PDA

View Full Version : Computer Glitch Gives Bush 3,893 Extra Votes


Warrior
Nov 5th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Error Will Not Change Election Outcome



http://www.newsnet5.com/politics/3892837/detail.html
POSTED: 10:49 am EST November 5, 2004


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A computer error with a voting machine cartridge gave President George W. Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct.

President Bush won Ohio by 136,000 votes so fixing the error wouldn't change the election's outcome.

Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct one-B.

Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Franklin County elections director Matthew Damschroder says Bush got 365 votes there.

Damschroder says he got calls Thursday from people who saw the error when reading poll results on the election board's Web site.

Damschroder says after Precinct one-B closed, a cartridge from one of three voting machines at the polling place generated a faulty number at a computerized reading station.

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2455821/detail.html). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Paneru
Nov 5th, 2004, 06:30 PM
How surprising! :devil:

Allez-H
Nov 5th, 2004, 06:37 PM
What a coincidence :unsure: :rolleyes:

Martian Willow
Nov 5th, 2004, 06:37 PM
I don't see how anyone can trust any result from those machines.

DevilishAttitude
Nov 5th, 2004, 06:49 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :tape: :tape: :tape:

Does the word *rigged* come into anyone's minds ;)

KoOlMaNsEaN
Nov 5th, 2004, 06:53 PM
:eek: Im surprised!!!!!! :p

CC
Nov 5th, 2004, 07:00 PM
We don't care anymoreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

jbone_0307
Nov 5th, 2004, 10:13 PM
What is the deal with those machines. We freaking have rovers on mars, and we cant get voting machines working properly??

Brian Stewart
Nov 6th, 2004, 08:02 AM
What is the deal with those machines. We freaking have rovers on mars, and we cant get voting machines working properly??

Maybe they did work properly, or at least, "as intended". :conspiracy:

Rtael
Nov 6th, 2004, 01:00 PM
*sigh*

Paldias
Nov 6th, 2004, 02:26 PM
That almost doesn't seem right though, only 600 votes from 1 county?

It definetely sounds right. I was watching our Canadian Coverage of the Election and it said that at one County (precinct) people were taking 5 minutes to vote and they only have three machines. Thus definetely not giving anyone time to get in 4000+ voters.

Martian Willow
Nov 6th, 2004, 02:28 PM
What is the deal with those machines. We freaking have rovers on mars, and we cant get voting machines working properly??

Why do you even need machines? The rest of the civilised world manages just fine with pencil and paper. We don't have these problems.

decemberlove
Nov 6th, 2004, 02:35 PM
strange cos this news is on the international cnn homepage yet not on the front of the american cnn...

you'd think news about your own country would be on the front of your news edition. maybe i missed it or something.

Infiniti2001
Nov 6th, 2004, 02:55 PM
strange cos this news is on the international cnn homepage yet not on the front of the american cnn...

you'd think news about your own country would be on the front of your news edition. maybe i missed it or something.

Wake up baby!!! The media is all up this administrations' ass... Case in point the debates.. While most gave Kerry his props for kicking ass--- they were more concerned about what dumbfuck should do to challenge him :rolleyes: It was the same at the beginning of the war, and now we have 4 more years of Carl Rove manipulating everything :tape:

P.S. there's shit being reported all over the country, but you have to look really hard to find articles.

Here's one I came accross on aol:


Group Finds Voting Irregularities in South
By DOUG GROSS, AP

ATLANTA (Nov. 5) - A national voting rights group said Friday it documented hundreds of voting irregularities affecting poor and minority voters in seven Southern states - from long lines and faulty equipment to deliberate voter intimidation.

"While the United States of America is a strong democracy, it is also a flawed democracy," said Keith Jennings, director of Count Every Vote 2004, formed after the 2000 election to assure voting rights for "underrepresented and marginalized sectors of the population."


The group sent monitors Tuesday to 700 precincts in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina. Their goal was to observe such issues as the timely opening of polls, the presence of correct ballots and functioning machines, and the impartiality of elections officials.

Among their preliminary findings, the group listed a shortage of early voting locations in Duval County, Fla., the largest county in Florida in area and voting-age population, the failure of electronic voting machines in three South Carolina counties, and the loss of votes at a North Carolina precinct when too much information was stored on a computer unit.

"In one case, sprinklers came on while people were waiting to vote and the poll workers didn't know how to turn them off," said Alma Ayala, who monitored voting in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Volunteers with the organization met Friday at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church - where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached - to compile their findings and plan for collecting new information.

Group leaders did not know exactly how many irregularities were cited and could not say which states appeared to have the most. They said those issues will be more fully explored in their final report, to be issued in about two weeks.

But volunteers provided anecdotal evidence of voting problems in every state they monitored.

Randall Tussaint, who helped register voters and monitor polls in an eastern Georgia congressional district, cited a precinct at historically black Savannah State University where the 25 provisional ballots provided were gone by 11 a.m.

Some voters whose registration status was unclear after that time left without voting, he said.


