Voter fraud - American election vastly corrupted by Ghoulman

Quote:
You want proof of voting fraud, that would, indeed, swing the election? Go here, NOW:

If I read this correctly, there is no proof, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:03 AM

RUXTON

Let's try this:
[Proof link removed 26 Nov. 2004 at thread-starter's polite request.]

If you don't know what's going on by now, I can't help you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:09 AM

^^^ great post Ruxton! THANX!!!

But it's a little big, though it's a nice low Kilo size it's large for even a high rez screen setting. Can you Photoshop that a bit? I can if you don't have.

Thanx again. :)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Watch out! The computer you are typing on, that phone line you are using, the stuff that you eat, you wear, your medicine, your mouthwash, that TV set, and your underpants are all controlled by American corporate goons.

You must resist!

You know... that's all true! Resist!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:19 AM

Actually, the pollsters admit there were some issues with the exit polls and some issues with how they were being used. Unfortunately the Media tends to use them as the end all be all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:25 AM

^^^ not this time 'round I think. Seems the media ignored the Exit Polls and spent a lot of time explaining how inaccurate they supposidly are. Which is bizarre considering Exit Polls are all the press has to report with during an election. So what about the exit polls the press used years ago? Were media pundits wrong to even report those polls for the last 50 frellin' years? No, of course not.

But THIS election was different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:36 AM

Actually, the polls don't show anything. You can set the polls up at places you know will sway one way or the other and only take partial polls. I know that in the three prez elections I have taken part of, in two differant precincts, in two differant cities, in two differant counties in Ohio, there have NEVER been polls taken. Just the "I voted today" stickers and ballots. So, basically, it's like the Gallop poll, you can make it say anything you want, especially when you aren't polling EVERYONE. (incomplete) Polls are just that, polls. If the prez could be decided by polls, they would use polls instead of ballots.

And, if things were bad for this election, than that means that both of Clinton's elections are suspect, cause we all know that no one wanted him in office. *please note sarcasm*. If we had republican presidents for the last 50 years (like some communist countries seem to do) then methinks there is a problem.

AND, the Ohio electronic voting was NOT the entire state, mind you. MOST of the state still uses paper ballots, so that statistic might be correct for the electronic votes, but not the WHOLE state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ not this time 'round I think. Seems the media ignored the Exit Polls and spent a lot of time explaining how inaccurate they supposidly are. Which is bizarre considering Exit Polls are all the press has to report with during an election. So what about the exit polls the press used years ago? Were media pundits wrong to even report those polls for the last 50 frellin' years? No, of course not.

But THIS election was different.

Well.. this isn't the first election the media has gotten burned on by the exit polls. Part of the problem wasn't so much in the polls themselves as it was the way the media used them.

The 2000 election and the 2002 elections and the way the media used the polls really got screwed up. The misuse of exit polls created enough of a stir to cause a congressional investigation. To no avail.

I think in the future Exit polls won't be the tool of choice by the media. I rather liked the fact that all the media had to resort to, was the best and most accurate information - RAW DATA. Go figure..LOL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:50 AM

BARNSTORMER

I was watching an interview with Tom Brokaw on
Nov 3. He said during the election they got a
a copy of the poll data showing kerry ahead, but
then noticed that the people they selected were heavily skewed towards left demographic.

When they saw this, they tossed the poll data in
the trash, and decided not to report the data which they were sure did not reflect the actual vote counts.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 11:54 AM

JASONZZZ

What's the data behind the charts? They need some double checking. I looked and the one for Ohio is way off. The exit poll and final results posted at CNN for Ohio is:

Bush Kerry
Exit Poll 50.94% 48.59%
Tally 51% 49%

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 12:18 PM

Jason, it could have been because they were only using the "electronic voting" machine votes. There are a number of counties that actually used the electronic voting, but by no means a majority. It probably discounted the votes that people cast using the old "hanging chad" ballots.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 1:30 PM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
Jason, it could have been because they were only using the "electronic voting" machine votes. There are a number of counties that actually used the electronic voting, but by no means a majority. It probably discounted the votes that people cast using the old "hanging chad" ballots.

huh? no? What I am saying is that the exit poll figures in Ohio completely jives with the real tally.

If I get you correctly, what you are saying is that people who voted thru the computers were exitpolled to be overwhelmingly voted for Kerry. Which doesn't jive.

In either case, it leaves the charts suspect if there are these kinds of questions, and we don't have the data to look at it. The charts don't have legends to explain what the scales mean and how they are interpreted. There isn't anything to see what sort of data they used or where it's from. It would be best if I can see the data itself.

As it is, at best, it's suspect and not meaningful at all.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
hmmm... which would take us back to hordes of random people with who knows what affiliations touching and retouching the ballots. If not introducing hordes of errors, then same problems with possibilities of fraud.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Something like an independent group of citizens, perhaps selected at random like jury members, could be in charge of all U.S. elections. There HAS to be a paper trail, and NO electronic voting, ever.

I well remember hordes of older women tending voting booths in Ohio several decades ago. One would not DARE try to cheat with them on guard.

I tend to agree with JasonZZZ here (Goddess help me)... in Canada we have an independant body whos soul purpose is to manage elections - Elections Canada, which is Gov funded but staffed with Civil Servants who have no party influence or Minister bosses. Completely independant of party or corporate influence.

Here: we vote with paper and pen. Then we count them. It's not rocket science.

