Ladies and gentleman, your Democratic congressmen and women

[CbusRed]

I think Alice Cooper put it best...

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200052/posts

[zombie-a-go-go]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

I think Alice Cooper put it best...

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200052/posts

Ah, sweet irony.

[traderumor]

so would getting third party people to run voting booths and such, instead of die-hard partisans

Why would third party people be more likely to be better poll workers? Aren't they partisan as well? Is a person that is highly partial to a certain political party more likely to be dishonest?

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform.

Your statement doesn't clash with mine, although you clearly think that it does.

I also find it hilarious the lengths you'll go to justify your hatred of those awful celebrities imploring people to vote.

I'm sure a lack of voting machines didn't have anything to do with the long lines. It was all because of first time voters, specifically first time voters voting because Puff Daddy told them to vote. Good one.

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

I also find it hilarious the lengths you'll go to justify your hatred of those awful celebrities imploring people to vote.

I'm sure a lack of voting machines didn't have anything to do with the long lines. It was all because of first time voters, specifically first time voters voting because Puff Daddy told them to vote. Good one.

Please re-read my post...

#1 I said it was a partial reason...

#2, it took me less time to vote with these voting machines than it ever did with the old punch-card style. Less than half the time actually.

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Your statement doesn't clash with mine, although you clearly think that it does.

Its called sarcasm.

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

it took me less time to vote with these voting machines than it ever did with the old punch-card style. Less than half the time actually.

Goody.

A voting booth has a capacity, just like an elevator. Officials know roughly how many people one machine can accomodate in one day. They then estimate voter turnout based on previous elections, interest in current election, etc. and order voting machines. Inner city precincts had less machines than they should have. Voting machines that could have been used sat unused in storage.

It had absolutely nothing to do with how fast or how slow people were voting.

[westofyou]

It had absolutely nothing to do with how fast or how slow people were voting.

I blame the bass player of Good Charlotte.

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Goody.

A voting booth has a capacity, just like an elevator. Officials know roughly how many people one machine can accomodate in one day. They then estimate voter turnout based on previous elections, interest in current election, etc. and order voting machines. Inner city precincts had less machines than they should have. Voting machines that could have been used sat unused in storage.

It had absolutely nothing to do with how fast or how slow people were voting.

So this is why Kerry lost the election?

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

Its called sarcasm.

Gee I missed that. No, wait I didn't, it was pretty clearly indicated by the obnoxious emoticon that you always seem to use.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you asked why no one ever screamed election fraud before the last two elections. I answered that it might be because the past two elections were very close, and the two elections before that were not. Fraud is more appealing in a close election, since it might give a candidate the last edge they need.

That's ignoring the fact that the right wing did scream fraud in the two elections before that, and many on the far right refused to give Clinton any authority because he never had a plurality due to the strong third party influence in 92 and 96.

Then for you said "But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform." Which didn't really make sense, as I hadn't said anything different. If that's sarcasm it's a pretty weak attempt. I very well may have missed what you meant, but you're not giving me much to work with, so the onus is really on you. Emoticons can only say so much.

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

So this is why Kerry lost the election?

No, Kerry lost the election because more people voted for the other candidate.

I have to ask, why are you against election day being easy and simple and structured in a way in which it encourages the maximum number of people to vote? Are some people not as worthy of the vote in your eyes?

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Gee I missed that. No, wait I didn't, it was pretty clearly indicated by the obnoxious emoticon that you always seem to use.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you asked why no one ever screamed election fraud before the last two elections. I answered that it might be because the past two elections were very close, and the two elections before that were not. Fraud is more appealing in a close election, since it might give a candidate the last edge they need.

That's ignoring the fact that the right wing did scream fraud in the two elections before that, and many on the far right refused to give Clinton any authority because he never had a plurality due to the strong third party influence in 92 and 96.

Then for you said "But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform." Which didn't really make sense, as I hadn't said anything different. If that's sarcasm it's a pretty weak attempt. I very well may have missed what you meant, but you're not giving me much to work with, so the onus is really on you. Emoticons can only say so much.

[traderumor]

obnoxious emoticon

Emoticons are people too, sounds like hate speech to me.

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

No, Kerry lost the election because more people voted for the other candidate.

I have to ask, why are you against election day being easy and simple and structured in a way in which it encourages the maximum number of people to vote? Are some people not as worthy of the vote in your eyes?

Im not against election day being simple. It seems very simple to me right now. You go in, you press the little blinking red button next to the one you want to vote for, when all the blinking lights are done blinking, you press the BIG green button that says "VOTE". How hard is that? Im certainly no scholar, yes I have a college degree, but Im no genius.

But It seems to be a little hard for ghetto Julie who is voting for Kerry "because he likes black people." It takes her 7 minutes to vote. (BTW she was white so dont try to throw the race card)


Maybe more voting machines will help make your voting experience faster, but it wont make the election more fair.

[Redsfaithful]

It seems very simple to me right now.

Simple to you involves standing in line for two hours?