# Stupid Yank question on Canuck politics



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

If Harpo, er..., Harper is truly hideous, if he resembles Bush and the public wants him out, how soon can Canadians act to get rid of him? 

What is the procedure? Does the parliament declare no confidence and call for a new election, as is done in the U.K.? Sorry for being such a dolt.  

How I envy you! I wish we in the U.S. could yank Bush out of office by the ear. The constitution pretty much keeps him firmly in place.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi,

The problem with an immediate non confidence vote is it means we return to the ballot box. Canadians would be irritated with the Liberal's and NDP for forcing an immediate election and would probably vote Conservative just to get 3-5 years of peace and quiet. This minority government will have to screw up pretty badly before an early election would be called. I am willing to sit back and see how Harper and his gang do with what they have. I don't think it will be that bad in the end.

s.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

^ post from Harpoland...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Good analysis, but the functional answer is that you are right, he can only be removed by a parliamentary vote of non-confidence. Some matters, primarily budget, are non-confidence motions by definition; otherwise, a member of one of the opposition parties needs to introduce a specific non-confidence vote. This is how Martin was ousted.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> If Harpo, er..., Harper is truly hideous, if he resembles Bush and the public wants him out, how soon can Canadians act to get rid of him?


At this stage of the game, the public *doesn't* want him out as he just won an election a couple of days back. That may or may not change over the next few months, we'll have to wait and see.

I think there is a good chance we will continue to have minority governments for a while, as it will be tough for any party to get a strong majority as long as the Bloc (which has no plans to form a government) continues to hold 50 seats or so.

In order for either party to get a majority, the Conservatives would need to increase their support in Ontario and the East Coast (difficult), or the Liberals would need to break through in the West (nearly impossible).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper has said things in the past that aligns him with US NeoCon thinking.

Harper has said things recently that aligns him with moderate conservative centrist thinking.

Only seeing what he DOES will tell the truth of one or the other and he is held by the short and curlies to do much at all.

He MUST have the support of either the Liberals just recently defeated ( much to all our relief ).

or

The separatist Bloc from Quebec who have almost nothing in common on the social agenda but much in common on rebalancing power between province and Federal and perhaps on some aspects of the budget.

Harper can be defeated on something like a same sex marriage bill without it being a no confidence vote. ( he stays in power - the legislation does not pass )

The budget that MUST be done in a few weeks will be the big test as defeat of a money bill sends us back to the polls.

Other parties can also initiate a no-confidence vote and if they all vote for it the government is defeated but as mentioned no wants an election right now and this is a conservative government on training wheels.

The Progressive Conservative party was just about obliterated in the 90s dropping from a majority to 2 seats nationally. 

It slowly regained a few seats and a farther right party the Reform party grew quickly in Alberta turning into the Alliance party and then recently under a cloud consolidating as the current Conservative Party of Canada.

The right wing vote by consolidating AND taking advantage of the desire to give the Liberals a timeout has earned a time a bat but they have very little real power to change anything at this point.

The left side of the spectrum is split between the centrist/left Liberals and the further socially left NDP so now the left is splitting votes.

The Bloc from Quebec is entirely regional, trying to take Quebec out of Canada and is socially closer to Liberal/NDP so would not support the Cons on something like same sex or abortion rights changes.

They will pick and choose legislation that suits Quebec interests.

IF the Cons can successfully transition to a national centrist small c conservative party as the right wing has been tradtionally in Canada then they stand a good chance of a majority sometime tho the last 30 seats ( they have 124 - they need 155 to have a majority ) will be very difficult.

If you are thinking "what a way to run a country"....you're not alone. 

Canada has some strong tensions between regions and the central gov right now and this is playing out. Ontario, Alberta and Quebec have resources and economies similar to some nationstates in Europe and the debate is betweena loose federal system as Europe is heading towards versus a strong national government as has been tradtional in Canada and say Britain ( thinking of Scotland and Wales as regional cultural interests.)

It's a tale still to be played out. The GTA ( Toronto and surrounding ) which is the largest urban concentration ( 5-6 million ) and 20% of the national economy shut out the Cons entirely as did the other major urban centres in Canada so there are crisscrossing tensions in a variety of directions.
French/not French • Urban/rural • right -left • resource economy versus manufacturing • western and coasts versus central Canada.

Interesting times....... 

Hope that helps. If you are interested and email me I'll send you the series of articles from the Economist magazine that are very good explanations of the tensions facing Canada.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Not a stupid question at all IMO... *MissGulch* 
It just depends what side of the border you are looking at things from... 

We're neighbours... I'd love for us to understand each other better... "people to people"... nevermind the politicians. 

I hear rumblings about impeachment for Bush... I don't know how possible this is but : http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman

Also not all Albertans are in love with Harper eventhough it may look that way. I've done enough work and research going back to the early 90's to know that he and his people are potentially extremely dangerous to everything that makes Canada the country it is.

My hope is that the Liberals will find a new leader and rebuild confidence in the party enough to make an election maybe 2 years from now a possibility... until then I hope for minimal damage from a Harper government. 

For those who don't believe he can damage the country... I'm watching... convince me... 

*edit... wouldn't want my first post to have a typo...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> *edit... wouldn't want my first post to have a typo...


knot two worrie, i due it all da thyme


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Hi DB, 

So you finaly stopped lurking, eh?

Nice to see you here, now you can let it aaaall out. Go get'em!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Also not all Albertans are in love with Harper eventhough it may look that way. I've done enough work and research going back to the early 90's to know that *he and his people are potentially extremely dangerous to everything that makes Canada the country it is.*


:clap: excellent assessment and welcome from the lurker world........keep our reminders that we are ALL Canadians no matter where we live and that opposing viewpoints are important and present in all regions..hey there are Cons in the GTA too


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> If Harpo, er..., Harper is truly hideous, if he resembles Bush and the public wants him out, how soon can Canadians act to get rid of him?
> 
> What is the procedure? Does the parliament declare no confidence and call for a new election, as is done in the U.K.? Sorry for being such a dolt.
> 
> How I envy you! I wish we in the U.S. could yank Bush out of office by the ear. The constitution pretty much keeps him firmly in place.


Some people in Canada might think that Haper is "hideous"...but a majority backed him in this last election. More people voted Conservative on jan 23rd than for any other single party.

Which is why "HE" is in, and the Libs are NOT. (in fact, the Libs are burnt toast right now).

If a vote of non-confidence were called on any major policy move or bill (once parliament is reconvened)...which is a very real possibility when the ruling party has such a small minority...then there would be a brand new election within 30 to 60 days.

Good time for it, too. 

