Reply #39: t ball pratice

[Botany]

Volusia County 2000 .... The fact that Florida 2000 was dirty allowed bush to
become President and run as the incumbent in 2004. The negative votes allowed
the race to be placed in doubt and the rest is history.

Miami County, Oh 2004 .... Precincts with 80 to 99.7 percent turn outs. Conyers report
"What went wrong in OH." The extra 19,000 votes were @ the exact same ratio as
all the previous votes in Miami county .... (at least that is what i read) .... which is a
mathematical impossibility.

Lucas County 2004 .... it was not a phenomenon. The man did not show up, there by
slowing up the ability of people to vote. Lucas County's BOE was under control of one
Bernadette Noe, wife of Coin-gate's Tom Noe, she allowed republican operatives to
work on voting registrations at the BOE prior to the 04 vote. Many cases were also
reported of long time voters being told @ the polls they were no longer registered.
One couple who had first voted for JFK in 1960 and had lived in the same house up
until 2004 election were told they were no longer registered. Toledo Blade
Also they were cases of the urban and democratic precincts showing turn outs much
lower then republican suburbs. One precinct showed a 39 % turn out. The republican
suburbs showed 80 to 97% turn outs.

Franklin County OH .... despite a massive new voter drives that enrolled @ least 250,000
new voters the vote from 2000 to 2004 did not show that big a jump in the # of voters.

Warren County, OH .... show me the terrorists ..... that was a bald faced lie.

To this day I still don't get how "they" got to call a phony terrorist warning ad got
to count the vote in secret.

Richard Philip Hayes has done some great work on the vote there too. "Header
cards" were found in the vote punch cards .... also ballots of people who showed
up but did not vote for president have been found (dems only), and once again
the "glitches" always favored bush.

Mahoning County .... One machine had a negative 25 million votes for Kerry Pre-loaded.
Fact.

Connally's vote totals do not pass the smell test. She had no money and she was an unknown
as far as her name in those counties. For somebody to vote for George W bush for President
and then turn around and vote for a black liberal pro choice pro gay rights women just
does not add up.

BTW for bush to have gotten the #s he did he would have had to get the majority of the new voters,
the majority of the undecided voters, and not lost any of his 2000 base to death or switching
votes. The numbers just do not add up.

**************************************************************************************************

Conclusion: Evidence for Vote Miscount in the 2004 Presidential Election The possibility that the 2004 election exit poll discrepancy was caused by vote miscount has become increasingly credible as successive (E/M and ESI) reports claiming support for exit-poll error have instead provided more evidence for vote miscount. The nonpartisan U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) in its September 2005 report "ELECTIONS -- Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed" 50 on page 38 said, "...there is evidence that some of these concerns —including weak controls and inadequate testing—have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes." The Ohio precinct-level exit poll data that was recently released shows highly irregular patterns of exit poll discrepancies that are not explainable by any exit poll error hypothesis, or “hypothetical”, offered to date. Neither a "constant mean" nor a “pervasive” pro-Kerry exit poll bias could possibly explain the E/M national aggregate exit poll data, or the detailed Ohio precinct-level exit poll data. To date no evidence-supported Exit Poll-based explanation of the Great Discrepancy has been provided. The state and national, as well as the detailed Ohio precinct-level exit poll data provide strong evidence in support of a vote fraud hypothesis. The refusal by Edison/Mitofsky to permit independent analysis of their trove of data is has deepened public concern. The shoddy and inadequate analysis (claiming, for example, that linear correlation analysis, or a 56%-to-50% response bias, is sufficient to support the E/M hypothesis) that has been released to the public has deepened the uncertainty about what happened in the 2004 elections. The Mitofsky/Liddle pervasive mean bias conjecture is unsupported by and inconsistent with the publicly available data. Spin and obfuscation have spread the myth that the "exit polls are unreliable". The support of the media for the pollsters' exit poll response bias hypothesis as an explanation of the discrepancies between the exit polls and the election results in the presidential election, without any serious evidence, has been a travesty. Many electronic U.S. voting systems do not permit voters to view the actual record of votes cast. Worse, the vast majority of U.S. votes are counted secretly by a small handful of inside
programmers and election officials using confidential vote counting software, and the resulting vote counts are not routinely independently audited to detect and correct errors. Hence, U.S. vote counts are vulnerable to wide-spread nationwide tampering. The current U.S. Election Assistance Commission's technical staff is led by the same person who ushered in un-auditable e-voting systems in Georgia, and so no adequate voting system guidance is likely to come from this federal organization tasked with protecting our voting systems. Analysis of limited available election results data has shown suspicious patterns, such as the New Mexico data that revealed padded absentee ballot votes and high rates of under-votes in counties using digital recording electronic voting machines; the Washington state election that showed an unlikely probability to vote Republican when using DRE voting machines and Democratic when using mail-in ballots in the same precincts 51 ; and the Ohio precinct-level exit poll results show what seem to be impossible election results.

Authors of this paper include: Kathy Dopp, Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, and Josh Mitteldorf
Reviewers include: Steve Freeman, Robert Klauber, Robert C. Koehler, and Jill Hacker