Reply #7: yes there is

[nmoliver]

Oh, yes there is. Please see Wayne Madsen's articles in Online Journal for a start.

If Madsen is correct, the Bush people fanned out all over the country, hacking votes. They targeted the "safe" states of TX and CA to pad the popular vote margin so he could claim his "mandate."

More importantly, however, you don't need "compelling evidence of fraud extensive enough to have swayed the election". You need compelling evidence that the votes countrywide have been accurately tallied, in order to certify this election. This evidence is absent wherever machines are used to record or tally votes. Inaccuracies are everywhere. Most importantly, they ALWAYS FAVOR BUSH. If you flipped a coin 57,000 times (number of anomalies reported), what are the chances that it would always come up heads?

The burden of proof is on the ones who took the responsibility to record and tally votes. They have hidden the evidence (proprietary code and secret tallies). That, in and of itself, showed that the election is highly riggable. If Kerry was winning, who would believe that the Bush people are too pure to have tampered with it? Or to have had the means to do so? Or to have not planned and anticipated this eventuality in advance?

Until we start addressing the "why of his win", we will lose every election from here on in, because he "won" because the voting machinery is in Republican hands. Until that is changed, we will lose every election. No hacking job is too big for a computer. It is as easy to switch 100,000 votes as it is to switch 10.

And, these people will never give up their vote-rigging ability, and rights, unless they are forced to by being exposed, arrested, tried and convicted, with ample publicity surrounding the process.

- Nina