Reply #: saracat, I was thinking the same thing about this list until I got to the

[Peace Patriot]

...Johns Hopkins guy, Dan Wallach. Now in that case the experts did the right thing, and warned everybody. But too many Democratic leaders were too thick in Diebold's pocket themselves, apparently, to heed the warning--the most incredible and catastrophic failure of political leadership we've ever seen.

Of the other academics, we really have to ask: Where WERE they? AND, where are they NOW?

Here are the ones I respect--who have cried foul on the 2004 election, and called for investigation (Freeman, Baiman and Haut were among the earliest whistle-blowers):

Exit poll analysis: astronomical odds against Bush win

Dr. Steven Freeman (2 reports): Professor, Center for Organizational Dynamics, Univ. of Penn.; Karel Steuer Chair for entrepreneurship, Univ. de San Andreas, Buenos Aires; Professor of Management, Central Amer. Inst. of Business Administration (INCAE),
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," and "Hypotheses for Explaining the Exit Poll-Official Count Discrepancy in the 2004 US Presidential Election"
Article: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970

Dr. Ron Baiman: Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997

Dr. Baiman: "I conclude that, based on the best exit sample data currently available, neither the national popular vote, or many of the certified state election results, are credible and should not be regarded as a true reflection of the intent of national electorate, or of many state voters, until a complete and thorough investigation…."

Dr. Michael Haut, & UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team; Haut is a nationally-known expert on statistical methods and member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center
Florida: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush--paper vs. electronic voting—calls for investigation:http://ucdata.berkeley.edu
Press release: http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1118-14.htm

Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm (Bush vote skewed to the Electoral Votes that were needed to win.)

Nine Ph.D's from leading universities say, 1) Kerry won the Exit Polls (by 3%); 2) the Exit polls were skewed to Bush, so Kerry's margin was likely even higher; 3) there is evidence of electronic fraud at the precinct level, and 4) call for investigation of the 2004 Election:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham
Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President
Also Peer Reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of statisticians and independent reviewers.

----

These are brave and honest people who have looked at the facts and have been willing to speak the truth about them, despite a near total news monopoly blackout on this vital matter. They deserve our thanks.

We'll see what Donna Brazile's Ohio Election Task Force comes up with. You will notice how limited it is already (to Ohio). The DNC deserves significant blame for this stolen election. (You can't tell me they didn't know that the election system was a fraud going in...with Wally O'Dell & co. "counting" our votes in secret. I mean, come on...) So, can Howard Dean make a difference, and help us achieve election reform? I think he will try. His statements indicate that he knows what's what (for instance, that election reform must be a state/local fight, led by the grass roots--no other way it's going to get done). I presume this Task Force is his handiwork, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt.

But I doubt if we'll ever find out from it--or from any official Dem source--how the party leadership failed us, in Ohio and throughout the nation, on Nov. 2, 2004. And unless we understand that failure--who is responsible for it, and why--then we are going to continue to be stymied on election reform FROM WITHIN OUR OWN PARTY, as we recently discovered in California, with a pro-Diebold, pro-paperless voting DEMOCRAT, L.A. county elections head Connie McCormack, driving our anti-Diebold, pro-verified voting Sec of State Kevin Shelley out of office, and leading a campaign to gut the strongest electronic voting standards in the country (Shelley's!).

We've got "enemies within," and really need to face this.