Are Recounts the best legal route? Why not initiating cases of Fraud?

[shance]

Im curious. Someone posed this option earlier and I think its an interesting point.

If Kerry has already thrown the towel in, why are we recounting? Why not go directly to the source of the issue, which seems to be fraud.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demodonkey]

4. If this voting problem is not corrected for future, Move on to WHAT?? nt

[argyl]

5. "We're" not going to be retaking the White House,although it appears we

did win the vote. The Smirk gang appears to have stolen this one fair and square, as they did in 2000.If we don't make a case for fraud it will just continue. Maybe that suits "you" but "we're" not too pleased about it.

[m berst]

23. regardless of which person is in the WH

"We" are the American people. We own the White House. Returning it to its rightful owners is not dependent upon which person or which party happens to occupy it at any given time.

[nostamj]

6. feh! is that 'Dem Doormat Forum' open yet?

we gotta 'new' recruit!!

[Avalux]

7. OK Mr. Smarty Pants

It's not an "obsession" and it's not "crazy". Take your freep words and go away.

[nostamj]

2. FRAUD? it wasn't FRAUD.... it was a MIRACLE!

Randi Rhodes said so!

[bloom]

3. Recounts could show fraud

I believe that is why some are going after NH even though Kerry won NH.

It does seem that fraud could invalidate the win - and then what would happen?

Seems like some amount of goofed up votes are tolerated. I wonder what level of messed-up-ness people are supposed to tolerate. :shrug:

[Zan_of_Texas]

8. There is no win. Yet.

Can't "invalidate" the "win" because all the votes haven't even been counted the first time. Ohio refuses to count its votes for 11 days.

The concession speech by Kerry, while touching, was rather premature.

I'm seeing reports of flaws, odd results, or worse in NH, OH, FL, NC, NM, IN, MI and more.

There is no winner at this time. There are preliminary results.

And a buttload of reported problems. Go to www.votersunite.org and you'll find over 270 media reports on them, for starters.

[sandnsea]

9. Got evidence?

Admissable in a court of law. That can be tied to any one individual, let alone a group of individuals. That's what it takes to say "fraud" and we haven't got anywhere near that. That's why nobody ever takes the left seriously. Just don't know how to get their ducks in a row before they shoot off their mouths. And don't know how to stick to the facts and only the facts once they've got them.

[Blue in the face]

10. Evidence

There are only allegations, which is why I think Kerry and the Democrats are smart to lay low for now. How are you going to be seen as a unifier if Bush's campaign goes down in flames because you were making allegations without proof?

If there are enough people demanding an audit (I love that phrase), then Kerry can't be blamed for being a sore loser. But when this issue gets legs, I'm sure that they can find out how many people actually voted for Bush in those states that suddenly "flipped" for Bush.

You guys on this forum are doing a great job. Don't let this issue go until someone looks into this and can answer the questions that right now everyone is avoiding!

[sandnsea]

12. I agree completely

I've contributed some peculiaritie myself. Let's stick to the real peculiarities and call for voter credibility instead of rushing off yelling 'fraud'. That way we can do the checking and find what we need to find before we get the entire Republican machine turned against us.

[jdj]

11. if you are not part of "they" do you not have any friends you

can call "we"?

By the way, your whole assertion is falacious, and you provided no documentation, yet that didn't stop you from shooting off your mouth...are you special?

[sandnsea]

14. Very few

People generally piss me off. Documentation of what? That there's no evidence of fraud? That's very cute, document what doesn't exist. :crazy: We've got peculiarities, call them what they are, peculiarities. When you connect a peculiarity to a pattern, then to a person or group of persons, you've got fraud. We don't have that, nothing anywhere near that. It's called living in reality.

[jdj]

18. I meant your assertions about the left, to whom you

curiously refer to in the third person, not the plural first person. Now you are saying 'We' when you probably should be sayign 'I' because with your outlook I doubt you are out there searching out evidence.

[sandnsea]

24. Jump to conclusions

Expected. 'They' have rantings about fraud and conspiracy, which there's no proof of. I do not include myself in that "they".

