SC primary - - In 25 precincts, Greene received more votes than were actually cast

[Ellipsis]

Axelrod said: "The whole thing is odd. I don't really know how to explain it and I don't think anybody else does either. ... How won the primary is a big mystery, and until you resolve that I don't think he can claim to be a strong, credible candidate."

But many political observers are becoming convinced that they do know how Greene won: A combination of faulty voting machines and foul play by political opponents
Greene handily defeated opponent Vic Rawls in Tuesday's primary, winning with 59 percent of the vote to Rawls' 41 percent, despite not having run any sort of visible campaign, not having set up a campaign Web site, and being unemployed. And it quickly emerged that Greene is facing a felony obscenity charge over an incident in which he allegedly showed a college student obscene photos from the Internet.

So how to explain the unlikely election result? One theory, propagated by BradBlog's Brad Friedman, is that Greene was the beneficiary of phony voting-machine results. In 25 precincts, Greene received more votes than were actually cast; and while Rawls won absentee ballots by a whopping 84-to-16 percentage point margin, the election-day results showed Greene winning by 18 percentage points.


more...

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0613/dems-convinced-voter-fraud-sc-primaries/






.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Easy to explain. It's called FRAUD. and it is a CRIME.

[Salviati]

4. Indeed. IMO electrion fraud should be treated as seriously as treason.

Because, in effect, that's exactly what it is.

[breadandwine]

35. Don't worry. Our wimpy DLC White House will do EXACTLY NOTHING about this.

And it has another name too:

It's called:

FASCISM.



These rigged elections are only a continuation of Watergate, that's all. But why bring up an unpleasant subject when we're busy being corporatist and DLC and palsy walsy with the Republicans. Obama's lizard blooded corporatist consultants might get mad. Better to hide in the closet than admit how bad things are. By the way, the 2008 election was ALSO rigged ---Obama should have won several states by a lot more votes than he got. The exit polls were way out of line with the final vote. Yet President Obama said nice things in his acceptance speech about a lady touching a screen. He is totally out to lunch on electronic voting and STILL DOESN'T GET IT. He's a DLC wimp and we are going to lose the House and Senate in the Fall because of this suck-up-to-the-GOP crap.

[Archae]

2. Something really stinks in SC...

And it's not from a pig farm.

[nc4bo]

6. And if SC's election reeks, just imagine how it is throughout the US.

Including presidential elections.

I hope the spotlight remains on SC's election results. The more eyes that see this, the better.

We need real election reform. I thought 2008 would have been the beginning of a real change, guess not.

[Oceansaway]

3. K&R...n/t

[sam sarrha]

5. Greene is so scared shitless to say anything .. something stinks

[sam sarrha]

7. hey... i smell a Medal of Freedom.!!

[patrice]

8. Mr. Greene, come clean!!! Who owns you?

[philly_bob]

10. Mr. Greene, you would be an American hero if you came clean.

Plus, the folks who are using you couldn't touch you ... it would be too obvious.

[patrice]

17. 100+

[Ellipsis]

9. Earlier DU post by Emit--- Curiouser and Curiouser! Alvin Greene Received More Votes then cast.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8548554

[Ellipsis]

11. In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got equal the total cast.

Earlier post by DU's Perky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x335293



“In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast,” Ludwig said.

Greene also racked up a 75 percent or greater margin in one-seventh of all precincts statewide, a mark that Ludwig notes is even difficult for an incumbent to reach.

“This may add up to nothing. This all could be a clerical error. We don’t know, but thought it was worth looking into,” said Ludwig, who added that the experts doing the unpaid research asked that their names not be revealed until they disclose their conclusions.

[jmowreader]

24. 75 percent? We're talking about a Republican in Idaho, right?

You're talking numbers NO ONE gets outside of Idaho, and the only reason Republicans get them here is Democrats don't file for election.

I have another question: did anyone vote for the Republicans in the primary?

Some Democrats do the same thing--vote for the Republican deemed easiest to beat in the general. The difference between us and them is, when Democrats do it the candidate we go with is at least slightly credible as an official. This poor bastard, he's like someone who registered to run because he wanted to see his name in the paper.

[Ellipsis]

26. South Carolina does have an open Primary. n/t

[jmowreader]

31. Here's what I'm thinking...

In addition to the obviously stuffed ballot box machines, it looks like about 90 percent of the GOP voters in South Carolina voted for this man who most certainly couldn't win the election if his life depended on it. And with the revelation that he paid his filing fee with a starter check, he may actually, if unwittingly, be part of the scheme: people who said they were Democrats even though they're not decided to recruit a homeless veteran to run for Senate.

[Ellipsis]

33. 24% turn out with close to 500,000 registered pubs and only 200,000 dems.

A dirty tricks crossover vote seems possible.

[Ellipsis]

12. BRADBLOG's - - direct link

Today, however, we're delighted to see that actual mainstream media are beginning to note the disparities in the patterns of absentee paper-ballot voting versus the polling place results as cast and recorded on ES&S's 100% faith-based voting machines --- the very same machines which have been decertified in state after state, based on repeated scientific reports on their multiple vulnerabilities.

The disparities being found by "three different teams" of unnamed "national academic experts," in their early comparisons between result patterns in the Election Day DRE-tallied "ballots" and the optically-scanned absentee paper ballots are already startling, and raising serious red flags suggesting electronic vote tampering...even as reported in the corporate mainstream media today.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890









.

[gmoney]

13. "showed a college student obscene photos from the Internet"

How is that a felony? Is this some Doogie Howser 16-year-old college freshman?

It may not be terribly admirable, and if he was on faculty (which it doesn't sound like he is) it could be grounds for dismissal, but a felony?

[LisaL]

14. On faculty? Are you kidding? He is unemployed.

[gmoney]

16. I know he's unemployed, but the charges could be from a while ago

After all, if he was on staff, charged with a felony incident involving a student, I'm guessing he would be fired.

Still trying to figure out what the felony is about... hell it's legal to MAKE obscene images with college students to put on the internet, provided they're 18 and sign the proper release paperwork, etc.

[LisaL]

18. He was not on staff or facultiy. Jeez.

He recently got discharged from the Army (involuntarily). I assure you he didn't work as a faculty or even staff on the college campus.

[gmoney]

21. Excuse me. I just can't find anything about this online.

I'm not trying to excuse him, just trying to understand WTF it's all about. If he had dropped his pants in front of her, I'm not sure that would constitute a felony.

It's clear you think the guy is scum. I'm just trying to understand the facts instead of all the inflated hype.

[LisaL]

22. He is accused of going to a computer lab on a college campus

and then showing pornography to a college student.
He did not work on this college campus in any capacity.

[Laelth]

28. But, as far as I know, that isn't a felony ... not in Georgia, at least. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[blogslut]

29. Here is one article about the incident

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/alvin-greene-felony-charge-camille-mccoy

As for the charges, obscenity law is a guilty-until-proven-innocent ordeal. In my circumstance, if my local sheriff or county prosecutor found out I work for an adult Internet company, they can arrest me on obscenity charges. It is then up to a jury to decide whether or not what I do for a living is obscene, according to community standards. The rule "You might beat the rap but can you beat the ride?" applies.

The fact that Mr. Greene allegedly showed a student pornography on a college campus - when he had already been forbidden to be in that computer lab, undoubtedly played a part in his arrest. I'm pretty sure most colleges forbid pornographic material to fly across their networks. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but when the person gets caught, they get in trouble.

[LisaL]

34. And according to your link, it's on video?

[blogslut]

36. ...

Do you mean that there's a video of Greene in the college library? I believe the article states that, yes, he was seen on surveillance video. As for whether or not the surveillance cameras were directed on his computer screen, no, I doubt that. I would imagine the tape places him at the scene, which is probably enough evidence to warrant charges.

Look, I'm not saying the case against Greene is fair. That is up to a jury to decide. If he has a decent lawyer then I would hope that he or she challenges the charge on the basis of proving obscenity according to community standards. After all, that is the official charge: http://www4.rcgov.us/publicindex/PICaseDetails.aspx?County=40+&Casenum=I881105&CourtType=L&CaseType=Criminal&CourtAgency=40120&LastName=Greene&FirstName=Alvin">Disseminating, Procurring or Promoting Obsenity

I'm going to guess that the young woman (more likely her mother) wanted him charged with something/anything and promised to raise holy hell if he wasn't. I'm also going to guess that the authorities couldn't charge him with being a scary black man with shitty, creepy social skills so they went with something that is technically illegal in the state of http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.htm">South Carolina:

SECTION 16-15-250. Communicating obscene messages to other persons without consent.

It is unlawful for a person to anonymously write, print, telephone, transmit a digital electronic file, or by other manner or means communicate, send, or deliver to another person within this State, without that person's consent, any obscene, profane, indecent, vulgar, suggestive, or immoral message.

A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

As for the matter of the felony-level offense, there is a vaguely-worded statute in TITLE 18 of US code that refers to "transferring" obscene material: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001466----000-.html

Once again, this is the insidious nature of obscenity law. Anyone can be brought up on charges and then it is up to a jury to determine whether or not the content in question is obscene by community standards.

[nickinSTL]

19. my understanding is that she was 19

I was a little confused as to how it constituted a felony, myself - but I haven't really read much about it, so I might be missing something.

[LisaL]

20. Maybe the fact that it was unsolicited and unwanted had

something to do with the charge.

[Ellipsis]

15. South Carlonia State Election Commission - Official Results Link

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/16117/27900/en/md.html?cid=55



Spartanburg County - fourth county in from the left, at the top... map is interactive.



.

[EFerrari]

23. LOL

Geeze, I wonder if this is what it takes for SC (or any of us) to do something about those machines.

[Ellipsis]

25. 'Tis rather indicative...

:hi:

[rucky]

27. Nope. It would take a Republican primary to get botched as bad as this one.

for people to take notice

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. fact check

According to Raw Story:

In 25 precincts, Greene received more votes than were actually cast; and while Rawls won absentee ballots by a whopping 84-to-16 percentage point margin, the election-day results showed Greene winning by 18 percentage points.

(1) Rawl's campaign apparently retracted the 25-precinct claim two days ago. Can anyone else find any support for it? I found one precinct where it was true -- looks like a data entry error.

(2) Rawl won the absentee vote in one county by 84% to 16%. Statewide, Greene won the absentee vote.

I like my stories a bit less "raw" than that.

[Ellipsis]

32. Thanks for checking in... just cutting and pasting... as is my due.

You've been scarce... but so has the controversy.

Hope you're having a good summer.

From OTOH's Link

But later that day, a Rawl campaign spokesman withdrew their concerns about Spartanburg County's voting numbers. Mac Booker, a spokesman for the Rawl campaign, told WYFF News 4 there was an "error in (their data)," and that concerns about missing votes in certain precincts "are not the case."