digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New problems identified with Iowa caucuses!

blackboxvoting.org — Political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results, warning them that only "conspiracy theorists" would want to independently confirm the announced results. Not taking photos or video could be a fatal mistake. If you are in Iowa make sure EVERYTHING gets recorded!!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -132/+16The paranoia of the Ronbots knows no bounds. Buried.
    • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -6/+79Paranoia is the unreasoning and unreasonable fear that people are out to get you. If people are, in fact, out to get you, your fear is neither unreasoning nor unreasonable, and you are obviously not paranoid.
      So, let's see, can there be a group of people willing to attempt something extreme in order to get their candidate elected President of the United States? Obviously, the answer is yes. So, making sure they can't do it isn't paranoia, it is just being careful.
      • bittwist, on 01/01/2008, -5/+45You forgot the part where the article doesn't even mention Ron. Herkimer seems to be seeing things, or trying to make some sort of conspiracy theory out of it. Wait, does that mean he is a Ronbot himself?
        • BenMuldowney74, on 01/01/2008, -6/+18when herkimers megaphone goes off he rushes to disinfo the violator. he is a megaphone boy!!!
          • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -8/+13If someone was to organize against Paulspam, there are a multitude of other ways to do it. Instead, it's just that there are a ton of people who like ron on digg, and a ton of people who can't stand the guy. It's as simple as that.
          • Misesean, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2Where the first "ton" is about 20000 and the second "ton" is about 20? :)
          • vawksel, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1@chaosium

            I disagree. There are a ton of people who like Ron Paul, and a ton of people who can't stand the idea that a ton of people like someone as much as they do.

            I really don't think if you get down to the core that there are a lot of people who hate Ron Paul, *EXCLUDING THE FEW PEOPLE WHO RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE SAYING "I HATE RON PAUL"*.

            Ron's a nice honest guy with a nice message, what's to hate about that.
        • WilliamDavis, on 01/01/2008, -5/+11Seriously, I think he is. He throws a lot of softball objections to Paul, which I think are meant for others to easily answer. Interesting trick, when even the dumber paulbots among us easily handle his goofy objections.
        • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -34/+7The article was posted by a Ronbot. Don't you ever check who posts the stuff you're reading?
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -45/+10"So, let's see, can there be a group of people willing to attempt something extreme in order to get their candidate elected President of the United States?"
        Yes. They're called Ron Paul supporters who have flagrantly disregarded ethical and moral considerations as well as the FEC rules and regulations in an attempt to get their beloved leader elected. Fortunately, they are failing miserably.
        • pateo, on 01/01/2008, -4/+30Who's talking about Ron Paul? Man, and you're calling US paranoid...
      • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -6/+22Nobody keep these caucuses honest or anything.....Give me a break, everyone bring video cameras.
    • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -7/+36The obsessive nature of an idiot never fails to amaze me either. Herkimer you are still a loser.
    • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -54/+9And you are still a pathetic, uninformed Ronbot who puts his political agenda above everything. Let me clue you in on something, Ron Paul is not going to win this election. Want to know why? Because his policies and programs are two centuries out of date and have proved themselves to be unworkable in the modern world. Maybe you and your idiot candidate want to live in squalor but the rest of us do not. Go find yourselves an island somewhere and set up your own little country. We'll come in a few months later and make sure you get a decent burial after you've all starved to death because you refused to work together for the benefit of everyone.
      Election day is coming and then we'll see who the loser is, Ronbot.
      • Toshibi, on 01/01/2008, -6/+28Herkimer, why would anyone starve to death? It would be in my best interest to insure that I have food, hence would attempt to gain food in some way. People that refused to find food, would learn quickly either they need to trade some skill for what I can produce or find their own food. It's really that simple. Oh, and don't forget, we're human, so if someone were hurt or unable to find food, I would happily give up some of what I find to help them...because that's what people do....just let me decide how I want to use my labor, not you.
        • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -32/+5Because Ron Paul would wreck the economy and do nothing to alleviate the human suffering that his idiotic policies would cause.
          • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -5/+17Haha.. Do you really think this? OMG you are such an idiot. But I do admit.. It gives me a good laugh. I've never actually met anyone that is quite as ignorant as you Herk.

            Just ignore him everyone. Or if anything go into his profile and just bury all his stupid comments.

            We don't need stupidity on Digg.
          • Toshibi, on 01/01/2008, -2/+17Herkimer, besides charity, Ron Paul has already stated that he would not take entitlements from those dependent upon them. And honestly, he's proposing a way to keep the country from continuing to bleed money through foreign entanglements so that those entitlement programs will be continued. Consider that the annual rate of increase for cost of living in Social Security is actually less than inflation, by making our money less inflatable he would make those with fixed incomes money go further year after year, while at the same time protecting what has already been paid in and allowing the young to opt out, keeping their own money to use as they see fit (7.5 to 15% of your pay a year depending on employment status means you can invest and save in a way you choose.) His ideas also say nothing of state programs that could be implemented. While I disagree with most entitlement programs from the word go, I think it's better to decrease atleast the power of one level of government.
          • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -2/+5Like democracy and government accountability being local instead of several thousands of miles away?
          • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -7/+4@Toshibi:

            If Ron Paul has promised not to take entitlements from those dependent upon them (I'll need a citation on that, and don't think I'm missing the fact that he's left the definition of "dependent" wide open) then there is absolutely no, zero, zip, way that he can meet his other promises, which are to cut at least 25% off the federal budget and eliminate the Federal income tax.

            His most aggressive military cutbacks, plus elimination of the DOE, plus elimination of all the other "wasteful" programs he's mentioned simply won't do it. Other people, his supporters, have done the math and it doesn't add up.

            But he doesn't care, because he's not running that kind of campaign. He doesn't care that his legislative history is in direct conflict with his most closely held ideals. Why? Because he knows you people won't look it up. He knows that if he keeps you staring at blimps, and ranting at the man, and rigging internet polls you won't even consider what a hypocritical liar he is.

            He's a demagogue, the most dangerous kind of candidate. You use the word "honestly" in you post, I suggest you start expecting the same from your candidate.
          • 0nslaught, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4"The fact is that I’m the only one trying to save Social Security and Medicare. The current administration has stolen all the funds to pay for the war. There’s nothing left. When I end the war, those funds will be returned to our social programs. And I’ve introduced a bill in Congress that would guarantee that those funds can never be taken again." -- Ron Paul
          • Humptydank, on 01/02/2008, -2/+5Thanks 0nslaught, with that single post you made so many of my points for me.

            A Ron Paul supporter thinking it's enough to paste in an incredibly simplistic statement that he obviously hasn't even looked into himself. That's okay, that's what Ron Paul expects of you. That's why he didn't specify what bill he was referring to in his quote, he didn't want to make it any easier for you to look up.

            Could he possibly be referring to H.R. 219, in which he requires that any surpluses generated by the Social Security Trust Fund be "protected" by investment in securities guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, basically "insuring" the Social Security Fund with the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund? That's a great way to make certain that a banking crisis doesn't just wipe out banking, but Social Security too! Go Ron go!

            And shall we even mention that he's been a consistently staunch opponent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund? So he's happy to "remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority," but he's still willing to make it a centerpiece of his plan to save Social Security?

            What would he do if the unthinkable happened and H.R. 219 actually passed with an unconstitutional program at its core? Undoubtedly he'd come up with some tortured logic about how the fund is Constitutional after all. I say undoubtedly because that's what he did when it came to justifying new spending in the massive welfare system for veterans. It seems that the immutable Constitution and the clarity of the Founding Fathers become mighty pliable and foggy when the time comes to pass himself off as a reformer without lifting a finger on figuring out how to make it really work.

            Or could we be talking about H.R. 191, his noble attempt to lift the burden of federal taxes on Social Security benefits?

            I hope so, because that's an even bigger hypocritical joke. Since I've had to patiently explain this to innocent Ron Paul supporters in the past, I'll save myself a little typing and just do a some cutting and pasting of my own from a previous post.

            Did you bother to read H.R. 191? I already know it because it's a classic in the sketch comedy show that is his legislative record. He's been introducing it for seven years without one iota of evolution, so there's no arguing that this is the best he can do. The functional part of the bill is exactly two sentences: 1) Remove taxes on social security benefits. That's fine, principled people can agree or disagree on that. 2) That taxes shall not be raised to meet the shortfall in section 1.

            You may ask yourself, as I did, where is this balanced budget crusader getting the funds to pay for his reduction in revenue? Directly from the Treasury, that's where. It's specified in sentence 1. So if anyone else imbalances the budget it's the apocalypse, but he lets himself make withdrawals from the Treasury like an ATM anytime he wants? Where are the cuts that offset the diminished revenue? He would expect it of a Democratic spending bill, but he's exempt?

            This is an ongoing story. He's running around the country saying that he will cut spending over 25 percent, but any review of his legislative record shows that he holds himself above his own principles. Health care, veterans benefits, social security, and even entitlements for his own district have benefited from the Ron Paul "my campaign says one thing while I do another."

            So 0nslaught, you do great when it comes to finding little inspiring homilies from Saint Paul, but you fail miserably in the whole "fact checking" portion of our game.

            I do have to give Ron some credit though, he's crafted a perfect campaign for the intellectually lazy, and he's going to vacuum millions of dollars out of your pockets before you even realize what's happened. I wish I'd thought of it myself.
        • briguymaine, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3dwight?
          • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -3/+3Cats provide neither fur nor milk nor meat.
      • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -8/+7Work together for the benefit of everyone? Sounds a bit like North Korea....
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -17/+5To you it probably does because you're an idiot. Do you grow your own food? Would you know how? Do you ever realize how much you depend on others? Moron.
        • jefferygomer, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Famine was answered by the Free Market not by government programs.
        • Smoove, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3Free-market advocates know EXACTLY how dependent we are on each other, and revel in it. You, on the other hand, are terrified by it--so you advocate enslaving everyone so you can feel reassured that they'll always be there, providing for you.
    • BelXul, on 01/01/2008, -5/+26Black Box Voting's establishment is not a result of the Ron Paul movement, but rather they formed while investigating problems with the ballots in the past few elections. In the 2004 election, they found evidence of fraud in the trash only days after the ballots were cast which is in violation of Federal Law which requires the records to be retained for a while. What would have happened if Kerry said, "I demand a recount of Iowa's votes"? They'd go in not finding the records because they were thrown out.

      For anyone interested in what it is that Black Box Voting does, there is a documentary that covers it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
    • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -1/+16@Herkimer56
      So you are saying that you believe in a "Nanny State," right?
      After all, you trust other people to look out for _your_ best interests...
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -18/+2Yes, it's all about me and nothing about the Ronbots attempting to deprive citizens of their right to privacy.
        • JoeVet, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Vote results and how they were/were not counted are not right to privacy issues. They are open democracy issues. Fight Ron Paul but do it with intelligence. Don't allow them to work in secret.
    • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -8/+8For me it's not the message, but how that message is packaged up and marketed.

      I think educated, independent citizens taking respectful action to ensure that elections are conducted lawfully is a good thing. What corrupts it are the people who cynically feel that the only way to encourage people to do that is to write breathless stories about unnamed evil forces on a systematic jihad against the will of the nation.

      It's exclamation points instead thought, Fox news tactics applied to civic duty, and it's lowbrow and dumb. That, sadly, is the most vocal Ron Paul supporters' stock and trade, and because of that the campaign won't be remembered for its messages or fundraising, just how its supporters made a mockery of the process and squandered a great opportunity.

      So by all means go and lawfully oversee elections, record what's going on, and make public any clear violation. But these braying jackasses make the situation worse, not better.
    • ImbecileCorn, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5SOMEBODY, I don't know who, doesn't like Ron Paul very much. You should see his other story comments.

      why, good heavens no, he might be working for ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! Not in America! NEVER!
      • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -5/+5So you're introducing another allegation of conspiracy to explain criticism of the first allegation of conspiracy?

        This is fun; it's like "A Beautiful Mind" without the whole genius part.
    • magoghm, on 01/02/2008, -1/+5Paranoia?

      Let's look at some later comments posted by Herkimer56 on this same page:

      "Yes, it's all about me and nothing about the Ronbots attempting to deprive citizens of their right to privacy."

      "It's going to be interesting to see what happens when you Ronbots show up at the polls with video cameras. In my state you would be greeted by a police officer who would tell you to either put the camera back in the car or you won't be allowed to enter the polling place. Here's hoping that lots of Ronbots show up with their cameras and their pissy attitudes. They can spend election day trying to arrange bail."

      "Like the Fembots, the Ronbots are soulless automatons that merely regurgitate the misinformation and ignorance that they've been programmed with."

      So, there are some things called "Ronbots" which are soulless automatons that merely regurgitate the misinformation and ignorance that they've been programmed with. And these Ronbots are attempting to deprive citizens of their right to privacy. Furthermore, in his state, the police is on the lookout for Ronbots that carry cameras to arrest them.

      And, all this is about an article that doesn't even once mention these Ronbots.
      Paranoia? Yes, indeed!
    • UtubReptilian, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Maybe Huckabee will have them arrested so that they cannot vote. Ron Paul is kicking ass no matter what you say. http://www.digg.com/celebrity/The_Iowa_Caucus_Poll ... If you want every vote to count then you have to watch this now http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Uncounted_A_ ...
  • Durthalion, on 01/01/2008, -1/+110Do they not realize that by saying this people will be more likely to recorded it?
    • spenderaka, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6"Party officials dial a result into a cell phone, which goes we don't know where, following a telecommunications routing that is unspecified, and is totalled up in a central tabulation program made by a vendor no one knows the name of, programmed by we don't know who, and voila! The result is announced"
      Remember everything goes through Echelon
    • CalamariAce, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3Maybe that was the intention. Reverse psychology ftw!
    • thecatcantalk, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Maybe the intention was to frighten and intimidate; if you show up with a camera, you'll be disappeared by Homeland Security, your name will go on a "terrorist watch list" of "Constitutional fanatics", your photo will be on the bulletin board in the local sheriff's department as a "troublemaker to watch out for", who knows? Isn't that why they keep grabbing Senators and retired generals at airport security checks...to let us proles know that no one is safe, now?
  • epicstruggle, on 01/01/2008, -11/+44It is time to get rid of Iowa/NH's first in the nation caucus/primary. (sorry for going off topic)
    • badqat, on 01/01/2008, -4/+25No kidding...I'd like to see one "super Tuesday" where the entire nation votes on the same day.
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -16/+8I agree. They should have it in August and the general election stays in November. Limit campaigning to two months before the primary. That way it's all tied up in a nice, neat bundle and the nation is spared this endless campaigning that we have now.
        • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -10/+12You would like to see that, wouldn't you?
          Better yet.. You'd rather sit on your couch watching Desperate Housewives and allowing Sean Hannity to tell you who would make a good leader.

          You are so clueless that there is no way that you could sort out all the rational dialog and decide for yourself.

        • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -10/+7Oh, look who's making uninformed and ignorant assumptions about me again. You have no clue about me or what my interests are or how I spend my time. Despite that, Ronbot, you follow me around and make these unprovoked attacks on me. Why? Because I am a voice of dissent? Are you that obsessed with denying me the right to freedom of speech? If it makes you feel like a big man to write these stupid, pointless attacks on me then please continue to do so. They're wonderful examples of the intellectual dishonesty and lack of morality of the Ron Paul followers.
        • founderofpork, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1You seriously still haven't figured out that this article has nothing to do with Ron Paul? Have you also not provided any real reasons for why oversight shouldn't be provided by dedicated citizens? How is this even a bad thing? Oh, wait, it's bad because it wouldn't be as easy for elections to be stolen. I see now.
      • rex84, on 01/01/2008, -1/+9That would ensure that only corporate stooges could compete nationally due to the massive advertisement budget necessary.
    • l00s3r, on 01/01/2008, -3/+10Iowa and New Hampshire just want attention. Other states have tried to move up but they get their delegates taken away by the parties.

    • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -3/+4To be replaced with what? Regional Primaries? Select dates and randomly select states that will be on that date? Rotate the states?
      To respond to badget, we already have that it's called the general election. We need the primaries to be spread out so that we can eliminate candidates along the way. If we did all the primaries on the same day, and no one got a majority (very possible) guess what would happen, they would be chosen in a convention, and not by the people (I hate the party system). Thats the way it works, and if we can't choose by the end of the primary season thats how it will be decided even now.
    • damightyzug, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Epic, Your welcome to my 15 phone calls and 2 lbs of junk mail I get a day (for the last 6 months) just because I live in Iowa. But, all in all it's the price i pay to the process. More on your comment, I would be interested in hearing what you think should take the place of the Iowa caucus. Maybe you would prefer NY or CA control every thing? Or is it more of a hold over from the ITBS / ITED test you had to take.
  • ad33lshahid, on 01/01/2008, -7/+77sometimes i wake up and can't believe that i'm living in the same america that i was 10 years ago. When will the american government stop using fear to dictate the actions of its citizens, or better yet, when will the general public wizen up to these tactics?
    • BelXul, on 01/01/2008, -6/+22Use of fear to influence a populace was called WHAT again?
      Terrorism.

      Kinda funny how 'it's okay if the government does it'.
    • jamesLankford, on 01/01/2008, -20/+5how are they using fear you idiot?!
      they are protecting people's voting privacy you moron
    • MessiahCakes, on 01/01/2008, -3/+6When illusion of upwards mobility through material acquisition no longer satisfies.
      People never question the system because they still equate freedom with buying power.


      Meaning--haha, n.e.v.e.r ?
    • hansolo, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1210 years ago and beforehand - they were using the Soviets as bogeymen.

      After all this is the same country that interned the japanese-americans based on unfounded fears.

      its an age-old tradition of those in political power.
      • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4actually from 1991 to 2001 we, the USA, didn't have a bogeyman threat.
        i imagine the bush clan spent those years furiously plotting...
        • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2am i wrong? the soviet union fell in 91 and the towers came down in 01. what were we supposed to be afraid of in the decade between? if there was a large 'threat' i'm not remembering please enlighten me rather than anonymously digging me down.
      • tgc1, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1You familiar with Desert Storm?
    • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -4/+5If you've been politically aware for at least ten years then maybe you can answer this question for me.

      Right around election time, why are we always subjected to wild-eyed rants from a very small group of people about the upcoming domination of the fascist state through insidious vote manipulation, but those same people are never seen writing wild-eyed rants about how to become actual certified volunteers at polling places, or getting involved long-term with your state or local boards of election, or volunteering for advocacy groups focused on long term election reform?

      My answer is because this has nothing to do with solving anything, this is simply all about the adrenaline rush for them. It's a chance to let accusations fly and start a whirlwind of controversy with themselves at the center -- a perfect storm of political skydiving and narcissism.

      If you're worried about voter fraud then take a day off from work and volunteer at your local polling place. Get to know the system from the inside. Move voting machines around, talk to the people who record the votes and find out how it's done. Go to local Board of Elections meetings. Provide them with written opinions on things you've taken the time to study, like the risks of electronic voting or methods of increasing non-intrusive oversight.

      Because this, and I'm sorry for not having a better way to put it, is just a pointless, frenzied circle-jerk, started by people who are more invested in the jerking than actually making anything better. It makes things worse.

      Principled oversight and involvement on an on-going basis will do wonders for the system. If everyone offered that then we wouldn't just return to ten years ago, we'd have the best system in the world.
    • zoom1928, on 01/02/2008, -2/+1You got that backwards. This isn't a fear tactic by the government. This is a fear tactic by the Democrat thugs. Every year locally they try to intimidate voters by taking their pictures with cameras or trying to get their vote on video. There is nothing that could excuse their tactics of yelling and shoving old women just to keep them from voting. Of course while some of the Democrats are trying to keep whites from voting Republican, another group of their thugs are busing blacks in to vote Democrat.
      • ad33lshahid, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1a group of thugs are bussing blacks in to vote democrat? are you aware of what you're saying?
  • dmoffitt, on 01/01/2008, -49/+6tin.

    foil.

    hats...


    I agree it's sad. But in case you folks hadn't noticed we still have an Electoral College which can do WHATEVER THE F- IT WANTS regardless of (most states') popular vote. So Iowa being corrupt? gee what a shock.
    • Wacer, on 01/01/2008, -3/+13That is lame. Saying that "there is still electorate means that the rest if can be corrupt", is stupid. I don't know if this corruption is really happening but there should be no corruption at all. Are you trying do defend people breaking the law?
    • njcarlos, on 01/01/2008, -4/+14The use of tin foil hats in your comment doesn't make sense... you're claiming we are conspiracy junkies yet you're clearly stating individuals conspire to commit election fraud. Having trouble with a coherent argument? Regardless, you don't justify something so underhanded and detrimental to everything our country stands for because we have the "Electoral College" in place... What you'll come to realize is that many of the top candidates from these primaries will be propelled into the national spotlight based on their performance.
      • Mothrog, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1"you're claiming we are conspiracy junkies yet you're clearly stating individuals conspire to commit election fraud"

        What part of his post claims fraud? The electoral college can vote how the electoral college wants to vote, within the constraints state laws impose upon them, which in some states is not ***** many. Following the law and ignoring the will of the masses isn't fraud.
        • njcarlos, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1"So Iowa being corrupt? gee what a shock.".........?
    • pateo, on 01/01/2008, -2/+10If you agree it's corrupt then why are you accepting it? Why do you think it's been able to GET this corrupt. Apathy, ignorance, and laziness.
  • stealthc, on 01/01/2008, -5/+79If you live in Iowa... Bring a camcorder and plenty of tape. Primaries are particularly vulnerable to tampering. If they have nothing to hide, why resist the cameras?
    • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -29/+10Because it's voter intimidation.
      • imacommi, on 01/01/2008, -4/+11I've read a bunch of your comments so far, and I have to say that you are one of the most ignorant pieces of ***** on this website. Have a nice day. (Sorry for feeding the trolls)
        • Ulisses, on 01/01/2008, -11/+4Actually Herkimer has been relentless in helping digg deal with spammers like you.
          By pwning you in every single comment, by burying your spam, by reporting your insults as I too did just now.
          He's been here for as long as I remember, he has more consistency than your pseudo-libertarian candidate who wants to legalize heroin and criminalize the morning after pill.

          Herkimer is still around after months of this, are your aliases?
          • imacommi, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3your a tool. don't make any assumptions about me without knowing me. WTF does this have to do with a political candidate anyway? I'm just calling him out for being ignorant and I guess I should do the same do you. before you start jumping to conclusions you should think about what you are saying and how it will be interpreted.
    • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -22/+14"If they have nothing to hide, why resist the cameras?"

      AHAHAHAH after so much bleating about 1984 and PRISONPLANET how can you say this stuff without all the ***** jetting out of your eyesockets?
      • Factionrider, on 01/01/2008, -2/+21It's a different story when you're recording the GOVERNMENT. The government is responsible to the people in everything it does, therefor the government should have zero reasonable expectation of privacy in any situation that does not directly effect national security. Also, anything hidden by national security should be fully accessible for review by congress.
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -23/+5The government isn't involved in the caucuses, moron. These are being run by the political parties. If you had done even half a second of actual research you would have known that. This isn't about keeping government secrets, it's about respecting the privacy of individual voters. How stupid are you Ronbots anyway?
        • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -2/+13You are such a tool. Do you not realize that you have contradicted yourself in the same digg comment section. Just above you said that people that come to the polls with cameras will be greeted with Police officers.. implying a police run election.

          But here you say they are run by the local party (which IS correct). This just goes to show that you are so full of ***** and you can't keep your own crap straight
        • Factionrider, on 01/01/2008, -2/+8Who do you think runs the government? Politicians and political parties.
        • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -11/+5The people running the polls will call the police in my state. Never doubt that. They're not going to let some group of greasy-haired slackers come in and attempt to prevent people from voting. I see no contradiction in that and there's no such animal as a "police run" election. I'm not sure where you pulled that phrase from but I have a pretty good idea.
        • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5"Political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results..."
          Herkimer56 is trying to scare people from taking photos or videos, the question is: Is he a political operative?
          Fortunately he is also giving us some hints about how to avoid problems: "They're not going to let some group of greasy-haired slackers come in...". So, if you want to take photos or video it might be a good idea to go with short, trim, and well-groomed hairstyle, and wear a suit. And this is not a joke, if anybody wants to throw you out it will be much harder for them if you're wearing a suit. I know this is ridiculous, but is also true.
          • ISIfunded911, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2And make them believe you support CFR candidates like Giuliani and Hillary, with caps, stickers, flags,...It will be harder for the people who are about to steal the primaries for CFR candidates to call the police against people who apparently support their masters.
            Don't go there as Paul or Kucinich supporters!
    • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -5/+13They haven't been scrutinized up till this point so it's about time we keep people honest. If you don't have a DV cam, rent one!
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -23/+10And if you're caught inside the polling place with it don't be surprised when you are tossed out on your ass and probably arrested.
        • koreth, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6Thanks for demonstrating you didn't RTFA (which clearly states that Iowa specifically *allows* videotaping of caucuses.)
        • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4@Herkimer56

          --- C'mon... apologize!!
    • johnpaul191, on 01/01/2008, -3/+15I'm sure they can always cook up some excuse about terrorism. you get hassled for taking snapshots of a friend in front of a bridge now, even when there are probably 10,000 pictures of that same bridge online.
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -18/+5I'm sure that you haven't given this subject one second of serious thought.
    • Hawk2007, on 01/01/2008, -11/+2If you have nothing to hide, why resist the cameras?

      Great question, though the RP fanclub seems to think cameras used for other purposes like rooting out terrorism are intrusions on our civil liberties and right to privacy. I don't care if this comment gets dugg down because Paul supporters are nothing but hypocrites. Also, if you respond to this comment, please think up of a good comeback and not "Hawk is a *****". I can always use a good laugh, but third grade insults are about as lame as duke basketball.
      • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7i can't speak for the rest of the people here but i support ron paul and am of the opinion that citizens using cameras to protect their rights is a good thing, and governments using cameras to intrude on their citizens rights is a bad thing.
      • koreth, on 01/01/2008, -0/+9I'm not a Paul supporter but I can see the different between close observation of an election process with an evidence trail and wholesale monitoring of citizens going about their daily business.
      • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2I think the label "terrorism" and "terrorist" are becoming more and more broad. You install cameras for rooting out terrorism isn't a good idea. Where exactly is a good place to put a camera that has the ability to root out terrorism? You can't just say these cameras will root out terrorism, without saying where and how they will. The potential for misusing these cameras are enormous, exponentially more so with more camera used for longer times, it's a stepping stone to say they are for terrorism. Next time, say ten twenty years later, the cameras are revisited they won't be for terrorism and they will just already be there.

        "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Ben Franklin
    • 33PercentGod, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Just like the government says. If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be afraid.

      Bring lots of tape and a nice tripod. :)
    • masterofsw, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately, a caucus is nothing like a primary, and after being through them before, meaningless.
    • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6A statement like "warning them that only "conspiracy theorists" would want to independently confirm the announced results." Thats just outrageous so they literally just labeled everyone who wants to independently confirm, pretty much anything in the process, as a conspiracy theorist, next step is label it espionage and then finally as treason...Thats what is really scary...
    • tgc1, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Funny how they are all about putting cameras on the streets "for your protection" but when you guys want to insure a fair election, these scumbags want the cameras to disappear. I say ***** them and their incompetence. Bring cameras, bring lots of people. And do not let up. They can arrest one or a small crowd of people for some bogus reason. But they can't arrest a few hundred people for some bogus reason.
  • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -66/+5It's going to be interesting to see what happens when you Ronbots show up at the polls with video cameras. In my state you would be greeted by a police officer who would tell you to either put the camera back in the car or you won't be allowed to enter the polling place. Here's hoping that lots of Ronbots show up with their cameras and their pissy attitudes. They can spend election day trying to arrange bail.
    • Rotzooi, on 01/01/2008, -4/+46You have just described what would happen in a fascist state. Congratulations, you've gone beyond apathy and actually started to support the regime.
      • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -31/+6No, it's a free society where voters are not tracked, only votes. You're petty fascists. If you want to track the votes, you can volunteer to officiate or ***** right off.
        • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -0/+11no one is saying to use the cams to track voters. all the article is suggesting is that iowa voters should record the precinct results which are tabulated on site. again, the article is not suggesting anyone point a camera at a voting booth, only the vote counters. this is to ensure that when the caucus results are released days later that they actually match the precinct results and that no bait and switch was performed.
    • Herostratus, on 01/01/2008, -3/+30Wow Herk and I had always thought that you were just stupid or uninformed. You really believe in this crap. Wow. You ARE who we are fighting.
    • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -4/+20I wonder if people ever think about what they say before they say it. That was perhaps the dumbest fascist thing I've ever heard.
      • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -23/+5So now anyone that believes that protecting people's right to privacy is important and protecting the election process from those who would intimidate and discourage voters from voting is a facist? Do you ever think about what you're saying before you say it?
        • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -1/+20Do you ever think about what you say before you say it?

          You're a moron and it shows with every post
        • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -0/+8i dont believe the article is suggesting that people use cameras to intimidate people, but rather to document each precinct's end-of-day results so that when the final results come out days later there is a way to make sure there was no shady business. if no one records any proof of what each precinct's results were, the party can release any results they like and there is no way for anyone to verify it. no one is suggesting those cameras be pointed at individual voters, only the precinct results that are tabulated on site.
    • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -29/+7No, I'm not. I don't believe that idiots like you should be allowed to intimidate or otherwise prevent people from coming to the polls and freely voting. You have a problem with that, Ronbot?
      • conceptkid, on 01/01/2008, -9/+9"I don't believe that idiots like you should be allowed to intimidate or otherwise prevent people from coming to the polls and freely voting." Go back to Isreal, your great homeland. Maybe people will actually listen to you over there, since it is home to many nutballs like yourself.
        • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -16/+5Go back and hang with the other neo-nazi kids on the playground.
        • Toshibi, on 01/01/2008, -3/+13What the ***** does Israel have to do with any of this? For ***** sake, some people have one track minds. Should we fund Israel, no. Should we fund any nation? No. Should we fight for any other nation? No. Seriously, grow up kid and quit thinking you're cool by hanging out at Neo-Nazi sites.Hate is such wasted energy.
      • Toshibi, on 01/01/2008, -0/+19So, you mean actually showing an interest or caring about what people are doing behind the scenes is somehow an obstruction? Considering the fact that the press won't do it's job to keep us informed or to watch out for the people, we have to take it into our own hands. Granted, I wouldn't do this, but I find it a good thing that others are willing to make the people counting the votes responsible.

        "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
      • urbandistrict, on 01/01/2008, -0/+11Let me point out the contradictions in your statement for you. In both of your posts you are the aggressor by resorting to name-calling rather than presenting an argument as to how people are "allowed to intimidate or otherwise prevent people from coming to the polls and freely voting". Personally if someone were to discretely record a polling (regardless of their politics) I would have no qualms with it. After all, isn't to our benefit? In a democratic society we all should have a fair-shake. Also if I am not mistaken, unless signs are posted you can freely film anything. News broadcasters can enter pollings for their footage, citizen's should have the right as well.
      • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -0/+7please explain how using cameras to verify precinct results would in any way intimidate an individual voter. no one is recording individual votes or taking away anyone's anonymity, only providing a record of the precinct's results on that day so that there is evidence available should any discrepancies arise. without this evidence the party's vote counters can simply lie and there would be absolutely no oversight whatsoever.
      • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -9/+4This seems to be a recurring theme, that conspiracy theorists seem to think that the conspiracies their brain chemistry invents are somehow more valid than those abuses that have actually occurred in history. Let's take the issue of influencing the outcome of an election through voter intimidation:

        Polls consistently show that African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic. If you have high voter turnout in the AA community that's a good thing for a Democratic candidate. Now let's say you have a small town in which you have a racially divisive race between a Democrat and a Republican. When African Americans come to the polling place they're faced with a group of supporters of the Republican candidate filming them with video cameras. Ostensibly to "ensure fairness in the election."

        Word gets out by midday that you can't go vote without being videotaped by people who have said some terrible things about your community. Perhaps you could organize a similar effort, get out there yourself, but more likely you would let this election pass. And is that how it should be, that the free and fair access to polling places is determined by who can marshal the most troops?

        Poll taxes, electioneering, and worse, it's all been tried. That's why these laws exist, so that the only people involved in your decision to vote are you and the state, and if that's violated the only troops you have to marshal are the police.
        • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3God damn it these are NOT voters, they are caucus goers!!!! They should be allowed to video tape it because the people in the caucus can see each other anyway. You say it conspiracy theorist, well guess what when the video tapes are out they will have nothing (well that not totally true) to say about how it went down, without video tapes they will just become more rampant.
        • Humptydank, on 01/01/2008, -3/+3Voters, caucus-goers, straw-poll participants, hand-raisers, the distinctions don't matter.

          The point is that introducing outsiders recording events like this presents an opportunity much more open to abuse than what you're alleging for the process itself. You're also assuming that we trust your integrity more than that of the system you're trying to police. Nothing about what I read in that article makes me trust the integrity of anyone involved. It stinks of agenda.

          So what are your rules for this video taping? Can people video tape how people "vote" in the caucuses, and then follow them out to the parking lot and video tape their license plate? Can one person with a video camera follow another person around, taping what they do at all times, and when asked what this is about, just keep saying, "oh nothing, I'm just keeping a record of how you vote that we'll keep back at the office. You know, to ensure fairness. Just vote your conscience..."

          I think the phrase you're ignoring is "chilling effect."

          If you spent as much time being substantively involved in the integrity of the process between elections as you do dressing up as tin-pot activists a few days before election time, this wouldn't even be at issue.
    • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -1/+15Show the law which you state..

      Or can you? You are probably just talking out of your fat ass like ususal
    • jaymzdean, on 01/01/2008, -2/+18Herkimer...

      1. Choke
      2. Die
    • jgzman, on 01/02/2008, -0/+6These are caucuses. If you RTFA it states clearly that everyone is allowed to take whatever pictures/videos they want, as long as they stay out of the way.
  • ShemDaimwood, on 01/01/2008, -33/+7People may feel pressured to caucus differently if they're being recorded on-camera; wives may be afraid of their husbands viewing their caucusing on the local news, for example.
    • Minarchian, on 01/01/2008, -6/+15Tough

      The process is too important than that ***** argument.
      • ShemDaimwood, on 01/01/2008, -8/+7The safety and independence of the polling place is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, and is in no way a "***** argument."
        • Minarchian, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3How the hell does video taping the evens ruin the "safety"?

          You're trying to apologize for vote rigging.
          • jasqwerty, on 01/02/2008, -2/+2How does taping everyone everywhere when they're in public infringe on their rights in any way?
      • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -9/+5***** argument? You're always talking about how you are a "defender of liberty" yet when it comes time to protect a fundamental aspect of selecting a president that our Founding fathers envisioned, you call it "*****"? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds...
        • Minarchian, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6The fundamental aspect is the integrity of the process. If you like rigged elections that's on you. There are ways people can cast their vote in secrecy while still ensuring integrity with video.
          • jasqwerty, on 01/02/2008, -4/+3>>There are ways people can cast their vote in secrecy while still ensuring integrity with video.

            Your cluelessness is showing *****. There isn't.
      • jasqwerty, on 01/01/2008, -8/+3A hypocritical rontard? That's new...
        • Minarchian, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Look!

          Someone who can't argue their points and shows their ignorance!

          Nice job there Tex!
        • jasqwerty, on 01/02/2008, -3/+3>>Someone who can't argue their points and shows their ignorance!

          You mean you?

          I didn't see you put forward any sensible reasoning. Calling something a '***** argument' doesn't qualify as aguing the points. Confidentiality is something the founding fathers had much desire for in voting. Now you want to throw that all away and videotape it? Listen, it would be great if the government published a large list of just how every single person voted, for various reasons, but we don'tt.
    • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -5/+8Why exactly would wives be afraid of their husbands seeing them on TV? .....this is the USA after all.
    • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -17/+8Not to mention people who don't want their employers to know how they're voting. Or state employees who might fear retribution. Clearly having cameras in the rooms where the caucuses are taking place will not be beneficial to anyone.
      • ShemDaimwood, on 01/01/2008, -6/+4That's a much better example, yes.
    • rex84, on 01/01/2008, -0/+10OMFG, the idea is to video the tallied results for the whole precinct; not the individual's vote; it's still anonymous.
  • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -6/+38I'm sorry but if you think for a second that these caucuses are perfect, you're dead wrong. EVERYTHING should be transparent. With the importance that is placed on something like this, it should be in everyone's interest to expose any corruption and video tape the hell out of these things.
    • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -23/+11You are a clueless moron. Ever heard of a secret ballot? Why should this be any different? Some people respect their own privacy and prefer to not make their vote known to the world. Those people will not vote if they have to do so on camera. Nice way to deny those voters their rights, Ronbot.
      • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -6/+13It's funny how you are talking about rights when you just said above this post that police should take away video cameras from everyone trying to record the event. Herk I really can't take anything you say seriously.

        It really has nothing to do with Ron Paul either...... but I can understand how bringing legitimacy, truth, and honesty back to politics (thanks to Ron Paul supporters I guess) would be intimidating after all these years of counting votes with nobody watching. I mean, we wouldn't want a level playing field would we?
        • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -18/+5If you want to bring legitimacy, truth and honesty back to politics then I would suggest finding a candidate who isn't in bed with every right wing extremist group in the country. You fail.
          • adam1mc, on 01/01/2008, -2/+14I challenge you to prove your theory *****. I can find freaks that support every single one of the candidates. Are you so moronic as to criticize a candidate based off the people who support him?

            You know Herkimer... For someone who hates Ron Paul so much.. you sure do seem to read and comment on every story that comes out about him.

            Don't you have a life what-so-ever?
          • Qtip42, on 01/01/2008, -0/+13If Ron Paul is in bed with anyone besides his wife, I'd be very surprised. A candidate can't control what groups support him. They support him, he doesn't support them.

            being in bed for votes and having a base of enthusiastic supporters which includes questionable groups or people are two entirely different things. Once again, they support him and his views, he doesn't support their causes.
          • skotoseme, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Herk's with Megaphone. He lies and twists the facts to support his agenda, just like some of the polls. On the one hand he wants privacy (for the tools that would try to steal the election) and on the other hand he wants all our phones tapped to fight terrorism. ***** him.
        • jasqwerty, on 01/01/2008, -4/+3>>It's funny how you are talking about rights when you just said above this post that police should take away video cameras from everyone trying to record the event

          Because the right to a secret ballot trumps your right to know how a person voted. Infact, the right to a secret ballot trumps your paranoia and curiosity always.
      • mllawso, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1 Who said anything about cameras? I'd be happy with a small, independant group that would verify each vote was cast by an individual-- and ensure no ballot stuffing takes place. I don't care who specificly is responsible for a vote, just that they are a real person (ie not dead) who voted once.
      • masterofsw, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4There is no such thing as a secret ballot in a caucus. Everything is public anyway.
      • rex84, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4OMFG, the idea is to video the tallied results for the whole precinct; not the individual's vote; it's still anonymous.
      • sheki, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Herkimer56, you are an absolute moron and I am embarrassed for you. How many people need to drill this into your pea sized brain before you will STFU. lmao
    • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2the ballot would be no less secret. the cameras would not be there to identify who each voter is voting for. rather the cameras would be used to provide a record of the precinct's end of day results.
  • BassMastr, on 01/01/2008, -4/+28What could possibly be wrong with a small group of people having a huge influence over the future of who the rest of the country gets to vote for.
  • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -29/+41Of course they don't want people filming the caucuses. These things aren't like the general election. People are NOT voting in booths in privacy. I think there is a gross misunderstanding on how caucuses operate. Here's an excerpt explaining the democrat ones:

    "Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. "

    Would you really want someone filming who you are supporting at all times? If these videos landed on the internet, anyone in the community (be it a boss, family member, friend) could see how you voted. Ever heard of voter intimidation?

    This isn't a conspiracy. It's about privacy. Buried.
    • abran1984, on 01/01/2008, -12/+11THANK YOU for throwing in a rational comment.

      Dammit people, learn about what is actually happening before throwing a hissy fit! This is a *good* thing!
    • SlimFastForYou, on 01/01/2008, -9/+14"Voter intimidation" is not a significant problem for caucuses. If you don't want to vote in public, then you shouldn't participate in the caucus. The caucus is only a tiny fraction of the people who vote on election day, I'm sure there are enough people who aren't afraid to make their views known.
      • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -8/+4Yeah, god forbid someone would rather have their voter preferences known to a group of a few dozen versus thousands on the internet.
        • conceptkid, on 01/01/2008, -9/+2Are you from Iowa? No? So, STFU. Enough with the sensationalist attitude..."ZOMG SOMEONE MIGHT SEE ME VOTE ON THE INTERNETZ!!" I seriously do not think someone is going to film someone voting inside a ***** booth. People are just recording this process to later review it for any problems. Give it a rest you jewish nutball.
        • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -5/+7Non-sensical rant? Check
          Anti-Semitic statement? Check
          Ignorance-filled post? Check

          Why, it's conceptkid!

          What does being from Iowa have to do with the fact that the cameras would violate voter privacy? Just because you don't understand the importance of something doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Did you even read my original post? These votes are NOT conducted inside a booth. Man you really are a moron.
    • bobburn, on 01/01/2008, -5/+13except it's perfectly aligned with the rules AND if anyone cares to know who someone reports, they need only attend the caucuses (you know, look across the room and see which area your coworker is standing in..it could be a give away).
    • Factionrider, on 01/01/2008, -3/+10Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't being fired based on how you voted in a caucus warrant wrongful termination? Also, look at your family and friends, do any of them honestly care how you vote? Yeah, they may try and persuade you to vote differently but if they are no longer your family/friends because you voted for Huckabee you need to find new friends.
      • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -5/+8If you think there are no people with friends/family that if it was known they had a difference in voter preference, that it wouldn't cause conflict, you are being purposely naive.
      • Archer007, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2For one to be able to sue, you have to be able to prove wrongful termination. Any company can simply say that your performance was unacceptable, and have you fired for that.
      • sougly, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't be your friend if you voted Huckabee.
    • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -14/+6Guess the people who buried me don't understand and/or value the idea of voter privacy.
      • 89992, on 01/01/2008, -3/+16The very nature of a caucus is that its not private at all.
        • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -11/+5There is an important difference between having your vote known to a few dozen, versus thousands.
        • koreth, on 01/01/2008, -3/+5That's true. It's impossible for an observer to report your vote to the world after the caucus without a video camera.
      • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5We do... too bad that would require them to be voters, and not caucus goers.
    • richbleak, on 01/01/2008, -6/+11Then it is a broken system. Iowa should take its head out of its ass and adopt a system that allows for both privacy and transparency. If they can't balance these two extremely important factors, then perhaps we should dismiss their process as the backwards, easily corruptible joke that it is. P.S. Why are all of the state's primaries not on the same day? Our system is laughable and there is no one pushing for change.
    • Nothlit, on 01/01/2008, -2/+17If your boss, family member, or friend wanted to know how you voted, they wouldn't have to depend on a camera -- they could just show up at the caucus and watch for themselves.
      • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -8/+3...Except if you're voting at one of the other hundred precincts, or are registered to a different party. But because a few dozen other people can see who you support that means the whole world should?
    • 33PercentGod, on 01/01/2008, -6/+8"Would you really want someone filming who you are supporting at all times? If these videos landed on the internet, anyone in the community (be it a boss, family member, friend) could see how you voted."

      Yes,I do want people to see who i'm supporting,because I have this thing called a BACKBONE and I utilize it to speak and let known what I feel instead of being a coward.
    • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -2/+9So everyone at the place wears blindfolds, right?
      If not, then is it a closed session where public people cannot be?
      If not, then how is me being there different than me watching it on video tape / on web?
    • HippyInASuit, on 01/01/2008, -2/+6Transparency is necessary and it is possible with an election poll. One more reason to get rid of that silly caucus crap.
    • YZBot, on 01/01/2008, -2/+7There is no privacy in a caucus. By your own quote, people stand in like minded groups. You've just blown any privacy you may have had. And if you expect your caucus peers not to have loose lips then you are living in a fantasy world. People will gossip. There is no expectancy of privacy at a caucus.
    • alienSkull, on 01/01/2008, -1/+8Then wear a mask. Problem solved.
  • Soar, on 01/01/2008, -13/+2Stupidity at it's finest.
  • gquaglia, on 01/01/2008, -8/+23The major problem is Iowa is not a good cross section of Americana. Too much emphasis is placed on this rather insignificant state.
    • jasonlfunk, on 01/01/2008, -8/+3Hey now...
    • WarPirate, on 01/01/2008, -11/+12You're uninformed and frankly selfish. The Iowa caucus is important because they are normal people. These down to earth citizens don't have enlarged egos nor do they place unprecedented significance on getting a latte first thing in the morning.
      Iowans are hard working, honest and moral. They are the best cross section of this country. Iowa is a very important state. The caucuses are attended by the most avid political enthusiasts. These attenders in general are not some uninformed moron who read a few RSS feeds from crooks and liars every morning before glancing at digg. They actually do the research. They take the time learn about the candidates and where they stand.

      Honestly its rather sad that you would want to leave out a state you deem insignifacant your not getting a good "cross section" if you dump an entire state.

      If you dislike the results of the Iowa caucus and don't think that Iowa is important then ignore the results. The smart analyst will study the results because they know how important Iowa is.
      • cramtod, on 01/01/2008, -5/+11Iowa is only important because it's the first primary. It's one advantage is its small media market which allows candidates without deep pockets be competitive. It's downside is its niche issues (corn based ethanol and farm subsidies).
        • gquaglia, on 01/01/2008, -2/+6Exactly. And these are major issues for this country? Please. The fact that Religious Zealot, ***** is leading in polls there shows this state is way out of step with reality.
          • cramtod, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2To be fair, alternative fuels is an important issue for the country. However, corn based ethanol is one of the worst solutions out there. The US should be buying ethanol from Brazil rather than giving subsidies for corn.
    • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -5/+2"rather insignificant state"
      Way to be inclusive?
      I work a lot a lot a lot in Manhattan and when I go to other cities they just look like urban sprawl - "Where are all the skyscrapers???"
      So, while other places might not be like The City *and, no I have not been to Dubai or Shanghai) I still call them cities.
      Every place has its strengths and weaknesses; can you see that?
    • koreth, on 01/01/2008, -6/+2"Iowans are hard working, honest and moral."

      And full of unfounded stereotypes, too, it seems. Okay, let's look at the numbers. I'll quote from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/iacrime.htm here:

      In the year 2000 Iowa had an estimated population of 626,932 which ranked the state as having the 48th in population. For that year the State of Iowa had a total Crime Index of 4,249.4 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 22nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Iowa had a reported incident rate of 566.9 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 10th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 3,682.5 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 23rd highest. Also in the year 2000 Iowa had 4.3 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 26th highest rate for Murder. Iowa’s 70.3 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 1st highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Iowa’s rate was 78.2 which ranked the state as having the 33rd highest for Robbery. The state also had 405.1 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 10th highest position for this crime among the states. For every 100,000 people there were 621.9 Burglaries, which ranks Iowa as having the 31st highest standing among the states. Larceny - Theft were reported 2,685.8 times per hundred thousand people in Iowa which standing is the 22nd highest among the states. Vehicle Theft occurred 374.8 times per 100,000 people, which fixed the state as having the 24th highest for vehicle theft among the states.

      So... 10th highest violent crime rate in the nation -- two positions above New York! -- is a sign of hard work, I guess (assault really takes it out of you) and maybe those crimes were spawned by moral outrage (someone trying to sneak in a latte?) but I'm not sure how honesty plays into it.

      Get off your high horse. You're no better than any of the rest of us, and the numbers prove it.
      • WarPirate, on 01/01/2008, -2/+52 things?
        Why did you use old data when the chart shows data through 2006 ?
        and Why did you misquote the population 629,932 when the actual number from the chart reads 2,926,324
        Thats more than 3 times higher population than what you quoted.

        Too bad you you didn't even read the information. See what i mean an Iowan doesn't just eat what the campaign ad feeds them they go look. Next time look at the chart and realize there was error in the data you found.
        Its ok though I accept your apology.
      • wonderbyrd, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2I agree with WarPirate. (Why is he getting dugg down for posting real facts???) I live in Iowa and I actually grew up in a relatively small town (about 2000 I think) near Cedar Rapids. I think people need to stop the stereotypes. I knew maybe 2 or 3 students out of 1200 in my semi-rural high school who lived on a farm. Maybe Iowa isn't the best for the caucus. Fine. But then who is?? New York?
        Anyway, I'll be at the democratic caucus on the 3rd and I won't be videotaping or taking pictures as I agree that it seems like a violation of privacy to post that stuff on the internet. I wouldn't want my picture there.
  • cigawoot, on 01/01/2008, -16/+7Maybe because a Caucus involves other people, and maybe those other people want their choice not to be recorded for others to view later? Maybe people want their privacy?

    I'm an Iowan, and I goto the caucus. I don't want someone with their video camera recording me.
    • agentem, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3Ballots don't have names on them. They want to video tape the counting and results. We want to make sure your vote counts.
  • fredhag, on 01/01/2008, -18/+4Why should anyone outside of Iowa be giving advice for Iowa caucuses?
    • jasonlfunk, on 01/01/2008, -3/+9Because they are very important nation wide.
  • terroristusgov, on 01/01/2008, -4/+18Ask questions, demand answers, or the real terrorists have won.
    • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Exactly, How come nobody more pissed about the statement like "Don't ask a lot of questions" Isn't that the whole point? To ask questions about other candidates, to try and convince each other who is the best. Come on that's something we can all feel outraged about. Basically it's saying come in with a closed mind, don't ask questions, choose a candidate that you already know and love....that's the real outrage. and a statement like "warning them that only "conspiracy theorists" would want to independently confirm the announced results." Thats just outrageous so the literally just labeled everyone who wants to independently confirm as a conspiracy theorist, next step is label it espionage and then finally as treason...
    • NightVortez, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1The fake terrorists have lost, durka durka.
  • gmyerz, on 01/01/2008, -3/+25Why does Iowa always get to be first on the schedule? This should be a rotating type of system. Very unfair.
    • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3It wasn't always first....why do people not know this? Before it used to always be about NH but Iowa got jealous and then so did all the other states..
    • Navicerts, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1It has always been NH that goes first, having Iowa first is a new thing. I like having NH first because they are liable to go either republican or democrat, anything goes. Another reason I like NH first is because I live there :) IT would be more fair to have some sort of random order or everyone on the same day.
  • MadN, on 01/01/2008, -4/+6When I saw the headline:
    "No problems identified with Iowa caucuses!"

