Activism Discussion: The Theft Of The 2004 Presidential Election

The Theft Of The 2004 Presidential Election
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Allen L. Barker
2005-09-14 16:00:18 EST


No Paper Trail Left Behind:
The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html
[A featured article in _Censored 2006: The Top 25 Censored Stories_,
Seven Stories Press, http://www.projectcensored.org/]

By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
Cal Poly Pomona
d*o@csupomona.edu

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't
believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice,"
said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an
hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible
things before breakfast." (Through the Looking Glass)

In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004
presidential election, you must also believe all of the following
extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate
favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in
history.(2)

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn't vote
in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush
lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush
still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.(3)

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida
Republicans' votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than
100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida
counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300%
of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians'
enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his
share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did
not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered
Independents, dropping 15 points.(4)

4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the
fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic
strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate
a rigged election.(5)

5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first
time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having
also done this, but Truman's polling numbers were trailing so much
behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two
months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of
support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush's support was clearly eroding
on the eve of the election.(6)

6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong
(even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election
final poll).(7)

7) The "challenger rule" - an incumbent's final results won't be
better than his final polling - was wrong;(8)

8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls
(showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of
the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

9) The fact that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched
by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and
provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn't
cast any suspicion upon the official tally.(9)

10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered
Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his
employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general
counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush's 1994
running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a
computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the
initial impression that he was creating this software in order to
forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer
Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: "You don't understand, in order to
get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source
code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida."
(Boldface in original).(10)

11) Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell's declaration in a August 14, 2003
letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to
deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact
that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic
voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn't result in any fraud by
Diebold.

12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted
counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to
count..

13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was
leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over
13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that
the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents -
were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other
words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the
number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically
impossible.(11)

14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections,
paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit
polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very
wrong.(12)

15) The National Election Pool's exit polls (13) were so far off that
since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this
wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.

16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the
discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us
that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a
century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.

The Emperor (and the Electoral Process) Have No Clothes

The preceding list recounts only some of the irregularities in the
2004 election since it ignores the scores of instances of voter
disenfranchisement that assumed many different forms (e.g., banning
black voters in Florida who had either been convicted of a felony
previously or who were "inadvertently" placed on the felons list by
mistake, while not banning convicted Latino felons (14); providing
extraordinarily few voting machines in predominately Democratic
precincts in Ohio; disallowing Ohio voters, for the first time, from
voting in any precinct when they were unable to find their assigned
precincts to vote in; and so on). A plethora of reasons clearly exists
to conclude that widespread and historic levels of fraud were
committed in this election.

Indeed, any one of the above highly improbables and utterly
impossibles should have led to a thorough investigation into the
results. Taken as a whole, this list points overwhelmingly to
fraud. The jarring strangeness of the results and the ubiquity of
complaints from voters (e.g., those who voted for Kerry and then saw
to their shock the machine record their votes as being for Bush),
require some kind of explanation, or the legitimacy of elections and
of the presidency would be imperiled.

The explanations from public officials and major media came in three
forms. First, exit polls, not the official tallies, were labeled
spectacularly wrong. Second, the so-called "moral values" voters
expressed in the now ubiquitous "red state/blue state" formula, were
offered as the underlying reason for Bush's triumph. And third, people
who brought forth any of the evidence of fraud were dismissed as
"spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists" while mainstream media
censored the vast majority of the evidence of fraud so that most
Americans to this day have never heard a fraction of what was amiss. I
will discuss each of these three responses, followed by a discussion
of the role of electronic voting machines in the 2002 elections that
presaged the 2004 election irregularities, and then wrap up with a
discussion of these events' significance taken as a whole.

Killing the Messenger: the Exit Polls

Exit polls are the gold standard of vote count validity
internationally. Since exit polls ask people as they emerge from the
polling station whom they just voted for, they are not projections as
are polls taken in the months, weeks or days before an election. They
are not subject to faulty memory, voter capriciousness (voters voting
differently than they indicated to a pollster previously), or
erroneous projections about who will actually turn up to
vote. Pollsters know who turned up to vote because the voters are
standing there in front of the exit pollsters. Because of these
characteristics, exit polls are exceptionally accurate. They are so
accurate that in Germany, for example, they are used to decide
elections, with the paper ballots being counted in the days afterwards
as a backup check against the exit polls(15). Exit polls are used, for
this reason, as markers of fraud.(16)

Significant, inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and
official tallies only started showing up in the U.S. in 2000 and only
in Florida (and notably, nowhere else). The discrepancy was not the
exit polls' fault, however, but in the official tallies
themselves. Although the mainstream media fell on their swords about
their election's evening projections calling Florida for Gore in 2000,
their projections were right. In analyses conducted by the National
Opinion Research Center in Florida after the U.S. Supreme Court
aborted the vote recount, Gore emerged the winner over Bush, no matter
what criteria for counting votes was applied(17). The fact that this
is not widely known constitutes itself a major untold story.

Exit polling's validity is further affirmed by GOP pollster Dick
Morris. Immediately after the 2004 election he wrote:

Exit polls are almost never wrong. 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...

