Maybe if we called it "machine malfunction" instead of "fraud"

[skjpm]

The point is there are discrepencies to be investigated. If calling it fraud makes us sound the tin-foil hat crowd, maybe saying that the machines might have malfunctioned would gain more credibility. If we can prove that the machines didn't provide an accurate vote count, we still win.

[jsamuel]

1. The problem is that it wasn't a malfunction, it was bad/purposeful design

The whole system was completely compromised because of the fact that there was NO SECURITY on the voting tabulators.

[George_S]

11. We don't know that.

We do know there are "irregularities."

[OnceAndFutureTruth]

23. If we can get it corrected, what difference does it make what intent

was involved in the first place? We weaken our campaign by making statements that can't be proved, imho. If we stick to the high ground, and make appeals to have this investigated on the basis of reasons that everyone can (or should) buy into, it has a greater chance of succeeding. AND it truly is something that everyone should buy into, as our vote is our most precious right, and we need to protect the fairness of the process, no matter who wins or loses.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Ducks In A Row]

27. yep, it was no accident, it was purposely rigged for bush

that's fraud

[dbonds]

2. Maybe 'Election Malfunction"

That depersonalizes it but doesn't remove any blame by putting it on the machine.

[markbark]

4. Ya mean like Janet Jackson's "Wardrobe Malfunction?"

n/t

[George_S]

12. Good idea.

[Woody Box]

3. No. It was FRAUD, not MALFUNCTION

The fact that the end results favor Bush in relation to the exit polls makes this clear.

[dbonds]

6. I know

Was playing along with an attempt to make the term more palatable to the mainstream press. Fraud will not make it past the editors till there is hard evidence.

[Amigust]

5. How very Democrat. n/t

[pointsoflight]

7. "Voting irregularities" is the way to frame it.

That's neutral as to the cause of the irregularities. Could be due to fraud, machine problems, unexpected changes in turnout, etc., etc.

[skjpm]

8. If we can get the investigation started, it would be enough

Then we can find the lost votes, and then we can get at the fraud issue.

[pointsoflight]

16. Exactly.

[dbonds]

10. Works for me

At some point after the irregularities are shown and the votes are counted then the evidence of coordination will come out.

[CAcyclist]

9. We Need To Name The Problem = Fraud!

people will come around when we show the mounting evidence. We don't need proof - we need probable cause - people aren't taken to trial only when irrefutable proof is present - they are taken to trial for probable cause, which is what we already have. We have probable cause to demand a recount and a criminal trial for the companies providing the machines - let's see that computer code.

We need to protest this fraud in the strongest language we can and we need to name the problem - the problem is a rigged election and fraud, fraud , fraud!

Neutering our language neuters our effectiveness in getting the message out.

[pointsoflight]

14. I completely disagree.

Right now, the mainstream media is completely dismissing the issue and is painting those who have concerns as wacky, X-file watching, conspiracy theorists. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that instead of pointing out potential problems, many are going the additional (and more suspect) step of calling it fraud without any direct evidence that it's fraud rather than machine error, human error, etc. Having mainstream media dismiss this issue--and the majority of America along with them--is NOT good. It decreases the likelihood of action being taken.

You can raise the concerns just as strongly in the context of voting irregularities. Once we get the investigations going and have some additional evidence to work from, THEN we can interpret what's going on. But at this critical early stage, we don't want things to be squashed and quickly dismissed before the issues get examined.

[CAcyclist]

20. So how would cautious language make them pay attention?

If you downplay the seriousness, you don't get taken more seriously, you just get dismissed more easily.

Back in 2000, a lot thought the hanging chads were just innocent malfunction and incompetence and not an intentional effort to confuse voters. The result is people didn't pay attention to the rest of the story!

Look at how 2000 played out - lots of people blame Floridians for being stupid, and have ignored the bigger fraud issue. That's why we're are in this mess in the first place. We should have yelled fraud at the top of our lungs back in 2000 at the very beginning.

The mainstream corporate media isn't ignoring this because they don't believe fraud is possible - they are ignoring it because they don't want a democratic president who might make them pay more taxes or limit their ability to merge. So they don't want to find out the truth.

[Eloriel]

15. I think you're right

You know, we haven't identified a single voting anomoly that went in Kerry's favor. Isn't THAT odd?

But besides that, the Repugs wouldn't shy away from charging fraud straightaway, and in fact did so pre-emptively (Novak and others) even before the election. He wrote a column in which he said there were rumors flying that the Dems were going to try to steal this election -- setting up a basis for contesting if they LOST the election.

No, the time for niceties is long since past.

Edited to add: AND ANOTHER THING -- "machine malfunction" is what they'll pass the problem off as (like Janet Jackson lied saying she had a "wardrobe malfunction").

[pointsoflight]

19. It's not about niceties.

It's about framing things in a way that'll get the most coverage and that'll get the information taken seriously, so there's pressure to investigate. Once we get the investigations going, then yeah, all it whatever you want. But at this early stage, the framing of the issue can have a big impact on whether the concerns are dismissed or not.

[Action Jackson]

17. machine malfunction and errors makes it easier to get covered

I agree fraud was committed. However, I also agree that the way to get press attention with this story is to focus on the machines themselves screwing up. It's easier to prove the machines made mistakes than it is easier to prove fraud. The fraud evidence will work itself out as we investigate the machines.

[prairierose]

25. Yes,

in order to get people to seriously look at the problem we need to talk about the integrity of the system & the machines. It's about the future of elections and if people don't trust the system then we have no future as a republic. There are too many discrepancies and they must be looked at.

[George_S]

13. If there were machine malfuctions...

... the company has to pay for a recount!

[neohippie]

18. Electile Dsyfunction

I saw this before on another post and fell out of my chair laughing... at least we can still laugh. I want the bumper sticker!

[jsamuel]

21. Thats about right...

[OnceAndFutureTruth]

22. Yes...prove that the machines are not reliable FIRST, then go for the more

partisan issues. If you prove that the machines are not reliable, that they CAN be hacked, or that they CAN have serious glitches, or simply that it makes no sense to vote without a paper trail, then you have opened the door. The door will stay firmly closed if the word "fraud" is used, because even though making sure the machines are reliable should be a Republican issue too, they will never sign on to an effort to prove fraud that they themselves perpetuated.

Once a serious investigation is instigated about the potential of the machines to have problems, then the partisan issues can be raised, imho.

Also, one example to use to convince others of the problem regarding the lack of a paper trail is this: imagine banking without getting a statement. Would you really do banking with a bank that said that the computer takes care of the transactions, don't worry about it?

[MsAnthropy]

26. So what? They're not fucking listening anyway!

They don't care what we say.