Of course, there are volenteers from all the parties who watch the voting but thier hands only ever touch a ballot before one takes it into the little booth to vote. After that it's hands off and only Elections Canada people may touch 'em. These votes are kept, locked away, for recounts if needed.

Which is why the fraud in the USA is obvious. And hey, this is the second time an American election was won by fraud. 2000 went to Gore after all.

Civil servants starring as Independant Pollsters. Riiiiiiggghhht. They have no self interest.

As to your election methods, it's just like your vaunted Health Care system, you only have 32 Million citizens. The United States is almost at 300 Million. Not to mention you can't even defend your own shores since your navy is undeployable. So who covers that slack?

As to your CRAZY notion of fraud...you don't think that the Democratic party would be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER if they even suspected fraud??? You don't think there are thousands of people combing the results? Ha! Even in 2000 the New York Times, The LA Times, and many other left wing papers concluded that their was NO FRAUD! So wake up and move on.

You're simply uninformed...so please stay in Canada...Please, do it for the children.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 4:55 PM

Exit polling isn't scientific, it depends on someone to ask questions. Proper polling requires consistancy. Exit polling is anything but controlled and consistant.

Furthermore, exit polling was NEVER intended to be used to compare the possible results the DAY OF AN ELECTION. It was supposed to be used AFTER.

However, maybe you're right. Maybe your cute little bar charts are correct....Since the lawyers aren't suing and no recount is in effect, maybe you folks are the only ones who have this priceless secret knowledge! You better share it with the recently deceased Kerry campaign before the CIA shows up and pulls your tin foil hats over your eyes and shove you off the roof.

Please....smarter and more ruthless people than you lot have conceded that it was an old fashioned election with a winner and a loser.

Move on move on.org!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Just keep doing what you're doing. Lying, making absurdly ficticious, baseless stories and mindless propaganda is EXACTLY what helped Kerry lose. The Michael Moore, conspiracy nut case folks are going to have to be hog tied and shut away in a closet before the Dems will EVER challenge for either the White House or any real power in Congress.

First it was the Butterfly ballots, and y'all bitched and moaned till a change was made.
Now it's urban legends about the NEW machines. My god, you folks sound like spoiled brats who don't get their way.

Bush won. Kerry lost.

Get over it. Nobody likes a sore loser.

Sore loser.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Thank-you! Well said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2004 6:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I wonder about the difference between the exits and the tallies. If it were truly statistical slop, it would go both ways. There is a BIAS (a type of error) and it still would be good to see it definitively explained. Six separate polling services reported this problem across the nation. They didn't all make the same mistakes or end up under the same weird measuring regime. The isolated expl'n here or there isn't enough for me. I'd really like to see this studied.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I wonder about the difference between the exits and the tallies. If it were truly statistical slop, it would go both ways. There is a BIAS (a type of error) and it still would be good to see it definitively explained. Six separate polling services reported this problem across the nation. They didn't all make the same mistakes or end up under the same weird measuring regime. The isolated expl'n here or there isn't enough for me. I'd really like to see this studied.

I just want to point out that if the Kerry camp thought for one split second that they were robbed, they would have deployed the lawyers and forced an investigation.

Remember the VoterNewsService in 2000? They got it wrong too. Very much so. Was that due to scandle?

Exit polling was never intended for this. It was to be used AFTER an election to gauge who cast votes for what. I for one think exit polling should be illegal. Let the people vote and we'll find out with in a few hours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:54 AM

The news services as I understand it all get their exit poll data from the same polling source, so as to be on equal ground. This polling service is actually paid by the networks combined to provide that service. Unfortunately, there were a number of issues that arose due to when the polls were taken and the demographics of the folks being polled.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:31 AM

^^^ Thanks for bringing some info Connerflynn.

Exit Polls are just that, polls. If there is a demographic discrepincy it should be notable before the polling. If that's true it's a stupid mistake.

When there are reports of foul play it's the job of the media to report it. But more importantly, it's the job of the Government to assure the public thier country isn't being run by a bunch of lieing chimpanzees.

There are lot's of reports of fraud and where there is smoke...

Still the American government has not acknowledged there is even any problem (sort of like when GWB was asked if he ever made a mistake in his last 4 years... he insisted he did not!) as if the American system of one vote for every person is intact.

The revolution will NOT be televised.

Vote Fraud 2004 Round Up
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_crime&Number=
293078189

Broward Machines Count Backwards
Excerpt (Palm Beach Post): Why a voting system would be designed to count backward was a mystery to Broward County Mayor Ilene Lieberman. She was on the phone late Wednesday with Omaha-based Elections Systems and Software. ... Late Thursday, ES&S issued a statement reiterating that it learned of the problems in 2002 and said the software upgrades would be submitted to Hood's office next year. The company was working with the counties it serves to make sure ballots don't exceed capacity and said no other counties reported similar problems. ...

In one precinct, Bush’s tally was supersized by a computer glitch
Excerpt (Columbus Dispatch): A computer error involving one voting-machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct.

Franklin County’s unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry’s 260 votes in Precinct 1B, which votes at New Life Church on Stygler Road. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. ... Damschroder said he received some calls yesterday from people who saw the error when reading the list of poll results on the election board’s Web site.

Glitches Mar San Francisco Balloting
Excerpt (NY Times): SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 - San Francisco's new municipal election system, which relies on an optical scan machine and software that ranks the voters' choice of candidate, failed to work as expected because of a software problem, officials said on Thursday.

