Daily Kos :: RECOUNT OHIO:Cobb & Badnarik Fundraising Drive

Permalink | 338 comments | Cannot post in Archive

Has anyone asked KE04 for a donation from.. (4.00 / 3)

..the GELAC funds?

What about the DNC?

p.s. I've certainly made my donation.

Thanks.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:26:00 PDT

Thanks for posting this (none / 0)

my husband and I gave them every dime we could scrape together. I keep checking back, hoping for an update on the fundraising.

by julie37 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:28:50 PDT
[ Parent ]

these are separate groups (none / 1)

i am not certain they can release the funds to outside organizatiosn even if they wanted to

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:48:36 PDT
[ Parent ]

Honestly (3.66 / 3)

I'd like to keep Kerry out of this for as long as possible. If it turns out that the numbers are actually close it is going to get ugly very quickly and it would be better if he wasn't affiliated with this effort.

Look how Gore was beaten down by the media for a month. If the recount procedes now Kerry can say- "I conceded, I don't have anything to do with this."

But send money or Kerry will have to show his cards earlier...

NY-11

by Preston on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:25:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

The DNC was asked but declined (3.87 / 8)

They are supportive of others going forward with the recount (in Ohio, anyway), but are very concerned about not appearing to be involved in demanding a recount themselves.

Incredible as it seems, apparently the top priority for DNC insiders is to avoid being labeled as "Sore Loserman".

Maybe if we started a campaign to call the Bush-Cheney campaign "The Bush-Cheated" campaign, Bush and Cheney will be so embarrassed, cowed and intimidated that they won't oppose the Ohio Recount effort?

Personally, I wanted Dean but I ended up liking Kerry after all. Now I'm wondering what's going on? Can it be that Kerry values his own political career prospects more than this golden opportunity to protect our right to vote?

There have been dozens of U.S. presidents, but only a handful have had an opportunity to lead the nation out of crisis. Kerry had a chance to do something far grander than becoming President. Kerry could have assured his place in history by standing up tall and sincerely defending our right to vote. Instead, but he turned his back on us to avoid damaging his resume.

I'm voting third party from now on every chance I get. Enough of this bullshit.

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:35:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

Bush Cheated 2004 (3.66 / 3)

That's very good. I like that.

I'll distribute a "4" in lieu of pay.

"It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

by quaderni on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:46:26 PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm giving you a 4.... (none / 1)

for what I believe is a Blazing Saddles reference. Even if it isn't it put a smile on my face.

by jimmyjames on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:29:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

Blazing Saddles, it was (none / 1)

And why yes, thank you, in turn! Can me and the 'boys' get my ball and paddle now?

"It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

by quaderni on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:45:27 PDT
[ Parent ]

Yeah! They stole my vote- I won't ever vote again! (none / 0)

NY-11

by Preston on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:48:26 PDT
[ Parent ]

Brilliant (4.00 / 10)

That was so good, had to make it. Sycamore gets credit for the concept.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:04:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

Business opportunity here (none / 1)

Somebody should make these buttons and use them to raise money for the recount. I would like to order a bumper sticker, screen saver, about 20 buttons, etc.

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:56:36 PDT
[ Parent ]

do it at cafepress.com (none / 1)

One off bumperstickers, t-shirts, etc. http://www.cafepress.com/. Quality is pretty good and the pricing is good enough.

I'm not left or right. I'm ahead. Progressives for the future!

by weirdscenes on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:33:29 PDT
[ Parent ]

I want some! (none / 0)

I donated to ePluribus Media. Please join me. Click here to support citizen journalism!

by Percheronwoman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:22:38 PDT
[ Parent ]

I love your signature line! (none / 0)

"We've got to start making some friends on this planet" John Kerry

by GinnyfromWI on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:32:21 PDT
[ Parent ]

wait (none / 0)

you don't really know the DNC wasn't planning on calling for a recount. I think they were just waiting till the provisional ballots were counted.

by johnalrd on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:53:40 PDT
[ Parent ]

Shake off all the fears ... (none / 1)

under which weak minds are servilely crouched.

Well, in 2000 I politely waited for the DNC to count all the votes. But alas, they waffled and cherry-picked and wanted to recount only where they thought they had the best chance of picking up votes. So they lost the moral high ground and the recount became a spectacle of partisan mud-wrestling and chewing on each other's ears.

They should have demanded that ALL the votes be counted. But they put their short-term political gain ahead of protecting our basic right to vote. Shouldn't that tell us something? Do they really dare to do that a second time?

I waited quietly and politely last time. I'm not going to be herded into a pen again. As this story inexorably unfolds, those leaders who failed to support the recount are likely to be judged and found lacking.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:33:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

What Are You Suggesting? (none / 1)

I'm not exactly sure what you want the DNC or John Kerry to do. Do you think Kerry should unconcede, or do you think Kerry and the DNC should come out publicly and demand a recount?

We lose all credibility if Kerry or the DNC make any sudden public announcement. The repubs can't make charges of being a sore loser if Kerry is on the sidelines.

Once this story gets bigger, public support for a recount will grow, and we will have the public on our side. People will see the possibility of Ohio voter fraud, and see that the charges are not even coming from the Kerry campaign or the DNC and the demand for a recount will rise.

You need to think with your brain, and not with your heart right now. What good will come out with Kerry and the DNC publicly demanding a recount. Nothing. I mean, all the ballots still havn't been counted yet. We still don't have conclusive evidence of voter fraud. We need to smart about this, not reckless.

by sportsman885 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:05:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

It's not enough to be smart (none / 0)

When we are afraid to simply request an open accounting of our votes, and find excuses for not demanding this basic right, we delude ourselves. We are fools to imagine that things will sort themselves out even if our votes are not counted, and that we must wait patiently and not protest even as we see our civils rights eroded, one by one. History tells us otherwise.

We lost the 2000 election because we were too clever, too immersed in short-term strategies, to simply stand up for what we knew was right. We were timid, looking for the path of least resistance. We ended up losing our bearings and much else besides. Never again.

To answer your reasonable questions:

John Kerry should have kept his promise to "make every vote count." It's as simple as that. I believed that promise and I voted for him. I'm disappointed. He could have waited a few days. What was the urgent matter that took priority over assuring the integrity of the vote?

Frankly, John Kerry is the one who needed to be told, "We need to be smart about this, not reckless."

And what now, that he's made a bad decision and backed himself into a corner? Well, why not simply show some integrity and backbone? Above all, he ought to show us that he cares more about defending our basic right to vote than he cares about his own political career.

How he chooses to demonstrate that is up to him. If he is indeed a leader who deserves our respect, he'll find a way.

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:44:12 PDT
[ Parent ]

Look, I see where you are coming from, but... (4.00 / 2)

everything we are fighting for would be ruined if Kerry and the DNC become publicly involved. Credibility is lost, public support erodes, and republican attacks begin.

The fact that people not associated with the Kerry campaign or the DNC are conducting this process gives us credibility and support from the public. If people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc. are calling for a recount, how are they going to be accused of being sore losers?

And what makes you think Kerry didn't keep his promise? Do you think Kerry isn't keeping tabs on what is going on in Ohio? You think his lawyers are doing nothing? They will do whatever it takes to get every vote counted appropriately. And they are smart enough to know that the less Kerry and the DNC get involved, the better chance a fair election is conducted.

Have faith in the man. He has spent his whole adult life trying to become president and he aint going to let some asshole steal it from him. Though his heart says to attack the election process, his brain knows the best chance to succeed is to remain silent until there is conclusive evidence of fraud, all the ballots are counted, or outsiders have forced a recount. Talking about this publicly hurts the party's credibility, and the chances of us breaking this election scandal open.

by sportsman885 on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 01:17:44 PDT
[ Parent ]

Credibility is lost by not defending our rights (none / 1)

Have we all succumbed to the Orwellian logic of the Bush-Cheney administration?

If Kerry defends our right to vote, he will gain credibility, not lose it. Martin Luther King, when reviled and attacked by cowards, only gained greater credibility and support among decent men and women. When he stood up and demanded justice, his public support did not erode. Quite the contrary.

Of course Bush and his supporters will attack Kerry if he shows guts and integrity. But surely Kerry is not afraid of their name-calling?

If Thurgood Marshall found the courage to take legal cases in places where he had to get out of town before nightfall, surely John Kerry has the courage to be smeared and criticized by scoundrels and tyrants.

John McCain once said in South Carolina, "I'm honored by the attacks by the people who addicted our children and lied to Congress."

Kerry should be honored to incure the ire of those who oppose free elections. If he's afraid of losing their respect, then he should join their party.

Integrity is not a matter for strategic compromise. If you don't agree, then vote next time for the candidate who hesitates to be publicly associated with demanding an open and fair voting system.

I will vote for a different kind of candidate. I want someone who demonstrates integrity and leadership, and I will work to defeat any candidate who dares to trade away my right to vote as if it were a chip in his private poker game. My vote does not belong to him. He may not trade it away to improve his chances in 2008. It is mine, it is precious, and I will defend it.

Because I am not in their districts, I cannot vote for Conyers, Nadler, and most of the others who demanded a GAO investigation, but I damned sure am going to send them money for their next campaigns. As for Kerry, if he defends my vote, he can count on my vote and my continued support in the future.

If not, then I will find candidates who are not embarrassed at the prospect of supporting my most fundamental rights.

by Sycamore on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 11:41:24 PDT
[ Parent ]

I think Kerry is on it! (none / 1)

First, I don't think he has much to loose. If he presents it as just wanting to be diligent. When he's got all the fact he can get. He could just come out and state that there are too many incoherences in this vote. The new Mexico turnout, the Ohio 4000 votes for Bush, the extreme and systematic discrepancy with exit polls, the Florida Republicans willingness to go against the board of election's cheaper and safer recommendation, the Diebold CEO statement, the Florida technical glitches, the voter suppression, etc. This deserves looking into. He should say that if these are just isolated incidents and coincidences, he'll accept it gladly and go back home.

But to come out like this, you need the most facts you can get. And the best thing is also to not give too much of a notice for the republicans to prepare. (Although I'm quite sure they have a defense in place. Guilty or not.)

I have got to believe that Kerry the prosecutor is looking into this. For god's sake, he's the guy who kept looking into BCCI despite many colleagues telling him that he was going against too many powerful interests and that it was bad for his Senate career.

Finally, one last thing. I find the Kerry team's discipline at keeping collective silence on the topic somewhat eerie. I would think that if they had really thrown the towel, there would have been more noise on this... Even at a meetup I went in Evanston, last night. One guy started mentioning the Fraud word, and the organizers smoothly changed the topic. Maybe it's just a collective desire to move forward. Or maybe it's just the troops all knowing that they should taunt the enemy just before battle...

Finally, on a personal note. I would feel just outstanding if Kerry came out swinging.

"The delusional is no longer marginal but has come in from the fringe to influence the seats of power

by FightOn on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 00:30:40 PDT
[ Parent ]

It would feel outstanding, but it just isn't smart (none / 0)

Kerry's silence is frustrating, but people need to realize it is the only practical way to go. Him coming out swinging wouldn't help the solution. While it would give us energy, it also gives ammunition to republicans and the media to unload on Kerry and the DNC.

The facts havn't all come in yet. All the ballots havn't been counted yet. Be patient. It would ruin our credibility to have Kerry come out and publicly fight this thing.

by sportsman885 on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 01:01:33 PDT
[ Parent ]

I Love the Slogan, but... (3.50 / 2)

I have to disagree with you about Kerry. Tell me what happens if he publicly gets involved with this? He gets bashed by the media, and his support erodes. I mean, all of us will continue to do whatever we can for the man, but the average political observer will be turned off.

The fraud claims are more credible with Kerry behind the scenes. If Kerry and the DNC were openly pursuing this, what credibility is that?

Nothing is conclusive right now. There are some interesting theories, some solid evidence, but nothing that concludes Kerry should have won Ohio. With people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc pursuing recounts, he doesn't have to make this thing public. It is extremely smart of him to lay low during all this.

I just don't understand what people want the man to do. He bowed down gracefully. He did what he thought was best for the country. With Kerry and the DNC out of the picture (at least publicly), the republicans can not put that sore loser label on us. They got nothing. Public support rises because it appears something strange happened in Ohio, and it wasn't even the Kerry campaign or the DNC making the charges.

So, please, do not worry about John Kerry. He knows what he is doing. His silence may be frustrating, but it is the smart thing to do.

by sportsman885 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:47:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

bush/cheated (none / 0)

we should all start calling them this, i agree.
http://www.northernsun.com/cgi-bin/ns/5553.html

by gothmom on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 00:44:21 PDT
[ Parent ]

Since I can't start my own diary (my first post) (4.00 / 8)

I will post this here. This is NEW evidence of massive fraud in North Carolina. It is on the DU homepage, and is linked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=45 003

This evidence has impressed me, a staunch critic of the "fraud" allegations. But I am pretty sure something is amiss here. Take a look:

****************
Sorry for the numbers. This is a long and comprehensive report, so please stay with me -- it offers what I believe to be a strong case that election tampering took place, and I want to carefully establish the facts. I think it may be the first deep examination inside the numbers of a given state -- not just speculation -- but real data collection and questionable results put to the test.

BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns. Things looked funny. They were way out of sync with the exit polls and no one could believe that Erskine Bowles had lost in the Senate race. The deeper I looked at the figures, the more things began to look disturbing. I downloaded the precinct data and began to pour through it for clues. Then I saw that the absentee vote (which apparently also includes the early voting data) was huge, comprising more than *a million votes and nearly a full third of the total vote (30%). It offered the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. I reasoned with an early vote that large, it is no longer a sample but a benchmark. The nearer one approaches 100%, the more accurate the picture of the whole. At one third, any inconsistencies should even out -- even if more white suburban Republicans voted by absentee (as has been charged in the past with smaller samples) or if the Democratic GOTV pushed our early numbers (as has been assumed for this election). In that respect, I was lucky to have looked at North Carolina -- it's not as crazed as the battleground states and the electorate is nicely split between parties. Any inconsistencies of one side dominating the early vote would have showed up in the data -- they didn't.

With that in mind, I began an informal review of the NC absentee vote. What I found was stunning, and I believe it should have national implications. I have little doubt that we will find the same thing elsewhere by using benchmark absentee data against election day returns. It not only reflects the pattern of exit poll discrepancy we saw throughout the country, but it also makes a compelling case for purposeful tampering with the electronic data. I also think it reveals the three objectives of the Bush re-election campaign: 1) re-election 2) mandate 3) strong Senate majority.

All of the absentee information was buried in the precinct data, hundreds of thousands of lines worth, and had to be pulled out before a comparison could be made. Before we look inside the numbers, note that of the 102 North Carolina counties, 2 have not yet posted absentee data, Catawba and Lee. It may well be in the precinct data but mislabeled or combined in some way. The NC Board of Elections said that both counties have reported, but weren't sure where it was recorded -- I'm awaiting a call back with the information. My estimate based on Catawba's demographic similarity to Davidson would shift the absentee percentages by 0.6% in the Republican's favor, so bear in mind that I've not incorporated it into the data and the consistency is going to be even better than represented. Catawba has a strong Republican base (47,923 to 33,024 registered Republicans to Democrats) and is heavily White (91,141 white to 7619 black registrants). As it is now, the absentee/early vote is almost precisely balanced statistically with the final results. Lee county is much smaller and has 16,391 Democrats to 9149 Republicans (again mostly white) -- it likely would have little impact on the percentages.

Now, here is the absentee data for all the statewide offices, followed by the overall vote, and then the poll-only results (obtained by subtracting the absentee data from the overall figures). The poll-only data is important as it gives us an isolated snapshot of the results that were returned on election day.

GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Mike Easley (DEM): 573,120 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 445,505 (43.2%) -12.4
Other: 12,490 (1.2%)

GOVERNOR (Overall)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,939,137 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,495,032 (42.9%) -12.7
Other: 52,512 (1.5%)

GOVERNOR (Poll only)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,366,017 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,049,527 (42.7%) -12.9
Other: 40,022 (1.6%)

Already we notice that the Democrat, Easley, ran consistently at 55.6% at the polls, in the absentee, and in the poll-only vote. The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last). There is one other important hidden benchmark we can measure here, percentage of turnout. Perhaps the Democrats had more early/absentee voters and the Republicans had a bigger election day turnout? Well, we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.

To establish the point of consistency, here are the comparisons of all the other statewide races. It's a lot of numbers, most all of them in the same percentile range, but it was important to establish that there was a clear, obvious, and unaccounted diversion from the norm in both the Senate and Presidential races, so I spent a couple of twelve hour days and went through all the statewide numbers including the amendment votes.

MAJOR RACES

******
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 561,584 (55.7%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 433,112 (43.0%)
Other: 13,217 (1.3%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Overall)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,888,382 (55.6%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,453,711 (42.8%)
Other: 56,367 (1.6%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Poll Only)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,326,798 (55.5%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,020,599 (42.7%)
Other: 43,150 (1.8%)

*******
SECRETARY OF STATE (Absentee)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 575,045 (58.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 416,145 (42.0%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Overall)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,911,570 (57.3%)
Jay Rao (REP) 1,423,115 (42.7%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Poll Only)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,336,525 (57.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 1,006,970 (43.0%)

******
ATTORNEY GENERAL (absentee)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 546,477 (56.7%)
Joe Knott (REP): 417,824 (43.3%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (overall)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,869,699 (55.6%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,493,061 (44.4%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (poll-only)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,323,222 (55.2%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,075,237 (44.8%)

******

OTHER STATEWIDE RACES:

******
AUDITOR (absentee)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 476,257 (48.6%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 503,250 (51.4%)

AUDITOR (overall)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,662,361 (50.4%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,633,622 (49.6%)

AUDITOR (poll-only)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,186,104 (51.2%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,130,372 (48.8%)

*******
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (absentee)
Steve Troxler (REP): 478,794 (48.6%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 506,613 (51.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (overall)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,665,678 (50.04%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,663,022 (49.96%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (poll-only)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,186,884 (50.7%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,156,409 (49.3%)

********
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (absentee)
Jim Long (DEM): 582,238 (58.4%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 414,204 (41.6%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (overall)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,934,061 (57.6%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,421,404 (42.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (poll only)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,351,823 (57.3%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,007,200 (42.7%)

*********
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (absentee)
Cherie Berry (REP): 475,570 (50.2%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 472,632 (49.8%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (overall)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,721,841 (52.1%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,582,253 (47.9%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (poll only)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,246,271 (52.9%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,109,621 (47.1%)

********
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (absentee)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 507,523 (51.7%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 473,991 (48.3%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (overall)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,656,092 (50.1%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,646,838 (49.9%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (poll only)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,148,569 (49.5%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,172,847 (50.5%)

*********
TREASURER (absentee)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 546,160 (55.3%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 440,871 (44.7%)

TREASURER (overall)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,812,182 (54.5%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,512,628 (45.5%)

TREASURER (poll only)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,266,022 (54.2%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,071,757 (45.8%)

**********
NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (absentee)
FOR: 432,697 (51.7%)
AGAINST: 403,475 (48.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (overall)
FOR: 1,494,789 (51.2%)
AGAINST: 1,423,195 (48.8%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (poll only)
FOR: 1,062,092 (51.0%)
AGAINST: 1,019,720 (49.0%)

**********
NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (absentee)
FOR: 679,434 (78.6%)
AGAINST: 185,101 (21.4%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (overall)
FOR: 2,334,683 (78.0%)
AGAINST: 659,532 (22.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (poll only)
FOR: 1,655,249 (77.7%)
AGAINST: 474,431 (22.3%)

**********
NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (absentee)
FOR: 591,122 (68.7%)
AGAINST: 269,641 (31.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (overall)
FOR: 1,984,151 (68.0%)
AGAINST: 933,021 (32.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (poll only)
FOR: 1,393,029 (67.7%)
AGAINST: 663,380 (32.3%)

**********

Of all the statewide races, the only other votes that may raise red flags are the Labor and Agriculture Commissioners, though likely the Catawba data will pull them into line. But none of the races showed anywhere near the unexplained swing of the Senate race.

