In other places, I've seen commenters suggest that the Republicans cheated, fixed the vote, and handed Bush the election. Consider this a thread to post your favorite moonbattiness without fear of reprisal. Diebold delivered Ohio for Bush? Kerry buried Bush with the dead vote? Democratic elections supervisors are being deliberately incompetent in order to cast doubt on the vote? Post your favorite nutty-delicious theory here.
It's ok if you're serious; we'll try to be gentle. If you're really, really serious then we might have to generate a less frivolous post.
Bush stole the election by running a campaign that was more appealing to the electorate than Kerry's! Of all the low-down dirty tricks* ...
He also enlisted the help of a secret cabal of geographers and census-takers to re-draw the electoral vote maps. You'd never hear this from the brainwashed corporate media, but half those red states don't really exist. I mean, think about it -- are there really *two* Carolinas?
*Perhaps not entirely facetious, since I would dispute some of the claims of the campaign -- such as "Bush will do a better job of preventing terrorism" -- that were so appealing.
Posted by: Stentor | November 10, 2004 at 10:00 AM
Two Dakotas and two Virginias, too. They must think we're a bunch of redneck high-school dropouts or something.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 10:02 AM
Republicans right now are involved in a lawsuit to stop the ballots from being counting in San Diego. Why? Because the lone democrat on the city council, Donna Frey, is winning the mayorial race over her republican rivals. This is typical republican behavior and a clear demonstration of their contempt for the will of the people.
Posted by: ken | November 10, 2004 at 10:42 AM
Whoa, Ken. This is not typical behavior. I swear, I have never initiated a lawsuit to stop counting. Actually, Americans need to learn how to count better. Counting is good. See, Ken, the typical Republican likes counting...57 million, 58 million, 59 million,...
Posted by: blogbudsman | November 10, 2004 at 10:46 AM
ken -- you might want to rethink the generality of your statement, as per the posting rules.
Posted by: hilzoy | November 10, 2004 at 10:48 AM
"Consider this a thread to post your favorite moonbattiness without fear of reprisal."
This brings to mind a Saturday Night Live sketch from more than a decade ago, in which a succession of ever-higher-ranking naval officers request from their superiors "permission to speak freely". At the end of the sketch, it is announced over the ship's intercom that "permission to speak freely will not be granted for the remainder of the voyage."
Posted by: Gromit | November 10, 2004 at 11:03 AM
I'm all for a complete count. Stopping the count is certainly less effective than messing with what's being counted. And doing so unobtrusively.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 11:04 AM
I fully accept any consequences that might befall me as a result of an implied invitation to break the posting rules.
That said, it wasn't my intention to invite you all to break the posting rules. It is possible to allege party (or other) conspiracy without implicating everyone who voted that way. By "other", I mean you could always go the Umberto Eco (or, more tediously, Ralph Nader) route.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 11:07 AM
http://chruth.com/ has an interesting analysis of the cuyahoga county ohio results, in which it looks like 40K more people voted than registered. You can repeat their analysis. I'd love to see more people scrutinizing this. 40K (and 65K if you don't assume 100% turnout) puts the provisional ballots in Ohio back in play.
Posted by: kt | November 10, 2004 at 11:42 AM
Self-indulgent post ("we'll be gentle" etc.) When/if there's clear data and people are silly about it then you can mock them. Until then, I recommend a Slartibartfastian pause.
Posted by: rilkefan | November 10, 2004 at 11:43 AM
I was actually inviting silliness. Accidental silliness will be met with the aforementioned gentleness; evidence of error and/or wrongdoing may rate its own post.
Sorry if I was unclear, rilkefan.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 11:47 AM
The Cuyahoga County data are interesting, but it's worth noting that the overall turnout for the county was just over 65%. Some wards received excess votes. Whether those are due to error in counting, cheating, people voting in the wrong place, or an error in the software that attributes votes to districts (or something I haven't thought of yet) is at present unknown.
For Woodmere to have been credited with eight thousand more votes than there are residents is a little hard to imagine, I have to admit. If this is cheating, it's cheating done in an extremely inept fashion. My fellow Rove minions and I would have...arranged things a bit less obviously.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 12:08 PM
Oh, and if you go here, you'll note that although the ballot count was too high by far, Woodmere Villiage cast exactly 298 votes for President, 40 of which were for GWB. The total ballots cast at the detailed level was 301.
