# A Stolen Election in 2004?



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2004)

The following is disturbing to read.  Take the time, though, it is worth it.  I am now convinced.  President Bush and his Republican cronies stole the election.  This is perhaps one of the worst cases of election fraud in our nation's history.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2004)

The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy  
by Thom Hartmann  

The hot story in the Blogosphere is that the "erroneous" exit polls that showed Kerry carrying Florida and Ohio (among other states) weren't erroneous at all - it was the numbers produced by paperless voting machines that were wrong, and Kerry actually won. As more and more analysis is done of what may (or may not) be the most massive election fraud in the history of the world, however, it's critical that we keep the largest issue at the forefront at all time: Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes? 

Maybe Florida went for Kerry, maybe for Bush. Over time - and through the efforts of some very motivated investigative reporters - we may well find out (Bev Harris of http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ just filed what may be the largest Freedom of Information Act [FOIA} filing in history), and bloggers and investigative reporters are discovering an odd discrepancy in exit polls being largely accurate in paper-ballot states and oddly inaccurate in touch-screen electronic voting states Even raw voter analyses are showing extreme oddities in touch-screen-run Florida, and eagle-eyed bloggers are finding that news organizations are retroactively altering their exit polls to coincide with what the machines ultimately said. 

But in all the discussion about voting machines, let's never forget the concept of the commons, because this usurpation is the ultimate felony committed by conservatives this year. 

At the founding of this nation, we decided that there were important places to invest our tax (then tariff) dollars, and those were the things that had to do with the overall "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of all of us. Over time, these commons - in which we all make tax investments and for which we all hold ultimate responsibility - have come to include our police and fire services; our military and defense; our roads and skyways; our air, waters and national parks; and the safety of our food and drugs. 

But the most important of all the commons in which we've invested our hard-earned tax dollars is our government itself. It's owned by us, run by us (through our elected representatives), answerable to us, and most directly responsible for stewardship of our commons. 

And the commons through which we regulate the commons of our government is our vote. 

About two years ago, I wrote a story for these pages, "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines," that exposed how Senator Chuck Hagel had, before stepping down and running for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, been the head of the voting machine company (now ES&S) that had just computerized Nebraska's vote. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state. And in all probability, Hagel run for President in 2008. 

In another, later article I wrote at the request of MoveOn.org and which they mailed to their millions of members, I noted that in Georgia - another state that went all-electronic - "USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, 'In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss. 'Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because 'Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them.'" Nearly every vote in the state was on an electronic machine with no audit trail. 

In the years since those first articles appeared, Bev Harris has published her book on the subject ("Black Box Voting"), including the revelation of her finding the notorious "Rob Georgia" folder on Diebold's FTP site just after Cleland's loss there; Lynn Landes has done some groundbreaking research, particularly her new investigation of the Associated Press, as have Rebecca Mercuri and David Dill. There's a new video out on the topic, Votergate, available at http://www.votergate.tv/. 

Congressman Rush Holt introduced a bill into Congress requiring a voter-verified paper ballot be produced by all electronic voting machines, and it's been co-sponsored by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives. The two-year battle fought by Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay to keep it from coming to a vote, thus insuring that there will be no possible audit of the votes of about a third of the 2004 electorate, has fueled the flames of conspiracy theorists convinced Republican ideologues - now known to be willing to lie in television advertising - would extend their "ends justifies the means" morality to stealing the vote "for the better good of the country" they think single-party Republican rule will bring. 

Most important, though, the rallying cry of the emerging "honest vote" movement must become: Get Corporations Out Of Our Vote! 

Why have we let corporations into our polling places, locations so sacred to democracy that in many states even international election monitors and reporters are banned? Why are we allowing corporations to exclusively handle our vote, in a secret and totally invisible way? Particularly a private corporation founded, in one case, by a family that believes the Bible should replace the Constitution; in another case run by one of Ohio's top Republicans; and in another case partly owned by Saudi investors? 

Of all the violations of the commons - all of the crimes against We The People and against democracy in our great and historic republic - this is the greatest. Our vote is too important to outsource to private corporations. 

It's time that the USA - like most of the rest of the world - returns to paper ballots, counted by hand by civil servants (our employees) under the watchful eye of the party faithful. Even if it takes two weeks to count the vote, and we have to just go, until then, with the exit polls of the news agencies. It worked just fine for nearly 200 years in the USA, and it can work again. 

When I lived in Germany, they took the vote the same way most of the world does - people fill in hand-marked ballots, which are hand-counted by civil servants taking a week off from their regular jobs, watched over by volunteer representatives of the political parties. It's totally clean, and easily audited. And even though it takes a week or more to count the vote (and costs nothing more than a bit of overtime pay for civil servants), the German people know the election results the night the polls close because the news media's exit polls, for two generations, have never been more than a tenth of a percent off. 

We could have saved billions that have instead been handed over to ES&S, Diebold, and other private corporations. 

Or, if we must have machines, let's have them owned by local governments, maintained and programmed by civil servants answerable to We The People, using open-source code and disconnected from modems, that produce a voter-verified printed ballot, with all results published on a precinct-by-precinct basis. 

As Thomas Paine wrote at this nation's founding, "The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery." 

Only when We The People reclaim the commons of our vote can we again be confident in the integrity of our electoral process in the world's oldest and most powerful democratic republic. 

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. http://www.thomhartmann.com/commondreams.shtml His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy." 

###


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2004)

Worse Than 2000: Tuesday's Electoral Disaster 
    By William Rivers Pitt 
    t r u t h o u t | Report 

    Monday 08 November 2004 

    Everyone remembers Florida's 2000 election debacle, and all of the new terms it introduced to our political lexicon: Hanging chads, dimpled chads, pregnant chads, overvotes, undervotes, Sore Losermans, Jews for Buchanan and so forth. It took several weeks, battalions of lawyers and a questionable decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to show the nation and the world how messy democracy can be. By any standard, what happened in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election was a disaster. 

    What happened during the Presidential election of 2004, in Florida, in Ohio, and in a number of other states as well, was worse. 

    Some of the problems with this past Tuesday's election will sound all too familiar. Despite having four years to look into and deal with the problems that cropped up in Florida in 2000, the 'spoiled vote' chad issue reared its ugly head again. Investigative journalist Greg Palast, the man almost singularly responsible for exposing the more egregious examples of illegitimate deletions of voters from the rolls, described the continued problems in an article published just before the election, and again in an article published just after the election. 

    Four years later, and none of the Florida problems were fixed. In fact, by all appearances, they spread from Florida to Ohio, New Mexico, Michigan and elsewhere. Worse, these problems only scratch the surface of what appears to have happened in Tuesday's election. The fix that was put in place to solve these problems - the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 after the Florida debacle - appears to have gone a long way towards making things worse by orders of magnitude, for it was the Help America Vote Act which introduced paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines to millions of voters across the country. 

    At first blush, it seems like a good idea. Forget the chads, the punch cards, the archaic booths like pianos standing on end with the handles and the curtains. This is the 21st century, so let's do it with computers. A simple screen presents straightforward choices, and you touch the spot on the screen to vote for your candidate. Your vote is recorded by the machine, and then sent via modem to a central computer which tallies the votes. Simple, right? 

    Not quite. 

A Diebold voting machine.   

    Is there any evidence that these machines went haywire on Tuesday? Nationally, there were more than 1,100 reports of electronic voting machine malfunctions. A few examples: 

In Broward County, Florida, election workers were shocked to discover that their shiny new machines were counting backwards. "Tallies should go up as more votes are counted," according to this report. "That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone down. Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward." 

In Franklin County, Ohio, electronic voting machines gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in one precinct alone. "Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B," according to this report. "Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president." 

In Craven County, North Carolina, a software error on the electronic voting machines awarded Bush 11,283 extra votes. "The Elections Systems and Software equipment," according to this report, "had downloaded voting information from nine of the county's 26 precincts and as the absentee ballots were added, the precinct totals were added a second time. An override, like those occurring when one attempts to save a computer file that already exists, is supposed to prevent double counting, but did not function correctly." 

In Carteret County, North Carolina, "More than 4,500 votes may be lost in one North Carolina county because officials believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. Local officials said UniLect Corp., the maker of the county's electronic voting system, told them that each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes. Officials said 3,005 early votes were stored, but 4,530 were lost." 

In LaPorte County, Indiana, a Democratic stronghold, the electronic voting machines decided that each precinct only had 300 voters. "At about 7 p.m. Tuesday," according to this report, "it was noticed that the first two or three printouts from individual precinct reports all listed an identical number of voters. Each precinct was listed as having 300 registered voters. That means the total number of voters for the county would be 22,200, although there are actually more than 79,000 registered voters." 

In Sarpy County, Nebraska, the electronic touch screen machines got generous. "As many as 10,000 extra votes," according to this report, "have been tallied and candidates are still waiting for corrected totals. Johnny Boykin lost his bid to be on the Papillion City Council. The difference between victory and defeat in the race was 127 votes. Boykin says, 'When I went in to work the next day and saw that 3,342 people had shown up to vote in our ward, I thought something's not right.' He's right. There are not even 3,000 people registered to vote in his ward. For some reason, some votes were counted twice."

    Stories like this have been popping up in many of the states that put these touch-screen voting machines to use. Beyond these reports are the folks who attempted to vote for one candidate and saw the machine give their vote to the other candidate. Sometimes, the flawed machines were taken off-line, and sometimes they were not. As for the reports above, the mistakes described were caught and corrected. How many mistakes made by these machines were not caught, were not corrected, and have now become part of the record? 

    The flaws within these machines are well documented. Professors and researchers from Johns Hopkins performed a detailed analysis of these electronic voting machines in May of 2004. In their results, the Johns Hopkins researchers stated, "This voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software." 

    "Furthermore," they continued, "we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered and executed without access to the source code. In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate that the insider threat is also quite considerable, showing that not only can an insider, such as a poll worker, modify the votes, but that insiders can also violate voter privacy and match votes with the voters who cast them. We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election." 

    Many of these machines do not provide the voter with a paper ballot that verifies their vote. So if an error - or purposefully inserted malicious code - in the untested machine causes their vote to go for the other guy, they have no way to verify that it happened. The lack of a paper ballot also means the end of recounts as we have known them; now, on these new machines, a recount amounts to pushing a button on the machine and getting a number in return, but without those paper ballots to do a comparison, there is no way to verify the validity of that count. 

    Worst of all is the fact that all the votes collected by these machines are sent via modem to a central tabulating computer which counts the votes on Windows software. This means, essentially, that any gomer with access to the central tabulation machine who knows how to work an Excel spreadsheet can go into this central computer and make wholesale changes to election totals without anyone being the wiser. 

    Bev Harris, who has been working tirelessly since the passage of the Help America Vote Act to inform people of the dangers present in this new process, got a chance to demonstrate how easy it is to steal an election on that central tabulation computer while a guest on the CNBC program 'Topic A With Tina Brown.' Ms. Brown was off that night, and the guest host was none other than Governor Howard Dean. Thanks to Governor Dean and Ms. Harris, anyone watching CNBC that night got to see just how easy it is to steal an election because of these new machines and the flawed processes they use. 

    "In a voting system," Harris said on the show, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once? What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer." 

    Harris then proceeded to open a laptop computer that had on it the software used to tabulate the votes by one of the aforementioned central processors. Journalist Thom Hartman describes what happened next: "So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS tabulation software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the 'My Computer' icon, choose 'Local Disk C:,' open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder 'LocalDB' which, Harris noted, 'stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes.' Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled Central Tabulator Votes,' which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel. 'Let's just flip those,' Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, 'We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds.'" 

    Any system that makes it this easy to steal or corrupt an election has no business being anywhere near the voters on election day. 

    The counter-argument to this states that people with nefarious intent, people with a partisan stake in the outcome of an election, would have to have access to the central tabulation computers in order to do harm to the process. Keep the partisans away from the process, and everything will work out fine. Surely no partisan political types were near these machines on Tuesday night when the votes were counted, right? 

    One of the main manufacturers of these electronic touch-screen voting machines is Diebold, Inc. More than 35 counties in Ohio alone used the Diebold machines on Tuesday, and millions of voters across the country did the same. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Diebold gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2000, along with additional contributions between 2001 and 2002 which totaled $95,000. Of the four companies competing for the contracts to manufacture these voting machines, only Diebold contributed large sums to any political party. The CEO of Diebold is a man named Walden O'Dell. O'Dell was very much on board with the Bush campaign, having said publicly in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." 

    So much for keeping the partisans at arm's length. 

    Is there any evidence that vote totals were deliberately tampered with by people who had a stake in the outcome? Nothing specific has been documented to date. Jeff Fisher, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District, claims to have evidence that the Florida election was hacked, and says further that he knows who hacked it and how it was done. Such evidence is not yet forthcoming. 

    There are, however, some disturbing and compelling trends that indicate things are not as they should be. This chart displays a breakdown of counties in Florida. It lists the voters in each county by party affiliation, and compares expected vote totals to the reported results. It also separates the results into two sections, one for 'touch-screen' counties and the other for optical scan counties. 

    Over and over in these counties, the results, based upon party registration, did not come close to matching expectations. It can be argued, and has been argued, that such results indicate nothing more or less than a President getting cross-over voters, as well as late-breaking undecided voters, to come over to his side. These are Southern Democrats, and the numbers from previous elections show that many have often voted Republican. Yet the news wires have been inundated for well over a year with stories about how stridently united Democratic voters were behind the idea of removing Bush from office. It is worth wondering why that unity did not permeate these Democratic voting districts. If that unity was there, it is worth asking why the election results in these counties do not reflect this. 

    Most disturbing of all is the reality that these questionable Diebold voting machines are not isolated to Florida. This list documents, as of March 2003, all of the counties in all of the 37 states where Diebold machines were used to count votes. The document is 28 pages long. That is a lot of counties, and a lot of votes, left in the hands of machines that have a questionable track record, that send their vote totals to central computers which make it far too easy to change election results, that were manufactured by a company with a personal, financial, and publicly stated stake in George W. Bush holding on to the White House. 

This map indicates where different voting devices were used nationally. The areas where electronic voting machines were used is marked in blue.   

    A poster named 'TruthIsAll' on the DemocraticUnderground.com forums laid out the questionable results of Tuesday's election in succinct fashion: "To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election." 

    In short, we have old-style vote spoilage in minority communities. We have electronic voting machines losing votes and adding votes all across the country. We have electronic voting machines whose efficiency and safety have not been tested. We have electronic voting machines that offer no paper trail to ensure a fair outcome. We have central tabulators for these machines running on Windows software, compiling results that can be demonstrably tampered with. We have the makers of these machines publicly professing their preference for George W. Bush. We have voter trends that stray from the expected results. We have these machines counting millions of votes all across the country. 

    Perhaps this can all be dismissed. Perhaps rants like the one posted by 'TruthIsAll' are nothing more than sour grapes from the side that lost. Perhaps all of the glitches, wrecked votes, unprecedented voting trends and partisan voting-machine connections can be explained away. If so, this reporter would very much like to see those explanations. At a bare minimum, the fact that these questions exist at all represents a grievous undermining of the basic confidence in the process required to make this democracy work. Democracy should not ever require leaps of faith, and we have put the fate of our nation into the hands of machines that require such a leap. It is unacceptable across the board, and calls into serious question not only the election we just had, but any future election involving these machines. 

    Representatives John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler and Robert Wexler, all members of the House Judiciary Committee, posted a letter on November 5th to David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States. In the letter, they asked for an investigation into the efficacy of these electronic voting machines. The letter reads as follows: 



> November 5, 2004
> The Honorable David M. Walker
> Comptroller General of the United States
> U.S. General Accountability Office
> ...



    "The essence of democracy," wrote the Congressmen, "is the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. In 2000, that confidence suffered terribly, and we fear that such a blow to our democracy may have occurred in 2004." Those fears appear to be valid. 

    John Kerry and John Edwards promised on Tuesday night that every vote would count, and that every vote would be counted. By Wednesday morning, Kerry had conceded the race to Bush, eliciting outraged howls from activists who were watching the reports of voting irregularities come piling in. Kerry had said that 10,000 lawyers were ready to fight any wrongdoing in this election. One hopes that he still has those lawyers on retainer. 

    According to black-letter election law, Bush does not officially get a second term until the electors from the Electoral College go to Washington D.C on December 12th. Perhaps Kerry's 10,000 lawyers, along with a real investigation per the request of Conyers, Nadler and Wexler, could give those electors something to think about in the interim. 

    In the meantime, soon-to-be-unemployed DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe sent out an email on Saturday night titled 'Help determine the Democratic Party's next steps.' In the email, McAuliffe states, "If you were involved in these grassroots activities, we want to hear from you about your experience. What did you do? Did you feel the action you took was effective? Was it a good experience for you? How would you make it better? Tell us your thoughts." He provided a feedback form where such thoughts can be sent. 

    Use the form. Give Terry your thoughts on the matter. Ask him if those 10,000 lawyers are still available. It seems the validity of Tuesday's election remains a wide-open question.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2004)

And then there is this little gem, a scientific statistical breakdown that shows that the difference between the exit poll data and the election results could not have occured by random chance or error.  The vote count was off.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Exit_Poll_Discrepancy.pdf


----------



## Satt (Dec 12, 2004)

Heh. Well, I guess if you're not cheatin' your not tryin'.

 :CTF:


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 12, 2004)

Its certainly interesting reading.

   I wonder tho... the people who are digging into this, are, of course the people who are solidly against Bush...

 If you are solidly against somthing hard enough, you can certainly present evidnce of "your side" and make it seem REALLY REALLY convincing.

   :idunno:

 Im not saying thats the case here... Im just saying anything is possible.  I bet Die hard Bush Fanatics could very easily make it look like Kerry cheated...


----------



## Jeff Boler (Dec 13, 2004)




----------



## loki09789 (Dec 13, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Its certainly interesting reading.
> 
> I wonder tho... the people who are digging into this, are, of course the people who are solidly against Bush...
> 
> ...


Consider the qualifications/distribution of the media sources cited.  Consider the logical thought process that if this data/evidence was so easy to find/use that the mainstream Democratic community would have had a field day with it, the main stream media would have been all over it AND that Kerry himself - the man who defended his 'flip flop' practice with making educated/aware position changes - would have made a HUGE case about these kinds of things.....

If "Da Man" can spin doctor info to make it look a certain way....anyone can 'spin' data - or just make stuff sound substantial that isn't.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Its certainly interesting reading.
> 
> I wonder tho... the people who are digging into this, are, of course the people who are solidly against Bush...
> 
> ...



That is why I thought it would make a great discussion.  I think the potential for rebuttle is quite large, yet I have seen little real rebuttle to the very real facts presented above.

There is also the fact that our legal system is moving right now on this issue and its getting very little press.  In fact, in the articles I cited above the voter fraud has attracted the attention of US congressmen who are pushing for investigation...which has promptly been blocked by Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay of course...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Consider the qualifications/distribution of the media sources cited.  Consider the logical thought process that if this data/evidence was so easy to find/use that the mainstream Democratic community would have had a field day with it, the main stream media would have been all over it AND that Kerry himself - the man who defended his 'flip flop' practice with making educated/aware position changes - would have made a HUGE case about these kinds of things.....
> 
> If "Da Man" can spin doctor info to make it look a certain way....anyone can 'spin' data - or just make stuff sound substantial that isn't.



So, this isn't substantial or newsworthy...



> In Broward County, Florida, election workers were shocked to discover that their shiny new machines were counting backwards. "Tallies should go up as more votes are counted," according to this report. "That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone down. Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward."
> 
> In Franklin County, Ohio, electronic voting machines gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in one precinct alone. "Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B," according to this report. "Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president."
> 
> ...



I have no explanation as to why this has gotten so little press.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Consider the qualifications/distribution of the media sources cited.  Consider the logical thought process that if this data/evidence was so easy to find/use that the mainstream Democratic community would have had a field day with it, the main stream media would have been all over it AND that Kerry himself - the man who defended his 'flip flop' practice with making educated/aware position changes - would have made a HUGE case about these kinds of things.



Would you consider these people honorable?  What about their qualifications as congressmen?



> November 5, 2004
> The Honorable David M. Walker
> Comptroller General of the United States
> U.S. General Accountability Office
> ...


----------



## raedyn (Dec 13, 2004)

It's also possible that the inconsistencies in the voting machines were unintentional. The problem I have, really is the lack of transparency. How no one is allowed to see the software to see if there are errors in the software. And the machines that leave no option for a recount. Even if there were no errors, this lack of ability to check and be accountable would really shake my confidence in the system. We are all supposed to just trust and not question the technology. But we all know technology is falliable. Instead of the companies and the government saying "trust us" (like the snake in The Jungle Book ... "trusssssst in me...") they should be showing us how darn reliable and trustworthy the systems are. Convince us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

>



Perhaps you are rolling your eyes at this...



> Bev Harris, who has been working tirelessly since the passage of the Help America Vote Act to inform people of the dangers present in this new process, got a chance to demonstrate how easy it is to steal an election on that central tabulation computer while a guest on the CNBC program 'Topic A With Tina Brown.' Ms. Brown was off that night, and the guest host was none other than Governor Howard Dean. Thanks to Governor Dean and Ms. Harris, anyone watching CNBC that night got to see just how easy it is to steal an election because of these new machines and the flawed processes they use.
> 
> "In a voting system," Harris said on the show, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once? What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."
> 
> Harris then proceeded to open a laptop computer that had on it the software used to tabulate the votes by one of the aforementioned central processors. Journalist Thom Hartman describes what happened next: "So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS tabulation software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the 'My Computer' icon, choose 'Local Disk C:,' open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder 'LocalDB' which, Harris noted, 'stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes.' Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled Central Tabulator Votes,' which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel. 'Let's just flip those,' Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, 'We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds.'"



I don't care what party you belong to, this is disturbing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> It's also possible that the inconsistencies in the voting machines were unintentional. The problem I have, really is the lack of transparency. How no one is allowed to see the software to see if there are errors in the software. And the machines that leave no option for a recount. Even if there were no errors, this lack of ability to check and be accountable would really shake my confidence in the system. We are all supposed to just trust and not question the technology. But we all know technology is falliable. Instead of the companies and the government saying "trust us" (like the snake in The Jungle Book ... "trusssssst in me...") they should be showing us how darn reliable and trustworthy the systems are. Convince us.



Raedyn, exit poll data has been getting better and better all of the time.  In fact, it is so good that _in the Third World_, exit poll data is used to monitor fair elections.  The US is *not * a Third World country.  We have some of the best exit polling in the world.  Yet, the difference between that data and the actual results is significant.  Very significant.  So significant that it could not have occured by chance.  Something had to happen to _alter _ the actual results.  

There are alot of stories circulating, but this one should give you pause...



> One of the main manufacturers of these electronic touch-screen voting machines is Diebold, Inc. More than 35 counties in Ohio alone used the Diebold machines on Tuesday, and millions of voters across the country did the same. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Diebold gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2000, along with additional contributions between 2001 and 2002 which totaled $95,000. Of the four companies competing for the contracts to manufacture these voting machines, only Diebold contributed large sums to any political party. The CEO of Diebold is a man named Walden O'Dell. O'Dell was very much on board with the Bush campaign, having said publicly in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 13, 2004)

Well, the one report linked, which broke down a statistical analysis of the odds of there being such deviance from exit poll data was 250 million to one.  Granted, there is no specific evidence as of yet which details intentional fraud.  However, the Diebold link coupled with the extreme improbablity of this result should really be raising some serious eyebrows here.

The fact is, the lack of specific evidence regarding intentionality of fraud makes this pretty easy to logically deny.  However, given the circumstances, I would be really surprised if further investigations don't uncover the necessary evidence.  In a deal as big as this, there is always a weak link whose lips will inevitably become loose.  Time will tell.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

> Is there any evidence that vote totals were deliberately tampered with by people who had a stake in the outcome? Nothing specific has been documented to date. Jeff Fisher, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District, claims to have evidence that the Florida election was hacked, and says further that he knows who hacked it and how it was done. Such evidence is not yet forthcoming.



Mr. Fisher was on CSPAN yesterday and announced that he gave all of his material to the FBI and that they are investigating this matter thouroughly.  Here is a hint of what Mr. Fisher claims he has found evidence for...



> When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.
> 
> "It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.



Here is Mr. Fisher's Website...

http://www.walkingwithfisher.com/


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Well, the one report linked, which broke down a statistical analysis of the odds of there being such deviance from exit poll data was 250 million to one.  Granted, there is no specific evidence as of yet which details intentional fraud.  However, the Diebold link coupled with the extreme improbablity of this result should really be raising some serious eyebrows here.
> 
> The fact is, the lack of specific evidence regarding intentionality of fraud makes this pretty easy to logically deny.  However, given the circumstances, I would be really surprised if further investigations don't uncover the necessary evidence.  In a deal as big as this, there is always a weak link whose lips will inevitably become loose.  Time will tell.



