Posted on 12/18/2004 2:19:24 AM PST by JosefK
"Thune challenged the Indian votes when he ran against Johnson"
Why should he in South Dakota?
"PEOPLE ARE STUPID!"
Bugs are smart and vote democrat!
Insect disenfranchisement! :^)
Don't confuse Rats with facts.
What is a "no-see-um"?
Totalitarians never do.
I dunno...
Because the Dems stuffed the ballots on the reservations. There were all kinds of voting irregularities and had only one of them been proven . . . Thune would have won. But Thune refused to challenge the election . . . which only proves all good things come to those who wait because Tiny Tommy Dasshole is now unemployed.
Pubbies simply don't whine like Democraps. Nixon didn't raise hell in 1960 when Papa Joe Kennedy stole the election in Chicago. But Al Gore couldn't wait to put his country through hell.
Democraps know they can't win through fair elections . . . that's why they're trying to pack the court systems with Liberal law-makers instead of law-deciders -- they know the voting process is slowly but surely leaving them behind so they have to find another avenue to try to force their agenda down our throats.
You're a bit overblown. Tell you what - read http://www.timothygoddard.com/blog/index.php?p=774 if you can. Good piece of talking points...
Yeah, well UKRAINE 5 (f.k.a. KING 5) is hosting ALL the Democrat documents at http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_121804ELBrecountEL.20b07863.html
That's fine, but where are the Rossifarians' documents?
Oh, that's right - they're at http://pullonsupermanscape.typepad.com/pull_on_supermans_cape/2004/12/wa_governors_ra_12.html instead of posted at a mainstream media website...
PLEASE!
What is this crap?
God, I hate unions.
LOL. "Overblown?" For a newbie . . . you've sure got some gonads.
I didn't bother reading your "talking points." You obviously didn't read my posting. Instead of lecturing me, perhaps you'd prefer to debate my claims.
Are you denying there were voting irregularities on the South Dakota Indian reservations in the 2002 elections? I'll give you some reading material you'd best check out before you try and make that argument.
I quote from the link . . . "Denise Red Horse, who died in a Sept. 3 car crash, somehow managed to apply for an absentee ballot on Sept. 21--in two different counties." Do you think this dead guy voted for Thune? Twice.
In my second paragraph I stated Nixon didn't contest the close election in 1960, yet Gore did in 2000. Do you disagree with that?
In my third paragraph I said the Democraps are trying to stack the courts with Activist Judges. Again . . . are you disagreeing with that?
I might, in fact, be "overblown" but at least I try to debate someone about what it is they've said or written and not call them names or argue points they've never brought up.
I could give a Tinker's damn about what happens in Washington . . . but it'll always be my contention that Democrapic Whiners far outnumber the Pubbie ones. Do you have any facts to dispute that?
By the way . . . I do sincerely welcome you to Free Republic but you would do well to avoid anything personal.
Okay, I concede.
Whenever there is voter fraud, I think there is an automatic case to contest the election. That's what Thune should have done, methinks.
Gregoire has not even alleged voter fraud, oddly enough. . .
Yeah, well EFF will reply on Monday - that is for sure...
I was an election official in a union election back in the 70's. It was the first total mail-in election in our local.
To avoid controversy, we requested the US Dept. of Labor to oversee the entire election.
As both sides trusted me, I was the "official" ballot reader. As the vote was very one-sided, I made a few mistakes.(It's hard to say "Jones" ten times in a row, then switch to "Smith") They were immediately caught and corrected. Those poll watchers looking over my shoulder were not going to let anything get by. I welcomed their presence as this assured that no one could accuse me of anything.
The point is, with all the legal controls in place, a hand count is as accurate as any machine, and it is out in the open where everyone can see it. Also, done at the precinct level, it would not take an inordinate amount of time.
A machine (computer) is only as honest as the person who programmed it. I'm no expert, but I bet it could be programmed to add (or subtract) a vote or two at some specific interval.
A machine (computer) is only as honest as the person who programmed it. I'm no expert, but I bet it could be programmed to add (or subtract) a vote or two at some specific interval.
I think we are somewhat in agreement, but I'd go even furthur in the hand count description: not only it "can be" the cleanest, but It most 99.99% is the cleanest. The issue I have is that in the .01%, it can be downright NOT clean, especially in re-counts and re-re-counts. When you see machine count results, count after count, they are each mostly the same (differences being slight degradation of the ballots, and perhaps humans changing/adding to the pool). On the other hand, re-counts and re-re-recounts both human and machine, while on the up and up 99% of the time, will be tweaked (and especially in close elections where tweaking is most effective) by a few, a very few, but crucial, bad [human] apples.
So, I don't doubt your hand-counting experiences. However, I as now currently having a somewhat analagous experience on the computer integrity side. As a software consultant working on an FAA certified piece of avionics, I am getting a glimpse into the controls and restrictions and focus on every line of code going into an embedded computer aboard an aircraft. Of course it can fail, but the safeguards to minimize are VERY extensive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.