|
HE
CALAMITY HOWLER
November 18, 2004 Issue # 29
"Sometimes an intended epithet can be turned to good advantage.
In the sole surviving issue of the Decatur, Texas TIMES, one finds
the way Populists not only accepted the label `calamity howler'
but insisted that they had ample reason to howl and would continue
to howl until their objectives had been attained."
- THE POPULIST MIND, edited by Norman Pollack
EDITOR\PUBLISHER; A.V. Krebs
E-MAIL: avkrebs@earthlink.net
TO RECEIVE: Send name and address
WAS THE 2004
PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION STOLEN ???
GARY BECKWITH
Solarbus
November, 2004
When actress Susan Sarandon appeared on the Bill Maher show he asked
her what is the biggest issue we face as a nation. Her reply was
"voter fraud."
The usually knowledgeable Maher had no idea what she was talking
about. When he asked, she replied:
"Something BIG is about to happen."
What I'm about to tell you is going to be hard to swallow at first.
But if you're like most of us, once you start looking at the evidence,
you'll scrape yourself off the ceiling, put your eyeballs back in
their sockets, and you'll try to figure out what to do.
So here it is.
The highest crime in the history of our country took place on November
2nd. The evidence is now mounting (into a HUGE mountain) that the
election was stolen. There is already a congressional investigation
underway and a consumer investigation (headed by Ralph Nader).
Electronic voting machines that were manufactured by supporters of the
Republican Party were used to alter the will of the people.
The internet message boards and chat rooms are bursting with talk
about this. You can wait another couple days to hear about it in the
mainstream media, or you can read on. Just remember where you heard
it first.
I will outline the key points, however, more information is coming out
literally by the minute.
The election was stolen with not just one tactic, but with several.
KEY POINTS:
"Black Box" Electronic Voting Machines:
The key to it all was the use of electronic voting machines, that
produce no paper trail. These were manufactured mainly by the two
companies ESS and Diebold. Both of these companies are big supporters
of the Republican Party. Walden O'Dell, the owner of Diebold, said in
a 2003 fundraising letter that he is "committed
to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next
year."
Similarly, Chuck Hagel, the owner of ESS used his own machines to get
elected to the United States Senate in Nebraska. A bill was introduced
in the House and Senate to outlaw these machines and require a paper
printout of each vote so that they could be verified and/or recounted.
The bill was stalled by the GOP, led by Senate Majority Leader Tom
DeLay, and it was not allowed to come to vote.
Shortly after the November 2rd election, countless stories of problems
with the machines began to surface. Many people tried to vote for
Kerry and said that when the final confirmation screen came up it said
they voted for Bush. In one precinct in Ohio, 4,258 votes were given
to Bush were there were only 638 registered voters. Many more stories
about the black box voting machines, their problems, and the
investigation into their tampering are circulating. Blackboxvoting.org
is leading the way in the investigation to proving the results were
tampered with.
EXIT POLLS:
Exit polls were taken in every state. In those states that had
verifiable paper trails
for their ballots, the exit polls were virtually the same as the real
results. However, in the states where electronic voting machines were
used, the exit polls were mysteriously very different from the final
reported totals. You can view the exit poll data directly yourself
with the link at
the bottom of this article.
UNUSUAL RESULTS:
In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them,
some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example. In
Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of
them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans. The vote was
only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush.
Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered
Democrats
voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida
counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at
the link at the bottom of this article.
SHENANIGANS:
In addition to the electronic voting machines, there was widespread
voter intimidation and disenfranchisement on election day. In many
democratic areas, people waited hours to vote, while Republicans
"challenged" voters' rights to vote, forcing them to fill out a
provisional ballot instead of a real ballot. The provisional
ballots were not counted on election day and we may never know how
many
of them there were, or what rules will be used to qualify them. Flyers
were sent to democratic areas with an array of false information on
them.
People were told their voting precinct had changed, that their voter
registration was not valid, or that they would go to jail of they
tried to vote. The list of shenanigans goes on and on. You can see
the some of the flyers that were sent out and read about more of the
shenanigans at the link at the bottom of this article.
INVESTIGATIONS:
This is not conspiracy theory. This is not hearsay. There is evidence.
There are
witnesses. There are investigations underway. Three Congressmen have
sent a letter to the General Accountability Office requesting urgent
action and an investigation. Ralph Nader is leading a consumer
investigation into voter fraud countrywide, and has already filed an
official challenge to the voting results in New Hampshire. You can
read the letter to the GAO and more about Nader's efforts at
http://votenader.org
They will call us sore losers. They will have their lawyers and
computer experts too. They will refute the evidence. But the truth
is on our side and we will prevail.
Here is the link to the information, if you would like to look into
the details and become more aware of the biggest story about to break.
http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection
What we need now is for the information to get out to more people. The
mainstream media will bury this until it's shoved down their throat.
So please forward this email to your friends and family. If every
person tells three other people, everyone will know before the media
decides to wake up.
Blackboxvoting.org is leading the way in the investigation to proving
the results were tampered with. Solarbus is Tracking election returns
against registered voter counts and gathering the facts.
From: Teed Rockwell, Philosophy Dept., Sonoma State University,
Sonoma, California
Cuyahoga County in Ohio submits 97,489 more votes than voters !
You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in
Cuyahoga
county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost 4,000
extra votes.
But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The
evidence
discovered by some remarkably careful sleuthing would convince any
reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.
In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters ---
at least 93,136 extra
|
| |
| |
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board,
providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least
93,000.
As was widely reported, the software used to generate that page
(and which had nothing to do with polling or counting of votes) used an
invalid query
that multiple-counted most votes. The current Ohio election results are at
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/history/2004/EL52.TXT
and http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/EL45.txt.
The invalid data on the "bad" page was never used in polling results, only
in
the web page itself. Sorry, but Bush did win Ohio with a six-figure margin.
However, I expect that Cuyahoga County will live on in election legend until
the end of time.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board,
providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least
93,000.
As was widely reported, the software used to generate that page
(and which had nothing to do with polling or counting of votes) used an
invalid query
that multiple-counted most votes. The current Ohio election results are at
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/history/2004/EL52.TXT
and http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/EL45.txt.
The invalid data on the "bad" page was never used in polling results, only
in
the web page itself.
How do we know that the web pages you quote were not produced with
bad queries? Justice has to be SEEN to be done.
On Sunday night it was announced that the opposition leader in the
Ukraine was ahead in the exit polls. How come I knew that by Monday
morning the president would be ahead? I tell you why. Because it was
a repeat of what happened in the US election. The ballot was rigged!
Cheers, Alastair.
|
| |
| |
UNUSUAL RESULTS:
In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them,
some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example. In
Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of
them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans. The vote was
only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush.
Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered
Democrats
voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida
counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at
the link at the bottom of this article.
This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats countys in
Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered primarily
democratic and always have been but more often than not they always go
republican. It;s just another bull#@($ claim that's been explained many
times because somebody doesn't do their homework before writing yet another
article on how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere
useful idiot in peddling doubt.
|
| |
| |
James wrote:
This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats
countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered
primarily democratic and always have been but more often than not
they always go republican. It;s just another bull#@($ claim that's
been explained many times because somebody doesn't do their homework
before writing yet another article on how the election was stolen.
Susan Sarandon is truly a mere useful idiot in peddling doubt.
No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of accountability
and the fact that the exit polls do not match the offiical election results.
A situation that the Ukraine is in and which has led them to question the
accuracy of their voting system. The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of
democracy than an ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a
'tradition' for the U.S.
The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like. I do not
say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be proven to have
been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance to fair and auditable
voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these deficiencies or even the hope of
real Democracy in the U.S will die.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin
|
| |
| |
James wrote:
No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of accountability
and the fact that the exit polls do not match the offiical election
results.
A situation that the Ukraine is in and which has led them to question the
accuracy of their voting system. The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of
democracy than an ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost
a
'tradition' for the U.S.
Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other shenanigans go on
all the time from both sides. I will agree with that
The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like. I do
not
say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be proven to have
been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance to fair and auditable
voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these deficiencies or even the hope of
real Democracy in the U.S will die.
There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually on a
local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is concerned, get real.
As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from the
electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in urging some
electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the last election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
votes decide everything.
.....said old Joe the dictator.
|
| |
| |
James wrote:
Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other
shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with that
There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually on
a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is concerned,
get real.
As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from the
electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in urging some
electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the last election.
....said old Joe the dictator.
As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind
closed doors and without any oversight.
|
| |
| |
James wrote:
As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind
closed doors and without any oversight.
yeah, right. get over it.
|
| |
| |
Duane Phinney ICQ#:246507783 Current ICQ status: SMS: (Send an SMS message
to my ICQ): +2783142246507783 More ways to contact me:
http://wwp.icq.com/246507783 _________________________________________
James wrote:
As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind
closed doors and without any oversight.
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in
districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.
|
| |
| |
Genomega wrote:
Duane Phinney ICQ#:246507783 Current ICQ status: SMS: (Send an SMS
message to my ICQ): +2783142246507783 More ways to contact me:
http://wwp.icq.com/246507783 _________________________________________
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in
districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.
So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...
An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all
official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in
democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem.
Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs
'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes?
|
| |
| |
No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of
accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the
offiical election results.
What accuracy does the organization conducting the exit polls claim
for the exit polls? My understanding is that they claim no accuracy
whatever, since it's not a scientific poll.
A situation that the Ukraine is in and
which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system.
The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an
ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a
'tradition' for the U.S.
Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other
shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with
that
The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like.
I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be
proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance
to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these
deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will
die.
There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually
on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is
concerned, get real.
As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from
the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in
urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the
last election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count
the votes decide everything.
....said old Joe the dictator.
As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes
behind closed doors and without any oversight.
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in
districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.
So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...
An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all
official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in
democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem.
Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs
'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes?
These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems
to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think
the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten
apples in all of them):
1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL.
None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox
for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is
always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed
accidentally or on purpose.
2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little
risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS
I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You
complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen.
Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount,
it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I
think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems,
and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are
not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses.
3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by
either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot,
who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what
election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates
A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in
different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify
the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It
also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs.
Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots
must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least
4 digits.
4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people
of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person
to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.)
If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import people
from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election
inspectors.
5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and
keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point
to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the
count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for disagreement
might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you
mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole is
almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates,
and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used
for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7
picometers.
6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the
IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay
inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by
any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to
be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level
clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see
the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusable anywhere
in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status.
Gordon L. Burditt
|
| |
| |
No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of
accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the
offiical election results.
What accuracy does the organization conducting the exit polls claim
for the exit polls? My understanding is that they claim no accuracy
whatever, since it's not a scientific poll.
A situation that the Ukraine is in and
which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system.
The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an
ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a
'tradition' for the U.S.
Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other
shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with
that
The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like.
I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be
proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance
to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these
deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will
die.
There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually
on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is
concerned, get real.
As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from
the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in
urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the
last election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count
the votes decide everything.
....said old Joe the dictator.
As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes
behind closed doors and without any oversight.
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in
districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.
These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems
to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think
the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten
apples in all of them):
1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL.
None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox
for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is
always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed
accidentally or on purpose.
2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little
risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS
I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You
complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen.
Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount,
it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I
think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems,
and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are
not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses.
3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by
either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot,
who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what
election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates
A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in
different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify
the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It
also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs.
Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots
must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least
4 digits.
4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people
of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person
to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.)
If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import people
from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election
inspectors.
5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and
keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point
to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the
count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for disagreement
might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you
mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole is
almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates,
and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used
for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7
picometers.
6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the
IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay
inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by
any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to
be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level
clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see
the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusable
anywhere
in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status.
Gordon L. Burditt
The best system I have seen is one I used several years ago. It worked well
and quickly and was purely mechanical. I was surprised when they changed it
because it did work so well.
This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates and
a slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket. All those party's
candidates were under it so you could split the ticket by pulling each
individual lever if you wanted. Any proposals had their levers as well. If
you screwed up by using conflicting levers the 2nd lever wouldn't go down so
you could see what you did wrong and correct it. If they needed help, the
precinct official could help them with a member of the opposing party of the
offical looking on. When done a large lever opened the curtain and
registered the vote on their individual counters.
When polls closed the official would open the machine and check the numbers,
again with a member of the opposing party or parties looking on and
verifying the count. The numbers were phoned in to the courthouse, the booth
was locked, leaving the counters intact. The entire machine was taken and
put with other machines under lock and key until the election was deemed
officia
|
| |
| |
These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems
anywhere
The best system I have seen is one I used several years ago. It worked well
and quickly and was purely mechanical. I was surprised when they changed it
because it did work so well.
This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates and
a slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket. All those party's
candidates were under it so you could split the ticket by pulling each
individual lever if you wanted.
It sounds like you are describing the old mechanical voting machines
I used 35 years ago in student council elections, and adults used
the same machines for real government elections. I always did wonder
about that: it seemed like they let students set up the machines,
the same machines later used for real elections.
Any proposals had their levers as well. If
you screwed up by using conflicting levers the 2nd lever wouldn't go down so
you could see what you did wrong and correct it. If they needed help, the
precinct official could help them with a member of the opposing party of the
offical looking on. When done a large lever opened the curtain and
registered the vote on their individual counters.
