Bush gets extra Ohio votes because of "computer glitch"

Remove all ads!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html

Unfortunately, the report is completely devoid of content, as is typical of the articles CNN puts on its website. They do not explain how a "glitch" occurs and how it would affect the vote total. Intuitively, you'd think a glitch would either completely nullify the results (bring them to 0) or make them some absurdly high number (28 billion). Not bring them to an inconspicious number such as 3,893.

I really hope this is an isolated incident. I geniunely don't want to be suspicious of wrong-doing. But, I remember that Bush associates with people like Karl Rove, and I realize skepticism is not just warranted -- it's necessary.

 

Even so 4000 on a 135000 votes victory won't ever be enough.

 

In Poland, we had a 50000 vote victory in 1995 and lots of several hundred worth "glitches" popped up all over the country. Also, the guy boasted a Master's degree as opposed to vocational education of the then president, while he did complete the course but didn't write or defend the thesis, which means he didn't have any degree whatsoever. Still, the Supreme Court upheld the election result.

 

However it still needs to be looked at. Not because it would have changed the result but you can't have flaws like this. I can't wait till the Bush-haters grab this and start accusing Bush of vote tampering.

 

There is no way it would be possible to prove it as there is no paper trail from the touch screen voting machines. The touch screen voting machines manifactures by a company who is a major contributor to the Republican party. That fact alone ought to have disqualified them if only to dispel any suspiscioun. Something to keep in mind is that Kerry seemed to have secure leads in both Ohio and Florida according to the exit polls but when the votes started being counted, many of them from touch screen voting machines it was Bush who had a secure lead.

Tin foil hats for everyone!

 

Well...that is one thing I found very confusing, not to mention very impractical on the part of the Americans.

Why do they need to have such a convoluted, confusing and complicated election system?

Atleast, it seemed that way to me.

One state has one method of voting, another has another. Its seemed very chaotic and unorganised, from what I could see on ABC, here in Sydney...

 

To build on Joacqin's post, there should be an investigation concerning the exit polls. Theories that I have read are that democrats were sending people to exit polling sites and instructing them to say they voted for Kerry even though they were not eligible to vote in those sites. Then the media (obviously Pro-Kerry) jumped on the news. If any of this is true it was a blatant attempt to convince Bush voters to stay home and "Not waste their time voting for someone who was so obviously losing".

If there is any merit to this, I'm sure this must violate some sort of election law and it is much more plausible than Karl Rove reprogramming voting machines to give Bush phantom votes.

 

Whatever happened to voting with a computer?
Oh wait, that's more reliable...

 

I think Snook has hit on a vital issue. All through the afternoon of the 2nd the media outlets were reporting on the "overwhelming droves of young, first time votes who where leaning toward Kerry by a 4 to 1 margin"

It just wasn't true, yet reporters claimed to be seeing them.

And on a side note...the much maligned Fox news was faster and more accurate with it's projections and analysis than any other network...and they viewed the youth voter story with some skepticism.

 

From what I saw on election night and I zapped between ABC, CBS and CNN those three were freakishly careful in making projections. So being faster does not really say much, also remember that FOX called Florida for Bush in 2000 and said it was a clear and secure win.

 

In the end, it probably doesn't matter - even if there was a scam, it would need to be on a much larger scale to have mattered.

@ Hacken Slash: Interesting... I wonder if the massively over-predicted youth vote did reflect those kinds of figures, though. Mind you, I'm probably as annoyed about them as I am about anything else in that election. Clear case of misleading reporting, in any event.

@ TGS: Plausible theory. Needs investigation, though - and I would be surprised if the Republicans didn't benefit from this as well ("Our man is losing? Better convince every Bible thumper, France-hater and gun nut that their only chance is to enlist EVERYONE to vote!"). Conspiracy theory, to be sure, but certainly not out of the question given the overwhelming influence of religion on voting in this election.

 

The youth vote may have been overwhelmingly in support of Kerry, but the youth didn't actually go out and vote in any large number. So their vote is pretty inconsequential.

joacqin - No one wanted to be wrong again. Several networks called the race for Gore and were dead wrong in 2000, no one wants that sort of bad publicity.

 

Frustrating, huh? These are the same people who'll be complaining if the social security and welfare reforms cut the ground out from under them, and yet they don't seem to care enough to have a say in THEIR country. I don't know who I'm angrier with: the gun-totin' Bible-thumpin' French-hatin' redneck archetype or the teenagers too busy drinking and shagging to give a toss about their country and figuring that they'll get everything they wanted anyway.

Thank ****ing God that voting is compulsory in Australia; at least that way I can be angry for the right reasons.

 

Indeed, it's frustrating. It would be grand if voting was compulsory here, as the elections would likely be far more clear. Also, if the electoral college was gotten rid of, and the popular vote only mattered? Whee, we'd have a Republican president and Congress for the majority of my life, I expect. (You really have no idea how many rednecks just don't get up and vote. )

 

The youth vote did turn out in record number. 51% of the age group turned out to vote and they voted Kerry. Not by much though.

 

Could somebody explain to me how the US voting system works? So far, Ive heard that it isnt realy the number of votes in total that matters, but the number of votes in certain states... I also heard that Al Gore acutaly got more votes than Bush 4 years ago, but because Bush had more votes in certain states he won. And that seems kinda idiotic and non-democratic.

 

First off some history, the Clinton did not receive a majority of the vote in either of his election bids (coming in under 50% in both, though he did receive more votes than Bush 41 or Dole). Thus W is the first President since 1988 that more than 50% of the US people "voted for". (I really believe that most of those were really voting against SKerry, but that is another topic for another day)

In case anyone would like to read how the electoral college actually works:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

The electoral college is a legacy left to us by the founding fathers of this nation. It is an indication of the fact that they wanted the federal government to be a union of semi-autonomous member states (read nations), but that they also wanted the people as a whole (the entire union) to have a voice, as the majority of electors are provided by the number of Representatives. Hence we are supposed to be a representative republic, NOT a democracy.

Now, it is left up to each state to determine how their electoral votes are distributed. The majority of the states have chosen to keep their "block" of electoral votes whole, as to split them up makes the state less important in the overall scope of the election. For instance, in the last election Colorado allowed its residents to vote to split up their EC votes based upon the election results. If this law would have been in effect prior to the election, it would have meant that based upon the popular vote Bush would have recieved 5 EC votes instead of 9, with the remaining 4 going to Kerry. If all states passed such a law, it would be almost impossible for a candidate to win the presidency without winning the poplular vote. It would be mathmatically possible, but in practice it would never happen. However, had Colorado passed it in this instance, it would have instantly made Colorado disappear off the political radar for Presidential elections, as no candidate would spend any money or travel there knowing that they would have to swing 10% of the voters in that state just to pick up 1 EC vote.

Thus, it is very unlikely that we will completely throw out the EC (requiring a Constitional Ammendment), basically saying that the founding fathers were wrong in creating a representative republic, as small states will not be willing to give up their relevance by endorsing such a move.

It is unfortunate that most people believe America is a democracy, IMO this is a result of the 17th ammendment that screwed the whole thing up by forcing the election of Senators. The founding fathers intended that the Senate represent the individual states, and Senators were to be appointed by the states in a manner that the states individually chose, while the Representatives for the House of Represenatatvie were to be selected by popular vote.

Unfortunately it seems we are moving ever closer to democracy.