You think they didn't? There were shouting crowds outside the Supreme Court if memory serves.

Why don't they demonstrate on the level we're seeing in Iran? Because most Americans have a (rather naive IMO) belief that, in general, elections are on the square, and if there is an issue with the ballot counts, it's error over fraud - and will be resolved through the process in either case.

I disagree with that Stratagos. I was terribly upset that Bush won, but I don't feel the election was stolen. Were there irregularities? Sure, there are every election in every country. Were there a bunch of stupid old ladies who voted for Nader when they meant to vote for Bush? Sure. But there wasn't intent there.

When you got down to examining chads hanging off punchcards and trying to determine whether there was a little indentation there, I was embarassed...

The election was contested, it went to the State Supreme Court, then the US Supreme Court. And while I wasn't happy with the outcome, I was happy with the process, as much as could be expected.

First, there were demonstrations in the 2000 election, there was also legal action. There was no violence. The issue then was also focused on 500 and some votes out of millions cast in Florida let alone the whole country. We also had another state where I think the vote divide was 8 (New Mexico maybe).
As someone who volunteers as an election clerk for the last 10+ years including the 2000 presidential election, I watch people voting and people processing and sorting and dealing with all the various things that go into paper ballots. Some mistakes can happen. The issue is the scope of things and the faith you have in the 'system'.
I find it very ironic that in Iran, a theocracy of sorts, that people have lost faith with their government system. Which, more than the results is what is going on there.
Here in America the scope of divide and the numbers involved in the 2000 election were so tight that brought it to focus. However, as a tribute to the American public and system, given what happened in 2000 and project it on other countries and there would be tanks in the street, blood in the gutters and the whole societies would unravel. Not that I particularly liked the result of the 2000 election or the Electoral College interface, but at the end of the day, we got through it in one piece.

DJ - there's a video out there that shows a chimp hacking into a diebold voting machine.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/2368.htm

Coupled with the following facts...

80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm

All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html

Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

...I'm not sure what else to say to someone who was "happy with the process"

It was stolen.

Disclaimer: The above was not meant to be an all encompassing proof for vote fraud. You should research it for yourself as there is much evidence that points in that direction.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Here in America, most people know that voting doesn't matter since both of the major parties are in total agreement on all the major issues. Getting worked up over an election just isn't worth the time or energy, because no matter who wins the outcome in terms of policy are basically the same (a hard truth many leftists have learned in the last six months).

In Iran, where there's obviously actual real debate and disagreement among the major candidates, whether one guy loses or wins can have a real impact on your life - so fighting for one outcome or another is worthwhile.

DJ, I don't think the 2000 election was stolen.

I *do*, however, think election fraud is much more prevalent in the states than many people realize

Darwyn,
Please send me all your links for the 9/11 Truth Movement, the swift Boat campaign, and all of Sicaruious other pet projects so I can file them away. Thanks.

I also agree with Tolstoy - everything is up to the two major parties, and they pretty much either agree with each other, or go so far outside what is considered "mainstream" that they get hammered. My vote, in those cases, doesn't mean diddly

@Submariner. Do you read the economist? I read that exact quote a few hours ago in the Economist's latest issue. It was relating to the US Census though.

DJ - I'll have my chimp write you a report that you may understand...but otherwise, did you make a point?

Darwyn,
Here are the links you gave:

1) http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/2368.htm
404 Page not found

2a)http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
2b)http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html

These are both in reference to the 2004 campaign, not the contested 2000 campaign.


3)http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
Please see http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~jasonl/vote_note.html for the rebuttal.


4)http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html

This is the same story as 3 above.

5) http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
Yes, there are always going to be voting irregularities in any election in any country regardless of voting method. You will always be able to come up with a long list of issues.


Thanks for playing.

Darwyn,
Why do you have this tendency to think people who don't agree with you are ignorant? We've gone through this before. "I'm not sure what else to say to someone who was "happy with the process"" How else am I supposed to take that other than you calling me ignorant? I've done my research and yes, I was happy with the process. Are there things that can be fixed? Sure. Was the election stolen? No. Can I sleep soundly at night? Yes.

