Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > Diamonds and Tuxedos
test
Diamonds and Tuxedos Glamour, elegance, and sophistication. That's what it's all about here in ECCIE's newest forum which caters to those with expensive tastes, lavish lifestyles, and an appetite for upscale entertainment.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163220
Yssup Rider60918
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48645
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42562
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid36977
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2011, 09:38 AM   #16
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
I think the NYT investigation proved that Gore won FL.
Nope.

MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH
WON THE 2000 ELECTION

April 3, 2001

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/me...count_4-3.html
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 09:41 AM   #17
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
In a strict legal sense, perhaps there is a small problem. But with a voting age population of about 3,000,000 the percentage being discussed is rather small and lets face it with most things .2 percent would rarely be discussed as a problem. And, would the cure be worse than the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
The United States presidential election of 1960 was the 44th American presidential election, held on November 8, 1960, for the term beginning January 20, 1961, and ending January 20, 1965. The Republican Party nominated Richard M. Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Eventually, Kennedy was elected with a lead of 112,827 votes, or 0.1% of the popular vote, giving him a victory of 303 to 219 in the Electoral College. One ward in one precinct in one city: Daley's Chicago.
Oops!!
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 10:14 AM   #18
discreetgent
Valued Poster
 
discreetgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Even with a gorgeous avatar: Happiness is ephemeral
Posts: 2,003
Default

If you want to go down the Bush/Gore path .... Everything is still Bush's fault. Now that we have that out of the way.

Back to the original discussion.

1. Do we have close elections? yes
2. Do we probably have non-citizens that vote? yes
3. In a close election is it possible that the number of non-citizen votes was more than the margin of victory/defeat? yes
4. (Leaving aside issues of possible fraud and ballot stuffing) If the non-citizens had not voted would the results of an election have changed? We have no way of knowing.
discreetgent is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 10:23 AM   #19
discreetgent
Valued Poster
 
discreetgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Even with a gorgeous avatar: Happiness is ephemeral
Posts: 2,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
I think the NYT investigation proved that Gore won FL.
The media counted the ballots from Florida in 2000 using 4 different criteria. Bush won under 2 of them, Gore won under the other 2. We will never definitively know who really won Florida in 2000.

In terms of intent? Much better chance to argue Gore might have won if the ballot had been designed is a way (and es, the ballot was designed by a Democrat) that Buchanan didn't get what seems to have been a rather unexpected number of votes in Dade county. But at the end those votes were counted for Buchanan .... and in fact had to be counted for him.
discreetgent is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 10:32 AM   #20
charlestudor2005
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: In hopes of having a good time
Posts: 6,942
Encounters: 8
Default

@IBH

This was the result I remembered (i.e. I didn't look it up). The excerpt is from Wikipedia:
Quote:
The New York Times did its own analysis of how mistaken overvotes might have been caused by confusing ballot designs. It found that the butterfly ballot in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the two page ballot in similarly Democratic Duval County may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.[7] The rest of the media consortium did not consider these because there could be no clear determination of a voter's intent.
There were other analyses, Gore one some, Bush won others. The result is that Bush is the only President ever to serve by appointment by the Supreme Court.

Quote:
Candidate outcomes based on potential recounts in Florida presidential election 2000
(outcome of one particular study)[8][clarification needed] Review method Winner Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken) • Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60 Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed) • Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals • Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154 Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
charlestudor2005 is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 10:37 AM   #21
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

C'mon DG...you are dodging a bit here buddy. He made the post and asked the question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall View Post
Would you agree that it is a problem and something needs to be done?
You responded with this...implying that it was really no big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
Define problem? If I have a cut on my finger I could call that a problem, but how serious would it be?

In a strict legal sense, perhaps there is a small problem. But with a voting age population of about 3,000,000 the percentage being discussed is rather small and lets face it with most things .2 percent would rarely be discussed as a problem. And, would the cure be worse than the problem?
IBH, shows that maybe it was a bigger deal than you concluded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
The United States presidential election of 1960 was the 44th American presidential election, held on November 8, 1960, for the term beginning January 20, 1961, and ending January 20, 1965. The Republican Party nominated Richard M. Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Eventually, Kennedy was elected with a lead of 112,827 votes, or 0.1% of the popular vote, giving him a victory of 303 to 219 in the Electoral College. One ward in one precinct in one city: Daley's Chicago.
And you come back with this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
Back to the original discussion.

1. Do we have close elections? yes
2. Do we probably have non-citizens that vote? yes
3. In a close election is it possible that the number of non-citizen votes was more than the margin of victory/defeat? yes
4. (Leaving aside issues of possible fraud and ballot stuffing) If the non-citizens had not voted would the results of an election have changed? We have no way of knowing.
We have no way of knowing? That's it? The question was "Is this a problem where you think something needs to be done?"

