If you could, did you VOTE?

[sabreur]

A non-partisan inquiry--I'm just interested to see how many people actually exercised their democratic privilege.

With categories for the underage and the non-American folks, so they don't feel left out. Anyone who is a felon and forbidden from voting can hide in the "I can't vote in the US" category.

Feel free to discuss why you did or didn't vote.

MR

[Epee_Pox]

Even though the result for New York's electoral votes has long been a foregone conclusion, I voted in the Presidential Election anyway in order to affect the popular vote.

[qatet]

Of course, people who are likely to vote in polls might be likely to vote in elections.

[Soldier]

Yep, Bush won, no thanks to me! I never got my absentee ballot for some reason.

But no, wait!

Yes thanks to me! All my amazing and influential arguments that won over countless former-Kerry supporters!

So - how many of you really secretly voted Bush? How many sat here on the board arguing Kerry for fake, but were won over by me yet afraid to show your true colors, ashamed because the others would shun you? How many? Show your faces now, your side reigns victorious!

BWAHAHAHAHA

I'm sure I'll regret these posts by tomorrow.

[mollusk]

So - how many of you really secretly voted Bush? How many sat here on the board arguing Kerry for fake, but were won over by me yet afraid to show your true colors, ashamed because the others would shun you? How many? Show your faces now, your side reigns victorious!

Not exactly what you meant here, but I think you are on to something about some people publicly saying they were supporting Kerry but secretly voting for Bush. I have thought long and hard about why Bush did substantially better in the South at the real poll versus the exit polls, especially in Florida. I suspect that there were more than a few Bush voters that told the exit pollsters that they voted for Kerry. Why would somebody do that? Perhaps they voted for Bush for a less than honorable reason. The only such reason that I can see that could be construed that way was they voted "Bush" was that the anti-gay agenda (no same-sex marriage, no gays in the military, etc.) was their "hot button" issue. I could see that an otherwise liberal homophobe would do this. I can't think of another reason.

[Rogue]

Or the media could have fudged in order to sway the electorate. Or the exit pollers were women and polled,mainly, other women as they exited.-possible
But no,I think your idea is much more plausable, people are ashamed of their vote and couldn't bring themselves to actually say it out loud to a pollster.

[latenight]

Exit polls in NC showed more women voters than men, so methinks the pollsters were hitting the sauce.

[CutLass]

Or the media could have fudged in order to sway the electorate. Or the exit pollers were women and polled,mainly, other women as they exited.-possible
But no,I think your idea is much more plausable, people are ashamed of their vote and couldn't bring themselves to actually say it out loud to a pollster.

Are you saying voters were embarassed to admit to pollsters that they voted for Bush so they said Kerry anyways. Just to make themselves look better and smarter in the eyes of the pollster?

Interesting comment from you of all people. It would be embarassing to have to admit to voting for Bush! I'm glad I don't have to make anything up to save face and reputation.

[Soldier]

I don't know about anybody else, but I was being completely and insanely sarcastic.

[Epictetus]

Voted, of course.

And just something to remember, the NY Assembly race in my district was decided by under 30 votes, with a sitting incumbent being defeated by a challenger who was outspent 10 to 1 in the election season. A single vote does matter, a lot, regardless of whether you're in a swing state or not.

[S. Hunter]

I'm too young, but won't be in 08. Ron Paul/Michael Badnarik 2008! YEAH!

[Rogue]

Are you saying voters were embarassed to admit to pollsters that they voted for Bush so they said Kerry anyways. Just to make themselves look better and smarter in the eyes of the pollster?

Interesting comment from you of all people. It would be embarassing to have to admit to voting for Bush! I'm glad I don't have to make anything up to save face and reputation.

Apparently my sarcasm re: mollusk's post was missed.

[riptide]

So - how many of you really secretly voted Bush? How many sat here on the board arguing Kerry for fake, but were won over by me yet afraid to show your true colors, ashamed because the others would shun you? How many? Show your faces now, your side reigns victorious!

I'd sooner sit in a running car with the tail-pipe plugged than vote for Bush.

