McKinney alleges voting irregularities

[onehandle]

Shortly after the polls opened on Tuesday, allegations of voting irregularities began appearing on U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign Web site.

At 8:14 a.m., the first complaint appeared: “Less than an hour into voting, McKinney’s name is not on ballot, opponent’s is,” read an item on her blog.

Other similar allegations would follow throughout the day as 4th Congressional District voters decided whether to send McKinney back to Congress, or give the Democratic nomination to runoff opponent, Hank Johnson, a lawyer and former DeKalb County commissioner.

The McKinney Web site noted voting machines not working or mysteriously casting incorrect ballots, “insecure” voting equipment, police harassment, and poll workers refusing to hand out Democratic ballots.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_allege.html

[Eric J in MN]

1. Georgia got Diebold machines statewide...

...to prevent hanging chads.

The solution is worse than the problem.

If they had paper ballots statewide, any poll worker could check that all the candidate's names are there before Election Day.

[bliss_eternal]

7. Absolutely...

I would think any state that's been paying attention would be on top of this issue, long before election day...

:( It makes me so sad.

[greccogirl]

31. Don't be sad.

There is nothing to this. Raw Story has already checked it out = her name wasn't on the ballot because she wasn't running in that district!! (This is almost sad)

[bliss_eternal]

33. Would you mind providing a link...

for some reason, I can't find anything on this. :shrug:

Thanks!
:)

[NYCGirl]

41. Here:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/McKinney_campaign_claims_name_left_off_0808.html

Seeking to resolve these and similar issues, Sinkule said that it appears that most of the controversies involve people who couldn’t find Rep. McKinney on their ballots because they mistakenly believed they were in her district, or because they had registered to vote as Republicans. This does not seem to address the specific claim that fourth district ballots listed Johnson, but not McKinney.

Addressing a different allegation, she noted that, at one polling place, voting booths had been moved, but that this was done on-site with adequate signage to prevent incidences of confusion.

[bliss_eternal]

44. Thanks you ,NYCGirl...

:hi: ...I appreciate it!

[bliss_eternal]

2. Again...?!

Sheesh--when are we going to get rid of those voting machines. Paper trail, paper trail, paper trail. This has got to be our mantra...:grr:

[Just Me]

37. You expect proof by those whose allegiance is to the FUROR?

Diebold is going down, one lawsuit at a time. I just wish someone would have listened to my warnings in 2003,...just one of the couple dozen of congress-critters.

This country is on the cusp of complete disaster,...and a majority of the people don't even know it,...a majority of our own congress-critters don't even know it.

DAMN!!!!

[bliss_eternal]

40. You're right of course...

...I know I shouldn't expect it. I guess I'm just a bit confused by those here that would rather call this in to question because it's Cynthia saying this--instead of looking at prior history with these machines.

I wish people had listened to you, too! :hi:

[EFerrari]

121. It would appear the a majority of posters to this thread

would be surprised, too.

[JimDandy]

49. I'm with you.....Hand Counted Paper Ballots!!! n/t

[JimDandy]

128. Dupe.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. uh, this is a primary

and she's claiming that they are not handing out Democratic ballots? So, NO ONE is getting votes in the run off?

[sgxnk]

8. it's mckinney. logic does not apply nt

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eric J in MN]

23. No, that only her opponent's name was listed.

Bradblog.com has the details.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. The story speciically has her complaining

about poll workers NOT handing out DEMOCRATIC ballots.

[muryan]

29. she likes to play the victim

be glad when she loses.

[JimDandy]

63. First of all, all democrats should be raising flags any

time even one democratic voter is disenfranchised. Secondly, perhaps the precinct in which this happened was a McKinney stronghold.

I poll watched in an election last fall in which the poll worker had encoded the voter access cards incorrectly and her mistake wasn't caught until nearly 300 people had voted (a voter caught it.) All the candidates in the one race that was missing on those ballots were out votes, but I'll bet it would have been a BIG HUGE DEAL to the candidates (it was a 'pick 7 out of 9' race) who were expected to win in that precinct! Unfortunately, the election officials kept the whole thing quiet. McKinney didn't, so good for her.

We should all know, by now, that one vote can make a difference.

Just say NO to ANY Disenfranchisement!!

[Critters2]

65. She didn't lose to a Republican

I find it troubling that a Dem is accusing another Dem of cheating.

Maybe, and I know this seems implausible, McKinney lost.

[JimDandy]

73. I don't think she is accusing her opponent of cheating --

I think she is pointing up failures in the Georgia election system. Any lawsuit she brings would be against the government, not her democratic opponent. Indeed, she may have lost fairly, but she, and all of us, have a right to know whether she did or not.

[EFerrari]

75. An hour into the "election", her campaign was flooded with calls

from voters. Apparently, this time, she was not the default on the machines

[JimDandy]

79. Do the Diebold machines in Georgia

have one of the candidate's names highlighted or pre-marked with an "x," which in essence would create a default vote? I thought that was not allowed or am I not understanding something here?

[EFerrari]

80. I was working the ERD that day, and noticed that very early on

people were complaining that when they tried to vote for her, their choice was registered to her opponent. (Not to the third party, as one might expect, on the other hand, that was just what was VISIBLE.)

So, it did look as though there was a "default" set and it wasn't Cynthia.

Surprise.

[JimDandy]

84. Good grief. The problems with these machines just NEVER stop. n/t

[EFerrari]

85. It's not a problem, it's an intended result.

As someone said in the doc, "Got Democracy", when all the random glitches favor one candidate, they're not random.

"High tech Jim Crow" was Bob Fritakis phrase. Imho, he hit it.

[unda cova brutha]

105. the repugs wanted her out

they did mess with the voting machines to get her out at all possible costs. They never stop and won't stop in 2008.

[Critters2]

107. Please

She was Karl's dream candidate.

[muryan]

110. She was the poster child for

unstable leadership. She was an embarrassment to the party and now shes gone

[unda cova brutha]

129. the repugs wanted her out

she is just an uppity black woman to them who is causing trouble for them. They woudl do anything to see here gone.

[Kelvin Mace]

90. You keep missing the obvious

McKinney claimed that poll workers refused to hand out Democratic ballots. As this was a Dem primary, that would have meant that no on was allowed to vote.

I think several VOTERS would have mentioned that by now, don't you?

[JimDandy]

127. No, YOU Keep Missing the Obvious...

There were both Democratic and Republican ballots at every single precinct in Georgia, including in District 4. The Republicans had statewide primary races for the offices of Secretary of State and Commissioner of Agriculture and the Dems had statewide races for Lt. Gov. and SOS.

Voters who cast either a Republican or Democratic ballot in the July 18th General Primary could not “cross over” and cast a ballot in the opposing political party’s contest in the runoff. But a voter who did NOT vote on July 18th was allowed to choose which party to cast a ballot for in the runoff.

Now add into that cesspool, the electronics involved in actually getting a correct ballot. Most Georgia voters used the Express Polling stations. Their ballots, which are tied to the statewide voter registration database, were automatically generated, and therefore the data in both the voter history field and the precinct field had to be spot on in order for a voter to receive the correct party ballot. There were also registered voters who were not in the database, but were listed in the supplemental poll books. They were given voter access cards that were physically programmed, by a poll worker, using a ballot encoder device (shown at bottom of p. 2) And I previously gave you just one example, in my state, of how easy it is to disenfranchise swaths of voters using those devices.

NOW do you see the multiple ways that a District 4 voter could have been given an incorrect ballot?

Edited to insert encoder link.

[Critters2]

98. There's no evidence any voter was disenfranchised

Voters who complained about her name not being on the ballot weren't voting in HER district.

Just say no to stupidity!