It's an easy enough thing to answer.
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 10:52 AM   #22
discreetgent
Valued Poster
 
discreetgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Even with a gorgeous avatar: Happiness is ephemeral
Posts: 2,003
Default

IMO - and I thought I had made this clear already, but I'll assume its Friday and folks are out partying early. It is a small problem but ultimately it seems to me we have far bigger things to worry about. So I would not spend a whole lot of time on it.

re: IBH: Kennedy won by .1%, but we ALL know by now that the margin of popular vote on a national basis in Presidential elections means nada, nothing, zippo ... See Gore-Bush 2000 if you need proof. Florida 2000, Minnesota Senate 2008 are much better examples.

He also ignored my second post that we really don't know how not allowing .2 percent not to vote might affect an election. Say we knew that those .2 percent voted in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate did, would it then be a problem???
discreetgent is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 11:34 AM   #23
pjorourke
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2009
Location: gone
Posts: 3,401
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall View Post
Am I assuming correctly that you wouldn't require people to produce a birth certificate to vote?
Apparently, you dont even need one to run.
pjorourke is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 11:40 AM   #24
discreetgent
Valued Poster
 
discreetgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Even with a gorgeous avatar: Happiness is ephemeral
Posts: 2,003
Default

discreetgent is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 11:49 AM   #25
ICU 812
Valued Poster
 
ICU 812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 5, 2010
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 6,054
Encounters: 15
Default

I don't have a Driver's License. I developed a condition that has forever prevented me from driving and let my DL expire. I do have a State ID and had to produce a Passport to get it. When I got my DL in 1967, I had to bring in a noterized birth certificate and a baptismal certificate to get it . . . whats the fuss about getting positive ID? If the DL or state ID isnt good enough to prove citizenship, we need to tighten up whatever mechanism is involved to make it right.

I have worked in foreign countries and always had to provide proper ID . . .even to cash a Travelers Check or just change money (a cash transaction).

Voting is the single most important civic duty that a citizen can perform. Why should we let just anybody who shows up vote? Our various state run elections are already too loose as far as fraud and ambiguous voter intent. " Who won Florida" is an example of this. At this point, I don't care who won Fla anymore . . .but whoever wins the next election in Forida, or anywhere else, should be beyond question. This could mean changes to ballot lay-out, different machines/computers, automatic run-offs and/or recounts when the result is close— and so on.

Why should we de-legitimize our elections even more by letting non-citizens vote?
ICU 812 is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 02:15 PM   #26
gnadfly
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 14,460
Default

If the state of Colorado only has 5000 votes cast by non-citizens then I'm thanking my lucky stars. Nevertheless I think that there should be a proof of citizenship and identification in order to vote. In Texas, I've watch people with no ID and not on "the list" vote. When I asked the election judge about this, he said "I was told to let anyone vote that insisted on it."
gnadfly is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 02:38 PM   #27
Marcus Aurelius
Ambassador
 
Marcus Aurelius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 25, 2009
Location: The Interhemispheric Fissure
Posts: 6,565
Encounters: 2
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

JFK won because organized crime got the union vote. What if tricky Dick had gotten in back then instead?

LBJ got in because JFK was assassinated. LBJ was the worst pres ever...Other than Jimmy C.

Gore, "GW", Obama, McCain.... Unbelievably horrible choices.
Marcus Aurelius is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 02:54 PM   #28
Guest032213-02
Account Disabled
 
Guest032213-02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 27, 2010
Location: Plano
Posts: 392
Encounters: 27
Default

If Colorado is like Texas, and have the Motor Voter Bill, the Voter Registration and the DMV's are synced. So, you may be able to be a non-resident and get on the DMV database, and then be placed into the Voter's Registration database and receive what appears to be a legal right to vote.
Guest032213-02 is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 03:47 PM   #29
Doove
Valued Poster
 
Doove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 19, 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 7,271
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein View Post
Of course it could have been worse. Come on, Al Gore is an out and out lunatic, CO2 a pollutant??? WTF, you are smarter than that.
As opposed to listening to an imaginary voice from an imaginary invisible man in the sky? I mean, really.
Doove is offline   Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 11:59 PM   #30
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
Back to the original discussion.

1. Do we have close elections? yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
2. Do we probably have non-citizens that vote? yes
Why do we allow this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
3. In a close election is it possible that the number of non-citizen votes was more than the margin of victory/defeat? yes
Agents of a foreign government installing a president. Is this sound policy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
4. (Leaving aside issues of possible fraud and ballot stuffing) If the non-citizens had not voted would the results of an election have changed? We have no way of knowing.
Why continue to risk it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
re: IBH: Kennedy won by .1%, but we ALL know by now that the margin of popular vote on a national basis in Presidential elections means nada, nothing, zippo ... See Gore-Bush 2000 if you need proof. Florida 2000, Minnesota Senate 2008 are much better examples.
The 1960 election was closer than the 2000 election. In 1960, Kennedy carried 12 states by 3% points or less. Illinois [Daley and Sam Giancana: 27 electoral votes] and Texas [LBJ: 24 electoral votes] were swing states. Kennedy “won” those states' 51 electoral votes; thus, a majority in the Electoral College. Subsequently, voter fraud was discovered to be rampant in both states. However, Nixon did not formally question the returns. BTW, some 93% of Cook County’s “registered voters” managed to vote in the 1960 election when the national average was only 63% – which remains the highest percentage since 1952 – kinda makes you wonder.

In Chicago, where Kennedy won by more than 450,000 votes, local reporters uncovered so many stories of electoral shenanigans—including voting by the dead—that the Chicago Tribune concluded that “the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory.”

Some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that “once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen.” What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.

Before midnight [on election night 1960] back East, the New York Times went to press with a banner headline: KENNEDY ELECTED PRESIDENT. But Nixon kept gaining and soon the race was too close to call. Times Managing Editor Turner Catledge, fearful that he'd be embarrassed by his headline, began to hope, as he later recalled in his memoirs, that “a certain Midwestern mayor would steal enough votes to pull Kennedy through.”

He was referring, of course, to Daley, a pol believed to be so powerful that he could make the dead vote. But as election night dragged on, Nixon took a lead in Illinois.

That news stunned Sargent Shriver, who was the Illinois campaign manager for his brother-in-law Jack Kennedy. Shriver was watching TV at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, Mass., when he saw returns that showed Nixon ahead in Illinois.

“I damn near collapsed,” he recalls. “I was devastated. I thought that the fact that I had lost my state, Illinois, would mean that Kennedy would lose the presidency.”

He sneaked out of the room. “I didn't have the [guts] to face those people,” says Shriver, now 85. “I went back to my bedroom and almost cried myself to death.”

Suddenly, somebody was rapping on his door, saying “Sarge, the votes in Illinois have changed completely.”

Shriver hustled back to the TV room. It was true: A late surge of votes from Chicago had put Kennedy back in the lead in Illinois.

Across the country, Nixon and his aides were watching the same returns.

“We were getting good reports out of Illinois but we noticed that a lot of precincts in Chicago weren't reporting,” says Herb Klein, who was Nixon's press secretary. “Then they reported en masse, and we were a little suspicious.”

Leonard Hall, Nixon's campaign manager, grumbled that the Chicago Democrats were up to their usual tricks.

In Texas, Kennedy's 46,000-vote margin was the closest statewide race there since 1948, when Kennedy's running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, won a Senate seat by 87 votes (the origin of the nickname "Landslide Lyndon"). Morton's operatives, aided by local Republicans, uncovered plenty of political chicanery. For instance: In Fannin County, which had 4,895 registered voters, 6,138 votes were cast, three-quarters of them for Kennedy. In one precinct of Angelia County, 86 people voted and the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
http://www.slate.com/id/91350/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124208&page=1
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/ui320...0_election.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1960

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
He also ignored my second post that we really don't know how not allowing .2 percent not to vote might affect an election. Say we knew that those .2 percent voted in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate did, would it then be a problem???
Excuse the late reply, I was indisposed: whips, chains and ostrich feathers.

*sniff – sniff* I smell equivocation. I say remove all doubt and do not let non-citizens vote. BTW, according to the 2000 Census, there were over 200,000 resident aliens (some 12.5% of the population) living in Broward County, Florida. How many, do you imagine, helped screw up the vote count down there in 2000? 1,000 – 10,000 – 100,00?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broward_County,_Florida

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005 View Post
The New York Times did its own analysis of how mistaken overvotes might have been caused by confusing ballot designs. It found that the butterfly ballot in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the two page ballot in similarly Democratic Duval County may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.[7] The rest of the media consortium did not consider these because there could be no clear determination of a voter's intent.
I hurriedly made my earlier post, and immediately recognized I hadn’t taken your post head on because my post didn’t deal with the NYT. When I double checked, I found the same Wiki article you are citing. I think that last line (now in bold) in the citation says it all.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved