Is the growing controversy over 2004 election fraud . . . . .

[enid602]

. . . . enough to ensure that elections this week and in 2006 will be fraud free?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. No.

Any other questions?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. If only.. :^(

[enid602]

4. elections

It just seems that the knowledge of election regularities in 2004, while not mainstream, is becoming more widespread. More pressure to investigate. I'm wondering if national and local republicans might think it best to lay low for a while. Might be a good way for them to avoid legal problems down the road.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Laying low would be too subtle for this crowd. Power grabs are all they

can do these days.

Election reform will come and it will come from the grassroots on up one town, county, and state at a time.

[kansasblue]

3. did the fraud in 2000, 2002 and in Georgia stop the 2004 fraud?

[enid602]

6. irregularities

No, but I think there's a momentum. Although many of the victims of election fraud are instantly aware of their mistreatment, it takes a while for the public to be made aware of it. In 2004, over 40000 complaints of election irregularities were brought forward.

[panader0]

5. And bushco wants to export "democracy"

[enid602]

7. democracy

That and Hummers is all he has to offer. Neither is well-adapted to its recipients' needs.

[wakeme2008]

8. I was shocked with the article in this months

Mother Jones what basicly said no voter fraud in Ohio. And on most talking points the author took the word of the Repug County SOE.

[enid602]

10. Mother Jones

I won't go out of my way to read the article, as you don't seem to endorse it. But I also see the controversy, lawsuits and bad press re: alleged election fraud in Ohio, Georgia and Florida. I'm thinking that republican election officials in certain states and counties will be a bit more introspective this time around.

[glitch]

11. That was a shameful article. Hopefully MJ will redeem itself with a strong

counterpoint in their next issue.

[damntexdem]

12. No way!

It only ups the ante -- they can't afford to 'lose' Congress and and a result have real investigations.

[enid602]

13. opposition

In other words, keep the opposition out of power to keep them from digging around for the truth. Good point. Cynnical, but a good point nonetheless.

[OneBlueSky]

14. not a chance . . . THEY still control the voting process, and . . .

more importantly, it is still Republican corporations that tabulate the vote counts . . . until that changes, they can make elections turn out pretty much as they damn well please . . .

[fujiyama]

15. We could only wish

Fraud will always occur no matter what. The GOP is inherantly corrupt and will go to any length to steal an election.

But more discussion of a possible (and in some states probable) fraudulent election, may atleast promote more skepticism among the public of electronic voting. With enough concern, perhaps we will be lucky enough to have the people kick out those that certified and allowed these things to determine election outcomes.

At the minimum, it is hopefule this discussion will force e-voting to be more transparent, though I must wonder how much it will matter. Elections shouldn't be subcontracted to partisan corporations in the first place.

[enid602]

17. fool-proof

I suspect that e-voting, with proper controls is probably the way to go. Unfortunately, we'd have to win the '06 election before some sort of bi-partisan committee could be set up to ensure it's fool-proof. A catch 22.

[noiretextatique]

16. election fraud is an accepted part of the process

commonly referred to as "glitches," not ELECTION FRAUD. yet another area of american political reality controlled by faux etiquette.
expect the best, but plan for the worst...the new american mantra.