In Florida, monitors said they observed prospective voters leaving polling places when they saw long lines for last week's early voting. Faulty equipment and sub-par facilities in some poor neighborhoods also contributed to possible voter disenfranchisement, they said.

The group's preliminary report made some positive observations.

The report applauded increased voter participation and numerous "get out the vote drives" and called elections throughout the South "relatively well administered."

But members said the fact that the presidential election's outcome is not being challenged - as it was in 2000 - should not obscure problems that still occurred.

"We had an election on Nov. 2 that fell outside the zone of litigation," said Patrick Merloe, an attorney and human rights activist who has observed elections in 27 countries. "That does not mean we had an election that met acceptable standards."


11/05/04 16:23 EST

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

cheesestix
Nov 6th, 2004, 04:58 PM
Wake up baby!!! The media is all up this administrations' ass...

That's just not true. The ONLY right-wing media outlet is Fox News. All of the rest: CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc swing toward the left.

Chris Matthews, Larry King, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric....all mainstream media, and they ALL were pulling for Kerry. You ever wonder why people like Michael Moore generally won't go on Fox News? Yet, he'll sit down and do a powder-puff interview with someone like Katie Couric or Larry King in a heartbeat. :rolleyes: Also wonder why John Kerry would never go on Fox News? Ironically, some speculate that not going on Fox News could have cost Kerry the election. :lol:

Helas
Nov 6th, 2004, 05:42 PM
That's just not true. The ONLY right-wing media outlet is Fox News. All of the rest: CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc swing toward the left.

Chris Matthews, Larry King, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric....all mainstream media, and they ALL were pulling for Kerry. You ever wonder why people like Michael Moore generally won't go on Fox News? Yet, he'll sit down and do a powder-puff interview with someone like Katie Couric or Larry King in a heartbeat. :rolleyes: Also wonder why John Kerry would never go on Fox News? Ironically, some speculate that not going on Fox News could have cost Kerry the election. :lol:
Michael Moore appeared on the Bill O'Reilly show


Filmmaker Moore, talker O'Reilly spar in Boston
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
BOSTON — Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore's already sizzling presence at the Democratic convention reached the boiling point Tuesday when he appeared on the Fox News cable network in a spirited debate with host Bill O'Reilly.
http://*********************/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://*********************/news/_photos/2004/07/27/inside-moore.jpghttp://*********************/_common/_images/clear.gifMichael Moore has appeared at several events during the Democratic National Convention in Boston.http://*********************/_common/_images/clear.gifBy Michael Springer, Getty Images
Moore also came under fresh attack from Republican Party officials, who fired off a series of press releases in an effort to make Sen. John Kerry answer for some of Moore's most controversial opinions.

Taped the day before, the Fox encounter was a verbal slugfest between the left-wing Moore and the right-wing O'Reilly. The two took shots at each other — passionately but not rudely — for 12 minutes on The O'Reilly Factor. It was perhaps the hottest face-off so far at a largely news-free and debate-free convention.

At one point O'Reilly accused Moore, director of the anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11, of being Saddam Hussein's "biggest defender in the media."

"That's insulting," Moore said.

O'Reilly repeatedly pressed Moore to apologize to the president for saying Bush lied to the nation about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before American troops entered that country.

"Actually it's President Bush that needs to apologize to the nation," Moore said.

After O'Reilly said the Bush administration made a mistake when it based the rationale for war in part on weapons of mass destruction, Moore got the host to agree that parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq shouldn't be satisfied with the explanation "we're sorry."

The lightest moment of the exchange, ironically, came after Moore asked O'Reilly three times whether he would be willing to "sacrifice his child" to fight with U.S. forces in Iraq.

"I would sacrifice myself," O'Reilly said.

"Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?" Moore shouted with glee. "Where's the recruiter?"

"You'd love to get rid of me," said O'Reilly.

"No," Moore said, his voice softening. "I want you to live. I want you to live."

Moore, who had appeared on The O'Reilly Factor twice before, and the host have been sparring from afar for months. O'Reilly had accused Moore of "ducking me" by refusing to appear on the show after the host started to hammer Fahrenheit 9/11.

Moore said he wouldn't appear until O'Reilly saw the whole film. O'Reilly left a preview of the movie halfway through. He said the movie started late and he had to get to another commitment.

O'Reilly said Tuesday that he saw the movie soon after it arrived in theatres last month.

The Moore appearance on the show happened because the host saw the filmmaker walking down a Boston street. "We were driving by and I said 'stop the car,'" O'Reilly said Tuesday. "I jump out and go cantering across the street shouting at him. It was all arranged in an hour."

Moore said when he saw O'Reilly on Monday he asked the host three questions about the second half of Fahrenheit 9/11. "He flunked all three," Moore said Tuesday. "Then he said he went to the movie with his wife, who loved it. When he brought in his wife, I said, 'OK, that's enough.' So I did the show."

Also Tuesday, the Republican National Committee put out five press releases under the headline "Moore questions about the heart and soul of Senator Kerry's campaign." On the GOP's Web site, the releases were packaged with a photo of Moore at the Democratic convention Monday night, sitting with former president Carter. The aim: to embarrass the Kerry campaign by spotlighting some of Moore's more controversial opinions.