[DJ Apostrophe]

I'd sooner sit in a running car with the tail-pipe plugged than vote for Bush.

Passenger seat taken yet?

-w

[riptide]

The more the merrier.

[mollusk]

Apparently my sarcasm re: mollusk's post was missed.

So you think that people won't lie about who they voted for? Try and find enough people to admit that they voted for Nixon in 1972.

[BOliver]

What about this chilling factiod, From Blackboxvoting.com?

"Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct."

It appears that this is not an isolated case. How can we trust the democratic process if this kind of gross ineptitude, if not outright criminal behavior, is allowed to stand?

What I can understand is how this kind of error is allowed to happen. As an example, when was the last time anyone had a a credit card transaction "disappear?" I can take a $.29 piece of plastic, swipe it through a completely automated reader, and know with absolute certanty that $7.29 will be removed from my checking account within minutes to pay for a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk.

Yet, a 20% error rate is considered acceptible in the national elections.

Why can't we have the same standards of accuracy in voting that we have in basic econimic transactions?

[telkanuru]

Two independant experts were on NPR were saying that we are pretty lucky that the voting wasn't .01% closer, because we would be in serious electoral ****e. As it is, however, what irregularites did occur are apparently insufficient to change the election results. Disturbing none the less.

[pkt]

What about this chilling factiod, From Blackboxvoting.com?

"Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct."

...

Yet, a 20% error rate is considered acceptible in the national elections.

Why can't we have the same standards of accuracy in voting that we have in basic econimic transactions?

Yup, I can't understand this either. As a simple Cdn, I couldn't understand
the panaoply of machines and rules. Thankfully in today's Globe and Mail they have an Op-ed piece on this.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Don't mock Americans for their voting chaos, learn from them
By FINN POSCHMANN
Thursday, November 11, 2004, Page A19
Late on Nov. 2, the world watched as lineups of frustrated U.S. voters stretched into the night, the counting of ballots was stalled, credentials challenged, results delayed, and lawyers ubiquitous. The U.S. vote looked like barely managed chaos. Three days later, Iowa finally reported its official results, and many smaller jurisdictions said their vote count would arrive a week after that -- maybe. No one knew when the tens of thousands of provisional ballots would be fully counted.

Basic summary:
counties don't trust big central gov't.
Counties run the elections.
Counties don't always make the right decisions.
Counties buy the wrong machines.
BLT = boys love toys.

They seem to have forgotten the KISS principle as well as accountability.
How can FL or other counties justify buying voting machines that do not have a paper trail. No paper trail, no recount. Maybe that's the reason.

Is this 'the world's greatest democracy'? Is this the kind of democracy that POTUS want the rest of the world want to adopt?

I know democracy is messy, but what you guys have is crazy.

Centralise the federal elections. If you can stomach a security czar, you can stomach a federal elections commissioner. At least he is unbiased if he's responsible to the legislature branch of the government.

If the world's largest democracy - India - can do it, so can you guys.

PK


PK

[pkt]

Two independant experts were on NPR were saying that we are pretty lucky that the voting wasn't .01% closer, because we would be in serious electoral ****e. As it is, however, what irregularites did occur are apparently insufficient to change the election results. Disturbing none the less.

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just a Cdn - I was given the impression that when Kerry conceded, the result became iless relevant.

From what i heard from a few of the major TV broadcasts - no, i didn't watch Fox, just CNN, ABC, CBS and CBC (both radio and TV) - there was a lot of gerrymandering going on. Like having only 2 voting machines in one of the Ohio polls. This was in one of the polls where the majority of the voters were students. In the course of the day one of the [two] machines broke down. The voters ahdd to wait up to NINE hours to vote!!!

The fact that absentee ballots were not mailed, or were lost in the mail. And I thought US Mail is a lot more efficient than Canada Post! Or they were and the AB simply were not mailed.

Instead of stuffing the ballot boxes, manipulate the no-paper-trail-touch-screen voting machines. The only control the voters know is the total number of votes cast. he who has access to the programming has access to the manipulation of the result. Yes, you're right, i don't trust either Jeb Bush or his Sec. of State.

PK