Kerry Won (1 Viewer)

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
by Greg Palast

know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.


Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.


So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.


Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]


Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.


The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.


Whose Votes Are Discarded?


And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)


We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)


And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.


So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.


Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”


But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.


Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.


The Impact Of Challenges


First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.


In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.


Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote


Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."


How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.


CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.


New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.


Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'


Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.


I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.


Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.


"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?


Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provbisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.


Your Kerry Victory Party


So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.


But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.


What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.


I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.



Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, is now available on DVD. View a clip at http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm
 
Broward machines count backward
Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html

E-voting machines caught switching votes
In a majority of cases where machines allegedly recorded a wrong vote, votes were taken away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, or a Democratic candidate in another race, and given to Republican President George Bush or another Republican candidate, said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/11/02/HNevoteglitch_1.html

Voting Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes
An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.
http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/3894867/detail.html

Lost votes should oust official, opponent says
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/23/Hillsborough/Lost_votes_should_ous.shtml

Votes Lost in Cyberspace
Ed Pond says when the numbers didn't match up manufactures told him, “Of the votes we have 3006 is all we can recover, we said what do you mean?”
What that means is of 7537 voters, every one made after 3005 were not saved in the computer memory.
http://www.wnct.com/servlet/Satelli...icArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778939157&path=
 
As regards the article by Greg Palast, I've already written in the elections thread (on page 18 or 19 I think) about three problematic assumptions he makes :

* That Exit Polls are accurate (Conor O'Clery had a similar analysis to mine in the IT today)
* He doesn't tackle the phenomenon of spoiled votes being used as protest votes.
* This assumption that the Democratic Party (and their thousands of lawyers, who were hired with such a situation in mind) would forego a realistic chance (if it existed) of winning a four year term in the presidency for fear of being unpopular for a few weeks.

The problems described above are due to badly-designed and/or badly programmed computer systems.

The first problem really is a no-brainer. In a computer program designed to hold election results, numbers are usually held in integers (or extensions of integers, such as long integers or words). An integer holds 16 binary bits (i.e. 0 or 1) so theoretically it can hold values from 0 to 2 to the power of 16 minus 1 (i.e. 65535). However if a bit is reserved for a sign (+ or -; which shouldn't be necessary as candidates don't receive negative votes), the total value that can be stored drops to 32,767. Once that value is breached, it either resets or starts counting backwards. A very basic boo boo and I can't believe it wasn't tested properly.

The other main problem seems to be with lack of allocated database space for vote details. In either case, either the person advising the designer of the system or the programmer is at fault.

I personally believe the safest voting is the good ol' pencil-and-paper method (with appropriate transparency) - there's always an ingenious way for a computer to fuck up.
 
ElderLemon said:
The problems described above are due to badly-designed and/or badly programmed computer systems.

Almost, the problems described above are due to the fact that the Bush administration put through legislation, against much credible advice to the contrary, that forced many states to use badly programmed computer systems. Anyone with a minimum of interest in the subject has known about the flaws for the best part of the last four years. Haven't they?

I personally believe the safest voting is the good ol' pencil-and-paper method (with appropriate transparency) - there's always an ingenious way for a computer to fuck up.
Sure, however I'm not sure that the problem is just the computer/paper issue - it's also the "one shot and that's yer lot" nature of the election results that's now in place. The articles above show that cheating, vote stealing, fixing the numbers and basic election fraud has just gotten a lot harder to prove and easier to carry out now that there's no way to do recounts.

an extract from the project censored site by Peter Phillips:
And can we be sure we actually had a fair election among those who did vote? Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Diebold, and Sequoia are the companies primarily involved in implementing the new voting stations throughout the country. All three have strong ties to the Bush Administration. The largest investors in ES&S, Sequoia, and Diebold are government defense contractors Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the software security in their voting machines. A majority of officials on SAIC's board are former members of either the Pentagon or the CIA including:

- Army Gen. Wayne Downing, formerly on the National Security Council
- Bobby Ray Inman; former CIA Director
- Retired Adm. William Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
- Robert Gates, another former director of the CIA.

So we have a CIA/military private firm that programmed the security in the voting machines for companies owned by some of the largest military contracts in the country. No wonder the Co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Susan Truitt said November 3: "Seven counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire state to buy new machines without a paper trail. The exit polls, virtually the only check we have against tampering with a vote without a paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A poll worker told me this morning that there were no tapes of the results posted on some machines; on other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously shouldn't be the case."
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/democracyfails.html
 
Any kind of electronic voting system needs a paper trail - I said that in the post referred to in the election thread, and I criticised the introduction of machines without such. While I can't pass comment on the claims made by Susan Truitt on the Ohio voting machines, the assertion that the exit polls are some form of alternative check is wrong for the reasons I've already shown.

I'm very sceptical about this assertion that E-voting machines were rigged by some politico-military conspiracy; just far too many people would have been involved in the development of the machines - on the software side alone - to allow the effective rigging of the machines; all it takes is one whistleblower....
 
ElderLemon said:
Any kind of electronic voting system needs a paper trail - I said that in the post referred to in the election thread, and I criticised the introduction of machines without such.
Sure, I think most reasonable people have the same opinion. Do you have any thoughts as to why an existing system with a paper trail would be replaced by one without? Have you come across any justifications for this? I haven't seen one yet
I'm very sceptical about this assertion that E-voting machines were rigged by some politico-military conspiracy; just far too many people would have been involved in the development of the machines - on the software side alone - to allow the effective rigging of the machines; all it takes is one whistleblower....
I'm not sure that it's necessary to jump into "it's-a-conspiracy-write-it-off mode" just yet. I tend to agree with MARK LEWELLEN-BIDDLE:

" Few, if any, of the authors are pursuing questions raised in the original article: why are IT companies and defense contractors so deeply involved in the movement to foist electronic voting machines onto not only the American electorate, but voters around the world? Why is there so much secrecy surrounding the companies who have designated themselves the certifiers of the security and reliability of electronic voting machines and software? Why is one of those self-designated testing centers, Wyle labs, who recently admitted to certifying Sequoia software despite known flaws, still being allowed to certify voting software? If electronic voting is as safe and reliable as its proponents claim it to be, why did the Election Systems Task Force (Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, EDS, and Accenture) deem it necessary to hire a high-powered Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm (Information Technology Association of America) to convince us? One does not have to be conspiratorially bent to admit that these are intriguing questions.

Another issue, which is receiving no public scrutiny, is that by taking the control over the electoral process away from local officials and placing it in the hands of a very small number of for-profit corporations, we are effectively privatizing America's most public endeavor. After a recent election here in Lafayette, using Diebold voting machines, I called election officials to ask some questions. One of them was, “Where were the votes counted?” The election official responded, “Right here; we count them ourselves.” I asked how the votes were counted. Changing her tone to that of one instructing a third-grader, the official patiently explained to me that, “Each machine has a memory card that stores the votes. When the polls close, we bring all the cards back to headquarters and insert them into a machine and count the votes.” Understanding full well that the official missed the irony of her words, I thanked her for her time, and hung up.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/6.html"
 
House Dems Seek Election Inquiry

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65623,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

John Doty, spokesman for Nadler, said the congressmen emphasized that they were not seeking a nationwide recount and were not anticipating that an investigation would change the outcome of the election.
"But we do want to make sure that where there are problems they're fixed so that it won't affect other elections in the future," Doty said. "We want to make sure that people can be confident in the system."

Doty said, however, that if the GAO does find a lot more problems that haven't yet been reported, then people will at least know about them and be able to decide what to do about them.

"We're hopeful that the GAO does not find such terrible irregularities that it would demonstrate widespread problems," Doty said.
 
I wouldn't attempt to justify using e-voting machines without a paper trail. I'm not going to get into the whole area of who-runs-the-voting as it's not really my area. My interest and knowledge is in the area of voting - and in e-voting, computer programming.

What I will say though is that if the voting in Ohio Counties that used E-Voting was rigged in favour of Bush, it was the most inept rigging in history. In Ohio overall the swing against Bush to the Democrat candidate (Gore/Kerry) was just over 1%. In the seven counties that used e-voting (another ten or fifteen used optical scanning; the rest punchcards) the swing against Bush was nearly 6% - well above the state average.

Information on Ohio voting can be found at :
http://www.yourvotecountsohio.org/index.php?pageLoc=/general/map.html

Information on Coujnty-by-County results for Ohio in 2000 and 2004 can be found at :
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html

I'll post the detailed data later....
 
ElderLemon said:
What I will say though is that if the voting in Ohio Counties that used E-Voting was rigged in favour of Bush, it was the most inept rigging in history. In Ohio overall the swing against Bush to the Democrat candidate (Gore/Kerry) was just over 1%. In the seven counties that used e-voting (another ten or fifteen used optical scanning; the rest punchcards) the swing against Bush was nearly 6% - well above the state average.

Or another way to look at it is, that because every media outlet in the US/World was calling the election as neck and neck, and with so much attention being paid to them, large victories in a swing state would have automatically called attention to themselves. 1% seems so much more plausible. That is if you subscribe to the "rigged" idea. there are of course other problems which were known as far back as September:
" We now have evidence that certainly looks like altering a computerized voting system during a real election, and it happened just six weeks ago.

MONDAY Nov 1 2004: New information indicates that hackers may be targeting the central computers counting our votes tomorrow. All county elections officials who use modems to transfer votes from polling places to the central vote-counting server should disconnect the modems now.

There is no down side to removing the modems. Simply drive the vote cartridges from each polling place in to the central vote-counting location by car, instead of transmitting by modem. “Turning off” the modems may not be sufficient. Disconnect the central vote counting server from all modems, INCLUDING PHONE LINES, not just Internet.

In a very large county, this will add at most one hour to the vote-counting time, while offering significant protection from outside intrusion.

It appears that such an attack may already have taken place, in a primary election 6 weeks ago in King County, Washington -- a large jurisdiction with over one million registered voters. Documents, including internal audit logs for the central vote-counting computer, along with modem “trouble slips” consistent with hacker activity, show that the system may have been hacked on Sept. 14, 2004. Three hours is now missing from the vote-counting computer's "audit log," an automatically generated record, similar to the black box in an airplane, which registers certain kinds of events.

COMPUTER FOLKS:

Here are the details about remote access vulnerability through the modem connecting polling place voting machines with the central vote-counting server in each county elections office. This applies specifically to all Diebold systems (1,000 counties and townships), and may also apply to other vendors. The prudent course of action is to disconnect all modems, since the downside is small and the danger is significant.

The central servers are installed on unpatched, open Windows computers and use RAS (Remote Access Server) to connect to the voting machines through telephone lines. Since RAS is not adequately protected, anyone in the world, even terrorists, who can figure out the server's phone number can change vote totals without being detected by observers.

The passwords in many locations are easily guessed, and the access phone numbers can be learned through social engineering or war dialing.

ELECTION OFFICIALS: The only way to protect tomorrow's election from this type of attack is to disconnect the servers from the modems now. Under some configurations, attacks by remote access are possible even if the modem appears to be turned off. The modem lines should be physically disconnected.

We obtained these documents through a public records request.
"

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/#breaking
 
steve albino said:
The central servers are installed on unpatched, open Windows computers and use RAS (Remote Access Server) to connect to the voting machines through telephone lines.
if this is true, someone needs to be fired
 
Firstly, humple pie, my original calculations were slightly out. The swing against Bush was 4.3% in the seven e-vote counties, not 6%. This is still greater than the 1.1% statewide average.

In a theoretical situation, were the vote to be rigged in those 7 counties, there would be no point in rigging the vote against Bush by 4.3% - a 3.5% swing would have defeated Bush, so the irony is that if the E-vote swing had been replicated in the 'accountable' counties (i,e, those with Optical Scanning and Punch Card Systems), Bush would have been defeated.

Your article there is interesting; sending data over the phone network is just asking for trouble. And that still doesn't take account of Sleeper viruses. As far as I'm concerned pen-and-paper is your only man.
 
From Diebold site:
GEMS® and Microsoft Windows®
GEMS is a state of the art election management software package that runs on Microsoft's Windows operating system. It capitalizes on the latest advances in software and hardware technology, reducing incompatibility and upgrade headaches. Furthermore, Microsoft's familiar user interface means you don't have to learn a new system. You can transfer your knowledge of Windows, learned with your home and office computers, to help you easily and intuitively operate GEMS.

http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/GEMS.htm

from Scoop, 12 September 2003
Diebold Internal Mail Confirms U.S. Vote Count Vulnerabilities
Scoop has obtained internal mail messages from Diebold Election Systems which clearly and explicitly confirm security problems in the GEMS vote counting software that were highlighted in reports published on Scoop.co.nz and widely elsewhere in July.
In the internal mail Diebold Election Systems principal engineer R&D Ken Clark - then working for Global Election Systems before Diebold took the company over - responded to an internal query over a security problem. The official certification laboratory responsible for assessing the voting technology company software's robustness had noticed a problem, and a staff member was seeking Clark's advice.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00106.htm

Oct. 13, 2003 Wired Magazine
Diebold Election Systems has had a tumultuous year, and it doesn't look like it's getting any better.
Last January the electronic voting machine maker faced public embarrassment when voting activists revealed the company's insecure FTP server was making its software source code available for everyone to see.
Then researchers and auditors who examined code for the company's touch-screen voting system released two separate reports stating that the software was full of serious security flaws.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00.html

from Disinfopedia
Diebold Election Systems
Bob Urosevich, CEO of Diebold Election Systems is also the founder of ES&S, a competing voting machine company now owned by the McCarthy Group. Together these two companies are responsible for tallying around 80% of votes cast in the United States.
It is reputed that the software architecture common to both is a creation of Mr Urosevich's company I-Mark and is easily compromised, in part due to its reliance on Microsoft Access databases; and that the I-Mark and Microsoft software each represent a single point of failure of vote counting process, from which 80% of votes can be compromised via the exploit of a single line of code in either subsystem.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Diebold_Election_Systems
 
"Yawn"

In quick reference to that last article, it makes reference to comparing how accurate exit polls in touch-screen counties were against exit polls in other counties. Exit polls are conducted at a statewide level; sure there'll be sampling points in various counties, but this data is not meant to be used as a standalone poll.

The CNN poll - my guess is that they added in data that came in late - remember the polls stayed open in parts of Ohio after the official closing time of 8:00 pm EST due to pressure of numbers.

Anyway, I looked at the 15 Florida Counties that use TS voting - the other 50 or so do not - and here's my findings :

BUSH got 48.1% (up 3.0% on 2000 in the same counties)
KERRY got 51% (down 1.7% on Gore's % in 2000)
OTHERS got 0.9% (down 1.3% on Others % in 2000)

This would give Bush a swing of 4.7% - less than the 5.2% swing he received statewide. Again, as in Ohio, Bush actually performed worse in the counties with TS voting than he he did with in those counties with Optical Scanning (and therefore paper ballots).

The above is NOT a vindication of Electronic Voting - as far as I'm concerned Electronic Voting's integrity is severely compromised unless there is a paper trail, and as Steve Albino has pointed out there is also the possibility of outside agencies attempting to access and corrupt data through hacking and viruses.

However, as far as I'm concerned, I'm now convinced having gone through these figures that John Kerry did not win the election. There simply is no evidence of it.

Not that it's any harm to ask awkward questions mind....
 
Hope the "yawn" was because you posted late, if not take your own advice from the elections thread and try to stay polite...
On CNN, its not the exit poll being changed that's a problem, it's the change not being explained/contextualised etc...the timing of, etc
We agree, at the moment there's no clear, solid evidence which says that Kerry definitely won. There's also no clear, solid evidence which says that Bush definitely won either. I think everyone was suprised at how quickly the election was called, at how quickly Kerry threw in the towel - before all the votes were counted (including all the votes that weren't tampered with, lost, changed, contested, provisional, transformed into confetti etc.). The point is not just to show that Kerry may have won, it's to show that (and I hope we agree here too) enough doubt and irregularity exists to throw a very dark shadow across the "official" result and that merits discussion, investigation and action.
We're only a few days after the vote and look at how many challenges have already been made:

Presidential candidate Ralph Nader yesterday requested a recount of the Presidential election ballots in New Hampshire.
However, the Attorney General's Office is not treating it as a valid request because a check to pay for the recount did not accompany the request.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=46674


Voting Problems in Ohio Set Off an Alarm

Voters in Ohio delivered a second term to President Bush by a decisive margin. But the way the vote was conducted there, election law specialists say, exposed a number of weak spots in the nation's election system.
"We dodged a bullet this time, but the problems remain," said Heather K. Gerken, who teaches election law at Harvard. "We have problems with the machines, problems with the patchwork of regulations covering everything from recounts to provisional ballots, and problems with self-interested party officials deciding which votes count."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/campaign/07elect.html

House Dems Seek Election Inquiry

U.S. Court Allows Republican Poll Challengers in Ohio

Voting list snafu causes problems in Marion County

Illegal campaigning alleged at Iowa polling sites

Officials say long lines, complex ballot cause most problems at polls

(all the links and loads more stories here:
http://www.votersunite.org/relatednews.asp)

Institute for Public Accuracy
Teresa Fedor, [via Greg Lestini, [email protected]]
Ohio State Senator Teresa Fedor said today: "There was trouble with our elections in Ohio at every stage. It's been a battle getting people registered to vote, getting to the ballot on voting day and getting that vote to count. There is a pattern of voter suppression; that's why I called for [Ohio Secretary of State] Blackwell's resignation more than a month ago. Blackwell, while claiming to run an unbiased elections process, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Additionally, he was the spokesperson for the anti-business, anti-family constitutional amendment 'Issue 1,' and a failed initiative to repeal a crucial sales-tax revenue source for the state. Blackwell learned his moves from the Katherine Harris playbook of Florida 2000, and we won't stand for it."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1104-07.htm
 
steve albino said:
Hope the "yawn" was because you posted late, if not take your own advice from the elections thread and try to stay polite...

Yes the yawn was in reference to my extreme state of tiredness, and was not meant to be taken as a criticism. Apologies as I do see it could have been taken in that manner....
 
Well we'll wait and see... In Ohio, there seems to be a considerable degree of autonomy at a county level, which has resulted in three different voting systems being used. This is obviously leads to a lack of uniformity which probably informs Ms. Gerken's comments. Of course, if there were to be more uniformity, it inevitably leads to more control from the centre. Also, neither party holds both the posts of Director and Deputy Director of Elections in any county, so that would hopefully hinder any attempts at fraud by either side.
 
ElderLemon said:
Well we'll wait and see... In Ohio, there seems to be a considerable degree of autonomy at a county level, which has resulted in three different voting systems being used. This is obviously leads to a lack of uniformity which probably informs Ms. Gerken's comments. Of course, if there were to be more uniformity, it inevitably leads to more control from the centre.
The problems aren''t limited to lack of uniformity/consistency/verifiable results (which are already areas of concern), don't forget the "problems with self-interested party officials deciding which votes count"; also, pluralist, nationwide co-operation between states to provide rules for a non-partisan, free, internationally observed election doesn't make "more control from the centre" inevitable at all.
Let's be clear about this, there are thousands of reports like this one:
"Touch screen voting machines in Youngstown OH were registering "George W. Bush" when people pressed "John F. Kerry" ALL DAY LONG. This was reported immediately after the polls opened, and reported over and over again throughout the day, and yet the bogus machines were inexplicably kept in use THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
Countless other frauds occurred, such as postcards advising people of incorrect polling places, registered Democrats not receiving absentee ballots, duly registered young voters being forced to file provisional ballots even though their names and signatures appeared in the voting rolls, longtime active voting registered voters being told they weren't registered, bad faith challenges by Republican "challengers" in Democratic precincts, and on and on and on.
"
Ohio Whitewash ( http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/11_04.html )
 
There are irregularities in any election - and yes, there will be those on both sides who try to perpetrate fraud or influence the vote by dirty tricks. No system is perfect, and unfortunately some of the partisans aren't either.

However, as I have shown, it seems most unlikely that there was any systematic organised fraud useing e-vote machines - the most likely method of rigging the vote as fraud w8ill generally follow the path of least resistance.

We'll wait and see...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top