Below I posted a diary that you can find in the "Daily KOS" site (link included).
The poster makes a very interesting case and the comments are also very self-explanatory.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/19/233024/42----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cuyahoga County results:
BADNARIK/CAMPAGNA 1886 0.28%
BUSH/CHENEY 221606 32.89%
KERRY/EDWARDS 448486 66.57%
PEROUTKA/BALDWIN 1751 0.26%
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that somebody decided to create a little bug in the Cuyahoga County central tabulator. It would take every tenth vote for Kerry and count it as a vote for Bush.
If that happened then the 448,486 votes we see as counting for Kerry represent only 90% of the votes he actually had cast for him. Another 44,848 votes were stolen and added to Bush's total.
The real numbers would be: Kerry 493334 and Bush 176758.
Instead of a 66-33 split we would see 73-26. Now Al Gore got 62-33 over Bush in 2000 in Cuyahoga County, so I don't see Kerry's 67% as an indication of fraud. This is a thought experiment."
(snip)
"In this scenario, a single line of code would be responsible for adding 89,696 votes for Bush.
And yet, all we see is a 67-33 split that looks a lot like Gore's 62-33 split. Nothing to look at.
Now, a hand recount of any Cuyahoga precincts should show that it occurred, if it did.
As long as there are physical ballots to count we will be able to fix any hanky panky that went on.
That is why it is so important to challenge this election, not just in Ohio, but in New Hampshire, and elsewhere.
However, any place that used electronic voting with no paper trail is beyond repair."
(snip)
And that gets to what the real problem is with a wait and see attitude on voter fraud.
We have accepted the result of this election. We saw a 3 million popular vote margin and we lost our nerve. We assumed that such a margin meant that the people wanted Bush and had rejected Kerry. But the truth is that no one knows whether the vote was hacked, whether it was small localized hacks or large hacks in a variety of locations.
And if the vote was not hacked then we have to ask another important question. Why not?
It wasn't the security that prevented it. It wasn't a lack of opportunity, or a lack of motivation. Why would such a vulnerable voting system, with so much at stake, NOT be hacked?
When this election came out in the near reverse of polling and expectations we had an indication that something might have been wrong with the integrity of the vote. And because of the lack of traceability and trackability of the vote, we were left with few ways of investigating.
That is the fact that motivates me more than any other. The lack of recourse."
(snip)
"By spending our time trying to decide why Kerry lost, who should be the next DNC chair, and how to sweep homosexuals under the rug (or not), we lost the opportunity to question the integrity of the vote.
We should have said "I don't believe Kerry lost, I definitely don't believe he lost by this much, and I want to look at the tabulators, I want to lockdown these machines."
The reason we should have done this is because without rejecting the process of this election it will not be fixed.
Two years from now we will have Congressional elections with no paper trails, on unsecured tabulators, with partisan election boards.
We will complain about voter suppression and maybe even make significant improvements on registration and the equitable distribution of voting machines. But we will not have restored confidence in the actual counting of the vote.
Only by screaming foul and rejecting the integrity of the vote from the outset would we have been able to get action."
(snip)
"...And I believe that if we look in the right places we will find hacking."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* some comments of my own now, I find highly interesting that the tabulation of votes for Bush in Cuyahoga gives him again a "33%" of the vote in the county. Matches the 2000 results by the dot.
Is that accurate, did he "get" a 33% in 2000?
So, it was "assumed" that a 33% would not look strange to the Democratic observers. They saw it in 2000.
* At a national level, I have to repeat that Kerry's totals were blocked once he reached a 48% of the vote. Bush's "totals" put the Republicans at a 51% of the national vote.
They claim that this was "achieved" by the rural Christian voters. Well, hard to believe because what happens is that Nader's votes went to somebody and they "claim" that wasn't Kerry. So, 2 miilions of leftist voters either decided not to vote or went for Bush!
Bush "also gained Gore voters", because Lieberman "was not on the ticket..." or that is the fairy tale that some, even here, want to tell.
* For the sake of the argument, if Naders's voters watched the elections on TV and did not participate, Kerry only gains 5 + millions of "new voters" and Bush "gains" 11 millions.
In percentages (over a universe of 16 millions of new voters), that would mean this:
Bush : slightly under 70%!!! (respect to 2000)
Kerry : slightly over 30%!!! (respect to 2000)
I guess the final conclusion at least for me is that they executed the fraud based in 3 important elements of a very detailed previous analysis:
1. They counted with the MSM giving aid to the plot.
2. They counted with the DNC candidate accepting the results.
3. They counted with a minimal and unorganised response to the fraud and a very vocal current of internal opposition and obstruction within the democratic base against those able to detect the fraud.
I have to say that looks like they were right on the 3 assumptions...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