One quoted Moore writing that "'The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, said in an e-mail statement that "We're bogged down in Iraq, health care costshave gone sky highand people's paychecks are shrinking. And the Bush campaign wants to talk about movies? No wonder Bush and Cheney have lost credibility with the American people."

Moore said "the more they do those things the larger the turnout will be for Kerry in November."

Today, Moore will go to Crawford, Texas, where Bush has his ranch. He has invited the president to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11.

JustineTime
Nov 6th, 2004, 07:21 PM
:scratch: Hmm...I notice no one seems to remember the, uhh, hundreds of votes that inadvertently found their way into Philly voting machines BEFORE the polls opened! :hehehe:

:tape:

cheesestix
Nov 6th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Michael Moore appeared on the Bill O'Reilly show


Filmmaker Moore, talker O'Reilly spar in Boston
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
BOSTON — Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore's already sizzling presence at the Democratic convention reached the boiling point Tuesday when he appeared on the Fox News cable network in a spirited debate with host Bill O'Reilly.
http://*********************/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://*********************/news/_photos/2004/07/27/inside-moore.jpghttp://*********************/_common/_images/clear.gifMichael Moore has appeared at several events during the Democratic National Convention in Boston.http://*********************/_common/_images/clear.gifBy Michael Springer, Getty Images
Moore also came under fresh attack from Republican Party officials, who fired off a series of press releases in an effort to make Sen. John Kerry answer for some of Moore's most controversial opinions.

Taped the day before, the Fox encounter was a verbal slugfest between the left-wing Moore and the right-wing O'Reilly. The two took shots at each other — passionately but not rudely — for 12 minutes on The O'Reilly Factor. It was perhaps the hottest face-off so far at a largely news-free and debate-free convention.

At one point O'Reilly accused Moore, director of the anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11, of being Saddam Hussein's "biggest defender in the media."

"That's insulting," Moore said.

O'Reilly repeatedly pressed Moore to apologize to the president for saying Bush lied to the nation about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before American troops entered that country.

"Actually it's President Bush that needs to apologize to the nation," Moore said.

After O'Reilly said the Bush administration made a mistake when it based the rationale for war in part on weapons of mass destruction, Moore got the host to agree that parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq shouldn't be satisfied with the explanation "we're sorry."

The lightest moment of the exchange, ironically, came after Moore asked O'Reilly three times whether he would be willing to "sacrifice his child" to fight with U.S. forces in Iraq.

"I would sacrifice myself," O'Reilly said.

"Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?" Moore shouted with glee. "Where's the recruiter?"

"You'd love to get rid of me," said O'Reilly.

"No," Moore said, his voice softening. "I want you to live. I want you to live."

Moore, who had appeared on The O'Reilly Factor twice before, and the host have been sparring from afar for months. O'Reilly had accused Moore of "ducking me" by refusing to appear on the show after the host started to hammer Fahrenheit 9/11.

Moore said he wouldn't appear until O'Reilly saw the whole film. O'Reilly left a preview of the movie halfway through. He said the movie started late and he had to get to another commitment.

O'Reilly said Tuesday that he saw the movie soon after it arrived in theatres last month.

The Moore appearance on the show happened because the host saw the filmmaker walking down a Boston street. "We were driving by and I said 'stop the car,'" O'Reilly said Tuesday. "I jump out and go cantering across the street shouting at him. It was all arranged in an hour."

Moore said when he saw O'Reilly on Monday he asked the host three questions about the second half of Fahrenheit 9/11. "He flunked all three," Moore said Tuesday. "Then he said he went to the movie with his wife, who loved it. When he brought in his wife, I said, 'OK, that's enough.' So I did the show."

Also Tuesday, the Republican National Committee put out five press releases under the headline "Moore questions about the heart and soul of Senator Kerry's campaign." On the GOP's Web site, the releases were packaged with a photo of Moore at the Democratic convention Monday night, sitting with former president Carter. The aim: to embarrass the Kerry campaign by spotlighting some of Moore's more controversial opinions.

One quoted Moore writing that "'The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, said in an e-mail statement that "We're bogged down in Iraq, health care costshave gone sky highand people's paychecks are shrinking. And the Bush campaign wants to talk about movies? No wonder Bush and Cheney have lost credibility with the American people."

Moore said "the more they do those things the larger the turnout will be for Kerry in November."

Today, Moore will go to Crawford, Texas, where Bush has his ranch. He has invited the president to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I do remember that. I saw at least part of that interview.

But also notice that I said "generally". He typically only appears in powder-puff interviews, though. And like I said, Kerry never went on Fox News.

Frankly, it surprised me that Moore had the balls to even do this one.

Infiniti2001
Nov 6th, 2004, 10:43 PM
Why do you even need machines? The rest of the civilised world manages just fine with pencil and paper. We don't have these problems.


