Difference between revisions of "US/president/elec/2008"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Links: primary vote results flipped, not.) |
(filed links; Projects: kickthemallout) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This page looks at the details and concerns about the actual voting process which we hope will take place as usual in 2008; for details about the issues and candidates, see [[2008 US presidential race]]. | This page looks at the details and concerns about the actual voting process which we hope will take place as usual in 2008; for details about the issues and candidates, see [[2008 US presidential race]]. | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
| + | ===Projects=== | ||
| + | * [http://www.kickthemallout.com/ The Kick Them All Out Project]: should be moved to eventual [[2008 US elections]] page | ||
| + | ===Filed Links=== | ||
| + | {{links.tagged}} | ||
| + | ===News & Views=== | ||
* '''2008-01-16''' [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080116-analysis-new-hampshire-by-the-numbers.html Analysis: Clinton, Obama, and New Hampshire by the numbers]: an apparent "flipping" of results from machine-based voting in the New Hampshire primary is debunked -- but there are still suspicious correlations between who won and whether the votes were hand-counted. Also points out how vote-fraud blogging is both helping the cause of integrity and muddying the water at the same time; the actual election is now expected to be a madhouse. | * '''2008-01-16''' [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080116-analysis-new-hampshire-by-the-numbers.html Analysis: Clinton, Obama, and New Hampshire by the numbers]: an apparent "flipping" of results from machine-based voting in the New Hampshire primary is debunked -- but there are still suspicious correlations between who won and whether the votes were hand-counted. Also points out how vote-fraud blogging is both helping the cause of integrity and muddying the water at the same time; the actual election is now expected to be a madhouse. | ||
* '''2007-08-06''' (found 2007-08-01) [http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg Votescam] by Hendrik Hertzberg: [[California]] initiative 07-0032 (the Presidential Election Reform Act) would level the playing field, but only for California -- essentially giving Republicans an unfair advantage nationwide, given the many Republican-held states which do not plan to implement any such reform. This is a move in the right direction, but needs to be done in a way that doesn't hand either party a notable advantage, e.g. by California and Texas both agreeing to implement such changes simultaneously. | * '''2007-08-06''' (found 2007-08-01) [http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg Votescam] by Hendrik Hertzberg: [[California]] initiative 07-0032 (the Presidential Election Reform Act) would level the playing field, but only for California -- essentially giving Republicans an unfair advantage nationwide, given the many Republican-held states which do not plan to implement any such reform. This is a move in the right direction, but needs to be done in a way that doesn't hand either party a notable advantage, e.g. by California and Texas both agreeing to implement such changes simultaneously. | ||
** Under the current circumstances, however, it would clearly favor the Republicans by handing them a roughly Ohio-sized set of electoral votes. | ** Under the current circumstances, however, it would clearly favor the Republicans by handing them a roughly Ohio-sized set of electoral votes. | ||
* '''2007-07-28''' [http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/296375.html Voting systems hacked in test]: it's not clear who initiated the tests; in the [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/07/scary-stories-for-saturday-night-with-p.html#496728678455127915 comment] where this link was originally posted, the poster was spinning it as outside hackers breaking in to prove the vulnerability of machines actually being used for voting -- which is not the case; the article makes it sound more like this was a government test to assess the reliability of machines they are ''planning'' on using, which is a good thing. The article, however, still does not make it clear whether the state ''initiated'' the tests or was merely accepting the results as significant. | * '''2007-07-28''' [http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/296375.html Voting systems hacked in test]: it's not clear who initiated the tests; in the [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/07/scary-stories-for-saturday-night-with-p.html#496728678455127915 comment] where this link was originally posted, the poster was spinning it as outside hackers breaking in to prove the vulnerability of machines actually being used for voting -- which is not the case; the article makes it sound more like this was a government test to assess the reliability of machines they are ''planning'' on using, which is a good thing. The article, however, still does not make it clear whether the state ''initiated'' the tests or was merely accepting the results as significant. | ||
Revision as of 14:07, 20 May 2008
Overview
The 2008 US presidential election will be a crucial event in the history of the United States, coming as it does on the heels of two rigged presidential elections (2000 and 2004) and close to 8 years of erosion of the democratic foundations of the American government.
Because of this clear trend, many people fear that the democratic process will in some way be subverted with regard to this election; the following possibilities have been raised:
- The election will be rigged, as were the 2000 and 2004 elections, and another neoconservative kleptocrat supported (perhaps covertly) by the current administration will officially win even though an accurate vote would have elected a different candidate.
- Bush will declare martial law, or otherwise use the enhanced presidential powers he has been allowed to claim – possibly in the wake of some kind of national emergency like the one which allowed him to gain those powers – and there will either be no election (completing the next step in the Nehemiah Scudder scenario) or one that is severely curtailed and inaccurate.
Related Pages
This page looks at the details and concerns about the actual voting process which we hope will take place as usual in 2008; for details about the issues and candidates, see 2008 US presidential race.
Links
Projects
- The Kick Them All Out Project: should be moved to eventual 2008 US elections page
Filed Links
- redirect template:links/smw
News & Views
- 2008-01-16 Analysis: Clinton, Obama, and New Hampshire by the numbers: an apparent "flipping" of results from machine-based voting in the New Hampshire primary is debunked -- but there are still suspicious correlations between who won and whether the votes were hand-counted. Also points out how vote-fraud blogging is both helping the cause of integrity and muddying the water at the same time; the actual election is now expected to be a madhouse.
- 2007-08-06 (found 2007-08-01) Votescam by Hendrik Hertzberg: California initiative 07-0032 (the Presidential Election Reform Act) would level the playing field, but only for California -- essentially giving Republicans an unfair advantage nationwide, given the many Republican-held states which do not plan to implement any such reform. This is a move in the right direction, but needs to be done in a way that doesn't hand either party a notable advantage, e.g. by California and Texas both agreeing to implement such changes simultaneously.
- Under the current circumstances, however, it would clearly favor the Republicans by handing them a roughly Ohio-sized set of electoral votes.
- 2007-07-28 Voting systems hacked in test: it's not clear who initiated the tests; in the comment where this link was originally posted, the poster was spinning it as outside hackers breaking in to prove the vulnerability of machines actually being used for voting -- which is not the case; the article makes it sound more like this was a government test to assess the reliability of machines they are planning on using, which is a good thing. The article, however, still does not make it clear whether the state initiated the tests or was merely accepting the results as significant.