*********
SENATOR (absentee)
Richard Burr (REP): 492,166 49.48%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 492,536 49.52% .04
Other: 9,917 1%

SENATOR (overall)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,791,460 51.6%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,632,509 47.0% -4.6
Other: 48,103 1.4%

SENATOR (poll only)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,299,294 52.4%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,139,973 46.0% -6.4
Others: 38,186 1.5%

*********

WOW. With essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee and the poll, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. That's more than a little alarming and is in itself enough to call into question the legitimacy of the election day vote. North Carolinians in this forum can speak to this, but Bowles is generally well liked. There is absolutely nothing to account for the bizarre drop of support in the electorate by 6.4% between the early voting (mostly the week prior) and election day. But when we compare it to the Presidential race, it is dwarfed by absurdity.

*********
PRESIDENT (absentee)
George W. Bush: 529,755 52.9%
John F. Kerry: 469,522 46.9% -6.0
Others: 2749 0.2%

PRESIDENT (overall)
George W. Bush: 1,961,188 56.0%
John F. Kerry: 1,525,821 43.6% -12.4
Others: 13,989 0.4%

PRESIDENT (poll only)
George W. Bush: 1,431,433 57.3%
John F. Kerry: 1,056,299 42.3% -15.0
Others: 11,240 0.4%

*********

So what the heck is going on here??? Kerry was behind by 6 points in the absentee/early voting. The result is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd. THE EXIT POLLS TELL US THAT PEOPLE VOTED IDENTICALLY TO THE OTHER THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result. But look at what happens -- a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of NINE POINTS at the election day polls, more than doubling Kerry's overall margin of defeat. A 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes. My gut tells me that this is why there is a reluctance in Florida and Ohio to push the absentee counting and that the ballots and counts had best be watched very damn closely. They present a paper trail challenge that if understood will provide a key benchmark for election day fraud. I also want to point out that the differential was not there prior to election day -- meaning there either had to be a date specific alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific activation just prior to the election. And lastly, it is not only the Presidential election day vote that is spurious -- the close Senate races also bear close scrutiny.

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:31:28 PDT
[ Parent ]

There were 48,000 extra votes for president only (2.66 / 3)

that would account for a 1.7% change ONLY if they all the president only votes went for bush. It does seem somewhat suspicious. I think someone with a better understanding of the stats should review it.

"When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." -- James Carville

by sgilman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:50:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0)

The point is, the poster proves absnetee vote count is an extremely good predictor of the voting machine vote count. North Carolina is heavy with E-voting and op-scan machines.

What he is saying is that only in the presidential and Senate races, the voting machines vote margins differ vastly from the absentee totals.

In all other races and ammendments, absentees match the machine count.

Something is drastically wrong here. No one can think of a reason for the Senate and Presidential race being off by so much, when all other Dem/Rep races are dead on.

I'd say there has to be tampering here. That or a major computer glitch.

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:58:46 PDT
[ Parent ]

But, the computer glitch... (none / 0)

...would have to be specific to the two most important races in the state, while not affecting the rest of the items voted on. That'd certainly be an odd and suspicious glitch.

by pointsoflight on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:05:38 PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes. I believe Olbermann has been contacted (4.00 / 2)

and hopefully the GAO.

This is extremely suspicious. In fact, I think this is the best case for fraud we have right now.

It is actually sending chills down my spine!

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:10:19 PDT
[ Parent ]

I wasn't saying its not odd (3.20 / 5)

I was just looking to see if the votes only for president would make any difference. That is also why I said that someone else should with experience should look at the numbers.

"When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." -- James Carville

by sgilman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:21:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

I see. (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure the OP contacted the proper authorities.

This would also make a great story for Olbermann. I don't have cable where I am, but I hope he got this information in time for tonight's show.

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:27:42 PDT
[ Parent ]

Ray in TX - why did you super troll rate me? (4.00 / 2)

I was just pointing out that the votes that were only for president (votes cast for the presdential race only) DIDN'T explain the variance. I may not have stated it very well but I'm not a troll and this is the first time I've ever been accused of being one - Just look at my posts.

"When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." -- James Carville

by sgilman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:01:25 PDT
[ Parent ]

Perhaps I should refrase my post (none / 0)

I didn't imply that that was what the original poster was saying, I was just making sure that it wasn't a reason for the discrepency.

"When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." -- James Carville

by sgilman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:12:40 PDT
[ Parent ]

Ray in TX (4.00 / 2)

seems to be in a lousy mood tonight. He pulled the same act with me.

His abuse of "power," such as it is, reminds me of someone else we all know -- and voted against -- who claims to be from Texas.

Chill out, Ray. Grab yourself a cold can of Lone Star and, I dunno, curse Vinny Testaverde for throwing another interception or something.

Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

by JacksonBlogs on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:58:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

I just looked at my past posts (4.00 / 2)

and he went on a rampage. He troll rated a bunch of my posts for no reason. I'm not sure why he did this but I guess I must have said something that pissed him off.

Thanks for the counter troll rating. I have done the same for you.

"When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." -- James Carville

by sgilman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 23:27:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

He's A Belligerent Creep (none / 1)

Who is one of the worst ratings abusers on this blog. He has at various times declared war on the entire ratings system and indiscriminately handed out poor ratings to people in the hopes of making the system unworkable. Needless to say, he's the first one to scream "censorship!" when he sees ratings that he considers too low on comments he agrees with. He's also a truculent sort who loves to instigate fights. My guess is he's tired of being driven out of Texas bars by macho Urban Cowboy types, and he compensates for his sense of shame by acting like them in cyberspace.

"L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

by JJB on Mon Nov 15th, 2004 at 11:48:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

Means Nothing (1.00 / 4)

It means absolutely nothing. You are all assuming people vote on party lines, they don't always.

In Massachusetts people will go to the polls to elect a republican governor while we vote back in every democrat at the state house.

The fact that so many of these conspiracy theories are being based on exit polls is astounding. They are no more scientific than a poll on a website. On the website you have no idea if someone is actually a voter, at an exit poll likewise you have no idea if someone is actually a voter.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:52:38 PDT
[ Parent ]

So they vote party line on absentee ballots (none / 0)

and in early voting, but they don't vote party line on election day?

Why is the governor's race exactly the same? In fact, why are all other state-wide races the same?

You are aware of all the stories about voting machines crashing, and giving Bush 20,000 extra votes here and there? Is it possible that these aren't isolated incidences?

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:24:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

It's called an exit poll b/c (none / 0)

It's called an "exit poll" b/c the voter is being polled as he/she leaves the polling station.

That is quite different than a web or telephone survey in which you have to determine how likely it is that the person will vote.

by Jon B Good on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:41:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

Say What?! (none / 0)

On the website you have no idea if someone is actually a voter, at an exit poll likewise you have no idea if someone is actually a voter.

Uh, yeah, you do! Exit polls are conducted at polling places as people leave. I've been exit polled myself and I wouldn't have been if I had just walked in off the streets. The exit pollers ask people as they are leaving the polling place. Exit polls have some problems, but to say they are no more scientific than a website survey betrays huge ignorance!

by Davidsfr on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:12:49 PDT
[ Parent ]

you don't know what you're talking about (none / 0)

NOTHING here is about exit polls.

in NC this year they had early voting,
or "no excuses" absentee voting,
as well as traditional absentee voting.

I was canvassing in two counties,
and we had great success getting
people interested in voting early
at the county Board of Elections office.

this year all the early voting was huge,
almost one third of the votes in NC.
in almost all races the percentages were
comparable between the early votes
and the Election Day votes -- except
for two races, President and Senator.

and, the NC ballot allowed for a
"straight party" vote -- except for
President. we instructed our voters
that they must vote for John Kerry and
John Edwards separately, and then
vote straight Democratic Party to vote
for Erskine Bowles for Senator, Easely
for Governor, etc.

you would expect some ticket splitting --
but for Senator the results seem way
out of whack with ALL other races
where you could vote a straight ticket.
the percentage of split ticket voting
here is what, 3, 5, 10 times the other
downticket races? Incredible.

and the discussion of NC returns has
NOTHING to do with exit polls, as you
would see if you had the courtesy to
read the post before bloviating

by Woody on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:45:33 PDT
[ Parent ]

Party ID nails vote to a .90 correlation (none / 0)

Only party ID plus chrch going or not beats Party ID alone as a predictor of someone vote.

by wildhair on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 23:24:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

Not True - Exit Polls not like Online Polls (none / 0)

I just don't believe that at exit polls "you don't know if someone is a voter" OK, maybe someone walking out of a polling place and when asked says 'yes, I just voted' is not telling the truth - but come on! And to say that online polls are as accurate as exit polls . . . explain yourself! I say no way that would be true.

by AskQuestions on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 08:01:51 PDT
[ Parent ]

Here's a 4 to counter the troll rating (none / 0)

that you didn't deserve. I just hate that about this site. If you don't agree, say so! Troll rating like this is uncalled for, IMHO.

by pixella on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:05:30 PDT
[ Parent ]

Er, 102 Counties? (none / 0)

North Carolina has an even hundred counties.

The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

by TarheelDem on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:27:31 PDT
[ Parent ]

Further analysis (none / 0)

I would be interested to see if there is a systematic pattern by geography. Are certain counties more off the mark than others? Are certain precincts more off the mark than others? Are they more likely to have e-voting, punch card, opti-scan, or paper ballots? What does the variance among counties and precincts tell you about the possibility that it is technology-related?

Is there any pattern of association with the proportions of voters who are registered Republican or Democrat. Do more lopsidedly Democrat or Republican counties have this effect more than more competitive counties?

You might also check for ticket-splitting which has been a North Carolina tradition since Eisenhower ran in 1952. Are ticket splitters more likely to show up on election day or are they more likely to voter early/absentee?

The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

by TarheelDem on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:48:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

Informational Note On Ticket Splitting (none / 0)

Here in NC a straight-ticket vote DOES NOT apply to the Presidential race - it must be voted separately Not sure how that would factor into this, but just thought I'd mention it.

by chaboard on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:41:39 PDT
[ Parent ]

Does it work the same way on the absentee ballots? (none / 0)

Because the only difference here is the difference b/t absentees and the voting machines.

If there is no difference b/t absentees and the machine ballots as far as voting straight ticket, than this probably wouldn't make any difference.

Also of note, the absnetee ballot tally in 2000 was less that 2 points off the final totals

Gore
41.7% Abs/43% final tally

Bush
57.7% Abs/56% final tally

I find it unbelievable that there is a 9 point difference for president this year. If there was fraud here, it could have flipped that Senate race, and padded Bush's claims for his "Mandate".

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:03:25 PDT
[ Parent ]

Well..... (none / 0)

I've never seen an absentee ballot so I can't
answer definitively. But I'd be be pretty surprised
if if it treated straight party voting and the Pres race differently.

Oh, and the vast majority of what is listed as "absentee" in the analysis is actually "early votes"
rather than absentee ballots. I voted early and I can state that we got the same ballots - where Pres (as well as the amendments listed in his data, which you'll notice match up well with election day) is a separate section from the stuff covered by straight party.

by chaboard on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:24:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

Someone should help you post this as... (none / 0)

....a Diary -- preferably one of the several, appropriately skeptical and longer-standing members of the dKos community.

This should not be burried here, but be on the recommended list for full-force dialogue and analysis.

Thank you.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:57:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

Can you do it? (none / 0)

I am pretty green here, as I am normally on DU. I have yet to learn the ropes.

Otherwise, who do I contact?

By all means, any observers of this information are welcome to start their own diary!

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:06:35 PDT
[ Parent ]

I could, but, why don't you first try... (none / 0)

....posting a comment on the 'open thread' and title it:

"Markos, Hunter, Kid Oakland would you please post this information as a Diary"

I'll be checking through the evening and if it has not become a Diary, I'll certainly do it for you.

Outstanding analytic work! And, I've forwaded it to folk at other sites and involved in various campaigns who will likely be very grateful for what you have done.

Thank you.

"It's about our Democracy" [the one on life support and in need of immediate, heroic treatment]

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:24:51 PDT
[ Parent ]

Here is what I would post for you... (none / 0)

Title: Greed Kills: The 2004 NC Story

Reference your DU URL:

Two sentence summary.

Pointer to the dKos Diary in which you posted your comment and others responded [to make sure all those good comments are readily available to whomever reads the Diary].

I will indicate that they should address all comments to you, either at dKos or at DU.

Let me know if you want anything modified; added and if you want me to post it. I should be able to do it by 8pm PST.

Peace.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:58:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

That would be great...post it!! (none / 0)

BTW, this wasn't MY original work, I just decided to spread it around. :-)

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:26:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

Understood. I'll get a diary up shortly.... (none / 0)

....after I check to be sure no one else has posted one.

Peace.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:08:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

I Reformatted The Results Given Above (none / 0)

Into what I think is a more readable format here .

Can someone who has a DU id post this link in the thread over there for me?

by chaboard on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:40:42 PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't but perhaps Johnny does.... (none / 0)

....and thank you. I will insert a reference to your link in the Diary I just posted on dKos.

Thank you.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:43:17 PDT
[ Parent ]

response from an NC activist (2.50 / 2)

I analyzed after the early voting deadline but before the election the counts for Wake, Durham, Orange, Buncombe, Guilford, and Mecklenburg. In each county the % of Democrats casting early votes exceeded the percentage they make up of the total electorate, in other words Democrats were more likely to cast an early vote than Republicans. So it is not surprising at all that Kerry did much better among early voters than he did non election day, because Dems had tapped out the most driven part of their electorate. Durham and Orange were the highest % for Kerry overall, 68% and 67% respectively. In Orange and Durham counties, I believe half the total turnout was early voters. This helped skew the early voting turnout MUCH more Democratic than on election day.

So I think it not unexpected at all that there would be a wide divergence between how Kerry did among early voters and how he did on election day. In fact, it was to be expected

In my humble opinion that comment that:

"A 15 point edge for
Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes."

is not really supportable.

by dean4ever on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:17:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

Than why no discrepancy for govornor? (none / 1)

or any of the other Dem/Rep races? The govornor's exactly the same. Wouldn't Ballatine have a boost in election day totals then?

How about all the other elections?

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:22:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

With *Lots* Of Respect, Gerry.... (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure I buy this. Because..

a) there were 14 statewide races and in 12 of them
(including three non-partisan amendments) this
analysis shows the absentee/early vs. election day
breakdown being essentially the same. It's only the two national races (the two Rove would care about!) that give the bigger Repub numbers on election day. If the party breakdown of early voters
were the key factor wouldn't it be logical that it
would go the other way....ie, that the downticket
races - where the voter is less likely to know the
candidates and more likely to vote based on party - would be the ones showing the strongest Dem advantage in early voting?

b) May not be a factor but these numbers are
statewide while your earlier early voting analysis
was centered on the counties with the state's
biggest cities (Wake/Durham/Orange/Guilford/
Mecklenberg/Buncombe/etc). Do we know that the
Dem early voting turnout was actually higher statewide?

by chaboard on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:35:13 PDT
[ Parent ]

Repubs (none / 0)

but The Repubs have CONSISTENTLY done better on election day for President and Senate in NC than for any or all of the other statewide races. Remember Jesse Helms? Remember Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41/43, they always outpolled the Repub candidates for Governor, Sec of State, etc. We elected a Dem governor by a big margin this year and picked up 5 house and 2 senate seats this year, because NC voters still vote Dem in state elections. Since 1968, they have mostly voted repub for senate/prez. I really do not think the fact that Bush/Burr outpaced the other offices means fraud. It's just the continuation of a longstanding trend.

And most of the miscounting in NC that was corrected initally benefitted DEMOCRATS, the 4500 missing votes in Carteret County are mostly Repub, in Mecklenburg, 7 tabulators from an early vote site in the black community were counted twice while seven tabulators from a suburban site were omitted, in Gaston County they initially forgot to count a tabulator with 12,000 votes and that is a Repub county. And in NC we count provisionals even if you showed up in the wron precinct. Wake County had 13.500 provisionals of which 10,900 were counted and Kerry got 61% of them.

by dean4ever on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:03:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

I dunno...2000 Absentee stats: (none / 1)

Gore
41.7% Abs/43% final tally

Bush
57.7% Abs/56% final tally

In 2000, it looks like Gore outperformed Bush on election day compared to absentee totals. I don't think those DUI charges hat THAT much of an effect.

We're not talking about ticket splitting here, we're talking about absentee vs. vapor ballots. Vapor ballots seem to be giving Bush a gigantic edge. And Burr to a lesser extent.

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:58:05 PDT
[ Parent ]

EXACTLY (2.00 / 7)

A lone voice of reason....thank you for presenting an alternative thought process.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:54:36 PDT
[ Parent ]

UPDATE!! (none / 0)

<reccomendation whoring>
A new diary has been started about this! To consolidate discussion on this topic, go here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

</reccomendation whoring>

-Legalize Freedom!-

by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:42:17 PDT
[ Parent ]

Greed Kills: A NC Case Study (none / 0)

Pertinent dKos Diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06#30

Thank you.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:57:25 PDT
[ Parent ]

AAR (none / 0)

Is AAR flogging this? That's what they're there for, after all.

"When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

by scorponic on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:29:55 PDT

Randi Rhodes... (none / 0)

Someone send this to Randi.

by NCYellowDog on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:31:58 PDT
[ Parent ]

What about moveon.org (none / 0)

they were taking donations also

by TNforkerry on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:31:53 PDT

Are the donations earmarked for the Ohio Recount? (none / 0)

or are they being accepted as general donations?

I love MoveOn.org, but send us to a page on their site that says, "These funds will be used exclusively to support the recount."

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:49:20 PDT
[ Parent ]

Are you sure? (none / 0)

I've only seen them asking people to sign a petition... no requests for money so far...

by gdesignr on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:56:19 PDT
[ Parent ]

I also love MoveOn (none / 0)

but get real! They always ask for donations. And no, they did not say the money would be earmarked for a recount on the email that was sent asking for people to sign the petition and provide personal experiences.

Dear MoveOn member,

Questions are swirling around whether the election was conducted honestly or not. We need to know -- was it or wasn't it?

