Remember: Whether or not machine fraud occurred, it was still stolen.

[lostnfound]

10 hour waits. TEN hour waits. Anything more than 30 minutes is election fraud, as far as I'm concerned, at least if it was more than a freak occurrence in one or two precincts.

TEN hours had to be PRE-PLANNED theft.

A woman waited for over 2 hours then left at 5:30 to pick up her kids and got back when the polls closed -- her provisional ballot was thrown out. Just one story likely multiplied 100,000 times across the country.

Pre-planned. Few machines, broken machines.

[senseandsensibility]

1. Good point!

And the Dems should be screaming about this daily!

[berniew1]

77. I don't understand statements like this; the vote machine fraud is proven

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

http://northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm

http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KaliTracy]

2. yes!

That was the whole reason I got involved in all of this in the first place -- my voting experience in a place Bush happened to rally right before the election to 50,000 (West Chester Ohio) -- was in-out, no wait, no nothing. At the end of the day -- no people hanging out in parking lot waiting their turn. I estimated at least 23 machines in a mile and a 1/2 strip.... for a suburb. That is *wrong* when people elsewhere are waiting hours to vote. I was told that since Mason, which is also heavy demographic republican had long lines, that it wasn't a partisan thing (that from the head of the Democratic party in Hamilton.) I wrote him back to say it didn't matter WHO had the long lines, the long lines were Not fair and equitable and therefore were Undemocratic.

My mom works in a hospital in Toledo -- for the first time in her over 30 years of working they didn't deliver the ballots until after 5:00 pm... (her hospital is also in a "republican" area...) what *really* was going on that day?

[serbach]

15. As Napoleon said...

..."Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence." All of this talk of premeditated, criminal, organized, White-House-approved vote fraud I think will turn out to be mostly overwhelmed voting precincts. I mean, after all, this was the largest turnout in American history.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[KaliTracy]

53. I think there needs to be systematic examination

of how many people per polling precinct were registered

how many people came to each polling place

how many machines were allocated per polling place

how many people voted on each machine.

I was told they estimate 1 machine per 100 voters. That is NOT what happened. Look at the numbers between 2000 and 2004.

Blackwell MERGED precincts in "anticipation" of e-voting, decided not to purchase the machines, and DIDN'T unmerge the precincts.... if it's *poor planning* only -- then the onus is ON him. In my opinion, it seems a little bit more than oversight to me. -- especially since most of these merged districts happened in urban/ largely democratic areas

http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi1/documents/04258174.asp

[serbach]

73. Nice post

Thank you. I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful message. I certainly haven't followed the recount issue as assiduously as you have. There certainly are questions that need to be answered. And thanks for the link.

My thinking on the low number of voting machines is that county budgets are tighter than ever. If, as was the case, voter registration sky-rockets, the budget probably wasn't there to order umpteen more machines on short notice.

I voted the week before Nov. 2nd at our City Hall. No lines. No worrying about squeezing in the time to vote on a particular day. I'd recommend absentee voting to everyone.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

83. Oh, please

there were voting machines sitting in a warehouse that were needed and deliberately NOT released. This was part of the Kenyon College student's testimony at the first Conyers hearing.

[terry4kerry]

3. "stepford media"

I just don't get it. Everyone I know is furious about election, yet you would never know. Our democracy is on the line! I don't understand why people are not protesting and making a bigger issue of it? Why is the MSM so busy covering the same stories over and over again? Have they just become so lazy, or have they resigned to the fact that their jobs and reputation is controlled by the big businesses that now regulate the media? Are they now the "stepford media?" What is happening is frightening and we need more than zombies covering our main sources of news.

[BeFree]

4. Constitutional

We have to pass an amendment to the constitution detailing the right to vote. The current conglomeration of voting practices has to end, and the voting process become similar across the fifty states.

The most serious punishment must be meted out to anyone attempting to deny anyone else their right to vote.

Kerry won.

[Mister Ed]

5. If this suppression of black voters had occurred in rural Mississippi....

The press would be all over it with blaring headlines and thundering, sanctimonious editorials. How can any responsible journalist ignore it? How can any responsible citizen ignore it? How can any Democrat worthy of the name ignore it?

[seito]

6. There is a conspiracy of silence

Read the Arnebeck lawsuit. The voter suppression was blatant and obvious and was a smokescreen. The biggest clue for me that the Dems have something up their sleeve is the relative silence about what happened in Ohio. Clearly thousands of citizens in Ohio and millions across the US had their right to vote denied to them by shameful acts of voter suppression and intimidation.

Where is the outrage?? Oh the backlash is coming. I have no doubt. The result will be the downfall of the Bush Family Evil Empire once and for all.

Keep the Faith and March on Jan 6th

No Retreat No Surrender

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gulogulo]

9. I am not a lawyer - but I asked three lawyers I know

every one of them said Arnebeck's suit is not serious. They said that hard proof, such as physical evidence of fraud or a confession by a fraudster, is the only thing that would give the suit a chance.

[eomer]

10. And how do you know

what evidence Arnebeck does or doesn't have?

[gulogulo]

13. I showed them the lawsuit PDF

that was disseminated here on DU.

[eomer]

20. Well then their comment doesn't make any sense

because the lawsuit pdf doesn't contain the evidence, it only contains the claims.

[gulogulo]

22. read the lawsuit yourself

http://www.baou.com/newswire/documents/pdf/Election_Contest_2.pdf

it certainly contains what Arnebeck considers to be the evidence.

[eomer]

25. Okay, let's be more specific.

From the lawsuit, items 94 and 95 are just claims. They do not attempt to provide the evidence to prove the claims, they just state the claims. Right?

The evidence backing up those claims will come later.

[gulogulo]

27. yes, 94 and 95 are claims -

and they are based on the rest of the evidence that is provided in the document. That includes the statistical analyses, some cites of voting machine errors, lack of voting machines, irregularities in the registration process etc. - a whole laundry list of election irregularities. The problem is, there is no doubt that some irregularities happened, but they by themselves expressly do not constitute hard proof of fraud.

[eomer]

31. Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

You're claiming that the lawsuit will fail due to lack of hard physical evidence. But the lawsuit is not yet at the stage where the hard physical evidence must be produced. We won't know what the hard physical evidence is until the discovery process is finished.

[gulogulo]

35. eomer - there are even no claims

that such physical evidence exists.

[RaulVB]

45. You are too busy trying to shut down the fraud argument...

Use your energy in something more productive!

[eomer]

49. Because attorneys always tip their hand on all the evidence

they've got before they even get past the very first step in the lawsuit, right?

[berniew1]

98. But this time the evidence is down to the precinct and machine level-EIRS

Thousands of EIRS reports document the systematic voter suppression, malfeasance by officials, and vote machine fraud down to the precinct and even machine level for this election. So there is no question about whether physical evidence exists. One only has to look.

http://www.voteprotect.org/
http://www.votersunite.org/
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

[berniew1]

99. In New Mexico the suppression alone may have swung the election, but in

Ohio it also required not counting the legal undervotes and considerable fraud- which is documented to have happened; plus some prevented from being documented by illegal impoundment of voter logs.

And in Florida it required voter suppression in selected ares plus massive vote machine fraud and lots of other things- all documented but not looked at.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[On the Road]

7. Absolutely --

There were easily tens of thousands of votes suppressed in Ohio, possibly even enough to swing the election all by themselves. The most frustrating thing is that like the butterfly ballots, no legal procedure can ever recover those votes.

And it's not only the long lines, but the provisional ballots which were thrown out. And the jumbled voting order. And the pregnant chads, which are not legal votes.

If you add those, the odds become much higher than more people went to the polls to vote for Kerry, regardless of whether voting machine fraud is ever discovered.

[serbach]

11. Cold water time

Look, all of these claims about enormously long waits at the polls miss one point: Republicans were in the same lines. Even the most heavily Democrat voting districts have some Republicans. They stood in the lines, too. Do you think that the poll workers were able to get the Republicans in faster?

One would have to ignore completely the possibility that Republican provisional ballots were thrown out with the Democrat provisionals.

Occam's Razor, my friend, cuts through the conspiracy theories.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[eomer]

12. So is it okay if we just throw out all the votes

in every county in the U.S. that had a Bush majority? After all, we'd be throwing out some Kerry votes too so that would be fair, right?

Give me a break.

[serbach]

18. Please...

...I understand that you're upset, but if your response was intended to refute a logical point, I think you missed the mark a bit.

If you are saying that the only votes thrown out were Kerry votes, I'd say you had a hell of a point. But is that the case? No.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[eomer]

28. No, I'm saying let's go ahead and throw out all the votes

in all counties where Bush got greater than 50%. Throw out all the Bush votes and all the Kerry votes in all those counties.

I'm just applying your exact logic to another example.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that if there was an intentional suppression of votes in a precinct that was 90% for Kerry and 10% for Bush that there's really no foul because both Kerry and Bush votes got thrown out.

Or did I misunderstand your point?

[serbach]

48. Just for argument's sake...

I said nothing about "intentional suppression of votes." I only called attention to what looked to me like an oversight; that is, if, indeed, provisional ballots were thrown out, we cannot deny that Bush provisionals would have been thrown out, too. Your reading of my point assumes too much. Whether a precinct was won by Kerry with an 80% margin or 1%, if provisional ballots were discarded or disallowed, that means that ballots for Kerry and for Bush were trashed together. There is no way that you could make a credible case that precincts won by Kerry with a large margin were systematically targeted before, during, and after election day for the discarding of provisional ballots.

It's still incumbent upon the suppressionists -- for lack of a better term -- to prove suppression. Not to repeat assertions, not to inflate the charge of fraud, not to make suggestions like yours; but to prove suppression and/or conspiracy.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Lerkfish]

44. Do some research...

long waits ONLY occurred in heavily democratic and black districts.
republican white districts had no wait times. Your logic presupposes an equality among districts that doesn't exist.

stick that in your Occam's razor.

[serbach]

50. All right...

...even if that's true, my point still stands. Even if a voting district was heavily Democratic, Republicans still voted there. The implication here is that only Democrats were "denied" the right to vote in those places where the lines were long and some people didn't get to the polls. I don't think that you can claim that. How would the poll workers know? Secret ballots and all that.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Lerkfish]

95. er...if you don't understand my point, go back to drinking the koolaid.

critical thinking is something republicans want to stamp out. You're doing....just fine.

[serbach]

105. I think you've read me wrongly

I'm not a Republican. I simply don't care for overheated charges about widespread and pervasive vote fraud. In any Presidential election one can dig up cases of long lines and voter confusion and creaky tabulating systems and election commission shennanigans. How is this situation different?

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

84. And how, pray tell

do you know how many Republicans were disenfranchised in these predominantly Democratic precincts, versus how many Democrats were disenfranchised in predominantly Republican districts? Not enough to cancel each other out, I'm afraid. The fact is that the long lines were ONLY IN PREDOMINANTLY DEMOCRATIC precincts, which Mr. Logic, would tell you logically that MORE DEMOCRATS than REPUBLICANS were thusly disenfranchised, would it not? One would not even have to know "how many ballots" of which party affiliation to conduct this suppression--the demographic data was well-known regarding who would be voting where.

[MellowOne]

16. The citizens of Ohio

who were deined their right to vote, who stood in lines for hours but did not get to vote, whose machines registered the wrong name, etc., should files lawsuits as well. Every citizen has the right to vote and have their vote counted. It's a consitutional right.

[serbach]

21. I don't have an argument...

...about that. I confess that I haven't followed the Ohio imbroglio too closely. I have a friend who's kept me up-to-date a little. I'm just curious about the numbers, here. If Democrats standing in line were "denied their right to vote," then I would be very surprised if there were no Republicans in those same lines.

I'm not sure what you mean by "whose machines registered the wrong name." Does that mean that some people that had valid voter registrations were denied the right to vote in their precinct because some computer list didn't have their names?

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[eomer]

32. The problem is that the long lines were all in precincts

that were heavily Democratic. They were either in predominantly black urban areas or liberal college areas.

[serbach]

52. It seems that you are asking me to believe...

...that whoever it was that engaged in or endorsed this alleged voter suppression was willing to risk that the Republican voters that were turned away might have meant the difference between victory and defeat for Bush. There is too much conspiracy talk here to be believed. That's why I'm using Occam's Razor.

I don't fault anyone for making the effort necessary to get a recount. And I don't deny that there is vote fraud going on all the time. It's just that it's hard for me to believe that now, this year, the Republicans had the right stars in alignment to simultaneously rig the voting machines, keep voting machines from being placed, cause long lines in heavily Democrat voting districts, turn away voters who were standing in line waiting to vote when the polls closed, and throw out only Democrat provisional ballots. Very hard, extremely hard to swallow.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

88. Well, swallow harder

because that is EXACTLY what happened, Steve Erbach, Neenah, WI

[KaliTracy]

55. in youngstown ohio people (more than one)

chose Kerry, and their machine registered Bush -- one of the poll workers said it had been happening "all day" (and that's just the people who complained about it).

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[roseBudd]

19. Actually we live in politically segregated neighborhoods

While there are some repugs in liberal urban areas, it is quite easy to target certain precincts for machine shorting as was done in Franklin County, OH. With 68 machines sitting in a warehouse. In fact targeting democratic precincts is as easy as targeting by race.

[serbach]

24. I have to wonder...

...about the process of assigning voting machines (of any sort) to a particular precinct. Again, I have to give this the Occam's Razor test. Was there a concerted, wide-spread, pervasive, and utterly secret effort to tamper with this election nationwide? Where are the people involved that want to come clean and step forward to proclaim the truth? Or are we to believe that every person that had to have been involved in a conspiracy of such proportions was so completely screened as a Bush loyalist that there won't be anyone spilling the beans?

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[roseBudd]

26. Do some research here on DU, I don't have time to rehash as I

am at work.

Hint:

Lorain County, Oberlin College (liberal arts: liberal students)
Greene County, Central State University (African American college)

[eomer]

33. Actually the simplest explanation for uneven allocation of machines

would be intentional suppression of votes.

Especially in a country that has such a horrific history of cleverly deniable techniques to prevent blacks from voting.

[gulogulo]

37. If I understand this correctly, the people who decide

how to distribute the voting machines, which machines to buy and how many for each county are the county BOEs - correct me if I am wrong.

In those heavily Democratic counties where the long lines occurred the BOEs are dominated by Democrats. Are you saying the Democrats in those counties engaged in intentional suppression of votes?

[eomer]

39. Matthew Damschroder, Franklin County Board of Elections director

not a Democrat.

[gulogulo]

41. The Franklin County Board of Elections Chair

(not director) is William A. Anthony, Jr., and he is definitely a Democrat.

[eomer]

46. But Matthew Damschroder is apparently the one

implicated in the uneven distribution.

[gulogulo]

51. According to William Anthony, who is both the

chair of Board of Elections of Franklin County and the chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party, the distribution of voting machines in Franklin County was controlled by a Democratic supervisor.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/27/20041127-B1-02.html

(since it needs subscription, here is the relevant part:)

"Anthony, chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party, said long lines weren’t caused by the allocation of machines — a process controlled by a Democratic supervisor, he added — but by higher turnout, the overall lack of voting machines and a ballot that included more than 100 choices for some voters."

...

Anthony said he is personally offended by the allegations.

"I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" he said. "I feel like they’re accusing me of suppressing the black vote. I’ve fought my whole life for people’s right to vote."

[serbach]

56. Thank you

As I said, I don't blame people for wanting to do a recount; but lets dispense with the overheated rationale for it. It simply makes Democrats look bad.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[serbach]

54. Intent

Oh, brother. How on earth can that be proven? It may be a comfort on which to hang one's hopes, but, really, it's too blithe an explanation. Sure there's vote fraud. There has been for decades and decades. But there's also been governmental incompetence. In my view that's a much more believable reason than purposeful, co-ordinated, collaborative, intentional suppression. How could it be kept quiet?

All this suppression talk just makes Democrats look bad. Hey! The Republicans merely have to invoke Richard Nixon's concession in 1960. I'm sorry, but that means a lot to people, regardless of how badly he turned out as President.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[RaulVB]

57. We are not going away!

Fraud took place, you are a minority here.

You are too busy trying to shut down the fraud argument and that makes you look silly, indeed.

If you want to live in your own little "artificial democracy", so be it!

We don't.

[serbach]

61. Artificial Democracy

Oh, I'm aware that I'm in the minority here. Second class citizen, I suppose. But isn't there some value in raising these questions so that you can answer them with some credibility? I mean, I'm not one to be drawn in by preaching to the choir. I'm sure that efforts to get a state-wide recount will go forward; but I'm not sanguine about the results of such a recount.

If a valid recount went forward and if Kerry still lost Ohio, would that stop the conspiracy theories? I'm afraid not.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[RaulVB]

62. "Second Class Citizen"?

No, you have lots of privileges. For example, you have made the choice of defending the notion of Bush's regime "winning" the last election "fair and square" by preventing hundreds of thousands of African American voters from participating in the process, among other minor "details."

Your support for Bush makes THEM to be "second class citizens."

[serbach]

65. Support Bush?

I'm sorry that I have given that impression. I simply do not subscribe to the notion that there was massive, co-ordinated vote fraud in Ohio.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[KaliTracy]

64. IF a valid recount.... but that's the problem

*poll books are being withheld -- counting number of valid voters to number of ballots is impossible to verify without access to poll books

*volunteers have not been able to access information that they have valid rights to get

*technicians come from out of the blue to service machines -- blackwell himself called this a period of canvessing, and ohio law is specific on procedures that have been broken

* 3% hand counts of the random precincts have had scores of votes for bush at one time, then for kerry at one time etc., which is suspect that the ballots hadn't been sorted prior to the recount

So... when is a recount VALID? When the numbers do what you want them to do, or when procedures are followed the way they are supposed to be?

[serbach]

66. Excellent question

But what's the answer? How can a recount be valid? If it can't then we're as much as saying that all voting is fraudulent.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

86. Bull

a recount is valid when the rules are fair and equal, and when they are followed, which in the case of Ohio, they were NOT.

[serbach]

107. Help me out here

OK. Is there a summary of the events in Ohio to-date that I could look up and study? I get bits and pieces from my own news reading and from the messages posted here, but it's awfully scattershot. Has someone made this a cause celebre and gathered all the available evidence and reports in one place? I would very much appreciate it if you could point me in that direction.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[gulogulo]

69. KaliTracy - I have been watching the recount and

* The poll books being withheld - according to Ohio law, there is no public access to poll books during the "canvassing period". Since recount is "canvassing", Blackwell, according to Ohio law, locked down poll books. I am sure he will make them available once the recount is done so these things can be verified.

* The technicians do not come out "from the blue". Once again, according to Ohio law, during the recount it is forbidden to count anything but the contested election. Thus, the counting machines have to be reprogrammed so that they count only the presidential votes and no other races. This is done by technicians of the respective companies coming out and recalibrating/reprogramming the machines. If you have a problem with that, you should address it to Ohio legislature, which is the one responsible for that law.

Your other points are valid, though. I was just struck by your wanting to "follow procedures the way they are supposed to", yet ignoring the Ohio laws relevant to recounts when you don't like what they imply.

[KaliTracy]

71. Ironic that

in the affidavit, at no time did the technician state that was what they were doing (fixing the machines so they only counted presidental votes) -- that is not the purpose that was stated to workers who were not expecting them.

And if it is Ohio law -- why are precincts making their own rules?

**This information was posted before the recount -- some things may have changed during the course of the recount** (Demopedia)http://www.democraticunderground.com/demopedia/index.php/Current_events

On December 11th, 2004 there was a training session in Franklin County for people that will observe the Ohio recount for the Cobb campaign. On December 12th there were two more session. Lynne Serpe, the campaign manager for the Cobb Presidential campaign, led the training session.The following is a list of information gathered, including ways the process has been obstructed. Some of this is old information.

Some Things that have occured during recount that warrant more investigation:
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/
**The date of the recount varies by county. Franklin county will be December 14th and 15th (if needed) and Hardin county 15th and 16th as two examples. Others will not start until the 19th. 4 counties have not set a date for the recount yet.

**Counties are more or less free to develop their own standards and procedures for the recount. A minor example of this is some counties are requesting a separate observer to view poll books, while others are allowing it to be one of the people observing the counting.

**There were over 500 volunteers in Franklin County alone! Over 800 out of state people have volunteered as well. This shows just how many people are concerned with this issue despite the lack of coverage in the mainstream media.

**Each candidate is entitled to one observer per counting team, and a separate observer to view the poll books (in some cases). In Franklin county this equates to 3 volunteers per candidate. The Kerry/Edwards campaign will be sending their own observers.

**The county's recount team must consist of equal numbers of Democrats and Republican. (note: these are the official counters, not the observers)

**The Green Party tried to expedite the recount procedure so that it would finish before December 13th. They were denied by a federal court since they had no chance of winning Ohio's electors (no 'irreparable harm'). This is a direct result of a 'right to vote' not being included in the Constitution of the United States. Because of this, only candidates can suffer irreparable harm. A disenfranchised voter that might have suffered irreparable harm is irrelevant under the law.

**The Green Party also challenged the fact that each county will be setting their own rules for the recount. The court ruled that , again, since there would be no irreparable harm to David Cobb that the different standards did not matter.

**Delaware County tried to claim they could not afford to do the recount. Best estimates were that it would cost the county $2200. However, Delaware surely spent more than that on the 6 attorneys they used in the court case. The Kerry/Edwards campaign helped out on this issue by filing a brief arguing that Delaware should not be able to get out of recounting. The court ruled against Delaware in this case.
Provisional ballots that have already been ruled invalid will not be available for inspection by observers.

**Some counties returned the checks they were sent for the recount back on November 19th. The reason is, under Ohio law, you cannot file for a recount until after the vote is certified. Other counties held on to the checks at the request of the Cobb campaign. Some of these latter counties pulled a nasty trick by returning their check on the day the vote was certified. The Cobb campaign thought they still had the check and then had to resend it once they found out otherwise. This has led to the staggered start dates and some counties not having a date set yet.

**Some counties use their poll books to update a database with information on which voters came to the polls. Due to this, the poll books that are being entered the day of the recount will not be available for observers.

**In each county, only enough precincts to equal 3% of the total ballots cast will be counted initially. These must be full precincts selected at random. If there is any discrepancy (even one vote) then the precincts must be recounted. If there is still a discrepancy then (and only then) the full county will be recounted. The full precinct rule is important. For example, lets say they need to count 100 votes to get to 3%. If they have selected 3 precincts with 40, 50 and 25 votes in them they need to count all 115 votes in this case. They can't 'cut off' the counting and leave out counting the provisionals from some county.

**Some counties have already selected the precincts they will count. It is unclear if they did so randomly.

**Some counties initially said that they were going to cut off the counting at the 3%. The Cobb campaign has pointed out that is in violation of Ohio law as noted above. If the counties do indeed cut off the counting, or it becomes clear they were not selected at random, this will be an instance where the observers will have to get the Cobb legal team involved.


See also http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0412/S00154.htm

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4815

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

[Carolab]

91. It would only serve to dispel them in Ohio

You need to have recounts wherever there is plausible doubt.

[mgr]

60. No, intent is beside the point.

It does not matter whether the allocation of voting machines was controlled by Democrats, Republicans, or Blue Moonies. If there is a disparity in treatment (intention or unintentional) between minorities and whites, you have a Civil Rights problem, intent does not need to be shown. One can be the greatest advocate of equal rights, but if you fail to promote women and minorities beneath you, guess what?

Mike

[serbach]

63. Allocation

Mike,

Not quite sure how to respond to the "civil rights problem." Again, that looks to me like bringing in a factor that is peripheral to the issue at hand: was there or was there not a massive, co-ordinated effort to subvert the election results in Ohio? I suppose that the Rev. Jackson could be counted on to juice up the civil rights angle; but to me it appears to be a sideshow. "Failing to promote" is a different issue from the chaos and incompetence of an election effort.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

89. A SIDESHOW?????

Read or watch the public testimonies. Then tell me it was a SIDESHOW.

[roseBudd]

70. It is white republicans who suppress, who challenge, who drop flyers

in black neighborhoods, who use telemarketing services to jam dem ride to the polls phone lines, who apply to have precincts in black neighborhoods closed (Pennsylvania) who register dems and then tear up their registrations (Nev, Ohio, Oregon)who tell blacks they will be arrested when they show up to vote if they have so much as a outstanding traffic ticket, who steal NAACP letterhead stationary and then mail letters to black neighborhoods telling them that dems vote on Nov. 3, who have men in dark suits, driving dark SUVs drive around black neighborhoods on election day.

And they are not going to whistleblow, because white republicans believe themselves to be superior to both African Americans and any white person who votes dem. To a republican the end justifies the means. There is a reason why white republicans live in segregated white neighborhoods.

[serbach]

72. Segregated white neighborhoods

All right. Then let me see if I understand what you're saying. In your mind, and many others here, the issue of suppression is settled, is that right? Now all that remains is to get the machinery of government to go along with a recount of all the ballots in Ohio, yes?

I can understand a belief in vote fraud, even voter suppression. The litany of complaints against white Republicans, however, won't play well with those whose support you're attempting to gain in Ohio state government. It's one thing, say, for Johnny Cochran to claim that a white police officer was so overcome by racial hatred that it affected his investigation of O. J. Simpson's murder. That's one guy and you can bring on witnesses for and against.

But to indict a whole class of people as being prone to voter suppression is an entirely different matter. Who are you going to charge? It would have to be an individual or a department or an organization. You can't charge all white Republicans with voter suppression; it has to be more specific if a case like you seem to want ever comes to trial. There most certainly will not be a ruling in favor of a recount if that's all the "evidence" you can muster.

As far as feeling superior, well, most of us like to believe that we have some traits that are more agreeable than those we see in others. But projecting your list of negatives onto a whole class...sounds like racism to me. It may feel good at the moment but how can it be taken seriously?

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

P.S., Yes, I'm white, but I ain't no Republican. Does that make me acceptable in your eyes?

[roseBudd]

97. No one claims that all white republicans are involved in or condone

suppression. I imagine many white republicans would be appalled if they knew the extent.

There are cases of provable suppression, the GOP financed firm, Sproul & Associates that tore up dem registrations in Nevada, and the GOP connected person who was just sentenced for jamming the phone lines of the dem ride to the polls phone number on election day.

Why this reprehensible activity does not get more attention is certainly a question that needs to be asked. Liberals tend to be aware of these stories and indeed the Washington Post did a story in Oct. about GOP minority suppression tactics. With "good christian conservative" republicans choosing to expose themselves to the Washington Times and Fox News, republicans can certainly avoid knowing about the dirty little secret of both uncounted and suppressed minority votes.

[Carolab]

85. Someone already has spilled the beans

Clinton Curtis testified about the vote switching program he wrote.

Furthermore, it was documented prior to the election in a very detailed article in the New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin that Ashcroft's "Voting Section"'s main intent was to allege fraud and thereby disenfranchise voters, through means that the Federalist Society members of the Voting Section had already implemented in Georgia in years previous. Furthermore, they attempted to mobilize THREE TIMES the number of "challengers" for just this purpose, which had to be challenged in court prior to the election. In addition, there is actual FOOTAGE of illegal intimidation of voters at polls, including "watchers" standing OVER voters, using cell phones to place calls while watching, etc. There is also documentation of voters being MISDIRECTED to the wrong polling places, the wrong tables and even being given the wrong DATE to vote. In addition, there have been whistleblowers that have signed affidavits about illegalities by boards of elections.

[serbach]

106. Clinton Curtis

Yes, I see that he is supposed to have written the program by the request of Tom Feeney of Florida. I also see that Curtis filed an affidavit to that effect. But that isn't testimony. Somebody is stretching a shaky point way too far here. I wouldn't want to stake my reputation on it. The majority of information I could find on this affidavit was on web logs, not in the broadcast or print media.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[mgr]

29. Say What?

What is it about references to the Bishop of Ockham that I don't understand? Aside from the occasional reference in a Batman comic, Ockham's razor, that the simplest explanation, (the most parsimonious) is the most apt. Parsimony best applies as a value in scientific explanation, not legal, since all hypotheses are provisional. Parsimony only implies that there are fewer steps in the argument open to logical refutation, not necessarily that a parsimonious argument is either consistent or valid. God made it so is a parsimonious argument, but that does not make it scientifically valid.

Trashing the votes of twenty democrats, along with one republican is Ockham's razor? How does this cut through the fraud. Your argument is more byzantine than medieval (pun intended), as it seems missing more than a few steps to make it cogent.

Pay attention to the back and forth between the BOE of Cuyahoga County and the SoS for of Ohio, there is something to this. If there is an issue at the County level, you need to compare predominantly African American districts to white; if it is on the state level, Democratic against Republican.

As to your earlier post, the BOE and SoS should have had an inkling of a higher turnout given the increase in voter registration, and both parties' GOTV. To ignore it, with the identification back in spring that Ohio was likely a battleground state, begs the imagination. The apparent lack of adequate preparation reeks of perfidy.

Mike

[serbach]

59. I appreciate your expansion...

...on Ockham's Razor and parsimony. As to the use of Ockham's/Occam's Razor in scientific explanation but not legal, I think you're narrowing the definition too much. Ockham himself was a philosopher. Logic applies to the law as well as to science. In this situation, though, we have neither science nor law. That is, we have a steaming controversy. Adding the element of intent to suppress votes is adding too much.

It seems to me that you're attributing far too much capability to Republicans in the area of discarding provisional ballots. You would need to ascribe to every Republican involved in the electoral process a complete devotion to fraud. That there would be no Republican who might think that these shennanigans go too far. That's what I'm referring to with Occam's Razor. This idea that the intent to defraud is so widespread and completely unified. It stretches credibility beyond the breaking point for me...and it makes Democrats look bad.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

92. There WAS intent to suppress votes

It was a DOCUMENTED scheme. You can read about it in Jeffrey Toobin's piece in the New Yorker.

Also, what do you not understand about failing to release voting machines stored in a warehouse to precincts that were experiencing long lines due to a shortage of machines being somehow DELIBERATE?

[gulogulo]

93. According to William Anthony, who is both the

chair of Board of Elections of Franklin County and the chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party, the distribution of voting machines in Franklin County was controlled by a Democratic supervisor.


http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2...

(since it needs subscription, here is the relevant part

"Anthony, chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party, said long lines weren’t caused by the allocation of machines — a process controlled by a Democratic supervisor, he added — but by higher turnout, the overall lack of voting machines and a ballot that included more than 100 choices for some voters."

...

Anthony said he is personally offended by the allegations.

"I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" he said. "I feel like they’re accusing me of suppressing the black vote. I’ve fought my whole life for people’s right to vote."
==========================================

Um - Carolab, do you discern INTENT here?

[MarkusQ]

30. What does that matter?

So Republicans were in the lines too...what in the heck does that matter? By that logic, it should be OK to rape people, as long as you rape people of both major parties?

The crime of voter suppression is still a crime, even if it's done to Republicans.

--MarkusQ

[serbach]

67. OK then

MarkusQ,

What I meant was that if provisional ballots were thrown out, then there had to have been Republican ballots thrown out as well. If people were left standing in line and were unable to vote, then there had to have been Republicans there, too.

It just sounds to me like the arguments presented here focus on the idea that the alleged vote fraud was widespread, co-ordinated, and extremely well-executed...and that it only affected Democrats.

My take on it is that the voting precincts were overwhelmed by the turnout and that the pre-election planning wasn't perfect. That's all. I think that that explains a lot of what happened. Talk of a "crime" is just talk until some specific charges are made in a criminal case and they are proven.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[MarkusQ]

82. Crimes vs. criminal charges

I disagree. A crime is a crime, even if no one is ever charged with it. To say that someone "wasn't murdered" just because no one was ever arrested for their murder is just silly.

And the bias you see arises not so much from the homogeneity of the victim class as from the supposition that, because the crime favoured the Republicans and we are presently "in power" it will not be prosecuted. While there are many examples of this sort of thing happening I, as a Republican who values integrity over party politics, hope that the cynics are wrong. At least at the grass-roots level, there are a lot of Republicans that care deeply about this issue, and I hope that the leaderships of both parties wake up and see this for what it is: the core issue facing our nation, transcending party politics since, without honest elections, there's absolutely no point to party politics.

--MarkusQ

[serbach]

108. Re: crimes

Markus,

You're right about crimes being crimes even if no one is ever charged. What I wanna know is this: how much of what I've been reading about are really crimes and how much is simply incompetence at overwhelmed voting precincts? You know yourself that a bureaucrat will stand on the letter of the law to avoid responsibility or to place blame. Voting commissioners are bureaucrats and politicians. Voting precinct workers are volunteers for the most part.

This talk of Clinton Curtis' affidavit is silly. That's not whistle blowing. It's fantasy. And I find it very hard to believe that predominantly Democratic voting precincts didn't have enough Democrats on their election commissions to avoid a shortage in voting machines.

I'm not being purposefully dense, here. There are so many examples of "fraud" and "suppression" and "disenfranchisement" and "racism" floating about that it's impossible to get a good clear view of what has happened. Do you know of any site that has gathered all the evidence and has made some attempt at evaluating the validity of it all? This is just too much.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI
Libertarian, not Republican

[Carolab]

90. You keep making this same, lame point

that some Republicans must have been in these long lines as well.

There were long lines ONLY IN PREDOMINANTLY DEMOCRATIC PRECINCTS.

There were machine shortages ONLY IN PREDOMINANTLY DEMOCRATIC PRECINCTS.

There were massive challenges and provisional balloting ONLY IN PREDOMINANTLY DEMOCRATIC PRECINCTS.

See any pattern here????????

[serbach]

104. But...

...are you saying that the majority of Democratic precincts had long lines; that there were machine shortages in the majority of Democratic precincts; that there were massive challeges and provisional balloting in the majority of Democratic precincts? Are you saying that those precincts that experienced those problems were so under the thumb of Republican operatives that the Dems were helpless before the election to, say, scare up a few more voting machines? Aren't election boards bi-partisan no matter what the makeup of the state government is?

By the way, I'm sorry for leaning on the "lame" point. I'm learning a lot here, but I'm still not convinced that there was a systematic, secret effort to defraud.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[lostnfound]

43. Here's the deal

If you can cut machine quantities in half in the precincts that are 70% Democrat, theoretically doubling the waiting time, you'll lose a lot of votes -- say 25%.

Two precincts of opposite leanings and equal size (say 1000 voters) would have washed each other out:
70-30 @50% and 30-70 @50% => 50-50

now become
70-30 @43% and 30-70 @57% => 47-53

Examples: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-30.htm
Werner Lange, a pastor from Youngstown, Ohio, who said in part:

“In precincts 1 A and 5 G, voting as Hillman Elementary School, which is a predominantly African American community, there were woefully insufficient number of voting machines in three precincts. I was told that the standard was to have one voting machine per 100 registered voters. Precinct A had 750 registered voters. Precinct G had 690. There should have been 14 voting machines at this site. There were only 6, three per precinct, less than 50 percent of the standard. This caused an enormous bottleneck among voters who had to wait a very, very long time to vote, many of them giving up in frustration and leaving. . . . I estimate, by the way, that an estimated loss of over 8,000 votes from the African American community in the City of Youngstown alone, with its 84 precincts, were lost due to insufficient voting machines, and that would translate to some 7,000 votes lost for John Kerry for President in Youngstown alone. . . .”

[serbach]

68. Interesting and unfortunate

All this revolves around whether someone purposefully "cut" the number of voting machines in these districts, doesn't it? There's the nub of the whole deal.

Thank you for the example. I truly have some more reading to do. I think I'll ask my friend who's been following this more closely than I have.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

[Carolab]

87. And likewise some Democrats were in SHORT lines

in predominantly Republican precincts. However, those Republican precincts did NOT experience the LONG lines that predominantly Democratic precincts did. Make sense to you?

[rman]

101. if a large majority is Dem, then it works out in favor of *

because delaying to the point of canceling will affect more Dems then Repubs, simply becuase there are more Dems in the line. Same thing with machines breaking down.

[nancyharris]

23. If you REALLY believe that

You might want to take the time to completely investigate WHO decides (1) how many and (2) what type of voting machine is distributed to a particular voting precinct in your state. Then next time you claim that an election was “stolen” you can actually name the person who “stole” it.

[eomer]

36. Actually, providing unequal access to the ballot

on the basis of race is illegal even if you can't prove that it was intentional. You don't have to prove who did it or how they did it or why they did it. You just have to prove that access was unequal based on race. The reason the law is written that way is because of the history in this country of clever tricks that were used to suppress votes based on race but where you couldn't prove intent.

[SouthernDem2004]

34. The title of this thread says it all.

It does not matter to some if fraud actually happened. They are completely unable to accept the fact that we lost. Odd form of denial actually.

Do you know why main stream Democrats and the media do not take you seriously? "Remember: Whether or not machine fraud occurred, it was still stolen." That is why... We all had to wait in lines. I had to wait several hours in line in southern Mississippi. At my polling place I would say only 1 in 10 probably voted Democrat and yet we all had to wait. This is not fraud, it is higher then expected turn out and a limited number of machines. If they had fewer machines in Democratic areas then in 2000 maybe you would have an argument but I have yet to see any evidence of that either.

[eomer]

38. There is definitely evidence that many of the precincts

that we're talking about had fewer machines than in 2000 and fewer machines than in the primaries.

Meanwhile Republican precincts nearby had more machines than in 2000 and more machines than in the primaries.

[SouthernDem2004]

42. What and where?

Where did this happen? Where is the evidence? When did it happen?

Making claims that are false is the worse thing that can be done.

[eomer]

47. Here you go:

In the Democratic stronghold of Columbus, 139 of the 472 precincts had at least one and up to five fewer machine than in the 2000 presidential election. Two of Upper Arlington’s 34 precincts lost at least one machine. In the 2004 presidential election, 29 percent of Columbus’ precincts, despite a massive increase in voter registration and turnout, had fewer machines than in 2000. In Upper Arlington, 6 percent had fewer machines in 2004 One of those precincts had a 25 percent decline in voter registration and the other had a 1 percent increase. Compare that to Columbus ward 1B, where voter registration went up 27 percent, but two machines were taken away in the 2004 election. Or look at 23B where voter registration went up 22 percent and they lost two machines since the 2000 election, causing an average of 207 votes to be cast on each of the remaining machines. In the year 2000, only 97 votes were cast per machine in the precinct. Thus, in four years, the ward went from optimum usage to system failure.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/111704Fitrakis/111704fitrakis.html

[KaliTracy]

58. And Another -- Blackwell Merged Precincts

http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi1/documents/04258174.asp

[lostnfound]

79. My thread was intended as a reminder to those who have followed it closely

Which most DUers have, at least those who visit the 2004 election results section.

After listening to a couple of hours of witnesses at the Conyers forum, as well as numerous reports on FSRN and other Pacifica news shows, and having followed the many stories of disenfranchisement in the days leading up to the election and days thereafter, it is obvious that voter suppression was a key factor in this election.

My thread was not intended as proof to someone who isn't familiar with these many reports. When I have written to the media on any election-related subject, I have included specific facts and analysis.

For those of us who have spent some time buried in the details of analysis looking for potential ELECTRONIC fraud, it is easy to focus on the machines while overlooking the more traditional signs of a stolen election. My thread was a reminder to 'coworkers' on the election forum, not an introduction intended to convince skeptics.

As a matter of fact, I did hear a couple of reports of precincts which had fewer machines than in 2000.

[rman]

103. Your spin is not very convincing

The point is that each of machine fraud and voter suppression on its own was probably enough for Bush to get a fraudulent victory.
So if either one can be proven then fraud is proven, and some heads should roll, figurativly speaking.

[proudbluestater]

40. Follow the link to congress.org and ask your reps to stand up against this

One click sends this letter to your congressional reps. It asks for them to stand up and speak up before the electors arrive on the 6th. It specifically addresses the disenfranchisement of voters due to long lines.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=6763491&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Ask Members of the Senate and House to Declare Their Intent to Object to Tainted Electors on January 6th, 2005
Urge members of Congress to put election officials on notice BEFORE January 6th, 2005. Visit ** http://thedeanpeople.org ** for details


Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you? Will you uphold the objection to electors from a state where this is the documented reality, or become complicit with the perpetrators of this condition?

I am writing to ask you to take action TODAY.

Put election officials on notice by declaring your intent to object to tainted Presidential electors. Join with other members of the Senate and House and publicly endorse the following “Declaration of Intent” or make an equivalent public statement.

Speak out NOW to give election officials time to take the steps necessary to assure us that their election truly reflects the will of the citizens of their state BEFORE January 6th.

----------------------------
Declaration of Intent
----------------------------

As a Member of Congress it is my sworn duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Being mindful of that oath, I believe that the single moral tenet on which that document, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

Consequently, the right of the People to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections for their government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

I choose to make this declaration at this time because it has now become clear to me that several states have, to this point in time, failed to fully provide for what would generally be regarded as a free and fair election for their citizens. And consequently, they have generated an insufficient level of confidence in their official result.

There can be no arbitrary point in time -- whether it be a date scheduled for appointing electors, electoral voting, or electoral vote counting -- that can limit the right of the People to have their consent justly measured and expressed. An election is a survey not a contest.

With these principles in mind I would urge the duly authorized election officials in each and every state to make every effort -- whether it be ballot recounting, independent auditing, reopening voting, or even judicially-sanctioned statistical adjustment of results -- to assure that their election truly reflects the will of the citizens of their state.

I wish to recognize that efforts are ongoing in some states -- by candidates, election officials, the news media, and citizens groups, through recounts and other means -- to clarify and adjust the official results in order to increase the level of public confidence. These efforts are necessary, however, they cannot be sufficient.

This is true because by far the most disturbing circumstances that have occurred in this election are the confirmed cases of disparate treatment being afforded to certain classes of voters. If systemic barriers to exercising the franchise existed that correlate to a citizen's age, race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, military status, partisan status, absentee status, immigration status, or other identifiable characteristic, the election was neither free and fair, nor lawful in the absence of any corrective remedy being applied.

Therefore, in keeping with my oath of office, I publicly declare my intention to act on January 6th 2005 and object to any presidential electors that I believe to have been unlawfully appointed. To do less would make me complicit with a violation of our shared democratic principles.

[lonestarnot]

75. letters d.o.n.e. Done

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

74. Damn straight it was stolen!

[KoKo]

76. Voter "Disenfranchisemen"t is what our Dem Leadership doesn't want to

deal with....and that's what "Selection 2000" will ...in the end...come down to. It's too late (maybe) to prove BBV/Opti-Scan Fraud (although for 4 years folks here and elsewhere have been "ONTO IT.")

In the end...I understand why Conyers/Jesse, etc. have been in Ohio...all we can hope to get out of this is "DEMOCRATIC" Voter Disenfranchisement.

Which is why Arnebeck's lawsuit was delayed. We don't have a "Legal Leg" to stand on in this "He said/She Said/He said" fight, except that all over America ..REAL VOTERS were DISENFRANCHISED" with either "Provisional Ballots cast in wrong place, Long Lines which caused folks with real jobs to be turned away, or ballots lost, misplaced or thrown out.

Anyway one cuts it...Voter Disenfranchisement is the "LAWSUIT." And, in the end whichever machine you are "disenfranchised on" doesn't matter...it's that it happened at all. The "Machines" still prove to be "UnTouchable" in that the companies refuse to release their "CODE" and that very few average Americans understand what's wrong with Computerized voting...since for the most part their "e-mails" get through...inspite of the "Urban Legend Virus Alerts" that turn the "Newbies off."

:shrug:

[berniew1]

78. Are there some that don't agree that vote machine fraud has been proven?

http://northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm

http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html

[gulogulo]

81. Proven to your satisfaction? Obviously yes.

Proven to the satisfaction of any court in the land - or even to the satisfaction of any one court? No results yet.

[Shalom]

94. Whether of not their was voter suppression, election was stolen !

Since George Walker Bushitler, the favorite son of the flesh-eating virus know to pathologists as the BushDynasty, stole the 2000 election, then let 9/11 happen to be able to strut his mangy ass before America, and pretend to be a man and a hero, and then lied thru his Bush ass to start a genocidal war in Iraq, compounded by the forcible rape, sodomy, and torture of innocents, why should we even debate about whether he "stole" the 2004 election ?

This dirty fascist and his Nazi forebears don't even deserve to live in this country, much less run for office, forcing us to waste our time and energry expelling this virulent disease from our country.

[gulogulo]

100. sure, why not go all the way

"Whether or not the election was stolen, the election was stolen!"

How's that?

[rman]

102. "not debating" is not our style

we prefer to think before we act.

[tngledwebb]

96. That is one of the ways they used.

Cost effective, traditional,etc. But mostly they utilized much more sophisticated methods to ensure nothing was left to chance. Even with a four year head-start and two successful trial runs they knew they would need that 2 million plus 'mandate'.

Most frightening is how they obtained MSM complicity- this time, two years ago, on 9/11, in 2000, and before. Find an answer to that, and we might get our democracy back before our children retire.