Skip to main content


Comment Preferences

  •  Did you read the GAO report? (none)
    WE didn't blow it. WE didn't create faulty machines and fail to ensure that there was an adequate number of machines available. Until you can tell me that the election was fair, I'm not buying the "Americans blew it" defense.
    •  The GAO report (none)
      Did not claim that Kerry actually got more votes than Bush, did it?

      No matter how much you want to pretend it didn't happen, bush got millions upon millions votes, and all indications are that, in raw numbers, Bush improved in virtually every district in the country.  By all measures he got more votes than Kerry.

      I have no doubt that voting problems, irregulatiries, fraud, deception and lies led the final tally to not reflect the will of the voters.

      But there is no evidence in the GAO report that suggests that Bush actually had fewer votes than Kerry.

      •  what the report suggests (none)
        The report suggests, it clearly says that the election was a friggin cluster. There were machines that counted more votes than there were voters in certain districts. There were machines that lost votes when it rolled over. We aren't talking one or two votes either. We're talking hundreds and thousands. In short, the results of the election were not conclusive at all. Bush may have won. He also could have lost. We'll never know because the equipment did not function properly. Read the report, then tell me you can say without equivocation that Bush won the election. He won by default.
        •  read it, studied it (none)
          The report suggests, it clearly says that the election was a friggin cluster
          Absolutely.  Totally, totally shameful.  Top to bottom, just a shame.  A national shame.

          In short, the results of the election were not conclusive at all. Bush may have won. He also could have lost.
          Sorry, but it does not say that.  It talks about voting irregulaties.  And you are right - hundres here, thousands here.  And, yes, it could have changed an electoralcollege vote and the election.

          But, it is not suggested that the popular vote gap - ~3M votes between Bush and Kerry, would have been substantially affected.

          Voting problems come in flavors: fraud, accident, random occurance, negligent occurance, rigging, etc.  Now, I think most of the fraud and rigging and underhanded shit is done by the GOP.  The other stuff leans in favor of the GOP, but not exactly.

          Read the report, then tell me you can say without equivocation that Bush won the election. He won by default.
          I have read the report.  I agree that the electoral results are possibly ambigious - we can never vote.

          But none of the problems detailed nor any of the conclusions made are on the scale to affect the ~3M vote margin in the popular vote.

          I think this hard for many to accept, but the simple fact is that Bush was more popular than Kerry on voting day.  The election was a festering sore of failure, but the voting public voted a plurality for Bush.  And the GAO report does not question this conclusion at all.

          •  And why do we care about the popular vote? (none)
            Did the loss of the popular vote prevent Bush from being President in 2000?

            I tell you there is a fire. They have this day set a blazing torch to the temple of constitutional liberty and, please God, we shall have no more peace forever.

            by Anderson Republican on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 11:04:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (none)
              I am not arguing that Bush was rightly elected, just that, clearly, the will of the majority was that Bush be President.

              Just like in 2000 the will was that Gore be president.

              Again, you are misreading what I wrote.  

              People's views have consequences; the American public in 2004 held by a ~3M vote margin that Bush should be president.  Vote counting, inconclusive electoral college results, etc aside, democratically speaking, the people got what they wanted.

          •  We don't elect by popular vote. (none)
            We use the electoral process. If we did this wouldn't even be a debate because GW wouldn't have been up for re election. He didn't win the popular vote in 2000(and I'd question whether or not he won the popular vote in 2004 since it is clear that the machinery tabulating was faulty), he won the electoral vote. The GAO report clearly says there is absolutely no way they could be certain that GW won the votes that were certified. None. Nada. Zip. They noted that the software the machines used could have been easily manipulated. Indeed, they noted there were so many discrepencies in Ohio alone that suggest that GW may not have won Ohio at all. With that in mind, calling GW the LEGITIMATELY elected President is wrong. Folks can hem and folks can haw but the truth is the election of 2004 was not legitimate. We're stuck with GW but it isn't because he was fairly elected. The evidence says contrary.
            •  Look (none)
              I am not saying that Bush was "rightly" elected in a perfectly or largely fair election.

              I am saying that the will of the people was expressed and it was clearly that Bush should be president - by some 3M votes.  That's what the original post was about.

              I think there is good evidence to suggest that Bush would have lost an electoral college vote in 2004 had the votes been perfectly counted.  But I dont see any evidence to suggest that these thousands of votes that would have gone 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 Kerry would have uspet the overall vote count.

              The original post was to the effect that "American blew it", and yes, that's accurate. A majority of Americans wanted Bush to be President.

              You can "question" whether he won the popular vote in 2004, but if he didn't, it would be a stunning rigging job since he improved in 90%+ percent of the precints in the country.  Literally, it would require dozens of thousands of fraudsters to pull of that type of improvement.  

              So, legitimate or not based on the college or the machine fraud or the voting manipulation there is no report I know of by the GAO or anyone else that concludes fraud or mistakes would have tipped the popular vote to Kerry.  That 3M vote gap is just to large to explain away.  

              •  If......... (none)
                If the election results weren't conclusive (and the GAO report makes it clear they couldn't be) and the election was not fair how was the "will of the people" expressed?

                You cite a 90% improvement rate. Where are you getting these numbers from? Are you basing them on the data pulled from the very machines that the GAO said were not reliable. If the machines weren't reliable then neither would the data that resulted from them.

                Feel free to call him legit if you like. Legit or illegit, the American people are stuck with him. I wouldn't and couldn't conclusively say though it was because of the "will of the people" instead of faulty, easily manipulated machinery. Not after reading the non partisan GAO report.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site