Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Shock as Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'   (europe.cnn.com) divider line 189
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

136 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2002 at 6:13 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-16 07:23:18 PM  
Anyone else think the pic with the article looks photoshopped? (especially the flags)
 
2002-10-16 07:29:41 PM  
I normally don't get involved in political debates here on Fark, but after reading Tom_Steuber's comments, I have to respond.

In the 2000 election, Florida was given to Gore (i.e. the media predicted that Gore had won Florida). They did so when only 23% of the votes had been reported. Well, guess what? Florida has two time zones, which means that polls were still open in the panhandle. Strangely enough, the panhandle has more Republican voters than Democrat voters. So there are probably a good number of people who would have voted for Bush but didn't because they were hearing on the radio that Gore had one.

On to the recount. Democrats repeatedly tried to limit the recounts only to those counties that were heavily Democratic, even being so stupid as to count 'pregnant chads' or whatever the fark they called them. Despite all this, Bush has won every single recount done in that state; even the most recent post-election recount.

Bottom line, Bush won Florida. Gore won the national popular vote, but we don't go by popular vote in this country. If you don't like it, call your congressman. And now I'm reading where the Democrats are apparently trying to fark up elections before they happen (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65437,00.html) in South Dakota, not to mention the senate race in New Jersey. Yet it's Bush and the GOP who are stealing elections? Give me a fvcking break.

Thank you and good night.
 
2002-10-16 07:29:42 PM  
Maybe we'll get lucky and Saddam will be betrayed and dumped into deep space. He will then be reformatted and charged with destroying the United States by Osamacron. Luckily, after Bush dies, Gordimus Prime gives Saddatron a plasma bath driving him insane then use the matrix to destroy Osamacron, who's head will float in orbit of Earth.
 
2002-10-16 07:30:52 PM  
Where's the saddam poster with
Birthday to 2002 date on it?
 
2002-10-16 07:30:56 PM  
To correct something I noticed in a pile of early posts:

This wasn't an election with competing candidates. This was a referendum on whether Saddam should remain in power for another seven years.

Can't imagine what a majority "no" vote would entail... probably faking the results, like that little girl's letter to Lisa Simpson in a Simpsons episode I can't recall.

For reference, Pakistan had a similar referendum in April. The general scored 97.5%, out of 71% of the potential electorate voting. So, they're stuck with Musharraf in control for another five years. Wasn't this the guy that was supposed to hold "democratic presidential elections" two years after he took power... in 1998?

The sheep are everywhere, and they're not making much noise.
 
2002-10-16 07:31:10 PM  
...that Gore had one.

Oops, should be won.
 
2002-10-16 07:33:44 PM  
Gee, Tom Stueber, it would probably be the ones that the military admitted were postmarked (or rather, not postmarked) in error...the larger of the numbers.

Not that it really matters, necessarily. Once the un-official recounts were completed, it was determined that, absent any court action, they weren't needed anyway. Bush still managed to win the popular vote in Florida.
 
2002-10-16 07:33:54 PM  
Recount? I don't need no stinking recount. 100% this time...none of the machine guns jammed this time.
 
2002-10-16 07:35:28 PM  
Hey, lets all bring up the Gore vs Bush election and debate it furiously, because we all know that it is still undecided and that Gore can become president if those votes in Florida are counted.
 
2002-10-16 07:37:57 PM  


"Worst election ever!"
 
2002-10-16 07:39:53 PM  
I'm with you, BBCrackmonkey...
 
2002-10-16 07:42:50 PM  
Can we just keep Florida out of the 2002 elections??

I'm pretty sure that the election fiasco in Florida hurt Bush. There were most likely a lot of people who had it in for him from the very start because of how farked up it was.

Of course, the same would've been true if Gore had won. There would've been an assload of people crying "foul".

It was just a pathetic event overall.
 
2002-10-16 07:43:23 PM  
If there had been any number of votes against Saddam, perhaps their assembly could have forbidden the votes from being counted! Oh wait, that wasn't the Iraqi election, that was the Washington DC referendum on allowing medical marijuana. My mistake.
 
2002-10-16 07:43:29 PM  
*2004 elections...........sorry :)
 
2002-10-16 07:44:28 PM  
 
2002-10-16 07:45:23 PM  
Good reference Clevershark.

Who here honestly thinks that if the Democrats or Republicans COULD accurately and secretly fix the elections that they would honestly pass up the chance to?

*crickets chirping*
 
2002-10-16 07:48:34 PM  
Where is the utterly ridiculous tag?
 
2002-10-16 07:50:28 PM  
Genuine
I normally don't get involved in political debates here on Fark


Thats good, because you clearly are poorly informed. Do a little research on all the folks that had their names illegaly removed from the voting rolls in Florida.
 