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

50. She's not making this claim as far as I can tell.

The news story in the original post made a claim that on her official blog, such a claim is made.
It does not specify McKinney made it. It does seem to imply that she did.
I googled and found what appears to be McKinney's blog and the most recent entry I could find was August 6th.
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/blog.php?all=1

edit:
It wasn't in her blog. I missed it in the campaign news on the side page. Never been to her site before tonight.

"Memorial Drive North precinct, a voter asked for a Democrat ballot and was given a Republican ballot. Only after the voter complained did the polling official give him a correct ballot.

The Secretary of State's Office is dismissing Team McKinney poll watchers at Idlewood and Winona Park Elementary School. Why? And under what authority? That they are telling us the truth? And we are telling you?

At Panola precinct, the McKinney Poll Watcher reports that the voting machine would not let the voter cast the ballot. Team McKinney has the name of that voter."
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/news.php?id=45

Maybe this is the source referred to in the OP?

[JimDandy]

53. The problem

is that perhaps those precincts (in which no Democratic ballots were handed out) were McKinney strongholds.

[Kelvin Mace]

99. So why has NO voter come out with this complaint

only McKinney?

McKinney does more harm to the party than good. She's our Mel Gibson, and we really are better off without her.

[bliss_eternal]

125. Actually, voters did make McKinney aware...

...of the problem. See posts #106, 118 and #123 on this thread. Apparently there's also a thread somewhere on DU started by a voter in her precinct supporting this.

:)

[sgxnk]

4. mckinney

assaults a police officer

turns around, plays victim and claims racial profiling (then backpedals when everybody and their mother backs away from her absurd comments)

mckinney losing at polls

turns around, plays victim, claims voting irregularities

i sense a pattern here (rolls eyes)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pastiche423]

28. I see a pattern as well

It's called:

DIEBOLD

[greccogirl]

32. Diebold

has nothing to do with it. Read Rawstory about it. It's almost laughable..........

[Pastiche423]

34. Of course it's Diebold!

Where have you been for the past six years?

Btw, I do not read rawstory. After they let a rw nutjob post a column on their website and refused to apologize about it, IMHO their credibility is zero.

[bliss_eternal]

48. I appreciate your saying this...

someone provided the link for me above. I guess I know now how valid their claims are now.

Why is it so many people here are so quick to dismiss Diebold claims? I really don't get it.

Great picture in your post, btw. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

54. was she charged with assaulting a police officer? n/t

[Critters2]

64. Not this time eom

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

81. so much for presumption of innocence n/t

[Critters2]

94. You lose the presumption of innocence once you apologize nt

[slaveplanet]

119. and here's her apology

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident,"

She's right, it's a contitutional violation for anyone, Especially a Policeman to impede, capture, seize or detain her, while congress is in session.

Cspan elaborates further on the intent of the framers when they drafted the clause:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week145.asp

The origins of this provision stemmed from fears that Members of Congress might be arrested or detained in order to prevent them from casting a specific vote, or out of sheer harassment by their enemies.

...

Members of Congress are permitted to assert a constitutional privilege known as the "arrest clause," contained in Article I, section 6, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution

...

the phrase "going to and returning from" legislative sessions were interpreted to include representational duties, as well as time spent on settling private affairs to prepare for the actual trip to and from the Congress

...

Freedom from "arrest" has been interpreted to mean also from detention or delay during an attempt at civil law enforcement. One jurist wrote that a Member of Congress should be given the maximum leeway in protection from routine law enforcement efforts because "a Member has superior duties to perform in another place." The argument went on to cite that when a Member is detained, the people he/she represents lose their voice in debate and in votes cast


--------------------------

She is clearly referring to the consitutional violation by the police officer. She is 100% correct, that there should not have been any "physical contact".


If you feel that this apology is an admittal of guilt on her part, you're quite simply mistaken.