The city's election department learned of the problem on Wednesday, when the maker of the new software, ES&S, alerted the authorities that the software "didn't tabulate and combine the data as it was supposed to," one election official said. Because of the problem, candidates were not ranked.

Sender, Berl & Sons
Excerpt: THE REPUBLICANS ON CABLE ARE CROWING ABOUT THEIR WIN. THIS DISGUSTS US. THEY DIDN'T WIN. THEY LOST LIKE THE REST OF US. THEY LOST THIS COUNTRY, OUR RIGHT TO VOTE, OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE OUR LEADERS AND OUR POLICIES. IF BEING OCCUPIED AND CONTROLLED IS THEIR IDEA OF DEMOCRACY AND AMERICA, THEY CAN JOIN TOMMY FRANKS WHO DARED DECLARE THAT DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN A NOBLE EXPERIMENT (IMPLYING WHOSE TIME HAS COME AND GONE).
Comment: I can't add much to the above. Feel free to discount them if you will but SenderBerl has a Blue Chip record of calling World Events Correctly. Lots of other interesting data and analysis on this site as well.

Some observations of the 2004 election.
Excerpt: Examining the results of this election reveals some striking details that should make everyone who opposed Bush very concerned. In 2000 Al Gore received 51.00 million votes, in 2004 Kerry only received 55.7 million. The 2.5 million Nader voters who left him did not simply evaporate. Nader supporters are intelligent progressives who oppose corporate rule and the two-party system, but knowing the stakes this time around, it was very predictable they would abandon him. This 2.5 million went to John Kerry. Exit polls show that Kerry also picked up a small 1 in 10 fraction of 2000 Bush voters, meanwhile Bush picked up the same amount of the 2000 Gore supporters this time around, making this issue a wash. With these facts, namely the 2.5 million Nader supporters going to the side of the Democrats, Kerry already had 53.5 million votes solidified. The assertion that 2.5 million voters who voted for a third party in 2000 went to Kerry in 2004 is probably actually an understatement. A CNN exit poll showed that out of the minority of 3.87 million people who voted for any third party in 2000, 71% voted for Kerry this time around. That equals to about 2.75 million voters. So again, adding this figure to Gore’s total of 51.00 million in 2000 shows that Kerry would have had 53.5 – 53.75 million votes in this election regardless of any new voter support. Therefore, according to the official results, the Kerry campaign was only able to capture no more than 2 million new voters to get him to his total of 55.7 million this past election.

Bar Graph Comparison of Paper Ballot Versus Votefraud Machine
This is a comparison in a couple of States illustrating the difference between Exit Polling and Actual results in Paper Ballot States like Wisconsin versus Votefraud Machine States such as North Carolina and New Hampshire.

The same graph as RUXTON posted is linked here.

States with electronic voting machines gave Bush mysterious 5% advantage; bloggers do the math that broadcast networks fail to follow
Excerpt: Is Bush trying to pull a fast one? It's not fooling bloggers over at DemocraticUnderground.com, who have put together some fascinating numbers showing that a mysterious "5% advantage" goes to Bush only in those states using electronic voting machines. Or, put another way, all the exit polls showed Kerry winning, and the exit polls asked people who they actually voted for. But strangely, the "official" count appears to have been boosted in favor of Bush.

"More votes than voters: Now THAT'S a mandate!"
The voter returns for Franklin County, Ohio.
The Libertarian: 13
Bush/Cheney: 6253
Kerry/Edwards: 1916
Constitutional Party: 10

Now, check out the senatorial vote in that precinct:

Republican: 2848
Democrat: 1259

Did 4000 people vote for Bush/Cheney and just skip the senatorial vote?

No. Check out the precinct voter count: 4346.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:19 AM

This is just a terrific post from a clear minded person. RUE, you're the shabazz.

rue wrote:
Thursday, November 04, 2004 17:25
I'm still curious about what may come out of this.

In 2000 when the news orgs 'called' Florida for Gore (based on exit polls) and the vote very publicly didn't go that way, it couldn't be swept under the rug. So the news orgs got together, went over their polls and data during the next couple of days, and decided that they hadn't actually made any mistakes. It was the discrepancy itself between the exits and the votes that uncovered the problems with the voting. Thousands more people in Florida thought they had voted for Gore. (Somewhere on my computer is the actual data from the study commissioned by the consortium, but that link doesn't work anymore. However, I did find a link to a news article: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
"According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. ... a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush. Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design. .... Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.)

This time around even the pollsters like Zogby, who were trying to be technically cautious, got blind-sided. The exit-poll v tally discrepancy was not so public this time around, but it was still a problem. Will it be pursued to ultimately determine the cause as was done in 2000?

I suspect the pollsters, whose job IS doing polls, will have an avid financial interest in exonerating (or quietly fixing) the business. But whether they have the clout and money to pursue the issue is another matter.

Have exits become unreliable? Were there other problems? I'm interested in finding out the ultimate answer. The problem is that even if the answers are pursued, they might not be in the public arena.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The news services as I understand it all get their exit poll data from the same polling source.

There were independent pollsters doing their own polling, who were not part of the news service exit poll system. They were also not part of the private polling by Republicans and Democrats. I'd have to go find the article to get the list, but Zogby was one of them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 12:35 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:

You know, for some reason this doesn't jive with me. I think it's because there were SEVERAL web sites that had jokes about this. The Bush button would stay in one spot and the Kerry would move around if you tried to click it. Then, you'd finally get to click on it and it would count it as a Bush vote..... Yeah, ok. Anyhow, one lone lady has a problem voting where it would do that. If that did it to me, I would walk to the people running the polling place and tell them to give me another machine. If it still didn't work, I would ask for a paper ballot. If she were stupid enough not to pursue getting it corrected while she was there, then her vote doesn't count. I have no pity for those too lazy to do anything when it matters the most. But, if it did have issues and they didn't listen to her, THEN there would be a problem, but, for some reason I have the feeling that she kept hitting the wrong button.

do you really think it was just one lady who this happened to, I used her as an example because I saw it with my own eyes.. Please before you speak on these topics and call people lazy..at least do a little research ..its not that hard the fraud was rampant..the machines were built by (crackers)
No she didn't hit the wrong button

the machines are designed to eat the Democratic vote..and it wasn't just this election..

Once again Ignorance is running rampant..please even if you still choose to stay ingnorant..at least know of what your talking about before you post!!

ask yourself this question ask yourself is having Bush win the election even by fradulant means more important then democracy

if winning no matter what the cost even your own freedoms is more important to you..then by all means continue to spout ingnorance

if you love corporations and don't mind them controlling your government then continue to do what you do!!

even if you don't believe that the election was stolen and the fact that this is even an issue should concern you as a freedom loving American

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 6, 2004 2:09 PM

I really don't think that I was being ignorant, and I didn't call her lazy. I said that if she accepted it without doing anything about it, THEN she was lazy. You saw it, ok, then first hand witness is a little differant. From how you stated what you said, it sounded more like you HEARD of a lady that had the problem, and I am more inclined to say that if you didn't see it that it is possible that she was at fault. Anyhow, machines do have issues, and software programs do have bugs. Now, there is a chance that there was an issue there, but have you done anything about it? Did she? I'm not saying I don't care, I am trying to make sure that IF there was an issue, that someone did something to cause votes not to be counted, then someone needs to do something ABOUT it. Not just sit here and type and bash people because they didn't follow what you typed. I was only saying she was lazy IF she didn't do anything about it (which, you have to admit that you didn't say if she had or not). And, to

Quote:
ask yourself this question ask yourself is having Bush win the election even by fradulant means more important then democracy

I didn't vote for Bush. Nor did I vote for Kerry. I voted for somebody whom I thought was good for the job, not the boob in office or the puppet that challenged him. That being said, I still haven't seen anything that would say that Bush didn't win because he got the most votes. Were there issues with how the votes were counted and some voter fraud? Of course. But was it enough to change the outcome of the election? Not from where I am standing, and I'm not on either side.

As an informed voter, you have a right, and a responsibility, to make sure that your vote was counted correctly. If the machine was not taking votes correctly, it should have been taken off of the floor and not used. Period. If ANYONE used that machine after that lady couldn't enter her vote, she IS lazy because she didn't force the issue. I know that if the other 200 people in line at the time would have known that they couldn't vote correctly from that polling station, they would not have agreed to voting with it! They would have made a fuss over it and they would have HAD to take paper votes. Call the voter hotline thing, throw a fit, do SOMETHING. That was what I was saying. If she did that, GOOD FOR HER!!! If not, SHAME ON HER!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2004 11:12 AM

^^^ ? It's not some old ladies responsibility to make sure American voter laws aren't corrupted. Really. Sheesh, you are ignorant. Shut up!

Anyho'

The news is getting out. Ghoulman is right again... of course.

Slashdot.org has created a thread with some terrific links about this latest stolen US election. I'd like to use this opportunity to say I TOLD YA SO MORONS! lol!

2004 Election Weirdness Continues
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/08/1910250&tid=103&t
id=219

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday November 08, @02:59PM
from the stuff-to-think-about dept.
I've read dozens of submissions about election anomolies in the last week and they show no sign of slowing so I've decided to post a few of the main ones here to let you all discuss them. The first is the Common Dreams report that shows that optically scanned votes have a strange anomoly in florida: the Diebold counties roughly matched up to party registration numbers, but optically scanned paper ballot counties showed strangeness like one county where 69.3% registered democrat, but only 28% of them voted for Kerry. Palm Beach County, Florida logged 88,000 more votes than there were voters; that machines in LaPorte, Michigan discounted 50,000 voters; in Columbus, Ohio voting machines gave Bush an extra 4,000 votes; in Broward County, Florida voting machines were counting backwards; Lastly, precincts in New Mexico gave provisional ballots that will never be counted to as many as 10% of all their voters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 3:00 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

Truthout.org picked up that Florida "optical scan"
voting fraud story. Go there to get a complete
run-down of WHY optical-scan voting systems are
likely to have been "hacked."

An excerpt:

The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm, and noticed something startling.

While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - the results seem to contain substantial anomalies.

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported that county size was a variable - this turns out not to be the case. Just the use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.)

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://us together.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm. Note the trend line - the only variable that determines a swing toward Bush was the use of optical scan machines.

One possible explanation for this is the "Dixiecrat" theory, that in Florida white voters (particularly the rural ones) have been registered as Democrats for years, but voting Republican since Reagan. Looking at the 2000 statistics, also available on Dopp's site, there are similar anomalies, although the trends are not as strong as in 2004. But some suggest the 2000 election may have been questionable in Florida, too.

One of the people involved in Dopp's analysis noted that it may be possible to determine the validity of the "rural Democrat" theory by comparing Florida's white rural counties to those of Pennsylvania, another swing state but one that went for Kerry, as the exit polls there predicted. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania analysis, available at http://ustogether.org/election04/PA_vote_patt.htm, doesn't show the same kind of swings as does Florida, lending credence to the possibility of problems in Florida.

Even more significantly, Dopp had first run the analysis while filtering out smaller (rural) counties, and still found that the only variable that accounted for a swing toward Republican voting was the use of optical-scan machines, whereas counties with touch-screen machines generally didn't swing - regardless of size.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 12:28 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
Besides the media has been extremly anti-bush for a while now.

Why do people believe this?
(It's a rhetorical question, I'll answer it.)
Because it's their ox being gored. That's why.
Anyone who thinks the media is anti-Bush probably had the gut reaction that the media was also pro-Clinton.
Which is a viewpoint so deluded as to impinge on insanity. Which shouldn't surprise me, as the notion of voting for Clinton or Bush is also, in my opinion, quite mad.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:54 AM

BARNSTORMER

does this article sway any of the conspiracy theorists here???

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=239735&page=1

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:19 AM

JRC

You Americans blah-blah-blah there's fraud yadda-yadda-yadda, because Kerry yak-yak-yak but Bush is blah-blah-blah we here in Canada whine-whine-whine to go with our cheese yadda-yadda-yadda bunch of facsists badda-bing-badda-bang but in Canada bitch-bitch-bitch.
Bush won, Kerry didn't (unless conspiracy theories are right blah-blah-blah). Deal with it. Get on with your real lives, if you have one yadda-yadda-yadda.

By the way, when's Serenity premiering again? :-P

Everyone dies alone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:23 AM

lol!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
does this article sway any of the conspiracy theorists here???

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=239735&page=1

Brill post! Nice work and it's a perfect counter point to the discussion here! You rock, really.

I'm aware that the mainstream media is scared, such as last night when Tom Brokaw refered to the stories about election fraud as "conspiracy theories" as if he wasn't reading from a script.

Let's keep in mind the mainstream media is the centre arm of the Corporate support for Bush/Cheney.

Last night Tom quoted this guy as this article does...
Doug Chapin, a nonpartisan election analyst, finds the claims to be baseless. "There were no problems that would lead me to believe that there were stolen elections or widespread fraud," he said.

Doug Chapin runs electiononline.org which is independant and run thanks to a grant at Richmond University.

But even Doug's website has a list of stories coming out about voter fraud. Now, how many stories must there be before it's a problem?

One! Stupid!

And that's why it's obvious there is corruption regarding the election. There should not be any story because under the law of the United States of America EACH VOTE IS COUNTED... or else.

So where is the "or else"?

Not on Tom Brokaws' show. Which is his job btw.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:49 AM

BARNSTORMER

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
does this article sway any of the conspiracy theorists here???

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=239735&page=1

Brill post! Nice work and it's a perfect counter point to the discussion here! You rock, really.

I'm aware that the mainstream media is scared, such as last night when Tom Brokaw refered to the stories about election fraud as "conspiracy theories" as if he wasn't reading from a script.

Let's keep in mind the mainstream media is the centre arm of the Corporate support for Bush/Cheney.

Last night Tom quoted this guy as this article does...
Doug Chapin, a nonpartisan election analyst, finds the claims to be baseless. "There were no problems that would lead me to believe that there were stolen elections or widespread fraud," he said.

Doug Chapin runs electiononline.org which is independant and run thanks to a grant at Richmond University.

But even Doug's website has a list of stories coming out about voter fraud. Now, how many stories must there be before it's a problem?

One! Stupid!

And that's why it's obvious there is corruption regarding the election. There should not be any story because under the law of the United States of America EACH VOTE IS COUNTED... or else.

So where is the "or else"?

Not on Tom Brokaws' show. Which is his job btw.

ROFLOL

Yep....Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist (aka Nut Job).

Ghoulboy, you are sooooo predictable. You are one of four posters on this board who I just knew would respond to this post in just this way.

Any new source or analyst you don't quote yourself is obviously on the take from the right wing republican bushie stormtroopers.

And then you of course have to throw in the obligatory insult (ie One! Stupid!)

I posted this just to bait you Ghoulboy. Had fun doing it to. It's kind of funny to read your responses that get more and more indignant and angry as time goes on.

You and your ridiculous conspiracy theories make it kind of like watching unaired episodes of the X-files right here on my PC!!!!!

Fun, Fun, Fun.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:43 AM

^^^ I didn't mean to say you were stupid. I ment to point out that if there is even one story of voting fraud it should be on the news... but it isn't.

And you're right, I've been declared a "conspiracy theory". The election was won by Bush, Tom Browkaw said so.

HA! If you believe that...

A Stolen Election?
editorial | Posted November 9, 2004
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=corn
Then there's the issue of who is running the show. Only a few companies manufacture electronic voting machines. They are not transparent. They do not use open-source code.

Last year, Walden O'Dell, the head of Diebold, a leading manufacturer of touch-screen machines, declared in a fundraising letter for the Ohio Republican Party that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

That hardly inspired confidence.

And across the country, oversight of voting is conducted by partisan officials. In Ohio, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican and conservative activist, oversaw the voting. On his watch, the polling place for Kenyon College was equipped with only two voting machines. Yet about 1,100 people--mostly students--wanted to vote there. These voters (and you can guess whom they preferred) had to wait up to nine hours. It doesn't require much cynicism to suspect that this was no accident.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Quote:
Besides the media has been extremly anti-bush for a while now.

