Third Party & Independents Archives

October 22, 2004

State of the Election

One helluva mess appears to be on the way. This election is going to be unprecedented in many ways. Dirty tricks, hostile and distorted rhetoric have been commonplace in American elections since we began having them. Even splits between the Electoral College and the popular vote have occurred in our history. But this election will be unique as it builds upon the 2000 election in its inclusion of the courts, and the general public awareness of voting irregularities which went largely unnoticed by the national electorate in the past.

Currently, one of the best Electoral College predictors on the internet, at Electoral has Kerry holding 271 Electoral College votes and Bush at 257. There are a number of such sites, and the numbers vary due to methodology for incorporating polls in their prediction. National polls range from a dead even tie to 1 to a few points lead by President Bush. It is very possible we will see an Electoral College win for one candidate and a popular vote majority for the other. What is unique, even from the 2000 election however is the vast numbers of poll watchers and observers, many thousands of which will be lawyers, who will be noting irregularities and/or illegal voting behavior.

Of course, the actual election of the President occurs on December 12, 2004 which is when the Electoral College votes to determine who the President elect is. One Electoral College elector has already announced that if his state goes for President Bush in the popular vote, he would not be able to cast his vote in the Electoral College for President Bush. He will likely cast his vote for Dick Cheney instead citing his severe reservations about the President's handling of Iraq as a major reason for his not being able to cast his vote for Bush. This could of course turn into an election nightmare if President Bush ends up with only 269 Electoral College votes. 270 are required to become the President elect.

Another nightmare may be brewing in Colorado where the ballot includes an initiative that would allow the state's Electors to be divided proportionately according to the state's popular vote. If that initiative passes, it would become effective for this election and potentially deprive one or other candidate the 3 or 4 Elector votes needed to win. The great wild card in all of this is the potentially large voter turnout. With a 3 to 10% larger turnout than in 2000, the difficulty comes in polling those new voters. Because new voters are so difficult to poll, and because of provisional voting which allows voters who would in previous elections be denied their vote if their name does not appear on the registry, this election will likely be one of the most scrutinized and challenged elections in our history.

With as many as 10 states currently being defined as battleground states where polls show very, very close races, any one or more could turn into a litigious battleground on November 3, if the vote tallies show a one percent or less win by one or the other candidate. The released a story yesterday which indicates the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry campaign have 10,000 or more lawyers ready to disperse into the battleground states to document evidence of election fraud and irregularities which could change the result on a recount or legal challenge in the courts. David Osborne, the author of the story reports

The flurry of lawsuits already filed is giving courts and election officials migraines in more than a dozen states, including Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri, where the two candidates are in a close battle. Most have been fired off by the Democrat side, although the Republicans have hardly stayed on the sidelines.

Election 2004 will also be the most expensive election ever held in the United States according to OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets reports:

The 2004 presidential and congressional elections will cost a record $3.9 billion, according to projections based on a study of campaign finance figures by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The estimate represents a 30 percent increase over the $3 billion spent on federal elections four years ago.
This amount may easily rise to 4.5 billion dollars if the litigation costs currently and to follow the election are added into the cost. These lofty levels of expense to elect our representatives underscores the need for future debates on further campaign finance reform and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandating free campaign airtime to pre-qualified candidates.

After the Presidential winner is decided and all of the legal wrangling is resolved, it may too be time to explore some serious national election reform through a constitutional amendment or other legal vehicle which would permit a national standard to be applied to federal elections.

Posted by David R. Remer at October 22, 2004 09:20 AM
Comment #31164


What is essential to note is the closeness of the last two elections. While many want to see conspiracies and “disenfranchisement”, what is plainly evident is that the 2000 election was incredibly close, and the 2004 election might be as close or closer.

Our politicians have squandered 4 years during which they could have attempted to correct some of the deficiencies in our electoral procedure. To do so now is to do so too late. To claim that the upcoming election will be fraudulent in advance is simply partisan politics at its worst.

You don’t change the rules of the game DURING the game. You change them before or after the game. We had the chance to do that, but no one ran with it. I remember all the rhetoric from Hillary Clinton back then ( she’s one of my state’s senators, so I mention her for that purpose as opposed to any party affiliation), yet I havent seen any action. Now the rhetoric is starting up again.

It’s apparent that McCain/Feingold did not create campaign finance reform. Too many unintended consequences. I’d be okay with a national standard for national elections, though I’m not sure a Constitutional amendment is the right (or for that matter the wrong) way to go about it.

The ultimate recognition should come from the realization that despite the flaws inherent in our system, and the difficulties that appeared in the 2000 election, we nonetheless had safer, freer, and better elections than much of the world. A president was elected and put into office with no violence, our Constitution was upheld, and our judicial system utilized in the process. THIS is what makes our country so great. Even in the most difficult of times, our times are better than what much of the world experiences regularly.

Posted by: joebagdonuts at October 22, 2004 11:33 AM
Comment #31182

Is Democracy being used as A Weapon of Mass Destruction:

Political Picnic

Harvest time in an election year
League of legal lies litigating fear
Processed political peer pressure programs the volunteer
Prison camp indoctrination makes it’s premiere

Psychological nit-picking produces thought reform
Cult-like recruitment, the phenomenal brainstorm
Bureaucratic mind, designed attitudes to conform
Regulated, gun to yo head mentality, the norm

Rape a mind, pick a weapon of control
Systematic extermination of free thought
The civilian death toll

Pick, The pledge of allegiance to human rights, Rationality
Life, liberty, justice, equality for all, the only, Nationality
Pick, The declaration of all human beings are born and
Ordained free
Citizens of the world…not a detainee

Harvest time to reassign the mind

Misconception, stolen election
Political orientation the miseducation
Regulated participation, social sublimation
Pathological prevarication proclamation

It takes an act of congress to define a, word
Military might maintains the handcrafted boy herd


Posted by: Josephine Dixon-Banks at October 22, 2004 01:09 PM
Comment #31198
Harvest time in an election year League of legal lies litigating fear Processed political peer pressure programs the volunteer Prison camp indoctrination makes it’s premiere

blah, blah, blah….

Sheesh! Twice this week we’ve had to endure these gawdawful attempts at…what? Poetry? Isn’t there some sort of English 101 blog somewhere for frustrated poets where they can share their angst and leave the rest of us alone?

Anyway, back to the thread:

I just have a hunch that this one won’t be as close as four years ago, though of course I wouldn’t rule it out either.

As I recall, there was a huge shift during the final couple of weeks in 2000, with Gore picking up a lot of territory. This one just doesn’t feel like that to me. There’s plenty of movement, but it seems to be of the back and forth variety. I’d say by this time next week we should have a pretty good handle on it.

Still, I’ll stock up on chips and dips for election eve. It could be a very long night.

Posted by: NOTOTH at October 22, 2004 02:39 PM
Comment #31201

Although I think the American Public may surprise everyone, I do not rule out and have mentioned before that while Bush may win the popular vote, Kerry might win the Electoral College vote. If that happens, we will see if Bush has as much honor and respect for America as Gore did in 2000.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 22, 2004 02:53 PM
Comment #31203

I hope that was a jab at both Bush AND gore.
Such as the fact, gore had no honor or respect for America in 2000 and that Bush will probably do the same.

Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2004 03:00 PM
Comment #31206

Did you know Gore could of filed suit in a federal court calling the entire 2000 presidentail election was unconstitutional?

In fact, this election could be ruled the same way given the fact that the Supreme Court stated in the 2000 case about everyone having the same election equipment? Now, that would lead to the State’s General Assemblies voting for the electoral college. Do you have any idea how that would turn out? I’ve not looked at the individual states to see which party rules which state.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 22, 2004 03:22 PM
Comment #31209

They say Nixon had no class, but in 1960 he put the good of the country ahead of his own ambition and conceded a very close and controversial election to John Kennedy. A shift of a few thousand votes in Illinois and Texas would have given Nixon the presidency. In both places voter fraud was legendary and always on the Democratic side.

Until the day he died, Nixon believed he had won in 1960. It seems to be one of the few things he really believed sincerely. Nobody will ever know whether he was right. The election was too close to call and in Chicago they knew how to steal elections too well to be caught.