To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is
incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that
incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error
was at play here.(18)

Confounded and suspicious of the results, Morris resorted to advancing
the bizarre theory that there must have been a conspiracy among the
networks to suppress the Bush vote in the west by issuing exit poll
results that were so far off from the final tallies.

A number of different statisticians have examined the 2004 election
results. University of Pennsylvania statistician Steve Freeman, Ph.D.,
most notably, analyzed the exit polls of the swing states of
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida and concluded that the odds of the exit
polls being as far off as they were are 250 million to one(19). Exit
polls in Florida had Kerry leading by 1.7 points and by 2.4 points in
Ohio. These exit poll figures were altered at 1:30 a.m. November 3,
2004 on CNN to conform to the "official" tally. In the end, Kerry lost
Florida by 5% and Ohio by 2.5%. This is a net shift of 6.7 points in
Florida and 4.9 points in Ohio in Bush's favor, well beyond the margin
of error. By exit poll standards, this net shift was unbelievable.

A team at the University of California at Berkeley, headed by
sociology professor Michael Hout, found a highly suspicious pattern in
which Bush received 260,000 more votes in those Florida precincts that
used electronic voting machines than past voting patterns would
indicate compared to those precincts that used optical scan read votes
where past voting patterns held.(20)

The Edison-Mitofsky polling group that conducted the National Exit
Poll (NEP) issued a 77-page report on January 19, 2005 to account for
why their exit polls were so unexpectedly far off.(21) Edison-Mitofsky
rule out sampling error as the problem and indicate that systemic bias
was responsible. They concluded that their exit polls were wrong
because Kerry voters must have been more willing to talk to their poll
workers than Bush voters and because their poll workers were too young
and inexperienced. Edison-Mitofsky offer no evidence indicating that
their conclusion about more chatty Kerry voters actually occurred,
merely that such a scenario would explain the discrepancy. In fact, as
nine statisticians(22) who conducted an evaluation of the
Edison-Mitofsky data and analysis point out, Bush voters appeared to
be slightly more willing to talk to exit pollsters than Kerry
voters. This would make the exit polls' discrepancy with the official
tallies even more pronounced. In addition, the Edison-Mitofsky
explanation fails to explain why exit polls were only exceptionally
wrong in the swing states.

Red State, Red Herring: the "Moral Values" Voters

A plausible explanation still needs to be offered for the startling
2004 election outcome -- how did Bush, caught in a lie about why we
went to war with Iraq, racked by prison abuse and torture scandals at
Abu Graib and Guantanamo, bogged down in Iraq, failing to catch Osama
Bin Laden, badly embarrassed during the debates, caught sleeping prior
to 9/11, and so on, manage to win a resounding victory? Enter here the
"moral values" rationale. As Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times
wrote in a November 4, 2004 article entitled "Moral Values Cited as a
Defining Issue of the Election:"

Even in a time of war and economic hardship, Americans said they
were motivated to vote for President Bush on Tuesday by moral
values as much as anything else, according to a survey of voters
as they left their polling places. In the survey, a striking
portrait of one influential group emerged -- that of a
traditional, church-going electorate that leans conservative on
social issues and strongly backed Mr. Bush....

In the same issue, another article by Todd S. Purdum entitled
"Electoral Affirmation of Shared Values Provides Bush a Majority"
cited 1/5 (more precisely, 22%) of the voters as mentioning "moral
values" as their chief concern. This was echoed throughout major
media.(23) The only person in the mainstream media to challenge this
was New York Times columnist Frank Rich, on November 28, 2004 in an
opinion piece entitled "The Great Indecency Hoax:"

The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values"
story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the
red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the
American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties.
It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that
the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical
values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35
percent) and 1996 (40 percent).(24)

As Rich correctly points out, no American media outlet repeated this
statistic. Instead, the widely mentioned and oft-repeated "moral
values" vote took on the status of an urban -- or in this instance,
suburban/rural - legend.

Shocked by the election results, many people took out their anger at
the perceived mendacity of Bush voters, especially those in the
so-called "red states." This fury, while understandable given Bush's
record, badly misses the point. Voters did not heist this election. As
others have pointed out eloquently, many of the people who really did
vote for Bush did so primarily because they were misled through
systematic disinformation campaigns.(25)

"Spreadsheet wielding conspiracy theorists"

In November 2004 major U.S. media gave headline news treatment to the
Ukrainian Presidential election fraud, explicitly citing the exit
polls as definitive evidence of fraud. At the very same time major
U.S. media dismissed anyone who pointed out this same evidence of
likely fraud in the U.S. elections as "conspiracy theory" crazies. A
November 11, 2004 Washington Post article, for example, described
people raising the question of fraud as "mortally wounded party
loyalists and ... spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists."(26) Tom
Zeller, Jr. handled it similarly, writing in the November 12, 2004
issue of the New York Times ("Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs,
Are Quickly Buried"): "[T]he email messages and Web postings had all
the twitchy cloak-and-dagger thrust of a Hollywood
blockbuster. 'Evidence mounts that the vote may have been hacked,'
trumpeted a headline on the Web site CommonDreams.org. 'Fraud took
place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines,'
declared BlackBoxVoting.org."(27)