Why? Because Diebold and the rest of the crooks couldn't make money :tape:

Infiniti2001
Nov 6th, 2004, 10:44 PM
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
by Thom Hartmann

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

And evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.

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.


Also See:

Florida Secretary of State Presidential Results by County 11/02/2004 (.pdf)
Florida Secretary of State County Registration by Party 2/9/2004 (.pdf)



While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios matched the Kerry/Bush vote, and so did the optically-scanned paper ballots in the larger counties, in Florida's smaller counties the results from the optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - seem to have been reversed.

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 smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed. 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 larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.

And, although elections officials didn't notice these anomalies, in aggregate they were enough to swing Florida from Kerry to Bush. If you simply go through the analysis of these counties and reverse the "anomalous" numbers in those counties that appear to have been hacked, suddenly the Florida election results resemble the Florida exit poll results: Kerry won, and won big.

Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since Election Day.

Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.

But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.

Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.

Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.

"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."

He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."

Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.

How could this happen?

On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.

That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.

"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?"

Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."

"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"

Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.

Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.

"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.

But, it's running on a Windows PC.

So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel.

In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.

"Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger."

They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the progress of your election."

As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser.

Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds."

On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv.)

Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.

Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to. It makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.

And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states.

So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.

But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann .com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

Brian Stewart
Nov 7th, 2004, 07:05 AM
Interesting. It's looking more apparent that the election was jacked. Maybe the progressives need to start hammering the "corporate-owned media" for bias, to get them to take notice.

It seems whoever did this got too greedy. Not content to just give Bush a victory, they wanted to give him a sizable win in the popular vote, and a bigger majority in the House and Senate. If all of these hacked votes were corrected, I wouldn't be surprised if President Kerry had a majority in the Senate.

Bush term II is looking more and more like Nixon term II, and it hasn't even started yet.

turt
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:54 AM
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
by Thom Hartmann

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

And evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.

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.


Also See:

Florida Secretary of State Presidential Results by County 11/02/2004 (.pdf)
Florida Secretary of State County Registration by Party 2/9/2004 (.pdf)



While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios matched the Kerry/Bush vote, and so did the optically-scanned paper ballots in the larger counties, in Florida's smaller counties the results from the optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - seem to have been reversed.

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 smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed. 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 larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.

And, although elections officials didn't notice these anomalies, in aggregate they were enough to swing Florida from Kerry to Bush. If you simply go through the analysis of these counties and reverse the "anomalous" numbers in those counties that appear to have been hacked, suddenly the Florida election results resemble the Florida exit poll results: Kerry won, and won big.

Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since Election Day.

Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.

But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.

Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.

Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.

"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."

He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."

Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.

How could this happen?

On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.

That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.

"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?"

Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."

"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"

Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.

Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.

"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.

But, it's running on a Windows PC.

So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel.

In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.

"Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger."

They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the progress of your election."

As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser.

Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds."

On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv.)

Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.

Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to. It makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.

And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states.

So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.

But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann .com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
:scared:

Why isn't this front news? :confused:

cheesestix
Nov 7th, 2004, 12:34 PM
:scared:

Why isn't this front news? :confused:

Maybe because this is just a CONSPIRACY THEORY cooked up by some LEFT-WING website? :rolleyes:

turt
Nov 7th, 2004, 12:50 PM
Maybe because this is just a CONSPIRACY THEORY cooked up by some LEFT-WING website? :rolleyes:
Then if it's a conspiracy theory, why don't you explain point by point what is wrong with that article?

cheesestix
Nov 7th, 2004, 01:04 PM
Then if it's a conspiracy theory, why don't you explain point by point what is wrong with that article?

What am I, a reporter? It doesn't take a rocket scientest though to look at commondreams.org and realize that they're a VERY LIBERAL left-wing organization.

If this article had a shred of credibility, the liberal media would have it plastered all over the front page. But it's not. What does that tell you? You saw what CBS did with those FAKE military documents, didn't you? If they won't even touch this one, what does that tell you?

Wiggly
Nov 7th, 2004, 02:06 PM
Ferma ta Bushe Bush :devil:

Brian Stewart
Nov 8th, 2004, 06:54 AM
And another article:

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=946&mode=thread&order=0&

More and more info keeps piling up. Here's a simple solution: start by doing a recount in the counties and precincts mentioned in the article a few posts back. Since they number in the thousands, such a recount shouldn't take long at all. They have the punch cards and paper optical scan ballots, so there is absolute proof how the votes went. Republicans should wholeheartedly support this too. Everyone should want to get the truth. However, should these recounts turn up discrepancies, that's justification for examining the touch screen precincts. This can be done by getting the lists of those who voted, and going door to door to find out how they voted.

As mentioned in the article in this link, whenever there are paper trails, exit polls are extremely accurate. Suddenly, so many of them go wrong at the same time? It defies belief. Almost as much as the Democrats' apparent willingness to bend over and spread 'em instead of fighting.

There's over a month to go before the electors vote. Plenty of time to investigate.

Sam L
Nov 8th, 2004, 09:31 AM
Interesting. It's looking more apparent that the election was jacked. Maybe the progressives need to start hammering the "corporate-owned media" for bias, to get them to take notice.

