Vote Fraud Allegations Gathers Steam

[CivilLiberty]

As I often say on my blog About Civil Liberties,</a> the right to vote is among the most important civil rights we have. But that right is meaningless if the vote is not counted accurately.

I have avoided falling into the community of conspiracy theorists by claiming "vote fraud" just because I am personally unhappy with the election results. I'm not interested in what aluminum - foil - hat wearing kooks have to say on the subject. However, in view of mounting evidence, vote fraud is coming mainstream, and it's important that we discuss this topic.

First of all, let's consider exit polls. How could they be so wrong in certain battleground states? Either the exit polls were very wrong, or the vote count was very wrong. Wrong by <i> more than the margin of error</i> of the polls.

In Florida, the exit poll was off by 5% in Bush's favor, and in Ohio, the exit poll was off by 6.7% in Bush's favor. 6.7% is a huge difference, and far far past the margin of error for the poll.

So then, are the exit polls valid? What could account for such a statistical difference? A recent examination of exit polls in light of this election is presented <a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf"> here by Dr. Steven Freeman </a> of the University of Pennsylvania. In his study, Dr. Freeman shows that exit polls have historically been a very accurate indicator of election results.

If polls have been historically accurate, what then accounts for the many discrepancies in this election? And why were these discrepancies isolated to specific key battleground states?

In the 10 key battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Bush received an average of 4.7% more votes than the exit polls indicated. In NH it was a whopping 9.5%. In 8 of these states the poll was off by more than the margin of error. On the other hand, the swing state of Wisconsin, and in many other states, the exit poll was exactly accurate.

In some of the battleground states, the difference would not change the election outcome. But in Florida, Ohio, and <i>many others</i>, the difference swings Kerry into the winner's seat - and in a big way.

Now, perhaps one could dismiss these 8 very unusual anomalies where the poll was off by more than the margin of error as some sort of statistical freak accident. Perhaps one could, were it not for the many thousands of reports of malfeasance relating to the vote in these states.

In both Ohio and Florida, computer touch screen machines <a href="http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4154"> miscast votes for Bush</a>, which were intended for Kerry. A machine in an Ohio precinct awarded Bush an <a href="http://ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=919"> additional 3,893 votes</a>, Thousands of votes were lost by machines <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1713242,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594"> in North Carolina, </a>and Florida machines <a href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html"> miscounted absentee ballots. </a>And these are just a few of the problems we know about today.

A second oddity is that in many of these states, Diebold electronic voting machines are used. These machines do not leave a paper trail of verifiable votes. More curious is that the CEO of Diebold said that he'd "give Ohio to Bush". While it may be inconceivable that such a bold fraud would actually be perpetrated, there have been reports that Diebold machines came "pre-loaded" with 2000 votes for Bush.

And a final concern is over the manner that the elections were carried out. As an example, in Ohio's more Democratic precincts, voter lines were 10 hours long. This is because Democratic leaning precincts were given only 1 voting machine per 1000 voters, while Republican precincts had 1 voting station per 184 voters.

So then, where is Kerry in all of this? He made his concession speech, sure - but a concession speech is not legally binding in any way. What if a recount in Ohio or Florida gave Kerry a majority of the electoral college? Then yes, he would become president.

So is Kerry walking away? I wouldn't be so sure. As <a href="http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm"> Betsy Vasquez writes</a>, Kerry is waging a smarter war on the recount issue - instead of falling into the trap that Al Gore did, igniting the passions of the nation in 2000, Kerry and his team are quietly gathering evidence and seeking the truth. Meanwhile, Nader and Cobb are calling for recounts. With third parties calling for recounts, the focus is shifted off Kerry, who will not come forward unless there is evidence that will change the out come of the election. And if there is, then you can bet that Kerry will become <i>very</i> visible indeed.

For an additional point of view, see <a href="http://www.opednews.com/swanson_111004_media_black_out.htm"> this story from David Swanson.</a>



Best Regards,

Andy Somers

 

[Mr. P]

if the vote is not counted accurately.

Mr. P smells another one.

 

[pegwinn]

I am pretty open minded and can concede the possibility of a machine being out of whack. I can even wrap my brain around the idea of a hacker trying to deliberatly get a machine or two to go south. But I would have bet on the DNC folks getting that gravy.

Then there is this:

First of all, let's consider exit polls. How could they be so wrong in certain battleground states? Either the exit polls were very wrong, or the vote count was very wrong. Wrong by more than the margin of error of the polls.

Very simply put, THEY LIED when questioned. Many committed to Kerry and turned at the last moment. The same question was asked about Bill Clinton. How'd he win, no one admitted to voting for him.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I highly doubt any recount will alter the outcome of this election - but that's not the point. the point is that we need to be assured of a fair and accurate count, and a fair execution of the election process.

Regards

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

I am pretty open minded and can concede the possibility of a machine being out of whack. I can even wrap my brain around the idea of a hacker trying to deliberatly get a machine or two to go south. But I would have bet on the DNC folks getting that gravy.

I'm not sure I buy the hacker bit - for a hacker to do their work, then need access - in the form of a terminal connection, or being at the machine itself. This is improbable due to the fact that these machines are separately locked and not connected to the internet. Without access, there is no hacking.

I do agree though that an outside hacker would probably lean toward Kerry - but an inside hacker may not.


As far as the exit polls, sure, people could lie, but there is no reason to assume that some Bush voters are equally likely to lie in polls. Having worked in audience research, I can tell you that disingenuous answers are a pretty small fraction, and not enough to describe the results in only these particular states, and not others.

Nevertheless, I cannot believe that there was enough fraud of any type to swing this election - for if there were, America is in far more trouble that it appears.


Regards


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

We do not allow links in signature lines, nor do we allow links for advertisemt.
Thanks!

Okay - links removed


Andy

 

[Zhukov]

A recent examination of exit polls in light of this election is presented <a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf"> here by Dr. Steven Freeman </a> of the University of Pennsylvania.

First, as your link concerning the exit poll data itself indicates, those polls were never intended to predict a winner.

Second, it would be quite easy for DNC supporters to be leaked information regarding which locations would be exit polled and then to pack those polls to skew them, either to discourage voters from voting for President Bush or in an attempt to lend an air of illegitimacy to the ultimate results should the President be elected.

In both Ohio and Florida, computer touch screen machines <a href="http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4154"> miscast votes for Bush</a>, which were intended for Kerry. A machine in an Ohio precinct awarded Bush an <a href="http://ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=919"> additional 3,893 votes

The first link does not indicate that votes for Kerry were counted for Bush like you say. Is this a mistake or a lie?

The second link clearly indicates that the excess number of votes was immeadiately discovered and not counted. Nor was their any evidence of tampering.

I didn't bother to read any other links.

 

[jimnyc]

I highly doubt any recount will alter the outcome of this election - but that's not the point. the point is that we need to be assured of a fair and accurate count, and a fair execution of the election process.

Welcome to the board, Andy.

I agree with you about a fair election process. But I also believe this election went exactly that route. Like you said, any recounts won't alter the outcome. In fact, they won't even come close.

ALL citizens should demand a fair election process and make sure the newer technology is not breaking down the system. This shouldn't be about Dems trying to look for any little nuance or loophole to try to weasel the election. Bottom line - Bush won the electoral vote and nothing will change that. I just hope those complaining are reaching for a better election process rather than looking foolish like they did in 2000 by claiming the election was stolen.

 

[Zhukov]

So is Kerry walking away? I wouldn't be so sure. As Betsy Vasquez writes, Kerry is waging a smarter war on the recount issue - instead of falling into the trap that Al Gore did, igniting the passions of the nation in 2000, Kerry and his team are quietly gathering evidence and seeking the truth.

If this is the case, I wonder how he is taking the fact that many in his party and in the media have already gone on the record complaining about how awful a candidate he was, further marginalizing him, and how he has already vanished from the spotlight faster the Dukakis.

What you describe is, however appropriate it may be for Sen. Kerry, a losing strategy.

 

[CivilLiberty]

it would be quite easy for DNC supporters to be leaked information regarding which locations would be exit polled and then to pack those polls to skew them, either to discourage voters from voting for President Bush or in an attempt to lend an air of illegitimacy to the ultimate results should the President be elected.

Now *that* sounds like a conspiracy theory. Again, here I'm not sure of the answer - Dr Freeman's study discusses various possibilities, but my point is not that I put much or any faith into these anomalies, but that they occurred at all is worth discussing.


Regards


Andy

 

[Zhukov]

Hey, if they can get dead people to vote how hard is it to send a handful of people to go and pretend like they voted?

Now, if I believed they somehow got dead people to go and pretend like they voted just to answer exit poll, that would be a conspiracy theory.

 

[CivilLiberty]

ALL citizens should demand a fair election process and make sure the newer technology is not breaking down the system. This shouldn't be about Dems trying to look for any little nuance or loophole to try to weasel the election. Bottom line - Bush won the electoral vote and nothing will change that. I just hope those complaining are reaching for a better election process rather than looking foolish like they did in 2000 by claiming the election was stolen.

I'm not looking for nuances or loopholes - and I'm not a democrat.

I am interested in ensuring that our election process sets the world standard for fairness and accuracy. I am concerned about electronic vote machines that do not create a paper record. I find it very odd that the inventor of "TruVote", a machine with a verifiable paper record, died in a freak accident earlier this year. His death left his company virtually stagnate when they were about to launch these machines for widespread use.

Who knows the truth behind these many issues. Some are coming to light as we speak - others we may never know.



Regards


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

If this is the case, I wonder how he is taking the fact that many in his party and in the media have already gone on the record complaining about how awful a candidate he was, further marginalizing him, and how he has already vanished from the spotlight faster the Dukakis.

What you describe is, however appropriate it may be for Sen. Kerry, a losing strategy.

No doubt, as I mentioned in an article last week, Bush won because Kerry lost. Kerry lost because he was a weak candidate. A weak candidate got the nom because in 2003, with Bush ratings fairly high, no "strong" Democrat wanted to waste their political capital running against an incumbent. A strong centrist Democrat might have won. But Kerry wasn't it. Good for the GOP, bad for the Dems.

Of course, I like neither party - our two party system has become far to polarized to effectively lead us to a healthier and stronger nation.


Regards


Andy

 

[Zhukov]

Well, I doubt you'll find many supporters of electronic voting machines here, particularly ones that don't provide a recipt to the voter.

 

[Zhukov]

Of course, I like neither party - our two party system has become far to polarized to effectively lead us to a healthier and stronger nation.

You'd like them to be more similar?

At any rate, that is the way it has generally been throughout our history, and I tend to think we've turned out alright so far.

 

[Mr. P]

It could be my imagination...but that stink is getting stronger.

 

[Zhukov]

Nah. I think more likely another wacky 3rd-party dead-ender.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Nah. I think more likely another wacky 3rd-party dead-ender.

No, 3rd parties only have an unbalancing effect on our electoral process, largely due to our election system.

See:

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/votingelections/a/condorcet012404.htm

and

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/votingelections/i/ElectCol030804.htm


I'm not a "third party person" - but I do thing that the two parties in power have become too polarized, and what we need is more centrist candidates to choose from.


Regards


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

It could be my imagination...but that stink is getting stronger.

Have you checked your diaper?



Kindest Regards,


Andy

 

[musicman]

CivilLiberty:

I think you're seeing sinister dealings where none exist, and failing to see them where they do. It stands to reason that there would be fewer voting machines relative to the number of voters in Democrat-leaning districts. These are the huge population centers. If you're not happy with the number of machines in your district, buy some more - it ain't my problem.

Overloaded, disingenuous exit polls sound like conspiracy nonsense to you? Look at the facts, man. Look at the behavior of Democrats all during the campaign - the break-ins, the assaults, the phony registration schemes that they actually DID get busted on (you haven't heard about the Dick Tracy/Mary Poppins - crack dealer connection?). 27,000 voters were actually registered in both Florida AND Ohio. An Ohio judge - a Clinton appointee - attempted to circumvent Ohio law by prohibiting challengers at voting stations. This little hat trick was thwarted at the 11th hour by an appellate court ; I shudder to think what might have happened otherwise. Perhaps Woodrow Wilson would have exercised his right to vote early and often.

And, lastly, let's not forget the final Ohio vote count itself. Kerry was poised to challenge, pinning his absurd hopes on the uncounted provisional ballots. If you'd like to discuss the specifics of the statistical improbability that these inherently problematic ballots would have had an effect, I'll be happy to. In the end, though, the Democrat power brokers convinced Kerry to drop it. I submit to you that this was a wise move; they understood, better than anyone, that subjecting these votes to scrutiny was not going to aid their cause.

In short, sir, this election was typical in that Democrats engaged in every underhanded trick in the book, as is their habit. They started with a $2 billion advantage - the monetary value of the favorable coverage a liberal candidate gets from the mainstream media by virtue of the fact that he draws air. They played all their trump cards - the courts, race-baiting, fearmongering, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. The American people weren't having it this time. Bush won. Get over it.