It is not so much that we are in new territory with elections, but we have become much more litigious. Al Gore should have given up after the first recount for the sake of the country. Despite myths that have been repeated endlessly, he had no reason to believe in widespread Republican fraud. Democrats ran all the disputed counties and the infamous butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat. Any fraud is much more likely to have benefited them.

An election is a practical event. We can never come to metaphysical certainty that every ballot is counted and (even harder) every voter has expressed her or his real preference. By those standards, we could never decide any election. The Miami Herald/USA Today recounted the votes to the end. The following scenarios are from their webpages.
· Lenient standard. This standard, which was advocated by Gore, would count any alteration in a chad — the small perforated box that is punched to cast a vote — as evidence of a voter’s intent. The alteration can range from a mere dimple, or indentation, in a chad to its removal. Contrary to Gore’s hopes, the USA TODAY study reveals that this standard favors Bush and gives the Republican his biggest margin: 1,665 votes.
· Palm Beach standard. Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples also were found in other races on the same ballot. They reasoned that a voter would demonstrate similar voting patterns on the ballot. This standard — attacked by Republicans as arbitrary — also gives Bush a win, by 884 votes, according to the USA TODAY review.
· Two-corner standard. Most states with well-defined rules say that a chad with two or more corners removed is a legal vote. Under this standard, Bush wins by 363.
· Strict standard. This “clean punch” standard would only count fully removed chads as legal votes. The USA TODAY study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this standard were applied to undervotes.
In 3 out of four cases, Bush wins. In the case of true doubt, Florida should have sent NO electoral votes to Washington. That would have put the election into the House of Representatives, according to the Constitution. Bush would have won there too. It is really hard to come up with any Constitutional scenario where Gore wins. Bad luck for Al Gore.

Posted by: Jack at October 22, 2004 03:28 PM
Comment #31230


Allow me to be a respectful naysayer, while even making a partisan claim.

We were assured by our elected Representatives in Washington, that what took place in Florida would not be repeated, or tolerated as such. They would surely have the consent of a nation, to spend what is necessary to fulfill that pledge. But, even 9/11 proves, we as an inattentive nation, also have a short memory.

However, I will single out Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for particular criticism and scorn, as his documented and publicized electioneering shenanigans and failure to remove any doubt this election would be free of fraud (or any suspicions of intent), is highly suspect, if not criminal.

The media has been successful in fueling such hysteria, playing up the rather small number of publicized accounts so far, while stoking the paranoia of an easily pliable electorate quick to playing the disenfranchised victim. However, it will all be for naught.

Because, this election will not be that close.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 22, 2004 07:41 PM
Comment #31242

This right here is scandalous:

What if some other country were having an election, and citizens were only allowed to hear from two government-approved candidates?

What if two other candidates, on the ballot in a majority of states and representing parties that drew over 3 million votes in the previous election, were arrested simply for trying to enter a debate?

What if all that happened, and the “watchdog” news media didn’t tell the citizens about it?


The blackout:

CNN - 0 mentions (interesting, considering the LP convention was hosted in the same city as their headquarters, Atlanta GA)

FoxNews - 6 mentions (0 since July 20th) [2 entries have been redated to Oct 11, but are old]

MSNBC - 3 mentions

ABC News - says 24 mentions, only 5 shown

CBS News - 0 mentions

NY Times - 2 mentions

Washington Post - 7 mention

Reuters - 0 mentions

USA Today - 15 (note: also not listed on the candidates page even though Badnarik is on 49 ballots compared to Nader’s 34)

Posted by: FoL at October 23, 2004 12:38 AM
Comment #31245
What if all that happened, and the “watchdog” news media didn’t tell the citizens about it?

I understand your frustration but I’m not sure the media are working in concert to ignore the Libertarians.

As a conservative, it irritates me that they only print the left’s claims of jobs being exported. A Democrat will say, “George Bush sent our jobs overseas,” and they print it. They don’t bother to research the issue and then balance that claim by pointing out that we import more jobs than we export, as explained out in this Walter Wriston article.

Why do they do that? Is it because they’re heavily biased toward the left? Probably, but it’s more that they don’t bother doing the research. They’re handed a press release and they go with it.

In the case of the Libertarians, I think it’s a combination of that plus the fact that we have two horses well ahead of the pack. The only reason they’re reporting on Nader is that he’s almost like the old favorite that they bring back every race to lose once again. Everybody knows he doesn’t have a chance but it’s almost a human interest story for those few who ever cared about him in the first place.

Posted by: NOTOTH at October 23, 2004 08:23 AM
Comment #31246

By the way, Jack, thanks for pointing out that Nixon showed a lot of class when he lost to Kennedy. Here in Illinois, Mayor Daley (the elder) handed that election to Kennedy on a silver platter, using the Chicago Democrat machine to manufacture voters in cemeteries and vacant lots. But, rather than create a crisis like Gore did in Florida, Nixon simply let it go.

A hundred years from now, I believe that historians will be a lot kinder to Nixon than to Gore. Today we judge by headlines; then they’ll judge by facts.

Posted by: NOTOTH at October 23, 2004 08:40 AM
Comment #31286
It is not so much that we are in new territory with elections, but we have become much more litigious. Al Gore should have given up after the first recount for the sake of the country.

Dang, Jack! I thought you were going to say Bush should never have filed the first lawsuit. For a Party that constantly complains about litigation, the GOP sure does a lot of it - and very well, too.

I remember all the rhetoric from Hillary Clinton back then ( she’s one of my state’s senators, so I mention her for that purpose as opposed to any party affiliation), yet I havent seen any action.

jbod, you got the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 23, 2004 12:05 PM
Comment #31331

Jack, thanks for the Info. Cleared up lingering doubts: Yes, punching two corners out should count as a vote for.

Can’t we make some big changes by the next election? All those attorneys and all the costs.
Can’t we limit the campaign season(Brits 3months I believe) and moneys spent? This is nutso!
@$250M spent on each side! Time to get taxpayers moneys out of their stupid outdated convention blathering big partying parties too. Hey, keep in mind all the media hacks make big moneys off this too!(and anyone with more than half a brain doesn’t need to see all these media hacks blather week in and week out. Geez, what a waste of huge sums of moneys? We could have loaned it to some good keep good jobs here long-term… at least for making all that expensive sports equipment here for all these pro, college, etc. teams you are going to watch over the next weeks!

Posted by: Alex at October 23, 2004 05:06 PM
Comment #31352

jbod said: THIS is what makes our country so great. Even in the most difficult of times, our times are better than what much of the world experiences regularly.

So said the Senate of Rome, so said the Congress of ancient Greece, so said Gorbachev, and now so says all those whose actions, whether intended or not, work to maintain the status quo in the face of great change.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2004 06:33 PM
Comment #31355

FoL and others raise interesting and perplexing perspectives on this years elections. I am encouraged that so many here are attending to the process, which needs attending.

I think it is safe to say however, that the stage is set by the media and the Republocrats, for an illegal election to take place on November 2, regardless of who wins, regardless of whether there is a landslide or 1 vote determining the winner. The country is divided deeply and because for a majority of Americans who vote, voting is a visceral decision instead of a rational one, the great host whose candidate does not win will know viscerally that they were cheated and the outcome illigitimate.

Partly because of the Republic, partly the Electoral College, partly the media which will fuel the disenchantment fires, and very much due to the absence of knowledge and fact regarding our process and absence of action and movement to make the process inherently accountable and fair, both for visceral voters and rational voters, this election will be seminal for future changes in democracy in America, I believe.

I think I am witnessing a movement beginning in earnest here with two sides fighting for determination of America’s future. Those who want to vote and walk away relieved for having done their duty, and those who believe this former group is responsible for the ills we face now and in our future, are the two camps who are going to come to loggerheads in 2008 and beyond. Naderites and Libertarians have been seriously marginalized in this election, but so too will 10’s of millions of Republicans or Democrats who lose their choice in 2004, feel marginalized.

This fact alone, I believe is going to focus ever more intent scrutiny upon our electoral process. Why aren’t elections held on weekends and over 3 days instead of one, to make the process far, far more accessible to all Americans? Why for national elections, do we not standardize and publicize intensely steep criminal penalties for voter fraud, dirty tricks, and manipulation? Why do we not encourage real choice on issues by opening both debates and public financing of elections to all parties with Presidential candidates who meet a minimum criteria in terms of public support?

I see far more dissension, contention, and vitriole after this election and much of it will be focused on process. I think that is a good thing. Whether the powers that be will fight to keep change from happening or accomodate change will determine in large part whether our electoral process future is one of evolution or revolution.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2004 06:54 PM
Comment #31440

David, your questions are good ones.

Personally, I think voting ought to be considered both a right and a responsiblility.

But part of a having a responsibility means being able to carry out simple functions like registering to vote and either showing up at a correct polling place or showing the ability to lick a stamp and mail in an absentee request form. It’s really not that hard. There’s no reason for polling to take place over three days—considering the huge additional expense that would entail, and not when it already takes place over several weeks for those who choose to take advantage of absentee voting. Voting also requires (or should require) the ability to carry out simple instructions such as punching a chad.

For some reason, it’s assumed—by Democratic leaders no less—that Democratic voters have inordinate problems carrying out these functions and so voting must be made easier. Always easier, always less regulated, always less oversight.

Voting must be an easier part of civic life, apparently, than catching a bus, operating a subway turnstile or even dressing oneself. It must be the easist thing in life, requiring no initiative or forethought. Requiring voters to actually take responsibility for voting is called “disenfranchisement.” (Unless of course, someone might wish for to vote for a third party candidate like Nader, in which case they should be forbidden by the courts from having that option).

The election process will NOT be reformed because Democrats in particular will not allow it. This is why we see the mayors of urban Democratic cities in Ohio and Florida saying it’s racist that they’re not permitted to order more ballots even than residents in their cities. After all, even deceased minority voters should not be intimidated out of voting by those nasty racist Republicans.

Posted by: Martin at October 24, 2004 01:20 AM
Comment #31467

Martin, why are you so narrowly one sided in your view? I think you know as well as I that power corrupts and those seeking power can be very corrupt regardless of party. You have provided a view of the left’s corruption in seeking and protecting power. Nixon’s plumbers and yesterday’s AP story

In several battleground states across the country, a consulting firm funded by the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) has been accused of deceiving would-be voters and destroying Democratic voter registration cards.

The crimes are committed by both sides. It is sad to me that so many intelligent folks choose to blind themselves in a partisan way. It hurts our society terrible when so many 10’s of millions of people engage in such deliberate intellectual blindness.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2004 03:45 AM
Comment #31518


Do you truly feel the United States is going the way of ancient Rome or ancient Greece, or the way of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev? Do you see our future as being so bleak?

I recognize your claims that both sides are playing games with the elections to a greater, or at least more widely known, degree. Yet I don’t see the downfall of our country coming, as you seem to suggest.

If you truly feel our system stinks, then work to change it. Not just in 2000 or 2004 or 2008, but in 2005,2006, 2007, 2008. Work in local elections to get third party candidates elected. Work in state elections to get third party candidates elected. Help build some power for a 3rd party before leaping to such heights as a Presidential election.

I’ve thought Colin Powell to be a viable candidate, as was Wesley Clark but neither had ever run for office. I’d never vote for either as President because of this shortcoming.

David, truly your faith is not succeeding in helping you see the US in a positive light. You appear to be resigned to the bad parts of our country, rather than focusing on the positives.

I believe our standards and expectations are much higher than those in other parts of the world, yet that is not a reason to stop trying to improve. But that explains how our abuses at Abu Ghraib can be compared by some to the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein or the death camps of Hitler. There truly is no comparison, yet people see our negative actions as magnified because our standards are so high.

David, do not despair. Our country IS great. We also do things wrong. But….just as we are working to punish the wrongdoers at Abu Ghraib, we also will seek to correct many of our other flaws. Take an optimistic view, which is simply a more realistic view of our country.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 24, 2004 08:17 AM
Comment #31666

jbod, I see how very easy it can be for the US to go the way of Rome, Ancient Greece or Russia.

The way of Rome was to spread its power and influence beyond its ability to control, and its bribery as a means of quelling rebellion backfired big time. There are parallels to US foreign policy today.

The way of Ancient Greece was a result of an affluent middle class of specialists who became utterly dependent on other specialists to do what needed to be done. When one set of specialists like the Spartans were not up to the task, the nation was overrun.

The way of Russia was to create a bureacracy so vast and complex, that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing, and human greed being what it is, the bureacracy collapsed under the weight of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Yes, I think it is very possible the US could become a failed state and I see many evidences that we have already embarked down such roads. Not the least of which is our governments complete inability to remain committed to long term solutions to long term problems. Nothing threatens this society more than that simple fact. Nuclear waste continues to threaten greater and greater danger to internal safety and security year after year, but, our government is incapable of coming up with a long term solution, let alone remain committed to it. That is just one of a host of examples.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2004 08:18 AM
Comment #31812

Now there is a new possibility to consider, neither candidate gets 270 Electoral College votes and it goes to the House of Republicans for annointing Bush for another 4 years. That should sit well for Americans who want to believe their vote matters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2004 08:26 PM
Comment #31911

The good news: Its almost over. The bad news: Post election aftermath will be worse than the campaign.

Attorneys have already taken their position on the battle fields, magnify glass in hand. The accusations of election fraud will be the target of our newest committee being created in our federal government, FEA (Federal Election Attorneys), and they are armed and ready.

People of Iraq, watch closely. This is how to conduct domocratic elections.

The problem many of we Americans have is that we just don’t like our choices. But that’s our democratic process. So do what many are doing - Write in John McCain.

Great link about this honorable man of integrity who would possibly restore credibility and honor back to our nation.

Posted by: writeinmccain at October 26, 2004 09:26 AM
Comment #32070

Dear readers,

Topic:STRATEGIC VOTING. Help vote out Bush!

I signed up with VOTEPAIR.ORG a couple of weeks ago and was paired with a
voter from Utah (a very Republican state). I live in Florida , a contested state
to say the least. I had voted for Nader in 2000.

I still wanted to vote third party and was to garner a vote by agreeing to vote
for Kerry in FL, while my partner in UT voted for Nader. In this manner
progressive goals are met!

Please tell your members to check this out and put it on your website. In many
states a relatively few votes can make a difference!

The site is: There is quite a bit of news on the site
and their analysis is good.


R. Sorensen

Posted by: Ron Sorensen at October 26, 2004 08:19 PM
Comment #32367

I don’t know how anyone thinks they know anything about the leaning in this election. I think the folks out there largely are either lying or not telling about how they’ll vote or voted. The idiot loudmouths on one side or another can’t help but use their one vote as a bleed for their guy. I for one, don’t have a dog in this race at all and I think Bush is ok but not perfect while Kerry is a long time senator. How anybody could cheer and scream and pine for a senator is beyond me and to want him or her to be president, that person must be devoid of all thought processes. We have had some fine and some ok senators but they are a breed apart. They are mostly show ponies without spines that nobody can name. Kerry makes the perfect senator. In this age of terror it is almost a waste that the ruler of our country has to be a politician. The job is almost too important to leave it in the hands of the moronic tv watching public that is America to pick that person based on tv ,radio and newspaper opinions. I hope for a landslide in the millions backing whoever is elected because we need less not more of the 2000 election crap. - Jimbob

Posted by: jimbob at October 28, 2004 12:19 PM
Comment #32580


Anything is possible. We’ve seen horrorific movie depictions of floods, ice ages, volcanoes, earthquakes etc. And yes, our country could go the way of ancient Roman or Greek cultures that over time eventually wilted away.

But now is not the time for such dramatic despair.
Our country is strong, and our Constitution is strong. You seem to think that a President chosen by the elected representatives of the people would be some terrible thing, yet it is the manner in which our forefathers directed elections to happen under the Constitution.

While it would certainly polarize the country more (not a good thing), it would also be a Constitutionally correct election. Now, we can certainly change that Constitution, but is that really what you want. I hear so much diatribe from those opposed to changing the Constitution in regard to marriage, yet I seem to hear you suggesting some kind of Constitutional change.

Perhaps you arent suggesting that, which would make your concern about an electoral tie….well, just a concern without any recommendation. So let me ask you to clarify….what WOULD you suggest be done to prevent such an occurrence?

David, you appear to be under the spell of the gloom and doom that some want to spread. Our last election was undeniably close, and in many countries, blood would have been spread in attempts to alter the outcome. In the US, there was none of that. The Constitution prevailed, and while there were certainly arguments, the argumments were peaceful and purposeful. Chaos did not reign, nor did violence.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 29, 2004 07:46 AM