About "personal recounts" in Ohio

[qwghlmian]

that for some reason everybody here kept saying were not possible:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357

Yes, it is possible, today, to go and do your own personal recount of any precinct that you consider to be suspicious. You find something - you become a hero.

[Shalom]

1. Keep the Heat On: Make the Impossible Possible !!

[KaliTracy]

2. in light of the newest information about Clermont County I doubt that

if I called the Clermont County BOE saying I was a concerned citizen and wanted to do a hand count of 5 precincts, and told them which precincts I wanted to count, that they'd just make the time for me to go in and do that next week without a fuss. Since they will have to have staff present to handle the ballots, and witnesses there to view the recount, I don't suppose they wouldn't make it that easy, especially since that County is under scrutiny right now. Likewise, Lucas, Franklin, Butler, etc. would probably make it difficult depending on the premise used, or just make it cost prohibitive with the amount charged to do so.

I can't test this assumption out, though, because DH is starting a business and I need my paycheck, but if I could, I would. Until people DO make requests and get responses, we won't know how easy this is, or if people will continue to get intimidated or threatened, as happened to some of the Recount People. I'm glad you were able to get a response to your request on the Ohio Board. Now we need some people (more than one for witness and reporting purposes) who can afford to either use this experience as a potential story in the making, or who can afford to take off work for a week or more and possibly pay any fees necessary to the BOEs.

[mirandapriestly]

3. can't they charge whatever they want?

weren't they asking the green party for some outrageous amount or was that the whole state? I can't believe that anyone can just go get a precinct recounted.

[KaliTracy]

4. I remember hearing accounts of people (BBV?) being changed a dollar

or more a page for copies.... though I think at least one of these cases went to court. I'll have to look that up -- I think it was in Florida, though.

[qwghlmian]

5. In Florida, the rate for the "personal" recount was

$10/hr. Recounting two precincts took 5 hrs. Grand total - $50.

I don't get it. You're told you CAN go and recount any precinct you want. Your first reaction - try to find reasons why it is impossible to do. Now that the silly "they are locked down because of the greens' lawsuit" reason has been shot down, you're trying to make up new reasons.

Let's say they want $20/hr. Let's say recounting one of the suspicious precincts takes 10 hrs. Isn't it worth $200 to uncover what you suspect to be the most massive election fraud ever attempted?

[lala_rawraw]

6. What you can do...

As a huge group of people, is demand non-stop that the local MSM papers, stations, police, etc... put pressure on Bare to make public the ballot books, etc... that he has promised to do and has not done.

Call him non-stop, call the papers, call the police, call everyone and do it over and over... those records are PUBLIC records and he will not let anyone access them. That is criminal and he needs to be held accountable. I might add that you can contact the Supreme court in Ohio and demand that they ask the FBI to step in or ask for an indie investigation... I know that is not their job, but neither is ruling on their own election. So, now they have a new job.

That is what we need... the records to be made public... until that is done, we cannot examine anything.

[qwghlmian]

7. You are slamming into an open door

the ballot books are open - Andy has been examining them already. The ballots are publically accessible as I have shown. Why this constant insistence that these things are not possible when they are?

[merh]

18. You got a DUer to provide you with information on one

county. As was proven when the official recounts were tried, following the law and how they interpret the law are two different things. As I provided you in a previous link when you started this junk, the AG's opinion in affect protects blackwell and the BOE from releasing all information. Your harping on this point is just that harping. Blackwell and the BOE only cooperate as far as they want. Go back and read that AG's opinion from Petro - litigation is pending, his against the Ohio 4 and the federal litigation.

As others have posted at DU, you and others must prove to me the election was legal and that fraud did not occur. I know it did (go see Conyers report, read the affidavits posted on Raw Story about the stickers on ballots, review the attempts to review the polling books and to conduct legal recounts prior to certification). The ball in is your court kiddo!

One call to a BOE does not prove recounts can be conducted. No names were posted to verify the legitimacy of the contacts. Why is it you cannot do your own work in proving to us that we can recount? Can you not afford long distance calls? Do you have to work and can't take the time?

:shrug: Like I said, the ball is in your court ant that thread proves nothing!

[qwghlmian]

24. I forwarded your post to that poster

in Ohio - hopefully she will respond. You're questioning her claim, when you have absolutely nothing to the contrary to report. Did you call some BOE in Ohio and get rebuked? My guess would be no.

[merh]

29. I recognize that litigation is pending

and that there are several counties in Ohio, not just one. Calling one county will not support or negate your proposition. Again, you are the one that claims it can be done, so YOU should prove that it can by making the arrangements, or better yet, complete the recounts and prove to us that we are wrong. Be sure to let us know how cooperative they are. As has been documented, they don't appear to be very cooperative and the information that they do provide is incomplete or tampered with (e.g. missing pages from poll books).

[qwghlmian]

31. You're claiming that in some counties in Ohio it is not

possible - so why don't you tell me in which county it is impossible and whether you called the BOE of that county and asked them to inspect the ballots and were rebuked? Did you do that or not?

If you *really* are too lazy to do so, tell me which county to check and I will do it (not that you will believe me when I do that anyway).

[merh]

34. You won't check anything, just like you didn't check this

you got someone else to call and ask, but you yourself did nothing to verify the information. As I said, if you believe recounts will be prove that there was no fraud, then you go ahead and make arrangements for the recounts and let us know what you find out. We know there was fraud, it has been documented. Don't forgot that silly little Ohio law that states if there is interference in the legal recount or tampering with ballots or devices then that is "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD".

Ball is in your court -

[qwghlmian]

35. You can keep saying that "the ball is in my court"

but the fact remains that there is a golden opportunity to prove there was vote-counting fraud and neither you nor anyone else is taking it. So - no matter where the ball is, if you want to have hard proof of fraud, there is your chance.

I got someone to call and ask. You got no one to call and ask, and did not call and ask yourself.

[merh]

39. It's been proven

we just can't seem to get anyone to investigate and prosecute.

Ball is in your court!

"I often wonder if those who fail to read the information that exists need eyeglasses or have ADD. Or is it they simply don't care for the truth?"

[OzarkDem]

48. The time for recounts is past

However, I've been told by our local BOE that it would be permissible for someone to make a request and view ballots. If you live in Ohio and there are ballots you want to see for a particular precinct, send a letter to the BOE and request it.

While its too late to recount or change the results, there are still investigations ongoing into possible vote tampering, and other problems.

[merh]

54. Which BOE is that?

Who did you talk to and what is that contact number? What will they allow you to review? Can you review all ballots (absentee, provisional, regular, provisionals that were not counted, absentees that were not counted) and poll books? Will the polls books have all of their pages? What procedures must you follow? What time limit will you be given?

What about the other counties in Ohio?

What about Warren, Clermont and Butler Counties?

There is more involved in a recount than just calling to ask if they are allowed. That was proven when the official recounts were tried.

[qwghlmian]

67. According to Attorney General of Ohio -

the answer is all counties, and everything

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/sections/opinions/2004/2004-050.pdf

[merh]

68. Okay, you and I have had this discussion before, but maybe if I

type very slowly and use simple words, you will understand this post.

