http://www.udpc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15We had an extensive converstation about election fraud
Before our forum was hacked (how appropriate), we had quite an extensive conversation about election fraud in 2002 and 2004 elections. I will attempt to reconstruct some of the links previously listed.
First, the 2004 election results forum on Democratic Underground is a great place to check out. Read anything and everything by "TruthIsAll":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203 More interesting links:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/ http://www.VelvetRevolution.us#020505 <-- video
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%2218%2C181+votes%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt 20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA
Did you know....
1.80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold 2.There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 3.The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 4.The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886 5.Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis. .html
6.Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=articl le&sid=26
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26 www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php 7.Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush’s vice-presidential candidates.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html 8.ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 9.Diebold’s new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html 10.Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm 11.Diebold is based in Ohio.
http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm 12.Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted
50% of the votes in 30 states.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml 13.Jeff Dean, Diebold’s Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold’s central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf 14.Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf 15.None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html 16.California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold’s claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it. (See the movie here
http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov .)
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190 17.30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml 18.All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& ;file=article&sid=950
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& ;file=article&sid=950
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm 19.The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President’s brother.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html 20.Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/sto ory/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.uscountvotes.org/ Tue May 10, 2005 9:20 am
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Speaking of TruthIsAll
Had to repost:
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Sat May-07-05 04:30 PM
Original message
Our Evidence vs. Their Evidence
Edited on Sat May-07-05 05:22 PM by TruthIsAll
OUR EVIDENCE
We know Kerry led the pre-election state polls.
We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls.
We know Kerry led the post-election state exit polls, 51-48%.
We know Kerry led the post-election national exit poll, 51-48%
We know documented voting machine “glitches” favored Bush 99% of the time.
We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data.
We know Blackwell refused to testify before Conyers.
We know Mitofsky refused to testify before Conyers.
We know that there were over 21 million new voters.
We know Kerry won the vast majority (57-62%) of new voters.
We know there were 3 million former Nader voters.
We kknow Kerry won Nader voters by 71%-21% over Bush.
We know Party ID averaged 39% Dem/35% Rep/26% Independent in the prior three elections.
We know Party ID was 38/35/27 for the first 13047 National Exit Poll respondents.
We know it was changed to 37/37/24 for the final 613 in the 13660 Final.
We know Kerry, like Gore, won the female vote 54/46% up until the final 660 respondents.
We know it was changed to 51% in the 13660 Final.
We know Bush 2000 voters represented an IMPOSSIBLE 43% of the 2004 electorate in the final 13660 Exit poll.
We know it was changed from 41% in the first 13047
We know that Bush had 50.456 mm votes in 2000.
We know that about 3.5% of them have since died.
We know, therefore, that the Bush percentage could not have been higher than 39.8% (48.69/122.26).
We know that with the 39.8/40.2% weighting, Kerry won by 52.4-46.7%, or SEVEN million votes.
We know the 2000 election was stolen - by Bush in Florida where 175,000 punch cards (70% of them Gore votes) were spoiled.
We know SCOTUS stopped the recount and voted 5-4 for Bush.
We know the 2002 election was stolen (ask Max Cleland).
We know that the National Exit Poll MoE is under 1%.
We know because we checked the NEP margin of error table.
We know because we did the simple MoE calculation.
We know that Kerry won the Natioanl Poll by over 3%, 51-48%.
We know the odds are astronomical that the deviation was triple the MoE.
We know that 42 of 50 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush. We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone.
We know that 16 states deviated beyond the exit poll MoE for Bush, and none did for Kerry.
We know that touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004.
We know that Republicans fought against paper ballots for Diebold and ESS touch screens.
We know that ALL Diebold ATMs provide a paper receipt.
We know that the deviation trend from the exit polls to the vote was approaching ZERO until 2000, when there was a dramatic reversal.
We know that scores of newspapers which supported Bush in 2000 supported Kerry in 2004.
We know that Kerry won the Ohio Exit Poll, by at least 51-48%.
We know the media will not report in any of the above.
THEIR EVIDENCE:
Something we don't know.
The rBr hypothesis: Bush voters were reluctant to speak to exit pollsters.
But..
We know that many Republican voters deserted Bush for Kerry.
We know there were hardly any Gore Democrats who voted for Bush.
Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:
Have you reached a verdict?
Tue May 10, 2005 9:24 am
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html for full article:
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf (1000+ posts) Tue May-10-05 12:35 PM
Original message
Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives
At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.
People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html This is Jim Lampley, the sportscaster, people. This should give you some idea on how deeply this story has drilled into our collective consciousness. Mr. Lampley is not known as a tin-foil-hatter, although I am sure someone will now try to tar him with that brush.
Tue May 10, 2005 9:46 am
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Do the math
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Wed May-11-05 12:06 PM
Original message
TIA constraint: 2004 Votes = G+B+N+New, or New = 122.26-49.21-48.69-3.21
Total 2004 votes = Returning 2000 voters + New Voters
Total 2004 votes = Gore + Bush + Nader + New voters
New = 122.26-49.21-48.69-3.21
New = 21.15 (minimum)
Kerry won 57-60% of New voters.
Total Kerry vote = K = .9*Gore + .1*Bush + .7*Nader + .57*New
Total Bush vote = B = .1*Gore + .9*Bush + .2*Nader + .41*New
You do the math..
Wed May 11, 2005 8:35 am
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Jim Lampley Latest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/to-byron-york-and-other-o.html You'll never watch boxing the same way!
Thu May 12, 2005 5:47 pm
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
things you must also believe if you really believe that...
Another I "lifted" from Democratic Underground
If you still think the 2004 election was legitimate, then here are some other things you must also believe if you really believe that George W. Bush won the election:
1. That the exit polls were WRONG.
2. That Zogby’s 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
3. That Harris’ last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
4. That the Incumbent Rule (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.
5. That the 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn’t do better than his final polling)
6. That the Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.
8. That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.
10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13. That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.
14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.
15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio (and that this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states).
16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.
17. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.
18. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.
19. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.
20. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.
21. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.
22. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.
23. That Bush’s vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.
24. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.
25. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.
26. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.
27. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
28. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
29. That Mitofsky (who ran the exit polls), with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.
30. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.
31. That Bush could overcome Kerry’s 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.
32. According to a London-based insurance actuary, the odds of all of these things happening in ONE election, let alone two elections in a row, are too astronomical to be calculated!
Fri May 13, 2005 11:38 am
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Pie anyone?
http://www.recountflorida.com/ufed/president.php?county=holmes Sun May 15, 2005 3:58 pm
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
GREAT site
http://www.exitpollz.org/ Sun May 15, 2005 6:13 pm
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
26 page report on 2004 exit poll discrepancies
National Election Data Archive Project
---
Working Paper
----
Patterns of Exit Poll Discrepancies
More On the Implausibility of a “Uniform” Bias Explanation for the
2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies
May 12, 2005
Updated May 17, 2005
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/USCV_exit_poll_simulations.pdf Wed May 18, 2005 1:20 pm
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Voter Confidence Resolution
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Voter Confidence Resolution
(v6.1, LAST UPDATED: 5/14/05 5pm)
Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and
Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and
Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and
Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and
Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and
Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and
Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and
Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re-counted if necessary; and
Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and
Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and
Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and
Be it also resolved:
The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections:
1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verifiable paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be restored by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;
Be it further resolved:
When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.
***
Wed May 18, 2005 4:11 pm
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
From the Crisis Papers... Current Events for Dummies
helderheid (1000+ posts) Mon May-23-05 04:18 AM
Original message
From the Crisis Papers... Current Events for Dummies (stolen 2004)
Edited on Mon May-23-05 04:19 AM by helderheid
<snip>
FIDDLING WITH THE VOTES
Q. You alluded above to electoral hanky-panky in the 2004 election. Are you serious? And, if so, how could a political party get away with fiddling with the election returns? Wouldn't such manipulation be so obvious that they'd risk their reputation forever?
A. Since one third of the electorate in the last election voted on computer-voting machines with no verifiable paper trail, we'll never be certain how many votes might have been tampered with. We do know how non-secure the voting process is. Prior to the 2004 election, for example, Howard Dean and Bev Harris demonstrated on CNBS how easy it was for them to access the vote-counting software, alter the figures, and exit without anybody being the wiser.
(I'm inserting a link to it here:
http://www.udpc.org/evote-lowband.htm )
Since the voting machines and the secret software that compiles the votes of the various precincts are effectively controlled by three Republican companies, and since statisticians using demographics and exit-polls have determined that Bush had only one chance in a million of winning the election, it is highly likely that some fiddling took place with the results. Under the current system, local returns, for instance, could be 100% accurate -- even with a verified paper trail -- and an election still could be stolen, due to compiling fraud.
Precisely because we know how often such electoral theft occurs around the world, we Americans should be extra-vigilant about it happening here. But we're in denial: We're not Zimbabwe, we tell ourselves; surely, American politicians wouldn't be that brazen and corrupt. But Karl Rove and his minions are masters of the Big Lie technique and a host of electoral dirty tricks. And John Kerry handed them the best gift of all; he didn't even raise a question about the validity of the result, just gave his concession speech quickly and exited stage right.
The only way to guarantee an honest, transparent vote in contemporary America is to return to paper ballots, hand-counted in the presence of both partisan and independent monitors -- and with tested/certified software adding up the grand totals, again in the presence of election monitors. If the U.S. doesn't take these steps, it's asking for more corruption of the process and suspect election results in election after election. The Republicans benefit from the current system and will do nothing to change it; the required changes will not happen on their own but will require massive and unrelenting citizen pressure.
</snip>
A whole lot more here:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20050521Weiner.htmlLast edited by Clarity on Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Sun May 22, 2005 10:21 pm
Clarity
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
John G. Mason : Questions about the Bush Victory
mardi 19 juillet 2005
Imprimer cet article | Cet article au format PDF
1) Peut-on aujourd’hui, après l’analyse des résultats, dresser une physionomie des deux camps électoraux qui se sont affrontés ?
2004 a stolen election ?
First we should note that the November 2004 election was an extremely hard fought campaign that raises serious questions in the minds of analysts about the overall integrity of the American electoral process. Coming after the judicial “coup d’Etat de velours” that decided the 2000 election in favor of Mr. Bush ; fears that this year’s election would be stolen were widely felt on the Left before the election.
Now, many feel that their worst fears were realized for two reasons : the weird discrepancy between the election-day exit polls that reported Kerry getting 5 million more votes than he actually ended up receiving in the official count, and the massive number of “spoiled” minority ballots that were invalidated after they were cast.
In the days following the November election, there was a great deal of speculation in the “blogosphere” asking whether the winning formula for the Republicans in 2004 hadn’t been two parts evangelical mobilization in rural America to one part massive voter fraud in Florida and Ohio.
This line of speculation was soon backed up by academic specialists such as Steve Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who argued that the discrepancies between exit poll data and the reported vote from the some swing states like Ohio constitute a clear indication that there was massive voter fraud at the county or state level - just as they would anywhere else in the world and as they did recently in the Ukraine . Freeman’s argument has been backed by seasoned reporters such as the BBC’s Greg Palast but also strongly disputed by other progressive analysts such as Ruy Teixeira of and David Corn of The Nation.
<snip>
more
http://www.temps-reels.net/article1679.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