Why do people believe this?
(It's a rhetorical question, I'll answer it.)
Because it's their ox being gored. That's why.
Anyone who thinks the media is anti-Bush probably had the gut reaction that the media was also pro-Clinton.
Which is a viewpoint so deluded as to impinge on insanity. Which shouldn't surprise me, as the notion of voting for Clinton or Bush is also, in my opinion, quite mad.

Great point.

It's a switcheroo. Basically, since what the Bush/Cheney White House is doing is insane and illegal they have to attack they who will point out the obvious - journalists. Notice the Republicans attack "liberals" instead of simply the position of other parties. They attack peoples beliefs and people themselves (like all the childish jerks attacking me on this thread without one mention of the thread topic)... which is facile and frankly remenicent of the sort of rhetoric heard in 1930s Germeny.

Unluckily, each news outlet in the USA is a right wing Repulican supporter. Each form of news Americans see is owned by one of three massive corporations. And corporations are insane too, so they make great bed fellows for Bush/Cheney.

But something new is in the mix, the Internet, which is why the rhetoric has gone from attacking the news as "liberal media" to the Internet. Specifically Bloggers.

But it isn't bloggers who scare the Republicans it's the Internet itself as it can present information unfiltered through corporate teeth. It takes away the control of the corporation and government to "manufacture concent" on issues like the useless Iraq Invasion, Bushs' fundementalism, 100000 dead women and children in Iraq, and yet another stolen election in what used to be the worlds symbol of freedom and a bright future.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 5:25 AM

The OSCE Preliminary report contradicts the suggestion that The American election was strife with fraud.

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_en.pdf

In general it appears that the largest difficulty was the number of voters (10 million + more then any previous election) and their ability to vote in a timely fashion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

But something new is in the mix, the Internet, which is why the rhetoric has gone from attacking the news as "liberal media" to the Internet. Specifically Bloggers.

But it isn't bloggers who scare the Republicans it's the Internet itself as it can present information unfiltered through corporate teeth. It takes away the control of the corporation and government to "manufacture concent" on issues like the useless Iraq Invasion, Bushs' fundementalism, 100000 dead women and children in Iraq, and yet another stolen election in what used to be the worlds symbol of freedom and a bright future.

Actually Bloggers scare the elite media period. Dan Rather and his media cronies lamented the fact that bloggers were quick to point out the fallacy of the "Forged" documents. I am researching this aspect. As I understand it, there have been calls by the media to limit bloggers. There are very few media sources that are pro-conservative or rather unbiased (In that they allow the conservative side to be heard at all). Fox tends to be conservative leaning and becaiuse of it, they are blowing CNN and MSNBC out of the water in ratings. What bothers me about this is that media in general SHOULD be unbiased. They SHOULD be required to pose only facts and figures, not opinion (unless it is specifically characterized as opinion).

The majority of the American media outlets are very much pro-fringe liberalism and partisan towards the democratic party in terms of opinion and donation. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Walter Cronkite, Judy Woodruff (Still on suicide watch I believe), Wolf Blitzer..Not to mention all the News Outlets that endorsed Kerry and the Democrats publicly..shall I go on hehe.. (It's frightening really).

Then you have the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs (I still can't believe this guy is on the air), Michael Savages etc.. who though very conservative are vastly outnumbered.

What is most interesting to me is the effect that bloggers in general are having on the political process as well as the effect they are having on the media figureheads. It also makes me wonder to what effect did Media play a part in directing previous elections and administrations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:01 AM

It's not the bloggers specifically Connerflynn... the medium is the message!

Originally posted by Ghoulman earlier...
The media is owned by three (well, 5) monsterous multinational Corproations. Each one a Bush supporter.

Anti-Bush media isn't on TV at least.

Let me muse a little on this concept of so called "liberal media".... shall I?

The "liberal media" charge comes only out of the Republican camp. And it's a lie. This sentement has been used by right wing liars since Nixon. The purpose is to imply a bias on the part of a media that, *pfft*, just parrots whatever belief the Government wants the public to believe anyho'.

Walter Cronkite once said that journalists often report stories from the point of view of the poor and disinfranchiased to offset government excess and pork barrel elite greed. This often brought a charge of "liberal media" from the right wing ... this is the real "liberal media".

So basically, the charge of "liberal media" is based on Republicans skewing the truth about people doing thier job.

Nixon!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:26 AM

SLACKMASTERACTUAL

Liberals are just delusional, there was no fraud, they can not stand how irrelevant they have become.

The Truth

[img] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/dsmith540/untitled.bmp [/img]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In every single instance I could find, in every state and by every polling operation, Bush went up in the tally as compared to the exits, while Kerry went down. Nothing is statistically impossible, but that was d*mn unlikely. It's not one particular instance or another that begs for an explination, it's the confluence of instances.
BTW the person who was first crying about it was an apparently conservative blogger who was saying it was a conspiracy by the liberal media to suppress the conservative vote. But between the time I saw it and went back for it (15minutes) it had disappeared. I suspect someone had written saying SSHHHH !! You FOOL! Bush WON! What are you trying to do ??
And the independent pollsters are chagrined to say the least. Polling is their only business. Have the tools suddenly broken?
I would certainly like to see a comprehensive AND UNBIASED study of what happened, with of course all outcomes up for consideration - there was a perfect statistical polling storm, a connecting influence, a previously unknown source of bias, or something wrong with the voting process itself. Surely you couldn't object to that, could you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:00 AM

Thanks RUE.