It seems whoever did this got too greedy. Not content to just give Bush a victory, they wanted to give him a sizable win in the popular vote, and a bigger majority in the House and Senate. If all of these hacked votes were corrected, I wouldn't be surprised if President Kerry had a majority in the Senate.

Bush term II is looking more and more like Nixon term II, and it hasn't even started yet.
Hey Brian, I read an article today that said that Rove told Bush before the election that he's won. :eek: Hmm...

cheesestix
Nov 8th, 2004, 11:29 AM
Hey Brian, I read an article today that said that Rove told Bush before the election that he's won. :eek: Hmm...

Yeah, and I'm sure that NONE of Kerry's camp said the same damn thing to Kerry before the election. :rolleyes:

Weren't some of the people on this board even saying that Kerry was going to win? :rolleyes:

If you watched the news before the election results were in, you saw Bush's camp saying "We're confident we've got this thing won", and you saw Kerry's camp saying "We're confident we've got this thing won".

It's called keeping a positive attitude.

V.S.
Nov 8th, 2004, 03:04 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804A.shtml

Worse Than 2000: Tuesday's Electoral Disaster
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report


Monday 08 November 2004

Everyone remembers Florida's 2000 election debacle, and all of the new terms it introduced to our political lexicon: Hanging chads, dimpled chads, pregnant chads, overvotes, undervotes, Sore Losermans, Jews for Buchanan and so forth. It took several weeks, battalions of lawyers and a questionable decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to show the nation and the world how messy democracy can be. By any standard, what happened in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election was a disaster.

What happened during the Presidential election of 2004, in Florida, in Ohio, and in a number of other states as well, was worse.

Some of the problems with this past Tuesday's election will sound all too familiar. Despite having four years to look into and deal with the problems that cropped up in Florida in 2000, the 'spoiled vote' chad issue reared its ugly head again. Investigative journalist Greg Palast, the man almost singularly responsible for exposing the more egregious examples of illegitimate deletions of voters from the rolls, described the continued problems in an article published just before the election (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110204V.shtml), and again in an article published just after the election (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0).

Four years later, and none of the Florida problems were fixed. In fact, by all appearances, they spread from Florida to Ohio, New Mexico, Michigan and elsewhere. Worse, these problems only scratch the surface of what appears to have happened in Tuesday's election. The fix that was put in place to solve these problems - the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 after the Florida debacle - appears to have gone a long way towards making things worse by orders of magnitude, for it was the Help America Vote Act which introduced paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines to millions of voters across the country.

At first blush, it seems like a good idea. Forget the chads, the punch cards, the archaic booths like pianos standing on end with the handles and the curtains. This is the 21st century, so let's do it with computers. A simple screen presents straightforward choices, and you touch the spot on the screen to vote for your candidate. Your vote is recorded by the machine, and then sent via modem to a central computer which tallies the votes. Simple, right?

Not quite.

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.site_01/2.big.picture_1.gif (http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.diebold_voter110804A1.jpg)
http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.diebold_voter110804A1_sm.jpg http://www.truthout.org/imgs.site_01/2.ClrSpc.indent_2.gifA Diebold voting machine. Is there any evidence that these machines went haywire on Tuesday? Nationally, there were more than 1,100 reports (http://www.whtm.com/news/stories/1104/184856.html) of electronic voting machine malfunctions. A few examples:

In Broward County, Florida (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html), election workers were shocked to discover that their shiny new machines were counting backwards. "Tallies should go up as more votes are counted," according to this report. "That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone down. Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward."

In Franklin County, Ohio (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10103910.htm), electronic voting machines gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in one precinct alone. "Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B," according to this report. "Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president."

In Craven County, North Carolina (http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=18297&Section=Local), a software error on the electronic voting machines awarded Bush 11,283 extra votes. "The Elections Systems and Software equipment," according to this report, "had downloaded voting information from nine of the county's 26 precincts and as the absentee ballots were added, the precinct totals were added a second time. An override, like those occurring when one attempts to save a computer file that already exists, is supposed to prevent double counting, but did not function correctly."

In Carteret County, North Carolina (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4596394,00.html), "More than 4,500 votes may be lost in one North Carolina county because officials believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. Local officials said UniLect Corp., the maker of the county's electronic voting system, told them that each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes. Officials said 3,005 early votes were stored, but 4,530 were lost."

In LaPorte County, Indiana (http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2004/11/04/news), a Democratic stronghold, the electronic voting machines decided that each precinct only had 300 voters. "At about 7 p.m. Tuesday," according to this report, "it was noticed that the first two or three printouts from individual precinct reports all listed an identical number of voters. Each precinct was listed as having 300 registered voters. That means the total number of voters for the county would be 22,200, although there are actually more than 79,000 registered voters."

