The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:32 pm 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108339/

A reality-based country would have fixed this... but I guess that bit of chaos lets god work his will easier.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:07 pm 
Complaint #3 in there is a non-issue. Colorado will NEVER pass that amendment, even in really early polls it was getting solidly beaten at least 60-30 with about 10% undecided. Just about every politician in colorado is telling people to vote no on it. Both sides, even. Of course, some of them are blaming it on the other candidates even though the other candidates also oppose it. Silly politicians.

As far as reality based countries, Do such things exist? I figured they were just something conjured up in Pronto's imagination. ;)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:09 pm 
#1 is something that could happen anywhere, it is inherantly unfixable.

I have to admit that #2 is sheer lunacy. If you show up in the wrong polling place you either find the right one or don't vote. There should be a map posted of the nearby polling places so the election judges can be busy supervising the election rather than helping lost folks.

#3 is a totally new situation, unfortunatly we can't have a court ruling until after the fact. It's a one time situation that can't be fixed ahead of time.

#4 Yeah, the electoral college system is hosed. The implementation is not fault tolerant. The simple fix that may have a chance of passing would be to mandate that electors *must* vote according to the wishes of the plurality of their state. Abolishing the electoral college has no reasonable chance any time soon.

#5 Some states do have a procedure to handle delaying the elections and some don't. Given time more states will get on board. This is in the process of being fixed.



Anyway, there's always this option.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:18 pm 
We had all better get delayed election procedures fast. Electronic voting is likely to be one disaster after another.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:26 pm 
Kodiak Claw wrote:
We had all better get delayed election procedures fast. Electronic voting is likely to be one disaster after another.


Truth.

The only thing that gives me a bit of hope is that our local electronic voting system not Diebold.

We can at least get good recounts.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:27 pm 
Offline
Energizer Bunny
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:24 am
Posts: 1634
The problem with #2 is two-fold:

1. people don't know the correct polling place because it changed.
2. the folks at the pollng place don't know the correct polling place either.

Vorn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:43 pm 
Of course, you know it's not Electronic voting in-and-of itself that is the problem. It's the cruddy implementation of the majority of the systems currently on the market.

Computers are not bad, despite the fact that windows is horrible. Electronic voting machines are not bad despite the fact that the current software and design of them are horrible.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm 
Vorn the Unspeakable wrote:
The problem with #2 is two-fold:

1. people don't know the correct polling place because it changed.
2. the folks at the pollng place don't know the correct polling place either.

Vorn

The chief difficulty on this one is with corrupt and incompetent political organizations.

In well-run polities, the local precinct voting locations don't change from election to election. In both of the districts where I've lived for a long period (one rural, one suburban) any regular voter can tell you where to go (a township hall in one case, an elementary school in the other.)

Corrupt governments change voting locations often to suppress the vote in neighborhoods where the tally might be against them. This is particularly effective in poorer neighborhoods, where the potential voters have less free time to vote (they have to go to work, and their employers are less forgiving) and are not as mobile (very hard on the elderly poor.)

The one really spectacular case this election cycle occurred this week in Philadelphia, where Republican officials sudden announced, only three weeks before then election, that they wanted to change ballot box locations in 63 precincts, because they felt unsafe there. Not to anyone's surprise, 53 of the 63 precincts were in Black neighborhoods, which vote 80-20 Democratic. Legal challenges are flying back and forth at this time.

The traditional first principle guiding honest election officials (and there are many of them) is to get as many votes cast as possible. Conseqently, the rule in most places where the voter might be at the wrong precinct is to let them vote. You'll usually find people arguing the other side in situations where the officials are of one party and the voters of another.
Also, traditionally, where White or middle class officials are making rules for poor or minority neighborhoods. These officials will make a big fuss about how "those people" might be cheating and voting more than once, and how important it is to avoid that.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:42 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Computers are not bad, despite the fact that windows is horrible. Electronic voting machines are not bad despite the fact that the current software and design of them are horrible.

The current generation of machines seem designed by people utterly clueless concerning the history of the popular ballot.

Mechanical voting devices date back to prehistoric times; even stone age tribes knew how to cast lots using different colored stones in a pottery jar. The reason we still use such simple, crude devices as the punch card is that mechanical voting makes it so much easier to fix an election. A manual punch card or mechanical punch device has no secrets from the voter, and all the evidence is right out in the open where the election judges from all parties can see it.