Here is the first piece in an avalance to come...

This is from   www.walkingwithfisher.com



> On July 27, 2004 xxxxxx showed me an email dating from 1999 which stated that a successful run of posting felons names to electronic voting went without any problem and leaving no audit trail. Mr. xxxxx also showed me information that it was done during the 2002 Florida Gubernatorial Democratic Primary as well. (Visit http://www.jefffisherforcongress.com and click on link labeled Thank you Michael Moore from Jeff Fisher and Thom Hartmann). He then told me that due to this success and the improvement of programming that it would probably be used in the General Election on November 2, 2004. This was relayed to me on July 27, 2004 in the mid afternoon in a parking lot leading from a McDonalds to the local county library in the Kendall area of Dade County. He also mentioned to me that he was living in fear. He believed his family might be killed if they found out that he gave this information to anyone. I tried to get this information to John Kerry on many occasions through Charles Figley. All attempts were fruitless.
> 
> Additional information:
> Regarding conversation with xxxxxxx
> ...



Note the fear on the part of the informants and the efforts to discredit the ones that are known..."_Having sex with male students..._"

Typical.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

*You might want to get out the calculator...*



> _"Dr. Piotr Blass, chief technology advisor at ZeoSync, said "Our recent accomplishment is so *significant that highly randomized information sequences, which were once considered non-reducible by the scientific community, are now massively reducible using advanced single-bit-variance encoding and supporting technologies.*"
> 
> "The technologies that are being developed at ZeoSync are anticipated to ultimately provide a means to perform multi-pass data encoding and compression on practically random data sets with applicability to nearly every industry," said Jim Slemp, president of Radical Systems, Inc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 13, 2004)

I totally agree with you.  I believe the election was stolen.  Again.

By the way, have you noticed that despite the fact that recounts were demanded in Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico, and that there have been voter lawsuits, that somehow we're not reading about it in the mainstream press?  Yeah, you're not going to see that on the evening news.  (any more than you're going to hear about the CRIMINAL charges of war crimes against Rumsfeld that were filed in a German court)

Did you notice that the Bush Administration is up in arms about voter fraud in the Ukraine, but they're perfectly happy with the voter fraud here?  In fact, you're probably not reading ANYTHING about electoral fraud in the US in the local newspaper.

We need electoral reform and we need media reform.  Under the Bush regime, we're not likely to get it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you.  I believe the election was stolen.  Again.
> 
> By the way, have you noticed that despite the fact that recounts were demanded in Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico, and that there have been voter lawsuits, that somehow we're not reading about it in the mainstream press?  Yeah, you're not going to see that on the evening news.  (any more than you're going to hear about the CRIMINAL charges of war crimes against Rumsfeld that were filed in a German court)
> 
> ...



The situation between this case of voter fraud and the one in Ukraine are frighteningly similiar.  I would say the biggest difference is the technologic aspect that was used to throw this election.

Also, this issue is going to hit the press.  There is no way information like this can be kept silent for long.  Heck, I've read it.  You now read it and so have a whole bunch of other people.  

We need to remember, Watergate took years to pan out.  Because of the internet, this thing is going to blast off sooner.  My prediction is that people are going to go to jail.  The Bush Administration will claim they had no idea and it will be very difficult to tie anything to them.  

They will get off the hook and sometime late in 2008 the key people in jail will recieve a fortuitous pardon...

Yet, the damage will be done.  Who is really going to trust elections after this?


----------



## modarnis (Dec 13, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The situation between this case of voter fraud and the one in Ukraine are frighteningly similiar.  I would say the biggest difference is the technologic aspect that was used to throw this election.
> 
> Also, this issue is going to hit the press.  There is no way information like this can be kept silent for long.  Heck, I've read it.  You now read it and so have a whole bunch of other people.
> 
> ...




Correct me if I am wrong, but the push for all of this high tech vote tallying came from the "stolen" election in 2000 when people were incapable of punching a little chad out of a paper ballot.  Its time to move on with the business of our nation.  The election is over and Kerry conceded without issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2004)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but the push for all of this high tech vote tallying came from the "stolen" election in 2000 when people were incapable of punching a little chad out of a paper ballot.  Its time to move on with the business of our nation.  The election is over and Kerry conceded without issue.



The Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) did nothing of the sort.  In fact, it made it harder for people to vote and it made it easier to cheat.  There are active groups out there attempting to publicize this material.  In the House of Representatives, objections to HAVA have repeatedly been blocked from the house floor by Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay.  

I myself have researched the changes that HAVA has wrecked upon our democracy.  In MN alone, we have 19 new laws that make it more difficult for people to vote.  The people who are affected are disproportionately poor, minority, or poorly educated...all of which should have the same opportunity to vote as GWB himself.

HAVA makes it easier for states to heap up the pile of provisional ballots.  In the south, these votes are pile upon pile of minority or democratic votes.  These votes are legally able to be thrown away under the "new" rules instituted by the Republican congress and signed by this Republican president.  

The bottom line is that the party that once stood for freedom is taking away the freedom that this country gives its citizens.  It is literally destroying our democracy.  How can you move on to governing this country when you don't know who is suppose to be governing this country?  Are you so comfortable with this autocracy that you are willing to shrug it off?

I don't want to assume to much, so please separate yourself from this generalization if it does not apply, but I have to say that in the blogosphere where this information is circulating, the above response is common.  As is the response that "it didn't happen."  This is despite all of the evidence that comes out to the contrary.  

I don't understand.  Have we reached a point where winning at all costs in politics even if it means throwing our constitution into the trash is acceptable?  Seriously, this issue shouldn't be partisan because it attacks the basic core of what it means to be a citizen in a democracy.  

The fact that it is partisan pretty much ensures that justice will not be done correctly.  To many, despite the evidence, this will be just another Liberal Plot against the True Americans.  No matter who goes to jail, it might not even make a difference.  History will then repeat itself.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## deadhand31 (Dec 14, 2004)

You know, there are several things to touch on here. First, let's take a look at the following paper: 
http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Exit_Poll_Discrepancy.pdf

In the second page, there is a chart that shows predicted and actual vote percentages. It shows how Kerry was predicted by exit polls, but Bush won. Just take a look at the sampling size. None of them are larger than 2900 test voters. Now, just humor me... how exactly can we adequately base a state election where the actual population is in the millions off of less than one percent of the vote?

Second, I believe there was talk of modems on these machines. If the article is stating that these diebold voting machines in Florida had modems, it only demonstrates ignorance on their part. The only state that had Diebold machines with modems was California. Does this mean we should check out California's systems, and see if Kerry stole these votes? 

Also, the following article states the Diebold voting machines DO leave a paper trail: 

http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=2028956


----------



## deadhand31 (Dec 14, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) did nothing of the sort.  In fact, it made it harder for people to vote and it made it easier to cheat.  There are active groups out there attempting to publicize this material.  In the House of Representatives, objections to HAVA have repeatedly been blocked from the house floor by Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay.
> 
> I myself have researched the changes that HAVA has wrecked upon our democracy.  In MN alone, we have 19 new laws that make it more difficult for people to vote.  The people who are affected are disproportionately poor, minority, or poorly educated...all of which should have the same opportunity to vote as GWB himself.
> 
> ...




The thing about provisional ballots, we can't be guaranteed about their validity. These ballots can allow one person to drive to every county in their state and vote. If it is found that the person who cast the ballot was in the right precinct, then it is counted. If it turns out that it wasn't, then it is thrown out. 

Personally, I don't think we should even allow provisional ballots. We see and hear campaign ads for over a year before the election, so we all know that an election is coming. As a US citizen, it is our civic responsibility to ensure that we vote for the right candidate. That means if you're confused about how a ballot works, you are responsible for asking for help. If you don't know where you need to vote, you can call a city hall or police department months in advance to find out. If you even think that you mae a mistake on a ballot, then it's your responsibility to ask for another ballot. 

If you fully support your candidate, you owe it to them and your country to ensure that you show it by voting correctly.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 14, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> You know, there are several things to touch on here. First, let's take a look at the following paper:
> http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Exit_Poll_Discrepancy.pdf
> 
> In the second page, there is a chart that shows predicted and actual vote percentages. It shows how Kerry was predicted by exit polls, but Bush won. Just take a look at the sampling size. None of them are larger than 2900 test voters. Now, just humor me... how exactly can we adequately base a state election where the actual population is in the millions off of less than one percent of the vote?
> ...


Dont you get it? Bush Won! There MUST be a conspiracy. :shrug:


----------



## Jeff Boler (Dec 14, 2004)

Geez, this thread reads like an episode of Coast to Coast AM.  Conspiracy theorists unite.....


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 14, 2004)

It just keeps getting better!


----------



## Kreth (Dec 14, 2004)

I'm reminded of a parody of the Gore/Lieberman bumper stickers that I saw shortly after the 2000 election, which read Sore/Loserman. 
I'm not even a Bush supporter, and I'm tired of all the whining from the Democrats...

Jeff


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2004)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I'm reminded of a parody of the Gore/Lieberman bumper stickers that I saw shortly after the 2000 election, which read Sore/Loserman.
> I'm not even a Bush supporter, and I'm tired of all the whining from the Democrats...
> 
> Jeff



Is this whining or is this fraud?



> In Broward County, Florida, election workers were shocked to discover that their shiny new machines were counting backwards. "Tallies should go up as more votes are counted," according to this report. "That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone down. Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward."
> 
> In Franklin County, Ohio, electronic voting machines gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in one precinct alone. "Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B," according to this report. "Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president."
> 
> ...



Especially when you consider this...



> "Dr. Piotr Blass, chief technology advisor at ZeoSync, said "Our recent accomplishment is so significant that highly randomized information sequences, which were once considered non-reducible by the scientific community, are now massively reducible using advanced single-bit-variance encoding and supporting technologies."
> 
> "The technologies that are being developed at ZeoSync are anticipated to ultimately provide a means to perform multi-pass data encoding and compression on practically random data sets with applicability to nearly every industry," said Jim Slemp, president of Radical Systems, Inc.
> 
> ...



Still, it is good to be skeptical.  Yet, this information displays some disturbing correllations, don't you think?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont you get it? Bush Won! There MUST be a conspiracy. :shrug:



Did you take an oath to protect and defend the constitution when you joined the military?  Does blowing off the fact that people's constitutional rights were violated fall in line with that oath?  If your vote wasn't counted and you made a stink and someone told you that this was nothing but a silly conspiracy theory, it would feel like a slap in the face.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Geez, this thread reads like an episode of Coast to Coast AM.  Conspiracy theorists unite.....



Apparently you are of the "it didn't happen" mindset.  Perhaps you have some information that I don't regarding this matter???


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 14, 2004)

UPNORTH,

As usuall your research is very commendable. Nobody can say you do not do your "homework."

I don't have the time to read all of that but has there been anything brought to congress' attention or any real investigation by the FBI begun?

Most of the links seem to be to other websites, but what really has been properly brought to the attention of the authorities and what has been done about it?

If the smoke is real, action on the part of the gov't to me would signal a fire.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> You know, there are several things to touch on here. First, let's take a look at the following paper:
> http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Exit_Poll_Discrepancy.pdf
> 
> In the second page, there is a chart that shows predicted and actual vote percentages. It shows how Kerry was predicted by exit polls, but Bush won. Just take a look at the sampling size. None of them are larger than 2900 test voters. Now, just humor me... how exactly can we adequately base a state election where the actual population is in the millions off of less than one percent of the vote?
> ...



Thanks for your reply and for your informed skepticism.

As far as your point regarding the sample size is concerned, that is actually a pretty good sample.  If you look into the book "Principles and Methods of Social Research" by William D. Crano and Marilynn B. Brewer, the size of the sample and the size of the actual number is predictive.

Your second point regarding modems on the machines is not taking into account network connections that ran vote tallies to a central computer that looks very much like the one I am typing on.  It was demonstrated that this central computer can be compromised in less then 90 seconds.  Mr. Fisher's information leads to a list of names of people who tampered with Florida's voting in this way.

Regarding your third point, yes, some of the machines do leave a paper trail and others do not.  Beverly Harris auther of "Black Box Voting" filed perhaps one of the largest freedom of information filings in our nations history in order to examine the trail from the ones that did.  I believe the above statistical study predicts the results of this study.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> UPNORTH,
> 
> As usuall your research is very commendable. Nobody can say you do not do your "homework."
> 
> ...



To answer your questions...

This letter indicates congressional action...



> November 5, 2004
> The Honorable David M. Walker
> Comptroller General of the United States
> U.S. General Accountability Office
> ...



This is the name of the FBI agent and action taken thus far with Mr. Fisher's claims.



> On Monday 11/8/04 Jeff Fisher and Al Rogers met with the FBI for approximately two hours giving them a detailed report regarding electronic election fraud originating in Florida. They were interviewed by two agents. The location was at 505 Flagler Dr. West Palm Beach, Florida. The name of the supervising agent was Jeff Favita. His phone number is 305-944-9101.
> 
> On Wednesday, 11/17/04 I faxed to the Miami FBI office between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. an email from Dr. Blass that strengthened my statement regarding proving loyalty was neccesary to obtain information from the "sender".



I hope this helps.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2004)

The investigation into the alegations of voter fraud and abuse are expected to be complete in early 2009.  If it is proven that problems did exist, I can guarentee you that Dubya will not be allowed to run for reelection.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If it is proven that problems did exist, I can guarentee you that Dubya will not be allowed to run for reelection.


 I thought a President could only serve 2 consecutive terms anyways?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The investigation into the alegations of voter fraud and abuse are expected to be complete in early 2009.  If it is proven that problems did exist, I can guarentee you that Dubya will not be allowed to run for reelection.



I think that it is an established fact that there was widespread problems with the electronic voting machines and voting in general.  This alone should not be tolerated in our country.

Let alone an actual plot to rig a national election...that is treason in my opinion.

Oh well, its nothing new.  In forty years of presidents we had one resign before he could be impeached, one voted out before he could do anything to illegal, one who can't remember committing treason, one who created Saddam Hussein and then used our national treasure to protect his own interests, and now one who possibly orchastrated the biggest subversion of democracy in our nation's history...Oh yeah, we also had a president who lied about an affair.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Bush political dynasty has a history of corruption that goes back a long long way.  Prescott Bush escaped Nurenburg and used the money he made from financing Auschwitz to run for the senate.  Both him and his son, Bush the Elder (poppy) rigged state elections in Texas through voter intimidation and ballot stealing.  These guys run the dirtiest campaigns in history with the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and have proven again and again that they will do anything, say anything to get elected.

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest...I believe your time table of 2009 is correct though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I thought a President could only serve 2 consecutive terms anyways?


 It is.   But the law doesn't mean much to this bunch.  I'm sure buried in that 3,500 page budget they didn't read, that theres a loophole to allow for a 3rd term.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> It is.   But the law doesn't mean much to this bunch.  I'm sure buried in that 3,500 page budget they didn't read, that theres a loophole to allow for a 3rd term.



I'm pretty sure it would require a constitutional amendment to change this, rather than a law.  Lucky for us.  Too bad the constitution doesn't stipulate a minimum level of intelligence and competence as well.  My dog would be a better president than Shrub.

But as you said, the law doesn't have much meaning to these people.  Neither does the constitution.  Elections and civil rights are just inconveniences to them and their elitist agenda.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Hmm... it would take a constitutional amendment.....

constitutional amendment + Congress doesn't read what they pass = ????

Now, where did I see the administration trying to push through a constitutional amendment before.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Hmm... it would take a constitutional amendment.....
> 
> constitutional amendment + Congress doesn't read what they pass = ????
> 
> Now, where did I see the administration trying to push through a constitutional amendment before.....



People need to wake up and smell the coffee.  This country is not, and has never been, "Leave it to Beaver".  Take a look at the above and look into it yourselves.

Welcome to the Desert of the Real...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

I sometimes wonder if I took the wrong pill....


----------



## Tgace (Dec 15, 2004)

A slight tangent, but in line with the exit poll's and their dependability... 

An article from Slate Magazine

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110860/


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A slight tangent, but in line with the exit poll's and their dependability...
> 
> An article from Slate Magazine
> 
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2110860/



The article is talking about predictive polls _before _ the election.  

An exit poll is something different then a pre-election poll.  An exit poll is done as people are leaving their polling place.  They are so accurate that they are used by the UN to monitor elections in Third World countries.  When there is a discrepancy in the results that goes beyond what could be accounted for by random chance or error, the world wide organization declares the elections phoney as it has done in the Ukraine.  

We have a similar discrepancy in the results of our election...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

Even though the article Tgace posted mentions exit polls, it's really about polls intended to _forecast_ the outcome. But it's an interesting link nonetheless. For example, to see that the pollsters arbitrarily pick where the 'undecided' votes are going to go. That helps explain why they get different results...


----------



## shtygolfr (Dec 20, 2004)

Propoganda.


----------



## Ender (Dec 20, 2004)

shtygolfr said:
			
		

> Propoganda.




*l..and rationalization. Had Kerry won, would the effort to prove the election was stolen still be there?..I don't think so....

The Democratic Party that I belonged to, no longer looks to help the common man. It sold out to special interests and to the far left. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me". Thats why they lost in a landslide: 30 states to 20 states.*s


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2004)

I think there would have been just as much grumbling if it had gone the other way, especially from those folks who didn't vote. I've already heard from folks who said "See Bush won, my vote wouldn't have counted anyway". These folks were both pro and con towards him.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 21, 2004)

"The far left." That's genuinely funny--or it would be, if it didn't outline the extraordinary shrinkage of the political and intellectual spectrum in this country, and our general shift to the Right.

No, the election wasn't stolen--though it may be convenient to believe, if we wish to blame Them for our failures, and to keep on with the way that liberalism has too often fed off working people. This way, we can look down on those poor benighted souls who cook and clean and work; we can attribute Bush's getting elected and relected to anything and everything else than money, and power, and arrogance, and colonialism, and fear of change.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "The far left." That's genuinely funny--or it would be, if it didn't outline the extraordinary shrinkage of the political and intellectual spectrum in this country, and our general shift to the Right.
> 
> No, the election wasn't stolen--though it may be convenient to believe, if we wish to blame Them for our failures, and to keep on with the way that liberalism has too often fed off working people. This way, we can look down on those poor benighted souls who cook and clean and work; we can attribute Bush's getting elected and relected to anything and everything else than money, and power, and arrogance, and colonialism, and fear of change.



Did you read some of the articles I posted?  There were specific reported incidents recorded by the media and state authorities where voting machines "malfunctioned" and counted backward for John Kerry.  

The FBI is investigating a report on the dissemination of a computer program that could do this very thing.

Are you so sure this election was so clean?  Does the guy who lost a contest because the other guy cheated blame himself?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 21, 2004)




----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 21, 2004)

Perhaps you're right. After all, we KNOW that Mayor Daley pretty much stole the '60 election for Kennedy--yet it is my impression that all these "stolen" votes together wouldn't be enough to change the election's outcome.

Face it. Kerry did a piss-poor job of campaigning, in many ways, in part for reasons that Hunter Thompson wrote about two decades ago (fat-cat Democrats refusing to, "take a chance," and offer genuine democracy as opposed to Republican plutocracy) and in part because he didn't get up there and tell George that he and his draft-dodging cronies could stuff it.

The country's changed, too, swung to the Right--in part because of liberal and left-wing smugness, as well as our refusal to examine the nature of our extraordinary privileges in regard to most Americans. 

Our national beliefs have swerved towards fundamentalisms--partly because Americans are scared of corporate capitalism, and partly because we're freaked out by the passing of the moment in history when we could do pretty much what we pleased to everybody else.

The yahoos won.

But as I wrote....it is easier, for most Americans, to believe in conspiracy than to look at history.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But as I wrote....it is easier, for most Americans, to believe in conspiracy than to look at history.



Apparently, this sort of black-and-white thinking goes both ways.  

In other words, even if the left has alienated many, if not most Americans, and even if Kerry completel pissed away any chance to really challenge Bush, it's still possible that there were serious voting irregularities.  These irregularities need to be investigated, even if they are proven to be false.

But I know it's easier to buy into the party line of the GOP and the DNC, curl into a ball, and pretend It's Not Happening.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 21, 2004)

Not what was written (one wrote that the irregularities weren't serious enough to change the outcome, for example) and yet, thanks for the admonition.

Nor does the point have anything to do with who liberals and lefties have alienated. The point concerns liberals and lefties who refuse to actually understand their place in the world, and in history, and the poor political decisions that flow from such blindnesses.

Could be worse: could be libertarians.

Perhaps if one were to consider the repeated poll results showing that most Americans more or less support the Iraq War, more or less on the grounds that Hussein Had To Have Been Up to Something, the point about conspiracy being more convenient than history would make more sense.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

>



What does this refer to?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 22, 2004)

These stories of stolen elections have reached the status of urban myths, sort of like those alligators in the sewers of New York and the choking doberman stories that go around every so often. Oh yeah, don't forget @ the Wal Mart kidnapings and the Roswell spacemen. In fact, stolen elections are the UFO's of the new millenium.
From a more objective perspective, the presidents of the three major networks' news groups did a forum at Stanford not long ago. It was broadcast on CSPAN. Questions @ the " stolen votes " clearly made them uncomfortable. Why? Because the questioners although seemingly sincere, are paranoid and delusional. I seem to recall one of these newsmen saying:"No one wanted this story more than we did. Regardless of your candidate, Florida 2000 was a great story. We assembled a team of attorneys and investigators numbering in the hundreds and sent them to Florida and Ohio. There is no story. They found nothing that would have changed the outcome. Period.:
I've paraphrased and combined their answers, but that's the gist of it.
Believe it, NBC, CBS, ABC and the Kerry campaign wanted to find irregularities and couldn't. So now, your sources can?
The internet is the safe house for kooks and misinformation. Don't buy into it.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> These stories of stolen elections have reached the status of urban myths, sort of like those alligators in the sewers of New York and the choking doberman stories that go around every so often. Oh yeah, don't forget @ the Wal Mart kidnapings and the Roswell spacemen. In fact, stolen elections are the UFO's of the new millenium.
> From a more objective perspective, the presidents of the three major networks' news groups did a forum at Stanford not long ago. It was broadcast on CSPAN. Questions @ the " stolen votes " clearly made them uncomfortable. Why? Because the questioners although seemingly sincere, are paranoid and delusional. I seem to recall one of these newsmen saying:"No one wanted this story more than we did. Regardless of your candidate, Florida 2000 was a great story. We assembled a team of attorneys and investigators numbering in the hundreds and sent them to Florida and Ohio. There is no story. They found nothing that would have changed the outcome. Period.:
> I've paraphrased and combined their answers, but that's the gist of it.
> Believe it, NBC, CBS, ABC and the Kerry campaign wanted to find irregularities and couldn't. So now, your sources can?
> The internet is the safe house for kooks and misinformation. Don't buy into it.


Don't start sounding too rational here....next thing you know you will be getting labelled as a 'copper top' that is still 'plugged into the matrix.'


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 22, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Perhaps if one were to consider the repeated poll results showing that most Americans more or less support the Iraq War, more or less on the grounds that Hussein Had To Have Been Up to Something, the point about conspiracy being more convenient than history would make more sense.



I fully understand your point, and actually do my best on a day-to-day basis to work on it; none of this excuses us from our separate duties to make sure that elections are free and fair, without which no amount of convincing the American people will matter a tinker's damn.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 22, 2004)

Ohio just finished its recount.  Here's its take on the EVoting machines.  By the way, about 75% of Ohio was paper ballot, not EVoting.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10469526.htm

Some blurbs from the report:

"elections officials said electronic voting systems worked as promised"

"An AP review of electronic voting found few reports of widespread problems. Elections officials of both parties were confident the election was fair and done properly"

"Election Day problems were largely limited to three machines that showed low-battery signals, according to Janet F. Clair, board director. She said the board doesn't make Election Day repairs, so the machines were taken out of service."

"Clair wouldn't be drawn into specific criticism of vote system skeptics, instead mentioning that critical records are kept under locks that require two keys - one held by a Democrat and one by a Republican. "Everything we do is under lock and key," she said."

"One e-voting problem this election that became a lightning rod for critics happened in Gahanna near Columbus in Franklin County, where an electronic voting system gave Bush nearly 4,000 extra votes. Officials said the malfunction occurred when one machine's cartridge was plugged into a laptop computer and generated faulty numbers in several races."


I personally don't think the election was won because of fraud.  I believe that too many people are crying foul before we even know what the problems were. They can be simple errors that are caught and corrected.  No system is or can be perfect.  I would be extremely difficult to have the fraud in Ohio because only 25% was done with a machine.

However I think we as a nation should welcome any investigation into improving the voting process.  EVoting is a new venture and will require safeguards that we had never had to worry about before.