#1 - that letter from the AG gives an "out" to Blackwell and his co-harts to not allow the recounting in certain precincts since LITIGATION IS STILL PENDING (the federal suit and the AG's own quest for sanctions against the Ohio 4).

#2 - since all that DUer did was contact one BOE regarding a recount, the information provided is incomplete. What about all counties in Ohio and what will they allow you to review?

#3 - Will they only allow you to review the "official ballots" or will they allow you to review the rejected and not counted ballots? Will they allow you to review the poll books? What about the tabulators? Will they allow inspections of the voting machines? How about all affidavit and provisional ballots? Were the ballot boxes constantly secured since Nov. 2 or have they been left unguarded and thus have been subject to tampering and theft?

#4 - What procedures will they require you to follow? Do you have a set time limit? Do they have the right to say how many county employees must be present and thus paid to assist in the "independent" recounts? Will they allow video and audio recording equipment? As referenced in that AG opinion that I provided you last week, each BOE can set up its own procedures regarding recounts, subject to approval of the SOS.

If you wonder why all of these questions are vital to any attempt to recount AGAIN, then you should educate yourself on what happened during the official recounts. This link will help http://www.flcv.com/greenrc.html and as has been suggested to you, you should read Conyers 102 page report to Congress and his latest letter to the FBI asking that they investigate the "stickers on the ballots" as found in one county.

Finally, as has been posted in response to your constant challenges for recounts now, Ohio election law provides that tampering with or altering ballots or voting equipment is PRIMA FACIE evidence of election fraud. Recounts now will not change the fact that tampering occurred since November 2, 2004.

The problem that exists is the AG and the prosecuting attorneys of the counties that had the tampering and the biggest problems during the recounts are repukes with a partisan interest in not investigating the crimes. Not only is Blackwell trying to protect his interests and his office, but so to are other Ohio repukes.

You ought to go educate yourself on the issues.

[qwghlmian]

69. Did you try getting ANY BOE in Ohio

to grant your request for public inspection of ballots? Do you know of anyone who tried and was rejected?

Until you do, or show that someone did, your cries of "they will thwart it" ring hollow.

[merh]

70. They DID THWART THE OFFICIAL RECOUNT EFFORTS

So my comments are not hollow. Your efforts to discourage others are transparent and, as have been proven post after post after post, you are IGNORANT of how recounts work, what is needed to conduct legitimate recounts and how the SOS and the various BOE's thwarted the efforts.

So the ball is still in your court, you are the one making the claim that recounts would not prove election fraud, so you have the obligation to back up your claims with proof.

We have proof that there was fraud. "Any tampering with ballots or voting equipment" is "prima facie" evidence of election fraud.

[qwghlmian]

71. Once again - the "official recount" has no bearing

whatsoever on what I am suggesting. You trying to somehow relate the two is obfuscation at its finest.

Apropo your futile attempts to claim that BOEs will not provide the records because of "litigation" - here is an excerpt from the AG document:

"Following the completion of the canvass of election returns under R.C.
3505.32, pollbooks used in an election are public records of a board of
elections and are subject to public inspection in accordance with any
reasonable regulations the custodian board of elections has established
under R.C. 3501.13, except as may be provided by a proper order of a
court."

Can you show such a "proper order of a court"? I don't think so.

Why are you so adamantly (and futilely) trying to "prove" a completely false proposition that the records are NOT currently publically accessible?

[merh]

72. Given that the Ohio federal litigation deals specifically with

seizing the equipment and ballots from the 2004 election, the SOS can use that language to deny access to all election materials and can advise the BOE that as long as the litigation is pending, they should not release the information.

Since you are the one trying to prove that recounts are possible, it is up to you to provide the proof. I have provided you with proof that the official recounts were thwarted. What makes you think that recounts now will not be thwarted.

Other posters have advised you that they have not been allowed to count or review the poll books in Warren, Butler and was it Clermont. It is you making the claims so you can provide the proof!

[qwghlmian]

73. No he cannot -

since the AG specifically says that a court order is required to prevent public access. Did you read that paragraph?

No one has posted that they were not allowed to recount or view poll books in any Ohio counties AFTER the official recount has ended. If you know differently, post links to such stories. You're wrong.

[merh]

74. Guess you know nothing about legal actions, do you.

Since the Glib & K/E litigation is seeking an order from the court to have the voting equipment itself inspected and the election materials seized and since the SOS is a party to that litigation and no determination has been made by the Court on the motions, if he were to allow the recounts in the specific counties, he would be facing the wrath of the federal court judge.

Check posts 49 and 50 in this thread about efforts to recount.

Hate to tell you but, the ball is in your court and you are the one that is wrong.

[qwghlmian]

75. No he wouldn't face any "wrath" -

because the AG decision clearly says that absent a court order (and there is no such order) public access is mandated. You cannot "face the wrath of the federal court judge" if you follow the law, if the judge didn't want public access, he would issue an order. You're just plainly making it up. The question is why you're making it up.

[merh]

76. I am not making up anything and AG's opinions are legal

opinions, they are NOT LEGALLY BINDING. Since that AG is an attorney representing a party to the Glib/K/E lawsuit, he can advise the SOS to restrict public access to the election materials until the judge rules on the pending motions. Do you know nothing about the law? Legal opinions do not upsurp or over ride the authority of the Court.

Legal opinions are only opinions.

[qwghlmian]

77. Fact remains, the AG advised SOS

(and by proxy, BOEs) that, absent court orders, public access to election materials in post-election period is mandated. Do YOU have any evidence whatsoever, not something in your imagination, but actual facts, that such public access was in any way thwarted?

[merh]

78. Not my imagination at all. Just like the recount efforts that were

tried, should someone go and try to recount, they will be provided with partial information, when they ask why not all of the information, they will be told that upon the instructions of the SOS and the advice of the AG, you can only see this much because "pending litigation" prevents us from giving you access to all you want.

The ball is in your court to prove otherwise!

[qwghlmian]

79. Ah I see - so you have absolutely

no evidence that what you say is in any way related to reality. Thought so.

[merh]

80. Reality is the litigation is pending...

On December 23 the Glibs filed a motion for discovery with accompanying memorandum brief seeking an order of the court compelling the SOS make available for independent inspection all election materials from the 2004 election and to allow them to take the depositions of certain individuals from triad (predated the AG's opinion by one day). On December 27, 2004, K/E filed a motion to join in the motion of the glibs. The AG's opinion is just that a legal opinion. It is not a legal finding or conclusion and is not binding.

It is you who has no evidence, thus, you are on the spot to prove your allegations. I have provided you ample evidence.

The ball is in your court.

[lala_rawraw]

49. They are? For each county?

Because there are three, at least I don't have. Okay... can I get with you on this?

[qwghlmian]

51. See port #48.

I am sure "DemGirl" can get you in touch with the people she spoke to.

[KaliTracy]

10. you didn't read my post very well - I did not say it couldn't be done, I

said that it might not be as easy as you are saying simply because ALL but two of the Ohio districts recounted even followed the proper Random 3% hand count rules. I am saying, if someone who is willing to do this, and had the time and funds called up one of those suspect counties I mentioned above, it may be likely that they wouldn't get an immediate appointment to do so. If anyone here can do so -- make a real appointment and follow through, it would be fantastic, and hopefully this can be attempted. I would not presume to pretend to want to do a recount and try to make an appointment to prove or disprove my assumption only to cancel it because I wouldn't be able to follow through.

I am not trying to discount you, or the ability to do a recount process -- but the way you have posted makes it seem as it would be so easy, without looking at what our Green Party recounters went through already. I HOPE that you are right, that the BOEs easily give appointments and no hassles for any of the precincts that a person wants to recount, and that there are some people who can do this soon. I was only pointing out history, thus far.

And, remember, when Andy looked at Warren County's poll books he did find anomalies, signatures that didn't match, pages ripped out, etc. He didn't look at the ballots at all. A friend of mine went with him the first day to record things via videotape, as well, and I would suggest anyone who is able to do this to take a video friend and another friend who is a witness.

[qwghlmian]

11. You (and others) keep pointing to the Greens' recount -

which is a fallacy. The two recounts (Greens' and the potential "personal" one) are not related at all. In the "personal" recount you file a request, they HAVE to (according by law) allow you to go ahead with it, YOU pick the precincts, YOU recount them according to any way YOU want, you look at the ballots as long as YOU like, YOU try to discern the voter's intent according to YOUR own criteria etc etc.

Which part of "YOU" is not clear? That is nothing like the "official" recount.

I hope it will be done - because I think any such recount will finally stop the "voter-count fraud" theories. I don't expect it will be done, though, for exactly that same reason.

[KaliTracy]

12. ok -- I get your point. you like buses? trains? come to Ohio via Transit

and recount yourself.

I suppose this experience

"And, remember, when Andy looked at Warren County's poll books he did find anomalies, signatures that didn't match, pages ripped out, etc. He didn't look at the ballots at all. A friend of mine went with him the first day to record things via videotape, as well, and I would suggest anyone who is able to do this to take a video friend and another friend who is a witness."

points to nothing about election fraud either.

[qwghlmian]

13. I already told you -

I don't believe there was vote-counting fraud, so such a recount would be an exercise in futility - IMO. Lots of other people, you included, are 100% sure there was vote-counting fraud, but no one is recounting - why do you think that is?

Andy found 18 missing votes. Wow. Even he does not claim it is in any way "proof of fraud". If someone recounted a few precincts, randomly or otherwise picked, and found that in every precinct there were dozens of votes for Kerry flipped to Bush, or not counted, that would be an indication of something. That would hopefully lead to recounting a county or two, and if the trend continued on that scale, it would definitely be proof of fraud.

But no one is doing that, or, apparently, even thinking of doing that. I guess they are afraid they would not find anything.

[KaliTracy]

14. I suppose Transit makes you sic... I would not presume to know what

other people are doing about this.... I do know that I cavessed in Warren County for Pacifica Radio -- and I'm not at liberty to talk about what we were looking for because that specific investigation may still be in process. So....things may be happening behind the scenes that we don't know about.

Whether or not a few anamolies here or there are found or not is besides the point, overall it is against the law to have pages ripped out of poll books or to have Stickers placed on ballots and new circles filled in. I refuse to shrug this off to "s**t happens."

What is your strategy for next time?

Where should we put our energies if transparent elections are not necessary?

What candidate should run?

Where will you volunteer your time to make sure that this doesn't happen again?

Or -- since "Nothing Happened" you are not going to get involved, and will just cast your vote for whatever candidate you desire, and know your vote was counted. Right?

[qwghlmian]

15. "A few anomalies"

does not make for fraud. So yes, the problems that are found need to be fixed, and whoever responsible for them needs to be punished, but shouting "fraud", and then refusing to go recount in order to find such proof is ridiculous.

Strategy for next time? Run better campaigns. Find better candidates. IF (and that is a big IF) you suspect fraud, do the personal hand-recounts that I described already. This is what the laws that mandate public access to the ballots are for - to ensure election transparency. The fact that no one apparently is taking advantage of these laws does not mean that there was fraud.

What candidate should run? I will see closer to 2008 who decides to run and pick from the slate whom I prefer in the primaries.

And yes, if I cast my vote and DIDN'T think my vote was counted, I would definitely go and make an effort to do a personal recount in my precinct. Wouldn't you?

[KaliTracy]

17. my precinct didn't have problems -- it was a * "area" and went

for * --

My area had WAY too many machines per person than other areas -- which is why I got involved in all of this in the first place. My beef was inequity and disenfranchisement -- and it still is, among other issues as well.

I do not think that Rep. Conyers would be putting his reputation on the line for a "few anomalies" -- Something in Ohio Stinks -- one doesn't just ask the FBI to investigate for no reason at all.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=9

And though I have not been screaming anything -- I do happen to believe that vote tampering is fraud.

A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Other things that happened -- such as letters sent to people telling them to vote on the 3rd if they were democrats, and others (see http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/voter-suppression-flyers.html )
A piece of trickery; a trick.

ANYone who condoned or did any of these things
One that defrauds; a cheat.

[qwghlmian]

30. Once again, and with feeling -

yes, there was fraud in 2004 election. Just like there was fraud in 2000 election, 1996 election, .... 1900 election, 1896 election etc. etc.

What I am trying to say is if people are so darn sure that there was vote-counting fraud in Ohio, then there is a golden opportunity to prove it once and for all by conducting the "personal" recounts. Do you disagree?

[sepia_steel]

61. If you don't believe fraud happened,

then stop fucking posting about it, and stop baiting people. If you want this information, go get it. If you don't care about this informationin the first place, as you've said, STFU about it. All you're trying to do is keep arguing.

[lala_rawraw]

50. Can we get Clermont...

That place, Warren, and Butler made the difference... those are the ones we need, no?

[KaliTracy]

52. hey, lala_rawraw.... what happened in Butler? I'm in Butler and I got

involved with DU because of the ease in which I was able to vote, and obvious machine disparity problems throughout Ohio and the overabundance of machines in my district (which happens to be the same district * rallied to 50,000 supporters right before the election).

When I went to the Jackson Rally on the 3rd, several people from Bulter county were called out for making the trip -- and I don't think they were there for the same reason... so what were the real problems that happened in Butler county?

[minvis]

108. I've got Butler County information regarding voting machines

Take a look at this other DU posting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x269763#299778

I've also completed going through the precinct level totals for Butler County. What precinct were you in in Butler County. Perhaps you can answer some questions I have.

[KaliTracy]

109. hey minvis... I'm heading to sleep -- got a nasty cold.

I don't have time right now to read your thread, but a quick glance at it makes me wonder how I missed it! Thanks.

Do you have -- or know where to get -- breakdowns of:

# of people per precinct
# of machines per precinct

(these are probably already out there)

and then:
Actual # of people voting on each machine.

Is that something that can be gathered?

Feel free to PM me, and I can try to read your thread and respond further tomorrow night.

[minvis]

110. I'll contact you tomorrow

By the way, I don't think you'll be able to get how many people voted on each machine. Butler was a punch card county, correct? From what I know here in Chicago, there is a tabulator when you finish voting, but I don't think there is one on each voting station.

As for your other inquiries, I have the number of registered voters in each precinct, the number who cast ballots, the number of machines in each precinct, both originally allocated and then the number added in each precinct after the voter registration numbers were in in mid-October, the number of undervotes, the ballot order, the differences in votes for Kerry and other Democratic candidates further down on the ballot, including Connally.

I've got it all in an Excel file, if you're interested.

[dmac]

22. do you have to be an Ohio state resident to make this request?

[Amaryllis]

45. THere were a lot of things they "had to do by law" that they didn't do

when the Greens recounted.Since when do elections officials in OHio care what the law says? They violated it over and over before, during and after the election.

[qwghlmian]

47. First of all, as the Ohioan DUer that I quoted

in the original post stated, the BOE that she called is ready to assist with the "personal" recount request. Second - if you are aware of any BOE where such request was submitted and rejected, please tell. I am not aware of any such thing happening.

[Amaryllis]

44. Nevada.

[Amaryllis]

43. It was NV that was asking an outrageous amount and I think also NM.

Greens decided not to do NV because of cost.

[Zeebo]

8. Thanks for keeping this idea out there, but...

I'm disheartened that of all the organizations that have a vested interest in learning the truth about what really happened in Ohio and around the country, none of them are trying to look at the evidence available right in front of their face.

I know there are old and new organizations that should have the money to get the ball rolling on independent recounts. Voters Unite, Count Every Vote, Fair Elections, Fair Vote, Federal Election Reform Network, are only some of the many organizations that I see come up after a recent google on this subject. Yet, quickly scanning these websites, I see none of them are attempting to research or organize a recount. Am I missing something? Either they haven't thought of looking at the poll books and ballots to gather evidence, or they feel they won't find any irregularities, and hence it would provide ammunition for the republicans who say there was not widespread election fraud.

The important point I think everyone should be aware of, no matter what the outcome of recounts would be, it would not stop election reform activists. Say recounts started to show evidence of widespread fraud, this would blow the doors off the reform movement. It would be unstoppable. If evidence did not show fraud, I truly believe our uphill battle to get serious reform would not be materially changed from what we are looking at today.

I'm going to be e-mailing all of these reform voting/election groups to begin thinking about recounts.

[qwghlmian]

9. No, you're not missing anything

all these organizations are not doing these recounts - and I think the reason is that they are afraid that when they do them they won't find any significant discrepancies. This will yank the rug right out from under the fraud theories, and that is what those organizations are based on.

It is much easier to sit on DU and do "statisitical analyses" that "prove" there was vote-counting fraud than go out there and actually do the recounts that may disabuse you of the notion.

[IdaBriggs]

16. Wrong. Its an issue of time, money and resources.

Want to take some time off of earning a living to go do this? A lot of people (myself included) did this for several months directly after the election. I am still burned out, but beyond words convinced of the "stolen" nature of the election. Publicly reported stuff (straight party democratic votes counted as Libertarian in Indiana, straight party democratic votes not counted AT ALL in New York, the joke that was North Carolina, the disaster that was Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa AND Ohio) showed 398 "glitches" in favor of Republicans versus 2 "glitches" in favor of Democrats -- both in Texas, where Republican candidates discovered they couldn't vote for themselves (my theory being they were being "punished" for being rebels to their own party).

Prove it? Its not even a theory; its simply a fact. You can go to www.votersunite.org if you want to see all of the publicly reported stuff (as in, vetted and reported in the newspapers). But you won't hear it on any of the cable shows, or the right wing radio stuff, or even getting much of hearing in the "main stream press." (Pick your favorite theory, and insert here as to why.)

What can we do about it? Nothing. Now, be a good German, and support the troops. (Yes, that last bit is sarcasm.)

Sorry for the cynicism. Give me a few more weeks, and hopefully my burnout will fade.

[merh]

19. Thanks for your efforts to date Ida,

Don't let the tag team bother you, they try this every few days. One or the other will post this goobly gop and the other will support it.

They just want to have fun.

Rest up - there are others out there doing things. Just recharge your batteries and thanks again for all you have done thus far! :toast:

[Amaryllis]

46. Thank you Merh...the lightbulb just went off in my head. Now I know what

a tag team is! Saw a reference and didn't understand it. Very obvious. Isn't the solution simply not to take the bait?

[BethFromIL]

20. Fraud or Not Fraud???

I see those who beleive fraud, others argue just as hard to disagree.

Those who disagree say take the time , spend your money etc. and prove fraud.

Well I'm not from Ohio,Im from Il. and I have no real idea how to go about it, I don't have the money personally to do it.

If I did , if someone who had the money would sponsor others to do it, I beleive it would get done!

[kster]

21. Get something

set up I'll donate.

[BethFromIL]

23. I'm serious

I think , the one thing , no one is considering is.... There Are people who would do this if financed, only because they Have to work for a living to get by.

If someone who has the money to support others to go to Ohio , tells them what needs to be done , is accessible to questions etc., there are those of us out there that would do it.

Am I sounding so crazy???

[kster]

60. Depends

what part of Illinois are you from.

[dmac]

27. Me too!

[waz_nc]

32. I'll donate too.

[qwghlmian]

26. First of all, I have to commend you on

your recount efforts in New Hampshire. Lots of people talk about vote-counting fraud, few people actually do something to try to prove it.

That said, the recounts you conducted, in spite of huge exit poll discrepancies in NH, and you picking the most suspicious precincts to recount, uncovered nothing. No significant discrepancies. Am I right?

If so, do you think that the exit polls were, in fact, wrong in New Hampshire and that the official results are, in fact, correct?

[sepia_steel]

62. YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO PROVE IT EITHER

yet you make post after post after post about it. You only want to piss people off. You, too, should put up or shut up.

[IdaBriggs]

83. You can read my (public) report on the situation at ---

www.invisibleida.com, where I talk about the PUBLIC stuff. Privately, it appears that old fashioned ballot stuffing was the chosen method in New Hampshire. Did we gather all of the evidence? No -- back to that "time and resource" thing. But the Secretary of State in New Hampshire is a very smart guy; when presented with the numbers, AND the details, he was very interested. (Missing and/or unreachable poll books in two precincts we were recounting was the number one clue.) He seemed to be a man of integrity to me, and I hope he will take care of stuff. Oh, and the AMAZING voter turnout was also kind of ... interesting ... in the 84% area. (eye roll)

Then again, the numbers MAY be correct, with more people getting to know the Democrat leadership folks in New Hampshire, and thus voting against them! (That's a burn on a guy named Mike, just for the record, and meant to be a little funny; did I mention the Democrats didn't even bother to SHOW UP the last two days of recount? Idiots!)

[qwghlmian]

84. I am sorry -

but ballot stuffing to the tune of 9% across the whole state? (That is what the exit poll difference was in NH, wasn't it). Isn't that a little... how should I put it... impossible?

[IdaBriggs]

88. Uh, no. The discrepancies occurred in only SELECT precincts.

Go look at the numbers (I think they are still up on the website) at www.invisibleida.com -- you can pretty much tell where it happened. For example, some of the areas were DEMOCRATIC majority areas in 2000, but they "flipped" to REPUBLICAN controlled majority areas in 2004. (Its a miracle!) Meanwhile, precincts with similar demographics in the same city either stay the same, or follow the statewide trend (which is 76% increase in Kerry votes as compared to Bush vs Gore in 2000). The 24% of the state where the numbers "flip" and DON'T follow the trend have one big thing in common -- method of vote counting using optical scanning equipment.

In Ohio, the margin of victory for Bush was 10 votes per precinct. In New Hampshire, Kerry was nearly 18 points ahead according to the 4:00 p.m. poll; three hours later, he still won the state, but only by a little over 1%. Statistically, that means pretty much every single human being who voted in New Hampshire after 4:00 p.m. voted for Bush. If that makes sense to you, fine. Its still in the improbable realm for me.

In the meantime, no insult intended, but I don't want to discuss some of the other findings on a public message board at this point. :)

[qwghlmian]

89. Ok - I don't understand, please explain

you HAND-RECOUNTED those precincts, WITHOUT using the optical scanner machines, and found the counts matched the official election results, right? If so, how is it relevant that those particular precincts used the optical scanners? You did not use any optical scanners in YOUR OWN recount, and it still came out the same.

When exit polls tell you one thing, and YOUR OWN hand-recount tells you another, I would think that the conclusion is that exit polls are wrong. That's the rational explanation, wouldn't you say?

Either that or you're claiming that 17% (!!) of the votes in New Hampshire were due to ballot stuffing? Now who's getting into the "improbable realm"?

[IdaBriggs]

104. I would be happy to talk with you about this.

I'm sorry, but I am tired of typing about it. If you want to send me your phone number via the pm system, I will be happy to talk to you and explain what was going on. :) Best, Ida

[dmac]

25. My God! Have you not read anything?

Jeez - with the wealth of material available, I can only say that anyone who still doubts fraud has to be a Republican in denial - for whatever reason. Personal recounts are not going to show the machine manipulations (I don't think) and now, almost 3 months post election, who could have any faith in what they would be shown now anyway? Who has kept anything safe and virgin since the election? No one.

[qwghlmian]

28. You will note that I said I do not believe

there was vote-counting fraud. That means that I believe that the paper ballots in Ohio were, in fact, counted correctly. If they were not, the "personal" recounts that I suggested, if conducted now would uncover the miscounts.

[waz_nc]

38. I don't think it's a question of belief.

I think we need to formulate some testable hypotheses and test them. The more alternative explanations we are able to rule out, the stronger the case we'll have that fraud occurred. I just sent an email to the Roper Center asking them when the 2004 state exit poll data will be available and how much it will cost per state. I plan on buying the Ohio data set as soon as it is available. Then it should just be a matter of identifying precincts where there were substantial discrepancies between the exit polls and the vote count that have a paper trail and assembling a group of people who are willing to recount them.

[livvy]

33. All I can say is your taunts drive me nuts.

Are you asking people to do this because you know if we do we will find something, or are you just taunting people to try to make them feel like they are full of wind? You keep saying that people are not taking you up because they are afraid they will find out that there was no fraud. That's just *crapola, because there is so much out there that no one who has read it or seen it will ever doubt that there was a problem, big time, with this election. I don't have to do a personal recount to feel that there was something wrong with the outcome of this election. I'm more in favor of * proving to me that he won the election. Until the nitwit and his criminal crew can prove that they did, I will view this election as fraudulent.

[qwghlmian]

36. This is not a taunt - this is information

that the recounts are possible and a genuine surprise that the believers in vote-counting fraud are doing nothing about it. YOU may not have to do a personal recount to feel that there was something wrong with the outcome. But in order to get more people to feel the same way you have to have hard proof. A "personal" recount that will uncover significant discrepancies will provide such proof.

[Zan_of_Texas]

53. hey q --

Why don't you post a list of all the articles and data you have read?

Go ahead. Let's see it.

[RaulVB]

37. Option # 2 (n/t)

[BethFromIL]

40. Talk the talk , but not Walk the Walk ,

Is this all about debating only, no action?\

I repeat I'm sure I am not alone, others are willing if financed to do a recount etc. with help.

Or is this all about discussion only.........

No doubt, you are all extremely more eloquent-intelligent than I, but is that all there is???

[KaliTracy]

41. I agree... if money was there for the charges for the BOEs and the time

from work, etc. I'd be there. I can give a little for the cause, but I can't give up a house payment, and I'm sure there are many out there with the same problem.

[New Earth]

42. we are all OOZING with money in our pockets

:eyes:

[berniew1]

55. The vote process is public & records are public info; you can see info.

But you have to arrange it through BOE and accomodate them to some extent.

[berniew1]

56. Green recount volunteers summaries of Green recount by county- problems

This is my summary of the Green volunteers summaries for the first 30 counties in Ohio recounted. Some of these weren't complete or fully done. But they found significant problems in over half of the counties looked at here. But their findings weren't acknowledged by Election Officials (or the Media apparently):

http://www.flcv.com/greenrc.html

[sharman]

57. Better yet, canvass suspicious precincts

Like an exit poll, but better--a poll of 100%. That's evidence--the voters, right there--that can't be tampered with.

Pick some precincts in Clermont where the obscure candidate for supreme court got more votes than Kerry. There were 5 precincts where she won the precinct, and Kerry lost. That's where Arnebeck thinks the big fraud is to be found.

Would be especially helpful if you can get the voter sign-in sheets to work from.

I'm sure there are dozens of GOTV groups that still have lists of voters, phone numbers and addresses.

I'd contribute to that one.

[KaliTracy]

58. Some work has been done along these lines. I suspect it will take a few

more weeks to hear anything about the results.

[sharman]

81. Thank you

It's such a relief to know this is being done. I really just want to know, one way or the other. Do you know what group is conducting this work?

[KaliTracy]

82. I helped canvess one day in December with Pacifica Radio. I just

happened to have childcare coverage for that day -- I haven't been able to get out to do that kind of thing since, so I write a lot of letters *smile*

Can't say here what we were looking for that day yet, but from what I could see that day, there are many people involved in many aspects of Ohio election irregularities.

[kster]

59. I don't get it

they locked down the counting for "homeland security reasons" which is illegal, because we know there was no such alert , and no arrest have been made .Then we have a recount and they send in their people to fix the machines so that the recount matches, which is illegal,and no arrest have been made, now we are supposed to have a personal recount. Does'nt make sense to me everything has been fixed, what we need now is an Investigation into why our laws are not being enforced.

[qwghlmian]

63. So far we see (from the Ohioan that posted it)

that the BOE she called said they would honor the "personal recount" request. I have not heard of one case where someone requested it in Ohio and was rejected. Have you?

[KaliTracy]

64. That's not entirely accurate. She was told people could view them, not

recount -- (which she posted above in this thread in post #48, as well).

Demgirl states:
"Spoke with a representative at the Board of Elections today. He advised the public can make requests to view ballots from certain precincts from the Nov election. Like a public records request, you can send a letter to the BOE with your request and they'll schedule a time for you to come view the ballots you've requested.

Like a recount, employees will have to handle the ballots for viewers to see.

It was also mentioned that a number of individuals are pursuing requests for an investigation into election day irregularities at Cuy Co polling places. Its felt most of these are valid complaints worth reviewing for possible illegal activity by some individuals, but won't change the results of the election. County prosecutor Bill Mason is being asked to investigate.

As info, the election day shenanigans that have been deemed serious ARE NOT being reported by our local rag, the Plain Dealer."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=172x5335

[SpaceBuddy008]

65. grassroots meeting held in Ohio w/BBvoting.org!

January 30, 2005

Grassroots Meeting on Election Reform

4 PM.

Location: Whetstone Park Shelter House, 3909 N. High
Email: [e-mail]


Sunday, Jan. 30, 4 p.m. Columbus, Ohio: A meeting for citizen action -- Shelter House at the Whetstone Park of Roses (3923 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio)

Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting and the lead plaintiff in the only successful consumer protection lawsuit to date against a voting machine system, will meet with Ohio citizens to discuss concerns and strategies, and will make a brief presentation to frame the problem and recommend models for effective action.

Harris and Black Box Voting board member Jim March developed and presented evidence which contributed to the decision by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to decertify Diebold touch-screens, and filed a false claims lawsuit which resulted in $2.6 million in damages, to be paid by Diebold to the state of California -- the only winning lawsuit so far targeting voting systems, and the largest-ever award for damages from any voting machine company.

Larry English, President of INFORMATION IMPACT International, Inc., will participate in the Jan. 30 meeting for Ohioans, and will make a very important presentation on a model to help create real accountability and transparency in elections.

Attorneys will explain the full range of legal options, recommendations will be made as to which options to choose.

Input from participants in the recent examination of Ohio voting problems will be heard.

Activating the Eagles: In the end, though, effective corrective action can come only when citizens (like you) get involved, think creatively, take on leadership roles in the specific areas where you feel you can be most effective.

In Columbus on Jan. 30, Ohio citizens will draft plans of action and identify citizen leaders to take on aspects of the work that lies ahead.
*****

How Kerry Votes were Switched to Bush Votes!
= http://www.jqjacobs.net/bush/xls/ohio.html

STOP! Extremist End-Timers

[qwghlmian]

66. If you can view them, you can recount them -

the word "view" is used to emphasize the fact that you are not allowed to physically handle them, that has to be done by official county workers.

[Chi]

85. Doesn't it seem a little .....

Heya qwghlmian
Doesn't it seem to be unwise to go meddle with something that could become evidence (while there is ongoing litigation)?
I can certainly envision some future testimony in that scenario....
Attorney -- 'so, Mr. BOE, how do you think all those stickers got onto these ballots then?
Head BOE Official -- Well...I think it might have been those Dems that came in in Feb, they did a total hand count, coulda been them.'
Same for missing ballots, if ya get rid of a bunch you can't prove what the vote actually was.

On the other hand there is no real benefit, I could think of. What proof would it be for some citizens to do a recount. In other words..who would listen.
There is a Congressman who is currently getting blown off. What clout would a few citizens have?

So...when the litigation is no longer pending, and there is nothing else in the works....
then there absolutely needs to be a citizen recount of at least one problem county, preferably more.

Till then, cost/benefit seems to indicate the wise choice is to hold off.

[qwghlmian]

86. No, when you go and do a "personal" recount

you do not have physical access to ballots. That is, you cannot touch them. County employees handle the ballots for you. You can look at them, and count them, but there is no opportunity for you to alter them in any way.

The Congressman is getting blown off because all he has is innuendos, conjectures and "statistical analyses". If a "personal" recount such as I described found significant discrepancies, this would be hard proof.

[Chi]

87. Touching them or not..

Touching them or not, I believe people shuffling the ballots around, before they are sequestered as evidence, would certainly be used for a defense to 'muddy up the water'. Just like the big fuss put up in 2000 over chads being lost as ballots were handled in Florida.

We disagree on the downside, but what about the upside, or the whole cost/benefit equation.
You still have the 'what clout would a few citizens have' question out there. It wouldn't be picked up by the MSM, and only a few would be screaming.
Same as what we have now.

As well as the next questions that pop into mind..
Whats to gain by rushing in now, before the court has ruled on what is currently active?
What is lost by waiting?

[qwghlmian]

90. There is a time-limit on the availability of

the ballots to public for hand-recounts. That time-limit is 22 months. Once that time has passed, the ballots are destroyed.

A few are screaming with no hard evidence today. If the hand-recount was done, and major discrepancies found, they would be screaming WITH hard evidence. That's the difference.

[Chi]

91. Feel free to poke...

Feel free to poke peeps after the court decides, but before the 22 months is over.
Heck, I'll even help 8)

A few are screaming today, but some have hard evidence.
If I am not mistaken, Andy S. found an 18 vote difference in one precinct he counted. A percentage difference that would have changed who won, if used statewide.
Hard evidence, no MSM coverage.

Which seems to back up the questions, what clout does a few citizens have?
who will listen?

The real game is being played in the courts, any unofficial recount will wind up the same place the 2000 recount of Fl. (done by the media) went to.
The result had Gore winning, what did the gov't or the MSM do with that hard evidence?
The only leverage is with the courts, or the FBI.

[qwghlmian]

93. The 2001 MSM recount result had Gore winning -

but it certainly did not show any proof of vote-counting fraud, in fact it definitively proved that there was no vote-counting fraud in Florida in 2000. People claim that in Ohio there was vote-counting fraud. No "game played in the courts" will uncover that. Only hand-recounts will - and it is possible to do them now, but no one is willing to do it.

[Chi]

94. No proof of fraud

What proof of fraud would be shown by a personal recount in Ohio?
The Count might not match, but I'm sure you would agree thats not proof of fraud, it's just a discrepancy.

But thats beyond the original point, which was, what is to gain by counting before the legal action concludes?

What clout does a few citizens have?
who will listen?

[qwghlmian]

95. If you recount a county, and find that Kerry's votes

were undercounted to the tune of a few thousand votes, then you can easily raise funds to recount a few more counties. If you find (as people claiming vote-counting fraud claim you will) that in every county you count Kerry gains a few thousand votes, after 3, 4, 6 counties THAT will be hard proof of fraud. If you recount 6 counties and in every one of them you find thousands of votes for Kerry that were not counted, no one will be able to ignore it.

Meantime all you have to point at is 18 votes that Andy found. No wonder it is ignored.

[New Earth]

96. did you get what you came for yet?

members of DU who aren't going to go to Ohio to recount for whatever reason it is they can't or won't?

i would think you have your answer by now. do what you want with it. go ahead, tell your friends, spread it around the net.

but you are beginning to beat a dead horse. and honestly, whatever you come up with out of what has transpired within these threads, our fight continues and we honestly do not give a shit what anyone has to say about it.

now please, move on.

[qwghlmian]

97. Didn't know you were appointed

a censor for this board, Faye. When did that happen?

and, honestly, I don't give a shit what you think about what I post.

now, please, move on. :hi:

[New Earth]

99. i'm obviously NOT the only one who has told you this

more than once..

[qwghlmian]

101. So what -

do you think you should decide who posts what?

If you don't want to hear what I have to say, there is a handy ignore feature. Use it. :hi:

[New Earth]

102. good idea

thanks for the advice :hi:

[Chi]

98. My point exactly

Personal recount (by Andy) showed the one precinct wrong.
That is what you suggested for others to do (count a precinct or two).

My point was that it wouldn't be taken as proof of anything, now you agree "No wonder it is ignored."

My point exactly, personal recount = no MSM coverage, and no clout.

What is to gain by counting before the court has decided?

[qwghlmian]

100. No, 18 votes discrepancy is very easily ignored.

If you count 10 precincts (which one person can easily do in a week or so) and in EACH of them you find 18 votes, that's starting to be something. If you count 50 and in each you find 18, that is starting to be something that cannot be ignored.

But if you count one, find 18 votes, and stop - yes, it can easily be ignored.

[Chi]

103. Not sure why

you don't like this question, but you have ignored it in every single one of my posts.
What is to gain by counting before the court has decided?

Feel free to ignore it again...I won't be offended.
8)

[qwghlmian]

105. I thought it would be obvious

the longer you wait, the farther away the 2004 election is, the harder it will be to get anyone interested if you find hard proof of fraud. Not sure what "court decision" you're waiting for, since there is no court decision pending that would decide if there was fraud or not, but you are aware that lawsuits can drag on for years and years, right? Those ballots will only be there for another year and a half to be recounted.

[Chi]

106. Who will get interested...

If we are still talking about a personal recount, no one will listen.

As long as it is done before 22 months, there is nothing to lose by giving the courts time to decide.

"since there is no court decision pending that would decide if there was fraud or not,"
I'm sorry, I believe I saw you discussing a pending request for the securing of election related evidence, did I get that wrong?
If so I think that would be the evidence to prove fraud, if anything would.

Only the courts or the FBI will carry any weight, a personal recount will get justice to the same point as in 2000, the MSM ignores it and the Sheeple keep on grazing.

[qwghlmian]

107. securing election materials is

an easily dismissable request, for the simple reason that the materials are already supposed to be secure, both according to Ohio law and federal law.

You don't understand something about the MSM recount of 2001. There was no "justice" to be had. Once the President is inaugurated, you can find whatever proof you want that he didn't get a majority of votes, he is still President. There is nothing in any US law or the Constitution that would have provided you with "justice" in that case. So I am not sure what "justice" you were looking for there.

Now, if that recount found any fraud, you could go after election officials etc. But no fraud was found.

[troubleinwinter]

111. JUSTICE is prosecuting the criminals.

"no fraud was found" is bullshit.

[qwghlmian]

112. Really?

You think there was fraud found during the MSM recount in 2001 in Florida? Show it.

[New Earth]

113. LOL

[Chi]

114. Considering the right to..

Considering the right to examine the voting materials (& equipment) would likely follow, It would be a significant difference to having the items locked away.

The Justice I would expect out of my country...
A)Repug election officials would NOT allow RNC officials to alter already rejected absentee ballots, and then re-accept them.
B)Repug demonstrators would NOT prevent a hand recount by intimidation.
C)Repug SoS would NOT create a scrub list that neatly removes the right to vote from 10's of thousands of citizens.
D)The SCOTUS would NOT act partisan nor go beyond their authority given to them by the Constitution.

I don't think thats too much to ask for.

Since you seem familiar with the MSM recount....how many votes did it find that Gore won by?

[qwghlmian]

115. The MSM recount in 2001 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000

About 3/4 way down the page

Depending on method used:

Gore by 171, 115, 107, 60
Bush by 225, 430, 493

Since the whole recount's results, by whatever method differed by at most 700 votes, that means that in the hand-recount of the whole state by MSM, no vote-counting fraud was found whatsoever.

[Chi]

116. Since the whole recount's results...

"Since the whole recount's results, by whatever method differed by at most 700 votes, that means that in the hand-recount of the whole state by MSM, no vote-counting fraud was found whatsoever."

Since this recount only included un-certified votes, how could they be used to discover fraud?

[qwghlmian]

117. What in the world are you talking about -

the recount included all the ballots - including undervotes, overvotes, etc.

[Chi]

118. That's what I thought, till I read your link.

The link is in the section with the numbers you quoted.

=============================C&P========================
The Florida Ballot Project: Frequently Asked Questions

NORC, a national organization for research at the University of Chicago, is an independent social science research center. NORC has completed examination of the uncertified ballots in the Florida presidential race. This effort was conceived and sponsored by a group of the nation’s largest media organizations.

What did NORC hope to accomplish?
Our goal was to gather data on the appearance of the ballots that were not certified in the November 2000 election in Florida and to create an archive of the markings. This archive will be available to the public on the day that the media organizations publish and air their stories. NORC will also use this data to examine the reliability of the various voting systems used in Florida.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp

[qwghlmian]

119. What makes you think that the MSM recount

did not include those ballots in the recount? They specifically counted ballots that were judged previously to be over- or under-votes.

[Chi]

120. Let's try this again

I asked this..
"Since this recount only included un-certified votes, how could they be used to discover fraud?"

The numbers you quoted came from this....
'Florida Ballots Project'
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp

And they say this...
"The Florida Ballot Project: Frequently Asked Questions

NORC, a national organization for research at the University of Chicago, is an independent social science research center. NORC has completed examination of the uncertified ballots in the Florida presidential race. This effort was conceived and sponsored by a group of the nation’s largest media organizations.

What did NORC hope to accomplish?
Our goal was to gather data on the appearance of the ballots that were not certified in the November 2000 election in Florida..."
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/faq.rtf

Not sure where your missing me.
Even the original link says this....
"Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000

[qwghlmian]

121. You are misunderstanding what "never undertaken"

means in the Wikipedia entry. They mean it was never undertaken in 2000, right after the elections. It certainly was undertaken in 2001, during the MSM consortium recount.

[Chi]

122. Still trying to figure out where we are mis connecting.

In post 114 I ask...
"Since you seem familiar with the MSM recount....how many votes did it find that Gore won by?"

In post 115 you respond...
"The MSM recount in 2001 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election...

About 3/4 way down the page

Depending on method used:

Gore by 171, 115, 107, 60
Bush by 225, 430, 493"

These numbers come from a study I quoted in the last post.
"NORC has completed examination of the uncertified ballots in the Florida presidential race."
And
"Our goal was to gather data on the appearance of the ballots that were not certified in the November 2000 election in Florida..."


They clearly state they used un-certified ballots.
Did you link to the wrong study?

(I have to step out for a while, will respond a little later)

[qwghlmian]

123. mea culpa -

you're right, the MSM recount ONLY counted the "uncertified" ballots. I didn't realize that and thanks for pointing it out.

The 2000 recount, though - the one right after the election, with varying standards, law suits, Florida Supreme Court and US Supreme Court stuff - that was counting all the ballots, not just under/overvotes, AFAIU. That recount also did not find any significant discrepancies from the official election-night counts.

[eomer]

124. The official recount in 2000

was not a full state recount, just four counties I believe.

In those four counties it was not a full manual recount of all ballots. It was a machine recount and then a manual recount of the undervotes.

