I don't understand why Diebold can't steal it even if we win big.

[MoonRiver]

Won't they just readjust the tabulators when polls indicate Dems are far ahead? Those freaks don't care if an election theft is blatant, they just want to keep their evil power hold on this nation. Is there something I'm missing here?
:shrug:

[Richard D]

1. I'd think . . .

. . . if the exit polls are something like 49/51 or thereabouts, they can claim faulty exit polls. If they are something like 65/45, that would be an obviously ridiculous thing to say. Wouldn't put it past them though. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.

[MoonRiver]

3. And, most of the mainstream media aren't doing exit polls anymore.

After 2000 they decided to stop. Special interest groups do, but we know how much credibility corporate media will give them.

[Tab]

4. If they were 65/45, the exit polls would DEFINITELY be faulty.

65/35, though... that's another story.

[Richard D]

45. Oops . . .

:dunce:

[mod mom]

2. I totally agree with you. I believe the reasoning is it would be too

obvious, but do you really expect these guys are going to turnover the reigns? Not me. Look at the Ohio Voter initiatives from last fall. Polls showed they were winning 60-40 but the Blackwellian results howed them losing 30-70. There was no way Blackwell could afford for them to win and there is no way the neocons want to relinquish power, as well.

CORRUPT VOTE=CORRUPT RESULTS!

[MoonRiver]

5. They will do ANYTHING.

If they really thought they were going to lose control, well, Katy bar the door.
:scared:

[tatertop]

17. They will do whatever it takes to win. We gotta stop Diebold

[MoonRiver]

19. Seems to be up to each state.

Some are making progress getting rid of these machines. Hope the trend continues before it is TOO LATE.

[tatertop]

20. I'm with you on that.

[OneTwentyoNine]

6. They can,especially when stations like CNN go along and change exit #'s

At 2:00 am from THEIR OWN exit polling numbers. They were as much in on the Ohio "Fix" as Diebold IMO.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. And **that** is exactly why the media is a bigger issue than even Diebold

As sunlight stops fungus from growing, so does the light of truth stop criminals like Diebold.

We would be able to sure most ills - or at least control them - if the media did the job they're **supposed** to be doing .... reporting fairly and honestly. I don't want a left-biased media anymore than I want a right biased one, as we now have. I want a fair and honest media.

Instead we have .....

[blm]

13. The two issues are inextricably linked.

Infuriatingly so.

[Blutodog]

8. They can & they do and they will continue to.

Have u checked what they did in Ohio's fall referendum elections? They actually reversed 3 of the results. The pre-elections polls showed 3 of the 4 referendum winning by large majorities only to see these same referendum defeated by the same numbers! Talk about audicious in ur face stealing!! The truth is they can steal any election close or not and what are u going to do about it? They'll just say the exit polls and pre-polling was dead wrong and without audits or paper trails any programmer worth his salt can simply write the results he wants right into the computer code. People have been hood-winked into buying the BIG LIE that computerized voting is somehow error proof. The opposite is true computerized voting has opened the door to massive election fraud. In the past it was difficult to steal elections because it involved large conspiracies. Now it's easy as sitting down at a keyboard and sending someone e-mail. U can bet that the 3 BIG rethugliken owned Computer voting Corps. Diebold, ESS and Sequioa have all done their best to elect GW Bu$h et al. and will do the bidding of the rethug party in the future. The only answer is a return to PAPER ballots. Then elections would need to be stolen one district at a time involving very large amounts of criminal involvement. Right now it only takes the Motive becasue the means and the methods are in place. the sad truth is we now live in essentially a 1 party state like the old Soviet Union. Until the D's wake up to this they will be nothing more then a facade of opposition foisted on us to give legitimacy to our Imperial reulers. Democracy and computerized voting are like OIL and water. They don't mix.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Good post. welcome to DU

[snowbear]

9. The one hope I have about Diebold...

...is that they are teatering on so many different levels right now , that they'd have to be completely BRAINDEAD to not be paranoid.

With the staggering amount of lawsuits piling up from Florida to Alaska and numerous locations inbetween...

..you have to wonder if they honestly think their system is so detection proof that they can continue to steal elections?

Besides exit polls and precinct monitoring, it's only a matter of time before an insider "tells all".

I don't trust them --- but I do wonder if they're finally starting to get cold feet??

[MoonRiver]

11. Oh, I hope so.

Once the coup is complete, Dieboldesque voting may be the law of the land, literally.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. North Carolina is Diebold free

So that is one they can't steal.

Even though some stupid democrats are fighting to get them back in NC.
AGH

[MoonRiver]

12. Yaaaaaay, NC!

BOOOOOOO, stupid Dems. :( :thumbsdown:

[jobycom]

14. It's not nearly as easy as you assume.

Elections are counted at the local level, then reported to the state. If the state cheats, the local officials will notice that the totals they submit aren't equal to what is reported. If the local level cheats, it can be caught by testing the equipment.

These machines are more visible than is generally stated. Each polling machine is tested (or supposed to be) before and after the voting to be sure they are registering votes properly. The counting machines are tested to be sure the are counting what thy are supposed to count. To change the votes cast, either the casting or counting machine has to be rigged. Both of these can be detected with extensive testing.

Even if we went back to paper ballots, there would be cheating.

[MoonRiver]

16. Are Democrats allowed to extensively test the machines?

And, if so, why hasn't this been done before? My understanding is that the owners of those machines have proprietary rights to their source codes, and they have to approve who can look at them. Maybe my terminology is wrong, but I hope you know what I'm saying.

[jobycom]

24. If they are in charge of the district or state counting the votes.

In a state run by Dems, they can order a vote recount under the right conditions, and could order testing of the machines, without seeing the codes. They can simulate an election and count to be sure things work properly. That wouldn't be done in normal circumstances, but it could be done if someone decided to do it. Just being Democrat wouldn't mean they'd order it, though, as New Mexico demonstrated. Even a recount of the votes cast already could uncover discrepancies, depending on how the cheating was done.

They are very simple computers, like calculators. Enough testing would either duplicate the cheating or find discrepancies with the original count. But it won't happen in areas controlled by Republicans.

[MoonRiver]

25. I'm very pessimistic about this angle.

As far as I know, real oversight over these machines hasn't occurred. Congress should be providing legislation to protect us against electoral fraud, but, as we know, hasn't. I don't see this situation changing unless Dems get back in control, and if the Pukes can keep on cheating, how will that happen?

[jobycom]

29. It will never happen if we convince all Democrats that it's hopeless

I swear I think all this BBV stuff is blown out of proportions by Repubs just to make Dems stop voting. I've seen it, too. I've worked polls where Dem voters were practically in tears about having to vote on a machine that wasn't even Diebold. The woman I'm thinking about didn't even vote she was so depressed.

It isn't that simple. The bigger we win, the harder it is for them to cheat.

[MoonRiver]

32. I will always vote, but I think we need to know what we're dealing with.

Most people who are not activists will not know how dangerous these machines are. The msm doesn't report about it much, and few are motivated to check the internet. But I, for one, need to know the reality around me.

[jobycom]

34. I'm not saying to ignore the issue, only that we need to keep it in focus

They can't rig all the elections. A big enough victory puts us in power, and we still can win local and state elections to build up our power base. Which is how the Repubs started doing it.

[tatertop]

18. One ugly man comes to mind: Saxby Chambliss.

He made cheating look like a cakewalk.

[Virginian]

28. The machines have clocks. Code can be time sensitive.

Corruption code can be triggered by it being an election day and not work at all during "off" hours.

This is one of the reasons the code has to be open to inspection.

[jobycom]

30. Then it would show up when you recounted

If the counting machines only work at certain times, then if you run the votes through the machine in a recount, you will get a drastically different count, and the crime will be uncovered.

On edit: I agree the code has to be open, I'm just saying there are ways to catch them using today's standards.

[Virginian]

36. No, the recount stays the same. Undetectable.

During the election, every tenth Kerry vote looks like it is going to Kerry, but it actually is registered as a vote for Bush. In a computer, what you see is not necessarily what you get.

(Voter votes and presses final button to register a vote for Kerry. Behind the scenes the code is checking to see if this is election day and time to add every tenth Kerry vote to the Bush tally instead of to the Kerry tally. None of this ever shows up on the screen. This only works during the election. The voter who voted for Kerry does not know that their vote just went to Bush.)

; (Vote was for Kerry,)
add 1 to Kerry_counter.
If ElectionDay
    If Kerry_counter > 9
        Add 1 to Bush_tally
        Move 0 to Kerry_counter
    Else add 1 to Kerry_tally
    End_if
end_if.

The final tally would remain the same no matter how many times it was recounted. The code would only work on election day and because there is not proof that the vote was not originally intended for Bush, there is no way to detect the fraud.

That number 9 is pretty low to be used as an easy example, it would more likely be a number like 87 or 113 or 142 in a close election.

edited to edit out unintentional smiley face and to indent code.

[jobycom]

38. You're talking about the voting, not counting. Still a simple test

Reset the inner clock to the day of the election, then run an extensive mock election. If you say that the code is instructed to only work once, then reset the clocks, reload the software you loaded on election day, and run it again.

If the counting machines are being rigged to flip every 10th vote or whatever, then a big enough margin of victory would still result in a Democratic win, which was the question in the OP. If the software is ordered to simply ensure a win, then people would suspect when the voting was too far out of reality. A good investigation can uncover cheating. The code still exists on the machines, and on the media used to load the instructions into the machine. Someone could hack it. There would be a trail.

[Virginian]

46. Voting machine time is set by the atomic clock. n/t

[Blutodog]

39. UR wrong!

It's relatively easy to cheat if the machines in ? are computers and noone is able to double check the internal code of the machine. A "trojan" can be put in the code and go un -detected and it can even be created so once it does it's dirty work it simply vanishes without a trace. That's just one example of how to cheat via the computer. Another way is to change the results after the case by hacking the machines again relatively easy to do especially if ur the group running the election as in say OHIO or Fla. Plus, the burden of proof shouldn't have to be on us to prove that these machines are bad news it should be on the manufactures who should have to prove the contrary that they aren't easily coded , hacked etc. to cheat. Facts are that right now in the US a large % of these machines are designed, built and coded in secret by 3 very large Repub. owned Corps. Diebold, ESS and Sequioa and they don't allow anyone to look at the code these machines run on. So in essence we turned over democratic process to highkly partisan Corps. who we are supposed to trust in this matter. Well, many of us don't trust them and in fact believe it's in their interest to steal elections for their owners and their political bosses. That these people have the motive (power), the means ( lots of cash) and the method ( Computers they make) should give some pause to atleast to the so called leadership of the democractic party. For some reason Many of us cannot understand it doesn't??

[Peace Patriot]

44. jobycom, you are really talking through your hat!

"Elections are counted at the local level."

Elections are NOT counted at the local level. The electRONs that have been stirred up and are zinging around inside a BLACK BOX are zinged off to central tabulators, where they zing around inside another BLACK BOX, and, at some point, somebody asks the machine for a "result." We have NO IDEA--nor even does our Sec of State or any official in the election process--what all that zinging around inside the BLACK BOX looks like, or what it is doing to these so-called votes (electrons).

And it is just as easy as it can be to insert a few lines of programming code into that electrical environment before, during and even after the voting, to make the zings spit out whatever "result" you may desire, leaving absolutely no trace that you have done so. This has been demonstrated time and again, most recently in Florida, with Diebold optiscans, which the local election head then banned from his county, saying that he was also suspicious of the other major vendor, ES&S.

Audit recounts--where they even exist--"count" one percent of the vote, at best. In the one third of the country that had no paper trail in 2004, not even this was possible. In areas that have only a "paper trail"--not a real paper ballot--they can arbitrarily discard the "recount" results (favor the machine over the "paper trail"). As happened in Ohio, supposed random recounts can be directed by partisan officials in non-random ways, making the recount meaningless. Substantial recounts are extremely expensive and extremely rare.

There are virtually no audit/recount controls on the "results" produced by these electrons zinging around inside BLACK BOXES.

And now I get to the good part. The code that directs these electrons around inside the BLACK BOXES is owned as 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY information--which no one, not even our sec's of state, have a right to review--mainly by three corporations, all of whom have close connections to the Bush regime and to the Republican Party, including a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and a billionaire funder of far rightwing causes.

Two of these Bushite corporations--Diebold and ES&S, run by two brothers--tabulated 80% of the vote in 2004, using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code.

This condition is so NON-TRANSPARENT as to inspire analogy to Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

Non-transparent elections are not elections. They are tyranny.

Period.

The question is not, could they?, did they?, how feasible might it have been?. The question is, how the hell did these Bushites get SECRET programming control of the tabulation of our votes?

---------------------

"Even if we went back to paper ballots, there would be cheating."

Never, in the history of elections, has it been possible to steal millions of votes, at the speed of light, leaving no trace, and with no one in the public venue having the right to review those operations. One hacker, a couple of minutes. That's all it takes.

With paper ballots, SOMEBODY has to throw them away or change them. A paper ballot is a concrete object. You can see it. You can touch it. And anything that is done with it is potentially visible to the human eye, and to objective observers. Furthermore, its bulk prevents massive stealing. An electron has no bulk. It can be 'disappeared' or changed by the thousands, by the millions, instantly, leaving no trace.

Those are the two huge differences. Scale. And inherent invisibility.

Really, we might as well have given all the votes to Karl Rove, and let him take them all into a White House basement, and count them in secret, come out later and announce who the winner was.

That's how NON-TRANSPARENT our election system has become.

[Blutodog]

47. Excellent post

I couldn't agree more with everything u have said here. I'd like to add however that it's still possible for us to over turn this rush to tyranny through another means. By petition we can change the system. In every state if necessary we can raise enough petition signatures to force a change. The trick though is not to try and do this through the same phony machines.

[Stevepol]

15. A good example is the November 05 initiatives in OH:

Here there was a 40-point shift in favor of Blackwell's wishes with regard to the initiatives 2-5, even tho initiative #1, which Blackwell favored, rec'd almost exactly what the pre-election polling from the Columbus paper predicted, polling which had been accurate for "decades" on just such elections.

Here's a link to the Koehler article detailing this:

http://commonwonders.com/archives/col321.htm

Of course in GA 02 the shift was about 16 points in the Roy Barnes governor's race and 13 points in the Cleland defeat, a discrepancy which to almost any unbiased observer would appear to be pretty clear fraud.

I think until people are willing to look at machine fraud as a possibility, the people controlling the machines, whowever they are, will be able to get any result they want in any election they think vital and there will be no way anybody can be the wiser.

[Blutodog]

42. Exactly right!

Well said. The rethugs have the motive, means and methods to do exactly that STEAL any elections they think they need. That's the catch they'll only use this method where it absolutely has to be used. Like the war time braking of the German and Japanese codes the info was so top secret it had to only be used very carefully and only when needed so as not to tip off the enemy. Here, the GOP now has a proven way to win as long as they don't abuse it in such a way as to force the D's to really start to investigate. Right now the D's leadership mistakenly believes if they really go after the rethugs without definitive proof of voting fraud they'll be held up to charges by someone that they're still sorelosermen. SO? They simply have no guts and until they show some they will continue to stand by and let these criminals steal elections with impunity. The rethugs have very very carefully worked this out so to think they're going to just admit stealing is crazy. When the D's wake up to the fact that CRIMINALS not politicans own and operate what used to be the Republican party then maybe we'll begin to fight back. Until then we'll be playing checkers while the rethugs game will be Aust. No rules football.

[ProSense]

21. In one category, Bush's numbers were exceedingly high, it didn't matter

Conyers' report indicated that Kerry got 88% of the African-American vote nationwide, Bush got 11%, except in Ohio where his percentage climbed to 16%.

People keep assuming the Republicans intended to steal a fixed number of votes, when I believe the were prepared to siphon a percentage (any) to achieve their objective. Really, given that Bush was an incumbent, started a war, the country was attacked, and most of the country bought his lies, and the media crap about him being strong on terror (which still hasn't been reversed among some voters), how could anyone have achieve the kind of post election poll numbers to make the percentage stolen blatantly obvious. And given what's been reported, some indicate Kerry might have actually won by a significant margin.

Given what is now known, it's hard for me to trust the polls before the election. They don't reconcile with some of the polls right before the election: Zogby predicted a 311 electoral win for Kerry.

[SheilaT]

23. By now most people think that

all polling is suspect. They believe that exit polling (what little is now being done) is completely unreliable. Both ideas are wrong, of course, but that doesn't matter.

The essential thing to remember is that the current administration came to power in a coup, and will never give up that power willingly. Don't cloud the issue by arguing that Democrats have a better plan or that Republicans have destroyed the economy not to mention we're in the midst of an illegal war. Nothing that rational matters. The only thing that matters is that these people will do anything necessary to stay in power.

In fact, don't even think of it in terms of stealing the election. It's not about stealing elections, but staying in power.

[Blutodog]

43. Agreed

I absolutely agree, they came to power illegally they know it and so do we. They have no intention of giving the power up as well. Right now we are one more terrorist attack away from a dictatorship. The rethugs are using their phoney ass war on terror to stage a permanent change to the way the country is ruled. Phoney elections done through rethug controlled machines though is a big part of the plan for the future. We are rapidly becoming a hi-tech version of the old Soviet Union.

[snowbear]

26. Did you know that in Alaska... the R-Senator may have NOT won?

I asked one of our local state senators who I see at the hockey rinks all the time (and who is running for Governor :-) ) ---why---- if we learned last month that the presidential election was so SCREWED UP...

....how do we know that Senator Lisa Murkowski really won by 6,000 votes?!? :shrug:

His response is that we don't know that yet. "Give it time, we only just learned about the bogus presidential tally"

Here's the deal --- the state JUST found out that Dipshit Bush was given 101,378 votes by DIEBOLD that he didn't really receive. It was big news here for a couple of days.

If those mysterious votes 101,378 votes that didn't really go to Bush would have gone to Kerry -- he won have won Alaska. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/ak/

For U.S. Senate, Alaskans (even Republicans) despised the fact that Frank Murkowski appointed his own daughter.

Consider this....... we had a poll released on the local news stations and in the Anchorage Daily News the first Tuesday of each month for 12 straight months.

(D) Tony Knowles won EVERY SINGLE POLL for 12 months -- EVERY ONE OF THEM!

If Diebold screwed up with and "inadvertently" gave Bush over 100,000 votes .......

How on hell did (R) Lisa Murkowski win by 6,000 votes when she had never been ahead in the polls ----------EVER?

After the election, the media said that it had to have been the last minute commercials by U.S. Senator Ted Stevens who claimed that if Tony Knowles won, he would lose his position as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This turned out to be a bold faced LIE because he would have (and did) lose it anyway. A lot of residents claimed that those commercials didn't effect them; that they didn't buy a win by a Democrat would change Steven's position. We were all surprised that Murkowski won.

But with such massive errors found in the presidential race ---> http://www.alaskademocrats.org/e-news/article.asp?ArticleID=349

--- I'm really hoping that while they're investigating how this error happened, that they really will also do an audit of the U.S. Senate race.

Tony Knowles is INCREDIBLY popular among all political parties in this state.. and after seeing what happened with the presidential tally, I'll bet anything that he won big time..

[MoonRiver]

27. This is just so horrible.

If fraud can be proved, would Alaskans be able to change the results, or demand a revote?

[snowbear]

31. I'm not sure what they'll do?

It made huge news (locally) .. but we probably won't hear about it again until the investigation is completed..

""The Division of Elections has a duty to provide accurate information about the election results. They haven't done that," Alaska Democratic Party Chair Jake Metcalfe said. "For the public to have confidence in the integrity of the election, the State must correct and explain these errors and release all the data that will allow us to verify their conclusions."

http://www.alaskademocrats.org/e-news/article.asp?ArticleID=349

It's the U.S. Senate results that everyone is most concerned about..

Unbelievable, huh?

[MoonRiver]

33. Yes, unbelievable.

And I covet your smilies! :D

[ladjf]

35. It boils down ot just how many voting places are rigged. Our

hope is that not all of the swing states are like Ohio and Florida. If not all are rigged and the Dems have a large majority, say 55 to 45, we might could win it.

[Peace Patriot]

37. That is a very good question, and worthy of thoughtful consideration,

and useful information.

It is my assessment of what happened in 2004 that they were constricted by having to pre-program the vote switching to certain percentages. I believe that that is why they engaged in the outrageous and highly visible violations of the Voting Rights Act--seemingly designed to rile people up--in Ohio. Kerry's win was bigger than expected--and bigger than the percentages they had pre-programmed for.

I think it was a 3% or so vote flip (that was planned and pre-programmed), bigger on the east coast, but with small %'s taken here and there from around the country; whereas I think Kerry won (in actuality) by about 5%, if you count the minority and other votes that were purged or suppressed. The exit polls--the real ones--showed Kerry beat Bush by a 3% margin, but the exit polls only count those who made it to the voting booth. (Greg Palast estimates the number of purged black voters at one million nationwide.)

IF they could have flipped votes at will--to whatever percentage they needed--why engage in all that messy, visible vote suppression--opening themselves up to the lawsuits, to the Boxer Rebellion challenge on Jan. 6, 2005, to charges of racism, and to continuing doubts and questions. Although the electronic fraud was probably the worser crime, I don't think it would have roused Boxer and Conyers so much without the Voting Rights Act violations--such an affront to the black community, who fought so hard for the right to vote. Why would the Bushites do that, if they didn't have to? (--if they could accomplish their purpose by entirely sneaky means.)

So, at least as far as 2004 is concerned, I think, either they were dependent on pre-programming, or they are just bastards who oppressed black voters because that's the kind of thing they enjoy (not unthinkable, with this crew).

Will they be dependent on pre-programming in 2006 (and 2008)? I tend to think so, because they are now fighting hard for more tools with which to suppress the black, minority and poor vote. Voter IDs. Centralized voter purge programs.

Another restriction on them: They can't invent all the votes out of thin air. There have to BE votes, for them to tweak the vote. And the easiest elections for them to steal are, of course, the close ones. So all other campaign wisdom applies: get out the vote, raise money, fight hard, run good new candidates, fresh faces, leftists, antiwar activists, go for it!

There are several studies that show that, in 2004, there was a distinct advantage to Bush (an impossible one), in electronic voting vs. any kind of paper ballot. So, even though they ALSO count paper ballots electronically (put the results into a computer), the election thieves are apparently more cautious when it comes to paper ballots (in case of a recount, I guess).

In California, I found evidence that points to the central tabulators as the culprits, and Republican political control of the county (not type of voting machine) as the essential condition for fraud. Optiscans, touchscreens and punchcards were all equally bad, in theft of votes from Kerry. The vote thefts from Kerry occurred in the Republican counties--or, I should say, occurred in the central tabulators, from the "totals" that were coming from Repub counties--the implication being that the election thieves could count on Republican election officials to look the other way on suspicious totals.

I'm not 100% sure of the California hypothesis, but I'm pretty sure of it. But there are different systems and conditions all over the country, so what was true in Calif. may not be true elsewhere (that they steal votes more easily in Repub counties, or are cautious as to the appearance of things, i.e., a big turnout for Bush in a Repub county wouldn't seem so weird, even if it was false). In fact, one study shows massive vote theft from Kerry in the three biggest Democratic counties in Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach). I'm just saying, one thing to look for (monitor, protest, try to change) is partisan Repub control of the election machinery.

In an election that was more or less similar to 2004, I would say shoot for a 10% margin of victory. I think that could overcome the fraud.

In the actual 2004 election, I think they had, Plan A, electronic fraud, Plan B, Ohio and other vote suppression, and Plan C, a "terrorist alert" shutdown of the voting, probably designed for the west coast. If Kerry had won by a 10% margin, we might have seen rather a nasty confrontation of the national security state vs democracy. But Kerry won by only 5%, which they could handle by one means or another.

But political conditions are different now. Disapproval of Bush has been running very high (60% to 65%--and for Cheney, 80%!), for a year now. Disapproval of the Republican Congress is also very high. And the sum total of crimes, scandals, indictments, pending indictments, failures, and ugliness surrounding the Bush junta is overwhelming. They are in a very weak political position compared to 2004.

And there have been some significant exposures of the electronic voting scam--in Florida, North Carolina, California, New York and other places--with an ever growing and persistent election reform movement.

It DOES appear that they are experimenting in Ohio with massive vote flipovers (the recent election reform initiatives), but keep in mind that Ohio may be a special case of Republican tyranny and crime. Flipovers of that magnitude would undoubtedly raise at least eyebrows in most other states (and I think much more than that). It's important not to get a defeatist attitude, and to keep looking to the future. One day, that 60/40 flip in Ohio may turn out to be their biggest mistake, and topple the whole election fraud system.

In '06, I would look for something else. I would look for MODEST (very modest) gains by Dems, which are aimed at defusing the election reform movement. One Dem WINS, unexpectedly. And everybody cheers. But meanwhile 5 other Dems lose, mysteriously. As long as the election system is NON-TRANSPARENT, we cannot and should not trust the results, or ever rest on our modest laurels. They can reverse things at any time. Dems gain 10 seats this year, and lose 30 two years later.

A good sign: In recent polls, the public showed a THIRTEEN PERCENT PREFERENCE for Dems in the coming election. That's MORE than my theoretical 10% for overcoming the fraud.

All in all--besides unrelenting pressure on our state/local officials and Dem Party leaders, demanding transparent elections--here's what I think we should do:

1. Go for max voter turnout--but tell people the truth. The machines are rigged. But the rigging CAN be overcome with massive turnouts, and that is our strategy. This way--telling the truth--people won't get discouraged and disempowered. They will know what they're up against. They'll want to help overcome it.

2. Monitoring and gathering evidence. VERY IMPORTANT. Look to future elections, not just '06, and think in terms of being able to get rid of these Bushite election machine companies altogether, after this election. Go to www.UCcountvotes.org, for instance, which is a project for statistical monitoring and challenges of the '06 and '08 elections. You need FACTS to mount challenges of suspicious results. You also need evidence with which to pressure election officials and educate the public.

2a. Demand that the Dem Party fund INDEPENDENT exit polls! Critically important! The corporate news monopoly exit polls cannot be trusted! (They DOCTORED their exit poll data, late on election day, on everybody's TV screens, in 2004, to confirm the results of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae.) Also, look into other verification tools, like "parallel elections" (recently used with some success in San Diego, I believe).

2b. Get in the faces of election officials before, during and after elections. Demand to SEE how our votes are counted. (ha, ha) But at least, watch the machines. Be a public observer. Get informed on this matter. There ARE things you can catch on election day (unauthorized people, computer breakdowns, etc.). Ask about "uncertified patches." Follow the numbers carefully. Pressure, pressure, pressure them! Make them know that "the whole world is watching!"

3. Paper Ballots! Wherever possible. Absentee ballots, or paper option (if provided), whatever you can get. (But do not allow them to substitute a "provisional ballot" for a real paper ballot, if a real paper ballot option is available--as was done in some Repub counties in Calif--and I'm sure elsewhere--in 2004.) It remains true--whatever anybody may tell you--that a Paper Ballot is better than no Paper Ballot. It is a concrete record of your vote. It could be critically important in recounts, or monitoring of the machines. IT WAS JUST THAT--CRITICALLY IMPORTANT-- in several post-2004 studies. We should make this a big movement. EVERYONE should be requesting paper ballots!

The election reform movement is still in its infancy--and already has had some big successes--and is growing by leaps and bounds. Don't succumb to defeatism and depression! Remember how long grass roots movements can take--the civil rights movement, the black voting rights movement, the anti-apartheid movement. And sometimes, something can happen, that just sparks the change all at once. OF COURSE the corporate news media is black-holing this story! They were directly complicit in the 2004 election fraud! And OF COURSE some Dem officials have been corrupted by all this electronic voting money. Don't let these circumstances unfocus you. I think that the corruption in the electronic voting industry is soon going to be tied to the Abramoff scandals. That could be the spark that exposes this whole fraudulent voting system, and ignites reform.

This is IT! This IS our fight for our democracy and for our sovereignty as a people. It's not a matter of one election. It's a matter of OUR RIGHT TO VOTE!

Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER GIVE UP ON YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NEVER!

-------------

Some resources.

www.votersunite.org ("MythBreakers," easy to read pamphlet on the perils of electronic voting).
www.UScountvotes.org (project for statistical monitoring/challenges in '06 and '08).
www.TruthIsAll.net (proof that 2004 was stolen, and the exit polls fiddled by the corporate news monopolies)
www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml (updates on the election reform movement)
www.verfiedvoting.org (more about election reform)

Also of interest:

Bob Koehler article about recent Ohio election reform initiatives, predicted to win by 60/40 votes, flipped over to 60/40 LOSSES (!) on election day:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051124ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk

Amaryllis post on the hogfest at the Beverly Hilton last August-a week of fun, sun and high end shopping for election officials from around the country, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

Russ Holt's HR 550, a good bill that will help rid us of private, partisan electronic voting companies, by (among other things) banning undisclosed software. Sign the petition. http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

[Peace Patriot]

40. One other thought on the concerns expressed in this OP:

The concern that the Bush junta will not be put out of power--in Congress or the White House.

I think momentum for change is getting so strong that a deal will be made. We will not likely be happy with it. But it may prevent something worse, and give us time to gather strength, to ultimately get our country back. I think it will follow along these lines: 2006, as I said, modest gains for the Dems (not a majority), to take a bit of the heat off election reform and other growing problems (such as the massive Republican money scandal that is breaking). 2008: A War Democrat will be installed, who will not seriously go after Bush, Cheney and top Bushites with investigations (because there are Dems who are complicit on the war, if not on other crimes). The top Bushites will be allowed to retire in splendor. A few minor heads may roll (rewards and pardons later). The Dem will not disavow powers like spying and torture, but may not employ them--may make a show of being better in this regard than the Bush junta. We may have a bit of temporary relief on social/financial issues. But the war in the Mideast may be escalated, and we may see a military Draft. This could ignite a serious fracturing of the center/left--similar to what happened prior to Hitler's rise (the inability of the center/left to govern).

I think we should try to avoid a center/left split, and go for transparent elections as Priority No. 1. I think that may be the only way that we can outflank the above "deal," which I suspect would have the hidden goal of installing a Hitler-type dictator in 2012 (after a couple of years of civil unrest, and financial and foreign policy disasters that derive directly from Bush but which will be blamed on the Dems.) (It's my belief that the Bushities are more thieves than Nazis, but are paving the way for something worse, with all these extra-legal powers they are setting up as precedents.)

I think the War Democrat will be Hillary Clinton. I suspect that she's already made her deal. I don't think she's particularly bad for doing so, just after the main chance. In any case, what use is it to call it good or bad? Let's be realistic here, and be smart, and strategize. What we MUST do--the one thing we must focus on--is restoring our right to vote! Without it, we will have no say in who our candidate is. I don't think we will be able to completely restore transparent elections before '08. So we have to think long term, at least to the end of the decade.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for our ideas and our candidates. In no sense am I suggesting that. It's very important to keep the pressure on our politicians toward peace and justice. I'm just saying, be realistic, be smart and go for restoration of the POWER that has been taken away from us, and don't get thrown off course in that effort by the inevitable EFFECTS of that disempowerment.

[MoonRiver]

41. Thank you Peace Patriot for these intelligent and thoughtful posts.

You have given me much to ponder. I am floundering around in a sea of confusion and angst about the state of the nation. What has come to be was a long time in the making, and undoing it won't happen overnight.

I was sleeping soundly until the dawn of change woke me abruptly. I doubt I will slumber peacefully again.