The Liberals have no leader, and they are deeply in debt as well. They are also the subject of about a dozen or more serious police investigations for corruption and the like. And even THEY admit that some of their top officials stole hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars. But they refuse to name those guilty individuals at this time...and NONE of them have gone to jail for their crimes. At least not YET!  

Oh yeah...they are also being investigated for bribery and even the American SEC has begun looking into one of their more shady insider trading deals. 

Bottom line here?

The Liberals might come back some day. Once all of their self-inflicted grief has passed. And once all of their most guilty have been sent to jail. But it's most likely that they will come back in some modified form...much the way that the conservative right in Canada has had to do. (That took about a decade, by the way)

But, right now...the Liberals are not exactly poised for a giant recovery in the eyes of most Canadians. That includes a whole BUNCH of long term Liberal supporters as well, BTW.

Want an even bigger Conservative government than we have right now in Canada? Then force a new election in the next few weeks or months. The only other contender to the throne is on it's knees right now.

Want to wait for a bit...a five or ten year period...and then roll the dice again while trying to make a comeback?

Good luck. Might work.

Hasn't anywhere else in the world. (The leftish NEVER come back from the dead without a giant policy shift to the right).

But, it might work here. Who knows? 

Oh...and one more thing...President Bush is on his last term. He cannot be re-elected due to set term limits.

And, unlike with Mr Clinton, there is no real movement to have him impeached. No evidence to do so, either.

Mrs. Gulch, as much as it may pain you to do so, you might just have to live with both of these "unpleasant" situations. Two leaders that you despise...but that were elected, despite your feelings.

This is democracy. Not everyone gets their wish. Deal with it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacNutt: The Majority did not elect Harper -- quite the opposite. The Cons only got 36% of the vote.

The Liberals got 30%.

So much for shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

posted by nutt


> This is democracy. Not everyone gets their wish. Deal with it


hmm, i don't recall you using those words after the past 12 years of Liberal rule
funny how a little minority changes history, eh?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> They are also the subject of about a dozen or more serious police investigations for corruption and the like. And even THEY admit that some of their top officials stole hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars. But they refuse to name those guilty individuals at this time...and NONE of them have gone to jail for their crimes. At least not YET!
> 
> Oh yeah...they are also being investigated for bribery and even the American SEC has begun looking into one of their more shady insider trading deals.


You're hallucinating again. I think probably everyone knows the truth about the situations you are grossly distorting here, but I hate leaving such ridiculous stuff unchallenged.

- Your description of the Quebec scandal is significantly exaggerated. The Gomery inquiry was exhaustive, open and public. The crooks have been exposed. People have been and are being prosecuted for criminal offences. Whether anybody goes to jail will be decided by an independent judiciary.

- There is no evidence of insider deals. There was an aberration in trading activity. The speculation that there was insider trading is no more credible than the explanation that traders anticipated this announcement on information that was widely reported in the media. This is like someone pointing the finger at you every time there is a crime in Saltspring.

Corruption has many forms and, frankly, I consider stealing votes worse than stealing money. The real crooks in this "insider trading" scenario are the individuals who instigated these witchhunts for political purposes, to manipulate the election. That was morally bankrupt.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> ...In order for either party to get a majority, the Conservatives would need to increase their support in Ontario and the East Coast (difficult), or the Liberals would need to break through in the West (nearly impossible).


Let's not forget Quebec.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Well, I didn't vote for Harper, and I'd like to see him out, but this is far too early.

For one thing, the Liberal party needs to elect a new leader, and then that person needs time to start settling in on the scene. While I did vote Liberal, I do think the party needs a bit of a shake-up before they are ready to lead again--perhaps this is me seeing the silver lining in the dark blue cloud.

Also, I think the only way getting more accountability in the federal government will happen is in a minority government situation like this one. Harper ran on a platform of reducing corruption. The NDP, at least, will support him on getting that in, though really speaking, it's probably something that everyone is willing to support. So let's get that done, and then we will see.

One thing about Canadian politics is that overall, the country does not change dramatically no matter who's in charge. While the Conservative party is pretty far right for Canada, my understanding is that in general, our political parties are not as hugely different as say, the Republicans and the Democrats in the US. So more people are willing to let a new party try things for a while, and then push them out when it's time.

Also, we hate elections. While I value that I have input into the process, my preference is not to *need* to always put my input into the process. 

Overall, I think most of the country, (the 64% who did not vote Conservative) is willing to let him try and see what changes he can get through the minority government. I don't think a lot of his social-conservative platform will fly well.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sonal said:


> For one thing, the Liberal party needs to elect a new leader, and then that person needs time to start settling in on the scene.


This one could be difficult. Both Chretien and Martin gained some advantage by having elections before opposing leaders had fully settled. It's quite effective when done properly. 

The Conservatives may do what they can while the Libs are a lame duck then, about 2 months after a new leader is elected, go to election. This should be long enough to not be obvious about it, but too short to really get the ground-team well organised around new leadership.

Of course, there's about a year between now and then. A lot can happen in a year. :yikes:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think much will hinge on the New Deal for the regions in the short term.
Handled well that will earn a lot of votes.

It may also earn a federal deficit. Twixt Charybdis and Scylla comes to mind.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> You're hallucinating again. I think probably everyone knows the truth about the situations you are grossly distorting here, but I hate leaving such ridiculous stuff unchallenged.
> 
> - Your description of the Quebec scandal is significantly exaggerated. The Gomery inquiry was exhaustive, open and public. The crooks have been exposed. People have been and are being prosecuted for criminal offences. Whether anybody goes to jail will be decided by an independent judiciary.
> 
> ...


Never underestimate the stupidity of the average voting population. Headlines and perception are often taken as fact.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Never underestimate the stupidity of the average voting population. Headlines and perception are often taken as fact.


:clap: 

This statement would have worked so well, so many times around here across the political spectrum. Of course, it doesn't apply to any individual because we all know we're smart.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Originally Posted by ArtistSeries
> Never underestimate the stupidity of the average voting population. Headlines and perception are often taken as fact.


Yes... we really should limit the vote to those who have achieved a certain standing, determined by education perhaps or wealth. We can't expect the riff-raff to know what's best for the country.



> Originally Posted by NXNW
> The real crooks in this "insider trading" scenario are the individuals who instigated these witchhunts for political purposes, to manipulate the election. That was morally bankrupt.


I think the general public in their ignorance felt that Paul Martin, as finance minister, was responsible for monitoring where our tax dollars are spent. The public also took it out on the Liberal party as a whole, forgetting that the Liberals are entitled to their entitlements. Shame on the opposition for manipulating the vote by bringing these facts to the attention of the public... how criminal indeed! Thank you NXNW for focussing your full legal acumen on this disgraceful action... I take it you are offering a professional opinion?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Wow!

