Election FRAUD ?

United States
January 9, 2008 4:10pm CST
It seems people are susupicious. First, you had all those scientific polls that were wrong. Next you have that paper ballots favored Obama while machine votes favored Hillary. Hmmm.... Read more here. http://presscue.com/node/38034 What are your thoughts? The Clinton machine surely would not cheat would they?
8 people like this
11 responses
@Destiny007 (5819)
• United States
10 Jan 08
Let us not forget the "hanging chads" and "dimpled ballots". Not only would they cheat, but if they lose you can bet that they will say they was robbed, and the election was stolen from them. They need to forget these machines and go back to t6he paper ballots and hand counting, because there is too much chance for fraud otherwise. What has occurred in the past in the republican vs. democrat votes can also occur in favor of the favorite democrat in order to clear the road for the presidential election. There is something screwy about those machines and they have had far to many problems in the past to be relied on.
3 people like this
• United States
10 Jan 08
I have been reading more about those machines. It turns out that they are pretty easy for a programmer with access to the right equipment to reprogram them. It would be hard to do without being seen, but if the election officials are crooked, it could be done easily.
3 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
9 Jan 08
Of course, they would; but, that does not automatically mean that they did. None of these municipalities used BOTH methods and the article does not distinguish which municipalities used which method. You would really need to know more about the demographics of the two different groups to get a better picture OR you would need to have a discrepancy where BOTH methods were being used by the SAME voters. The article just does not have enough FACTS to make it meaningful.
3 people like this
• United States
10 Jan 08
Yes, you are right. At present there is not enough information to prove anything.
4 people like this
@anniepa (27279)
• United States
9 Jan 08
What "people" are suspicious? This is the first I've heard of this "controversy". It's quite possible that the precincts which use the paper ballots were more predominantly in one of the demographics that seem to favor Obama and the precincts which used the machines were more favored Hillary. Did you have these same concerns in 2000 or 2004 when people - LOTS of people - really WERE suspicious? I forgot, the Bush machine, operated by that pillar of society Karl Rove, wouldn't cheat! Annie
3 people like this
• United States
10 Jan 08
I'm a 'people' and I'm suspicious. You are completely correct the demographics questions mean there is not proof of any wrong doing. There is only what would be called probable cause and an investigation is most certainly warranted, even when considering the demographics situation. The paper ballots were in rural areas. The machines in cities. As Obama is generally regarded as more liberal and black, many assume he would have done better than Hillary in the cities, if he did better anywhere. But he did not, according to the electronic machines. Still, you are correct, the demographics cloud the issue. However, they are not cause to dismiss the issue. As to the concerns about election fraud in 2000 & 2004, I did have concerns and checked that out as much as I could back then. The truth of the matter is that there was proveable election fraud in both those elections. You'd have to really dig now to find the articles but they existed. So, why were there no charges if I'm right? Pay close attention. I'm about to tell you the truth about election fraud in this country. It is not talked about much, but the information is out there for anyone who searches it out. Both the major parties in the USA engage in as much election fraud as they can get away with. In both 2000 & 2004 neither party charged the other with a crime, even with all that was at stake, because each party was guilty of election fraud and each could likely prove it against the other. Hence, it was mostly swept under the rug, just like it may be now. This is the sad truth.
3 people like this
@Pose123 (21661)
• Canada
9 Jan 08
Hi redyellowblackdog, I don't believe anyone is cheating here. Obama is making it very interesting right now, but I think that Hillary will win the nomination, and the Presidency. Blessings.
3 people like this
• United States
10 Jan 08
There has been no official charge of cheating, so far. Only questions. Hillary could still win.
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22977)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
The only thing I've heard so far that I would consider evidence of fraud is all the out of state license plates. Another thing I find interesting is the "iron my shirt" controversy... Was it staged by the Hillary campaign?
2 people like this
• United States
10 Jan 08
I read somewhere that 10% of the voters just registered that day. That is legal in that election in that state.
4 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22977)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
Yes, I know. Same day registration is legal in Wisconsin too, and does nothing but enable voter fraud. It should be tossed out like the trash it is.
