Questioning the 2004 Election

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Kool Keef

Some 120 million voted in the 2004 Presidential election. 63 million voted for the American Idol finals. How is this more?

I'd assume he was referring to the entire American Idols competition, not simply the finals. I've heard the same statistic cited, and yes, it is does have a lot of flaws. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that the US is generally either apathetic or cynical about their own elections--they do have one of the lowest average voter turnouts of any democracy. But not many american adults can really be bothered to vote for american idol, either.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I can't believe it took someone in the US almost two years to find a conspiracy in this one.

They can't have a single event in that country without some puppet strings in the background.

sigh ...

It's crazy ... but sometimes when two parties go the voters, one of them doesn't win.

Agreed. In today's world it's easier to blame others by suing, consipiracy theories etc. instead of taking blame and accepting a loss.

If the Democrats lost Ohio fairly or not then why couldn't they win one of the other 49 states which they didn't win? Same thing in 2000, Florida was singled out but the democrats had other states to win in which would have made Florida a non-factor. Heck, Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Heck, Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

And technically Bush lost his home state of Connecticut in both 2000 and 2004.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by tussery

And technically Bush lost his home state of Connecticut in both 2000 and 2004.

Bush's home state is Texas.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by tussery

And technically Bush lost his home state of Connecticut in both 2000 and 2004.

But did Al Gore win Florida?

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Azure

Bush's home state is Texas.

Um, just because he came here and ****ed up our state doesn't mean it is his home state.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by tussery

Um, just because he came here and ****ed up our state doesn't mean it is his home state.

He was governer there, and from governer he ran for President. Texas would be his home state.

He lives there.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

He was governer

It's spelled governor.

Back on topic...

Bush won, Kerry lost. If you want to bring this up the day after the election, that's fine. Two years later is ridiculous.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's spelled governor.

Back on topic...

Bush won, Kerry lost. If you want to bring this up the day after the election, that's fine. Two years later is ridiculous.

After two years I agree about who won or lost but the issue to me is to have some electoral reform so the questions aren't asked again in two years. Sounds like State rights won't allow a standardized election process though, too bad.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

After two years I agree about who won or lost but the issue to me is to have some electoral reform so the questions aren't asked again in two years. Sounds like State rights won't allow a standardized election process though, too bad.

If it is a federal election, the state still has jurisdiction?

I can see that to prevent duplication of effort, but with the the last 2 elections having claims of voting irregularities you would think there would be some attemp to standardize procedures.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's spelled governor.

Back on topic...

Bush won, Kerry lost. If you want to bring this up the day after the election, that's fine. Two years later is ridiculous.

Thanks man.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

If it is a federal election, the state still has jurisdiction?

I can see that to prevent duplication of effort, but with the the last 2 elections having claims of voting irregularities you would think there would be some attemp to standardize procedures.

Here's some background on their Electoral College and how States want to retain power.

It seems that each area also makes up their own eligibility rules for their voters list as happened in Ohio and each has their own counting and voting system.

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/36875.htm

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

He was governer there, and from governer he ran for President. Texas would be his home state.

He lives there.

I've gotta go with tussery on this one, Azure. Bush was a carpetbagger from the time of his very first Texas campaign--and in fact, in his first run at state office he lost for that very reason--because people saw him as a Yale-educated New England blue-blood, which is, in fact, exactly what he is.

Then he bought a ranch, started wearing cowboy hats and reinvented himself as a native Texan. Apparently it worked, but given that Texans seem to take a while to cotton to outsiders, I don't really see how Bush can be called a "Texan" any more than Dick Cheney is legitimately from Wyoming.

It's one of the reasons that I don't buy into the "Bush is stupid" argument we get on the left sometimes. This is a guy who is Ivy-league educated, comes from New England old money, and received a C average at a very tough school at a time when a C really was the average grade--i.e. before grade inflation became such a huge problem at American colleges. To top it off, he has an MBA. This guy was smart enough to know that a career in politics meant completely re-inventing himself, including his "roots." It's a mistake to "misunderestimate" Bush--and just as important to remember that the "country bumpkin" business is an act. When he was 20, Bush would never have used a word like "varmint."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I've gotta go with tussery on this one, Azure. Bush was a carpetbagger from the time of his very first Texas campaign--and in fact, in his first run at state office he lost for that very reason--because people saw him as a Yale-educated New England blue-blood, which is, in fact, exactly what he is.

Then he bought a ranch, started wearing cowboy hats and reinvented himself as a native Texan. Apparently it worked, but given that Texans seem to take a while to cotton to outsiders, I don't really see how Bush can be called a "Texan" any more than Dick Cheney is legitimately from Wyoming.

It's one of the reasons that I don't buy into the "Bush is stupid" argument we get on the left sometimes. This is a guy who is Ivy-league educated, comes from New England old money, and received a C average at a very tough school at a time when a C really was the average grade--i.e. before grade inflation became such a huge problem at American colleges. To top it off, he has an MBA. This guy was smart enough to know that a career in politics meant completely re-inventing himself, including his "roots." It's a mistake to "misunderestimate" Bush--and just as important to remember that the "country bumpkin" business is an act. When he was 20, Bush would never have used a word like "varmint."

That still doesn't mean that Texas isn't his "home" state. It really doesn't matter where he was born, where he grew up and where he went to college. He ran for President "out" of Texas, therefore Texas would be his home state.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

That still doesn't mean that Texas isn't his "home" state. It really doesn't matter where he was born, where he grew up and where he went to college. He ran for President "out" of Texas, therefore Texas would be his home state.

That's true. But we are talking about the guy who derided Al Gore for being "from Washington D.C." when Gore's Tennessee roots are arguably stronger than Bush's Texas roots. The Bushes still have a residence in Kennebunkport, ME, by the way.

But if Cheney can say he's from Wyoming when he really lives in Texas to get around the rule that they can't be from the same state, then I suppose Bush can say he's from anywhere he wants to be from. I think it's a bit silly to have a rule that you can't enforce, but I don't make the rules.

I suspect that part of tussery's point was that if you want to call Tennessee Gore's "home state" and then make fun of him for losing it, you should acknowledge that the Bush family's roots are in New England.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's true. But we are talking about the guy who derided Al Gore for being "from Washington D.C." when Gore's Tennessee roots are arguably stronger than Bush's Texas roots. The Bushes still have a residence in Kennebunkport, CT, by the way.

But if Cheney can say he's from Wyoming when he really lives in Texas to get around the rule that they can't be from the same state, then I suppose Bush can say he's from anywhere he wants to be from. I think it's a bit silly to have a rule that you can't enforce, but I don't make the rules.

I suspect that part of tussery's point was that if you want to call Tennessee Gore's "home state" and then make fun of him for losing it, you should acknowledge that the Bush family's roots are in New England.

Very true. But how many people will say it this way. In order to keep it simple, Texas would be referred to as Bush's home state.

[octothorp]

Just as an aside to the original article, I saw Kennedy on the Colbert Report (Monday night, I think) talking about this article. And man, that guy is hard to listen to. I mean, his voice is absolutely torturous. I eventually put the TV on mute and just followed along with the closed-captioning.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's spelled governor.

Back on topic...

Bush won, Kerry lost. If you want to bring this up the day after the election, that's fine. Two years later is ridiculous.

Its not ridiculous. People study history to learn about the present, and to better their decisions for the future. Why would one just ignore an event (legit or not) because its 2 years old? When it comes to the US evolving their social and political systems and evaluating past elections, 2 years is less than a blink of an eye. Every democratic election should undergo intense scrutiny regardless of accusations of wrong-doing.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just as an aside to the original article, I saw Kennedy on the Colbert Report (Monday night, I think) talking about this article. And man, that guy is hard to listen to. I mean, his voice is absolutely torturous. I eventually put the TV on mute and just followed along with the closed-captioning.

I don't know what was wrong with his voice. I heard him speak at an environmental conference in New Brunswick about 10 years ago and he didn't speak like that. It was nasal, but it wasn't Fran Dresher nasal. You're right, he was hard to listen to....

As for those that say the same thing is happening on the other side, so be it. Light should be shown on all the cheating and playing around with the elections. The presidency shouldn't depend on which side can cheat the best (which is Colbert's point... "don't we want the party with the most innovative ideas winning"). It's no wonder people don't show up to vote if it means waiting in a line for 4 hours.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Its not ridiculous. People study history to learn about the present, and to better their decisions for the future. Why would one just ignore an event (legit or not) because its 2 years old? When it comes to the US evolving their social and political systems and evaluating past elections, 2 years is less than a blink of an eye. Every democratic election should undergo intense scrutiny regardless of accusations of wrong-doing.

Agree 100%.

I'd like to know if the US has an agency that is charged with doing just that. I seriously doubt we do. I'll bet it would take a Congressional hearing to get something like that going.