We have alot of peculiarities that need investigating. We, which ought to be every American, sadly it's not. Believe what you want to believe. Just because I ask for a rational approach to these problems, doesn't mean anybody has a right to doubt my sincerity in seeing the problems exposed.

[m berst]

25. I disagree

"That's very cute, document what doesn't exist. :crazy:"

That is not crazy. Elections should be transparent and, yes it is the integrity of the elections that must be proven, not the opposite.

Please read "Do We Still Have a Democracy?" by Ernest Partridge before making up your mind or making any more charges that the people's suspicions are invalid. Anyone who reads this article, and then STILL tries to argue against a full investigation had better have a good explanation. It is not "proof" of "fraud" because that it not required at this point and it is a red herring to throw that into the discussion.

http://www.thegeneralconversation.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=3088

<snip>

"The citizen has no obligation to prove that his ballot is secure; the citizen has a right to be confident that his vote will be counted, as he cast it. And it is the solemn obligation of the government to secure that right.

The right of the citizen to a secure ballot is the foundation of a democratic society and the guarantee that the government rules with the consent of the governed. If that right has been violated by supporters and/or agents of the government, that government has no legitimacy.

We do not know if Election 2004 was fraudulent. But equally important, the paperless machines have made it impossible to verify that it was not fraudulent. And it is the inalienable right of a free people that their franchise be fair, accurate, transparent, and verifiable."


"We are obliged at this time to struggle, with all the Powers with which the Constitution hath furnished us, in Defence of our Rights; to prevent the most valuable of our Liberties from being wrested from us, by the subtle Machinations, and daring Encroachments of wicked Ministers."

- Sam Adams 1771

[Carolab]

13. Nobody knows what evidence is out there

You don't know who's working on it or anything. All you know so far is what has been uncovered and reported on here and other sites.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Count My Vote Hunger Strike at Lincoln Memorial might get

some attention. Maybe.

However, in my state, the recount happens on the same machines as the original count. If the machines are flawed, the vote count is a lie that will stand -- in my state.

[zeek]

16. We need change the whole framework of the debate

IMO the 2004 election is over. We need to look past it and stop making accusations of massive vote fraud and stolen elections. Weather they are true or not, divisiveness will only turn middle America further from the democratic party. We need to focus on fixing the problem, first by getting rid of the electronic voting machines.

The use of unauditable electronic voting machines is unamerican and common sense indicates that such machines could be fraudulently used easier then traceable paper ballots. That is the message we need to take to the American people, plain and simple. Unprovable allegations of a stolen election will simply be viewed as partisan obstructionism by the majority of America. It will turn people against our cause. And if we can't win in the court of public opinion we certainly won't win in the federal courts.

[shance]

17. A question to ask yourself: Who dictates public opinion?

Our media.

Who owns the media?

Until we reinstate a Fairness Doctrine and retrieve the air waves that are supposed to belong to American citizens, we will continue to need to connect to neighbors and friends in our community and use the communities on the internet.

[jdj]

19. yes, and they will come after the internets soon enough.

[m berst]

22. we are the public

We make up our own minds,and no one dictates our opinions to us unless we let them. If we are saying that the media has more infuence over the opinions of our family, friends, and neighbors than we ever could, then we either aren't trying hard enough, or we are cowed and afraid and hiding.

[m berst]

20. move along now people, nothing to see here

.

[m berst]

21. of course

"Re-counts" is the wrong idea all together. Can't anybody remember 2000? The Republican propaganda machine started the mantras "How many times do they want to count them?" and "they want to keep counting them until they like the result."

We need a full and thorough investigation. Without that, we don't know what happened. If the people don't know what happened, there is no more Democracy.

Who would be against an investigation? What could their motives possibly be?

In police work, anyone trying to thwart an investigation becomes a suspect themselves - of course. Commion sense folks, that is all this takes.

Please read "Do We Still Have a Democracy?" by Ernest Partridge before making up your mind. Anyone who reads this article, and then STILL tries to argue against a full investigation had better have a good explanation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/10_...

"We are obliged at this time to struggle, with all the Powers with which the Constitution hath furnished us, in Defence of our Rights; to prevent the most valuable of our Liberties from being wrested from us, by the subtle Machinations, and daring Encroachments of wicked Ministers."

- Sam Adams 1771