For those of you who think the 2004 election wasn't stolen - if they will

[helderheid]

wiretap your phone illegally, what makes you think they wouldn't tamper with the voting machines?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Excellent point!

[rzemanfl]

2. I think one of the phones they were tapping was Kerry's. n/t

[DELUSIONAL]

24. That's why we need to see the list

because I believe that the list is well populated with bushie's political "enemies"

Just like the Nixon enemies list.

[rzemanfl]

47. Democratic campaign slogan: "Vote Democrat and find out

what really happened."

[SmokingJacket]

25. Bingo.

That's why they didn't go through the proper channels. They'd never be denied permission to wiretap, BUT they didn't want a record.

[Psephos]

3. And that's the larger point...

Once you break the people's trust like that, you have no defense when the people give voice to their every suspicion and every fear.

Peace.

[bleever]

4. "But it would be wrong," to quote Richard M. Nixon

:)

[emulatorloo]

27. LOL - I remember it well n/t

[lpbk2713]

5. Just consider what they have at stake.

They will do anything to hold on to what they've got. They are up against the wall. They know if the dems get in control the investigations will start and then they will have to pay.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Maybe. The Dems were in control when Kerry broke BCCI and

the Iran-Contra affair, and when the Savings & Loan looting took place and very few people paid much of anything.

I hope the Democrats have learned their lesson.

[skipos]

6. I will not be surprised if polls show that many Americans back Bush

on this issue. I would guess that around 40% will think Bush's behavior is OK because "we are at war." I never underestimate the stupidity of people who buy into the fear this administration is selling.

[havocmom]

8. MSNBC poll has 70% saying the wiretaps are unconstitutional

and wrong.

The masses are not rubber-stamping emperor wannabe and his criminal courtiers so much these days.

Edited to add link to the poll and info on results, and yes, it is an informal poll, but the freepers know where it is too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10491945

Was President Bush right to authorize NSA eavesdropping on Americans? * 95621 responses

Yes; it was essential for national security 26%
No; it's unconstitutional 70%
I'm not sure 4%
I don't care 1%

[skipos]

13. I saw that too. I hope the scientific polls look more like

that one, but somehow I doubt it. I am still going to guess that a large portion of America will think "we'll they aren't going to wiretap me so what do I care?"

[havocmom]

18. Dunno. I live in a county that is over 97% GOP

and people are really SEETHING about this!

Lots of old school Republicans who continue to vote party lines more outta habit than anything are also pretty firm believers in the importance of the Constitution. The good ol boys in my hood are mighty offended by many of the junta stunts recently coming to light despite payoffs to journalists for framing issues a certain way.

They love the Constitution even more than their guns around here. ;)

[alfredo]

20. As long as they control all three branches of government, there is

nothing we legally do. Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing extra legal activities. We have to work within the law. We have to use the power of persuasion against the Junta. Going outside the law puts us on the same level as them. We have to apply pressure where we can.

We need to assure they don't control the counting of the votes like they have since 2000. Rep King made it clear when on the eve of the 2004 election he declared ""It's already over. The Election's over. We Won." When Pelosi asks, "How do you know that?" King replies, "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting.""

[havocmom]

34. Much we can do. Starts with raising awareness of the citzenry

and looks like we've been doing that pretty well ;)

When the people lead, the leaders WILL follow. There is evidence of it already. Look at the vote on Friday. That would not have happened without the barrage of mail, email and petitions Senators have received on the Patriot Act.

There is much we can do. Still too many ways to lose, but, we keep on working.

[alfredo]

38. I am going to a DFA meeting Monday.

We will be working on an overall strategy 2006. I want our local chapter to focus on city/county races and leave the state/federal races to the party. That seems to be covered well. Our state party got the message in 2004, and seem to be acting on it.

We have some candidates that could go beyond local offices, but first we need to get them some real time experience. We can let our current representatives know what we want them to do, but we have to give them some support on the local level by rebuilding the party. We can do that by finding and supporting new talent.

[havocmom]

39. Great and wise plan

Local to build from is key.
:thumbsup:

[alfredo]

40. That's what the Christian Coalition did.

If they can do it, so can we.

[ktlyon]

7. and by the same logic if they would illegally attack another country

couldn't they let planes crash into buildings to create an atmosphere favorable to taking over the ME.

[helderheid]

14. agreed

[FogerRox]

23. yes - agreed

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. They did. MIHOP

[MissWaverly]

9. if Bush is commited to do anything to protect this country

and he believes that it is his "manifest destiny" to lead the American people after 9-11, then he will do whatever is necessary to remain in power to "protect the American people."

[Walt Starr]

10. This illegal surveillance thing has convinced me

there is no depth to which these evil nefarious bastards will not sink.

[Patsy Stone]

11. I'm not one of those people.

I believe it was stolen, along with 2000. Maybe even the 1996 state races -- just for the practice run. They are capable of anything. Rigging elections is something these guys can do before breakfast. Easy peasy.

:)

[bleever]

46. I'm with you.

Don't misunderestimate the malfeasance.

:hi:

[Raster]

12. my "favorite" moment of 2004 is jeb on the phone to big bro telling

him that (paraphrasing)"we're doing much better here {in Florida} that we thought we would do... areas that were assumed to lean democrat are for some reason voting republican..." Like I said, I am paraphrasing what I saw on television. I saw that little snippet once, and then away it went. I knew the fix was in. I knew Kerry would win in 2004. I also knew there was no way in hell bushco* was going to surrender power. No way. Had they allowed anyone to shine the light of day on their various schemes, charades and illegal operations, most of bushco* would be headed to prisons. Every reputable poll and indicator one week before the election said bushco* was going down. Every poll and indicator the day of the election said bushco* was headed for defeat. Everything said bushco* was done for except for the final ballot tally. Lo and behold, against all laws of mathematics and chance and in stunningly extraordinary displays of statistical anomaly, bushco* triumphed.

There was a very good reason Kerry folded his tent so quickly and conceded. He knew he didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell making it to the Oval Office.

[mtnsnake]

16. Of course they WOULD steal it. "Did they steal it" is another question

Personally, I think Kerry lost it, plain and simple. If he didn't lose it, he sure as hell put himself into the position of losing it with a dreadfully run campaign.

[helderheid]

17. did they? According to the final exit polls that would be a.... YES.

[mtnsnake]

19. Yeah & what happened to all the rock solid proof that all these experts

supposedly were going to come up with right after the election? Funny how none of them ever came through with a shred of evidence. If they did, people would be in jail by now.

Enough with the excuses. Kerry lost. Anyone who can't admit that can't face the reality of it yet. Horrific campaign against a more horrific president.

[helderheid]

21. you're kidding.

http://www.udpc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15

We had an extensive converstation about election fraud Reply with quote

Before our forum was hacked (how appropriate), we had quite an extensive conversation about election fraud in 2002 and 2004 elections. I will attempt to reconstruct some of the links previously listed.

First, the 2004 election results forum on Democratic Underground is a great place to check out. Read anything and everything by "TruthIsAll":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203


More interesting links:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us#020505 <-- video
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%2218%2C181+votes%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA

Did you know....

1.80% 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

2.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

3.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

4.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

5.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

6.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=articl le&sid=26
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26 www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7.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

8.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

9.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

10.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

11.Diebold is based in Ohio. http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm

12.Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers 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

13.Jeff Dean, Diebold’s Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold’s central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14.Diebold Senior Vice-President 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

15.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

16.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

17.30% 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

18.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.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& ;file=article&sid=950
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& ;file=article&sid=950 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

19.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

20.Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/sto ory/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.uscountvotes.org/
Post Tue May 10, 2005 9:20 am
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Speaking of TruthIsAll Reply with quote

Had to repost:

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Sat May-07-05 04:30 PM
Original message
Our Evidence vs. Their Evidence

Edited on Sat May-07-05 05:22 PM by TruthIsAll
OUR EVIDENCE

We know Kerry led the pre-election state polls.
We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls.

We know Kerry led the post-election state exit polls, 51-48%.
We know Kerry led the post-election national exit poll, 51-48%

We know documented voting machine “glitches” favored Bush 99% of the time.

We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data.
We know Blackwell refused to testify before Conyers.
We know Mitofsky refused to testify before Conyers.

We know that there were over 21 million new voters.
We know Kerry won the vast majority (57-62%) of new voters.

We know there were 3 million former Nader voters.
We kknow Kerry won Nader voters by 71%-21% over Bush.

We know Party ID averaged 39% Dem/35% Rep/26% Independent in the prior three elections.
We know Party ID was 38/35/27 for the first 13047 National Exit Poll respondents.
We know it was changed to 37/37/24 for the final 613 in the 13660 Final.

We know Kerry, like Gore, won the female vote 54/46% up until the final 660 respondents.
We know it was changed to 51% in the 13660 Final.

We know Bush 2000 voters represented an IMPOSSIBLE 43% of the 2004 electorate in the final 13660 Exit poll.
We know it was changed from 41% in the first 13047
We know that Bush had 50.456 mm votes in 2000.
We know that about 3.5% of them have since died.
We know, therefore, that the Bush percentage could not have been higher than 39.8% (48.69/122.26).
We know that with the 39.8/40.2% weighting, Kerry won by 52.4-46.7%, or SEVEN million votes.


We know the 2000 election was stolen - by Bush in Florida where 175,000 punch cards (70% of them Gore votes) were spoiled.
We know SCOTUS stopped the recount and voted 5-4 for Bush.

We know the 2002 election was stolen (ask Max Cleland).

We know that the National Exit Poll MoE is under 1%.
We know because we checked the NEP margin of error table.
We know because we did the simple MoE calculation.
We know that Kerry won the Natioanl Poll by over 3%, 51-48%.
We know the odds are astronomical that the deviation was triple the MoE.

We know that 42 of 50 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush. We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone.

We know that 16 states deviated beyond the exit poll MoE for Bush, and none did for Kerry.

We know that touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004.

We know that Republicans fought against paper ballots for Diebold and ESS touch screens.

We know that ALL Diebold ATMs provide a paper receipt.

We know that the deviation trend from the exit polls to the vote was approaching ZERO until 2000, when there was a dramatic reversal.

We know that scores of newspapers which supported Bush in 2000 supported Kerry in 2004.

We know that Kerry won the Ohio Exit Poll, by at least 51-48%.

We know the media will not report in any of the above.


THEIR EVIDENCE:
Something we don't know.
The rBr hypothesis: Bush voters were reluctant to speak to exit pollsters.

But..
We know that many Republican voters deserted Bush for Kerry.
We know there were hardly any Gore Democrats who voted for Bush.

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:
Have you reached a verdict?
Post Tue May 10, 2005 9:24 am
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives Reply with quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html for full article:

Tandalayo_Scheisskopf (1000+ posts) Tue May-10-05 12:35 PM
Original message
Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives


At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.


People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.


And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html

This is Jim Lampley, the sportscaster, people. This should give you some idea on how deeply this story has drilled into our collective consciousness. Mr. Lampley is not known as a tin-foil-hatter, although I am sure someone will now try to tar him with that brush.
Post Tue May 10, 2005 9:46 am
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Do the math Reply with quote

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Wed May-11-05 12:06 PM
Original message

TIA constraint: 2004 Votes = G+B+N+New, or New = 122.26-49.21-48.69-3.21



Total 2004 votes = Returning 2000 voters + New Voters

Total 2004 votes = Gore + Bush + Nader + New voters

New = 122.26-49.21-48.69-3.21

New = 21.15 (minimum)

Kerry won 57-60% of New voters.

Total Kerry vote = K = .9*Gore + .1*Bush + .7*Nader + .57*New
Total Bush vote = B = .1*Gore + .9*Bush + .2*Nader + .41*New

You do the math..
Post Wed May 11, 2005 8:35 am
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Jim Lampley Latest Reply with quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/to-byron-york-and-other-o.html

You'll never watch boxing the same way!
Post Thu May 12, 2005 5:47 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

things you must also believe if you really believe that... Reply with quote

Another I "lifted" from Democratic Underground

If you still think the 2004 election was legitimate, then here are some other things you must also believe if you really believe that George W. Bush won the election:

1. That the exit polls were WRONG.
2. That Zogby’s 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
3. That Harris’ last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
4. That the Incumbent Rule (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.
5. That the 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn’t do better than his final polling)
6. That the Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.
8. 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.
9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.
10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13. 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.
14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.
15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio (and that this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states).
16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.
17. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.
18. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.
19. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.
20. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.
21. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.
22. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.
23. That Bush’s vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.
24. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.
25. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.
26. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.
27. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
28. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
29. That Mitofsky (who ran the exit polls), with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.
30. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.
31. That Bush could overcome Kerry’s 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.
32. According to a London-based insurance actuary, the odds of all of these things happening in ONE election, let alone two elections in a row, are too astronomical to be calculated!
Post Fri May 13, 2005 11:38 am
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Pie anyone? Reply with quote

http://www.recountflorida.com/ufed/president.php?county=holmes
Post Sun May 15, 2005 3:58 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

GREAT site Reply with quote

http://www.exitpollz.org/
Post Sun May 15, 2005 6:13 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

26 page report on 2004 exit poll discrepancies Reply with quote

National Election Data Archive Project
---
Working Paper
----
Patterns of Exit Poll Discrepancies
More On the Implausibility of a “Uniform” Bias Explanation for the
2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies
May 12, 2005
Updated May 17, 2005

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/USCV_exit_poll_simulations.pdf
Post Wed May 18, 2005 1:20 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Voter Confidence Resolution Reply with quote

Saturday, April 23, 2005
Voter Confidence Resolution
(v6.1, LAST UPDATED: 5/14/05 5pm)

Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and

Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and

Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and

Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and

Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and

Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and

Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and

Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re-counted if necessary; and

Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and

Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and

Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and

Be it also resolved:

The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections:
1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verifiable paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be restored by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
Cool preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;
Be it further resolved:

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.


***
Post Wed May 18, 2005 4:11 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

From the Crisis Papers... Current Events for Dummies Reply with quote

helderheid (1000+ posts) Mon May-23-05 04:18 AM
Original message
From the Crisis Papers... Current Events for Dummies (stolen 2004)

Edited on Mon May-23-05 04:19 AM by helderheid
<snip>
FIDDLING WITH THE VOTES

Q. You alluded above to electoral hanky-panky in the 2004 election. Are you serious? And, if so, how could a political party get away with fiddling with the election returns? Wouldn't such manipulation be so obvious that they'd risk their reputation forever?

A. Since one third of the electorate in the last election voted on computer-voting machines with no verifiable paper trail, we'll never be certain how many votes might have been tampered with. We do know how non-secure the voting process is. Prior to the 2004 election, for example, Howard Dean and Bev Harris demonstrated on CNBS how easy it was for them to access the vote-counting software, alter the figures, and exit without anybody being the wiser.

(I'm inserting a link to it here: http://www.udpc.org/evote-lowband.htm )

Since the voting machines and the secret software that compiles the votes of the various precincts are effectively controlled by three Republican companies, and since statisticians using demographics and exit-polls have determined that Bush had only one chance in a million of winning the election, it is highly likely that some fiddling took place with the results. Under the current system, local returns, for instance, could be 100% accurate -- even with a verified paper trail -- and an election still could be stolen, due to compiling fraud.

Precisely because we know how often such electoral theft occurs around the world, we Americans should be extra-vigilant about it happening here. But we're in denial: We're not Zimbabwe, we tell ourselves; surely, American politicians wouldn't be that brazen and corrupt. But Karl Rove and his minions are masters of the Big Lie technique and a host of electoral dirty tricks. And John Kerry handed them the best gift of all; he didn't even raise a question about the validity of the result, just gave his concession speech quickly and exited stage right.

The only way to guarantee an honest, transparent vote in contemporary America is to return to paper ballots, hand-counted in the presence of both partisan and independent monitors -- and with tested/certified software adding up the grand totals, again in the presence of election monitors. If the U.S. doesn't take these steps, it's asking for more corruption of the process and suspect election results in election after election. The Republicans benefit from the current system and will do nothing to change it; the required changes will not happen on their own but will require massive and unrelenting citizen pressure.
</snip>

A whole lot more here:



http://www.americanpolitics.com/20050521Weiner.html

Last edited by Clarity on Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Sun May 22, 2005 10:21 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

John G. Mason : Questions about the Bush Victory Reply with quote

mardi 19 juillet 2005

Imprimer cet article | Cet article au format PDF

1) Peut-on aujourd’hui, après l’analyse des résultats, dresser une physionomie des deux camps électoraux qui se sont affrontés ?

2004 a stolen election ?

First we should note that the November 2004 election was an extremely hard fought campaign that raises serious questions in the minds of analysts about the overall integrity of the American electoral process. Coming after the judicial “coup d’Etat de velours” that decided the 2000 election in favor of Mr. Bush ; fears that this year’s election would be stolen were widely felt on the Left before the election.

Now, many feel that their worst fears were realized for two reasons : the weird discrepancy between the election-day exit polls that reported Kerry getting 5 million more votes than he actually ended up receiving in the official count, and the massive number of “spoiled” minority ballots that were invalidated after they were cast.

In the days following the November election, there was a great deal of speculation in the “blogosphere” asking whether the winning formula for the Republicans in 2004 hadn’t been two parts evangelical mobilization in rural America to one part massive voter fraud in Florida and Ohio.

This line of speculation was soon backed up by academic specialists such as Steve Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who argued that the discrepancies between exit poll data and the reported vote from the some swing states like Ohio constitute a clear indication that there was massive voter fraud at the county or state level - just as they would anywhere else in the world and as they did recently in the Ukraine . Freeman’s argument has been backed by seasoned reporters such as the BBC’s Greg Palast but also strongly disputed by other progressive analysts such as Ruy Teixeira of and David Corn of The Nation.

<snip>

more
http://www.temps-reels.net/article1679.html

[mtnsnake]

26. Yeah, good stuff ya got there...and no, I'm not kidding that Kerry lost

Trust me, I want to believe as much as the next guy that the election was stolen, but with all these people who claimed so vociferously right after the election how they were going to PROVE that the election was stolen...and how they were going to NAME NAMES of the guilty parties....and how people were going to be going to jail....well WTF happened?

I don't deny that the election may have been stolen, but wouldn't you think by now that SOMEONE would have sang?

What I most certainly DO know is that Kerry was at the very least in a position to lose because Kerry put himself in that position, and NOTHING you can copy and paste can ever prove otherwise.

[helderheid]

28. what about the GAO report? What about Conyers report? What about Diebthroa

Diebthroat from Brad Blog? What about Ray Lemme? Clint Curtis? I agree it shouldn't have been as close as it was, but I do believe the final exit polls were right.

Edited to add I wish it hadn't had been stolen and that * won fair and square because I wouldn't be so concerned about 2006 and 2008... and the future of our Democracy.

[mtnsnake]

30. What about no one in jail? What about Kerry not fighting it himself?

Don't you think that with all the alleged fraud at least ONE person would've spilled the beans by now, or that ONE person would be in jail? What, are these guys who committed all this fruad so perfect and brilliant that they can't get caught?

What really bothers me, and why I get so sick of hearing that Kerry didn't lose, and blah blah blah...is that I actually BELIEVED those people who I heard with my own ears saying right after the election that they were going to come up with evidence and names that would overturn the results of the election within a week or two, and NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. Those people who claimed to have evidence gave us nothing. They didn't come through like they claimed they would. Ond of the most believable ones was that fellow from Florida, I forget his name, who claimed he had the proof and would announce it in a week. He sounded so reputable. Well it's been over a year and I'm still waiting.

The only thing I do know for sure is that Kerry may have lost that election even without fraud, because he ran a pathetic campaign that deserved to lose.

[helderheid]

41. yes, someone did spill the beans. Read Brad Blog

If you own the machines and the corporate media, you'll steal the election. There has been pleanty of evidence presented. The media refuses to investigate and report. As far as Kerry goes, I don't know. Maybe he's too cautious on the subject. I could speculate that one all day.

[BeFree]

42. See, that's what's wrong...

...we have people who believe that *co wouldn't steal an election.

And they say: "They didn't come through like they said they would"... said, obviously, without delving into the particulars, those people blame someone else for not educating them.

Had one read up and educated themselves, they'd be singing a different tune - a tune that screams theft... instead they sing: "Kerry sucked".

Well, we know how politics works, we saw it when they impeached Clinton, eh?
They didn't wait for proof, they kept at it and at it, 'til the impeachment almost came. Our problem is we have people who still think the pukes are honest. Jeeez.

[mtnsnake]

43. How you can reason with something like that is preposterous

"Our problem is we have people who still think the pukes are honest."

Oh gimme a break. I don't know of anyone in here who thinks "the pukes are honest" and that they wouldn't want to steal an election. I do however know that there are people who have the right to believe that it's possible that Kerry LOST, plain and simple, with or without voter fraud. Yes, I hate to break it to you, but there just might be the possibility that Kerry lost becasue he was a lousy candidate. The fact that I think Kerry put himself into the position to lose ON HIS OWN, has no bearing on whether or not I think pukes are honest. Of course they'd steal an election if they could. They have no conscience. However, the way people in here speak of Kerry actually winning the election as if it's fact is just as ridiculous as you saying we have people in here who think pukes are honest.

Whether there was the fraud that everyone claims there was or not, you'd think that one person would be in jail by now out of all the thousands of claims about the fixed machines. This "They stole the election" thing has turned into the lamest excuse for Kerry I've ever seen. It's become a crutch for people who refuse to face the reality that Kerry lost without any help from the machines. Yet so many people would rather lean on that crutch of an excuse than come up with any sensible solutions. "Why should we try to solve anything when they'll just try to steal the next election," they all love to say.

Yeah, let's not fix the real reasons why we lost, so we can lose again. That's real productive.

[helderheid]

44. Well I think there is one thing you and I can agree on on this subject -

With our current system, no one can prove Bush won.

Can we agree on that?

Why is it the Ukranians got another election based on exit polls not matching and we didn't?

[BeFree]

49. It can't be proven that * won.

But there is a mass of evidence that he lost.

It seems our friend is uneducated in the ways of modern electioneering. Perhaps I was too harsh? Whatever, they've a lot to learn, and if they are so inclined, someone will do some educating. Hey, that's why we're here, right? Good thread, heldereid.

[helderheid]

50. Thanks, BeFree :) I can't prove Kerry lost but as you said, there is more

proof that he won than Bush and no way you can prove Bush won. And for any Freepers out there... Hey, you can't prove Bush won. Wouldn't you like to? I would like to prove whatever Dem won if they do too. This is not partisan. This should concern EVERY American.

[Swamp Rat]

51. As should the FACT that the US GOVERNMENT IS SPYING ON ALL AMERICANS!

[helderheid]

52. EXACTLY

[BeFree]

48. So, you think * won fair and sqaure?

Do you see the divide, and why I say it seems some people think pukes are honest? Pukes are dirt and any way that they can be swept out should be a priority... but what do you say? "Kerry sucks"

Forget Kerry, tell us, what about Gore? Where do you stand there?

Quote: "...who refuse to face the reality that Kerry lost without any help from the machines." And you refuse to face the evidence that the machines were used to steal it. Or maybe you haven't been studying?

[mtnsnake]

54. No, I didn't say that either

Al Gore? I think he got screwed. His election wasn't decided by the people who we KNOW voted him into office, but by the Supreme Court and I think Gore got cheated. However, Gore wasn't running against a president who had already proven to be the worst president in the history of the United States. Bush hadn't proven that YET. By the time Kerry ran against Bush, Bush has already proven to be the worst. In an election (Kerry vs Bush) that should've been a complete and total runaway for the Democrats, Kerry and his handlers did everything possible to make it a disastrous run. Kerry deserved to lose. Gore didn't. If Gore runs again, I'd be delighted.

