Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

RNC's Smartech took over Ohio Election Servers on Nov 3, 2004"

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:18 PM
Original message
RNC's Smartech took over Ohio Election Servers on Nov 3, 2004"
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 02:20 PM by kpete
goombah99 writes

"Netcrafthttp://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://election.sos.state.oh.us is showing that an event happened in the Ohio 2004 election that is difficult to explain. The Secretary of State's website, which handles election reporting, normally is directed to an Ohio-based IP address hosted by the Ohio Supercomputer Center. On Nov. 3 2004, Netcraft shows the website pointing out of state to a server owned by Smartech Corp. According to the American Registry on Internet Numbers, Smartech's block of IP addresses 64.203.96.0 64.203.111.255 encompasses the entire range of addresses owned by the Republican National Committee. Smartech hosted the recently notorious gbw43.com domain used from the White House in apparent violation of the Presidential Records Act, from which thousands of White House emails vanished. Can anyone suggest a good explanations for this seemingly dubious election-eve transfer?"

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/04/24/1735213....
via:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/142611/673
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nov 3rd was the day AFTER the election, not election-eve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. More = GET REAL: Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis as "coincidence theorists"
If only that was the sole problem with this idea resurfacing.

CAREFUL is certainly an appropriate warning before reading the new Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis article, now spawning this new round of "conjecture theorists."

FIRST, before going into all the falsehoods promulgated by the Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis article, here is where the authors ought to focus--THERE IS direct evidence of vote-switching. Why did these authers distract from that evidence in 2004, with the recount focus, and why do they continue to both ignore the evidence and focus attention elsewhere. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Here is the evidence they should focus on, vote-wsitching and probable ballot swapping between precincts:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

======================

The GOP's cyber election hit squad by Steven Rosenfeld & Bob Fitrakis
Did the most powerful Republicans in America have the computer capacity, software skills and electronic infrastructure in place on Election Night 2004 to tamper with the Ohio results to ensure George W. Bush's re-election?
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/25...

Their article posts a question and does not even answer in the affirmative. Why, because they are WRONG!

"Did the most powerful Republicans in America have the computer capacity, software skills and electronic infrastructure in place on Election Night 2004 to tamper with the Ohio results to ensure George W. Bush's re-election?"

"The answer appears to be yes."

SO WHAT? Appearances mean nothing. These authors are ignoring real evidence in favor of distracting from it.

Let's discus the FACTS instead.

"... on Election Night 2004, Ohio's "official" Secretary of State website -- which gave the world the presidential election results -- was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites,

on Election Night 2004, Ohio's "official" Secretary of State website -- which gave the world the presidential election results -- was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites, ...."

WRONG: The Ohio SoS utilized a hosting service for their election night posting of results. It is not a coincidence that the GOP uses the same "hosting" service, but it is WRONG to infer that the State of Ohio was not directing the election results site w/o evidence beyond a coincidence.

WRONG: "On Election Night 2004, the Republican Party not only controlled the vote-counting process in Ohio, ..."

The vote counting/reporting was controlled by government entities at a county level as usual. The SoS only reports what is reported to that Ohio government office. In no way, shape, or form does the SoS count votes.

WRONG: "... the Republican Party ... also controlled the technology."

The vote counting technology was controlled by the State of Ohio and the counties.

WRONG: "...Privatizing elections and allowing known partisans to run a key presidential vote count ..."

The election was conducted by the county BOEs, not private, and counted by these government organizations. This rhetoric is both false and inflammatory. Why?

WRONG: "there is abundant evidence that Republicans could have used this computing network to delay announcing the winner of Ohio's 2004 election while tinkering with the results."

Now we also have "could have theorists" too!! How does that move anything forward except confusion?

WRONG: "On Election Night 2004, many of the totals reported by the Secretary of State were based on local precinct results that were impossible...."

The election night results gave Bush a substantial margin. Citing several precincts, a la Reagan's anecdotal logic, is now a tired old verse, discredited soon after the election, and proves nothing of substance even when true. A good analogy is Republicans using "voter fraud" to advance a different agenda.

WRONG: "... the facts are not in, but enough is known to warrant a serious congressional inquiry."

Not on this issue. The serious congressional inquiries underway since 2004 do not need to be misdirected by "coincidence theorists." The have real evidence to persue.

WRONG: "... for roughly 90 minutes the Ohio election results reported on the Secretary of State's website were frozen .... vote totals from these last-to-report counties ... were highly improbable and suggested vote count fraud to pad Bush's numbers."

"Improbable." "Suggested." Don't attorneys know how valueless such "proofs" are? Vote counts are always frozen on web sites, then a new result total is posted and they change. Bush was winning Florida in 2000, and the results moved Gore forward to a tie, for all practical purposes. The same fallacious logic would indicate Gore stole the last reporting counties in Florida.

