Difference between revisions of "Electoral fraud/US"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→2000 Election: link to original NYTimes article) |
(→2000 Election: more explanation of nytimes article) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* '''2006-02-22''' [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/socal/la-me-diebold22feb22,0,33600.story?coll=la-news-politics-local Man Pleads Not Guilty in Voting Device Case][([http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=3948 2006-02-26 slashdot]) | * '''2006-02-22''' [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/socal/la-me-diebold22feb22,0,33600.story?coll=la-news-politics-local Man Pleads Not Guilty in Voting Device Case][([http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=3948 2006-02-26 slashdot]) | ||
===2000 Election=== | ===2000 Election=== | ||
| − | * "Although it was reported – in ''The New York Times'', no less – that [[Al Gore]] got more votes than [[George W. Bush]] in a statewide recount of Florida "no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent," most Americans don't know to this day that Gore actually won the 2000 election. The reason is a small percentage of [[US Republican Party|Republican]] spin and a large percentage of journalistic cowardice in the mainstream media following [[9/11]]. (This cowardice is limited to the USA, by the way -- the story was extensively covered in most of the rest of the world.)" [http://www.alternet.org/rights/37153/] Interestingly, the [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1151294400&en=50238bdd2e2e00e3&ei=5070 original article] leaves the reader with the opposite impression; the | + | * "Although it was reported – in ''The New York Times'', no less – that [[Al Gore]] got more votes than [[George W. Bush]] in a statewide recount of Florida "no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent," most Americans don't know to this day that Gore actually won the 2000 election. The reason is a small percentage of [[US Republican Party|Republican]] spin and a large percentage of journalistic cowardice in the mainstream media following [[9/11]]. (This cowardice is limited to the USA, by the way -- the story was extensively covered in most of the rest of the world.)" [http://www.alternet.org/rights/37153/] Interestingly, the [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1151294400&en=50238bdd2e2e00e3&ei=5070 original article] leaves the reader with the opposite impression; the AlterNet article points this out and concludes that the ''Times'' did not want to undermine [[George W. Bush|Bush]]'s authority in a time of crisis (the article having been published not long after [[9/11]]). |
Revision as of 13:38, 24 June 2006
There have been repeated claims in the past two United States Presidential elections (2004 and 2000) of vote-rigging via defective voting machines, mass deletions of registered voters, and other means.
In the 2000 election, George W. Bush was officially elected by a narrow margin (271/538, 50.3%), and in the 2004 presidential election he was officially re-elected by somewhat less narrow margin (286/538, 53.2%). According to many claims, he would have been the clear loser in both cases had the votes been counted correctly.
Links
2004 Election
- 2006-06-01 Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
- 2006-06-07 RFK Jr: Taking the Stolen Election Seriously: further analysis by Thom Hartmann (AlterNet)
- 2006-02-23 votes were time-stamped 2 weeks before the election date (2006-02-24 slashdot)
- 2006-02-22 Man Pleads Not Guilty in Voting Device Case[(2006-02-26 slashdot)
2000 Election
- "Although it was reported – in The New York Times, no less – that Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush in a statewide recount of Florida "no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent," most Americans don't know to this day that Gore actually won the 2000 election. The reason is a small percentage of Republican spin and a large percentage of journalistic cowardice in the mainstream media following 9/11. (This cowardice is limited to the USA, by the way -- the story was extensively covered in most of the rest of the world.)" [1] Interestingly, the original article leaves the reader with the opposite impression; the AlterNet article points this out and concludes that the Times did not want to undermine Bush's authority in a time of crisis (the article having been published not long after 9/11).