Bachmann, Coleman, Stevens, McConnell, Chambliss

[HCE SuiGeneris]

The results do not match the pre-election polls. There is grave concern on my part that yet again we have been screwed by election fraud. We should have an overwhelming majority in the Senate after the colossal fuckups of the Bush pResidency and the economic fallout of its policies.

How did the Republicans manifest themselves into such a motivated force for maintaining the status quo? Was it the confused yet stultifying McCain dialog, or was it the seductive draw of Palin's intellect? I mean seriously, :wtf:

As we sit here in awe of an historic election of a multi-racial President, we are yet again being denied the ultimate tenet of Democracy... that of the will of the people to be secure in their vote to elect their Representative in a fair and honest election.

First order of business come January -- remedy an opaque, corrupt, disenfranchising voting process.

:grr:

[MadBadger]

1. The only one that doesnt match the polls is Stevens

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Glad you are replete in your confidence.

[MadBadger]

7. Bachmann was up in polls, Franken and Coleman were in the MOE, McConnell was always up....

Chambliss was always up. I think the polls were wrong with respect to Stevens because people were ashamed to admit they were voting for a convicted felon. I'm not sure what ur issue is with those races.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. It has nothing to do with confidence

You based your post on a false premise that the Democrat was leading, or leading by a good amount going in. The only one who was down by a lot was Stevens, and that tightened up at the end, probably because no one wants to admit they were voting for a felon.

I looked at every poll, every day. You obviously didn't, and are just assuming the Democrat must have been leading going in based on "positive buzz" that flows around here like water. They weren't, or it was too close to call it a "lead".

Sometimes, voters are just idiots. Pure and simple.

[CitizenPatriot]

16. polls. OK...

It's odd that here in GA they told us we had "low turn out", as in, lower than 2004.

1,500,000 new registered voters from 2004

500,000 of them in the last year. 400,000 of them registered JUST to vote in this election.

Odd because they never finished counting early votes, in which Obama was winning and of course, that would help Martin.

The polls never took these newly registered voters into account. Now, GA made history with voter registration drives, so I would have assumed to see some kind of bump in the actual turn out.

I don't know what to make of polls right not -- some of the seemed very accurate, and yet, the methods used (no cell phones users, no newly registered voters, etc) make me question HOW they can be that accurate. Esp in a state with so many disenfranchised voters.

A friend who works on the security (or rather lack thereof) of the voting machines told me they steal it in states where the election is close. Hence, GA. Alaska. etc. They know they can get away with it here.

[morillon]

22. I'm very suspicious of Georgia's results.

I've felt that way since the "miraculous" wins of Chambliss and Perdue in 2002.

Is there any way the DNC could file an injunction to get us paper ballots for the runoff?

[truedelphi]

38. Rachel Maddow had a voting systems expert on her show on Thursday night

I think it was.

They decided between the two of them that something was seriously fishy in Alaska, and also in two counties in Georgia.

And I remember back when I could listen to Mike Malloy with out coming unglued, he said that the results of the 2002 results in Georgia show that there won't be free elections in that state for a generation - at least. (I love Mike, but my blood prssure goes up so much when he discusses so many wrenching topics in a short three hours. Can't afford to listen to him any more.)

[lob1]

2. It's a concern to me, too. We have no idea how many votes were caged.

[tblue]

3. Election reform and media reform. Gotta make 'em do both way before the 2010 midterm.

Feet to the fire. This is our chance. No excuses anymore.

We shouldn't have to wait 5 fucking hours in line to vote. And we need to put those e-voting machines in the trash heap.

Greg Palast said on Wednesday he believes Obama actually won Montana, and that Chambliss's race was fixed.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. With respect to Bachmann

The three polls prior to the election were all within the margin of error.

There were three candidates on the ballot. Bachmann won with less than 50% of the vote.

Pre election poll results only reported percentages for the two major party candidates.

I think you are going to have a hard time arguing that there was voter fraud in the 6th Congressional District.

Though I wish you could prove it and have her removed from office.

[merh]

6. I've been saying that they did steal elections, just not the presidential

election (they couldn't do it, the numbers were too great).

