WI: Max Cleland voted for the Homeland Security Act

Would he get re-elected? . . .
Max’s opponent in 2002 did go negative as the election approach. Sometimes that by itself is enough to win it. Plus, real questions about Diebold machines.
https://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/6/

It’s easy to make a prima facie case for voting machine fraud.

Doesn’t mean it happened. But for crying out loud, we should have transparency. For example, no reason we can’t have paper ballots and count with Optical Character Recognition, just like scantrons in school.
 
Last edited:
Max’s opponent in 2002 did go negative as the election approach. Sometimes that by itself is enough to win it. Plus, real questions about Diebold machines.
https://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/6/

It’s easy to make a prima facie case for voting machine fraud.

Doesn’t mean it happened. But for crying out loud, we should have transparency. For example, no reason we can’t have paper ballots and count with Optical Character Recognition, just like a scantrons in school.

Yeah, with voting-machines, it's almost as if politicians WANT the conspiracy theorists to go wild.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Cleland voted against it because it included a poison pill that injected some of the GOP's domestic anti-labor agenda into it, making it easier to go for private contractors. The Republicans of this time were all for bundling domestic ideological items along with national security and foreign policy items, so they may have been able to just find other legislation to put for with national security in the name but that includes extras most Democrats would oppose, to put Cleland on the horns of a dilemma, and they could probably eventually find something he just could and would not swallow, even if he swallowed Homeland Security whole.
 
Yeah, with voting-machines, it's almost as if politicians WANT the conspiracy theorists to go wild.
Part of the Republican playbook is to underfund things like the EPA, and even public education. And then they can point to these and say to voters, see, governmental solutions don’t work very well.

But I wouldn’t think this would extend to elections.
 
Last edited:
Part of the Republican playbook is to underfund things like the EPA, and even public education. And then they can point to these and say to voters, see, governmental solutions don’t work very well.

But I wouldn’t think this would extend to elections.

Yeah, I don't think it's actually a plot to make people distrust voting machines. I just think it's a really ill-advised way to count votes, not least because it does tend to prompt sinister musings about the system.
 
Cleland voted against it because it included a poison pill that injected some of the GOP's domestic anti-labor agenda into it, making it easier to go for private contractors. The Republicans of this time were all for bundling domestic ideological items along with national security and foreign policy items, . . .
Okay, so the PATRIOT Act, maybe passed too soon after September 11th, and too long and complicated, mainly what it had going for it was its name,

the ironic thing, I think over time more conservatives were against it than liberals.
 
Top