Yes, this is in regard to the 2004 election, but really, what's the difference other than the thread topic specifically mentioning 2000? Vote fraud is vote fraud...especially a mere 4 years later in the same country with the same outcome.

Ah, must have forgotten the "l" at the end:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/2368.html

Your rebuttal only addresses Florida and neglects Ohio and NC studies.

"Thanks for playing."

Yep, I'm convinced. You sure you wouldn't rather use the equally condescending "Game. Set. Match"? Seems it would have suited you better.

"Why do you have this tendency to think people who don't agree with you are ignorant?"

My apologies for coming off that way...it's a bad habit. If you've done your research, then fine. Case closed.

I'm with Dingleberry here. There are a lot of problems with our elections but 2000 and 2004 were not stolen.

If Bush were going to steal the election, I think he would have done a better job of it. I mean, if you can rig voting machines why let yourself lose the popular vote?

@Invictus,

Because rigging elections in the United States has to be done county by county (or precinct by precinct if you can't afford to buy off the county election officials). Counties handle all the vote tabulations and report the results, which are then picked up and recorded by state officials and the national media. Every county with a fixed election requires conspirators, and the more conspirators there are the greater the likelihood of it failing or being exposed. Consequently, if you want to fix an election, you want to do it with as little effort as possible.

I have to agree with Tolstoy's earlier post, about both parties being exactly the same.

screw bush, he went to war with saddaam hussein! saddaam was the third anti christ and was going to start WWIII and it was gonna be asia and the mid east and north africa vs north europe america and eventually russia! it woulda been awseom :(

Since we're pseudo-voting:

1)
I spit fiery condemnation on anyone who claims that the two parties in the U.S. are 'pretty much the same'. I've always found this to be a ridiculous bit of apathy that one, makes no logical sense (there are countless resources you could find which point to countless differences in the ways the two parties would like to write our laws).. And two: this apathetic delusion about the parties being the same only serves the worst in our government and the worst of our politicians. The parties are as similar as they are because that's what it takes to get elected..

If indiviuals (such as you?) don't like either of the parties because they're both too X and you're a supporter of Y, then you can always do something about it. The parties will shift at the will of 'the people,' and the shifts in the parties will feedback on the views of the people through the influence of the media.. It's a circle, yes. But the apathetic segment that throws up their hands in dismay are more to blame for the tyranny of the vocal minorities (and thus our political course) than anything else in my opinion.

The suggestion that there is a real difference between candidates in Iran of all places(a country where a council of clerics decides who can and cannot run) is pretty funny.

And yes, I also do not believe that 2000 was stolen, if Bush was going to steal 2000 he would have given himself a popular vote majority(most people thought he'd win the popular and lose the electoral anyway).

and let it be known that while I consider myself right of center, I believe President Bush to be, at his core, a liberal, with liberal sensibilities, staying in the conservative party merely out of familial habit and agreement on abortion(which he is against for liberal reasons anyway).

2)
I've read some convincing 'evidence' that argues that the 2000 election was indeed stolen in Florida, but there's so much murky ambiguity with that whole story that I've always preferred not to guess about whether or not it was really 'stolen.'

Still, I agree that there's an alarming potential for election shenanigans in the U.S. Again, the evidence is always murky, and I generally think both sides might have their chance for cheating.. and I'm not really a fan of conspiracy theories..

But it's a fact that the U.S. government is largely run by a wealthy elite segment of our society. It's a consequence of the power they wield, of the lobbying system, and other things I don't know enough about. My point being, the tendency for political dynasties and decades of governance from narrow areas of people deserves some suspicion. When more and more power is held by fewer and fewer hands, it certainly increases the chances (and even the temptation, I'd imagine) for corruption aimed at preserving that power. It's not for nothing that we had cause to invent the word 'gerrymander'.

