The media has taken a side in the electronic voting issue

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20458/

Going Down the Stolen Election Road?
By David Corn
The Nation

(snip)

But did something more foul than minor slip-ups and routine political chicanery occur? Those who say yes – at this point – are relying more on supposition than evidence. They cite the exit polls to claim the vote count was falsified to benefit Bush. The pollsters say they oversampled women, that their survey takers were not allowed to get close enough to the polls and that Kerry supporters may have been more willing to cooperate with the pollsters than Bush backers. Impossible, huffs pollster/consultant Dick Morris: "Exit polls are almost never wrong." But Morris argues that the faulty exit polls are not a sign the vote count was off but an indication that the pollsters deliberately produced pro-Kerry results "to try to chill the Bush turnout." (Talk about conspiracy theory.) The screwy exit polls do raise questions, but they are not proof of sabotage. And left-of-center accusers have promoted contradictory theories. Many suggest Diebold and other vendors put in the fix via the paperless touch-screen machines. But other critics – including progressive talk show host and author Thom Hartmann – also point to a spreadsheet created by an activist named Kathy Dopp that shows what she considers anomalous pro-Bush results in Florida counties that used optical-scan voting, not electronic touch-screen voting. (The optical-scan machines were manufactured by Diebold and the other firms that produce the touch-screen machines.) But Walter Mebane, a Cornell professor, and colleagues at Harvard and Stanford examined this allegation of fraud and concluded that it is "baseless." They note that the counties in question are mostly in the conservative Florida Panhandle and "have trended strongly Republican over the past twelve years."

...more...

===

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed/

Internet buzz on vote fraud is dismissed
By Rick Klein
Boston Globe Staff

November 10, 2004

A week after Kerry conceded and Bush declared victory, those assertions and scores of others from New Mexico to North Carolina have kept alive fierce speculation that Bush's victory either wasn't real or wasn't as decisive as it seemed. With memories fresh from the 2000 irregularities, e-mails and Web postings accuse Republicans of stealing an election.

Much of the traffic is little more than Internet-fueled conspiracy theories, and none of the vote-counting problems and anomalies that have emerged are sufficiently widespread to have affected the election's ultimate result.

Kerry campaign officials and a range of election-law specialists agree that while machines made errors and long lines in Democratic precincts kept many voters away, there's no realistic chance that Kerry actually beat Bush.

''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.

''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."

...more...

===

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index.html

Was the election stolen?

The system is clearly broken. But there is no evidence that Bush won because of voter fraud.

(snip)

In fact, it probably wasn't; Election Day 2004, like all national elections, saw its share of glitches, ineptitude, fraud and intimidation. The Election Incident Reporting System, a national database of election irregularities compiled by volunteers working with various voting-rights groups, lists 30,000 such incidents for 2004. They range from the tragic (a voter who "didn't know how to read") to the alarming ("Two African-American voters were arrested at the polling place before they had the opportunity to vote").

There's little question that the American election process is a mess, and needs to be cleaned up. But even if this particular election wasn't perfect, it was still most likely good enough for us to have faith in the results. Salon has examined some of the most popular Kerry-actually-won theories currently making the rounds online, and none of them hold up under rigorous scrutiny. For instance, there's an easy explanation for the odd results in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Olbermann insists there were 93,000 more votes than voters. According to Kimberly Bartlett, a spokeswoman for the county, the reporting software the county uses to display the unofficial summary of election results on its Web site is simply buggy. For some reason, the software combines absentee ballots from several voting precincts into one precinct, and therefore makes it appear as if there were more votes cast in a particular area than there were registered voters there. But this bug does not affect the final election results, because the more detailed "canvass" of all the votes cast in the county shows the correct count, Bartlett told Salon. For example, this canvass indicates that in Fairview Park, where Olbermann says there were 18,472 ballots cast by 13,342 registered voters, there were actually only 8,421 votes cast in the presidential race -- fewer than the number of registered voters.

Other theories pointing to a Kerry win are similarly brittle. It is extremely unlikely that there are enough spoiled punch-card ballots in Ohio to hand Kerry a victory there, as Palast asserts. Meanwhile, there are reasonable-sounding sociological and demographic explanations for the high number of registered-Democrat Bush voters in some counties in Florida. There is, in other words, simply no compelling proof that there were enough irregularities in enough areas affecting enough voters to cast doubt on Bush's commanding popular vote count lead, or even his thinner margins in key swing states such as Ohio or Florida.

...more...

===

Etc.

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. Great. I feel better now.

:(

[librechik]

3. buck up, this is war, and they have a tactical advantage

but we can be asymmetrical!

support alternative media efforts

[VelmaD]

2. *sigh*

So much for the "liberal media".

[tavalon]

9. I'm sure I'm speaking to the choir here, but

ain't no such thing as the liberal media. It's a fiction that was created before Rove even slimed his way into national politics.

So don't feel disappointed in that which never existed. No tooth fairy, no Santa and no liberal media.

[Triana]

4. Somehow, I expected that...

....I still would think the work to determine EXACTLY what happened and to explain the irregularities should go on - or the cheating, fraud, and disenfranchisement (and I do believe it was) will be even worse next time, and worse the time after that....

[Donna Zen]

5. Forest meet trees

Perhaps this letter will be taken as just another partisan rant by someone who wanted to live in a country with a stable foreign policy, better healthcare, and meaningful fiscal reforms; but you would be mistaken. This letter is an attempt to clarify the issue at the heart of the recent discussion of what went wrong when America went to the polls 2004. Specifically, I’m concerned about the honesty, and verifiability of voting in our country. After all, without a system that works better than the current one, we cannot sustain our democracy. Is it partisan to want to protect and defend the Constitution? I hope not.

With all of the reporting, the little there has been, and the uproar, the word “conspiracy” gets tossed around without let up. Well, to take the conspiracy out of the equation, give up the thought about who won or lost. Focus instead on did the system work.

Before the election even took place there was plenty of evidence that things were going wrong. The usual hacks were successfully suppressing minority votes, throwing out registrations, and going to court to keep Americans from voting. These are the same people who keep shouting about patriotism and defending our freedoms. Sad, isn’t it? (Ask them about their actions and their promoting of such a flawed system, and then step back while they spit the word “conspiracy” at you.)

When the big day finally arrived, many votes either didn’t add up or added up too conveniently. Long lines left people who wanted to exercise their right to vote standing in the rain for hours. Boxes of “spoiled” and provisional ballots filled the dusty backrooms. Does this seem like a great country expressing it’s great ideal: one person, one vote?

Voting in America demands two simple precepts: the vote must be secret and the vote must be verifiable. Simple but tricky. The machines can spit out a receipt at an ATM and be verifiable because your bank account is no secret. What a machine cannot do is produce a verifiable secret.

Could we come up with a system that satisfies both requirements. Absolutely. That is not the question; the question is do we have the will? Considering the media’s usual attempts at sensationalism, and the political posturing, I am afraid the answer is a resounding “No.”

Now I have a confession to make: I vote with a number two pencil on a piece of paper which is counted by my neighbors who I trust. Heck, I’ve even volunteered and done the job myself. I can assure you, my vote is handled with care. My town is about the size of any polling place.

But America’s votes by in large have lost their importance. By the time the next so-called election day rolls around, the exercise of machine voting will have completely erased all attempts to be “verifiable.” Just push the same button twice and the same answer will reappear. Magic. Good for the overcharging vendors but bad for democracy.

Which brings us back to the purpose of my letter. I am writing to tell you that the path we are currently traveling on election day, will bring you a country that will never see another Lincoln or Jefferson or Kennedy. Not having the press megaphone, there is nothing I can do to save this situation other than write this sorry letter. But in the end, each and every journalist and anchor person and political spinner will lose right along with me.

The voting system in our country doesn’t work, and as of today, things are not looking as if the people with the power to effect change care to save themselves.

[Habibi]

17. This is a great letter, and points to a way to counteract

the crap spewed by the media that dismisses our concerns as "conspiracy theorizing."

I just sent a letter to the AJC in response to a really crappy article that pretty much does what the cites in the OP do: dismiss us as delusional. I suggest more LTTEs, to get the point out there that it is NOT wrong or paranoid to suspect that all the "irregularities" add up to a questionable outcome.

[Teaser]

6. And so far it looks like the right side.

While it is noble that many liberals don't believe American's would willingly vote this evil administration back into power, it is a naive nobility.

When I actually see some convincing evidence (that meets my standards as someone well trained in statistics) I'll start to buy this theory. Until then, it's an interesting idea I put in the drawer that contains records on the Bilderburgers, the Masons, and Jekyll Island.

[Zhade]

20. Will you alter that stance if the recount in NH shows a discrepancy?

I can understand wanting to see hard proof (I'd love to see the kind that will land these criminals in prison for life).

How will your views on possible fraud change, if at all, should the hand recount in New Hampshire show a marked difference between the machine results and the hand recount? (That's assuming there is a discrepancy. For all we know, the local machine results could be fine and the master tabulator hacked.)

This brings up a valid point, fraud or no: when this many people distrust the voting process, are we really still a democratic republic?

[m berst]

22. mixing issues there

Whether or not Democrats are noble, and regardless of what we wish to believe about what happened, and aside from your file drawer with burgers in it or whatever, there is an issue here and your post obscures it and distracts people from it.

Why anything needs to come up to your unstated and undefined standards of proof is a mystery to me, but I will ask you anyway just what something would look like if it were to meet your standards. What sort of indicator should we look at to detect the possibility of fraud other than the ones that we have been looking at? What sort of information provided by those indicators would suggest fraud if what we have seen does not? Have you thoroughly gone over the excellent work that DU members have been doing?

What is it that you are not convince of, and what would it take to convince you?

You aren't buying, you say. Well, no one is selling anything. "This theory" is another red herring among a school of them swimming in your post.

[bobbieinok]

24. on another thread there was the comparison to a bank....if

even one/tenth the 'funny' stuff seen in this election were to occur in a bank, the auditors would be called in at once and everything would be examined with a high-powered microscope....the job taking as long as necessary

our question is ... what's more important, our money in our banks or our vote in our elections???? to date, the answer appears frightenly obvious

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

7. The media has taken a vacation

from good journalism since 1988 when de-regulation came into being. The corporate media is interested in 1 thing: PROFIT.

[Nederland]

8. Thanks Will

Its important for us to concentrate on what really cost us the election. If this is accurate, it seems that would not be election fraud.

[tavalon]

11. Actually

it's the usual stellar work that we've come to expect from our mainstream media whores. Little investigation and lots of hairspray and makeup.

Sure, if it's accurate, we should stop looking at voter fraud. Show me who in the mainstream media did any investigative journalism on this issue. I can show you many in the supposed tin hat internet journalism area who have been doing tons of investigative journalism.

Do I believe that we are going to get this election reversed through exposing what looks to be massive fraud? Nope. Do I hope that we cast enough doubt to undercut Bush's moronic belief in his mandate? Yes, of course, but only if the fraud issue is true. Do I want us to hammer this home right here, right now, so that e-voting without a paper trail and optical scanning done behind locked doors without impartial observation is never, ever done again? Guess what my answer is?

Frankly, hon, it won't matter one whit what we did wrong if we don't get the voting process up to the standards of at least a small third world country. We have 4 years to get straight what we did wrong and fix it (not entirely true but the time crunch is far less) and we have about a month to get the momentum going on this issue so that people are incensed enough to demand changes.

[proudbluestater]

26. Tavalon! Perfect!

Truly, at this point I don't care about Kerry winning as much as I care that our solemn rights as voters are taken seriously in this country. At best, we have an election every two years. This is just about the only time we have any real say in the direction our country is headed. If we cannot be assured the votes are counted fairly, not hacked, people are not disenfranchised year after year, then we have nothing, squat.

There were inspectors brought in from Europe to oversee our election. They promply pronounced our system, "worse than Serbia."

In 2000, very late in the game, several newspapers decided to recount the votes themselves. They showed that Al Gore won. No publicity there. We were willing (had no choice), to give this man his four years even though we felt strongly that he had stolen the election.

I will not let this one pass. No way, no how. I am a taxpayer. I pay the bill of those who dine at the public trough in Washington.

We can do all the "what was wrong with our candidate" BS later on if we need to. First we must be assured the process worked. If the media whores want to call us conspiratorists, so be it. We knew they were not on our side a long time ago, anyway.

With 80% of the voting machines manufactured by Republican backers, will we ever have an election that we're satisfied with? I don't know anymore.

[hunter]

10. "We are a democracy like Mexico, not like Canada or Western Europe."

One of my neighbors said that to me, and it makes a lot of sense.

We must recognize the beast for what it is, and not what we suppose it to be. Our government and our media are the cogs of a great machine in which corruption is often used as a fuel and a lubricant.

Activism based on the assumption that the United States is a modern democracy will fail. We are taught that the United States is a functional republic and a modern democracy precisely for this reason, so that the three branches of government, and the "fourth estate" of our press will be seen as "credible" by the majority of the people so that the machine will run smoothly. At times we have leadership that does not strain that credibility (for example, Bill Clinton) and at other times we have leadership that, for various reasons, stretches credibility to the limits.

In a perverse sort of way I am optimistic that the Bush Administration might just be incompetent enough to break the machine, and if we are lucky and truly Blessed by God, we will be able to rebuild the United States as a modern democracy.

[dennis4868]

12. And the media.....

said there were WMD in Iraq! What the hell do they know?

[Swamp Rat]

13. Go back to work. Nothing to see here. Make babies. Consume. Obey.

[Zhade]

21. Love the pic! You always do good work.

NT!

[Edmond Dantes]

14. What an odd thing for an attorney to say.

''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said.

He should have said "we have found NO EVIDENCE" that they stole the election. Corrigan doesn't know one way or the other, so why is he essentially vouching for the opposition?

[seabeyond]

19. i received a letter from kerry today

he didnt sound at all he is looking as if there may have been theft. at all. kinda disheartening for me. form letter, but kerry. it was a good letter though

[Junkdrawer]

15. Shocked....I am Shocked....

Who would have expected that???? /sarcasm off

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. there's no evidence they stole the election

but is there any evidence it was won fairly?

No.

There's no evidence. Period.

That's the problem.

[bobbieinok]

25. simple and to the point....could be printed on a card and handed out,etc

[tommcintyre]

18. we need to fight back as a group

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud_things_you_can_do.htm

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

29. Learn how to spell

It's YOU'RE, as in YOU ARE A DUMB FUCK FREEPTARD!!

[Zorra]

30. Wow! DU really is rocking the world. The fascists are freaking out.

What a compliment.

Awesome!

[tommcintyre]

31. Yep.. they know they were sloppy, and we are closing in n/t

[Zorra]

28. Black Box Kool-Aid....no, these machines that are specifically designed

for committing undetectable electoral fraud weren't used to commit fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election.

Yuh. "Tell me about the rabbits again, George! Tell me about the rabbits!"

George begins to tell Lennie the story of the farm they will have together. As he describes the rabbits that Lennie will tend, the sound of the approaching lynch party grows louder. George shoots his friend in the back of the head.

(Apologies to John Steinbeck)