WhiteBirch


----------



## raedyn (Dec 22, 2004)

Treating electronic vote counting machines with caution does automatically mean that person is a conspiracy theorist. Not everyone who has questions believes the election was stolen. Even if your man got in, you should be concerned about the possibility of incorrect results. Anything that decreases trust & confidence, decreases participation. And that will have consequences for everyone.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> "One e-voting problem this election that became a lightning rod for critics happened in Gahanna near Columbus in Franklin County, where an electronic voting system gave Bush nearly 4,000 extra votes. Officials said the malfunction occurred when one machine's cartridge was plugged into a laptop computer and generated faulty numbers in several races."



hmmm....



> Bev Harris, who has been working tirelessly since the passage of the Help America Vote Act to inform people of the dangers present in this new process, got a chance to demonstrate how easy it is to steal an election on that central tabulation computer while a guest on the CNBC program 'Topic A With Tina Brown.' Ms. Brown was off that night, and the guest host was none other than Governor Howard Dean. Thanks to Governor Dean and Ms. Harris, anyone watching CNBC that night got to see just how easy it is to steal an election because of these new machines and the flawed processes they use.
> 
> "In a voting system," Harris said on the show, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once? What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> These stories of stolen elections have reached the status of urban myths, sort of like those alligators in the sewers of New York and the choking doberman stories that go around every so often. Oh yeah, don't forget @ the Wal Mart kidnapings and the Roswell spacemen. In fact, stolen elections are the UFO's of the new millenium.
> From a more objective perspective, the presidents of the three major networks' news groups did a forum at Stanford not long ago. It was broadcast on CSPAN. Questions @ the " stolen votes " clearly made them uncomfortable. Why? Because the questioners although seemingly sincere, are paranoid and delusional. I seem to recall one of these newsmen saying:"No one wanted this story more than we did. Regardless of your candidate, Florida 2000 was a great story. We assembled a team of attorneys and investigators numbering in the hundreds and sent them to Florida and Ohio. There is no story. They found nothing that would have changed the outcome. Period.:
> I've paraphrased and combined their answers, but that's the gist of it.
> Believe it, NBC, CBS, ABC and the Kerry campaign wanted to find irregularities and couldn't. So now, your sources can?
> The internet is the safe house for kooks and misinformation. Don't buy into it.



Thousands and thousands of people were coming out of the woodwork with stories.  How long did the Kerry campaign wait to sort through them?  About a day.  Nothing jumped out right at that time.  I think that his concession was a tactical retreat.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Don't start sounding too rational here....next thing you know you will be getting labelled as a 'copper top' that is still 'plugged into the matrix.'



Are these rational people involved in a rational look at what happened?



> November 5, 2004
> The Honorable David M. Walker
> Comptroller General of the United States
> U.S. General Accountability Office
> ...



Or are they silly conspiracy theorists too?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that his concession was a tactical retreat.



Or a complicit gambit.  Let's not forget that the Democrats are no party of sweetness and light, and as such, have no great vested interest in a truly educated, motivated electorate.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 22, 2004)

Loki, thanks for the " heads up "'. I almost got drawn into this one. Next thing you know, I'll be calling talk radio shows and from there, it's the long slide down.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Are these rational people involved in a rational look at what happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Or are they silly conspiracy theorists too?


Why are they looking at it? Because they themselves are worried or to satisfy other people/citizens that are putting pressure on political officials much like those backward thinking "Fundamental Christian Special interest groups" and such have been described as doing in the past?

How many times have these examples of 'rational people' - as in politicians - been conversely described as insensitive, corrupt people that are only interested in power, power, power and usurping our civil liberties with no concern for the common man?

When they serve your purpose of support they become 'rational people'....


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2004)

The difference is that there are real, quantifiable, examples of voter intimidation, voter fraud, and the actual method this occured has been demonstrated.  I would say that there is a huge difference in the claims of this _special interest _ group.  Especially when compared to some of the claims made by other groups (like Creationism) that are made that totally fly in the face of ALL the evidence.

Your comparison does not connect the two in any way.

upnorthkyosa

btw - by special interest, I mean people that care about fair elections.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The difference is that there are real, quantifiable, examples of voter intimidation, voter fraud, and the actual method this occured has been demonstrated. I would say that there is a huge difference in the claims of this _special interest _group. Especially when compared to some of the claims made by other groups (like Creationism) that are made that totally fly in the face of ALL the evidence.
> 
> Your comparison does not connect the two in any way.
> 
> ...


And your 'evidence' of unregulated, unfair, inequitable voting conditions/standards does not connect it to a single orchestrated agenda driven group IMO.

Maybe there is a problem with the system, sure, but that does not automatically mean that 'da man' is at it again.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And your 'evidence' of unregulated, unfair, inequitable voting conditions/standards does not connect it to a single orchestrated agenda driven group IMO.
> 
> Maybe there is a problem with the system, sure, but that does not automatically mean that 'da man' is at it again.



Your on, Paul!  Its time to go down the rabbit hole on this one.  We'll see what I can dig up.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Your on, Paul! Its time to go down the rabbit hole on this one. We'll see what I can dig up.


With as many 'conspiracies' that you have attempted to reveal through these discussions...that may be where you are coming from and not going down sometimes......


Honestly though, I don't really understand how it is possible that on one hand either 'politicians' or 'politics' is this big, clunky, insensitive, self absorbed, inefficient, ineffective mechanism that can't get anything done worth beans....

BUT

They can come together, put aside their petty differences and do the old 'wonder twins powers ACTIVATE' in order to 'fix elections' (even to the point of shedding party rivalries to do it), 'frame OJ','Fake the moon landings','cover up alien contact...' or anything else out there.

Along the same lines:

On one hand the 'media' is this big corporate machine that is only motivated by profit and makes unreliable supporting evidence...

UNTIL

CNN or some other 'credible' media source has something to say that is appealing/people 'want' to believe/can combine with something else taken out of context to appear 'evidential' because they are placed in the same paragraph....

IF it were truly that coordinated and intentional a game SOMEONE in the news would have broken the story by now considering how much people seem to personally hate the POTUS and LOVE to get credit for scoops.

Sorry, I would chalk it up to an inefficient system that needs unifying and revamping/regulating.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2004)

First off, what if you are wrong?

Secondly, can you afford to be wrong?

Thirdly, for some, no amount of "evidence" will ever be enough.  I have a great spin off thread regarding this game of "red truth blue truth" we have been playing for some time.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2004)

Why do the names 'Vince Foster' and 'Ron Brown' come begrudgingly to mind?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 3, 2005)

I have worked hard to stay out of this discussion. Eric Alterman posted this link on his blog today. Perhaps, it is rehashing a number of previously cited arguments, but it may be nice to have all the links in one place.

http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html
Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> First off, what if you are wrong?
> 
> Secondly, can you afford to be wrong?
> 
> Thirdly, for some, no amount of "evidence" will ever be enough. I have a great spin off thread regarding this game of "red truth blue truth" we have been playing for some time.


First off, I only have so much energy to devote to certain things. I choose to devote them to my job, my family and such. Beyond that, worrying too much about things that I can't impact beyond voting and lobbying (if it is something that really grabs me).

Secondly, if I am wrong, I do have faith that there are enough diverse, personally vested (personally motivated) public servants that have sworn to serve/represent us and will stand up for 'us' as needed....not to mention gain some personal reputation/status after the dust settles (thus starting a new cycle of BS because it will never really go away).

Thirdly, for some, no amount of reasonability is enough when it is more fun to inject a little adrenaline/urgency to make life more 'zesty.' 

I haven't started any spin offs because it isn't worth my time.

I remember a thread on leadership/character or something where one of the negative tactics of creating a group mentallity is establishing/fabricating/creating a common enemy that everyone can rally against instead of a positive goal to work toward.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have worked hard to stay out of this discussion. Eric Alterman posted this link on his blog today. Perhaps, it is rehashing a number of previously cited arguments, but it may be nice to have all the links in one place.
> 
> http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html
> Mike



Why have you tried to stay out of this discussion?  It would have been great to get some more input and opinions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> First off, I only have so much energy to devote to certain things. I choose to devote them to my job, my family and such. Beyond that, worrying too much about things that I can't impact beyond voting and lobbying (if it is something that really grabs me).
> 
> Secondly, if I am wrong, I do have faith that there are enough diverse, personally vested (personally motivated) public servants that have sworn to serve/represent us and will stand up for 'us' as needed....not to mention gain some personal reputation/status after the dust settles (thus starting a new cycle of BS because it will never really go away).
> 
> ...



This post is screaming _apathy _ (not to be confused with _screaming apathy_).  If you take a look at all of information posted on this thread, it is very likely that our democratic values have been subverted.  Does this matter?  Or does it only matter when it starts to directly affect you?  I'm sensing a quick ride on the slippery slope...


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why have you tried to stay out of this discussion? It would have been great to get some more input and opinions.


A bit too close to home, I think.

I guess we live in a Red Country. I am continuing to try and find ways to take advantage of this, despite its abhorrance to me. 

I guess, I am happy that I am in a position to take advantage of many of the 'Red Country' initiatives. Although, I think it does weaken the nation as a whole.

It's a Diebold and ES&S country too.  And to think, I thought Chuck Hagel was one of the good guys.  <<shrugg>>.

M


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2005)

The fact that so few people seem to care my just indicate that a LOT of people voted for Bush huh?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> With as many 'conspiracies' that you have attempted to reveal through these discussions...that may be where you are coming from and not going down sometimes......
> 
> 
> Honestly though, I don't really understand how it is possible that on one hand either 'politicians' or 'politics' is this big, clunky, insensitive, self absorbed, inefficient, ineffective mechanism that can't get anything done worth beans....
> ...


Thats worth reading again.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The fact that so few people seem to care may just indicate that a LOT of people voted for Bush huh?



So, I guess election fraud is okay as long as the _right _ guy gets into office...  

hmmmmm


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2005)

I dont believe there was "fraud"...Ill repeat my friends statement.

"Sorry, I would chalk it up to an inefficient system that needs unifying and revamping/regulating."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats worth reading again.....



Yeah, its one long apology for why people continue to get screwed in this country...of course you could always READ the things posted and ATTEMPT to see the facts as they PRESENT themselves, but that would require ENERGY which some people apparently lack when it pertains to the values in which this country is SUPPOSED to be founded.

It is so much easier to blow it off and act like nothing ever happened..."its nothing but another of _your _ (that way its personal and so much easier to dismiss - one instead of one of many) silly conspiracies."  

I find it absolutely preposterous that the importance of something like tampering with voting rights depends on ideology...and who are these people who keep carping that we are _all _ American's?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont believe there was "fraud"...Ill repeat my friends statement.
> 
> "Sorry, I would chalk it up to an inefficient system that needs unifying and revamping/regulating."



It has been shown that random error COULD NOT have produced the results that it did.  Our technology is "to good."  You have build a bridge out of coincidences in order to get the above to work and if you believe that that chain of events could occur on its own, then _I've _ got a bridge to sell you...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2005)

Well its obvious that people are going to believe what they want to on this one. Just smacks of "there HAS TO BE a reason Kerry lost!" sour grapes to me.....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 3, 2005)

Of course, sour grapes.  In part because of worries that, no matter what, one party would get into office.  Them's pretty big sour grapes to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well its obvious that people are going to believe what they want to on this one. Just smacks of "there HAS TO BE a reason Kerry lost!" sour grapes to me.....



Hmmm, one would like to see some sort of material that informs your skepticism regarding this issue?  Otherwise this seems just like another case of the _willfull ignorance _ that is running rampant in this country...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 3, 2005)

1. Please document the claim that, "it has been shown that random error," could not have produced the election irregularities and screwups this time around.

2. Kerry lost because a) we're in a war, and people didn't want to risk a new President; b) Bush lied a lot and folks believed him, more or less; c) Kerry campaigned badly in some ways, and came across as insincere (One suspects that if he'd looked the voters in the eye, just once, and said, "This is ********, and if that dodging little twerp and his minions question my sevice or patriotism one more time, I'm gonna take it up with him out back of the White House some night...," he'd have won.); d) right-wingers such as Michael Savage have whomped up an ugly, bigoted hatred for guys like Kerry rather effectively; e) fundamentalists are already whomped up about everybody else's moral failings and perfectly willing to demand that everybody convert right now; f) a lot of, "mainstream," voters hate gay people; g) people would rather stick their heads in the sand and vote ideology than confront our actual moment in history; h) the Democratic party is run by idiots (if Clinton had been running things, look out, mama); i) people like me have been doing a poor job of education for some time now.

3. He just got beat. It's just easier to believe in the Parallax Corporation.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2005)

I agree with Robert on this one...maybe not entirely  but his explination seems much more reasonable than some rigged election theory.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Please document the claim that, "it has been shown that random error," could not have produced the election irregularities and screwups this time around.





			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> I agree with Robert on this one...maybe not entirely  but his explination seems much more reasonable than some rigged election theory.



Both of you, read this thread.  These points have already been answered.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Kerry lost because a) we're in a war, and people didn't want to risk a new President; b) Bush lied a lot and folks believed him, more or less; c) Kerry campaigned badly in some ways, and came across as insincere (One suspects that if he'd looked the voters in the eye, just once, and said, "This is ********, and if that dodging little twerp and his minions question my sevice or patriotism one more time, I'm gonna take it up with him out back of the White House some night...," he'd have won.); d) right-wingers such as Michael Savage have whomped up an ugly, bigoted hatred for guys like Kerry rather effectively; e) fundamentalists are already whomped up about everybody else's moral failings and perfectly willing to demand that everybody convert right now; f) a lot of, "mainstream," voters hate gay people; g) people would rather stick their heads in the sand and vote ideology than confront our actual moment in history; h) the Democratic party is run by idiots (if Clinton had been running things, look out, mama); i) people like me have been doing a poor job of education for some time now.



I called a friend of my father concerning an NPR story I heard.  It was about right wing thug wagons chasing away/intimidating voters on reservations in SD.  My father's friend has bullet holes in his truck...

The Right Wing SD media claimed that this was just a conspiracy, too.  And when the case went to the Supreme Court they changed their tune and said that it didn't matter...the votes wouldn't have made a difference...I guess indians never make a difference...

I can come up with a ton of reasons why Kerry "lost" too.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. He just got beat. It's just easier to believe in the Parallax Corporation.



Look, I see your point, there is no way that this race should have been as close as it was.  Yet, somehow, I think it is easier for many liberals to blame themselves rather then face the fact that these fiends are willing to trash everything "American" in order to cram their agenda down everyone's throat.  

Why burn flags?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 3, 2005)

1. Have read whole thread. See no evidence of clear evidence: assertions that something might have happened, or that a system is inherently flawed, are very far from being objective proof that somebody cheated. Nor are they anything resembling statistical analyses of outcomes and probabilities.

2. Many of the citations are from one Thom Hartmann. While the results of an Internet search indicate considerable agreement on this writer's part with many of "Dr." (his Phd is in herbology/naturopathy, from an obscure school in New Hampshire) Hartmann's ideas, he is also a proponent of neuro-linguistic programming, a classic example of quackery.

3. Oh, left out a reason Kerry lost. A genuinely-condescending attitude on the part of the liberal intelligentsia (if not on Kerry's) which all too often genuinely believes that its education and its privileges justify telling the little people, the insignificant people, what they should do and how they would have voted if they weren't such dopes. This tends to piss off the little people, who from time to time go so far as to express their pissed-offedness with people who have very much more privileged lives. They may even go so far as to vote for a rich-boy Yalie born again dumbass, on the grounds that he seems more down-home.

4. To place oneself simply on the, "master," side of the Hegelian dialectic as the One Who Knows is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of that dialectic, to say nothing of Marx's correct identification of the middle-class intelligentsia's intricate ties to the development of capitalism.

5. That means you and me, not some other guys.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Have read whole thread. See no evidence of clear evidence: assertions that something might have happened, or that a system is inherently flawed, are very far from *being objective proof that somebody cheated*. Nor are they anything resembling statistical analyses of outcomes and probabilities.



What would _your _ criteria be for this bar?  

And there have been many good statistical analysis done, one of them has been posted.  No comments?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What would _your _ criteria be for this bar?



Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two)
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
January 3, 2005

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065

Ohio GOP Election Officials Ducking Subpoenas By BOB FITRAKIS, STEVE ROSENFELD and HARVEY WASSERMAN 

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=01-03-05&storyID=20433


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

Why the main stream media refuses to touch this story...



> Immediately after the election, American Free Press reported that the Associated Press had direct access to the mainframe computer that tallied the votes in Chicago and Cook County-as it tallied the votes on Election Day. This provides evidence that the mainstream media consortium that replaced the disgraced Voter News Service (VNS) has remote access to the machines that count the votes.



http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4934

Major Networks refuse to release exit poll data...

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.p...=article&sid=1355&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

Ohio Handcount contradicts official results...



> Some 14.6% of Ohio votes were cast on electronic machines with no paper trail, rendering them unauditable. But on election night, electronic machines and computer software were used throughout the state to tabulate paper ballots. The contrasts are striking. Officially, Bush built a narrow margin of roughly 51% versus 48% for Kerry based on votes counted on election night. But among the 147,400 provisional and absentee ballots that were counted AFTER election night, Kerry received 54.46 percent of the vote. *These later totals came from counts done by hand, as opposed to counts done by computer tabulators, many of which came from Diebold*.



http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4939


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies



> A key legal aspect of this is the second clause referenced in the letter. Rep. Conyers and the other House members involved do not believe the electors have been lawfully certified. *They believe that there has been too much illegal activity on the part of Blackwell, other election officials, and Republican operatives on the ground and therefore, as stated in the letter, the electors were not "lawfully certified" under state law*. Next week, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff will release the report referenced in the letter, which is now still in draft form, and which led Mr. Conyers to this decision.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This post is screaming _apathy _(not to be confused with _screaming apathy_). If you take a look at all of information posted on this thread, it is very likely that our democratic values have been subverted. Does this matter? Or does it only matter when it starts to directly affect you? I'm sensing a quick ride on the slippery slope...


Well, I have no control over your interpretations but my intention was for the message to be screaming 'priorities.'

Our Democratic values have been subverted?  From what to what may I ask?  I am sure there are historically educated folks here and in quick internet searches that could point to election problems from the beginning of our nation....

I get this idea from your posts that you are working from an assumption that things were 'perfect' or at least 'better' than they are now at some point in history and that there are current events that are leading you to think the sky is falling...

There have been doomsday-ists in every religious/political time period and I think that the hubris that "NOW" is the worst it has ever been or that "NOW" is the moment that will end it all is exhausting and takes energy away from things that I CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN such as my family, my immediate community, my voting power, my personal development and such.  Beyond that, what pray tell do you suggest as a way to change the pattern you seem to see, Nostradamus?

This, to me, equates to walking through my daily life as a Martial artist 'seeing bad guys' around every corner because I am not capable of moving from "BLACK/RED" mindset down to "YELLOW/WHITE" on the Color Code of Combat.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20041228/opinion/1797728.html


Congressman's election concerns appear selective




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDITORIALS 
As we learn that the election recount will cost Ohio taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $1 million, we wonder again about the self-serving individuals who have attempted to stir election turmoil in Ohio for their own personal agendas. 

Sadly, well-meaning people, fueled by incessant Internet repetition of claims that have been debunked and/or explained over and over again, are viewing the Ohio election as a disgrace for democracy and claiming that the the election is a fraud. 

Our editorial last week decrying the situation and the role of individuals who are more interested in their own image and personal gain than they are in the democratic process has promoted critical e-mails from across the country. 

The truth is, there are always some problems with elections, and this year's Ohio vote was no different. But it appears to have been about as good as could be expected given the enormous pressure placed on the operation in advance and the intense scrutiny afterward. 

For those who continue to doubt that there are personal agendas involved in the outcry over the Ohio voting, we offer this from a Detroit News column by Thomas Bray about the congressman calling for an FBI investigation of the Ohio election. 

John Conyers, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is demanding an investigation into Ohio's voting. "We're talking ... about thousands of complaints about failure of process, coercion, suppression of the vote," Conyers asserted on public radio. 

On its face, it's the effort of a bitter-ender to deny the obvious. Ohio's voting, like the voting in most states in every election, wasn't perfect. Local election officials failed to plan adequately for the increased turnout -- some 900,000 more voters than in 2000, creating long lines in many precincts. But nothing has surfaced to suggest systematic fraud. George Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes, a comfortable margin as these things go. 

If Conyers was so concerned about voting problems, where was he in 1998 when election officials in his hometown of Detroit took a disgraceful two weeks to count ballots due to lost poll books and miscounting of precinct totals? 

Where was he in 2001 when the counting of absentee ballots in Detroit had to be halted in midstream by state officials after it was discovered that the city clerk was simply ignoring state requirements for the use of software that would eject ballots that couldn't be read by machine? 

And where was he when a memo allegedly drafted by Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's aides in 2002 claimed that Detroit's voter rolls were overstated by about 150,000 people -- a strong hint that something may be seriously amiss in the Detroit election process, threatening the value of the ballot for people who are genuinely qualified to vote? 

Conyers' outrage appears to be highly selective. The target of his investigative demand -- a demand in which he has been joined by Jesse Jackson and others -- is the Ohio secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, who is black and Republican. In other words, he is one of those non-conforming minorities who is threatening to bust up the liberal plantation from which Conyers and others earn a handsome living. 

Moreover, Blackwell has said he plans to run for governor of Ohio -- and is leading in the polls among GOP candidates. That would transform him from a relatively minor state functionary into a national figure. 

Conyers and Jackson have criticized the fact that Blackwell chaired the Bush re-election effort at the same time he presided over the Ohio election, but that's not unusual. Local election officials in Columbus and Cincinnati headed the Kerry campaigns in those areas. ... 

But if Blackwell was trying to suppress the black vote in Ohio, he didn't do a very good job. Black turnout more than doubled in Ohio. 

Claims of voter suppression may also help to divert attention from the real problem in most states, including Michigan, which is that election officials have a hard time purging voter rolls of dead or otherwise non-qualified voters, mainly in the big cities. In the past, any effort to do so brought cries of racism. In 1998, Michigan started to tackle this problem by developing a computerized, statewide list of voters. This eliminated double entries, but it hasn't solved the problem of matching death rolls and other data bases -- including driver licenses -- with voter listings. 

If John Conyers were serious about protecting the rights of voters, particularly in the area he represents, he would be demanding faster action on this front, not wasting time harassing the Ohio secretary of state.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/206360_gov04.html

Keep counting till you win election

By DAVID E. JOHNSON
GUEST COLUMNIST

If you don't win the election on the first count -- demand a recount and litigate until you get the result you want (or the U.S. Supreme Court says enough of this foolishness). 

That has become the Democrats new mantra as seen in the past week's certification of Christine Gregoire as governor of Washington following three counts of the ballot; two of which she lost. 

The third, a manual recount with dubious ballots suddenly discovered in heavily Democratic King County that were not counted previously gave her the election Now we must stop counting ballots or contesting irregularities, cry the Democrats because they might lose again. 

It was Al Gore's strategy in Florida in 2000 until the U.S. Supreme Court quashed the madness. John Edwards and the trial lawyers wanted to pursue this strategy in Ohio until John Kerry, to his credit, overruled them and said this is not the American tradition.

Having lost two presidential elections, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democrats suddenly have discovered that values matter to Americans. But they have overlooked the fact that Americans don't like sore losers or attempts to change the rules after the game has been played. Democrats in 2000, cried that President Bush was an illegitimate president who stole the election and they would avenge their loss in 2002 and 2004. In both elections, Bush and the Republicans scored resounding successes comparable to only one other president -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democrats still can't understand how this happened.

Overlooked in this is that Americans expect their political leaders and parties to be as graceful in defeat as they are magnanimous in victory. The greatest example of this was Richard Nixon. In 1960, there was widespread voter fraud in the election in Texas, Missouri and Illinois that tipped the election in John F. Kennedy's favor. Leaders from Dwight Eisenhower to Everett Dirksen urged Nixon to contest the election. Nixon refused. In 2000, Republicans had ample evidence to contest the results in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico, yet refused to do so. 

In Washington, it has gone beyond just contesting an election. Democrats are overturning the election results to install their candidate as governor. Their argument is that a manual count that included ballots that had not been counted and mysteriously appeared after the election became in doubt are an accurate reflection of the voters' will. All evidence shows that manual recounts are not as accurate as machine counts (both of which showed the Republican nominee Dino Rossi winning). No matter, argue the Democrats, this last count that shows them winning is all that matters and it's time to move on. Does anyone believe if Rossi had won the manual recount, the Democrats would be willing to concede the election?

Gregoire may well be sworn in as the next governor of Washington, but at a very high price -- not for herself but for the Democratic Party. Her election under such dubious circumstances reinforces the belief of many Americans that Democrats will do anything to win an election -- even steal it. 

For a political party already suffering from the perception that it is out of touch with American values, this new perception could be deadly. Most Americans fear that lawsuits over election results will become the norm in national politics and want this stopped -- indeed the Washington theft reinforces the idea. 

If Democrats are perceived as the cause for these lawsuits, could further electoral punishment be in their future? In 2006, if they lose more Senate seats and governorships, they might begin to get the message, or, perhaps, they might sue voters. In 2008 they could then nominate Gregoire with the slogan "If at first you don't win, try, try, try again until you get the result you want."


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

How Bush Really Won
(and this is from Mother Jones....)

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/12/12_583.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/206360_gov04.html
> 
> http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20041228/opinion/1797728.html
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/12/12_583.html



Firstly, there are numerous outright lies in both of those peices.  Compare them to the articles and excerpts posted.  

Secondly, the spin war has begun.  The Red Truth machine is gearing up to pull the wool over peoples eyes.  

Yet, the facts remain.  An investigation will uncover some harsh reality and just watch as the same machine above starts talking about "a few bad apples..."


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-12-27-edit_x.htm

Election Day leftovers
Compared with the presidential election in Ukraine, this year's elections at home went off smoothly. Certainly no candidate here had to overcome massive fraud or a bizarre face-disfiguring poisoning. But eight weeks after Election Day, several U.S. races are still unresolved because of glaring human errors, machine malfunctions, disputes over vague or contradictory election laws and other echoes of the mess that tied up the presidential race four years ago. 
They are a reminder of how close the nation remains to a repeat of the contentious 2000 fiasco, and a monument to the failure of states to attack the problem.

In Washington state, the gubernatorial election has been through three recounts and stands a mere 130 votes apart. Democrat Christine Gregoire is on top in the final tally, a reversal of the original result, and Republicans are weighing their next steps, with legal challenges in the offing. In dispute are votes overlooked or disqualified earlier.

Puerto Rico's gubernatorial election is tied up in federal and commonwealth courts with battles over "mixed" ballots, in which voters indicate a preference for one political party overall but may then vote for another party's candidate in a given race.

San Diego's mayor, already sworn in for a second term, ran second among those who went to the polls Nov. 2, but more than 5,500 write-in votes for a challenger were disallowed. A recount has been requested, and a court challenge is likely.

Ohio's votes for president are being recounted. And two court challenges, involving the presidential race and a major statewide race, seek to have the election thrown out altogether because of machine malfunctions, the double-counting of some ballots and a failure to provide adequate numbers of voting machines, particularly in predominantly minority precincts. The evidence, however, does not suggest that the discrepancies would give John Kerry enough votes to overtake President Bush in the state that decided the race.

Presidential recounts are also being sought in New Mexico and Nevada. A scattering of legislative races from Texas to New York are still in dispute. And one North Carolina county has to vote again next month because 5,000 votes were wiped out by a computer.

Thankfully, the 2004 presidential race wasn't close enough to be within the "margin of litigation." But voters are routinely being disenfranchised by an assortment of failings. Among them:

Counting errors. A review of election results in 10 counties nationwide by the Scripps Howard News Service found more than 12,000 ballots that weren't counted in the presidential race, almost one in every 10 ballots cast in those counties. When the mistakes were pointed out to local officials, some were chagrined; others said they didn't want to be bothered correcting mistakes.

Machine malfunctions. In Ohio, 92,000 ballots failed to record a vote for president, most of them in areas still using discredited punch-card technology, and an unknown number were counted twice. Optical-scan systems failed to record votes in parts of Arkansas. Glitches in new high-tech electronic machines gave Bush extra votes in at least one Ohio county and wiped out thousands of votes in others across the country.

Registration confusion. Four-fifths of the states went into the election without computerized statewide voter databases. Congress mandated those databases to address the registration issues that arose four years ago. Standards for issuing and counting provisional ballots, cast by people whose status is challenged, vary widely among states and even within states.

Legal uncertainty. From Seattle to San Juan, the ongoing disputes dramatize how many jurisdictions need to clean up the contradictions and disparities in their patchwork election laws. The objective should be for every vote to count, instead of for every vote to be open to legal manipulation.

Lack of respect for voters. Reports of hours-long lines, too few voting machines and attempts to discourage voters through the selective enforcement of regulations suggest that too many officials treat the electorate as a nuisance to be kept at bay, not as the foundation of democracy.

Elections in this country are largely state and local responsibilities, and for most of the USA, the 2004 election was over nearly two months ago. But the widespread evidence of still-unresolved problems is a reminder of how much state and local officials have yet to do to make the most basic exercise of democracy work as it should.

It's not Ukraine, still just a fledgling democracy. But two centuries of experience should have taught us to do better.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/12/08/black120804.html

Bipartisan system protects integrity of the vote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By J. Kenneth Blackwell 

Jesse Jackson is at it again. The master of eloquent mendacity recently picked up a bundle of misunderstandings, fiction and bunk and compared Ohio's election on Nov. 2 to that of Ukraine's. Jackson doesn't bother with facts when half-baked suppositions better fit his partisan agenda. 
If Jackson was not aiming to delegitimize a democratic process, I'd suggest laughing off the charges. But his are serious. As a former United States ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and a two-term Ohio secretary of state, I will substitute facts for some of the wild speculation Jackson traffics in. 

Ohio has an election system that is transparent, bipartisan and fair. I'd like to take credit for it, but the fact is that parts of it -- like the rules concerning provisional ballots -- have been in place since the mid-1990s. Other key elements, like the bipartisan boards of elections, have been around much longer than that. I did not wave the system into existence just for this past election. 

Ohio's election system both makes sure that citizens have every chance to make their views heard on election days and provides checks against possible fraud. 

The system's watchdogs are representatives of the major political parties. 

Who has a greater incentive to guarantee that the other side isn't rigging the system? Each county has a four-member board of elections -- two Democrats and two Republicans. They make the decisions about the placement of voting machines. They certify elections. They choose voting devices and deploy those systems on election days. 

Democratic county party chairmen like Franklin County's (Columbus) William A. Anthony Jr. serve on boards of elections. They are not in the business of trying to suppress their party's vote. Nonetheless, Jackson rather bizarrely insinuated that Anthony deliberately agreed to place too few voting machines in heavily Democratic neighborhoods and too many in Republican ones. "Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?'' Anthony recently told the Columbus Dispatch. Jackson has no answer. He just fans the flames with even more flat out false information. 

Jackson claims that he has identified fraud in Ohio because "Ellen Connally, an African-American Supreme Court candidate running an underfunded race at the bottom of the ticket, received over 100,000 more votes than (John) Kerry in four counties.'' 

However, a quick check of those four counties -- Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren -- reveals a different reality. Kerry actually received 21,019 more combined votes in those counties than Connally. 

The truth is that Ohio's election officials -- Democrats and Republicans -- are in the business of seeing to it that the vote is counted fairly. This is a long process, one that is best not hurried. 

Election workers in Hamilton County have been putting in 18-hour days, checking each of the 13,976 provisional ballots by hand against voter registration lists. It is the same process in the other 87 counties. 

Across Ohio, 77 percent of the provisional ballots were accepted and counted in the final tally by county boards of election. Most commonly, ballots were rejected because voters weren't registered. A few voters voted twice. A small number were rejected because voters cast their ballots at the wrong precinct. 

Contrast Ohio's 77 percent acceptance rate with the 50 percent in Jackson's home, Cook County, Illinois. Why not cry about voter suppression and malfeasance there? 

The vast majority of Ohioans knew where to cast their votes. I believed that with an electorate that had grown by 22 percent, a massive education campaign could dispel any lingering confusion about where and how to vote. We used radio and television ads. Cards mailed to registered voters reminded them of their precinct and voting location. Using a sophisticated computer system, we called voters with a recorded message that was another reminder of their precinct and voting place. 

The phone messages, by the way, targeted urban areas -- the same areas that were the focus, we now hear, of alleged Republican drive-down-the-vote efforts. 

Leaders need to tell the truth and be responsible. Leaders don't peddle fairy stories to win applause from disappointed partisans. Sen. Kerry and Anthony are leaders. Jackson props up delusions. 

Ohio is not Kiev. It is not even Cook County, home of fabled rough and tumble elections, where even the dead took such an interest in politics that they couldn't stay away from the polls. 

No, Ohio's system of elections is not perfect. But it does provide transparency and safeguards against fraud through bipartisan oversight and administration. I look forward to working to improve it with those who have constructive proposals. We won't be helped by self-appointed spokesmen for democracy who denigrate the democratic process in Ohio -- and the efforts of the tens of thousands of Ohioans of both political parties who make it work. 

J. Kenneth Blackwell is Ohio's secretary of state.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/205766_skip30.html

Election system in no danger of collapse

By CHI-DOOH LI
SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER

The prevailing "glass-half-empty" school of thinking has people wringing their hands over what is perceived as a broken-down elections system in this country and concern that an electorate so deeply divided portends troubled waters for the union.

Here's my "glass-quite-full" take on all this nonsense.

First, our elections system is not broken. There may be some cracks and flaws here and there that could use a little (emphasize little) tweaking, but our democracy is not about to collapse under the weight of malfunctioning voting machines and imperfect counts and recounts. 

What about Florida in 2000 and those infamous hanging chads that first came into our national consciousness and vocabulary? Am I forgetting those supposedly new and improved ballots that befuddled so many Gore voters into inadvertently casting ballots for Pat Buchanan?

What about Ohio in 2004, where broken-down voting machines and poorly trained elections workers required some voters in urban precincts to wait seven hours in rainy weather to vote? Is it reasonable to expect voters to show the dedication of long-suffering Boston Red Sox fans trying to buy World Series tickets?

And what about the current gubernatorial election drama playing right here in Washington state and making front-page headlines all around the country, where every recount seems to add or subtract votes at random?

My response to this hullabaloo is that it sounds a lot like Chicken Little's sky-is-falling routine.

It is precisely the robust health of our democracy that has brought our elections system under the kind of spotlight otherwise used only by former East German secret police types to extract involuntary confessions to trumped-up crimes.

The presence of two evenly balanced political parties espousing clearly distinctive political philosophies and visions of governance has brought about an era of tight presidential races where every vote really does count. 

In lopsided elections of the recent past (Johnson-Goldwater 1964, Nixon-McGovern 1972, Reagan-Mondale 1984, Bush-Dukakis 1988), did you hear one peep about ballots being confusing or erroneously set aside?

The Chicken Little mentality extends also to the non-stop (since the 2000 election) woe-is-us commentary on the deep chasms between Red and Blue America and how our country seems so irreconcilably divided. 

Why is the obvious so lost to so many -- that close presidential elections, small majorities in Congress and hotly contested ballot issues signify a democracy that is alive and well? 

For voters, it means that we have real choices in elections. For the Republicans in Congress, it means they are one bad policy mistake away from losing their majorities in one or both houses, and jeopardizing their chances in the 2008 presidential race. 

I call that textbook political accountability. Shouldn't we be celebrating, instead of flagellating ourselves?

Democrats enjoyed 40 years (1955-1994) of hegemony in Congress, and during most of those congressional sessions the GOP was outnumbered 2-1. While Republicans did put up some tough fights in presidential elections during that era, the de facto one-party system we had in Congress then was far more problematic for the health of the union than the scratch and claw catfights we're seeing between the two parties today.

I've lived long enough to remember long stretches of time when people really didn't care about elections at any level or issues other than their own pocketbooks. Apathy reigned throughout the political system.

People are anything but apathetic today. Passions abound on a host of issues: Iraq, foreign policy, environmental degradation, corporate corruption, gay marriage, abortion, to name just a few.

I don't like the angry shouting and the finger pointing any more than the next person. But if that's the price we're paying for people to care and for people to be really involved in the political system, I say that's a fair price.

As for the recent elections, there are allegations of dirty tricks being played on some voters in Ohio. But to date, we have seen no substantive allegation of outright fraud anywhere, including here in Washington state. 

Those responsible for the mix-ups and missed ballots in King County and elsewhere should be held accountable for what appears to be plain negligence and lack of attention to detail in a terribly important election. But let's not overreact and think the entire system is failing. 

No amount of legislating and rule making will make elections perfect. It's in places such as North Korea and Cuba where elections are perfected, and the government party candidate always wins 99.9 percent of the vote.

I'm thankful that politics here, including elections, is still an art, not a science.

Happy New Year.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2005)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1220/p08s02-comv.html

What Counts in Ohio Recount

President Bush was officially reelected to a second term on Dec. 13 by the Electoral College with a 286 to 252 victory. That might have dampened a continuing low-level buzz about the legitimacy of the Nov. 2 popular vote count, which Mr. Bush won by some 3.5 million votes.    

But not in Ohio.

Bush officially took the state's pivotal 20 electoral votes by 118,775 ballots. That was close enough to cause some losers to pay for a recount, begun last week. Also, Ohio's high court has been asked to review issues raised about the voting process, such as double-counted ballots and a shortage of voting machines in heavily Democratic areas.

Tellingly, the recount challenge doesn't come from the Democratic Party, but from the Green and Libertarian parties, which don't stand a chance of winning Ohio even if Bush actually lost the state.

That doesn't mean individual Democrats aren't crying foul. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, for instance, has implied that some of Ohio's new electronic voting machines were set to record votes for Bush by the company that manufactured them because the firm's president supported Bush.

That charge may be a bit extreme, but it's worth watching the more credible challenges and recount as a useful exercise to help all states further improve their election machinery. Reconfirming Bush's victory will also help many disaffected Democrats move beyond faulting their loss on the voting system, and allow the party to get on with repairing itself.

*For widespread vote fraud to have occurred in Ohio, the major parties would have had to conspire together. Each of the state's counties has a bipartisan election board made up of two Republicans and two Democrats with authority over polling places and machines used. That's a pretty strong rebuke to those who allege voter fraud on a scale that would've given the state to Sen. John Kerry.*

That's not to say that long lines and touch-screen voting machines that didn't produce a paper trail (as in Ohio) aren't problems that need fixing. American elections must be an example for other nations. Giving Ohio's vote count a clean bill of health would help that cause.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 4, 2005)

1. The guys claiming that the election was stolen were claiming that the election was going to be stolen before the election. This hardly proves that they're wrong, but it certainly suggests bias.

2. The fact that computers MIGHT be hacked is not proof that they WERE hacked. Nor is the sloppiness of local election officials.

3. Many facts and figures were presented. One saw no ANOVA tests/results at all; these are fundamental to good stats, because analysis-of-variance tests provide a check on whether or not one's results were statistically significant.

4. The mixing of numbers and speculations is not a scientific approach. Such studies should be set up so that methodologies and study results are presented, analyses of data are presented, and THEN conclusions are provisionally attempted. These guys presented results the other way around, in a fashion consistent with their pre-election beliefs. This is visible throughout their reports, in which phrases such as, "must have been," appear far too often to patch over holes.

5. Election data is inherently sloppy. My understanding is, in fact, that ALL elections have a percentage of slippage in them that cannot be eradicated, as small errors and delays add up. The bigger the election, the bigger the drift: actually, election votes ought to be reported as a number, "plus or minus," an error factor, just as national polls are, and for pretty much the same reasons.

6. The real question is this: was this election MORE sloppy or suspect than previous elections, either nationally or in specific states? An offhand guess is that we do not have the data to answer this questionsly meaningfully.

7. Any way it's sliced, Kerry at least lost the popular vote: the claims that the election was fixed are based on relatively-small numbers of votes in two key states.

8. One's own pre-election bias--based in part on what "Mother Jones," correctly identified as the fear whipped up by the scummy likes of Savage and Limbaugh and Hannity (a pack of multi-millionaires who make their money the old-fashioned way Goebbels did--they lie, tell scary stories, and blame minorities for white men's problems)--was that Kerry was going to lose by a couple of percentage points.

9. "Mother Jones," nailed it on the topic of why Kerry lost, in this writer's opinion. 

10. Again, conspiracy theories rush in to take the place of understanding history and present culture. It's like the recurrent, ineradicable claim that advertising uses, "subliminal messages," when what folks fail to see is that THEY DON'T NEED TO, because the real motivations of ads (primarily, the development of fears and desires that cannot be assuaged, so that people endlessly buy the things that they have been taught will make the fears and desires go away) can be put right out in the open. Bush didn't win because the Republicans orchestrated some Big Cheat Plan. Bush won because he, his Party, American culture, and corporations have spent (with our encouragement!) the last four years drumming a set of fears and desires into the electorate's heads and hearts. He won because people are scared (gay marriage is your enemy! you need a gun! your kids' teachers hate God some and America worse! furriners is getting all the good jobs! terrorism is everywhere! you need to buy more stuff!), and desirous of a narcissistic, greedy, wasteful child's life in which we can have all the SUVs, electronic trinkets, stupid housing developments and backlit lawn gnomes that we want, without consequences. 

11. In other words, Bush won because we--and I do mean, "we--" want our privileges and illusions maintained, and apparently we don't give a rat's who suffers for them long as it ain't us. And he won because he's fundamentally ignorant about the historical changes that have taken place since some of us were kids, and has succeeded in bamboozling voters into believing that he can roll back the clock to about 1957. (Better that than 1157, which seems to be what the likes of Osama bin Laden wants--but the lies about history are remarkably similar, which causes one to wonder if the motives for voting Republican and joining Al Quaida aren't disturbingly similar.)

12. There's always a temptation, in sparring or a technique line, to explain away a loss or a clumsy night. This is not a wise approach.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

The problems with many of the articles posted include...

1.  Specific instances are given.  Thousands of instances.  So many that they are impossible to ignore.  And ALL of them seem to have fallen in Bush's favor.  This is like throwing a thousand coins into the air and watching them all land with one face up.
2.  They trivialize the "mistakes" made by saying that elections aren't perfect and then they tell us that we should just "accept" this as normal.  ********.
3.  Apparently, there is so much evidence that not even the partisan hacks in the FBI can ignore it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. The guys claiming that the election was stolen were claiming that the election was going to be stolen before the election. This hardly proves that they're wrong, but it certainly suggests bias.



Because they outright claimed that they would, "hand over the electoral votes."



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. The fact that computers MIGHT be hacked is not proof that they WERE hacked. Nor is the sloppiness of local election officials.



The FBI is investigating these claims as we speak.  Here is what we know, a method was created for this to happen.  Evidence that would indicate that it DID happen exists in the form of voting mistakes.  We do not know who. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Many facts and figures were presented. One saw no ANOVA tests/results at all; these are fundamental to good stats, because analysis-of-variance tests provide a check on whether or not one's results were statistically significant.



There was an analysis of variance.  How else is the author coming up with this conclusion?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. The mixing of numbers and speculations is not a scientific approach. Such studies should be set up so that methodologies and study results are presented, analyses of data are presented, and THEN conclusions are provisionally attempted. These guys presented results the other way around, in a fashion consistent with their pre-election beliefs. This is visible throughout their reports, in which phrases such as, "must have been," appear far too often to patch over holes.



Which holes?  What studies are you referring?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. Election data is inherently sloppy. My understanding is, in fact, that ALL elections have a percentage of slippage in them that cannot be eradicated, as small errors and delays add up. The bigger the election, the bigger the drift: actually, election votes ought to be reported as a number, "plus or minus," an error factor, just as national polls are, and for pretty much the same reasons.



I agree with this statement, however this election was still to close to call in that circumstance.  Anything that falls within the margin of error is still a tie.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 6. The real question is this: was this election MORE sloppy or suspect than previous elections, either nationally or in specific states? An offhand guess is that we do not have the data to answer this questionsly meaningfully.



The largest freedom of information act filings ever are now underway.  Thousands of reports of fraud exist...and not just in Florida and Ohio.  When does one have ENOUGH information?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 7. Any way it's sliced, Kerry at least lost the popular vote: the claims that the election was fixed are based on relatively-small numbers of votes in two key states.



How are you making this assumption?  If you look at the sheer volume of claims, this is not at all certain.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 8. One's own pre-election bias--based in part on what "Mother Jones," correctly identified as the fear whipped up by the scummy likes of Savage and Limbaugh and Hannity (a pack of multi-millionaires who make their money the old-fashioned way Goebbels did--they lie, tell scary stories, and blame minorities for white men's problems)--was that Kerry was going to lose by a couple of percentage points.



This is only shifting the focus away from data in question.  It is just a story and it DOES NOT in any way address the reality of what happened in those claims.  Although it does address a certain amount of truth...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 9. "Mother Jones," nailed it on the topic of why Kerry lost, in this writer's opinion.



I don't think the writer knows the scope of what he is trying to explain.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 10. Again, conspiracy theories rush in to take the place of understanding history and present culture. It's like the recurrent, ineradicable claim that advertising uses, "subliminal messages," when what folks fail to see is that THEY DON'T NEED TO, because the real motivations of ads (primarily, the development of fears and desires that cannot be assuaged, so that people endlessly buy the things that they have been taught will make the fears and desires go away) can be put right out in the open. Bush didn't win because the Republicans orchestrated some Big Cheat Plan. Bush won because he, his Party, American culture, and corporations have spent (with our encouragement!) the last four years drumming a set of fears and desires into the electorate's heads and hearts. He won because people are scared (gay marriage is your enemy! you need a gun! your kids' teachers hate God some and America worse! furriners is getting all the good jobs! terrorism is everywhere! you need to buy more stuff!), and desirous of a narcissistic, greedy, wasteful child's life in which we can have all the SUVs, electronic trinkets, stupid housing developments and backlit lawn gnomes that we want, without consequences.



Again, you have a point about why Bush won so many votes.  Yet, you are not even addressing the sheer number of recorded instances of what we are talking about.  Bush may have "won" a lot of votes in the way that you say, but he got "just enough" from a statistically impossible set of circumstances.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 11. In other words, Bush won because we--and I do mean, "we--" want our privileges and illusions maintained, and apparently we don't give a rat's who suffers for them long as it ain't us. And he won because he's fundamentally ignorant about the historical changes that have taken place since some of us were kids, and has succeeded in bamboozling voters into believing that he can roll back the clock to about 1957. (Better that than 1157, which seems to be what the likes of Osama bin Laden wants--but the lies about history are remarkably similar, which causes one to wonder if the motives for voting Republican and joining Al Quaida aren't disturbingly similar.)



You are not taking into account _all _ of what occured.  For instance, half the country did not buy this BS.  (over half when the "just enough" is taken into account)



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 12. There's always a temptation, in sparring or a technique line, to explain away a loss or a clumsy night. This is not a wise approach.



Sometimes cheating really is cheating, even in sparring.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2005)

One couldn't begin to disentangle all that spaghetti.

However, two points: a) claiming that some ANOVA must have been done or the authors wouldn't be saying what they're saying is hardly documentation that any analysis of variance was done; b) claiming that "thousands of reports were received," is exactly remininscent of Richard Nixon claiming that, "thousands of interviews and tens of thousands of facts were collected involving over 73,242 FBI man-hours," so go home, the republicans had nothing to do with Watergate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One couldn't begin to disentangle all that spaghetti.
> 
> However, two points: a) claiming that some ANOVA must have been done or the authors wouldn't be saying what they're saying is hardly documentation that any analysis of variance was done; b) claiming that "thousands of reports were received," is exactly remininscent of Richard Nixon claiming that, "thousands of interviews and tens of thousands of facts were collected involving over 73,242 FBI man-hours," so go home, the republicans had nothing to do with Watergate.



Instances of sabotage, voter intimidation, voter suppression, and outright fraud have been documented.  There are sworn statements by experts in many fields who have studied this.  When Rep. Conyers calls for this investigation and if this investigation happens, this matter will come into the light and we will be left with some hard decisions...

Consequently, the exit poll discrepancy is well documented...

1.  http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf

2.  http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/997.pdf

3.  http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WPwappendices.pdf

4.  http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2545298,00.html

5.  http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0412/S00167.htm

6.  http://mediastudy.com/exitpoll.html

7.  http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

Here is a summary of some of the claims being made...

1.  http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{FB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665}/REPORT_TO_NATION2.PDF

2.  http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fitrakisvotestmt12804.pdf

3.  http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

Republicans try to block recount...

1.  http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121404Z.shtml

Evidence of Fraud in Florida...

1.  http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

Republicans buy Vote-switching software...

1.  http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Madsen/120604madsen.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Consequently, the exit poll discrepancy is well documented...
> 
> 1.  http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf
> 
> ...



For those of you who feel that this argument has been bereft of fact, read on.  Pretty much everything posted is bombshell material.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For those of you who feel that this argument has been bereft of fact, read on. Pretty much everything posted is bombshell material.


What everyone here is citing is second and third (fourth/fifth...) hand information.  I would say that the only 'facts' that are hard in this thread are that people have organized and published the information cited...the factuallity/accuracy of the information in total or parts conclusively points to inconsistency, sloppiness and problems.

The rest is conjecture.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 5, 2005)

From:   http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10565452.htm



> ALAN FRAM
> Associated Press
> WASHINGTON - A handful of House Democrats plan a long-shot effort to snarl President Bush's formal re-election by preventing Congress from counting Ohio's pivotal votes when lawmakers tally the electoral vote on Thursday.
> ...
> ...