And the FACT that the US election was a fraud is still an issue no matter how much the neofascists want to attack me.

Ask Ralph. My hero!

Nader wants every ballot legally verified
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=qw1100186102957U213&set_id=1&cli
ck_id=3&sf=
November 11 2004 at 05:32PM
Washington - Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate this year, has called for recounts of the November 2 voting results, saying that amid allegations of irregularities, he wanted to ensure every ballot was counted.

Nader, who this year drew about one percent of the vote nationally, told a press conference on Wednesday that he was speaking out for the "thousands" of American voters asking for recounts and not on his own behalf.

"Over 2 000 citizens, including voting rights advocates, are urging in writing the Nader Camejo campaign to help make sure every vote is counted and counted accurately. The Nader Camejo campaign does not view the election to be over merely because concession speeches, which have no legal effect, have been given. Rather they are over when every vote is counted and legally certified," Nader said

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 9:58 AM

Fuck Tom Browkaw!

Media ignoring election fraud
Gayle Rogalski
Delray Beach
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-pbmail979xnov15,0
,4998399.story?coll=sfla-news-letters
I would like to thank the authors of two Nov. 9 letters, regarding the real results of the Nov. 2 election. These letters are the only mention I have seen in the media about the fraudulent election we just had.

Obviously, the mainstream media has been unable to print the truth about this election. For those of us who thought we voted for the candidates of our choice, our votes very well may not have been counted that way. For instance, in Baker County, where 69.3 percent of 12,887 registered voters are Democrats and 24.3 percent are Republicans, the supposed Democratic vote count was 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush. Does anyone believe that is correct?

Apparently this was repeated in enough places to shift just enough votes from one candidate to the other. Manipulation of the main computers compiling the total votes can be very easily and quickly accomplished as we have just seen.

Of course everyone knew Ohio would be manipulated after a major Republican and CEO of a voting machine company vowed to do anything he had to to get Bush re-elected.

This is the tip of a very crooked iceberg. This election (as well as the 2000 election) and this country were hijacked by the people with the most power in this country. Of course, the paper trail addition to voting machines that was fought so hard for and at every turn denied in this state alone allowed for this fiasco to be.

Obviously voting in this country is no longer a means to elect our public servants. It is quite obvious many of these people are not serving us but their own agendas. Please call your congressional representatives and demand an investigation of this fiasco. The future necessitates people waking up and taking responsiblity for their government before it's too late if it isn't already.

Learn what is really going on from alternative sources because you are not being told the truth by anyone else. Learn what is going on and what you can do to help change it and take back our country. The future of your children and grandchildren depend

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 11:06 AM

Fuck the New York Times! ... oh wait...

MAKING VOTES COUNT

About Those Election Results
EDITORIAL...
Published: November 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/opinion/14sun1.html?oref=login
I'd like to quote this paragraph in particular as it points out just how insane the American election has become...
The outrageous decision by Warren County, Ohio, to lock down the building where votes were being counted is an extreme example of another serious problem with the elections: a lack of transparency. In some states, reporters are barred from polling places. The wild rumors about Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where the official results appeared to include an extra 90,000 votes, were a result of its bizarrely complicated method of posting election results, which is different in even- and odd-numbered years. The nation needs to develop an election culture in which officials in every part of the country automatically keep things as open - and as simple - as humanly possible.

... different in even and odd years???

WHAT THE FFFFFFF...

Sorry... loosing it here!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 1:36 PM

LEXIBLOCK

Give it up GHOULMAN you can't win. You have to let it run its course, it is unlikely that Canada is next on the invasion list. But when you start hearing talk about changing the law so bush can say on for another 4 years (to finish his "war on terror") then worry - then start to prepare for WWIII

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 7:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anyway, I did find this file about the recent election by Steven Freeman PhD:
http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf

Before it gets categorized as just another whack-job manifesto, I did look up his bona fides on the internet:
http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11068805
http://center.grad.upenn.edu/center/nav.cgi?page=freeman

Since I'm not sure how long the links will be active, here is some information from the paper:

"Exit polls showed him (Kerry) ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizeable margins. ... But then in key state after key state, counts were showing very different numbers than the polls predicted, and the differentials were all in the same direction. ... in every one, the shift favors Bush."
"The media has largely ignored this discrepancy, suggesting that the polls were flawed, within normal sampling error, or that it was a statistical anomaly. In this paper, I examine the likelihood of each of these assumptions: validity of exit polls, sampling error, and the possibility of statistical anomaly."
He then goes on to briefly discuss who did the media exit polls for the election. He then addresses the history and overall reliability of exit polls around the world (excellent predictive power.)
He then analyzes the exit polls of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, and concludes that the likelihood Kerry received only 48.5% of the vote in Ohio (as counted) when the exit poll indicated 52.1% of the vote was less than 1/1,000; for Florida the chances of a count of 47.1% of the vote as compared to the exit poll of 49.7% was less than 3/1,000; and for Pennsylvania the chance of a count of 50.8% as compared to a poll of 54.1% was less than 2/1,000. Any two together were 1/ 1 million, three together were 1/ 250 million.
He then examines several factors that may (or may not) have affected the exit polls.
He then concludes: "I have tried to demonstrate that exit poll data is fundamentally sound, that deviations between exit poll predictions and vote tallies in the three critical battleground states could not have occurred strictly by chance or random error, and that no solid explanations have as yet been provided to explain this discrepancy. ...
Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis ..."

