HPLeft (481 posts) Tue Nov-09-04 11:28 AM Original message Statement from Cam Kerry
Dick Bell just forwarded me this message. This is authentic.
I am grateful to the many people who have contacted me to express their deep concern about questions of miscounting, fraud, vote suppression, and other problems on election day, especially in Florida and Ohio. Their concern reflects how much people care about the outcome of this election.
I want to you to know we are not ignoring it. Election protection lawyers are still on the job in Ohio and Florida and in DC making sure all the votes are counted accurately. I have been conferring with lawyers involved and have made them aware of the information and concerns people have given me. Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections.
If you have specific factual information about voting problems that could be helpful to the lawyers doing their job, please send it to [email protected] rather than to me.
The election protection effort has been important to me personally, and I am proud of the 17,000 lawyers around the country who helped. It's obvious that we have a way to go still, but their efforts helped make a difference. Their work goes on.
4. there is no such thing as an unspinnable question
Regarding the exit polls favoring Kerry, I don't even watch TV anymore and I caught the airborn meme on that: Republicans are rugged individualists like Reagan, the Marlboro Man or John Wayne. They don't give those pansy, liberal exit pollers the time of day when they are asked if they voted for the Disaster Monkey. (Well, I wouldn't want to admit it either.)
The Evil Doers say that if you're going to lie, tell a really big one. That's what the argument that a vote for bush was a vote for morality and values is; it's laughable on its face. He lied. People are dying and will continue to die, and Mr. Accountability hasn't even held Rumsfeld responsible for his part in this mess. Republicans believed that welfare mothers should be held accountable, but apparently not defense secretaries.
The evil neocons also said, according to Suskind's NYTs article, that they don't deal in reality, they create it. The left trails behind responding to the reality they have created, while they keep creating more.
Given the outrage fatigue liberals experienced during the first 4 years, I can hardly imagine what the second four will be like. We already have a stolen election (should I say another, this one even more blatant that the last?), a media that sounds like the Soviet's Pravda, the offensive on Falluja - a plan that was put on hold for political reasons, and the privatization of social security. And we haven't even made it to the inauguration. Think we can keep up?
17. Good post! I guess I should have said spinnable for the
"Reality based Community". We already know that converting the neo-con constituency is like, well, trying teach a "chimp" calculus.
This fight is not over. I'm listening to Randi Rhodes now talking about he "miracle" of this election as she lists all the areas where turnout exceeded registered voters. She's been at it for a good 20 minutes shouting about it being miracle with church music in the background. HAAA, HAAA.
39. Republicans are SHOW "Rugged NATIONALISTS" Who Are...
...proud to bellow with red face, and cheeks puffed wide, from the rooftops, that they're Republicans "Do or Die", so your theory that they wouldn't talk to "pansy, liberal exit pollers" doesn't coincide with their fascist beliefs, and documented behavior--especially NOT in the so-called "battleground states". America uber ales is their credo. And they're proud of it, just like the Nazis were of Germany.
Votes Aren't the Only Thing Missing in Ohio Media Black Out on Vote Fraud Allegations By DAVID SWANSON
The "mainstream" media has fallen down on the job by failing to cover efforts since November 2 to ensure that all votes in the presidential election are accurately counted. The conclusion by John Kerry that an investigation could not possibly reverse the election may quite possibly have been premature. But the question that both activists and the media should be asking is not whether there was enough fraud and errors to decide the election, nor even whether there was more than is usual, but whether there was any fraud or errors, where the problems occurred, how they can be prevented in the future, and -- in particular -- whether new kinds of fraud were permitted by new technologies and by the privatization of our election process.
The International Labor Communications Association is particularly concerned, because of indications, detailed below, that fraud may have occurred in areas where there are heavy populations of workers, African-Americans, and other progressive voters that our member organizations represent. People deserve to have their votes counted, and the strategists who will spend four years studying the election results deserve to have the facts. Some citizens and independent media outlets are raising these issues, but the corporate media is AWOL. An investigation by the media would seem especially appropriate, since the 2000 election led to investigations in Florida that determined the loser was occupying the White House.
Evidence existed before this election that quite possibly "the fix" was in: the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio was running the 2004 election in that state and had for weeks been demonstrating every intention to disenfranchise Democrats; the head of a company manufacturing electronic voting machines for use around the country had announced his intention to help Bush stay in the White House. The weaknesses and susceptibility to abuse of electronic voting machines, including the machines that many people vote on and the machines that add up the votes from multiple precincts, had been well documented.
QUESTIONS ABOUT EXIT POLLS
If the pre-election context wasn't enough to put the media on alert, the exit polls on election day should have been. The polls by the National Election Pool, throughout the day, showed Kerry ahead in a number of swing states. Media commentators made it quite clear that they had seen and took seriously the polls. Professional pollster John Zogby took them seriously enough to call the race for Kerry. Wall Street took them seriously enough to start dropping stock prices.
Back on September 28, the New York Post, in agreement with other U.S. media outlets, editorialized that the results of a recall election in Venezuela had been proven fraudulent by exit polls. "It is unconscionable," the Post quoted Jimmy Carter as saying, "to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation." The Post then commented:
"Oh, really? Funny, Carter quickly endorsed the results of last month's recall effort against Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Chavez, a pal of dictators from Saddam Hussein to Fidel Castro, officially beat back the recall with nearly 59 percent of the vote. Oddly, that result was completely opposite the findings of an exit poll conducted by a well-regarded polling firm used often by the U.S. Democratic Party, which showed Venezuelan voters booting Chavez by the same 59 percent....Yet Jimmy Carter said that the election was 'free and fair.'"
Other U.S. media coverage was similar. The Miami Herald ran this headline: "Find Out If Chavez Stole Vote." United Press International ran a column arguing that Carter was unqualified to criticize voting procedures in Florida because exit polls had proved him wrong in Venezuela. Carter had said that Florida's voting arrangements didn't meet "basic international requirements."
On October 17, the New York Times ran an article on the use of exit polls to identify and prevent election fraud in a number of countries. The article suggested that exit polls might play a similar role in the upcoming U.S. election.
A November 5 New York Times article, and the rest of the U.S. media's coverage after the election, sang a very different tune, building in as an unargued assumption that the November 2 exit polls had been proved wrong by the official vote counts. The Times' article sought to determine in a very "balanced" and "objective" manner exactly what went wrong with the exit polls, but not whether they were wrong or right.
The New York Post switched song books as well, running on November 3 in its online edition a column by Dick Morris demanding to know who had rigged the exit polls. Exit polls, according to Morris, cannot be off by as much as they were this time without intentional fraud. Morris presented no evidence of fraud in the exit polling and no evidence that it was the polls rather than the official counts that got it wrong.
As pointed out in various analyses, the exit polls were accurate within their margin of error in many states but were surprisingly far off in a number of swing states, and always off in the same direction, showing more support for Kerry than was found in the official counts. Warren Mitofsky, co-director of the National Election Pool, told the News Hour with Jim Lehrer that "Kerry was ahead in a number of states by margins that looked unreasonable to us." Mitofsky speculated that perhaps more Kerry voters were willing to participate in the exit poll, but did not suggest any reason for that speculation other than the difference between the exit polls and the final counts. He and his colleagues have since produced other speculative reasons why the exit polls could have been wrong, all grounded in circular reasoning. Mitofsky told the News Hour that on the evening of November 2 he decided to wait for the official counts and then use those to "correct" the exit polls, thus rendering the hugely expensive exit polls useless as either predictors of the election outcome or measurements of the count's accuracy. Media outlets "corrected" the exit polls on their websites early in the morning of November 3. Mitofsky promised in the future to keep exit poll results secret, thus fully rendering them useless for any stated purpose related to election outcomes (they will still be able to tell us after the fact how many voters were female or Jewish or go to church weekly or believe health care is the most important issue, etc.).
Other surprising outcomes should stimulate investigation, including the low gain in voter turnout for Kerry in Florida despite massive get-out-the-vote efforts and widely reported record lines at polls on election day and in early voting.
Reasons for concern over this election are, however, no longer limited to surprise over the outcome. Nor need this issue be focused on the uncountable votes of those wrongly denied voting status, turned away, intimidated, forced to vote on provisional ballots, or discouraged from voting by long lines.
Specific evidence of miscounting has been uncovered. And, despite the national media's near-blackout of the issue, local reporting has documented some of the problems. In fact, although you won't learn it from the corporate media, three members of Congress have asked the General Accounting Office to investigate irregularities with voting machines in the November 2 election. The Congress Members, John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Robert Wexler, cited a few of the problems that have already arisen, including a machine in a single Ohio precinct awarding Bush an extra 3,893 votes, machines in North Carolina losing 4,500 votes, machines in Florida miscounting absentee ballots, and voters in both Florida and Ohio reporting machines registering votes for Bush that were intended for Kerry.
More troubling than these problems and others like them is the fact that much of the electronic vote counting is in the hands of private companies, produces no auditable record, and can easily be tampered with. A leading investigator of this problem, BlackBoxVoting.org, appeared in 23 "mainstream" media articles or transcripts in the weeks leading up to the election, according to a Nexis search, but only one since then, and that was a mention by a caller to a radio show. BlackBoxVoting has not vanished from the media because it's ceased activity. Rather, it's launched the largest series of FOIA requests in history and announced that it believes fraud took place in the election.
An analysis reported on by Thom Hartmann found that in Florida, in the smaller counties in which optically scanned ballots were counted on a central computer the results were quite surprising. For example, Franklin County, with 77.3 percent registered Democrats, went 58.5 percent for Bush. Holmes County, with 72.7 percent registered Democrats, went 77.25 percent for Bush. "Yet in the larger counties," Hartmann noted, "where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. And, although elections officials didn't notice these anomalies, in aggregate they were enough to swing Florida from Kerry to Bush. If you simply go through the analysis of these counties and reverse the 'anomalous' numbers in those counties that appear to have been hacked, suddenly the Florida election results resemble the Florida exit poll results: Kerry won, and won big."
According to Hartmann, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District, Jeff Fisher, claimed to have evidence of hacking that would explain these results, and to be turning that evidence over to the FBI. Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org explained how easy such hacking is on a CNBC talk show some months back. Watch the clip. The "mainstream" media has not touched this story.
Nor has the corporate media touched on the topic of spoiled ballots and hanging chads in Ohio, which BBC reporter Greg Palast believes wrongly cost Kerry the election there.
The stories of election problems that would seem to merit investigation are numerous. See, for example, these:
one, two, three, four, five, six. In New Hampshire, the Nader/Camejo campaign has challenged the electronic voting results. In Auglaize County, Ohio, in October, a former employee of Election Systems and Software (ES&S), the company that provides the voting system in Auglaize County, was allegedly on the main computer that is used to create the ballot and compile election results, which would go against election protocol.
The mainstream media will not report these claims unless indisputable evidence is produced that Kerry won the election. And, if the 2000 election is any guide, the media will bury the story even then. In the meantime, following the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson, the media has announced that Bush has a "clear mandate" to enact his agenda an agenda that the media is reporting on more now than prior to the election.
Clearly the top agenda item for those who care about democracy in this country must be reshaping our media. Passing media reform through Congress presents the same chicken-and-egg problem as campaign finance reform or term limits or instant runoff voting or greater access for third parties: how do you force politicians to oppose their own interests and those of their funders?
An alternative is to build our own media to compete with the corporate version. Rebuilding labor media is the mission of the ILCA, and we see that mission as having just grown more important than ever.
David Swanson is the media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association. He can be reached at: [email protected]
election fraud thing is to just come right out and tell them that if they believe there could be no election fraud - PROVE IT. That's all. You say there were no problems? Just prove it. Just prove that it can't happen. Just keep at it until everyone demands fair and auditable elections. Republican fraud will never be proven in this climate. We might have to wait for a crooked Democrat to rig an election.
MOST STATES HAVE A 1.5% DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL AND SENATE VOTE COUNTS. PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DONT VOTE FOR EITHER SENATOR. IN FLORIDA AND OHIO THE DIFFERENCE IS 4.5 IN FLA, AND 4.9% IN OHIO. BY FAR THE HIGHEST TWO IN THE NATION. KERRY GOT 3.5 MILLION VOTES IN FLA AND THE DEM SENATOR GOT 3.4 .VERY NORMAL. BUSH GOT 3.9 MILLION WHILE THE GOP SENATOR ONLY GOT 3.5 MILLION. SEEMS THE GHOST VOTERS FOR * FORGOT TO VOTE GOP IN THE SENATE RACE. HIGHLY UNLIKELY.FUNNY DIDNT * WIN BY JUST OVER .4 MILLION VOTES THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THE GOP SENATOR FAILED TO GET. I FIND IT FUNNY THAT * GAINED ALL OF THE OVERCOUNT( I WILL CALL THESE VOTES) THAT THE SENATORS FOR THE STATE FAILED TO PULL TO EITHER SIDE. JUST SEEMS FUNNY HOW IN EVERY KEY STATE * PICKED UP ALL OF THE OVERCOUNT.IMPOSSIBLE
23. Check my posts down this list - it shows how screwy the exit polls are
For one, Bush has a 69% increase in minority voters over 2000 and Kerry only has a 5% increase in white voters over Gore's numbers in 2000, which is basically the same as the rate of growth in the population (4.5%)
The original analysis of this "trend" included many states in the "electronic ballot" category that should have been in the paper ballot category (NH, MN, WI). Switching them to their proper categories basically erased the trend. Also, two different indepedent analyses, one article on RAW STORY (http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=405) and a Cal Tech analysis, debunked this theory.
HOWEVER: If you simply rephrase the comparison to "swing-states" and "non-swing-states" there is certainly a suspicious trend.
So, I have been advocating to chuck the paper/electronic meme in favor of swing v. non-swing states or critical v. non-critical states. The point is, the exit polls need to be explained.
The paper/electronic meme caught on fast and is getting repeated everywhere, to the eventual harm of credibility to various fraud theories.
the Caltech report was that it only went back as far as 1996 which is when the diebold equipment was installed. I agree they needed to move the optical scan results to the electronic column because they are tabulated using the diebold software.
33. Still, the categories paper v. electronic are not accurate.
I'm not sure which, if any, states would be left in the paper category if you put touchscreen voting states and optical scan states all in the electronic voting category. Seems that every state uses some amount of optical scan or touchscreen voting. And of course another problem with the analysis is that optical scan voting can be easily manipulated at the tabulator (as the BBV crew has noted).
So, to me, not only are the categories paper v. electronic specious bordering on misleading - but they also make it seem like "paper" states are "safe" (because exit polls supposedly matched vote tallies) when we know that paper states with optical scanning are anything but safe.
I can't vouch for the Caltech study. The Raw Story analysis (linked above) seemed solid. And my own ad hoc analysis when I switched states that were obviously paper states from the electronic category showed much diminished differences between the categories.
I still advocate for scrapping this paper v. electronic line of reasoning with regard to statewide exit polling discrepancies. Better to talk about the differences in exit polling between swing states and non-swing states.
I don't want to get into an argument about a report I haven't even read (the Caltech report). All I suggest is that you take a good hard look at how the states are divided up in that paper v. electronic analysis of exit poll results and ask yourself if each state is justified. They had NH in electronic even though is has a paper record (yes, optical scan). But other optical scan states were left in the paper category. Basically, it was cherry-picked to put the most skewed exit poll results into one category to increase the differences. The Caltech report may be shit for all I know - but your eyes and brain will tell you that the analysis is not solid. It would be killed in two minutes flat.
This doesn't mean the exit polls don't require an explanation and it certainly doesn't disprove fraud.
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.