    That would really be news, with the way the NeoCon minority has stolen the elections recently.
  • jaymzdean, on 01/01/2008, -4/+13Whoever thinks cameras should not be allowed anywhere near where voting takes place should have a Polaroid shoved up his ass.
  • ZachTorpy, on 01/01/2008, -5/+7Don't count on it, half of the people in my damn state can't work their computer.
    (I'm in WDM, IA)
    • vandy125, on 01/01/2008, -4/+1Buried. First computer was actually made at Iowa State. So, we have been using them a lot longer than most.
  • rudyghouliani, on 01/01/2008, -4/+11Bring a video camera to Iowa and record as much as possible there is nothing to lose, the only one's that will worry about being recorded during the caucuses are the ones that are being dishonest. For someone just to try to convince you not to record an election process seems dodgy right off the bat and is a reason to wonder what they are worried about.
    • jasqwerty, on 01/01/2008, -6/+3>>only one's that will worry about being recorded ... are the ones that are being dishonest.
      Oh rontards, the hypocrisy is rife.
      If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? And wanting privacy and your rights protected makes you a guilty criminal automatically apparently.
      • guybrush3000, on 01/01/2008, -2/+5we're talking about citizens recording government, not government recording citizens. You must understand the difference. And this has nothing to do with Ron Paul. I don't believe it was Ron Paul who was duped out of the 2000 election.
        • jasqwerty, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2>>we're talking about citizens recording government

          No you're not. You're talking about videotapping private citizens casting votes, at a private meeting. Neither the GOP nor the Dems are the government, and can do whatever they want to really in how they pick a candidate.
  • MrESaulved, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6There is no good reason for any state to have any influence over national elections, this entire argument is evidence of the need to abolish existing electoral practices.

    It's easier to influence one state's outcome by fraud or manipulation than it is to influence the entire country. With instant vote counting, there is no longer a need for staggered voting. In fact, there is pressing need for there to not have staggered voting.

    Look at those persons here on digg who are hell bent on discrediting the will of the voters, why let them?

  • draculthemad, on 01/01/2008, -1/+25When the government knows the people's every move, its tyranny.
    When the people knows the governments every move, its DEMOCRACY.
  • iupetre, on 01/01/2008, -5/+4This is yet another way people can be controlled:
    For instance, someone at the caucuses sees something going wrong and reports it. Instantly, the MSM labels that person as a "conspiracy theorist" (a dirty word) and that person's credibility is removed.
    • YZBot, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Or, when there are reports of voter intimidation there is now actual proof of the wrong doing
  • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -10/+3"The article was posted by a Ronbot. Don't you ever check who posts the stuff you're reading?"

    Like the Fembots in Austin Powers?

    Herkimer56 has a sexual obsession magoghm??
    • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4I'm sure my kids will find it very funny that somebody accused me of being some kind of bot :)
    • Herkimer56, on 01/01/2008, -11/+3Like the Fembots, the Ronbots are soulless automatons that merely regurgitate the misinformation and ignorance that they've been programmed with.
      • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3You don't have to be ignorant forever. You can fix that by reading a few good books. Some suggestions for Herkimer56 that might help him understand the world of the 21st century:

        The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn 1962
        The Gutenberg Galaxy, Marshall McLuhan 1962
        Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan 1964
        The Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky 1988
        The Moral Animal, Robert Wright 1996

        Note: none of this books is really about the 21st century, the main theme here is our perceptions about the world, and why some people are afraid of new paradigms.
        • JoeVet, on 01/01/2008, -3/+2Another good read is H.R. 300, a bill submitted by Ron Paul to curtail freedom of religion and allow the establishment of state and local churches. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... less vague than your books on paradigm shift but more relevant.
        • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Your link is broken, so here is a summary of HR 300:

          We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
          Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.
          Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.
          Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.
          Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

          So, HR300 limits the power of the federal government on many issues, one of each is about the states capacities to decide about the free exercise or establishment of religion. And you are assuming that the states will curtail freedom of religion. Do you have any specific reason to trust more the federal government than local governments?
      • nycmac247, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4@ Herkimer56
        My point is not that I agree or disagree with what you're saying but, instead, that as soon as I read "Ronbot" my eyes glazed over and I can be as silly as you.
        Right now I think having cameras there would be _good_ but am willing to change my opinion if I read a great argument against it.
        I get from your posts that you're frustrated and feel that RP people are the ultimate in "groupthink" but would you be willing to --- maybe -- say something good then something criticizing? When you say "ronbot" its like your tool is too blunt (errr... sorry for the sexual connotation on that, too!)
  • ringlardnerIII, on 01/01/2008, -1/+0If the parties had clear front runners right now, we wouldn't see this kind of hysteria over the caucuses. Despite the media frenzy, Iowans will do what they have always done: sift through the campaign BS and align themselves according to the perceived merits of each candidate. I doubt any group could succeed in misrepresenting the results on a broad scale as suggested by the article. The more our democratic process is infused with artificial "hypeners" (not a real word), the easier for special interests to influence the outcome. Watch for big media to either bury or goose up the caucus results depending on how it plays into a dramatic story line.
  • Mister2zx3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Funny how those who use privacy as an excuse, want to vote people into office who want to strip away "others" liberties.
  • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5You don't have to be ignorant forever. You can fix that by reading a few good books. Some suggestions for Herkimer56 that might help him understand the world of the 21st century:

    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn 1962
    The Gutenberg Galaxy, Marshall McLuhan 1962
    Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan 1964
    The Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky 1988
    The Moral Animal, Robert Wright 1996

    Note: none of this books is really about the 21st century, the main theme here is our perceptions about the world, and why some people are afraid of new paradigms.
  • bduddy, on 01/01/2008, -4/+1Ooh... "unconfirmed reports"! "Political operatives"! Now I'm really scared... *rolls eyes*

    Just wondering-do any of the commenters here actually know how a caucus works? Just wondering....
    • MrXfromPlanetX, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Why yes I do, do you? It really blows me away how people can watch videos like a programmer testifying he was asked to write code fixing software and some people say it's not true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck

      The stupidest argument I've heard of is the code was written for a test machine. All code is written for a test system. Why would anyone be asked to write fraudulent code. Even without electronic voting systems, I'd believe it was Stalin who said, "It's not who casts the votes, but who counts them."

      Many people are worried about the current state of the US government whether they are Ron Paul supporters or not.
  • AdrewMc3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6How come nobody more pissed about the statement like "Don't ask a lot of questions" Isn't that the whole point? To ask questions about other candidates, to try and convince each other who is the best. Come on that's something we can all feel outraged about. Basically it's saying come in with a closed mind, don't ask questions, choose a candidate that you already know and love....that's the real outrage. and a statement like "warning them that only "conspiracy theorists" would want to independently confirm the announced results." Thats just outrageous so the literally just labeled everyone who wants to independently confirm as a conspiracy theorist, next step is label it espionage and then finally as treason...
  • Shadwell, on 01/01/2008, -5/+4I live in Iowa. I have been to two caucuses before. This story and most of the comments are completely ignorant of the mechanics of the caucusing process.

    Each precinct has delegates to the county convention. Each county has delegates to the state convention. Delegates to the county convention are chosen by a head count of who stands in groups (caucus) supporting candidates. Everyone who leaves a caucus site knows who won the precinct.

    We had similar "concerns" prior to the Straw Poll. It's an effort to undermine the credibility and marginalize the results by people who are not going to win. Buried.
    • MrXfromPlanetX, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23731

      Widely Reported

      Backing this up in 2005, the bi-partisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had conducted more than 180 investigations into election fraud since 2002. Federal prosecutors had charged 89 individuals and convicted 52 for election-fraud offenses, including falsifying voter-registration information and vote buying. That is why this bi-partisan commission supported laws that require voters to show a photo ID before voting using the Federal Real ID law.

      Since the Democratic Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, numerous loopholes have been created that have permitted thousands of dead voters and former residents who have long ago moved to remain on the voter rolls for nearly a decade. Also, there is only one state -- Arizona -- that finally adopted in 2004 a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

      Former Vice President of the Virginia Electoral Board Association Edward O’Neal recently testified before the U.S. House Administration Committee how the NVRA prevents election administrators from removing outdated and false voter information from voter-registration rolls for as many as 10 years. According to O’Neal and other witnesses who testified before the subcommittee, prohibiting the removal of erroneous information makes it impossible for election officials to maintain database integrity and prevent voter fraud.

      Just a casual look at news reports over the last 10 years reveals a number of serious cases of voter fraud in key elections from President, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor and other offices down to the local level. From the White House to the courthouse, voter fraud has been widely reported but seldom prosecuted because of the difficulty of proving it.

      The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel initiated an investigation of the 2004 presidential election in Wisconsin, which had one of the closest results, with Kerry winning the state by only 11,000 votes. The newspaper investigation resulted in a probe by U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic and Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann that found clear evidence of fraud in the election, including more than 200 felons who voted illegally and another 100-plus people who voted under bad addresses or false names or who voted twice.
  • magoghm, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4"Political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results..."
    Herkimer56 is trying to scare people from taking photos or videos, the question is: Is he a political operative?
    Fortunately he is also giving us some hints about how to avoid problems: "They're not going to let some group of greasy-haired slackers come in...". So, if you want to take photos or video it might be a good idea to go with short, trim, and well-groomed hairstyle, and wear a suit. And this is not a joke, if anybody wants to throw you out it will be much harder for them if you're wearing a suit. I know this is ridiculous, but is also true
    • thecatcantalk, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4No, it's true. It's also a good idea to wear a coat and tie, next time you renew your driver's license. If you get stopped and a cop demands your identity card, he'll think twice about starting trouble if your license photo shows a man in a suit. Seriously, this works...the suit scares them into thinking that you either
      a) can easily afford a lawyer, or
      b) might actually BE a lawyer.
  • JoeMax, on 01/01/2008, -0/+0http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org/pdfs/2008_Caucus_Gu ...

    sounds like at least the Democrats are encouraging recording of the caucus groups. Beyond that, every caucus will have a secretary who's job it is it to record what happens in the caucus groups.

    On the issues mentioned in the article on the Republican Caucuses, while I am sure that there are people out there who would like to corrupt the process, let me add my 2 cents here. On the "Don't ask questions or record video" statement, any caucus goer should know that they have a obligation to participate in their caucus, both by asking questions of other caucus goers, making statements, and listening to other caucus goers. The caucus goers not recording video during the proceedings makes sense. If you want to record them, bring along a friend who can record the proceedings who is not participating in the conversation. A caucus goers primary responsibility is to participate in the proceedings, not record them.

    Second, on the republican party not immediately releasing results, I understand this one to some extent. The Democrats will be releasing their preliminary results so the national media can report the story on the late news. The republicans have opted not to release the data until the caucuses have finished. This makes sense to me. The democrats view is similar to reporting "The Giants Beat the Patriots" after 2 minutes of play.
  • Tpatch, on 01/01/2008, -1/+10I work for a paper in Iowa, and we'll be recording/photographing all around Iowa Thursday.
    • MrXfromPlanetX, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Thank you. Glad to hear that.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1I salute any member of the press who refuses to shrink from controversy.
  • gsadamb, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4The caucus system and early primaries are both horribly inadequate and woefully undemocratic. They give a state like Iowa (with roughly 1% of the nation's population) an extreme importance that leaves the other 99% in the hands of people who aren't exactly a representative slice of America.
  • MikeFallopian, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3Wow, I love how the description of this submission starts mid-sentence, after cutting out the first part, "Black Box Voting has received unofficial reports that..." I'm all for voters monitoring the ballot counts, but let's cut back on the sensationalism a bit. Let the submission stand or fall on its own merits.
  • n0gnuz, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Is the fact that the Democrat's votes will be tallied by a company owned by an Israeli defense industry firm -- which presumably has an vested interest in the outcome -- not a 'new problem identified' with the caucus?
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Hello Republicans. There are other Republicans worried about vote fraud. Not just Ron Paul supporters.

    Human Events is a Conservative News site
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23731

    The Stunning Reality of Voter Fraud
    by Wright Talley
    Posted: 12/04/2007

    "
    Widely Reported

    Backing this up in 2005, the bi-partisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had conducted more than 180 investigations into election fraud since 2002. Federal prosecutors had charged 89 individuals and convicted 52 for election-fraud offenses, including falsifying voter-registration information and vote buying. That is why this bi-partisan commission supported laws that require voters to show a photo ID before voting using the Federal Real ID law.

    Since the Democratic Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, numerous loopholes have been created that have permitted thousands of dead voters and former residents who have long ago moved to remain on the voter rolls for nearly a decade. Also, there is only one state -- Arizona -- that finally adopted in 2004 a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

    Former Vice President of the Virginia Electoral Board Association Edward O’Neal recently testified before the U.S. House Administration Committee how the NVRA prevents election administrators from removing outdated and false voter information from voter-registration rolls for as many as 10 years. According to O’Neal and other witnesses who testified before the subcommittee, prohibiting the removal of erroneous information makes it impossible for election officials to maintain database integrity and prevent voter fraud.
    "
  • hlcno, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3Snoop onto them as they snoop onto us..
  • Maddoktor2, on 01/01/2008, -3/+2Is this really surprising given the Republican party's time honored tactics of mudslinging, voter supression and misdirection leveraged to gain an electoral advantage?
    Before you answer, consider the latest rounds of caging. Also, remember 2000 and 2004.
    *waits for the inevitable Republican diggdown*
    • bingobongony, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3You have to be a complete ***** idiot to think that democrats don't cage. As for 2000 and 2004? what? You whining like the little bitch that your mommy raised you to be does not make things you say fact.
  • bingobongony, on 01/01/2008, -6/+4I love the fact that Ron Paul, Gravel and Kucinich are already getting their excuses ready for when they get 2% of the vote and drop out.
  • dexter411, on 01/01/2008, -3/+2Who would've thought that a radical left conspiracy theory website would be on the front page of Digg...
    • GoatRoper, on 01/02/2008, -2/+2It's the ron folks organizing outside of digg and flooding in.
  • Swift2, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4The image of the Iowa caucuses is that they're this pristine democratic institution that lasted since Iowa joined the Union. They're actually a gimmick, put in place by McGovern activists, so they could unseat party favorites -- in 1972. It's so hard to go to a caucus -- remember, the 3rd of January is a work day -- that nobody who works nights or has to take care of children can invest three or four hours in a long meeting. As a result, you can, if your campaign has money, bus enough supporters in to fix the results. And the record participation in this small, all-white state is about 4% of the voters. Oh, and one party can decide to support candidate x of another party and join that caucus on the day. It's a stupid parody of democracy. Let's have Iowa primaries, where about 30% of the voters -- still too small, but better -- can participate.
  • pornosteve, on 01/02/2008, -0/+5Whats wrong with being a conspiracy theorist?
  • GoatRoper, on 01/02/2008, -3/+2Ronbots, rollout!
  • overkillingness, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3A little off topic, but my fellow Canadians take heed: This stuff is happening right now in Canada and most people are not aware of it... There is little to no Elections Canada supervision when it comes to candidate nominations... The party establishment (in all major parties) will often "push" their favored candidates in using coercion and sneaky nomination tactics, meaning you end up voting for "pre-screened" candidates in general elections...

    Get involved!
  • Mothrog, on 01/02/2008, -3/+1And the tin foil hatters ride again! I don't see anything "irregular" about the requests made. Election officials don't want you sticking cameras in peoples' faces at polls because a ballot should be private and your stupid ass ***** camera could intimidate people into not voting.
  • GhostyBoy, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3Do not trust anyone who tells you that recording this event in every possible way is a bad idea
  • UtubReptilian, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Make sure you let your representative know that every vote must count and paperless voting machines are banned http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Uncounted_A_Docu ...
  • skotoseme, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2Onetimer and herkimer suck. They used to hit every 9/11 forum and now spend all their time knocking Ron Paul. They are liars and do everything to stop truth from getting out. And they are really bad at their jobs.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.