Why aren't news organizations and DNC officials demanding investigation into Iowa election fraud

[blm]

that made Romney the winner on caucus night?

This was clear election fraud, and Dems need to act because if GOP gets away with the election fraud they committed on caucus night there is absolute certainty that they will do it again in November.

Where are the news organizations on this and where are the Dem party officials who SHOULD care about election fraud, especially election fraud THIS blatant?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. What would the DNC have to do with this?

I wonder if Romney will challenge the results?

[blm]

5. Because whatever process GOP officials used to pull this off 2 weeks ago will be employed in Nov

and Dems risk being caught flat-footed on election fraud once again.

[Zalatix]

26. +1!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

36. The "process" was a caucus.....

...which is nothing like a what goes on in a normal primary or an election. If they had something up their sleeve for November, I don't see how they could dry run it during a process that is NOTHING like a general election. I'm pretty sure they don't use any machines whatsoever to count.

I'm not saying the GOP doesn't have tricks up their sleeve, but I do hope you realize what a caucus is and that it's more about head counts and less about secret ballots.

[blm]

41. Of course I do...the point is that GOP officials overseeing this are surely involved in the general

vote counting, as well, where they would be even more inclined to manipulate the vote count.

Anyone who has read my posts during the elections of the last 11 years would know that I am well aware of the caucus system.

[liberal N proud]

2. Because it was just practice for November

And they don't want to spoil that

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Because the Corporate Media is in the tank for Mittens.

The thing that scares me the most is that Bain has some shares in Clear Channel, which controls a good portion of our media. Bain also has some shares in GE, which owns MSNBC, and I believe the Weather Channel.

Don't count on the Corporate Media being "fair and balanced." They want their Corporate CEO running this country and government.

They keep telling us that this election will be close. The more we believe that and fall prey to it, the more likely they can turn their heads when the Republicans steal.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I'd like to know why Santorum isn't screaming he waz robbed!

Iowa knew they had a problem the night of the election! Clearly the Republican Party en masse has a narrative going and they don't want any pesky details (accuracy) to muck it up.

[blm]

7. This is why the GOP is careful ONLY to speak of 'voter fraud' and never 'election fraud'

Election fraud that actually causes election results to be falsified.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Eight precincts votes are missing!

Good lord what a mess. That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge of an election. Apparently close enough is good enough for them.

[DJ13]

6. Sadly, I'm starting to believe both parties like voter fraud

They both assume they'll be able to utilize it in the future against the other side.

[phleshdef]

8. If it was a Dem party primary or even a primary where people vote the REAL way, I'd agree with you.

Caucus's are strange to begin with. They aren't exactly efficient voting events. Its a very subjective kind of thing in my opinion. And its a Republican party function, not a Democratic party function. If it were a real primary, like they have in New Hampshire, or a Dem Caucus or the actual general election which isn't specific to any party, I think you could make a better case for their involvement.

[blm]

9. They need to MAKE this a bigger deal - pretending election fraud isn't part of the GOP playbook

hasn't helped our party in the past has it?

[phleshdef]

13. What I'm saying is that it would be treated as essentially none of their business.

[blm]

14. of course it will...doesn't mean they can't shine a flashlight or two on the fraud that occcured

in Iowa that night.

[former9thward]

10. Caucus voting is done by the party not the state.

It is completely different than voting in November. Voting in November is private and state run. The caucus is public and run by the respective parties. The DNC has nothing to do with the Republican caucus and the RNC has nothing to do with the Democratic caucus. Neither caucus or how they are run is the business of the state.

[Uncle Joe]

11. The corporate media should still be covering this and the DNC can most certainly make issue of it,

especially after the Republican's history of election fraud over the past decade or so.

[blm]

16. A party INTENDS to steal from its own voters WILL steal wherever they can - and THAT is

why Dems should make election fraud issue of what happened on Iowa's caucus night.

[former9thward]

19. Oh please there is no evidence of fraud.

I have not read a single news article suggesting there is. Vote totals on caucus night are phoned in. Human error can result from results not being heard properly or people accidentally transposing vote totals. This type of stuff happens all of the time all over the country in the best of elections with the most honest of people. Some of these caucus meetings take place in people's living rooms for god's sake. Get a grip. Do you know what Obama's caucus totals were on caucus night and what the certified totals were? I don't but I would be shocked if they were exactly the same. In fact I would be very suspicious.

[blm]

20. that's your standard attitude about all election fraud - we get it - move on

.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

37. From reading your posts....

....you don't seem to know how a caucus is conducted, do you?

[former9thward]

39. Who is the "we" you are speaking for?

"that's your standard attitude about all election fraud" Maybe you could you use the search function and show everyone my "standard attitude about all election fraud" since you seem to know what it is. Or are you just trying to use a personal attack to smear someone you have no answers to?

[csziggy]

23. When a "mistake" is not immediately corrected it makes me wonder about fraud

Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History?
Caucus Vote Counter Says Romney Mistakenly Given 20 Votes
5:21 pm CST January 6, 2012

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.

Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1jwVQtTWD

If We Believe the Official Numbers Published on the night of Iowa Caucus 2012 by Iowa GOP State HQ --
This Affidavit Changes the
Winner from Romney To Santorum!

http://www.watchthevote2012.com/AffidavitTrue.htm

[former9thward]

38. Based on a Facebook post a poltical party is supposed to instantly change

the certification process? That's crazy. Responsible organizations don't do that and should not do it. You do know, don't you, that people put false statements on FB and everywhere else on the internet? So the standard process went on and instead of Romney winning by 8 votes he loses by 34. Big F'n Deal. That result does not change the delegates at all.

Every election jurisdiction in the country has a certification process and for most elections it takes about 2 weeks. That is the standard time. But based on FB posts we should upend vote counting every place in the country?

[csziggy]

42. He was not asking them to correct the votes based on his Facebook post

As was CLEAR in the article the link led to.

True reiterated Thursday night that he is 100-percent certain that his figures from that night were correct. He said he has checked with his precinct chairman and the GOP county chairman and they confirmed his numbers.

Appanoose County Republican Party Chair Backs True

Appanoose County Republican Chairman Lyle Brinegar said Friday that his records indicate Romney did indeed only receive 2 votes in True's precinct. He told KCCI the county's paperwork is in order and he's confident the mistake will be corrected before the vote is certified.

Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1jxRaiytg

Emphasis added.

That was in the article originally written January 5. The votes were not corrected until yesterday?

What the two week delay did was give Romney the illusion he had won in two states and take away any bump that Santorum might have gotten from a win in Iowa. Who gets the advantage from that?

It also makes clear that Republicans do not care if their votes are accurate as long as the winner is the guy that the powers that be want to be the winner.

[former9thward]

43. How do you know it took two weeks for those votes to be corrected?

The various precinct caucuses had two weeks to turn in their results. Maybe that precinct was turned in the next day. How do you know when it was turned in? They gave the final results today but there is no information whatsoever about when the results were turned in. Maybe 95% of them came the next day. Who knows?

[csziggy]

44. The "results" showing Romney's "win" were announced the next day

A correction to the ostensible winner was not made until yesterday. The delay gave Romney's campaign a definite advantage. That is what I am basing my comments on.

[former9thward]

45. The results were announced that night

Just like in 2008 when the results were announced that night that Obama won the Democratic caucuses. The vote is not officially certified until 2 weeks later so people have a chance to fill out forms, etc. and send the results to a central point to be tallied. Our party does the exact same thing as it should. Should recounts be immediately done on the same night of the election? That is what you are demanding.

[MGKrebs]

12. It's closer to a straw poll than an election.

Each precinct has it's own rules, sometimes the "ballot" is just a blank piece of paper.
No different for Dems. Remember Howard Dean? In the Dem caucuses people would stand around in groups in someone's home and someone else would walk around and count heads.
Besides, all they are doing is electing delegates to a county convention, where they elect delegates to a district convention, where they elect delegates to the state convention in June. The actual vote tally at the caucus doesn't mean much. Santorum probably won't even be in the race anymore by the time they get to June.

[Uncle Joe]

15. That's true but this straw poll (caucus) is given more attention and publicity

by the corporate media than later states' (including Iowa's) actual elections.

This straw poll set the frame and from that standpoint is most important.

I asked this question on another thread, "What came first Romney being the frontrunner or the corporate media treating him as the frontrunner?"

[blm]

17. BINGO - it's the national FOCUS aspect of the story that matters, especially with the party divide

going on right now, and more Republican voters willing to speak out against the party establishment - now or never.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Yes, that's why they want to quickly coalesce around one candidate and the corporate media

promotes quick coalescence for the Republican Party with their propaganda of "they quickly fall in line" being the standard brainwashing tripe as a means to create a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The end game by the corporate media is to stifle meaningful debate on the critical issues of the day by keeping it in a narrow box.

Thanks for the OP, blm.

[MGKrebs]

21. I don't think it's the media urging coalescence.

The rest of corporate America, yes, and the Repub Party, yes. But the media loves the drama of the horse race. They might try to pick and choose winners and losers, but the actual race is all "cha-ching!" for the media.

[Uncle Joe]

24. The corporate media first, last and formost support corporate supremacy, the "cha-chinging" has been

going on since last spring or summer if not before, but that's short term money to the corporate media and it will come around again.

The Prime Directive or end game for the corporate media is to enable corporate loving, corporate supremacists into the White House and Congress representing their ownership and commercial buying clients' best interests over those of the people or public good.

The corporate media's first choice will always be a corporate supremacist Republican but to obtain that goal, quick coalescence is necessary.

Too much debate poses the risk of threatening the corporate media's imposed narrow mental box on the American People.

[MGKrebs]

28. The only Repub candidate out there who probably isn't bought

and paid for is Ron Paul, so I agree "they" will try to marginalize him as much as possible, but I don't think the Military/Industrial complex cares who wins among the others.

[Uncle Joe]

33. I agree with your post with one caveat,

as the Republican debate grinds on and Paul challenges their status quo mindset, the corporate media's subtle corporate supremacist box imposed on the people will become more fragile, loosening their tenuous psychological hold on the people.

In short the curtain will be pulled back.

That's why the corporate media via their brain washing, propaganda is pushing so aggressively for rapid coalescence in the Republican Party as well.

[surfdog]

22. Where is the proof of voter fraud ?

I don't get it?

[Proud Public Servant]

25. THANK YOU!

That was my thought exactly. I've actually caucused in Iowa; it's a decidedly low-tech, decidedly human process that can easily lead to initial errors like we saw on caucus night. If anything, Iowa is to be commended for the calm and deliberate way it went about producing an exact result in such a close race, even down to openly admitting that votes from certain precincts were missing and could not be accounted for. If anything, this is the opposite of voter fraud -- it's open and transparent.

[surfdog]

27. Well, that makes two of us

[blm]

34. Which means it was COMPLETELY controlled by the reporting of those doing the reporting - gee, no

chance of election fraud there.

[Uncle Joe]

29. The OP didn't say voter fraud, she said election fraud.

"Thursday’s count was made using these forms. The Des Moines Register, citing unidentified officials in the Iowa GOP, reported that in 131 precincts, the forms showed numbers different than those reported on caucus night."

That's a lot of math error especially for one of the smarter math states in the nation.

[surfdog]

30. Either way ...

The OP should be changed to "possible election fraud"

I just don't see any proof , just speculation

[blm]

35. Tough - after 12 years of watching GOP election fraud we know it's there whenever

there are multiple 'errors' in reporting (only when they're caught, though) and, of course, machine 'glitches' when applicable.

[Renew Deal]

32. Wasn't the Iowa Republican Party the vote counter?

I don't think it was a state run election.

[TheKentuckian]

40. The news is the propaganda arm of corporate interests so no help there and the DNC has no standing

in RNC issues.