*MacNutt* since you feel your favourite party scored such a major victory why the lengthy rant? Could it be because rumours of the Liberal party's demise are greatly exaggerated? 

You must be truly disappointed they didn't fall to the low of 2 seats the Conservatives did!... :baby: 

Of course no Conservative ever did anything illegal or shady... not Mulroney... not Stockwell Day... yada yada yada.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Could it be because rumours of the Liberal party's demise are greatly exaggerated?


People have underestimated this party before. How many seats did they have in 1984? 

All partisanship aside: on a purely political basis, assuming the Liberal party's demise, while not outside the realm of possibility, is akin to lottery tickets being your retirement plan.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Some clarifications:

Budget may not have to be passed this spring and may be done in the summer / fall.

Also, any money bill is a confidence motion (a government can't rule if it can't spend the peeps money) So budget or any bill with even $1 on it is a confidence motion.

Finally, even as a small "c" Conservative, I have to admit that stories of the demise of the Liberal Party are greatly exaggerated at this point.

However, having said that please let me add one little clause:

If the Liberal party pushes through another rushed leadership with a "king" or "queen" anointed rather than a full, vigorous, public (and civil) leadership race, it will be disastrous for them.

Why? Because the party needs to do some soul searching and come up with a vision for Canada. Harper won, albeit narrowly because of the v stuff, not "values" as Paul frantically tried to sell, but vision.

So as a fig leaf to the progressives in the forum, I admit, Gerry is probably not on the money with the Libs are dead meat stuff, but and this should be taken with a grain of salt, in the long term, he could be right.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiB: there seems to be some agreement on what you've said and what others (including myself) have said on the situation. Oddly, politics sometimes surprises common opinion, but I hope we're right. One party rule, whether Liberal or Conservative or (dream a little dream) Progressive Conservative is not good. It is in the act of competing for our support that our country is built.

That said, looking at Dems vs Repubs, we are bloody well blessed to have a much wider choice of politics, by construction or luck or other, such that when we go to the polls, our standards of governance are so high that foreign media may consider us to be unreasonably focussed on the minutia. I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else. 

This country is not perfect or virtuous, but it is darn well amazing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I take it you are offering a professional opinion?


uh oh, i smell an invoice coming
"My lawyer never gives me bad advice. He sells it to me."


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Mrs. Gulch, as much as it may pain you to do so, you might just have to live with both of these "unpleasant" situations. Two leaders that you despise...but that were elected, despite your feelings.


MacNutt, you left me with a mouthful of replies that I didn't make, which were well handled by others here. 

I don't despise Harper; I merely see him as Bush "lite" and not my problem, although if he hurts Canada they way Bush has hurt the U.S. it is a BIG problem for all of us. Bush wasn't even elected -- he was initially appointed by the Supreme Court. I doubt that this major history lesson has gone past you. 

As for impeaching Bush, it is pretty unlikely the way congress is aligned now, but this may change in 2006, the mid-term elections. At any rate, he's quacking and we can only bide our time until he's out. There is no Republican heir apparent to Bush (thank gawd), and we start afresh in '06. I just hope he doesn't destroy the country until this time. 

As for the name, it's MissGulch; there is no MrGulch. A majority of we Americans see the wizard with the curtain drawn; he is indeed stammering and feckless, offering little more than meaningless platitudes like "stay the course." 

And I was merely asking a question about *Canada* MacNutt, but you dragged me downstairs. And your little dog, too!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

miss gulch,
bush won that election fair and square - 5 to 4


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> miss gulch,
> bush won that election fair and square - 5 to 4


Not the first one. It's well established that he lost Florida. And he lost the popular vote by over 500,000.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> As for the name, it's MissGulch; there is no MrGulch.


Are you interested in blindingly cold winters and a socially progressive society that values fiscal responsibility? :heybaby:


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Beej said:


> Are you interested in blindingly cold winters and a socially progressive society that values fiscal responsibility? :heybaby:


Hmm... mebbee. 

There is a horny, jealous Mexican in the picture, though. Let's see how it works out. :heybaby:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> Not the first one. It's well established that he lost Florida. And he lost the popular vote by over 500,000.


time for u.s. electoral reform
the electoral college has problems
a presidential candidate could get less votes, yet still win the college

and what's a few hundred thousand votes between friend, eh?

the bigger question is why not one federal senator would sign a petition to look into the FLA voter irregularity, not even one which is all it would have taken to investigate things further

i assume lots of cheques were being cashed that week
even al gore didn't put up much resistance...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> time for u.s. electoral reform
> the electoral college has problems
> a presidential candidate could get less votes, yet still win the college


Oh, gawd, I know! The stolen election was a deep wound on the country. Deals were made in Florida. Don't doubt it, MS.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

But, strangely enough, after Bush proved himself to be worse than expectations, he was given a clear mandate. Weird.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Beej said:


> But, strangely enough, after Bush proved himself to be worse than expectations, he was given a clear mandate. Weird.


Karl Rove was able to turn Kerry the war hero into a flip-flopping fictional character. Bush I did the same thing, and a term was invented for this method: Dukakasized. They take the opponent's greatest asset and turn it into a liability. They're highly skilled at winning elections, but not so good at running things. Excuse me -- they suck at running things.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> Karl Rove was able to turn Kerry the war hero into a flip-flopping fictional character. Bush I did the same thing, and a term was invented for this method: Dukakasized. They take the opponent's greatest asset and turn it into a liability. They're highly skilled at winning elections, but not so good at running things. Excuse me -- they suck at running things.


Yep. But if 'powerful spin' weren't allowed, things may be very different here too. Either way, Bush's 2004 win was quite clear, despite him living down to the lowest expectations from the 2000 election. I don't think most of the world fully understands why this happened.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Beej said:


> Either way, Bush's 2004 win was quite clear, despite him living down to the lowest expectations from the 2000 election. I don't think most of the world fully understands why this happened.


Neither do we! (But part of the answer is spelled "9/11")


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, read Al Franken's "The Truth". You might find it very enlightening.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Beej, read Al Franken's "The Truth". You might find it very enlightening.


Sorry, not high on my list. He's as credible as Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter. Have you looked into their books?

I am looking forward to finishing Inferno and moving on to Purgatorio when I feel like reading something involving.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

kps said:


> Hi DB,
> 
> So you finaly stopped lurking, eh?
> 
> Nice to see you here, now you can let it aaaall out. Go get'em!


Thank-you... I had to dust off my history books and do a bit of a "refresher course"... 

Who would have thought a box full of stuff from the 90's would become so pertainent again? Glad I saved it all... 