In Sarpy County, Nebraska (http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1161971.html), the electronic touch screen machines got generous. "As many as 10,000 extra votes," according to this report, "have been tallied and candidates are still waiting for corrected totals. Johnny Boykin lost his bid to be on the Papillion City Council. The difference between victory and defeat in the race was 127 votes. Boykin says, 'When I went in to work the next day and saw that 3,342 people had shown up to vote in our ward, I thought something's not right.' He's right. There are not even 3,000 people registered to vote in his ward. For some reason, some votes were counted twice."


Stories like this have been popping up in many of the states that put these touch-screen voting machines to use. Beyond these reports are the folks who attempted to vote for one candidate and saw the machine give their vote to the other candidate (http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4154/). Sometimes, the flawed machines were taken off-line, and sometimes they were not. As for the reports above, the mistakes described were caught and corrected. How many mistakes made by these machines were not caught, were not corrected, and have now become part of the record?

The flaws within these machines are well documented. Professors and researchers from Johns Hopkins performed a detailed analysis of these electronic voting machines in May of 2004. In their results (http://avirubin.com/vote/analysis/index.html), the Johns Hopkins researchers stated, "This voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software."

"Furthermore," they continued, "we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered and executed without access to the source code. In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate that the insider threat is also quite considerable, showing that not only can an insider, such as a poll worker, modify the votes, but that insiders can also violate voter privacy and match votes with the voters who cast them. We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election."

Many of these machines do not provide the voter with a paper ballot that verifies their vote. So if an error - or purposefully inserted malicious code - in the untested machine causes their vote to go for the other guy, they have no way to verify that it happened. The lack of a paper ballot also means the end of recounts as we have known them; now, on these new machines, a recount amounts to pushing a button on the machine and getting a number in return, but without those paper ballots to do a comparison, there is no way to verify the validity of that count.

Worst of all is the fact that all the votes collected by these machines are sent via modem to a central tabulating computer which counts the votes on Windows software. This means, essentially, that any gomer with access to the central tabulation machine who knows how to work an Excel spreadsheet can go into this central computer and make wholesale changes to election totals without anyone being the wiser.

Bev Harris, who has been working tirelessly since the passage of the Help America Vote Act (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/) to inform people of the dangers present in this new process, got a chance to demonstrate how easy it is to steal an election on that central tabulation computer while a guest on the CNBC program 'Topic A With Tina Brown.' Ms. Brown was off that night, and the guest host was none other than Governor Howard Dean. Thanks to Governor Dean and Ms. Harris, anyone watching CNBC that night got to see just how easy it is to steal an election because of these new machines and the flawed processes they use.

"In a voting system," Harris said on the show, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once? What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."

Harris then proceeded to open a laptop computer that had on it the software used to tabulate the votes by one of the aforementioned central processors. Journalist Thom Hartman describes what happened next (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm): "So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS tabulation software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the 'My Computer' icon, choose 'Local Disk C:,' open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder 'LocalDB' which, Harris noted, 'stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes.' Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled Central Tabulator Votes,' which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel. 'Let's just flip those,' Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, 'We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds.'"

Any system that makes it this easy to steal or corrupt an election has no business being anywhere near the voters on election day.

The counter-argument to this states that people with nefarious intent, people with a partisan stake in the outcome of an election, would have to have access to the central tabulation computers in order to do harm to the process. Keep the partisans away from the process, and everything will work out fine. Surely no partisan political types were near these machines on Tuesday night when the votes were counted, right?

One of the main manufacturers of these electronic touch-screen voting machines is Diebold, Inc. More than 35 counties in Ohio alone used the Diebold machines on Tuesday, and millions of voters across the country did the same. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Diebold gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2000, along with additional contributions between 2001 and 2002 which totaled $95,000. Of the four companies competing for the contracts to manufacture these voting machines, only Diebold contributed large sums to any political party. The CEO of Diebold is a man named Walden O'Dell. O'Dell was very much on board with the Bush campaign, having said publicly in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

So much for keeping the partisans at arm's length.

Is there any evidence that vote totals were deliberately tampered with by people who had a stake in the outcome? Nothing specific has been documented to date. Jeff Fisher, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District, claims to have evidence that the Florida election was hacked, and says further that he knows who hacked it and how it was done. Such evidence is not yet forthcoming.

There are, however, some disturbing and compelling trends that indicate things are not as they should be. This chart (http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm) displays a breakdown of counties in Florida. It lists the voters in each county by party affiliation, and compares expected vote totals to the reported results. It also separates the results into two sections, one for 'touch-screen' counties and the other for optical scan counties.

Over and over in these counties, the results, based upon party registration, did not come close to matching expectations. It can be argued, and has been argued, that such results indicate nothing more or less than a President getting cross-over voters, as well as late-breaking undecided voters, to come over to his side. These are Southern Democrats, and the numbers from previous elections show that many have often voted Republican. Yet the news wires have been inundated for well over a year with stories about how stridently united Democratic voters were behind the idea of removing Bush from office. It is worth wondering why that unity did not permeate these Democratic voting districts. If that unity was there, it is worth asking why the election results in these counties do not reflect this.