If people were wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all, we need to know so the wrongdoers can be held accountable, and so we can prevent this from happening again.

Members of Congress are demanding an investigation to answer this question. The decision on whether or not there will be an investigation could come as soon as Monday. Join us in supporting the call for one now, at:

http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

Then please invite your friends and colleagues to sign, as well. We need to show Congress that hundreds of thousands of Americans are serious about protecting the integrity of the vote.

We're all hearing the stories and wondering what's true and what isn't. But at least two cases of serious problems are accepted beyond doubt:

* In Broward County, Florida, electronic voting machines counted backwards: as more people voted, the official vote count went down. [1]

* In one Columbus, Ohio suburb, election officials have acknowledged that electronic voting machines credited Bush with winning 4,258 votes, even though only 638 people voted there. [2]

These are just cases where we know something went wrong. There were also lots of reports of people being denied ballots on Election Day. So far, these reports remain anecdotal, but they must be compiled and examined. And the Internet is abuzz with theories about why the official counts were so different from the exit polls.

Do you have a story? Were you prevented from voting? Tell us, at:

http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

Six prominent members of Congress have called for an investigation. Representatives Conyers (D-MI), Holt (D-NJ), Nadler (D-NY), Scott (D-VA), Watt (D-NC) and Wexler (D-FL), have demanded that the U.S. General Accounting Office:

immediately undertake an investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered, and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration. [3]

We've got to support their call by asking our own Representatives and Senators to join them.

If you have a personal story of disenfranchisement, tell us. These members of Congress have agreed to include our stories and comments in their call for an investigation. Please sign now -- we'll deliver our compiled statements to them on Friday.

Even if you don't have a personal story, your signature on our petition will still help build support for an investigation.

To keep our faith in democracy, we need to know the facts. Your signature, and your story if you have one, will help.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, Rosalyn, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
November 11th, 2004

Footnotes:

1. Broward Machines Count Backward, Palm Beach Post, November 5, 2004
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html

2. Glitch Gave Bush Extra Votes in Ohio, AP carried on CNN, November 5, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/

3. Letters from members of Congress to David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, demanding an investigation of the election: November 5th, 2004 & November 8th, 2004
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11804.pdf
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11804.pdf

NEXT LINK

by givmeliberty on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:53:40 PDT
[ Parent ]

RE: AAR (none / 0)

I think there is some conflict over this. Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garafalo & Sam Seader are really going after this. Al Franken isn't too thrilled. He thinks they sound like conspiracy theorists.

by LeftisRight on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:32:15 PDT

He's Right. They Do. (none / 0)

But this isn't a "conspiracy" issue. It's a "verify the results in light of questions" issue. It's a great opportunity to check on the accuracy of the voting process and should be spun as such. Who can oppose that exercise?

"When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

by scorponic on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:03:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

Bush-Cheney (none / 0)

and anyone else who benefits from a system that re-elects incumbents over 95% of the time.

It's no coincidence that the only candidates who are demanding a recount are third-party.

However, Conyers, Nadler, and the others demanding a GAO investigation deserve our contributions and our respect. Make sure they get re-elected. They stood up for us.

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:53:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

I think Randi and Janeane have gone off ... (4.00 / 2)

the deep end, too. BUt I still want the votes counted. They got my $50. And now I listen to the Young Turks instead of the formerly amusing Janeane Garofolo.

JRE 2008

by DrFrankLives on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:33:25 PDT
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I'm tired of her (none / 0)

Since the election it's been: voting conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, and 'wah, Sam Seder doesn't like me...'.

I think it's time they find someone who isn't quite so intent on embarassing the left.

(and get rid of Liz Winstead while they're at it)

On the larger point- I agree, let's count the votes. But let's hold off on the 'they stole the election' rhetoric until we get within spitting distance. or maybe a little proof.

NY-11

by Preston on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:55:20 PDT
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

I respect anyone who's willing to voice their opinion in a national forum, but Liz Winstead ain't helping.

by silverbax on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:57:07 PDT
[ Parent ]

Walter Mebane (4.00 / 2)

Let me preface this by saying The Al Franken Show is my favorite Air America Radio program by far. Al is sort of the opposite of a conspiracy theorist. He thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. That's fine.

Today's guests included "Professor Walter Mebane, who will put to rest the rumors that last week's election was stolen." I was interested to hear what he had to say about the exit polls or Ohio. What did he talk about? Dixiecrats. That's the second or third time that Franken has covered the FL OptiScan issue and nothing else. Is anyone on dKos still talking about that one? Hell, I debunked it for myself with about one hour of work in Excel.

The problem here is the rhetoric that dismisses all election irregularities as conspiracy theories just because one claim turns out to be false. That's exactly what happened to Dan Rather's truthful report on Bush's National Guard service.

By the way, $20 pledge from me.

Building a better RenderMan

by stabguy on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:38:01 PDT
[ Parent ]

open those wallets people (4.00 / 3)

I gave 100.00

by sirhotspur on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:33:16 PDT

Randi (none / 1)

is off today. I'll send it to her producer. He can make announcements?

The experience of waiting for a paycheck to clear so I can donate to a Libertarian/Green Party Ohio recount fund is slightly surreal.

Anger is an energy.

by queerbklynboy on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:35:15 PDT

Isn't this what (none / 0)

thealliancefordemocracy.org is doing?
I hope Cobb and Badnarik are pooling funds and efforts with them. I donated to alliancefordemocracy.org....

by quigon on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:36:34 PDT

WARNING! Be sure it's THEalliancefordemocracy.org (none / 0)

alliancefordemocracy.org domain is taken by seeq, this adware-ing company. Don't go there!

Go to THEalliancefordemocracy.org.

DILUTE! DILUTE! OK!

(My dKos Public Email is altered. Swap "ve-riz-on" and "ace-pumpk-in", then remove dashes to email me.)

by Ace Pumpkin on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:28:49 PDT
[ Parent ]

DILUTE! (none / 0)

all is one!

Fight the bastards, rock the kids.

by flatulus on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 23:02:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

Something odd (none / 0)

According to the Ohio Secretary of State website's unofficial count, Cobb got only 24 votes in the state of Ohio. Even though he was a write-in candidate, that number seems really low.

Also, with 11000 precincts in Ohio, gaining 13 votes per precinct would reverse the outcome, and that's not considering the provisional ballots. Does anyone know when the provisional ballot results will be released? Tomorrow is day 11, I think. And is Blackwell getting away with disqualifying the provisional ballots that didn't have birthdates?

by NonemptySubset on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:48:38 PDT

I believe he is... (none / 0)

I have not heard of anybody fighting him on that. This is the practical effect of Kerry conceding and only contesting the outcome subtly, if at all - there is nobody to highlight the sleazy tactics of Blackwell and get him to back down through public pressure.

I've heard all the arguments against it, but at the end of the day Kerry should have contested the outcome if only to highlight all the voting irregularities and anomalies, like 7 hour lines to vote in largely minority districts. If we can't ensure that every American who is qualified to vote can do so in a reasonable time - no more than an hour would be reasonable - then we are not a fully functioning democracy. And if our party won't fight for open and fair elections, what the hell WILL we fight for?

Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

by markusd on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:54:50 PDT
[ Parent ]

There are lawyers everywhere (4.00 / 3)

Kerry's lawyers are watching like a hawk as are Bush's and Kucinich's also.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm

That story about the disqualifications was published and forwarded I'm sure to everyone and their grandmother through this diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/11/03225/949

so it's hard to believe that these lawyers do not know what is going on.

If you haven't seen the sites about what is happening, start with http://www.ohiodems.org and go from there.

Here is one analysis of what's the campaign was thinking:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

Thinking Caps ON!

by Patsy Stone on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:15:09 PDT
[ Parent ]

Padding Bush's Votes in OH - theory (none / 1)

THEORY
How bizarre that the last county reporting in OH would have a fake terror alert to keep out outside observers. Being last to report, Warren County officials knew how many provisional ballots there were. So on directions from ROVE they padded Bush's totals by some thousands to make it seem that Bush had an insurmountable lead. One that could'nt be made up by those provisionals, thus discouraging any doubts about the outcome of OH. Bush got around 18,000 more votes there in 2004 than he did in 2000.Some precincts in Warren County recorded voting rates at more than 80% of registered voters, a very high number.So by handing Bush those extra votes they were clinching OH and putting him over 270 electorates - delivering him the presidency.

Warren County Commisioner Pat South - who is she? WC officials said an FBI agent told them that Warren County ranked a "10" on a terrorism scale. However, state and federal homeland security officials said Tuesday they were unaware of any specific threat against the county. Why the fuck would Warren County rank a 10 for terrorism? What bullshit! Pat South needs to be called on it hard!

An update: I heard they're now claiming it was a threat of domestic terrorism . Total BS!

by Glickman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:38:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

WC County Comm. Pat South (none / 0)

Pat South (office)
406 Justice Dr., Lebanon, OH 45036

Telephone:
513-695-1252

FAX:
513-695-2054

E-Mail:
soutpa@co.warren.oh.us

Sent her an e-mail. You should too.

To Pat South,
I want to see the documentation you received from the FBI stating that Warren County was under a high terrorism threat on election night, justifying the banning of outside observers from watching the vote counting process.Please release this information to the public.Thank You.

by Glickman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:34:12 PDT
[ Parent ]

455 (none / 0)

she's republican. of course.

joe lieberman

weather forecast

by Cedwyn on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:54:47 PDT
[ Parent ]

I have been asking this (none / 0)

for days now.

My Rovian theory involves the Laptop, the Modem, the Old Family Dining Room and the Spreadsheet.

Where is Woodstein???

KO asked this question the other night of Jonathan Alter. Why aren't a million reporters curious?

Thinking Caps ON!

by Patsy Stone on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:44:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Oh, God forbid Kerry to... (3.20 / 5)

actually do something on this! He's too busy trying to make sure he has a chance at the 2008 nomination by not looking like a conspiracy theorist.

Well, John, it's over! You're never going to be President. So spend a little bit of your political capital, challenge the vote in Ohio and help us get to the bottom of whatever went wrong - if anything - on November 2nd!

by Seemabes on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:17:31 PDT
[ Parent ]

must..not...troll rate (4.00 / 2)

I decided that I just vehemently disagree with you, so I've kept my twitchy finger off the ratings button.

Just because John Kerry has not told YOU that he's investigating this, does not mean he's not investigating this. (Referring to the plural "you" that keep saying this)

His people are said to be on it. Could there be a reason he's not trumpeting this? Isn't he supposed to be the intelligent candidate? Do we want a circus or do we want results?

Clues

_As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

by Clues on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:25:33 PDT
[ Parent ]

I suppose it is true (none / 0)

faith does spring external. I hope you are right- but my gut says are you aren't : (

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:29:29 PDT
[ Parent ]

Here's my take (none / 0)

Kerry's folks are taking notes of every ballot that is disqualified so that they have numbers, and if they can get the vote from the ballot they can tally that as well. They note the reasons for disqualification. Then at the end they choose to fight based on whether there's a chance of winning the election based on the outcome of the fight. For example if after recount Bush is up by 50,000 votes and there were only 15,000 provisionals disqualified for missing DOB it's not worth fighting in this arena. If Bush is up by 15,000 votes and there are 50,000 provisionals disqualified for missing DOB and they were predominantly from Kerry-favoring precincts then no holds will be barred.

That's my hope anyway.

-Fred

Organizing my thoughts about how to win from 2005 forward - http://fredsfred.blogspot.com

by FredFred on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:44:44 PDT
[ Parent ]

According to this article about DOB.... (none / 1)

....the ballots missing DOB will be counted.

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1100286546143660.xml&storyl ist=cleveland

Pertinent quote:

Meanwhile, counties that were confused about whether to validate provisional ballots that don't have voters' dates of birth on them were told Friday by the secretary of state's office in a conference call to allow those ballots.

Cuyahoga County elections board director Michael Vu said there had been confusion over whether missing birth dates made the ballots invalid.

"We're counting those now," he said.

Provisionals were cast by people who say they are registered to vote but whose names did not appear on rolls on Election Day. Ohio election officials are now processing the state's 155,337 provisional ballots. If the registration information is verified, the ballots will be counted by board members by the Dec. 1 deadline.

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:54:29 PDT
[ Parent ]

It's going to take until Dec 1? (none / 1)

I thought they were verifing them now and would count them tomorrow, or I my be confusing provisional with absentee.

"When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." -- James Carville

by sgilman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:26:02 PDT
[ Parent ]

Not sure; just had this quote (n/t) (none / 0)

by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:34:07 PDT
[ Parent ]

It's about spoiled ballots (none / 1)

The recount isn't about challenging which provisional ballots are disqualified, though Kerry's lawyers may be considering that too. It's about counting the 3% of ballots which are "spoiled" (ie. can't be counted by machine) and aren't counted at all the first time round.

by cybo on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:00:44 PDT
[ Parent ]

When is enough enough? (1.15 / 19)

Mark the lines were hours long in Massachusetts too, is that irregular or just a lot of people voting?

We're guaranteed the right to vote, not the right to vote in 2 minutes or less. People have died for all of us to have that right and you're complaining about standing in line? Spare us, and spare the country.

Kerry conceded because he LOST. He knows it, his party knows it, and everyone but goofballs on the internet know it. Everyone went postal over Florida without ever looking at the results in years passed.

If you are all interested in being fair and counting every vote, why not demand recounts in Milwaukee County and Phildelphia? Without those two counties this election was a landslide.

Someone explain to me how 75k more voters showed up on election day than the county believed were even eligible. You want to see some fraud go to Milwaukee County where they demanded to have twice as many ballots as possible voters. They were handing them out like napkins. IF EVERY registered voter showed up to vote in Milwaukee and voted in the same percentages Bush wins Wisconsin. Instead 115%+ showed up to vote...more than the US Census or Milwaukee County even thought were old enough/legal to vote.

If you want a fair recount in all close counties I'm all for it, if you just want recounts in certain counties where you think it will benefit Kerry you're being intellectually dishonest and nothing more than crybabies.

The reason nobody in the media is really covering it is nobody in their right mind would think this election was stolen. THE AVERAGE OF THE POLLS SHOWED BUSH WINNING OHIO handily, which he did.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:58:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

Wisconsin has same day registration (none / 1)

not to let facts get in the way of your argument. Also, if you are okay with 7 hour lines - that's you- doesn't require a conspiracy or fraud to say there should be voting reform.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:19:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

I agree (1.50 / 6)

I agree that we need reform but listen to what Ginsberg and Boies are saying. Both agreed with Brokaw in saying that neither side wants reform, they like it the way it is. For the dems it's a rallying cry, for the repubs it's a security blanket. Bruh1, if in 2008 we actually had a verified voting system in place we'd see massive swings in the voting patterns I guarantee it. There are so many anomalies in the current system....

One thing nobody here mentions, Bush picked up 5% over 2000 even in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. That to me makes it very clear Kerry did not have the support Gore had. Gore won NJ by 15%, Bush cut that to 7% this year. All of the polls showed Bush winning Ohio and that is exactly what happened.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:32:15 PDT
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 1)

This qualifies as the worst argument I may have ever heard.
if in 2008 we actually had a verified voting system in place we'd see massive swings in the voting patterns I guarantee it.

So what?????

Every vote should be counted ( within a very small margin ) If India can do it, and if we are telling other countries to try it, we better damn wll have it down to a science.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:41:54 PDT
[ Parent ]

Ginsberg and Boies? (2.66 / 3)

Can you even have a discussion without name dropping or will that strain your brain too much?

I don't care what the Party stiffs want, this is about fair and equal protection for every voter who stood for hours in line and refused to be bullied and intimidated. This is about confidence that the results are within an acceptable margin of error.

Right now, we have to pick our battles, and Ohio has documented irregularities from the run up before the election, including the attempts to dump voters from the rolls wholesale, a bogus terrorist scare locking down Warren county from press scrutiny, and the Sec'y of State suddenly changing the criteria for info on the provisional votes after they'd been submitted.

If you have actual evidence of Dick Tracy the fictional character voting (hey, labor makes some mothers whimsical) put it out there.

Otherwise, take your trolly self back to momma's basement.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:13:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

Unreal (1.40 / 5)

And you wonder why people came out in droves to vote against our party. I doubt it had much to do with gay marriage, it had more to do with the arrogance of the left.

Party stiffs? How about the two most recognized legal minds on all things voting. Astounding, simply astounding that not even their words are good enough.

In one State the "evidence" is exit polls not matching results. In another State the "evidence" is "massive" fraud that no news organization or attorney on either side has actually reported.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:00:22 PDT
[ Parent ]

i think the divide betwen you and (4.00 / 2)

I is that I don't care if Kerry wins at this point or not. See, I am a Southern Black guy- for me this is about fairness and accountability to prevent any future problems. I don't know if you are a troll or not as mentioned else where- but I do know you are being extremely short sighted- right now the present unaccountable voting process favors the Republicans- there will come a time when it favors the Dems- either way I want it fair b/c here is something new- I actually do believe i am American first and there are certain values that I believe in such as a fair and open election. The one we have now doesn't pass the smell test of being transparent b/c it doesn't allow for simple solutions to allow all of us to feel as comfortable as you feel. I am a risk manager by trade- I don't feel comfortable here- especially b/c I know the risk and advantages of technology- ignoring the risks is what got Wall Street in trouble prior to 09/11 - and then they stopped storing their data in the same place because they realized it was a mistake

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:59:01 PDT
[ Parent ]

I won't disagree (1.00 / 4)

bruh1 I think you miss my point. I agree with you and most everyone else here. I don't agree with spending time on a hopeless cause. Finding out there was a small error in the count is not going to be news to anyone (aside of maybe the blog world apparently).

The system STINKS. Recounting, counting, recounting again won't change anything. This is without doubt after what happened in 2000. All the celebs and 1/2 a billion bucks spent did nothing to guarantee the votes are counted. Some here are saying we need to recount so we can find out if there are errors...I think everyone already knows the system stinks.

Fundamentally everyone is missing the point that anonymous elections are inherently risky. Maybe it's time we allow the elections officials to place a vote with a name or ID.

Despite a massive voter turnout effort, overwhelming support by the elite media and hollywood the democratic party lost by far more votes this time than in 2000. Fundamentally the attitude needs to change or the results never will. A few thousand, or even ten thousdand votes here and there won't matter at the rate things have been slipping away. My right wing friends are sitting back and chuckling because they figure "here they go again" and for the next 2 years while they are still building their base we run around chasing our tails.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:07:39 PDT
[ Parent ]

i think the divide betwen you and (none / 1)

I is that I don't care if Kerry wins at this point or not. See, I am a Southern Black guy- for me this is about fairness and accountability to prevent any future problems. I don't know if you are a troll or not as mentioned else where- but I do know you are being extremely short sighted- right now the present unaccountable voting process favors the Republicans- there will come a time when it favors the Dems- either way I want it fair b/c here is something new- I actually do believe i am American first and there are certain values that I believe in such as a fair and open election. The one we have now doesn't pass the smell test of being transparent b/c it doesn't allow for simple solutions to allow all of us to feel as comfortable as you feel. I am a risk manager by trade- I don't feel comfortable here- especially b/c I know the risk and advantages of technology- ignoring the risks is what got Wall Street in trouble prior to 09/11 - and then they stopped storing their data in the same place because they realized it was a mistake

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:59:33 PDT
[ Parent ]

Also, that dispute was settled... (none / 0)

...they agreed to return and count the unused ballots, so ensure that no fraud took place. And I never heard a peep about it since then--everything went well.