Also, the switch to electronic voting machines is a big and meaningful change.. and not necessarily for the better imo (primarily because of the decision to remove any sort of 'hard copy' records/receipts). There've been various little scandals and investigative reports on major news agencies related to the manufacturer's and their technologies.. And contrary to what Invictus said, I think elections probably would be 'stolen' when they're close, and through subtle means.

still, the whole "Iranians have a real choice in elections" bit was funny, I think I might still be laughing at that next week.

@Hamilton:
I don't understand this logic at all:
"Bush clearly didn't steal the election because if he *had* he would've *given* himself the popular vote"

Who says anyone aiming to 'steal' an election would have absolute power to do anything? Maybe 'stealing' an election means boosting your votes and/or supressing the votes of your opponents in just a few key districts in just one swing state? Maybe it's not part of a national plan, but a more local effort focused on presumed battle-ground states and taking opportunities to influence the result when/if they present themselves?

As I said, I'm not really a believer that the 2000 election was stolen, but please everyone, for the sake of democracy everywhere, please don't assume that stolen elections have to be obvious and blatant. That just seems a ridiculous fallacy to me.
:)

Since we're all doube/triple posting..

I'd like to add that I only 'spit fiery condemnation' in a nice way. :) I didn't mean to single anyone out here, but the common argument about the two parties being 'the same' is a serious pet peeve of mine.

I 100% agree with you Mr. Pinguin. Don't mistake your own laziness to get involved with a problem with the system.

I've been in the trenches a long time. I've walked precincts for candidates, organized volunteers, donated more money than I'd care to recall, attended city council and county supervisors' meetings religiously, served a year in a government body whose stated purpose was (in part) to investigate corruption and waste in government, and served on the executive committee of a political party for several years. I've been in numerous political protests and have come close to being arrested a few times (I always manage to dodge the bullet, thank god). Hell, I even ran for office once myself.

I'd like to know how I'm "lazy", "apathetic", and apparently ignorant as well. I'd also like to know what some of YOU who think this have done to "get involved".

I've seen some pretty incredible and disgusting things in my time that've obviously left me a bit jaded. On the subject of elections, for instance, the official in my county in charge of handling elections once admitted to "massaging" election results and was found to've rigged the selection process for a new electronic voting machine in favor of one vendor (He worked in military intelligence for many years in foreign countries during the Cold War before becoming a civilian elections official. During his tenure there were some unexpected election results.). About 15-20 years ago, the mayor of my city resigned after he was confronted by an armed gunman outside of his house as he came home from work - paving the way for new leadership on the city council who've proceeded to dole out tens of millions of dollars in "redevelopment" money to campaign contributors and big raises for city workers over the years (firefighters here make $140,000 per year on average). People who signed a city council recall petition a few years later found themselves being visited at their homes by city firefighters demanding that they "unsign" the petition. At the state level here in California, Republicans recently joined hands with Democrats to give us the largest state tax increases in the history of the country so far as anyone knows (to cover a $24 BILLION dollar budget gap) - and they're already demanding more. Meanwhile, state workers are retiring in their mid '40s after topping out on their pensions (90% of their salary and free health care for the rest of their lives. Many of them go on to work *another* state job while collecting the pension from the first). I have hundreds of other stories like these I could tell, but I won't bother. I'm not as politically active as I used to be, mostly because I've realized its a waste of time - a sick joke played on people gullible and naive enough to believe the system works for them instead of the other way around.

At any rate, can someone PLEASE explain to me exactly how Democrats and Republicans differ on any issues of real significance? They're both in favor of unending wars in the Middle East to secure control of the oil. Both in favor of antagonizing Russia. Both in favor of virtually unlimited free trade that has utterly destroyed manufacturing in this country (especially odd when you consider that organized labor is one of the Ass party's chief constituents). Both believe the solution to economic problems is to bail out the rich guys who sunk us into this mess.

Ah, but they differ on abortion and whether the top marginal tax rate should be 38% or 35%. Apparently that's enough to satisfy some.