How to Rig an election, part 2

[Paradise]

"Semi-clever, ultra-wealthy Bush supporters suddenly donating piles of money to the Nader campaign in an obvious attempt to steal votes from John Kerry? Pshaw. Ptooey. Child's play. Tip of the iceberg. A mere distraction.
We ain't seen nuthin' yet.

This is the time of desperation and anxiety. This is the time of hysterical Orange Alerts and imminent al Qaeda attacks coming from outta nowhere at any minute and violating our children and kicking our puppies and badly denting our Honda Accords. And, yes, this is the time of election-year political tactics coming from the increasingly anxious Right that will make Sun Tzu's "Art of War" look like a cupcake cookbook."


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/21/notes072104.DTL&nl=fix

******************************

Looks like the RIGHT will go to vast extremes to retain power. After 2000, are you ready for another rigged election?

 

[Jimbo]

I see you're getting those excuses set up over 3 months ahead of time. That's encouraging!

 

[GaryAdams]

ok, im going to go real slow here so you understand.
did any of you libs ever realize if Gore would have carried his own state(I.E. Tennessee,the state he was a senator from before he became the VP)
he would have won the election!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

funny isnt it? the state he was from didnt even elect him.

now lets get to the part about Nadar,did you know that poor ralph didnt get 1 electoral vote?
ralph wasnt even on the ballot in 3 states.
if Gore had carried those 3 states he would have won!!!!!!!!!!!
heres another good 1, lol
Arkansas has 6 electoral votes,the home of wild bill clinton!!!!!!!!
if Gore would have taken Arkansas he would have won!!!!!!!!!!

Please for the love of God do some research and find out the REAL facts!!!!!!!!!!
Ralph Nadar DIDNT COST THE DEMS THE ELECTION 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ralph Nadar ISNT GOING TO COST THE DEMS THE ELECTION IN 2004!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont use a 3rd party candidate who wont get a single electorial vote as your excuse if you lose!!!!!!!!!!!!

again to keep things simple, if you dont like how the elections are decided,vote for a candidate who wants to change it!!!!!!!!!

here are 2 good links to help people out, the first is the totals from the 2000 election,and the 2nd is about the electoral college.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

on the 2nd link, please pay close attention to the elections of 1824,and 1888,both came down to the electoral college vote and not the popular vote.

guess 2000 wasnt the first huh?

 

[Bobbles]

A good thing Jeb Bush, President Bush's brother was the governor of Florida huh?
And not all those who will not vote for President Bush are libs!
I know I'm not.

 

[bsears]

GaryAdams said

ok, im going to go real slow here so you understand.

For someone who is so much better informed than the rest of us that you have to explain things laboriously and patiently to the slow witted , I am truly surprised that in all your fact gathering and attainment of such superior wisdom you never actually learned how to spell Nader's name. It does make one wonder how many other important details might have escaped your notice in all your extensive research? In fact it begs the question, who are you to look down from on high and tell others they are not informed enough to interpret information correctly?

 

[bsears]

PS

Allow me to challenge the naive assertion that winning no electoral votes means having no influence on the outcome of an election.

Suppose you have a class of 100 students, and it is time to elect a class president. At the conclusion of the election anyone who gets more than 10 votes is automatically given a seat on the student council.

Candidate A gets 46 votes
Candidate B gets 45 votes
Candidate C gets 9 votes.

Candidate C does not even get a seat on the student council, but that hardly means he had no effect on the outcome. Obviously, had there only been two candidates, those nine votes could have changed the outcome.

To say that Nader had no effect on the outcome is obviously wrong.

 

[faithinkarma]

If everything is above board then why are these games being played? I just do not get it. If there is a logical reason for this other than the dreaded conspiracy theory ( which I don't subscribe to ), can someone please explain this to me? It sounds to me like Florida had to be taken to court to force them to force them to follow the law and give people the required paperwork. And once the court said they had to do this, Florida quickly changed the rules. The state claims it is streamlining the process by cutting down the paperwork. But how can anyone believe that having a hearing on each individual case can generate less paperwork than a one page application form?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9220185.htm



Ex-felons face new twist in voting

Gov. Jeb Bush has decided to eliminate paper applications for felons seeking to recover their civil rights, and attorneys assert that the move will thwart thousands of potential voters.

BY DEBBIE CENZIPER AND JASON GROTTO

dcenziper@herald.com


Days after a Florida appeals court demanded that the state provide more help to felons who want their right to vote restored, Gov. Jeb Bush introduced a new policy that civil rights advocates say circumvents the will of the court and threatens to exclude tens of thousands of potential voters.