2002-10-16 07:51:35 PM  
This whole Saddam ordeal reminds me of a Letterman Top 10 from years back....

Top 10 Iraqi Thanksgiving Traditions

Number 10....Loudly giving thanks to Saddam Hussein just in case the house is bugged.
 
2002-10-16 07:52:00 PM  
You people who are using George Orwell as a reference might want to look into this again.

George Orwell went to fight in Spain because he knew how to spot an enemy. From this he wrote Homage to Catalonia. Through out most of Orwell's life he argued that the English needed to allow themselves to see what Germay was, an enemy. His critics at the time argued for appeasement. Who was right?

BTW, for your simplistic argument of the day consider this.

If a tyrant lives surrounded by four democracies and he engages in the Perpetual War of Perpetual Peace method of rule what will the lives of his neighboring democracies look like. Wont they ALSO be in "perpetual war"? SHould one use this fact to argue that the despot is in fact legit, but the leaders of the democracies not? Or that none are legit? I mean... they are ALL in perpetual war right? They are all just using this to stay in power, right? It doesnt matter that one is fairly elected and one isnt, right?

Slobo and Saddam both engaged in the perpetual war idea, launching unbidden (and doomed) campaigns against their neighbors (democratic or no) as a means of keeping his people angry and focused on an external enemy rather than agitating for change. Both men used such to stay in power for 10-20 years.

Bush has been in power for what, two years? He's got what, 2 more years to go? Saddam had no contenders and was never in any threat of losing his election. There is no democracy in Iraq, only the illusion of such. The only threat to Saddam's rule comes not from a ballot box but from a Colonel's gun, or the people's rope. Perpetual War is used to keep both aimed at someone else. Bush is NOT using Perpetual War, for one, we didnt start this latest round, for another when Bush took office his goal was to cut the military, bar it from deployment, and turn his back on the world. WE did not START this war for any Macheavelian reason, we were attacked and Bush was forced to respond.

I voted for Nader... dont give me crap about loving Bush and sticking up for him.

You people need to learn who your enemies are. George Orwell would have drawn you a big map and printed IRAQ across it (he might have listed many others too, like Saudi Arabia, but first things first, our guns are already trained on Saddam, lets roll).

Oh, and yes Virginia, the Forefathers DID put the Electoral College in their to keep the average man from having a vote. They were indeed afraid of direct mass democracy and constantly worried about "the mob". Hint hint, blacks, women, minors, and landless men were not allowed to vote then. However, today most us get a decent education and have access to information on leaders and issues. The EC is outdated and insulting and needs to go. If it has not been there... Gore WOULD have won the election (and would be currently mucking up the War on Terror by simply thinking about it too much) and the people's will would have been heeded in American in 2000. As it was, the people's SYSTEM was heeded. Which still beats Saddam's fake election.

http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465030491/ref%3Dase%5Fhttpwwwandrec-20 /104-8147965-5250338
 
2002-10-16 07:53:43 PM  
For what it's worth, a Canadian MP (kinda like a congressman, i think. What do you guys call it when a person represents your area federally?) went to Iraq to observe the election. He said that while he questions the nature of an election where there is only one name on the ballot, the sentiment there was genuine. He said the people he saw truly loved their leader. Damned if I know the truth, but that's one look on it.
 
2002-10-16 07:54:53 PM  
I don't think that makes the 100% figure legit tho.
 
2002-10-16 07:55:04 PM  
Woooo let's hear it for people who don't know how the hell to use the term "democracy"
 
2002-10-16 07:57:54 PM  
Droshki, that's fine. It still doesn't change any of the facts I stated. As far as the illegal name removals, where should I start, YellowTimes.org? And if these names were illegaly removed, what action was taken against those who did it? Please help me, because I so want to be well informed.
 
2002-10-16 07:59:00 PM  
Let's face it, we may never know the real final total of the Florida balloting for the 2000 presidential election. Too much hanky-panky by both candidates' teams, too many mistakes with the voting systems, and the whole thing was shot to hell by a court decision putting an impossible time limit on the recount.

The one independent report that was released didn't draw any conclusions, but simply reported the totals of ballots that weren't screwed up, and noted the appearance of ballots in dispute. Media services drew their own conclusions from this report. The election turned into a cockup, and half the country will always consider the election stolen - but, quite frankly, it could be called stolen no matter who won. There's simply too much tampering that goes unnoticed to really know how fair these things are.

Now 300 million people are ruled by a moron half the country - and a good chunk of the world - thinks is a pretender on the throne. Both "real" choices (because only activists or racist freaks or commies vote for the other candidates, right?) are well-off sons of well-connected politicians who probably never had to worry about prole things like paying rent or having enough for public transit to get around. And while they can't guarantee your security, their actions can get you killed, because they - and anyone else who inhabits their positions - supposedly "represent" you, no matter how idiotic or offensive their words and deeds are. This applies to practically any country where people choose who rules them, as opposed to places where the rulers just took control by force, and those few, rare, exciting places where the rulers are irrelevant because common folk, working folk and middle-class folk and people of different races and ideas decided that "they all must go", that we're better off when we work together and make our own decisions and represent ourselves, instead of tying themselves to some illusion of uncomfortable forced unity under this or that government.

I wonder how long it will take us to come to the realization that "they all must go."

Probably not until someone turns into our version of Saddam, or the corruption simply becomes too obvious and harmful for anyone to ignore.
 
2002-10-16 07:59:48 PM  
Now JihadJoe, that Canadian guy is fvcking retarded. Seriously. Use your common sense. If you do not vote Saddam you are shot. Think about how genuine you would be.

Sblafren, you are excellent. George Orwell was really an independent. He never laid down the whole of his political beliefs, which changed widely in his life from Libertarian to Socialist to Anarchist. But he was an outspoken critic of the mainstream left, and once the war started he was pro-war and he realized that any kind of equality or socialism could be acheived with Hitler in control.
 
2002-10-16 08:01:22 PM  
Droshki - Name one. Better yet, name one who isn't a convicted criminal AND was not an inactive voter picked out by Sharpton and Jackson.
 
2002-10-16 08:05:12 PM  
Could NOT be achieved. Sorry.
 
2002-10-16 08:05:16 PM  
PlatinumDragon:
The one independent report that was released didn't draw any conclusions, but simply reported the totals of ballots that weren't screwed up, and noted the appearance of ballots in dispute. Media services drew their own conclusions from this report. The election turned into a cockup, and half the country will always consider the election stolen - but, quite frankly, it could be called stolen no matter who won. There's simply too much tampering that goes unnoticed to really know how fair these things are.


If they simply reported the totals, and the totals reflected a Bush win, seems to me that Bush won. Done. Over with. Period.

Who cares if the independent coalition "drew a conclusion"?
 
2002-10-16 08:06:21 PM  
Read

These

Pages

Then, ask yourself, if the US is qualified to judge anyone elses elections or referendums.
 
2002-10-16 08:06:56 PM  
 
2002-10-16 08:07:35 PM  
Why is it, exactly, that a felony conviction prevents you in voting?

With how many crimes are classified as felonies, I think you'll see the voting pool getting smaller and smaller as time goes on......

For example, here in VA, aggressive driving is now a felony. The shiatty thing is that there's no set definition for the offense. Whether you're innocent or guilty could just depend on the mood of the judge that day.

Do you deserve to lose your right to vote because of that?
 
2002-10-16 08:09:18 PM  
Bbcrackmonkey
That's kinda what I thought too. But what is the American equivalent of an MP? They're the person who represents a riding in federal legislature in Canada. And what's the American version of the MPP? They're the person who represents an area in Provincial legislature.
 
2002-10-16 08:09:55 PM  
Those pages should help ya Genuine.....

and my first attempt at HTML didnt go horribly awry :)
 
2002-10-16 08:10:57 PM  
Well fark. I knew I should have been more careful with my tags.
 
2002-10-16 08:11:52 PM  
Next election (if there is one) I predict 103% favor Saddam.
 
2002-10-16 08:14:17 PM  
Displaced Texan: Linda Howell, Election suprevisor, Madison county, FL

PlatinumDragon: Thanks, the story was largely ignored by US newspapers
 
2002-10-16 08:14:24 PM  
If they simply reported the totals, and the totals reflected a Bush win, seems to me that Bush won. Done. Over with. Period.

The entire reason there was so much trouble with the recount was because there were so many problems with mis-marked ballots, the infamous "hanging chads", people who misvoted for a different candidate (the Gore/Buchanan mess, the same style of ballot as the "hanging chads", etc). Arguments ensued over whether anything but a perfectly marked ballot should be included (by a very strict reading along this line, Bush won), how to read "intent of the voter" (a part of the Florida electoral law, if I recall, that caused massive headaches) and related issues.

The report didn't simply reflect the totals from the disputed counties. It also described how the ballots were marked/punched, so journalists could draw conclusions based on various criteria.

My point was, the whole thing was such a farkup, and exposed so many holes in a "modern" voting system that's supposed to be a model for the world, that it probably wouldn't have mattered who "won"; the complaints would have continued anyway, and the arguments would be legitimate. All to pick which political scion gets to be king for four years.
 
