Does this mean we should put the gaming industry in charge of our elections?????

Jerry O\\\'Riordan #1

Sure, why not!

Everybody knows the odds are always in favor of the house, but you can win sometimes!

The first article from the Washington post above is pretty good because it gives us voting activists credit for getting the process of fair elections going, but this paragraph makes me mad:

In the longer term, activists must turn their efforts to a more visionary agenda that will ensure fair and secure elections. That agenda must include: 1) elections run by nonpartisan and unbiased election officials; 2) professionalization and training of election officials and poll workers, and 3) a national elections commission that can partner with states and counties to create national, uniform standards for running elections. Looking even further, the U.S. should consider following the lead of other nations and create "public interest voting equipment," where government contracts with the sharpest minds in the private sector to develop open source software and voting equipment that is owned and managed by the government instead of by shadowy corporations.

It's not like we haven't been trying to shine a spotlight on all of the issues you mentioned, (three years later). I wish I had a dime for every time "open source software" has been brought up by activists, and ignored by the press/government. If you guys had helped, we could have led the "other nations"!

But thanks anyway Steven, I guess!

John, what a theory:

"The root cause of our troubled elections is that, unbelievably, the U.S. provides less security, testing, and oversight of our nation's voting equipment and election administration than it does to slot machines and the gaming industry."

Well, that is one viewpoint. The inverse is that the republican dictatorship makes damn sure that elections are handled in a certain way.

A very certain way.

Every thing else is a product of the wordsmith.

We have the Republican operatives & MSM "preparing" us for a stolen Santorum victory, by the Republican Noise Machine floating false stories that the Green Party candidate will get enough votes to take away the 10% lead by Casey.

WHO SAID THE GREEN PARTY WILL TAKE AWAY CASEY, AND NOT SANTORUM VOTES??? THE MSM!!!!!!!!!!!! And he won't take away enough votes from EITHER candidate, it's false!!! Do the numbers, Brad...

http://www.realclearpoli...vania_senate_race-1.html

If 5 million people voted right now in Pa., according to the average 10% ahead Casey has been consistently, Casey will get 2.5 million votes and Santorum 2 million, a difference of 500,000 votes. What is the most votes a 3rd party Senate candidate has every gotten in Pa., has it been anywhere near half-a-million? The highest I could find, in Pa., is 220,000 votes for a Constitution Party candidate, and that was only 4% of the vote. So, the Green Party candidate would have to get almost triple the total votes of the highest 3rd party candidate of all time, just to bring Santorum even with Casey. Going back to 1992, another Libertarian got 200,000, but besides that, all other 3rd party candidates got 5 figures, or 1%, which is the general standard if you throw out those 2 Libertarian freak showings.

Also, if you assume the false presumption that a Green Party candidate will take away Dem votes, you must also assume the Libertarian Party candidate would take away Republican votes...and the Libertarians have a history of having the 2 highest 3rd party vote totals since 1992.

How come the MSM isn't promoting the story, "Libertarian Party can slice into Santorum's vote totals"????????? Since there is actually a HISTORY of Libertarians actually garnering significant vote totals in Pa.!!!!!!!! Is there a Libertarian running in the Santorum/Casey 2006 race?

http://hosted.ap.org/dyn...ICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Constitution Party candidates and Libertarian candidates take away from Republican votes, and Green Party take away from Dem votes, if the MSM is going to be consistent. The Green Party is like a liberal Dem party, and the Libertarian and Constitution parties (2 of them, so MORE votes off of Santorum's totals) are like ultra-conservative parties.

So, according to statistics, THERE'S MORE OF A CHANCE OF VOTES BEING TAKEN FROM SANTORUM IN PA.....YET.....THE MSM IS FLOATING STORIES THAT THE GREEN PARTY WILL BRING SANTORUM CLOSER TO CASEY!!!!!

SWISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and he pulls up for the jump shot...and...

SWISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To take away the Mainstream Media's power we need to flood their ass's. We need to be where they are at rockafellaz plaza On GOOD MORNING (Insert City) and put the signs in their faces.

All these people that get these small local stories that joe killed jill or burned down building A, need to set up the MSM for when they push that F-ing camera into their faces and ask us, about Joe, we light up and the unleash a thousand or so gallons of donkey nose puss and drown their elephant ass sucking faces.

If it's LIVE they CAN NOT POST EDIT IT!

Speaking of live, I saw a car race recently on KCRA CHANNEL 3 that had a couple of drivers drop the word "FUCK" two times and then they went to dropping punches on each other on had a hat the other didn't.

$325K * 2 = $650K

HELLO HELLO IS THE FCC OUT THERE?!

on had a hat == one had a helmet

Citizens should go file complaints on their next FCC renewal

I didn't think of this before, but in my theory above, what would make it even MORE incredible, is that I was assumming that 100% of the unprecedented half a million votes for the Green Party, WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE FROM ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD'VE VOTED FOR CASEY, IF THE GREEN PARTY DIDN'T RUN!!! 100%, to just have Santorum draw EVEN with Casey.