I've been up all night watching election night on BBC, CNN and Sky News and you guys still have no president?
People having to wait in line for 4+ hours??? What the heck? You would have thought the most powerful democracy of the world could organize it's most important event a little bit better [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

P.S.: Not wanting to be offensive just having slept in a LONG time ;)

Well, I just heard that only 1 in 10 newly registered 18 to 24 year old even bothered to vote* - which has more negative effects for Kerry's chances than for Bush. And Bush is still in the lead...
While Kerry hasn't lost yet, things don't look all that great - and I supppose it's either going to be a very close race or a clear victory for Bush now.
And we all know what the ramifications of a "very close race" are... Supreme Court, here we come. :rolleyes:


<font size=0>* No official statistic or a decent source to back it up yet, I just picked it up somewhere. Ah well, we all know that 96% of all statistics are made up on the spot... ;) </font>

[ 11-03-2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Oh, crud - CNN just called Ohio too close to call. There we go again... :rolleyes:

<font color = lightgreen>Being a powerful democracy doesn't necessarily mean that holding elections will be a logisitical cake-walk. Besides, there will probably be 100,000,000 voters who turned out today; that would be difficult for anyone to coordinate smoothly. The length of time one waits to vote is much less important than the fact that one actually votes.

Right now I am seeing averaged results of Bush 259 and Kerry 216 (one needs 270 to win), assuring that neither side would (at this point) be able to claim that the election was "stolen". </font>

Saw it :D
Indian elections sure were faster (with twice the amount of votes) ;)

New Hampshire for Kerry... 249 to 221 now.

[ 11-03-2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Michigan for Kerry, too. 249 to 238. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh, and just heard some strange thing during the Dutch coverage - the person who is responsible for Ohio voting computers is actually a Bush pioneer, donating >$100,000 to the Bush campaign. Now this doesn't mean anything of course, but aren't there any laws against such a potential conflict of interests?

[ 11-03-2004, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

I still cannot fathom why they would use computers leaving no written proof. It's an open invitation for election fraud. Let the people push some funky buttons and select the result you want [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

Just a potential few hundred thousands votes in Ohio that wont be counted for 11 days due to the letter of the law. No biggie. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Fox and others gave Ohio to Bush a few hours ago. Seems CNN is being a bit more cautious than thier competitors.

Actually, we use computers during Dutch elections as well (or at least in my district), and no one ever really contests voting results over here. Then again, we don't have any of those "close to call"situations over here.