Republican Schmidt Takes 4% Lead Over Democrat Hackett in Final 22 Minutes

[Lannes]

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001652.htm

All graphics taken from screenshots of WCPO.com's Special Election Results page throughout the night:

[OneBlueSky]

1. they continue to get away with it because . . .

people keep saying "well, there's no proof it was fixed" . . .

given their past record, what we need is proof that is WASN'T fixed . . .

[expatriot]

2. take off your tinfoil hats

I remember seeing this last night on Kos....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/2/211349/5119

OH-02: Results Open Thread (Part 3)
by Hunter
Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 18:13:49 PDT

Yet another Open Thread for OH-02 results.

(9:11PM Ohio: A stunner, so far: with 305 of 753 precincts reporting, Hackett in the lead, 51/49.) Update <2005-8-2 21:23:22 by Hunter>: But keep in mind, lots of Schmidt precincts to go. Don't assume anything.

Update <2005-8-2 21:40:36 by Hunter>: Clermont county coming in now -- 580 precincts of 753 -- Schimdt ahead, 52/48. We'll see what the finals are, but so far it looks like Dems took a hardcore 70% Republican district and made it competitive. Fantastic news.

[Lannes]

5. Didnt say it was true or not

But with everything we've seen these last 5 years nothing is out of bounds with these people.

[expatriot]

8. okay, sorry... how about "keep your tinfoil hats off" :) nt

[Lannes]

9. LOL

Fair enough expatriot. :)

[Land Shark]

18. Explain to me why anyone that would defend democracy

against threats of election fraud is immediately denounced as "tinfoil". as it stands all election data and all election analysis is kept completely secret. We are handed only the conclusions, aka election results.

based on mere conclusions reported in the media, what rational basis is there to conclude the elections were fair? Or unfair? None. When you can't look at the data (ballots) or how the ballots were processed (trade secret vote counting software) the public is totally prevented from verifying if we have a democracy from time to time, or even at all.

You and i lack the necessary information to be confident this election was free and fair.

Step one: Set up walls of data (ballot) and analysis (counting software) secrecy.
Step Two: Immediately denounce any citizen who, purposely stripped of almost all useful information, expresses curiosity or doubt about the conclusions presented as fact by calling them "tinfoil hatters".

How can we have a system of SELF-government as jefferson intended when we have this kind of nondisclosure and nontransparency at the very point in which the power of the people is transferred to the government, and the government itself administers those elections in secret?

Would you trust anyone to count votes secretly? To either desire this power or to exercise it is, IMO a corrupt act. Having a political enemy count the vote in secret is the image of tyranny. Having your political friend count votes in secret is the image of corruption.

It is time to ask some very basic questions and insist on verifiable democracy. Though it may be a strategic mistake to venture too many educated guesses (aka theories) on what happened behind the veils of secrecy, the secrecy itself is undoubtedly a problem.

[annabanana]

24. ... completely agree!. . . .n/t

[leesa]

26. I agree. Get so tired of the people who prefer their blinders kept

snugly on. I suppose the Air America dead air time in Cincinnati due to a "fire" was also a coinkydinky...sounds good until you hear that other radio stations were broadcasting out of the same tower that supposedly was non-functional.

It's so amazingly real that the splits in the last hours always revert to the same margin of GOP victory.

[AmBlue]

35. VVPB=Voter Verified DEMOCRACY

Love that! Your post, as usual, is spot on, Landshark. :kick:

[Mr_Spock]

43. All of your arguments are valid and we need reforms for sure

Unfortunately those arguments were not posed by the OP - and it was the timing of the vote counting (Schmidt's county last) that was somehow suspicious here - unless we doubt that a RW'er from a RW district can win her own county? C'mon! :eyes:

Presenting the evidence the way you did is a perfectly reasonable and rational approach to election reform.

Suggesting we may have been cheated just because the person who happened to win had their home county counted last is a very speculative argument at best and doesn't do much for a rational thinker like myself. Sorry.

[Land Shark]

59. We're talking only a very small difference though

between the reported result and that necessary for a result reversal, so it is not so much a stretch as you suggest, unless you posit that someone who was pro-hackett cheated.

[helderheid]

92. BRAVO

[Talismom]

104. I just can't understand it either! We have every reason to

at least suspect fraud--I believe it's certain from what I've read and seen.I am furious and horrified and dying to take action, instead of arguing with those who don't want to see what's right in their faces!

[Mr_Spock]

39. It was obvious to be that Schmidt's home district would put her over

I can't even fathom the logic of basing arguments on when votes were counted - the result makes perfect sense.

[Land Shark]

61. It also makes perfect "sense" that schmidt would win all counties

but hackett took four of them. You would have the same arguments if hackett had lost all four of those counties given the allegedly "heavily Republican" nature of the district. (which itself is determined by secret data and secret analysis or counting methods, and so can not be assumed valid, yet i realize that's all we are allowed to reason from....)

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. Yes and no. I've been giving this some thought.

First of all, I haven't a clue whether the election was tampered with or not. We just don't know. I don't think it is fair to characterize those who have questions about legitimacy as tinfoil sporting whackos or to describe those who have faith in the system as deluded and supporting fascism.

(Yes, those are extremist categorizations -- I'm not saying that is precisely what is going on here, just using hyperbole to make a point.)

At any rate, Hackett wasn't supposed to come anywhere near Schmidt, right? A "close loss" was touted as a moral victory for the Democrats even before anyone went to the polls. Yet we see a mere 4 point spread. That's not close, that's pretty damn close. Less than 5 votes per precinct decided this race. If the entire spread were contained within just Clermont county we're still talking less than 18 votes a precinct. Why couldn't it have swung the other way?

*shrug*

[lady lib]

3. How difficult would it be for the congressional Dems to go on TV

go on EVERY talk show and demand a paper trail? Why aren't they screaming about this?

[Massacure]

66. Because none of the counties in the OH-2 District use Diebold.

I recall another DUer stating only 8 counties use Diebold in Ohio, none in the OH-2.

[lady lib]

77. You're right. I'm blaming this one on late night posting.

Note to self: No posting while exhausted.

I was just putting in my usual plug for PUBLIC discussion of the state of our election systems, without considering the accuracy of the OP.

[Talismom]

105. The owner of ESandS is the Diebold owner's brother and also

a big repuke supporter!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. This is Wrong. The screen shot here was taken at 10:40 PM,But

From last night, here is a post of mine. Those numbers came in a little before 9:53PM, not 10.40PM. The screen didn't change for over an hour.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4247154&mesg_id=4247154

[flyarm]

53. we need to remember to stick to facts...

and keep the exact facts out front..not what we think they are but the true facts..or we undermine ourselves...and voter reform...if keeping timelines..verify those timelines..or we totally undo the premise of voter reform we are demanding!

just like the * cheney blah blah indictments piece..that has now gone around the world and then some ..it was fake and many were distributing it without even attempting to verify it..

please people take a breath..and verify facts before posting them as facts...

i for one am bothered that so little is verified before people just post stuff without checking out the real facts...

thank you ommsweetomm for posting the real times..

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. Thanks Fly for actually reading my post and seeing how Wrong the original

post is. The facts that I present speak for themselves, in REAL TIME on Tuesday night. Many of us sat here watching the results online as they came in and KNOW what the true story is. Unfortunately, now that this thread has been nominated, it is going to make DU look like a bunch of asses because they acted on passion and not researched this themselves.

[flyarm]

64. right you are ommsweetomm..i sat watching as well!!

and i copied the results as they were coming down and have the same ones you have!! same times..it was not the last 22 minutes as alluded to in this posting

self edited for spelling

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

70. We weren't the only ones Fly. This thread is making FOOLS out of DU,

and hopefully, tonight, there will be others that sat here Tuesday night who will concur with us on this.

[wli]

6. keep screaming "fraud"

Unless the vote tabulations are done properly and transparently we should scream "fraud" every freaking time. And there are plenty of suspicious circumstances here, as usual.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. "Thank you, Mr. Blackwell and my friends at Triad, for this special

victory"

Might as well have a lottery with those little numbered balls. No accountability and a history of election fraud. What a sewer in Ohio.

[delhurgo]

10. This happens every election and is not unusual at all.

The totals can change a great deal depending on what districts are reporting; some districts are more heavily Dem and some are more heavily Rep. Ive even seen tv networks call races for politicians when theyre behind because they know the districts that favor them are yet to be counted. On the screen it'll show the guys behind, but have a check next to his name as the winner.

All the late districts that came in were heavily Rep for Schmidt; thats all this amounts to.

[delhurgo]

11. Haha, "show the guys behind".

I don't think they could do that; that'd be an FCC violation.

[Lannes]

12. Sounds quite plausible

I wish I didnt have to even wonder if an election was fair when we lose.Sign of the times.I try not to buy into conspiracy theories and rarely do but unfortunately this administration makes it very easy to consider them.I guess we just have to keep separating the probable from the improbable.

[eridani]

13. Yes, but HOW heavily?

Unless there is public oversight of the counting process, how can anyone possibly know?

I don't believe the results myself. They are certainly plausible, and might even be true. But Clermont County is where people were caught putting stickers over punch holes for Kerry in Nov. 2004, and Warren County is where there was no oversight whatsoever of the counting process because they put out a fake terror alert. If you believe that similar crap was not pulled against Hackett, I have a bridge to sell you. A full audit might still have resulted in a narrow loss, but I refuse to believe any result that doesn't have one.

[theHandpuppet]

25. Honestly, the result doesn't surprise me

I'm a born and bred native of Scioto County but went to college in Cincy for eight years. if I had a nickel for every time I've traveled those roads in the 2nd District between Portsmouth and Cincy, believe me, I'd be very comfortably retired right now.

Warren and Clermont Counties are VERY, and I do mean VERY, rabidly Republican. Traditionally so. Historically so. Overwhemingly so. The fact that the race was even close in those two counties is astounding. Frankly, just driving through those two counties, which abut Hamilton County (Cincy proper), always gave me an eerily uneasy feeling. The fact that the NE quadrant of this tri-county area is notorious for white extremist hate groups just might have something to do with it.

Although you'd assume with all the blatant GOP corruption in Columbus that folks would be fed up with GOP political jackals in Ohio, you must take stock of the demographics particular to those two counties (and even Hamilton County) and then review what it was about Schmidt's campaign platform that would lead people to punch their ballot for any Republican candidate ever again.

The 2nd District is schizophrenic in nature; to the west, it is comprised of the more urban Hamilton, Clermont and Warren Counties, which together form the Greater Cincinnati metropolitan area. The average median income for these counties ranges from 96 to 116% of the national figures. Unlike the 2nd's counties to the east, it has a large, very conservative Catholic population. Put those two factors together and what you have is a voting bloc which would tend to be more inclined to have a substantial number of single-issue voters; in this case, Schmidt not only pushed this election as a referendum on Bush governance, but perhaps more importantly, she runs on a rabidly anti-reproductive choice platform.

To the east, the 2nd comprises the rural, poorer counties of Brown, Adams, Scioto and Pike. The average median income for these counties ranges something like this, in order of listing: 74, 64, 68 and 67% of the national average. Stumping on a platform of "moral values" can only get you through one round of elections in an area in such economic distress, especially if it already trends Democratic. As soon as folks realize that God doesn't repay favors or votes nor puts food on the table, Republican candidates lose their appeal with a people traditionally distrustful of politics to begin with. Further, the eastern 2nd is just as predominately Protestant as the Cincy area is Catholic, with less pressure to vote on a single issue platform like reproductive choice. Economics (as well as issues of individual liberty, an Appalachian tradition) is the key here.

So no, the final tally did not surprise me. Although both Pike and Scioto Counties, for instance, went for Bush in 2004 by 52-48%, in non-national races they have always trended Democratic. Compare that with a Clermont County, which went for Bush 71-29% and consistently votes Republican. You can see that Hackett's strong showing in Scioto and Pike are not at all surprising, and the fact that the race was even close in Clermont was astounding. Problem is, the votes of the four rural counties in the 2nd District races are always effectively cancelled out by those of its urban neighbors to the west.

Further, the Republicans have neatly killed two political birds with one stone by splitting Hamilton County in two so that it straddles both the 1st and 2nd districts, then halving "blue" Scioto County in the east. This gives the Cincinnati Republicans control over both Districts 1 and 2; if Cincinnati were included whole in the 1st, as it should be, and Scioto included whole in the 2nd, the 2nd district could very well go blue. Should the Dems present a strong gubernatorial candidiate and retake the statehouse from the vile corruption of the Tafts and Blackwells, REDISTRICTING must become an issue on the table.

For those of you who keep yelling, "Diebold!" at every turn, I must remind you that few places in Ohio have made that transition and I do believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the punchcard ballot was the voting method for this district election. So there IS a paper trail of sorts if you're inclined to count chads ala Florida 2000.

Anyway, I wanted to offer another perspective on the 2nd District race and its outcome.

For more information of the demographics of these counties, this is a handy source:
http://www.epodunk.com/

[roseBudd]

30. Clermont is still very rural and should have trended more like Sciota

It was optisan in the same county where recount volunteers saw round white stickers covering Kerry's bubble and the county with one of the biggest C. ellen Connaly anomaly.

Clermont, Warren and Butler cheated in 04 so those numbers are irrelevant.

[theHandpuppet]

42. Apparently my post was pointless

Since you either didn't absorb or you're dismissing anything I said about the dissimilar demographic natures of the eastern and western 2nd.

Clermont County is in NO WAY similar to S-C-I-O-T-O County; not in history, not in tradition, not in voting trends, not in culture. The fact that much of Clermont is still rural is irrelevant; most of Kansas is rural but so is much of Vermont.

The "numbers" of Clermont, Warren and Butler are NOT irrelevant if you track the voting trends over the years -- not just for one election -- and also compare the vote with the number of Dems and Republicans registered in those respective counties.

The fact is Hackett DID make great gains in a county (Clermont) that tradionally votes overwhelmingly Republican, even if he did lose the countywide vote; conversely, his substantial win in Scioto was not that surprising given that the county trends Dem anyway.

If you expected the numbers for Clermont and Scioto to be the same simply because both counties have rural areas then you really do not understand what makes these two counties so very different.

[flyarm]

67. not pointless to me..since i do not live in ohio..

and don't know the demographics..thank you for explaining!!

[theHandpuppet]

94. You're very welcome

Its pretty amazing that in the relatively short distance of 125 miles, one can travel between Portsmouth (in Scioto County) and Cincinnati and experience two such distinctly different cultures as the western and eastern 2nd District. There is an almost palpable dividing line between two; over the years, as I traveled so often down Route 52, I considered Aberdeen (in Brown County) the dividing line and by the time I got to Ripley the change was downright palpable. It's hard to explain the feeling, but it was quite real for me.

[roseBudd]

106. I live in SW Ohio right now, and Bush voters in Butler, Warren & Clermont.

counties did not accidentally pull C. Ellen Connaly's name out of their asses and accidentaly vote for an unknown, underfunded African American Democratic judge from Cleveland because thay could not remember the name of the incumbent, newspaper endorsed Republican judge, who had yard signs right next to Bush/Cheney signs in a downticket race.

Connaly got more votes than Kerry, a lot more votes than Kerry in Butler, Warren and Clermont, the counties in Ohio that could not have been more geographically distant or politically different from the city of Cleveland.

I did not vote for Connaly because when I got to the bottom of the ballot I could not remember her name and I had tried to memorize it.

Fool me once shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me

If they can cheat in the tabulation, do you really think that they wouldn't? The party of Atwater and Rove?

All it takes is a software programmer on the take. Or someone who places round white stickers over the penciled in bubbles on an optiscan ballot and then colors the opponents bubbles with a pencil.

That's right Clermont Cty recount observers saw round white stickers on ballots. Spin that as innocent.

[eridani]

109. That the results are plausible--

--doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. My personal guess is that a full audit would produce an narrower loss for Hackett. But without full and public audits, we will never know. IMO, insisting on an audit in this race is more for the sake of future elections than this one anyway.

Democrats completely ignored the possible theft of Max Cleland's race in 2002, and brushed off the wins of five separate Republican candidates for local office by the exact number of 18,181 votes. This shit has just got to stop!

[lonestarnot]

49. I agree, public oversight over counting is a necessity! Don't like voodoo

counts!

[sandnsea]

16. They count the Republican district last???

Yeah, that's how elections have been stolen for decades, by both sides. IIRC, Illinois always used to stonewall who would send their strongest precincts in last. Chicago or down state. If the strongest Republian precincts ALWAYS go last, that's kind of evidence of shenanigans, not the opposite.

[Horse with no Name]

37. Was it a coincidence that the last precincts counted

were heavily for Schmidt?
Why wouldn't those have been counted first?
Because they needed to know how much padding they needed and nobody would question her high numbers in counties that were already heavily Schmidt--that's why.
Nothing is a coincidence.

[roseBudd]

107. Warren County stalled in 04 by voting until 10:30, Clermont stalled in 05

These are dirty counties, I don't rust any county caught with round white stickers on their ballots

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-01,GGLD:en&q=clermont+county+ballots+stickers+recount

[dolstein]

86. Deleted

[mirandapriestly]

14. What gets me is didn't Clint Curtis say

there was a "tampering technique" that if the Dem was winning by a wide margin, code would knock it down to 51%-49% in favor of the GOP? What are the odds that the GLOP would win by those kind of margins again and again and an Iraq Vet?

[MercutioATC]

15. With Claremont County being counted toward the end? A good chance.

It was close and Schmidt's home turf got counted last (well, close to last, anyway). No big mystery.

[roseBudd]

108. A fraudulent tabulation program can be triggered by a variety of events

an inprobable sequence of votes on a particular ballot, a certain time or a percentage of the candidates totals reaching a certain threshhold

Computers count the votes so no one can see...

[ConfuZed]

17. *kicked and nominated*

:kick:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Kick and nominated? Why? Please see post # 4- It wasn't 22 Minutes!!!!!!

[AmBlue]

36. I'm sorry, but that picture of George

is just absolutely fowl and fucked up. He makes my stomach lurch. How on earth can THIS NASTY, EVIL SCUMBAG be the leader of the free world and our America??? Just asking... :grr:

[tavalon]

56. Damn,

How many pictures are there out there of Dumbya flipping the bird?

[Igel]

81. Lots.

Photoshop's a fairly common program, lots of pictures of * out there to "process."

[AmBlue]

99. Sorry to be off-topic, but

Do we know if that photo of * is Photoshopped or real?

[Igel]

101. The original I saw has * wagging his finger.

It's possible he flipped the bird, and people have photoshopped it to be neutral.

I have no idea how to google something like this to check.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. I heard at 9pm est on an AAR news report

that Hackett was leading 52% to Schmidt's 48%. :shrug: What time did the final tally be announced? Isn't Dean looking into the results too?

[Swamp Rat]

21. The election was stolen.

Folks in Ohio need to just say "NO!" and refuse to acknowledge Schmidt as HUMAN!!



edit: :D

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. Race was for congress I believe

[Swamp Rat]

23. Ooops! Yer right! What the HELL was I thinking?

I need to go to bed! :boring:

edit:

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Is Paul Hackett the kind of guy who will take this laying down?

Or is he the kind of guy who will fight it there is credible evidence that the election was stolen? :shrug:

[roseBudd]

28. send your CALM REASONED analysis to Howard Wilkinson...

of the Cincinnati Enquirer. He is the reporter in SW OH covering this controversy. Remember it was the Enquirer that broke the Warren County lockdown story.

Calm and reasoned, we need Howard.

Howard Wilkinson Public affairs 513-768-8388 [e-mail]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050804/NEWS01/508040335/1077/NEWS01

Clermont: Humid heat hurt count, not plotting

By Howard Wilkinson
Enquirer staff writer


Humidity held an edge over conspiracy in explaining a glitch in counting Tuesday night's 2nd Congressional District returns in Clermont County.

Warm, humid air dampened thousands of Clermont County ballots Tuesday night, election officials say, slowing the process of counting ballots in the home county of winning Republican candidate Jean Schmidt.

When the vote counts were released around 11 p.m., they secured Schmidt's win in the race. That prompted some bloggers and 2nd District Democrats to speculate that Clermont County officials were holding back votes for their native daughter in what was an unexpectedly close race. She is a lifelong resident of the county, raised in Miami Township.

"Something's fishy in Clermont County ... blogger "Anna'' posted on Annatopia.com Tuesday night as the 2nd District - and, indeed, most of America - awaited the Clermont County returns.

[roseBudd]

29. Also PM me with anything you want me to print and hand deliver to Hackett.

I am only blocks from his law office and can drop by.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Not 22 Minutes!!!!! Please Read!!!!

Ok, keep making DU look foolish and nominating an article that is based on a false premise. Doesn't anyone around here know how to read???? See my post #4. It wasn't 22 minutes!!!

That doesn't mean I don't think the election was stolen. Clermont was supposedly delayed because they had to hand count??? But please don't use 22 minutes for your outrage!

[flyarm]

60. ommmsweetomm is correct...it wasn't the last 22 minutes...

to use the "last 22 minutes " as the premise of a stolen election..is to make us all look like fools...please people take a breath and look at the real facts..verify facts before just making stuff up to suit the real problem of not being able to verify anything..because we have been shut out of the process by corporate voting ...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

62. Thanks again Fly! Here is the REAL TIME on Tuesday night..

Tue Aug-02-05 09:53 PM
Original message
Hackett 50% Schmidt 50% 662 precincts out of 753 in.
Schmidt up by 800 votes.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/08/02/election_resu...
US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
662 precincts of 753 reporting JEAN SCHMIDT 49,681 50%
PAUL HACKETT 48,811 50%


The link to my original post at 09:53 PM on August 2nd.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4247154&mesg_id=4247154

Everytime anyone would refresh the site with the vote tallies, the current time would show up but the voting results stayed the same, until there was an actual update in the polling numbers.

[second edition]

32. Amazing isn't it! So many repubs wait until the last minute to vote!

[Junkdrawer]

33. Ohio's "Bipartisan" Election Boards serve at Blackwell's pleasure...

A major complicating factor in the appropriate allocation of voting machines was the artificially inflated voter registration rolls in the county. The 845,720 registered voters in 2004 actually exceeded the 2000 total voting age population of Franklin County (800,657) by 45,063 persons. This unsettling disparity resulted from the loss, during preperation for computer system changes in anticipation of the year 2000, of voter history data necessary for purging the voter rolls of ineligible voters as required by the National Voter Registration Act. The County chose to start fresh with new voter histories, with the result that there had been no voter purge since 1999. The County resumed regular purging of its voter list only after the 2004 election, and on June 20, 2005 removed approximately 114,000 ineligible individuals from its voter registration list. The 2005 purge brings the voter registration total well below the 2000 voting age population in the county.

Yes, you read that right. Franklin County's "bi-partisan" Board of Election has just now "purged" 114,000 voters from the rolls! Tee-ing things up nicely, it would seem, for many more thousands of voters to find themselves suddenly ineligable to vote when they show up at the polling place in 2006!

Over one hundred thousand voters scrubbed from the voting rolls in just one Ohio County alone by their presumably "bi-partisan" BoE. That, while we have learned over the past several months how these Ohio BoE's are certainly not "bi-partisan" as Blackwell and their other defenders continue to maintain since a) There are "Democrats" on these boards who are specifically plants, in other words, "Democrats" in name only and b) All BoE members serve at the partisan pleasure of the distinctly partisan Secretary of State and Bush/Cheney Co-Chair, J. Kenneth Blackwell, who has routinely threatened BoE members with dismissal if and when they refuse to follow his personal partisan edicts.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001512.htm

Common Cause has been calling for Independant Election Boards:

INDEPENDENT ELECTION BOARD

How does the current system work?

Ohio elections are currently supervised by the Secretary of State, a partisan elected official. In Ohio and other states, the actions of partisan elections officials have caused concern among many voters that elections are not being run fairly and have cast doubt on the results of close elections.

What would the amendment do?

This constitutional amendment would remove partisanship from the administration of elections and hand it over to an independent elections board. The board’s members would be chosen in a bipartisan manner and would be prohibited from being involved in politics.


The new elections board would have nine members. Board members would serve for nine years, to insulate them from political pressure. The board consists of:

Four members appointed by the governor
Four appointed by members of the general assembly who are members of a different political party than the governor – thus assuring bipartisan representation
One member appointed by a unanimous vote of the chief justice and justices of the Ohio Supreme Court. That person cannot have been affiliated with a political party for the previous ten years, assuring someone who is nonpartisan.
The appointments have these restrictions:

The governor and general assembly must appoint an equal number of men and women and must take into account the geographic regions and racial diversity of the state.
Members of the board may not be elected or appointed government officials, candidates, party officials or registered lobbyists. They must refrain from political activity while in office.
The board will have broad powers to prescribe uniform procedures to be followed by county boards of election, appoint and remove members of those boards, certify ballot language for statewide issues, approve voting equipment and maintain a statewide voter database. The board appoints the state director of elections, who is in charge of running the elections board staff.


http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=880425

[Hobarticus]

34. Come on, folks. There's a myriad of reasons for this.

This just doesn't scream 'fraud' to me, like '04 did.

This election's results didn't surprise anyone. Hackett made some awesome gains, and we all should be proud and optimistic about that, but he was a dark horse.

[kittenpants]

38. what are those 'myriad reasons'?

I don't mean to be confrontational--I just haven't heard the explanations for the sudden gains in the final hour. Not that it's necessarily fraud either, but it IS reminiscent of November and that's never good.

[Hobarticus]

50. I haven't heard any PROOF that these sudden gains mean fraud, either.

These could be late results, they could be slow tabulation, they could be slow reporting. Many precincts don't report in for hours after the polls close. And how often is this information refreshed? Is it done manually?

Watch the results at any election, percentages can change drastically in MINUTES, depending on how fast precincts report in.

This was NOTHING like November. Then, we heard reports of bags of ballots disappearing, artificially long lines, machines spontaneously changing votes...that reeked of fraud, or at least tampering. Either this was as genuine an election as could be hoped for, or they've gotten that good. And until I hear something more meaty than last-minute gains, I'm sticking to the first possibility.

[kittenpants]

55. I just meant the sudden last-minute surge was reminsicent

of bush coming from behind when Kerry had been leading the rest of the day, not anything else. Like I said, I don't subscribe to this being fraud yet, I only wondered what the reasons were that you mentioned. One you didn't mention but sounds most likely to me is that it was the repub candidates home county that reported at the end. However, I don't think people should be immediately chastized for discussing the possibility of fraud in Ohio. You cited POSSIBLE reasons for the last-minute gains, but so far your arguments are only speculation as well. That's why this topic merits discussion--because we DON'T know. It's no longer safe to assume there isn't fraud after the past 5 years.

[Hobarticus]

75. Well, sometimes discussion gets confused with fact...

My original post is in response to the alarmist tone in some of the posts here, I don't mean to chastise or belittle anyone.

That is a huge factor, the last county being her home county. Sometimes, the good guys lose.

We can speculate all day, but the election's over. Don't forget, a candidate who was largely a dark horse really stepped up to the plate and made some gains in GOP-dominated counties. That to me is a success. I'd hope that we'd build on that, and what he did right, and why he appealled to crossovers. Or, we can lose again in '06.

I agree, be vigilant, but vigilance isn't going to turn any states blue anytime soon.

[flyarm]

71. he didn't have much money..to start with!

and the dem party didn't do what it could have early enough..so we all learned about this guy 2 weeks before the election..well for goodness sake ..why didnt the dems in the rest of the country know about this guy months ago..where was the dem party on this..i think i heard randi rhodes say this yesterday..this was a vet of this immoral war..we should have had every dem in congress beating a footpath in ohio for this guy!..and not just the last 2 weeks!

[Hobarticus]

76. That's a huge part of it...

The GOP is motivated, folks. I'm a big fan of Dean, but I expected more for this election, especially a year away from '06 and things starting to really smell bad for the GOP.

[FlaGranny]

41. Just because

something is "expected" doesn't mean that it is beyond being tampered with I stopped trusting Republicans quite a few years ago and I DO NOT trust the Republican-owned voting systems in place. Every single vote is suspect, and always will be, until voting and counting become transparent enough to make tampering with the results at least a little difficult.

[Hobarticus]

48. I've NEVER trusted Republicans...

But I'm also wary of crying wolf. Until you can come up with better proof than this, the election's clean. Claiming otherwise serves no one but the GOP.

[flyarm]

73. yes it is the trust thing..and none of us will ever have trust until

voting is transparent..i am also from fla.. and nj but i vote in fla..and was a delegate in fla..and i will say this ..i was out speaking about these machines when no one had heard about the problems with them in my community..and around the state..i would face a room of people with blank faces who would be red faced and mad when i was done speaking..and i nor others got any cooperation from the dem party..i did the speaking on my own..and until the dem party as a whole gets serious about this problem..it will not go away..not any time soon..

and this is where we have to get serious..in safe seats for dems we need to pound these congress people and tell them if they do not get out in front of this issue..then we must vote against them and run other people who do take it seriously against them!
until we take our own party into our hands and force them to do something about these damn machines..we will never have trust again..its a pretty shitty feeling..but something we must address and zero in on the congress people who do have safe seats..we need to get mad as hell at our own and hold them accountable..or its a sunk ship!

[theboss]

40. Wasn't that her home county?

Having worked on elections before, I've known the trends of every block in the areas I've covered.

I worked on a mayoral campagin once. At ten o'clock, every precinct but one was in. We had won comfortably or lost by a sliver in every precinct so far. And we were depressed because we knew that we did not have enough votes to make up for the landslide that was about to come in for that last precinct, which generally gave our opponent about 75 percent of the vote.

[Mr_Spock]

44. Exactly. We need to work hard & be rational, not act like victims.

I hate this "we were cheated" mentality when we did EXTREMELY WELL in an extrodinarily Republican dominated district.

PEOPLE!! STOP WITH THE TIN FOIL HAT THEORIES! - IT MAY DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM TRYING AS HARD BECAUSE THEY WILL FEEL DEFEATED BEFORE THEY START!

[Hobarticus]

52. Thanks, Spock. I knew you were science officer for a reason...

Please, let's lose this victim mentality. We did GREAT. Keep hammering at 'em.

[newportdadde]

45. I'm not seeing fraud here.

Its completely possible that the remainder of the votes counted for those precints just happend to be heavly in her favor.

This reminds me of the time I went to a casino, palying roulette. A kid walks in and throws down 100 bucks on black. This was in a riverboat in Iowa thats a pretty damn big bet for one run. The last 8 numbers had been red. Next number is red. He bets another 100 on black number is red again for the 10th time. At this point the kids starts going nuts and the pit boss comes over and says' Statiscially you have a 48% chance each time, doesn't matter what the previous roles were'.

So just because Hackett had been trending well does not neccesarily mean that a large number of her votes could not come in at the end especially if these areas were RW strong holds.

[Pacifist Patriot]

69. I agree. I think it probable the final precincts would have

favored Schmidt. Still, there are events that night that I would like evaluated.

Humidity?
Website down?
Fire blocking AAR?
Schmidt within a polling place?

Not that these necessarily indicate fraud, but we need to analyze them and then take steps to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.

Voter confidence is probably at an all time low right now and not just among Democrats. We poll higher in that regard, but a decent number of Republicans also have qualms with the system. We owe it to everyone to shine a light on any question that arises in the election process.

[melissinha]

46. Wasn't Schmidt at a polling place in Clermont at the end?

I remember hearing a caller on Majority Report, then on Malloy who said that he had seen Schmidt on polling premisis (not 100 yards away) handing out swag.... nail files in particular.... I rememeber hearing that she had voted in Clermont early in the morning... yet plants herself at the last polling moments... illegally .. to promote herself...

THis individual said he asked the poll workers to remove her, but they said they had tried and just let her continue... I am not saying that her illegal activity was a cause for the 4000 votes, but isn't it coincidental that she did it in the county in question?


It beats me.. these people arrogantly break laws knwoing they'll get backed up by power... THATS what is pissing me off.

[City Lights]

58. I heard that too.

And they videotaped her. Wonder what they did with it. :shrug:

Looks like another law that is optional for the pukes. :puke:

[seabeyond]

47. how can we trust them. why would we trust them

we are being demanded to trust these people

we see:
they have done it.
the have the motive
they have the means

i dont get this

we cannot prove it cause no tracking information. and the republicans say trust us, and it appears our democrats are saying, trust republicans with all the power, motive and means

pragmatically, intellectually i do not see how i make my mind trust the republicans not to steal vote

please, tell me how i do this, cause a lot are telling us to do this. where am i wrong. that would help me. tell me where i am wrong in my thinking.

[lonestarnot]

51. I do not see that you are wrong in your thinking. They have lied, the

trust is broken and that is that. Never get it back (but then I never had it in the first place). Never trusted a bunch that would steal from the middle class so the richest of the rich could get a tax CUTOURTHROATS! Crooks and liars are crooks and liars and a spade is a spade!

[OzarkDem]

63. Your Dem leaders are home in their districts this month

Call them and talk to them about this issue.

[WilliamPitt]

54. Is every election we lose going to be called stolen from now on?

I've been dealing with local elections since I was a little kid. My mom held a small office in our town and worked with the Mayor, who ran every term for 22 years. We were there every election night listening to the results come in and go up on the board. Results from districts would come in late and dramatically change the count. It happened all the time, and it wasn't fraud.

I think everyone is correct to be suspicious of elections these days. But I would offer also a word of caution: What happened here with Hackett is not unusual. Before the accusation of fraud is made as a declarative fact, some proof beyond conjecture and disappointment would be a good thing.

[Pacifist Patriot]

68. I think there is a middle ground.

As I mentioned above, asking questions is not only our right but our duty. If there is something about an election we find puzzling or disturbing we should feel safe enough to say so. People who do understand the glitches should help provide explanations and assurances rather than throw up their hands and roll their eyes at "conspiracy theorists."

Likewise, those with concerns should express them as such and seek answers before making accusations.

I had several questions about this particular election. Some have been addressed and my concerns alleviated. Still others I think deserve further exploration.

Bottom line though: The election process should always be open to scrutiny. We should never fear and resist a rational inquiry into perceived anomalies. Voter confidence is everything in a representative democracy.

[Junkdrawer]

72. Well, lack of public confidence in elections is one downside...

to non-transparent, partisan control elections.

But I'm sure it's a minor inconvenience compared to the rewards. Besides, the 'tinfoil hat', 'conspiracy theory' spin keeps those who question down to a roaring minimum.

[eridani]

111. Maybe before we stop calling "fraud"--

--we should get transparent and public election procedures in place first. I'll bet hose results going up on the board in your childhood were from precinct workers who counted paper ballots AT THE PRECINCT and called them in, no?

And no, we aren't responsible for proof. We are responsible for demanding that election officials present publicly audited results that clearly demonstrate no fraud.

The results are certainly plausible, and they might even be true. But Clermont County is where people were caught putting stickers over ballot ovals for Kerry in Nov. 2004, and Warren County is where there was no public oversight whatsoever of the counting process because they put out a fake terror alert. Why should we assume that those counties turned honest 8 months later?

[Pawel K]

74. Sorry Guys, I don't buy it

Hackett did a great job but right now I can't say there was fraud. When he was in the lead less than half of all the precincts were reported, there is 25,000 votes can make a hell of a difference. That is not to say we shouldn't investigate but dont jump on the bandwagon and say there was surely fraud.

[Lucille]

78. Always count your key precincts last, so your opponent doesn't know

what total he has to beat.

Late in the afternoon of Election Day, the corrupt South Texas border bosses whose support had purchased asked him when they should report the voting results from their counties, and he violated a fundamental rule of Texas politics: report your key precincts -- the ones in which you control the results -- only at the last minute, so your opponent would not know the total he had to beat. . .

Robert A. Caro
Means of Ascent
1999

Found this quote over at Billmon's excellent site, Whiskeybar. Billmon has some intriguing ruminations on the mysteries of certain voting districts in Ohio. A nice complement to Bradblog's thoughts on the issue.

http://billmon.org/archives/002073.html

[Lannes]

79. Lets make one thing clear

I was posting an article and letting people decide for themselves.I apologize for nothing.The article wasnt about election reform so Im not sure why one of the replies insisted that I should dicuss it, it was about possible election fraud,I emphasize possible because I didnt say either way.

Some posters link theories on certain topics and write "well here is the proof" I did no such thing.

And if you read my subsequent posts I was very open minded about it not being fraud.That seems to have been lost in this argument as well.

[Pawel K]

80. I think you had every right to post it

the only problem I have with stuff like this is that the right wing can use this as a tool to say that democrats label any election they lose as fraud discrediting all the work we have done talking about election fraud in the presidential race.

[Lannes]

82. I understand

But they take pretty much everything we do and say and twist it anyway.
Besides some of the replies about not posting conspiracy theories came from posters who have started threads in the past from conspiracy theory web sites.

As long as people keep an open mind and the theory isnt outlandish or incindiary I think it should be fair game for people to draw their own conclusions.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

84. There can be no discussion as the facts in your post are dead wrong.

That screen shot is very misleading and it wasn't 22 minutes. If you took the time to look at my post number 4 and clicked on the link tht will take you directly to my post of Tuesday evening, you will see what I am talking about. I have already posted this at Bradblog.
Here is my post #4 on this thread and below will be my post from Tuesday night, in REAL TIME!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4256521&mesg_id=4256574

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4247154&mesg_id=4247154

[Lannes]

85. You are missing my point

First of all I didnt write the article I linked it,second if you disagree and have a way of debunking it then more power to you.But the notion that because you believe its wrong and there can be no discussion because you say so is very undemocratic and sounds like a Fox news executive.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

89. If you read my posts you will see it is debunked! Please read!

This was my post on Tuesday night. You will see those numbers were in at 9:53PM on Tuesday night. I cannot manipulate a time stamp within a DU thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4247154&mesg_id=4247154

[Lannes]

91. OmmmSweetOmmm

I didnt catch that thread the other night,I dont read all of them.I saw an interesting article,so I posted it and let people draw your their own conclusions.You make a great case for it being wrong,and as Ive said before in this thread it,there is a good chance it might be wrong.

I wanted to see what other DUers thought,if they heard anything about it.Ive seen much wilder theories draw less attention.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

95. Thank you for admitting I am correct Lannes. Now how about letting

everyone else know, a little more in view that there is an error.

The 22 minutes in your post was crucial to stirring up the ire of the DUers posting, and I think that the Truth has to come out.

[Lannes]

97. Thats is so very weak

First you declare obnoxiously that it cant be discussed like you own this board.Despite that I compliment you on making a strong case against the article but I never said you were 100% right for sure.

Now you are thanking me for admitting that you are right and that I should apologize to everyone? You are seriously fucked up.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. Me fucked up? Sorry, but by continuing a lie, you are dear. n/t

[Lannes]

103. Lying is saying that I admitted you were right

Lying is claiming to be democratic but trying to impose your will and stifle any discussion that doesnt meet with your approval.You played yourself.Its pointless reasoning with you.I will no longer try.

[Jose Diablo]

83. It is not the responsibility of citizens

to have to prove election fraud. It is the agents of the government responsibility to prove the election is truthful.

We need to remember the government is owned by us, the agents we hire and elect to run the government are responsible to insure that the mechanism used during the election can be verified as truthful. If they cannot prove the election is on the up and up, then it seems to me that, on the face of it, proof enough that there is election fraud.

In this situation, without proof of a fair election, then any and all citizens are not bound by any contractual obligations specified in the constitution or statutes of the state or the federal government. And any enforcement of obligations they say citizens are bound by, are in effect enforcement by force and not rule of law, thus immoral.

We need to move beyond thinking we are the ones that need to prove fraud, it is the agents of the government responsibility to prove without any reasonable doubt that the election was an honest count. If they cannot prove this, then they are ruling without consent of the constituents. Any law they may pass without a provable election, morally can be set aside. IMO.

[dolstein]

87. For crying out loud: THERE IS NO HORSE RACE AFTER THE POLLS HAVE CLOSED

It drives me crazy when people follow the election returns with baited breath without paying ANY attention to (1) which precints haven't reported yet and (2) the partisan composition of the reporting and non-reporting precincts.

The fact that reported totals show a tight race means absolutely nothing if the precints that haven't reported are skewed heavily towards one part or the other.

In this case, the race appeared much tighter than it actually was because the late reporting precincts were among the most reliably Republican precincts in the district. And before people start screaming voter fraud, they ought to understand that a 4% margin is a far cry from the 0.0001% margin in Florida in 2000.

[Lannes]

88. The margin in FlA could have been wider and for Gore

But since the recount was stopped we will never know.

[Jose Diablo]

90. Voter fraud?

We need to use the correct terms.

Voter fraud is when someone not eligible to vote, votes. Or an eligible voter, votes more than once.

It is not voter fraud being argued.

What is being argued is 'election' fraud.

Election fraud is when the election itself it rigged, usually by someone responsible to insure the election is representative of what those that did vote.

When we confuse voter fraud with election fraud, it moves the guilty party from being an agent of the government to a voter.

This is what the so called 'representatives' in Georgia did. When they were confronted with facts about the irregularities in the 02/04 election, they passed regulations tightening-up voter verification of identity. This was NOT what people were complaining about. People were complaining about election fraud committed by workers of the state. Not voter fraud. A much different thing.

[helderheid]

93. recommended n/t

[dogday]

96. Watch this video of a Computer Programmer

talking about the 51-49% ratio in a race, that number is key...

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

[Lannes]

98. Fascinating!

Thanks

[KamaAina]

100. "You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you the election"

apologies to 1010 WINS News Radio in NYC, whose slogan was/is "You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you the world".

[Must_B_Free]

110. LISTEN UP PEOPLE!

I can't say this enough times:

Imagine what you would need to do to steal an election.

YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL LATE TO KNOW HOW MANY VOTES TO STEAL.

If you steal an inadequite number, you still lose. You can;t know how many you have to steal to create the appearance of a "narrow victory" untill you can predict what the natural final result would be.