This looks like it might be a good read:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Reviews/062204McLellan/062204mclellan.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, read Franken's "Lies, and the Liars Who Tell Them" if you want some insight into Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter. Of course, Franken also wrote a book just about Limbaugh as being a "big fat liar".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"This book explains how September 11, ominously like the Reichstag Fire in Weimar Germany, as Boyle himself points out, is often the pretext the United States uses to justify its Machiavellian power plays in the Middle East and Central Asia, areas of extreme strategic importance."

Dreambird, this sounds like an interesting book.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Beej, read Franken's "Lies, and the Liars Who Tell Them" if you want some insight into Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter. Of course, Franken also wrote a book just about Limbaugh as being a "big fat liar".


I don't read books by the U.S. (or Canadian for that matter) attack dogs. They serve no purpose other than entertainment. Be they right or left, time can be much better spent. 

Were I do delve into this branch of literature, I would want to read from both insanely myopic sides of the spectrum, otherwise I would be getting a truly warped view of the world instead of two warped views of the world with the potential of cancelling each other out.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, Al Franken is not a US "attack dog" by any means. Still, you are free to have your opinion, which is part of what makes Canada a great country to live in and call home. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_07_archive.html

By 'attack dog' I mean yet another of the loud and irrelevant extreme attackers of the 'other' side. They are best left talking amongst themselves.

I recommend that, if you're going to read and recommend Franken books, you also read his targets' books, if you haven't done so already. But that's just my opinion.

-Cheers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, I have borrowed the following books, and I DID try to read them cover to cover, but could not.

"The Way Things Ought To Be" by Rush Limbaugh 

"The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life" by Bill O'Reilly

"Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right" by Ann Coulter

"How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter" by Ann Coulter

To be honest, the title of the last Ann Coulter book was where I got the idea for the "The World According to MacNutt" book. However, to be fair to MacNutt, these three make him look like a utopian socialist.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> However, to be fair to MacNutt, these three make him look like a utopian socialist.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

Well, at least you tried to balance Franken's BS with his opponents' BS. :clap: 

Of course, you could avoid such rubbish and just read back issues of the Globe and Mail.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Well, at least you tried to balance Franken's BS with his opponents' BS". Beej, Franken's views scare me far less than the "unholy three". Still, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

From CNN.com -- "LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.

Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. 

Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said."


Beej, I rest my case.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yep. But if 'powerful spin' weren't allowed, things may be very different here too. Either way, Bush's 2004 win was quite clear, despite him living down to the lowest expectations from the 2000 election. I don't think most of the world fully understands why this happened.


Bush's win is quite far from being "quite clear", Beej. 

For starters, note that 1/3 of the votes cast in 2004 were on touch-screen voting machines that had no paper trail. Even if one cannot possibly imagine that someone could or would want to tamper with these machines, (although there is much to suggest that it was entirely possible and ridiculously easy to do so and you would have to be more than a bit naive to think that it never crossed the mind of anyone involved in the election), the fact remains that with no available auditable paper trail for 1/3 of the votes cast, no one can now prove conclusively that either Kerry lost or Bush won. Americans must just accept the assurances of partisan state electoral officials. IMHO, you can't call something a democracy if there's no way of proving that a democratic election took place. But dreams die hard.

There are thousands of cases of election irregularities from that election, complaints and court cases still outstanding. Reams of unanswered questions. Of course, I won't say with any certainty that the 2004 election was rigged, since there is little available hard evidence with which to make this claim. But with never to be answered questions everywhere in the aftermath and no record available to prove a Bush win, I dispute the notion that 2004 Bush's win was "quite clear". It's muddier than the Mississippi.

There is really no evidence to suggest that George W. Bush was ever elected President of the USA in either of his two terms.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Enough!

Can we get over the Bush stole the election crud. I put up with it in 2000, but in 2004 come off it. 

I know people don't like GW, and that's their right I suppose, but can you just come back to a little place called Earth? He was elected and won the popular vote. Kerry didn't.

You've only got two and half more years of him. (Well at least until the next Republican gets in)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I know people don't like GW, and that's their right I suppose


you pretty much summed up the neo con position
those of us back on Earth believe in certain unalienable rights, not just supposed ones


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Beej, I rest my case.


Yep, best to avoid all the extremist authors. They're in the fire-with-fire game that is only serving to polarize the U.S. into two dangerously uninformed but very angry camps.

[Edits: couple typos]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Yep, best to avoid all the extremist authors. They're in the fire-with-fire game that is only serving to polize the U.S. into two dangerously unimformed but very angry camps.



"fire with fire"

very good


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you pretty much summed up the neo con position
> those of us back on Earth believe in certain unalienable rights, not just supposed ones


And you've just exemplified the problem with the left, seeing a NeoCon agenda everywhere. 

"I suppose" was meant as an expression (perhaps somewhat of frustration), not as a qualifier of whether a right was inanlienable. (Before you go to dictionary.com again, inalienable and unalienable are used interchangeably).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is really no evidence to suggest that George W. Bush was ever elected President of the USA in either of his two terms.


Yes, and we have a system where many aren't ID'd. There's no evidence here either because our 'paper trail' is unreliable...sigh.

Unfortunately, Bush won his second term. Time to move on and for his opponents to focus on 2006 and 2008.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "I suppose" was meant as an expression (perhaps somewhat of frustration), not as a qualifier of whether a right was inanlienable.


too bad there isn't a emoticon for "qualifier vs. expression"


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> too bad there isn't a emoticon for "qualifier vs. expression"


Too bad you couldn't take a break from parsing every single post. Or perhaps you could have asked what I meant before jumping to conclusions. 

And perhaps I should stop taking offense. Either way, we both could be more civil.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i think we are both being civil - spirited, yes
no autopsy no foul

as for parsing every single post
guilty as charged i guess

as for asking what you meant before replying
i think your words rest on their own


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Clearly they didn't because you made an incorrect assumption and launched into NeoCon attack mode (TM).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Clearly they didn't because you made an incorrect assumption and launched into NeoCon attack mode (TM).


poor poor neo con - it ain't easy being blue....
[pats NBiBooker's head] sorry couldn't find emoticon for that


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Clearly they didn't because you made an incorrect assumption and launched into NeoCon attack mode (TM).


I am offended by your casual discrimination against those with twitchy knees.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Yep, best to avoid all the extremist authors. They're in the fire-with-fire game that is only serving to polarize the U.S. into two dangerously uninformed but very angry camps." Beej, I still say that if the Republican Party nominates a moderate candidate for president in 2008, then there will be an uprising for the formation of a third party with a Religious-right agenda. I have a feeling that the Republican's will nominate someone who is a fiscal conservative, in that by the time of the election, the US shall have been in a recession. Unless this person has the intent to further focus upon the Religious Right's agenda, then they will form their own party. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

mccain will be the republican candidate for president
he has been doing the talk show circuit promoting his image since 2005
i highly doubt any republic candidate would be viewed as too moderate so as to cause a fracture in the GOP

may i remind you of the 2 axioms of politics and politicians?
1. get power
2. keep power


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> mccain will be the republican candidate for president
> he has been doing the talk show circuit promoting his image since 2005
> i highly doubt any republic candidate would be viewed as too moderate so as to cause a fracture in the GOP
> 
> ...


Are you counting out Rudy or just thinking they'll be on the same ticket?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i don't know who will be 2nd banana, but mccain is obviously the front runner if the sunday talk show appearances are any measure

guiliani has some support, but being from new york doesn't help him in the u.s. south and bible belt

mayor to president is a very big step, too big in my opinion in 2008


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Hard to say if it's too big a step for a man whose profile is linked to 9/11. 

So any guesses on the Dem ticket? Another Kerry train wreck?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, a valid point.

An interesting side note on McCain. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President in 1964, was born in Arizona in 1909 when it was still a territory; no one ever questioned publicly whether Goldwater would have been eligible to be elected president. John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was actually a U.S. territory under U.S. jurisdiction at the time.

This is of interest in that Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. 

Of course, McCain has pledged to vote for Alito ("Judge Alito is a man of outstanding qualifications whose record as a thoughtful conservative has won my vote. Without any reasonable doubt, it has also earned the support of this body."). Thus, I don't see any problems with the Supreme Court interpretation of "nautal born citizen" if McCain is elected president in 2008. We shall see.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Beej, I still say that if the Republican Party nominates a moderate candidate for president in 2008, then there will be an uprising for the formation of a third party with a Religious-right agenda. I have a feeling that the Republican's will nominate someone who is a fiscal conservative, in that by the time of the election, the US shall have been in a recession. Unless this person has the intent to further focus upon the Religious Right's agenda, then they will form their own party. We shall see.


Interesting. I'd like to see that uncomfortable alliance crumble.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

The US uses Juis Sanguis (right of blood) as well as place of birth to determine citizenship.

So if you don't have either (right of blood) or right of place, you're out of luck (Sorry Arnie)

But that was just my take on it..


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

The US is a two party state, don't count on a pizza republic just yet.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, if New York City was a state, it would have the 11th largest population (based upon when Maryor Rudy G. was mayor). It has been said by many that being mayor of the City of New York was the second toughest position in the US, with only the presidency of the US being a tougher position.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Good point.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Hard to say if it's too big a step for a man whose profile is linked to 9/11.
> 
> So any guesses on the Dem ticket? Another Kerry train wreck?


howard dean would have really brought the dems back to their roots and revitalized the party, but his little outburst cost him
i still don't understand why it was repeated so many times by the media

perhaps the answer is all to obvious and i just don't want to admit to the military - industrial cabal in an open forum

clinton will probably give it a stab and i will be very interested to see how america and amerika will react to her

i don't hold out much hope even if she had a snowball's chance in hell
the hilary that was a socialized medicine evangelist is long gone and has been replaced with an ice water in her veins politician


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, if New York City was a state, it would have the 11th largest population (based upon when Maryor Rudy G. was mayor). It has been said by many that being mayor of the City of New York was the second toughest position in the US, with only the presidency of the US being a tougher position.


there's that damn electoral college getting in the way again
i don't think guiliani has appeal beyond the north east

i do think he might make a good vp candidate and then might get his shot after mccain

i have a hard time believing that amerika would accept condie rice as veep regardless of what macdoc believes


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, the Democrats have Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Tom Dasshle, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Byah and even Al Gore and John Kerry as possible contenders for the nomination. so it should prove interesting.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"i do think he might make a good vp candidate and then might get his shot after mccain". Macspectrum, I agree with you on this point.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Macspectrum, the Democrats have Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Tom Dasshle, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Byah and even Al Gore and John Kerry as possible contenders for the nomination. so it should prove interesting.


clark, edwards and gore had their shot and are politicaly dead
i only see clinton with the name recognition to even have a shot against mccain
if only she was a man she would be much more appealing to the american electorate

sad, but true


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Macspectrum, the Democrats have Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Tom Dasshle, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Byah and even Al Gore and John Kerry as possible contenders for the nomination. so it should prove interesting.


Clinton - way to much baggage, also that plantation quote a few weeks ago was awful.

Edwards - possiblity. 

Daschle - No way. (Same with Biden, Gore and Kerry).

Never heard of Byah or Warner. 

I'd love to see Dean run


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the dean scream will follow him forever


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, re your comment "clark, edwards and gore had their shot and are politicaly dead", never say never. The same was said about Richard Nixon back in 1962.......and six years later the "new Nixon" emerged......and American really got bogged down in Vietnam for another 5 years.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

NBB, Evan Bayh, was a two-term Governor and currently a second-term U.S. Senator from Indiana. His father, Birch Bayh, was a Senator from 1963 to 1981 and ran for the Democratic nomination for President in 1976, but lost it to Jimmy Carter. Mark Warner is the former Governor of Virginia, a truly "red state" except, oddly, for the governorship.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> If Harpo, er..., Harper is truly hideous, if he resembles Bush and the public wants him out, how soon can Canadians act to get rid of him?
> 
> What is the procedure? Does the parliament declare no confidence and call for a new election, as is done in the U.K.? Sorry for being such a dolt.
> 
> How I envy you! I wish we in the U.S. could yank Bush out of office by the ear. The constitution pretty much keeps him firmly in place.


MissGulch:

Returning to Canada , one aspect of political power in Canada not addressed so far in this tread is the distribution of power between Provincial Governments vs. the Federal Government.

Canadians tend to vote in the opposite political party Provincially if they have given a strong mandate to the governing Party in Ottawa.

In this election I believe Canadians were tired as opposed to fed-up with the Liberals. If Canadians were fed-up with the Liberals then this means the Conservatives are too scary to give real power.

The Bloc holds balance of power right now. This party is a Canadian's (read Ontario's) dream. That is fiscally responsible and socially progressive. Except of course for that nasty separation thing. 

To my original thought on the balancing power. When the Federal Liberals had a strong mandate, British Columbia and Quebec had elected Liberal governments. Both leaders are hardly Liberals in fact the PM of Quebec used to be the Leader of the Federal Progressive Conservatives.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and Alberta have Progressive Conservative Governments. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have NDP Governments. Ontario a Liberal Liberal government.

Between the make up of the Federal Parliament and the Provincial interests. The Conservatives in Ottawa are on a very short leash. Thankfully. 

My real hope is, the message Canadians sent on Monday is that the MP's of all Parties play nice. Do the work of Parliament in Committees, spend our tax money effectively and efficiently on good works to meet the needs of their constituents.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Dean Scream?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

from our friends at google

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-22-dean-usat_x.htm


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Let's not forget Quebec.


True!

That's why I said that it will be difficult for any party to get a majority as long as the Bloc holds 50 seats; prying a few of those seats away from the Bloc might be the best shot for the Tories or the Grits. Of course now that the nationalist vote is split, that might not be that easy after all...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yes, and we have a system where many aren't ID'd. There's no evidence here either because our 'paper trail' is unreliable...sigh.
> 
> Unfortunately, Bush won his second term. Time to move on and for his opponents to focus on 2006 and 2008.


Beej, if you didn't want to address my point, fine, you could have just not replied, but your comparison is very weak, as I'm sure you're aware...(sigh).

Jeez, Beej, if you really believe the Canadian voting systems and Elections Canada are producing illegitimate results then why wouldn't that bother you at least a bit? But I don't think you really believe that, you're just trying to dismiss the points I raised in a cute way. If you have great confidence in the American voting systems and touch screen voting machines, I'd really like to know why.

Again, Bush's "win" is not something to be asserted with any confidence, with the absolute unreliability of many of the state's voting systems. I'm sure Bush's opponents are moving on, but they would be foolish to expect anything but more of the same types of problems and questions, with plans afoot for even more non-auditable touch screen voting machines to be added to the mix in future elections.

I find it interesting that even the slightest questioning of the legitimacy of American elections can provoke such anger (in reference to NBiBooker's outburst) and/or dismissive statements about "moving on".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Beej, if you didn't want to address my point, fine, you could have just not replied, but your comparison is very weak, as I'm sure you're aware...(sigh).
> ...
> I find it interesting that even the slightest questioning of the legitimacy of American elections can provoke such anger (in reference to NBiBooker's outburst) and/or dismissive statements about "moving on".


I don't think it's anger, maybe pity.  

The point is that you have no point, and the comparison was, to me, quite apt. An uncertainty doesn't put the result in question, under resonable standards. You will always be able to list off some problems and claim that it is 'uncertain', even for Canada. The virulently anti-Bush set was never going to accept anything but a Kerry win. Listing off unknowns doesn't mean much. 

So there's no paper trail for some machines...so what? I think it would be better if there was, but using that sort of stuff as an excuse to question the election really just says you don't like Bush, not that you're a pursuer of truth, or any such noble gesture. Sorry, but he won by a clear margin.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> The point is that you have no point, and the comparison was, to me, quite apt. An uncertainty doesn't put the result in question, under resonable standards. You will always be able to list off some problems and claim that it is 'uncertain', even for Canada. The virulently anti-Bush set was never going to accept anything but a Kerry win. Listing off unknowns doesn't mean much.


I completely agree Beej, - *under reasonable standards*, which is why the votes held by Elections Canada don't bother me and why I think your comparison is far from apt. There may be some problems there and I trust the non-partisan agency to root them out. I guess we are disagreeing about what constitutes reasonable standards for questioning an election.

Uncertainty about exit polling in the Ukraine was certainly a reasonable enough standard to cause the legitimacy of the winning government there to be questioned and eventually scuttled. Ironically the White House found those questions a reasonable enough standard to publicly call for recounts there, all the while denying that the same kinds of problems that had just occurred in November 2004 in the US were a reasonable enough standard for investigating their own election.

The use of non-auditable touch screen voting machines, that are under the complete control of agressively partisan state election officials and partisan voting machine companies is a reasonable standard for some healthy suspicion, IMHO. 

That it has been shown to be beyond simple to secretly compromise these machines that are under the control of those same people, is a reasonable enough standard. That 1/3 of the votes in November 2004 were cast on such machines means to me that the unquestioning belief in the final numbers is nothing more than an unreasonable leap of faith, an unquestioning belief that somehow all those partisan people would never, ever think of using the power that was easily in their hands, for ill. My faith in people is such that I think most would find that kind of abuse repugnant, but what I see of many Republicans within the current administration is that there are those that would have no problem using any means necessary.

By the way, I hope you understand that I'm not contending that the 2004 election *was* necessarily invalid, unlike the 2000 election that clearly was. I'm saying that the uncertainty is enough to make me highly suspicious of the result. That the White House and several state election boards, most notably Ohio's, under Republican Kenneth Blackwell, seem to have done everything in their power to block any kind of questioning of the results only adds to this suspicion. The fact that recounts cannot be performed for some 1/3 of the votes also make me wonder how anyone can assert a win. I'm not disputing that Bush has been the president since 2000, just questioning whether the will of the American public put him there.


Beej said:


> So there's no paper trail for some machines...so what? I think it would be better if there was, but using that sort of stuff as an excuse to question the election really just says you don't like Bush, not that you're a pursuer of truth, or any such noble gesture. Sorry, but he won by a clear margin.


I'm not sure what you know about the actual issues here or "what sort of stuff" you are referring to. Possibly some of the distortions of the actual issues that made it into the media. If you do know anything about the issues I'm a little surprised at "so what?" and dismissive waves of the hand, while reasserting what you consider an obvious truism, a statement that I consider baseless. I haven't come to expect that style of argument from you, Beej.


Beej said:


> I don't think it's anger, maybe pity.


I would be more inclined to pity those who become hot at the very notion that powerful interests might be questioned. Simply knee-jerk stuff.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

How's your tin hat holding up?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...
> I'm not sure what you know about the actual issues here or "what sort of stuff" you are referring to. Possibly some of the distortions of the actual issues that made it into the media. If you do know anything about the issues I'm a little surprised at "so what?" and dismissive waves of the hand, while reasserting what you consider an obvious truism, a statement that I consider baseless. I haven't come to expect that style of argument from you, Beej.
> ...
> I would be more inclined to pity those who become hot at the very notion that powerful interests might be questioned. Simply knee-jerk stuff.



We're not going to see eye to eye on the uncertainty and its relevance, but probably agree that things could and should be improved. 

The 'pity' thing was really just a joke. If you'd seen my mannerisms, you'd know. And no, I'm not getting a webcam to clarify my written insanity!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pretty clear issues and pretty current issues



> Posted on Thu, Dec. 15, 2005
> ELECTIONS
> *New tests fuel doubts about vote machines*
> 
> ...


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/13410061.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

No paper trail = questions - always.
Combine that with the partisan elections supervision and you have a very suspect situation.
Given that vote rigging is a time honoured tradition in the US this is just one more chapter.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> How's your tin hat holding up?


Oooooh, so very clever quip, NBiBooker. Your debating skills are exemplary. [/sarcasm]

The proper term is tin-foil hat, by the way. For those who aren't familiar with the term it is meant to ridicule those who do not subscribe to the official explanation of things, especially government explanations and to stereotype those people as nuts. It is fabled that some paranoid people might wear tin-foil hats in an attempt to keep aliens or government operatives from scanning their brains or some such nonsense. It's a cute way for not addressing the argument presented and to attempt to ridicule the person.


MacDoc in a quoted article said:


> From there, Thompson said, he typed five lines of computer code -- and switched 5,000 votes from one candidate to another.
> 
> ''I am positive an eighth grader could do this,'' Thompson said.


On the other hand, my concerns and questions about e-voting and the result of the 2004 election are not paranoid fantasy, but are the result of real issues. I would say someone would have to be in a kind of denial to accept as valid and conclusive a voting system that allows for no recounts or audit and is open to simple and undetectable fraud on a potentially grand scale.

Instead of recoiling in horror from the prospect of paperless touchscreen voting machines, state election officials are contemplating increasing their usage. Computer professionals and information security experts such as Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins University have been raising the alarm on these systems since well before the last presidential elections.

The press and the media have had the occasional story on the issue but seem to downplay it for reasons that I can only speculate on. I think that for many people, including those in the media, the idea that democracy in the USA could so easily subverted is simply not something they feel comfortable thinking about, hence the knee jerk anger reactions or tin-foil hat comments.

But the means, motive and opportunity are definitely there. The democratic will of the American people is like a enormous pot of gold sitting in a vault guarded by supposedly trustworthy officials. Stealing large amounts of that gold has been something that in the past was likely contemplated and attempted, but not at all simple to accomplish, because there have been measures, how ever clumsy, that could be used to audit the gold. Now with paperless touch screen voting machines, theft can be accomplished easily, undetectably and secretly by one person with a modicum of technical knowledge.

Whether any theft occurred in 2000, 2002 and 2004 is a very real and not unreasonable question in my mind. The same set of circumstances will be in place again during this fall's upcoming mid-term elections, as these same machines will be used and under the control of state election officials that are not independant, but are Democratic and Republican party appointees, depending on the state. Anyone in Canada who has witnessed the Sponsorship Scandal and who believes that these election officials are incorruptible or that this kind of theft is impossible in the USA is living in a fantasy.

This is not an anti-Bush or anti-Republican thing as Beej mentioned in an earlier post. Although my preferences are obvious to ehMaccers, I'm sure voter fraud is an equal opportunity profession. In Washington State, Republicans were charging vote fraud in Seattle's King County, when the Democrat won the 2004 race for Governor by the slimmest of margins following a recount. In this case I don't think that voting machines were specifically involved, just the cumbersome, sloppy and partisan election systems. While I'm happy that the state is not in Republican hands, the controversy tarnishes Governor Christine Gregoire's victory and credibility. In all cases I am in favour of democracy and fair accountable outcomes. I don't believe in winning by any means necessary, such as Karl Rove does.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So why are you comfortable with a system that, with a paper trail, doesn't ID many voters and requires minimal ID for those without the all-meaningful voter card? 

These issues generally gain more supporters who are viciously opposed to the result, and raise anything and everything they can to attempt to create an air of illegitimacy. It's all they've got left. 

This may not apply to you specifically, but look around the web at the motivation. That doesn't discredit the idea, but nor does the unknown discredit the process. Instead of 'could of' arguments, use more 'did happen in material amounts' arguments. Otherwise you're back to: the system could and should be improved, but there is no reason to question recent outcomes, except hatred of said results. Kerry's vote could have been massively overstated; the 'hacker' demographic doesn't exactly lean towards Bush. Why didn't you suggest that the closeness of the election may have been vastly overstated?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> the 'hacker' demographic doesn't exactly lean towards Bush.


what the hell does that mean?
hackers don't accept cash ?

just ask abramoff and rove


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> what the hell does that mean?
> hackers don't accept cash ?
> 
> just ask abramoff and rove


The 'information is free' and 'electronic anarchy' set leans anti-Republican and anti-Bush (not necessarily pro-Kerry) but, yes, individuals can be bought. Why the implicit 'vulnerability = Bush victory questionable' statements, I don't know. Vulnerability = overstated Kerry votes is equally, if not more, plausible. But I didn't see much of that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even if the units are not hacked for a specific "win".......how this record



> Emerging Scandal on MD Voting Machine Performance
> All MD Diebold Machines on Lockdown
> Under Investigation for Widespread Statewide Election Day 2004 Failures
> MD Election Group Calls for Independent Investigation and De-Certification of Machines
> ...


http://www.truevotemd.org/Press_releases/html/2005-03-08_Press_Release.html



> Voting System Failures Have Already Occurred During Elections
> In addition to identifying potential vulnerabilities, GAO identified a number of cases of operational failures in real elections. These examples included:
> •In California, a county presented voters with an incorrect electronic ballot, meaning they could not vote in certain races.
> •In Pennsylvania, a county made a ballot error on an electronic voting system that resulted in the county’s undervote percentage reaching 80% in some precincts.
> ...


http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6308

Recipe for meddling.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Recipe for meddling.


Yup. Now that I've agreed, do I get my hug? :love2:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> So why are you comfortable with a system that, with a paper trail, doesn't ID many voters and requires minimal ID for those without the all-meaningful voter card?
> 
> These issues generally gain more supporters who are viciously opposed to the result, and raise anything and everything they can to attempt to create an air of illegitimacy. It's all they've got left.
> 
> This may not apply to you specifically, but look around the web at the motivation. That doesn't discredit the idea, but nor does the unknown discredit the process. Instead of 'could of' arguments, use more 'did happen in material amounts' arguments. Otherwise you're back to: the system could and should be improved, but there is no reason to question recent outcomes, except hatred of said results. Kerry's vote could have been massively overstated; the 'hacker' demographic doesn't exactly lean towards Bush. Why didn't you suggest that the closeness of the election may have been vastly overstated?


I'm glad to see that you are addressing my arguments rather than simply dismissing them as fantasy or as "having no point".

First, Elections Canada may be having problems with ID's and if I found that this was a widespread issue I would be very concerned. Is it a widespread issue? I voted with the voter card that was mailed to me, ID wasn't a problem since all the people working at the poll recognized me (small town syndrome). I guess an alien could have taken over my mind and voted Conservative because I didn't wear my tin-foil hat that day.  (Attempt at humour).

Short of any specific knowledge about problems with ID, I suspect that any organized fraud possibly perpetrated by people posing as other voters will be limited in scope. What limits this type of fraud is that you would need a vast army of people to participate in it to affect the vote in any significant way. But I would be in favour of people having to provide their ID with their voter card to vote. I guess if I found some voter cards in the garbage or printed some out, I could have travelled to a few polls and cast a bunch of fraudulent votes, but it wouldn't have made a massive difference in the result, unless tens of thousands of others were doing the same thing, which I doubt. While I accept that some fraudulent votes could have been cast, and I'm sure there are some minor errors in counting, I feel confident that the result was within a tight margin of error.

On the other hand, someone who has the ability to gain access to a network of touch-screen voting machines, the software that runs them, the network they run on, or the state central tabulating computers, can change tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of votes in seconds. Conceivably, one person who is motivated could change an election result very simply, as the computer security experts have warned.

As far as "did happen in material amounts" arguments, there are thousands of irregularities registered from the last several US elections. Some are conclusive, most rely on evidence that governments and election officials refuse to produce or have to be dragged into court by citizen's groups to be made to produce. In the case of touch screen voting there is no way to find evidence because no paper trail exists. To say that incontrovertible evidence must exist before one can question the stated result, is saying that all those irregularities should be ignored or not even investigated or questioned unless one knows for a fact that fraud has occurred. I think I have good reason to question the stated results.

If Revenue Canada thinks someone may have cheated on their taxes, because something seems a little fishy, they demand an audit. If the person in question says, you'll just have to take my word for it, because I have no paper trail, I doubt if that would be good enough for them to just drop the issue. In fact the law demands a paper trail be in place.

While I would have been slightly happier had Kerry been declared the winner, I don't think that I would have not continued to question the US system of elections. I'm sure many Republicans would have been questioning the result and I would have had to agree that the result would be questionable. (Although there wouldn't have been the unprecedented anomaly of the exit polls being historically innacurate, if Kerry had won.) Maybe if Kerry had won the resulting uproar would have been enough for the Americans to finally fix their inadequate voting systems and require verifiable elections.

If you have 30 minutes, I found an interview with Avie Rubin on C-SPAN on his web site. His questioning of voting technology in the US is distinctly not tin-foil hat stuff. It's broken into 3 10 minute .mov streams:

Stream 1
Stream 2
Stream 3


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm glad to see that you are addressing my arguments rather than simply dismissing them as fantasy or as "having no point".
> ...
> First, Elections Canada may be having problems with ID's and if I found that this was a widespread issue I would be very concerned.
> ...
> ...


We still don't see eye to eye on this, but I can discuss it. I just may not be as understanding as you'd like.  I could have been more so early on. My fault.
...
In our system, an effort of a few hundered, each in a handful of key ridings makes a difference. Many of these key ridings were known ahead of time. Not so far fetched, but not materially defensible so it's just a 'what if' scenario and support for improvement. Not a reason to sporadically suggest the result was illegitimate.
...
You can question the stated result without any evidence, incontrovertible or otherwise. Just don't expect people to give you any discussion without bringing some evidence of material problems, not just potential problems, to the table. Some will accept the provided evidence as worthy, some won't. This doesn't mean people think everything's ok or that things can't be better, but introducing the topic in an arguably political-oriented instead of process-oriented manner makes a difference to your perceived motives and credibility.

Being joked about doesn't mean your base concern is being dismissed. There's so many 'what ifs' out there and yours isn't necessarily backed-up well enough for most to care or give you the time of day. Life would be too easy otherwise.  

I think you've handled yourself very well and made a good case, considering the basic 'what ifness' of the whole thing. You deserve some respect for holding your ground with relative decorum while openly discussing flaws and alternative viewpoints. 

:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> considering the basic 'what ifness' of the whole thing.


I guess that thinking may apply to some but the vision of a succession of black Americans standing before Senator Gore ( acting as President of the Senate ) and being denied their petition for review of the voting procedures in their districts will forever for me represent one of the more shameful episodes in US history.



> Reps. Peter Deutsch and Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats, made the first objections to the session based on parliamentary procedure, a symbolic protest over allegations of voting irregularities in the Sunshine State.
> 
> The objections were denied because rules require a signature from both a member of the House and a member of the Senate. *No senator was willing to join the objections.*


http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/06/electoral.vote/

That's NOT a what if..........what it should be is NEVER AGAIN!

As things are going with the voting machines.........it'll end up as "JUST THE WAY IT IS"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

These repeated speeches banging the same old drum with the same old overstatements are sounding really familiar...

Still no hugs?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> We still don't see eye to eye on this, but I can discuss it. I just may not be as understanding as you'd like.  I could have been more so early on. My fault.
> ...
> In our system, an effort of a few hundered, each in a handful of key ridings makes a difference. Many of these key ridings were known ahead of time. Not so far fetched, but not materially defensible so it's just a 'what if' scenario and support for improvement. Not a reason to sporadically suggest the result was illegitimate.


While this is theoretically possible, you might need a few hundred or a few thousand people to commit this fraud in each riding. Maybe there's some more cost and personnel effective way of doing this so it would be a bit more possible, but I'd say that it's not too likely that it could have happened on a large enough scale to affect much. But as I said before, Elections Canada should require ID, because even one possible fraudulent vote is too many.

Also, as I've said before, the problem in the US with e-vote manipulation is not only quite easily do-able but also somewhat likely, IMHO. And if it has happened we would never know that it did, if it was done properly. It's like a vast fortune was left out for someone to just step up and take, quite easily, with little risk of discovery. I find it hard to believe that no one would be tempted to just take it. Although someone can say Bush won fair and square, there is really no evidence to back that up, positively or negatively, without a paper trail being available from 1/3 of the votes cast.


Beej said:


> I think you've handled yourself very well and made a good case, considering the basic 'what ifness' of the whole thing. You deserve some respect for holding your ground with relative decorum while openly discussing flaws and alternative viewpoints.
> 
> :clap: :clap: :clap:


Thank you for that, Beej. You are an honourable debater and I respect your opinion and intelligence. 

How's that for a hug?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Also, as I've said before, the problem in the US with e-vote manipulation is not only quite easily do-able but also somewhat likely, IMHO.
> ...
> How's that for a hug?


I agree the scale is much larger, but then you're into the system differences. Changing a couple MPs makes a big difference in our current situation and system (creates/destroys coalition posibilities). Either way, both voting processes could stand to be improved, but ours is better (we're not even talking about jerrymandering!).  Sometimes simple is best -- paper, X done. 
...
Your hug is appreciated, although someone else's may be more symbolically significant. I hope those were keys in your pocket.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hugs.... "feh"


----------

