Voter fraud - American election vastly corrupted II

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 16:47
VIEWED: 4204
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:39 PM

The Ohio votes for Kerry certainly weren't invalidated by faulty voting equipment: a trifling one percent of presidential ballots in the twelve suspect counties were spoiled.

The more likely explanation is that they were fraudulently shifted to Bush.

continuation of http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7803

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_
stolen

Rollingstone.com

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of i

RUE

Saturday, June 3, 2006 12:49 AM

The Ohio votes for Kerry certainly weren't invalidated by faulty voting equipment: a trifling one percent of presidential ballots in the twelve suspect counties were spoiled.

The more likely explanation is that they were fraudulently shifted to Bush.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, June 3, 2006 4:21 AM

Thanks for posting this, Rue. I don't subscribe to Rolling Stone and I was planning on picking up a copy from the store (probably still will, as it's quite a meaty article and one that I think is important to have for future reference). I'm going to ramble on for a bit about my general impressions. There's not going to be much flow here as each paragraph will probably flesh out an unrelated thought.

After reading through the article I don't know if I'm more pissed or more discouraged or more saddened. It was interesting to read Olberman's rationale for investigating in more detail - that he is used to working with numbers and, when the numbers didn't jive, that raised a red flag with him. That's kind of my basic take on this as well. One thing I love about numbers is that they add up . You can put whatever spin on the results that you want but 2 plus 2 still equals four.

In any measurement conducted by humans I would expect error. Just your random everyday noise. No intent. No maliciousness. People just screw up. But for the error to be so completely one-sided is unbelievable. Nothing behaves that way without direct action. This was more than random error. And the article goes into great detail documenting the intentional efforts to lower and alter vote totals.

Unfortunately, it is far too easy for people to dismiss any claim of election fraud as crazy. There are some who think that our elections are magical. Even though they are run by humans, who do make mistakes, just by the fact that it is an American election it is legitimate. Some of my family are that way, they don't even want to talk about it. "We're Americans and our elections are fair." End of story. I'm surprised at this lack of curiousity. It's almost like the religion of America. People have faith that things work the way they're supposed to when, from countless examples throughout our history, the reality is that people will try to do anything they think they can get away with. It takes constant vigilance to ensure that everyone who can vote and wants to vote gets their vote counted.

The lack of interest in the exit polling discrepencies point, to me, towards a general ignorance in the country as to statistics in specific and math in general. Something Signym said in another thread has stuck with me. Something along the line (and the article made the point as well) that we use exit polling to determine if elections in other countries are valid. But when that same measure shows our own elections to be invalid the press and a large proportion of the population just shrug.

It's clear to me that there were many, many Americans who were tampering with the election (and not just in Ohio). From the top to the bottom. For every Blackwell working to disenfranchise on the state level there was someone on the local level putting a white sticker over a vote. What goes through someone's head as they're doing that? There is a level of arrogance that is astounding, "I know better than this voter who they should be voting for. They're mistaken. I'm right." I don't throw the word "traitor" around lightly but this type of behavior goes against one of the core principles of our country. That's treasonous in my book. If you're actively working to subvert the will of the people than I renounce you as an American. We should be trying to get everyone to vote. Anyone who purposely works to keep people from voting, or to change peoples' votes, should be kept as far away from an election day polling job as possible. They get to vote by absentee ballot from the comfort of their home but they can't come within 50 ft of a polling place. They've shown that they can't handle themselves as adults when it comes to our elections.

I wonder how they feel now. Now that the hard core base is starting to realize that Bush isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread I wonder if there is even a twinge of doubt in the minds of all those who defrauded the American people. Or guilt. I'd like to think that they feel guilty for cheati

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 3, 2006 5:32 AM

There's more.

By Greg Palast.

Quote:
While investigating for BBC Television, we obtained three dozen of the Republican Party’s confidential “caging lists,” their title for the spreadsheets that list the names and addresses of Ohio voters they intended to block on any pretext. Every address of the thousands on these Republican hit lists was located in black-majority precincts. You might find that nasty and racist.

I don't have the heart or the stomache to provide long quotes, but here is the link www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_ohio.html

Read it and weep.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 3, 2006 5:46 AM

Interesting. I have a question though? Most Democrats I know seem absolutely sure that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida. Why weren't they looking out for shenanigans in 2004? Why didn't they at least hold off conceeding long enough to stand a chance at gathering evidence? Further, if there is tampering, how do you stop it, especially this year when there is a real possibility of a large protest vote?

MONOLYCUS

Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Interesting. I have a question though? Most Democrats I know seem absolutely sure that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida. Why weren't they looking out for shenanigans in 2004? Why didn't they at least hold off conceeding long enough to stand a chance at gathering evidence? Further, if there is tampering, how do you stop it, especially this year when there is a real possibility of a large protest vote?

Can't answer that first question without seriously opening myself up to allegations that I wear a tin hat. But since I've slept just fine after having been called worse...

US citizens very slowly seem to be accepting the idea that their electoral process might possibly be less than sacrosanct. It's taking them a bit longer to cotton on to the fact that there's no such thing as an "opposition party" per se. I'm not saying that every card-carrying Democrat colluded with the GOP to cover this story up (Dennis Kucinich certainly did not), but the DLC almost positively did.

There have been some news stories coming down the wire about how close former Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush the Elder have become at the same time we are seeing stories about Rupert Murdoch cozying up to Hillary (Sorry, I'm not a genius HTML user and can't hyperlink those stories... google them, though. They're Reuters and Knight-Ridder articles, not standard tinfoil hat fare.) The DLC and the GOP run in the same circles and have the same interests, like it or not. They are not the antagonists we like to think of them as being.

Now look at the voting records of the DLC membership. Did they try to block the Republican-sponsored bankruptcy bill of 2005? Did they offer any real resistance to the appointments of Roberts or Alito to the SCOTUS beyond a few words of "disapproval"? Did they move to censure the White House for granting no-bid contracts to Halliburton (including a 2005 no-bid contract to build unspecific "detention camps" on US soil)? In the past five and a half years, have they offered anything more than token "opposition" for anything their ostensible nemeses have done? No. They haven't.

Despite the fact that there is no Constitutional basis for it (although the US Constitution is becoming increasingly irrelevant these days), we are seeing the results of a "Two Party System"; that is, the Corporate Party and the Corporate Party Lite. By providing the illusion that the two represent alternatives to one another (in spite of the fact that their policies are in the majority of cases identical), they are able to quell most domestic dissent and perpetuate the notion that no matter how badly you think things are going, there is a knight on a white horse waiting for the next election cycle to rescue us all from it. It's hogwash and complicity, pure and simple, but it does keep us rooting for our own team every couple of years instead of addressing how each of them has sold us down the river.

Of course there are honest Democrats (and I suspect there must be good, wholesome Republicans somewhere as well, but I haven't got the time to look under enough rocks to find them), but all those shiny people are the rank-and-file; they aren't policymakers. I'd like to believe in honesty and integrity in government as much as the next guy... but I've got to deal with the world as I find it and not necessarily the world as I want it. The facts speak for themselves and I simply can't believe in good guys and heroes anymore, no matter what their party affiliation might be.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, June 3, 2006 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Monolycus:
(Sorry, I'm not a genius HTML user and can't hyperlink those stories... google them, though. They're Reuters and Knight-Ridder articles, not standard tinfoil hat fare.)

Just wanted to jump in and let you know that if you copy and paste the URL it will show up here as a link. Haken wrote that into the code when he built the site and as long as there is a space before the http the software will add in the appropriate html. You also have to make sure that there is a space after the link. Quite handy.

More related to your post, I'm not a registered Democrat although I've been moving in that direction and I browse a number of progressive blogs. That said, I don't have too much other knowledge of the DLC than what I get from those sites. From what I've read it seems that the DLC pisses a lot of progressive Democrats off (for example, in the Connecticut primary race where most of the progressive bloggers support Lamont but the DLC is backing Lieberman, even though Lieberman seems to be the go-to-Democrat when Republicans are looking for someone to punk. Or how the DLC is angry at Howard Dean for raising money in states and then using it to build up the state Democratic infrastructure rather than bringing it back to DC). So what is up with the DLC? And how important are they? Can Democrats do an end run around them or are they pretty much the only game in town once you get inside the beltway and shade slightly left of center?

I used to agree wholeheartedly with you that we only really had one party - the corporate party - but after spending the past few years with the Republicans controlling everything I've changed my mind. Things have gotten much worse. No wonder Republicans hate big government, they really suck at it.

(edited to add: I should say, they really suck at government for me and anyone I know. They have done a remarkably good job taking care of their core base - the ultra rich. But for the rest of us outside of that fraction of one percent, not so much. I'll paraphrase a quote I really liked, and don't remember who said, "Conservatives have been remarkably consistent over the past century in taking from the have-nots to give to the haves.")

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, June 5, 2006 8:29 PM

While I find the Republican Party personally despicable, if you're looking for a "Good Man" carrying the elephant, it's this guy.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Ron Paul embodies a tremendous amount of common sense, common decency, and integrity - and is downright honorable in his strict adherance to Constitutional Principles... I may despise his party, but him, I would vote for in a heartbeat.

As far as 'decent' Dems go, for the reasons so brilliantly and honestly pointed out above, the DNC/DLC is right out, and that means Dean too, I have little respect for a guy who signs up with the guys who bombshelled his campaign, and helped install a presidential candidate that seemed to more or less take a dive for his Skull and Bones buddy.

So for decent Dems, the best you can find is Kucinich, I don't agree so wholeheartedly with him as I do Mr. Paul, but he does stand out as a decent fellow, and his political history shows he's got a damned lot of guts.

http://www.kucinich.us/

My dream ticket would be Paul/Kucinich as a 3rd party independant ticket, but we'd have to flush the house and senate too, or it would be four years of attempts to reform, and four years of obstruction, obfuscation, and downright roadblocking from the fat cats.

IN THE FALL, FIRE EM ALL!

-Frem

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, June 5, 2006 8:41 PM

Personally I don't give a damn what happened last election (unless we can put the guilty parties in jail, then I'm mildly interested) I'm more concerned about stopping it from happening next election.

What I never seem to hear are ideas on how to do that.

HERO

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:07 AM

Unlike most of you I was there, in Ohio, filling out Bush ballots with one hand and keeping the Kerry voters away with the other. It was tough, especially hijacking the bus full of Democratic old folk and detouring it to an Amish buffet and outlet mall (they didn't come out till well after the polls closed).

The hardest part was finding a way to identify Kerry voters before they voted and intercept them on the way to the polls. We used a complicated system of radioactive dyes, profiling, and satalite survielance of Kerry rallies. Oddly this also resulted in a large number of legitimate arrests for driving under suspension, child support delinquency, and marijauna drug citations.

As for the machines, I didn't have any part of that. They worked perfectly, as designed...and counted every vote cast. I've heard that the next model will install something that counts seperate votes for seperate candidates.

So all and all I am very proud to have helped Bush carry his 116%-1% election victory here in Ohio. And as for Kerry's 1%...we'll get them next time. Luckily we can now track them with their phone calls...

H

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE