Lets just put this to rest now: The election was not stolen by machines in 2004

[lessthanjake]

I am a very skeptical person, but I have to admit even I was worried about this election, given all the scares people have given here about the GOP stealing elections. Machines with no paper trail seemed (and still do seem) very sketchy to me. However, with Obama winning, I think we can say for sure now that the GOP has not stolen elections. Sure, one could say Obama was so obviously going to win that it would be impossible, but lets just look at the evidence that there was no stolen election in 2004.
________________________________________________________

If the election were stolen, one would expect polls to have been wrong beforehand. Nope. The polls beforehand found Bush with an average lead of 2.1% in Ohio according to RealClearPolitics averages.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html#oh

Ironically, the only battleground state that RCP predicted wrong (I'm not counting their Hawaii average that was based on two bad and old polls) was Wisconsin, which they put in Bush's column but which actually went to Kerry.

To add on to all of this, the average national poll had Bush ahead as well, even having him hit the coveted 50% average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
_________________________________________________________

So the polls were not wrong. However, the polls were still close, and a Kerry win wouldve been entirely plausible. The argument people here use is that leaked exit polls earlier on in the day found Kerry ahead, and they were steadily adjusted more in Bush's favor as the night went on. People here say that this is evidence that the election was stolen because exit polls are used to detect fraud and they had Kerry ahead.

However, people ignore that exit polls need to be adjusted based on the ACTUAL turnout in various regions.

For instance, let me give you a scenario with Candidate A and Candidate B in an election in a state with Region C and Region D.

In past elections Region C and Region D had equal turnout. That is they each held 50% of the state's votes.

The exit poll finds that in Region C, Candidate A got 70% of the vote, and in Region D, Candidate B got 60% of the vote. Before they know the actual turnout in the two regions, the exit pollers assume that Region C and Region D have equal turnout as they have before. What this means is that initially the exit polls would say for the overall state:
Candidate A: 55%
Candidate B: 45%

However, once the election returns are all in, it becomes clear that Region D had a large increase in turnout. Instead of being 50/50 in turnout, the actual result was that Region C had 30% of the turnout, and Region D had 70% of the turnout. As a result, the exit poll would NEED to be adjusted. The adjusted results would yield a different result:
Candidate A: 49%
Candidate B: 51%

This sort of regional adjustment is therefore key to the results. You cannot just randomly sample a few thousand voters in a state because that is subject to huge errors based on large regional and other differences. For instance, if an exit polling organization accidently oversampled black areas of Mississippi, it would look like the Democrat had won, which would obviously be false.

They MUST weight the regional results based on the actual turnout each region has. Therefore, exit polls are much less accurate before the returns come in because you cant weight based on actual turnout yet. They become MUCH more accurate when the turnout is known. That is when they can be adjusted and that end result is what should be used to see whether there is fraud.
___________________________________________________________

In the end, those more accurate adjusted exit polls found that Bush won states like Ohio. I think the explanation for the adjustments is that exit pollsters were underestimating turnout in Republican areas. We can all agree that Bush built up a REALLY effective turnout machine. It was so effective that Obama emulated it to a large degree. Before 2004, Democrats had always had the better ground games, but in 2004, the opposite was true, especially in Ohio where Kerry was relying on outside groups to do some of his GOTV while Bush had it all consolidated into one organization. The result was that turnout in GOP areas was a greater percent of the overall turnout than usual. Thus, when returns started coming in, and that fact became clear, the exit polls needed to be adjusted to account for it. Thus, this is not evidence of some sort of machine-based voter fraud.

______________________________________________________________

This is not to say that the GOP did not intimidate and disenfranchise large amounts of voters in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004. They did, and its possible that without such things, Kerry might have won in 2004. We do not know. However, I think that out of the votes ACTUALLY cast, Bush won. There is no logical evidence to say that the election was stolen. Pre-election polls were right and adjusted exit polls were right. Thats pretty clear to me.

[truthisfreedom]

1. Believe what you want.

When a race is very close, it's easy to cheat a little and change the winner.

[lessthanjake]

2. Yes it is

But to assume that losing a close election means it must have been stolen by the other side is folly.

[tabatha]

8. You need to do some reading.

Read the research by Robert Kennedy (who was initially skeptical).
Got to BradBlog.
Look for Spoonamore on YouTube - a republican, very smart, who says 2000, 2002, 2004 were stolen.

[Why Syzygy]

46. The OP is using PRE-election polls .. NOT exit polls ..

which is the right answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7809322&mesg_id=7809919

Statistically an impossibility without tampering. The exit polls have NEVER been wrong. Ever.

[lessthanjake]

48. No i talk about both

...

[Why Syzygy]

85. Exit polls have NEVER been wrong. Until 2004. Ohio.

[lessthanjake]

87. THE EXIT POLLS WERENT WRONG

Thats the whole point. They were right in the end. Initial exit polls are wrong ALL THE TIME! Exit polls had Obama winning Missouri initially this time around. They had Obama winning Virginia by like 9 initially. They had Obama winning Montana initially. Etc etc. The initial exit polls are not a good measure of things because they do not factor in electoral realities in terms of the relative turnout of regions. Once they are adjusted, they become much more accurate. Thats the time in which they are never wrong, and its those exit polls that had Bush winning.

[truedelphi]

132. Maybe some of us should have the real statistical experts from Stanford, MIT

and Berkeley call you and break down how statistically improbable it was that the exit polls in Ohio were suddenly meaningless.

Or you could sit down and let yourself be challenged by reading all of Fitrakis' book on the election.

Or go over to Scoop and read Michael Collins.

400,000 reports of weird occurences reported to election fraud centers.

And then there is my own experience of a paid County of Marin Registrar of Voter employee who hassled voting activists who had been put in place by the Women's Leagure of Voters in Marin City, Calif.

When I tried to report this woman's felonious activites to the FBI as is required by law, no one at the FBI would take my report. Despite there having been over six witnesses to this woman's activites that day.

Yes, no vote theft? So then why was Bush's staff so involved with re-organizing the DOJ so that the FBI would not take down the complaint?

Maybe you should talk to David Inglesias. He'd clue you in.

[lessthanjake]

152. Its statistically improbable for exit polls to be wrong, but the adjusted exit polls were NOT wrong

[Stevepol]

174. The polls are automatically re-calibrated to fit the machine results

so of course they fit the results in the end. The initially adjusted raw data are the only reliable measure of the accuracy of the vote count and those data (taken from screen shots up to the time when the re-calibration starts to fit the data to the machine cyberspace read-out) are the only data that can legitimately be used.

I think you need to read up a little more on this by reading Steve Freeman, et al.

You might take a look at the election defense alliance web site. The statisticians there have this to say:

In 2008 the exit poll discrepancy was considerably smaller than in 2004, but it was still well outside the margin of error. I won’t calculate an exact number, since we don’t have all the data yet. But it’s safe to say that the difference is very unlikely to be explained by chance alone. The fact that pre-election polls provided an estimate very similar to the exit polls in 2008 (The Obama lead was a little bit less in the pre-election polls, but it was surging upwards in the last couple of days, so probably the two were about equivalent) makes it even more likely that they were both accurate.

So that leaves two possibilities: Exit poll bias (and pre-election poll bias as well) or impaired election integrity – that is, election fraud.

link:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

[truedelphi]

180. Thanks for the link. n/t

[Feron]

111. Never?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit.html

[suston96]

16. No one is assuming anything. There are too few safeguards and redundancies....

...in our electoral processes.

The size of the differences in the totals has nothing to do with how easily counters and tabulators can be hacked to change the results.

I repeat: the electoral process needs safeguards and multiple redundancies or parallel recounts so that final tabulations can be backtracked to the actual paper ballots.

Oh, did I mention ALL paper ballots? And No. 2 pencils? That's most of what will be needed for safe elections.

[lessthanjake]

17. I totally agree with that

Electronic voting with no paper trail is really sketchy and could be hacked. I never said it was impossible. I just said that it doesnt seem like it was necessary in 2004. The polls and exit polls both gave us a result similar to what actually happened.

[surrealAmerican]

59. This is exactly the point.

And the reason why some think it was fraud, is because we have no absolute PROOF that it was legitimate. We need a system that can provide that proof.

[lessthanjake]

63. But why is no proof that its stolen to be treated as proof that it WAS stolen?

that makes no logical sense.

[surrealAmerican]

106. You're right of course, it's a logical fallacy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

130. Woud you not think it suspicious if you saw a "sniffer dog" sniffing a

man's brief-case at an airport, and he refused to open it? Proprietary rights are insignificant when compared to fair elections. It was always a ludicrous defence of the secrecy surrounding the way in which the machines functioned - or rather, all too often, malfunctioned. As a matter of fact, I thought you were going to add to "Let's just put this to rest now: the election was not stolen by machines in 2004": "it was stolen by massive voter suppression, as well."

[spanone]

18. after 2000 nothing is 'folly'

[lessthanjake]

19. 2000 is different though

Its almost certain that more people went into the voting booth in Florida trying to cast a ballot for Gore than for Bush. Thats not a conspiracy theory.

The 2004 election theories people throw around here are far more conspiracy based, and much less rooted in fact.

[truedelphi]

131. So vote suppression by having only one machine for every

350 people, continual reports of vote switches, never from BUSH to KERRY, but always from
KERRY to BUSH, the purging of the voting lists, the robo calls that told people that their precinct polling place was changed, or even to vote on a different day, all that means what??

A wonderful documentarythat you should watch is "Stealing America Vote by Vote" Professionally done, and quite entertaining, but the cold hard facts kept me awake once again when I watched it.

[lessthanjake]

153. How many times must I point out that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT VOTER SUPPRESSION RIGHT NOW

[truedelphi]

198. IF VOTER SUPPRESSION HELPS THE UNPOPULAR

INCUMBENT WIN A ELECTION< THEN IT IS PART OF VOTER THEFT

One reason that the state of Ohio now legally requires the use of one machine for every 175 voters is becasue they understand the gist of my statement.

SUppresion, list purges, intimidation, etc - all those can be elements of voter theft.

[roguevalley]

147. Lisa Murkowski became senator from Alaska with over 200% of the

vote from about 18 districts. Explain that.

[lessthanjake]

154. Plain old voter fraud

That is NOT the first time that people have gotten over 100% of the vote in an election in this country. Not by a long shot. And it happened plenty of times before electronic voting was around. Alaska just has wacky, corrupt politics so its still going on there apparently.

[roguevalley]

26. Obviously, the OP doesn't know about Lisa Murkowski's 'win'.

[tekisui]

3. Well, then, that settles it.

:eyes:

Ohio was stolen. As was the election.

[yardwork]

4. Yes it was. Ohio was stolen in 2004. Kerry "lost" there by 200,000 votes.

Many more than 200,000 voters were disenfranchised in Ohio in 2004. The election was stolen, and it is entirely possible that machines helped.

[truedelphi]

199. Iknow But some people

Believe what they want to believe, and the information that falls outside the sight of their blinders is labelled "conspiracy"

As many as 400,000 provisional and uncounted ballots in Ohio were still part of the reckoning that Kerry sabotaged by conceding at the behest of his "buddy" Carville.

While Hillary Clinton scolded VP nominee John Edwards for his grandstanding about counting every vote.

[stillcool]

5. My God...make it stop!!

We have serious problems with accuracy and security in our voting systems. Fuck the 'steal' noise, and fix the Damn Election Systems!!!!

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/everest/00-SecretarysEVERESTExecutiveReport.pdf

http://brennan.3cdn.net/a56eba8edf74e9e12e_r2m6b86s2.pdf

http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/Diebold%20Folder/uconn-report-os.pdf

[Zombie2]

6. Umm... YES it was

[Xipe Totec]

7. No, it was stolen by the absence of machines

from Democratically leaning precincts where voters left after waiting in line for hours without having the opportunity to cast their ballots.

Republican leaning precincts had more than enough machines for everyone to cast their votes without delays.

You don't have to rig the machines to cheat, you just have to rig the location of the machines.

[lessthanjake]

13. Thats probably true

But notice I said out of the ACTUAL votes cast, Bush won.

Disenfranchisement and lack of voting machines and such are a seperate issue.

[Why Syzygy]

55. Supression was part of it ..

but there was more. Their returns were routed through a company in Tennessee owned by, who ELSE?
One of Rove's companions.

People. They are thugs through and through. Please catch up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJ0N3kyG8w

[grantcart]

65. That is in agreement with tthe OP

[yodermon]

9. *facepalm*

not helping.

[budkin]

10. Yes it was... without a doubt.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. FREE FOR ALL!: The High-Tech HighJack of Ohio

When you can't get a genuine recount, the whole process should never be trusted.

See the whole film FREE at www.freeforall.tv! This segment illustrates how in Ohio 2004, the entire process of recording and reporting votes was handled by privatized Republican operatives.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIDsiukzfIY

[Why Syzygy]

It's like the OP doesn't even want to consider the facts.

Sounds a lot like convicted felon DeLay in this >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJ0N3kyG8w

[truedelphi]

134. Thank you Johnny Canuck n/t

[Richard Steele]

12. By that logic, you've 'proven' that Ted Bundy never killed anyone.

We can point to one person he didn't kill,
therefore he never killed anyone else, right?


WRONG

[lessthanjake]

15. Huh?

He was convicted in a court of law. That means that he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

My point was that there is literally no compelling piece of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen. It would not hold up beyond a reasonable doubt

[Why Syzygy]

57. Have you looked at the compelling evidence

or just rubbernecking your own opinions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJ0N3kyG8w

[azmouse]

14. Oy vey....

[QueenOfCalifornia]

20. You've been huffing

the gold paint again, haven't you?


Your "research" left a lot to be desired.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. New Mexico and Ohio were both documented.... Massive Fail

[Overseas]

22. Electronic fraud was serious in 2004 but in Ohio old fashioned voter suppression was key.

Please check out the documented evidence of electronic election fraud before you try to debunk the whole thing. Electronic fraud was only one component. We need paper trails and random audits and non-secret software to be sure electronic voting fraud is curbed.

We need people to continue to fight for election integrity because we want the mid-term elections to be fair. We stopped a lot of the GOP shenanigans in advance of 2008, but need to continue to protect the vote for future elections, when we don't have as great of a transformational figure as President Elect Obama to lead the way.

But yes, Ohio 2004 was more about VOTER SUPPRESSION via old fashioned methods. Distributing voting machines on a partisan basis-- too few and older machines to Democratic leaning precincts. Purging voters from the rolls. Voter misdirecting robocalls and robofliers. And GOP operatives at the polls challenging voter registrations-- not because fraud is a serious issue, just because they had the legal right to do so and knew that would slow lines down for hours and hours.

I think the Ohio 2004 vote was more about voter suppression to eke out a GOP win-- creating long lines to discourage Democrats from voting. We don't know how many voters gave up because they couldn't stand in the rain for hours just for their right to vote. The uneven distribution of voting machines was also used to lengthen lines and discourage Democrats from voting. Many gave up because they didn't have four or five hours to stand in line. The GOP also stationed people at Democratic polling places to challenge voter registrations, that also slowed the lines down and discouraged more people.

CERTAINLY KERRY DIDN"T HAVE AN AVALANCHE to get his landslide in 2004, and Obama did so he could overwhelm the standard GOP trickery. I am delighted that we had enough of a landslide to overcome the usual tricks. And we caught some of the vote purging efforts in time to stop them.

That and having GOP IT Guru Mike McConnel ready to testify about his having been ordered in prior elections to program software to benefit the GOP.

BUT YES CITIZENS there was a lot of voter disenfranchisement in 2004. Please review the info on what happened then before you make your declaration.

So many of the debunkers just don't bother looking at the hundreds of reports from eyewitnesses and some of the film footage of voter suppression efforts before they proudly proclaim fraud not to be relevant.

Conyers' Report http://www.iwantmyvote.com/lib/downloads/references/house_judiciary/final_status_report.pdf
RFK Jr Report http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Calm comprehensive documentary overview http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org/

I am glad more people are not TRYING HARD TO PRETEND ELECTION FRAUD DIDN"T HAPPEN, and are instead trying to make sure that we correct the flaws and be sure we set certain national standards for paper ballots and random audits and allocation of voting machines using non-partisan methods.

[lessthanjake]

25. Again, suppression and disenfranchisement are different issues

I said in my original post that without those things Kerry might have won. They are certainly issues that need to be addressed. But unfortunately, the fact is that those people did no cast ballots. What I said was that Bush got more actual votes on 2004.

[Overseas]

35. I am not sure about the final vote count, but I was watching late into the night 2004.

I don't know how many votes remained uncounted in Ohio. Lots of people were forced onto provisional ballots. And Kerry was talked into conceding sooner than election integrity experts would have liked.

But what I do know is that in the evening election night 2004, I was watching and so happy when I saw

EXIT POLLS AND VOTE COUNTS IN AGREEMENT -- 51 Kerry, 48 Bush at around 11 pm Eastern. The exit polling and vote counting was in agreement.

Then the VOTE COUNT DIVERGED SIX POINTS from being in agreement for most of the day. Kerry down three and Bush up three. Unprecedented. And captured on tape. TV footage exists to confirm one of the most painful experiences of my political life.

www.stealingamericathemovie.com

See for yourself what I lived through on election night 2004.

[lessthanjake]

47. Again, adjustments in exit polls once turnout is clear is NORMAL

Furthermore, it is likely that Kerry was ahead in the vote count because of the areas that had reported their votes.

I mean, for instance, I remember at about 11 or 12 this election day, Obama was behind by about 15 points in my state of Virginia. However, I looked at the map of what counties had reported how much of their vote and I was actually REALLY happy that Obama was 15 points behind, because I saw that many of the Democratic areas had simply not reported yet. I knew Obama would pull out VA even though he was behind by so much with so much of the vote already counted. This is not evidence of Democratic voter fraud, but rather Democratic areas not having been counted yet.

HOWEVER, the exit polls agreed that Obama would win. BUT, if the vote totals in Northern VA were surprisingly low, then the exit poll turnout model would have been adjusted to reflect that, lowering Obama's support.

That is what happened in Ohio in 2004.

[Overseas]

53. That they AGREED until 11 pm and then DIVERGED SIX POINTS

was the awkward bit. Caught on tape.

Exit polling AGREED with vote totals for hours and hours.

[lessthanjake]

58. I dont know the specifics, BUT

I would wager that certain key pro-Kerry or pro-Bush areas had yet to be reported for the most part when the two agreed. Then, either the Kerry areas had less turnout than expected or more likely, the Bush areas had more than expected, creating the need for adjustments later.

The fact is that around 11pm, the picture of the turnout was probably not entirely clear yet. Many areas probably hadnt reported a significant enough amount of their ballots for the exit polls to be adjusted. They probably started to adjust the exit polls later once the turnout was more clear. By that time, the actual vote totals had already diverged.

[Overseas]

80. You say probably probably probably BUT I WAS WATCHING LIVE.

And I reviewed information and comparative data on previous elections reviewing all the

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE
PROBABLY PROBABLY PROBABLY

ideas trying to explain away the statistically almost impossible divergence of SIX POINTS from an hour earlier when exit polling and vote totals agreed all day long.

Those factors have been reviewed and discussed in www.stealingamericathemovie.com


I HAVE SPENT HOURS reading and listening to your side-- Golly we don't want to believe that election fraud would ever happen in America, so how about these possibilities --

So how about you spend some time reviewing more about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED before you go on with your optimistic scenario that what thousands of people reported was really just mass hysteria
they are all wrong
and your lovely optimistic idea that Bush won fair and square is right.

[lessthanjake]

86. Its not statistically impossible divergence

Again, lets look at a scenario that could have happened this election.

Exit polls had Obama winning by 4 in my state of Virginia. Hypothetically, if the liberal Northern Virginia area reported much of their results early on, then Obama wouldve been ahead in VA, AND the exit polls wouldve had him ahead. However, if the rural areas in the western part of the state then started to dump their results, and their turnout was much more than expected in the exit polls, then the results wouldve shifted very fast towards McCain. The exit pollsters would then have realized that they underweighted the Republican areas of the state, and wouldve then adjusted the exit poll to be in line with those results.

[Overseas]

112. Again, you're directing me to YOUR DATA. I'd like you to review mine.

I have read and heard lots of your side -- ways in which it could perhaps have happened.

Ways in which the statistically almost impossible could have happened without fraud.

Done the Pollyanna stretch. Then I did the reality check. Hope you will do so too.

Now it is your turn to look at all the first hand reports of anomalies with electronic voting across the country in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

[Why Syzygy]

149. Of course you would be wrong.

Do some reading ..
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Since you're a statistical whiz, you'll enjoy that.

[Why Syzygy]

61. Probably the freepers are interested in your theories.

As for reading them at DU, they suck.

[lessthanjake]

68. Hahaha I am not a freeper

I go to fucking Brown University for god's sake. I picked it partly because its like the most liberal place in the world.

I am not a freeper. I just feel like people here act like sore losers sometimes.

[Why Syzygy]

72. I feel like some OPs are willfully ignorant.

which is a well known freeper trait.

As is this:

I am NOT talking about disenfranchisement!!!!!!!!!1

[lessthanjake]

76. Hahaha your anger is cute, but I'm not a "freeper"

I voted for Obama in both the general election and the primaries. I have never voted for a Republican for anything. Granted I am young so I havent voted on all that much, BUT let me just reiterate that there is no office that I have failed to vote for the Democratic candidate for.

[Sebastian Doyle]

144. There are three types of people who don't believe 2004 was stolen

First would be the so called "low information voters". The people whose only source of news is the corporate media or worse, right wing radio. It's not their fault, they're just misinformed.

Second, there are the Freepers, who refuse to see any wrong in the right wing, and therefore think we made it all up.

Third are the DLC'ers who are repeatedly denying the problem, most likely because they're complicit in the fraud, being Repukes themselves.


Since you go to "fucking Brown University", we can assume you aren't in the first category. At least that narrows it down......

[lessthanjake]

156. Hahaha lets be honest here

I would wager that about 90-95% of Americans disagree with the idea that the 2004 election was stolen. 90-95% of Americans arent low information, crazy right wingers, "DLCers"

[PresidentObama]

23. Back it up, then. The evidence suggests otherwise. 2004 was stolen!

[LynneSin]

24. Then you haven't read the article that RFK Jr. wrote

because it was much more than just the machines that caused issues. The havoc that Kenneth Blackwell wrecked in Cleveland had little to do with vote swapping and more along the lines of keeping people from voting.

[lessthanjake]

30. Thats a different issue

Voter disenfranchisement needs to be addressed. Its much easier for Republicans to suppress Democratic votes than vice versa because its always a safe bet that a black area will go overwhelmingly Democratic. So they can just intimidate, suppress, disenfranchise, and create long lines for voters in black areas and it will always work in their advantage.

So obviously it needs to be addressed. HOWEVER, the last paragraph of my original post was mean to stop people from harping on disenfranchisement in response to my post. I understand that that is a major issue. But I am simply disputing the idea that machines stole the election.

[Why Syzygy]

70. It is not a different issue. One theft is at knife point and the other at gun point.

IT WAS STOLEN. Get used to it.

[lessthanjake]

78. My thread is specifically entitled to be about machines

Can you read?

[Why Syzygy]

81. Well the title is silly. MACHINES don't steal votes. People

behind the machines do. So you technically have a valid point. It falls apart after that.

[lessthanjake]

88. You can obsess over wording BUT

My point is simply that I wasnt talking about suppression or disenfranchisement. Thats an important, but also seperate issue. I am simply disputing the idea that people rigged the machines to steal the election.

[Why Syzygy]

94. And you are wrong about that.

It was the NETWORK, not the "machines". Again willful ignorance is showing.

[lessthanjake]

96. Again youre obsessing over wording

My only point is that out of the votes actually cast (ie. not taking into account suppression and disenfranchisement), Bush won. You have not proved this at all true. All you have done is try to insult me. Its making you look immature I think.

[olegramps]

126. You may be young, but your argument seems sound.

From what I have read there is to date no sound evidence of vote manipulation. I do diffidently believe that voters suppression was highly in evidence and in reality is far more effective. I would argue for the paper vote to totally dispel the machine voter flipping theories.

[truedelphi]

201. If you had taken the time to watch the most excellent

Documentary "Stealing America, Vote By Vote" you wouldn't be so quick to say that.

A church holds a meeting on voter manipulation (Done by machines) At least 60% of those at the meeting had watched their vote flip!

[truedelphi]

200. You are not gonna convince that friend of Blackwell's. He knows what he knows

And you and me are just saps that don't agree with this guy's irrefutable logic. :shrug:

Move along, now, nothing to consider or think about here.

[happychatter]

27. let's see... I believe YOU? and rescind support for ALL the ongoing official investigations...

...maybe start lobbying to have the people who have already been convicted of covering it up by interfering with the recounts in Ohio, EXONERATED

or

not

I choose not

this is bait and what motivates YOU?

weird top post...

[Why Syzygy]

74. That's right! People are in JAIL.

OP should go on a hunger strike until these innocents are freed for a theft they did not commit!!

[lessthanjake]

83. Who is in jail?

What are you babbling about?

[Why Syzygy]

92. Hopefully, Rove, very soon.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/10/how-afraid-is-k.html

October 10, 2008
How afraid is Karl Rove about Ohio 2004 election fraud evidence coming out?

John McCain's tech guru is the same technician who helped fix the facts around the Ohio 2004 election results. Mike Connell has been a Rove tool for ages, and has even recently been subpoenaed to testify about his involvement in Ohio's vote rigging during the 2004 election cycle. Following in the steps of Rove, Connell has refused to honor the subpoena. Before we get to the latest Rove dirty trick, let's do a quick run-through of the allegations against Connell:

COLUMBUS -- A high-level Republican consultant has been subpoenaed in a case regarding alleged tampering with the 2004 election.

Michael L. Connell was served with a subpoena in Ohio on Sept. 22 in a case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations. Connell, president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications, is a website designer and IT professional who created a website for Ohio’s secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were tabulated.

At the time, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Kenneth J. Blackwell, was also chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection effort in Ohio.

<snip>

The case took on fresh momentum earlier this year when Arnebeck announced in July that he was filing to "lift the stay in the case proceed with targeted discovery in order to help protect the integrity of the 2008 election." The new filing was inspired in part by the coming forward as a whistleblower of GOP IT security expert Stephen Spoonamore, who said he was prepared to testify to the plausibility of electronic vote-rigging having been carried out in 2004.

<snip>

The interest in Mike Connell stems from his association with a firm called GovTech, which he had spun off from his own New Media Communications under his wife Heather Connell’s name. GovTech was hired by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to set up an official election website at election.sos.state.oh.us to presented the 2004 presidential returns as they came in.

Connell is a long-time GOP operative, whose New Media Communications provided web services for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Republican National Committee and many Republican candidates. This in itself might have raised questions about his involvement in creating Ohio’s official state election website.

<snip>

I can't find my other list right now. There are people in Ohio and on the West Coast in Jail today due to the election in 2004.

[lessthanjake]

95. You have given me no names of people in jail

But ill give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe you. However, I am talking about machine vote rigging. There is no one in jail over that.

