Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Election Forum News: Here’s the Very First Thing that Happens when We Win the House

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:20 AM
Original message
Election Forum News: Here’s the Very First Thing that Happens when We Win the House

WE CAN PICK UP MORE THAN 30 HOUSE SEATS!!! IT’S A FACT



The most Honorable John C. Conyers, Democrat, Michigan.
CHAIRMAN, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives



I’d say its damn well worth working extremely hard and giving as much as possible for the 2006 Congressional Elections. Just imagine…Chairman


Never forget the pursuit of Truth.
Only the deluded & complicit accept election results on blind faith.


Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News October 30, 2006


All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
Please

"Recommend"

for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).


Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. NATION: ABC says WE Win!!! Hmm….30 Plus....

Hey, it’s ABC. How about that. Leading up to 911, they gave us all agida with their crap about that stupid documentary, no docu-drama, no propaganda screed from right wingers with real attitude. Now we’ve got Foleygate thanks to the great reporter Brian Ross of ABC and now this, the prediction of doom for the WH.

THE HON. JOHN CONYERS, D, MI, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.


Democrats Positioned to Take House Majority
Top 10 Political Realities That Will Hold Through the Midterms and Beyond




ANALYSIS By MARK HALPERIN, ABC News Political Director
http://tinyurl.com/ye26xp

Oct. 30, 2006 — If you are the type to bet on politics and like to play it safe, place your wagers this week exactly the way you did last week: Democrats remain positioned to win control of the House of Representatives but fall just short of taking a majority in the Senate.
That continues to be the most conservative wager, but there are other options and many unknowns.

Republicans could, perhaps, do better than the national polling currently indicates. They have generated some controversies in the media that have served to rally the conservative base that largely carried them to victories in 2002 and 2004.

They have seen at least some of their endangered incumbents stabilize and even recover in the polls, while at the same time they have damaged a number of Democratic candidates with negative messages.

Republicans continue to express optimism about the strength of their get-out-the-vote machinery. And President Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove still has such a psychic grip on many Democratic politicians and strategists that, until Election Day comes, they will be holding their collective breath and looking over their shoulders in anticipation of October (or November) surprises.

Snip

Democrats, on the other hand, may end up riding a wave that would give them both a substantial majority in the House — perhaps a win of more than 30 seats, far greater than the 15 seats they need to net for majority control — and a narrow control of the Senate, winning precisely the six seats they need for control, and perhaps even one more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Conyers or Sensenbrenner? THAT'S a no-brainer! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. It is theire worst nightmare. "I'm back!" ("The Shining";)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. NATION: 2006 ELECTION TRAIN WRECK – the classic by John Gideon

The Approaching 2006 E-Voting 'Train Wreck' - Are We Making Headway or Losing The Battle?


Guest Blogged by John Gideon
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2725
It is a fact that this primary season is proving to be a disaster.
The locomotives of the voting machine vendors and unwary, naive elections officials are headed down the same tracks, straight towards each other, in many states. The vendors only have the bags of government provided cash in sight and they don't seem to care about anything but putting those bags into their coffers. They don't seem to care about signing contracts that they know they cannot meet. They seem to be under the impression that "act now and apologize later" is good business. They seem to understand that the only criteria for getting paid for contracts with the government is having signed the contract.


As for the elections officials well, they are blinded by the lights of the fast approaching locomotive and many can only apologize and cover for the vendors. They just don't seem to know, or care � or acknowledge that they either know or care — that the same story is playing out in the next county over and in the next state over. Ignorance is supposed to be bliss, but it also spells chaos for elections.

But wait, all may not be lost. This past week we have seen a bit of progress toward stopping the chaos of ES&S in Indiana and Oregon, while West Virginia just doesn't seem to know or care what is happening to them. As well, New Jersey may be making headway against their bad acting vendor, Sequoia Voting Systems.

Indiana Investigates MicroVote and ES&S

MicroVote is a fairly unknown voting machine company outside of their home state of Indiana. If they continue with their lack of work ethic they soon won't be heard from in Indiana anymore either. Recently the state found that MicroVote had installed software uncertified by both the fed and the state in voting machines of 47 Indiana counties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. TRAIN WRECK: And then his predictions started coming through – just in the primaries.
So you can imagine how election day might turn out. Hopefully, it will be fair and efficient. That’s what I want because I know the Democrats will have a field day. I’m holding my hopes in the background. When you sleep on the floor, you can’t fall out of bed. John who will win the Belmont this season?



