Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Kerry conceded on Nov 3

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:34 AM
Original message
Why Kerry conceded on Nov 3
Boston Globe today by Cameron F. Kerry - John Kerry's brother:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2005/01/06/counting_every_vote?mode=PF

*****

"These lawyers made a difference. In Ohio they pursued federal court cases that deterred Republicans from carrying out announced plans for wholesale challenges and got local election officials to stop the few that occurred. They got election officials to take malfunctioning machines out of service in Mahoning County and correct the infamous 3,800-vote error in Franklin County. In two lawsuits on Election Day, they got paper ballots issued when lines in two counties were too long and later did the same for students waiting in line for hours.

Thanks to their efforts, by the early hours of Nov. 3, election lawyers had audited the Bush margin. We knew the scope of problems lawyers had been unable to remedy quickly. We knew how many provisional, overseas, and absentee ballots were left to count. We knew there were up to 94,000 "undervotes" or "spoiled ballots," punch card ballots rejected by machines (a far lower percentage than in Florida in 2000 due to education about punching carefully). The distribution of these uncounted votes across Ohio and experience indicated they would not be enough to dent the margin. Only the discovery of wholesale fraud might change the outcome. And, with thousands of observers to the process, this was unlikely. Not every fact was in, but we knew much of what has emerged publicly since then. "

These lawyers took naps during computer basics course, if they even took the courses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. I know as much about law as they do about computers, which isn't much. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Memme: Computers count vote so no one can see, They claim Bush won,
I say prove it to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. The amount of legal professionals...
Who truly understand technical issues is incredibly woeful. Furthermore, the people who advise lawyers on technical issues? OMG, some of them are so full of shit it is remarkable. Some are charlatans, others are former officers who know a little bit about technology and massage the data to give a prosecutor grounds to bring charges(and an awful lot of what they provide is bullshit) and some of them are just recycled blackhat hackers. Others are luddites who consider computers and the internet the tool of Satan.

It's a mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Wasn't about the law.
It was about technology that was easy to corrupt.

All those lawyers were prepared for legal challenges and there were too few technicals looking for the attacks on the voting machines, and most important the "recalibrations" of the tabulating machines.

Stalin was right: it's not the voters, it's the vote counters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catbird Donating Member (633 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. Iceberg
It sounds like they found the tip of the iceberg and convinced themselves it wasn't that big. It is likely that most of the problems were "underwater" in those black boxes. (I say likely because no one will ever be able to audit some of those machine counts properly.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC