THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!

Avatar for mrsed4
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!
54
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 9:30pm
Fla. Lawmaker Says 2000 Election 'Stolen'

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Think the passions from the 2000 presidential election have cooled? Certainly not in the House, which voted Thursday to strike a Florida representative's words from the record after she said Republicans "stole" that closely fought contest.

The verbal battle broke out after Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., proposed a measure barring any federal official from requesting that the United Nations (news - web sites) formally observe the U.S. elections on Nov. 2.

Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., and several other House Democrats have made that suggestion. They argue that some black voters were disenfranchised in 2000 and problems could occur again this fall.

"We welcome America to observe the integrity of our electoral process and we do not ask, though, for the United Nations to come as monitors at our polling stations," Buyer said.

"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again," Brown said. "Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said, 'Get over it.' No, we're not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world."

At that point, Buyer demanded that Brown's words be "taken down," or removed the debate's permanent record.

The House's presiding officer, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ruled that Brown's words violated a House rule.

"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.

When Brown objected to his ruling, the House voted 219-187 to strike her words.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_go_co/house_florida_fight_1&printer=1

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 4:48pm
Life is not perfect. I have absolutely no doubt that every single election held for the last 200 years either missed counting all the votes or miscounted some. I give credence to the complaint that many were dropped from the roles erroneously and that we need a fix to that. But that is coupled with those claiming intent to wipe out Democratic voters. Well GEZZ, I’ve been complaining for years about news coverage of the polls and having the media call elections with less than 1% of the votes being counted (as with Florida). How many were disenfranchised and walked away from the polls when they heard Gore had already won? And I see no redemption in a party that designs a new ballot for its’ voters and then claims the other side was being underhanded when things don’t go their way and the people they were counting on for votes were so sloppy in their voting that they didn’t bother to punch all the way through or ask questions about their ballots when they found the ballots to be confusing.

I’m all for making things easier and fairer for everyone, but at some point we have to admit we can not hold each person’s hand and verify for them how they are voting. Voting is a serious issue. If the voter isn’t going to take the time to make sure they punched all the way through or that they voted for the right person, that’s a problem with them, not our election process.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 4:57pm
“I stand corrected. I had assumed from various sources I had read that an ex-felon, in the US, once having served their time and not re-committed any crime, would be restored their rights. (Isn't the US, with the highest percentage and highest actual number of citizens in jail of the free world, afraid they will run out of eligible voters?)”

Each state has their own laws, some ban voting for life, others reinstate them once the individual is released. The dems have been trying to change these laws for years at the national level by passing a federal law that allows convicted felons to vote in all states WHILE still serving time in prison.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 6:02pm
"The dems have been trying to change these laws for years at the national level by passing a federal law that allows convicted felons to vote in all states WHILE still serving time in prison."

Which goes right back to the comment about crooks being able to vote for crooks. ;)

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 9:00pm
< I have absolutely no doubt that every single election held for the last 200 years either missed counting all the votes or miscounted some. >

Exactly. We have no idea that some Republican voters weren't disenfrancised in Florida, and we have no idea that other states that were very close and went for Gore might actually have gone for Bush if every single vote was accurately counted. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine after the fact exactly how many mistakes were made, which side's votes were affected and in exactly what numbers they were affected. Which is why unless there is proof of intentional fraud, the rules in place before an election MUST be allowed to stand. One side cannot be allowed to dig up as many "disenfranchised" voters as they can find in order to win after the polls close. Statistically it must be assumed that the mistakes fall about evenly on both sides. Thankfully elections generally have wide enough margins that the rare mistakes are statistically insignificant, but when they are close the recount procedures set in place beforehand must be followed to the letter-that is the only fair way to insure that someone doesn't have a chance to actually "steal" an election.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Sun, 07-18-2004 - 1:21am
well, they are citizens.... and if they are being "rehabilitated", then they ought to be allowed voting priveledges. There are planty of criminals who are NOT in prison, have NEVER been caught, and are voting all over the place... (some of them not only vote, but also steal elections LOL)

My bumper reads clearly, "Let's not elect bush in 2004, either!"

I get a lot of happy honkers over that, and I live in a very conservative city...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 07-18-2004 - 10:42am
"well, they are citizens.... and if they are being "rehabilitated", then they ought to be allowed voting priveledges."

That's part of being convicted of a crime... our society has decided that there are some things you lose (besides your freedom) as a consequence of your actions, and among them is the right to vote. It may not seem fair to many people, but it is the way our laws are written in many states, and the people of those states have the right to decide such things.

"My bumper reads clearly, "Let's not elect bush in 2004, either!"

I get a lot of happy honkers over that, and I live in a very conservative city..."

There's a lot of conservatives unhappy with Bush, and with just cause. I myself am one and have no intention of voting for him this time around. Unfortunately, there's no other viable candidate besides Kerry, and I refuse to vote for him as well. So I'm just writing this presidential election off as a lost cause and waiting for 2008.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 07-19-2004 - 1:32pm
<"well, they are citizens.... and if they are being "rehabilitated", then they ought to be allowed voting priveledges."

That's part of being convicted of a crime... our society has decided that there are some things you lose (besides your freedom) as a consequence of your actions, and among them is the right to vote. It may not seem fair to many people, but it is the way our laws are written in many states, and the people of those states have the right to decide such things. >

That's right-personally I agree with such laws-it's not taking voting rights away from people, it is people voluntarily relinquishing their voting rights. Choosing to commit a felony means you choose to relinquish some of your rights. It's called personal responsibility.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-19-2004 - 2:07pm
ITA.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Mon, 07-19-2004 - 2:10pm
I'm surprised nobody brought up the Diebold voting machines and the theories swirling around them. People may not be turned away at the polls or purged from the registration list, but how can we verify a computerized vote count if there is no paper trail? As an accountant, I like having things that can be audited.

Also, in regards to the election and the risk of a terrorist attack before Nov 2nd - didn't the attack in Spain work in favor for the party that was behind in the polls before the attack? Which to me, would mean that not delaying the vote would work in Bush's favor?

Lastly, I thought the New York Times commissioned an audit of the Florida ballots and came out with Gore as the winner in Florida. Can anyone post links to back up the final analysis after the Supreme Court had appointed Bush?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-19-2004 - 2:25pm
“People may not be turned away at the polls or purged from the registration list, but how can we verify a computerized vote count if there is no paper trail? As an accountant, I like having things that can be audited.”

I have the same misgivings, but I have serious doubts about the paper trail too. If the machines are tampered with then they can also print whatever the hacker wants them to print, and then again, those same hacked machines could be programmed to miscount valid paper ballots. In this case, I see the paper ballot as a additional tier of bureaucracy that can be abused or politicized without adding much in the way of additional security.

I have no solutions to offer. I just do not see a system that can be built with the level of integrity expected these days.