Last week, the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee unanimously ruled that state prison officials must follow the law and provide newly released felons the necessary paperwork and assistance to get their full civil rights back.

That would include a one-page application for a formal hearing before the Florida Clemency Board -- the only way an estimated 85 percent of felons will ever get their rights restored.

But instead of providing the application, Bush decided to scrap it altogether. On Wednesday, he announced that felons will now have to contact the Office of Executive Clemency when and if they want to apply for a hearing to have their rights restored.

Bush argues that the policy reduces paperwork and, therefore, provides the ease and assistance demanded by the court.

Civil rights advocates say the decision will disfranchise thousands of people in a state where more than 400,000 are already banned from voting.

Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute sued the state in 2001, saying the Department of Corrections for years violated the law by not helping felons to make civil rights applications. The Department has made changes since then but still refuses to provide to outgoing inmates the one-page application needed for a hearing.

Civil rights groups took the state to court to change the policy. Last week, they declared victory. On Wednesday, they cried foul.

`CLEVER TACTIC'

''You have to hand it to the governor. It's a very clever legal tactic and even more clever propaganda,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU in Florida. ``It's done under the guise of trying to simplify the process and eliminate paperwork, but it just shows his true character. It's completely disingenuous.''

BUSH'S RATIONALE

Bush and his staff, however, say eliminating the application and requesting that felons call to request hearings simplifies the state's clemency system and ensures that the agencies overseeing the process won't be bogged down by paperwork.

''The bottom line is, this will streamline the process,'' said the governor's spokesman, Jacob DiPietre. ``Once felons are notified that they don't qualify for restoration without a hearing, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call, send a letter or e-mail a request for a hearing.''

Florida is one of just six states that permanently strip felons of the right to vote. The Florida Clemency Board -- composed of the governor and the Cabinet -- can reinstate a felon's right to vote.

There are two ways for ex-felons to get their rights restored. Depending on their past crimes and other factors, they may qualify for restoration through a paperless process without a hearing. Those rejected from that process must go through a more complicated investigation and hearing before the governor and his Cabinet.

STATE'S ARGUMENT

The state had argued that the Department of Corrections fulfilled its legal obligation by electronically submitting the names of newly released felons for consideration in the paperless process.

But civil rights advocates countered that the Department didn't go far enough, because an overwhelming majority of felons are rejected from that process. To get their rights back, they must apply for hearings.

Bush, however, has repeatedly refused to provide the one-page application to felons before they leave custody.

Randall Berg, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute, argued that if an application for a hearing was already on file, more people would be ready and waiting for consideration.

''I think the governor thumbed his nose at the court order and showed disrespect for the rule of law,'' he said.

 

[RNMOM]

I am confused about something. It is a right as an American citizen to vote in the national election so how can certain states arbitrarily take that away? I could understand the right to vote on state and local issues but is this within their jurisdiction?

 

[ElizK]

I might be wrong about this (and I'm sure someone will let me know if I am), but I thought convicted felons lose their right to vote. Am I mistaken?

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by ElizK
I might be wrong about this (and I'm sure someone will let me know if I am), but I thought convicted felons lose their right to vote. Am I mistaken?

No, you are correct. They do lose it in Florida and a few other states. However, in Florida at least:

There are two ways for ex-felons to get their rights restored. Depending on their past crimes and other factors, they may qualify for restoration through a paperless process without a hearing.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by RNMOM
I am confused about something. It is a right as an American citizen to vote in the national election so how can certain states arbitrarily take that away? I could understand the right to vote on state and local issues but is this within their jurisdiction?

There really is no such thing as a "national election". The President is elected by the individual states, via the electoral college, and so it is the states which set down most voting requirements.

 

[Chicago526]

GaryAdams,

Nader didn't need to win a single electoral vote to change the out come of the race.

Let's say the state of FL has 100 people who can vote.

Bush 45 votes
Gore 44 votes
Nader 11 votes

If all of the people who voted for Nader, would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot, then Gore would have won the state of FL 55 (44 plus 11) to 45, not Bush.

Now it is by no means certain that all the Nader voters would have in fact voted for Gore. They may have picked Bush, voted for a write in, or stayed home. But even if 5 of the Nader voters stayed home or voted for a write in, and the remaining six voted for Gore, Gore would still have won 50 (6 plus 44) to 45.

