Re: Vote Fraud: Believers or non, Must Read.....

[kuozzman]

http://ignorantusa.tripod.com/

I've been digging up articles from past elections (not 2000) and I'm in complete awe after reading some. I wanted to see if it's just me or if they really are pretty damn ironic, before I keep getting more. The ones posted above are from the 80s. I got them through my University database, which is why there aren't links to them.
Site is under construction, but will be available.
Let me know what you think.....

[imenja]

1. Check out a US history textbook to see a discussion of fraud

Fraud was part and parcel of American electoral politics for many centuries. Most will be familiar with the political corruption of the political machines of the 19th and early twentieth centuries--Tammany Hall, etc... The Progressive era reforms were supposed to have cleaned up American politics, but fraud continued to reign in places like Chicago under Major Daley. Many speculate that Kennedy won the 1960 election with the help of fraud--in Chicago and Texas, perhaps other places. Texas politics is full of ballot stuffing. LBJ won some of his races with the assistance of fraud, as did many Texas politicians.
There is a long history of electoral fraud in the US, but most won't find historical parallels convincing evidence that this particular election was stolen. We need something more concrete.

[kuozzman]

2. I know there has always been fraud in our elections. It's

just that these articles could have been written yesterday! It's literally just like 2004 in almost every aspect. Just makes it that much worse that more people aren't getting a clue...

[imenja]

6. yes, I noticed that

it's uncanny isn't it.

[RaulVB]

4. Not you!

You have been presented with concrete evidence in front of your eyes but you are too busy promoting your personal agenda on this forum that, BTW, I really think is not the place where you want to be.

[imenja]

5. to which evidence do you refer?

There is no need to be so nasty. I don't accept your purge of me from this site or the party. I'd be happy to see any evidence you have. I don't doubt that it is possible or even probable that there was malfeasance in this election, but if you want to make your case to anyone who doesn't believe that fact a priori you need something incontrovertable--certainly more than hostility. I've read a number of the posts about voter fraud, reports, etc.. and there is no question they raise concern and require investigation, but they do not provide absolute proof. If you can't tolerate my critiques, how on earth do you expect to presuade any one with power do anything about it?
It's unfortunate you have so little tolerance of ideas that differ at all from you own. Such an attitude doesn't help advance your cause. Rather, it weakens the effectiveness of your argument.

[kuozzman]

11. Do you not understand that that is kind of one of the main points???

16 years ago, they had the brains to rig the voting machines in an undetectable way. Imagine what is possible today? And I'll bet you anything that thousands of ballots suddenly "disappear" before the recount is over. Furthermore, given the illegal actions of Blackwell lately, refusing access to ballot info and what not, the recount may not even be accurate? Sure, people like yourself will act like now I'm just making excuses, but that just shows how ignorant so many people are. Instead of the guy who is breaking the law and/or having it redefined to allow his shady actions and preventing access to the only method of verification, it is us who are being questioned and told to back up our accusations with facts. I don't think I've ever seen such a ridiculous situation in my life!

[imenja]

12. again

as I've said, I have no problem believing that it is possible or even probable that fraud took place. How many times do I have to repeat that? The point is, to do something about it, there needs to be the kind of proof that will prevail in a court of law. If the point is simply to wring ones hands and be angry about it, incontrovertible proof doesn't matter. If you want to change the outcome of the election, it's essential.
As I also noted above, they've been doing it for a lot longer than 16 years. It is part of a long tradition in American politics.
I have a feeling that many people on the boards glance at a post and think, is that person with me or against me, rather than considering what is actually said in the post.

[kuozzman]

16. I agree with you that there does need to be solid proof,

but I think the solid proof is simply common sense. The only way this will likely ever end is if voters stop being so partisan and realize that we're all getting screwed by the government. That's why nobody in Congress really gives a crap about this. And why their more concerned with democracy in Ukraine. But that's basically what the two party system is. Instead of the population against the govt., like it should be, they put on a show so we can fight with eachother while they take half our money and waste it and make our lives more difficult.

[Greybnk48]

18. a question

what exactly would you accept as evidence that you have not seen?

[imenja]

20. evidence

What I've read--the news reporters of unevenly allocated voting machines, Republicans trying to stop voters from exercising their constitutional rights, problems with voting machines, statistical analyses of precinct results and issues raised by the exit polls--all suggest grave problems in the voting system that absolutely must be investigated and corrected. But if what you want is to establish that Kerry actually won the election, that the Republicans deliberately stole it from him, that requires far more than has been produced so far. Testimony from voting officials who say they were instructed to alter results, or from voting machine computer programmers who say they deliberately mis-programed machines, or something of that nature would constitute evidence of deliberate vote tampering.
There is no doubt in my mind that we have serious problems in our voting system that must be corrected. But to change the outcome of the election or to indict Blackwell, Rove, Bush, or anyone else, the proof must be such that it persuades a judge or jury that includes Republican voters. It's not simply a question of what one believes to be true. It is what can be legally proved.

[imenja]

8. p.s.

What would my personal agenda be? Perhaps if you let me know I can promote it more effectively.

[Greybnk48]

19. Imenja

what constitutes "evidence" for you? What precisely are you looking for?

[jamboi]

3. Woa! n/t

[intheflow]

7. I'm having deja vu!

We've been listening to reports of voting fraud for 16 years and we ignored it? My friends, most of us are to blame for not paying attention sooner. :(

[AntiFascist]

9. The difference between punch cards and electronic voting...

Incidents of punch card fraud and other methods of manual voting fraud traditionally have been isolated and tend not to affect national voting as much as what is now possible. Electronic voting fraud, as we hopefully are about to learn, can be much more systematic, wide-ranging, and have far greater of an impact. Padding of millions of votes to give a candidate a "mandate," for example.

[imenja]

10. What's the breakdown in Ohio?

Did counties where electronic voting machines were used in Ohio yield greater margins for Bush? I thought the majority of Ohio counties were still using punch cards?

[kuozzman]

13. Machines count the punch cards. And yes they favored Bush

but that wasn't the only problem, the long lines, decrease in precincts rule changes like the requirement to vote in your precinct instead of county caused a large, but unknown number of people not to vote. And many of the ones who did, did so with a provisional ballot. This was only a significant problem in precinct that are known to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

The fact that we are even having this discussion is really what the fraud is. It's not an accident. It doesn't take a damn rocket scientist to have an election. It's designed specifically so if there is fraud, that it ends up with people arguing about it instead of getting to the bottom of it. I mean Blackwell doesn't even get second guessed when he says some BS like "well, there were some complaints about long lines, but I think you'll see that was the case throughout the country, but other than that, there were no problems reported that were different than the minor ones that arise in any election" That's simply a flat out lie!

[imenja]

14. I heard one expert say it was far worse than 2000

A woman who spoke on NPR shortly after the election--
I think it was on Talk of the Nation--who worked for an institute that promotes fair elections, said she thought the problems were far worse than in 2000. I don't recall her name or the name of the organization she represented, but you could search the NPR archives and find the link. They haven't had much coverage on our own presidential election, so you shouldn't have trouble finding it. They, however, seem obsessed with the Ukraine.
A minor point about Ohio. Ohio accepts provisional ballots from voters as long as they are in the correct county. They don't have to be at the correct precinct polling place. Florida's courts, on the other hand, ruled that election officials only have to count provisional ballots cast in the voters home precinct. For that reason
and others, the difference is dramatic between the number of provisional ballots accepted in Fla and Ohio.

[ginnyinWI]

15. bumping this up--good thread n/t

[kuozzman]

17. There is a theory known as the Theory of

Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) which holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you believed to be true heretofore. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!

[AntiFascist]

22. Other threads have dealt with this issue....

I've read that Diebold ended up being used in only 2 counties, but ESS machines were much more widespread.

[kuozzman]

21. Check

[kuozzman]

23. Check