Axver (axver) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

The allegations are mounting.

The US election conspiracy theorists have struck again. Yep, that's right, apparently the vote was full of irregularities and errors, and maybe Kerry actually won. Damn that Bush, stealing another election! He really was stupid enough to try that trick twice! Uh, before I get too sarcastic, maybe some links to the theories would be nice. Yes. Read all about it at such sites as this one and this one.

I'm tempted to write this off as a conspiracy theory as it does not seem to be making much noise in the mainstream news media, which you would normally expect to jump all over something like this like it was the last piece of sensational news to report. Then again, you never really know what's going on with the media, and its selection of stories to cover does not necessarily mean one is more valid or true than another. Indeed, we've all seen the media report utter bollocks before. So maybe this is a valid story and maybe it's not. I don't feel I am really in a position to judge many of the claims and I've already come to accept the fact that despite my hopes to the contrary, Bush has unfortunately won himself another four years. The way I am viewing it is that there have been some errors and some statistical inconsistencies, but it is doubtful there were enough to change the result of the election. Indeed, while I haven't done any full analysis of the 'facts' as presented by either side of this theory, I would be willing to bet you right now that even if the "Bushites tampered with the result!" people are presenting factual data, it would not be enough to change the outcome of the election. I don't see five million votes being changed; do you?

What has absolutely staggered me with this story is how stupid the voting is. There was the disaster in 2000 and now there's more controversy in 2004. I don't recall anything of the sort ever happening on this side of the world, either in New Zealand or Australia. All these high-tech forms of voting in the US clearly don't work. Why does the election need to be all high-tech anyway? Can someone explain this one to me? We're not trying to sell the latest first person shooter or a Hollywood movie here, we're trying to run an election. The tried and true paper ballots counted by hand (get a ballot, use a pen to mark on your vote, drop it in a ballot box, and it's counted later) doesn't seem to cause any problems on this side of the Pacific, and guess what? We don't even have to wait until the next morning for the election outcome! These computers, hole punchers, and such haven't exactly proven themselves worthy; more precisely they seem to be flawed and open to much greater levels of tampering or ineffectiveness than the traditional ballot.

The election doesn't need to be high-tech. As long as it works, that's fine.

Now, jumping back to my earlier cynical mention of the media ... if you believe what you hear in some tabloid columns, Larry wants to leave U2 to pursue an acting career and in a completely unrelated twist, Bono wants to kill himself. Don't you love the way in which tabloids create completely sensational stories from jokes? You have to wonder where these hacks journalists found their degrees and how it is that these rubbishy rags not worth the paper they're printed on actually stay in business.

It also seems like this is the season to hang up Christmas decorations way too early, be jolly, and ... make typos. I can feel my bad jokes coming already. Be alert and prepared for the Attack of the Lame.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.