The real FRAUD was voter SUPRESSION!

[JohnnyCougar]

The focus on voter supression is probably better than the
focus on computer fraud.  We have concrete proof of minority
vote supression, and so far this story is getting less
attention than fraud.  We need to be talking about the 10 hour
waits that minorities suffered at the polls, Sproul &
Associates, and things of this nature.  Here is some info from
Daily Kos.

Originally posted by concernedamerican:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/71935/724

OHIO RECOUNT
STEALING VOTES IN COLUMBUS

The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing
story, later confirmed by the Columbus Dispatch.  

Diaries :: concernedamerican's diary ::

The Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of
Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld
voting machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in
Columbus, and dispersed some of the machines to affluent
suburbs in Franklin County.

Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin
County Republican Party.  Sources close to the Board of
Elections told the Free Press that Damschroder and Ohio’s
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met with President George
W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day.

The idea was to discourage turnout in Democratic wards by
forcing voters to wait in long lines at the polling places. 
Such a strategy would be far more effective than encouraging
turnout in Republican wards.

Elections are all about margins.  There are 74 wards in
Columbus.  George W. Bush won 12 wards, with a margin of
7.35%.  John F. Kerry won 62 wards, with a margin of 37.62%. 
Affecting Kerry’s turnout would greatly reduce his margin of
victory in Columbus, giving the Republicans a much better
chance of overtaking Kerry given a strong enough showing in
suburban and small town Republican strongholds.

COLUMBUS POPULAR VOTE (EXCLUDING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS)

Location      Kerry           Bush         Others
Kerry Wards  141520 68.40%   63693 30.78%  1704 0.82%
Bush Wards    36228 46.01%   42015 53.36%   496 0.63%
Grand Total  177748 62.22%  105708 37.01%  2200 0.77%

In order to investigate this matter, I obtained from the
Franklin County Board of Elections all the data I needed in
order to calculate, ward by ward, and precinct by precinct:
(1) The ratio of registered voters per voting machine. (2)
Percent turnout, calculated as total ballots cast divided by
the number of registered voters. (3) Percent for Kerry,
calculated as votes cast for Kerry divided by votes cast for
president. (4) Margin of victory or defeat for Kerry,
calculated as the difference between the vote totals for Kerry
and Bush.

The first thing I noticed was the distribution of turnout. 
There is a statistically significant difference between the
turnout in the Bush precincts and the turnout in the Kerry
precincts.

DISTRIBUTION OF TURNOUT

Percent    Bush       Kerry
Turnout  Precincts  Precincts

 > 60        68        57
55-60        32        55
50-55        17        73
45-50         7        78
40-45         1        49
< 40         0        34
Total       125       346

Median Bush Precinct:  60.56%
Median Kerry Precinct: 50.78%

Best Bush Precinct: Ward 57, Precinct F
Bush 64.97%  Kerry 34.82%  Margin 30.05%

Best Kerry Precinct:  Ward 17, Precinct D
Kerry 97.66%  Bush 1.98%  Margin 95.68%

Note: Ward 22, Precinct H was a tie.

As the above table shows, turnout was over 60% in 68 of 125
Bush precincts (54.4%), and over 50% in 117 of 125 Bush
precincts (93.6%).  By contrast, turnout was over 60% in only
57 of 346 Kerry precincts (16.5%), over 50% in only 185 of 346
Kerry precincts (53.5%), and under 40% in 34 of 346 Kerry
precincts (9.8%).

Was the uneven distribution of turnout due to a lack of
enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate?  Or was it due to an
uneven distribution of voting machines? To answer this
question, I arranged the data, ward by ward, according to the
ratio of registered voters per voting machine.

DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING MACHINES, TOP OF THE LIST

Ward      Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
          Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

WARD 19   261.2    67.99    63.33    + 1491
WARD 65   265.1    60.10    44.33    -  496
WARD 30   266.4    56.25    52.50    +  147
WARD 72   267.4    62.33    39.42    -  774
WARD 22   274.1    60.21    54.89    +  465
WARD 28   276.2    58.48    82.04    + 2371
WARD 63   278.7    56.10    47.37    -  242
WARD 48   278.9    52.84    82.37    + 1909
WARD 46   279.8    58.22    55.19    +  981
WARD 70   285.5    61.17    50.95    +   79
WARD 06   292.9    47.44    91.29    + 2494
WARD 21   293.9    57.92    58.45    +  719
WARD 34   295.8    55.85    65.05    + 1051
WARD 69   296.4    57.97    41.98    - 1030
WARD 60   296.7    55.97    44.27    -  478
WARD 66   300.0    53.01    52.32    +  203
WARD 05   302.9    46.24    94.34    + 1854
WARD 62   303.2    57.96    55.68    +  760
WARD 45   303.8    57.89    55.47    + 1208
WARD 47   304.8    52.85    73.83    + 1534
WARD 20   306.2    61.96    71.46    + 1077
WARD 53   307.2    53.66    55.01    +  499
WARD 15   308.4    51.88    60.71    +  291
WARD 27   308.4    53.06    68.63    + 1283
WARD 56   308.6    55.71    82.75    + 4065
WARD 52   308.7    53.68    68.52    + 1610
WARD 10   311.5    57.18    47.58    -  560
WARD 67   313.1    54.17    48.03    -  221
WARD 64   313.6    52.73    47.88    -  153
WARD 57   314.2    56.81    48.74    -  155
WARD 50   316.4    59.54    77.14    + 1447
WARD 58   317.6    55.04    49.82    +   41
WARD 07   318.1    44.24    94.21    + 2332
WARD 36   318.7    53.31    50.57    +   91
WARD 43   319.9    56.27    58.53    +  475
WARD 73   320.6    58.23    44.18    - 1032
WARD 71   322.2    53.93    47.58    -  307
WARD 74   322.8    55.02    46.19    -  339

As the above table shows, the 38 wards in which the number of
registered voters per voting machine was the lowest enjoyed
high voter turnout.  All but 3 of the 38 wards at the top of
Damschroder’s list had a turnout above 50%, and 6 of the 38
wards at the top of the list had a turnout above 60%.  All 12
of the Bush wards are included in the top of the list.  The 26
Kerry wards in the top of the list are not his biggest
strongholds.  In only 13 of the 26 wards did Kerry exceed his
city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 13 of 38
wards altogether. However, these Kerry wards did enjoy a high
voter turnout.  In 23 of the 26 wards, Kerry’s turnout
exceeded that of his median precinct, 50.78%. Turnout exceeded
55% in 14 Kerry wards, and exceeded 60% in 3 Kerry wards. 
Clearly, Kerry enjoyed a higher turnout where the polling
places had enough voting machines.  What about the bottom of
the list?

DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING MACHINES, BOTTOM OF THE LIST

Ward      Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
          Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

WARD 38   324.4    48.15    67.32    +  546
WARD 35   327.5    50.90    92.36    + 2104
WARD 17   330.6    48.67    93.12    + 2465
WARD 42   330.6    46.34    70.77    +  966
WARD 14   333.4    49.37    81.31    + 2068
WARD 13   338.6    44.91    93.36    + 1702
WARD 44   340.7    48.87    72.98    + 3212
WARD 18   342.4    55.15    76.84    + 2043
WARD 51   343.6    46.93    88.59    + 1857
WARD 61   345.6    49.28    62.35    +  594
WARD 68   347.3    44.61    75.43    +  950
WARD 04   348.6    37.69    91.75    + 1643
WARD 32   348.7    55.11    58.82    +  456
WARD 26   349.3    41.34    89.69    + 1692
WARD 33   350.1    52.64    69.19    + 1803
WARD 54   350.6    52.77    59.82    +  668
WARD 49   353.9    50.76    54.45    +  370
WARD 25   354.6    52.90    91.57    + 3872
WARD 24   356.9    48.99    68.47    +  991
WARD 37   356.9    44.37    58.99    +  441
WARD 02   357.1    52.56    69.94    + 1517
WARD 11   365.4    49.14    58.80    +  531
WARD 31   367.0    45.05    69.86    + 1000
WARD 29   369.2    45.65    61.09    +  417
WARD 16   369.5    44.61    75.98    + 1732
WARD 09   373.4    35.06    68.71    +  497
WARD 39   374.4    46.29    70.06    +  711
WARD 55   377.3    43.55    88.64    + 1644
WARD 59   381.2    48.32    54.16    +  288
WARD 08   381.8    41.52    68.99    +  974
WARD 40   381.8    42.41    78.15    + 1205
WARD 03   396.9    44.69    84.66    + 1728
WARD 41   400.5    40.22    65.95    + 1110
WARD 23   400.9    47.57    73.47    + 1252
WARD 01   407.1    44.37    68.50    +  744
WARD 12   423.9    41.81    86.47    + 1557

As the above table shows, the 36 wards in which the number of
registered voters per voting machine was the highest suffered
low voter turnout.  All but 8 of the 36 wards at the bottom of
Damschroder’s list had a turnout below 50%, and 2 of the 36
wards at the bottom of the list had a turnout below 40%.  All
36 of the wards at the bottom of the list were won by Kerry,
and they include most of his strongholds.  In 29 of the 36
wards, Kerry exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the
vote.  However, these wards suffered a low voter turnout.  In
only 7 of the 36 wards did Kerry’s turnout exceed that of his
median precinct, 50.78%.  Turnout was below 45% in 14 of the
36 wards, and was below 40% in 2 Kerry wards. Clearly, Kerry
suffered a lower turnout where the polling places did not have
enough voting machines.

A similar pattern is evident when examining the data for
individual precincts.  I have arranged the data in the same
manner as above, precinct by precinct, according to the ratio
of registered voters per voting machine.  The 61 precincts
with the lowest ratio of registered voters per voting machine
are shown below:

PRECINCTS WITH THE MOST VOTING MACHINES

Ward &    Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
Precinct  Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

60-G      166.0    65.06    40.99    -   56
22-H      176.3    63.52    49.23         0
63-I      180.0    53.52    52.10    +   14
28-G      185.7    57.99    76.34    +  170
69-G      190.0    53.16    48.33    -   10
63-E      192.3    62.05    43.75    -   41
52-H      192.7    52.08    70.76    +  133
70-C      199.5    63.73    50.47    +   12
67-K      212.7    64.58    42.16    -   61
65-G      213.8    61.57    40.15    -  153

46-F      215.7    65.84    39.71    -   85
30-C      216.7    66.00    50.95    +   10
65-D      219.3    65.65    44.08    -   50
33-H      221.7    52.48    78.03    +  195
72-D      228.0    67.21    38.30    -  136
46-I      228.2    64.68    54.96    +   76
69-D      228.6    64.48    47.81    -   29
28-E      229.0    69.98    88.23    +  488
21-E      231.0    68.57    58.93    +  142
19-D      232.0    66.55    58.87    +  142

64-D      235.3    58.50    47.33    -   20
46-A      235.7    61.53    48.85    -   10
71-A      236.3    67.14    42.19    -   69
10-E      238.6    67.73    36.63    -  211
56-C      239.3    63.51    74.67    +  224
57-D      240.0    67.33    43.50    -  102
19-G      241.0    68.36    58.66    +  117
21-F      242.0    66.63    57.98    +  105
57-H      242.3    63.82    50.22    +    6
15-B      242.5    62.47    54.62    +   68

34-E      242.7    63.32    59.04    +   90
60-F      242.8    64.37    37.18    -  155
10-H      244.0    64.07    49.46    -    2
66-F      244.3    66.85    46.42    -   32
57-K      245.0    68.42    46.31    -   75
18-D      246.7    67.97    71.49    +  217
72-A      247.0    64.68    40.13    -  122
18-E      247.3    62.89    75.84    +  308
65-H      247.3    50.27    54.86    +   40
48-D      247.5    56.67    83.70    +  380

14-D      249.7    56.88    79.48    +  252
19-C      250.0    72.00    59.55    +  139
70-E      250.0    51.11    65.83    +  167
46-B      250.8    58.13    51.94    +   27
60-D      251.5    63.62    45.02    -   61
45-I      251.6    52.31    56.31    +   85
64-H      252.8    54.70    52.28    +   26
48-E      253.0    58.50    62.33    +   78
73-E      253.1    60.78    49.67    -    1
06-E      254.0    50.49    94.43    +  453

70-D      255.3    66.41    50.30    +   11
66-D      255.6    55.79    48.52    -   18
69-C      255.8    54.50    36.10    -  186
42-C      256.0    61.98    57.14    +   74
46-L      256.0    66.54    57.84    +  162
10-P      256.5    65.30    35.33    -  190
47-F      257.7    50.84    76.96    +  211
45-H      259.8    60.59    44.03    -  183
19-B      261.0    70.11    60.80    +  164
52-B      261.5    62.43    62.21    +  159
69-I      261.5    68.36    37.80    -  169

As the table above shows, of the 61 precincts with the most
voting machines per registered voter, 26 were won by Bush, 34
were won by Kerry, and one was a tie.  Again, Bush enjoys
disproportional favoritism. Bush won 125 precincts and 26 of
them (20.80%) are represented here.  Kerry won 346 precincts,
only 34 (9.8%) are represented here, and they are not his
major strongholds.  In only 12 of the 34 Kerry precincts did
he exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which
makes 12 of 61 precincts altogether.  Most of these precincts
enjoyed high voter turnout.  In all 61 precincts, turnout was
above 50%.  In 42 of the 61 precincts, turnout was above that
of Bush’s median precinct, 60.56%.  Of these 42 precincts, 22
were won by Bush, and 20 were won by Kerry.  This proves once
and for all that the Kerry precincts could have enjoyed a
voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts, if only
they had been supplied with enough voting machines.

And what of the precincts with not enough voting machines? 
The 60 precincts with the highest ratio of registered voters
per voting machine are shown below:

PRECINCTS WITH THE FEWEST VOTING MACHINES

Ward &    Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
Precinct  Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

12-A      551.7    34.50    84.96    +  407
01-B      540.0    34.57    68.41    +  211
25-B      507.7    41.56    91.33    +  522
23-B      501.0    41.38    79.13    +  363
41-C      490.0    38.91    60.53    +  127
60-E      481.0    40.47    51.05    +   15
11-A      476.7    35.24    74.80    +  252
18-A      475.0    48.77    80.46    +  430
59-D      464.3    45.51    59.46    +  123
03-D      462.3    46.21    79.15    +  374

03-A      461.0    37.09    92.37    +  442
54-C      459.7    40.54    63.82    +  159
40-A      458.0    40.90    77.10    +  312
10-U      455.0    52.00    53.15    +   85
12-B      453.3    38.60    92.31    +  445
61-C      449.7    43.66    70.31    +  234
49-E      447.3    38.75    52.70    +   30
55-B      446.0    42.38    91.80    +  473
23-A      444.0    45.12    81.76    +  381
09-B      439.8    28.82    68.66    +  195

02-A      439.7    38.06    80.32    +  308
57-A      437.3    42.91    65.41    +  176
31-C      437.0    39.97    65.07    +  160
16-E      436.7    41.98    68.50    +  205
32-C      436.3    43.54    60.99    +  128
74-F      436.3    45.23    51.86    +   25
54-A      435.7    46.82    67.77    +  218
11-D      435.0    47.28    55.67    +   81
69-H      433.8    54.76    40.93    -  167
53-G      432.7    45.30    68.49    +  219

10-C      431.0    39.68    81.80    +  321
69-J      428.8    47.00    47.44    -   38
67-A      427.3    54.37    41.99    -  108
16-C      427.0    40.28    77.13    +  475
29-A      426.0    36.85    70.81    +  196
04-C      423.3    32.44    89.46    +  332
41-D      423.0    42.47    64.75    +  165
36-G      421.0    37.29    66.52    +  156
08-D      419.7    51.55    69.47    +  253
42-A      417.7    40.30    81.64    +  321

57-B      417.0    48.28    57.87    +   97
73-B      415.0    41.69    46.41    -   29
26-A      413.0    41.81    89.88    +  403
02-B      412.3    53.27    69.54    +  263
52-E      412.0    46.60    87.39    +  431
08-A      411.6    30.95    79.75    +  381
73-J      411.6    63.56    42.62    -  189
44-A      409.7    48.90    86.36    +  434
57-G      409.0    43.60    50.00    +    7
33-C      407.0    47.42    64.11    +  170

46-J      405.7    47.99    66.38    +  197
44-B      405.3    45.97    81.37    +  348
44-G      405.0    37.22    79.02    +  348
71-B      404.3    42.04    49.80    +    1
49-D      403.7    45.33    51.58    +   22
24-B      402.7    45.45    65.50    +  174
39-A      401.0    46.05    67.51    +  398
55-D      400.7    42.43    87.38    +  382
10-A      400.3    39.72    55.91    +   60
45-J      398.8    57.30    58.77    +  165

As the table above shows, of the 60 precincts with the fewest
voting machines per registered voter, only 5 were won by Bush,
and 55 were won by Kerry.  Again, Bush enjoys disproportional
favoritism.  Bush won 125 precincts, and only 5 of them
(4.00%) are represented here.  Kerry won 346 precincts, 55
(15.9%) are represented here, and they include his major
strongholds.  In 41 of the 55 Kerry precincts, he exceeded his
city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. None of these precincts
enjoyed high voter turnout. In only 7 of the precincts was
turnout was above 50%. Of these, 4 were won by Kerry, and 3
were won by Bush.  Turnout was below 45% in 34 precincts,
below 40% in 16 precincts, below 35% in 5 precincts, and below
30% in one precinct.

It is important to understand what these numbers mean.  The
polls in Ohio were open from 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M.  That is
13 hours, or 780 minutes.  If there are 400 registered voters
per voting machine, and turnout is 60%, each voter has less
than 3.5 minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream
of voters, with no rushes at certain hours.  It also assumes
no challenges to voters at the polls.  If there are 550
registered voters per voting machine, and the turnout is 60%,
each voter has 2.4 minutes.

All of this amounts to theft of votes.  It has been shown
above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a voter turnout similar
to that of the Bush precincts when supplied with enough voting
machines.

It is an easy matter to calculate, assuming the same vote
percentages for each ward, how many more votes John Kerry
would have gotten with a 60% voter turnout.  This is not an
unreasonable number.  The median Bush precinct enjoyed a
turnout of 60.56%. The turnout was 66.31% for Cincinnati, city
wide.

I am aware that because the Franklin County Board of Elections
did not purge its voter rolls, there are more registered
voters than adults listed as living in Franklin County by the
United States Census. There are many “registered” voters who
are dead or have moved away.  One might expect, therefore, a
lower percentage of voter turnout in Columbus than in
Cincinnati.  However, 60% of the voting age population is a
reasonable figure.  Presidential elections have surpassed this
figure four times in my lifetime: 1952 (61.6%), 1960 (62.8%),
1964 (61.9%), and 1968 (60.9%).  In 1992 the figure was 55.9%,
and the 2004 election was probably more hotly contested.
PROJECTED COLUMBUS RETURNS WITH 60% TURNOUT

Ward or   Percent  Kerry   With 60%  Gain or
Precinct  Turnout  Margin  Turnout     Loss

WARD 01   44.37    +  744   + 1006   +  262
WARD 02   52.56    + 1517   + 1732   +  215
WARD 03   44.69    + 1728   + 2320   +  592
WARD 04   37.69    + 1643   + 2616   +  973
WARD 05   46.24    + 1854   + 2406   +  552
WARD 06   47.44    + 2494   + 3154   +  660
WARD 07   44.24    + 2332   + 3163   +  831
WARD 08   41.52    +  974   + 1408   +  434
WARD 09   35.06    +  497   +  851   +  354
WARD 10   57.18    -  560   -  588   -   28
WARD 11   49.14    +  531   +  648   +  117
WARD 12   41.81    + 1557   + 2234   +  677
WARD 13   44.91    + 1702   + 2274   +  572
WARD 14   49.37    + 2068   + 2513   +  445
WARD 15   51.88    +  291   +  337   +   46
WARD 16   44.61    + 1732   + 2330   +  598
WARD 17   48.67    + 2465   + 3039   +  574
WARD 18   55.15    + 2043   + 2223   +  180
WARD 19   67.99    + 1491
WARD 20   61.96    + 1077
WARD 21   57.92    +  719   +  745   +   26
WARD 22   60.21    +  465
WARD 23   47.57    + 1252   + 1579   +  327
WARD 24   48.99    +  991   + 1214   +  223
WARD 25   52.90    + 3872   + 4392   +  520
WARD 26   41.34    + 1692   + 2456   +  764
WARD 27   53.06    + 1283   + 1451   +  168
WARD 28   58.48    + 2371   + 2433   +   62
WARD 29   45.65    +  417   +  548   +  131
WARD 30   56.25    +  147   +  157   +   10
WARD 31   45.05    + 1000   + 1332   +  332
WARD 32   55.11    +  456   +  496   +   40
WARD 33   52.64    + 1803   + 2055   +  252
WARD 34   55.85    + 1051   + 1129   +   78
WARD 35   50.90    + 2104   + 2480   +  376
WARD 36   53.31    +   91   +  102   +   11
WARD 37   44.37    +  441   +  596   +  155
WARD 38   48.15    +  546   +  680   +  134
WARD 39   46.29    +  711   +  922   +  211
WARD 40   42.41    + 1205   + 1705   +  500
WARD 41   40.22    + 1110   + 1656   +  546
WARD 42   46.34    +  966   + 1251   +  285
WARD 43   56.27    +  475   +  506   +   31
WARD 44   48.87    + 3212   + 3944   +  732
WARD 45   57.89    + 1208   + 1252   +   44
WARD 46   58.22    +  981   + 1011   +   30
WARD 47   52.85    + 1534   + 1742   +  208
WARD 48   52.84    + 1909   + 2168   +  259
WARD 49   50.76    +  370   +  437   +   67
WARD 50   59.54    + 1447   + 1458   +   11
WARD 51   46.93    + 1857   + 2374   +  517
WARD 52   53.68    + 1610   + 1800   +  190
WARD 53   53.66    +  499   +  558   +   59
WARD 54   52.77    +  668   +  760   +   92
WARD 55   43.55    + 1644   + 2265   +  621
WARD 56   55.71    + 4065   + 4378   +  313
WARD 57   56.81    -  155   -  164   -    9
WARD 58   55.04    +   41   +   45   +    4
WARD 59   48.32    +  288   +  358   +   70
WARD 60   55.97    -  478   -  512   -   34
WARD 61   49.28    +  594   +  723   +  129
WARD 62   57.96    +  760   +  787   +   27
WARD 63   56.10    -  242   -  259   -   17
WARD 64   52.73    -  153   -  174   -   21
WARD 65   60.10    -  496
WARD 66   53.01    +  203   +  230   +   27
WARD 67   54.17    -  221   -  245   -   24
WARD 68   44.61    +  950   + 1278   +  328
WARD 69   57.97    - 1030   - 1066   -   36
WARD 70   61.17    +   79
WARD 71   53.93    -  307   -  342   -   35
WARD 72   62.33    -  774
WARD 73   58.23    - 1032   - 1063   -   31
WARD 74   55.02    -  339   -  370   -   31

GRAND TOTAL                          +16788

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from
predominantly Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost
John Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes.  A more detailed
calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct basis, but
that is not necessary here.  The purpose is to illustrate the
magnitude of the conspiracy.

Matt Damschroder did not act alone.  There are 74 wards and
472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio.  It is not possible for one
person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is
unlikely that nobody else was involved in planning where to
deliver them. Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or
shortly before Election Day should be investigated for
possible complicity.

[pointsoflight]

1. Unfortunately suppression has been going on forever....

....and people seem to just accept it as something that's inevitable. I absolutely agree with you, though. America deserves better.

[oscar111]

3. "REVOTE, not recount" should be the chant everywhere

recount cannot gather all the votes cancelled by things like

l. FL cops blocked roads to two black polling places

2. too few machines, and too few polling places in democratic areas

3. fl state police visiting elderly black activists and questioning them about supposed terrorist case

[thereismore]

2. YES!

YES! That should be our focus. All courts are sensitive to voter suppression. It's a personal issue. It's an issue with a face - thousands of faces! We need affidavits, we need an endless stream of people testifying. Thanks Johnny for the info, especially for the numbers. We need to save the voting rights for the future, for our children.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi thereismore!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[skids]

4. Totally agree

I think computer fraud should be pursued, but Ohio vote suppression should definitely be the lead story we push for now. Well, I guess it doesn't matter what I think right now, because, glady, this story now has legs thanks to Jesse Jackson.

There is not only stronger evidence, there is a human element to the story that will get many more people's attention. Most people's eyes glaze over when you get too technical. But not too many people will be able to ignore it when you hand them compelling human stories like these:
http://www.theneighborhoodnetwork.org/Video/Vote/Vote.html

...lets see a freeper deny THAT to someone who has seen it.

And the freepress.org subsite is nice and respectable looking and doesn't clutter too many side-issues into the mix that might scare off those people who just want to look at this one issue and may not think of themselves as anti-Bush or anti-war or whatever.

[JohnnyCougar]

5. no offense to the people working on machine fraud

but this story plays much better in the media. Voter supression is still fraud, and we have proof, and is still doesn't get enough attention. KO should do a segment on these numbers. This story is credible, and there is proof. There is absolutely no way to debunk this, and it makes the Republicans look like assholes.

Why aren't we pushing this story again???

[MarkusQ]

16. I agree

It's clearly unconstitutional as well. So it isn't like some little game with state law (or even a "well, that's just how we do things here" from Blackwell) well settle it.

--MarkusQ

[mulethree]

19. This evidence is much stronger than the 'connally margin' stuff

that Jesse endorsed.

But here's a little de-bunkage :

People voted so strongly Kerry in those areas BECAUSE they stood in line for 6 hours. Clearly long lines cause people to vote against the establishment.

The machine fraud situation does need to be addressed, even if no
evidence is found, the situation of an undisclosed process being used for voting (proprietary programs) is indefensible. Even if you put aside the strong partisanship of the company owners, or that 2 of the 3 main vendors are brothers, or the felons involved or the lousy testing process or the shadiness of the only "Independent" test agents or ....

Comparing results in two different races is weak. You can't assume that people vote based on party registration or party lines. You have to account for stuff like the incumbent being a known sleezebag and the challenger being a perfect candidate.

The analysis using exit poll numbers should be strong, but the exit polls are doubtable because they won't release the details of them. Media companies should be raising hell and getting the raw data and the 'adjustments' publicized and scrutinized. We need to push a Sinclair type advertiser boycott or something to encourage the news networks to turn their investigators on Edison/Mitofsky and the polls.

The voter suppression/spoilage/registration evidence is strong and could affect as many or nearly as many votes as the exit polls indicate were stolen.

[JohnnyCougar]

20. It sure can

I have already began pushing this story in my e-mails.

Look at the graph I posted below when you get a chance, too.

As for those who say that this happens all the time, isn't it time we stood up to this? Don't say it won't happen again, say they won't get away with it this time. Call for civil disobedience, and refuse to accept the election results until there is a complete revote in Ohio with adequate machines in all presincts.

[mulethree]

22. Graphs

The graphs are good, but I like mine better :) Visuals like the
graphs can make it so much easier to SEE without having to look so hard.

Here's my graph and see the audio link from jmknapp that follows it. It's people grilling damschroder on this topic on a local radio show.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=92747&mesg_id=95126&page=

I've been sending these articles to people as well. If you show them the graph, then they say "WTF" and read the article. I wish this sort of data was available all over the country, precinct totals, number of machines in precinct, ideally totals for each machine.

[mountebank]

6. Kick! Excellent work. n/t

[JohnnyCougar]

7. thanks, but it's not mine

The OP is from Kos.

[Chili]

8. as I've been saying, Cuyahoga County had serious suppression

...too: http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm

The only thing we lack is the machine distribution list, like the one supplied by Franklin County. They don't DARE release that.

Or... if anybody has access to it, or can find it, PLEASE post the data.

[LittleClarkie]

9. We can't recount suppression, HOWEVER

it is very important to make folks aware of this too.

A certain level of suppression is par for the course. But this election went beyond the pale, especially in areas where that registration list company have been monkeying with the names on the list. When someone tells you that they've voted in the same place for 20 years, and suddenly their name is gone, that's just wrong. And when poorer precincts have fewer machines in 2004 than they did in 2000, when we KNEW there would be a huge turnout. That's just wrong.

It's an outrage, and a travasty. Videos collected, reports compiled, it will all be important. We need to push this with our elected officials as well as the media.

[JohnnyCougar]

10. but you can call for another election

As far fetched as that sounds, I think it's a totally justifiable request.

[lawladyprof]

12. Easier quicker and more narrowly tailored to the harm done to

Allow voters in precincts that had fewer machines (and guess what--9 times or better out of ten they are Democratic precincts) to "late vote" if they will swear under oath that they were at the precinct on election day but unable to vote because of long lines. Let's call it remedial revoting or voting restitution.

Just think how the Republicans would gnash their teeth as all those disenfranchised folks marched to the polls while their "guys" ("hey, you had enough voting machines") had to stand with their hands in their pockets. They would, of course, cry that people were lying. But you just stand back and say, "Are you accusing these good citizens who tried so hard in the rain and cold to do their civic duty on election day of being liars?"

[JohnnyCougar]

11. Graphs, graphs, graphs!!!

http://ustogether.org/election04/liddle/FranklinCountyReport.pdf

No one can deny this!!! Voter supression is the same as fraud!!!

[Pepper32]

15. I agree, Voter suppression is the same as fraud and...

...turning a blind eye to it, justifies this fraud.


At 7:05pm, 25 minutes before polls closed in Toledo, Ohio, white, Republican challengers were witnessed harrassing voters at the Mott Library Central City polling station, a low-income African-American community. Observers said that they believed these challengers had been repeatedly calling the police producing obsurd stories in order to intimidate voters. One of the Republican challengers was recongnized as Dennis Lange, a prominant white business owner who owns Pumpernickels. Mr. Lange aggressively tried to push back African-American community members who were poll-watching and voting at the site. At one point more than four police officers, including undercover officers, were witnessed at the site for no reason. <snip>
http://michiganimc.org/newswire/display/7580/index.php

[wiggs]

13. Another aspect of election fraud....

The basis of democracy is a well informed public.

There was fraudulent and dishonest portrayal by RNC and the media of their candidate, the issues, and the challenger.

It is illegal and fraudulent to advertise a product dishonestly. The public is kept from the truth, so how can an election decision be made effectively?

[Pepper32]

14. I completely agree.

Why this is not being pushed as a main issue is very disheartening. I do think we have enough evidence to go to court over this and win a revote or some other type of remedy.

This definitely needs to be seriously addressed. With no apathy.

[understandinglife]

17. Agree with you and thus the focus of the letter...

....I sent to Senator Kerry, yesterday, and these comments I posted earlier today in a different thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x97709#97813

Peace and thank you for posting explicitly this issue; had nominated this thread for the mainpage.



"I Declare The Election Invalid: Someone I do not know was prevented from voting"

[smartvoter]

18. I agree, but it's been lived with forever.

[JohnnyCougar]

24. So then when is a good time for it to stop?

Not 2006.

Not 2008.

Not tomorrow.

Not in a few minutes.

NOW!!!! The answer is Now. This election should not be certified. We need to revote, and keep revoting untill there is no minority vote supression.

[The Flaming Red Head]

21. It's both suppression and computer fraud

They are sneaky. They covered all their bases early. Both. I have no problem with it being both.

It just shows the working of the criminal minds of the republican elite. They're evil smart and that's why they didn't worry about covering their tracks because they're also arrogant fucks.

[MarkusQ]

28. I keep saying this but...

Remember Watergate. The "department of dirty tricks" was incredibly creative. Everything from having "scary looking" people handing out McGovern materials in Republican neighborhoods (to mobilize their base) to breaking and entering, illegal wire taps, voter intimidation, drugs, possibly murder...

And many of the people we are dealing with here did their internships in that election. You're darned right they are sneaky.

--MarkusQ

[The Flaming Red Head]

30. With the amount of fraud involved

you'd have to use more than one tactic with different strategies in different jurisdictions to account for different laws, precincts, election boards, sec. of states, etc.

[JohnnyCougar]

25. Let's get this data to Olbermann!

[e-mail]

I'll jump if I see that graph on TV!

[JohnnyCougar]

26. kick

In case the Bev Harris and Jeff Fisher stories don't hold up, lets start getting this story out.

[RaulVB]

27. Kick (Fraud is the topic, nothing else)

[skids]

29. kick and props to our road-warriors Saturday

[spooked]

31. Excellent!!

and terrible at the same time--for Democracy!