They stole the senate races.

[99th_Monkey]

8. I couldn't agree more, and the sooner the better. PAPER BALLOTS FOR ALL!!!!!! ~nt~

[leftstreet]

9. JESUS! Obama hasn't chosen them TOO???!!!111

:rofl:

[bkkyosemite]

10. Oh they stole it alright. The polls and the votes were not want really happened.

We need paper ballots and witnesses for counting and totaling.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. The Diebold effect?

MINNESOTA: Norm Coleman (R-incumbent) v. Al Franken (D)

At last count, just 443 votes separate the two candidates, out of some 2.5 million votes counted to date. An automatic manual recount has been triggered, and is now scheduled for mid-November. The state uses all paper ballots, but in much of the state they were counted on ES&S optical-scan systems which "reported inconsistent vote totals", such that “The same ballots run through the same machines, yielded different results each time” when the same machines were tested just before the election in Michigan.

Two of the three largest counties use the same Diebold op-scan machines which miscounted huge numbers of ballots in the January NH primary (among other elections), were used to hack a mock-election in HBO's Emmy-nominated Hacking Democracy, and, by Diebold's own admission, regularly drop thousands of votes when memory cartridges are uploaded to the central tabulator.

Some good news: MN's Sec. of State Mark Ritchie has been one of a handful of Democratic state election chiefs to have been a long-time election integrity advocate.

See our detailed coverage from last night here...

GEORGIA: Saxby Chambliss (R-incumbent) v. Jim Martin (D)

The state uses Diebold touch-screen machines across the entire state. Every vote cast on one of those machines is a 100% unverifiable vote. Chambliss, was declared the victor in 2002 in an upset over incumbent Max Cleland (D), despite pre-election polls predicting a Cleland win. That was the year that the state used the Diebold touch-screens for the first time, and the year that Diebold themselves secretly patched all of the machines, just prior to the election, with uncertified software patches


more here > http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6645

[riverwalker]

14. largest county in Bachmann's 6th uses Diebold

Interesting that Anoka County is also Bachmann's 6th District. It is a HUGE county.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6641

"Two of Minnesota's three largest counties (Anoka and Dakota) use the Diebold AccuVote OS scanners to "count" their ballots. That system is the same one seen being hacked via its memory card in the Emmy-nominated HBO documentary Hacking Democracy"

[Peace Patriot]

12. The subtle power of 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, in all

of the nation's voting systems--in touchscreens (no paper trail), optiscans (a paper ballot but largely unaudited), and the central tabulators--needs extensive investigation, and remedy. This is secret code that owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, one of the worst being ES&S ('counting' Minnesota's votes).

This power can be used as a meat-clever, when the stakes are very high (as in the 2004 presidential election), or as a surgical scalpel, as I believe they are using it this time, to, a) significantly and fraudulently shave Obama's mandate, and b) shape a difficult Congress for him (like the current one, of the 10% approval rating), infested with obstructive Pukes and 'Blue Dog' DINOs.

I think the goal is to tie his hands on any serious reform, further wreck the economy (in addition to the Financial 9/11 these Bushwhack Corpo/Fascists just pulled off), create suffering and turmoil, get it all blamed on Obama and "the liberals," and then install their favorite nazi in 2012.

We are VERY vulnerable to this scenario because of the near 100% non-transparency of our voting system, everywhere in the country. They could easily--EASILY!--have stolen it from Obama, and they didn't because the timing of the turmoil was off. That has to come later. And because it might have resulted in a big, nationwide 'Boston Tea Party' dumping of their voting machines.

I want to bring to your attention a very tight race in Orange County, CA, where the Dem, Bill Hedrick, has put up a magnificent effort against an entrenched Puke, and is only 4,000 short of a win, with 100,000 provisional and mail-in votes still to be counted. Apparently, the Puke is tight with the corrupt Reg of Voters and they have been closeted in private meetings.

See
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/224453/273/647/656337

And I wonder how many situations there are like this around the country, right now, where the people have made a magnificent effort to outvote the machines, where the secret code has been used, and where corrupt, collusive officials are trying to keep Pukes in office.

It is NUTS to give rightwing corporations like Diebold and ES&S (also Sequoia) this kind of power. 'TRADE SECRET' code. I mean, come on.

People who are in denial about election fraud often say, 'Prove that it was stolen.' Well, that's a bit hard to do when half the voting systems in the country have been stripped of the evidence. They have no paper trail at all. And in the other half, the ballots are dropped into a box, 99% of them never to be seen again.

You want to know what? We cannot prove that Barack Obama won. We have to take Diebold's and ES&S's word for it. Diebold, whose CEO was a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser. ES&S, whose initial funder and major investor is reclusive, rightwing multi-billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals.

These are the people 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET'code. And they have bludgeon power, when needed, and they have tweaking power, to turn close states and races, when they fear showing their hand too boldy.

This is an intolerable situation. And we must change it. We MUST. Our country remains in great peril from this. And it is the best thing we could do to support Obama's presidency--insure that they can't deny him a second term, and insure him a better Congress when things get really tough, in '10 and '12.

:patriot:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. Thank you, Peace Patriot.

You expand on the apathy I feel the electorate exhibits because we have won some seats and are making strides forward. All the defensive positions citing the polls -- as if polls were not manipulated either -- gives me great pause.

The FACT still remains that we have an unverifiable vote counting process that has been previously manipulated against us. Why is there a contingent that defends such a procedure... especially on a Liberal message board? Why do we have to squirm in our seats, hoping against hope, that our lead margin is greater than can be manipulated beyond the victory threshold?

It is insanity!

:grr:

[truedelphi]

40. I started to realize why they didn't steal it when I turned to Fox news

To see if Brit Hume's head had exploded on election night.

He was happily watching the kids in the street outside the WH celebrating the Obama win. Saying things like, "Don't those kids look like they are having a great time. Wouldn't it be great to join them."

I noticed a couple of other ususal, in-with-the-Repuke Talking Heads grinning and acting happy (if only for a second) that they were glad about Obama's win. That doesn't mean they won't read the words of the teleprompter putting the Democrats down. (Their paychecks are too large for them to give up their day jobs.)

But there were just too many disparate elements in the country who were sick of McCain, Palin and Bush. The troops are over in Iraq and Afghanistan and there would be no way to control a mob numbering two thirds of the country if they stole the Presidency this time.

[bridgit]

13. Chambliss is really sweating it, crying to Hewitt today about how unfair dems are treating him

how little money he has for the run-off, how dirty Chuck Schumer & Obama's ground people will be while he single handedly defends America...

I want them all to go, but I'd like to see Chambliss slither out the door first.

[Number23]

41. Biden can campaign for Martin in Georgia

I don't want Obama anywhere near Georgia, and I was born and freaking raised there and it is the place I will always call home.

[theboss]

15. The only really bizarre election is Alaska

It's going to take awhile to figure out what the hell happened up there.

Bachmann was never in that much jeopardy. Neither was McConnell. Both had to work for it, which was interesting.

Every poll I saw - save one - gave Coleman a 1 or 2 point win. Franken overperformed.

[opihimoimoi]

17. Lets not forget this election was only the 2nd in the over all process.

we got 1 more to go. In 2010...another 33 senators come up for re election...we will surely get 3 to 4 more if the trend of GOP rejection continues....Then we will have a 60 plus Dem Senate...

We must earn it in these next 2 years ....we must not screw up....

[ogneopasno]

18. Bachmann's district really does elect her. It's the Bible Belt of Minnesota. Coleman and Franken

were in the margin of error, and Franken still might pull it out.

Minnesota has some of the cleanest elections in the nation with its paper ballots and optical scanners. Sometimes a close race is just a close race.

[Peace Patriot]

20. "...cleanest elections in the nation"? NOT SO! Opticans are NOT clean.

They and the central tabulators are run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by ES&S, one of the most hair-raising extremist rightwing-tied corporations in the country, AND THEY DO NOT COUNT THE BALLOTS. 99% of the ballots never see the light of day. 1% is NOT a sufficient audit to detect fraud.

You are extremely naive--or very uninformed--to think that this system is secure. It is extremely insecure. And you cannot tell me that the state that produced Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone elected this little corpo/fascist worm, Norm Coleman. I simply don't believe. And you cannot prove me wrong because they will never let you or me see the ballots or the 'TRADE SECRET' code that put this corrupt little bastard, Norm Coleman, in the Senate.

[trotsky]

21. Well, guess what?

Minnesota election law states that the recount shall be done BY HAND. So you tell me who's the naive or uninformed in believing that we'll never see the ballots. (Our DEMOCRATIC Secretary of State is in charge of this process, by the way.)

[ogneopasno]

23. Thank you; you responded much more politely than I would have.

I'm a little bit tired of people swooping all over this board barking about how corrupt Minnesota voting must be; that Coleman couldn't possibly be elected here. I'm not crazy about it either, but the truth is Franken was not the best candidate, there was a third party, and Minnesota likes to mix things up in its representation anyway. But you know that. :)

[Peace Patriot]

24. Any state that has the possibiltity of a recount does the recount by hand.

(Half the states in the country have NO possibility of a recount--no paper ballot or paper trail at all). But just having the possibility of a recount does not make the system transparent, or even close to being transparent. Recounts are very costly and hard to obtain. A rule triggering a recount if the contest is within 0.05% does not make the system transparent, or even close to being transparent. It is just a slight improvement. What about contests that are within 0.06% and have been stolen by the machines? Money, money and money alone--money for the recount, money for lawyers--would determine the possibility of a fair outcome--the possibility, not the certainty. Most recounts involve only 3% of selected precincts. So, in the rare instance of a recount, we still have 97% of the ballots never seen by human eyes.

It's kind of like torturing prisoners, slaughtering a million people to get their oil, shredding the Constitution, outing CIA agents, spying on all Americans, destroying federal agencies like FEMA and the EPA, turning U.S. soldiers into slaves with stoploss, destroying the financial system with deregulation, and running up a $10 trillion deficit with multiple tax cuts for the rich, and then saying...

...lower your expectations, we must "govern from the middle."

Minnesota's system (like California's and some others) is the corpo/fascist fallback position for when the people discover the outrageous fascism of paperless touchscreens. The optiscans with a 1% audit, and 'TRADE SECRET' code tabulation--even with mitigating rules like a 0.05% recount trigger rule--are not transparent and are not democracy, which is contingent upon transparent elections. Transparent elections--counting every vote--is the bottom line of democracy.

As for Al Franken not being the best of candidates: what corpo/fascist 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting means is that the Democrats have to produce candidates who are far, far superior to the Puke candidates, to have any chance at all to win. They have to win by 1% to 10% more than the machines are programmed to steal. Further, non-transparent vote counting sets up a situation of giving horrible people like Norm Coleman--and he is horrible--the advantage of incumbency. Democrats have to overcome the incumbency of falsely elected Pukes, and the disadvantage that a horrible corporation like ES&S is 'counting' all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code.

I am no Al Franken fan. And I think it is a bitter irony, indeed, that he is caught in the situation of a stolen--or trying to be stolen--election, since he was the grand pooh-pooher of election fraud and champeen of these fraudulent, non-transparent election systems, as are many of the leaders of the corpo/fascist wing of the Democratic Party. He helped cover it up. And now he may be the victim of it. I hope it radicalizes him, on transparent vote counting, whether he pulls this one out or not.

I understand that this MN Senate race is also complicated by a fairly decent third party (or rather indy--I don't think he has a party) candidate. I've read his web site, and he seems like a centrist Democrat, on the issues. His attraction is that he stands against the two-party lock on power. I would guess that he is hurting Franken most (pulling Dem votes), but I don't know for sure. I would expect a Dem to win in MN this year, with Obama on the ballot. I don't think Franken is so bad, as a candidate, that he would lose it, in a situation of straight-up, transparent vote counting, even with a third candidate on the ballot. But it's possible.

I don't know if Minnesota is counting ALL the ballots--or only 3% (or some other low percentage), in this recount, and calling that transparent. (It is not.) If they are actually counting every ballot, then they have a better system than most, but it is still not transparent, because this is only done in the rare circumstance of a recount.

I live in California, which has one of the best systems in the country--after a ferocious fight here about touchscreens--and it is not transparent and it is not democracy. Paper ballots (an optiscan system) are merely a mild form of deterrent, when 99% of the ballots are scanned into the electronics and manipulable with 'TRADE SECRET' code, and only 3% are counted in the rare event of a recount, and only 10% are counted in a 0.05%-difference race.

1% is not transparent.
3% is not transparent.
10% is not transparent (when limited to a 0.5%-difference rule).
Costly, hard to obtain recounts is not transparent.
'TRADE SECRET' code is not transparent.

What is transparent?

100% hand-counted paper ballots, with results posted at the precinct level.
(This could be done in an optiscan system. Simply COUNT the goddamn votes, every one, and provide a separate tally from the machine tally.)

What would be a great improvement (if privately coded optiscans are retained)?

A 10% AUTOMATIC AUDIT (hand-count of 10%) for every race in every election.
(The experts whom I most respect say 10% is the MINIMUM needed to detect fraud in a 'TRADE SECRET' code system.)

Venezuela uses electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE code system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they additionally hand-count a whopping 55% of the votes, in every election, as a check on machine fraud. Why is our system far, far less transparent than Venezuela's? Hm? It's a puzzle, ain't it? Maybe we should ask Al Franken that question.

[Peace Patriot]

26. Please note: I did not say that they'll never let you see the ballots in THIS recount.

I said they didn't let you or anyone see the ballots when the Senate election was stolen from Walter Mondale, and given to the hideous Norm Coleman, after Paul Wellstone's plane crash. Paul Wellstone was a kickass labor Democrat who had pledged to lead the fight in the U.S. Senate against the invasion of Iraq. After sending this strong leftist to the Senate, you cannot tell me that Minnesota then elected Norm Coleman. I simply don't believe it.

It is those ballots you and I will never see.

As for the recount, most recounts in this highly riggable 'TRADE SECRET' code system (optiscan) are only of 3% of selected precincts. That is not transparent. The most trustworthy experts say 10% is the MINIMUM needed to detect fraud. But even if MN is recounting 10% or higher, there are STILL non-transparent factors influencing the outcome: for instance, Coleman's incumbency, fraudulently obtained from the prior stolen election. Non-transparent, 'TRADE SECRET' code vote counting has long term corrosive effects on true representation of the people that are not remedied simply by counting all the votes NOW. A proper, 100% count NOW, that reverses an injustice to Franken and to the voters of MN, would be great. I don't know that we will get one (cuz I don't know what % MN is recounting). But the problem for MN will then be that it still doesn't have a Paul Wellstone or a Walter Mondale as its Senator. Only a pro-war, pro-Corpo candidate could hope to win office in this rigged system, and bear in mind, also, that Diebold/ES&S counts the votes in our Dem primaries (except for the caucus states), as well as the general election. So we don't get good choices. Most often, the choice is between a Bushwhack and pro-war, pro-Corpo Dem.

MN will never again have a Paul Wellstone Democrat representing them, until they restore fully transparent vote counting, and possibly not even then--not until the long term stench of Bushwhackism has finally been cleansed.

[scarletwoman]

27. "I don't know what % MN is recounting"

Then why are you posting these ridiculous rants when you haven't even bothered to acquaint yourself with the basic facts?

There will be a state-mandated hand recount of ALL approx. 3 million ballots that were cast in this election beginning on November 19. They hope to complete this process by Christmas at the latest, but it takes a lot of time to manually examine 3 million ballots. Franken and Coleman will both have legal teams present throughout the entire count, of course.

sw

[scarletwoman]

25. First of all, in Minnesota the optical scan machines are NOT connected to a central tabulator.

Each machine's total is downloaded and recorded at the precinct level ONLY.

Second, by law, there is an automatic and immediate 20% hand count audit of random precincts for EVERY election. This has already been completed, and they found 4 errors out of approximately 60,000 ballots counted in 80-some precincts.

Third, if you don't live in Minnesota, then you really ought to accept the word of we Minnesota DUers when we tell you that there is nothing nefarious going on.

I'm sick of reading rants about MY state's election process written by people who have no clue about how our elections are conducted.

sw

[trotsky]

30. Well said, scarletwoman. n/t

[scarletwoman]

31. Thank you. I notice that the poster making all these accusations has not bothered to respond.

I'm just really tired of non-Minnesotans posting gross misinformation without even a whiff of actual facts taken into consideration.

sw

[Peace Patriot]

32. I'm glad to hear that MN is doing a real recount, and also does a 20% audit of

random precincts--although 20% of all precincts would be better.

Those are great accomplishments of MN activists and election officials. Those are the best rules I've heard of yet, in these 'TRADE SECRET' code systems (touchscreen and optiscan) that have now spread like a cancer to all states. Mitigating rules make things better--and these are among the best--but they do not constitute a fully transparent system.

Most transparent: hand-counted paper ballots, counted in public view at the precinct level, with the results posted at the precinct level before they are conveyed into any electronic system. Next best: optiscan tabulation at the precinct level, with a 100% handcount in all precincts, and results posted at the precinct level. Third best: optiscan tabulation with 10% or more handcounted in public view at the precinct level, and full results posted at the precinct level. Fourth best: optiscan tabulation with 10% or more handcounted in public view in random precincts, and full results posted at the precinct level. (Note: the "random precinct" thing introduces yet another insecurity factor--how are the precincts chosen?; what if fraudsters throw the dice (or collude with officials), and concentrate fraud in certain areas--and never get audited? With Republican election officials having become so partisan and so unscrupulous, this could certainly happen, and it creates yet another headache for election integrity monitors.)

The first two are 100% transparent. The third and fourth still have potential for fraud, though fraud is minimized the higher the audit percentage becomes. MN's 20% is better than all other states, as far as I know. But doing it only in "random precincts" reduces election security.

The way election integrity activists have had to patch up these 'TRADE SECRET' code systems--to make them merely more transparent, not fully transparent--raises questions about why we have these very expensive, very vulnerable systems in the first place. The country is bankrupt, and we're pouring billions of our tax dollars into the pockets of rightwing corporations--for systems that break down, require continued maintenance, and are untrustworthy, and have to mitigated with rules to make them partially transparent?

Why don't we just vote on paper and count the ballots? So simple! It worked for hundreds of years. It works in Canada, and Germany, and many other places--with fast, efficient, public vote counting that everyone participates in. But now that we're mired in this expensive system, probably the best we can so with it, at present, is, a) require a paper ballot, of course (ban the touchscreens), and b) handcount 100% of the ballots as a check on machine fraud or error.

I wonder if these MN rules were in place when Norm Coleman supposedly beat Walter Mondale. I don't think they were, since you've had a major change of Sec of State and SoS policy. Coleman's incumbency is an influencing factor--and if he obtained that advantage fraudulently, then any polls favoring Coleman are flawed, and votes favoring name recognition or incumbency might have gone elsewhere. Also, I think it's a problem that more than 80% of the votes go unverified in almost all elections. How do you know for sure that something nefarious is not occurring in all other elections, without actually counting all the votes (which only happens in the rare event of a recount)? Trustworthy experts say that 10% is the minimum needed to detect fraud, but I should have said (and they say) "most fraud." Fraud is still possible, but statistically reduced. And when you have a completely non-transparent tabulation code--'TRADE SECRET' code--your need for 100% verification is all the more acute.

20% beats the minimum, but it is not full transparency. There is also the matter of respect--respect for the voter, respect for the citizenry, and participation by the citizenry. A 100% hand count promotes respect for the voting process and maximum citizen participation.

Someone noted, above, that the MN optiscans are separately tabulated--not connected to the central tabulators. That is good, for sure. But you still have a chance of malicious code--and fraud--in the optiscans, and also interactive code that gets triggered when the optiscan totals are finally downloaded into the central tabulators, if you are not counting every ballot.

I don't see how anyone can say, definitively, that "nothing nefarious is going on in MN." I'm sorry if I offended you, because I didn't know some of these details--which are the highest election integrity standard in the nation that I've heard about, and much to be praised--but I have a native distrust of 'TRADE SECRET' code systems, and I think we should all be very, very, VERY skeptical of them. Do not be complacent about your relatively high standard. Venezuela still beats you by long leaps, on election integrity. They have OPEN SOURCE code, and still hand-count a whopping 55% of the votes.

[scarletwoman]

37. 20% means 20% of all precincts.

The recount that begins on November 18 will be a manual examination of every single ballot cast in the state of Minnesota -- all 2.9 million of them.

We have no paperless votes, every vote is recorded on a paper ballot. The optical scanning machines are only used for tabulating votes. If they screw something up, it's readily apparent because the paper ballots can be compared to the machine tally.

Paper ballots. Democratic Secretary of State. Mandatory manual recounts.

End. of. story.

sw

[Peace Patriot]

42. I'm sorry, but that is not the end of the story, when you have a putrid rightwing corp

like ES&S and its equally bad brother, Diebold, tabulating the votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code, at tremendous expense to the taxpayers. These are POLITICAL corpos, who have done immense damage to our democracy, and for which there is overwhelming inferential evidence (--inferential because they have lavishly lobbied against all verificattion) that they have stolen elections.

20% is not full transparency. WHY is vote counting NOT fully transparent? That is the question--not whether election integrity activists have had to give their lifeblood to achieve SOME mitigations in SOME states. I am not saying that MN hasn't done a good job of mitigation. I acknowledge that and emphasized it in my comment above. But these corps are bad, bad, BAD, and, at the slightest opportunity, they will come back at you, and steal your elections, and make YOU pay for it.

ES&S, funded by a far rightwing multi-billionaire who gave one million dollars to a foundation that touts the DEATH PENALTY for homosexuals.

Diebold, whose CEO was a Bush-Cheney campaign chair, and major fundraiser, who promised, in writing, to "deliver Ohio to Bush-Cheney in 2004."

Could we get any WORSE for corpos running our election with 'TRADE SECRET' code?

I am urging you to keep your eyes open about this. They may not be done with us. In fact, they surely are not done with us. They have completely unverifiable, completely non-transparent, 'TRADE SECRET' code election systems, with NO audit/recount controls, in half the systems in the country.

WHY? WHY?

[scarletwoman]

43. Okay, I'm going to go through this one more time.

The random 20% ballot audit happens for every election, on election day. This law was put into place to make reasonably sure that scanned totals and handcounts match up by always taking a 20% random sample.

State law also mandates that close elections -- where the vote split is less than .02% -- get a full hand recount. This will begin next week, after the election is formally certified.

The hand recount means that ALL 2.9 million ballots that were cast in the state of Minnesota will be manually examined and tallied, including determining voter intent in mis-marked ballots.

There's simply no cause for paranoia around this. I agree that voting software should not be a proprietary secret, but with the paper ballot and audit system that we have in Minnesota, there's essentially no way to screw with our vote. I've worked several elections as an election judge, I know how secure our balloting process is.

sw

[myrna minx]

47. SW, it has been EXHAUSTING, trying to correct the misinformation about Minnesota's elections.

In just about every thread posted about Minnesota, I read such WRONG information posted, and then I'M lectured by people who don't even live here about MY election process and their information is just outright WRONG. :banghead: Ugh.

[scarletwoman]

55. OMG, yes! It IS exhausting! It's exactly like dealing with freepers - they believe what they believe

and aren't about to let actual FACTS get in the way.

I'm with you: :banghead:

[sendero]

28. The exit polls matter...

.. the rest are useless.

If there was a discrepancy between the results and the exit polls, then you have a point.

[onenote]

29. the problem is that the facts don't match the premise of the OP

The only election where the final result appears to be significantly out of line with the final pre-election polls is Stevens.

As for the others, a comparison of the results with the average poll margin at realclearpolitics (as well as with the individual polls) shows that Chambliss actually finished a little worse than what the polls were predicting, Coleman was up in all of the final polls, and McConnell finished with a margin that was almost identical to the RCP average. Even Bachman, who had been trailing in some of the polls going into the last week was leading in the last poll taken before the election.

Alaska is an outlier, but claiming that every election that didn't come out the way we'd like was the subject of election fraud when the results match up with the pre-election polls actually undermines the credibility of those who raise questions about election results where there is some evidence to support it.

[BeFree]

33. Here's the problem

With the bad election systems in place and in use, any election is subject to being stolen. ANY.

So all the evidence that the election could be stolen is right f'n in front of you.

The fight against the machines has been successful only because there has been a fight. It isn't the credibility of election reformers in question. It is the credibility of the election systems that we are trying to reform. DUH!

Instead of harping on the fighters fighting for reform, I would suggest you either join us, or shut the fuck up, and let us do the work needed. We have enough enemies already.

[onenote]

34. If you want to be effective, don't leave yourself open to the charge you're crying wolf

Something smells about Alaska. But lumping in the Chambliss, McConnell, Coleman, and Bachman results with Alaska as if they are comparable simply undercuts the argument for taking a close look at Alaska.

So, thank you very much, I will not "shut the fuck up." And,I might add, I'm not your enemy. You, however, are.

[BeFree]

35. Something smells

Across America. If you don't believe that then you are opposed to getting true reform and by your undercutting people undertaking reform and trying to tell them what they should or shouldn't do or say, you place yourself among our enemies. You did it to yourself.

If you don't believe us, you are in opposition, just like our enemies.

[onenote]

36. if you think it helps to lump cases where there is no evidence

of electoral abuse with cases where there is, you're very confused. You want to tank any electoral reform, keep doing that.

[BeFree]

45. You don't get it?

If there are electronic voting systems counting the votes, there is no crying wolf.

Do I have to keep repeating that? I can ya know.

You can help, or you can hinder. We have converted many folks who said four years ago that we were crying wolf. It's evident we still have one or two more that we have to work on. It has never really been a waste of time but it does buy our enemies some time since we are directed elsewhere.

I look forward to the day we can all speak as one. We shall overcome!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

48. So what if Republicans start demanding recounts of electronic machines....

....where their candidates lost?

Obviously, you'll stand with them, because they must want to be part of something bigger than the candidates.....right?

Right?

[BeFree]

54. Right

In fact, to spur them on, I've been saying Obama may have stolen his election. I want open and verifiable elections. I am confident that democrats will be elected if we do. Like they used to be.

[bertman]

39. Kicking this one. Too late to rec.

[iceman66]

44. Alaska and Georgia look suspicious, not sure about the others.

Our candidates probably would have won in Minn. if not for the third party candidates.

[Eric J in MN]

49. Norm Coleman led Al Franken by 41-40...

...in this polling average on the morning of the election:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Nov04-s.html

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

51. Mind you, there is a lot of revisionist history going on here.....

Usually it takes a year, but some people don't want to wait.......or they just never bothered to do the research in the first place. They base all their facts on random posts the weeks before saying "I THINK AL IS GOING TO WIN!!!" or "MCCONNELL IS IN TROUBLE!!!". I don't think there was any major Senate candidate on the GOP side who wasn't predicted to be going down at some point by some random poster from their state on this board.

The day of the election, 538.com gave Franken a 52% chance of winning. Not exactly a lock.

[Eric J in MN]

50. If Ted Stevens is declared the winner in Alaska...

...then there needs to be an investigation of possible fraud.

Mark Begich led 55-40 in this polling average on the morning of the election:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Nov04-s.html

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

52. THAT one stinks, but.....

1) No one wants to admit they'd vote for a felon.

2) The hardcore GOP voter knows that the Wasilla Hillbilly will get to pick the replacement when Old Ted is tossed out on his ass by the Senate.

This election cycle has really exposed what a fucked-up place that state is.

[Eric J in MN]

53. I want a thorough federal investigation of the Alaska election...

...if Ted Stevens is declared the winner.

If no wrongdoing by election officials is found after such an investigation, then a theory like people wanted to vote for a felon but didn't want to admit it to pollsters may be the explanation.