Neither of these articles bothered to address even a fraction of the
evidence of irregularities. They did, however, both dismiss the 93,000
excess votes in Cuyahoga County, Ohio as merely an error in how the
votes were reported, the Washington Post article offering the strange
explanation that in "even-numbered years" the county posts vote totals
from other districts outside the county in the Cuyahoga totals. The
Washington Post passed off the exit polls discrepancy as "not being
based on statistics" since the exit polls "are not publicly
distributed." Both of these statements were untrue. The New York Times
article for its part failed to even mention exit polls. Both articles
explained away the glaring and unbelievable totals for Bush in hugely
Democratic districts as due to the "Dixiecrat" vote. This would be
plausible except for two things: first, Bush did not win over any more
crossover votes in 2004 than he did in 2000, and second, these votes
far in excess of Republican registered voters numbers occurred
primarily in non-rural areas. In just one example of this, Baker
County, Florida, out of 12,887 registered voters, of whom 69.3% were
Democrats and 24.3% Republicans, Bush received 7,738 votes while Kerry
only received 2,180.(28) As Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.org points
out:

Rather than a rural surge of support, Bush actually earned more
than seven out of 10 new votes in the 20 largest counties in
Florida. Many of these counties are either Democratic strongholds
-- such as Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach -- or they are
swing counties, such as Orange, Hillsborough, and Duval.

Many of these large counties saw substantially more newly
registered Democrats than Republicans. For example, in Orange
County, a swing county home to Orlando, Democrats registered
twice as many new voters than Republicans in the years since 2000.
In Palm Beach and Broward combined, Democrats registered 111,000
new voters compared with fewer than 20,000 new Republicans.(29)

The only person in major media to treat these complaints seriously and
at any length was Keith Olbermann at MSNBC who ran two stories on it,
citing Cuyahoga County's surplus 93,000 votes over the registered
voter count, and the peculiar victories for Bush in Florida counties
that were overwhelmingly Democratic scattered across the state.(30)
For his trouble, media conservatives attacked him for being a "voice
of paranoia" and spreading "idiotic conspiracy theories."(31)

The Oh-So Loyal Opposition: the Democratic Party

An obvious question here is: why haven't the Democrats been more
vigorous in their objections to this fraud? The fact that they haven't
objected more (with a few notable individual exceptions) has been
taken by some as definitive evidence that no fraud must have happened
because the Democrats have the most to gain from objecting. In part
the answer to this puzzle is that the Democrats don't fully understand
what has hit them. The Kerry campaign's reaction to the Swift Boat
Veterans attack ads that damaged them so much are a good illustration
of this. The right-wing media hammered away at Kerry through their by
now very heavy presence over talk radio, the Internet, Fox News, and
other outlets. The mainstream media such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and
major newspapers and magazines, still adhering to the standards of
"objective" journalism, which the right-wing media consider
"quaint,"(32) legitimated these false allegations about Kerry by
presenting "the two sides" as if one side made up entirely of lies and
half-truths could be considered a legitimate "side." The Kerry
campaign concluded that these ads were all lies and wouldn't have any
effect, thus they took too long to respond to them. By the time they
did, the damage had been done. In a CBS/NY Times poll taken September
12-16, 2004, 33% said they thought that the Swift Boast Veterans'
charges against Kerry were "mostly true."(33) A remarkable feat given
that Kerry volunteered and was multi-decorated for heroism while Bush
used his father's connections to dodge real service.

The Democrats' meek acceptance of other races' extremely peculiar
outcomes prior to the 2004 elections illustrates this point
further. As a result of the 2000 Florida debacle, Congress passed the
"Help America Vote" Act in October 2002. While this act introduced a
number of reasonable reforms, it also resulted in the widespread
introduction of paperless electronic voting machines. This meant that
there was no way to determine if the votes recorded by these computers
were accurate and tamper-free. Efforts subsequently by a few
Democratic Congresspeople, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, to
rectify this and ensure a paper ballot, have been blocked by the GOP
majority.

The following is a partial list of 2002 discrepancies that can be
understood as dress rehearsals for the stolen presidential election of
2004:

On Nov. 3, 2002, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll showed
Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49-to-44 point lead over Republican
Rep. Saxby Chambliss. The next day, Chambliss, despite trailing by 5
points, ended up winning by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. This was, in
other words, an unbelievable 12-point turn around over the course of
one day!

In the Georgia governor's race Republican Sonny Perdue upset incumbent
Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. This was
especially strange given that the October 16-17, 2002 Mason Dixon Poll
(Mason Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C.) had shown
Democratic Governor Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent, with a margin of
error of ± 4 points. The final tally was, in other words, a jaw
dropping 16-point turn-around! What the Cleland "defeat" by Saxby and
the Barnes "defeat" by Perdue both have in common is that nearly all
the Georgia votes were recorded on computerized voting machines, which
produce no paper trail.