I'm not usually into complex conspiracy theories, but the concept of trusting the national elections to a programable computer voting machine with no paper trail is so monumentally stupid you have to wonder if someone, like that oddball who runs Diebold, didn't have something crooked in mind from the start.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:29 pm 
Berken wrote:
I'm not usually into complex conspiracy theories


... 8O You mean you've been faking it the whole time?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:31 am 
:x Damn. Messed up my edit.


Last edited by Berken on Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:41 am 
Your first message said nothing about traditional conspiracy theories, It said complex conspiracy theories. I'm sure I could find a dozen if I clicked on your profile and hit "Find all posts by Berken."

And all of your current post has nothing to do with it. Some of it has a kernel of truth, but you've just blown out of proportion to ridicule.

Bush has done alot of things wrong however. I doubt that he's in a complex conspiracy to take over american politics any more than the democrats are, like you've stated several times in previous posts.

Heck, I'm not sure he could even pull a complex ANYTHING off. :)

If anything, the Republicans and Democrats are partners in domination of american politics, which has turned into little more than a Colliseum show such as you'd see in the Roman Empire. Entertain and distract the public from what's really going on. And you've fallen for it Hook, line, and sinker.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:47 am 
Kazriko wrote:
Your first message said nothing about traditional conspiracy theories, It said complex conspiracy theories. I'm sure I could find a dozen if I clicked on your profile and hit "Find all posts by Berken."

Then do it. I can provide references as needed.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:27 am 
Berken wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
Your first message said nothing about traditional conspiracy theories, It said complex conspiracy theories. I'm sure I could find a dozen if I clicked on your profile and hit "Find all posts by Berken."

Then do it. I can provide references as needed.


Just because you have references doesn't make it anything other than a complex conspiracy theory. Lets start with the recent ones.

viewtopic.php?p=212097#212097
viewtopic.php?p=198007#198007
viewtopic.php?p=196788#196788
viewtopic.php?p=195386#195386
viewtopic.php?p=183206#183206

I left out quite a few that were marginal, and that I may have only seen as a conspiracy theory based on my beliefs about gun control. I didn't want to pull anymore out because I got sick of wading through It's Walky posts after about 10 pages of them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:00 pm 
A new scholarly study has been made public that supporting my statement of a few days ago:

Berken wrote:
The Bush administration's mendacity is mostly right out in public. They figured out years ago that they can say any damn thing they want and get away with it . . . At this point, the administration has created an entire alternate reality for themselves . . . Saddam and Al Quaeda were in cahoots, and we'll be able to invade Iran next year only a little behind schedule.


Key points, as noted by Michelle Goldberg in Salon:

Quote:
Analyzing data from a series of nationwide polls, the report finds that a majority of Bush supporters believe things about the world that are objectively untrue, while the majority of Kerry supporters dwell in the reality-based community. For example, Bush backers largely think that the president and his policies are popular internationally. Seventy-five percent believe that Iraq was providing "substantial" aid to al-Qaida, and 63 percent say clear evidence of this has been found. That, of course, would be news even to Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier this month told the Council on Foreign Relations, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two . . ."

Indeed, it says, "an overwhelming 82% [of Bush supporters] perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or a major WMD program (19%). Only 16% of Bush supporters perceive the administration as saying that Iraq had some limited activities, but not an active program (15%) or had nothing (1%). The pattern on al Qaeda is similar. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters think the Bush administration is currently saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (56%) or even that it was directly involved in 9/11 (19%). Further, 55% of Bush supporters say it is their impression the Bush administration is currently saying the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda (not saying clear evidence found: 37%)."

These people aren't going to be swayed by the argument that Bush has alienated America's allies and left the country isolated in the world, because they don't believe this to be the case. "Despite a steady flow of official statements, public demonstrations, and public opinion polls showing that the US war against Iraq is quite unpopular, only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq," the study says. Bush supporters also think that world public opinion favors Bush's reelection. In a poll taken from Sept. 3-7, the study says, "57% of Bush supporters assumed that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected, 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred."

Bush supporters are also mistaken about the president's own positions (a pattern of misapprehension that an earlier PIPA report also documented). "Majorities incorrectly assumed that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues -- the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%); 51% incorrectly assumed he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty -- the principal international accord on global warming ... Only 13% of supporters are aware that he opposes labor and environmental standards in trade agreements -- 74% incorrectly believe that he favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade. In all these cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions, and they infer that Bush favors them as well."


Official web posting:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:21 pm 
If one were to make a study one could find that the majority of Kerry voters believe some untrue things as well.

I've been told (It was last Thursday evening to be precise) that Bush said that everyone ought to have a gun in the second debate.

Many Kerry voters probably believe that Bush wants to destroy Social Security, the economy isn't getting any better, and that there's going to be a draft if Bush is re-elected.

They probably even believe that Bush wasn't elected in the first place.


There's Kerry's nice little alternate reality.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:42 am 
Kazriko wrote:
As far as reality based countries, Do such things exist?


Yeah, Kaz, they do. But don't worry about it, you'll never need to know how to recognize one. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:14 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Notably, Bush keeps tripping over his own tongue and then issuing retractions.

The question: does he mean the RETRACTION?

No, I'd think not. Freudian slip, anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:34 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
BBlalock wrote:
Many Kerry voters probably believe that Bush wants to destroy Social Security, the economy isn't getting any better, and that there's going to be a draft if Bush is re-elected.


From the top.

Bush doesn't actively want to destroy Social Security.
He just has no idea how to properly keep it from collapsing.
He HAS managed to state the problem, but then sputtered out before coming up with a workable solution.

Bush's tax cut MAY HAVE, and I say this very lightly considering the reports of record personal debt and our slamming up against the national deficit limit, stimulated the economy.
I doubt it. Reagan tried the same tactic, and it didn't work then either.
However, making the tax cut permanent will surely be a fsckup.
In short, Bush does not know how to make the economy better.
If he did, he'd have had a better answer to this question in the debates than "I'm expanding Pell grants--go to a community college!"

Bush may not actively want a draft, but if he decides to invade another "terrorist-supporting country" in his "war on terror", and thereby stretches our (Clinton-depleted, yes) military even further, a draft may be necessary to feed his war machine.
Especially if Britain decides to oust Blair and tell us to get bent. (Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" is a gag.)
The huge push of "sign me up!"s has probably been spent: all the hardcore Bush supporters and blood-seekers are probably already in, leaving people that are either thinking of doing it for the money (yes, we have a military of mercenaries. What else do you call "signing bonuses" and "money for college" as recruitment pitches?) or thinking of doing it because they think it's a fine idea. Seeing where a tour of duty is likely to take them today, this has probably cooled.
On the other hand, aggression by N. Korea and Iran make entering another country almost a certaintly.
Only by getting a President that the entire world does not revile(as is largely the case now) will we get more allies to share tasks with.
So, if Bush is re-elected...well, you tell me.

Oh, and Bush didn't get the most popular votes, and the fate of the entire election swung on the outcome of one small county in Florida. By the rules? Yeah, he won. But don't start thinking you're high and mighty: from the get go, over half the voting public didn't like Bush.

The occupant of the Oval Office for the next four years, whoever it is, will probably also have a similar total lack of mandate. The trick is, will that person acknowledge that, or pretend like he was put on the throne by God himself?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:47 am 
Ishidan, none of that contradicts my point. I'm with the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" on this point, most people are less well informed than we D&E forumgoers are.

Please notice that even the extreme right-wingers here haven't been parading around agreeing with the falsehoods cited in Berken's study.

I wasn't intending to imply that any of us believed the falsehoods that I stated, I was just pointing out a few things that I am certain a scholarly study would find that a majority of Kerry votors believe.

If you can point to some convincing evidence that the majority of Kerry votors don't believe those things I will of course concede the point.

EDIT: I fixed a few really really obvious spelling errors. This doesn't mean that there arn't additional spelling errors to be found.


Last edited by BBlalock on Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:53 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
As far as reality based countries, Do such things exist?


Yeah, Kaz, they do. But don't worry about it, you'll never need to know how to recognize one. :)


So, Pronto, as a representative sample from a supposedly reality based country, how would you solve the problems mentioned in the article, step by step?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:50 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
So, Pronto, as a representative sample from a supposedly reality based country, how would you solve the problems mentioned in the article, step by step?


Yeah, right.
You inaccurate assumptions are only exceeded by your misplaced optimism.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:18 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Yeah, right.
You inaccurate assumptions are only exceeded by your misplaced optimism.


Ahh, so if you aren't in a reality based country, how do you know that they exist? Observations from the outside? I already knew you weren't a representative sample of Canada though. ;)

* waits for Pronto's next pointless jab. :)


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group