Problem: if someone changes the labels on the levers, there's no
way to detect this or figure out which ballots were meant for who later.
Especially if they get changed back before the election ends.
Problem: there's no good way to do a recount if you suspect the
numbers were not reset to zero before the election, say, because
in a town with 50,000 registered voters there are 500,000 votes cast.
When polls closed the official would open the machine and check the numbers,
again with a member of the opposing party or parties looking on and
verifying the count.
Problem: this leaves open issues of mismatched labels between the
levers and the counters, or reading the counters in an incorrect
order. Other systems, including the optical scan one I mentioned,
have the same issues. However, with the optical scan setup, you
CAN go back to the ballots and see what people really voted for.
The numbers were phoned in to the courthouse, the booth
was locked, leaving the counters intact. The entire machine was taken and
put with other machines under lock and key until the election was deemed
official. No paper trail needed and they kept voting even with a power
failure.
If no paper trail is needed, then you can vote by a show of hands.
Otherwise, if it's worth voting (as opposed to flipping a coin),
it's worth conducting the voting properly. That, to me, means a paper
trail. I don't know how else to make reliable recounts possible.
The optical scan setup (which is not by any means perfect, but it
seems to have fewer faults than most of the alternatives) COULD be
used during a power failure, but you'd lose the checking it did for
overvoting (e.g. voting for Bush AND Gore). I suspect if it happened,
though, voters were told to wait. I never witnessed this problem.
It did not attempt to flag undervoting (not voting at all for a
particular race), as this is legal and apparently fairly common,
especially for single-candidate races. You could feed in the ballots
after the power comes back. Granted, this is not as good as the
all-mechanical setup (However, could you READ the labels on the
levers during a power failure? Seems to me those curtains made the
inside of a voting booth pretty dark, and you really needed lights
overhead to be able to see much.)
I assume the punched card ballot that other states adopted was mechanical as
well . Any problems from that system seemed to come from ballot design, a
dull stylus or a full box of chads that no one bothered to empty from
election to election. (probably all three)
Punchcards seem to add the problem that the vo
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:00:07 -0500, "James" <jrapier@dcr.net>
This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates and
a slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket.
The "straight ticket" lever should be wired directly to a wall socket.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
Genomega wrote:
So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...
An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all
official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in
democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem.
Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs
'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes?
I did not say democrats were the problem, was just pointing out that the
problems are always in districts where the democrats are in charge. They
count the votes not republicans.
|
| |
| |
Genomega wrote:
<snip>
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are
in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the
counting.
So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...
An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of
all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is
done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats
are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that
you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when
the time comes?
I did not say democrats were the problem,
Yes. You did.
was just pointing out that
the problems are always in districts where the democrats are in
charge.
False. The 'problem' was noted in all districts by the independent media. It
was most critical in 'swing states' which were, by definiition, made up of
both parties. Stop trying to lie. Or maybe you are saying where the crooks
are not in charge, the victims may be able to speak? In which case, the fact
that there is such a partisan split on the 'problems' may indicate who is
doing the 'cheating'. However, this is a 'partisan' viewpoint by definition
and I am trying not to play your game. The real issue is democracy and
specifically vote accountability.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html
They count the votes not republicans.
The vote has not been seriously questioned. Reason? Lack of evidence in a
voting system that allows for 'black box voting fraud'. Lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack, but it makes it hard to seriously challenge the
results.
If you believe in democracy ( and apparently you don't) the vote maybe
SHOULD be questioned as in the Ukraine. That is the point. And the lack of
auditability definitely needs to be corrected before the NEXT vote so that
elections are free, fair, and auditable by all parties.
|
| |
| |
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:<cdsqd.2692$kI6.184706@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Genomega wrote:
<snip>
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are
in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the
counting.
So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...
An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of
all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is
done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats
are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that
you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when
the time comes?
Yes. You did.
False. The 'problem' was noted in all districts by the independent media. It
was most critical in 'swing states' which were, by definiition, made up of
both parties. Stop trying to lie. Or maybe you are saying where the crooks
are not in charge, the victims may be able to speak? In which case, the fact
that there is such a partisan split on the 'problems' may indicate who is
doing the 'cheating'. However, this is a 'partisan' viewpoint by definition
and I am trying not to play your game. The real issue is democracy and
specifically vote accountability.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html
The vote has not been seriously questioned. Reason? Lack of evidence in a
voting system that allows for 'black box voting fraud'. Lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack, but it makes it hard to seriously challenge the
results.
If you believe in democracy ( and apparently you don't) the vote maybe
SHOULD be questioned as in the Ukraine. That is the point. And the lack of
auditability definitely needs to be corrected before the NEXT vote so that
elections are free, fair, and auditable by all parties.
