The Truth About Democracy Hurts: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

[Jush]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

Read it. Read his sources. And then question why this is not being covered in the news. Oh, is the supposedly "new" war on marriage the Republicans are *****ing about more important? Or maybe the usual kidnapped white girl stories we get once a month now (thank you for your integrity, 24-hour news channels)?

In all honesty, I don't expect many fellow Americans to want to read this, because it's clearly true. Everyone suspected it on some level, because everyone knows that politicians, generally, are the closest relatives to reptiles. But dammit, we're America, the beacon of freedom, so if the election was thrown, that means we couldn't be the beacon anymore... For me, this is the last straw -- Bush and the Neo-Cons better shut their traps and resist the urge to do the things they usually do -- i.e. engage in corporate circle-jerks and waste our time with obsolete social values.

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

On May 24th, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried unsuccessfully to amend the immigration bill to bar anyone who lacks a government-issued photo ID from voting (206) -- a rule that would disenfranchise at least six percent of Americans, the majority of them urban and poor, who lack such identification. (207) The GOP-controlled state legislature in Indiana passed a similar measure, and an ID rule in Georgia was recently struck down as unconstitutional. (208)

''Why erect those kinds of hurdles unless you're afraid of voters?'' asks Ralph Neas, director of People for the American Way. ''The country will be better off if everyone votes -- Democrats and Republicans. But that is not the Blackwell philosophy, that is not the George W. Bush or Jeb Bush philosophy. They want to limit the franchise and go to extraordinary lengths to make it more difficult to vote.''

The issue of what happened in 2004 is not an academic one. For the second election in a row, the president of the United States was selected not by the uncontested will of the people but under a cloud of dirty tricks. Given the scope of the GOP machinations, we simply cannot be certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office -- which means, in effect, that we have been deprived of our faith in democracy itself.

American history is littered with vote fraud -- but rather than learning from our shameful past and cleaning up the system, we have allowed the problem to grow even worse. If the last two elections have taught us anything, it is this: The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system. If people lose faith that their votes are accurately and faithfully recorded, they will abandon the ballot box. Nothing less is at stake here than the entire idea of a government by the people.

Voting, as Thomas Paine said, ''is the right upon which all other rights depend.'' Unless we ensure that right, everything else we hold dear is in jeopardy.

[Gaius Baltar]

The requirement for a government issued ID (drivers liscence, etc.) is one that is mandatory in many states, if not all.

The intent is to prevent voter fraud by allowing only registered voters. A registered voter is an individual who;
1. Is a citizen of the US, and lives in the district in which the vote is taking place.
2. Has identified himself to authorities so that he can be placed on voter rolls. There can, by law, be no unidentified individuals on the voter rolls.

[Rhah]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

Read it. Read his sources. And then question why this is not being covered in the news. Oh, is the supposedly "new" war on marriage the Republicans are *****ing about more important? Or maybe the usual kidnapped white girl stories we get once a month now (thank you for your integrity, 24-hour news channels)?

In all honesty, I don't expect many fellow Americans to want to read this, because it's clearly true. Everyone suspected it on some level, because everyone knows that politicians, generally, are the closest relatives to reptiles. But dammit, we're America, the beacon of freedom, so if the election was thrown, that means we couldn't be the beacon anymore... For me, this is the last straw -- Bush and the Neo-Cons better shut their traps and resist the urge to do the things they usually do -- i.e. engage in corporate circle-jerks and waste our time with obsolete social values.

Thank you for the link. Its pretty long though, and i'm not sure many people will bother to read it all the way through unfortunately.

May i suggest editing your original post and including some choice quotes from the article, so people can get the jist of it (if they dont want to read the entire thing)


Anyway, the evidence is compelling, and the writer has provided links and sources to prove that, but its a devisive issue, and this article is unlikely to change anyones mind's. (especially as its written by a Kennedy!)

[Garbarsardar]

Updated first post and added some to the title. It's really impressive and the documentation is exhaustive.

[Zenith Darksea]

And hardly a surprise at all. We all saw how Bush's team cheated in the first election, so I'm not terribly shocked that they tried it on again in 2004. It's just another nail in the coffin of the Bush team's credibility.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Wow, this is incredibly compelling stuff. Having read that article, I can only conclude that there was indeed serious misconduct on the part of the GOP in the 2004 elections, or at the least a series of misfortunes that completely favoured Bush. However, the second possibility seems extremely unlikely when one considers the people most likely to gain from it.

I had never seriously believed that the Republicans rigged the election up to now, but after having read that, I can come to no other conclusion.

[Rhah]

Wow, this is incredibly compelling stuff. Having read that article, I can only conclude that there was indeed serious misconduct on the part of the GOP in the 2004 elections, or at the least a series of misfortunes that completely favoured Bush. However, the second possibility seems extremely unlikely when one considers the people most likely to gain from it.

I had never seriously believed that the Republicans rigged the election up to now, but after having read that, I can come to no other conclusion.

Exactly. I always had my doubts, but still was not sure. This article has swung it for me.

Expect a deluge of angry Bush supporters when the Americans wake up, which should be anytime now.....

[hsimoorb]

Well, I will undoubtedly finish that article and it's 208 scources some time in the future. If Garb says it's compelling, it's probaly worth the read. But the thing is I beleived that the Bush team wasn't exactaly playing by all the rules to begin with. I wholeheartedly beleive that the 2000 electon was stolen, and I doubt Bush could have taken a sitting president down.

[danzig]

I absolutely believe it after all who would know more about election fixing then a Kennedy so if one says it was done then it must be believed.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

ditto

[Revan The Great]

What kind of crap is this? Bush won, it's over, stop *****ing about it. The only people who still believe this BS have nothing better to do. Kerry decided to throw in the towel, any more "debate" over this would be quite pointless.

To Liberals: Let it go, Sore Losermans.

[Tostig]

Yeah, like the Communist parties won the post-WW2 elections in Eastern Europe!

If he did cheat you have to give him Brownie Points for having balls. To go on and on about democracy in the middle east and yet be fiddling it at home... the neo-cons have just risen in my estimations

[Last Roman]

while it's too little too late, I wouldn't put it past any politician let alone Bush and his cronies

[danzig]

while it's too little too late, I wouldn't put it past any politician let alone Bush and his cronies

The thing is this type of stuff goes on all the time so its a bit amusing to see a politican 'shocked' at possible voter fraud. The system has holes that is the bottom line and its exploited by both parties, whether its the dead somehow magically coming back to life and voting as they did for Democrats in Detroit or people voting in multiple states thanks to rather poorly monitored mail in ballot or other 'irregularities'. I dont know if Republican cheating cost Kerry the election in 2004 and to be honest nor do I care for the simple reason that I have *no* doubt that both sides attempted numerous tricks during the election and this would be the case of the pot calling the kettle black. The irony is Bush would have won by popular vote if Kerry DID win Ohio and the Presidency...one of the very things democrats claimed made Bush illegimate in 2000. Until politicans come out and talk about fair and true revamping of the election system rather then them whining and crying about it, it is meaingless because when they whine it just means the other guy was better at cheating then they were. The system is only 'broken' when the other guy wins, when your guy wins it is democracy in action!

[Erik]

The thing is this type of stuff goes on all the time so its a bit amusing to see a politican 'shocked' at possible voter fraud. The system has holes that is the bottom line and its exploited by both parties

I largely agree to this.
There are voting irragularities in all democratic countries and with all elections.

But I do get the feeling those irragularities are bigger in the US than in most other Western countries, and they seem to be on the rise in recent years.

So it might not be such a big problem today, but for the sake of democracy people should still take them very seriously and imrove the system as much as possible.

[Last Roman]

But I do get the feeling those irragularities are bigger in the US than in most other Western countries, and they seem to be on the rise in recent years.

any proof of that?

[Erik]

But I do get the feeling those irragularities are bigger in the US than in most other Western countries, and they seem to be on the rise in recent years.

any proof of that?

You want me to proof what I'm feeling and how things seem to me?

Sorry, I don't think I can do such a thing right now.
For starters I am going to need to hook myself up to a lie detector and couple the lie detector directly to this website.
But where am I going to get a lie detector on a Sunday?

[danzig]

I largely agree to this.
There are voting irragularities in all democratic countries and with all elections.

But I do get the feeling those irragularities are bigger in the US than in most other Western countries, and they seem to be on the rise in recent years.

So it might not be such a big problem today, but for the sake of democracy people should still take them very seriously and imrove the system as much as possible.

They arent necessarily bigger (and unless you have actual statical proof they are you really cant say that)we just make alot of noise about them. I mean look there were very few complaints when Clinton ran, very few when Reagan ran because the margins werent close enough for each side to ***** and complain about them. Its only when a race is close this stuff comes out because the losing side just cant accept that they lost by so small a number. For some democrats to accept they lost in 2004 is accepting that despite an unpopular war against a President who was being hit hard for accusations of lying about the reasons behind the war STILL lost. You look at 2004 and you just scratch your head on how in the world George Bush won, the simple answer and the one I and probably most people see is that John Kerry wasnt running on vote for me Im John Kerry but ran on vote me Im not George Bush...he was completely unimpressive. Sometimes accepting the fact you were just horrible and thats why you lost is too big a pill to swallow so you have to look for some other reason and with voter irregularities its VERY easy to find.

Im all for state rights and all but with election procedure its the one area I think we need to accept that until we have a universal standard there is always going to be someone who loses who is going to complain when the margins are small. I mean we can look at 2000 election and Florida and regardless of the outcome Im left scratching my head why they are using ballots like that and why the standard in each county seems to vary so much and the fact there isnt a federal level wide standard opens it up to debate and once you do that with election outcomes the loser is going to complain.

[Gaidin]

The more I read this, the more I realize it doesn't matter.

We have statistical discrepencies, which happen. We have the possibility of error, which happens. We have the fact that the 'exit poll science' got turned on its head, which happens with anything that one can claim to be a 'science'(i mean...lets look at real science for a minute...how much ages old science did Einstein turn on its head). We have the side nobody likes getting lucky in enough of those discrepencies, which happens.

Now for the important question: How much does it really matter?

Impeachment is too big a ramification for them to do it to George Bush. Not with a case they'r enot guaranteed to win anyway. We have what amounts to stated coincidences in place with these discrepencies: "Hey look at a couple of discrepencies in Ohio....now look who ran the election in Ohio...OMGWTFPWN!!" You have an accusation against the pentagon regarding mailed ballots, when we dont know if the server going down was an error or if it was on purpose, its merely implied. Theres a list of other things in there that I don't feel like going into in this post.

Here's the crux: BUSH CAN'T RUN AGAIN!

Sorry...couldn't help myself. Continue venting hot air if you wish.

[Octavius Valorius]

[QUOTE=Gaidin]Here's the crux: BUSH CAN'T RUN AGAIN!


Cheers to that, man. I can't wait until 2008! Hilary's got my vote(if I was old enough)! Unless he passes a law where he has more than two terms, we MIGHT be okay...