Mark Crispin Miller on the possibility of a rigged election

[rockydem]

"First of all, this election was definitely rigged. I have no doubt about it. It's a statistical impossibility that Bush got 8 million more votes than he got last time. In 2000, he got 15 million votes from right-wing Christians, and there are approximately 19 million of them in the country. They were eager to get the other 4 million. That was pretty much Karl Rove's strategy to get Bush elected.

But given Bush's low popularity ratings and the enormous number of new voters -- who skewed Democratic -- there is no way in the world that Bush got 8 million more votes this time. I think it had a lot to do with the electronic voting machines. Those machines are completely untrustworthy, and that's why the Republicans use them. Then there's the fact that the immediate claim of Ohio was not contested by the news media -- when Andrew Card came out and claimed the state, not only were the votes in Ohio not counted, they weren't even all cast.

I would have to hear a much stronger argument for the authenticity, or I should say the veracity, of this popular vote for Bush before I'm willing to believe it. If someone can prove to me that it happened, that Bush somehow pulled 8 million magic votes out of a hat, OK, I'll accept it. I'm an independent, not a Democrat, and I'm not living in denial.

And that's not even talking about Florida, which is about as Democratic a state as Guatemala used to be. The news media is obliged to make the Republicans account for all these votes, and account for the way they were counted. Simply to embrace this result as definitive is irrational. But there is every reason to question it ... I find it beyond belief that the press in this formerly democratic country would not have made the integrity of the electoral system a front page, top-of-the-line story for the last three years. I worked and worked and worked to get that story into the media, and no one touched it until your guy did."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/11/04/election_reactions/index1.html

[johan helge]

1. Why did the Democrats accept machines without a paper trail?

M. C. Miller: "80 percent of our touch-screen electronic voting machines have no paper trail and are manufactured by companies owned by Bush Republicans."

When the Republicans stopped the Congress from doing anything about this, the Democratic Senators and Representatives should simply have walked out of Congress, and refused to return, until a verifiable democratic process was established. Why didn't the Democrats raise hell about this?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. Also - why didn't the media raise hell about this????

It all adds up now. Anybody who tried to question Diebold was silenced. Sites were taken down, people who questioned it were visited by the FBI at their homes:

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
WHO'S THAT KNOCKIN' AT YOUR DOOR??

Are you resisting Diebold, ES&S? Have you questioned HAVA? The FBI would like to have a word with you!

SOFTWARE ENGINEER HAS RAISED SOME QUESTIONS, GETS A VISIT

From Ron ([e-mail]):

On the electronic voting machine issue again, the attached message from a software engineer is pretty relevant-towards the end he seems to be saying that if you dig too far into the electronic voting systems you might get a visit from the FBI (he is on the yahoo group voter_verification and has already had his visit). Seems the FBI is stopping by a lot of people's homes these days...they must be getting ready for next year's election.

[michigandem2]

3. i don't understand it either..its so obvious it can be manipulated

its fucking rediculous...why would we allow this...

[Karenina]

4. Pull the PLUG on it.

:evilgrin:

[NashVegas]

5. Because They Wonder If We Can't Somehow

use them to our own advantage.

I'm feeling cynical this morning, but, logically there are only two possibilities in my mind why Dems allow this: the above-mentioned one, and the idea they're just stupid and naive. And no DC or state capitol politician is that naive.