This post and The Washington Post chart below would have been more interesting prior to the election. However, I saw it for the first time today. The chart shows an interesting, if not disturbing, comparison of Las Vegas slot machines and electronic voting machines.
Based on multiple reports about "defective" voting machines in Ohio in 2004, John Kerry would have beaten George Bush with voting machines that were up to par with slot machines.
What are your thoughts? Should voting machines be regulated more like Las Vegas slot machines?
Best regards,
Jay
Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net
Interesting comparison. Leave it to the Post!
And your proof is based on what? And of course, you seem to be discounting the "voters" that the Democrats have been driving to the polls for years...
The regulators have a profit motive to keep the slots running correctly. Maybe we need a similar incentive for voting machines. I am not sure what that could be. Maybe there should be a slot on the voting machine that accepts quarters. The sign could say "If you liked your voting experience, please donate a quarter." Let the regulators keep the quarters. The more they improve things the more money they are likely to get.
The states received federal funds to buy those machines. If the federal government was paying for slot machines we might see a similar result for slots. It changes who the customer is.
Lane, if the voting machines were rigged for the GOP, then it would not matter how many Democrats voted.
Prior to the 2004 US Presidential Election, Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold Inc. (the company that makes voting machines) stated that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president [Bush]." Based on O'Dell's comment, Diebold rigged the voting machines in Ohio for Bush. If Bush lost Ohio in 2004, he would have lost the election.
Jay,
You made a comment in Nicholas's blog that he was "clinging to his pre-election rhetoric". Yet you are still trying to prove that George Bush stole the 2004 election, even though come January 20 the man you voted for to bring hope and change and save the world will be in office. Now who is really the one who is stuck in the past?
Michelle
That is funny init's own way, and you are right, before the election it would have been even better.
Michelle, thanks for your comment. One thing that is difficult to convey or to read in these groups is sarcasm. I wrote "clinging" in italicized print as a bit of a joke to Nicholas and knew that he would recognize it as being from Obama speaking several months ago about people "clinging" to guns and religion because they had nothing else to cling to...
As alluded to in this blog, if I saw the slot/voting machine chart before the election, I would have posted it that day, but I saw it for the first time today. This is not a case of being stuck in the past, it is a case of reiterating history, so that we don't repeat it. We vote in presidential elections every 4 years. Therefore, a blog about elections/voting machines is always relevant.
Jay ~ You and the Hi Di Ho man will be singing change for years to come and nothing but corruption will come of it. When you elect a corrupt man with questionable associations you don't get change, you get what you deserve.
Nicholas, if you believe that there is no change to come because Obama is corrupt, then you must believe that Bush is corrupt.
Jay- Where do you dig up some of your topics for you blogs, they are the best and they always get everyone worked up. I really love this one, I wish I could feature it. Wait a minute, maybe I can feature it at, gues not!
Robert, thanks for your comment and feedback. Check your Express With Words group again - the post should appear there now!
Jay ~ Those damned voting machines must have been rigged to elect Barak Hussein Obama. How could they be so wrong for Bush and so right this time. No election fraud this time because your man supposedly won? I don't think those electronic voting booths are legitimate, lets do this all over again, fair and square. Your so called landslide victory by only 53% is something to behold, it takes a democrat to come up with that you.
How about those Black Panhers keeping people from voting, nothing said about that one. Selective corruption, only when your guy loses.
Sat what you want about Richard nixon, he knew Joseph Kennedy stole the election, but for the good of the nation, he let it go.
But liberals are used to stealing elections, it was a shock that we did not let you get away with it in 2004 and the Supreme Court AGREED.
Nicholas, it is logical to state that rigging a close election such as Bush vs Kerry (2.5% margin of victory) or Kennedy vs Nixon (.2% margin) would be easier to accomplish than rigging an election with a large margin such as Obama vs McCain (7.3% margin).
3 days ago, Bush's IT expert and experienced pilot Michael Connell died in a single engine plane crash. The 2004 Bush campaign paid $800,000 to Connell's business for undisclosed services. It appears as though this Bush insider was about to explain how he helped to rig the election in Ohio. Click for a 2 minute news story about Connell.
And yet there were counties around Dayton and Cincinnati that had more votes than registered voters... in 2004... and they went overwhelmingly Democrat. Democrats were trying to get illegal aliens voting... in not just Ohio, but everywhere. They vote overwhelmingly Democrat when they make it through the poll workers. Democrats fight against rules that require people show that they can vote (ID laws... even though the IDs are free to anyone that can show they are eligible).
If anyone is trying to steal elections from American citizens, it would be the Democrat Party...
Jay, you can't convince any of these people here that there were irregularities in the 04 election, because they are sore losers. I would remind them though that because of the irregularities in the 04 election, the states in question, and many others reformed their voting procedures and installed NEW machines. I think from now on we should vote on slot machines as they seem to be held to more accountabiltiy than the voting machines are.
Sometimes when I read these posts and comments I feel like I am in the twillight zone.
"you can't convince any of these people here that there were irregularities in the 04 election, because they are sore losers". Sore losers? No, that would be the people still mad that their guy lost the election FOUR years ago because of "irregularities".
I think from now on we should vote on slot machines as they seem to be held to more accountabiltiy than the voting machines are. You know what? That's a brilliant idea. Considering most of the American public is uninformed and knows nothing about the issues anyway, I think I would rather them pull the lever and see what comes across the screen by chance than to have them willingly cast a vote for a guy that's not qualified to hold office.
Jay- I have to say, you sure have some very interesting blogs and some of the members coming back is just the greatest! I really like this one and have decided to feature it at:
EXPRESS WITH WORDS AT ACTIVERAIN
Jay, the comments from the losing side are starting to crack me up. Four years ago "irregularities" were non existent, according to them. Now that their guy lost, its all about election rigging. Someone above made a comment about electing corrupt people with questionable associations doesnt bring change. Well that happened in 2000 and 2004 and we got nothing but change. All negative, but change none the less.
Terry, there WERE irregularities both 4 and 8 years ago... but you are wrong on the direction. You assume that it must have been in favor of the GOP. Perhaps those races were only as close as they were because of votes being cast that shouldn't have been. We know that the Democrat Party has been pushing for illegal aliens to vote in elections. We kinow that the Democrat Party is supportive of voter fraud (look at the support of ACORN). Maybe they just weren't able to put out enough bad votes before...
Lane, for this discussion, let's agree that ACORN committed voter fraud to generate more votes for the Democrats and that the 2004 Bush Campaign paid a Republican IT expert to alter vote counts in Ohio.
If both assertions from the preceding sentence are true, then it makes no difference how many votes were illegally cast for a Democrat, because the Republicans altered those votes.
There is a difference, and you are refusing to acknowledge it. The difference is that there are traces of the voter fraud... we saw it reported all over the place this year... but NO cases where there is fraud shown in the programming of the voting machines.
And the ONLY reason you think that this election wasn't gamable is because the very voting machines you say were rigged showed Obama's victory. Had they actually been rigged, you wouldn't have a basis for saying that Obama actually had a majority... because the voting machines wouldn't have shown it.
The bottom line is that you are acting like a poor winner.
But the slot machines are normally accompanied by FREE DRINKS!!! Yippee for the slots! Personally my favorite is the WHEEL OF FORTUNE machine!