1 person likes this
@theprogamer (10539)
• United States
13 Jan 08
The iron my shirt controversy, that was by a local radio show as a prank, but its suspicious how they got in and some witnesses report the two individuals conversing with the Clinton officials before the real meeting. But of course I don't expect many red flags to come across for other people in this matter. -_-
1 person likes this
@James72 (26829)
• Australia
10 Jan 08
Who knows what the heck is going on with polls! I am not American so do not receive as much of an in depth coverage of it all as the "locals" would; but I do see updates of it all on ET/Inside Edition etc every morning before I leave for the office. Clinton machine cheat? I am sure that ALL candidates will do whatever they can to create a perception among voters and will walk a very, very fine line in how they do it. This morning the focus was on New Hampshire and how Obama's apparently had a significant lead (theoretically and based on God knows what as I missed this part!); yet when the "figures" were in, everyone appeared surprised tat it was actually Clinton shown as the front runner. It is all a massive PR machine; no doubt aided significantly by Hilary's tearful words a day or so ago on camera; I am sure she has now attracted the attention of many more people with that moment alone. Personally I have NO idea who will win; all I feel is that ANY replacement of the current President is a positive move forward. Machine polls, paper polls, phone polls...... By human nature we are all impulsive and our thoughts change constantly from day to day; admit it or not, many of us are also influenced heavily by our families preferences etc as well. How many of us REALLY dig deep to determine who is best for the country in question and why? Politics in the USA is a very different scenario to the system I am used to in Australia so to be honest it is difficult to know what the heck is happening most of the time! I will just wait and see and hope that whoever it is that wins can contribute something worthwhile to the world.
2 people like this
• United States
10 Jan 08
Well, you've summed up fairly well the limitations of politics and human beings.
3 people like this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
10 Jan 08
You do know that Obama is gonna use this to the hilt though. This should be fun. I live in Fla. You know the hanging chad kingdom. We know better than any other state what can happen when someone gets their dander up and decides to question a vote. No matter what is done, no one ever ever believes anyone ever again! Even I still do not trust the stupid machines. I vote early so that I can do the hand bubble thing and it is hand counted. It does not matter if anyone cheated. All someone has to do is ask the question or make the implication and the fun starts.
• United States
10 Jan 08
I think Obama is going to remain above the fray and not say anything. Some of his followers may make a stink without involving Obama. Then if nothing comes of it, Obama is not tainted by making false accusations. If something does come of it, Obama can then step in.
2 people like this
@xParanoiax (6997)
• United States
12 Jan 08
There's also doubt on the republican side as well...and people are funding a recount...which I say, awesome, if there's doubt, investigate. It's better than doing nothing if there's a doubt. And yes, the credibility of New Hampshire has been in question since the last few times Bush was elected so... Anyway, would the Clinton machine cheat? Yes. She's done some things people consider shady in the past, so why the hell not? You know? Besides, they were saying she was done for. What if she was desperate enough to rig a primary? Anywho, I'll be happy to see what really happened in New Hampshire, as the people have already admitted they miscounted/didn't count some votes. Maybe it won't make much of a difference, heck maybe it will. Who knows right? I'll wait and see.
1 person likes this
• United States
12 Jan 08
Judging on the overall reaction the last few days I'm guessing it gets swept under the rug. It seems the people making the decisions regarding the investigation do not want to air the dirty laundry in public. It seems to have to do with that Biblical teaching, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Both parties engage in election fraud, so neither wants to discuss the subject, IMHO.
2 people like this
• United States
13 Jan 08
Yeah, the mainstream and especially not most of the candidates are discussing it. Kucinich and a few of the fringe candidates are though, and they're the ones who're getting the recount. But I doubt many people will talk about it, unless of course we find out that the fraud did make a difference Hillary didn't win, of course.
• United States
13 Jan 08
they're not discussing it*
@soccermom (3200)
• United States
10 Jan 08
I think after the fiasco in Florida everbody has the right to be suspicious. I know I am. I would hate to think that the Clinton machine would cheat, but Hillary seems to want it pretty badly. I;m sure coming in 3rd in Iowa hurt. Personally I'm an Obama girl, and I would love to see him win and knock Hillary down a couple notches.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Jan 08
Obama is certainly preferable to Hillary.
2 people like this
• United States
12 Jan 08
Agreed
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
10 Jan 08
Yeah, I was wondering about this today. People have been so surprised at the result that was so different from the exit polls, so i was wondering if the difference was greater in districts that were using electronic counting measures, but no one mentioned it on the radio today. I know in the 2004 Presidential election, Bush was getting a mysterious 5%-or-so benefit over the exit polls in voting districts with electronic voting machines counting the votes. In districts with hand-counting the results matched the exit polls, as has been historically the case until electronic voting started to get implemented.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Jan 08
Boy am I glad you put your 2 cents in. I was starting to feel like the Lone Ranger!
3 people like this
@Arshian (478)
• Pakistan
10 Jan 08
yeah for sure elections are fraud