However, in Miami-Dade County even the undervotes were never manually recounted. They were going to be but Bush's team staged a mob action that caused the manual recount to be stopped.

Thus the 2000 recount involved a manual inspection of only a very small fraction of the whole universe of ballots. And the machine counted portion of the count was never checked by way of a manual recount so the type of machine counting fraud that is suspected in Ohio 2004 would not have been caught by the Florida 2000 recount.

[merh]

92. .

:boring:

[troubleinwinter]

126. A small piece of the pie.

"all he has is innuendos, conjectures and "statistical analyses". If a "personal" recount such as I described found significant discrepancies, this would be hard proof."

Representative John Conyers has much more than "innuendos and conjectures". In his January 28 letter to the Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he cites numerous "serious allegations of vote tampering and fraud"... violations of federal and Ohio law, including evidence of ballot tampering.

Investigations and prosecutions generally begin with "allegations". Mr. Conyers is highly experienced in criminal matters, and is the House Minority leader of the Judiciary Committee, and does not operate on innuendo and conjecture, but by credible evidence. He does not take these things lightly, and I do not either.

During the recounts, many BOEs refused to allow access to poll books, to make a proper assessment of the audit, though Ohio law deems them to be public documents upon completion of the official election canvass (and reaffirmed by the letter you cite from Petro to Blackwell).

All of this does not take into account the disenfranchisement of voters.

The fact remains that the election in Ohio was tainted. "Personal recount" might give some information, but it is a small piece of the big picture, as it will not address the criminal fraud against citizens' voting rights. Even with an accurate recount, we have a dirty election, with disenfranchised voters, tampered ballots, rejected provisionals, etc.

Criminal fraud is being pursued, in hopes that an example will be set that such crimes will not be tolerated, and will be prosecuted. I hope you applaud the action.

[qwghlmian]

127. First of all, the letter that I gave

with the legal opinion from AG to Blackwell justifies Blackwell's actions in preventing public access to poll books during the "canvassing period", contrary to what you say. It also says that right now, today, poll books and ballots are open to public.

Second - there are constant claims of vote-counting fraud. The recount will tell us if there was such fraud.

Third: as I said, "innuendos, conjectures and "statistical analysis"" - you can add "allegations" to that. No proof.

And finally: if you honestly think that, based on Conyers' paper, anyone is going to pursue "criminal fraud" seriously, you're mistaken. I will bet you anything on that.

[troubleinwinter]

128. You do support prosecution of violations of election law??

The letter from Petros reaffirms that the poll books are public record immediately upon completion of the election canvass.

"Following the completion of the canvass of election returns under R.C. 3505.32, poll books used in an election are public records of a board of elections and are subject to public inspection in accordance with any reasonable regulations the custodian board of elections has established under R.C. 3501.13, except as may be provided by a proper order of a court. (Ohio A.G. letter to Blackwell)

Nonetheless, many BOEs denied volunteers access to these books during recount, a violation of law. Even though they were to make these available by law, they REFUSED. Some boards were obstructionist, uncooperative, rude, intimidating and unlawful. Hmmm... betcha they'd be real cooperative with citizens wanting recounts.

"you can add "allegations" to that. No proof." Yes, allegations and sworn affidavits, including EYEWITNESS accounts of tampering/alteration/remarking of ballots.

Allegations... investigations... prosecutions. "proof" is what is determined in court.

[qwghlmian]

129. You're either having reading comprehension problems

or being disingenuous.

This is from AG's letter:

a board of elections has a duty to preserve ballots in sealed containers until any possible recount or election contest is completed. The release of ballots during the time a board of elections is required to preserve them under seal is, therefore, prohibited by state law within the meaning of R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v). Such ballots are not, therefore, “public records” for purposes of R.C. 149.43 while they remain under seal...the right of the public to inspect such ballots prior to the completion of any recount or election contest has been “otherwise provided by state or federal law.” R.C. 3501.13 does not, therefore, entitle the public to inspect ballots cast in an election until after any possible recount or election contest is completed.

Following the completion of the canvass of election returns under R.C. 3505.32, pollbooks used in an election are public records of a board of elections and are subject to public inspection

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

So - the pollbooks are NOT public records until canvassing is over. Recount is canvassing. Pollbooks are not public record until after recounts are over.

This falsehood (that Blackwell has broken the law when he prevented public access to poll books during the recount) has been spread long enough.

[troubleinwinter]

130. Ballots are not the same as poll books.

Poll books become public record at completion of the electoral canvass, which occured prior to Dec. 6th, having NOTHING whatever to do with recounts.


Following the completion of the canvass of election returns under R.C. 3505.32, pollbooks used in an election are public records of a board of elections and are subject to public inspection

[qwghlmian]

131. "Canvass of election returns" includes

the official recounts. Look up what "canvass" means.

And yes, AG's legal opinion is that both ballots and poll books get the same treatment under the public access to "records" laws.

Because ballots that have been cast in an election and pollbooks used in an election are “records” of a board of elections for purposes of R.C. 3501.13, they are: (1) “public records” for purposes of R.C. 3501.13, “xcept as otherwise provided by state or federal law,” R.C. 3501.13,9 and (2) “public records” for purposes of R.C. 149.43, unless they are excepted from the definition of “public records” set forth in R.C. 149.43(A)(1).

[troubleinwinter]

132. Bullshit. The excerpt references length of time they must be preserved,

not the status as to the point in time in which poll books become public record.

It is a small detail at this point, except to point out that many BOEs did not abide by Ohio law during the recount, and one may or may not receive cooperation according to law during citizen "personal recounts".

It is just a small part of the illegal activities in the election.

You are the only person here that I know of that repeatedly refers to "vote counting fraud". Others refer to "Election Fraud". You seem to want to focus on one small issue in a large problem, while ignoring the rest of it.

You dismiss Rep. Conyers and the testimonies and affidavits and eyewitness accounts of fraud and tampering, and never refer to disenfranchisement.

Your agenda is clear as a bell.

Edit: The "canvass" is the canvass of election, which becomes certified, NOT the recount.

[qwghlmian]

133. If you don't think that vote-counting fraud has occurred,

say so. I like clarity in my statements, so I do not use ambiguous terms. That "small issue" I concentrate on because it can be easily checked and proven, while others cannot be. "Referring" to disenfranchisement is one thing. Proving criminality, or even intent, of such disenfranchisement, is another. (Note: I said "proving", not "alleging". It is easy to allege something. It is much harder to prove your allegation.)

Again, your claim that the official recount was not "canvassing period" is ridiculous. Please, look up the word "canvass", either in an English dictionary or in Black's Law Dictionary, then tell me how it does not pertain to the official Ohio recount.

[mgr]

125. Too simplistic a world view

I have pointed out before that a recount only addresses faulty counting, and in and of itself is incapable of redress for fraud. As Ida Briggs' post indicates, a recount without review of the poll books is not valuable; if ballot stuffing or alterations were made, you would never know unless you have access to original voter intent. Cannot get this unless you interview actual voters, and identify their intent. This requires attorneys and notary publics in the form of affidavits. This is beyond most individual's means.

The problem is that the exit polling controversy addresses the issue at the wrong scale, it can only be affirmed at the micro scale.

Mike