How Bush plans to steal the 2004 election

[Berzerker]

Someone is going to crackdown on Chicago? Awesome!

Didn't Bush lose Illinois? Nixon did by a very small margin but was big enough to not demand recounts in only those counties where he did the best. What does that say about Gore?

chegitz -

The fact that Gore's people's response was less than what one would hope for in a supposed champion of democracy in no way negates the fact that the Bush team stole Florida.

Hmm...Bush stole the election but Gore was merely less than one would hope for?

The problem is, neither side considers what the electorate wants to be important. Only winning is important, and by any means necessary. If it tramples over our rights, rights people fought and died to obtain and protect, well, **** us. We're just plebs anyway. What are we gonna do about it? Revolt?

Can't disagree with that, but my question remains unanswered -
if Hegel has been stealing elections because of voting machines that will ensure Bush's re-election, why was the 2000 election so close?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Theben
If the Dems can find a viable candidate, Bush will lose.

and if the queen had balls she'd be king.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dinodoc:

Kennedy's a democrat, so he must be absolved of voter fraud.

[Berzerker]

In which election did Chicago tip the balance? Please don't say Kennedy, 1960, since Chicago didn't tip the state of Illinois. The margin was wide enough that had there been no fraud in Chicago, Kennedy still would have won.

Well now, how would you know Kennedy would have won without voter fraud? It was close enough for potential recounts... Are you saying voter fraud is somewhat acceptable if it doesn't result in a stolen election? Isn't it the intent that matters? And Chicago is just the most notorious place, not the only one...

[Sava]

Dude, do you have proof or are we supposed to just accept the nonsense coming from the Democrats?

There are enough books, essays, investigations, and news columns on the subject. Do your own research.

[Harry Seldon]

Dude, do you have proof or are we supposed to just accept the nonsense coming from the Democrats?

Gore won the popular votes. It was on TV. I'll see if I can find it if you insist. I also base my opinion on the fact that Bush tried everything in his power to stop recounts. I would assume that someone eager to participate in a democracy would welcome a chance to test the system and make it more open. He wasn't protecting the election process; he was protecting his election win.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara In which election did Chicago tip the balance? Please don't say Kennedy, 1960, since Chicago didn't tip the state of Illinois. The margin was wide enough that had there been no fraud in Chicago, Kennedy still would have won.

I call Bullshit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1015074.stm

Chicago mayor Richard Daley - the father of Al Gore's campaign manager, William Daley - famously told Kennedy late on election day: "With a little bit of luck, and the help of a few close friends, you're going to carry Illinois."

The turnout in Chicago was a staggering 89% - compared to the national figure of 62.8%.

And despite losing 93 of Illinois's 102 counties, Kennedy was eventually declared the winner by 8,858 votes.

[Berzerker]

Gore won the popular votes. It was on TV. I'll see if I can find it if you insist.

Harry, ever hear of the electoral process?

I also base my opinion on the fact that Bush tried everything in his power to stop recounts.

No, the first recount was required by Florida law and he was still ahead after that recount. Gore then asked for manual recounts in ~4 counties which just happened to constitute his base to observe the "intent" of voters by looking for "evidence" - hanging chads, dimples, etc. That's when the Bush crowd stepped in and they should have. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor and that's when the matter went to the SCOTUS and they correctly ruled that Gore and the Florida court was effectively violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution by treating voters differently - voters who left hanging chads, etc., in other parts of the state would not have their votes counted while the voters in those 4 counties would have their votes counted.

I would assume that someone eager to participate in a democracy would welcome a chance to test the system and make it more open. He wasn't protecting the election process; he was protecting his election win.

Actually, it was Bush and not Gore that was protecting the election process even though they obviously shared the desire to win...

[Berzerker]

The turnout in Chicago was a staggering 89% - compared to the national figure of 62.8%.

And despite losing 93 of Illinois's 102 counties, Kennedy was eventually declared the winner by 8,858 votes.

Thx Adam.

[Sava]

Harry, ever hear of the electoral process?

ahhh yes... it's a piece of ****... a compromise that is against the principles of Democracy.

[Berzerker]

Cool, Democracy sucks and you'd know that if the majority wanted to enslave your family.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Cool, Democracy sucks and you'd know that if the majority wanted to enslave your family.

the whole tyranny by majority thing is tiresome... it's funny how people cite tyranny by majority when things don't go there way, but then never hesitate to cite public support for something they agree with.

[Ben Kenobi]

How many votes did Illinois count for in the electoral college back in 1960?

[Sava]

69

[Harry Seldon]

Harry, ever hear of the electoral process?

Yes. Do you mean the electoral college?

No, the first recount was required by Florida law and he was still ahead after that recount. Gore then asked for manual recounts in ~4 counties which just happened to constitute his base to observe the "intent" of voters by looking for "evidence" - hanging chads, dimples, etc. That's when the Bush crowd stepped in and they should have. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor and that's when the matter went to the SCOTUS and they correctly ruled that Gore and the Florida court was effectively violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution by treating voters differently - voters who left hanging chads, etc., in other parts of the state would not have their votes counted while the voters in those 4 counties would have their votes counted.

But the recounts benefitted W as well, gaining both more votes in a bipartisan counting process. Only four counties were contested but all could have been. Gore chose those counties because they were traditional democratic strongholds. Why didn't Bush challenge with a complete recount? Instead, he chooses to demand the count stand regardless of any "lost" votes.

Actually, it was Bush and not Gore that was protecting the election process even though they obviously shared the desire to win...

Yep. Every vote counts; that's the democratic way, right? Unless it means you can lose the election.