As far as the machines, don't be putting words into my mouth that I don't SUSPECT that the machines MIGHT have been foul. At the same token, I also suspect that it wasn't the machines that cost Kerry the election. Why do I say that? Well, I say that because I (and everyone else with 2 eyes) saw a campaign that was pathetic and a candidate who was a loser. That adds up to LOSS, machines or no machines.

"And you refuse to face the evidence that the machines were used to steal it. Or maybe you haven't been studying?"
Some evidence. That's why Kerry's sitting in the White House right now, eh. LOL

I've got a question for you now, since you're so sure it was the machines that stole the election. Do you think Kerry deserved to win, based on the campaign he ran? I'm not asking if you thought he won. I'm asking if you thought he DESERVED to win.

[BeFree]

55. That's a stupid question

Did Kerry deserve to win?? Yes. I don't judge Kerry by what the M$M tells me. I judge him by his history, his words, and his role as a senator. Hell yes he deserved to win, but millions of votes for him were stolen!

I, unlike you, I am guessing, do not rely on the M$M for my info, nor do I believe most of what they say. Of course, they said Kerry ran a bad campaign, they were against him the whole way!

[mtnsnake]

59. You just proved my point n/t

[goclark]

56. There is no proof that would be good enough

for the Bush run Media or his Supreme Court.

There was plenty of proof but it was not allowed to be published in the MSM.

If you recall, ROVE owned the socks of every major newspaper and all the cables.

We were "at war" and no one dare say something against the Emperor.

Slowly, but surely, the wool that was over most of our eyes in come apart.
It will happen.


Let's talk in 4 years and see what good old DIEBOLD( head of Diebold just resigned or something like that) has to tell us.

[helderheid]

58. Walden O'Dell resigned - some scandal at Diebold - what a shock!

:)

[marions ghost]

80. "People would be in jail by now..." u say

:rofl: Obviously you STILL believe that our state governments really care about voting rights, that the legal system works, that the amount of corruption in this country isn't mind-boggling, that the precedent exists for a presidential election to be successfully challenged.

This is what I believe:
------------------------
"Election shenanigans were common in the 19th Century and in much of the 20th, but in recent years they have been eclipsed by scattered mischief that is carried out or abetted by public officials responsible for election administration. One factor that has contributed to this shift from the conspiratorial tampering of the past to the massive fraud that is so prevalent today is the poorly conceived effort to remake government in the image of the private sector. In recent years, civil-service protections for government employees have been greatly weakened, and many governmental functions have been contracted out to private corporations.

These changes in American public administration have created a new spoils system that makes massive fraud likely in today's elections because it effectively ties public employment and government contracts to election outcomes. In Florida and Ohio, for example, many corporations, public officials and government workers had a vested interest in the reelection of President Bush. No conspiracy was needed to orchestrate their activities. Multiple biases with cumulative effects could be (and were) introduced into the election system through the independent efforts of numerous individuals acting on their own initiative in the pursuit of the same objective. Until U.S. election laws are reformed to guard against massive fraud, our elections will remain vulnerable to systemic abuses.

To be sure, bias in election administration could probably be prosecuted today under existing laws. Certainly, officials in Florida and Ohio appear to have violated their official oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of their states. They may have also broken federal civil-rights laws by intentionally weakening the voting power of African Americans. However, these acts of massive fraud have gone unpunished -- and, indeed, uninvestigated -- because most Americans have yet to recognize the new form of election tampering that is undermining our democracy."

Lance deHaven-Smith is professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University.

[Junkdrawer]

37. Yeah, unless you can produce proof from systems with no audit trail...

we'll just have to accept the results.

Oh, and, while you're at it:

Can you make me a cambric shirt,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Without any seam or needlework?
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

Can you wash it in yonder well,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Which never sprung water, nor rain ever fell?
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

Can you dry it on yonder thorn,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Which never bore blossom since Adam was born?
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

Now you have asked me questions three,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
I hope you'll answer as many for me,
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

Can you find me an acre of land,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Between the salt water and the sea-sand?
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

Can you plough it with a ram's horn,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
And sow it all over with one peppercorn?
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

Can you reap it with a sickle of leather,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
And bind it up with a peacock's feather?
And you shall be a true lover of mine.

When you have done and finished your work,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Then come to me for your cambric shirt,
And you shall be a true lover of mine

[Raster]

22. I disagree. So does the GAO. The preponderance of evidence from

various sources all say stolen. And when I say stolen, I mean everything from hacked software to illegal voting role purges to physical intimidation at polling places.

[Balbus]

31. I guess the indictments will start any day now...

I mean, if the evidence is so overwhelming, what's the hold-up?

[Cocoa]

32. the GAO did NOT say the election was stolen

[Raster]

33. Not in those exact words, no. However...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=403370

[Cocoa]

36. they didn't say it in ANY words

that headline you link to isn't the GAO report, this is the GAO report:

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20051021122225-53143.pdf


That headline is just as wrong as your post was.

The GAO did not say the election was stolen, it didn't suggest it, it didn't imply it, it didn't insinuate it, it didn't get anywhere near saying the election was stolen.

And no matter how many people say that John Conyers said the election was stolen, Conyers didn't say it either.

[mtnsnake]

60. Thank you, Cocoa. I couldn't find it either when I checked the GAO

reference, but I thought maybe I wasn't looking in the right spot or something. It just goes to show the extent some people will go to here in order to prove their point.....like make something up out of the blue. It's really sad that it happens of this forum so often.

[helderheid]

61. Here's an article on it.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage. Click here for GAO Report

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

<snip>

[mtnsnake]

63. I already read that. Where do they say the election was stolen?

Can you give me an exact quote?

All they really say is that they found ways in which the voting methods we have COULD lend itself to fraudulent practices. Did they not?

[helderheid]

64. I thought the summary was pretty clear. You're right that it doesn't

specifically say "It was stolen" - it says it could have very easily been stolen and that the exit polls showed a Kerry win.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

As I said before, we cannot prove Bush won. A system where you cannot prove candidate A or B won is an illegitimate system.

[Cocoa]

65. it doesn't say it vaguely either

it doesn't say it generally, or indirectly, or vaguely that the election was stolen or that it might have been stolen or that it could very easily been stolen or somewhat easily been stolen.

And it doesn't have a word about the exit polls.

This is getting ridiculous.

[helderheid]

66. My apologies - not enough coffee and my brain mixed the article from Free

Press with the report:

(from the Free Press article)


The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:


The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened.


I still say it was stolen.

[goclark]

35. But, but people will say we wear tin hats

'cause we don't have exact links and sources that were given to us by GW Crooks.

We have to wait until all the i's and t's have been connected and say, "Georgie May I say that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen?"

I'll say it~ Stolen!

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[helderheid]

45. Proudly donning a tin hat here.

[helderheid]

53. really

:)

[EFerrari]

57. I just realized something horrible.

The New York Times was sitting on this story WHILE they saying the election couldn't have been stolen.

Those BASTARDS.

[helderheid]

62. this JUST hit my inbox

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun2.html?th&emc=th

Diebold's voting machines have a troubled history. The company was
accused of installing improperly certified software, which is illegal,
in a 2002 governor's race in Georgia. Across the country, it reached a
multimillion-dollar settlement with the California attorney general last
year of a lawsuit alleging that it made false claims about the security
of its machines. Last week, the top elections officer in Leon County,
Fla., which includes Tallahassee, concluded after a test that Diebold
machines can be hacked to change vote totals.

[EFerrari]

67. They should be ashamed of themselves -- but they'd need

a sense of right and wrong to feel shame.

Remember this, helderheid:

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:51:34 -0500
To: "Elizabeth Ferrari" <sfexpat2000@
From: "Public" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Blackwell Locksout Certified Recount Volunteers on Fri 12/10

At 04:54 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:


Mr. Okrent

I personally think it's outrageous that the Times
failed to cover the Conyer's hearings.

And now, Mr. Blackwell is sabotaging the Ohio recount
in violation of OH state law.

Is the Times going to ignore this whole story? I'd
like to know so that I can reconsider my subscription
options. If the Times won't cover the news, I have to
find a paper that does.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Ferrari
San Francisco CA


Dear Ms. Ferrari,

In the first few weeks after the election several readers wrote us about this issue. Mr. Okrent responded to these concerns on his web journal. I include the entry below (see post #35).

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=36&fid=.f555e99/36

dokrent - 5:40 PM ET November 21, 2004 (#35 of 40)

The Times and Covering Allegations of Election Fraud

Sorry to have been neglecting this spot for so long; I could give you a list of excuses, but none of them
is especially good.

Now, though, my mailbox has begun to overflow with criticisms of The Times for not looking more deeply
into allegations of large-scale vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, a story (if true) that no one can ignore. In some
of these messages, writers say that "now that the theft of the election has been proven ...," The Times must
reveal this to the wider world.

Were the assertion even nearly so, I would do more than recommend that The Times reveal it ­ I’d be
demanding it publicly, loudly and frequently. But the evidence I have seen to date proves nothing, other than
that there was a certain amount of error in certain counties, and an aggressive effort by some partisans in
some areas to challenge some likely Democratic voters. To my knowledge, no one in the Kerry campaign’s
vast on-the-ground operation, or in its armies of well-situated lawyers, has made the argument that what
happened in Ohio (or Florida) could have changed the result of the election. Similar views were explained
in "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Buried," by Tom Zeller (Nov. 12).

And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed
be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the
paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if
they find something, they’ll publish it. A good investigative reporter (much less a whole staff of them) turning
away from a story like this one ­ if true ­ would be like a flower turning away from the sun. Careers are made
by stories that detail massive election fraud.

But: the operative words here are if true. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Although it would probably pain him to
have someone from The Times touting his work, David Corn of The Nation, in a recent column, offers plenty
of reason to examine the allegations before I, or anyone else, should leap to give them credence. You can
find Corn’s column here.

Since then, over seven hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. You may be interested in the following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html

I raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over.

The following articles have since appeared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

Mr. Okrent wanted me to write you back asking that you please stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times


"Stay tuned" my baldheaded granny. If they knew about the spying, they had every reason in the world to cover this story and they did not.

I'd love to see their subscription numbers from 12/04 and from 12/05 BEFORE they came clean. :nuke:

/typing

[helderheid]

68. WOW. Truly amazing!!!

:o

Shaking my head and my fists.

[EFerrari]

69. I kept it because I KNEW the election was stolen and I KNEW

the truth would come out.

And I wanted to REMIND these bastards that we actually DO have a memory.

When the machines failed in FL, I sent them their damn letter back and asked, is this a story yet?

They are guilty as sin.

[helderheid]

70. You are amazing. This IS going to come out. All of it.

[EFerrari]

71. They got over 700 letters -- their count -- asking them to cover

the story. And, they did not -- knowing all the while that the Cabal was spying on us.

(We need a smillie that shakes its head until the head falls off!)

I have to process this but, it might warrant a thread of its own.

What else are they enabling?

[mod mom]

72. Also, if they could win fairly, why the need for all the challenges, votin

directives, misallocation of machines, contempt for those who question the results-why not prove by allowing for full disclosure, real recounts etc?

[EFerrari]

73. Why not embrace the OH recount?

It would have been a feather in their cap.

We know why.

[mod mom]

74. OH HB 3 will no longer allow contesting elections-Is this democracy?

1.  POST ELECTION AUDIT MUST BE REQUIRED:  Section 3506.20 was part of
last years version of HB but has been removed.  This section required
an audit.  HB3 does nothing to improve the integrity of the process
of COUNTING votes.

2.  CITIZENS MUST RETAIN THE RIGHT OF RECOUNT:  HB3 both takes away
the right to challenge an election and it raises the cost of a recount
to half a million dollars.  Both a POST ELECTION AUDIT AND A RECOUNT
SHOULD BE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS IN EACH COUNTY. 

3.  ID REQUIREMENT DISENFRANCHISES ELIGIBLE VOTERS: Disenfranchisement
issues....oppose the ID requirement.

4.  PROVISIONAL BALLOTS MUST BE COUNTED NOT DISCARDED:  HB3 still
insists on disqualifiying a PROVISIONAL ballot cast if not cast in the
correct precinct.  The intent of a provisional ballot is to allow an
eligible registered voter to vote, but HB3 now requires that person to
be at the right table within a polling location, and ensures that most
provisional ballots are not counted.

5.  VOTER REGISTRATION NEED NOT BE MORE DIFFICULT:  HB3 makes it more
difficult to register voters, and is thus another vehicle to legalize
voter supression. 


THE TIME TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS IS NOW!

[EFerrari]

75. I hear the rattle of pitchforks.

:toast:

[mod mom]

77. We need the entire DEM Party to be screaming about the GAO Report on

Electronic Voting Machines:

Nothing is more important to the integrity of a democracy than than fair and transparent elections. The GAO recently released a 107 page scathing report on Electronic Voting Machines in our country. The report states that Electronic Voting Machines in the U.S. are NOT SECURE, NOT ACCOUNTABLE, NOT TRANSPARENT, NOT ACCURATE, AND ARE UNCERTIFIABLE. A bipartisan panel which included both Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) released a joint news release (a true rarity in these days of divisive politics) regarding his report, yet the main stream media has ignored it's important findings. Here is a link to the GAO Report:

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05956high.pdf

If they won't do it , it is up to us activists to get this info out!

[EFerrari]

78. I would give anything to paint and spend time with my nieces.

But I'm certain that *we* are the ones who will get this done.

We don't let up. Ever.
:toast:

[mod mom]

81. I had plans to volunteer at the animal shelter and learn piano w my kids.

but instead I am getting ready to jump head into another a new political campaign, this one will defend every voter!

[EFerrari]

82. We need a club, "The Juggling Moms"

lol

Democracy is hard work. :toast:

[helderheid]

76. the exit polls were WAY off in 2005 in Ohio on those issues.

[mod mom]

79. there was no way that Blackwell, who controls the elections in OH,

could afford to allow the initiatives to pass. Not only would it have ended his political career, but a change in party dominance (which the initiatives could help bring) would allow for subpoenna power and full investigations into the election system in Ohio.

This will happen again in "06. Blackwell is running for Gov and COUNTING THE VOTES! anyone want to make any wagers who will win?

WAKE UP OHIO DEM PARTY!!