14 house, senate races won by computer fraud in 2002, and more...

Amaryllis

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-20-05 10:34 PM
Original message

14 house, senate races won by computer fraud in 2002, and more...

Edited on Wed Apr-20-05 10:39 PM by Amaryllis

"FACT: In the 2002 midterm election, there were fourteen House and Senate races across the U.S. where Democratic candidates were leading in the last pre-election polls by margins of 4 to 10 points. The votes in all those races were counted on either ES&S or Diebold optical scan or touchscreen systems. In all fourteen races the Republican candidate won by 3-7 percentage points. Republican control of the House and Senate were decided by these races. In the case of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia who was defeated by Saxy Chambliss, it took a sixteen point swing."

Good article; much we already know but I learned some new things. Well worth reading.

Computers Threw the Vote to Bush
by G Mustain

Dear Bart,

In my original e-mail I asked a favor to which you graciously ssented. The favor I asked was that you “allow me the opportunity to make a written argument to you that: 1. Kerry won this election and it was stolen from the American people; and 2. that computerized vote recording and counting is the single most important issue in the survival of American democracy.”

The argument is below. It has been reduced from an original draft that ran 32 pages. Before proceeding to the argument, however, there are two preliminary matters to be dealt with.

The first of these is to answer the question: Why am I making this argument to you? You are an opinion leader of growing influence on the web, and an important part of the new “alternative” media which is our last best hope of preserving this nation as a functioning democracy. You have a growing audience of readers and listeners who tend towards activism and who are, like most on the left now, groping for a handle on what to do next, and how to explain the election results. You are one of the “leaders” to whom they are looking to tell them what to do next. It is my hope that, after reading my argument, you will lead
them to focus on the right target. It is no longer about getting rid of Bush. It is about defending against an all-out assault on our right as a people to chart our own destiny and our ability to oust those leaders who fail us.

Second, I’ve learned over the years that an argument without a frame is an inherently unstable structure vulnerable to all sorts of rhetorical undermining. So I would like to preface the argument with the frame.

I am NOT attempting to PROVE my dual premise in a court of law. It will take the resources of a state attorney general or more to uncover much of the actual physical evidence which I am convinced exists. My preference would be that you read my argument from the viewpoint of a member of a Grand Jury being presented with a summary set of facts. You are being asked to decide whether or not they indicate enough of a possibility of wrong doing to warrant issuing an indictment and conducting a full and thorough official and public investigation. It seems to me that if you find my argument for the first premise convincing enough to vote for an indictment, the truth of the second premise follows automatically.

Much more
http://www.bartcop.com/110904votes.htm