[BayCityProgressive]

5. okay

if poll workers refused to hand out Democratic ballots wouldn't that hurt her opponent as well? I think she is very inflamatory and would like to see cold hard proof of ANY of this. SOunds like a desperate attempt to position herself for the seat in 08.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Agreed

The prelim results were looking very bad for her.

[glitch]

51. Depends on how consistently they refused to hand out the ballots

Perhaps they refused to hand out ballots in precincts where she would obviously be more popular.

[JimDandy]

67. Ding ding ding!! You get a "Logic Award". n/t

[Critters2]

60. I thought they were voting with paperless machines

NO ballots would have been handed out at all!

[mom cat]

6. I hope that she gets to the bottom of this and fights like hell if the

numbers look suspicious.

[BushOut06]

11. If the numbers look suspicious?

I just wonder, what would the numbers have to be to "look suspicious"? Any numbers that have her losing? It's not like she's losing by 1% of the vote or less.

[stillcool]

15. I'm with you momcat....

she has spoken out more about the incredulous things done by this administration than any other member of congress...and therefore is a serious threat to the government we now have. It makes me sick...but not surprised.

[bliss_eternal]

18. I'm with you both...

clearly it's a stretch on a progressive board to expect others to be supportive of Democratic members of senate that have had the courage to speak out against the injustices of this administration.

So she had a big media covered problem, and some don't agree with her assessment of the situation. So what? Why does that have to invalidate a claim in regard to something (black box voting, vote count irregularities, etc.) that we all know is an issue and was in at least two major elections?

Maybe some here could deal with the message and set aside the messenger.

Or is that asking too much of progressives...? :eyes:

[BushOut06]

24. Even if she loses, don't think she's going to suddenly go away

Hey, she can still be a pain in the GOP's side even if she isn't in Congress.

[brentspeak]

9. Good grief, McKinney is ridiculous

Fingers crossed for Johnson.

[onehandle]

14. Nothing but Johnson signs throughout our county.

She's done. This time it was Not a Republican conspiracy.

[EFerrari]

83. I wish either of you would read the Conyers report, or

the GAO report, or Mark Crispin Miller's book or Steve Freeman's book or Bob Fritrakis' book or even contemplate approaching the fucking mountain of literature that shows how utterly hackable these machines are.

What happens when someone you like gets ripped off? Dislike Cynthia all you want but, protect your vote.

:shrug:

[muryan]

111. Who cares about the machines.

A poll taken one week before the election had Johnson winning by 15% with a 3% margin of error. Johsnon won by 18%...GASP VOTER FRAUD. :sarcasm:

[Poppyseedman]

12. I think McKinney has officially jumped the shark

[meisje]

16. I think she has less credibility than Diebold

If that is even possible

[HuffleClaw]

17. "poll workers refusing to hand out Democratic ballots." ???

surely they wouldn't be that blatant?

[bliss_eternal]

19. I understand they were that blatant in '04 in Ohio...

:) Why is it difficult to consider in this case? No need to answer, just a question to consider.

[BayCityProgressive]

20. because

it is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY..if they refused to hand out Dem ballots what were they handing out ? Bush trading cards? Come on...it doesn't even make sense.

[onehandle]

21. Quiet!

Everything is a Republican conspiracy.

It's in Revelations, people!

[bliss_eternal]

25. Really...?

...so why'd you post about it?

[bliss_eternal]

22. Were you there...?

:shrug:

If you were not, I don't think you are in a position to say one way or the other what did or did not happen there. You can of course choose not to believe Ms. McKinney's allegations--that is your right.

But this questioning of the validity of her statements merely because SHE is the one saying them seems rather unnecessary and blatant to me. Until information comes out to support or deny her claims, why must so many here jump on the "she's a liar" bandwagon?

[BushOut06]

26. Were you there?

He merely expressed his opinion that her arguments are weak. Unless you were there yourself, and witnessed this firsthand, your opinion is no more valid than his. I have to agree, it does seem odd that poll workers wouldn't hand out Democratic ballots during a DEMOCRATIC primary. There's no other ballot! Besides, the article the OP refers to even mentions that none of the complaints have come from voters, that they have all been coming from McKinney's camp.

Again, if McKinney were losing by a slim margin, there might be cause for concern over these supposed 'irregularities'. But she's getting trounced. Not handing out Democratic ballots would not help her opponent one single bit.

[bliss_eternal]

30. I find it difficult

to address comments when they aren't coming from the person I originally posed the question of. I also find it rather fruitless when people jump in as you have here.

But I will address you in as much to say the following: My question still stands, and I believe it is a valid one.

None of us was there, so none of us knows what happened. I did not say I knew what happened, I did question why everyone here seems so sure they know what didn't. :shrug:

I don't like to see people jumping to conclusions and those rumours based on their "ideas" as opposed to "facts." I'm entitled to comment on that and wonder (as I have) why it's ok to do this. I don't think it is, so I said so. That doesn't take away your right or anyone's to believe what they want in this situation.

You and the others here are entitled to believe whatever you want about Ms. McKinney, I haven't tried to take that away from anyone. Kindly allow me the same latitude, to have my beliefs and question those that make comments that are unfounded.

[Llewlladdwr]

36. Be realistic.

You don't always need to be present at an event to be able to make a judgment as to the accuracy of a statement about said event.

For instance, as pointed out above, this is a Democratic primary runoff. If Democratic ballots aren't being handed out then what are?

Also, if Diebold machines are in use state-wide in Georgia then why are ballots being handed out at all?

I think it's reasonable to call shenanigans on the McKinney camp based on the above. Your mileage may vary, but I can't see where people are 'jumping to conclusions'.

[bliss_eternal]

52. No, you don't have to be present to

...make a judgement of anything. People judge things each and every day that they have never seen and have little experience with.

I already said you and others are entitled to believe whatever you want.

In my opinion it is not reasonable to call shenanigans on the McKinney camp. But of course you are entitled to disagree with my opinion.

You "choose" to call shenanigans on her camp, because you want to believe they aren't telling the truth.

[Llewlladdwr]

55. My point is simple.

The allegations being made by the McKinney camp don't even make sense.

Explain if you can the allegation that no Democratic ballots were being handed out. Or why ballots would be handed out at all if voting is by EVM. Or don't explain if you so chose. But please don't call me unreasonable for pointing out obvious inconsistencies and making a judgment call based on same.

[bliss_eternal]

57. They don't make sense to you...

that doesn't mean they don't make sense to others. Apparently there are some on this thread that see the possibility of truth in her statements. You, again "choose" to see her as a liar. That's ok. It's your right to do so.

It is possible for ballots to be handed out where black box voting is taking place. Some places offer voters a choice of one or the other. Just because you aren't aware of this option doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :)

[Critters2]

58. Just for the record,

they don't make sense to me, either.

[bliss_eternal]

62. ok.

:)

[muryan]

112. But once again they have no explaination

as to what ballets were being handed out if they werent handing out democratic ballots...to vote on a machine. This makes as much as sense as anything else that comes out of the Mckinney camp. You dont have to be there to know that there is only one ballot that CAN be handed out, due to the nature of the election. So the "you werent there" arguement really has no footing because its really black and white, you dont have to be there. Only one party being voted for.

[bliss_eternal]

122. ...?

This has already been stated--ad nauseum, and adressed many times above. :shrug:

[muryan]

124. im aware

just adding my $0.02

[bobbie]

43. Right - Blatant in Ohio in 04 and Fla in 2000

What do they have to fear? The mainstream media won't report the truth.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...

B

[proud patriot]

61. Welcome Underground

:hi:

[bobbie]

66. Thanks so much proud patriot

Subterranean is the way to go.

[Critters2]

56. in a Democratic primary

:eyes:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

42. I hope she sues and wins. (nt)

[Taoschick]

45. Oh, don't worry

She will sue.