"We've got to start making some friends on this planet" John Kerry

by GinnyfromWI on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:52:15 PDT
[ Parent ]

Conspiracy != Unicorn (none / 1)

If someone told me George Bush was a mutant warrior sent from Saturn I'd have to consider the possibility.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:24:38 PDT
[ Parent ]

Apparently not yet (none / 0)

If any other state had been as much of a mess as Ohio, perhaps there would be movements for recounts there as well. Someone with a broad audience decided this was important, and it looks as if the "free market" agrees enough to provide the funding to make it happen. I am on the fence about contributing, but you are making the -$100 look like an attractive investment. I will not miss it.

If you want a recount somewhere else, put out the word and set up a fund. It's still a free country this week.

by gattogrosso on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:25:19 PDT
[ Parent ]

LOL (1.00 / 16)

It won't change a thing in Ohio and all you are doing is wasting your time and money. You'd be much better served donating to the dnc directly.

I think about 99% of America feels bad for the conspiracy theorists as the theories so far have been laughable. First it was Florida with the democratic counties that always vote republican. Once that got shot down where back to Ohio.

Just make it clear though, you don't care whether the people of Wisconsin or Pennsylvania get their fair shake, you just want the votes to count in a way that benefits Kerry. These are two different things.

250 million bucks was already flushed down the toilet that could have gone to feeding the homeless or putting books in the classroom. Instead it went to chopping each other down and it made advertisers rich.

That's all you are doing now, selling spots for MSNBC and Keith Oberman <-- the reknowned newscaster that he is...not

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:36:13 PDT
[ Parent ]

what's sad, what's really sad (none / 0)

is that no matter how many times someone tells you something you hear what you want to hear- I don't need a conspiracy to say the system is messed up because it doesn't allow for accountability- I believe this serves that end of pushing for a better voting process in the long run b/c otherwise we will have another 4 years where no one does anything to correct what are easy problems to correct. so one more time repeat with me- it doesn't matter whether there is fraud here or not- what matters is figuring out how to improve the system to prevent future problems.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:54:02 PDT
[ Parent ]

but this was figured out 40 years ago? (1.25 / 4)

Bruh1, yes I understand but do you understand that we knew in 1960 the system needed changing and here we are 44 years later doing the same thing. Many/most believe the 1960 election was stolen and Nixon could have had it overturned by elected against it.

We already know what's wrong, we've known for a long time. The registration process is non-standard and ties back to nothing. People are registered and vote in multiple states each election cycle. Dead people vote, pretend people vote. That is your biggest "problem".

What none of you are understanding is recounting the votes in Ohio --- how is that going to tell you where the problems are? They are pieces of paper with holes punched in that are being phased out. We knew in 2000 they were unreliable. We've known since the first election they were unreliable but probably within the margin of error of a human hand and eye count.

We already know how to fix the system, but neither party will ever go for it. Do you hear either party Chairman or either candidate talking about voter reform? Kerry hasn't even mentioned it up here in Boston, not once.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:13:30 PDT
[ Parent ]

and neither party will do anything unless we start (4.00 / 3)

build a case for with the public rather than with the parties- that means we have to do things like recounts- they are not for useful in and of themselves, they are useful for building a public record. most of this evidence in terms of irregularities will be destroyed after Bush is officially chosen by the electors- therefore, we are only able to recover any evidence right now of the process- it's simply makes more sense to raise a little money now and figure out whats going on than to wait months later and speculate- we can try to seek reform in a vacuum or we can do the smart thing and spend 150 k (this year the entire election process cost almost 1 billion dollars- you to the math as to whether this investigation is worth the integrity.

another thing- stop being so fucking afraid of what other people int he general population thinks- if youare democrat you are acting like a real pussy aobut this- so what if other people think y ou are a crackpot- they thought that abou tthe republicans to and that didnt stop them- now look where they are at- the lesson to learn from them- is not to copy their ideaology its to understand what it says to us about what tactits work int eh current system- we will eventually have to exert political pressure- but right now- we would be talking out of our ass just saying well in 2000 when we know they are implementing new tech- we all know that this new tech i sshit- but not everyone is tech savvy enough to understand so we are left having to prove it- its like me trying to tell a partner in a firm the valu eof using tech- a lot of times they dont get the risks and benefits so they react in a knee jerk way- but concrete evidence makes it easier- it wont happen over night- but this is how movement happen. That's the thing I don't think folks like you get- we aren't fighting the status quo anymore- because are now th eloyal opposition- that mean we have got to think guerilla style like Newt and the other Republicans when they were the party out of power.

Everything you say, at base, if you aren't a troll, is about protecting your perceived idea that we have turf still to lose. This lack of risk taking- willingness to take heat now- for al onger term gain is why the Dems are fat and bloated and don't win elections. People don't like pussies- they wont someone who is going to get shit done- it may not be perfect- hell I dont think half this shit is what people think it is- but I do like that they are willing to do something other than get online and bitch worrying what the moronic news entertainment thinks- remember these are the same people following the Peterson case right now. They know sensationalism. They don't know anything other than how to sell shit. So again, like I said, if y ou aren't a troll, stop being a pussy- realize this isn't about a moment in time- its aobut a movement over time.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:37:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

nixon contested it (none / 0)

in 11 states, all the way into january. and for his trouble he lost hawaii's 3 electoral votes. it seems likely now that cook county was rigged, but it also seems likely that rural illinois was rigged the other way.

by Robert E on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 01:46:18 PDT
[ Parent ]

The hell (none / 0)

is going on around here? I hit you with some 4s because it seems like this is a matter of disagreement, which isn't trolling, for crying out loud! Goodness.

Fight this generation, fight this generation...

by daria g on Sun Nov 14th, 2004 at 01:17:36 PDT
[ Parent ]

evidence, please (4.00 / 2)

There are voter irregularities being looked at around the country, including in North Carolina and Nebraska which are not considered battleground states.

The Florida "Dixiecrat" theory has been successful in debunking one of the many questions raised in Florida, and frankly that was debunked here long before the MSMedia picked it up.

As somebody who worked in Milwaukee during the election, I invite you to bring forward any evidence you have about voter fraud. If there were problems, they too should be addressed. But please, hold yourself to the same standard of evidence to which you seem to be holding us.

If you don't want to see an Ohio recount, by all means, don't contribute any money. I do want to see it, and have added $25 to the fund.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:36:25 PDT
[ Parent ]

Evidence (1.66 / 3)

Again, how can 65k more people than eligible voters by county record vote in that county on election day? This was covered by a major network the night of the election when they first indicated that Milwaukee County had 115% of potential voter turnout.

Call Milwaukee County..the number is on their website. Ask them how they got that many more votes...their answer is they don't know.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:15:09 PDT
[ Parent ]

This has been debunked (none / 1)

I'm copying this from another of my comments:

Here's census data for Milwaukee County:

Population (2003): 933,221
Percent under 18 (2000): 26.4%

Which means that about 685000 are old enough to vote, so there's no proof of fraud here. Some of these may not be eligible to vote, but it's probably that over 500000 are.

It seems that you were taking the number of eligible voters from the city of Milwaukee and the number of people who voted in Milwaukee County.

by NonemptySubset on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:38:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

Cobb (none / 0)

Was on the ballot, not write in.

by jiffykeen on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:36:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0)

This page says he was a write-in candidate (I assume that's what WI stands for): http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/11-02-04.htm

If he really was on the ballot, that would make the 24 votes even less likely.

by NonemptySubset on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:11:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

Cobb not on Ohio ballot (none / 0)

http://www.politics1.com/p2004-ballots.htm

Give me a minute to think one up.

by IowaLibert on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:26:27 PDT
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

If the funds keep pouring in like they did on Thursday, we can make this easily.

"In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

by BrianL on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 11:54:04 PDT

Kossacks donated more than $3,000... (4.00 / 5)

following yesterday's diary by SensibleShoes, I donated yesterday and am trying to scrape up some more to donate.

I agree it's frustrating that these groups don't seem to be working together, but Cobb and Badnarik are the ones who can request the recount. I don't expect it will change the results of the election (I wish it would!) but if the recount shows the irregularities we expect, it will give legitimacy and extra push for election reform.

Bush's Social Security plan

Tom Delay

by Shaniriver on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:00:01 PDT

does election law prevent coordination (none / 0)

between the groups?

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:02:24 PDT
[ Parent ]

Obviously not (none / 0)

Since two different candidates are coordinating. During the campaign, candidates are forbidden from working together, for obvious reasons.

by taliesin on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:10:24 PDT
[ Parent ]

is this true of major candidates (none / 0)

the law treats minor party candidates differently from minor party (but then I am not an election lawyer so I am not certain)

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:33:07 PDT
[ Parent ]

Rules are different after the election (none / 0)

The donation page mentions that the usual $2000-per-contributor limit doesn't apply, so recounts seem not to be subject to the same financing rules as campaigns.

by cybo on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:05:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Donated $50 - felt good (none / 1)

I got my five precincts. It's all about getting every vote counted. This is about putting more scrutiny on the process, which is well deserved.

As well, we should be crying foul about any situation where the rules are being changed after the voting took place of course (e.g. treatment of provisionals w/ DOB).

by PeteB2 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:20:04 PDT

The donation form is not secure (none / 0)

I clicked on the donate link but the page shows up as http not https. I have already had my cc information stolen once before....

Does anyone have a link to a SECURE form to which one can donate?

"We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:20:13 PDT

paypal it (none / 0)

I think paypal is an option or sending an actual check by mail...

by sarany on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:24:15 PDT
[ Parent ]

It is secure (none / 0)

The name and address page isn't secure, but when you click continue, you go to a secure paypal page and can pay with credit card or paypal.

A vote for Bush is a vote for Osama.

by Alan S on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:37:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

I'm in now. I wasn't ready to enter any info until I knew the final form would be secure.

"We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:15:20 PDT
[ Parent ]

Also (none / 0)

The instructions said to be sure and specify in the "notes" part of the form that the donation was for the Ohio recount. I did so, but the notation didn't show up in my final acknowledgement. I e-mailed them to make sure they knew I had designated it for the recount.

by eecee on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:36:50 PDT
[ Parent ]

what email address? (none / 0)

I'd like to do the same but I can't find their email address anywhere on their site.

"We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:18:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

It is secure (none / 0)

The page that collects your name and address are not encrypted, but the page that collect financial info is encrypted. So there is no security problem.

Cobb has run his campaign on a shoestring. His donation system is not fancy, but it is secure.

NEXT LINK

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:02:47 PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm in for $70! (none / 1)

I really want them to recount Warren County after reading this:

Warren Co. Defends Lockdown Decision: FBI Denies Warning Officials of Any Special Threat

by cheshrcat1971 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:27:39 PDT

Here's my question (none / 0)

If it wasn't the FBI or Homeland Sec who told them, who did? I am hesitant to think that Warren County election supervisors would make up such a dumbass story and not expect anybody to notice.

Seems to me, since they are being made to be the fools here, if some enterprising journalist (<ahem> Olbermann <cough>) were to get together some mug shots of the known out of towner Rovian fixers and show them to the people the "FBI" agent warned, see if anybody gets ID'ed. Or maybe, track down if any FIBbies were actually assigned to talk to them, and maybe, oh, I dont know, got a little creative.

Big Media is hated by the GOP because they sometimes tell the truth. We should hate Big Media for the other 97 percent of the time when they don't.

by Ugluks Flea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:46:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

Interesting theory... (none / 0)

Makes sense as to why they're sticking to their story, given it's ludicrous to believe there was a terrorist threat in what's an extremely rural county.

by cheshrcat1971 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:05:59 PDT
[ Parent ]

Recommending a diary (none / 0)

how do you do it?

The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

by TXsharon on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:33:43 PDT

You may not be able to do (none / 0)

that yet if you just signed up as a member.

by PeteB2 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:37:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

If you look (none / 0)

just below the "menu" box on the top right hand side (and you have been registered long enough, or something) there should be another box with a clickable button that says "Recommend this Diary".

Big Media is hated by the GOP because they sometimes tell the truth. We should hate Big Media for the other 97 percent of the time when they don't.

by Ugluks Flea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 12:37:24 PDT
[ Parent ]

$2000 (4.00 / 6)

Just talked a well-to-do friend into, and through the process of, a $2000 donation via PayPal. Woo hoo! We're getting there!

"When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

by scorponic on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:23:41 PDT

That's great! Wish I knew some well-to-do folks (none / 0)

like that!

by cheshrcat1971 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:33:54 PDT
[ Parent ]

What margin is considered safe by the liberals? (1.13 / 15)

Just out of curiousity...what margin of victory does a candidate need to avoid a recount and conspiracy whackos from demanding a recount?

Also if the intent is for a fair and accurate count is some of this money going to Milwaukee County in Wisconsin where 75,000 more votes were cast than the county lists as "eligible" voters? There are only 425k voters of age in the county, yet almost 500k voted. I'd really like to see some of this money go to a recount and verification of the results in Milwaukee as well.

Why we're at it, are they going to recount NH and PA? The margin is actually tighter in PA than OH and there are widespread reports of fraud in Philly.

I'm just curious, if it's about "getting the vote right" why aren't you all up in arms over the other MUCH closer races? Seems to me you just want to "get the vote right in our favor" and your head cheerleader is Keith Oberman.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:49:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

NH Recount starts next week, actually... (none / 0)

They're talking recounting them all.

by NCYellowDog on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:57:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

Craziness (1.08 / 12)

Do you all see how crazy this is? Bush won Ohio by 2%, he lost PA by less than that and lost Wisconsin by 11k votes. NOBODY in the media aside of the night of the election is questioning the Milwaukee County numbers. Per the County's numbers it's impossible that so many people came out to vote. Seeing as this is the county where the DNC sued for the right to have double the number of ballots v voters it seems awfully strange. The chances of Bush overturning WI with 11k vote margin is much greater than Kerry overturning Ohio at 147k. If Bush ended up with WI Ohio is moot.

There is fraud, ballot stuffing and everything else in all our elections. Both sides do it and it's shameful. Consider though it's much much easier for the democrats to do it. Milwaukee, Cooks, Wayne and Philadelphia counties alone in the respective States (WI, IL, MI, PA) carried Kerry to victory. The democrats only have to fiddle with results in those 4 counties to win each State. What you are all implying is the republicans cheated in every other county in Ohio aside of the counties around Cleveland. It's ludicrous and is just astounding.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:03:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

It wasn't Bush who was leading in the exit polls (none / 1)

Kerry led in all the exit polls, including the final ones. Exit polls are how the integrity of voting is validated in third-world elections. There is not one good reason to believe that Bush got screwed, and every reason to believe that Kerry did.

Funny how Max Cleland was also leading in the pre-election polls and in the exit polls, but lost in an election with e-voting. When has a Republican led in the exit polls but lost the election? Has not happened.

Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

by markusd on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:07:30 PDT
[ Parent ]

What? (1.25 / 4)

So the exit polls that were dead wrong in the last two elections are more reliable than the actual results? Who verified the exit pollsters weren't in the bag for Kerry? Did we have lawyers from both sides watching them to make sure they surveyed an equal number of people or indeed actually surveyed real voters? You do realize they have NO idea whether you actually voted or not, they could be interviewing hobos and nobody would know. There are some on the right wing that believe Kerry's people stuffed the ballot boxes so to speak in the exit polls. I don't believe it, I just believe people lie because they don't want to get accosted. All the reports you hear of people getting beat up for their positions are from left wingers beating right wingers, not the other way around.

Explain to me this markusd, why did almost every poll show Bush winning in Ohio? Were they all 'hacked' by Bush? What about Florida?

Lastly, in 2000 everyone yapped about chads so we went to e-voting. Now you are complaining about e-voting. What is acceptable, going door to door with a clipboard and asking?

NEITHER side wants a standardized voting system. I am 100% in agreement that this system stinks, but we'll never get either party to budge. Do you think the democrats actually want verified voting in Philly, Milwaukee and Chicago?

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:13:27 PDT
[ Parent ]

what's acceptable (none / 0)

accountability where by we use the same techniques used by such loony institutions as Wall street and the banking industry- I mean they are realy crazy left wing radicals wanting to have redundancy and backups in the system to verify accuracy. it doesn't requier conspiracy or fraud to want these things- and the laws were written and passed by the a republican president and congress who denied any aspect of the bill that would require accountability- legitimacy in fact, not by speculation of the either party- it's not so hard.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:23:28 PDT
[ Parent ]

Too simplistic (none / 0)

What actually happened is much more complex than that.

Hey, if you guys want a recount of Wisconsin, that's fine by me-you guys pay for that one.

by NCYellowDog on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:13:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

It's Cook County, Scott (none / 1)

and I for one am just as concerned about voting irregularities here in Illinois as in Ohio. I've met with my alderman, and have meetings scheduled with county officials to talk about the standardization and verification of voting in future elections.

At the risk of feeding the troll, have you actually read Olbermann's blog? Because he also talks about North Carolina and Nebraska, which are not seriously in play in the presidential race. If there are serious allegations of fraud or irregularities on either side in PA or WI (where I spent Election Day, and the day before), please post the information here. This should be a non partisan issue.

More evidence of problems or tampering will not defuse the situation in Ohio. It seems slightly hypocritical to call our concerns about Ohio irregularities "craziness" and "ludicrous" while making unsubstantiated claims about problems in other states.

The manual recount will make it clear if the machines worked, or if they didn't. Meanwhile, throwing wild accusations around isn't helping.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:14:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

Why would you fear a recount? (4.00 / 3)

If Bush won fair and square, why on earth would you fear a recount?

I also noticed that you provided NO links and no backup for your claims about "fraud in Philly", etc., etc. I guess you read all about it on LGF or one of the other right-wing hate sites that you no doubt frequent. If you're going to make allegations like that, common courtesy dictates that you actually have some factual backup for it and provide links to it. But being a Bushie and all, I supposed you don't believe in objective reality or anything.

Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

by markusd on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:59:17 PDT
[ Parent ]

Nuts (1.33 / 3)

Right Wing? I'm from Massachusetts. If you watch the tapes of Kerry stumping in Ohio one of the vets you see standing behind him is a relative. You'll see him in many of the campaign stops the last six months.

He understands the election is over as do 99.9% of the rest of the world.

You want facts about Milwaukee? Go look it up yourself. There were only 380k registered voters a few days before the election yet almost 500k voted. Worse there were only 430k people that the county thought were even eligible to vote. How many inelligible voters voted on election day, 20, 30, 40, 80k?

I could care less if you sit here and waste your time, and all your money demanding recounts. I just wonder HOW much of a lead is what you would all consider safe, 5%? 10%?

Why aren't you demanding recounts in Wisconsin and PA? These were much closer in terms of votes. Why did the media call PA at 8pm for Kerry when the didn't call Ohio for 2 days when in the end PA was CLOSER than PA? Was it a vast left wing conspiracy or a mistake?