In Minnesota, after Democrat Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash
death,(34) ex-vice-president Walter Mondale took Wellstone's place and
was leading Republican Norm Coleman in the days before the election by
47 to 39 percent. Despite the fact that he was trailing just days
before the race by 8 points, Coleman beat Mondale by 50 to 47
percent. This was an 11-point turn around! The Minnesota race was also
conducted on electronic voting machines with no paper trail.(35)

Welcome to a world where statistical probability and normal arithmetic
no longer apply!(36) The Democrats, rather than vigorously pursuing
these patently obvious signs of election fraud in 2004, have nearly
all decided that being gracious losers is better than being
winners,(37) probably because -- and this may be the most important
reason for the Democrat's relative silence - a full-scale uncovering
of the fraud runs the risk of mobilizing and unleashing popular forces
that the Democrats find just as threatening as the GOP does.

The delicious irony for the GOP is that the Help America Vote Act,
precipitated by their theft of the Florida 2000 presidential vote,
made GOP theft of elections as in the preceding examples easy and
unverifiable except through recourse to indirect analysis such as
pre-election polls and exit polls.(38) This is the political
equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Or, more precisely:
stealing elections, running the country, and aggressively, arrogantly
and falsely claiming that "the people" support it.

Flavor Flav of the rap group Public Enemy used to wear a big clock
around his neck in order to remind us all that we'd better understand
what time it is. Or, as Bob Dylan once said: "Let us not speak falsely
now, the hour's getting late." To all of those who said before the
2004 elections that this was the most important election in our
lifetimes; to all of those who plunged into that election hoping and
believing that we could throw the villains out via the electoral
booth; to all of those who held their noses and voted for Democrats
thinking that at least they were slightly better than the theocratic
fascists running this country now, this must be said: VOTING REALLY
DOESN'T MATTER. If we weren't convinced of that before these last
elections, then now is the time to wake up to that fact. Even beyond
the fraudulent elections of 2000 and 2004, public policies are not
now, nor have they ever been, settled through elections.

The Role of Mass Movements and Alternative Media

What can be done? The Eugene McCarthy campaign of 1968 and the George
McGovern campaign in 1972 didn't end the war in Vietnam. The
Vietnamese people and the anti-war movement ended the war. Civil
rights weren't secured because JFK and LBJ suddenly woke up to racial
discrimination. The Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement
galvanized public opinion and rocked this country to its
foundations. Men didn't suddenly wake up and realize that they were
male chauvinist pigs - women formed the Women's Movement, organized,
marched, rallied, and demanded nothing less than equality, shaking
this country to the core. The Bush administration is bogged down and
sinking deeper in Iraq not mainly because the top figures of the Bush
administration consist of liars, blind (and incompetent) ideologues,
international outlaws and propagators of torture as an official
policy, but because the Iraqi people have risen up against imperialist
invasion. Prior to the war, the international anti-Iraq war movement
brought out millions of people into the streets, the largest
demonstrations in history, denying the U.S. imperialists the UN's
sanction and leading to Turkey denying US requests to use their land
as a staging area. These are major, world-historic feats.

The 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections fraud underscores the critical
importance of building a mass movement, a movement of resistance that
doesn't tie itself to the electoral road and electoral parties. In
addition, as Robert Parry has eloquently argued, a counterforce to the
right-wing media empire must be built by the left and by
progressive-minded people. As it stands today, the right can get away
with nearly anything because they have talking heads on TV, radio, the
Internet and other outlets who set the tone and the political agenda,
with mainstream media focusing on sex and sensationalism and taking
their political cues to a large extent from the right.(39)

Like a bridge broken by an earthquake, the electoral road can only
lead to plunging us into the sea -- which is precisely what happened
in the 2004 election.


FOOTNOTES:

(1) Several of the items in this list feature Ohio and Florida because
going into the election it was universally understood that the outcome
hinged on these swing states.

'TruthIsAll' on the DemocraticUnderground.com offered a list that is
similar in format to my highly improbables and utterly impossibles
list of the 2004 election results and I have drawn directly from their
list for items #7 and
8. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all
&address=203x22581), retrieved June 4, 2005.

(2) High turnout favors Democrats and more liberal-left candidates
because the groups who participate the least and most sporadically in
voting are from lower socio-economic groups who generally eschew more
conservative candidates.

(3) Seventeen percent of election 2004 voters did not vote in
2000. This includes both first-time and lapsed voters. Kerry defeated
Bush in this group 54 percent to 45 percent. (Katharine Q. Seelye,
"Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election," The New York
Times, November 4, 2004). This data contradicts the widely held belief
that Bush owes his victory to mobilizing conservative evangelicals and
getting out the Republican base.

(4) Gore carried the 2000 Florida Independent vote by only 47 to 46
percent whereas Kerry carried them by a 57 percent to 41 percent
margin. In 2000 Bush received 13% of the registered Democratic voters
votes and in 2004 he got the virtually statistically identical 14% of
their votes. Sam Parry, "Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies,"
Consortiumnews.com, November 9, 2004.

See also Colin Shea's analysis: "In one county, where 88% of voters
are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the
vote--three times more than predicted by my model. In 21 counties,
more than 50% of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to
account for the county result; in four counties at least 70% would
have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely."
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321

(5) "[C]ertified reports from pro-Kerry Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County,
[showed] precincts with turnouts of as few as 22.31 percent (precinct
6B), 21.43 percent (13O), 20.07 percent (13F), 14.59 percent (13D),
and 7.85 percent (6C) of the registered voters. Thousands of people in
these precincts lined up for many hours in the rain in order, it would
appear, not to vote.

"Meanwhile, in pro-Bush Perry County, the voting records certified by
Secretary of State Blackwell included two precincts with reported
turnouts of 124.4 and 124.0 percent of the registered voters, while in
pro-Bush Miami County, there were precincts whose certified turnouts,
if not physically impossible, were only slightly less
improbable. These and other instances of implausibly high turnouts in
precincts won by Bush, and implausibly low turnouts in precincts won
by Kerry, are strongly suggestive of widespread tampering with the
vote-tabulation processes." Michael Keefe, "The Strange Death of
American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio,"
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html , retrieved May 31,
2005.

(6) "Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and
is thus below the symbolically important 50% point." "Questions and
Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The
Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1, retrieved on May
27, 2005.

As Newport further notes, referring to the final Oct. 29-31, 2004
CNN/USA Today /Gallup poll, "Among all national adults, 49% now choose
Kerry as the candidate best able to handle Iraq, while 47% choose
Bush. This marks a significant pickup on this measure for Kerry, who
was down nine points to Bush last week. In fact, Kerry has lost out to
Bush on this measure in every poll conducted since the Democratic
convention."

"Bush's margin over Kerry as the candidate best able to handle
terrorism is now seven points. 51% of Americans choose Bush and 44%
choose Kerry. This again marks a significant change. Last week, Bush
had an 18-point margin over Kerry, and the 7-point advantage is the
lowest yet for Bush." In other words, momentum was on Kerry's side,
with Bush losing 9 points of support on Iraq and 11 points on handling
terrorism over the course of one week! This was hardly a sign of
someone about to win by 3.5 million votes.

(7) http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=515 ,
dated November 2, 2004, retrieved on June 1, 2005: " Both surveys
suggest that Kerry has been making some gains over the course of the
past few days (see Harris Polls #83
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=512 , and
#78 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=507
). If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these
numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do
better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters
during the last three days of the elections, and that appears to be
the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who
dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to
make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1
for the challenger." For Harris' last minute poll results before the
2000 election, see
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=130 , dated
November 6, 2000 in which they call the election between Bush and Gore
too close to call and predict that the result will depend upon the
turnout.

(8) As Gallup explains, challengers tend to get the votes of those
saying they are undecided on the eve of an election: "[B]ased on an
analysis of previous presidential and other elections there is a high
probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a
higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last
pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the
incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any
increase. This has been dubbed the 'challenger rule.' There are
various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that
any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a
well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward
voting for the challenger." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in
Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2,
2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1, retrieved on
May 27, 2005. See also footnote 7 herein.

(9) Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, "Ohio's
Official Non-Recount Ends amidst New Evidence of Fraud, Theft and
Judicial Contempt Mirrored in New Mexico, The Columbus Free Press 31
December 31, 2004, at
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057 , retrieved
June 6, 2005.

(10) Curtis states in his affidavit that he met in the fall of 2000
with the principals of Yang Enterprises, Inc., - Li Woan Yang., Mike
Cohen, and Tom Feeney (chief counsel and lobbyist for YEI). Feeney
became Florida's House Speaker a month after meeting with
Curtis. Curtis says that he initially thought he was being asked to
make such a program in order to prevent voter fraud. Upon creating the
program and presenting it to Yang, he discovered that they were
interested in committing fraud, not preventing it. Curtis goes on to
say: "She stated that she would hand in what I had produced to Feeney
and left the room with the software." As the police would say, what we
have here is motive and opportunity - and an abundance of evidence of
criminal fraud in the Florida vote, together with Feeney's intimate
connection to Jeb Bush. Curtis, on the other hand, as a life-long
registered Republican - as of these events at least - has no
discernible motive to come forward with these allegations, and only
shows courage for the risk to himself by doing so. For his full
affidavit, see
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/affidavit-of-vote-fraud-software.html#110243131597922449
, retrieved June 1, 2005.

(11) Michael Keefer, "Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2
Exit Poll Scam," http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html,
retrieved May 31, 2005.

(12) In the Ukraine, as a result of the exit polls' variance from the
official tally, they had a revote. In the U.S., despite the exit polls
varying widely from the official tally, we had an inauguration!

(13) The NEP was a consortium of news organizations that contracted
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to conduct the
national and state exit polls. Warren Mitofsky created exit polling.

(14) While blacks went to Kerry by 90 to 10, Latino voters were much
more likely to vote for Bush.

(15) I owe this example to Steven Freeman, "The Unexplained Exit Poll
Discrepancy," November 10, 2004, election04.ssrc.org/research/ 11_10,
unexplained_ exit- poll.pdf.

(16) "So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they
leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative
honesty of elections in Third World countries. When I worked on
Vicente Fox's campaign in Mexico, for example, I was so fearful that
the governing PRI would steal the election that I had the campaign
commission two U.S. firms to conduct exit polls to be released
immediately after the polls closed to foreclose the possibility of
finagling with the returns. When the [exit] polls announced a
seven-point Fox victory, mobs thronged the streets in a joyous
celebration within minutes that made fraud in the actual counting
impossible." GOP consultant and pollster Dick Morris, "Those Exit
Polls Were Sabotage," http://www.thehill.com/morris/110404.aspx ,
dated November 4, 2004, retrieved June 4, 2005.

(17) "Gore Won Florida,"
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181, retrieved May 28,
2005.

(18) Dick Morris, "Those Exit Polls Were Sabotage,"
http://www.thehill.com/morris/110404.aspx , dated November 4, 2004,
retrieved June 4, 2005.

(19) Steven Freeman, "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," November
10, 2004, election04.ssrc.org/research/ 11_10, unexplained_ exit-
poll.pdf.

(20) Ian Hoffman, "Berkeley: President Comes Up Short," The Tri-Valley
Herald , November 19, 2004. The Berkeley report itself is at
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ , retrieved June 7,
2005.

(21) Evaluation of the Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 prepared
by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National
Election Pool (MEP), January 19, 2005,
http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html, retrieved April 2, 2005.

MSNBC publicized this report (inaccurately) under the headline "Exit
Polls Prove That Bush Won." (Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf, "A
Corrupted Election: Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls
were right," February 15, 2005, In These Times ,
www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/ , retrieved April 4,
2005.

(22) Warren Mitteldorf, Ph.D., Temple University Statistics
Department; Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics, USCountVotes President;
Steven Freeman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania; Brian Joiner,
Ph.D. Professor of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting
(ret.), University of Pennsylvania; Frank Stenger, Ph.D., Professor of
Numerical Analysis, University of Utah; Richard Sheehan,
Ph.D. Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame; Paul Velleman,
Ph.D. Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Statistical Sciences, Cornell
University; Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D., Lecturer, Dept. of Mathematics,
Case Western University; Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus,
Dept. of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist
University. http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes Re
Mitofsky-Edison.pdf.

(23) An alternative theory which was advanced by a few was that fears
about terrorism and the ongoing war in Iraq made many reluctant to
kick out a sitting president. This theory has the benefit, at least,
of having some evidence. However, while it explained why so many
ignored the fact that WMD was never found in Iraq, the given rationale
for launching war on a country that had not attacked us, and a host of
other scandals such as torture and murder at Abu Graib, and why Bush
did manage to receive a lot of votes, it didn't explain why he won by
a 3.5 million margin

(24) The Economist, The triumph of the religious right, November 11,
2004
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=33755
43, retrieved April 5, 2005.

(25) See, for example, ex-conservative David Brock's The Republican
Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy and
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., "How Washington Poisoned the News, Vanity Fair
, May 2005.

(26) Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating, "Latest Conspiracy Theory --
Kerry Won -- Hits the Ether, " Washington Post, November 11, 2004,
A-02, reprinted at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html,
retrieved June 7, 2005

(27) Available in its entirety at
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/VoteFraudTheoriesNixed.html
, retrieved June 6, 2005.

(28) Greg Guma, "Election 2004: Lingering Suspicions," United Press
International, November 15, 2004,
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20041112-010916-6128r, retrieved
June 7, 2005.

(29) Robert Parry, "Washington Post's Sloppy Analysis,"
consortiumnews.com, November 12, 2004 at
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111204.html , retrieved June 7,
2005.

(30) "Liberty County - Bristol, Florida and environs - where it's 88
percent Democrats, 8 percent Republicans) but produced landslides for
President Bush. On Countdown, we cited the five biggest surprises
(Liberty ended Bush: 1,927; Kerry: 1,070), but did not mention the
other 24." at http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111004B.shtml#1,
retrieved June 7, 2005. See also David Swanson , "Media Whites Out
Vote Fraud," January 3, 2005:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010405Y.shtml for a good summary of
this media white out.

(31) Media Matters for America, "Conservatives rail against MSNBC's
Olbermann for reporting election irregularities,"
http://mediamatters.org/items/2004111600006 , retrieved June 7, 2005.

(32) The Fairness Doctrine governed broadcasters from 1949 to 1987. It
required broadcasters, as a condition for having their FCC license, to
provide balanced views on controversial questions. The elimination of
the Fairness Doctrine was successfully lobbied for by well-heeled
conservative groups during the Reagan administration and paved the way
for the creation of a right wing media empire that operates free of
any need to provide opposing viewpoints to their own.

(33) LexisNexis Academic database, Accession No. 1605983, Question
No. 276, number of respondents 1,287, national telephone poll of
adults.

(34) Wellstone voted against the authorization to go to war on Iraq
requested by the second Bush administration.

(35) I owe this summary to "The Theft of Your Vote Is Just a Chip
Away," Thom Hartmann, AlterNet. Posted July 30, 2003, retrieved
February 8, 2005: http://www.alternet.org/story/16474 .

Chuck Hagel's story is worth mentioning here as well. As former
conservative radio talk show host and current Senator from Nebraska
Chuck Hagel (who is seriously considering a run for the White House)
demonstrated back in 1996, being the head of the company that supplies
the voting machines used by about 80% of the voters in Nebraska does
not hurt you when you want to be the first Republican in 24 years to
win a Senate seat in Nebraska. The fact that Hagel pulled off the
biggest upset in the country in the 1996 elections by defeating an
incumbent Democratic governor, that he did so through winning every
demographic group, including mainly black areas that had never voted
Republican before, might have nothing to do with the paperless trail
generated by the electronic voting machines his company provides,
installs, programs and largely runs. But then again, maybe it does
have something to do with his stunning and totally unexpected
victories (Thom Hartmann, "If You Want to Win An Election, Just
Control the Voting Machines," January 31, 2003,
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm , retrieved April 10,
2005).

(36) This is in keeping with Lewis Carroll's Red Queen's logic. The
Bush White House sees itself as part of the "faith-based community,"
consciously rejecting empirical reality and inconvenient facts,
considering these to be the province of what it calls the
"reality-based community." As New York Times journalist Ron Suskind
chillingly recounts: "In the summer of 2002 I had a meeting with a
senior adviser to Bush. The aide said that guys like me were 'in what
we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who
'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of
discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about
enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not
the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an
empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act
again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''' (Ron Suskind,
"Without a Doubt," the New York Times Magazine , October 17, 2004.)

(37) By contrast, the GOP has decided that being "sore winners," as
John Powers so aptly puts it in his book Sore Winners (and the Rest of
Us) in George Bush's America, beats the hell out of being gracious
losers.

(38) Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie, in remarks to
the National Press Club on November 4, 2004, took the next logical
step, calling for the elimination of exit polls on the grounds that
the 2000, 2002 and 2004 exit polls showed the Republican candidates
losing. See http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04027.html ,
retrieved June 11, 2005.

(39) Robert Parry, "Solving the Media Puzzle," May 15, 2005,
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/051305.html , retrieved June 7,
2005.


For a listing of current censored news stories see
http://www.projectcensored.org/



--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Music ==> http://www.soundclick.com/kingflowermusic.htm
Allen Barker | Home page ==> http://www.datafilter.com/alb

Doc Martian
2005-09-14 16:21:02 EST
occupy his campaign workers time with idiot drool with big stinky headlines.

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=
kerry+bush+dems+jerry+hanoi&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=docma
r*n@verizon.net&lr=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=4&as_miny=2004&as_
maxd=2&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=2004&safe=off

or

http://tinyurl.com/b2mt6

cheers!
Doc



David Morgan \MAMS\
2005-09-14 18:09:24 EST
Regardless of any 'positioning' on this issue, there is NO DOUBT
in my mind that International Elections Inspectors and monitors
simply MUST be allow back into this country.



"Allen L. Barker" <alb@datafilter.com> wrote in message news:mj%Ve.1228$Gy3.1070@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> No Paper Trail Left Behind:
> The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election
> http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html
> [A featured article in _Censored 2006: The Top 25 Censored Stories_,
> Seven Stories Press, http://www.projectcensored.org/]
>
> By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
> Cal Poly Pomona
> ddloo@csupomona.edu
>
> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't
> believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice,"
> said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an
> hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible
> things before breakfast." (Through the Looking Glass)
>
> In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004
> presidential election, you must also believe all of the following
> extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)
>
> 1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate
> favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in
> history.(2)
>
> 2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn't vote
> in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush
> lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush
> still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.(3)
>
> 3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida
> Republicans' votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than
> 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida
> counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300%
> of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians'
> enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his
> share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did
> not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered
> Independents, dropping 15 points.(4)
>
> 4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the
> fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic
> strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate
> a rigged election.(5)
>
> 5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first
> time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having
> also done this, but Truman's polling numbers were trailing so much
> behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two
> months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of
> support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush's support was clearly eroding
> on the eve of the election.(6)
>
> 6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong
> (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election
> final poll).(7)
>
> 7) The "challenger rule" - an incumbent's final results won't be
> better than his final polling - was wrong;(8)
>
> 8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls
> (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of
> the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.
>
> 9) The fact that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched
> by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and
> provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn't
> cast any suspicion upon the official tally.(9)
>
> 10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered
> Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his
> employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general
> counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush's 1994
> running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a
> computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the
> initial impression that he was creating this software in order to
> forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer
> Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: "You don't understand, in order to
> get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source
> code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida."
> (Boldface in original).(10)
>
> 11) Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell's declaration in a August 14, 2003
> letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to
> deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact
> that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic
> voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn't result in any fraud by
> Diebold.
>
> 12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted
> counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to
> count..
>
> 13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was
> leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over
> 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that
> the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents -
> were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other
> words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the
> number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically
> impossible.(11)
>
> 14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections,
> paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit
> polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very
> wrong.(12)
>
> 15) The National Election Pool's exit polls (13) were so far off that
> since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this
> wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.
>
> 16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the
> discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us
> that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a
> century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.
>
> The Emperor (and the Electoral Process) Have No Clothes
>



Doc Martian
2005-09-14 18:51:57 EST
you think we have to cheat? just like a dem.... cheat first... ask questions
later.

cheers!
Doc

p.s. why cheat when the best the dems have to put up is a wanna-bee draft
dodger who puts his boats crew into mortal danger on a whim (instead of a
well planned military maneuver).... and one of hillary's twang-talkin' boy
toys.