John Gideon: Train Wreck In Maryland Primary
Wednesday, 13 September 2006, 1:40 pm
Opinion: John Gideon

Train Wreck In Maryland Primary
Polls across the state opened late due to missing equipment or missing poll workers. The state hired voting machine technical 'rovers' from Monster.Com ad

Blogged by John Gideon 09.13.06
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0609/S...

BREAKING: Train Wreck In Maryland Primary Polls across the state opened late due to missing equipment or missing poll workers The state hired voting machine technical 'rovers' from Monster.Com

This morning voters in much of Maryland awoke with plans to go to the polls early and then head off to a normal day. Unfortunately when they got to their polling places they only found locked doors.
As reported by the Baltimore Sun many poll workers did not show up for work this morning and when they did they many had no idea how to operate new voting technology called "e-poll books" which are a necessary part of the voting process in Maryland and many other Diebold states. The workers were not trained to use that technology because Diebold did not provide the technology to the state until it was too late to properly train the poll workers.
According to the Sun:

Tardy election judges in Baltimore caused delays at dozens of polling places this morning, prompting some candidates to call for extended hours at affected polls in the city and Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties.

Armstead B.C. Jones Sr., president of the Baltimore Board of Elections, said that in addition to late arrivals, poll workers are unfamiliar with several pieces of new voting equipment debuting today, which is causing additional delays.

"Poll workers go through a class that's three hours long, but some of the technology wasn't available to us in time for everyone to be trained on it," Jones said, referring to the new electronic check-in system, called e-poll books. "This is not unusual for an election morning when you're dealing with brand new equipment."

Not unusual? What an unbelievable statement to make when talking about elections. It's his job as the president of the Board of Elections to ensure that every poll worker is trained and that no equipment is new to them. What should be unusual is that Mr. Jones keep his job.
And this is not the whole story. Added to a lack of trained poll workers to open the polls and operate the equipment we also learn that when the supplies were sent out to the polls in Montgomery County someone forgot to include the smart cards. These are the cards that have the
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. Nation: Can this machine be trusted? If you have to ask the question…geez
They sort of get it but then they blow it. An outline of problems with voting machines in the opening section is followed by an acceptance of the 'glitches' in the system being tolerated until perfected. Oh and there's the whining corporate media calling Democrats complainers for speaking up about getting screwed (see bold para below). Oddly enough the line by elections officials about Democrats complaining MUST BE A LIE. Name one major Democrat who has challenged an election in the last three cycles? They probably made up the quote.


TIME Magazine 10.29.06
Can This Machine Be Trusted?



County election officials who spoke to TIME reported that most of the fears they field about the new machines come from Democrats, who have not won a national election in three cycles. It may be that a solid Democratic win in 2006 will allay some of their worries. It follows, of course, that if the Republicans lose, they will take up the charge. In fact, that's already happening in some places this year. My comment: "most of the fears...come from Democrats" Well, that wouldn't be the Democratic Party, which has taken a very low key approach to this issue. And it COULD NOT come from Democratic candidates. Which major or minor Democratic candidate has filed an election challenge? I bet they just pulled this out of their ears and made it up. Could be wrong but, even if quoted accurately, the quotation is so off base, its uncritical journalism to include such a stupid statement.


In a country of 300 million, it is far preferable for partisans, poll workers, defensive voting-machine manufacturers and voters to adjust to the new technologies, eliminate their weak spots and work to keep human errors to a minimum. In that way, voting by machine may someday be no more mysterious than making a visit to the ATM. My comment: Note their acceptance of electronic voting that they've described as inadequate. The prime value here is to demystify voting machines...NOT TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND SEE THAT VOTE COUNTED, which 92% of Americans want. It's like we're living in 1984 with the Newsspeak magazines and newspapers writing only to condition us to accept their means of manipulation and control, in this case flawed voting machines which actually divert us from the larger issue in elections - the systematic disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters for decades - all without a computer involved.




woman walked into a polling place in Peoria, Ill., last week and proceeded to use one of the new electronic voting machines set up for early voting. She logged on, went through each contest and seemed to be making her choices. After reviewing each race, the machine checked to see if she was satisfied with her selections and wanted to move on. Each time, she pressed yes, and the machine progressed to the next race. When she was done, a waving American flag appeared on the screen, indicating that her votes had been cast and recorded. But there was a problem. The woman had not made any choices at all. She had only browsed. Now when she told the election judges she was ready to do it again—but this time actually vote—they told her it was too late. Pressing the last button, they said, is like dropping your ballot in an old-fashioned ballot box. There's no getting it back.

So what?

So this: In one week, more than 80 million Americans will go to the polls, and a record number of them—90%—will either cast their vote on a computer or have it tabulated that way. When that many people collide with that many high-tech devices, there are going to be problems. Some will be machine malfunctions. Some could come from sabotage by poll workers or voters themselves. But in a venture this large, trouble is most likely to come from just plain human error, a fact often overlooked in an environment as charged and conspiratorial as America is in today. Four years after Congress passed a law requiring every state to vote by a method more reliable than the punch-card system that paralyzed Florida and the nation in 2000, the 2006 election is shaping up into a contest not just between Democrats and Republicans but also between people who believe in technology and those who fear machines cannot be trusted to count votes in a closely divided democracy. Perhaps the biggest fallacy in this debate is the notion that elections were perfect before Congress decided to hold them on computers. They weren't.

Snip

Concerns about fraud are heightened by the fact that with some electronic voting machines, there is no such thing as a real recount. When asked again for the tally, the computer could spit back the same response as the first time. For that reason, at least 27 states have built in a backup that requires electronic voting machines to provide an attached voter-verified paper trail—a running ticker that allows voters to see on paper that their votes are recorded as cast. That way, if there's a question about the electronic tally, the paper records can be counted by hand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nation: Miami Herald - Bogus Sequoia-Chavez Connection touted
No wonder the election thefts of 2000 and 2004 in Florida were never seriously covered. The Miami Herald is not serious. They run a huge headline on a possible connection. If you read the entire article, however, you find that THERE IS NO Chavez connection but there is one to the Netherlands and another major corporation.

Isn't that helpful. Get everybody scared then dismiss the concept.



Miami Herald Oct. 28, 2006

U.S. digs for vote-machine links to Hugo Chávez



BY ALFONSO CHARDY
achardy@MiamiHerald.com

http://tinyurl.com/ygvp8f

In the debate about the reliability of electronic voting technology, the South Florida parent company of one of the nation's leading suppliers of touch-screen voting machines is drawing special scrutiny from the U.S. government.

Federal officials are investigating whether Smartmatic, owner of Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems, is secretly controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, according to two people familiar with the probe.

In July, a Treasury Department spokeswoman disclosed that a Treasury-led panel had contacted Smartmatic, and a company representative said his firm was ''in discussions'' with the panel. At the time, those discussions were informal. The government has now upgraded to a formal investigation, the two sources said.

Sequoia's electronic voting machines operate in 17 states. In Florida, the machines are used in four counties: Palm Beach, Indian River, Pinellas and Hillsborough.

Miami-Dade and Broward use other technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. NATION: Christian Science Monitor Stakes out Racist Position on Voter ID
Way to go. You've ruined your credibility, whatever of it there was. The notion that voter ID has anything to do with cleaning up the mess of Florida is idiotic. Valid voters were taken off the rolls by the state based on race. That was the problem. That and "spoiled ballots" - oh, 100,000 or more, mostly in minority precincts. The Monitor editorial is an absolute scandal. They have shamed themselves for a long time. At the end of the article they even mention the truth - unqualified voters represent a small risk. So why deny all the poor and minority voters their rights? Oh, I'll just report and you can decide.


A voter ID as an election safeguard

The Monitor's View Thu Oct 26, 5:00 AM ET

Think back, but just 10 months before 9/11, the US endured a different trauma: A knife-edge constitutional crisis over the 2000 presidential election that hung on a few hundred votes in Florida. Ever since, states have tried to reform voting systems - with zero tolerance for fraud or mistakes. But at what cost?

While states have moved quickly to electronic voting as one reform, one onerous fix has been more requirements for voters to show a valid ID at the polls. The number of states demanding such identification has doubled since 2000 to nearly half. And seven states approved rules that require a photo ID to vote. With most Americans favoring voter IDs, this trend may go on.

But as the Nov. 7 midterm elections have drawn near, the ID issue has gone to the courts.

A judge in Georgia overturned that state's ID law for being a form of poll tax. In Missouri, the state's high court ruled last week that the $15 cost of obtaining a birth certificate was too much of a burden to obtain a photo ID for the 3 to 4 percent of voters who don't have one. Arizona's law went all the way to the US Supreme Court which, while not ruling on the merits of the case, let the law go ahead for this election - a signal that it may eventually approve voter IDs


As for accepting some fraud, the number of proven cases is small...



It sure is small, it can barely be documented. Why are you denying poor and minority voters their rights. It will happen with these voters ID laws. They’re designed to make it happen. Thanks Christian Science Monitor. You are real sentinels of democracy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. IRAN: It's everywhere - Reformers worried about election fraud

http://tinyurl.com/y2gt6a

(DPA)

28 October 2006


TEHERAN - Iran’s reformers are worried about possible manipulations in the country’s forthcoming elections, the news agency ISNA reported on Saturday.

“We reformists are worried whether the elections would be healthy or not and whether there would manipulations on elections day and vote counting,” leading reform activist Mohammad-Reza Khatami, the younger brother of former President Mohammad Khatami, told ISNA.

The election for the Experts Assembly - a clergy body in charge of supervising the performance of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - and for the City Councils will be held on December 15.

Although none of the elections are politically very significant, but still they will be the first occasion to test the political mood in the country following the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president in June last year.

Khatami said that the two bodies in charge for the elections - the senate-like Guardian Council and the interior ministry - are both close to President Ahmadinejad’s political wing and therefore voiced doubts over a neutral handling of the election process.

While the interior ministry is in charge for the for the ideological qualification of the candidates.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
9. Protecting the Democratic Vote: TruthIsAll/Michael Collins - Get it out there;)


Link:http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00377.htm

PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE:


House and Senate Take Over Looks Good


Potential election fraud and certain
confusion at polls threaten public will.


Michael Collins and TruthisAll
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC


Rev. DeForest Soaries, former head of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) said that voting conditions are “ripe for stealing elections and for fraud.” When a Bush appointee to the EAC makes this remark, it puts election fraud right at the center of the table. The upcoming elections are critical to the well being of the United States and the rest of the world. Given the recent history of strongly suspected election fraud, we need superior intelligence and added diligence to spot any foul play early. The potential for of investigation, revelations, and pounding the table for a fair election since 2004 has been squandered. Last minute bills for emergency paper ballots are going no where. We’re stuck with a voting system that is measurably less reliable than 2000 according to Rev. Soaries.

Yet, there is still a potential for the Democrats to win not only the Congressional Elections but to stave off the many temptations to interfere with the intent of “We the people.” Awareness by candidates, party officials, and, most critically, the grass roots activists is imperative. A huge turnout is also part of a fraud fighting strategy. The more participation, the more eye witnesses, the better our democracy is served. This document outlines the states and districts where the margins are thin and extreme diligence is required. Please forward the “Print” version of this article to the Democratic National Committee and the candidates in question.

This analysis by internet poster TruthIsAll is intended to provide a set of focal points and formulae to look for fraud. It’s offered in the spirit of winning through awareness and diligence and assuring that the winners are actually those candidates, of either party, who received a plurality of votes in free and fair elections.

For those who don’t believe that elections are vulnerable to the type of fraud Rev. Soires mentioned:

Remember 2000, Florida
Remember 2002 Georgia - Cleland & Barnes
Remember 2004 Ohio and the rest of the country
Remember 2005 Ohio Special Election - Hackett
Remember 2005 Ohio Special Measures Election

The list is much longer but this makes the point to anyone who has followed electoral politics since 2000. Democrats need to anticipate the combination punches the Republicans throw in their election beat down, (e.g., voter suppression, spoiled ballots, tossed ballots, e-voting security problems, e-voting provided by Republican leaning vendors, etc. etc.). There will be a broad outline of risks later in the article but first the good news.

The Prospects for Democrats Look Very Good


The strong Democratic trend continues. They lead the GOP by 16.5% in the 3-poll Moving Average, a 7% increase in the last month. Undecided (Other) voters, currently at 5-7%, appear to be breaking by 2-1 for the Democrats.

These charts display the positive slope of the Democratic trend vs. the flat GOP trend during the past 12 months across generic congressional polls. Chart 1 Chart 2




The House: A Monte Carlo Election Simulation Forecast


1000 simulated trial elections. Based on Polls as of Oct.14

Current House: 232 Republicans; 202 Democrats; 1 Independent

The Democrats need to capture 16 Republicans seats (net) to gain control of the House. How many of the 58-contested Republican House seats can the Democrats expect to win, assuming a fraud-free election?

Corollary: How many elections will the Republicans need “win” to maintain control?

In the most likely scenario other the Democrats will win 60% of the undecided vote, they can expect to capture 32 of the 58 Republican-held seats. There is a 99% probability that they will win 30 or more. Therefore, the Republicans will have to steal a minimum of 16 elections in order to retain the House.

Of the 58 polls:

1) Democrats lead in 15 races beyond the MoE
2) Democrats lead in 11 within the MoE
3) Democrats tie the Republicans in 5
4) Republicans lead in 15 within the MoE
5) Republicans lead in 12 beyond the MoE

The closest races within the margin of error are the ones most likely to be “ripe for stealing elections and for fraud,” as Rev. Soaries says, voter suppression, and those “coincidences” or machine malfunctions including vote switching. They are the 22 districts between PA-6 and NY-29 in the chart: Image





The analysis assumes nearly zero fraud and is based strictly on the latest poll shares, undecided voter allocation and margin of error. The model will be updated for new polling data and run again just prior to election day.

The simulation calculates the probability of the Democrats winning a specified number of the 58 seats, over a range of undecided voter allocation assumptions. It provides a very robust estimate of the minimum number of elections that would need to be stolen in order for the Republicans to retain control of the House.

In a published study of over 150 incumbent elections, the challenger won the undecided vote in 82% of the races, the incumbent won in 12%, and the rest were split. Even with the very conservative UVA assumption that the undecided vote will be evenly split, then assuming the elections are fraud-free, it is a virtual 100% probability that the Democrats will net at least 25 Republican seats, or nine more than the minimum required for House control.

Sensitivity Analysis:

UVA: Undecided voter % allocated to Democrats
N: number of Republican seats won by Democrats
e.g. 25 seats gained at 50%> UVA



With a 60% UVA, the Democrats can
See a pick up of 34 seats at 51% probability.


This chart displays the probability curve: click here.

US House of Representatives: 58 Races in Play

House Polling Detail. Races 1-10:





Full 58 House Races here.
House Probabilities here.
Democratic % here

Races 48-58:




These are the districts with the highest probability of fraud, voter suppression, or “coincidental” equipment problems. The races are all within the margin of error and thus would raise less of a question should they result in one of those last minute comebacks to put the Republicans over the top.




The Senate: A Monte Carlo Election Simulation Forecast

(1000 simulated trial elections
Based on Polls as of Oct.14)

Current Senate: 55 Republicans; 44 Democrats; 1 Independent

There are nine critical races: New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Connecticut, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island

The Democrats need to hold their lead in New Jersey and win 6 of the other 8 seats for a 50-49-1 majority. They have solid leads in 5 GOP seats, a narrow lead in TENNESSEE, and are slightly behind in Virginia. Lieberman (Ind) is far ahead in CT. Assuming they win the 5 solid GOP seats and retain New Jersey seat, they need to win either Virginia or Tennessee for a majority.

Therefore, Virginia and Tennessee should be closely monitored for fraud or other irregularities.

Probability of Democratic Victories in the Senate.

Sensitivity Analysis: Assuming zero election fraud and that the Democrats capture 60% of the undecided vote (UVA), then with an election based on these polls, there is a 99% probability that they will win a 50-49 senate majority. The win probability is slightly lower (91%) if the undecided vote is split (50% UVA).



The analysis shows the relationship between undecided voter decisions at different splits between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate races. At a 50%-50% split with undecideds, the Democrats should pick up six seats right now. The hurdle to a larger pick up is significant given current polls. This can change quickly with adjusted poll data indicating a shift in public preferences. The difficult of getting above six seats reinforces the need for greater attention to signs of election fraud.

Sensitivity Analysis

Assuming there is zero election fraud and that the Democrats capture 60% of the undecided vote (UVA), and then if the election was today there is a 99% probability that they will win a 50-49 senate majority. The win probability is slightly lower (91%) if the undecided vote is split (50% UVA).

UVA is the Democratic undecided voter allocation (%),

U.S. Senate: 29 Seats up for Election



Those marked in yellow are the critical races, and are top targets
for voter suppression and election fraud problems.

PROB is the probability of a Democratic win (assuming a 60% UVA)


Unweighted Poll Average: Dem: 49.5%, Rep: 42.2%, Prob.: 74.3%

Full list of Senate Races here. Senate Races by Democratic % here.


These races are still fluid and shifts are common in the last two weeks of the campaign. Based on the data, these are the races that will determine control of the US Senate. Unless the Democrats plan for a 1994 election shift, special attention is required. Of these states, Pennsylvania had numerous election irregularities in 2004; Ohio’s election was a disgrace; Missouri was the site of poll closing and other controversies; Tennessee experienced problems with electronic voting. In 2005 Virginia had a recount that didn’t allow counting optical scan ballots!

Note that the polls and associated probabilities do not factor in spoiled and lost votes (mostly democratic) which occur in every election. This suggests that the net Democratic lead may be 1% lower than the polls suggest. On the other hand, the undecided vote (currently 5%) usually splits in favor of the challenger - in this case, the Democrat. So we may have a wash here.

The calculations don’t factor in a sudden event, an “October” surprise, for example, that might shift more races into one of the three categories. Given the impact of the Foley scandal and the likelihood of more in that or another emerging from the scandal rich terrain of the Republican congress, this is a very real possibility. In addition, ABC News, in part of a general press turn around to more coverage is actually raising the likelihood of what they call “bias” as a result of e-voting. “Bias” here is surely a code word for fraud since machines need human intervention be biased

The Election Fraud BEAT DOWN


The beat down first showed up in Florida when Republicans unified and did everything they could to scare Democrats off and turn a loss into a stolen election. With the exception of Al Gore resisting, the balance of the Democratic leadership stood back and allowed the distortions, “preppy riots,” and outrageous Supreme Court decision to go unchallenged. Beat down refers to the strategies of voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, and extreme “leveraging” of technology that seems to favor Republican candidates time after time.

Greg Palast outlined key strategies that have nothing to do with electronic voting. These are time honored techniques that have been honed to perfection over decades. The following four points are provided in Palast’s new article, Recipe for a Cooked Election in YES magazine:


Four Traditional Voter Suppression Strategies from Greg Palast: No E-Voting Required



• Provisional Ballots Rejected. An entirely new species of ballot debuted nationwide in 2004: the "provisional ballot." These were crucial to the Bush victory. Not because Republicans won this "provisional" vote. They won by rejecting provisional ballots that were cast overwhelmingly in Democratic precincts. The sum of "the uncounted" is astonishing: 675,676 ballots lost in the counties reporting to the federal government. Add in the missing jurisdictions and the un-vote climbs to over a million: 1,090,729 provisional ballots tossed out.

• Spoiled Ballots. You vote, you assume it’s counted. Think again. Your "x" was too light for a machine to read. You didn’t punch the card hard enough and so you "hung your chad." Therefore, your vote didn’t count and, crucially, you’ll never know it. The federal Election Assistance Commission toted up nearly a million ballots cast but not counted. Add in states too shy to report to Washington, the total “spoilage” jumps to a rotten 1,389,231.

• Absentee Ballots Uncounted. The number of absentee ballots has quintupled in many states, with the number rejected on picayune technical grounds rising to over half a million (526,420) in 2004. In swing states, absentee ballot shredding was pandemic.

• Voters Barred from Voting. In this category we find a combination of incompetence and trickery that stops voters from pulling the lever in the first place. There’s the purge of "felon" voters that continues to eliminate thousands whose only crime is VWB — Voting While Black.It includes subtle games like eliminating polling stations in selected districts, creating impossible lines. No one can pretend to calculate a hard number for all votes lost this way any more than you can find every bullet fragment in a mutilated body. But it’s a safe bet that the numbers reach into the hundreds of thousands of voters locked out of the voting booth.
Greg Palast 10.2006


The inherent unreliability of electronic voting Electronic voting is always in secret and controlled by private vendors. Two of the three major vendors are United States corporations with very serious Republican ties. The third is foreign with undetermined ownership. The GOP-friendly voting machines (and companies) have major security risks including vulnerability to hacking, malicious code, subtle pre programming. These apply tooptical scan and touch screenvoting machines. These security problems have been clearly demonstrated by world leading computer security expert Haari Hursti’s hacks of both touch screen and optical scan machines and the recent Princeton University study.

Electronic vote tampering leaves no evidence for a prosecution. If the equipment can’t be monitored sufficiently to catch fraud, it becomes a menace to voter confidence and the ability to insure that those elected and serving were actually elected in the first place. The ElectionArcive.Org makes the following key points in a pdf on election problems that is vital for everyone concerned about free, fair and accessible elections (click on link to download the entire presentation, a must for activists).



There should never be any need to review presentations like the outstanding resource provided by the ElectionArchive.Org, but there is one now. Given the ongoing voter suppression strategies in place for decades plus the new opportunities of elections through various means of digital exploitation, the time for vigilance is now. Everyone who is able should show up and vote. Everyone who is able should be involved with their elections demanding that they be run openly, fairly, and inclusively. Those who experience problems should report them. And those who are particularly motivated can contact these organizations who will provide outlets for the type of energy necessary to develop an election system that will allow us to say with certainty that we live in a real democracy. Free, fair, transparent, and inclusive elections will also allow those who assume office to actually prove that they have the right and mandate to do so through a legitimate election.


Partial list of groups working against voter suppression and election fraud:

The NAACP
Election Defense Alliance
League of Women Voters Velvet Revolution
Advancement Project



©Copyright: Please feel free to reproduce and distribute this in any fashion you feel suitable with an attribution of authorship and the publisher, “Scoop” Independent News, plus a link to the article.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. Evidence of Election Fraud - Bush EAC Head Says So Keep this one.
BLOGGED BY Brad ON 10/17/2006 7:35AM
EXCLUSIVE: FIRST BUSH-APPOINTED CHAIR OF U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION SAYS 'NO STANDARDS' FOR E-VOTING DEVICES, SYSTEM 'RIPE FOR STEALING ELECTIONS'!
Former Chair Says He 'Was Deceived', EAC and Federal Efforts for Election Reform 'A Charade', 'Travesty'!
In Stark Contrast to Current EAC Chair, Rev. DeForest Soaries Blasts White House, Congress in Transcript of Unaired Interview from Major Broadcast Network!


YOU WILL WANT TO BOOK MARK THIS: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3491

The BRAD BLOG has obtained an EXCLUSIVE partial transcript from a recent, unaired interview by a major broadcast network with former U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) chair Rev. DeForest Soaries.

Soaries was appointed by George W. Bush as the first chair of the commission created by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election Debacle. In the interview, available here for the first time, Soaries excoriates both Congress and the White House, referring to their dedication to reforming American election issues as "a charade" and "a travesty," and says the system now in place is "ripe for stealing elections and for fraud."

Having resigned from the commission in April of 2005, Soaries goes on to explain that he believes he was "deceived" by both the White House and Congress, and that neither were ever "really serious about election reform."

The explosive comments are the latest evidence highlighting serious deficiencies in the federal body, created by HAVA for oversight of elections systems, including new electronic voting devices, and standards for the use and security of those systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. LOVE THAT MAN!
I'm getting my second autographed book by him for my birthday.

:loveya:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. He never gave up, he will never give up, he'll finish his life years from
now serving his district, state and nation. He is an inspiration. If they try a teardown on him, I say it's time to really let them have it at a higher volume. But they had better make sure they do it thoroughly becasue he knows exactly what needs looking at and how to do it. Dana Mailbank will never make fund of Conyers and the other members who met in a basement on the Downing Streed Memo. I hope Conyers never talks to him, although Conyers is a gentleman and he wont stoop to Dana's level.

Let's pray...a Republican Free Ohio and Conyers in "the chair." :patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
27. Amen to your prayer No Repuks in Ohio - Conyers in the chair
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. Conyers...a true patriot in every sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. GUAM: Primary Election challenge to be heard Wednesday afternoon in Superior Court
Pacific Daily News

By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News

uperior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas said he will hold a hearing Wednesday afternoon related to the Primary Election challenge, which the Supreme Court of Guam sent back to him on Friday.

Several candidates and voters have asked the court for a new Primary Election or to allow all candidates to advance to the General Election, alleging that the Guam Election Commission violated rules and laws during the Sept. 2 Primary Election.

Barcinas earlier this month dismissed the case, but justices last week reversed his decision after candidates and voters appealed.

The Election Commission now is asking Barcinas to step down from the case because of statements he made when he dismissed the case, critical of the commission's performance.

Curtis Van de Veld, who represents election challengers, this afternoon accused the Election Commission of trying to delay until after the Nov. 7 General Election is held, making the challenge pointless.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. more GUAM: GEC to judge: Relinquish case
Primary challengers cry 'foul'
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com

The attorney representing candidates and voters who are challenging the Sept. 2 Primary Election yesterday accused the Guam Election Commission of attempting to delay the challenge in court until after the Nov. 7 General Election, which would make the challenge moot.

Supreme Court of Guam justices last week sent the Primary Election challenge back to Superior Court of Judge Arthur Barcinas, saying he should not have dismissed it, but the Election Commission has asked Barcinas to step down from the case altogether.

That's a "blatant attempt" to delay the court proceedings for as long as five days, until another judge can be selected, argued attorney Curtis Van de Veld, who represents election challengers.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061...

& comments posted by readers:

Comments by: Tumon Chief Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:30 am
Election Commission's Ted Christopher says we can't change the date of the election, there is no need to rush and that Judge Barcinas is incompetent to judge this case. What Christopher is actually saying is nevermind and ignore the fact that the election commission committed serious counting the votes errors that could have change the results of the primary and lets just follow the federal law and act like nothing is wrong. This is the worst cover of election incompetence and the violation of our right to vote in a free election. The Election Commisison should support efforts into seeking and protecting the community's right to vote in a free election rather then screwing the voters in the name of protecting the Election Commission. The courts should rule for a new election to ensure we practice our right to elect our leaders freely. Laws should not abride our Constitutional rights to vote....I say fire the Election Commission for incompetence and violating the rights to vote. What do you think?

same page



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. Pursuit of perfection is absurd - By GEORGE F.WILL
The Buffalo News

Opinion

10/30/2006

The hoariest jest in conservatism's repertoire is that the three least credible assertions in the English language are "The check is in the mail," "Of course I'll respect you as much in the morning" and "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Which brings us to the exquisitely named Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
Having fixed Iraq and New Orleans, the federal government's healing touch is now being applied to voting. As a result, days might pass after Election Day without the nation knowing which party controls the House or Senate. If that happens, one reason might be HAVA, that 2002 bit of federal helpfulness.

For more than two centuries before Congress passed HAVA, Americans voted. Really. Unlike today, those who were elected often were more complex and sophisticated than the voting machinery.

Using pencils to make marks on paper, and later using machines to punch holes in paper ballots, voters - without federal help; imagine - caused congresses and presidents to come and go. States ran elections; some ran them better than others. Some ballots have been better designed than others, as have some voting machines. Most have been adequate. The gross defects of American voting practices were laws that established or permitted discrimination and other abuses. Tardily, but emphatically, those laws were changed and other abuses were halted.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061030/1059638.a...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. Huffington Post: Diebold Keeps Lying, the Democratic Party Remains in Denial
10.30.2006

Brad Friedman

"The equipment has been tested by independent agencies and federal agencies," Diebold's Chief Disinformation Officer, Mark Radke lied to Diane Sawyer in a recent Good Morning America interview on ABC.

Sadly, the only ones there to counter Radke's knowing and misleading disinformation was a computer scientist from Princeton, and a Republican governor. Not a Democrat in sight.

The National Democratic Party, to their eternal shame, has remained virtually silent about the grave national security threat -- as it has been described by almost every computer scientist and security expert with whom the The BRAD BLOG has discussed the matter -- which our country now faces vis a vis the nationwide use of inaccurate, uncountable, unaccountable, hackable and, yes, untested electronic voting systems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/diebold-kee...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. MD: A vote of no confidence
Washington Technology

10/30/06; Vol. 21 No. 21

By Doug Beizer
Staff Writer

Systems face uphill battle to sway electorate
Many Republicans and Democrats in Maryland can agree on one thing: They have so little faith in the state’s electronic voting system, that they’re recommending voters use paper absentee ballots rather than go to the polls on Election Day.

Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Douglas Duncan plans to vote absentee, and both Duncan and Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) are encouraging citizens do the same.

While politicians may not agree with IT companies’ assessment of the reliability of computer-based voting systems, there is a national desire to develop and refine them.

It’s not clear when funds will become available to pay for new systems, said Michelle Miller, a senior analyst at government market research firm Input Inc., Reston, Va.

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/21_21/cover-st...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
20. MTV: How Safe Is Your Vote? 'Make Sure No One Steals Elections,' Kennedy Says
Oct 30 2006 6:00 AM EST

Reports of insecure voting machines have many worried.

By Gil Kaufman

For the first time in U.S. history, most voters will be touching a screen to cast their votes on November 7, rather than punching a card or filling in a form.

But concerns about the security of electronic voting machines continue to make headlines, and highly controversial results stemmed from the use of such technology in the last two presidential elections. So with just two weeks to go before the elections, we asked several experts, "Just how safe are our votes?"

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1544316/20061027/index...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. Conyers: Terrific Response to Call For Election Protection
ConyersBlog

Submitted by JC on October 24, 2006 - 11:25pm.
We have had a great response to the call for volunteers. Thanks unspun, TIA and Max 1 for getting involved. I am calling on all of you who are able to volunteer in one way or another. Election Protection is going to be very important this election.

So far we have over 400 people signed up. Let's get to 500 tomorrow. Click here to send the volunteer appeal to family and friends or others you think would be interested in helping.

I will be leaving my last post at the top of the website to focus the attention of visitors to this call for action. I hope you will join in these efforts.

http://www.johnconyers.com /

Get a Signed Copy of Bush versus the Constitution
Donate $60 and get a signed copy of the edited version of my report on Bush Administration abuses, entitled George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. He's been my avatar since 2004 elections
We NEED him now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. It can't happen soon enough for me
I feel like I have been holding my breath - waiting for change-

The most Honorable John C. Conyers is a leader we can count on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Timbuk3 Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. The next thing I'd like to hear?
The sound of angry veins popping all over America at the words, "Madame Speaker..."

It'll sound like popcorn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
25. To Me, COnyers is already the Chairman of the Judiciary (in esteem)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. And you're his chief cousel...what a nightmare for the right.


You can't keep a good man down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC