You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

ACTION! LETTER OF THE WEEK #4: Kevin Shelley, Diebold & Election Fraud [View All]

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
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 10:11 PM
Original message
ACTION! LETTER OF THE WEEK #4: Kevin Shelley, Diebold & Election Fraud
Advertisements [?]
This is a draft letter. It is 2 /12 pages long in 10 pt. Times font--too long! But I thought I would post a draft for comments, and to get people started. I believe that what is going on in California is THE fight of fights for Election Reform. THIS IS IT, DUers! As so often, the BushCons are a thousand steps ahead of us. THEY know Congress isn't going to help--they have real Election Reform blockaded there. This is a local, state by state struggle. That's why they got rid of Kevin Shelley. And we had better move fast to educate California legislators--a progressive group, as a whole--who might just listen to us. This letter is aimed at them, and can also be used for media and for other California Democratic politicians and groups.


Date: ____

Senator (or Assemblyman or woman) ____, via fax to ______ (2 pages)

Dear (California Democrat)

I have been a loyal Democratic Party voter and supporter for 44 years. So is my large family. We are all native born Californians.

I am extremely alarmed at what I see happening in California, with loss of the one of the bulwarks for honest and transparent elections, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, and I would like to discuss this very serious matter, and also to recommend, 1) strong support for Shelley's work, including decertifying Diebold and providing Californians with a paper ballot option; and 2) resistance to any appointee of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican or Democrat, who falls below Shelley's high standard of vigilance regarding the integrity of our election system.

I do not believe the charges against Shelley, and I also believe that he was doing great good for California These charges were just too conveniently close in time to his action against Diebold, decertifying them for their lies about the security of their voting machines, and his other transparency measures.

Election machinery insecurity and lack of transparency in our election system are the keys to another puzzle: The re-installation of George Bush as President of the U.S. despite unprecedented, low approval ratings by the American people, which have hovered around 50% since the election and dropped below 50% at the Inauguration. Nearly 60% of Americans disapprove of the war on Iraq, and 63% disapprove of torture under any circumstances.

You may have wondered: How could Americans give Bush this astounding "vote of no confidence" in opinion polls, after "re-electing" him by 3.5 million votes?

I believe the answer is that George Bush was not elected on Nov. 2, 2004an answer that bodes ill for Democrats in California, given recent developments.

The evidence of a wrong outcome in the 2004 presidential election is very strong. I will summarize just two of the recent expert studies from the mountain of evidence available, some of it listed below.

And I believe that we saw happen on November 2the mysterious re-election of George Bushand what we have seen happening in some of the other states--the mysterious losses that Democrats are sufferingis about to happen to California, and that these losses are traceable to electronic voting systems in which

the programming source code that counts all our votes is held as secret, proprietary information by major donors and supporters of the Bush/Cheney regime, including Wally O'Dell (Diebold) and H. Ahmanson (ES&S).

a third of country now votes with no paper trail whatsoeverlet alone a voter verified paper ballota circumstance that was deliberately arranged by Tom DeLay's obstruction of transparency measures in HAVA

the electronic machines are notable for their extreme insecurity, unreliability and hackability.

I urge you to brace yourself for the attempted Texification, Dieboldisation and Bushification of California. It's coming! The attack on Kevin Shelley is just the opening shot. And unless you start paying attention to the overwhelming evidence of 2004 election fraud, you are going to be very shocked when Democrats start mysteriously losing elections here, too.

Please read Dr. Steven Freeman's second report on the 2004 election, which was circulated in draft form on the internet, and is available to legislators upon request at

Dr. Steven Freeman provides an astute analysis of the predictable vote for John Kerry, using the base vote going in (who voted in 2000), the big switch from Nader to Kerry in 2004, and new voter registration, which favored Democrats by 57% to 41%. Adding these three groups of voters together, Dr. Freeman finds a discrepancy of over 4 million votes (and possibly as high as 8 million) that Kerry should have gotten and didn't, in the official results.

In yet another study, on January 29, 2005, nine Ph.D.'s and other experts from leading universities issued a report that calls the 2004 election result into serious question. They find that Kerry won the exit polls (by a 3% margin). They find the odds against exit poll error--and thus, the odds against the Bush win --to be 1 in 10 million. They find a large, unexplained skew toward Bush at the precinct level in electronic voting vs. paper ballot (a skew that has been confirmed by other reports--see the U.C. Berkeley/Florida, and Carolina reports, below).

This report also finds the explanation by Edison/Mitofsky (the exit pollsters) for why Kerry won the exit polls--that Republicans were shy of the pollsters--to be without foundation. In fact, the data points to the opposite conclusion--that the exit polls actually favored Bush--which makes the unexplained discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results even larger. The report calls for a full investigation of the 2004 election--the latest in a growing list of expert reports that do so. See:

These reports come after many other investigations (see below), all of which point to the same thing: Stolen Election II. The "means, motive and opportunity" were thereas described abovewithin the electronic machinery. Would these same people who stole the 2000 election, and probably stole some of the 2002 by-elections as well, resist such a temptation? Did they not deliberately set up the conditions for fraud?

I want to point out something that most people don't knowwhich I learned from these reports: The Exit Poll data showing a Kerry win on everybody's TV screens on election night was changed, as the night went onit was "adjusted" to fit the "official results" that were coming in from central electronic vote tabulators. Americans were denied the information that Kerry won the Exit Pollsunlike in the Ukraine, where voters could see the conflicting numbersthe Exit Polls vs. the "official results"and knew something was wrong. This Exit Poll "adjustment" in our election contributed to the illusion of a Bush win, and prevented an outcry by voters.

But that majoritywhich voted for Kerry, and voted with particular intent to oust the Bush regimestill exists, and still believes in our progressive country and its founding principlesthe rule of laws not men, consent of the governed, a balance of power, and equality and justice.

Thousands of activists around the country are fighting to restore our right to voteand to restore majority rule in this country. We hope you will join us in this greatest of democracy movements. We stand ready to assist any politician who courageously pursues progressive policies, and who is willing to investigate the 2004 election and support election reform. We urge you to study these reports on the 2004 election:

Exit poll analysis - astronomical odds against Bush win:
Dr. Steven Freeman:
Dr. Ron Baiman:
Dr. Webb Mealy:
Jonathan Simon:
(9 Ph.D's from leading universities call for investigation:)

(Florida: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush--paper vs. electronic voting:)
Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team:

Johns Hopkins report on insecurity of electronic voting (general):
Easy demo of the how insecure voting machines are:

Ohio vote suppression:
Widespread machine fraud and dirty tricks in over 20 states:

Democratic Underground (ignatzmouse):
(North Carolina: absentee ballot vs. electronic, inexplicable 6% edge to Bush in electronic:)

Democratic Underground (TruthIsAll): "To believe Bush won, you have to believe"
(Parts 1, 2 and 3:)

In progress compilations of various articles and materials on 2004 Election Fraud:








listed by name, party, distr, bio & direct EMAIL LINK TO THEIR WEB SITE

I will post more detailed contact information later (including local officesgenerally listed on their web page.


Media Blaster:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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