It was a mistake, and nobody on the right is crying over it like everyone is here about Ohio.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:07:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

as i mentioned above not to get in the way of your (none / 0)

spin but WI has same day registration (but continue)

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:20:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

Please provide a link (none / 0)

If you have knowledge of a problem with the voting in Milwaukee or anywhere else, it shouldn't be that hard to provide a link. I've never heard anything about that.

At any rate, why would Bush ask for any recounts? He won. As far as I'm concerned, they can recount any state they like. If there is opportunity for fraud, let's eliminate it. If people broke the law, let's arrest them. But I am not obliged to push for recounts in states we lost, I'm interested in finding out where we won. If we overturn Ohio, and the Bushies want recounts in other states, that's fine with me.

Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

by markusd on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:38:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

If the Republicans want to recount Pennsylvania... (4.00 / 3)

then let them do it. Something tells me that Republicans don't want to be involved in any recounts. You know what I mean?

by Seemabes on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:00:21 PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm in PA (none / 1)

And I actually wouldn't mind a recount... and a good hard look at who was dropped from the rolls and why.

I am very surprised to see how close the state is. I know we had a higher turnout of Evvies, but that should have been more than offset by the Dem GOTV effort.

Also, I had a friend who's been voting for 10 years in a very small precinct in Northeastern PA who's registration 'went missing.' She voted provisionally, but as of her last check there was no record of her provisional ballot (you can follow up on the status.)

If she weren't about the most stubborn person on earth she probably wouldn't have voted at all, since the poll workers didn't seem to know what to do at 7:30 am - she ended up going back after work.

So even though Kerry won, I would love to see an overall accounting of problems here. Its all about the voting.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

by Catriana on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:14:49 PDT
[ Parent ]

Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

Why are neofashionists always so concerned about size?

Oh, right....nevermind.

But since you asked. Your "logic" is first circular. An untrustable process, has untrustable results, including its untrustable "margin."

Translation: Your thing may not be near as big as you imagine to be. (Go buy a Hummer, just in case.)

But also since you asked, we ARE up in arms about each and every state.

www.demonizedliberalposse.com (boo!)

www.thedeanpeople.org www.demonizedliberalposse.com

by Dusty on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 14:14:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

Me too. (none / 0)

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:29:54 PDT
[ Parent ]

$37 (4.00 / 2)

was what I could scrounge up.

by peacemonger on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:51:52 PDT

Can we get a new total? (none / 0)

Just to see how we're doing....

by NCYellowDog on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 13:55:31 PDT

They update (none / 0)

this image once in a while, the image on this page is linked to their site.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:32:58 PDT
[ Parent ]

Updated total as of 5pm ET (none / 0)

The image above shows the latest total posted on their site. They told me they will update again later tonight.

Looks like Kos has really made a difference.

by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:39:55 PDT
[ Parent ]

Image shows 12pm EST Total (none / 0)

I see the noon update image in your post. The 5 PM total is $71,268.

Support ePluribus Media - ePM Investigates

by wanderindiana on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:44:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

Nevermind (none / 0)

I had to reload the image in my browser to get the update--damn IE!

NEXT LINK

Support ePluribus Media - ePM Investigates

by wanderindiana on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:46:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

For those following the voting irregularities... (none / 1)

This guy presents some compelling data about the numbers in North Carolina:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=450 03&mesg_id=45003

Definately worth a look.

by pointsoflight on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:00:16 PDT

This is very powerful stuff (none / 0)

Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

by moon in the house of moe on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:56:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Senate explanation (none / 0)

I'm in North Carolina and while I can't explain the presidential vote changes, the Senate race does have a fairly logical explanation of why election day voters were pushed towards Burr.

Bowles had been attacking Burr on not funding Breast Cancer Research for weeks, including putting a survivor in an ad essentially claiming he didn't care about Breast Cancer Research. So the last week of the campaign, Burr puts up an ad with his sister, a Breast Cancer Survivor saying that one of Burr's top priorities was cancer research. I haven't seen actual numbers, but it must have been devastating to Bowles' campaign. (How they didn't know I'll never understand. Had they never heard of opposition research!!)

But anyway, I think that would probably answer the senate question, but I have no explanations for the Presidential numbers

by dwb115 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:15:09 PDT
[ Parent ]

BTW, spelling (none / 1)

In the diary title, you've spelled it "Badnerik".

It's B A D N A R I K.

by strict machine on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:14:17 PDT

Thanks (none / 1)

I fixed it.
Not a real big Libetarian fan ( I am getting to like this guy a lot more now though )

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:34:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

I fixed it.
Not a real big Libertarian man ( I am getting to like this guy a lot more now though )

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:34:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

This is why Kerry lost (1.33 / 12)

IMO, what you see playing out here is why Kerry lost the election. I'm just astounded reading some of the comments.

Fine, if you all want to recount every close State, Iowa, NH, NM, WI, PA, OH etc, let's spend the next year doing it. But, what do we do if we find that in Milwaukee 20k inelligible voters voted? How do we know how they voted?
Same goes in many of these States. Provisional ballots are one thing, but what about all those that already voted?

I was in 100% agreement that Kerry should have waited until 100% of the votes were counted in OH. Once that was done, and it became clear the lead would require almost 100% provisional ballot acceptance and almost 100% of those going for Kerry he conceded. Kennedy wanted him to concede and he did not want to put the country through a recount.

What's infuriating to the average independent in this country is that it never ends. I'm not sure what margin of victory would be considered safe. There is no consistency in the arguments here, you want to recount Ohio but not Wisconsin and PA? Doesn't that come across as just wanting "your votes" to count?

Kerry lost by 2% which was just about the margin the average of every pre-election poll showed. The exit polls have proven they mean nothing and there is no way any of us even know if they really conducted exit polls or just turned in the numbers. They aren't certified, verified, or anything else. Sure, our elections aren't perfect, but saying the election was stolen because exit polls had Kerry winning? WOW.

Put your energy to good use and get ready for 2008. You are all wasting your time going around and around on this. Nothing is going to change, no matter how many times you recount.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:22:31 PDT

BTW (1.18 / 11)

If you qualify anyone that doesn't agree that a massive conspiracy took place as a troll then yeah I'm a troll. As I said on another thread, the man with the black hat behind Kerry at several stops in Ohio is a relative of mine that travelled with him over the last year. He doesn't believe the election was stolen and they've all gone home and moved on.

I just don't understand the arguments being made. If a 135k vote lead isn't secure in OH why is an 11k vote lead in WI uncontested?

Al Franken is 100% right, this is all ludicrous.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:24:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Sorry for shouting, but.... (4.00 / 6)

THIS IS NOT ABOUT KERRY!!!!!!

This is about the integrity of our voting system. Recount every damn state if need be to expose this mess once and for all.

Call it fraud, call it glitches ... if we don't have fair and accurate elections we can run Jesus Christ himself and we will still lose.

We already know enough about errors and voter suppression to take action, and John Kerry is NOT the issue. Our democracy is, and if Al Franken has his nose so far up the ass of the DNC party establishment that he can't see the truth, then he can just crawl the rest of the way up there and stay out of our way!

by landrew on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:35:35 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thank you and... (3.50 / 2)

We have massive reports of irregularities coming out of Ohio, and to a lesser extent Florida. This is not about the margin by which a state was won. I have yet to hear from anybody but the above poster about claims of fraud in WI. If they exist, they too should be investigated.

We do have an obligation to make sure people's votes count, and until we have an audited voting system, we won't know for sure. A recount is a costly and time consuming way to verify the votes, but it will have to do for now.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:45:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

Wisconsin (1.20 / 5)

The numbers in Milwaukee are all there for you to see.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct04/267130.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/wisconsin/2004-10-13-ballot-dispute_x.htm

There were/are only 423k people old enough to vote where close to 500k cast their votes on election day. Doesn't that strike you as odd or did 70k people turn of age on election eve?

You want to stop voting fraud, make it a ten year mandatory sentence. That will stop it but you'll never see either side push it.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:49:49 PDT
[ Parent ]

umm..ok.. (4.00 / 2)

These links are to articles about Milwaukee requesting more ballots, because of high anticipated voter turnout. They are both dated mid-October.

Where is the evidence of questionable behavior on Election Day? Anecdotally, I spoke to numerous people (some of whom were planning on voting for Bush, incidentally) in the Milwaukee area who were planning on registering on Election Day. Sometimes this was because they'd moved, sometimes this was because they'd never voted before... but they all knew what the requirements were for same day registration.

In Ohio, we have no verification that the computer tallies match the vote, and we have numerous complaints from Election Day itself. That's why we're looking at a recount. In North Carolina, they may do a "revote" because so many votes were irrevocably lost.

Again, please show some evidence that there was foul play of some sort on Election Day in Wisconsin. If there was, let's investigate it.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:01:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Numbers (1.00 / 6)

There were less than 390k registered voters in Milwaukee county on election eve. There are only 423k legal potential voters in the entire county. How did almost 500k vote on election day?

These are published numbers, not something I'm speculating on. The reason the republicans balked at printing 2 times as many ballots as possible voters was the potential for fraud. The DNC got them printed, and now we have nearly 500k votes when the county says there are a total of 425k potential voters if EVERYONE SHOWED UP AND VOTED.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the DNC requested twice as many ballots as needed (no other city in the USA does this) and then suddenly there is 115% turnout of total potential/legal voters?

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:05:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

one more thing (1.00 / 5)

Take a look at all the counties surrounding Milwaukee County. Just like the rest of the nation there was a moderate increase in turnout. Milwaukee's percentage is almost double the rest of the State and far exceeds the 2000 amount + average increase in 2004.

Like I said, the most startling number is 60k more voters voted than the county says it had that could ever have legally voted. Coupled with the DNC asking for twice as many ballots as potential voters in this one city and no other city in the entire country isn't a bit strange?

If all of us here came up with a 100 million to revamp the voting system in MI, WI, IL, OH, PA, and FL and went to both parties with a foolproof system both would balk at it. They are both happy with the nonsense.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:09:09 PDT
[ Parent ]

The evidence you've show (2.66 / 3)

for overvoting is exactly none.

Speculation, allegation, there's plenty of.

Where's your evidence?

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:31:22 PDT
[ Parent ]

The Milwaukee suburban counties (none / 0)

already had very high turnout in 2000. Not much room for a high percentage increase. the City of Milwaukee did not turn out 4 years ago, so there was much fertile ground for get out the vote drives to cover.

Also, the Senate race in 2000 was not inspiring to Milwaukee voters. Russ feingold generates much more excitement than our other Sanator whatshisname.

I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

by ben masel on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:56:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

Numbers? (none / 0)

Do you have a cite to the over-voting numbers in Milwaukee? Maybe that would help.

As far as over printing, what is the problem?

Its not like everyone reports to the same location, so you need enough to make sure you don't run out at any location. Plus, with same day registration and high expected turn out, I am not surprised by a request for 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 printing, so that each location has an excess of ballots.

by Mountaineer on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:10:36 PDT
[ Parent ]

Milwaukee CITY vs. Milwaukee COUNTY (4.00 / 6)

Okay, I'll say this slowly, and then perhaps you'll stop repeating yourself?

423,000 voting age voters in the CITY of Milwaukee.

480,000+ actual ballots cast last week in Milwaukee COUNTY.

There are nineteen municipalities within Milwaukee County. The City of Milwaukee is one of these.

As another poster noted below, Milwaukee COUNTY has a population of 933,000 of which almost 75% are of voting age.

But thank you for coming by.

-- Stu

PoliticalStrategy.org

by sdf on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:13:21 PDT
[ Parent ]

Look again (4.00 / 4)

Here's census data for Milwaukee County:

Population (2003): 933,221
Percent under 18 (2000): 26.4%

Which means that 686851 are old enough to vote. Granted, those two figures are from different years and not all of those people are citizens. But unless Milwaukee County was hit by the Black Death recently and I just didn't hear about it, I'm going to continue to be suspicious of your claims.

by NonemptySubset on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:49:28 PDT
[ Parent ]

Despite what is said above (1.50 / 4)

despite what is being said directly above, the number of potential voters is not what he/she is representing.

In order for the Milwaukee numbers to be accurate, something on the order of 80% turnout for the COUNTY and over 100% within some key areas.

Aside of random conspiracy theories I've yet to hear any more "evidence" on this blog that has any more credence than the numbers above.

Count, recount all you want, Kerry will still be a Senator in the end.

In 4 years whatever incarnation of this blog exists will have a similar number of people complaining about the election yet again.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:23:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

shorts in a knot? (none / 1)

You seem to care an awful lot about something that will have no practical impact on you whatsoever. So what if people want to pay for a recount? Is there some intrinsic problem with ensuring that votes are counted correctly?

Anyone who thinks it's over and wants to go on with their lives is free to do so. It's barely being covered in the media. (Unlike the Peterson trial, which is severely limiting my ability to lead a normal life)

My ATM transactions are precise to the penny, so should our vote count be.

Clues

_As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

by Clues on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:37:09 PDT
[ Parent ]

Actually ... (3.55 / 9)

I think you qualify as a troll because you keep reposting the same goddamn thing over and over again, like a freeper parrot with a memory disorder.

We get it. You think the community is wasting its money supporting the recount. You think the community should be looking at Milwaukee and Philadelphia instead. Fine. Thank you for your opinion.

Maybe you can post it another dozen times or so, just to be sure.

Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

by JacksonBlogs on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:02:35 PDT
[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0)

And thank you!

by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:57:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

Nader (none / 1)

Nader is trying to get a recount in New Hampshire, which went to Kerry. It's not about Kerry, it's about our ability to trust the election system, which obviously now we are not able to do. The Republicans would be screaming bloody murder and contesting and recounting until the year 2020 if the results were reversed. Paaaaleeeeese!

by zha zha zha on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:41:02 PDT
[ Parent ]

Wisconsin preserved an audit trail (none / 0)

The tripartisan State Elections Board examined the existing touchscreen sysytems early in 203, and decided, by unanimous vote, that they were not suitable, because unauditable.

(The Board had 4 Dems, 4 GOP, and a Libertarian, due to the LP attaining "Major party" status by topping 10% in the 2002 Governor race.)

I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

by ben masel on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:00:31 PDT
[ Parent ]

Please don't troll rate this guy (none / 0)

He has a right to his opinion ( although I wish he would take it somewhere where they give a shit )

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:36:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

all it proves (1.00 / 8)

is exactly what I told Oberman you folks would do here. I hope he's watching this now.

His claim has been it was unanimous and as I explained to him any other opinion or fact is quickly deleted from these blogs.

I hope Mr. Trippi is watching this too. The reason it appears there are so many in agreement is you squash any differing viewpoint.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:51:39 PDT
[ Parent ]

Was this a conversation you had with him (none / 1)

over breakfast???

Is Olbermann your buddy???

Or are you talking about an email you sent him??
( which I'm sure he's poring over right now )

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:55:54 PDT
[ Parent ]

don't know what you are talking about (none / 0)

no one here has any authority whatsoever to delete entries that people write ( although if I could, yours would be a strong candidate for consideration )

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:57:17 PDT
[ Parent ]

deletion (none / 0)

well, several posts above by this poster have been deleted, as well as the responses to them. This, the least inflammatory of his posts, has been left intact.

I'm pretty new- can somebody please explain how this happens?

BTW, the "unanimity" claimed by Keith Olbermann concerns the emails he received, not what was posted on blogs.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:04:11 PDT
[ Parent ]

Not deleted (3.00 / 4)

but comments collectively rated with an avg below 1.0 are screened from general view. So that looks like deletion until you have enough mojo to hit "trusted user" status.

Then the screened comments are visible.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:24:59 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

Thanks for the explanation. I know there was a thread about FAQ reform, hopefully that sort of info will be up and about soon. Love the Gandhi quote too!

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:36:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

You're welcome. (3.20 / 5)

And Gandhi's in my mind a lot these days.

Welcome to dailykos.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:53:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

At some point (3.20 / 5)

do you plan on getting Olbermann's name right?

Or do you have some imaginary friend named Oberman who is willing to listen to your endless babble? I guess many of us assumed you have been referring to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, but we may be incorrect.

Let me guess ... Oberman stands about six-feet tall and looks like a rabbit, but only you can see him. Is that about right?

Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

by JacksonBlogs on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:05:10 PDT
[ Parent ]

Wonderful (1.00 / 5)

It's a typo, much like the gentleman that spelled pouring poring. I didn't call him to the carpet on it like you did.

Olbermann and Trippi have been actively discussing this particular blog over the past week. Joe even referenced it on election night directly.

I'm sure they're following this thread, that's all I will say :)

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:13:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

poring (4.00 / 2)

pore1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr, pr)
intr.v. pored, por·ing, pores
To read or study carefully and attentively: pored over the classified ads in search of a new job.
To gaze intently; stare.
To meditate deeply; ponder: pored on the matter.

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:29:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

Oof! (4.00 / 3)

That must have been embarrassing for the pour guy.

"But why destroy Hitler?" -- Pat Buchanan

by Irfo on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:01:18 PDT
[ Parent ]

One can only hope. (none / 0)

(By the way, that's "pore" guy!)

by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:00:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

Geez (1.25 / 4)

I have no idea where the term liberal elite comes from (sorry I ended that sentence with inappropriate grammar).

There's a wonderful world out there to see if you all spent a little less time complaining and looking for the problems.

I think Arnold was one to something in his suggestion of dealing with losers. I don't know how many elections we have to lose before people realize it's slipping away.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:26:24 PDT
[ Parent ]

You're mistaken (3.00 / 4)

I didn't "call him to the carpet on it" either.

Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

by JacksonBlogs on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:43:36 PDT
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (4.00 / 3)

"Ray in TX" can explain to the rest of the class why, by pointing out that I did not do what someone said I did, he troll-rated me -- on three separate posts.

Ray?

Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

by JacksonBlogs on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:27:00 PDT
[ Parent ]

are you worried? (none / 0)

You seem like you dont want to see a recount. What are you afraid things might turn out bad for Dubya? Get your republican ass off this board.

by loyaldemocrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:01:15 PDT
[ Parent ]

Confidence in voting (4.00 / 2)

I think if you calm down and look at the diary entry it says nothing about a "stolen election." Its about confidence in our election process. Apparently, there are enough irregularities to suggest to some of us that further inquiry could be beneficial to our democracy.

Something may be broken in the exit poll process. Something may be broken in the voting machine technology. Maybe nothing is wrong at all. The only way to know is to investigate those areas that have the most unusual results.

Even if it turns out that its the exit polling process that is flawed, we should seek to find the problems that occurred, so that exit polls can serve their purpose as a check on the legitimacy of the final vote tabulation and as a trigger for counting paper ballots that were read by machine.

In any event, what are you afraid of? The worst that could happen is that we improve the process for next time.

by Mountaineer on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:38:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

and... (none / 0)

I don't see what wanting to have confidence in the election process has to do with Kerry losing.

I can see why people are tempted to troll rate the comment, but, hopefully, its just vented frustration, pointing the finger of blame at those of us who want to improve the process. (Lord knows we all have some frustration brewing...)

by Mountaineer on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:41:59 PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes. Lord knows. (none / 0)

Do good. Be nice. Have fun.

by ElizabethJames on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:48:05 PDT
[ Parent ]

it's very clear (1.28 / 7)

there is something wrong with our voting process. Dead people shouldn't be voting, nor should Dick Tracy or felons in most states...but the sad fact is they do.

Like I said on the other post, I told Trippi you'd remove the posts trying to express a differing viewpoint. If you go around looking under every rock you'll find irregularities. My only point to this blog is look everywhere or nowhere otherwise it just comes across as sour grapes.

Unless the USA Today is in on the conspiracy and every other newspaper that reported on the Milwaukee pre-fraud something not right happened there. It's simply impossible that 60k+ legal voters showed up in the last 10 days before the election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/wisconsin/2004-10-13-ballot-dispute_x.htm

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:55:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

Wisconsin.... (none / 1)

does not require registration prior to voting. You can just show up at the polls and vote.

by landrew on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:58:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

Is that your name on the floor? (none / 0)

I think you dropped it.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:58:39 PDT
[ Parent ]

Registering dead people (none / 0)

is the oldest trick in the book, been going on for at least 100 years. Nothing new there.

by NCYellowDog on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:00:47 PDT
[ Parent ]

Dick Tracy didn't vote. (4.00 / 3)

A crack head submitted false registrations to collect a commission he didn't earn. There is no evidence, at all, anywhere, that that crack head was going to fake an id and vote.

Despite the fact that the fraud was against the crack head's employor the right loves to pretend that this is some sort of evidence of massive fraud. Prove it or drop it.

Just so you're clear veryone here agrees dead people shouldn't vote.

by Thistime on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:04:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

I see your point... (none / 1)

..."we the people" should be looking at every anomaly. But we here are behind a particular candidate. Speaking personally, I don't believe there was massive, organized fraud, but I do suspect there are real problems with the accuracy of the machines and I want a recount of a major state to either confirm that suspicion or put it to rest. At the same time, as a partisan, I want that recount, given limited resources, to happen in a state where a reversal would make a difference. Partisans who support Bush can allocate their resources elsewhere and force recounts where Bush lost by small margins. I wouldn't begrudge them that effort one iota, nor would I demand that they support recounts, with their dollars, in places where Bush won.

I also believe in civil discourse, even when people disagree. I hope that comes through.

"When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

by scorponic on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:08:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

all I'm saying (1.00 / 4)

I agree with you and understand you are partisan. I actively supported Dukakis and Kerry (more Dukakis than Kerry though). What I'm trying to get across ineffectively is that the partisan selection of and presentation of voter "irregularities" is unfortunate. It will change nothing, and I just wish people would see that and focus in forcing both sides to agree to massive reform.

If we spend the next year fooling around with Ohio and everywhere else it gets us nowhere.

We need to eliminate the 527's entirely, and nationalize the voting system. Anything less than that will lead to continued and growing skepticism in the voting system. In the end that could be the end of the country we all love.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:18:49 PDT
[ Parent ]

I doubt... (none / 0)

the recount will take a year. My understanding is they have until early December to finish the process and certify the vote. It will be a period of confusion and controversy until then, but it should be over in a matter of weeks, not months.

I agree on nationalizing the voting process. Leaving elections for federal offices in the hands of county elections boards is ridiculous. Don't know practically how it would work, but there's got to be a way.

"When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

by scorponic on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:28:51 PDT
[ Parent ]

If (1.00 / 3)

This is what I was trying to get across here....the only way it happens is if Democrats, Republicans but more importantly all the indies push it through. The parties WILL NOT do it, Nader is right.

I wish the same effort could go into revamp the voting process as goes into tearing down each candidate and arguing afterwards. If all sides can agree a change can be effected, otherwise we are all semi-scre*ed

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:11:38 PDT
[ Parent ]

What part of the linked article (none / 1)

Do you purport to be evidence of fraud?

Allegation is not evidence.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:19:48 PDT
[ Parent ]

Numbers (1.00 / 2)

380k registered voters the night before the election
425k total possible voters in the county that are either of voting age or meet other voting requirements

500k votes were cast on election day.

Those are the numbers and they are easily verified.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:27:23 PDT
[ Parent ]

Where's the third figure from? (none / 1)

I question how they could get an exact number of eligible voters. Seems more likely to be an estimate based on previous elections and/or the last census.

Still don't find the 500,000 figure you cite, however.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:38:49 PDT
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 1)

Actual county returns the night of the election. CNN has the best page IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/WI/P/00/county.001.html#55079

For the sake of information..you can pull county results from 2000 here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:56:32 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thank you for supplying the info. (2.66 / 3)

It is a large jump, but this was a much more contested election. By itself, it's not really compelling enough to make me put money toward a recount. Are there any anecdotal reports to support the voter fraud theory?

The 2000 election numbers are no longer available on the page you linked. I can't make any comparison there, but the census figures linked elsewhere in this thread indicate 933,000+ residents in Milwaukee county.

Population (2003): 933,221
Percent under 18 (2000): 26.4%

Which means that 686851 are old enough to vote.

(Thanks, nonemptysubset, for the link.)

And, I see that you're making an apples to oranges comparison between the city of Milwaukee and the county of Milwaukee.

So, that benefit of the doubt I was about to give you?

Never mind.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:28:13 PDT
[ Parent ]

way overestimated (1.66 / 3)

Your number on eligible to vote is way,way overstated. You can get the exact number or close to it from the county. I'm through providing numbers (The GAO has a recent number I think from 2000 for a joint study they were doing).

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:28:15 PDT
[ Parent ]

Milwaukee County Population as of July 1, 2003 (none / 0)

937,960

This page will break down by age group and verify the numbers above

by tango on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:05:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

Even if you don't think there was fraud in 2004... (4.00 / 3)

...it's just a matter of time with our current electoral process. The machines that are gaining in their use are extremely insecure and fraught with problems. Any average Joe can be shown in just a couple of minutes how to change election results. These machines do not have a paper trail, so we have no way to verify election results, whether there is tampering, computer problems, or whatever. And without a way to verify election results, those who might wish to tamper have much less to fear. On top of that, the companies that currently dominate the industry have a very shady past, have direct ties to one political party, and have a vested interest in the results of the election. Throughout history, there have always been some politicians, party representatives, and businessmen willing to take bribes, commit stock fraud, etc. It would be completely naive to think that there aren't people out their with the willingness, opportunity and motivation to tamper with an election.

So even if you don't think it's happened yet, it's just a matter of time given our current electoral process. Fraud or not, this issue is extremely important for potentially driving change in the way we conduct elections.

by pointsoflight on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:57:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

I totally agree (1.00 / 3)

but these are things that should be handled before, not after an election.

We have 3+ years to get it right, instead of fighting over the past, why not spend for the future?

They could easily end the fraud by nationalizing the voting system and creating a unique voting id much like a SS#. They could easily provide a card with a photo ID on it and perhaps even passcode the card. That would guarantee my vote and everyone else here is done right, but what about grandma that doesn't even know what an ATM is?

Someone is going to be disenfranchised if we move forward with fool proof technology - there is no way around it. Paper ballots are not 100% secure, neither will anything else be. Even e-machines with paper receipts could easily be duplicated. We either trust the system or we don't.

The only other option and the ACLU would go postal is to tie your actual vote to the voting ID# so you could always verify it was recorded correctly but how many would go for big brother knowing your vote? I would personally...but many would fight it.

All I'm saying is you cannot have an anonymous, open voting system that is foolproof....it's a physical impossibility by nature of it being anonymous.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:02:22 PDT
[ Parent ]

I agree with you (4.00 / 2)

I've posted this before on various threads, but here's my biggest fear:

We'll wait. And when election reform comes before congress again, we'll say, "These machines are not working well" and they'll say, "Actually they worked just fine in 2004, those little problems (Franklin County, OH, and Franklin County, IN; North Carolina's lost votes; Broward County machines counting backwards) have all been resolved." The media (yes, including USA Today and the NY Times) have been praising the machines and their success since the election.

At this point, without some sort of audit, we have no evidence as to whether or not the machines worked. The recount (although more time consuming and costly than a random spot check audit) will give us that evidence. It may be that all the numbers add up perfectly- GREAT! Then we know the machines worked. But if we leave it at mere suspicion, we won't ever be able to have true electoral reform.

However, if Cobb and Badnarik succeed in raising the $$, which they almost certainly will do, then we'll have the recount, and my great fear will not be realized.

That's why this issue is important- not to overturn the election but to verify the results for future use.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:10:51 PDT
[ Parent ]

Just Consider (1.50 / 2)

...that these machines are designed for a price. That price doesn't change and is generally set by contract. If Microsoft with all their billions can't design a program that can run reliably without security holes wide enough to drive a truck through, how can we ever expect that a government organization working from tax dollars can?

We either have to accept the fact that errors may exist, or be willing to give up some of the freedom that is associated with the vote. You and I are perfectly capable of using an ID card to vote, and then going home and verifying our vote online to make sure it was registered correctly. But probably 50% of the country would be lost.

Comparing voting to non-anonymous systems like ATM's is like comparing a horse to a BMW. Since the first ballot was cast in the USA we've had no idea whether it was recorded properly. We either have to accept that fact or circle the drain like we've been doing for the last 4 years.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:23:41 PDT
[ Parent ]

that makes sense (none / 1)

but, again, what's wrong with verifying the vote now? I agree that the work should be done before the election, but it wasn't (not through lack of trying) and shouldn't be ignored now.

300 million people voted in India earlier this year on computers with a paper trail and no reported problems. If India can do it, why can't we?

In terms of real election reform, I think we should have random audits as part of the system. There was a wonderful post a few days ago by somebody with a concrete plan for this. Major corporations self audit every year, why can't we?

But any push for reform will be toothless if we don't have some idea of how the machines worked this time. That's all. I'm feeling a bit like a broken record, but I hope I've made my point (even if you choose to disagree)

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:30:57 PDT
[ Parent ]

Consider (1.25 / 4)

I agree with what you are saying, but consider Enron and all the other companies that just ripped off the public (both dems and repubs are equally responsible for all that IMO). All those audits, all those stock brokers, analysts and cable tv money shows missed it all.

My problem with what is being said here is a recount proves nothing. If we are assuming massive fraud took place you'd have to assume it was sophisticated enough to cover it's tracks in a recount. If fraud did take place whoever did it, whatever side would have prepared for a recount. The reason we don't have paper receipts is it's widely believed americans do not want anything that could potentially track their vote. That's one of the few areas I'd be sensitive to but not against.

Just because you punch an LCD screen and then get a paper receipt doesn't mean as soon as you leave the building your vote is eliminated. As soon as we go to paper receipts there will be someone out there making fake ones.

If they can knock off a monetary instrument like our now very sophisticated dollar bills, they can easily knock off a paper receipt.

Really the only way we can seriously mitigate fraud without giving up our freedom is a system that prevents more than one vote per person. Some countries have people dip their hands in ink on election day so there is no way they can vote twice, others color fingernails. Primitive but effective. I'd much rather see us go to a federalized ATM type card with a passcode that prevents anyone without a card from voting and anyone with a card can only vote once. If they can't use their card on election day we have a provisional vote system clearly in place.

That's all I'm trying to stress folks, if you think a recount is going to overturn fraud it won't happen. Even if one side finds 40k illegal voters, or let's say 148,001 (enough for a kerry win in OH) we have no way of knowing who those 148,001 voted for.

I think it's safe to assume there is fraud, the question is how much are you willing to give up to prevent it (and more imporantly at what point will the ACLU stand its ground)

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:42:58 PDT
[ Parent ]

My 2 cents (none / 0)

The main argument against recepts ( and it's a good one )is a receipt that shows who you voted for would facilitate vote buying.

I'm against computers being used at all. The #1 programmers rule is GIGI (gargabge in garbage out) no matter how secure any system may seem it will be like a diary lock for these factions.

The way the CIA and Pentagon are being staffed these days, they are no loger to be trusted as a seperate estate in my book.
India's system in my book is the best to go on because #1 it works and #2 it's inexpensive.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:48:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

my issue with this sort of discussion (none / 0)

vote buying is that it's based on fear, not reality. It's like when the Republicans came out to say there is a lot of chance for voter fraud (fake voters) in response to progressives attempts to prevent them from suppressing the vote before the election. Since the 1960s and the Democratic machines, there has been very little voter fraud actually documented or shown. The thing you are talking about is one of those boogey men that a) would require a lot of capital to be effective on a massive scale b) will have the effect of shutting down common sensical approaches to these issues c) unlike say changing the tabulations on voting machines, would be something that is more easily provable b/c the numbers involved in the "conspiracy" would be huge (notice the claims of voter count manipulation do not require very much manpower compared to your fear (this is called cost-benefit analysis- does the cost out weigh the benefit- the likelihood of your fear giving the economies of labor needed to pull it off says you are wrong, and that we need to focus on common sense outcomes)

by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 08:05:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

smartmatic (none / 0)

is the company that provided 17000 DRE machines to venezuela fro their recall election of chavez in september. These machines gave each voter a paper receipt that allowed them to verify their vote. Then this receipt was placed in a locked box. When the anti chavez crowd claimed FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD!!! Random boxes were chosen throughout districts, and the receipts were counted and matched against the returns for that district (Jimmy Carter's Foundation, along with another international election organization were among the monitors of this process) They verified that the results were valid. That is all that we are asking for in our country. Verify that the counts are accurate. Make sure that citizens who cast a vote, actually have their vote counted. That is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. Those who don't want to have recounts or vallidations of provisional ballots must have something to hide. Apparently, HAVA's allowance of provisional ballots, was just that: an allowance, never meant to actually allow those ballots to be counted.

republican hypocrisy will cause God and Jesus to be as Dead as our Democracy

by demnomore on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 08:06:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

it takes a long time (none / 0)

to get laws passed and get systems changed. Especially when there is lots of resistance to making this process transparent (e.g. no paper trail for Diebold machines). Even then, we don't get it right (e.g. the so-called "Help America Vote Act").

By the way, we don't have 3+ years to get this changed. Try less than 2.

Be a patriot! Buy a hybrid vehicle!

by billlaurelMD on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:21:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

Correct (1.00 / 2)

But understand what David Boies is saying....the democrats are dead set against massive reform just like the republicans. They both cheat, they both know they cheat and that the other guy is cheating but neither is sure who is cheating more.

What we should be able to guarantee is 1 vote, 1 person. This wouldn't be difficult and IMO is where most of the fraud is currently. The only way to effectively guarantee your vote isn't being "stolen" is to give up your anonymity. There is NO other way around it. Please realize that.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:25:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Clarification... (none / 0)

By "give up anonymity" do you mean "give up secret ballot"?

If there's a paper trail, there's no reason ballots can't be secret. Two things are needed tho' -- one is that you are actually able to see the vote you made on the paper that makes up the paper trail, the second is an accurate record of the number of ballots cast.

A good check would be to have votes counted at the precinct level -- small number and bi-partisan monitoring make it harder to cheat there, and the sheer number of precincts would make a massive fraud effort less likely.

by rdt on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:12:51 PDT
[ Parent ]

What is most likely to push change? (none / 0)

I would argue that the thing most likely to force change is exposing problems that occurred this year, no matter what the cause. Mainstream media isn't covering it, but "glitches" have reversed some election results and have forced a possible re-vote for one race in NC.

Right now, instead of hearing about the widespread problems with our current system, the major news outfits are reporting that things went very smoothly and that there were minimal problems. We're also seeing some republicans call for more widespread use of e-voting machines and a complete elimination of exit-polling (the last remaining thing that we have to check against e-voting results).

If nothing else, we must expose the inaccuracies with our current system to create a groundswell of support for change. And recounts very likely will expose additional problems. We've found a few problems because they were so extreme that they stood out. For every one of these extreme problems that were discovered, there's likely to be many, many more problems that couldn't be detected when looking at the final tabulations.

by pointsoflight on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:31:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

Glitches (1.00 / 3)

I'm really not sure why the media is leaving it alone but I suspect it's either coming from the top of the DNC or that they understand once the public loses confidence in the voting system the country beings to fall apart.

When people feel they aren't be represented civil wars start. I think the media is full well aware that there is voter fraud but probably assumes it's equal on both sides (which is what I believe).

By it's very nature an anonymous election process is ripe for controversy. There is no way around it.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:35:05 PDT
[ Parent ]

This is what passes for "balance" (2.66 / 3)

"I believe it's on both sides."

"Both sides have been accused..."

For example in a pre-election example:

There is evidence of voter registration fraud-Democratic registrations being destroyed or discarded in Nevada, Oregon (at the very least). At least some of it from an organization paid $600k by the RNC.

This guy turned in registrations for Dick Tracy and Mickey Mouse. Those dirty Dems-though ACORN is not a partisan organization, hey, they're registering likely Dems, so close enough.

Not equivalent.

Believe what you want, but if you wish to persuade, bring a little factual and logical support.

Confidence is already lost.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:48:22 PDT
[ Parent ]

This is real data that shows a real problem. (none / 0)

here.

And it is not about Kerry, it is about trust in the system. (Tho I wouldn't mind if he won;)

by fuckthefuckingfuckers on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:44:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

sorry bad link (none / 1)

try this.

by fuckthefuckingfuckers on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:16:22 PDT
[ Parent ]

Have a 4 (none / 0)

just for your nickname. ;)

Support Citizen Journalism: help with ePluribus Media's start-up costs

by Loquatrix on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 09:32:16 PDT
[ Parent ]

Welcome to dKos dittohead (none / 0)

As you've noticed this community is a self moderated organism. You've managed to survive pretty well for the couple hours you've been here mainly due to the decorum that makes this community what it is ... certainly not because of the strength of your arguments. You act and whine like a classic wingnut.

Enjoy your stay. While it lasts. (and no, I have no need to rate any of your comments... your comment history shows a pattern I'm all too familiar with).

I donated to ePluribus Media. Click here to support citizen journalism!

by dalemac on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:22:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

Dittohead (1.00 / 4)

Do you people actually see yourselves for what you have become?

I'm a dittohead, or a right winger, or a troll because I don't agree. Can't I just be a lifelong independent in a democratic state that has voted for more democrats than republicans? It would be one thing if the majority of Americans were in agreement with the approach of the bloggers and the party in general, we aren't and even in bread and butter states like Massachusetts the democratic party gave up 5% over 2000. We lost NM and IA, barely won WI, barely won PA, lost FL handily.

Don't you see the arrogant, condescending nature of so many of you is why we keep losing? Even within the party you can't disagree, if you do you are a right winger, a dittohead, or some other non-elite.

How many elections have to be lost before we realize what's happening?

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:33:25 PDT
[ Parent ]

the more you post (none / 0)

the more it seems to smell. what are you afraid of??? concern over others throwing away money? how kind.

by daisy democrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:22:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

recount (4.00 / 2)

i can`t believe but i actually gave $50 for the recount, more out of curiosity than anything else.
i predict after a recount bush will end up with more votes than he has now no one will change this election even if massive fraud is proven.

by JOEL1954 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:38:29 PDT

I hope (0.92 / 14)

If the recount in Ohio takes place it changes nothing but shows massive fraud on both sides. Then and only then will the people here realize it's out of control on both sides.

Boies and Ginsberg are both right, nothing will ever change.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:56:28 PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (2.00 / 2)

Evidence?

Or is that just you talking out your ass again?

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:15:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

history (1.25 / 8)

In the history of all elections in the United States, local, state and national has there ever been a 2% margin overturned in a recount?

What if they recount and Kerry loses 50k votes?

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:29:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

So, I see. (2.66 / 3)

It's option 2.

Duly noted.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:33:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

Conspiracy != Unicorn (2.33 / 3)

If someone told me that George Bush was a mutant warrior sent from Saturn to destroy the Earth, I'd have to consider the possiblity.

J.C. on line one, D.O.D. on two, No defense for you- You can't be saved.

by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 14:51:47 PDT

He is (none / 0)

George bush is a mutant warrior sent from Saturn to destroy the Earth

by Sox Fan on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:12:42 PDT
[ Parent ]

And (4.00 / 3)

apparently it's very hard work!

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:26:59 PDT
[ Parent ]

Scottpol is a freeper troll (3.00 / 2)

Look at his history and you'll see all of his posts are from this topic.

by lightarrow on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:26:56 PDT

Absolutely Incorrect (1.33 / 9)

And please don't assume that someone offering a different viewpoint is a right wing nut. Let's reserve that for the NY Times.

What happens after Ohio is recounted? 1. Bush gets more votes or 2 Kerry gets more votes. If it's 1 people here will say "see I told you" there were 1k more votes for Kerry. If it's 2 and Kerry loses 1k more votes the republicans will say "see I told you so". The vote count will not be the same either through error in the recount or error in the original count but one way or the other someone somewhere will claim it as "evidence" of voter fraud.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:32:06 PDT
[ Parent ]

man so what? (none / 0)

you keep posting the same fucking point over and over again and missing the wider point. Stop being a fucking pussy about it if you are not atroll. If you are a troll go fuck yourself. the point of this is to find out- how are we going to find out without investigating? which by the way is why people are thinking you are a troll because anyone reasonable would not be arguing against investigation- i can see arguments against saying fraud- but rarely do i see arguments on here against even investigating irregularies.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:55:38 PDT
[ Parent ]

nice (1.75 / 8)

After they go through the motion in Ohio and we find very little evidence of all these things being discussed here, then what?

Not one person here answered the question of how many percentage points of margin are needed in an election to keep everyone happy? Why not just recount everything under 5%? On one hand we use exit polls to make an argument for "irregular" voting, and on the other we ignore that the average of all the polls taken in Ohio the last month show Bush winning by about the margin he won. Unreal.

I thought this was the election that would cause the democratic party to change but instead we're still looking under rocks. I can see why Clinton's old cronies are banging their heads against their desks.

None of you will believe this and that's fine, but I'm neither a troll or a right winger. It's just sad to watch the party fall apart.

Peace

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:40:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't care whether or not you are a troll (none / 1)

like I said above though you need to stop being a pussy, and whining about your fear of "they." THe fact you paint with a broad stroke says more about you than me. I supported Wesley Clark in the primaries. I wasn't sure of Kerry until the debates when he said he was worried about loose nukes in Russia, and all Bush could do was say ditto. I was ABB before that anyhow especially after that shit with gay marriage that he tried to pass. Clinton won in the 1990s- its 2004 now. The Republicans aren't even the same party they were when CLinton won. So his opinion is not very useful here. His theories of triangulation are simply wrong for the times we live in. The truth is that they only work if you have a non moving target- but everytime we tried to find the center to triagulate with- the Republicans kept moving it. Which demonstrates the flaw with the approach. Also, just because Clinton couldn't run with stuff like Whitewater and Monica L. as the character candidate doesn't mean we can't find one. That's what this is about anyway- not policy- it's about charm, vision and having balls. I hate Bush- but I respect that- I always respect the traits of my enemies that I think need to be emulate to win against them. Your problem is that you are trying to protect a status quo that doesn't exist anymore. This "you" that you are talking about is this mythic left that exists in Republican propaganda- and seems to move everytime it suits them to move further to the right. If we say we support x, they say they support in their own version of triagulation to redefine what is left and what is right so that what was once right, is considered left, but the reverse is not true (not yet anyway, but the time is coming to take them at their word to see if they really mean what they say).

Like I said- this is about a movement- for you- it's about the present election- that's why you can't get passed saming the same things no matter what people are saying to you. And going back to teh topic- as for looking u nder rocks- fuck you on that point- the Republicans looked under every rock they can to get Clinton (a guy you revere). Like I said I learn from my enemies- you don't seem to learn.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:05:19 PDT
[ Parent ]

don't care what you are (none / 0)

the wingnuts will think whatever they may, it won't change my respect for fairness.

by daisy democrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:24:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

Recounts Almost Always Benefit Democrats (none / 0)

historically because of the spoilage situation being so much higher in poor and minority precints mostly. Informed people, including informed republicans, know this.

by Davidsfr on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:18:24 PDT
[ Parent ]

What about Badnarik? (none / 1)

Any idea how much he has raised? I visited his site, but there's no total. Anybody know of any news on his fundraising success?

"When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

by scorponic on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:33:30 PDT

A matter of perspective and standards (4.00 / 8)

It occurs to me that people who aren't employed in professional large-scale I/T operations might think that all this talk about counts, recounts, and verification are a bit over the top. As much of the voting process depends on secure and correct I/T, it seems like a good idea to talk about the norms for professional systems management.

Just for some perspective:

I run a bunch of servers for a large corporation. If one of those servers has an application that handles money in any way, I have to prove that from the person who designs the code to the people who code it, to the person who installs it, and the person who writes patches for it, nobody has the opportunity to include any "funny business" in the application. This means oversight, auditing, and 20 page reports for each application of this type. It means there must be a defined audit trail whenever anyone touches the source code.

Any major anomaly on any server must have a root cause analysis, with an action plan.

Security patches must be applied within certain time frames and an audit log kept. Even if there are no secuity incidents, 4 times/per year, everything else stops while the systems undergo rigorous security audits.

Compared to accepted professional I/T standards, the 2004 elections were being run by Alfred E. Newman.

I'd be happier if we did the whole election over. Paper ballots. One room to check registration, then you put the paper bag over your head, go into the next room and shout out your candidate's name, where representatives from both parties and all the major networks make a tick mark on a large manila sheet of paper.

Clues

_As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

by Clues on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:39:43 PDT

AMEN! (none / 0)

by fuckthefuckingfuckers on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:50:12 PDT
[ Parent ]

Honestly (none / 1)

Honestly that would be the most secure system but we'd be at it for 100 years!

I guarantee you someone would complain about that system too, just like they are complaining now.

Just remember in your IT example you aren't dealing with anonymous file names and programs. By its' very nature our voting system leaves no tracks, no logs, no proof.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:50:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

anonymity makes it harder... (none / 0)

but not impossible.

by rdt on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:36:47 PDT
[ Parent ]

This just proves (none / 0)

That money makes the world go round. In my opinion a vote is priceless. Yet it is treated as though it is worthless in this country.

Apparently our IT systems involving money are worth an audit trail, but our voting systems aren't?

"we'll count some, some we'll throw out, others we'll ignore...if there's a problem, eh...we did our best"

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei

by Dittoz on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:08:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

Again (1.00 / 4)

I won't disagree, but these are two different animals. One is tracked with routing numbers, transaction numbers and a million other ways of tying you to the account and then the transaction back to the account and subsequently you.

In our voting system no such tracking is allowed. No matter how many people we put on it, so long as the system is anonymous we can never, ever assure the vote.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:09:31 PDT
[ Parent ]

well... (4.00 / 2)

Well bud, I've seen you tear down everyone else's suggestions...how about you put up a suggestion on how to correct the current busted system we have? Are you suggesting this is as good as it gets? And we should just learn to live with the fact that our votes won't be counted correctly?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei

by Dittoz on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:12:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

that's precisely (4.00 / 2)

what he is suggesting. he reminds me of the guy who argued after they found out about the 380 tons of missing explossive in Iraq that it was just a bueractic error that the Dems were trying to turn into a big deal. There is not sense of reality in the statements- just a lot of shit being thrown out to see what sticks. I am really begining to suspect he is a troll.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:58:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

It's not about tracing it back to the voter (none / 0)

Dear Scottspol:

It's about making sure every step of the tabulation is correct.
And why didn't you like the paper-bag-over-the-head, shout-out-the-candidate's name, hand-tally-on-manila-sheet voting method? Anonymous, clear indication of voter choice, visible and verifiable results - what more could we ask? Maybe it was the presence of the major media . . .

by AskQuestions on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:24:29 PDT
[ Parent ]

That's just incorrect (4.00 / 2)

The fact that the voter's name needs to be held separately from the individual vote does not mean that you cannot design the system as carefully as you would a banking system. It's a SMOP, really, for someone who knows how to design secure systems.

By the way, my examples weren't all about "money" systems or applications. The same standards apply to anything considered a "business critical" system. We do this routinely in the I/T biz.

I hate to bring up the "V" word, but the situation really does illustrate what we value.

_As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish, he'd go away._

by Clues on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:01:45 PDT
[ Parent ]

NC analysis (none / 0)

someone at DU crunched the North Carolina numbers and found a 9 point swing to the republicans between the absentee/early votes and the election day votes. most interesting is this swing only appears on the president and senate races. all the lesser races match the pre election day trend. he concludes it must have been a manipulation of the count. check it out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x45003

by warbly on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:50:37 PDT

In Fairness? (1.28 / 7)

To those that said "where is my proof". Where is this guys proof? A hunch?

He has no idea who voted for which candidates on election day. Anyone that says they do is lying to you.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:52:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

Going for the switch tactic now, I see. (2.00 / 2)

You're making the argument about Milwaukee without the goods to back it up.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:56:23 PDT
[ Parent ]

Clear (1.14 / 7)

The link posted by the blogger is one guys opinion based on his interpretation of the data. All he says on that page is basically "I think the votes should have gone this way." It's no different than all the experts saying there was no way Floridians would have voted for Bush in democratic counties.

For Milwaukee all I'm telling you is the county had 380k registered voters, the county stated there were 423k total potential voters, and 480k voted on election day. There is no interpretation involved, something isn't right. Is it possible 60k new people moved into Milwaukee in the last few months/year? Maybe. Is it possible some of those extra 500k ballots were fraudulent, yep. Will any of us ever really know? Probably not.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:00:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

I guess you don't get the argument, then. (none / 0)

by pointsoflight on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:12:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

Senate Race Exit Polls (none / 1)

My apologies for posting this here relating to exit polls. I am a new member and am just now able to post. The diary on the 250 million to one exit poll improbability has gone away. I am posting here because it is the closest forum right now to that one and I need to get an answer to this question, in part for the professor who authored that paper. Here it is:

Days ago on Kos someone mentioned that the same exit polls that were so "off" for the prez race correctly predicted senate races. Can anyone confirm that, and wouldn't this add credence to the idea that the exit polls were correct and the vote tallies manipulated? Unless women and others lied to some exit poll questions and not others? And the moon was full?

Thanks in advance,

by Gen7 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:51:50 PDT

the thing (none / 1)

that keeps sticking in my craw is the military votes not being counted yet, and why isn't anybody screaming about this. In 2000, Bush made a big deal about Gore supposedly not supporting the military because of something to do with their absentee ballots not being counted because they hadn't arrived on time, something like that, it's hard to remember so much shit went down in 2000.

This time, surprise, surprise, when we are at war, and for ever questionable reasons, Bush declares himself the winner.... before the military votes have been counted. Wonder whether or not the military votes would be for Bush this time, aren't they supposed to be predominantly Republican. Why doesn't he want to see what the men and women over there fighting had to say before declaring himself king this time. Very interesting and somewhat of a scandal in my opinion. Yet noone mentions the inconsistency in Bush's attitude towards military ballots between 2000 and 2004.

BTW Randi Rhodes does not sound like she's going off to me. She lived through 2000 in Florida and she is very well informed, so cut her some slack. We need people willing to go out on a limb over this. Isn't that what half the people I read here are asking Kerry to do now. Better to have Randi do it, and take the heat then the candidate that has to appear 'presidential'. Please remember, there would probably be no AAR without Randi's efforts (and Al Franken's clout), and I for one have been kept sane by having that station to listen to.

by zha zha zha on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 15:55:37 PDT

Margin (1.00 / 5)

This is because in many states the number of outstanding absentee/military ballots were less than the margin of victory.

Kerry conceded before Bush declared himself king. I was standing there in Boston when he did it and it was definately before Bush declared victory.

by scottspol on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:08:09 PDT
[ Parent ]

My point about the military ballots (4.00 / 2)

is not that they would have given Kerry the presidency, it is that Bush made such a big deal out of counting all the military ballots in 2000.

Kerry conceded first yes, but it was in the news that Bush had already said he was the winner and would be giving an acceptance speech that afternoon regardless of what Kerry did. Kerry made it less uncomfortable for Bush by conceding. But Bush made it clear to the media that he was the winner, and that he would not necessarily wait for Kerry to step out of the running. This is exactly what he did in 2000 too, he was announcing cabinet appointments while Bush versus Gore was still in the courts. It's called psyching-out the other candidate, and putting it in the public's mind that you are already the winner. It's yet another Rove trademark.

by zha zha zha on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:40:28 PDT
[ Parent ]

Done (none / 0)

by polojones on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:16:35 PDT

They got my $25.00 (none / 0)

Felt good to give to the greens too.
did it via theor website, paypal, secure, fast, easy....Go do it if you havent already.

Enough whinning about fraud, give them the money so we can FIND OUT ! Time to act folks.

Let the Democratic Reformation Begin

by Pounder on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:17:56 PDT

$100,000 Reward for Evidence of Vote Fraud (none / 0)

The link:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/ale04091.html

Good luck.

by Saruman on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:54:32 PDT

if this is real you should do this as a separate (none / 0)

diary

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:59:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

Not a good way to go (none / 0)

I think we're better off contributing to the recount efforts, not getting behind a reward that can easily be construed as bribery, tainting any good information that comes from it.

Nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus... (Now is the time to beat the earth with unfettered foot...)

by a2jean on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:53:12 PDT
[ Parent ]

Smoke Signals From Hell (none / 0)

Chris Mathews on Hardball just now: "Bloggers on the fringes are sending out smoke signals from hell".

Ted Hitler on bloggers: They have no credibility, all they have is facts.

by EastFallowfield on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 16:59:33 PDT

where there is smoke there is fire.. (none / 1)

We are making a difference!!!!!

keep digging and screaming at the corporate media

this out on yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041112/ap_on_re_us/bungled_election

RALEIGH, N.C. - A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the 10 days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air.

The fiasco has not reached the proportions of what happened in 2000 in Florida -- in part because the presidential race was not close here. But election observers say North Carolina has been the site of some of 2004's worst problems.

The biggest failure resulted from a computer glitch that wiped out more than 4,400 votes in one county, while other disputes have focused on how to count provisional ballots. In another county, 12,000 early and absentee votes were misplaced due to a procedural error, but later found.

Federal authorities said they plan to look into what happened in two counties that have had the most severe breakdowns.

Two statewide races -- for agriculture commissioner and superintendent of public instruction -- remained unresolved in North Carolina on Friday, and they were so close that recounts will be conducted in the next week. The race for state auditor was not settled until eight days after the election.

"I'd compare it to a NASCAR (news - web sites) race where they say run 500 laps then you get to the finish and they say why not run 50 more," said Steve Troxler, the Republican challenger for agriculture commissioner who held a narrow lead over Democrat Britt Cobb.

Although the presidential election went off relatively smoothly this year, North Carolina and several other states reported a smattering of voting problems that have affected some local races. In Washington state, Democrats filed a lawsuit Friday over the count of provisional ballots in the state's too-close-to-call gubernatorial race.

The most glaring failure in North Carolina occurred in Carteret County, where a machine used to store electronic ballots ran out of storage space and county officials mistakenly continued to try to save ballots. Since the machines had no memory left, 4,438 votes disappeared.

State elections officials have said that the glitch could result in a new statewide election for races that end with a margin smaller than the 4,438 lost votes.

"That's one of the most egregious examples that we've run across," said Keith Jennings, director of the Atlanta-based Count Every Vote 2004, a nonprofit election watchdog group.

Another expert said the electoral scrutiny that resulted from Florida in 2000 has not been kind to North Carolina, where 100 counties use seven different voting methods, ranging from paper ballots to touch-screen computers. President Bush (news - web sites) beat Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) in North Carolina by more than 400,000 votes in unofficial returns, so the problems will have no effect on the presidential race.

"When you shine a brighter light on something, you're going to see problems there that you didn't see before," said Justin Moore, a computer scientist and consultant to N.C. Verified Voting.

Except for the lost votes in Carteret County, Gary Bartlett, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, called the problems "easily remedied and lessons learned."

"The big issue is what's going to happen regarding Carteret County. That's the single biggest issue this election," Bartlett said.

In the agriculture commissioner's race, Troxler led Cobb by 2,656 votes. If the vote spread remains that tight after the recount, state election officials will decide whether to hold a statewide revote because of the lost ballots in Carteret County.

In the race for state superintendent of public instruction, Democrat June Atkinson led Republican Bill Fletcher by 9,254 votes.

by drummer55 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:16:10 PDT

I think I contributed to the recount (none / 0)

After I submitted my CC info, I got a receipt page and a dialog window saying "Submit form without encryption?". I clicked 'Cancel' because I didn't want to send any financial info plaintext. I browse with Opera if that makes a difference.

Does anyone know if I need to resubmit my contribution?

by asdf100022000 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:24:32 PDT

If you got a receipt page, you should be fine (none / 0)

I'm guessing there was another form on the receipt page which was not encrypted, which you clicked on (perhaps accidentally). Opera is careful about transitioning from secure to nonsecure pages (for good reason, IMO).

by NonemptySubset on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:32:02 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

Thanks for the reassurance. Here's hoping that my $50 does some good.

by asdf100022000 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:47:29 PDT
[ Parent ]

If you said cancel (none / 0)

If you said cancel, during the process,
then it did not go through

You would need to resubmit

http://www.votecobb.org

by DerekLarsson on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:54:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

I openned the receipt page (none / 0)

which I had saved and it seems to have submitted itself and forwarded me to a "thank you" page. Is that good enough?

NEXT LINK

by asdf100022000 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:09:37 PDT
[ Parent ]

The problem is, if this isn't handled (3.25 / 4)

with moderation, you'll never convince enough people that it's not about Kerry winning.

I've watched this story unfold here and elsewhere in the last ten days or so, and I've watched people leap from shred of evidence to shred of evidence, with no apparent memory or need to apologize for the screechy wrongness. (Whatever happened to all those OMG 93,000 VOTERS THAT DIDN'T EXIST!!!! posts?)