The potential for Gore to win if Nader hadn't been on the ballot cannot be ignored.

 

[GaryAdams]

lets try this again.
Gore didnt even win his home state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats 11 electoral votes. All he had to do is win his home state.
funny how most of you are overlooking that little tidbit of info.
cry Florida all you want,if Gore would have won his home state,he would have been president.
stop looking for excuses.

 

[Chicago526]

True, he did lose his home state, I won't deny that.

But in the eight years that Gore was VP, TN changed from a good mix of Reps and Dems, to mostly Reps and a lot fewer Dems. Since Reps tend to vote for Reps, he lost the state. Happens to the best of 'em!

And the electoral college was so close, that a lot of states could have tiped the balance, not just TN.

Oh, and Gore did get the most votes nation wide, a fact many Republicans like to ignore...but since our Founding Fathers didn't trust the un-educated masses, we're stuck with the electoral system.

 

[faithinkarma]

Whether or not Gore won his home state is a separate issue. Yes, he would have won the election if he had won his home state. But the picture would also change if you eliminated Nader from the equation. That is just simple math. Ignore it if you will, it remains a fact.

 

[GaryAdams]

Chicago526,you are also right, Gore did win the popular vote.
i wont deny that.

but i think our founding fathers set up a system that allows even the smallest states a voice in who is elected president.

like i said in my first post,if you dont like how the elections are decided,vote for a candidate who wants to change it.

if you get a chance read through the 2nd link i provided,it goes into great detail as to why the electoral college is set up the way it is.

it even gives pros,and cons for the system.

FIK, perhaps you would like to ignore the simple math that in 3 states Ralph wasnt even on the ballot,if Gore would have carried those he would have won.
when it comes down to it, Gore only had to win either OK,or NC.both states have enough votes to swing the outcome.

heres some more simply math for yea FIK,

total population over 18 who can vote. 197,735,000



total amount of people who voted for the 3 main
candidates. 104,338,854


stop blaming the people who did vote, blame the almost 40% of the people who didnt vote in the election.
perhaps if Gore would have gotten a few more people out to vote for him he wouldnt have lost.


Ignore it if you will, it remains a fact.

 

[shrubber]

The latest CNN poll
'
The presidential race appeared to be a dead heat among likely voters in this week's poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday.

Almost half of likely voters, 49 percent, favored Kerry and 47 percent supported Bush. The difference was well within the margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

With independent Ralph Nader thrown into the mix, 47 percent favored Kerry, 46 percent Bush and 4 percent Nader.'

 

[faithinkarma]

What you are failing to recognize is that losing Tenn was not the only cause of losing the election. One might as well say he lost because of any of the other states he lost. And had Nader not been in the race, he might have won one of the states he lost. I am sorry, I just simply do not see any logic to your argument at all.

And I am not blaming anyone for his loss. I am simply disputing your contention that Nader had no effect on the outcome. There are only so many votes. If votes that might have gone to either of the two main candidates go to a third candidate, the outcome is affected.

With independent Ralph Nader thrown into the mix, 47 percent favored Kerry, 46 percent Bush and 4 percent Nader

How can anyone think that if Nader dropped out it would not affect the outcome?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/108816503613780.xml

 

[sha_lyn]

Originally posted by Bobbles
A good thing Jeb Bush, President Bush's brother was the governor of Florida huh?
And not all those who will not vote for President Bush are libs!
I know I'm not.

It is good that the people of Fl Voted for GW Bush. Face it, the media sponsored 4 different recounts of the votes. In 3 of the 4 Bush would have won.

 

[GaryAdams]

Heres some logic for yea.
how do you know the people who voted for Ralph would have voted for Gore?
FIK, once again some simple math for you,


total population over 18 who can vote. 197,735,000



total amount of people who voted for the 3 main
candidates. 104,338,854

perhaps if some of those 90 million people who chose not to vote had voted it may have been different.
90 million people,all Gore would have needed is 1 % of that total to change the outcome in a few states.

dont use the people who voted as an excuse.

btw,im not saying everything was decided by TN. i just using that state as 1 example.
I have also used 3 other states where Ralph wasnt even on the ballot.
funny how in those 3 states Bush
still won.

What you fail to reconize is that Ralph didnt make a difference.
the sad part is, no 3rd party candidate will make a difference in elections these days.
thats just how election system is set up.

i go back to my OP,

if you dont like how the elections are decided,vote for a candidate who wants to change it!!!!!!!!!