• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rigged ***2008*** Elections

WildCat said:
Always hated Fosters, even the imported stuff before they started brewing it domestically. Heineken is also brewed domestically now btw.

At any rate, I always found Foster's too sweet with a bad aftertaste.

And there's plenty of great beers brewed in America by the many different microbreweries. I'm still pissed off that Bell's is no longer distributed in Illinois, stupid beer distributuon monopolies. :mad: At least there's still Sierra Nevada, the Celebration Ale's will hit the stores shortly. My favorite beer period, imported or domestic.
Click to expand...

But... You have Fat Tire in Chicago.:eek:
 
Father Dagon said:
No, but the mere possibility that you can hack into an electronic voting machine is a cause for grave, really grave concern.
Click to expand...
This is such an idiotic argument. Why the hell is there such grave concern for electronic voting machines when the other machines have just as high of a chance for failure. Electronic, paper, and mechanical all have an equal chance of being [Rule 10]ed up and screwed around with.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
This is such an idiotic argument. Why the hell is there such grave concern for electronic voting machines when the other machines have just as high of a chance for failure. Electronic, paper, and mechanical all have an equal chance of being [Rule 10]ed up and screwed around with.
Click to expand...

It is more difficult to manipulate multiple paper ballots than change the code within a machine.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have the paper ballots to count by hand if there is a dispute.
Click to expand...
but thats only if a discrepancy is noticed AND a hand recount is approved, otherwise the counting machine is just as susceptible as as an electronic voting machine

maybe we should always count all paper ballots by hand, just to make sure no one can even try anything?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
but thats only if a discrepancy is noticed AND a hand recount is approved, otherwise the counting machine is just as susceptible as as an electronic voting machine

maybe we should always count all paper ballots by hand, just to make sure no one can even try anything?
Click to expand...

I am arguing for continuing with the current safeguards. I am not arguing that having paper ballots negates cheating.

You seem to be arguing that the opportunity and ease of cheating is equal with and without paper ballots. Is this true?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am arguing for continuing with the current safeguards. I am not arguing that having paper ballots negates cheating.

You seem to be arguing that the opportunity and ease of cheating is equal with and without paper ballots. Is this true?
Click to expand...
Yes in fact if done correctly Im 100% positive that a computer would be more reliable than counting ballots by hand. In fact it's probably easier to destroy paper ballots than to tamper with a computer if it's done corretly.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am arguing for continuing with the current safeguards. I am not arguing that having paper ballots negates cheating.

You seem to be arguing that the opportunity and ease of cheating is equal with and without paper ballots. Is this true?
Click to expand...
i would say they are about equal

certainly you cant hack the actual paper ballot itself, but you can destroy it, or simply not feed it through the machine, or otherwise simply not count it, the opportunities might not be available to the same people as with a electronic voting machine, but there are still plenty of opportunities
 
As far as I know, ballot counting is done by large groups of people from the whole mainstream political spectrum. People that has all the reason to be vigilant against foul play and keeping their own noses clean.
 
Father Dagon said:
As far as I know, ballot counting is done by large groups of people from the whole mainstream political spectrum. People that has all the reason to be vigilant against foul play and keeping their own noses clean.
Click to expand...
True but as Jerome inadvertently pointed they can screw up. Recounts of multiple counties showed that Nixon actually received too many votes in some counties.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
amazing how many non-citizens feel the need to pipe up on the US elections...
Click to expand...
Have no fear, this Canadian will offer no opinion on the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. It's your mess, you deal with it. :D

Okay, joking aside, I will follow the U.S. election to the extent of wanting to know where the two candidates will stand on U.S.-Canadian relations, trade, and the current irritants that exist between the two countries.

I would say that in terms of the process I do find the American system, well, a bit crazy. But then I expect plenty of Americans would find the Canadian system a bit crazy.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Have no fear, this Canadian will offer no opinion on the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. It's your mess, you deal with it. :D

Okay, joking aside, I will follow the U.S. election to the extent of wanting to know where the two candidates will stand on U.S.-Canadian relations, trade, and the current irritants that exist between the two countries.

I would say that in terms of the process I do find the American system, well, a bit crazy. But then I expect plenty of Americans would find the Canadian system a bit crazy.
Click to expand...


I would say that the American election system is ******* straightway
stupid. One big smokescreen. Completely undemocratic with all the
dimwitted rules like having to register to a party like in some states.

Then there is this stupid Idea that you need Delegates for a candidate
to get nominated, then the candidate has to raise money (WTF?), then
it's not you as a citizen who's vote counts, it's the Electors vote that
goes to the candidate. Then if the Media doesn't like you, you can forget
about any coverage on your behalf. And only one candidate for the
Presidency for each party will be in the final round - if you like him or not.

And third parties are pretty much ignored.

And then there is the voting machines issue.

Sorry - this is no election-procedure, it's the stupidest thing
I ever heard of. No wonder that idiots get elected all the time. Nothing
from the above has something to do with democracy. But hey, let's
just name it Democrazy. This way the whole thing makes sense... :boggled:


ETA: I take that back. Creationism is the stupidest thing I ever heard of... :)
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
I would say that the American election system is ******* straightway
stupid. One big smokescreen. Completely undemocratic with all the
dimwitted rules like having to register to a party like in some states.

Then there is this stupid Idea that you need Delegates for a candidate
to get nominated, then the candidate has to raise money (WTF?), then
it's not you as a citizen who's vote counts, it's the Electors vote that
goes to the candidate. Then if the Media doesn't like you, you can forget
about any coverage on your behalf. And only one candidate for the
Presidency for each party will be in the final round - if you like him or not.

And third parties are pretty much ignored.

And then there is the voting machines issue.

Sorry - this is no election-procedure, it's the stupidest thing
I ever heard of. No wonder that idiots get elected all the time. Nothing
from the above has something to do with democracy. But hey, let's
just name it Democrazy. This way the whole thing makes sense... :boggled:
Click to expand...

So, basically, there's no conspiracy to deliberately rig the election, just a poorly designed mechanism for electing people.

In which case this thread belongs in Politics not Conspiracy Theories.

"The system is screwed up" and "people are incompetent" are not conspiracies, not suspicious, and not unusual.
 
1337m4n said:
So, basically, there's no conspiracy to deliberately rig the election, just a poorly designed mechanism for electing people.

In which case this thread belongs in Politics not Conspiracy Theories.

"The system is screwed up" and "people are incompetent" are not conspiracies, not suspicious, and not unusual.
Click to expand...

They are true though
 
Redtail said:
But... You have Fat Tire in Chicago.:eek:
Click to expand...
Fat Tire <<<<<< Sierra Nevada

And as a further insult to Colorado, the Bears made a spectacular comeback against the Broncos today! :cool:


eta: full disclosure, I'm on my 6th 2006 Celebration Ale (left over from last year) as I type this...
 
Last edited:
There are enouigh anomolies to cast doubt on whether or not the electronic devices work, or can be trusted. Like precincts where nearly everyone voted for things like Port Commisioners, but as many as ten percent did not vote for a congressman or president. Take the machines that recorded those votes apart and decompilel and forenscily examine their software, and proprietory secrets be damned.

The machines that recorded our vote were always owned by the people, not by a corporation when I was young. TRhere is no reason for that not to be so now. Nor did the corporations who made the machines have the sole right to know how they worked, and the sole right to calibrate them and record the data. There is no excuse for that now. Corporations have no right to own our voting system. This is an affront to all that it means to live in a free society. Should a coprporation decide that they will, by hook or crook, decide who will be the next president, there is no way to stop them if their software cannot be examined.

The gubenatorial election in Washington in 2004 was almost given to a snivelling little Republican punk who fought tooth and nail to prevent a hand recount. Seems a lot of ballots double-fed going through the counting machine. Additionally, a few ballots got shoved aside without being counted the first time through.

A machine does not care whether there is a discrepancy. A human does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom