The Florida Optical Scam Machines stole it for Bush

[TruthIsAll]

I am completely shocked at these numbers.


http://thesquanderer.com/votingmachines.html

Some Florida counties used an "E-Touch" voting machine, and some used an "optical scan" machine. Let's look at these two groups:

"E-Touch" Voters
Approx. 3.86 million total voters in these counties

Kerry's Base: about 1.57 million votes*
Bush's Base: about 1.44 million votes*

Kerry's final tally: about 1.98 million votes
26.5% more than his given base

Bush's final tally: about 1.85 million votes
28.6% more than his given base

Summary:
Close race, as expected,
unaffiliated voters appear nearly evenly split
between the two candidates

* - based on the number of registered Democrats or Republicans,
adjusted for turnout
....................................................................
"Optical Scan" Voters
Approx. 3.42 million total voters in these counties

Kerry's Base: about 1.43 million votes*
Bush's Base: about 1.34 million votes*

Kerry's final tally: about 1.45 million votes
Less than 1% more than his given base

Bush's final tally: about 1.95 million votes
45.8% more than his given base

more....

[Jack_Dawson]

1. I trust optical scan more than I do E-Touch

[LisaL]

2. What you don't understand is they still added up by a computer.

Without a recount, no one will ever know the truth.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. Yes. I didn't know that 'til last week. Before the computer they're good

who knows how they are tallied once they go into GEMS?

[TruthIsAll]

4. Jeb Bush likes optical scan machines also.

tia

[genieroze]

5. At least they can be hand counted

E-touch can't be hand counted

[Jack_Dawson]

8. My point exactly n/t

[LisaL]

10. Who is going to hand count them?

Nobody appears to want to ask for recount in Florida.

[MrUnderhill]

33. It only has to be ONE county... and it doesn't have to be a "recount".

If this theory were true (and I don't buy it, because the paper scan ballots were supposed to be THE best way to do this - and had by far the lowest error rate in 2000), then quite a few counties in Florida would have glaring discrepancies between a hand-count and the count performed by the machines.

You may not be able to do an official "recount", but news organizations can go in after the fact (just like in 2000) and go through those ballots. Discrepancies of the type alleged would show up almost instantaneously. Heck, you could probably catch it in a day if you picked your precincts carefully.

[librechik]

3. Wow! that Bush guy is really popular!

suddenly.

[Blue in the face]

7. KISS

Keep it simple, stupid...

Everyone is right to try to boil this down as simply as possible. If the mainstream media is going to pick this up, it has to be able to be reduced to 10 second soundbites.

[glitch]

12. Just say no to faith-based vote counts.

Cuz without manual counts to verify the machine totals that's all you got. Faith in the rw corporations that own the machines.
Simple enough?

[Dancing_Dave]

6. I believe Bev Harris is in Florida

Trying to get together a hand recount of the optically scanned ballots.

[kerry2win]

11. does anyone know if

Bev is doing it under "the freedom of information act" and does it carry any legal weight to change the outcome, or do we have to get a third party candidate involved..I know time is running out here.

[Straight Shooter]

9. I think "optical scam" is precisely the correct terminology

Everyone is looking to the vapor votes as the source of tampering, but maybe that was too much of a wild card for anyone to control. So, what to do, what to do?

Do what you did in 2000.

TruthIsAll, thank you. I believe you're on to something.

[shraby]

14. They knew everyone would be

suspicious of the e-voting with no paper and scrutinizing the results of that part of the vote, so they thought they could run the optical scan ones under the radar, forgetting the internets have a multitude of mathematicians looking at all results.

[bj2110]

13. I still don't buy this op-scan county registered Democrat theory....

I't been said before, and I'll reiterate it...

Op-scans were used primarily in rural counties. Most (albeit not all) of these small, op-scan counties have high democratic registration levels yet voted Republican in Presidential race, just like they did in '96 and in '00. Yes, the '00 vote was probably tampered with also, but was '96?

Much of the so-called Democratic based relied on registered Democrats who have a pretty solid history of voting for a Republican president, even if it was Bob freakin' Dole.

Adjust these op-scan counties for this history and run the analysis again. You'll get a different result.

(Please notice I didn't use the term, "Dixiecrat." God, I hate that word...)

[peabody71]

15. It's the same argument in New Hampshire.

The exit polls showed a huge lead for Kerry yet he barely won by a single point. The recount will hand count the paper opti scan sheets.
We will get the best possible glimpse at actual to exit polling.
I can't wait!!!

[LisaL]

16. Well, I don't know about that...

What if Nader actually won New Hampshire?

[bullimiami]

31. florida counties have been steadily trending more democratic

for the last 20 years. suspiciously the trend seems to have reversed itself since 2000.

so either we believe that bush is such a great candidate that he was able to reverse the inexorable tide to the left or we think they are fiddling with the vote counts.

[ParanoidPat]

17. Bev, Andy and Kathy Wynne are in Florida.......

....... http://www.blackboxvoting.org /

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting has launched a fraud audit into Florida. Three investigators (Bev Harris, Andy Stephenson, and Kathleen Wynne) are in Florida right now. We will initiate hand counts on selected counties that have not fully complied with our Nov. 2 Freedom of Information request by Monday (Diebold counties) or Tuesday (other counties).

[Shalom]

18. Fraud Signature: Plausible Deniability

Very good work - it triggered some useful thoughts regarding what kind of fraud we should be looking for, and perhaps how we can recognize it when we find it.

Think about it - it there is fraud, those who carried it out are not dummies....they very carefully planned it out. A number of factors that would have been considered are listed below (with perhaps the most important, plausible deniability, which spans them all, being listed last):

- Geographic: Should they cheat across the board, and/or have a flex response to fix only what was required. The first has the advantage of cheating early, but the disadvantage of having to commit massive fraud to guarantee the outcome. The flex response has the advantage that a minimal amount of fraud can be tailored to win, but the disadvantage of having to be done in "real-time".

- Voting Machine Type: Which is easier to fix, and which is being monitored less ?

- Level: Cheat at the physical level (ballots, etc.), or at different levels of integration, up to the central tabulator ?

- Involvement: How many people need to know, and how can it be assured them none of them will leak or go public later ?

- Plausible Deniability: Assume that there will be an unavoidable signature to the fraud that someone will eventually pick up. Chose a fraud mechanism that has some plausible explanation that is difficult to disprove.

Here's an intriguing possibility: Commit fraud in the Florida panhandle, and use the "Dixiecrats" phenomena to cover your tracks.

THE BOTTOM LINE: When we discover fraud, it is likely to have these characteristics, rather than a very crude and obvious pattern. We should not be dissuaded by superficial explanations until we have drilled down far enough.

[anamandujano]

23. excellent points

especially your BOTTOM LINE

[shelley806]

25. Excellent points. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

19. there is just SO much evidence that something was greatly amiss . . .

in this election . . . and still the MSM talk of blogger conspiracy theories instead of actually doing some investigative reporting . . . or reporting of any kind, for that matter . . . thankfully, I gave up watching tv news, both cable and broadcast, two years ago . . . done wonders for my peace of mind, such as it is given current circumstances . . .

[nolabels]

37. Regardless of how or why they what they do think does not matter........

Does the mantra of 'Tax breaks to grow your self out of a deficit' sound familiar

Don't confuse their facts with real information, we want the debate to be on fantasy terms

[floridadem30]

20. When you look at the rep gain in these op-scan counties the % are over 100

Yet in the e-touch counties it is pretty evenly split. Here's a good site to look at http://www.truthisbetter.org/Florida_Election.htmat . And before everyone points out the fact this is the same website as the poster I suggest you compare the numbers to Florida dept of states and each counties website like I have. I have no doubt they are correct.

[floridadem30]

21. Here is the site w/analysis #'s http://www.truthisbetter.org/Florida_Elect

I have verified the numbers through florida dept of states website and county by county and they are correct.

[truehawk]

22. Look for Precincts with more votes than voters

[Carolab]

26. YES!

Exactly right. I have found this in analyzing my state's data. There are more votes than there should be in precincts using optically scanned ballots and tabulators.

[anamandujano]

24. "Optical Scam"

I'd like to see that on the cover of Time or Newsweek, maybe adding "FraWd" for good measure.

Then I might actually buy a copy.

[floridadem30]

27. kick

[prof_science]

28. I do not understand.

The way the numbers seem to work out, in FL and other states, is that the probable source of potentially fraWdulent votes are from the optical scan machines.

Now, if I were going to rig an election, I would choose to fuck with the numbers from the machines with no paper trail, so any recounts would have no effect whatsoever. Why oh why would anyone mess with the subset of votes that can actually be verified with a recount?

Sorry, I'm sure this has been gone over before. Please, if you don't mind, bring me up to speed here?

[rfrrfrrfr]

29. Couple things

1. Your assuming a conspiracy where it is possible there is none. It could be the result of a programming or other clerical type error without any malicous fraud behind it.

2. If there was malicous fraud it could have been perpetrated by invdividuals not directly assosciated with the GOP or the Bush campaign. That being the case they could just be stupid and not thinking ahead.

Those are questions that hopefully Bev's fraud audits will get to the bottom of eventually.

There are several other explanations if there was widespread fraud in the optical machines but they get more complicated and convoluted and while possible are not as likely as the explanations above.

Of course all that assumes that we even find the error that we think exists. Right now all we have are a lot of documented small tabulation errors over a bunch of states and counties, A bunch of very suspicious numbers and evidence of voter supression. Thats why the recounts are needed.

If we do discover error like we think exists then there are still questions that we don't know the answer to.

1. Is the scope of the error large enough to change the outcome of the election?
2. Is the error part of some right wing conspiracy or just poor programming/clerical errors?

[anamandujano]

30. not so hapless when you consider

"2. Is the error part of some right wing conspiracy or just poor programming/clerical errors?"

All the "errors" helped the Bush cause.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. Because it was unexpected?

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. You are assuming that just because some is a registered Democrat

that they are part of Kerry's 'base.' The problem is that there are many rural Democrats who are conservative and voting for Republicans for state and federal office more and more every year. It is the same reason why Western PA's county's are mostly blue and represented by GOPers in Congress, despite the fact than there are more Democrats there (and many of them are union members or retirees). Social issues like gun control, abortion, and gay rights is causing many of there people to vote Republican.

[IAMREALITY]

36. What About

Issues like economic failures, job failures, environmental failures, international failures, Iraq failures, Weapons guarding failures, WMD intelligence failures, protecting us from 9-11 failures, diplomatic failures, honesty failures, debate failures, social security failures, patriot act failures, college tuition failures, health insurance failures, war planning failures, N. Korea failures, illegitimately winning the 2000 election failures, supreme court failures that would've caused people to vote democrat?

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Apperenty either moral issues are more important to these voters, or

Democrats are not as effective at communicating to them.

[bullimiami]

39. actually i have found this to not be true.

rural democrats, in florida at least, in fact rural everyone, has been trending more and more democratic for the last 20 years. until this election. or in a few cases until the 2000 election.

im sorry but w's 47% approval rating doesnt bring me to the conclusion that he was the great white hope that stemmed the tide of democratization.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Do you have any stats to back that up?

I have seen no evidence that rural Democrats are supporting Democrats more in the last 20 years.