[Pastiche423]

46. So do I!

[Critters2]

59. You hope she sues a fellow Democrat?

What website am I on again?

[Pastiche423]

68. Oh for cripe's sake

Pay attention. She should sue Diebold.

Duh!

[Critters2]

70. Over a loss to a Dem?

And I've read two articles saying that those who complained she wasn't on their ballots were either Republican or lived outside her district.

If she sues, she'll not only lose. She'll look even crazier. Which will be quite a feat.

[Pastiche423]

71. Have you paid attention

to the last four (at least) years of politics and the UN-auditable Diebold et al machines? Even the tiniest bit?

[Critters2]

72. I paid attention to the articles stating that those who

claimed her name wasn't on their ballots either A)Didn't live in her district; or B) were Republicans.

And when Diebold steals an election, they make it look close, to keep it looking plausible. This wasn't close.

She lost, fair and square. She didn't need Diebold to do it.

And those who didn't support her aren't necessarily racist.

Time to support the Dem candidate.

[EFerrari]

77. Do you vote? n/t

[Critters2]

97. Yes, I vote eom

[bliss_eternal]

78. Was that suggested somewhere...?

Quote:
And those who didn't support her aren't necessarily racist.

:shrug: I'm sincerely asking because I don't see anyone saying this in the above posts. Did I miss something?

[Pastiche423]

82. So, you haven't paid attention

to the issue in the past four+ years.

Now that explains your comments. Moreover, it explains that you don't care about the all of the disenfranchised voters all over our country.

Sad

Very sad

[muryan]

113. This argument doesn't have a leg to stand on

She was way behind in the polls before the election, and she lost by a significant margin in the election. I'm not sure what the big deal is, besides some people being unhappy she was ousted. This was an issue for georgia democrats in her area, and they voted accordingly. We all know the problems with diebold and voter disenfranchisement, but the main argument I'm trying to make is that none of that came into play during this primary. Its all conjecture, with no substantial facts to back it up.

[Spinoza]

47. Is it racism?

Repukes? What? Maybe it's.....bullshit.

[Kixel]

69. Okay...

We all know there is a problem with paperless balloting, however, if a race goes against the progressive view and it's blamed on the voter fraud every time it will be like the little boy who called wolf. I am not saying one way or another what happened, but it seems a little too soon for anyone to be claiming fraud. It also appears that a lot of the early claims have been refuted in various posts within this thread. I am not saying what I know because there simply isn't enough information to go by yet-however, to automatically charge fraud because she was slaughtered in the primary does not do anything positive investigating real fraud. It just makes the "whiny liberal" label stick a little better when the Republicans try to dismiss our valid claims.

[eridani]

74. The bottom line is that with paperless voting--

--you can never ever know for sure. As David Dill always says "It is not enough that elections be accurate--we have to KNOW that they are accurate, and we don't."

Even if she lost for real, she ought to kick the shit out of the system until Georgia decides to get rid of those damned machines.

[JimDandy]

76. I second the bottom line!! n/t

[EFerrari]

86. We have no rational basis to believe these results.

None.

I can't show you the votes. Can anyone?

Is that voting?

[GeorgiaDem69]

89. That's crazy talk

I like you, but that's crazy talk. "No rational basis." Other than the fact that McKinney's a nutcase and all polls showed Johnson ahead. If McKinney had won would you question that? Are you only going to question votes when the candidate you like loses?

[Lars39]

91. The imperative for transparent elections goes well beyond

whether McKinney lost or won. If the system is being gamed, *everyone* loses.

[EFerrari]

92. Show me the votes. Where you there when they were counted?

Or, when voters started calling in that their votes were being flipped?

"Trust me" voting isn't voting.

The thing is, I do like Cynthia but that's besides the point. Election fraud in this country is primarily a race crime and it happens in black precincts, in Latino precincts, in Native American and poor precincts. It's not crazy talk, it's our history.

