http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

At least, that's the opinion of a quite famous Democrat, and all the overwhelming evidence he brings up.

A snippet:


According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ''As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' he says, ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

man voting isnt safe. they'll move to vcomputers and nerds will hack the system and make Nader President.

man voting isnt safe. they'll move to vcomputers and nerds will hack the system and make Nader President.

I don't see an easy way out of reforming the system, either, short of making the process a public display, which will never happen.

man voting isnt safe. they'll move to vcomputers and nerds will hack the system and make Nader President.

I don't see an easy way out of reforming the system, either, short of making the process a public displaym which will never happen.
well you cant fix it. the government has taken the 2 party system to a warfare level. Its "by any means possible" now. the politicians have made their followers just as currupt and full of shit as themselves. back in the day, if you wanted to rig the system there was a level headed boyscout in your way. now if your party runs the state, they rig it for you w/o you even having to send your goons.

last election young republicans volunteered(for free) to harrass voters and give them a hard time at the polls. feeling that they were protecting their values in the process. but the truth is they were hurting their right to have their own values.

man voting isnt safe. they'll move to vcomputers and nerds will hack the system and make Nader President.

I don't see an easy way out of reforming the system, either, short of making the process a public display, which will never happen.

Here in Oregon, all of our ballots are mailed to us and it's all on paper. Nothing's computerized.

If there were a conforming national system of paper ballots, IMO shit like this wouldn't happen every fucking election.

I'm not nec. saying the election was stolen, but here's some links if people are interested.

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

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm

Ballots would be stolen out of mailboxes instead.

Heck, even if you force everyone to vote, a couple % will engage in "donkey voting", voting for items on the ballot at random. (Well, as random as humans get, which means voting for items at the top of the ballot and easiest to vote for -- makes alphabetical sorting a battleground). For any sufficiently close elections, there's enough margin for error where "will of the people" -cannot- be accurately gauged.

A computer can certainly help augment the voting process, assuming that the voting data collection isn't hosed (broken touchpads, scanners, 3133t hax0rs, etc.). This is just another symptom of identity theft and "national ID card system" debates going on over the world. What's the "most right" balances between privacy, security, integrity, and responsbility? Why can't you assign a name to a child and guarantee that it'll be unique worldwide?

Applied to voting, would you want your entire voting history in a publically accessible database to guarantee its accuracy relative to your intent? If not publically accessible, to whom would you restrict access to and how? How would you deal with the problem where what you see in the database does not correspond with what you did, especially when such data might already have been spread around into other databases?