2002-10-16 08:14:30 PM  
Interesting bit about felonies disenfranchising voters... especially when you think that in 2000 the two major contenders for President were a pothead and a cokehead.
 
2002-10-16 08:19:13 PM  
Actually, I would highly reccomend that book I linked to. It was very informative, although it discusses the kinds of things that we like to be able to believe *dont* happen in America
 
2002-10-16 08:20:21 PM  


I can't get enough of seeing that guy... he's so hilarious!
 
2002-10-16 08:21:41 PM  


This one's even better... although I have to wonder if it's photoshopped, like the other one.
 
2002-10-16 08:22:08 PM  
Interesting bit about felonies disenfranchising voters... especially when you think that in 2000 the two major contenders for President were a pothead and a cokehead.

Really interesting when you consider that the cokehead supports a system that considers potheads and cokeheads felons.

Really really interesting when you consider that the cokehead's niece gets preferential treatment while Jane Snorter gets three strikes and a ruined life.

Just goes to show how equal and just the system really is. It's just that some people are more equal than others.
 
2002-10-16 08:23:23 PM  
Really really really interesting when you consider that the pothead who ruled before him did nothing to reduce government infiltration and control, and in fact did several things to increase it.
 
2002-10-16 08:26:08 PM  
Platinum_Dragon: My point was, the whole thing was such a farkup, and exposed so many holes in a "modern" voting system that's supposed to be a model for the world, that it probably wouldn't have mattered who "won";

The whole thing certainly was screwy. When I first saw the voting ballots used in Florida, I couldn't believe it. I mean, I live in the bass-ackwards state of Kentucky, and for years we (as I'm sure many states have) have had these beautifully simple voting machines, where there's one button next to each candidate's name. When said button is pressed, the LED underneath the button comes on. After you've looked over the machine to see that an LED is lit next to the people you vote for, you press a big green "VOTE" button, and it's taken care of. A retard could use it. And BTW Platinum, that article is over a year and a half old; what ever became of the allegations and investigation thereof? I genuinely want to know...(get it, GENUINEly...uhm,...)

*now weeping at lame-ass joking abilites*
 
2002-10-16 08:26:38 PM  
Anyhow, gotta go, 3:30 AM in the land of sand and oil......

Just think we need to clean up our act, before we start goin round calling kettles black........
 
2002-10-16 08:29:59 PM  
Droshki: "Read These Pages Then, ask yourself, if the US is qualified to judge anyone elses elections or referendums."

That's either an awfully blatant troll or an awfully foolish statement. (Or both, I suppose.)

Even if I'm the crookedest card cheat in the world, it doesn't disqualify me from pointing out that someone else's card game is rigged; heck, it may add to my qualifications to speak on the matter. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that every U.S. election since 1776 has been totally controlled by the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission, that could not and would not change the fact that the Iraqi 'election' was a truly massive pile of rotting camel dung.
 
2002-10-16 08:30:05 PM  
Genuine-

The federal govt went after them, but it was quietly settled out of court, and the offenders promised to never, ever do it again. Sorry, too late here for me to find you a link to it all.
 
2002-10-16 08:32:48 PM  
DisplacedTexan:

I guess this is what you were talking about:

NEW YORK, July 14, 2001(AP) A New York Times investigation into overseas ballots that helped George W. Bush win the presidency found that Florida election officials, facing intense GOP pressure to accept military votes, counted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state election laws.

In a six-month investigation of the 2,490 overseas ballots accepted after Election Day, the paper found 680 questionable votes. ...

It was impossible to simply count the questionable votes because the ballots themselves are separated from the envelopes containing voter information.

The paper found no evidence of fraud by either party, though it did interview voters who admitted they had cast illegal ballots after Election Day. It found no support for suspicions that the Bush campaign had organized an effort to solicit late votes.

After the uncertain results of Nov. 7, both Gore and Bush began high-pressure postelection campaigns to eke out a victory. The importance of overseas ballots - and particularly military votes - quickly became apparent.

The paper documented a successful effort by Republicans to count the maximum number of overseas ballots in counties won by Bush, particularly those with a high concentration of military voters, while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties won by Gore.

Counties carried by Gore accepted two in 10 ballots that had no evidence they were mailed on or before Election Day. Counties carried by Bush accepted six in 10 of such ballots. Bush counties were four times as likely as Gore counties to count ballots lacking witness signatures and addresses.
 
2002-10-16 08:34:41 PM  
KickahaOta: Yea, and you would prolly complain about your neighbors messy yard, even if yours was just was messy, and not see the problem with that either.....

really.got.to.go
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report