Only 5 of 7 dems voted for Bush, in Baker County, FL. Must have been
rigged. Everybody knows it should have been at least 6 out of 7 in
North Florida. Ilena clearly is unfamiliar with the politics of N.
Florida. Up here in N. FL. if you told someone you voted for Kerry,
they'd spit and mutter something like "Damned Yankee Lover" IF they
wanted to be polite.
|
| |
| |
Genomega wrote:
<snip>
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are
in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the
counting.
So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...
An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of
all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is
done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats
are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that
you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when
the time comes?
Yes. You did.
False. The 'problem' was noted in all districts by the independent media.
It
was most critical in 'swing states' which were, by definiition, made up of
both parties. Stop trying to lie. Or maybe you are saying where the crooks
are not in charge, the victims may be able to speak? In which case, the
fact
that there is such a partisan split on the 'problems' may indicate who is
doing the 'cheating'. However, this is a 'partisan' viewpoint by
definition
and I am trying not to play your game. The real issue is democracy and
specifically vote accountability.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html
The vote has not been seriously questioned. Reason? Lack of evidence in a
voting system that allows for 'black box voting fraud'. Lack of evidence
is
not evidence of lack, but it makes it hard to seriously challenge the
results.
If you believe in democracy ( and apparently you don't) the vote maybe
SHOULD be questioned as in the Ukraine. That is the point. And the lack of
auditability definitely needs to be corrected before the NEXT vote so that
elections are free, fair, and auditable by all parties.
I do believe in democracy just find it kind of funny that the voter fraud
committed by democrats for years has been ignored and treated as a joke, the
dead voters in Illinois who vote year after year, snow birds from the north
that who vote in fl and their home states, rampant voter fraud in California
year after year, etc.
If the republicans call attention to the facts they are labeled racists by
the press.
So don't talk to me about 'fair' elections.
|
| |
| |
These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems
to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think
the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten
apples in all of them):
1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL.
None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox
for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is
always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed
accidentally or on purpose.
2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little
risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS
I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You
complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen.
Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount,
it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I
think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems,
and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are
not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses.
3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by
either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot,
who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what
election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates
A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in
different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify
the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It
also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs.
Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots
must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least
4 digits.
4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people
of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person
to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.)
If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import
people
from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election
inspectors.
5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and
keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point
to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the
count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for
disagreement
might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you
mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole
is
almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates,
and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used
for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7
picometers.
6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the
IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay
inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by
any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to
be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level
clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see
the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusable
anywhere
in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status.
Gordon L. Burditt
The best system I have seen is one I used several years ago. It worked
well
and quickly and was purely mechanical. I was surprised when they changed
it
because it did work so well.
This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates
and
a slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket. All those party's
candidates were under it so you could split the ticket by pulling each
individual lever if you wanted.
It sounds like you are describing the old mechanical voting machines
I used 35 years ago in student council elections, and adults used
the same machines for real government elections. I always did wonder
about that: it seemed like they let students set up the machines,
the same machines later used for real elections.
These machines were never used except for an election.
Problem: if someone changes the labels on the levers, there's no
way to detect this or figure out which ballots were meant for who later.
Especially if they get changed back before the election ends.
This would be easily verifiable with a decent procedure that was followed.
Problem: there's no good way to do a recount if you suspect the
numbers were not reset to zero before the election, say, because
in a town with 50,000 registered voters there are 500,000 votes cast.
This too is correctable by a decent procedure. I would think each precinct
has a roll that is followed. How can more people vote than is on the rolls
except for a few exceptions of a clerical nature.
Problem: this leaves open issues of mismatched labels between the
levers and the counters, or reading the counters in an incorrect
order. Other systems, including the optical scan one I mentioned,
have the same issues. However, with the optical scan setup, you
CAN go back to the ballots and see what people really voted for.
Again a good procedure is necessary but most places have never had problems
of a major nature so a new procedure wasn't considered even though they
recognized possibilities of minor cheating. That should be reviewed and
changed where necessary no matter which system is being used.
If no paper trail is needed, then you can vote by a show of hands.
No you can't because it's a secret ballot.
Otherwise, if it's worth voting (as opposed to flipping a coin),
it's worth conducting the voting properly. That, to me, means a paper
trail. I don't know how else to make reliable recounts possible.
Not sure what kind of paper trail we're talking about there. If by that one
means that each individual vote can be verified as authentic, then the
secret ballot pr
|
| |
| |
|
