So it's OK for a state to blatenly rig an election for federal office?

[Webster Green]

It seems to me that the south Carolina election rigging fouls the elections process for everyone in this country.

This was an election to choose a US Senator. How much longer are we going to put up with this shit? :wtf:

[TheWatcher]

1. 2000 Set The Precedent.

You are not allowed to have Representative Government.

That was made clear to you.

We let both sides play us and run us into the ground.

How long are we going to put up with this shit?

Until we put a stop to it.

It's that simple.

[Webster Green]

4. I seem to remember something about that.

[DJ13]

2. Neither party wants to end election fraud

Both sides think theres an advantage for them in the future.

The needs of the people for real representation is a secondary concern to them.

[Suich]

3. 49 states have banned the voting machines

used in South Carolina.

:banghead:

[Fly by night]

16. Not true.

Visit www.verifiedvoting.org for an accurate description of which voting equipment is used in which states. The ES&S Ivotronics are still used in dozens of states.

[Suich]

17. Oops...not even sure where I read that.

:blush:

[Art_from_Ark]

5. Don't forget Garland County, Arkansas

Only two voting stations were opened for the run-off Senate primary between Lincoln and Halter, in a county of more than 80,000 population, and one of those stations was in a gated community.

[Webster Green]

9. Yeah, that was outrageous as well.

:wtf:

[L. Coyote]

6. WRONG! The election was not rigged, it was blatant cross-voting by Republicans, perfectly legal.

This is how the system is set up, and they took advantage of it.
If the Dems can't get it together and overcome this problem,
well then they lose the election, plain and simple.

It is wrong to blame the machines and ignore the real problem, an open primary.

[Webster Green]

8. I doubt it. The paper absentee ballots went for the Judge.

Same as Ohio in 2004. If the absentee ballot outcome is the reverse of the electronic machine outcome, there's a serious problem.

[L. Coyote]

13. Absentee ballots reflect campaigning. Greene had no campaign, fewer absentees. D'oh!!!!!

[Webster Green]

14. Whatever.

:rofl:

[harkadog]

18. It would make no sense at all for that to happen.

The Republicans had a competitive primary for governor. They would want to vote in their own primary rather than try to install some candidate when DeMint was going to beat either one anyway. Do you have any evidence for your allegations?

[L. Coyote]

19. Ask instead, "How many Dems cross-voted in the Republican primary for this reason?"

Were the Dems up to the same shenanigans to their own demise?
Just count how many people voted in the R column!

[harkadog]

23. I have no idea how many voted in the R column or the D column

That would have to be compared against past results. Do you have any of that information since you are alleging it?

[Truth2Tell]

24. The Rawls camp, as well as a host

of independent organizations, including Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, HAVE counted the R column. And the rest of the columns. They've carefully examined the data. And there is NO indication whatsoever that Rs crossed over. The numbers just DO NOT show that happening.

And there was a compelling and competitive race, that HAD received media attention (unlike the Greene race) on their side.

AND there was a total lack of even the slightest hint or whisper of such a campaign in political circles. In cases where the Rs or Ds have crossed over in SC in the past, the other Party always had plenty of word that it was happening. "Secret" cross-over campaigns just don't happen in SC or elsewhere in the real political world - especially state-wide.

Even the MSM isn't pushing the cross-over nonsense anymore. Give it up.

[L. Coyote]

25. People cross-vote in primaries all the time. You don't ned a billboard to tell them to.

"total lack of even the slightest hint or whisper ..." does not men people dd no cross-vote. D'oh!

High numbers in the R column can mean Dems are cross-voting because there was a competitive race.
Primary cross-vote takes place when there is just that scenario, not when there isn't.

[anneboleyn]

7. I agree. Not ONE campaign appearance, NO publicity, no way of accounting for the 10k fee

Greene did not make one campaign appearance, no publicity, not one phone call, nothing at all. He admits this to the reporters who contacted him after his win (later he changed his story and claimed that he could not remember if he made some flyers). He was entirely unknown. He has been unemployed since August of last year (he lives with his father, who is permanently disabled -- Greene has also been homeless recently) but claims that he had the $10,400 registration fee. So he chose to spend 10k on a senate campaign bid then did NO campaign work at all?

According to interviews, he does not have a home computer (he was not communicating with anyone from home via the internet), and he had no campaign website. He is facing a felony obscenity charge for showing pornography to a college student. Analyses of the voting patterns in SC showed that he won by the biggest margins in *white* counties, which defeats the notion that he won due to black voters voting for him in large numbers. Yet he wins an astonishing 60% of the vote? But nothing will be done.

Frankly it is very depressing that this is not being investigated.

[MisterP]

10. we're only okay with a WH trying to undermine primaries.. nt

[Bitwit1234]

11. I think paper ballots and then an optical scan of those paper

ballots with a paper trail is the only way to insure true and honest elections.

[SoCalDem]

12. In a word?...yes we will

Elections cost a lot of money, and the dems saw a loss coming their way, no matter who ran, so they will just cut their losses, save some money, and let the republican have their way. I have NO doubt that some devious republican operative fronted the money to run Alvin Greene, but proving it...well that's a costly, and in the end and republicans even win if we prove they meddled. why?..because they then can say that the dems are in such disarray that they cannot even find a real candidate.

The ones who act first, and boldly are the ones who "win"....and in SC, republicans rule the roost

[Left coast liberal]

15. Agreed. And, Halter vs. Lincoln in Arkansas was stinky too.

[Doctor_J]

20. Yes. This is the easiest country in the world in which to steal an election

It started in 2002, then 2004 in OH, and you'd have to have teabagger -level intellect to believe our elections are fair. The strange part is that not a single election crook has been killed or even injured due to his crimes. We are so downtrodden that we don't even fight back.

[L. Coyote]

22. There is no legal oonsequence when it is proven either.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Listen, after 2000 all elections in this country are like

the Grammy awards after Millie Vanilli. Just all tainted and very clearly faked. It is an obvious thing.