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:oc1We.2479$si2.2040@trnddc06...
> Regardless of any 'positioning' on this issue, there is NO DOUBT
> in my mind that International Elections Inspectors and monitors
> simply MUST be allow back into this country.
>
>
>
> "Allen L. Barker" <alb@datafilter.com> wrote in message
news:mj%Ve.1228$Gy3.1070@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > No Paper Trail Left Behind:
> > The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election
> > http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html
> > [A featured article in _Censored 2006: The Top 25 Censored Stories_,
> > Seven Stories Press, http://www.projectcensored.org/]
> >
> > By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
> > Cal Poly Pomona
> > ddloo@csupomona.edu
> >
> > "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't
> > believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much
practice,"
> > said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an
> > hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible
> > things before breakfast." (Through the Looking Glass)
> >
> > In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004
> > presidential election, you must also believe all of the following
> > extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)
> >
> > 1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate
> > favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in
> > history.(2)
> >
> > 2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn't vote
> > in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush
> > lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush
> > still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.(3)
> >
> > 3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida
> > Republicans' votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than
> > 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida
> > counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300%
> > of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians'
> > enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his
> > share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did
> > not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered
> > Independents, dropping 15 points.(4)
> >
> > 4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the
> > fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic
> > strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate
> > a rigged election.(5)
> >
> > 5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first
> > time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having
> > also done this, but Truman's polling numbers were trailing so much
> > behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two
> > months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of
> > support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush's support was clearly eroding
> > on the eve of the election.(6)
> >
> > 6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong
> > (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election
> > final poll).(7)
> >
> > 7) The "challenger rule" - an incumbent's final results won't be
> > better than his final polling - was wrong;(8)
> >
> > 8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls
> > (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of
> > the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.
> >
> > 9) The fact that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched
> > by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and
> > provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn't
> > cast any suspicion upon the official tally.(9)
> >
> > 10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered
> > Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his
> > employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general
> > counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush's 1994
> > running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a
> > computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the
> > initial impression that he was creating this software in order to
> > forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer
> > Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: "You don't understand, in order to
> > get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source
> > code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida."
> > (Boldface in original).(10)
> >
> > 11) Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell's declaration in a August 14, 2003
> > letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to
> > deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact
> > that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic
> > voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn't result in any fraud by
> > Diebold.
> >
> > 12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted
> > counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to
> > count..
> >
> > 13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was
> > leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over
> > 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that
> > the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents -
> > were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other
> > words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the
> > number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically
> > impossible.(11)
> >
> > 14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections,
> > paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit
> > polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very
> > wrong.(12)
> >
> > 15) The National Election Pool's exit polls (13) were so far off that
> > since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this
> > wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.
> >
> > 16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the
> > discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us
> > that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a
> > century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.
> >
> > The Emperor (and the Electoral Process) Have No Clothes
> >
>
>



David Morgan \MAMS\
2005-09-14 19:19:23 EST

"Doc Martian" <docmartian@verizon.net> wrote in message news:hQ1We.5632$XO6.1436@trnddc03...

> you think we have to cheat?

Did I say that? Nope. Did you say that? Yes.


> just like a dem.... cheat first... ask questions later.

What ever, Doc.... Do you *really* see any cheating in this statement?
(Remember, I do not belong to either dominant political party).

"Regardless of any 'positioning' on this issue, there is NO DOUBT
in my mind that International Elections Inspectors and monitors
simply MUST be allowed back into this country."

I thought not.... just spewing forth for your 'cause' I suppose. Stick
to the Israeli issue, will ya'?

Have a great day, Doc. ;-)








Doc Martian
2005-09-14 19:24:51 EST
you implied that there's a reason for international elections
inspectors..... and there probably is.... but not on the side of the gop.

cheers!
Doc

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:%d2We.2487$si2.2363@trnddc06...

> What ever, Doc.... Do you *really* see any cheating in this statement?
> (Remember, I do not belong to either dominant political party).
>
> "Regardless of any 'positioning' on this issue, there is NO DOUBT
> in my mind that International Elections Inspectors and monitors
> simply MUST be allowed back into this country."




David Morgan \MAMS\
2005-09-15 07:58:10 EST

"Doc Martian" <docmartian@verizon.net> wrote in message...
>
> you implied that there's a reason for international elections
> inspectors..... and there probably is.... but not on the side of the gop.


Ohhh, of course not. <cough-cough>



;-)



Doc Martian
2005-09-15 09:40:08 EST
in fact, the last time the gop cheated, and i have this on good authority,
was when ford threw 1976. we figured the dems couldn't mess shit up too bad
in 4 years. boy were we wrong.

cheers!
Doc

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:mldWe.15043$b37.14171@trnddc04...

> > you implied that there's a reason for international elections
> > inspectors..... and there probably is.... but not on the side of the
gop.
>
>
> Ohhh, of course not. <cough-cough>
>
>
>
> ;-)
>
>


Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron