45% of them in advance and 55% on the election day. ... Counting of advance votes started in each district a few hours ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: OT: Was Bush validly elected in 2004?
    ... >> hotly contested local election. ... >> announced that they'd burned all the ballots after counting them.) ... > ballots and all parties have observers at the polling places and ... > watching the counting. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Has anyone realised yet? Gordon Brown will NEVER be elected!
    ... the labour leadership are counting their lucky stars they did not win it ... Autumn 2007 election or no election? ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Surprising Pattern of Floridas Election Results
    ... > results in a U.S. election? ... testing them and counting the results. ... The whole thing in Florida-2000 was charged with partisan ... decisions of the Republican election officials. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
Quantcast