Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Florida Optical Scam Machines stole it for Bush

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
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:53 PM
Original message
The Florida Optical Scam Machines stole it for Bush
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 11:56 PM by TruthIsAll
I am completely shocked at these numbers.


http://thesquanderer.com/votingmachines.html

Some Florida counties used an "E-Touch" voting machine, and some used an "optical scan" machine. Let's look at these two groups:

"E-Touch" Voters
Approx. 3.86 million total voters in these counties

Kerry's Base: about 1.57 million votes*
Bush's Base: about 1.44 million votes*

Kerry's final tally: about 1.98 million votes
26.5% more than his given base

Bush's final tally: about 1.85 million votes
28.6% more than his given base

Summary:
Close race, as expected,
unaffiliated voters appear nearly evenly split
between the two candidates

* - based on the number of registered Democrats or Republicans,
adjusted for turnout
....................................................................
"Optical Scan" Voters
Approx. 3.42 million total voters in these counties

Kerry's Base: about 1.43 million votes*
Bush's Base: about 1.34 million votes*

Kerry's final tally: about 1.45 million votes
Less than 1% more than his given base

Bush's final tally: about 1.95 million votes
45.8% more than his given base

more....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_Dawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. I trust optical scan more than I do E-Touch
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What you don't understand is they still added up by a computer.
Without a recount, no one will ever know the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. Yes. I didn't know that 'til last week. Before the computer they're good
who knows how they are tallied once they go into GEMS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Jeb Bush likes optical scan machines also.
tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. At least they can be hand counted
E-touch can't be hand counted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_Dawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. My point exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Who is going to hand count them?
Nobody appears to want to ask for recount in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrUnderhill Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. It only has to be ONE county... and it doesn't have to be a "recount".
If this theory were true (and I don't buy it, because the paper scan ballots were supposed to be THE best way to do this - and had by far the lowest error rate in 2000), then quite a few counties in Florida would have glaring discrepancies between a hand-count and the count performed by the machines.

You may not be able to do an official "recount", but news organizations can go in after the fact (just like in 2000) and go through those ballots. Discrepancies of the type alleged would show up almost instantaneously. Heck, you could probably catch it in a day if you picked your precincts carefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wow! that Bush guy is really popular!
suddenly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue in the face Donating Member (210 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. KISS
Keep it simple, stupid...

Everyone is right to try to boil this down as simply as possible. If the mainstream media is going to pick this up, it has to be able to be reduced to 10 second soundbites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Just say no to faith-based vote counts.
Cuz without manual counts to verify the machine totals that's all you got. Faith in the rw corporations that own the machines.
Simple enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. I believe Bev Harris is in Florida
Trying to get together a hand recount of the optically scanned ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry2win Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. does anyone know if
Bev is doing it under "the freedom of information act" and does it carry any legal weight to change the outcome, or do we have to get a third party candidate involved..I know time is running out here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think "optical scam" is precisely the correct terminology
Everyone is looking to the vapor votes as the source of tampering, but maybe that was too much of a wild card for anyone to control. So, what to do, what to do?

Do what you did in 2000.

TruthIsAll, thank you. I believe you're on to something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. They knew everyone would be
suspicious of the e-voting with no paper and scrutinizing the results of that part of the vote, so they thought they could run the optical scan ones under the radar, forgetting the internets have a multitude of mathematicians looking at all results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bj2110 Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
13. I still don't buy this op-scan county registered Democrat theory....
I't been said before, and I'll reiterate it...

Op-scans were used primarily in rural counties. Most (albeit not all) of these small, op-scan counties have high democratic registration levels yet voted Republican in Presidential race, just like they did in '96 and in '00. Yes, the '00 vote was probably tampered with also, but was '96?

Much of the so-called Democratic based relied on registered Democrats who have a pretty solid history of voting for a Republican president, even if it was Bob freakin' Dole.

Adjust these op-scan counties for this history and run the analysis again. You'll get a different result.

(Please notice I didn't use the term, "Dixiecrat." God, I hate that word...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peabody71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. It's the same argument in New Hampshire.
The exit polls showed a huge lead for Kerry yet he barely won by a single point. The recount will hand count the paper opti scan sheets.
We will get the best possible glimpse at actual to exit polling.
I can't wait!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Well, I don't know about that...
What if Nader actually won New Hampshire? :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
31. florida counties have been steadily trending more democratic
for the last 20 years. suspiciously the trend seems to have reversed itself since 2000.

so either we believe that bush is such a great candidate that he was able to reverse the inexorable tide to the left or we think they are fiddling with the vote counts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. Bev, Andy and Kathy Wynne are in Florida.......
....... :evilgrin: http://www.blackboxvoting.org /

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting has launched a fraud audit into Florida. Three investigators (Bev Harris, Andy Stephenson, and Kathleen Wynne) are in Florida right now. We will initiate hand counts on selected counties that have not fully complied with our Nov. 2 Freedom of Information request by Monday (Diebold counties) or Tuesday (other counties).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shalom Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
18. Fraud Signature: Plausible Deniability
Very good work - it triggered some useful thoughts regarding what kind of fraud we should be looking for, and perhaps how we can recognize it when we find it.

Think about it - it there is fraud, those who carried it out are not dummies....they very carefully planned it out. A number of factors that would have been considered are listed below (with perhaps the most important, plausible deniability, which spans them all, being listed last):

- Geographic: Should they cheat across the board, and/or have a flex response to fix only what was required. The first has the advantage of cheating early, but the disadvantage of having to commit massive fraud to guarantee the outcome. The flex response has the advantage that a minimal amount of fraud can be tailored to win, but the disadvantage of having to be done in "real-time".

- Voting Machine Type: Which is easier to fix, and which is being monitored less ?

- Level: Cheat at the physical level (ballots, etc.), or at different levels of integration, up to the central tabulator ?

- Involvement: How many people need to know, and how can it be assured them none of them will leak or go public later ?

- Plausible Deniability: Assume that there will be an unavoidable signature to the fraud that someone will eventually pick up. Chose a fraud mechanism that has some plausible explanation that is difficult to disprove.

Here's an intriguing possibility: Commit fraud in the Florida panhandle, and use the "Dixiecrats" phenomena to cover your tracks.

THE BOTTOM LINE: When we discover fraud, it is likely to have these characteristics, rather than a very crude and obvious pattern. We should not be dissuaded by superficial explanations until we have drilled down far enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. excellent points
especially your BOTTOM LINE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Excellent points. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
19. there is just SO much evidence that something was greatly amiss . . .
in this election . . . and still the MSM talk of blogger conspiracy theories instead of actually doing some investigative reporting . . . or reporting of any kind, for that matter . . . thankfully, I gave up watching tv news, both cable and broadcast, two years ago . . . done wonders for my peace of mind, such as it is given current circumstances . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #19
37. Regardless of how or why they what they do think does not matter........
Does the mantra of 'Tax breaks to grow your self out of a deficit' sound familiar

Don't confuse their facts with real information, we want the debate to be on fantasy terms :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridadem30 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
20. When you look at the rep gain in these op-scan counties the % are over 100
Yet in the e-touch counties it is pretty evenly split. Here's a good site to look at http://www.truthisbetter.org/Florida_Election.htmat . And before everyone points out the fact this is the same website as the poster I suggest you compare the numbers to Florida dept of states and each counties website like I have. I have no doubt they are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridadem30 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
21. Here is the site w/analysis #'s http://www.truthisbetter.org/Florida_Elect
I have verified the numbers through florida dept of states website and county by county and they are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
22. Look for Precincts with more votes than voters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. YES!
Exactly right. I have found this in analyzing my state's data. There are more votes than there should be in precincts using optically scanned ballots and tabulators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
24. "Optical Scam"
I'd like to see that on the cover of Time or Newsweek, maybe adding "FraWd" for good measure.

Then I might actually buy a copy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridadem30 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
27. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prof_science Donating Member (343 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
28. I do not understand.
The way the numbers seem to work out, in FL and other states, is that the probable source of potentially fraWdulent votes are from the optical scan machines.

Now, if I were going to rig an election, I would choose to fuck with the numbers from the machines with no paper trail, so any recounts would have no effect whatsoever. Why oh why would anyone mess with the subset of votes that can actually be verified with a recount?

Sorry, I'm sure this has been gone over before. Please, if you don't mind, bring me up to speed here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfrrfrrfr Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Couple things
1. Your assuming a conspiracy where it is possible there is none. It could be the result of a programming or other clerical type error without any malicous fraud behind it.

2. If there was malicous fraud it could have been perpetrated by invdividuals not directly assosciated with the GOP or the Bush campaign. That being the case they could just be stupid and not thinking ahead.

Those are questions that hopefully Bev's fraud audits will get to the bottom of eventually.

There are several other explanations if there was widespread fraud in the optical machines but they get more complicated and convoluted and while possible are not as likely as the explanations above.

Of course all that assumes that we even find the error that we think exists. Right now all we have are a lot of documented small tabulation errors over a bunch of states and counties, A bunch of very suspicious numbers and evidence of voter supression. Thats why the recounts are needed.

If we do discover error like we think exists then there are still questions that we don't know the answer to.

1. Is the scope of the error large enough to change the outcome of the election?
2. Is the error part of some right wing conspiracy or just poor programming/clerical errors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. not so hapless when you consider
"2. Is the error part of some right wing conspiracy or just poor programming/clerical errors?"

All the "errors" helped the Bush cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Because it was unexpected?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
35. You are assuming that just because some is a registered Democrat
that they are part of Kerry's 'base.' The problem is that there are many rural Democrats who are conservative and voting for Republicans for state and federal office more and more every year. It is the same reason why Western PA's county's are mostly blue and represented by GOPers in Congress, despite the fact than there are more Democrats there (and many of them are union members or retirees). Social issues like gun control, abortion, and gay rights is causing many of there people to vote Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IAMREALITY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. What About
Issues like economic failures, job failures, environmental failures, international failures, Iraq failures, Weapons guarding failures, WMD intelligence failures, protecting us from 9-11 failures, diplomatic failures, honesty failures, debate failures, social security failures, patriot act failures, college tuition failures, health insurance failures, war planning failures, N. Korea failures, illegitimately winning the 2000 election failures, supreme court failures that would've caused people to vote democrat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Apperenty either moral issues are more important to these voters, or
Democrats are not as effective at communicating to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. actually i have found this to not be true.
rural democrats, in florida at least, in fact rural everyone, has been trending more and more democratic for the last 20 years. until this election. or in a few cases until the 2000 election.

im sorry but w's 47% approval rating doesnt bring me to the conclusion that he was the great white hope that stemmed the tide of democratization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Do you have any stats to back that up?
I have seen no evidence that rural Democrats are supporting Democrats more in the last 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 19th 2017, 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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.

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