So now election reform is a fringe issue. Like 9/11. Great.

Now we can get back to posting more important things, like umm... personal attacks, whining, etc.

the others can't

Continually inventing new problems -- based on mere suspicions or less -- is simply annoying.

I don't have to fucking prove that the elections were not rigged.

If you are not certain, do you not want to be certain that we have fair elections?

Do you assume the people in your life are liars until you can demonstrate they are honest?

Does life suck until you have reason to believe otherwise?

I have no reason to believe that the NH elections were fixed or flawed. I don't have to go wandering around looking for problems.

I guess your vote really is not that important to you, nor is the concept of fair elections.

I am not looking for trouble. There is plenty of reason to be suspicious. You would have to be a fucking fool to not be.

You haven't given one. It is not up to me to convince you otherwise. But, I'll tell you this, you've done nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to make me think something was wrong.

I said we should be able to verify the election and we shouldn't have privatized companies with invisible, proprietary software that can be hacked doing the tabulation.

SO I wanna check. Get it now?

However, you didn't say that to me in this subthread (and I didn't check elsewhere). Take another look at the OP. That's where this began.

If you want to verify the NH results, go for it. I never said you shouldn't.

I will not let you twist this around.

You jumped the gun. Now admit you were wrong.

I won't let you turn it around either.

Now answer the question. Are you CERTAIN about the results and why? And if not, why do you NOT want to be certain?

Christ, you're full of it this morning.

Your attitude typifies why this issue has been banished from the heavily-trafficked forums, which was your original point and my only motivation in responding to you.

I'm done here. Have a good one.

"Do you assume the people in your life are liars until you can demonstrate they are honest?

Does life suck until you have reason to believe otherwise?"

Payment in cash, and then leave it on the doorstep of some bank with a note attached, and an explanation that someone should really and truly pretty please put it into your account with your name attached??

Or despite your Anne Frank like belief in the goodness of man (A sentiment that I admire greatly BTW) do you actually take the time to deposit your paycheck yourself.

I want the same level of security occurring during the elections.

Why is it crazy to ask that our elections be accountable to We The People?

(If you are a Hillbot, you don't need to bother answering; I am sure many of her supporters believe we don't even NEED an election, as she is so wondrous that we should forget this petty exercise that consumes so much time and energy.)

By accountability, we need elections to occur on paper ballots. Handcounted under the jurisdiction of a democratically selected group of people with the public free to watch.

By accountability I also mean that it should be ILLEGAL to have the MEDIA call the results of an election when only 65% or so of the final vote is in.

I don't care if it had been my esteemed father running against my granddaughter in Monday night's election. Having 30% of the votes (or more) outstanding means that it remains anybody's race.

And the raCE SHOULD BE CALLED ONLY WHEN ALL THE VOTES ARE IN.

We voting activists have a lot on our plate right now. We need to make sure that each and every candidate become opposed to the idea that the media calls the election results before the votes are counted.

I personally will not consider voting for anyone in CA's primary unless they sign on to that concept.

My thoughts exactly.

1. First, my allegiance to one candidate or another is irrelevant. (I don't support Hillary, but your implication that I might suggests your passion is driven by not liking the results.)

2. My paycheck is directly deposited in my account. Electronically. :wow: . No cash involved. I never see a dime; should I start crapping my pants and demanding more security and accountability?

3. Cheating and fixing elections began long before electronic voting machines. It's just as easy to "lose" a box of ballots as it is to rig a Diebold machine. Probably easier. But I see your point -- I mean, nobody ever complained about the paper ballots in the 2000 election in Florida.

4. Having NBC or CNN call the race means nothing. The selection of delegates was done based on the final tallies. Unlike a general election, a concession speech in the primaries is meaningless.

5. The media does not call the race. Period. If you don't like their projections, that's a totally different issue than the one being discussed here. I'm guessing you also feel that polls contribute to the rigging of the vote.

They backed off back in November of 2006 when it turned out that the Powers that Be were about to get SPANKED.

But usually the media is declaring their RIGHT to call the elections. It was said again and again on election night 2006.

It actually OCCURRED during the November 2004 election. And it was the media in collusion with the Bush WH that allowed for the re-installation of George W Bush. Despite as many as 400,000 ballots remaining uncounted in Ohio.

And the fact that the Primaries involve a different set of rules regarding the delegates and what woul dhappen if there was a mis-calling of the results does not change the overall concept.

The media should not be brainwashing the electorate into thinking that it is okay for the Media to be calling the shots.

Last night, Tweety Bird jsut offered a two minute digression on how important it is to have the Media continue with their assumed Right to call the shots of an election.

After all, Matthews contended, the American people desire to have immediate results, like they have during the SuperBowl.

So we now know what they intend. To make us aware of our needs to be instantaneously gratified.

Also, once the "results" are announced by the media, if any candidate were to cry "Time Out" he or she might well be labelled a cry baby, sour grape spoiler. Maybe there would be a defense for the cry baby posture during the Primaries, but during an actual election, the cards are greatly stacked against the canddiate not given the win. I can only imagine what a beating Kerry would have taken in the Press if he had called foul rather than conceded.

So anyway, as long as the populace is willing to let TV's hypnotic meidum explain through repitition of example, that it is normal and just for the Media to call the results with only 67% or less of votes in, well, don't cry to me if it should happen again: the Third Election in a row going to someone in collusion witht he Media, we will just all shut off our TVs and go to bed.

BTW the comments about Hillbot were not meant to apply to you personally. I assume that we are on a discussion forum and maybe one or two tohers might read our comments.

I'm not sure how much is collusion and how much is a desire to simply be the first to call it correctly.

Calling an election by the media prior to counting all the ballots but after the polls across the nation have closed is fine with me. In my opinion, it's harmless fluff by talking heads eager to be first.

However, calling elections prior to the closing of the polls is totally irresponsible. I don't recall having seen much of that lately.

Question for you: do you think that your objections are truly election reform, or simply a valid complaint about the behavior of the media?

Story about the Stolen Election of 2004. I preceeded Robert Kennedy Jr's story about the Stolen Election '04 (Printed in Rolling Stone) by some eighteen months or more.

This article "We The People Do Not Concede" was published initially in "The Coastal Post", editor Don Deane, writer Carol Sterritt, January 2005 and then during the months of Jan Feb and March 2005, it spread out over 300 web blogs. It brought close to an additional 50,000 readers to "The Coastal Post" each month during that time frame. The Coastal Post has never had the funds to pay its writers and that is because we do not take advertising from any but local mom and pop supporters.

You can find that article in CP archives http://tinyurl.com/2qdrvx

Saying that I might not be into election reform is sort of like saying that Mrs Fields might not be into cookies.

As for the conduct of the media:

Here is my framing:

Does the media have the right to call an election?

Yes it does. After the vote is counted by democratically selected officials with those witnesses who wish to participate on the sidelines watching.

And after the candidates on both sides state their willingness to concede.

Before those events occur, it would be far better for the media to be allowed to announce only this: "that we at Network ABC or XYZ are going to PROJECT the winner. But this is not the final word. It is only a projection and nothing more."

Why is this so important: look at what happened in the wee morning hours of Nov 3rd, 2004. People were still in line trying to vote in the state of Ohio. Nonetheless, and partly due to the fact that a major TV network had called the election for George W. Bush, Andrew Card, Bush's Chief of Staff announced that the results were in and that in Card's words: "We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election with at least 286 electoral college votes. And he also had a margin of more than three and a half million votes. President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first Presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote. And that in this election, President Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in the history of our countryÉ In Ohio, the President has a lead of at least 136,000 votes. The Secretary of State's office has informed us that this margin is statistically insurmountableÉ So President Bush has won the state of Ohio."

As long as the media is allowed to call an election, We The People will have to continue to fight and fight (which frankly I am damn tired of doing) in order to see that the election results are correct.

Because LHSs' diebold machines said they did? so we should trust them wholeheartedly w/o verification? that worked out well for the party in the past didn't it?

The vote wasn't close; it simply didn't turn out the way the pre-election polls predicted. That hardly justifies verification.

In 2000 in Florida, it was clear that the election was a huge mess, and I felt we were screwed. I was curious about the happenings in Ohio in 2004 and felt that further, official investigations might have been needed. But this? No. It's not my nature to be paranoid about happenings just because some people are suspicious.

and pays for one. In this case, the difference would be one or two delegates at most along with a bunch of bad COM PR, so there will be no recount and therefore anyone could have adjusted any machine counted results without any risk. Is that how you like your elections run?

"looking bad" or "looking crazy".

Cuz the surface is more important than the truth. :o

Where do people get the idea that everything's not on the up and up?

He's already stated why, but perhaps he could clarify further.

We continue to find real evidence that something is not quite right. Instead of having the discrepancies investigated (for instance how effin hard is it to recount votes by hand and at least preserve some semblance of democracy),the "conspiracy theorist' meme is cranked up and suddenly one becomes some crazy-ass loonie moonbat for having broached the question in the first place.

not going to even bother to say what I have to say. a sad day.

...just like the Bushistas. Never mind the facts, never mind the rules, so long as they are ahead.

and one wonders about the motives of some.

and it is denial. I indulge in it often. After the elections of 2004, and 2006..after all of the evidence..after all of the 'attempts' to apply the very simple fixes to insure our elections failed...what other conclusion can one come to? I too like a little fantasy with my reality, but I need to remember which is which. Perhaps the influx of shrill voices thwarting any attempt at addressing these problems is a coincidence. Where are all those who would never forgive Kerry for not counting their votes? Why the change in attitude? It's almost like the reasons given for poll numbers not matching results...bizarre.