WRONG: "... The most eyebrow-raising example to emerge from parsing precinct results was finding 10,500 people in three Ohio's 'Bible Belt' counties who voted to re-elect Bush and voted in favor of gay marriage, if the official results are true ... in Warren, Butler and Clermont Counties. The most plausible explanation for this anomaly ... was Kerry votes were flipped to Bush while the rest of the ballot was left alone. While we have some theories about how that might have been done by hand in a police-guarded warehouse, could full Republican control of the vote-counting software and servers also have played a role?"

This is easy to explain. These authors know of a plausible explanation and ignore it, as if part of the cover-up themselves. What happens when punch card ballots are switched between precincts with different ballot orders. Kerry votes can be switched to Bush votes while a distinct outcome may or may not result for other, down-ticket races with a different number of options. Warren and Butler Counties used punch cards, and Clermont used optical scanning, so all the ballots are still preserved.

WRONG: "Baiman compared the number of voters who signed in with the total number of votes attributed to precincts. He found hundreds of "phantom" votes, where the number of voter signatures was less than the reported vote total. That discrepancy also suggests vote count fraud."

This is a common problem when voters do not sign in, a well known problem with a well known cause. It does not suggest fraud in and of itself. This is iase argumentation.

WRONG: "... the highest ranks of the Republican Party's political wing, including White House counselor Karl Rove, a handful of the party's most tech-savvy computer gurus and the former Republican Ohio Secretary of State, created, owned and operated the vote-counting system that reported George W. Bush's re-election to the presidency."

This is just beyond ridiculous. Only those with no critical reasoning will not see the lie in this statement.

Laws of the State of Ohio created the system, the People of Ohio own it, and Boards of Election operated it. GET REAL!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Hey buddy:
Why don't you go through the archives of articles by these guys before you claim:

"These authors are ignoring real evidence in favor of distracting from it."

Here is the link to their election coverage:

(don't forget to go back through 2004)

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


I happen to know these guys personally and I can guarantee that there are not more dedicated folks out there. Fitrakis is an Attorney, Professor of Poli Sci, Editor of Free Press, and he has been an overseas election observer. If you really think they are attempting to ignore real evidence and distract from it, well you are wrong. Vote flipping was one aspect of the '04 theft, but there was certainly a multitude of ways that were used. They have writen as to many of the ways the election results were corrupted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I stand by my words.
"They have writen as to many of the ways the election results were corrupted."

I am criticizing them for ignoring important evidence in favor of conjecturing about a non-issue.

While they write about other aspects, they ignore very important evidence. That speaks for itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. I hope others who read this criticism take the time to research the evidence that Fitrakis et al
have uncovered. It was good enough for John Conyers(Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio) to use, as well as RFK Jr + Mike Papantonio. Their articles are all archived in the Election Department of freepress.org. They have also worked with MCM, Brad Friedman, Steven Freeman, Ron Baiman and others on the stolen election. If I had the time, I would research how the criticism could be de-bunked, but 2 kids, dinner and homework call. I hope you will take the time to research yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. No November 3rd WAS election day. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Generally servers report Greenwich time; early Nov 3rd was actually the night of the 2nd eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Election was November 2, but with time-difference, Nov. 3 works.
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 03:11 PM by philly_bob
First of all, NetCraft is in UK, which is 5 hours ahead. So 1AM Nov. 3 in London is actually 8PM Nov. 2 -- election day.

Consider this Wikipedia fact: "The November 3rd 12:23 am election-day exit poll results conducted for the National Election Pool (NEP) by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International <2> predicted John Kerry winning the popular vote by 5 million, while the official results gave George W. Bush the win with a popular margin of 3 million, an 8 million vote (6.5%) difference.:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Waterboard Ken Blackwell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. If true, this could be...well something!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. NOT TRUE, so this is really NOTHING at all except a big pile of IT. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. wtf
the changing vote tallies start to make sense now....

grrr!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. They contracted with the same hosting company. It's like using the same caterer.
Would you worry if the OH Secretary of State and the RNC were using the same caterer on election night?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That's not it: read
"On Nov. 3 2004, Netcraft shows the website pointing out of state to a server owned by Smartech Corp. According to the American Registry on Internet Numbers, Smartech's block of IP addresses 64.203.96.0 64.203.111.255 encompasses the entire range of addresses owned by the Republican National Committee"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. This sysadmin is not impressed
Smartech is a hosting company. Two of their clients are the RNC and the Ohio Secretary of State.

Again, how is this different from their using the same caterer? I'm a sysadmin; this just doesn't bug me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I was a sysadmin too - what's going on is that they used a redirector
for the Sec of State of Ohio site to the RNC servers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. But people are saying "the election servers were hosted on the RNC"
The website reporting (unofficial) election results was hosted by the same hosting company as the RNC.

So what?

Some of my servers share a hosting company and datacenter with some of Google's servers (we're even on the same Class C); does that mean anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slampoet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Yes I would.

Knowing the cater industry that is a bad idea and a possible security risk. Also it shows that Govt. money is going to one contractor without bids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. Typo.. It has to be Smarmtech"..no?
:rofl:
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 Thu Jul 24th 2014, 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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