Freepers finally concerned about election fraud!

[spotbird]

Bombshell: More signs of fraud in Precinct 1823

Seattle's Precinct 1823 counted 343 ballots, which is 71 more ballots than the 272 voters who cast them. This is the single largest discrepancy between ballots and voters in all of King County. Nearly all of the discrepancy is due to "provisional ballots".

(more)

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003346.html


Freeper indignation can be observed here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312237/posts

The difference between them and me is that I think all elections should be honest, not just the ones we lose. How it is that they can't see the importance of an auditable system nation wide escapes me.

[dkofos]

1. They only want it if it serves there purpose.

If we really had fair and honest elections they would see what a true minority they are.
maybe 20%

[New Earth]

2. EXACTLY

AND THE WHOLE IDEA THAT DEMS NEED TO BE MORE 'CENTRIST' IS BULLSHIT, BECAUSE IT'S ALL BASED ON LIES AND FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS!!!!

[classof56]

3. Amen to that!

I get farther left of centrist with each passing day. We must fight on!

Class of 56

[bunny planet]

51. Centrist, what's that?????

:smoke:

[spotbird]

4. I wouldn't go that far.

They are able to win with tampering here and there because the elections are close. The real issue is that each side should demand clean elections, all the time, not just when it benefits them.

At this point I don't give a shit if there was fraud in Washington, because there was so much from the other side elsewhere, and that's not good. That said, I doubt there was fraud but would support an investigation.

[Machiavelli05]

10. I completely agree!!

edit: except maybe not caring about the fraud in Washington.

However, given that there was fraud in FL in 2000 and in OH and FL in 2004 plus who knows where else - I think the Dems at least get 1 get out of jail free card. Then they can start over with a clean slate. ;)

[spotbird]

14. Actually the claim by the Republicans should be viewed

with a block of salt. Fraud is the only way the recount results can be tossed and a re-vote ordered, so they will look high an low to find fraud. Every irregularity, even if it isn't fraudulent, will be called fraud to achieve that end.

I'll be stunned if this story turns out to be true, but if it does the Democrats should exploit the opportunity to demand fair elections nationally.

[Machiavelli05]

17. I agree the Dems should twist this around and use it..

but cant you see that everyone on here calling for the Ohio results to be overturned are looking high and low to find fraud even if it isnt fradulent just to achieve that end?

[spotbird]

28. Sure I can see that.

But the extreme measures by the officials to avoid compliance with the recount laws helps to fuel suspicion in Ohio. The one thing that can be said about the Washington recount is that it was conducted in an open, orderly fashion, with disputes settled by the courts.

In Ohio on the other hand, there was no enforcement of the recount law, no investigation of the suppression, no prosecution of the voter registration follies with active participation on the part of the SOS to insure as few Democrats as possible could vote. The preelection shenanigans set the stage for suspicion in Ohio. Blackwell ordered registrations voided very late in the game because they were printed on the wrong paper. He eventually reversed himself in the wake of public outrage but not before an unknown number of applications were destroyed without voter notification, or notification after the deadline for reregistration had expired. The list of obstructions is lengthy, but it accounts for the justifiable disgust, outrage and suspicion of the results.

[freeplessinseattle]

39. Great points! plus it is odd that Rossi felt there was fraud at the third

count, but not before, while we noticed and pounced on fraud at the very beginning. If there was fraud with the 3rd count, Dinosaurloser, why couldn't there be fraud with the first and second?

[StClone]

7. What's crappy is that

We are mad at many Americans because we find they put W in office when in fact many fewer than claimed voted for the fool. I wish it would come to an election overturn and I could say sorry to America.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. I can't believe that sorry asswipe got 10% of the vote

Much less any percentage that would even put him within stealing range. Even if you subtract Kerry votes lost through suppression, intimidation, and technical malfeasance there are still vast pockets of stupidity in our population that were willing to cast their vote for a dangerous idiot.

[dkofos]

16. He is only a dangerous idiot if you are informed.

If you let Faux inform you, he is a hero.

It's all a matter of perception.

[NVMojo]

5. It's all self serving, right???

[ccarter84]

6. question about this here article

" Wednesday's voter list reveals that there are 684 precincts with more voters than ballots and 725 other precincts with more ballots than voters"
what exactly is the meaning of more voters than ballots?

[Igel]

50. Read "registered voters" for "voters", I think. n/t

[Carolab]

57. Could be more votes counted

than signatures + ballots counted total

[Igel]

74. Could be.

But I think the claim is that the ballots cast exceeded those capable of counting ballots. (I.e., the same breeding ballots problem as in OH.)

[skids]

77. I think what they are complaining about...

Is when the "total number of votes cast" changed in each stage of
the count/recount. Their argument is that a recount should change what was recorded for each ballot, but not the number of ballots, considering that overvotes/undervotes/write-ins were recorded.

Some of this could happen due to one possibility they mention which is when provisional ballots were mis-allocated to the wrong precincts and then corrected, but the question is -- is that what happened, and why? When they did the recount, did they actually have a way to know a ballot was in the wrong precinct? And did they correct for this at this late stage and if so was it proper to do so?

But I don't see any mention of one other possibility: what if the optical scanner double-fed sheets at some point? That would account for ballots showing up or disappearing between the two machine counts and the hand count, with the exception that it would not account for ballots dissapearing between the last machine count and the hand recount, (unless the recounters also didn't notice some sheets that were stuck together, but I would think they would be more careful than that.)

[Machiavelli05]

8. you guys are SUCH hypocrits

Election fraud is election fraud. You guys are here crying about Ohio b/c there was such massive fraud. However, if the GOP points out fraud theyre just doing it for political reasons and that theyre sore losers.


DONT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE WILL THINK ABOUT A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR WHO STANDS UP?

your perspectives are skewed.

everything without hard evidence will be split down partisan lines.

[spotbird]

11. Speaking for myself.

If there was fraud in Washington it should be prosecuted, If there was fraud in Ohio it should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if only irregularities that hurt Republicans are investigated all bets are off.

It is difficult to have sympathy for the Republicans under the circumstances, and I'm not at all sure that they have found fraud.

[Machiavelli05]

19. agreed

[Garbo 2004]

9. Surely they know that people who claim election fraud based on a few

isolated "glitches" are just tin foil hatters and sore losers?

At least I thought that was the general FR consensus. Are they now being infiltrated by the left and infected with this peculiar irrational refusal to face facts?

/sarcasm }(

:7

[SicTransit]

12. A few isolated glitches can easily result

in a couple of hundred votes - more than enough to change the election results in WA.

A few isolated glitches cannot result in more than 100,000 votes which is needed to change the election results in OH.

The fact that you don't see it scares me. I really don't understand the willingness to self-blind yourself to facts out of partisanship.

[sickinohio]

18. Please - let's call a spade a spade here

The FraWd in Ohio and other states were not mere "glitches" - The machines were rigged, Bu$hCo fixed it, the MSM was in on it - and they have gotten away with it (for now).

[understandinglife]

20. We very much want Rossi et al screaming and demanding...

...honest elections. Of course, it means that they will have to also be fully supportive of the investigations elsewhere in WA State.

Wonder how long they'll be screaming and hollering for justice and the american way once they've reflected on (and perhaps discussed with certain advisers) what might be revealed by such investigations.

Peace.

"Who bought the green shoes: daddy or karl?"

[SicTransit]

22. You *really* do not see the difference between

an election that was decided by a couple of hundred votes and an election that was decided by more than 100,000 votes?

[understandinglife]

23. We Have No Election: That's what I see (n/t)

[spotbird]

24. You really don't see that the massive scale of

voter suppression coupled with the illegal destruction of voter registration applications could have cost the Democrats that many votes in Ohio?

How in the world can you justify large scale, systematic manipulation and in the same breath complain that when it happens on a small scale it should be corrected? Why aren't you outraged that we can't depend on fair elections in America?

[sickinohio]

26. You mean by a few undred thousand of your so-called

"glitches", don't you?? The whole election was rigged by Bu$hCo.

[Garbo 2004]

31. Considering that there was not a full recount in Ohio & that 93,000 votes

were not counted at all, provisional ballots were thrown out without a consistent statewide criteria for doing so and the various "glitches and irregularities" documented, how can you be sure of the number of votes that decided the election in Ohio?

Since you acknowledge such things can make a difference it appears you've just made a case for having a full recount of all the votes in Ohio to determine the true outcome.

[SicTransit]

36. If I was deciding, there would be a full manual count to begin with,

not just a recount. I do not decide, though. Ohio law does. Ohio law says that the 93,000 undervotes are not supposed to be counted in the recount. Ohio law says that the machines have to be recalibrated before the recount in order to only count the Presidential votes - in spite of all the conspiracy theories that say that was illegal. The provisional votes standard was appealed and judicially tested before the election - and passed. And from my other post here - in order to believe that the recount was fraudulent and that the machines that counted votes were set up to miscount them, you have to believe that the fraudsters managed, in every one of the 88 counties, to set it up so that only exactly the precincts they wanted were handcounted. I am sorry but it is very hard to believe that this happened. This would mean a vast conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands of people, with quite a few Democratic officials thrown into the mix. Just does not compute.

[ConstitutionGuy]

55. Ohio boards of elections

in each county consist of 4 members, two from each party. That means every county had 2 Democrats observing and managing the conduct of the election...total of at least 176 Democratic election officials statewide. Further, the chair and vice chair of each BOE is split between the parties, therefore there were at least 88 Democratic election officials across the state in important management and leadership roles.

Where are they? Surely at least one of them would be in possession of some concrete proof! In all these weeks I've seen a statement from only one (can't remember her name or county right off hand - the one where the Triad repair guy came in to work on the tabulator), and even she has since disavowed much of what has been claimed she said or alleged.

[shraby]

56. Ohio law doesn't say that the machines

have to be re-calibrated with no one watching and I would say that a machine counting backward, votes vaporizing because the machine lost them, a machine adding over 3,000 votes to Bush (machines when they malfunction usually spits out just garbage) all are not minor glitches, but goes beyond that.
Also the long lines were a concerted effort to influence the vote. If there were NO more machines to add in the areas of not enough machines, that's one thing, but there were machines on standby at the warehouses. That then becomes a criminal act in my mind because it shows intention to keep people from voting.
Laws were broken when Blackwell locked up the poll books.
As far as I can see, these all need to be addressed before the slate of electors from Ohio becomes legitimate.

[Melissa G]

67. Massive FraWd is the difference Sic T

[merwin]

40. The thing about WA is that there was no fraud, period.

WA is a good model for open and free elections, aside from the paperless electronic voting in 1 or 2 counties... but that was reconciled in the hand count by re-tallying by hand each of the precinct cartridges into a spreadsheet and making sure it adds up... which is as close as you can get i guess.

Recounting by hand 2.8 million votes and coming up with a difference of less than a couple hundred votes is an amazing feat :)

[understandinglife]

45. Perhaps; perhaps, not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x208547

We shall see.

Peace.

[spotbird]

21. Glitches won't cause a re-vote order, only fraud will cause that.

Democrats are told over and over to tolerate glitches, stuff happens.

We will never know what would have happened in Ohio if the election there were fair. That is the real tragedy. That we have to live with Democratic voter registrations tossed by Republican operatives, the Bush Charmian running the election, provisional ballots excluded due to errors at merged polling places, criminally long lines at almost exclusively Democratic polling places and on and on makes the results not democratic.

The fact that you can't see that elections should be fair everywhere scares me.

[SicTransit]

25. Show me one "clean" election that has ever happened in the

United States and you will convince me. Every election people think that *these* particular elections were dirty. There are irregularities in every election. Whether these irregularities rise to the "fraud" level is debatable. So far I have not seen anything that convinces me of that. The registrations shenanigans - happen in every election, were not huge, and happened on Democratic side as well, which was reported in the news. SOS being Bush's election chairman in Ohio - there is nothing illegal about it, has happened before, and there are Democratic government officials who were Kerry's election chairmen in other states. Provisional ballots excluded - that was the law, not just in Ohio, but in other states, and it passed the judicial review. Long lines - guess what, in a lot of places the responsibility for allocating the machines was on Democratic officials who screwed it up, not on Republicans - see http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/27/20041127-B1-02.html

Again, just like every election is "the most important election ever" - so it is "the most fraudulent one ever". Neither is true.

[spotbird]

29. Of coarse it is perfectly legal for Blackwell to run the

campaign and supervise the election. The problem with Blackwell's leadership is that all of his decisions had a partisan slant to them, from disallowing voter registration applications due to paper weight to is obstruction of compliance with the laws governing the recount. It doesn't matter if he didn't agree with the recount, his role was to insure that it was conducted in an honest open fashion in compliance with all applicable laws. His failure to do so may have give the Republicans satisfaction, but it betrayed that his allegiance is not to the rule of law.

As for Democrats making mistakes, Blackwell appointed those people, we all remember Theresa LePore taught us how one registers to vote does not necessarily indicate which party she supports. Furthermore, Blackwell had a duty to make sure the election ran smoothly, that is the role of a leader, period.

I still don't understand why a botched election is only tolerable when the Republican wins.

[SicTransit]

30. The rules in Ohio are - the Democratic party picks the BOE

nominees and Blackwell appoints them or rejects them. I am not aware of his rejecting any - are you?

[spotbird]

32. No I'm not.

Please justify the examples of Blackwell's active suppression of the vote. Start with the paper weight fiasco then explain why he didn't have an obligation to see to it that the recount be conducted properly. I'm curious why he isn't responsible for the agency he runs.

Finally explain why Democrats have to tolerate substandard treatment but glitches in a close election where a Republican loses are worthy of strict scrutiny. I really want to know why there isn't outrage on the other side of the isle that we can't audit results, shouldn't all Americans want free and fair elections?

[SicTransit]

35. I don't have to justify Blackwell's actions -

I think he screwed up quite enough. What I don't think is that his (and the Democratic election officials' in Ohio) screwups amount to widespread election fraud. There's just not enough there. The recount, although irregular as well, showed few discrepancies. In order to believe that the recounts was fraudulent and that the machines that counted votes were set up to miscount them, you have to believe that the fraudsters managed, in every one of the 88 counties, to set it up so that only exactly the precincts they wanted were handcounted. I am sorry but it is very hard to believe that this happened. This would mean a vast conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands of people, with quite a few Democratic officials thrown into the mix. Just does not compute.

Democrats do not have to tolerate glitches in close elections. Ohio was not close. In not-close elections glitches have been tolerated in every election from time immemorial.

Auditing results - if you are not satisfied with the official recount in Ohio, check out www.recountflorida.com, specifically http://www.recountflorida.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I think the laws in Ohio are similar. If you are in Ohio, in a couple of weeks you will be able to personally go and for as little as $200 recount eight-ten precincts manually. I am sure if you see huge discrepancies it will be big news and will cause more people to go and recount other precincts. That is the "check and balance" in the system - the right of any citizen to see and count the ballots.

[spotbird]

37. The policies adopted by Blackwell meant the

election in Ohio was neither free nor fair. That should outrage all Americans, including you.

Who cares if it can be proved that a recount would have changed anything? Do you remember that if a statewide recount in Florida showed Gore won? No corrections were made in Florida to insure a fair election in 2004?

Why doesn't it matter to you that the vote was suppressed in Ohio? How do you know what the outcome would have been in Ohio if all the votes were counted and there hadn't been suppression before as well as after the election? Why can't elections just be fair?

[SicTransit]

38. "Why can't elections just be fair"

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. If everyone agreed on what "fair" is, there would be no problem at all. Not everyone agrees. That is why there are laws.

Statewide recount by MSM in 2001 showed that Gore lost in 7 out of 9 (some say 8 out of 9) ways of counting the votes. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x215526#221522 It is also not relevant to the discussion here - in any state there can be a couple of hundred votes found due to irregularites. That does not apply to the margin of more than a hundred thousand votes. For that you need massive, widespread fraud, and there is just no hard evidence of such in Ohio.

[spotbird]

41. Sorry, if all the votes had been counted Gore would have won.

This is a fact that is ignored by the MSM so the false belief is still held by many. The thing Republicans fear most is efficient voting with accurate counts, that is why they fight both in every part of the country. It is why Blackwell worked so hard to make sure everyone who qualified didn't vote.

Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?
Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/opinion/3973122.htm

But the results in Florida and, therefore, in the presidential election might have been different had the 67 counties been ordered to proceed with a manual recount of all undervotes and overvotes.

Under several scenarios examined by the consortium, and using a standard in which two of the three reviewers agreed on the markings on each ballot, Gore emerged with more votes than Bush.

The overvotes that could have provided the margin for Gore were on ballots where voters tried to be extra-clear in their choice and ended up nullifying the vote. They filled in the oval next to a candidate and then filled in the oval for "write-in" and wrote the same candidate's name again.

Those overvotes were rejected by machines, but some county officials examined those ballots on election night to reclaim the votes. Other counties, though, didn't check for those obvious votes. Gore had more than 500 of those votes in Lake County and more than 250 in Escambia, netting him gains of 172 and 157 votes against Bush in those counties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11¬Found=true


How can't you understand that there was massive, institutional, voter suppression in Ohio? You refuse to address it when I make an issue of it, but it is central to the discussion. Explain why it doesn't matter that Blackwell worked hard to keep eligible voters from voting? How do you have any idea what the overcome of a fair election would have been?

[SicTransit]

42. I addressed the voter suppression issue -

Quoting "Talahassee Democrat" about the Gore/Bush MSM recount in 2001 - and the "opinion" page, not the news one, is pretty sloppy citing. The results were, as I remember, that 9 ways of counting were used and in only 2 of those Gore would have come out on top. If you really want me to, I can dig it up.

I showed you that in the Franklin county, which is where all those hours-long lines occurred, the official responsible for the machine allocation to precincts was a Democrat. YOU are the one who failed to address my response. If there was in fact a "massive, institutional, voter suppression" in Ohio (and I am not sure there was, since "suppression" implies deliberateness), then Democrats are just as responsible for it as Republicans. Do you think Democratic official in Franklin county was deliberately involved in suppressing Democratic vote?

The Franklin county Board of Elections chairman is William A. Anthony Jr., who is also the chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/27/20041127-B1-02.html

"Board of Elections Chairman William A. Anthony Jr. said he’s offended by accusations from "a band of conspiracy theorists."
Anthony, chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party, said long lines weren’t caused by the allocation of machines — a process controlled by a Democratic supervisor, he added — but by higher turnout, the overall lack of voting machines and a ballot that included more than 100 choices for some voters.

He said board members discussed renting punch-card machines to supplement the county’s 2,886 electronic voting booths, but they decided against the idea upon advice from Blackwell. LoParo said Blackwell would not have given such advice. "I doubt that was the case," he said yesterday.

A second type of machine would have been confusing, Anthony said, and the controversial punch cards likely would have brought objections from those asked to use them.

Anthony said he is personally offended by the allegations.

"I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" he said. "I feel like they’re accusing me of suppressing the black vote. I’ve fought my whole life for people’s right to vote."

[spotbird]

44. The Washington Post is sloppy also?

No, what you have done is found a single example which validates that Blackwell is an incompetent manager(a generous view, to say the very least) and use Blackwell's incompetence to blame Democrats.

When I repeatedly ask you to justify the destruction of otherwise valid applications, late, due to paper weight, you just ignore the issue. When I ask you to explain why there was no prosecution of Republican operatives who illegally destroyed voter applications (which is a fraud against the voter), you change the subject. I'm not going to raise the same issues because it is clear that you think obstruction of the electoral process is perfectly fine so long as it is done by Republicans. I think all elections should be free and fair.

[SicTransit]

47. no applications were destroyed due to paper weight -

that regulation was rescinded a day after it appeared. That is why I ignored that. You keep spreading misinformation. If there were people who destroyed registration applications and if it is illegal and it can be proven (and if you actually have the facts in hand) - call up your Attorney General and ask what was done about it. I have heard rumors about it but nothing definite.

You think all elections should be free and fair. So do I. I also think that no one should be cruel to animals, that everybody should be generous to their fellow men, that no car salesmen should ever lie to you, that government bureaucrats should care about people they serve and that people who step on your foot in the bus should apologize. The fact of life is that there are always irregularities in every election. If your standard of "free and fair" is "no irregularities" - then no election ever conducted in these United States (or anywhere, really) has ever been "free and fair".

[spotbird]

52. You are absolutely wrong about the

time the order was effective. There most certainly were registrations destroyed. You've been reading propaganda.

My point is that efforts should be made to achieve the highest level of accuracy, as things stand now no efforts are made toward that goal.

[SicTransit]

59. show me a URL that states

that registrations were destroyed because of the paper weight directive.

[SicTransit]

48. The Washington post article you cited

is titled "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" - it kinda proves my point. The only way Gore would have won would be if overvotes are counted - and it would have been an EXTREMELY steep hill to climb, since overvotes, according to Florida Supreme Court decisions, should not have been counted.

[spotbird]

53. I'm fully aware oft the WP title.

You'd have to read the text to learn that if all the votes were counted Gore won. If not all the votes were counted Bush won. It is that simple.

[Melissa G]

71. I gave you a news page last night ...

Yet you post the same garbage today?HMMMMMM wonder why?

[Moderator]

80. spotbird

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator

[Melissa G]

68. Sic T We had this lie last night and I debunked it for you

With links. Funny that you tell it again today?

[SicTransit]

72. There were, in fact, two MSM recounts

The first one showed that out of 9 ways of counting they used, Gore would have won only in one case. The second one differed from the first one in that it counted clear overvotes - something that the Florida Supreme Court disallowed. Counting the overvotes improved Gore's counts and showed him win in a few more ways of counting. The first recount concentrated on the rules under which the recounts were actually done - so it could find out if Gore could have won if the recounts continued. It showed that he would not have. The second - counting overvotes - showed that Gore would have won if the rules were different, but since the rules were set by the Florida Supreme Court, that could not have happened in "real life".

Rules about overvotes are usually very strict in every state. Look it up. Clear overvotes are *not* counted anywhere, only in that second MSM recount in Florida.

[bobbieinok]

46. you must not have been reading DU very long....there is much

documentation that the precincts to be examined were NOT chosen randomly, as the law demands...

"...you have to believe that the fraudsters managed, in every one of the 88 counties, to set it up so that only exactly the precincts they wanted were handcounted."

this is precisely what has happened

[SicTransit]

49. again, I know that in most counties the precincts were

not randomly chosen. What I said, though, was: "...you have to believe that the fraudsters managed, in every one of the 88 counties, to set it up so that only exactly the precincts they wanted were handcounted."

So - in order to believe that the recount was fraudulent, you have to believe that every one of the 88 BOEs is in on the fraud and picked those specific precincts to be recounted manually because they *knew* that the machines were set up to count *those* particular precincts correctly.

Do you believe the above? I don't.

[spotbird]

54. Your leap is absurd.

One does not have to believe the first to believe the second.

[SicTransit]

62. it is not absurd - it is a direct consequence

1. People claim that the machines were programmed to miscount votes in Bush's favor.

2. In the recount, precincts that constituted 3% of the votes in each county were hand-counted and machine-counted at the same time.

3. If the machine was programmed to miscount votes, the discrepancy would show up in that case.

4. The counter-argument of the "bad machines" theorists is that the machines were programmed to correctly count the 3% precincts but not the rest of the county.

5. In order for (4) above to be correct, you have to have the people who picked the precincts that constututed the 3% to be "in" on the scam and pick exactly the precincts which the machines are programmed to count correctly.

6. There are usually at least 2 or more people per county, a Republican and a Democrat who decide which precincts go into the 3%.

7. According to (6) and (5) above, in order for the whole scheme to work you need a couple of hundred people across Ohio, both R and D, to be in on the fraud scheme.

[spotbird]

63. Why should I bother pointing out that every machine in the

state wasn't necessarily involved. Why wouldn't they conduct the recount in accordance with the legal requirements? It is a simple question, why?


Say, now that you know that a large number of applications were involved in Blackwell's order, explain why Blackwell did it? Remember that destroying forms that have arrived safely because they might not arrive safely is twisted Republican logic that doesn't fly in the thinking world.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/09/29/20040929-A1-01.html

[SicTransit]

64. again, misinformation

the article you cite shows that except for one or two counties, the lightweight paper registrations were processed fine, and in the two exceptions the voters were mailed the correct registration forms and were invited to re-register. No idea where you got the "large number of applications were involved in Blackwell's orders". Certainly not in the article you cite.

And about the "miscounting machines" - huh? The whole point is that if the machines miscounted the votes in the first place, in order for the recount to match, they had to miscount them EXACTLY the same way in the recount.

[spotbird]

65. Please explain why Blackwell ordered

forms not be used. It's a simple question, why won't you answer it?

[SicTransit]

66. how the hell do I know?

am I Blackwell? I am not him, I am not his spokesman or psychiatrist.

The point is, that order did not constitute election fraud, was in fact according to Ohio law, although stupid, and did not affect many registrations - if any at all. What exactly is your point?

Were there irregularities in Ohio elections? Of course. Is that what you're trying to prove? No one ever contradicted you.

If you are trying to prove widespread fraud, though, you need a LOT more HARD evidence than you (and anyone else, in fact) have presented so far. The "fraudulent machines" theories also require participation of hundreds of election officials, both Democratic and Republican, in the fraud - which I, at least, find very unlikely.

[spotbird]

70. My point is that Ohio's Secretary of State

began enforcement of an outdated law close to the election deadline to limit the number of new voters. There is no other way to look at it/

Why didn't Blackwell force compliance with the law in the recount?

[Garbo 2004]

27. Is it partisan to laugh at hypocrisy?

In this case the hypocrisy of those FR's who dumped on those who questioned the results of the last two Presidential elections, labeling them sore losers, etc.

Now when these same folks have a result they don't like (after a recount they fought) ooh, look it's election fraud.

It's the hypocrisy I was satirizing, not the closeness of the WA election where clearly every vote could indeed make a significant difference.

But to borrow the words of James Baker in 2000, haven't all the votes already been counted and recounted? (Remember Florida and the margin of "victory" there? And what the media consortium found to be the outcome when ALL votes were counted, many for the first time?)

I rather doubt many of the folks at FR have any real concern for fair elections as long as their candidate wins. (Have they been outraged by documented attempts of voter suppression and intimidation in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere? Have they been concerned about any of that when it's not their candidate it impacts and not their fellow Republicans who were targeted by these practices?) It's their partisanship you should question, not mine.

[corbett]

69. I Live In Florida And Laugh At Hypocrites Regularly!

Your laughter only seems partisan because there are more hypocritical Republicans than there are Democrats.

[drm604]

79. SicTransit, A few isolated glitches can easily result

in much more than just a couple of hundred votes changed. When we're talking about using using computers to count votes we're talking about a situation when ONE glitch can alter a total by thousands (or more!) of votes. I know of at least one instance where a "glitch" (if that's what it was) increased a Bush total by around 4,000 votes, and that's just one that was discovered. We have no idea how many similar glitches, if any, went undiscovered but we know that they happen. That in itself should throw the results into doubt.
And it may not be just simple unintended glitches. It seems obvious that there was voter suppression and it's VERY possible (even probable) that there was also fraud in the casting and tallying of the votes. The behaviour of some of the people involved sure seems like they have something to hide. It may be that they're simply lazy or that they resent people questioning their competency/honesty but answering questions, providing all public records, and conducting an honest and legal recount is part of their job. When they refuse to do this part of their job properly, in my mind it brings into question how well they performed the preceeding part. Like the glitches, this also should throw the results into doubt.
It's not "self-blinding". It's simply demanding that we have elections where the results are auditable and the actions of elections officials are transparent and above board without stonewalling and without patronizing attitudes toward anyone who questions their actions.

[sickinohio]

15. Wow - they are finally beginning to see our side of things

There was "FraWd" in that thar election - REVOTE!!! REVOTE!!!! In the whole country - REVOTE !!! Using paper ballots, of course. INVESTIGATE and throw the criminals in jail, cause there was certainly more FraWd on their side by Bu$hCo - Criminals!!!

[BarbinMD]

33. Oh well!

I went to freeperland to comment and found that my posting priveleges have been revoked. I'm crushed...truly. ;)

[spotbird]

34. It's an honor really.

They have a zero tolerance policy for dissent, opposing views to them are like light to a vampire.

We don't put up with much here, but thoughtful discussion is tolerated here if it doesn't get out of hand, evidence the dialog in this thread.

[jazzjunkysue]

43. Spotbird: Please don't send me back there, again. REDLAND!!!

Dear Spotbird,

The little trip I just took into freeperville curled my hair. This one was unbelievable. They're talking about fraud in Washington, and then this idiot coughs this hairball up:

To: beelzepug

Hey, its a strategy I have. I believe the blue states only survive because they exploit the go-getter conservatives amoung their ranks. it's a sort of slavery actually. You pay all the taxes and do most of the work and the louts are taking a free ride on your back.

Well move to a Red state and if all you poor effers who live in blue states would do likewise it would not be long before the socialist state would crumble and then Conservatives could take over.

Just think what you could sell your house for right now in your artificially pumped up blue state economy. You could get twice that much house in a Red state for that money. In ten years time you could go back to your ole stomping grounds and buy back your property for half what you sold it for.

Ok. Thousands of unfounded assumptions in there, not the least of which are:

1. liberals increase property value, conservatives decrease it.
2. Conservatives can't move into housing until liberals abandon it.
3. urban land has no more value than rural: The value comes from the political slant.
4. There are "louts" who don't work and are getting free hand outs in blue states (wellfare?)
5. No one in a red state gets government help.
6. Conservatives in blue states do all the work and are used as slaves by the "louts".
7. We're currently living in a socialist state, which the conservatives are powerless to change.
8. Conservatives have not taken over the country.

Me thinks it's time to climb back into the balloon and fly back to Kansas, Dorothy.

[spotbird]

58. That's why they don't allow any dissent.

The absurdities would be pointed out.

[Alizaryn]

60. LOL

Exactly how I felt when I followed the link "there".

[BarbinMD]

73. I agree...

I had a good laugh when I saw that I was banned. Apparently my offense was to post links to debunk some silly-ass, anti-Clinton rant they were on. Facts are troublesome things to the freepers. ;)

[nashuaadvocate]

61. NOTE: Another DU thread on this same topic --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x222444

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[luaptifer]

75. Freepers have been concerned about vote-rigging since 1999!!

oops, forgot that copy-paste doesn't translate the formatting very well.

original diary here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/20/7396/2275

includes live links to the freepers' discussion back in 99 and 00 centered aroud a publication from 96!!

Freepers very worried about vote-rigging
by luaptifer
Mon Dec 20th, 2004 at 04:39:06 PST

but that was in 1999!
even more fascinating!? They found a 1996 article detailing many of the arguments we have here and now!!

...from the nearly 13,000 word piece in Relevance Magazine:



-- 1996 remember! --
Could a national election be fixed? As an illustration, Shamos laid out the following scenario for he and his hypothetical henchman:


"I'm going to change ten per cent of the votes, or five per cent-some small number-and that software is going out to pivotal jurisdictions in the country. And that is going to shift the national election."

Eva Waskell told Relevance that the most likely election-rigging scenario would entail picking key states, counties and precincts rather than going after the entire vote. This would ensure that the vote switching isn't too far out of line with public expectations. "What you would do to prevent that is to know how these precincts have voted in the past and just modify them a little bit."

more below the fold




Diaries :: luaptifer's diary ::
Update <2004-12-20 10:51:38 by luaptifer>: encountered on my search:
- beginning of my trek, a conservative railing We've been had! against the bu$h win: http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/bushwon.htm
- archival
http://www.votefraud.org/primer_archive_articles.html
http://www.lewisnews.com/section.asp?ID=56&Name=Citizens+For+A+Fair+Vote+Count+
- summary or others demonstrating possibility/evidence of fraud even back to 1964:
http://www.jonathanvankin.com/vote-fraud.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/041503Landes/041503landes.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd72.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0211/S00067.htm
--


yup, 1996!
You pick the swing precinct in a heavily populated county and that's the one you fiddle with. Three to five per cent is enough to have the election outcome changed.



Dugger's article also quoted Peter Vogel, a consultant for the Texas Secretary of State, who agreed with Shamos that the Presidency could be stolen by computer "because of the electoral college...If you have a majority in the right states, it doesn't matter who has the majority of the votes in the country. If you program the right states for the right elections, I think you could control the Presidential results."


jedediah smith was the concerned programmer sending a wakeup call to his fellow freeple, presented a concise summary following Part III. It was a Twilight Zone moment when I felt the angst-vibes of a freeper rippling their way through time and space deep into my own bones:


1. Breakdown of U.S. vote-counting methods: computer-counted punch cards (36%); computer-counted optically-scanned ballots (21.5%); direct-recording computer counters (4.3%) and mixed (some electronic, some mechanical) (8.3%); lever machines (approximately 27%); and hand-counted paper ballots (2.7%).

A day or two before an election, some precincts run a few dozen cards to test vote machines, but possible hidden "subroutines" of code for vote fraud are never considered..

Computer voting expert Howard Strauss, director of Advanced Computer Applications at Princeton University, scoffs at these so-called "logic and accuracy tests," saying: "That doesn't prove a thing. Any system that was designed with...any kind of fraudulent thing in it could pass that test easily...There are a hundred ways you could do this and probably any freshman in any school that teaches computer programming could figure out a half dozen ways... doesn't tell you what's inside the box."

Dan Rather asked Strauss if a national election could be fixed. He responded: "Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. Then I'd have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?" .

Peter G. Neumann, of Stanford Research Institute, International in Menlo Park, California, says computer vote theft could be concealed and regards such theft of the Presidency as a distinct possibility.

Only one examination of computer source-code for vote fraud has been conducted. In a court case, a computer scientist was allowed to examine the questionable computer system and source-code without proper equipment, and still discovered "trap doors," "wait loops," and Christmas trees" for undetectable vote fraud. In the presence of the company president, system programmer and others, and he "added ten thousand votes to the total of one of the candidates in a mock race for President." The judge excluded his testimony of an internal program 'debugger' which was also a Trojan Horse and barred the jury from seeing his fraud demonstration.

Computer scientist and election consultant Dr. Michael Shamos told how he could fix a national election given the opportunity:

" Working in a company headquarters, I'm writing some election software, which will be sent by Federal Express to jurisdictions in executable object code. I'm going to program this thing so that if there are more than eight hundred people voting in a precinct I'm simply going to trade some votes, take them from other parties and dump them into the party that I want to win. So all the totals are going to be exactly right. I'm going to change ten per cent of the votes, or five per cent- some small number-and that software is going out to pivotal jurisdictions in the country. And that is going to shift the national election."
Vote fraud expert Eva Waskell said the most likely fraud would entail picking key states, counties and precincts rather than going after the entire vote, to ensure the results aren't too far out of line with public expectations. "What you would do to prevent that is to know how these precincts have voted in the past and just modify them a little bit. You pick the swing precinct in a heavily populated county and that's the one you fiddle with. Three to five per cent is enough to have the election outcome changed."

In the last presidential election Dole won more counties than Clinton (1580 to 1534), but Clinton won the more important "swing jurisdictions" in vote-rich states. Peter Vogel, a consultant for the Texas Secretary of State, agreed that the Presidency could be stolen by computer "because of the electoral college...If you have a majority in the right states, it doesn't matter who has the majority of the votes in the country. If you program the right states for the right elections, I think you could control the Presidential results."


Leonard Gates, a 23-year employee of the Cincinnati Bell telco, swore under oath that in the late 1970s and early 1980s his company wiretapped election phone lines to alter vote results. The election headquarters' phone lines were tapped to provide a link-up between the county's vote-counting computers and parties unknown to him on another phone line in California. He was told they could actually alter the votes, and that "This was just small compared to what was going on." Some computerized voting machines have modems which could allow outside manipulation during voting. Some may also have hidden cellular modems for such control with complete secrecy.

Only a handful of companies control computerized voting. Sequoia Pacific competes in several regions of the country and won a mammoth New York City contract. They are owned by the transational Jefferson Smurfit Group, an Irish firm. Its board includes the former Prime Minister of Ireland, a former member of the European Commission, a member of the board of Ireland's Central Bank a number of top Irish or European banking and air line officials, and a member of the board of Gannett News Services, one of the largest newspaper chains in America. So basically foreigners count a substantial percentage of our votes.

A Washington election official responded to questions about foreign control of vote-counting, rampant industrial espionage against America and possible foreign vote fraud, with, "I suppose that anything is theoretically possible but the likelihood of that happening is virtually impossible. The structure of our electoral process in this country does not lend itself to this." She was equally unconcerned about another foreign-owned company which is eyeing the U.S. vote-counting market-Computer Devices Canada. This type of glib, yet unreassuring, response to serious questions seems to be typical.
But you can always tell a freeper, the pedigree shows through any amount of thoughtful consideration: he got the damn president wrong!!



In summation: Computerized voting + national vote fraud + foreign control of vote counting + foreign campaign contributions = President Bill Clinton
The worst president in U.S. history wasn't even elected.


As it took me some time to discover, the article is not freely available online so jedediah's post in three parts may be accessed by a trip to freeperville:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

If you can handle it, reading the posts and comments in situ is worth the discomfort as proof that this is truly a non-partisan issue.

The damn voting system must be repaired!

If such an adventure is too much for your constitution (;-), I did a temporary transcription to my blog. Who knows, it may be they don't like the traffic or, on a whim, feel the need to pull the article for some reason.

Pandora's Black Box: Did it Really Count Your Vote?

I was mainly amused when I first came upon this among the freeple, "Gee, just who is calling libs whiners?"

Then my blue-blood kicked in, "See, it concerns all Americans!".

On review of a few key points, however, it came back to me even through penta-ply tinfoil: "Damn, that's right: this forum gave birth to the Swiftbot Liar campaign. Might this have sown some seeds!?" After all, in early April of 1999 it was another of the flock who described his quick and dirty vote-rigger an easy task (halfway down the page):



This took me about 30 minutes. If you have a BASIC interpreter, you can copy it and try it on a file named "votein.txt". I have one question. How do they keep the programmers from going public about the software? Someone has to know what is going on....
From: Varmint Al ([e-mail]) *
04/08/99 13:50:29 PDT


Might Al be a political consultant by now? I wonder...


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/20/7396/2275

[Vektor]

76. Wow! They actually think WE cheat.

How could they, we hardly ever win SHIT!! :-)
One governorship to our names, and WE'RE the cheaters now.
Unbelievable!

[insane_cratic_gal]

78. LOL do we have to share

Our tinfoil Hats?!