But that brings up the issue of scale. Was Nixon a bad candidate in every state that he lost?

Also, how was Humphrey such a bad candidate? He would have won if 135,000 votes had switched to him from Nixon. And if Kennedy had been running in '68 instead of '60, then he would have lost too as the south would not have gone for him. Does that mean HE would have been a bad candidate too?

As for Gore, Gore was not a bad candidate. The media hated him and the Greens were too stupid to see the huge differences between him and Bush. If you combine Nader's and Gore's vote totals, then it WASN'T close. And Gore WON the election.

Yet, in essence, accurate and perfectly descriptive.

I don't feel the need to give an "enlightened" rebuttal to views that are anti- American and authoritian. Like I said before there is something wrong with your moral compass, and now I will add its not my job to fix it. Too many Americans died so that we could have to right to vote to let someone like you muck it up because of your own petty desire for particular outcomes.

He doesn't have a point. Is the goal to approach 2006 like 1960 in which the Party had a really bad history of fucking with the vote? Is this really the history we want to cite as reasons to continue a poor voting process. He is also full  of shit in that he is assigning malice to others that is his own. He is trying to define those who are concerned about voting suppression as though they re worried only about winning, when in fact it is he who is principly concerned with the issue. it's an issue of projection in the same way that Rove would do. I don't acknowledge that he is coming to this conversation with any degree of honesty. Honestly would say- let the process do its thing, and find out what has happened here regardless of outcome. In 2000, my issue with both Gore and Bush were that they were both trying to manipulate the process rather than actually having a state wide recount, that bush has previously manipulated the felon laws to prevent even eligible voters from voting etc. I bring this up because this person attempts to impugn anyone who would question this sort of behavior and reduce it to one single instance. This is a pattern that is a part of American history. It is not something that even if it is inadvertant that should be tolerated. That he is willing to do so- regardless of how he spins it- shows to me he lacks a political values compass worth noting for anything for its own cynacism.

Well, there are obviously absentee and provisional ballots. My impression is the controversy here is with the memory cards.

But I tend to tune out with the disputed elections so maybe there's more to it.

Your position enables corruption and authoritarianism. The Maryland vote is still being counted so we don't even know who won before we consider the issue of vote tampering. What we do know is that an election with no paper trail invites corruption. The process is broken and we want it fixed.

You do appear to be a troll becuase you attack Democrats saying,"I didn't see any prominent left-leaning bloggers or any Democrats for that matter complain". Republicans were whining like a stuck pig about that election and it was decided in the courts. Republicans deserved their day in court and they got it. It's past time that Republicans support efforts to ensure fair elections but the Republican Congress gave us paperless Diebold machines instead. Fair and verifiable elections  should not be a partisan issue.

In 2000 I worked as an elections official. I, like many others of all parties, believe in the Constitution and the democratic process ahead of partisan concerns.

To suggest that votes be accepted when we do not have a reasonable assurance that they are free of tampering is to open up the process to tampering.

That is anti-democracy. Its that simple.

If Edwards challenges the result in court, and if Edwards wins that challenge, it will not be because a candidate "felt" they were cheated ... it will be because a candidate proved that there were irregularities.

For the truck that showed up the next day, unless a chain of oversight can be established from the departure of the truck from the polling place to the arrival of the truck at the place that votes are tabulated, then it simply cannot be accepted into the count. It only takes ten or so minutes to steal votes from each machine.

We also cannot tolerate elections that do not begin at anywhere near the scheduled time "for technical difficulties", because the practice of accepting that opens up the system to abuse. It is an unacceptable precedent even if it was only incompetence on this occasion.