Research Assignment for the FREEPERS > Did any "glitches" help KERRY?

[Stephanie]

The post below is from email. I think it's time to put the Freepers to work. Let's see if they dare copy this post over there and do some research themselves. Of course if any DUers have evidence of voting glitches that erred for Kerry, please post as well. It's an important question, IMO.

If we come up with anything I will forward the thread to the researcher who made the request. And I will forward the Freeper thread too, should they choose to accept the CHALLENGE.

Posting in GD so the Freepers can find it.

Please help me in putting out a general call for anyone with awareness of any voting irregularities (added votes, deleted votes, switched votes, impeded voters) which appear to favor Kerry.

So far the apparent pattern of virtually, if not literally, all such irregularities favoring Bush is pathognomonic of electoral rigging. Errors attributable computer glitches and other accidental causes would adhere to a random distribution pattern and approach 50-50 very closely as the "n" increased. Conversely, dozens of pro-Bush errors in the absence of any pro-Kerry errors would establish an astronomical probability of foul play (consider that the odds against flipping a coin 40 times and getting heads, or pro-Bush, each time would be a trillion to one). This double-headed coin hypothesis is, to date, the strongest, simplest, and easiest to illustrate of all the patterns which suggest a stolen election.

The lack of pro-Kerry irregularities may be due to the fact that the pro-Kerry people are reporting selectively and the pro-Bush people are not looking; however, if no pro-Kerry errors are reported in (or if they are dwarfed by the number of pro-Bush errors) then a prima facie case has been established for foul play, and it would be up to the Bush people or other critics to uncover evidence to the contrary.

Please distribute as widely as possible and request that anyone with evidence of pro-Kerry irregularities send what they have to me. This is critically important to the establishment (or refutation) of a case on this basis.

Thank you-Jonathan Simon

[ComerPerro]

1. If they had any, they would be screaming about them

and about how Kerry and the Democrats tried to steal the election.

[Beetwasher]

2. The Proverbial Elephant In The Room

I've been making this point consistently and people just ignore it like I've never said it. Their eyes glaze over w/ denial.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I hope you aren't holding your breath.

You make an excellent point and I highly encourage supporters of both candidates to put this election under a microscope. However, I think the fear of finding pro-Kerry glitches that might turn out to be legitimate votes for Kerry will outweigh the desire to investigate the legitimacy of the process. Why do I say this? Because I just spent Thanksgiving with 20 or so Bush supporters who flat out said they don't want to look too closely for that very reason. No urge to upset the apple cart no matter how rotten the wheels.

[Stephanie]

5. That would be your Law & Order Bush supporters?

Your Moral Values Bush supporters? Amazing how they tolerate lying and cheating when it favors them.

[jayctravis]

4. Why should they do any work?

Their guy got in and they're happy. Doesn't matter if there were errors skewed in Kerry's favor.

[Stephanie]

7. Why, just to shut us up!

They should find some pro-Kerry glitches just to prove us wrong and get us to stop spouting our crazy conspiracy theories about another stolen election. They must be so sick of hearing it. They really should just buckle down to work.

[blm]

6. I'm still waiting for ONE of them to answer this little question:

Would you trade George W. Bush for a president who READ the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror handed to him on Jan.30, 2001, and acted on its urgent proposals for national security?

[Old and In the Way]

9. Just listening to Hardball.

Tweety is now saying that Bush won on his ability to protect us. He specifically said that it was not the cultural/moral issues.

Yes, the guy who took 45% of his time on vacation before 9/11 including the entire month of August, shitcanned the Hart-Rudman report, didn't mention Al Qaeda once in a speech, disregarded the 8/6 Presidential Daily Briefing, disregarded Tenet's personal briefing, all leading up to the 9/11 attack where 3,000 Americans died....yes, this man is the best one to protect us.

I am convinced, more than ever, that this is yet another lie to cover the AWOL fraWd.

[Ardee]

8. Just received this from The Nation

Dear EmailNation Subscriber,

The emails keep pouring in with charges of election irregularities, and a number of Americans believe George W. Bush won the election because the voting was somehow rigged. But, as David Corn writes in Capital Games, though the voting system is shaky enough to warrant serious concern, a strong case that the election was stolen has yet to be made.

The General Accountability Office was right to agree to a request from
Representative John Conyers and four other Democratic House members that it investigate election irregularities in the 2004 election. But the evidence to date is that the election results were not rigged but were produced by a flawed system.

For more, read Capital Games:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2037

Now before anyone gets to flaming please understand that David Corn is on our side, so read first ,try to understand that this comes, not from a Freeper, but from a staunch progressive journalist.

[Carson]

10. Excellent article, Ardee. Thanks for posting it.

Quotes from article:

Exit polls that differ from reported vote counts are not necessarily proof of foul play, and statistical analyses that seem to raise questions need thorough vetting before they are waved about as signs of chicanery.
.....
A strong case that the election was stolen--either in Ohio or Florida--still has yet to be made. Statistical arguments are not convincing without concrete evidence (or widespread support among statistical experts). When reporters looked at actual ballots in Florida they found the armchair analysts were way off in their assumptions.
.....
Yet the voting system is shaky enough to warrant serious concern. The General Accountability Office was right to agree to a request from Representative John Conyers and four other Democratic House members that it investigate election irregularities in the 2004 election. According to these members of Congress, the GAO will examine the security and accuracy of voting technologies, distribution and allocation of voting machines, and the counting of provisional ballots. "All Americans, no matter how they voted, need to have confidence that when they cast their ballot, their voice is heard," the lawmakers said in a statement. Indeed. There are Bush critics who probably never will accept the November 2 results. And the systemic problems that do exist--secretive voting technologies, the opportunity for partisan hacks to engage in voter suppression--will allow these people to hang on to their worst fears and to continue to share look-at-this! emails with fellow believers (or nonbelievers). But the evidence to date is that the election results were not rigged but were produced by a flawed system.

[Ardee]

11. Sanity is seldom fun

While it is so very easy to give in to testosterone induced rants about foul play, until and unless there is concrete evidence of such our cause looks foolish to those we must convince to vote for our candidates and our agendas.