The claims of fraud are light on evidence and not really holding up much so far. The head Kerry lawyer in Ohio says there's no evidence of fraud so far. You're going to get your recount, apparently, but if it's as bad as many of you seem to believe, and if the fraudsters are as good as they would have to be to get away with this, you think it will turn up in the recount? You think they'll suddenly produce the noose to hang themselves with? I'd say that's unlikely, and I'd say they're not that good--after all, they only "won" Florida in 2000 by a single Supreme Court vote.

Upthread someone said that this investigation is going to provide the answers you need. I'd like to know at what point you will consider this to have been investigated? How long do you intend to call this election fixed? Seems to me like the goalposts keep moving.

I'm sure this will bring much troll-ratola down upon my head, but I say this as someone who believes Bush bullied, whined, and stole his way into office in 2000, and that the introduction of voting machines with no paper trail spells disaster: the margin of Kerry's loss is this year's election story, not fraud. Perhaps in Ohio the margin is slight, but any recounting and investigation will not hand him the state--that's why he didn't hold out. You can claim that he conceded as a head-fake, but you can also make a good case for holding out if there was strong evidence of tampering, and who would know better if tampering had occurred, a regiment of election-code lawyers on the ground for his campaign or a bunch of people reading a lot--perhaps too much--news on the internet?

If a difference is to be made, it is to be made in changing the way we vote. I'm not saying no reference can be made to inaccuracies in 2004, but if that's the whole story, there will be no progress. And we need to stop voting like a third-world country, or rather a consortium of third-world countries. It's pathetic and sad, and it's going to take mountains of effort to wrest this issue out of the grubby/lazy little political hands that cling to it. It doesn't cheer me up much to see the effort beginning like this. In a way, it heightens the election outcome pain, I guess because I hear so many people shouting "it ain't over yet!!!" when the lights are off, the field is covered, and the stadium is closed, and my team got routed when I was sure they were going to mop up. And I don't believe the umpires were Republican dupes (though I'd like non-partisan election officiating), or broken or hacked computers (though I'd like traceability if we're going to trust machines), but rather a staggering number of Americans with whom I totally disagree over what needs to happen next in this country.

Sorry, this is too long, but I felt like saying it in a single burst. Feel free to knock it; I'm not going to get into a big discussion, so you can have a field day.

by alltaco on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:38:20 PDT

I don't think you understand the political process (3.75 / 4)

Fear is a powerful emotion, but sometimes you got to look a situation for what it is. There will be no reform unless poltical pressure is exerted The republicans have avoided reform since 2000- HAVA was a deliberate attempt to block rather than aid reform. Trust me I worke on Election Protection, and it was amazing how they kept trying to use it to decrease minority vote rather than protect peoples vote as they promised in 2000

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:50:07 PDT
[ Parent ]

We did the moderation thing (3.37 / 8)

In 2000.

I'm not in favor of Chicken Littling, by any means, but all the people who want us to shut up and go away are not going to convince me that wholesale irregularities aren't worth talking about because the margin wasn't there.

For me, this isn't about Kerry.

In part it's about the people who put up with an incredible amt of shit to vote when there was a concerted effort to deny them the franchise.

Shamefully, it's an old, old story. Somehow, though, nothing's ever been done about it because the heat didn't rise to roasting levels.

2004 is the year we turn up the heat.

Because the people who marched to give me the vote and the people who stood for 9 or 10 hours to cast their votes on Tuesday deserve nothing less.

And then, for the other part, after the weenie roast we move on to electoral reform. For however long it takes, we keep the fire stoked.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 17:55:03 PDT
[ Parent ]

Hey, Ray (none / 0)

Why the supertroll rating?

Not seeing anything in this post that seems to qualify, and if I've given offense I'd like to know why.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:36:27 PDT
[ Parent ]

Again (none / 1)

I thought I wouldn't post this again, but here I am. We're looking for the same thing, alltaco. I want to change the way we vote in this country. What a recount will show is how the computers did vs. the a) paper trails or b)scanned ballots. And yes, if there was fraud (still a substantial "if" in my book) then it will appear here, because the numbers won't add up.

If things look reasonable, then we can proceed with e-voting, hopefully with a few more checks to the system- some form of audit, etc. If not, then we know the machines didn't work.

I'm not in the "it ain't over yet!" mode. I want the problems to be fixed, and if the ballots are chucked before the vote is verified (which is what will happen if no recount is requested) they won't be. In part, because we won't know what the problems were.

I don't feel comfortable proceeding with voter reform until I have a clear idea what happened on November 2 in Ohio (among other states.) The investigation will be over for me when I understand that, and not before. The election, however, is over for me now.

by Chicago Lulu on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:58:22 PDT
[ Parent ]

how did you (none / 0)

link the cobb website's dynamic graphic?

by nycnat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:17:11 PDT

Sporting my tin foil hat w/ pride (4.00 / 2)

I have not seen this link or story here on kos
and while it in now way is evidence of fraud, it is evidence that something is wrong with the Ohio vote count.

Votes for Democrats register as votes for Libertarian candidate- for the presidential race only. Will require a hand recount in at least 9 Ohio counties.

This election is NOT over folks, regardless of what the DNC says

Ohio glitch mistakenly counts Dem votes as Libertarian in 9 counties

http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/193880-4433-102.html

"As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but all together, we make a mighty fist" Watanka Tatanka (Sitting Bull)

by wild salmon on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:32:00 PDT

Indiana (none / 1)

This is in Indiana, not Ohio.

Debate some freepers at political-news.org.

by political on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:03:17 PDT
[ Parent ]

Yikes (none / 0)

I just gave $50 to the Green Party. Never let it be said that I only give to Democrats. I only hope the Dems are watching. If the Greens manage to pull this off, I may have to re-register.

by JoeWPgh on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:33:05 PDT

I know what you mean (none / 0)

I had the same weird feeling making my contribution. me= Green????? Oh my. My neat orderly world is turning upside down.

Moderation, the noblest gift of heaven. - Euripedes

by recentdemocrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:43:04 PDT
[ Parent ]

Trutj be told (none / 0)

I have held the Democratic party in the utmost of contempt since they ran away from Clinton, who was without a close 2nd, the best Pres in my 48 years. The only thing the Dems got going is that they are not republicans - and I wonder about 1/2 of them.

by JoeWPgh on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:08:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

Olbermann Recap Needed (none / 0)

has someone posted tonight's goodies yet?

I'm hungry.

'Tis better to Diebold...than to slink away quietly!

by traitorbushchimp on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:35:28 PDT

Great quote, tbc! n/t (none / 1)

Nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus... (Now is the time to beat the earth with unfettered foot...)

by a2jean on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:52:52 PDT
[ Parent ]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-1 (none / 0)

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-112037-7263r.htm

Is everybody all over this one yet?

'Tis better to Diebold...than to slink away quietly!

by traitorbushchimp on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 18:46:35 PDT

Moonie Times? (none / 0)

Wow I am shocked they actually printed that in the Washington Times. Was the revelation about the administrative code being "1111" something from the past or a new development? And someone did hack in there and left a little message.

Can someone tell me again why we are supposed to believe everything is hunky dory with this election & the results without looking into things a bit further? I'm sick of these pundits calling us "fringe" or "hysterical internet types". It plays right into the Repubs m.o. of calling anyone that speaks up against them somehow crazy or "out of the mainstream".

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:03:17 PDT
[ Parent ]

Hack, Crack or Kludge (none / 1)

I believe this is all old news, even the part about 1111. It's good to see it in the mainstream media, though.

The word "hack" has three definitions among programmers:

v. To write code, especially hastily
v. To bypass security (aka "crack")
n. A clumsy or inelegant solution (aka "kludge")

The Washington Times article uses both definitions 2 and 3. A Diebold programmer wrote something like this:

AdminPin = "1111"; /* This is just a hack for now */

The comment means, "Note to self: I still have to write the part of the program that maintains PIN's. We'll just use 1111 until that's ready." The comment was not placed there by someone who broke into the system.

The final paragraph means that if someone cracked the encryption key for one Diebold machine, that same key would unlock every Diebold machine.

Building a better RenderMan

by stabguy on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:01:12 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

I am quite computer code illiterate and all that. So thanks :) I only knew the one definition of "hack" as being the 2nd one you listed.

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 21:03:34 PDT
[ Parent ]

Holy Shit (none / 0)

So, the really MSM is picking this up and saying it's real. I mean I knew it was real, but they just said it out loud. There was no mention of internet crazies or anything. Spectacular!

Democracy Now, Democracy Forever!

I am kvelling. No, really, I am.

Thinking Caps ON!

by Patsy Stone on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 23:28:08 PDT
[ Parent ]

Our house is burning (4.00 / 7)

A previous post suggests we need to cool our recount efforts and focus on the future. I respectfully disagree.

If your house is on fire, you don't leave town and say, "Hey, let's figure out how we can prevent this from happening again." Doing so would not only reduce your house to ashes, it puts the entire neighborhood and town at risk. No. We call the fire department (supported by us, the tax-payers) to take care of the fire FIRST. We can talk about the future when we're not in imminent danger.

Our nation is in imminent danger - the fire is what many fine minds consider suspicious election results. As citizens, we need to call the fire department (i.e., fund recount efforts such as Cobb/Badnarik's) because they're much better organized and equipped to handle a fire than we are. I say, keep those checks a-comin'!

As for KE's role in this, let's trust their judgment. They're intelligent and politically savvy (let's remember how they made short work of BC in the debates!). I'm sure they're not sitting on their hands. Let's not, either. Although many of us gave up a lot to help win the White House, we can't drop the ball now that November 2 has passed. Our status as a free nation and leader of the free world depend on it.

Turning away from this mess now endangers not only our own homes, but our neighbors' as well. Let's meet this challenge head-on!

Nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus... (Now is the time to beat the earth with unfettered foot...)

by a2jean on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:13:06 PDT

Exactly (none / 1)

It makes me sad how so many people take voting rights for granted and just don't give a damn. Not only that, but many mock those who do. After all the sacrifices that have been made and battles won to give women and African Americans the right to vote in this country it's insulting to not demand these rights be respected. I feel about the same this year as I did in 2000, which is frustrated and angry. The voting process has not improved much (if at all) and the gov't had four years to fix it.

I listened to a great interview with Nader tonight on KPFK (Pacifica) and he spoke eloquently on this topic. He is outraged and he's not exactly a Kerry or Democratic Party cheerleader. But he DOES care about civil rights and our screwed up system here. It's not in his or Cobb's or Badnarik's personal interests to get involved in this but it is in the public's best interest & I appreciate what they are doing.

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:26:31 PDT
[ Parent ]

ignore the freeper who won't go away... (4.00 / 2)

Everything he says is recycled straight out of Jim Baker's handbook. Ascertaining the vote is the most important thing we can do as Americans. All the rest is just icing. You don't have to defend the right to vote, and you certainly don't have to accept that there's no way we can ever ascertain a vote so we should shut up and let whoever do whatever.... Sheesh.

by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:21:05 PDT

I kicked in $500 (4.00 / 7)

Let's kick some serious Bush here.

by Ron in Santa Cruz on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:21:15 PDT

Two words for you (none / 0)

Right and On. That's very generous!

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:27:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks. I hope it'll inspire others to donate, too (none / 0)

We can make this happen, and we might be able to claim the White House for a candidate who, though he doesn't personally deserve this kind of support, would be much better for the nation than that disaster George W. Bush.

by Ron in Santa Cruz on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:42:21 PDT
[ Parent ]

Check out this little beauty...Fuck Yeah!!! (none / 0)

http://www2.townonline.com/lynnfield/opinion/view.bg?articleid=126111

'Tis better to Diebold...than to slink away quietly!

by traitorbushchimp on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 19:53:02 PDT

GREAT ARTICLE (none / 0)

E-Mail this article to as many people as you can.

by ecm on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 06:01:14 PDT
[ Parent ]

it doesn't matter who won or lost (4.00 / 3)

it about the votes being counted accurately. we should know about any kinks before the next election. what other business in america, or the world doesn't audit it's own system? the people who aren't interested in this audit are the same people hanging on for the latest on peterson, just not very deep thinkers.

by daisy democrat on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:01:41 PDT

scottpols is a "troll." (4.00 / 3)

he has dominated the discussion of this funding drive with attempts to stop the recount (which he lamely explains away by saying we should be trying to recount in wisconsin instead).

what people should remember is that this site is relevant because it stimulates activism, not because it is a well of discourse. people who come here with the intent to derail and cast doubt on such efforts cannot be tolerated.

scottpols has done nothing but attempt to dissuade people from donating to this effort ("you're wasting your money!" "this is why kerry lost!"). if the trusted users have any sense, they'll zero him out and stop modding him up.

to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

by Tacoma Narrows on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:05:28 PDT

let him do his things (none / 0)

its honing my arguments- and i think most people are donating anyway- i have already one my 20 and told my friends about it- including giving them the website so they may contribute too. DEFENSE OF THE VOTE!!!!

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:10:05 PDT
[ Parent ]

it doesn't matter what your arguments are. (none / 0)

what matters is that the money is donated. comments questioning it and asking rhetorical questions like "what margin is good enough for the liberals?" have no place here. moreover, they are displacing other comments that might have a positive persuasive effect with his own crap and people getting pissed off at his crap.

he is a net loss and he's a completely new user which seems to suggest he's on a mission. probably a personal one, but a mission all the same.

to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

by Tacoma Narrows on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:20:50 PDT
[ Parent ]

i can do more than one thing at a time (none / 1)

as i said i dont care if he is a troll or not so long as he is civil (which i can't claim to be- i am a little bit of jerk i guess but whatever). you are one of those types who thinks the movement is going to die if we talk to the enemy? I am not- I got a thick thin than that- they can't convert me, they aren't going to stop me, and I am going to continue to do my part to help with this proces. So chill- we are going to get that money.

by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:36:43 PDT
[ Parent ]

no, it's about space. (none / 0)

it has nothing to do with "the enemy." i wouldn't even grant that such a thing exists. the issue is that this person is deliberately pushing other comments out of the way that are conducive to fundraising, while posting ones that are explicitly intended to curtail the same.

god, this troll terminology is so stupid. what the hell was kos thinking introducing it here? "i don't care if he's a troll or not." what nonsense. it just confuses the issue.

whatever.

to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

by Tacoma Narrows on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:45:39 PDT
[ Parent ]

i see y our point- i agree with that distractions (none / 0)

in terms of spacing and reading what people are saying

by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 06:02:59 PDT
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

totally a troll. I wish we could just delete all that stuff from him and get the diary back on topic, which is fundraising for the recount effort.

by ValleyGirl on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:48:44 PDT
[ Parent ]

Uuummm...look at this little trove (none / 0)

A little light background reading for you. Put on all the tin gear you can muster and dive in.

http://www.votefraud.org/primer_archive_articles.html

Especially read this prophetic one:

The Dangers of Computerized Voting
by Ronnie Dugger
(written in 1988) in The New Yorker

'Tis better to Diebold...than to slink away quietly!

by traitorbushchimp on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 20:07:41 PDT

Facts re Milwaukee turnout (3.80 / 5)

Sorry I didn't spot this thread sooner to see this guy claim at the start that Milwaukee had 115% turnout to start all this silliness.

See www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov04/273101.asp

And see the paragraph that says the HIGHEST turnout in ANY ward was 110 percent. And why? Because (a) turnout percentages are based on best estimates, based on previous elections and census data ; (b) it's the ward in the dorms at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; (c) a new dorm was built since the last national election and census in 2000; (d) turnout was unexpectedly high by students at the campus (my polling place a block from campus was swamped by students on their own, not in dorms, most of them first-time voters -- btw, total enrollment at UWM also is at a record high of 27,000 this fall, and that has meant thousands more city residents in my neighborhood alone).

Oh, and yes, as one reply said, you can show up and vote the day of the election in Wisconsin -- but that doesn't mean you don't have to register. You just can register that day (with legal proof of residency). Let's stick to facts!

Anyway, it doesn't take a math whiz to see that turnout in the city couldn't have been 115 percent. Actually, it only takes literacy to read the post-election stories, not the pre-election stories he posted. Literate readers are welcome to go to the local paper, jsonline.com, and read lots of post-election stories that are far more edifying . . . such as the ones about the eleventh-hour race on the night before the election to process a backup of more than 20,000 new-voter registrations (not all were completed, so they still could register at the polls; it just takes longer to do same-day registration) . . . or the story with quotes from -- per the pre-election stories posted -- the Republican county exec who battled against more ballots but ended up saying good things about how well the election went, without saying that was in part owing to making the city pay for extra ballots it requested, because the city was right about the turnout here.

It was a great turnout, and the figures may look fantastic to some of you in other states -- but Wisconsin always has among the highest turnouts in the country . . . and even more than 70 percent actually wasn't a record for Wisconsin.

That's the story here. And hey, Scottpol: If you could find the pre-election stories, you could have found and posted the post-election stories -- for the full story. That you didn't do so tells us the story on you.

"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

by Cream City on Fri Nov 12th, 2004 at 22:26:52 PDT

$150K (none / 0)

Only half way there with just the weekend left? I am surprised they are not closer to their number by now.
That is not good news. I read on the site they need $110k for the recount, the other $40k is for expenses. I assume they will continue raising momey after Monday to reach $150K, assuming the hit $110K. Does anyone know the hour of the deadline?

Antitheton-FIGHT the RIGHT!!!

by MetaGator on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:13:14 PDT

The $71k (none / 0)

was as of eob on Friday.

More has probably come in since, but we don't know how much.

Feed the kitty.

NEXT LINK

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:16:56 PDT
[ Parent ]

I asked Ray about the SuperTroll Ratings (none / 0)

He thinks we unfairly rated scottspol, so he gave us a taste of downmodding in response.

I disagree with his assessment of scottspol purpose here and the fairness with which I treated him, but troll rating anyone new is a controversial thing with several old time posters that I've seen.

Thanks to the folks who spread a little positive mojo around to balance the effect.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:15:35 PDT

I frankly don't understand the need to rate (none / 0)

people as trolls except the argument concerning wasting time and resources and space- is this the reason?

by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 07:45:19 PDT
[ Parent ]

I rated 3 of his comments as trolls (none / 0)

from what I can go back and find.

Obviously, I speak only for myself. My ratings were not because I disagreed with scottspol. I disagree with lots of people on DK, and elsewhere.

There were certain patterns in his postings on this thread. The tactics of distraction with half-truths or outdated allegations, shifting personas-first trying to convince us he had insider info in either the campaign or msnbc or both, and namedropping as if a big embarrassing hammer to the blogging community was about to be handed to Olbermann or Brokaw, for example, smacked to me of deliberate attempts to derail this thread and the fundraising request.

The three comments I comments I troll rated were specifically these tactics.

I understand that others may disagree, and it is certainly possible I'm wrong, and he is an insider but too ill informed to be able to tell between the population of the city of Milwaukee and the county.

I, however, remain skeptical.

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
We are the resistance.

by boadicea on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 21:04:18 PDT
[ Parent ]

Anyone seen an updated thermometer? (none / 0)

How close are they to the $150K?
I can't find a current total.

TOP OF PAGE

by demfromnc on Sat Nov 13th, 2004 at 10:25:54 PDT

Permalink | 338 comments | Cannot post in Archive