Again, not entirely put to bed. But it's best to get down into the details before going off.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 12:33 PM
What I've seen so far are "statistical anomalies". Nobody's gonna start a civil war based on statistical anomalies. What's gonna be interesting is to see who doesn't want to see the analysis. Personally, I'd bet that a lot of local election officials had their hands in the various cookie jars. Also, no matter how bad it gets, I do not expect to see a single arrest, no matter how flagrant the manipulation. If anybody in Ohio or Florida does gets seriously threatened, I expect the shiny new computerized voting machines to be blamed. *Everybody* knows about computer errors ...
The average American is butt- ignorant of statistics and proud of it. But at the same time, the average American is a rather good poker player -- and poker is a game of statistics. Go figure.
Posted by: lightning | November 10, 2004 at 01:07 PM
There are now two Colorados, too.
The Republican majority one (saying Republican majority shouldn't violate the posting rules; there are still some who vote the correct way) who hates government, taxes, and voted for George W. Bush.
And the other one who just voted in a Democratic legislature for the first time in 40 years when they found out The Colorado Republican Party REALLY does hate taxes and planned to defund much of our State Government.
The second one voted for George W. Bush, too, but by smaller margins than last time.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 10, 2004 at 01:54 PM
I guess that in order to discern what really happened, you'd have to figure out which way the 80k Nader votes that went away between 2000 and 2004 split.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 02:19 PM
slart - ok, sorry if I didn't read with sufficient charity - had a sucky day at work (made the mistake of disagreeing with a godlike overling instead of circumventing him).
Posted by: rilkefan | November 10, 2004 at 02:52 PM
No problem, rilkefan. I've had a few of those in my day, and been less nice about it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 03:08 PM
Well, yes, in the Presidential ballot. But Nader had no effect on the State ballot, where, by the way, every tax increase proposed passed as well.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 10, 2004 at 03:16 PM
Good point, John. As for the tax increases, I'm wondering what the pass/fail ratio is on ballot measures, nationally. It seems as if every ballot measure that's not overtly awful passes here in sunny Florida.
I've voted for tax increases here; it's how school improvements get funded. Does that make me a liberal?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 10, 2004 at 03:24 PM
The Donna Fry case is interesting. San Diego has a 'non-partisan' mayor where the top two vote-getters in the primaries get to be on the ticket. An awful system in my estimation, but this year both top voter-getters in the primaries were Republicans. Donna Frye attempted a write-in campaign which may win, except the structure of the silly primary system may not allow for write-ins for mayor at the final election. Of course you might expect someone to be able to figure that out before they put a write-in line at Donna Frye's request.
Example number 1,453,294 for the proposition that it is important to have clear election rules BEFORE the election.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 10, 2004 at 03:43 PM
"Does that make me a liberal?"
Relative to whom?
In Colorado Springs, yes. In Boulder, barely. In Tom Delay's mind, well, your letter has you tied to the same stake at which I'm about to be burned. In the real world, you're a pragmatist. For purposes of argument, heck no, then where would the fun be?
It definitely makes you a winger of the Obsidian variety, which is the best kind of liberal ... or conservative .. or liberal...or...
Posted by: John Thullen | November 10, 2004 at 06:10 PM
Um, Ken, nice try, but no dice.
San Diego had a primary. The top two vote getters, neither one getting mroe than 50%, then went to the general election.
Now, in this case, the top two vote getters were both Republicans. Donna Fry, the write in "candidate", is a hard core left wing Democrat. Last I checked, she had about 35% of the vote, and the other two split 65% between the two of them.
Having someone who skipped the Primary decide she's going to get herself "written in" in the General election, so that her 1/3 of the electorate supporters can get her elected, is niether democracy in action, nor respectful of the rule of law.
It is, in other words, entirely typical Democrat behavior.
Posted by: Greg D | November 10, 2004 at 08:22 PM
For those who care: Via http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/sddt/20041110/lo_sddt/tensionbuildslawyerstakeoverraceformayorsoffice>Yahoo
Posted by: Greg D | November 10, 2004 at 08:28 PM
Gosh, it's my day for rule enforcement, I guess.
Greg D : as I wrote to ken earlier, "you might want to rethink the generality of your statement, as per the posting rules."
Posted by: hilzoy | November 10, 2004 at 08:56 PM
Have you looked at your shoes lately? The so-called "stitching" that holds the sole to the upper is not some innocent twine. Remember how Tesla (who was, of course, controlled by the "gray" alien cabal) "accidentally" blew up a vast swathe of Siberia? Here we see a similar technology at work. They know! They always know! But you won't know when the "stiches" are activated to effect a mindless state of robotic delusory voting! You probably think you voted for Kerry. Ha! Don't even get me started on the nanobots! Fools! For the love a Christ, take off your shoes!
Posted by: nagoya ryan | November 11, 2004 at 05:21 AM