How the 2000 Election Was Fixed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m amazed that anyone still thinks: “We lost, so they had to cheat!” Hello? The American people chose according to what they knew and felt, they know that the Dems are a bunch of fucking loony tunes. They are lukewarm to the republicans but at least the republicans show some shreds of intelligence.

The people of this country chose a slick con man over a war hero, some because of ‘that ugly arm’. Was that cheating too, somehow?

Only in America…

HH[/quote]

Wow… just… wow.

Bush didn’t cheat. The old people were retarded. Everyone knows that by now. Gore lost florida cause granny could poke a hole under his name.

I got over it.

Barack Obama 2008!

22

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Barack Obama 2008!
[/quote]

God help us if he wins.

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.

Bullshit.

There were multiple hand recounts of the paper ballots. Bush won the majority of them.

Most of the problems happened in Democratic districts where the Dems ran the show and they still lost.

You are barking up the wrong tree Marmadogg.[/quote]

The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.

Who cares about FL?

24

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.

marm,

Did you vote for al gore?

Thanks.

JeffR[/quote]

I wrote in John McCain…he was given a raw deal in the N.C. prelim.

25

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
JeffR wrote:
marm,

Did you vote for al gore?

Thanks.

JeffR

No he’s a “paleo-conservative”, meaning he agrees with the democrats on everything, but votes Libertarian to make himself feel like he’s smarter than everyone else.[/quote]

Pat Buchanan is a liberal democrat?

Huh?

26

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bush lost. The popular vote was against him. The whole thing was bullshit.

Unforunately, there is nothing that can be done, so fuck it. Politics will always be corrupt.

Not disagreeing with you about the corrupt part, but The popular vote means dick in presidential elections.

It’s the electoral college.

Knda like the difference in match play and tournament play golf. [/quote]

Using that argument…Kerry lost the 2004 presidency by less than 100K votes.

Can you tell me how?

27

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.

You seem to forget that the ballots wer hand counted in Fla. and there was no material difference in the hand count v. the computer count.

LBJ wouldnot even have been a senator from Texas had he not had an entire army of dead folks magically voting for him from the grave.
[/quote]

All the ballots statewide were never fully counted but a large sample was taken statewide and the consortium found the 61% to 70% of the under/over votes went in favor of Gore. At the end of the day Bush won FL 5 to 4.

Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004 and your LBJ example are proof positive of my assertion.

When the Democrats controlled the elections they won. When they started believing that their ideas were keeping them in power and not their local control they lost.

28

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
Well none of it changes the fact that George Bush has the IQ of a soda can, somebody should teach that inbred moron how to read. [/quote]

The is a huge fallacy.

Bush in not stupid. He may be a little rough around the edges but most of that is just an act. Like Jessica Simpson’s dumb blond schtick.

29

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Barack Obama 2008!

God help us if he wins. [/quote]

You got that right!

30

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.

Bullshit.

There were multiple hand recounts of the paper ballots. Bush won the majority of them.

Most of the problems happened in Democratic districts where the Dems ran the show and they still lost.

You are barking up the wrong tree Marmadogg.

The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.

Who cares about FL?[/quote]

Bush won the electoral vote. Bush won Florida. The election was not stolen.

The popular vote is meaningless. It is like saying that your football team gained more yards but lost the game.

Get over it.

31

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.[/quote]

Actually, that’s another popular misconception about the 2000 election.

There were over 5 million uncounted absentee ballots between the states of California and Missouri alone. Why? Because those two states do not open those ballots unless the number of available ballots to be counted are enough to change the election result if they were 100% for the losing contender. It actually makes sense too, why count ballots that won’t matter.

Considering how Al Gore fought so long and hard to block absentee ballots from American citizens overseas, you might conclude that absentee ballots tend to break for the Republicans.

Since Al Gore “won” the popular vote by about 560,000 votes, and there were at least 5,000,000 uncounted absentee ballots, all they would have to do was break 60/40 or so for Bush and Bush would have won the popular vote too.

We’ll never know either way.

32

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a liberal democrat?
Huh?[/quote]

No. Pat Buchanan is a clown who likes to hear himself talk. When he was a Republican, he was taken about as seriously as dennis kucinich. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when he relegated himself to the fringe after he lost in the Republican primaries for the umpteenth time.

His desire to “get back” at the party that laughed him out of the room has overwhelmed what little sense he had. His politics have gone from bad to worse, with his protectionism, populist, and isolationist policies that are about 70 years out of date.

33

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a liberal democrat?
Huh?

No. Pat Buchanan is a clown who likes to hear himself talk. When he was a Republican, he was taken about as seriously as dennis kucinich. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when he relegated himself to the fringe after he lost in the Republican primaries for the umpteenth time.

His desire to “get back” at the party that laughed him out of the room has overwhelmed what little sense he had. His politics have gone from bad to worse, with his protectionism, populist, and isolationist policies that are about 70 years out of date. [/quote]

Conservatism must love him because he is everywhere.

34

[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.

Actually, that’s another popular misconception about the 2000 election.

There were over 5 million uncounted absentee ballots between the states of California and Missouri alone. Why? Because those two states do not open those ballots unless the number of available ballots to be counted are enough to change the election result if they were 100% for the losing contender. It actually makes sense too, why count ballots that won’t matter.

Considering how Al Gore fought so long and hard to block absentee ballots from American citizens overseas, you might conclude that absentee ballots tend to break for the Republicans.

Since Al Gore “won” the popular vote by about 560,000 votes, and there were at least 5,000,000 uncounted absentee ballots, all they would have to do was break 60/40 or so for Bush and Bush would have won the popular vote too.

We’ll never know either way.
[/quote]

That could be said for every election.

35

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a liberal democrat?
Huh?

No. Pat Buchanan is a clown who likes to hear himself talk. When he was a Republican, he was taken about as seriously as dennis kucinich. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when he relegated himself to the fringe after he lost in the Republican primaries for the umpteenth time.

His desire to “get back” at the party that laughed him out of the room has overwhelmed what little sense he had. His politics have gone from bad to worse, with his protectionism, populist, and isolationist policies that are about 70 years out of date. [/quote]

Good summary.

36

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.

Actually, that’s another popular misconception about the 2000 election.

There were over 5 million uncounted absentee ballots between the states of California and Missouri alone. Why? Because those two states do not open those ballots unless the number of available ballots to be counted are enough to change the election result if they were 100% for the losing contender. It actually makes sense too, why count ballots that won’t matter.

Considering how Al Gore fought so long and hard to block absentee ballots from American citizens overseas, you might conclude that absentee ballots tend to break for the Republicans.

Since Al Gore “won” the popular vote by about 560,000 votes, and there were at least 5,000,000 uncounted absentee ballots, all they would have to do was break 60/40 or so for Bush and Bush would have won the popular vote too.

We’ll never know either way.

That could be said for every election.[/quote]

Maybe so, and that’s one of the real beauties about the Electoral College.

Because in a statistically close vote, you don’t have to go district by district, town by town, and slug out all the recouhts. You only have to focus on those areas (like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004) where it was a race to the wire and make sure you get it right there. Nobody needs to recount California or New York, those states are never going to be red again.

Imagine the mess that would be created if we had an election by popular vote? Every single ballot box would be up for grabs by ballot stuffers and if you think 2 million lawyers in the USA is too many now…

37

[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.

Actually, that’s another popular misconception about the 2000 election.

There were over 5 million uncounted absentee ballots between the states of California and Missouri alone. Why? Because those two states do not open those ballots unless the number of available ballots to be counted are enough to change the election result if they were 100% for the losing contender. It actually makes sense too, why count ballots that won’t matter.

Considering how Al Gore fought so long and hard to block absentee ballots from American citizens overseas, you might conclude that absentee ballots tend to break for the Republicans.

Since Al Gore “won” the popular vote by about 560,000 votes, and there were at least 5,000,000 uncounted absentee ballots, all they would have to do was break 60/40 or so for Bush and Bush would have won the popular vote too.

We’ll never know either way.

That could be said for every election.

Maybe so, and that’s one of the real beauties about the Electoral College.

Because in a statistically close vote, you don’t have to go district by district, town by town, and slug out all the recouhts. You only have to focus on those areas (like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004) where it was a race to the wire and make sure you get it right there. Nobody needs to recount California or New York, those states are never going to be red again.

Imagine the mess that would be created if we had an election by popular vote? Every single ballot box would be up for grabs by ballot stuffers and if you think 2 million lawyers in the USA is too many now…
[/quote]

Excvellent point.

38

[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The fact is Bush did not win the country wide popular vote.

That is a fact.

Actually, that’s another popular misconception about the 2000 election.

There were over 5 million uncounted absentee ballots between the states of California and Missouri alone. Why? Because those two states do not open those ballots unless the number of available ballots to be counted are enough to change the election result if they were 100% for the losing contender. It actually makes sense too, why count ballots that won’t matter.

Considering how Al Gore fought so long and hard to block absentee ballots from American citizens overseas, you might conclude that absentee ballots tend to break for the Republicans.

Since Al Gore “won” the popular vote by about 560,000 votes, and there were at least 5,000,000 uncounted absentee ballots, all they would have to do was break 60/40 or so for Bush and Bush would have won the popular vote too.

We’ll never know either way.

That could be said for every election.

Maybe so, and that’s one of the real beauties about the Electoral College.

Because in a statistically close vote, you don’t have to go district by district, town by town, and slug out all the recouhts. You only have to focus on those areas (like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004) where it was a race to the wire and make sure you get it right there. Nobody needs to recount California or New York, those states are never going to be red again.

Imagine the mess that would be created if we had an election by popular vote? Every single ballot box would be up for grabs by ballot stuffers and if you think 2 million lawyers in the USA is too many now…
[/quote]

You got that right.

Australia uses open source code for their electronic voting machines.

Too bad we don’t as our current way cost us too much money. I am all about transparency if it can save tax dollars and keep my taxes from increasing.