Isn't anyone going to complain about SC being run by Diebold/ES&S?

[TwilightZone]

:evilgrin:

[maddiejoan]

1. hehehe

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

3. No kidding. At least we won't have to worry about that tonight.

[Medusa]

4. I'm sure that HRC will be preparing an inquiry

at any moment.

[TwilightZone]

8. I doubt it.

She's well aware that it would be a waste of time and resources.

[Bonobo]

5. I was waiting for that with glee.

Laughing my ass off right now at your expense.

Thanks!

[Jane Austin]

6. The head of the SC Dem Party said they had had no problems reported.

What's to dispute?

Maybe Democrats run a better election than Republicans.

[TwilightZone]

10. Did you miss NH?

DU was loaded with comments about the voting machines in NH.

SC is actually worse - 100% ES&S voting machines. No paper ballot, no receipts, no paper trail.

My OP was made in jest, but arguably, the potential for fraud in SC is much higher than it was in NH. Doesn't seem to be a concern, though.

[Jane Austin]

19. But there were many complaints in NH,

there weren't any in South Carolina.

[VotesForWomen]

49. maybe obama folks are a bunch of complainers. nt

[Jane Austin]

57. LOL!

What a funny way to look at it!

[KaryninMiami]

21. That's because all of the exit are not in yet- NH was about discrepancies in exit polls

The Exit poll votes in NH were very different from the results- that's when we know something is not right - generally with the machines. In SC, I don't think the exit polls are back yet and those that are in appear so far, to be close to the results.

[creeksneakers2]

40. The exit polls were very close in New Hampshire to the actual

results. Do you mean pre-election polls?

Here are polls from South Carolina:

Survey USA January 23,24 = underestimated Obama score by 12 points.
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby January 22-24 = under Obama by 17 points.
Mason Dixon January 22,23 = underestimated Obama score by 17 points
Rasmussen Reports January 21 = underestimated Obama by 12 points

Where did the extra Obama votes come from? He got a bigger bump than Hillary did in New Hampshire!

[creeksneakers2]

39. Not a peep of sore loser mantras from the Hillary gang

And none saying they will leave the party forever if Obama wins.

The recount movement in New Hampshire has collapsed. The supporters all said they weren't out to get Hillary but wanted an audit to uncover problems with the vote systems. The audit was getting somewhere when the support ran out. Turns out it was all about getting Hillary after all. Once she was winning it all died.

[stillcool]

55. They don't care about counting votes.

Obviously. Some of us care about our votes counting in every state in every election.

H.R. 5036: Emergency Election Assistance for Secure Elections Act – the “EASY” bill to secure the November 2008 elections
http://holt.house.gov/HR_5036.shtml

[rodeodance]

7. ha ha. only if they lose.

[Exultant Democracy]

9. Well the exit polls match the results in SC unlike NH,

Ohio in 04 and Florida in 2000.

[TwilightZone]

12. The results aren't even out yet.

So how do you know that they match?

Last I checked, they had barely reported 10%.

[Exultant Democracy]

18. With over 75% in I stand by my statement.

[TwilightZone]

22. Sure you do.

You made the statement when you didn't even have any data.

Besides, SC is at 52% at the moment, according the the NY Times and the SC site.

Want to try for the trifecta?

[Laurab]

23. Thanks, I was going to point that out.

Although I can't believe it really NEEDED to be pointed out.....

[Exultant Democracy]

32. ha ha you got that right. Rationality seems to be at an all time low here tonight.

[TwilightZone]

38. So, at 10% of the precincts reporting, you were ready to declare the results accurate?

That's rather curious.

[Laurab]

41. No, actually I wasn't - that's why I posted the link to the actual results

that were coming in. Now that 98% are in, I think the results are, in fact, accurate.

What's curious is your assumption about me. I believe in open and transparent elections. SC hopefully will be audited in some way, but when exit polls DO match the results, they're a lot easier to believe.

[TwilightZone]

43. Pardon me, but you didn't post any links in this thread.

So, unless you are posting under more than one name, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Laurab]

45. No, I started a thread, it sunk. I also posted it in another thread.

Why in the world would I post a link for someone who made such a stupid assumption about me? It's there if you want to see it, or if you wanted to watch the results come in. That's what I've spent most of the night doing.

Let me guess - Hillary supporter?

[TwilightZone]

46. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

I was supposed to just know that you posted a link elsewhere and that it magically applied to my thread?

Sorry, but I skipped my mind-reading classes a little too often in college.

This place just keeps getting funnier.

For the record, I'm undecided.

[Laurab]

No, actually I posted that the results matched the exit polls

you had a problem with that, asking me a ridiculous question about believing exit polls without seeing results. I can't help it if you weren't following the results, and other people were.

WHY you assumed I was going only by the exit polls, when I posted that they matched the results, is kind of funny, I guess - you don't need mind-reading, just reading comprehension.

[TwilightZone]

53. The next time you feel the urgent need to butt into a conversation...

perhaps you should bother to actually read the conversation that has already taken place.

Then, please try to make a token attempt to understand the context. That way, you will be less likely to make completely irrelevant assertions that have nothing to do with the conversation.

At the time of my response to "LeviathanCrumbling", 10% of the precincts had reported. I responded that no one could claim "the results all matched" with only 10% reporting.

For reasons unknown to anyone, you posted your response in completely different threads, other than your initial "me, too" response to LC's post.

90 minutes later, you made a completely irrelevant assertion, citing 98% reporting.

That's fine, except for the fact that it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. The context was 10% reporting, not 98%.

Had you bothered to actually read our conversation before you knee-jerk reacted to it, you might have figured that out. Instead, you posted a bunch of crap an hour and a half later that was completely irrelevant to the context of the original discussion.