[happychatter]

140. glad I logged on and saw this.... best laugh I've had for a while NT

[Why Syzygy]

148. Thank you. I think?

DU is always good for a few giggles. It wasn't funny at the time though. Willful ignorance ticks me.

[Left Brain]

28. Respectfully --

I have to say, the hell it wasn't.

After two stolen elections, however, many of us have become hyper-vigilant. Obama had attorneys on the ready. Machines were impounded. People were on the lookout. RFK Jr. helped spread the word as did DU and other progressive websites.

Go ask Tim Robbins if he felt like a disenfranchised voter during this election. There were plenty of people just like him. It happened this election, too. But a combination of landslide votes and watchful eyes prior to and during the election made it possible for us to ensure it would not be stolen again.

We must -- WE MUST! -- make the integrity of the vote a priority in this administration. I won't be letting up any time soon.

[lessthanjake]

32. I am NOT talking about disenfranchisement!!!!!!!!!1

People should stop mentioning that. I have a friend who got purged from the voter roles in Cuyahoga County in Ohio this time around. I KNOW THAT STUFF HAPPENS! IT IS A PROBLEM!

However, I was not addressing that. I simply said that out of the votes actually cast, Bush won: meaning no machine fraud.

[Blue_In_AK]

29. Read this

and then tell me funny business hasn't been going on ... http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/stolen-election-in-alaska/

[mvd]

31. I believe it was stolen

This election was more fair because there was no Bush involved and we were more vigilant. But in 2004, you had long lines, provisional ballots tossed for no reason, registrations denied because of ridiculous accusations like double voting, machines not counting votes for President, and voter purges. The people involved were almost always Repukes - Cox in GA was an exception. All of this certainly led to NM being stolen, and likely OH. The popular vote was a lot wider than it should have been due to millions of voters being denied their vote.

[lessthanjake]

33. Umm provisional ballots are SUPPOSED to mostly be tossed

They are provisional for a reason. The person who is casting that ballot has question marks in terms of their eligibility to vote, so many of those ballots will and should be tossed.

Long lines are a problem. Disenfranchised registration is a problem (although its a fine line because we DO need to make it impossible to vote twice and such). Etc etc.

I am simply talking about machines fixing the election. There is no evidence that that happened.

[mvd]

37. No they aren't supposed to be tossed

HAVA made sure that the states could have little reason for tossing them. Everything considered, IMO there was a systematic effort to steal that election. And machines were big in the NM loss (not counting votes for Pres.)

[lessthanjake]

40. Your evidence is simply that it is possible though

There is no compelling evidence that it actually happened.

Furthermore, I just disagree about provisional ballots. One is forced to use a provisional ballot when its unclear whether their vote should be counted, thus it would make no sense for all provisional ballots to end up being counted anyways. What would be the point of having such a thing as provisional ballots if they were counted as normal ballots anyways?

[mvd]

42. We'll disagree then. I think there's a good chance it was stolen.

Provisional ballots should have been a way to give more voters their vote, but the way HAVA shaped it made them worthless. All HAVA did was help white, often well off Repukes vote. And they showed no evidence why many were tossed.

[lessthanjake]

52. I'm sure there were problems with provisional ballots

Its probably hard to figure out which ones need tossing and which ones dont, and with a Republican Secretary of State, it probably leaned Bush's way. However, do you honestly think it wouldve made up a 200,000 vote margin?

[mvd]

56. Very likely with all the other factors

We'll never know for sure. But when in doubt, I say stolen.

[lessthanjake]

60. How many provisionals were there?

I doubt there were even enough to realistically make up that difference. I remember hoping the day after election day that provisionals would tilt it back in Kerry's favor, but knowing in my heart that there werent actually enough provisional ballots for it to happen.

[mvd]

64. I don't remember exactly, but there were plenty

And they weren't the only factor. The machines alone aren't even our best argument.

[mvd]

69. There were as many as 250,000

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/03/OHIO.TMP

[lessthanjake]

73. Even if those went 60-40 for Kerry

That would only make up 50,000 votes.

Furthermore, most of those ballots were not thrown out. The effect of unfairly thrown out provisional ballots was, im sure, very small in comparison to the actual vote margin between Kerry and Bush.

[mvd]

75. Wrong IMO

Not even the likely breakdown. None of what you say is proven. I believe the Dems over Blackwell.

[lessthanjake]

89. Okay but hypothetically lets look at this

Lets say they threw out half the provisional ballots. Thats 125,000 ballots AT MOST. Even if Kerry got something absurd like 80% of those votes, it would still only net him an extra 75,000 votes above Bush. That wouldnt come close to making up the gap, and those numbers are about as optimistic as can be.

[mvd]

93. But it's not provisionals alone that did it

As a said, there was more involved. It all adds up. Can I say with certainty it would have made up the difference? Maybe not. But to me, it strongly suggests Kerry would have won.

[lessthanjake]

98. Well thats fine

I think it could definitely be true that without voter suppression and disenfranchisement and with fair counting of provisionals that Kerry couldve won. I am not disputing that though. In fact I said that in my original post.

[mvd]

102. With spoilage added, though, it could have been among just votes cast

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

Again, I don't believe Blackwell on this.

[lessthanjake]

103. Spoilage cant be helped though, right?

Thats not necessarily systematic fraud as much as an unfortunate byproduct of paper ballots

[mvd]

105. Yes, it could be helped

Comes down to the machines and how votes are interpreted. The point is that there isn't even certaintly among votes cast, contrary to the OP.

[lessthanjake]

108. Do you have any reason to believe that spoiled ballots are overwhelmingly Dem?

[mvd]

109. Based on past history, yes

The Ohio machines have not been kind to Democrats.

[No Elephants]

45. Jake Diebold? Is that you?

[No Elephants]

34. There was testimony in Congress (under penalties of perjury, obviously) on this subject. And

you should read some of this stuff

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLA_enUS290US291&q=Congress+testimony+vote+machine+exit+poll+fraud

BTW, with all that has been said and written on this in the last four years, I find it just adorable that you think you have a shot at putting the controversy to rest with one post.

There was wrongdoing of several kinds. Why are you so anxious about exonerating the machines?

[lessthanjake]

38. I want to exonerate the machines because that is particularly frightening

We know about disenfranchisement and suppression and such. We can fight that. Its much harder to fight machine fraud if it existed

[No Elephants]

49. Huh? You get the machine to issue a receipt. That could have been done in

2004 very easily and can be done now. Better yet, you eliminate the machine entirely and use paper ballots.

[lessthanjake]

54. I prefer a paper trail obviously

and im not entirely sure why states wouldnt use those. Some do, though.

Paper ballots are NOT preferable though. We saw the problems with those in 2000.

[chimpymustgo]

181. You want to "exonerate the machines" because it scares you too much???

Lessthanjake, you need to put that education you're getting to better use. There is too much RESEARCH, too many DOCUMENTARIES that show how the machines flipped votes. Do some reading. Look around the Internet. THE INFORMATION IS EVERYWHERE. Your willful ignorance is shameful.

[WA98296]

36. Until that can be PROVEN, the machines have to go. With NO paper trail, you can CLAIM anthing.

[mvd]

39. That's true

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

41. EVERY ELECTION WHERE MY CANDIDATE LOST HAS BEEN STOLEN!!!!!11

AND EVERY ONE WHERE MY CANDIDATE WON HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY 100% ABOVE BOARD AND BEYOND DISPUTE!!!!!!11

x(

I reckon a good many of your replies are gonna resemble the above, if they don't already (I'm not wasting my time reading any).

That said, good post. Rec. :thumbsup:

[Why Syzygy]

107. This is the actual

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7809322#7809708

lessthanjake (420 posts) Thu Nov-06-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I am NOT talking about disenfranchisement!!!!!!!!!1

[blm]

43. BULLSHIT! Stats don't even BEGIN to tell the padding of Bush's totals done across the country.

Or did you forget that precinct in Ohio where they turned in over 3000 votes for Bush when only around 600 people even voted? Do you think they were a rogue operation who just happened to get caught? More like one of MANY across the country who just happened to get caught.

[Why Syzygy]

44. Um. The results didn't match the EXIT POLLS..

not pre-election polls. Statistically IMPOSSIBLE according to Bush's OWN IT person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJ0N3kyG8w
Start @ 4:22 mins if you're impatient

[lessthanjake]

62. Did you even read my entire post?

Exit polls need to be adjusted to correlate with the actual turnout. The initial exit polls were wrong. THe adjusted ones, which should be more accurate, were not.

[Why Syzygy]

67. The exit polls were not in line with the final tally.

Have you looked at any of the information that indicates what REALLY happened?

How's come Congress has ordered Rove's crony to testify just a day before the election? It was already set up to route the ballots the same way THIS year. That was stopped.

Why are they so busy covering shit if there isn't any?

I don't like you.

[lessthanjake]

71. The final adjusted exit polls WERE in line

Initial exit polls are subject to HUGE errors because so much information is not known. It was the initial exit polls that had Kerry ahead.

[No Elephants]

79. Let me get this straight. You know better than Kerry? The DNC? The pollsters? The people who

testified? And again, what is the agenda here? Forgive me, but your response to my first question about your motives made no sense to me whatever.

[lessthanjake]

90. Kerry said rigged machines stole the election?

I think not.

[truedelphi]

197. Like another DU poster hinted:

Thanks for the analysis, Mr Blackwell...

[Overseas]

50. Check out Republican IT Guru Mike Connell's testimony and get back to me

Here's a link on the GOP IT Guru Mike Connell
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0811/S00009.htm


And then there's Clinton Curtis, an older whistleblower on GOP electronic vote fraud:

Documentary: http://www.votinglies.com/

I watched Howard Dean and others hack into voting machines on air. It was quite easy to do.


======= ELECTRONIC FRAUD will be an issue until minimum standards are adopted

Paper trails
Random audits
Open source software
Security measures reviewed and approved by security experts on all sides

Hope you will support election reform that includes efforts to prevent electronic fraud in future.

[Why Syzygy]

84. He doesn't want facts.

Otherwise he never would have posted this BS in the first place.

[lessthanjake]

91. Hahaha you make me laugh

Your "evidence" that machine fraud happened is simply that it was possible. Thats like saying someone who does not have an alibi for a crime must have done it. Its a logical fallacy.

[Why Syzygy]

101. No one is disputing that

the ballots were routed through Mike Connell's servers. He just hopes he covered his trails when he flipped them.

If you're not a freeper, you're still too borderline for me to tolerate. Adios mofo.

[lessthanjake]

104. Again, the idea that its possible is not evidence that it actually happened

[mdmc]

51. disagree

[Window]

66. No. It was stolen in 2000 and 2004 and will never be put to rest.

[SalviaBlue]

77. Lets NOT put this to rest. There is overwhelming evidence of theft.

There is overwhelming evidence of caging, flipping, purging, voter intimidation, etc. We should NEVER REST until we are sure we have safe elections.

[aldo]

82. Keep hiding your head in the sand

or whereever else you keep it

[TexasObserver]

97. Yes it was, and better minds than yours have so concluded.

[lessthanjake]

99. Hahaha are you calling me stupid?

[TexasObserver]

110. No, I'm calling you confused and ignorant.

[Occam Bandage]

113. And better minds still have decided otherwise.

[TexasObserver]

115. No, they haven't.

[gravity]

138. Do you have a peer reviewed scientific study to back you up

[TexasObserver]

141. Have you just awakened from a coma?

Do you really think I'm going to waste one minute trying to prove to your silly ass that the election was stolen?

I correctly conclude that if you don't already know that, it's because you're incapable of understanding it, either emotionally or intellectually.

If you want to find proof, here's your link, get busy:

http://www.google.com/

[gravity]

145. The internet isn't a reliable source

I am smart enough to know when I see a conspiracy theory when I see one.

Unless you have a real academic study that is peer reviewed, then I am not convinced. There are many statistical test that someone can do comparing machine voters to paper ballots, that can isolate numerous variables to determine fraud.

Ha, I already found one

http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf

[TexasObserver]

146. no, you're not

smart enough to know

Calling something a "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it any less so.

You don't believe. And I don't care.

[Cha]

100. Don't be so quick to pronounce your judgment as Word.

<snip>

"Finally, An Elected President"

"Barack Obama was overwhelmingly elected by citizens in all regions of the country. Unlike the past two elections where the results were contested in two states run by partisans who rigged the results, this election was won hands down by the person who ran the best campaign. This is not to say that there were not massive problems with voting systems in many states. But this election did not come down to one state or county controlled by corrupt officials.

Four years ago, VR was formed out of the chaos of the 2004 election. Since then, we and all of you have fought a long battle to ensure that our elections are fair, honest and transparent. We demanded accurate voting machines and paper ballots. In this election, both Florida and Ohio, now with paper ballots, went Blue and there is no one questioning that result.

Over the past several months, we have raised the specter of a Man in the Middle computer attack on the vote tabulators controlled by partisan evangelicals. We identified Michael Connell as the key GOP IT expert who created these nefarious networks. We took legal action against Connell in the form of a federal deposition. Karl Rove responded by threatening Connell to either take the fall or keep his mouth shut. Connell’s Bush/Cheney attorneys did everything possible to keep Connell from testifying."

<more>
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#110508

[dkofos]

114. WRONG

[Why Syzygy]

116. Maybe Rove will want your expert testimony in his pending RICO trial ..

11/4/08: Connell Stonewalls At Deposition: Attorney Instructs Him Not To Answer Key Questions

The first deposition of Michael Connell took place yesterday in Cleveland. Connell was put on notice that he was being questioned about election fraud. Connell quickly adopted the posture of many Bush staffers who have been questioned about wrongdoing, such as Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, Donald Rumsfeld and others. Attorney Cliff Arnebeck said that Connell is a classic ”Bush/Rove Team player” who was schooled on how to not answer.

Connell’s attorney helped Connell by telling him not to answer many questions including, “Who directed you to set up the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth IT Network.”

The only admission of substance was, after an initial denial, Connell said that he brought Triad and SmartTech into the Ohio election game. Of course, these are the two companies identified by Spoonamore as rigging the election, Triad by pulling hard drives prior to the recount and SmartTech by running the election results through its GOP servers in Chattanooga before they got to the Ohio election computers.

Mr. Arnebeck said that Connell denied that there were “any” problems at all with any voting systems and he never heard of any fraud. He said he did not “know of any vulnerabilities” to voting systems in Ohio. In other words, he said that everything’s fine, no one did anything wrong, and everyone should trust people like him to count their votes.

Mr. Arnebeck “Connell has just ensured that he is Exhibit A of the soon to be filed RICO lawsuit against Karl Rove et al for manipulating elections.” Arnebeck also said that Connell demonstrates the epitome of unethical conflicts of interest for running George Bush’s election IT network while counting the votes in the key state of Ohio.

The silver lining to all of this is that Connell and his handlers know that their gig is up. They should not believe for a minute that Connell’s two hour performance yesterday will do anything to slow down our investigation. Once the dust clears from today’s election, the attorneys will go full force to charge Connell and others with Racketeering and Corrupt Practices.

[demo dutch]

117. Yeah?, So why do you think a Federal Judge is hearing depositions from the GOP IT guru - see link

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6600

[lessthanjake]

160. Federal judges hear all kinds of things

Again, you are saying guilty until proven innocent.

[suston96]

118. Google "Orange Revolution"........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

"Protests began on the eve of the second round of voting, as the official count differed markedly from exit poll results which gave Yushchenko up to an 11% lead, while official results gave the election win to Yanukovych by 3%. While Yanukovych supporters have claimed that Yushchenko's connections to the Ukrainian media explain this disparity, the Yushchenko team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud in favor of the government-backed Yanukovych, witnessed by many local and foreign observers. These accusations were reinforced by similar allegations, though at a lesser scale, during the first presidential run of October 31."

Exit polls were used to reinforce suspicions of election fraud. A revote resulted thanks to the massive protests by the people and that revote proved that the fraud was real.

[suston96]

119. Google 'Orange Revolution'....caused by election fraud suspicion due to exit polls......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

"Protests began on the eve of the second round of voting, as the official count differed markedly from exit poll results which gave Yushchenko up to an 11% lead, while official results gave the election win to Yanukovych by 3%. While Yanukovych supporters have claimed that Yushchenko's connections to the Ukrainian media explain this disparity, the Yushchenko team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud in favor of the government-backed Yanukovych, witnessed by many local and foreign observers. These accusations were reinforced by similar allegations, though at a lesser scale, during the first presidential run of October 31."

Exit polls were used to reinforce suspicions of election fraud. A revote thanks to the massive protests by the people reversed the original vote and that proved that the fraud was real.

[Hissyspit]

120. OHIO.

[Downtown Hound]

121. Yes it was

So there, take that! :P

[smiley_glad_hands]

122. You own stock in Diebold? eom

[eridani]

123. Polling of any kind is secondary data

If no one is allowed to investigate the primary data, namely paper ballots or voting machine software, you can't fucking tell one way or another whether the election was stolen.

[lessthanjake]

158. Of course not. You are right and the facts you bring up are disturbing

However, when the polls and exit polls match the results, theres no reason to firmly believe the results were tampered with. You are operating under a guilty until proven innocent philosophy.

[eridani]

182. The exit polls were massaged with a finagle factor to match the results n/t

[mirrera]

124. Uh... Tenn, Alaska, Georgia, Minn... Machines suck.

Visit the Election Forum.

We can not know where there is no paper. Where there is paper we can not know without a hand count. Just cause it went our way, changes nothing about those facts.

[smoogatz]

125. Dude.

How do you account for the huge red-shift in Ohio in 2004? How do you reconcile this year's uncontroversial Ohio results--with a Democratic Governor and Secretary of State--with 2004's highly anomalous results under Blackwell, et al?

[sampsonblk]

127. We needed a convincing win. We didn't put forth the right effort to get it

So whining about a few votes or glitches here are there...well that's a waste of time as far as I am concerned.

No voting maching made Kery go hunting and windsurfing during the campaign. And no voting machine made him say "I was before it before I was against it."

No voting machine made the guy go with his "reporting for duty" convention garbage.

Those mistakes alone were worth thousands of votes. Without them, in my opinion, we would have had a convincing victory.

[tbyg52]

128. I don't care if the election was stolen by machines or not, I want the machines gone.

Neither you nor anyone else can prove it *wasn't* stolen by machines. There is no way to verify what goes on inside them. Given events surrounding them, though, I'd bet on stealing going on with them just on common sense.

Bottom line - they need to go. This stuff you keep posting is really rather irrelevant.

[trudyco]

129. Don't know but we should get rid of electronic voting - expensive to maintain, buggy, secretive.

Give me one good reason to use electronic voting.
We should hand count like the Canadians do. If we need instant gratification then we can have electronic votes with the vote printed out. The initial tabulation is our "exit poll". The final tally is the hand count.

Vote casting/counting should be standardized and ultimately should be hand counted.

[lessthanjake]

167. Electronic voting should have a paper trail, I agree. I just dont think 2004 was stolen.

[eridani]

171. Since neither you nor anyone else has access to primary data, we can't know

Voteflipping was rampant in Ohio, 98% from Dem to Repub, which cannot possibly be random. Some election integrity people were actually able to see some ballots with white stickers put over Kerry votes. Enough to turn the results? Without a full audit we will never know.

[dreamnightwind]

133. OP should be ashamed

I've spent years looking into this issue, and I am humble enough to say I honestly don't know whether they've rigged the machines or the tabulators. I suspect that they have.

The OP has no such humility. He says "let's put this to rest". He says because, in his shallow and incomplete examination of this issue, he found no evidence of machine-based fraud, we should put the issue to rest.

That is entirely the wrong attitude. I believe we'll someday have proof that these machines were not fair and square. Either way, though, we can't have elections where we DON'T KNOW if it was fair. We'll never have proof that they were accurate. They MUST be verifiable, where every part of the process is transparent and auditable.

My opinion is that, with computerized voting or tabulating, this is impossible. I have been a computer software developer for 25 years and I know something of which I write.

Paper ballots, hand counted. Accept nothing else.

And to the OP: your post and subsequent arguments are shameful to the spirit of verifiable voting. It really has to be verifiable. Democracy depends on it.

[lessthanjake]

165. You even admit theres no solid evidence though

And what annoys me is that people here hold onto the idea that 2004 was stolen as if its the gospel. If theres no solid proof right now, then that attitude makes no sense.

[eridani]

172. There fucking well is enough evidence for probable cause

--which is of course not the same as proof. But in this case probable cause never triggered the usual investigation to uncover the truth.

[dreamnightwind]

176. your burden of proof is backwards

You have your logic entirely reversed.

I have not represented election theft as gospel for 2004. I believe it was stolen, I could be wrong.

What matters is that the burden of proof is on the voting technology to be verifiable and accurate. We don't need to prove fraud, we just need to show that we can't verify the vote. The code was written by partisan republicans (redundant I know), the exit polls, in my opinion (not in yours I guess) require a suspension of disbelief to explain, and there is absolutely no way to go back and check the results.

If they haven't been hacked yet, they will be. The US elections are the ultimate transfer of power, therefore there's a bulls-eye on our election systems to hackers world-wide.

What part of this isn't obvious to you? Enough!

[YvonneCa]

183. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there such a thing as...

...overwhelming circumstantial evidence? That's why I'm convinced 2004 was stolen...but I could never prove it.

Watch freeforall.tv , read about the recount, read Conyers book, and Richard Hayes Phillips work on the subject. There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence.

[Fly by night]

135. It's clear you've read very little of the evidence nor viewed it, here and elsewhere.

At least you stimulated a very long OP documenting just how full of shite you might be.

Come by the Election Reform forum sometime to learn what paperless electronic voting can and has done to our elections, beginning in the late 90s. You might visit our archives, going back the last four years. I don't remember ever seeing you there, so your uninformed thesis might be forgiven. Sure is blissful, that ignorance is, eh?

[lessthanjake]

161. Actually, this isnt the first time ive disputed this on DU. I disputed it right after 2004 too

Maybe you werent here yet?

[sonofspy777]

136. Wrong. Watch this video w/Spooneman world class cyber sleuth

Video on Connell deposition--with attorney Cliff Arnebeck

on the Connell anomaly: (Connell is Karl Rove's computer guru):mad:


http://www.wikio.com/video/568548

"there is no such thing as a secure computer voting system"

IT WAS STOLEN. :grr:

We'll never get over it. Until we put them in JAIL for
the criminals they are.
:headbang:

[gravity]

137. I am tired of the conspiracy theories here.

There are lots of ways that the republicans can manipulate elections, but I don't buy the idea of rigging the voting machines. I think the Democratic party is smart enough to check the machines to make sure they aren't rigged.

There are many objective test you can do to prove that the machines were rigged, and I haven't seen anything come back that was proof. You can compare the votes from districts with voting machines to those without, isolating many variables to see a pattern if they were rigged. Until I see a scientific study proving it, I am smart enough not to believe it.

There are much more plausible explanations for the election that don't involve a massive conspiracy with the voting machines. Lets focus on the real disenfranchisement that the republicans attempt each election.

[Why Syzygy]

150. There are no such objective tests.

You are misinformed. If you haven't seen any proof, it's because you refuse to look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyEfovA404

Voting machines are not built with the same security features as an ATM. When an ATM is certified, there are three people there, Diebold, a banker, and computer programmer. They test each and every line of code for each and every machine and for each and every movement the machine makes, taking your card, dispensing cash, printing receipt, returning your card, recording the transaction. EVERY STEP. If this is not accomplished and pass the TESTS, the machine DOES NOT GO INTO SERVICE.

Diebold voting machines have NONE of those safeguards. Diebold refuses to release the code! NO ONE but them knows what is going on in the machines. NO ONE verifies that they are doing what they propose they are doing (machines). There is no way to prove it without the manufacturer's (programmer's) permission. Isn't it interesting that they go to all that trouble to conceal what is happening to America's votes? Our Democracy is in their hands.

And, that's just okie dokie with you and OP because it's just a conspiracy THEORY.

I love hearing how smart those of you who refuse to examine facts are.
Reminds me of our wanna be VP from Alaska.
She was way too smart to learn anything.

[lessthanjake]

151. I certainly agree that Diebold is REALLY sketchy

I think they had the capacity to steal the election. I just think that Bush won it in his own right. Polls and the eventual adjusted exit polls bore out the fact that Bush won. So while I TOTALLY agree that electronic voting should involve some sort of paper trail, I just disagree that the election was stolen by diebold or that the electronic voting was tampered with.

[Why Syzygy]

155. And it's obvious you also refuse to think....

nt

[lessthanjake]

157. Hahaha your constant attempt to call me stupid is cute

I may be a lot of things, but stupid isnt one of them. Cocky, maybe.

[Why Syzygy]

159. Start by informing yourself

of the difference between stupidity and ignorance. Bush can't help that he's stupid. Ignorance is preventable.

[lessthanjake]

162. Hahaha you can call me ignorant. Thats fine because ignorance is a matter of opinion

But stupid, I am not. I was valedictorian of my class of 800 in high school, got a perfect SAT score, was two-time Virginia State debate champion, and currently have all As at an Ivy League University (Brown).

I might be "ignorant" to you because I dont believe in a conspiracy that is based on the principle of guilty until proven innocent, but I am not stupid.

Your evidence essentially amounts to this: It is possible to change electronic votes, AND there are some statistically improbable facts about the election, so those electronic votes must have been changed. That would not hold up in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Why Syzygy]

166. We'll see if it does. Keep your eye on Rove.

And Bush graduated from Yale. Is that supposed to prove his credentials? We all know he is a buffoon.

[lessthanjake]

168. If I end up being wrong and people get thrown in jail over machine-based fraud ill tip my hat to you

I just do not think that will ever happen, because the evidence is too slim to be truly compelling to the point that it proves machine fraud beyond a reasonably doubt.

And Bush got into Yale because of who his father was. He was a legacy. I am not a legacy, nor did I get here for athletics or something. I did not have a particularly large amount going my way actually. In fact, no one in the history of my high school had ever gotten into Brown (actually the only Ivy anyone from my school had EVER gotten into was Cornell). I applied early and got in and was the only person in my graduating class of 800 who was going to an Ivy League school. Thats vastly different than Bush going to Andover Prep School and getting into Yale cause of his father.

[Why Syzygy]

170. Well I certainly hope I'm right

and you're wrong. But, no hat tip necessary. I didn't figure it out. I just read and listen.

Congrats on your education. It will serve you well.

[gravity]

187. An objective test is easy to do

All you have to do is to compare the election results from districts with voting machines to those who use other forms of voting. Most of this is public data and is easy to obtain.

You can make comparisons over such a broad range of variables, like exit polling, race, religion, income, party affiliation, 2000 vs 2004 results etc. Any discrepancies will stand out easily and prove that there is fraud. If one was going to commit fraud this way it will be easy to spot. It is much harder to detect purging people from the voting rolls, which is what we should really worry about.

I understand that their are problems with Diebold's machines and that they can be compromised, but there is no evidence that it caused a stolen election. It is not proof of election fraud, it just means that the system that needs improvement. The old punch cards had their own problems which disenfranchised people because of a hanging chad. Poll workers can throw out paper ballots they don't like, so that system has potential to commit election fraud too.

So instead of telling me that I am ignorant and stupid, offer some real evidence that proves voting fraud. Saying that the machines have the potential to be rigged is not evidence of voting fraud. Writing a narrative how Diebold conspired with Bush and the republicans isn't evidence either.

[eridani]

173. Really? If software is prorprietary, and owned by Republicans--

--how are Democrats supposed to check the machines?

[CitizenPatriot]

139. no, they stole the election

because it was closer, because we weren't as organized and because we weren't on to their tricks yet. Here's an email I got today from a friend who works on testing the voting machines, and btw, our election here in GA looks like it was stolen this time, at least on the senate level. edited to add that exit polls here showed exactly opposite results in 2006. machines were turned in to GOP computer expert Spoonamore, who found the device that was added to the machine after it was certified, and was only added in heavily dem areas. Sorry, but there is election fraud and it's rampant. WE fought election fraud for a year leading up to this election and even on the day were fighting the disenfrachisement efforts of the GOP against dems, blacks, and poor people.

__________

Yep the voting machine problems definitely rear their heads when the
races are close. And the only reason why it's hard to cheat the whole
country is because the whole country does not use the same kind of
machines.

If you remember, I pointed out a while back that the Diebold machines
were and continue to be ILLEGALLY certified, and therefore, we are
using machines that are technically not compliant with federal and
state standards. This is due to the kernel level modules in Win CE
having been exempted by Diebold on the common off the shelf (COTS)
exemption clause.

The election board has yet to address this (as they told me they would
on the record during an official hearing). But it might ease them
along if Jim Martin's attorneys asked about it. IMHO if there were to
be a runoff, it would be great for them to require it to be on paper.

[Owl]

142. Machines and GOP people.

[Doctor_J]

143. Of course it was

someone in such deep denial as you would probably feel more at home at freeperville.

[democracy1st]

163. yep another freeper

[lessthanjake]

164. Hahaha the paranoia is incredible. I interned for Obama in Leesburg, Virginia

I am no "freeper"

[democracy1st]

179. yea right you interned and I had dinner with Bush

[lessthanjake]

188. Umm I was interviewed for a local newspaper for it

I would point it out to you, but I generally think its stupid to give out one's name online.

Obviously I cant prove I'm not a Republican, but let me just say that I DID intern for Obama. I volunteered for Jim Webb in 2006. I was a field organizer for Janet Oleszek, a state senate candidate last year. I was also a field organizer for Rex Simmons, a candidate for the Virginia house of delegates. Lastly, I volunteered for Gerry Connolly, who is now a Congressman, the last time he ran for Chairman of Fairfax County's Board of Supervisors. So yeah, i've done my share.

[Hekate]

169. DUers have done extensive legitimate research on this topic. From my files...

... Because it is so important, several years ago I emailed the results of DU research to family and friends who are computer programmers just to get it out there. I don't have easy access to that old email, but I have files of published articles.

You may have heard of Andy Stephenson, may he rest in peace. He was an early warning system unto himself. Search the DU Archives, or get someone to help you do so.

In addition, google for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Below is some info I was able to retrieve.

Hekate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
October 12, 2004


HYPERLINK http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe

"(Oct. 12) -- Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of
voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims
hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even
government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud
aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of
America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to
300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the
company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration
forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right
in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me,"
said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms,
all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had
not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.

So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We
attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else.

The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company
has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many
registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same
suspicions when she worked there.

It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you
really are registered."


http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=1...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/22/13728/8193

Howard Dean on Diebold: "These machines are a problem"

by David Grossman

Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 10:37:28 PM PDT

The transcript of the breakfast I attended with Howard Dean is now online. The night before the
breakfast, I asked folks on here what would be a good question(s) to ask, and the question I ended
up asking Dean was from ronald III.

The question was about Diebold and voting fraud and I picked the question because after searching
around, there didn't seem to be almost anything on record from Dean or the DNC on the subject
(and it's an important subject).

David Grossman's diary :: ::


Here's my question and Dean's answer from the transcript (if you've got 15 to 20 minutes and are
very interested in Howard Dean, it's a good read):

David Grossman: Governor, one question by way of the blog Daily Kos. How
concerned are you and others at the DNC about Diebold voting machines, and...

Dean: Very.

Grossman: ...other issues of voting fraud?

Dean: Very concerned. I am actually calling Democratic public officials. I called one
yesterday to try to head off the use of these machines. We spent half a million dollars
after the election with a task force, headed by Donna Brazile but made up of
academics that were relatively neutral and very careful, to look at these machines
very carefully. We concluded that are easily hackable and cannot be verified and that
they are not reliable. And we concluded the best machine you can use is an opti-scan
machine because at least it has paper ballots and you still get the rapidity of the
counting. There are Democratic officials who still use these because they get huge
amounts of money from the federal government to buy these kinds of machines, well,
not just ... the other machines, the Sequoias and Diebolds and such. I'm not an expert
on these machines, although someone did actually teach me how to hack one on live
TV once, which was kind of fun. It's pretty shocking -- I know so little about the
intricacies of all this stuff so ... I wouldn't pretend I ... I did change the vote totals on
the machines, but I don't know if it was really -- could have been a program that was
elaborately programmed to fool me into thinking I was doing something I really
wasn't doing.

But yes, our conclusion is that these machines are not reliable and they undermine
confidence in democracy. I, as you know, keep in pretty constant touch with lots of
people around the country, many of the people who supported me for President are
people who are very much involved in exposing this. There have been some success
stories in North Carolina, for example, the legislature wrote the bill so that
essentially Diebold's unwillingness to provide source codes or any kind of reliability
disqualified them from the bidding. So, we're pushing back on this hard. Republican
legislators seem to think these are great things. We don't get very far in states that
are controlled by Republican governors and legislatures, but we have had some
success. We believe it's important to keep talking about these machines. These
machines are a problem. This is not some Internet conspiracy; this is a
serious problem that faces American democracy. These machines are not
reliable and they shouldn't be used. We should not be using machines in
this country where the results of the vote can't be verified after the fact.
Period. Any machines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DIEBOLD SUED

HYPERLINK http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/08/DIEBOLD.TMP http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/08/DIEBOLD.TMP


SACRAMENTO
Voting machine maker accused State suit to allege Diebold made fraudulent claims - Paul Feist, Chronicle
Sacramento Bureau
Wednesday, September 8, 2004

Sacramento -- Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Tuesday he would sue electronic voting machine manufacturer Diebold Elections Systems for allegedly making fraudulent claims to Alameda County and the state about the security and reliability of voting machines the company sold the county.

Lockyer plans to join a lawsuit originally filed by electronic-voting watchdogs who claimed that Diebold provided Alameda County with software that was not federally certified and could be tampered with. The lawsuit, now pending in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks restitution of the nearly $12 million in taxpayer money used to purchase the touch-screen voting machines, many of which did not work properly in the March primary election.

Lockyer's office said it was dropping a criminal investigation into Diebold, but that prosecutors had enough evidence to pursue a false claims lawsuit against the company.

"False claims cases involve lying to obtain payment of taxpayer dollars, or to avoid making payments to government entities,'' said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar.

Diebold Vice President Thomas Swidarski said in a statement that the company is pleased that Lockyer found that there are no grounds for a criminal case.

"We fully cooperated with the state as it looked into the issues and have always believed that the attorney general would reach this conclusion,'' Swidarski said. "As for the intervention in the false claims case, the company is confident that the state's decision to intervene will aid in a fair and dispassionate examination of the issues raised in the case.''

Diebold's machines came under scrutiny in April when Secretary of State Kevin Shelley held hearings into problems reported with electronic voting machines. More than 40 percent of California's voters in the March election used electronic voting machines.

Alameda County poll workers in March reported problems with voter-card encoders at 20 percent of the county's voting sites. The encoders copy ballot variations, which are based on party registration, onto a plastic card that is then inserted into the touch-screen voting machine, which then displays the correct ballot.

Some voters in Alameda County were told to use backup paper ballots, and others were told to come back later or were directed to another polling place. Similar problems were reported in San Diego County.

Shelley ordered upgrades to the encoders as well as other improvements that have been made in time for 10 counties to use the electronic voting machines in the November presidential election. He yanked state approval altogether for Diebold machines used in Solano, San Joaquin, Kern and San Diego counties.

The state had given conditional approval to the Diebold machines used in those counties in March even though they had not been federally certified. Diebold told officials that federal approval was imminent, but it still has not been granted. At the time, Shelley called the company's conduct "reprehensible'' and called on Lockyer to investigate.

E-mail Paul Feist at [e-mail].

Page B - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/08/DIEBOLD.TMP

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


HYPERLINK http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20040907/tc_nm/tech_diebold_dc http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20040907/tc_nm/tech_diebold_dc

Calif. to Sue Diebold Over False Claims
Tue Sep 7, 6:59 PM ET


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said on Tuesday he would sue electronic voting machine maker Diebold Inc. (NYSE:DBD - news) on charges it defrauded the state with false claims about its products.

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has said Diebold deceived California with aggressive marketing that led to the installation of touch-screen voting systems that were not tested or approved nationally or in California.

Lockyer's office issued a statement noting he has authority to intervene in and take over false claims cases involving vendors to state.

"Lockyer determined sufficient evidence existed to go forward with a false claims lawsuit against Diebold," the statement said. The state's top lawyer earlier had dropped a criminal investigation of Diebold.

Diebold Vice President Thomas Swidarski said in a statement that the company was pleased Lockyer dropped the probe. Despite Lockyer's decision to sue, the company is "confident that the state's decision to intervene will aid in a fair and dispassionate examination of the issues raised in the case," Swidarski said.

California in April set tough new standards for electronic voting by ordering new security measures for e-voting machines, and California's Secretary of State called for a criminal probe into Diebold, the state's largest e-voting machine supplier.


Copyright © 2004 Reuters Limited.
Copyright © 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is very long, so go to the link at Rolling Stone. Very detailed.


HYPERLINK http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print

URL: HYPERLINK http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Rollingstone.com


Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. Talk and read about it in our National Affairs blog, or see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in “tinfoil hats,” while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn?t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

''It was terrible,'' says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ''People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct -- it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I'm terribly disheartened.''

Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,'' Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.'' <snip>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Why Syzygy]

184. Wow. Thank you very much for posting.

This is currently my number one issue. Without legitimate votes, we are not Free.

It's the topic I sent to Obama >

http://change.gov/page/content/americanmoment

[Hekate]

189. You are more than welcome. Pass it on.

You want to know the biggest lightbulb moment I was able to do with people in casual conversations? "The same company makes the ATM at your bank." That's usually enough, but if they still need to have a picture drawn for them I mention that neither the banks nor their customers would tolerate for a moment the so-called "glitches", and that there are paper trails all the way.

Hekate

[4lbs]

175. The OP's argument supposes that the Diebold EVMs used in Ohio were 100% accurate in tabulation.

They weren't.

Ever hear of vote-flipping? I submit that's what happened in 2004.

First, the EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines AKA touchscreen) used this year in some states, made by ES&S and Sequoia, are the same type as the Diebold ones in 2004, especially Ohio. Different names, same technology. Nothing has changed in 4 years except for that they now all print out the vote at the end.

Guess what has been ACTUALLY documented on film, video, photos, whatever? Vote-flipping of EVMs that "weren't properly calibrated". That was this year. Votes almost exclusively flipping from Obama to McCain. Remember Oprah Winfrey freaking out about actually seeing her vote for Obama on these EVMs switching to McCain right before her eyes? Remember how even the EVM maintenance guy showed vote-flipping due to improperly calibrated EVMs and then how, even after they were calibrated, votes still flipped from Obama to McCain?

The touchscreen on my freaking Ipaq PDA or a typical iPhone is much more accurate and reliable then these damn things. The touchscreens are smaller, yet hundreds of times more reliable.

Remember, 99.99% of the documented cases of vote-flipping have a vote for the Democrat flipping to one for the Republican. It's not even random (i.e. going from Dem to Independent or Green Party sometimes), which would be more logical. It's almost always Democrat to Republican flipping.

Anyway, think this flipping happened in 2004, with votes from the Diebold EVMs in Ohio flipping from Kerry to Bush, especially in Democratic strongholds in that state? Do you actually think all the Diebold machines in 2004 Ohio were properly calibrated, and working properly? Not likely, since even 4 years later, it was still a significant problem. This vote-flipping wouldn't have to happen all the time, but a few percentage points flipping from Kerry to Bush to cause an overall 4 point swing (Kerry -2 to Bush +2).

Now, you say the vote totals were accurate. In a way, YES. However, were the totals the actual ** INTENDED ** totals? Or is it likely that a few percent of the votes in Ohio 2004 were flipped from Kerry to Bush, like what happened this year, in flipping from Obama to McCain in those states that used EVMs? Without a paper trail from the Diebold machines in 2004, we have no way of knowing for sure.

Even with paper trails, the programming of the Diebold machines was such that the printout could have been different than what was actually registered in the memory card of the EVM. People couldn't look at the programming code since Diebold claimed it was proprietary and refused to make it open. Thus, it couldn't be verified that the printouts matched what was put in the memory card.

In addition, there was no recount done. Once again, even had such a recount taken place, it would have been done using the memory cards, NOT the paper printouts. That's the way Republican Ohio SoS Ken Blackwell wanted it. Recounting corrupt vote totals on memory cards would still yield corrupt vote totals wouldn't it?

How were the vote totals corrupt in Ohio 2004?

Ohio 2004 shows that Bush got 16% of the African-American vote in 2004. That's a 7% increase from 2000! In 2000, Bush only got 9% of the African-American vote. Do people, do ** YOU **, really believe that Bush was "more popular" among African-Americans in Ohio 4 years after 2000?

A lot of the flaky Diebold EVMs were sent to Democratic areas, especially those with high African-American populations. Think a great deal of the 7% increase for Bush among African-Americans in 2004 versus 2000 was due to vote-flipping Diebold EVMs? Remember, in 2000, Ohio voters didn't use Diebold EVMs. They used paper ballots. Whether it was optical-scan or punchout butterfly ballot, it's still 'paper' ballot.

[DCBob]

177. The weakness I see in the system we use here in Maryland and many other states is the memory card.

I would think a savvy computer guy working with a corrupt election chief could swap out preloaded memory cards during the shutdown/closing phase of a precinct. Of course it would take alot of corrupt election chiefs to make much of difference but in a very close election like in 2000 and 2004 even a few thousand votes could sway an entire election.

[crazy_vanilla]

178. it wasn't the machines, it was the people whi rigged them

that stole the election

There was tons of proof here on DU at that time.

[GetTheRightVote]

185. It was stolen, it was stolen, it was stolen, it was stolen, is that enough !

:kick:

[OwnedByFerrets]

186. It cant be overstated....IT WAS STOLEN!!!

[MNReformer]

190. It was stolen and so were 2006 and 2008

We were denied 20-30 Congressional seats in 2006, and there were at least six million votes stolen this time, per Greg Palast, who says he and RFK Jr. are studying the raw data.

[orleans]

193. you are right. and welcome to du. n/t

[JJ]

191. Sure thing Mr. Blackwell

We're all just tin-foil-hat wearing morons. Thousands of Ohioans stood in the rain for 8 hours to vote for 4 more years of the same shit.

Oh yeah, let's put this to rest too, the Supreme Court didn't select the President in 2000 either, and anyone who thinks so is obviously a nutjob conspiracy theorist.

Global warming is not real either, and it's not caused by human actions.

Trickle down is a sound economic theory.

[orleans]

192. you are soooo wrong. thousands of ohioans stood in the rain for 8 hours

to vote for dog catcher! they absolutely did NOT vote for the "same" as you stated--because they decided they couldn't tell the difference between the two presidential candidates (because you know they were soooo similar). don't you remember the "under vote?" well, under vote means all the other races are soooo important--but that pesky president race? um...not so much.

voting for dog catcher is important too. especially for people who love their dogs! so, ohioans stood out in the rain for 8 hours to cast a vote for their dog!


duh!




:evilgrin: :sarcasm: :evilgrin:
:hide:

[Awsi Dooger]

194. I agree, but it's a fruitless argument here

DUers prefer to believe those la-la early exit polls which allowed Kerry obscene margins in states like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. As soon as I saw those numbers, it was glaring that everything was tilted absurdly in Kerry's favor, and therefore the tiny supposed margins in Florida and Ohio were bogus and would not hold up. I literally turned off my computer and TV in stunned certainty of defeat, even as DU continued to celebrate.

It's somewhat like the original O.J. Simpson trial, although that's always an unfortunate point of reference. Many people owe careers and fame to bogus outrage and assertions from election 2004.

[Norrin Radd]

195. Let's not.

[RBInMaine]

196. They DID steal in '00 in FLORIDA by NOT re-counting ALL the ballots by hand ! ALSO,

they HAVE stolen elections through voter suppression tactics and all kinds of other dirty tricks. Bill Maher just interviewed a convicted Republican now out of jail who has written a book on how they do it, like jamming the phone lines in NH, fake mailers, and all kinds of other dirty tricks. They did voter suppression in OH in '04 making people wait in long lines with fewer machines in Dem precincts, and they are doing it right now by challenging EVERY vote in some places. They also purge voters and cage voters. In Florida they controlled the re-count process and sent RePUKE staffers from DC to disrupt what recounts they were doing. Finally, the RePUKE-heavy supreme court voted with Bush in '00, as did the RePUKE state legislature in '00 in Florida. The R's are CRIMINAL PUKES who would sell their souls to Satan to win an election.

[TankLV]

202. N.O.

[Orsino]

203. Not correct. 2004 was stolen in many ways, including by the goddamned machines. n/t

[cooolandrew]

204. I think some machines did have gliches in 04 which most states got fixed and the thing Kerry

should of done is get a recount as provisonal ballots are not counted unless the race is close.

[cliffordu]

205. ICAN'T HEARYOU1!!!!1! LAAALAAA LLAAAA LAAA ALAALAL ALAALALA

[Laura PourMeADrink]

206. In a million years, I won't believe they didn't steal FL in 04

[rainman99]

207. Sorry, I worked at one. The machine totals were off.

I saw the repub judge go in and mess with the machine and they wouldn't let
me in there, told me to go home. And his last name was Noe, the same name
as some election fraud person in Ohio. He had his wife and kids working there to help him. Diebold contributed to the Repubs.
Not that any of this matters now.