Most disturbing of all is the reality that these questionable Diebold voting machines are not isolated to Florida. This list documents (http://www.why-war.com/features/diebold-campaign.pdf), as of March 2003, all of the counties in all of the 37 states where Diebold machines were used to count votes. The document is 28 pages long. That is a lot of counties, and a lot of votes, left in the hands of machines that have a questionable track record, that send their vote totals to central computers which make it far too easy to change election results, that were manufactured by a company with a personal, financial, and publicly stated stake in George W. Bush holding on to the White House.

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.site_01/2.big.picture_1.gif (http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.votemap110804A2.gif)
http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.votemap110804A2_sm.gif http://www.truthout.org/imgs.site_01/2.ClrSpc.indent_2.gifThis map indicates where different voting devices were used nationally. The areas where electronic voting machines were used is marked in blue. A poster named 'TruthIsAll' on the DemocraticUnderground.com forums laid out the questionable results of Tuesday's election in succinct fashion: "To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election."

In short, we have old-style vote spoilage in minority communities. We have electronic voting machines losing votes and adding votes all across the country. We have electronic voting machines whose efficiency and safety have not been tested. We have electronic voting machines that offer no paper trail to ensure a fair outcome. We have central tabulators for these machines running on Windows software, compiling results that can be demonstrably tampered with. We have the makers of these machines publicly professing their preference for George W. Bush. We have voter trends that stray from the expected results. We have these machines counting millions of votes all across the country.

Perhaps this can all be dismissed. Perhaps rants like the one posted by 'TruthIsAll' are nothing more than sour grapes from the side that lost. Perhaps all of the glitches, wrecked votes, unprecedented voting trends and partisan voting-machine connections can be explained away. If so, this reporter would very much like to see those explanations. At a bare minimum, the fact that these questions exist at all represents a grievous undermining of the basic confidence in the process required to make this democracy work. Democracy should not ever require leaps of faith, and we have put the fate of our nation into the hands of machines that require such a leap. It is unacceptable across the board, and calls into serious question not only the election we just had, but any future election involving these machines.

Representatives John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler and Robert Wexler, all members of the House Judiciary Committee, posted a letter on November 5th to David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States. In the letter, they asked for an investigation into the efficacy of these electronic voting machines. The letter reads as follows: November 5, 2004

The Honorable David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
U.S. General Accountability Office
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Walker:

We write with an urgent request that the Government Accountability Office immediately undertake an investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration.

In particular, we are extremely troubled by the following reports, which we would also request that you review and evaluate for us:

In Columbus, Ohio, an electronic voting system gave President Bush nearly 4,000 extra votes. ("Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes," Associated Press, November 5)

An electronic tally of a South Florida gambling ballot initiative failed to record thousands of votes. "South Florida OKs Slot Machines Proposal," (Id.)

In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots could hold more data that it did. "Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes," (Id.)

In San Francisco, a glitch occurred with voting machines software that resulted in some votes being left uncounted. (Id.)

In Florida, there was a substantial drop off in Democratic votes in proportion to voter registration in counties utilizing optical scan machines that was apparently not present in counties using other mechanisms.

The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has received numerous reports from Youngstown, Ohio that voters who attempted to cast a vote for John Kerry on electronic voting machines saw that their votes were instead recorded as votes for George W. Bush. In South Florida, Congressman Wexler's staff received numerous reports from voters in Palm Beach, Broward and Dade Counties that they attempted to select John Kerry but George Bush appeared on the screen. CNN has reported that a dozen voters in six states, particularly Democrats in Florida, reported similar problems. This was among over one thousand such problems reported. ("Touchscreen Voting Problems Reported," Associated Press, November 5)

Excessively long lines were a frequent problem throughout the nation in Democratic precincts, particularly in Florida and Ohio. In one Ohio voting precinct serving students from Kenyon College, some voters were required to wait more than eight hours to vote. ("All Eyes on Ohio," Dan Lothian, CNN, November 3)

We are literally receiving additional reports every minute and will transmit additional information as it comes available. The essence of democracy is the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. In 2000, that confidence suffered terribly, and we fear that such a blow to our democracy may have occurred in 2004.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler

Ranking Member, Ranking Member, Member of Congress
House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution cc: Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman



"The essence of democracy," wrote the Congressmen, "is the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. In 2000, that confidence suffered terribly, and we fear that such a blow to our democracy may have occurred in 2004." Those fears appear to be valid.

John Kerry and John Edwards promised on Tuesday night that every vote would count, and that every vote would be counted. By Wednesday morning, Kerry had conceded the race to Bush, eliciting outraged howls from activists who were watching the reports of voting irregularities come piling in. Kerry had said that 10,000 lawyers were ready to fight any wrongdoing in this election. One hopes that he still has those lawyers on retainer.

According to black-letter election law, Bush does not officially get a second term until the electors from the Electoral College go to Washington D.C on December 12th. Perhaps Kerry's 10,000 lawyers, along with a real investigation per the request of Conyers, Nadler and Wexler, could give those electors something to think about in the interim.

In the meantime, soon-to-be-unemployed DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe sent out an email on Saturday night titled 'Help determine the Democratic Party's next steps.' In the email, McAuliffe states, "If you were involved in these grassroots activities, we want to hear from you about your experience. What did you do? Did you feel the action you took was effective? Was it a good experience for you? How would you make it better? Tell us your thoughts." He provided a feedback form where such thoughts can be sent (http://www.democrats.org/feedback/). Use the form. Give Terry your thoughts on the matter. Ask him if those 10,000 lawyers are still available. It seems the validity of Tuesday's election remains a wide-open question.



William Rivers Pitt (william.pitt@truthout.org) is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/qid=1055796595/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-8359763-1225605?v=glance&s=books)' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745320104/qid=1055796595/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8359763-1225605?v=glance&s=books).'

Brian Stewart
Nov 9th, 2004, 06:36 AM
And another article on the subject:

http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson11082004.html

Also, check out http://blackboxvoting.org

They've filed numerous FOIA requests, and are probing this in serious detail. They know which directories to check in the computers, and even how to tell if they were altered. They seem determined to get to the truth. BOTH parties should support this effort.

Infiniti2001
Nov 9th, 2004, 01:23 PM
The only surprise is they got the optical scans too, :mad: those were
supposed to be the better choice and not tamperable.
And it's interesting how the main media is not saying jackshit :rolleyes:--- but something is being done. Duvall county Florida is 90% Democrat, yet dumbfuck has 3 times Kerry's votes?? Something is amiss-- the sooner they get to the bottom of it, the better. :fiery:

Bacardi
Nov 9th, 2004, 04:54 PM
The oddest thing about this Election, is in certain counties in Ohio they locked people out while the tallying was going on. They probably were tampering with it.

And the worst thing, is largely democratic areas in FL voted for BUSH!?! Something's just not right. I smell a turd. :o

However even if they found out Kerry won, he's already given it to Bush. So it's not going to do us any good. I don't put anything past the Republicans. I guess they figured out they can't win an election unless they cheat.

Oh yeah they said on the news that buldge in the back of GW's jacket during the debates was a bullet proof vest. He's such a dumbass if anyone was going to shoot him they'd aim for his head that's full of hot air.

kes
Nov 10th, 2004, 12:04 AM
The fix that was put in place to solve these problems - the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 after the Florida debacle -

Perhaps it should be renamed.... 'Help America Vote Republican Act'?? :tape: :lol:

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 12:42 AM
What a surprise no one pointed out:
A. Zogby still predicted Bush would win the popular vote from data from exit polls.
B. The exit polls were CORRECT. The actualy results were within the polls' margin of error.

Brian Stewart
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:37 AM
A couple of more articles on the subject. This one replies to mainstream media's attempt to dismiss some Florida claims by using the Dixiecrat explanation in Northern Florida, which does not explain the discrepancies mentioned in the article.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111204.html

And this one looks at the statistical probabilities that the exit polls would be so far off in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4277

And yes, the exit polls were way off in many battleground states, which sparked a lot of suspicions, as the late exit polls are never wrong. Not only news services, but both parties take their own individual exit polls. All said Kerry won Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Karen Hughes even sat down with President Bush late in the afternoon to give him the bad news; that he had lost in a landslide. What are the odds that the exit polls of the news services, the Democrats, and the Republicans were all off by a huge margin, well beyond the MFE of the polls? That's not to say it couldn't have happened, despite the staggering odds. But it certainly merits investigation. After all, it was exit polls that uncovered vote fraud in Venezuela. The President running for re-election won 59% of the votes in the official total, yet exit polls showed the reverse. An investigation showed the exit polls were correct, and the vote had been tampered with.

Bacardi, Kerry's concession is irrelevant and non-binding. If fraud is found, and/or recounts and hand counts alter the vote totals to the point where Kerry wins, he can still claim the Presidency.

I still have to chide both parties for not pressing for detailed investigations. The Democrats are acting like the wimps they're often accused of being. And the Republicans, if they're so sure they won legitimately, as they want everyone to believe, should be eager to remove any doubt hanging over the election.

Brian Stewart
Nov 17th, 2004, 10:19 AM
And another article, exposing security flaws found in vote tallying machines:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-112037-7263r.htm

Interestingly, the article was published in the conservative Washington Times.

One of the theories for the discrepancy between the exit polls and vote totals in swing states, being espoused by Republicans, is that perhaps Republican voters just didn't talk to the pollsters. This is blown out of the water by revelations that those same exit polls got the Senate and other races in those states right. So Republicans obviously did talk to them, else the other races would have been similarly slanted.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in the Ohio and New Hampshire recounts. The Ohio Secretary of State has issued a last-second change in the rules for provisional ballots, now saying they won't count them if the DOB is omitted, even though he explicitly said before that they would be.

canadian_bass_2
Nov 17th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Why do you even need machines? The rest of the civilised world manages just fine with pencil and paper. We don't have these problems.

You've posted a wonderful point. I think that having machines to do the voting is WAY too Big Brother-esque for me. I like my pencil and paper when it comes to voting here in Canada.