Hey, it was no tangent; the point was someone inadvertently losing proof they committed voter fraud eight years ago is about as likely as Ford inadvertently losing proof Nixon sold him the presidency. Even an idiot of his stature does not keep THAT kind of thing around a second longer than necessary, precisely because it might fall into the wrong hands. Ironically, disposing of such evidence in the course of covering up needless election tampering he probably did not even know about until after the fact was the reason Nixon resigned. Any 2004 fliers with false election dates were burned the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November.


Actually, Kerrys 249 stops WELL below the 250 line, the uttermost point on the graph; 249 SHOULD be just below the 250 line, but is shown about halfway between it and the 240 line. Obviously, the 223 swing total should be above the 220 line; if anything, the graph underrepresents that just as it does the Bush and Kerry precincts, albeit not as much. "Deliberate" is a big word, and since the illustration under-represents all the totals I think it is just a bad graph, not bad intent. On a graph that starts at 200 and runs to 250, yes, 249 towers over 212 and 223, but it should be obvious the average number of voters per machine was significantly higher in blue precincts than in red ones (say, about 20% higher.)

None of THAT, nor machine density per REGISTERED voter, addresses the decision in many areas to allocate machines on the basis of "ACTIVE" voters, despite the tremendous registeration spike immediately before the election. It is one thing to note many registered voters do not actually vote; it is another to ignore massive new registration, or assume people registered to vote in next months election with no intent to actually do so.

Sorry about confusing Franklin and Cuyahoga Counties; non-resident. The OTHER only heavily Democratic area in the state only had to contend with four hour lines (but at least it was not ten,) except in upscale white (Republican) suburbs. I get that voting machines cannot be divided in half, but when it takes fifteen minutes to vote in a red precinct vs. four hours in a blue one, there is more going on than that. We do not need a graph with 240 towering over 15 to know that.


In the NYT and Washington Post articles chronicling the same phenomenon of nearly all red areas having more voting machines per capita than blue ones: They explained it on the grounds they allocated voting machines based on "active" rather than registered voters, ignoring the massive registration spike immediately prior to the election.


What can I say? Take it up with people interviewed, whose first and last names were provided in the articles. Another funny thing about the passage of time: People tend to remember things that happened to them yesterday in greater detail than those that happened six months ago. That tends to affect their willingness to swear to it under oath and risk five years in prison if they misremembered some otherwise trivial detail. Or, when people have been running around telling them they face prison for voting if they have even had a traffic ticket, even if they remember the details perfectly but fear wrongful prosecution by the same authorities who disenfranchised them in the first place.

Sure, that is a lot of speculation, but so is suggesting someone who cited specific times four hours apart had them embellished or exaggerated by memory; if that were all it was the passage of time tends to increase rather than reduce that effect. Given the candidate who might have lost the presidency over it did not even demand a recount, despite being legally entitled to do so and REPEATEDLY PLEDGING TO DURING THE CAMPAIGN, I am less the convinced investigations received due diligence in any event. If Badnarik and Cobb had not forced the issue they probably would have received none. Pretend it was a historically Democratic state with a notorious Democratic Secy. of State (not that any come to mind) and then tell me how much you think the government should be trusted. Or should I just remind you this whole thread started with Holder saying, "trust us; we are the government" and Republicans saying, "go to Hell, commie!"


Yes, you explained that allocating machines by resitered voters or any method would skew the numbers toward low population areas. Except the very point of doing it proportionately is to minimize that effect, and, of course, some precincts obtained machines on the basis of "active" rather than registered voters (and had no reported issues of four hour lines) while others did not. It is similar to what I said to Tom about the absence of federal and often even state requirements creating very ununiform standards that invite accusations of impropriety.

As for barring the media to prevent a national spectacle, with all due respect, conducting ones local elections in a manner that avoids throwing the presidency into limbo prevents that far better. IF, on the other hand, one cannot or will not do so, and DOES throw the presidency into limbo, expect a national media spectacle, just as I expect close media scrutiny of an obviously and flawed election process. He is my president, too, and folks in HI, NY, AK, FL and everywhere between them. Do NOT expect us to simply trust local pols ability to count votes they cannot even be trusted to collect. Again, only God knows how many Kerry votes two dozen machines awarded Bush before they even NOTICED; SOME public oversight of the recount might be a good idea.


Another funny thing: Winners rarely complain much; that does not mean every loser who ever complained was just bitter and graceless. You think Chicagos 1960 elections were fair and square? Or maybe those in TX (mercifully, the last time I know of any serious improprieties alleged there.) Since no cases of fraud were ever successfully prosecuted, they must have been, right? Though as I recall from my last perusal of the Wikipedia article, the Nixon campaign dropped its challenges when staffers pointed out continuing them might open a nasty can of worms that wound up proving fraud they knew had been perpetrated on their behalf elsewhere.

Of course, you cited a proven case yourself, but dismissed it on the grounds the judge stated there was no partisan intent, an opinion to which he is entitled, but not definitive. Put it this way: If Democrats and Republicans working in concert without constant active public oversight could be trusted to run government honestly and competently, our debt would not equal our GDP. And that is WITH a 24-7 media spectacle covering them. Unfortunately, the recent record of the two major parties indicates they are far more adept (and experienced) at working with each other against the people than with the people against each other.

We are back to the same old thing: If politicians are so trustworthy to conduct elections without scrutiny, why does this thread exist?