And, *I* am the one with reading comprehension problems? Dream on.

[Laurab]

56. Um....ok then ....

Will do and thanks so much for the lesson. Although I hope you didn't spend too much time typing that little bit of spin that completely twists what, when and where I posted. It's completely untrue, but if you want to believe it, 'tis quite all right with me.

It's been fun playing, and you obviously have a great need to be right, even though you're not, so you win, and I am SO chastened ...:blush:

And maybe someday you'll re-post whatever that is you said above in English? Nah, never mind, my ignore list has been pretty lonely lately.

[msongs]

11. no the winners only complain when they lose nt

[Tarc]

13. They only complain when they're losing

i.e. NH and Nevada. Otherwise its all a-ok.

[KoKo]

14. Don't see CNN or MSNBC showing the tally numbers from the various counties.

They want to make sure it all jives with the pre- and exit polling. Don't want any bid discrepancies like New Hampshire showing up. Don't want to call into question those machines.

A couple of big counties had big voting machine problems with the Repug Election last week and McCain was really angry about one county where the machines shut down and was threatening legal action. Apparently it was all settled when McCain won.

I find it odd they aren't showing county tally numbers on CNN's Website like they usually do. Maybe I missed it, though and they are holding off later than they usually do. :shrug:

[Kurovski]

15. For anyone who actually gives a shit about the election,

instead of jockeying for the honor of being crowned "Biggest Ass Clown", the Election reform folks are keeping an eye on the election, just as they do for EVERY OTHER election. NO MATTER who the fuck wins or loses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=493832&mesg_id=493832

Jeebus! What the fuck is this? High School?

[TwilightZone]

16. Actually, that was my point.

I realize that I made it with sarcasm, but I honestly don't understand why vote-counting machines caused a never-ending uproar in NH, yet in SC, where the situation is significantly worse (100% voting machines, no paper trail), there's not a peep from the vast majority of those who had issues with the NH results.

My point was to point out the hypocrisy, not condone the lack of concern about the SC circumstances.

[Laurab]

28. Seems like it, doesn't it?

God forbid we have open, transparent elections, or questions when the exit polls look fishy. I was really hoping JE would come in 2nd tonight. :hug:

[K Gardner]

17. The ER people are monitoring EVERY state, just as I'm doing in Tennessee. If there isn't

an automatic sample audit in SC, one will be lobbied for just as I hope we ask for one in Tennessee or any other state that is all optical/electronic voting. This one didn't seem so strange simply because the exit polls matched exactly the results. That wasn't the case in NH. Regardless, the votes need to be sampled and counted in EVERY state. This is the crux of election reform and has little to do with results. To imply that it does is insulting to people who have worked tirelessly on this issue since year 2000 and the stolen election.

[TwilightZone]

20. There is no paper trail in SC.

Why do people keep saying "the exit polls matched exactly the results"?

Have all of the votes been counted? NY Times currently has 40% reporting.

[K Gardner]

25. I'm just referring to the initial results, but good point. And thanks for the paper trail info. n/t

[EFerrari]

44. What are they counting? Vapor?

(I've actually never stopped complaining. lol :) )

[TwilightZone]

47. With good reason.

Not that I'm holding my breath, but maybe a Democratic president and a solidly-Democratic Congress wouldn't be so politically afraid of actually doing something about the voting machines.

It's a state issue, of course, but some presidential and Congressional pressure certainly wouldn't hurt.

[K Gardner]

50. ROFL.. good point, sfexpat :-) Voter Vapors.

[KittyWampus]

33. there are no paper ballots used in SC. It's all paperless, hence any audit would be totally meaningl

less

[creeksneakers2]

42. The exit polls matched in New Hampshire

They had Obama up by one. Hillary won by three. That's within the margin of error.

[lisainmilo]

24. not me! n/t

[Bonobo]

26. Were there massive discrepencies in the polling data?

[VotesForWomen]

52. actually, yes; obama out-performed the polls. if the situation was reversed you KNOW the obama

folks would be screaming fraud.

[stillcool]

27. You Should!!

If anyone gave a shit about their vote counting they would demand an audit of the vote. That said it's kind of hard to swing an election when it's a blow-out. You know anyone can tamper with voting machines

http://holt.house.gov/HR_5036.shtml

H.R. 5036: Emergency Election Assistance for Secure Elections Act – the “EASY” bill to secure the November 2008 elections

[dailykoff]

29. The night is still young.

There's still time for one of those amazing turnarounds.

[readmoreoften]

30. No, it's only rigged if Obama loses. When Obama wins, it's the will of the people.

[KittyWampus]

31. I posted yesterday, where were you?

:)

[TwilightZone]

35. Oh, sorry.

My bad!

[KittyWampus]

36. I wish all Democratic candidates would call for a partial recount, just to push the issue

whoever wins the nomination will have to fight this crap. So it would help everyone.

[TwilightZone]

37. Agreed.

The Party should have a fund used exclusively for recounts, audits, etc.

The problem in SC, as I understand it, is that it's 100% voting machines with no audits and no paper trails. Those are the situations that need to change.

[zulchzulu]

34. No problems have been reported but I would love to know if any are

I don't care who wins or loses when it comes to how electronic voting machines can be hacked. There are plenty of states durng the rest of the election season that use electronic voting without a paper trail. That should trouble anyone and want to get real reform to happen ASAP.

[Joanne98]

48. We've been complaining since 2003! It's time for Hillary to complain!

[robbedvoter]

51. No, cuz their man won.

[dailykoff]

54. If she did, I'd be impressed.

She won't of course, because it might help Obama win in November, and the Clintons don't give a fig about anybody winning but themselves.