This is my first time posting, so hope y'all will excuse any feet-in-mouth!
I'd been examining this report (which I'd found reported by MecuryNews via someone's link on BBV, but here's the Miami Herald link:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10286349.htm?1c)
kitp, great eMail (may need to shorten for "Letter to the Editor"?)!
Re the process for Fla. by law -- dunno. Had heard that nationwide *citizens* were spozed to be allowed to witness a recount. That in Fla. there's a formula whereby, if challenging candidate is under certain % from forecast winner automatic recount, & if % is over then candidate must request recount in court (and pay $). In NH, Nader had to raise $$ to begin recount; in OH, Cobb & Badnarik had to raise $$ to begin process. In FL, we definitely should be organizing/preparing!
BBV stated citizen & atty. in Volusia sued in court to discount election results, I think? But BBV and Nader, I think, have indicated a willingness to initiate in Fla.
Think DoYouEverWonder has great point re precedent of 2000 & Herald, et al doing investigation post-innaguration. Can we assume that lawyers are on top of this re whether Herald & 3 SOE's had access to ballots was legal and/or a new precedent? If not, I'd recommend seeking feedback frm BBV, Greens (were they on our ballot?), & Nader.
lizzy states that Herald came onto scene before certification... I'd been trying to ascertain date of certification all month (didn't try hard enuf--just calling locally), but the Herald article says state certified Nov.14.
I'm kinda vague on 2000... DoYouEverWonder, wasn't it that recount started but whomever (Bush leagues?) went to Supreme Court to STOP same? Anyway, didn't we learn that there's a PROCESS--*and* that, theoretically, citizens are permitted to "observe" (glass walled rooms?).
berniew1, I appreciate the studies (I read the summary for UC,Berkeley). Which indicted touchscreen machines. But my understanding frm BBV is in FL worst problem was optically scanned (at central tabulator in Collier Cty, wherein variations from original precinct counts took place, apparently) paper ballots, which are not Vaporware & can be counted...
IF not tampered w. or "lost"--I presume legally they may not be destroyed until post-innauguration or, at least, Dec.13 Electoral College vote.
Thus, have y'all heard the call (Randi Rhodes show advertised it) to ask Chairman Sensenbrenner of House Judiciary Committee to subpoena FL black boxes (
http://stolenelection2004.com/alerts.html#subpeona). Here was my eMail:
Subpoena Florida black boxes, please
[email protected]Honorable Chairman Sensenbrenner:
I am very concerned about the vote tabulation from my county of Brevard in Florida. I went to the polls on November 2 as usual, assured that my county's low-tech, old-fashioned paper ballot system could be trusted despite fears in other areas of my state and the nation about non-verifiable touchscreen eVote machines.
In studying the reports by experts since this month's election day, however, I've learned that in my state, to my shock and concern, those counties using the optical scanning of paper ballots showed high deviation from 4:00 pm exit polls on November 2 until the final calling of the "winners." When I phoned one of the experts in Florida looking into this situation, I was told by a staffperson that there were questions about inconsistencies that would have occurred in Collier County where votes or tabulations were centrally transmitted by modem.
As head of the Judiciary Committee, I hereby request that you consider, Sir, subpoenaing the "black boxes" from all Florida counties in question.
Confidence in our country and its administration from Washington, D.C. is at stake. I find in my reading and correspondence that citizens nationwide are bitterly divided. As a democracy we accept the electoral process. However, at this current year's end, doubts about the fair and lawful execution thereof threaten to undermine a respectful relationship between the population and their government.
I implore you, Mr. Chairman, to consider how the next two and four years of this great country may be affected if questions of the participating electorate from November, 2004, have not been resolved in accordance with the provisions of law, should the required conditions be properly met (such as a recount if so ruled in court in response to a lawsuit--one was filed this week in Volusia County, Florida--which necessarily requires that physical ballots be accessible).
Sir, I and others have stated prior to November 2, 2004, as is a citizen's responsibility, to accept the outcomes of all candidate races, provided that elections were conducted fairly and legally and that the counting of votes cast proceeded as accurately as possible. Indeed, on November 3, 2004, I and others absolutely accepted the forecasted outcomes.
Since then, however, through auditing of poll receipts vs. final tabulations released, I have heard from multiple sources that inexplicable discrepancies exist. I and others now hold in question the authority of the so-called winning candidates to accept office in January until proof that they were duly elected has been witnessed by common citizens.
Respectfully,
BTW, if writing today, I would borrow from Ian Solomon, Nov. 26
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.election26nov26,1,4103824.story?coll=bal-oped-h eadlines
"The legitimacy of our democratic process is an issue more important than... the results of 2004. That legitimacy has been called into question repeatedly over the past few weeks, and doubts will linger as long as credible indications of error, negligence, disenfranchisement and fraud are not addressed.
My own observations (Solomon's an associate dean at Yale Law School)as a volunteer poll watcher in Florida do not give perfect confidence.
(He lists some FL electronic discrepancies & malfunctions, as well as disenfranchised voters & problems at the polls.)
How can we expect voters - especially young, disadvantaged or newly registered voters - to have faith in our voting system? How can we expect our allies to take seriously U.S. efforts to hold elections in Iraq and elsewhere? How can we be confident that the most fundamental principles of American democracy - one person, one vote; rule by the people; transparency in government - are not in jeopardy?
American legitimacy demands that the news media, the parties and all political leaders take seriously the challenges presented by the 2004 election: We need an audit of the election process, validation of the election results and corrective measures to ensure the legitimacy of future elections.
This should be a priority for Congress, with vigilant participation by independent news organizations. The complete process - from registration through vote tallying, including all equipment and procedures - must be thoroughly and publicly assessed.
We can afford whatever expense, inconvenience, distraction and possible embarrassment may be caused by an election audit and congressional investigation. What we cannot afford are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic government."
trudyco, I agree that the Herald cursory review fit, as to be expected, w. the Dixiecrat phenomenon.
I agree wholeheartedly w. Go DoYouEverWonder, "You have to find out how they got permission to do the recount."
Also, great point DYEW re a 1% rate of error in these small samplings in "safe" counties! Also, I don't read the papers nor listen to mainstream news or even headlines much -- have Jeb and Hood really been scarce these days???
Good question, wlubin, re "who knew" (that The Herald was going in) & where were the Dems? But then, they only came onto the OH scene too late/too little. I wonder if they have something to hide (frm an investigation of the election as a whole).
The end. Guess I'm not spozed to post so lengthily, eh???
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
