Who would you vote for?

brianct

States with electronic voting machines gave Bush mysterious 5% advantage; bloggers do the math that broadcast networks fail to follow

Is Bush trying to pull a fast one? It's not fooling bloggers over at DemocraticUnderground.com, who have put together some fascinating numbers showing that a mysterious "5% advantage" goes to Bush only in those states using electronic voting machines. Or, put another way, all the exit polls showed Kerry winning, and the exit polls asked people who they actually voted for. But strangely, the "official" count appears to have been boosted in favor of Bush.
How was it boosted? Read up at BlackBoxVoting.org to learn how electronic voting machines can easily be hacked. And since there's no paper trail -- are we insane? -- there's no record of how the votes were actually cast.

Another burning question is surfacing: if this was such a record turnaround, with long lines all over the country, where did all the votes go? Because the vote totals don't show much of a difference from the 2000 election. It's as if a few million votes just vanished...

Just to make things even more frustrating for Democratics, the e-voting machines have no way to offer a meaningful recount of votes. As this WIRED article explains, the machines leave no paper trail. The votes are recorded as mere bits and bytes, meaning there's really no way to tell how the people actually voted in the first place. (Only in America could we decide our national elections with the aid of voting machines that leave no paper trail.)

Developing...

Overview:

An analysis of exit polling, which showed Kerry with a tighter margin and leading in myriad states, raises serious questions about the authenticity of the popular vote in several key states, RAW STORY has learned.

The analysis, conducted by a poster at the popular Democratic forum, Democratic Underground, suggests possible voter fraud in states that do not have electronic voting receipts.

An exit poll involves asking someone after they walk out of the election booth who they voted for.

Exit polls were recently used in Venezuela to ensure the vote was accurate and legitimate.

Perhaps more importantly, while exit polling is unreliable, the odds of President Bush having gaining an advantage from every exit poll in swing states is an extremely improbable coincidence.

Actual voting counts found that Bush trailed by 5 percent, with a 5 percent discrepancy favoring Bush.

Source: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388
http://www.newstarget.com/002076.html

koreankim

You voter fraud story is pure crappola...

Baldy

conspiracy theories abound ....

brianct

but just examine the evidence. Theres lots more
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

begreen9

Bush is just a bad figurehead. Cheney is the one to worry about. The thought that this bunch of chickenhawks are better protectors in a war is a farce. They created the damn war in Iraq based on ludicrous pretenses and have bumbled, conived, lied and stolen every step of the way. This isn't leadership. It's theft and our grandchildren will still be paying for the transgressions of this administration.

Bush won on fear alone, in spite of the fact that terror just isn't happening in the US. In spite of the fact that most people couldn't find Iraq (or India) on a map if their life depended on it. Much of what is happening in the middle-east is in direct response to the Bush administration's policies. I fear the US govt. much more than any threat of terrorism.

Ruprecht

Me too. It's funny that Brian posted a whole load of evidence and sites and reasoning, and he got these two replies: "pure crappola" and "conspiracy theories". Nicely discounted; just ignore it and maybe it will go away! (Not).

__________________
Travelling Across Juridical Borders.

oldhippie

Wow Brian..You must have a lot of time on your hands.

__________________
Too Many Gandus, Too Few Bullets.

beach

This whole fierce debate about Democrats and the Republicans, whether Bush or Kerry is better, it's like being asked to choose a detergent. Whether you choose Tide or Ivory Snow, they are both owned by Procter & Gamble
----Arundhati Roy

Digital Drifter

Being Indian, who I'd vote for is irrelevant but I was struck by one
thing. How closely this resembled Indira Gandhi's election in terms
of electioneering. In India, it's called 'vote-bank' politics, the
naked buying of votes by promising stuff to different communities.
She did it first with the Sikhs, muslims and whoever represented a
sizeable 'buyable' group. Bush did the same, section by section of
society made rabid by keying them up on code words of abortion, school
prayer, gays, religion, fear and war mongering. You can win by
pressing the right buttons even on liberals. Intellect has and will
always have less value when you have religion, more so in politics.

Like her, he'll reap what he sows whether for good or bad, I cannot
say.

It is 'The Day the Enlightenment Went Out '
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04wills.html

When 52% of the voting age population decided to voluntarily step in
to the shadows of ignorance, there's very little the 48% can do but
watch 'democracy' in action.

Reason lost, religion won. And that is the scary thing. Not George
Bush.

hanu-man

so must you old hippie!! at least it stops me blaming all americans. My favourite comment (from some liumey journo) ....when my mother read mein kanpf in the 30s she said can,t they see where this is leading.

__________________
he who puts his hand on me to govern me is a usurper & tyrant and I declare him my enemy

tadka

....and to be more specific, it wasn't just 'religion' which won Bush the election in amerika, it was the religion of evangelical christians.

the neo-cons co-opted this constituency and played their primitive fears like a fiddle: humanism! homos! arabs! abortion!

it was/is easy to do this, as the evangelicals are already prone to random, irrational beliefs....

iyers

India is the only country stupidly talking about secularism.

In America, both Democrats and Republicans openly praise Jesus, and profess their Christian identity, and swear on the Bible.

Indians need to more openly assert their Hindu Identity.

Ruprecht

Er.... why?

iyers

Because India is not a western lackey, and needs to defend it's heritage from hateful people like Pat Robertson and extremists of his kind who have a hidden global agenda to dominate the world and create cultural and religious slaves.

Ruprecht

India doesn't need to become a fanatical nation in order to protect its heritage. And what's wrong with the West, anyway?