US Presidential Elections 2008 (1 Viewer)

[Gambra]

I put 20 euro for Clinton to win.
She's such a dead cert I may as well go spend my winnings now.
I'd like Obama to win if only because his name sounds like an asian trying to say BLACK OSAMA.

DId you get good odds on her? Paddy Power are giving 11-10 for her. I fancy a few quid on 10-1 for fraud being the next scandal being announced for the race..

http://www.paddypower.com/bet?actio...ev_type_id=5142&ev_oc_grp_ids=56799&bir_index=

 

[the strange guy]

I got 8/13 a few months ago, not the best odds but not bad considering I got word straight from the stables.

Here's the real reason why she'll win
PEOPLE WILLING TO KILL FOR HER AND BILL

 

[Mormon Nailer]

They do make decisions, but it's not like they're an autocratic monarch or something like that.
I believe the person who is elected is an embodiment of general ideals.

I don't think I'd agrree with that.

Just look at the role of GWB and the imperial court Rove and other have tried to construct around him.

Also think back to how many of the really really bad decision made in his reign have their roots in that group of people.

Also it's not likethe situation in the Ireland or the UK where the is a stable civil service which stays in power from government to government. In the us when the president changes there are absolutely colossal manpower changes right throughout the federal government.

 

[billygannon]

I don't think I'd agrree with that.

Just look at the role of GWB and the imperial court Rove and other have tried to construct around him.

Also think back to how many of the really really bad decision made in his reign have their roots in that group of people.

Also it's not likethe situation in the Ireland or the UK where the is a stable civil service which stays in power from government to government. In the us when the president changes there are absolutely colossal manpower changes right throughout the federal government.

The manpower change and the policy changes are determined more by the fact it's a Republican or Democrat president.
It's kind of impossible for a US President to be autocratic. There will always be a group of people around him or her who will make several significant decisions.

With this in mind, the President is more of a figurehead rather than a tactical leader.
Clinton will have her people who she'll surround herself with.
McCain will have his people... Obama will have his etc.

However... those teams aren't really picked until after the final Democratic and Republican nominations are picked.
I don't think the people in Clinton's team would be adverse to joining Obama were he to be put forward as the Democratic nominee... or vice versa.
So at this stage it's more of a case of deciding what figurehead people want to represent their side.

I think Obama is the best choice. Not because of his policies - there are different in policies between the Democratic candidates but among the frontrunners those differences are hardly significant.
I choose him simply because he's a good figurehead.

Well... that's what I think. I think I may be talking shit.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Yeah I see what you mean, you see the president as the figurehead for what amount to seperate cabals of political people. True enough. I figured you meant the office of president was a figurehead thing and the candidate was pretty irrelevant.

 

[taubstumm]

if it's all figureheads, then, for what it's worth, one figurehead has just given the nod to another: john kerry has endorsed obama.

 

[flashback]

Hilary's cleavage.
ha ha.
Here, fair enough, its about being a figure head to some extent, but there is huge personal power there too.
If Guiliani gets it (which he wont... please) this would become clear.
I would say it depends on the President themselves how much of a figurehead they are.

 

[billygannon]

I like to think I'm a figurehead in my own life.

 

[Pedronimus]

PS: Rhode Island is like the US's own County Louth.

????
??????
????

 

[billygannon]

????
??????
????

Louth is the smallest county in Ireland. Rhode Island is the smallest state.

They both also had sexual revolutions in the 1950's and, bizarrely, the most famous person from both places is called Stephen Staunton.

 

[steve albino]

Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries


Westech writes "Multiple indications of vote fraud are beginning to pop up regarding the New Hampshire primary elections. Roughly 80% of New Hampshire precincts use Diebold machines, while the remaining 20% are hand counted. A Black Box Voting contributor has compiled a chart of results from hand counted precincts vs. results from machine counted precincts. In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election. Another issue is the Republican results from Sutton precinct. The final results showed Ron Paul with 0 votes in Sutton. The next day a Ron Paul supporter came forward claiming that both she and several of her family members had voted for Ron Paul in Sutton. Black Box Voting reports that after being asked about the discrepancy Sutton officials decided that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes in Sutton, but they were left off of the tally sheet due to 'human error.'"

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/08/01/10/1635225.shtml

 

[Space]

Surprise, surprise.

 

[the strange guy]

These Acuvote machines have been taking such a hammering from critics and yet the US government are absolutely hell bent on keeping any and all details of how they work a secret.

They should essentially be a calculator with big buttons hidden in a super-tough case with the full blueprint of how it works publicly accessible.

I think I read something about a bill being passed last year where there is an explicit non-disclosure clause of a voting machine's source code to all but the most essential people. How can everyone be as confident about a piece of software as they are with a simple voting box with a padlock if not everyone agrees it is secure?

It should be simple, foolproof and at the very least as safe from fraud as a normal voting box.

Or they should simply not be allowed.

It is practically impossible for someone to walk into a voting booth with hundreds of ready filled ballots under his arm.
Then they must pry the box open, take all of the old ballots out, put the new ones in, ruffle them about to make them all appear 'dropped in' rather than 'placed', relock the box and then walk out unseen with the old ballots.

It's nowhere near as hard to rearrange data and its a lot easier when fuck all people know how it all works and you do.

 

[flashback]

There is only one way that electronic voting can begin to be reasonable.
You have a piece of paper that accompanies each vote cast electronically, and as you cast your vote via the computer, a machine marks your paper vote for you, in a clear case so you can see it marking the ballot, which then gets dropped into a ballot box as normal.
Every one of these votes will have a uniq serial number, and that number must tally with the number of voters logged in the polling booth.

When a recount is needed, they ignore the electronic vote tally, and count the paper votes.
They also spot check machines randomly to make sure the machine agrees with the paper votes.

All other ways are vulnerable to attack and cracking, and can never be trusted. (Thats not to say that the above method is not vulnerable though.)

No paper trail == fraud.

 

[pete]

It is practically impossible for someone to walk into a voting booth with hundreds of ready filled ballots under his arm.
Then they must pry the box open, take all of the old ballots out, put the new ones in, ruffle them about to make them all appear 'dropped in' rather than 'placed', relock the box and then walk out unseen with the old ballots.

Not in Kenya

The head of one Kenyan organisation which monitored the poll told the BBC News website she suspects that people broke into some counting centres and added tens of thousands of votes while counters slept.


Koki Muli, the executive director of the Institute for Education and Democracy (IED), says she thinks that the counting of the presidential ballots was deliberately delayed by election officials until late into the night.



Many regional tally stations then ran out of kerosene for lamps, and counters went to bed - intending to finish the job the next day.
On their return to work, they found ballots for the presidential election outnumbered those cast for the local and parliamentary elections.

"In past elections, the presidential ballot was counted first, but this time counters were ordered to start with the parliamentary and civic elections.
"As a result many places ran out of kerosene for their lamps. Something then happened overnight," Mrs Muli said.


In some constituencies there were as many as 50,000 more votes in the presidential ballot than in the local civic and parliamentary elections, Mrs Muli said.

The head of the election commission has admitted that turnout in one constituency was 115%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7175694.stm

 

[the strange guy]

I should have added the proviso 'Impossible unless you have massive balls'.
Obama better look to his Fatherland if he wants to beat Hilary.

 

[flashback]

Not in Kenya


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7175694.stm

Same thing in Russia in the last election.
More votes for Putin than total the number of people in that constituency.
The sad thing is, Putin was never in the slightest bit of danger in losing that election.

Old habits die hard I suppose.

 

[hugh]

Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries

(stuff deleted)
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/08/01/10/1635225.shtml

So this all comes from (a) a website of Ron Paul supporters and (b) an "anti-electronic" voting website ..... at the risk of stating the obvious, these are hardly unbiased sources are they?

C'mon, does anyone seriously believe the Clinton camp are engaging in Election/voting fraud in order to get Obama out of the picture?

 

[steve albino]

So this all comes from (a) a website of Ron Paul supporters and (b) an "anti-electronic" voting website ..... at the risk of stating the obvious, these are hardly unbiased sources are they?

Definitely not unbiased, which doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong or that their information is in doubt.
As for the source of the info it comes from www.politico.com which:
"... launched in January, 2007 with the mission of covering the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign, and the business of Washington lobbying and advocacy with enterprise, style, and impact. The Politico is a publication of Capitol News Company, LLC."
and their statement of intent is:
"Politico will promote and celebrate journalists who have a unique signature. That's why we've been able to attract reporters and editors who have worked at such places as Time magazine and The New York Times, National Public Radio, Roll Call and The Hill, Bloomberg News Service, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and The Washington Post.
There is a difference, however, between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans -- many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions -- live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology."

Maybe they're just lying pricks though.

 

[taubstumm]

Definitely not unbiased, which doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong or that their information is in doubt.
As for the source of the info it comes from www.politico.com which:
"... launched in January, 2007 with the mission of covering the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign, and the business of Washington lobbying and advocacy with enterprise, style, and impact. The Politico is a publication of Capitol News Company, LLC."
and their statement of intent is:
"Politico will promote and celebrate journalists who have a unique signature. That's why we've been able to attract reporters and editors who have worked at such places as Time magazine and The New York Times, National Public Radio, Roll Call and The Hill, Bloomberg News Service, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and The Washington Post.
There is a difference, however, between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans -- many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions -- live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology."

Maybe they're just lying pricks though.

on the other hand:

http://dhinmi.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176