> Too many voting ’irregularities’ to be coincidence
7 November 2004, 15:30
I disagree
1. The Right has never admitted a defeat, I listened to enough of Limbaugh and other Right Wingers during the Clinton years to know that. Is it sleaze? Yes. Is it necessary for the base? Yes. Is our base different from theirs? *shrug*
2. Your mindset, in all honestly, precludes facing the possibility of real fraud. I guarded a poll in Cleveland, together with a fine young attorney from NY. We saved, in one way or another, 3 votes — at one small polling location. To save one of them, she had to take the woman in question and drive to Election HQ. We saw no actual fraud at our location. Does that mean that I should discount the possibility of fraud at other locations? Not if I’m a thinking person. Had we not been there, three people would not have voted — and that was on the antiquated punch card ballots.
3. Statistical analysis strongly indicates that fraud is more likely than a genuine win. While it is easier to say "oh, we lost, we should give up." that accomplishes nothing if in fact this is a case of fraud. As for Nixon and Thune — I don’t believe that either one was any more, or as much — indicative of fraud as 2000 and this present election are — and I do not think that the progressive cause would have been better served by having them win. Please explain your reasoning.
Of course I admit, I’m not a "progressive," I’m an old fashioned f**ing liberal leftist, thank you.
I disagree
1. The Right has never admitted a defeat, I listened to enough of Limbaugh and other Right Wingers during the Clinton years to know that. Is it sleaze? Yes. Is it necessary for the base? Yes. Is our base different from theirs? *shrug*
2. Your mindset, in all honestly, precludes facing the possibility of real fraud. I guarded a poll in Cleveland, together with a fine young attorney from NY. We saved, in one way or another, 3 votes — at one small polling location. To save one of them, she had to take the woman in question and drive to Election HQ. We saw no actual fraud at our location. Does that mean that I should discount the possibility of fraud at other locations? Not if I’m a thinking person. Had we not been there, three people would not have voted — and that was on the antiquated punch card ballots.
3. Statistical analysis strongly indicates that fraud is more likely than a genuine win. While it is easier to say "oh, we lost, we should give up." that accomplishes nothing if in fact this is a case of fraud. As for Nixon and Thune — I don’t believe that either one was any more, or as much — indicative of fraud as 2000 and this present election are — and I do not think that the progressive cause would have been better served by having them win. Please explain your reasoning.
Of course I admit, I’m not a "progressive," I’m an old fashioned f**ing liberal leftist, thank you.
Regards,
Reynolds Jones
Schenectady, NY