Ok, here's the checks and balances we have in place.  If there are so many problems of irregularities, why haven't the Democrats in both the House and Senate stepped up to the plate to challenge the results officially and quickly?  Why only a handful?  Why is one senator (a Democrat) only considering it?  Why hasn't this been the most important thing to them, especially since Ohio could be tilted either way?

I suspect that the problems are being over-hyped.  Ohio had a recount with very little change in the final results.  Ohio is 75% punch-card voting so we can't say there was electronic fraud.  We've seen that it takes two Republicans and two Democrats to certify the election in Ohio, which they have done even in this most pivital of states.  

The level of hype doesn't match the response of "those in the know."  If the fraud is so widespread and so terrible, our hope is that our elected leaders will do their duty.  Nothing we say or do will change the outcome of this election otherwise.  We'll see what happens on Thursday.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 5, 2005)

Here's what I tell my wife when she complains about something:

You can complain and moan all you want but what do you want to DO about it?  If there's nothing you can do, leave it be and move on with your life.

If there was such a widespread problem, what do we (the people) do about it?  Our government isn't doing anything, even the Democrats in Congress aren't driving this home as a major problem (and they had the most to lose if you ask me).  If the checks and balances we have in place aren't catching or solving any perceived problems, what can WE do?

WhiteBirch


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2005)

Again, not digging through the whole plate of spaghetti.

The Florida Data site does indeed look well done, with clear analyses of the data and clear documentations of statistical significance. However, the site in no way claims that there was fraud--it claims that there is a smallish but significant difference between party affiliation and vote registration by different types of voting machines.

One of the first things anybody hears in a stats class is this: correlation does not imply causation. That is, finding some relation between two events does NOT mean that one event caused the other. This (which is what superstition is based on: I stepped on a crack and my mom fell down the stairs a week later, so, "Step on a crack/And you break your mother's back," is true) is about the oldest error there is, and it is particularly apparent in all conspiracy theories.

The reason it's an error is that two events happening together may not be related at all; they may be related in complex ways; they may have multiple causes that have nothing to do with the perceived relation between the events; there may be some (or multiple) other cause/causes for both events.

In this case, the differences--they're not necessarily discrepancies, just differences, as any decent statistician will tell you--are far more-easily explained by the politics, the class differences, the historical voting patterns, of Florida. For example, it is quite possible that voting machines in poorer districts are worse-maintained and less well-operated than in richer ones: while this may correlate highly with Republican/Democratic differences, they probably correlate very well indeed with income levels. And of course, local political organizations screw around with their opponents all the time: check out the 1960 Presidential election, if you want to see crooked.

But does this indicate systematic, national conspiracy? No. It indicates nationwide politics, and nationwide capitalism--which is why conspiracy theories are so nice, because fixing them doesn't require anything fundamental, let alone radical. We just get rid of the Bad Guys and put Our Guys in, and everything's just peachey. Come on, folks--season 4 & 5 of, "Angel," showed more understanding about who the Bad Guys are.

Bush won by going on for 3 million popular votes. His victory correlates highly with what a lot of people were claiming and thinking before the election (including myself), and it's simply not a shock that Americans would vote that way--for reasons I dislike very much indeed, but that's hardly the issue. And oh, incidentally, the Presidential results fit very well with the Congressional and Senate and Governorship results--or were all those crooked too?

Our side got whupped. The surprising thing, as "Mother Jones," points out, is that the election was extraordinarily close--which ought to be a bit of a warning to all the Bush supporters, who seem to be stuck in this fantasy that Everybody Loves Bush and it's Morning In America, but probably won't.

Don't panic. Eventually, things will get better--not because some fantasy Pendulum Always Swings Back, but because Marx was right--capitalism inevitably produces contradictions that force changes. All you needs to do, is have a little faith, and keep your head down and keep plowing forward as best you can.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

Statistics aren't the only data in this case.  There is ALOT more.  Nobody is basing their conclusions off of the statistics alone.  You have to actually read some of this stuff...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2005)

One did. Much of it is biased claptrap pumped up by an herbologist from New Hampshire who's into neuro-linguistic programming. (See quackwatch.org, and look up NLP...regrettably, a number of martial artists also seem to buy into this junk.)

Until something solid is put out there, we'll be going with the simple explanations--the dems got beat, the elephants played politics, the voting system in this country is badly-maintained.

The conspiracies are quite out in the open. You want to see 'em? trace through the wacko Tom De Lay's gerrymandering, bullying, Bible-thumping, and out-and-out crookedness. Look at the nutty way we do campaign financing. Scope out Bush's family tree.


----------



## Ray (Jan 5, 2005)

The election turned out just fine. I am satisfied that many of the candidates and initiatives that I voted for were elected or passed.

I recall the democratic party, even before the election, had recommended crying foul even if nothing was apparently wrong.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2005)

One also recalls that the Republicans did exactly the same, and--at least in states like Texas--fiddled extensively with districts, voter accessibility, aand lawsuits to favor their side.


----------



## Ray (Jan 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One also recalls that the Republicans did exactly the same, and--at least in states like Texas--fiddled extensively with districts, voter accessibility, aand lawsuits to favor their side.


No, I don't recall that the Republicans said "if there is no fraud, say there is anyway."

And this Republican did no such thing.  Nor, as a volunteer for the Bush campaign did I receive any communications to that effect.  I do believe that the democratic party put such instructions in a memo.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> What everyone here is citing is second and third (fourth/fifth...) hand information.  I would say that the only 'facts' that are hard in this thread are that people have organized and published the information cited...the factuallity/accuracy of the information in total or parts conclusively points to inconsistency, sloppiness and problems.
> 
> The rest is conjecture.



You have provided no basis for this judgement and you have made claims that have absolutely *no * factual backing.

I suppose the actual election data, signed affadavids, and statistical analysis done by people at Princeton and MIT somehow do not constitute hard facts...


----------



## modarnis (Jan 5, 2005)

>>>11. My research into the topics discussed in this affidavit is continuing, and I reserve the right to modify my conclusions as new information becomes available.

TO THIS I SWEAR AND AFFIRM,
>>>


You can either swear to the truth of something or you can't.  If you take an oath (which there is no evidence of on the link you posted with this affidavit) you are swearing to the truthfulness of what ever your affidavit purports to be.  You can't swear to future truths.  This guy is in effect subverting the purpose of the affidavit by qualifying it.  So when being cross examined in any proceeding in the future  he can say oops my research wasn't complete, so my sworn truth wasn't really a truth at all, but you can't punch holes in my credibility because it was a conditional affidavit

I call Bul*#&@T


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One did.



Then one is making a Herculean effort to ignore various accounts and facts...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Much of it is biased claptrap pumped up by an herbologist from New Hampshire who's into neuro-linguistic programming. (See quackwatch.org, and look up NLP...regrettably, a number of martial artists also seem to buy into this junk.)



One would like to see someone actually address claims being made rather then trying to shift attention away with this smokescreen.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Until something solid is put out there, we'll be going with the simple explanations--the dems got beat, the elephants played politics, the voting system in this country is badly-maintained.



This explanation is insufficiant in explaining the data as it has presented itself.  There is an impossible set of circumstances that had to occur for the above to occur.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The conspiracies are quite out in the open. You want to see 'em? trace through the wacko Tom De Lay's gerrymandering, bullying, Bible-thumping, and out-and-out crookedness. Look at the nutty way we do campaign financing. Scope out Bush's family tree.



Perhaps this just another in a long line of very bad conspiracies that everyone knows about but works assiduously to ignore.  One is suprised by the mental feats it takes to dodge the following...



> OHIO RECOUNT
> 
> AFFIDAVIT
> December 10, 2004
> ...



Or 

The fact that many of these claims have been statistically analyzed and independently confirmed by people at Caltech, Princeton and MIT.

Or



> Conyers Alarmed at Efforts to Obstruct Ohio Recount Effort, Calls Witness to Monday Hearing to Detail Such Efforts
> 
> Yesterday, it came to the attention of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff that efforts to audit poll records in Greene County, Ohio are being obstructed by County Election officials and/or Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. According to Joan Quinn and Eve Robertson, two election observers researching voting records, Greene County officials initially gave Quinn and Robertson access to poll records, and then abruptly withdrew such access. Greene County Director of Elections Carole Garman claimed that she had withdrawn access to the voting records at the direction of Secretary Blackwell. Regardless of who ordered the denial of this access, such an action appears to violate Ohio law. Later, at the same office, election observers found the office unlocked, and what appeared to be locked ballot boxes, unattended. Prior to the withdrawal of access to the books, observers had found discrepancies in election records, and possible evidence of minority vote suppression.
> 
> ...



Or



> snip
> 
> Bev showed up bright and early the morning of Wednesday the 17th - well before the scheduled meeting - and discovered three of the elections officials in the Elections Warehouse standing over a table covered with what looked like poll tapes. When they saw Bev and her friends, Bev told me in a telephone interview less than an hour later, "They immediately shoved us out and slammed the door."
> 
> ...



or



> December 6, 2004The manipulation of computer voting machines in the recent presidential election and the funding of programmers who were involved in the operation are tied to an intricate web of shady off-shore financial trusts and companies, shady espionage operatives, Republican Party politicians close to the Bush family, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract vehicles.
> 
> An exhaustive investigation has turned up a link between current Florida Republican Representative Tom Feeney, a customized Windows-based program to suppress Democratic votes on touch screen voting machines, a Florida computer services company with whom Feeney worked as a general counsel and registered lobbyist while he was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and top level officials of the Bush administration.
> 
> ...



If I tell you that I am going to shoot someone, I show you the gun, I show you the bullets and the guy ends up dead the next day...

upnorthkyosa

PS - At the very least, I would say that Conyers has a lot of information to offer to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday...



> President John F. Kennedy once said, "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." It appears all to evident today that the government of this nation is afraid of its people, afraid of the truth.
> 
> This is nothing new. Alexis De Toqueville observed long ago that, "The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>>11. My research into the topics discussed in this affidavit is continuing, and I reserve the right to modify my conclusions as new information becomes available.
> 
> TO THIS I SWEAR AND AFFIRM,
> >>>
> ...



Unless the claims are independently confirmed by the same people who helped put lots of robots on Mars...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

Here is Final Report that will be presented on Jan. 6th by Rep Conyers...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=331914

Read the executive summary of the 102 page report...

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=529

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Jan 5, 2005)

If this is a game of "keep posting till I win".......you win.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If this is a game of "keep posting till I win".......you win.



If you would read this stuff, then I wouldn't have to play this game...

_Winning _ isn't the objective.  Getting the facts out, is.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2005)

Check out this flash vid...

http://miamedia.com/news/2005-01-02.bush.liar.flash.html

Expert Witness Testimony in the Ohio Supreme Court

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Baiman.pdf

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Lange.pdf

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Phillips.pdf


----------



## The Prof (Jan 5, 2005)

I live about two miles from where they counted the Florida votes.  What a fiacso.  I have a friend named Chad, he was not amused.

They did steal the vote.  I am a Reagan (Registered) Republican and I believe that the sanctity of the vote was violated by the Republicans.  I did not vote for Bush either time.  The man is an idiot.  I did vote for his brother, our Governor though.

I voted for his dad the first time he ran.  The second time I did not, I could not stand another four years of Dan (I can't spell for crap) Quayle.

The Prof


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2005)

"Could be?" "Should be?" "Might have been?" "Should have been?" "Would be expected to?"

The affadavit is by a self-described, "geomorphologist," who has no particular expertise in the statistics of elections and populations. This is not reassuring of one's ability to render, "a professional opinion," on elections.

Nor is the promulgation of quackery like NLP reassuring of someone's intellectual competence and honesty. That's the connection.

When a smoking gun appears, will of course reconsider. See no smoking gun. See speculation, naivete about how politics works, and wishful thinking, so far.

If this stuff is so clear, why aren't guys like Pat Caddell--liberal politics, lots of expertise in the field--screaming their heads off?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2005)

Why?

Nobody knows what "the smoking gun" looks like.  

Hell, everything in that congressional report could be "a smoking gun".

The FBI needs to get involved or we need to find some other sort of independent investigative team to check into this.


----------



## Ray (Jan 6, 2005)

Wow, so there are websites that say the election was stolen?

There are also websites showing that big-foot exists and abductions of humans by aliens really happen.

The results of the election are fine.  And I have no doubt that in some future election the democrats will win the white house again; probably in 2008.  I will work against it, but it will happen.  And afterwards I will have a democrat for a president and I will support him or her.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Wow, so there are websites that say the election was stolen?
> 
> There are also websites showing that big-foot exists and abductions of humans by aliens really happen.



This is a false comparison and it does nothing to address the reality of what happened.  

Here are a few things that are documented in the public record and DID occur...

1.  Sabotage of primarily minority polling stations.
2.  Destruction of votes in Democratic districts.
3.  Intimidation of voters through threats of physical force.
4.  ALL "REPORTED" VOTING MACHINE MISCALCULATIONS GAVE VOTES TO GWB!
5.  Disqualification of provisional ballots violating election laws.
6.  Republican officials requesting and buying computer programs that will hack into voting machines.
7.  Official polling records thrown into trash and "doctored" records given into public record.
8.  Public election officials claiming on the record that they will deliver the state to GWB.
9.  CEO's of voting machine companies claiming the same thing.
10.  Statistical studies that give a nearly impossible chance for the occurrence of the discrepancy between actual numbers and exit polls.

This is what will be presented to congress today.  One senator must vote "no" in order to start an official congressional debate/investigation on this issue.  We'll see what happens.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Ray (Jan 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is a false comparison and it does nothing to address the reality of what happened.
> 
> Here are a few things that are documented in the public record and DID occur...
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Sure, of course I am wrong and you are right.  You have thoroughly researched it and you have a first-hand knowledge of it.  Bah-humbug.  It may have happened and it may not of happened.  Regardless, Kerry conceded and Bush is the pres for another 4 years. 

The election between Kennedy and Nixon was also close.  Close enough for Nixon to contest it and demand recounts.  There was also strong evidence that illegal things happened.  Nixon decided, for the good of the nation, to concede without contesting it...in spite of the wrong Nixon may have done later, the concession was a good thing.

So, 40 years later, we still have problems with elections?  They're as good as they've ever been---improvement would be a good and desireable thing.  But, even if it were perfect there would still be sore-losers complaining.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  Sabotage of primarily minority polling stations.
> 2.  Destruction of votes in Democratic districts.
> 3.  Intimidation of voters through threats of physical force.
> 4.  ALL "REPORTED" VOTING MACHINE MISCALCULATIONS GAVE VOTES TO GWB!
> ...



Sure problems happen, but this is widespread and it goes way to far.  The items on this list influenced the results of the election.  One cannot, in good conscience, certify this election with the above examples muddying the results.

Secondly, many of the items on this list are infractions of Election Law.  We are a nation that is suppose to follow the Rule of Law.  Letting this slide (again) undermines election law further and only invites more and worse abuses in the future.  

Thirdly, is it okay for partisan gangs to chase people with trucks and fire shots at them in order to influence an election?


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you would read this stuff, then I wouldn't have to play this game...
> 
> _Winning _isn't the objective. Getting the facts out, is.


 
You have gotten your 'facts' out.  Mission accomplished.

If the objective is only that, why all the other stuff?

As I have said in the past:

On one hand, the Bush administration/Republicans/Conservatives...who ever happens to be the 'Bad guy' in these games can't administer their way out of a wet paper bag, can't keep a secret or create a good 'evil plan' ....

BUT

Boy do they come together and work effectively to control the voting process!

It can't be both.  Either they are inept, unorganized and uncaring or they are maniacal, evil and purposeful.

I have a REALLY hard time thinking that such an involved, decentralized procedure such as voting is being controlled for evil purposes by a puppet master without someone between the guy who witnessed my signature all the way up to the top saying "Hey!  There is a conspiracy being played out here....TO THE BAT CAVE!"

I do believe that it is inefficient, imperfect and a mess for many reasons - not the least of which is the 'support the party first, nation second' mentallity of some politically active people.

I had hoped that the national unity after 9/11 would solidify a national sense, but it has actually exposed the rift because of the intensity of war time politics and our entire nation is suffering a form of 'social traumatic stress disorder' because of it.  Even if we don't see it.

I am sure that things were no different during the American Rev, Civil War, WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam (obviously), Desert Storm....and all the little 'wars' that didn't hit big radar blips through our history.

Whether on the front line or back home, war brings out the extremes of reactions in individuals, groups and nations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> You have gotten your 'facts' out.  Mission accomplished.
> 
> If the objective is only that, why all the other stuff?
> 
> ...



I think that you are vastly underestimating the ability of groups of people to organize and accomplish a task.  

This conspiracy theory drivel is nothing but trash...the facts remain.  You've got to lose this Dr. Evil fantasy and realize that people with this "win at all costs" mentality are going to organize and act...and in this case illegally.  

Even in small groups, this effort can be quite influential.  This is grassroots dirty politics at its best and it is something that the Right has been perfecting since Jim Crowe.

Consequently...

Voter suppression of minorities has been happening for years and, in this politically charged atmosphere, it is not inconceivable that multiple groups would "up the ante" so to speak.  

It is also entirely feasible that a Republican public servant would abuse a position of power in order to influence an election...as is the case in Ohio.  Where multiple laws were broken.

It is also possible that the leaders in question have direct ties to the "winners."

This matter warrents further investigation at the very least.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As I have said in the past:
> 
> On one hand, the Bush administration/Republicans/Conservatives... can't administer their way out of a wet paper bag, can't keep a secret or create a good 'evil plan' .... BUT ....Boy do they come together and work effectively to control the voting process!
> 
> It can't be both.


I think the assertion that they 'can't administer their way ... ' is where your statment falls down. 

The Bush Administration is very adept at administering the policies into place that they deem important; huge tax breaks, relaxing pollution controls for industry, funding the military industrial complex, transferring America's wealth from the many to the few, etc, etc.

What is adept is how 'they' are able to undertake these policy changes with the permission of the American people (they won the election). By controlling the media via the right-wing echo chamber, they convince the American people to take actions against their own best interest. 

See 'What's the matter with Kansas?' - by Thomas Frank.

See - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950/



> WASHINGTON - The success of President Bushs push to remake Social Security *depends on convincing the public* that the system is heading for an iceberg, according to a White House strategy note that makes the case for cutting benefits promised for the future.
> 
> Calling the effort one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times, Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove, says in the e-mail message that a battle over Social Security is winnable for the first time in six decades and could transform the political landscape.


----------



## Ray (Jan 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think the assertion that they 'can't administer their way ... ' is where your statment falls down.
> 
> The Bush Administration is very adept at administering the policies into place that they deem important; huge tax breaks, relaxing pollution controls for industry, funding the military industrial complex, transferring America's wealth from the many to the few, etc, etc.


Hey, regarding the part about "HUGE TAX BREAKS"  If you are so inclined to pay more in taxes then feel free; I am sure it is absolutely acceptable and legal to voluntarily pay additional taxes.  And the Kerry family, who also complained about the tax breaks - they can too!

You sound like my 31 year old son.  He's absolutely against the "HUGE TAX BREAKS" but very happy to get his refund.  In fact, it's his opinion that people like Bill Gates don't need all the money they've earned:  it should be taken by the government and given to people like my son who don't earn much.  What a punch of hooey.

Take some economics classes.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Take some economics classes.



This has been discussed _ad nauseum_ before, but from those of us that actually have taken some economics classes, I recommend you refer to those earlier threads that point out how poorly the trickle-down economics practiced by GW Bush and his cronies have worked in the past, how poorly they're thought of by economists, and the effects they're likely to have on our country, our people, and our world.

Bush's own father referred to the concept of reducing the taxes on the rich to boost the economy as "voodoo economics".

For a list of articles about the failure of trickle-down economics, start with this article (and thread):

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=273637&postcount=38

In the end, however, people appear to be happily duped into allowing the wealthy continue to wage class warfare while the rest of us get hosed, and the American Dream exists less and less here and more and more only in other industrialized nations.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What is adept is how 'they' are able to undertake these policy changes with the permission of the American people (they won the election). By controlling the media via the right-wing echo chamber, they convince the American people to take actions against their own best interest.



It's the story we see time and again -- control the terms of the argument, and the message, convince people there's a crisis if there isn't, then control the means of solving the crisis.  The Germans were great at it in the 1930's, and marketers have learned those lessons, including our right-wing buddies today.

We saw it with the welfare "reforms" of the Clinton era, which really just pushed people out into jobs that didn't pay the bills and helped to destroy families, eliminate their access to heatlhcare, and increase the rolls of the homeless; we saw it with the war on Iraq, where the lives of over a thousand American servicemen and women and countless Iraqis were wasted on the lies of an amoral administration; now we're seeing it with Social Security.

When you combine a populace that both lacks a truly aggressive media that digs for the truth and when that populace itself is not properly informed and educated to seek the truth themselves, this sort of manipulation is not unexpected.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 6, 2005)

"In the end, however, people appear to be happily duped into allowing the wealthy continue to wage class warfare while the rest of us get hosed, and the American Dream exists less and less here and more and more only in other industrialized nations."quote Peach Monkey​ 
Lucky for you, there's no long line to get into those "other" nations. Leave now and avoid the rush. After all, you're getting "hosed" here.
I suspect most victims of "class warfare" wouldn't know the American Dream if it bit them on the "class".


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> In the end, however, people appear to be happily duped into allowing the wealthy continue to wage class warfare while the rest of us get hosed, and the American Dream exists less and less here and more and more only in other industrialized nations.



Political witchcraft is one thing, election skullduggery is another.  I can deal with right-wing trickery and attempt to demystify it, but breaking the law and _tampering _ with democracy makes the above worthless.  

2004 was a pivotal election.  People on the Right have been saying things like, "We've been waiting (and planning) for 60 years for this moment..."  Is it any wonder where the "win at all costs" mentality came from?

Look at the radar screen...

These so called "irregularities" have been too damn regular.


----------



## Ray (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This has been discussed _ad nauseum_ before, but from those of us that actually have taken some economics classes, I recommend you refer to those earlier threads that point out how poorly the trickle-down economics practiced by GW Bush and his cronies have worked in the past, how poorly they're thought of by economists, and the effects they're likely to have on our country, our people, and our world.
> 
> Bush's own father referred to the concept of reducing the taxes on the rich to boost the economy as "voodoo economics".
> 
> ...


No, no, trickle down ecomics was a tax reduction to businesses, not private individuals.  The reduction of taxes to, for example manufacturers, allowed them to charge less for goods which caused more people to buy; which in turn caused more people to be hired; And it worked...look at unemployement and inflation stats.  Reagan took office in 1980 after the dismal 60's and 70's.  He was responsible for the longest expansion period of the US economy.  There was a brief spot in George H Bush's adminstration where trends regressed but they turned and improved during his admin.  Clinton was a lucky inheritor of Reagan's economic expansion...but he gets credit for continued good stats.

What I was referring to is tax breaks to individuals that has gotten everyone so "up in arms."  And if you got a tax break, then by all means return the refund if you disagree.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Hey, regarding the part about "HUGE TAX BREAKS" If you are so inclined to pay more in taxes then feel free; I am sure it is absolutely acceptable and legal to voluntarily pay additional taxes. And the Kerry family, who also complained about the tax breaks - they can too!
> 
> You sound like my 31 year old son. He's absolutely against the "HUGE TAX BREAKS" but very happy to get his refund. In fact, it's his opinion that people like Bill Gates don't need all the money they've earned: it should be taken by the government and given to people like my son who don't earn much. What a punch of hooey.
> 
> Take some economics classes.


The tax breaks to which I am referring are those that most regular folks won't ever be able to take advantage of e.g. Estate Tax cuts, Dividend Tax cuts, etc. As mentioned elsewhere, these topics have been discussed.

I challenge you to name one family farm or small business that has gone out of business because of the Estate Tax.

If you are like most of us, you son has very little to worry about an Estate Tax, (as it existed pre-Bush/Cheney) because the small amount of wealth you might accumulate in your lifetime would be exempt from said tax.

What is also interesting ... is that in reviewing the book 'Who let the dogs in' by Molly Ivins ... is that George HW Bush was pushing these exact same topics 25 years ago. Nothing is new ...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 6, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Lucky for you, there's no long line to get into those "other" nations. Leave now and avoid the rush. After all, you're getting "hosed" here.



I thought we already dealt with your notions of emigration to industrialized nations in another thread; you didn't respond to the specific, thorough repudiation of the notion there, and yet you bring it up again here?  Cute.

By the way, why do conservative fascists always try to run you out of the country when you feel like America has done something wrong, or needs an improvement?  I don't think everyone in the US who disagrees with me should leave.

Maybe you make enough money that you'll never have to worry about the constant attacks on our social safety net if you lose a job, or get sick, or retire; if so, your selfish position is entirely justifiable.  Otherwise, you're simply not seeing clearly.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> I suspect most victims of "class warfare" wouldn't know the American Dream if it bit them on the "class".



Since they're not likely to ever have any access to it, I suspect you're right.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> No, no, trickle down ecomics was a tax reduction to businesses, not private individuals.  The reduction of taxes to, for example manufacturers, allowed them to charge less for goods which caused more people to buy; which in turn caused more people to be hired; And it worked...look at unemployement and inflation stats.  Reagan took office in 1980 after the dismal 60's and 70's.  He was responsible for the longest expansion period of the US economy.  There was a brief spot in George H Bush's adminstration where trends regressed but they turned and improved during his admin.  Clinton was a lucky inheritor of Reagan's economic expansion...but he gets credit for continued good stats.
> 
> What I was referring to is tax breaks to individuals that has gotten everyone so "up in arms."  And if you got a tax break, then by all means return the refund if you disagree.



You clearly didn't read any of the material I referred you to.

Trickle-down economics in the Reagan era involved tax reductions for business and individuals.  Reaganomics also involved massive cuts in services, and massive expenditures in defense.

Trickle-down economics led to the largest budget deficits in the history of the US, and the world, and crippled the US' social safety net, leading to, among other things, the "crisis" in the Social Security Administration that the Bush Administration is now leveraging towards privitization.  The inevitable rebound from Reaganomics was inherited by Bush Sr, and he was rewarded by a recession that was completely out of his control.

The so-called economic benefits you credit to Bush Jr. have benefitted solely the wealthy, who have received massive tax benefits, while unemployment and layoffs have continued to escalate, and America's knowledge economy has continued to be offshored and our budget deficit exceeded even Reagan's.

While the wealthy happily count their tax savings, we'll be paying off this debt for decades, if not centuries.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2005)

The lead NPR story today concerns the fact that for the first time in a century or so, the Democrats are contesting the Presidential election vote, based specifically on Ohio.

One still doesn't think that there was some Big Evil Conspiracy going on, and will be surprised to see this turning out to be more than the usual sloppiness and gerrymanderings.

However, it's darn nice to see the Democrats devloping a spine--or at least a notochord--and taking it to those bastards a little.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 6, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Lucky for you, there's no long line to get into those "other" nations. Leave now and avoid the rush.


Actually, No. There is a long line of people waiting to become citizens of Canada, Denmark and Australia, as a few examples.


----------



## Ray (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> You clearly didn't read any of the material I referred you to.
> 
> Trickle-down economics in the Reagan era involved tax reductions for business and individuals. Reaganomics also involved massive cuts in services, and massive expenditures in defense.


Why would I want to read the material you referred me to when I know that trickle-down economics was the tax cuts given primarily to manufacturers.  Of course, others may redefine it as they choose but that doesn't make it so.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Trickle-down economics led to the largest budget deficits in the history of the US, and the world, and crippled the US' social safety net, leading to, among other things, the "crisis" in the Social Security...




Social Security was based on many workers supporting few retirees.  Reduced birth rates in average american families coupled with longer life spans mean fewer workers supporting more retirees.  Your money to SS was never "set aside" for the day you retire, it was immediately spent.  That is the big problem for SS.

But I suppose we should get back on track.  The election wasn't stolen.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Your money to SS was never "set aside" for the day you retire, it was immediately spent. That is the big problem for SS.


Those contributing to the Social Security system have been contributing more money than what was paid out ... and that surplus money has been spent as part of the regular appropriations on capital hill. Of course, the IOU's are in Government securities, so we have to pay interest to ourselves.

The big lie in all this is, of course, is that those in power can be deceptive about how much red ink they are generating. By just pretending that Social Security funds are like income tax the deficits can be smaller ... but not really.

Good think that Rove-Meister has made it priority number 1 to convince the american public that there is a 'big problem' with Social Security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6278807/



> WASHINGTON - A White House e-mail argues the case for cutting Social Security benefits promised in the future and says support must be built for investment accounts by *convincing the public the system is "heading for an iceberg."*


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 6, 2005)

"Actually, No. There is a long line of people waiting to become citizens of Canada, Denmark and Australia, as a few examples"

Actually, no there isn't. Please consult the sites you recommended to me. Canada is begging you to come on board, while Denmark makes it plain you're not welcome. Unless, of course, you're Nordic (their racial preference, plainly stated in exactly those words) or qualify under the categories of family reunification, work or study, or asylum. At that, the number  admitted is tiny: five thousand or so. I lost interest before getting to Australia.
So you're right. 
You guys are stuck here in the good ole USA. Love it or leave may not be an option. Let's make the best of it and act as if we actually like our country.....maybe there is no better alternative. After all, Canada is just USA Lite.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The lead NPR story today concerns the fact that for the first time in a century or so, the Democrats are contesting the Presidential election vote, based specifically on Ohio.



Hmmm... with so much illegal activity going on that threw the vote to Bush I'm surprised that only 1 Senator and only 31 Representatives actually contested the vote.  I guess the people with the power to actually make a difference, the people who ought to know about the illegal activity, the people actually affected by the outcome don't really believe it.  Then why should I?  There's a smoking gun that only a few on the fringe seem to see and think they can prove.  

The congresswoman from Ohio complained about long lines and voter disenfranchisement.  Nothing illegal.  Nothing about vote tampering or intimidation or the dangers of electronic voting machines.



> http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/index.html
> "Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.



Was it so bad that states like Ohio or the Congress are going to look into voting reform?  We'll see, but I doubt it. If the proof's there, let's see the lawsuits and federal trials.  Until then, there's nothing that can be done.  The election is now finalized.  If we need to reform our voting system, that's each state's and/or Congress' responsibility.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2005)

As of now, there are a total of 44 lawsuits, with more on the way.  Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, and John Kerry are ALL included in legally challenging the illegal things that occurred.

James Blackwell, the Republican Secratary of State for Ohio, has been subpenoed several times, but has yet to appear in court.

Why aren't more elected officials involved?  Because its politically risky and morals have always been kicked the back of the bus on the Hill.  For most of these yahoos, getting elected IS the most important issue.  Anything that threatens this goal is quickly jettisened.

Therefore, I would trust the judgement of most of our elected officials if I were you...

upnorthkyosa

PS - How many people died before the government paid attention to the deaths of three civil rights workers?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2005)

The following is an extremely small portion of a larger body of people who had their voting rights denied or witnessed the voting "problems" that cast Ohio to President Bush.  "We should not be wasting our time entertaining the opinions of conspiracy theorists," said White House Press Secratary Scott McClellen.  



> What follows are 45 Election Day problems, as described by more than 85 people who came to independently convened public hearings in Columbus on Nov. 13 and 15, and Cleveland on Nov 20, and filed affidavits on Election day. These are the voices of the election protection volunteers, poll workers and ordinary voters who testified under oath about the harm they personally experienced and the damage they saw done to their most fundamental civil right, the right to vote.
> 
> These voices - excerpted from transcripts and affidavits - have not been published before. They the voices of people who expect more from American democracy. Listen to what these people have to say about the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. Then ask, Was this a free and fair election? Why should the certified results be trusted and believed?
> 
> ...



These people are NOT "conspiracy theorists."  They are people who attempted to participate in democracy and they were denied.  Maybe next time it will be you...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2005)

Conservative estimate of the real vote count in Ohio...

http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/Vote_Count_Ohio.pdf

Progressives stand up and fight for voting rights!

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1073

What the Election Challenge means?

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1074

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-OH contested the election

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1069

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

It will all be worked out by 2008.
A few indictments, some payoffs, and business as usual.  Sorry to sound so negative, but short of marching on the Capital, or wonder-of-wonders voting ALL the incompetents, err I mean incumbents out over the next 4 years, nothing will change.  We've built this top heavy bloated out of control monster, and there is little we can do about it.  They tested things in 2000, in 2004 they started the roll out, and by 2008 will be able to vote for us.  Hey, we let them think for us, this is just 1 more step.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The following is an extremely small portion of a larger body of people who had their voting rights denied or witnessed the voting "problems" that cast Ohio to President Bush.  "We should not be wasting our time entertaining the opinions of conspiracy theorists," said White House Press Secratary Scott McClellen.
> ...
> These people are NOT "conspiracy theorists."  They are people who attempted to participate in democracy and they were denied.  Maybe next time it will be you...



Where did you obtained the information.  It's interesting to read, but I'd like to know that it's not some fabricated list someone put out.

No one is saying there weren't voting problems, there always are.  Most of the information you presented was just that, typical voting problems.  Not signs of some Republican effort to commit fraud.  I'll be interested in seeing how the lawsuits play out.

WhiteBirch


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 10, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Where did you obtained the information. It's interesting to read, but I'd like to know that it's not some fabricated list someone put out.
> 
> No one is saying there weren't voting problems, there always are. Most of the information you presented was just that, typical voting problems. Not signs of some Republican effort to commit fraud. I'll be interested in seeing how the lawsuits play out.
> 
> WhiteBirch


Exactly.  Since there have been voting problems to varying degrees of frustration and range, I would say that the constant battle between federal and local authority over these types of issues is at the root of the problem and not a party conspiracy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Where did you obtained the information.  It's interesting to read, but I'd like to know that it's not some fabricated list someone put out.
> 
> No one is saying there weren't voting problems, there always are.  Most of the information you presented was just that, typical voting problems.  Not signs of some Republican effort to commit fraud.  I'll be interested in seeing how the lawsuits play out.
> 
> WhiteBirch



The list was compiled as part of a congresional report posted earlier.  It is part of a larger document that was cited in the congressional report that indicates contains thousands of people...enough to influence the election.

The reports "on the ground" by the people who experienced this were clearly part of a deliberate attempt to suppress the vote.  The key is management, or mismanagement.  Deliberate mismanagement on the part of James Blackwell, the Ohio Secratary of State, and other elected officials resulted in the phenomena described by the people on this list.

Many of "the witnesses" signed avadavids for criminal investigations.  Laws were broken on a widespread scale.  These are NOT typical election day problems.  If they were, we would be the laughing stock of the world in regard to democracy...

_wait a minute_

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Since there have been voting problems to varying degrees of frustration and range, I would say that the constant battle between federal and local authority over these types of issues is at the root of the problem and not a party conspiracy.



Senator Harry Ried of Nevada disagrees with you.  He joined Barbara Boxer in the protest of the election results citing the thousands of fraudulant, untracable, telephone calls intimidating/threatening and/or tricking minorities in his state not to vote on election day.

Consequently, the Nevada results are very close and happen to be among the skewed.

This is still more evidence of Right Wing election skullduggery...and we have seen this before...pre-1964.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 10, 2005)

Ohio voters as photographed on election day.

:uhyeah:


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 12, 2005)

Striking isn't it, that John Kerry, the guy with the most at stake, has distanced himself from all this nonsense.
Personally, I think the crop circles attracted black helicopters that brought in poltergeist that changed the vote. "They" are everywhere.
Get a grip, please. The list of UFO abductees is longer and more convincing than the "evidence" on this.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> The list of UFO abductees is longer and more convincing than the "evidence" on this.



This is an absolutely wacky statement.  Especially considering...

http://www.stopabductions.com/

Now _that _ is a *real * _tin-hatter_!

If you really want to play, you've got to come up with something credible to counter the pile of evidence on this thread.  Get to work...

Incidently, this is ironic...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...oll=la-headlines-elect2004&ctrack=1&cset=true

In the various lists on right wing fraudulent activity posted on this thread, many of the incidents occured in Washington.  Apparently, it didn't work so now they have to resort to _the rule of law_.   

My my how the tables turn...


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is an absolutely wacky statement. Especially considering...
> 
> http://www.stopabductions.com/
> 
> ...


What are you thinking this 'evidence' indicates? 

I see only 'evidence' that things need to be more systematically run, consistently run and 'centralized' if you want things to be fairly run and enforced....as it is right now, no two polling sites are run the same and the level of confidentiallity/credibility varies as well.

Here may be a way to gain some form of perspective on this stuff:

Cross reference the complaints about the most recent election to any that were reported during war time elections of the past 
(which may or may not reveal a pattern of 'voter stress' and stress reactions during wartime that manifest as hypersensitive voters not necessarily Party conspiracy) 

or compare the number of voter fraud complaints during Democratic majority years vs Republican majority years (which may or may not indicate a pattern of post election complaining depending on how much, how substantiated the 'losers' complaints really are - as well as how frequently they may complain) .....

I don't see anything accept evidence of a very confused and inconsistent system right now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I don't see anything accept evidence of a very confused and inconsistent system right now.



You have some interesting historical points and it would be enlightening to see where that research leads...

Currently, though, our elections, if _they are only a very confused and inconsistent system_, are on par with the third world.  This alone should not be acceptable to us.

Then, you HAVE to look at the people who have STATED an INTENT to _deliver _ certain results.  Many of these people should never _say _ those things because they are in the position of power regarding elections.  In this case, there is good evidence that many of these people "delivered" on their promises...

There is evidence of illegal activity, deliberate mismanagement, voter intimidation and violence, and violation of federal law/constitutional rights.  This is anathema to everything our country stands for and should not be acceptable regardless of ideology.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1800


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 13, 2005)

T'gace: Very good reference. Interesting to note that Hamilton considered Burr more dangerous than Jefferson. He was more correct than he could have known at the time.
Maybe Aaron Burr's ghost disrupted the Ohio count.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2005)

"There is nothing new under the sun."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "There is nothing new under the sun."



Does that make it right?


----------



## modarnis (Jan 13, 2005)

>>>22. Cops ticket illegally parked cars at poll, because of long wait. 

Boyd Mitchell, testimony, 11/13 hearing, Columbus 
"What I saw was voter intimidation in the form of city employees that were sent in to stop illegal parking. Now, in Driving Park Rec Center, there are less than 50 legal spots and there were literally 100s and 100s of voters there, and I estimate that at least 70 percent of the people were illegally parked in the grass around the perimeter." 

Michael Hayes, testimony, 11/13 hearing, Columbus 
"Imagine the sight, in a Black neighborhood where a lot of young black voters are showing up for the first time, you have full police presence, even though they are sitting in cars.... >>>

How is enforcing existing laws voter intimidation?  I had to park a few blocks away, but I was responsible enough to parallel park my car and walk down the block to the polling place.  Why does voting have to be convenient?  I should want to vote, despite the sacrifice (usually minimal like parking hassle or waiting in a line)  3200 registered in my precinct and only 2 machines.  Nobody turned away. 

On the other issue of police presence at voting places, since I was a child going with my parents to vote, and in 20 years of my own voting in a variety of cities big/small/and ethnically diverse (New Orleans was a 65% Black registered voter city in the years '95-98 when I lived there) there have been police officers at the polling places to enforce parking rules, prevent any unrest, and here in Connecticut to enforce the 75 foot rule where you can't leaflet or campaign within 75 feet of the polling place.

To construe either of these things as voter intimidation is beyond ridiculous


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2005)

The truth is "out there".


----------



## Lisa (Jan 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The truth is "out there".


  but....Trust no one


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> How is enforcing existing laws voter intimidation?



Because it is not enforced equally.  In neighborhoods with high Republican votership, this did not happen.  This was also reported numerous times in civil court cases by people who witnessed this unequal treatment.  This is Jim Crowe southern style voter repression...



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> Why does voting have to be convenient?



Why does it have to be inconvenient?  Moreover, why does it have to be _inconvenient _ for _certain groups_ and not others.  

I think that voting should be something we treasure in this country and by making it as convenient as possible, we are showing how important it is.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> On the other issue of police presence at voting places, since I was a child going with my parents to vote, and in 20 years of my own voting in a variety of cities big/small/and ethnically diverse (New Orleans was a 65% Black registered voter city in the years '95-98 when I lived there) there have been police officers at the polling places to enforce parking rules, prevent any unrest, and here in Connecticut to enforce the 75 foot rule where you can't leaflet or campaign within 75 feet of the polling place.



I've never seen a police officer at a polling place unless one was called.  In most cases, I would say its not needed.  In some places, the relationship between LEOs and various groups of people is positive and in others negative.  Many times, minority groups feel signaled out for whatever reason.  Why put people in a fearful environment when they are trying to enact their civic duty?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The truth is "out there".



Yup, the "Truth" is "out there".


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Because it is not enforced equally. In neighborhoods with high Republican votership, this did not happen. This was also reported numerous times in civil court cases by people who witnessed this unequal treatment. This is Jim Crowe southern style voter repression...


And how pray tell do you know this? How do you know if there were parking problems in those areas or not? How do you know if any parking tickets were issued in "Republican Areas" or not? Or security details? Are you implying that the shift Sergeant told his officers "Well boys we have a note here from the white house saying we have to go oppress the black voters in these districts. Williams and Smith you guys are Republicans, break out your summons books." ??? Come on thats a stretch even for you. Are you assuming that most cops are Bush supporters? Theres quite a few of my co-workers (minus myself of course  ) that are not.



> I've never seen a police officer at a polling place unless one was called. In most cases, I would say its not needed. In some places, the relationship between LEOs and various groups of people is positive and in others negative. Many times, minority groups feel signaled out for whatever reason. Why put people in a fearful environment when they are trying to enact their civic duty?


How do you know that the police werent called regarding parking problems near the voting area? Streets need to be kept clear for emergency traffic and some areas clear for fire lanes etc. Turning this into evidence of collusion between the PD and some "vast right wing conspiracy" is silly. I had to do parking enforcement in front of an elementary school polling location on election day. This was because people were parking where the busses were supposed to load and unload. That and post 9/11 security issues. Had no breifing from the Secret Service that morning telling me to make sure that I intimidated people into voting Republican....

Youre reaching with this one...


----------



## modarnis (Jan 14, 2005)

>>>I've never seen a police officer at a polling place unless one was called. In most cases, I would say its not needed. In some places, the relationship between LEOs and various groups of people is positive and in others negative. Many times, minority groups feel signaled out for whatever reason. Why put people in a fearful environment when they are trying to enact their civic duty?
>>>


How are police officer's in cars or standing around creating a fearful environment?  If you are at a polling place (or anyplace else for that matter) behaving in a manner appropriate for the place you shouldn't have anything to fear from the police.  Try reading Heather McDonald's Are Cops Racist to get an accurate view of what average minorities really think, not the made for TV soundbites.  

This nonsense just perpetuates silliness.  Every criminal who runs from the police in my jurisdiction who needs to be subdued with a taser or whatever always says they ran because they are afraid of the po-lice.  Its never the drugs or gun or other suspicious activity that prompted there running


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And how pray tell do you know this? How do you know if there were parking problems in those areas or not? How do you know if any parking tickets were issued in "Republican Areas" or not? Or security details? Are you implying that the shift Sergeant told his officers "Well boys we have a note here from the white house saying we have to go oppress the black voters in these districts. Williams and Smith you guys are Republicans, break out your summons books." ??? Come on thats a stretch even for you. Are you assuming that most cops are Bush supporters? Theres quite a few of my co-workers (minus myself of course  ) that are not.



"Hey guys, we just gotta call about problems at (insert polling place).  Why don't (insert names) go and check this out."

It is as easy as that.  You have to get out of fantasy land in order to understand this.  These people aren't flying around on broomsticks and cackling with evil glee.  Two guys driving around in a car with a cell phone checking on minority polling places for problems and reporting can do the job quite nicely...



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> How do you know that the police werent called regarding parking problems near the voting area? Streets need to be kept clear for emergency traffic and some areas clear for fire lanes etc. Turning this into evidence of collusion between the PD and some "vast right wing conspiracy" is silly. I had to do parking enforcement in front of an elementary school polling location on election day. This was because people were parking where the busses were supposed to load and unload. That and post 9/11 security issues. Had no breifing from the Secret Service that morning telling me to make sure that I intimidated people into voting Republican....



Again, you are swimming around fantasy island and trying to cook up some absurd situation where "all cops are evil republicans" and that is not what is being said.  The PD are just going to do there job, but for some reason, they only were called to certain polling places.  This has been reported numerous times.  

There were parking problems everywhere because so many people came out to vote, yet only certain polling places had the PD called to correct the situation...



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> You're reaching with this one...



I guess it certainly would seem like that...especially when one tries to blow this up into an unrealistic charicature of what actually happens.  

I've got a couple of questions for you since law enforcement is your profession.  Do you have time to respond to every parking problem?  Or do you respond to the ones you see or the ones your department recieved calls about?  (this is assuming that you actually write parking tickets  :idunno: That might not even be close to what you do for your job)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> How are police officer's in cars or standing around creating a fearful environment?  If you are at a polling place (or anyplace else for that matter) behaving in a manner appropriate for the place you shouldn't have anything to fear from the police.



That isn't even close to describing reality.  It all depends on the cultural perception of a police officer.  In many cases and in many places the local PD have really created bad images for themselves and this negative PR can make it very uncomfortable, even fearful for large groups of people...especially when they know..."da cops ain't hangin round richies backdo..."



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> Try reading Heather McDonald's Are Cops Racist to get an accurate view of what average minorities really think, not the made for TV soundbites.



I'll have to put the book on my reading list.  I'm not saying that _all cops are racist_, but I know that some people really _believe _ that.  Even people who have never done anything wrong their entire lives, may _believe _ this.  

I work with this kind of stuff everyday.  I don't need TV.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> This nonsense just perpetuates silliness.  Every criminal who runs from the police in my jurisdiction who needs to be subdued with a taser or whatever always says they ran because they are afraid of the po-lice.  Its never the drugs or gun or other suspicious activity that prompted there running



You sound exactly like my kyosa.  He is a sergeant at the jail and he deals with the type of _crying wolf silliness _ you describe all of the time.  But, he makes an effort to remind himself that what he sees on a regular basis _is not the norm_.  

And I think that you are forgetting that _the perps _ are human beings.  They have connections to family and friends and many of these people have never done anything wrong in their lives.  Yet, I'm sure they get a constant earfull of how "day bein hassled by da po-lice..."

It's all about PR...and it isn't so "out there" to think that someone may know of places where bad PR exists and seek to use that for their advantage.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

One thing that people have got to realize is that the fraudulent activities that occured in 2004 were local.  They were constructed by people who knew the battlefield intimately and had the power to influence things on a local level.  

This isn't some kind of vast network created and managed by the White House.  That is absolutely absurd.  These people are part of small independent groups engaged in the type of dirty trick grassroots politics that Right Wingers have been employing for ages.  This is nothing new and it still is unacceptable.

Here is what makes this year different though.  In some states, there is evidence that state officials involved in the election process abused their power and broke the law in order to influence the election.  Ohio Secratary of State James Blackwell was cited in the congressional report.

Here is a sample of some of the laws he broke...

1.  He made new rules for the handing out of provisional ballots on election day.  These new rules were in violation of Ohio election law.  The result was that this vastly increased the amount of people who would be handed these ballots.  As reported by eyewitness account and by Ohio public record, most of these ballots were handed out in minority/poor districts.
2.  He made new rules for the counting of these ballots.  These new rules were in violation of Ohio election law.  The result was that 4/5's of the ballots were thrown away.  Of the 1/5th that were left, John Kerry recieved 37,000 more votes.  George Bush recieved 1,500.
3.  He ordered the holding back of voting machines to certain districts on election day.  This was a violation of Ohio's equal access laws.  The result was absurdly long lines in poor/minority voting districts.
4.  He ordered the abolishment of curbside voting.  This was a violation of Ohio's equal access laws.  The result was the disenfranchisement of thousands of elderly and disabled citizens.
5.  Read the rest of the congressional report if you want more information...

Mr. Blackwell sealed all state records until after the vote was legally certified.  The Democratic party took the case to the Supreme Court and the Republican nominated court upheld the decision on a technicality.  This decision is being appealed to federal court.  Mr. Blackwell has been issued supeonas to release the records, but continues to stonewall in apparent contempt of court.  What will the records show when they finally are released?

John Kerry won Ohio.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You have some interesting historical points and it would be enlightening to see where that research leads...
> 
> Currently, though, our elections, if _they are only a very confused and inconsistent system_, are on par with the third world. This alone should not be acceptable to us.
> 
> ...


 
Third world,...why yes!  I do remember numerous reports of car bombs and strong arm tactics (guns, killings of family members, ....) happening before the election.  I do remember all the cases of businesses turning away customers that they knew were Democrats.....

come on.  "Skulldugery" as in conspiracy or just hick/numbscull tactics and inefficiency that needs to be regulated.

I do find it interesting that any mention of more centralized/regulated/consistent standards would take us into a discussion about bleeding the soveriegnity of state/local power though.

There is no pleasing some...

Don't you think that the whole "Right wing" stuff that you are saying 
'they' are getting away with could be because, traditionally, Democrats have pushed and pulled for less centralized power and therefore contributed to the creation of a very awkward, uncoordinated system with enough 'cracks' for stuff like this to fall through...and if so, who do you think was doing this stuff already....Democrats....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Third world,...why yes!  I do remember numerous reports of car bombs and strong arm tactics (guns, killings of family members, ....) happening before the election.  I do remember all the cases of businesses turning away customers that they knew were Democrats....