Finally, from Government Computing News:
http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27882-1.html
11/11/04

GAO investigation of e-voting problems requested
By William Jackson
GCN Staff
"Half-a-dozen Democratic congressmen have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate reports of voting irregularities in the Nov. 2 election, many of them involving electronic touch-screen voting machines.
A Nov. 5 letter to comptroller general David M. Walker cited news reports of problems in California, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio in which thousands of votes were erroneously recorded, deleted or added."

Whether or not these items get pursued is to be seen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 9:18 PM

HKCAVALIER

Criminals learn from the mistakes of criminals before them. Nixon made some very instructive mistakes, as did Reagan. This new bunch seems to have it down, but they all have relied upon plausible deniability for their success. As long as there is any chance, any chance at all that their criminal actions could be the result of an astronomical fluke, Americans have shown that they will swallow any coincidence theory.

Folks on this board have likened our country to a disfunctional family. As long as the family is focused on an external threat they will close ranks and protect their father's good name, even when their father is a criminal.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 9:47 PM

ALUCARD

Quote:
Originally posted by JenDandy:
A question for Ghoulman, not to offend, just out of curiousity (plus you can't get angry at someone who knows bugger all about politics, am I right?):

If you're in Canada why do you care so much about what's going on in the U.S.? No country is perfect, not even yours, surely so if you feel so strongly about politics -forgive me if you have before- why don't you start some threads on what's wrong with where you live?

Sig Rebel

amen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Regrettably I was only a short-term resident of Canada (6mos). But I lived there long enough to know it may not be Camelot, but it's a sight better than the US*. So, out of curiosity, do either one of you know much about Canada?

* http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/us_poverty
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States ranks 27th in a study of social progress worldwide due to social service budget cuts and chronic poverty plaguing major US cities, a University of Pennyslvania report found.
"The United States has gone from 18th in the world to 27th. We are now at the same level as Poland and Slovenia," said professor Richard Estes, author of the 2004 Report Card on World Social Progress, a quality of life ranking.
The ranking, based on data governments relay to the United Nations, and the World Bank, measures countries' capacity to meet citizens' needs in terms of health care, education, human rights, and cultural diversity and other factors.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2004 3:09 AM

The Ghoulman is right again. Tom Browkaw is a liar!

Why do you doubt the Ghoulman? How long o' Lord?

GAO to Investigate Voting Irregularies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4636340,00.html
Thursday November 25, 2004 1:31 AM
By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress' investigative agency, responding to complaints from around the country, has begun to look into the Nov. 2 vote count, including the handling of provisional ballots and malfunctions of voting machines.

The presidential results won't change, but the studies could lead to changes.

The Government Accountability Office usually begins investigations in response to specific requests from Congress, but the agency's head, Comptroller General David Walker, said the GAO acted on its own because of the many comments it received about ballot counting.

GAO officials said the investigation was not triggered by a request from several House Democrats, who wrote the agency this month seeking an investigation. The effort, led by senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, was not joined by any Republicans.
CLICK THE LINK FOR THE ARTICLE

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2004 3:52 AM

The most recent example of Republican manipulation is notorious. After the Bush-Gore race for the presidency in 2000, it later emerged that, under the governorship of George W's brother Jeb in Florida, around 30,000 black voters (overwhelmingly Democratic) had been illegally excluded from the voting rolls. When a stop was put to the recounts in the state, Bush was declared the winner by fewer than 540 votes.
http://www.newstatesman.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2004 5:57 AM

Special Report
Saudis, Enron money helped pay for US rigged election
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/112504Madsen/112504madsen
.html
By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer

November 25, 2004—According to informed sources in Washington and Houston, the Bush campaign spent some $29 million to pay polling place operatives around the country to rig the election for Bush. The operatives were posing as Homeland Security and FBI agents but were actually technicians familiar with Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad, Unilect, and Danaher Controls voting machines. These technicians reportedly hacked the systems to skew the results in favor of Bush.

The leak about the money and the rigged election apparently came from technicians who were promised to be paid a certain amount for their work but the Bush campaign interlocutors reneged and some of the technicians are revealing the nature of the vote rigging program.

There have been media reports from around the country concerning the locking down of precincts while votes were being tallied. In one unprecedented action in Warren County, Ohio, election officials locked down the facility where votes were being counted. The officials said this was in response to a Level 10 high-threat terrorist warning being issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI for Warren County. George Bush won 72 percent of the vote in Warren County, much larger than his percentage of victory statewide.

The money to rig the election in favor of Bush reportedly came from an entity called Five Star Trust, largely based in Houston but a worldwide entity that is directly tied to the Saudi Royal Family. Five Star Trust was termed "a well-protected vehicle" that has been used to support both Bush and Osama bin Laden in the US and around the world.

Other money used to fund the election rigging was from siphoned Enron money stored away in accounts in the Cook Islands, which was once the base of one of the more questionable and Saudi-linked BCCI subsidiaries. Cook Islands banks also handled some of the weapons smuggling financing of the Iran-Contra scandal. A former Justice Department attorney who helped prosecute the BCCI case said the use of the Cook Islands by the Bush reelection team indicates they wanted the bank arrangements to be a "quick folding tent" operation that would cease to exist when the election was over. He said the Cook Islands was notorious for not requiring any documentation for such operations
Wayne Madsen
Senior Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center

Mr. Madsen is a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC. He works with member of Congress and congressional committees on legislation and hearings of common interest.
http://iml.dartmouth.edu/ists/madsen.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:55 PM