Martin Luther King didn't give his life so that we would just "trust" a handful of Republican owned voting machine companies can continue to steal votes from black people.

/typin'

[GeorgiaDem69]

100. Come on!

Do you have any evidence that the machines didn't work? Does the result differ from what the polls were showing? Polls leading up to the election showed McKinney losing by 10+ percentage points. If she had WON there might be some reason to doubt the outcome.

[EFerrari]

101. A good friend and DUer sat down and showed Cynthia how

you can flip votes on those machines faster than you can tie your shoes. Yes, there is a ton of evidence that shows we should throw those machines into the nearest body of water. And in a way, it doesn't matter who they say won because these "elections" are a complete farce.

What is your evidence that those results reflect the will of McKinney's? Faith based voting.

Today, they take out a Democrat in a primary. In 2008, they'll keep the White House in Republican hands and no one will do anything because the riggers prey on our most vulnerable citizens.

[muryan]

114. I'm pretty sure that the people who showed up in georgia

and voted for johnson don't think their votes were a farce. You can see the votes tallied electronically just as they were tallied by hand back before diebold existed. Face it, electronic voting is no more vulnerable the paper voting. In some cases, a piece of paper can disappear just as easy as an electronic vote. There are plenty of problems diebold and the vast amount of media attention is forcing them to take a lot of action. But until theres a better system i still intend to vote in the fall, and my vote most definitely is not going to be a "farce."

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. You can rig an election with paper ballots

Where do you think the phrase "stuffing the ballot box" came from?

[EFerrari]

108. Sure! But it's much harder and then there's all that messy

visible evidence all over the place.

[lebkuchen]

87. Why there should be term limits

Delay, Lieberman, McKinney

[Biernuts]

95. There are term limits - we call them elections n/t

[lebkuchen]

120. You missed the significance of the Lamont win

and the Lieberman whine.

It very rarely happens that an incumbent loses. In the last 50 years, approx. 3 incumbents have lost their primaries. Lieberman has had his Senate seat since 1988. He feels it's his personal property. With term limits--3 terms is my preference--it wouldn't take a crowbar to get politicians like Lieberman and Delay out, as it does today. No reason to be nonplussed about losing the position if there are term limits.

[DemCapitalist]

88. The GOP will be sorry to see her go.

Hank Johnson is a serious man; Cynthia McKinney is joke.

[L A Woman]

96. Exactly, and that's why I'm not buying it

If Republican-owned Diebold was going to decide to miscalculate in anyone's favor, it would have been Cynthia McKinney.

She really needed to go and I think the voters in her district decided the same thing.

[EFerrari]

106. That makes sense in a way but the problem is, McKinney and

her campaign didn't originate the complaints. Voters trying to vote for her did.

It's too bad that we have to try to figure out if our election results are real or if they're Diebold.

[muryan]

115. There have no complaints from voters in her distrcit

but rather from mckinney camp.

[EFerrari]

118. The McKinney camp was alerted to problems BY voters. n/t

[oasis]

123. A DUer from the 4th district had a complaint and started a thread .

Okay?:shrug:

[oasis]

102. "Stammerin" Hank will sleepwalk through his 2 year term. The GOP will

just love that. :loveya:

[Critters2]

103. They would have loved a McKinney victory more eom

[Karenina]

104. Georgia gets

what Georgia so richly deserves.

[DemCapitalist]

116. Mocking Johnson's verbal mannerisms is pathetic. Besides, stuttering does

not indicate a lack of intelligence. He will vote the same way McKinney voted, but he will not be reckless and irresponsible like McKinney is.

Furthermore, I will no longer be embarrassed by her idiocy.

[oasis]

117. "Pathetic" Thanks. That's an even better description of Mr.Hankiepoo.

:evilgrin:

[Bretttido]

109. Ridiculous

If anything, diebold would be rigged to make her win so the GOP can continue to use her as an icon of progressive democrats... which is obviously cast in poor light.

[onehandle]

126. Exactly. nt