Not all third world countries are unstable.  If this is the best we can do...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Come on.  "Skulldugery" as in conspiracy or just hick/numbscull tactics and inefficiency that needs to be regulated.



There are two things that you are doing that do not compute with the evidence.

1.  Creating some pancy pants fantasy conspiracy in order to charicature this argument.
2.  Reducing this from an obviously coordinated effort to stupid hickdom.

My post above is a reality check.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting that any mention of more centralized/regulated/consistent standards would take us into a discussion about bleeding the soveriegnity of state/local power though.



Fixing the system so the irregularities and fraud are addressed is an entirely new topic.  It would be a good thread.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Don't you think that the whole "Right wing" stuff that you are saying
> 'they' are getting away with could be because, traditionally, Democrats have pushed and pulled for less centralized power and therefore contributed to the creation of a very awkward, uncoordinated system with enough 'cracks' for stuff like this to fall through...and if so, who do you think was doing this stuff already....Democrats....



I don't know if the current system's failure can be wholly placed on the dems lap.  Again, this would be a good discussion for a new thread about reforming elections.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2005)

So where is there any evidence of a "smoking man" driving around minority polling places calling the police with parking complaints? Convient unproveable theory for why the racist police were oppressing voters on election day. 

Who calls in parking complaints? Typically some irate resident or business owner with a hair up their ***.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So where is there any evidence of a "smoking man" driving around minority polling places calling the police with parking complaints?



Two words..._phone records_.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Convient unproveable theory for why the racist police were oppressing voters on election day.



There you go with the racist thing.  Don't try and distract the issue by inserting this kind of red herring.  NOBODY IS SAYING THAT COPS ARE RACIST.  

And, actually, this "theory" is very "proveable" if one attempts to investigate.

_Attempts to investigate_ is the key...rather then just blowing it off.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Who calls in parking complaints? Typically some irate resident or business owner with a hair up their ***.



Well, in this case, since there were parking problems everywhere and the cops showed up only at certain _specific _ polling places, I would say that the _callers _ in this case were indeed part of a small group of people who cooked up a plan to scare people away from poor/minority polling places.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not all third world countries are unstable. If this is the best we can do...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your correct, not all 3rd world nations are unstable - some have organized corruption and plotted intimidation tactics on how they control elections along with other areas of politics.

I don't think that I am the one postulating 'conspiracy' here. I am one of many that is actually using the term outright instead of hedging around it.

And using a term like 'hickdom' to describe bullying tactics is bad, but piling disconnected examples of poor management and bad practices indicates a planned, coordinated disruption of Democratic party voting. Just because there are no reports of Rep complaints in the volume that seem to be coming in from Dem sources doesn't mean they ran better, just means that they aren't complaining in the same ways - maybe they were focusing on voting?

Again, piling 'evidence' isn't reality check. Connect the dots clearly to state your case, if this was a verbal discussion or a written article, it would be very poorly presented. I know your trying to lead us with bread crumbs so that we say what you want us to, but it would be better if you just stated what you want to say and start from there.

It is sort of like talking......."to someone who baits others into finishing their sentences?"

Exactly.  Because they really wants to prove their point by getting others to...."say it out loud as if that will prove anything?"

YUP!

As far as other thread topics, I am a firm believer that if you feel rightously indignant about something, then you should take the time to offer alternatives and solutions instead of just venting and complaining about it. So, any suggestions to change/reform would probably pretty appropriate here as well IMO - as opposed to just complaining about the dark when your holding the flashlight....


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, in this case, since there were parking problems everywhere and the cops showed up only at certain _specific _polling places, I would say that the _callers _in this case were indeed part of a small group of people who cooked up a plan to scare people away from poor/minority polling places.


Where all those locations within the same police district?  If not, then it really doesn't say much.

And this comment does not take into account man power and prioritizing call responses where parking lot complaints are a lower priority than controlling an accident or responding to another more urgent call.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2005)

Is there a report somewhere detailing where there were "parking problems" and the number of citations issued? Where is the evidence that there were problems "everywhere" but the (non racist) cops decided to only enforce in specific areas, and no police official noticed that fact. 

So weve gone from the police being involved in "Jim Crow" style voter oppression to non-racist cops just doing their jobs. Thats good at least.....


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Is there a report somewhere detailing where there were "parking problems" and the number of citations issued? Where is the evidence that there were problems "everywhere" but the (non racist) cops decided to only enforce in specific areas, and no police official noticed that fact.
> 
> So weve gone from the police being involved in "Jim Crow" style voter oppression to non-racist cops just doing their jobs. Thats good at least.....


Come on now, TOM.  It is absolutely unfair to expect someone to make a point about something with second/third/fourth hand data that has been set up like a library reading list AND THEN expect them to clearly articulate the theoretical link/theme that makes these data chunks related and evidencially significant to that point.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2005)

I heard there was road construction, suspiciously enough, near several minority polling places. I think the dept. of transportation was in on it too......


----------



## modarnis (Jan 14, 2005)

>>And I think that you are forgetting that the perps  are human beings. They have connections to family and friends and many of these people have never done anything wrong in their lives. Yet, I'm sure they get a constant earfull of how "day bein hassled by da po-lice...">>

I think you are are making serious assumptions about what I believe or don't believe.  My work as a prosecutor leads me to deal with lots of people from all walks of life. I treat everyone I meet like I would want my mother or grandmother treated until they give me a reason otherwise.  Often times, the ones who give me a reason to treat them badly make similar assumptions about what I may think.  What I think doesn't always matter, what I can prove does. Bottom line where I work, there is a big difference between evidence and peoples excuses.

Back to the topic at hand, in your experiences maybe police don't present themselves in polling places.  In the states I've lived and voted  (Connecticut, Louisiana, and Massachussets) THere were always officers in uniform at the polling places, regardless of the demographic of the city/town/district.  I remember this in Connecticut 30 years ago when I would tag along with my parents to vote.  When I lived in New Orleans and now here in Connecticut, there are uniformed police in the grocery stores.   The store we shop in is one of the most racially diverse places you could find.  Mere police presence there doesn't seem to dissuade anyone from shopping, regardless of their race or economic status.  

Good bad or otherwise, the constitution puts control of the voting places with the states.  Each state administers the vote their own way.  In all of the materials you have presented, I have yet to see anything but a collection of hearsay statements from people, a few questionable affidavits if in my legal opinion I could even call them that, and lots of dots that when misconnected paint a silly picture that probably isn't reality. When toddlers and preschoolers do this, we venture to teach them how to connect the dots in a logical order to get the right picture.  So far in the info presented here I see lots of scribble.  

 Link me to some real documents from legitimate sources (police dispatch logs, citation records in the instant issue;  voter registration lists/compared to actual functioning machines in a district, or documented machine malfunctions that are noted on an official exception form that polling places often have) that could be gained from FOI requests to show discrepancies, and my mind could be changed.  If there were any real evidence that isn't easily impeached, it would have been readily available by now.  Hearsay and double hearsay statements don't cut it


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

There have been links to expert witness testimony, congressional reports, state supreme court cases, scientific statistical analysis from Princeton and MIT among other universities, FBI investigations, and eye witness reports.  Barring the opinion articles, ALL of the direct evidence I have posted was presented to Congress.  In my opinion, for any _reasonable _ person, there is evidence of fraud, intimidation, and illegal abuse of power.

Whodunnit will require further investigation in some cases.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Your correct, not all 3rd world nations are unstable - some have organized corruption and plotted intimidation tactics on how they control elections along with other areas of politics.



hmmmmm



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I don't think that I am the one postulating 'conspiracy' here. I am one of many that is actually using the term outright instead of hedging around it.



"Conspiracy" is a term that draws many connections.  The connections that you have made in regards to this case do not describe what actually happened.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> And using a term like 'hickdom' to describe bullying tactics is bad, but piling disconnected examples of poor management and bad practices indicates a planned, coordinated disruption of Democratic party voting. Just because there are no reports of Rep complaints in the volume that seem to be coming in from Dem sources doesn't mean they ran better, just means that they aren't complaining in the same ways - maybe they were focusing on voting?



Disconnected?  I don't think so.  Ohio Secratary of State James Blackwell spearheaded a lot of what we saw.  He is currently doing his best to dodge the law.

Perhaps republicans aren't complaining because democrats don't do stuff like this.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, piling 'evidence' isn't reality check. Connect the dots clearly to state your case, if this was a verbal discussion or a written article, it would be very poorly presented. I know your trying to lead us with bread crumbs so that we say what you want us to, but it would be better if you just stated what you want to say and start from there.



Poorly presented?  Perhaps there is a fair bit of bias in that assessment...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as other thread topics, I am a firm believer that if you feel rightously indignant about something, then you should take the time to offer alternatives and solutions instead of just venting and complaining about it. So, any suggestions to change/reform would probably pretty appropriate here as well IMO - as opposed to just complaining about the dark when your holding the flashlight....



Recognition of the problem needs to occur before one can suggest solutions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Is there a report somewhere detailing where there were "parking problems" and the number of citations issued? Where is the evidence that there were problems "everywhere" but the (non racist) cops decided to only enforce in specific areas, and no police official noticed that fact.



There is a report, but I have yet to come across it.  The report was cited in the congressional report, two state supreme court cases, and multiple articles.  



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> So weve gone from the police being involved in "Jim Crow" style voter oppression to non-racist cops just doing their jobs. Thats good at least.....



There was a lot more to _Jim Crowe style voter suppression_ then racist cops.  There are other parellels that are more indicative.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 14, 2005)

>>ALL of the direct evidence I have posted was presented to Congress. In my opinion, for any reasonable  person, there is evidence of fraud, intimidation, and illegal abuse of power>>

Yet none of it appears in the easily searchable transcripts of Congress.

  None of the links to abny of the statistical analysis show the raw data or cite where the raw data was collected.  For a study to be scientifically acceptable, it needs to be reproducable.  I should be able to apply the same methodology and analysis to the raw data and get the same result within an acceptable margin of error


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I think you are are making serious assumptions about what I believe or don't believe.  My work as a prosecutor leads me to deal with lots of people from all walks of life. I treat everyone I meet like I would want my mother or grandmother treated until they give me a reason otherwise.  Often times, the ones who give me a reason to treat them badly make similar assumptions about what I may think.  What I think doesn't always matter, what I can prove does. Bottom line where I work, there is a big difference between evidence and peoples excuses.



I'm with you here.  In my line of work, I deal with the same things.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> Back to the topic at hand, in your experiences maybe police don't present themselves in polling places.  In the states I've lived and voted  (Connecticut, Louisiana, and Massachussets) THere were always officers in uniform at the polling places, regardless of the demographic of the city/town/district.  I remember this in Connecticut 30 years ago when I would tag along with my parents to vote.  When I lived in New Orleans and now here in Connecticut, there are uniformed police in the grocery stores.   The store we shop in is one of the most racially diverse places you could find.  Mere police presence there doesn't seem to dissuade anyone from shopping, regardless of their race or economic status.



I think that people who are illegally parked because of *eight hour * voting lines will be dissuaded when they start to see tickets handed out and cars towed.  They may even feel _singled out _ when they find out that other parking problems in other districts were not handled in the same way.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> Good bad or otherwise, the constitution puts control of the voting places with the states.  Each state administers the vote their own way.  In all of the materials you have presented, I have yet to see anything but a collection of hearsay statements from people, a few questionable affidavits if in my legal opinion I could even call them that, and lots of dots that when misconnected paint a silly picture that probably isn't reality. When toddlers and preschoolers do this, we venture to teach them how to connect the dots in a logical order to get the right picture.  So far in the info presented here I see lots of scribble.



I don't know if you have been in this conversation from the beginning, but I have gone back and reread this thread multiple times.  I can find a clear and logical interplay back and forth between the participants.  There are no misconnected points.  Things have been addressed logically and rationally with some very credible citations.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> Link me to some real documents from legitimate sources (police dispatch logs, citation records in the instant issue;  voter registration lists/compared to actual functioning machines in a district, or documented machine malfunctions that are noted on an official exception form that polling places often have) that could be gained from FOI requests to show discrepancies, and my mind could be changed.  If there were any real evidence that isn't easily impeached, it would have been readily available by now.  Hearsay and double hearsay statements don't cut it



Not only has this already been done, but links have been made to other groups that are doing the same thing.  See...

www.blackboxvoting.org

Beverly Harris's work on this stuff represents one of the biggest FOI in the history of our nation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>ALL of the direct evidence I have posted was presented to Congress. In my opinion, for any reasonable  person, there is evidence of fraud, intimidation, and illegal abuse of power>>
> 
> Yet none of it appears in the easily searchable transcripts of Congress.
> 
> None of the links to abny of the statistical analysis show the raw data or cite where the raw data was collected.  For a study to be scientifically acceptable, it needs to be reproducable.  I should be able to apply the same methodology and analysis to the raw data and get the same result within an acceptable margin of error



The evidence was presented to congress on Thursday, January 6th, 2005.

Statistical results have been posted and repeated independently by reputable organizations like Princeton and MIT.  

The raw data has also been posted and I have repeated the results with my own statistical training.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

This post is worth repeating.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One thing that people have got to realize is that the fraudulent activities that occured in 2004 were local.  They were constructed by people who knew the battlefield intimately and had the power to influence things on a local level.
> 
> This isn't some kind of vast network created and managed by the White House.  That is absolutely absurd.  These people are part of small independent groups engaged in the type of dirty trick grassroots politics that Right Wingers have been employing for ages.  This is nothing new and it still is unacceptable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2005)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731070


----------



## modarnis (Jan 14, 2005)

Obviously your opinions are too strong to scrutinize the data and footnotes in all of the research you link us too.  Many of the links are dead links(including the most recent one you left).  Its not worth the effort spinning my wheels with you.  You are unwilling to be critical of the sources you cite.  Maybe in the end I will get proven wrong  :asian: .  At least when all of these court cases come to fruition, I will be able to easily access the published court opinions/decisions from verifiable sources that aren't websites dedicated to any particular agenda.

As to my previous connect the dots analogy, I was not refering to the discussion here as much as the leaps of faith, questionable, if not outright made up data in some of the cited studies, all painting a picture that is supposed to be a smoking gun of how the election was stolen.  My good friend from Mississipi would say  That Dog Don't Hunt.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2005)

Ohio dropped the case.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731070



The article is old and doesn't address the new information...especially after the recount.  Specifically, it does not address the allegations against Mr. Blackwell's handling of his civic duty.

Here are a few tidbits that I found interesting...



> "We are finding that there were some legitimate counting errors and glitches in the computer system..."



As to date, the list on this has been greatly expanded, according to the congressional report.



> He cited the state's biggest election problem being too few voting machines."



Voting machines that were designated for liberal districts were found in a warehouse.  In some cases voting machines in liberal districts were _removed _ on election day.



> Widespread concerns about why some voters waited up to 11 hours to vote and others were reportedly given wrong information by poll workers about where to cast ballots drew attention from the press but few papers gave some of the fraud theories much credibility.



This, again, is old information.  The story unfolding around Mr. Blackwell's handling of the election is still unfolding.



> When the election is certified, Bush is expected to maintain his roughly 136,000-vote margin. Then a recount, sought by Ralph Nader and the Libertarian and Green party candidates, will take place.



After these events take place, this is where the real controversy starts to heat up.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Obviously your opinions are too strong to scrutinize the data and footnotes in all of the research you link us too.  Many of the links are dead links(including the most recent one you left).  Its not worth the effort spinning my wheels with you.  You are unwilling to be critical of the sources you cite.  Maybe in the end I will get proven wrong  :asian: .  At least when all of these court cases come to fruition, I will be able to easily access the published court opinions/decisions from verifiable sources that aren't websites dedicated to any particular agenda.
> 
> As to my previous connect the dots analogy, I was not refering to the discussion here as much as the leaps of faith, questionable, if not outright made up data in some of the cited studies, all painting a picture that is supposed to be a smoking gun of how the election was stolen.  My good friend from Mississipi would say  That Dog Don't Hunt.



I feel that the information is sound enough for me to form a strong opinion.  I guess time will tell.  Either way, GWB is our president and I don't think anything will change that.  Still getting used to that fact...no matter how distasteful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

*Executive Summary of Congressional Report*



> Preserving Democracy:
> What Went Wrong in Ohio
> Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2005)

*2004 Election fraud links*

*General sources*

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.votergate.tv/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.walkingwithfisher.com/
http://freepress.org/

*Ohio Election Congressional Report*

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml
http://rawstory.com/images/pdfs/finalreport.pdf

*Statistical Studies on the Exit Poll/Actual Results discrepancy*

http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Exit_Poll_Discrepancy.pdf
http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf
http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/997.pdf
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/...wappendices.pdf
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stor...2545298,00.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0412/S00167.htm
http://mediastudy.com/exitpoll.html
http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

*Estimated Vote Count in Ohio*

http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/Vote_Count_Ohio.pdf

*Computer Hacking of Electronic Voting*

http://www.jefffisherforcongress.com/Campaign2006/Election Fraud/electionfraudlink.htm

Texas to Florida: White House-linked clandestine operation paid for "vote switching" software

http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Madsen/120604madsen.html

80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies:  Diebold and ES&S.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. 
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S.  He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. 
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. 
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm
http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html

ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes.  In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. 
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html

Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail. 
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

Diebold is based in Ohio. 
http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm

Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of General Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold.  Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00191.htm
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years. 
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. 
http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html

California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad.  Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it!  (See the movie here:  http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov.) 
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. 
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html

Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html
http://uscountvotes.org/

*Ohio Secretary of State James Blackwells illegal activities*

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=01-03-05&storyID=20433
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1046
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121404Z.shtml
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=552

*Articles Written on Voting Irregularities*

Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065

The "Crime of November 2":  The human side of how Bush stole Ohio, and why Congress must investigate rather than ratify the Electoral College

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1067

Seven key reasons why the vote must be challenged at the electoral college

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1066

Pollsters, Media Implicated in Vote Fraud

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4934

TV Networks Officially Refuse to Release Exit Poll Raw Data Mainstream media finally displays true colors

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.p...=article&sid=1355&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

*Raw data for the distribution of voting machines*

http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/machine_distribution.pdf

*Ohio Supreme Court Cases*

Moss v. Bush

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Election_Contest_2.pdf

*Expert witness deposition*

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Baiman.pdf
http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Lange.pdf
http://freepress.org/images/departments/Dep_Phillips.pdf

Moss v Moyer

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Election_Contest_3_(Moyer).pdf

*Ohios Recount Discrepancy*

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4939

*Articles on the Congressional Challenge*

Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml

*Ohio Voter Claims*

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%..._TO_NATION2.PDF
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_demo...testmt12804.pdf
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

*Voter Fraud in Florida*

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 14, 2005)

You're spending way too much time on this. Don't you know? The election's over. Your guy lost. Enjoy the next 4 years because the next guy will be Bush times two.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2005)

Is that all you can find? 

"If you cant dazzle them with dexterity........"


----------



## modarnis (Jan 15, 2005)

Thanks for the reference to an actual court cases  Moss V. Bush and Moss v. Moyer.  Here is the link to the decisions in these cases.  You will be surprised to find that the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed both of the cases:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf


At least this evidence is published in an official format and verifiable by anyone who chooses to find it


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reference to an actual court cases  Moss V. Bush and Moss v. Moyer.  Here is the link to the decisions in these cases.  You will be surprised to find that the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed both of the cases:
> 
> http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf
> 
> ...



I knew the cases would be dismissed.  Mr. Moyer refuses to recuse himself in both decisions.  He has said on the record that "both of these cases would get nowhere" without seeing the evidence.  This and other things have revealed his bias.  The second case, where he is the defendent, addresses this...but it, too was dismissed by him.  

This is very much like 2000, but the court in this case is more partisan.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2005)

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1085



> Blackwell refused to be deposed. He was the second consecutive Republican Secretary of State to simultaneously serve as a state's Bush-Cheney campaign chair in a state that decided a presidential election for Bush, following Florida's Katherine Harris. He is now running for governor of Ohio. Blackwell argued he did not have to testify because he was "a public official."





> One key element of the case involved the Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice race, where the Democratic candidate received many more votes than Kerry in southern Ohio. That raised the possibility that computer tabulators may have assigned Kerry votes to her candidacy. The election challenge asked Ohio's Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to recuse himself from the case, which was refused. Thus, Moyer made it clear a fair verdict in Moss v. Bush at the Ohio Supreme Court level was unlikely. A second action -- Moss v. Moyer -- based on those same returns was also dropped by the 37 plaintiffs, who will now seek other legal routes to address that conflict of interest and the massive civil rights violations that defined the Ohio vote.





> The contesters believe that the alleged constitutional and statutory rights violated on Election Day were racially motivated. The contesters assert that they "remain dedicated to the goal of ensuring through the legal system that in the future no other group of people, or indeed any individual voter, is deprived of the fundamental and basic right to elect our leaders freely and fairly in an election in which all votes are counted honestly."
> 
> The statement issued by the contesters contends that Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, Karl C. Rove, Richard B. Cheney and George W. Bush "were properly noticed for depositions" and "failed to appear for their depositions."
> 
> The contesters say they "look forward to the day" when they can place Blackwell, Rove, Cheney and Bush under oath in "an appropriate legal setting."


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 15, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> You're spending way too much time on this. Don't you know? The election's over. Your guy lost. Enjoy the next 4 years because the next guy will be Bush times two.



What if the next time it's the Democrats stealing votes?

The point is about guaranteeing fair elections, not who won or lost.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2005)

We may never have a free election in this country again...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Death_of_Democracy.pdf

Dr. Fetzer was a professor of mine.  He taught my philosophy of science classes.  Read this carefully.

Incidentally, I did not know that Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, called for the complete elimination of exit polling.  

There goes the final safeguard to our democracy...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I did not know that Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, called for the complete elimination of exit polling.
> 
> There goes the final safeguard to our democracy...



The Ukraine elections were disputed internationally, and reheld, because of evidence from exit polling, which was actually less reliable and scientific than the exit polling in the Ohio elections, which demonstrated Kerry as the leader.

Exit polling has served as a standard by which international bodies have verified disputed election results for decades; however, in the United States, we're moving away from them?

As the Reverend Jesse Jackson said recently, if the Ohio election had been held in the Ukraine, it would not have been certified.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 15, 2005)

>>>Exit polling has served as a standard by which international bodies have verified disputed election results for decades; however, in the United States, we're moving away from them?>>>

I've always been under the mistaken impression that our constitutional framework was the safeguard to democracy.  Which Article, Section or Amendment to the Constitution covers exit polls?  I must have missed that day in class


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 15, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I've always been under the mistaken impression that our constitutional framework was the safeguard to democracy.  Which Article, Section or Amendment to the Constitution covers exit polls?  I must have missed that day in class



Exit polling is a technique to help verify that those constitutional protections are actually provided.

My point was simply that we rely heavily on them to verify international elections, but apparently, believe they're unreliable for verifying disputed American elections, even if they're held in a more scientific fashion in the States than in those international disputes.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> hmmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hmmmm what?  A few years ago there were allogations of "Whitewater Scandal" surrounding the Clinton's, now this stuff with Bush.... my point was about the firebombing, open shooting and threats to families (that could reasonably be believed because they had happened in the recent past...) that occur in 3rd world country elections at times.  Look at Bosnia, Pre WWII Germany and Hitler's rise to power and  even current Iraq.  

Disconnected in the sense that there is no proven link, master mind, coordinating agent that is linking these occurances under one plan.

No..."Democrats" are good and "Republicans" are baddddd, what if we changed this to "Catholic" and "Protestent" or "Blacks" and "Whites"....come on.  Such generalizations/bigotous comments reveal a bias spin on this whole thread IMO.

Yup, admittedly, because I don't feel like making a difficult and frustating issue worse by mislabelling it as "conspiracy" when all it is in reality is "convoluted/de-centralized."

You seem to recognize a problem, so pitch a solution/alternative.  Write your party support to your lobby group of choice, vote for folks you don't think will do this (like all those saintly Democrats...How did the Kennedy family make their millions?  Oh yeah, rum running and becoming city bosses.  Clinton....let's not go there), and/or run for office yourself so that you can make those changes that you think need to be made.  Do it with no intention of a long term career.

I didn't say there was NO problem, just not the problem that you are trying to postulate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> hmmmm what?  A few years ago there were allogations of "Whitewater Scandal" surrounding the Clinton's, now this stuff with Bush.... my point was about the firebombing, open shooting and threats to families (that could reasonably be believed because they had happened in the recent past...) that occur in 3rd world country elections at times.  Look at Bosnia, Pre WWII Germany and Hitler's rise to power and  even current Iraq.



