Still tilting at facty windmills, I see…

a fisking of the editorial

and even powerline isn’t sympathetic to the WSJ.

WTF, I thought that the guy who got the most votes should win? I thought the Electoral College was bad?

Even if Kerry had won Ohio, Bush still would have gotten more votes in 2004.

I guess the rules of the game are variable depending on the desired outcome.

Sorry, but your wrong. The misplaced ballots went both ways. Furthermore, every decision was made to include as many voters as possible.

I’d like to see some substantiation for the idea that one party or the other steals more elections

I sure as hell can’t find it.

Every race I mentioned above went to recount. I found other races where they were very, very close, but discarded them for failure to enact a recount. Seems pretty even to me.

I could do a quick VPC-style study though.

Google hits on “republicans steal election” : 9
Google hits on “democrats steal election”: 15

There we have it. Democrats steal elections 5:3 over Republicans.

Just take a look at all the elections where there was a recount in the last ten or fifteen years. Who won the recounts? One should expect about a 50-50 split. I don’t think that is what you will find.

Minnesota US Senate Seat 2008: Democrat
Washington Governor 2004: Democrat
Florida POTUS 2000: Republican
Indiana’s 9th District 2004: Republican
Virginia’s 5th District 2008: Democrat
North Carolina’s 8th District 2006: Republican
Florida’s 13th District 2006: Republican

Alright, that’s all I can find right now. It’s not really lopsided for either side. Republicans can win recounts too.

The man blames the NRA for gunshot victims, thinks Clinton’s gun control policies were instrumental in the 1990 reduction in violent crime, and a half-dozen other idiocies. This… wonderful coincidence is the last thing gun owners needed as a BHO administration started thinking about what right-wing hobby they wanted to castrate first.

What this is doing is lowering the faith of the populace that the electoral system is working. I don’t actually feel the winners are actually the ones with the most votes any more. I mean, I could understand a recount that had a few dozen numbers change, but hundreds to thousands of “errors” indicates a system that isn’t working.

I work at a company with PETABYTES of data. Even .001% bad data is going to wreck our statistics, and we don’t hold the future of the American nation in our hands.

The more stolen elections (and sorry, but they are primarily Democrats) the less people like me are going to be willing to go along with the laws. I will work within the system insofar as the system works.

After that… I shudder to think.

(in my dreams)

OMG I hate commies.

After we take care of them, we’ll get the Republicans. (f’in yankees!)

I forget who it was but some Democrat “organizer” had a reputation of being able to win any election that was within 0.5% or something. He was sent in to do his work when they wanted to challenge an election and was very, very good at his job.

Just take a look at all the elections where there was a recount in the last ten or fifteen years. Who won the recounts? One should expect about a 50-50 split. I don’t think that is what you will find.

An interesting conspiracy theory was floated: Could it be that the Democrats have been doing a lot of cheating over the past decade and that is why they were so furious over losing in 2000? We’ve seen that liberals are good at ‘projecting’ (that is, claiming an opponent is cheating when – in fact – they are cheating). Could it be that the Dems cheated so much in 2000 that they figured the _only_ way they could have lost is if the other side cheated more?

Could that be why they were so angry?