Again, you point to extreme examples in order to illustrate your point.  Not all third world examples are so extreme.  Some third world elections are even peaceful...and in all of those elections the UN monitors them with exit polling.  When the polls are off by as much as they were on Nov. 2nd, the election the election is considered fraudulent. 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Disconnected in the sense that there is no proven link, master mind, coordinating agent that is linking these occurances under one plan.



More Dr. Evil fantasy land stuff.  This does not have to be a requirement for the all of the things that have been presented on this thread to have occured.  The closest thing to this would be the Ohio Secratary of State, who congressional officials are now pressing criminal investigations.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> No..."Democrats" are good and "Republicans" are baddddd, what if we changed this to "Catholic" and "Protestent" or "Blacks" and "Whites"....come on.  Such generalizations/bigotous comments reveal a bias spin on this whole thread IMO.



These comparisons are NOT analgous.  Nor is the situation easily simplified to "good" vs "bad".  My bias is obvious, but it does not change the facts.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yup, admittedly, because I don't feel like making a difficult and frustating issue worse by mislabelling it as "conspiracy" when all it is in reality is "convoluted/de-centralized."



It sure would be nice if you would attempt to back this claim up.  So far, you assertion is completely baseless and it flies in the face of all the evidence presented.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> You seem to recognize a problem, so pitch a solution/alternative.  Write your party support to your lobby group of choice, vote for folks you don't think will do this (like all those saintly Democrats...How did the Kennedy family make their millions?  Oh yeah, rum running and becoming city bosses.  Clinton....let's not go there), and/or run for office yourself so that you can make those changes that you think need to be made.  Do it with no intention of a long term career.



There are great ideas out there, but I think this is more appropriate for another thread.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I didn't say there was NO problem, just not the problem that you are trying to postulate.



Again, why do you think that this is NOT the problem postulated?  What evidence leads you to believe that?


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  More Dr. Evil fantasy land stuff. This does not have to be a requirement for the all of the things that have been presented on this thread to have occured. The closest thing to this would be the Ohio Secratary of State, who congressional officials are now pressing criminal investigations.
> 
> 2.  These comparisons are NOT analgous. Nor is the situation easily simplified to "good" vs "bad". My bias is obvious, but it does not change the facts.
> 
> ...


1.  Yes, and the UN has been seen as SUCH an effective monitor of the worlds corruption issues in nations....who was it that blocked them from inspection for over 10 years?  Again, on one hand, the UN is a large paper tiger but when it is for your purpose it is the source of veracity.  How were 'exit polls' conducted in these nations that you are using as valid comparison?  If they were not run as scientifically, validly, how can you trust the results - expect when they seem to support your position?

2.  Your bias is obvious and that does change the facts because of what and how you present it.

3.  I am not carrying the burden of proof in this discussion.  You made the postulation, either dispute my statements or prove your point.  So far the 'evidence' only shows a problem, not a plan.

4.  I would think that taking an issue/problem from introduction to resolution would be healthier and more productive than continuing a thread that only screams doom and gloom.

5.  I don't think that this is the problem YOU are postulating because of earier posts.  You have stated outright that this is all a coordinated effort, a 'stolen election' that was contrived by someone/some group....not me.  I am saying that the sour grapes response during the stress of a war time election will polarize people and THAT is as much a contributor to all of this complaining as anything else.  It is/could be changing people's perception of the 'evidence' from simply 'messed up' to 'scheme/conspiracy'.....because of that stress.

By the way, the Hitler example, the Bosnia example, the Iraq example.....follow the trail of bodies and then tell me it is fantasy land.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 18, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Exit polling is a technique to help verify that those constitutional protections are actually provided.
> 
> My point was simply that we rely heavily on them to verify international elections, but apparently, believe they're unreliable for verifying disputed American elections, even if they're held in a more scientific fashion in the States than in those international disputes.


I've already commented on the 'veracity' of exit polling (who is running it, who is tabulating responses, who is presenting the findings....) in the international community.

But to comment on the either/or comment about validity:

Along those same lines, it is interesting that on one hand the LEO that 'serve and protect' are the hero of the day when people choose to see them that way, but in these cases they become 'police state' enforcers by either not responded to certain problems or bullying certain types....when every county, state, local, federal department runs in cooperation/coordination but generally independently of each other.

By now, some officer, department that was really feeling guilty would have come forward about cooperation in voter bullying or anything to the like.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1.  Yes, and the UN has been seen as SUCH an effective monitor of the worlds corruption issues in nations....who was it that blocked them from inspection for over 10 years?  Again, on one hand, the UN is a large paper tiger but when it is for your purpose it is the source of veracity.  How were 'exit polls' conducted in these nations that you are using as valid comparison?  If they were not run as scientifically, validly, how can you trust the results - expect when they seem to support your position?.



That has already been posted.  Dr. Freeman's analysis cites the UN's own criteria.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 2.  Your bias is obvious and that does change the facts because of what and how you present it.



Bias cannot change facts.  Fortunately, for me, the facts are playing in "my" direction.  By the way, do you think that bias may be involved in the way you interpret the facts.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 3.  I am not carrying the burden of proof in this discussion.  You made the postulation, either dispute my statements or prove your point.  So far the 'evidence' only shows a problem, not a plan.



You are free to disagree without having to justify yourself, but you take it a step further by postulating an alternative.  Show me the money?  This would be a great discussiondueling viewpoints anyone?

By the way, for all reasonable purposes, I have shown more then enough evidence for my position.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 4.  I would think that taking an issue/problem from introduction to resolution would be healthier and more productive than continuing a thread that only screams doom and gloom.



Dont you think we need to decide on a problem first?  Maybe we dont.  There could be a solution that tackles both viewpointsthe TruVote system is pretty good.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 5.  I don't think that this is the problem YOU are postulating because of earlier posts.  You have stated outright that this is all a coordinated effort, a 'stolen election' that was contrived by someone/some group....not me.



Coordinated, yes, but not on the scale that you are taking this too despite my numerous clarifications.  The organization is local, but the ideologic goal is the same.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am saying that the sour grapes response during the stress of a wartime election will polarize people and THAT is as much a contributor to all of this complaining as anything else.  It is/could be changing people's perception of the 'evidence' from simply 'messed up' to 'scheme/conspiracy'.....because of that stress.



Again, this is the viewpoint that you postulate.  I would like to see the basis for this argument, otherwise it seems baseless.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> By the way, the Hitler example, the Bosnia example, the Iraq example.....follow the trail of bodies and then tell me it is fantasy land.



The original comment dealt with the idea that there is some top down evil conspiracy lead by a single person (or a small group of people) and extends across the country.  This is fantasy island movie stuff and does not take into account the nature of the politics in question.  The election fraud I have described were most likely the product of multiple independent local efforts between groups that share ideology and/or common goal.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. That has already been posted. Dr. Freeman's analysis cites the UN's own criteria.
> 
> 2. Bias cannot change facts.
> 
> ...


1. Criteria and actual application will vary because of circumstance...where the rubber meets the road, reality.

2. Bias can have a huge influence on 'facts.'
Ex. 27 out of 50 people approve of diapers.

Fact 1: "The majority of people approve of diapers"

Fact 2: "Diapers barely slid in as acceptable.

Fact 3: "The alleged diapers are approved by the majority of people"

Fact 4: "When 50 people, chosen from a pool of Western New York residence, chosen by computer generated random phone number selection, responded to the question 'Do you approve of diapers?' by personal interview, 27 responed with approval and 20 responded with disapproval and 3 responed with a no comment."

All responses based on the 'facts' (though the last included details just to emphasis the differences) but leaving different impressions from each statement...thus bias.

3. Again, your point, your proof. I am justified, just not using details - good old simple logic and context/rational thought to consider other views.

4. What position? That elections don't go smoothy? So what. I can complain about salt in my food but that doesn't mean that because someone says they are launching an investigation about it that it is true. The results of an investigation count. People pushing for that investigation only indicates suspicion - or it could also indicate that they want to look like they are supporting their party after losing an election..... Innocent until proven guilty....or something like that.

5. You have decided on the problem. If you feel that strongly about it, regardless of whether we agree on the 'why' of the problems, the solutions to solve the situations that you describe would be constructive. When you focus on 'fixing the blame' instead of the problem (establishing standards and practices that would eliminate the potential for unfair practices by anyone and everyone) you improve the quality for everyone. As it stands, it looks like finger pointing instead of reform....again.

6. So is it a local thing or not? THese guys meet and greet at conventions, assemblies, regular correspondence to reinforce your stated 'ideological goal' they share in common. What are you saying: Republicans are corrupt and use voter obstruction and intimidation and Democrats don't? You did come right out and say it that simply btw.

7. Yes it is 'baseless' because I don't throw up links and studies, but if I trust my ability to think logically, I can treat the nation as a single body - just as a person is a single body - and say that if an individual entity experiences negative reactions to stress (either because they are 'there' or because they are worried about loved ones that are there) and tend to have adverse stress reactions (irritability, loss of perspective, physical illness....) and recognize that these things can be paralleled in that 'national body' then it is not so 'baseless' but could be considered 'reasonable' as an observation.  But, let me guess, you won't like my analogy so that won't work for you.

8. If it is a shared goal and is a common ideology across a broad part of the nation.....your implying that it is national/conspiratorial in nature.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1. Criteria and actual application will vary because of circumstance...where the rubber meets the road, reality.



Actually, no they do not.  These results have got to be repeatable or they are thrown away.  This is part of the process of independent verification.  Look, the veracity of exit poll data has been tested again and again and again.  Exit polls are scientific tools that are used to measure election results.  When there is a difference, then _something tampered _ with the actual results.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 2. Bias can have a huge influence on 'facts.'
> Ex. 27 out of 50 people approve of diapers.
> 
> Fact 1: "The majority of people approve of diapers"
> ...



You are talking about spin, not facts.  Facts, like mass or exit poll data do not change.  Do you think that your interpretations are affected by your bias?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 3. Again, your point, your proof. I am justified, just not using details - good old simple logic and context/rational thought to consider other views.



If you disagree and I ask you for details and you do not give them, then the disagreement is baseless.  If you present an alternative point of view and you do not spend the time grounding that POV with some sort of observational facts, then that POV is baseless.

I could try to fit your POV to the facts that I have found...which I have and I have shown again and again how it does not fit a large portion of them.  So unless you have something else to add, there is no reason for ANYONE to logically accept your argument...

Your argument is faith-based.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 4. What position? That elections don't go smoothy? So what. I can complain about salt in my food but that doesn't mean that because someone says they are launching an investigation about it that it is true. The results of an investigation count. People pushing for that investigation only indicates suspicion - or it could also indicate that they want to look like they are supporting their party after losing an election..... Innocent until proven guilty....or something like that.



So, lets see...

1.  There is a 250,000,000 to 1 chance that the election results could end up the way they did by random chance.  
2.  Every single state with electronic voting that left no paper trail had a significant difference between the exit poll data and the actual results.  And EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE gave Bush more votes.
3.  EVERY SINGE INSTANCE of known and reported electronic voting mis-tallies put votes in the Bush column.  
4.  The Ohio Secratary of State violated at least five election laws according to the public record of the decisions he made.  These violations not only suppressed the democratic vote in that state, but allowed him to throw away thousands of legal votes.
5.  Ect...

Look, that is just a sampling of the evidence that I have been using to support my opinion.  What have you shown?

Zero.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 5. You have decided on the problem. If you feel that strongly about it, regardless of whether we agree on the 'why' of the problems, the solutions to solve the situations that you describe would be constructive. When you focus on 'fixing the blame' instead of the problem (establishing standards and practices that would eliminate the potential for unfair practices by anyone and everyone) you improve the quality for everyone. As it stands, it looks like finger pointing instead of reform....again..



This isn't so much about "fixing the blame" as showing the "correct problem."  Also, there is a certain aspect of accountability that you are missing.  People who broke the law need to be held accountable.  Election results that are in question need to be questioned.  Then we can decided what to do.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 6. So is it a local thing or not? THese guys meet and greet at conventions, assemblies, regular correspondence to reinforce your stated 'ideological goal' they share in common. What are you saying: Republicans are corrupt and use voter obstruction and intimidation and Democrats don't? You did come right out and say it that simply btw...



There is a faction of the Republican party that is corrupt and is willing to subvert democracy in order to "win at all costs".  Democrats have probably done similar things in the past.  In 2004?  Not according the evidence that I have seen.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 7. Yes it is 'baseless' because I don't throw up links and studies, but if I trust my ability to think logically, I can treat the nation as a single body - just as a person is a single body - and say that if an individual entity experiences negative reactions to stress (either because they are 'there' or because they are worried about loved ones that are there) and tend to have adverse stress reactions (irritability, loss of perspective, physical illness....) and recognize that these things can be paralleled in that 'national body' then it is not so 'baseless' but could be considered 'reasonable' as an observation.  But, let me guess, you won't like my analogy so that won't work for you....



Your argument is, by definition, _faith _ based.  There is _no _ way to tell if what you are saying actually describes reality.  If you want to _describe reality_, then you must *ground * what you are saying with some *facts*.  This is the difference between creationism and evolution...now that is an analogy that works...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 8. If it is a shared goal and is a common ideology across a broad part of the nation.....your implying that it is national/conspiratorial in nature.



For certain groups of people across the country, it certainly is _conspiratorial _ in the sense that they are willing to break the laws and subvert democracy in order to "win at all costs".  

Your usage of the word "conspiratorial" is very loaded by the way...


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 19, 2005)

UpN,

Your correct, I am not using facts... but does the logic seem so far off base that it isn't plausible?

You are using 'facts' that are summaries of reports, presented interps of findings and, at times, loaded with inferrences that combine with hard numbers that lead to conclusions...is that reality? Not necessarily. It is a bunch of stacked data that is compiled and organized so that it points to what you want it to point to.

Now, you seem to be convinced of your stance, yet don't want to talk about productive alternatives.

In the first Bush vote it was the hanging chads, in this one it is manipulated paperless systems....at least in the next election there will be a new set of targets to rip up.

LOGICALLY speaking, the people most vested in exposing voter manipulation/vote tampering are not talking about this. If there was so much evidence that clearly indicated a Bush Support coordinated effort (conspiracy) then why aren't the major players (Kerry, Democratic party, Democratic voting officials, Department of Justice, ACLU....) all sifting through it? If it is so easy for you to 'prove' it here, why is Bush still in office, or at least the parties that coordinated to tamper with the voting being slammed?

Conspiracy...how am I using it in a 'loaded' way?  I don't feel like I am the one with a load right now.

Answer at your own will, I am done with this.  You have attempted to convince me/people that we have to see your problem as valid.  I am saying your beating a dead horse but if you are going to pose a 'problem' that you believe to be true, offer solutions/alternatives to at least get something productive from it more than just the satisfaction of party/personal character bashing based on assumptions and partial information (partial because you don't have access to all that a Dept. of Justice investigation would)...gee sounds like the approach that Bush is accused of using to justify attacking Iraq.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree that it sounds like chest thumping rather than real facts.  Most of the evidence I've seen is similar to the evidence pointing towards the existence of aliens on Earth or Bigfoot -- very anecdotal.  I fail to see how the presence of the police or the ticketing of parking-violators sways the vote either way.

1) Ohio voted 75% using a paper-based system.  Ohio required a paper trail for the electronic system that were used.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties were involved in the recount and recertification.  If there was a problem, why did everyone agree with the recertification?  If they didn't agree, how did it get certified?

2) If election laws were broken, we'll find out in court where evidence will be presented and discussed, assuming someone has enough evidence to take it to court.  Let me know when the trial date is and I'll give it some attention.

I would prefer for people to stop yelling fire and start providing solutions to put it out.  I suppose your solution is to take all Republicans out of office and replace them with Democrats, but that doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Personally, I would give more credence to your arguments if you had just kept the discussion around voting problems, rather than pointing at a Republican conspiracy.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2005)

Incidentally...



> VOTE 2004: FAIR OR FRAUD?
> Jan. 19, 2005
> 
> In this very partisan atmosphere, it may not surprise you to hear that there are some people out there who believe the winner of the 2004 U.S. presidential race was John Kerry -- that he should be the focus of the extravagant inaugural parade that will make its way up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House tomorrow. These very vocal critics believe that because of voting irregularities in Ohio on Election Day, George Bush actually lost the election. Some go even further to say that the Republicans conspired to steal it. Washington has been dressed up once again for the festivities, so it seems a little late, but tonight we'll listen to the arguments and see if they have any merit.
> ...



So, how long did it take for Watergate to break?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Your correct, I am not using facts... but does the logic seem so far off base that it isn't plausible?.



Yes.  You are trying to attribute this a shoddy system that naturally allows for this kind of error.  Political scientists have already calculated the error and its z-score and the error of the 2004 election is well above what could be called systematic.  In fact, for all of the "errors" to report exactly like they did, the chances for this occurence are 250,000,000 to one.  

Sorry to be C3PO to your Han Solo... :jedi1: 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> You are using 'facts' that are summaries of reports, presented interps of findings and, at times, loaded with inferrences that combine with hard numbers that lead to conclusions...is that reality? Not necessarily. It is a bunch of stacked data that is compiled and organized so that it points to what you want it to point to.



Where else can it point?  What you postulate as an alternative doesn't take into account all of the data.  Any theoretical explanation is only as good as the data it fits.  If you can find a better theory (or anyone else for that matter) by all means attempt to do so.  

Also, any theory will have bias and in statistical analysis, there are many ways to take this into account.  This bias does not mean that one can ignore data, though.  Thus far, the best explanation for the data indicates deliberate tampering with the real results of the election.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Now, you seem to be convinced of your stance, yet don't want to talk about productive alternatives.



I am convinced of my position thus far.  I am convinced because of the information that I have researched.  I would be more willing to discuss alternatives if some pertinent research was presented that clearly fell outside the predictions of the proposed hypothesis.

In the first Bush vote it was the hanging chads, in this one it is manipulated paperless systems....at least in the next election there will be a new set of targets to rip up.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> LOGICALLY speaking, the people most vested in exposing voter manipulation/vote tampering are not talking about this. If there was so much evidence that clearly indicated a Bush Support coordinated effort (conspiracy) then why aren't the major players (Kerry, Democratic party, Democratic voting officials, Department of Justice, ACLU....) all sifting through it? If it is so easy for you to 'prove' it here, why is Bush still in office, or at least the parties that coordinated to tamper with the voting being slammed?



Actually, they are, but I don't think that anyone is listening.  Sen. Harry Ried the new senate minority leader one one of the senators that backed the congression challenge.  Other prominent democrats have followed suit.  Sen. John Kerry has stated that he plans on introducing legislation that will accomplish two things: one is that it will _force _ the Justice Dept. fully investigate all allegations of voter fraud (the key word here is _force_), two make changes so these kinds of things can never happen again.  Also, in Ohio and at a Federal level, possible criminal charges are being examined for their Secratary of State.  The system is slow and ponderous, but it is moving, make no mistake.

Incidentally, every step of the way, this movement has been opposed by Republicans.  White House press secratary Scott McClellen stated, "this administration will not entertain the foolish allegations of conspiracy theorists."  Senate Majority leader Bill Frist referred to this movement as "the tin-hatter brigade" among Democrats (I guess John Kerry and Harry Ried, two of the most powerful Dems in the country are now part of this brigade   ).  Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage et al are decrying this as just another sore loser attempt to subvert democracy (Oh Please!!!!).

_These people_ are doing everything in their power to obfuscate the evidence and bar investigation.  Time will tell.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Conspiracy...how am I using it in a 'loaded' way?  I don't feel like I am the one with a load right now.



Two people deciding to bake an apple pie have formed a "conspiracy".  I believe that you are using it in the very Rush Limbaugh sort of sense...in order to cast doubt without dealing with the evidence directly.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Answer at your own will, I am done with this.  You have attempted to convince me/people that we have to see your problem as valid.  I am saying your beating a dead horse but if you are going to pose a 'problem' that you believe to be true, offer solutions/alternatives to at least get something productive from it more than just the satisfaction of party/personal character bashing based on assumptions and partial information (partial because you don't have access to all that a Dept. of Justice investigation would)...gee sounds like the approach that Bush is accused of using to justify attacking Iraq.



In a way, the Dept of Justice may be the very last people to pick this up information/investigation.  They will be _forced _ to by patriots banding together and using the internet to preserve democracy in the US.  In this way, the internet is becoming another check on governmental malfesance by allowing information to spread freely.

Votergate will become the next Watergate in my opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I agree that it sounds like chest thumping rather than real facts.  Most of the evidence I've seen is similar to the evidence pointing towards the existence of aliens on Earth or Bigfoot -- very anecdotal.  I fail to see how the presence of the police or the ticketing of parking-violators sways the vote either way.



Most is a gross mischaracterization.  Some is "anecdotal" in the sense that it comes in "eye witness" form.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> 1) Ohio voted 75% using a paper-based system.  Ohio required a paper trail for the electronic system that were used.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties were involved in the recount and recertification.  If there was a problem, why did everyone agree with the recertification?  If they didn't agree, how did it get certified?



There are a number of problems with the above.  First of all, "the paper trail" in Ohio has been sealed by Kenneth Blackwell and is unavailable for public scrutiny until after the final certification.  Secondly, it has been shown that not all of Ohio's electronic voting machines left a paper trail.  Thirdly, Democratic involvement in the recount and certification was quite limited.  Mr. Blackwell made most of the decisions and he rushed the checks and balances process before it could pick up any of the things we are seeing now...and then has proceeded to block any further attempt to investigate "public" records.  This has left many Ohio Democrats incensed.  



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> 2) If election laws were broken, we'll find out in court where evidence will be presented and discussed, assuming someone has enough evidence to take it to court.  Let me know when the trial date is and I'll give it some attention.



I'll do my best.  Time will tell.  The system is moving though.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I would prefer for people to stop yelling fire and start providing solutions to put it out.  I suppose your solution is to take all Republicans out of office and replace them with Democrats, but that doesn't fix the underlying problem.



I agree, but that would be a solution I would propose.  In fact, proposing solutions may be hazardess to your health...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Death_of_a_Patriot.pdf



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Personally, I would give more credence to your arguments if you had just kept the discussion around voting problems, rather than pointing at a Republican conspiracy.



Sure, but once you begin to look at the voting problems and the bulk of the evidence begins to surface, the conclusion that the election was _tampered _ with is unavoidalbe.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sen. John Kerry has stated that he plans on introducing legislation that will accomplish two things: one is that it will _force _the Justice Dept. fully investigate all allegations of voter fraud (the key word here is _force_), two make changes so these kinds of things can never happen again. Also, in Ohio and at a Federal level, possible criminal charges are being examined for their Secratary of State. The system is slow and ponderous, but it is moving, make no mistake.
> 
> In a way, the Dept of Justice may be the very last people to pick this up information/investigation. They will be _forced _to by patriots banding together and using the internet to preserve democracy in the US. In this way, the internet is becoming another check on governmental malfesance by allowing information to spread freely.
> 
> Votergate will become the next Watergate in my opinion.


I know I said I was done, but riding the pigtails of Kerry's use of one word "forced" is so clearly a case of bias and loaded commentary it isn't even funny.

Now the implication is that a sworn public servent (not just politicians anymore but Law Enforcement agents - most of whom are law grads or even barred lawyers) are in need of "forcing" to do their job about something this large and blatantly wrong if it is supportable....

But I am the one using terms like conspiracy in a Rush-like implicative way....

Again, there have been numerous cases where comments about the reliability, motives and actions of politicians have been questionable at best, but when politicians start making statements about this...suddenly they are being noble and justice minded....inconsistency in your presentation of the same source/people between topics doesn't garner much credibility IMO.

Now, really, honest.............I'm done, arguing this.

You can be right, I will be wrong....can I start reading 'solutions' now that you have made your point?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 21, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Now the implication is that a sworn public servent (not just politicians anymore but Law Enforcement agents - most of whom are law grads or even barred lawyers) are in need of "forcing" to do their job about something this large and blatantly wrong if it is supportable....



Just stop and think about this for a moment...Just because someone has sworn an oath to serve the public does not mean that they will do so in a manner that is just or even lawfull.  Historically, there have been many cases where the Justice Dept had to be _forced _ to investigate something.  From the 60's onto today, there have been dozens of concrete examples.  I seem to recall something about a burglary...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, there have been numerous cases where comments about the reliability, motives and actions of politicians have been questionable at best, but when politicians start making statements about this...suddenly they are being noble and justice minded....inconsistency in your presentation of the same source/people between topics doesn't garner much credibility IMO.



Can one be critical of a person, but then when they do something you like, be appreciative?  Or is there no middle ground?  If not, does this mean that when President Bush does something I like, I can't give him credit for that?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> You can be right, I will be wrong....can I start reading 'solutions' now that you have made your point?



Yes.  TruVote is a good system from what I have seen.  Doing a little research...


----------

