A Corrupted Election

sour grapes

Wow, thanks for making this public.

The attack on America seems to be coming from those who pretend to defend it. They are killing democracy in America in a way that Iraq’s nonexistant WMD could only dream of.

Brad,
With typical Re-partisan thinking,that is to say cultish,you dismiss the possibility that there was any possible malfeasance in this election.Never mind that the person who built and supplied the machines is a major Re-party supporter or that in tests the machines displayed irregularities in counting votes and forget that the machines could easily be subverted by touching certain spots simultaneously.It’s just sour grapes.

Had there been a Democratic victory the Re-party shouting,I mean ranting,I mean baselessly accusing,I mean myrmidonically defending,I mean mindlessly spouting,I mean talking heads would’ve immediately called for a hand recount which they didn’t want in 2000.A recount also,I might add,that would have been free of shills(like the Re-party congressional aides hired to disrupt the Florida recount)outside chanting.Never mind the irregularities,it’s just sour grapes;the same flavor of the kool-aid the re-party gives its members before sodomizing them economically for another for more years--at best.

Freedom of choice is what you got.
Freedom from choice is what you want.

--Mark Mothersbaugh

Another poll confirming a Kerry victory is the pre-election poll which convinced Wall Street of an impending Kerry victory, as reported in mainstream newspapers at the time.

I cannot believe anyone who cares about democracy would call this sour grapes. Was it sour grapes in the Ukrainian election as well?

http://exitpollz.org

woods, If Kerry had won, I would have accepted it. And to say that the I don’t think there was any wrongdoing is false. I’m sure some democrats and some republicans tried to cheat the system, but the fact that you know how to screw up the machines shows that not just conservatives knew that. So spare me of the conservatives are evil and they are going to cheat the system, but us liberals are all angels just looking out for freedom and we would never cheat.

20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA
Did you know....
1.80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S;.
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
2.There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
3.The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S;are brothers. www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
4.The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886
5.Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S;. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S;machines.
www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html
6.Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S;by the Senate Ethics Committee.
www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26
www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&s i d=26 www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php
7.Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush’s vice-presidential candidates. www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html
8.ES&S;is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
9.Diebold’s new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html
10.Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm
11.Diebold is based in Ohio. www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm
12.Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted
50% of the votes in 30 states.
www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml
13.Jeff Dean, Diebold’s Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold’s central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.
www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf
14.Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years. www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf
15.None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html
16.California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold’s claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it. (See the movie here blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov .) http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190
17.30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
18.All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid d=950
www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid d=950 www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm
19.The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President’s brother.
www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html
20.Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.
www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00. .html
www.uscountvotes.org/

The cheating evidence doesn’t surprise me.
The paperless trails, the unsecure tabulaters, the lack of voting machines in Democratic strongholds (mainly ethnic), all that tampering....this ain’t no crybaby antics to point out suspicious voting irregularities...these are serious infractions to free elections.
It makes the exporting of “freedom” and “democracy” a joke.
The evidence is mounting, something’s gotta give.
The general public will not be convinced easily because they cannot conceive of such wicked corruption.

I think Clair says it all…

Actually, the general public is on to the 2004 election theft also. Despite a corporate media blackout and/or dismissive coverage of this story, the proportion of Americans who believe the 2004 election was tampered with has grown from 20% right after the election to 30% last month (according to an Annenberg Public Policy Center survey). So the sentiment is growing and the awareness that Bush was not elected by the American people is spreading rapidly. Just imagine where we would be if we still had an independent mainstream media, rather than the right-wing corporate shills that we have now.

The truth will out, and with it, we’ll throw the rascals out. Most Republicans I know would be as angry that the franchise was tampered with as any Democrat. Perhaps the silver lining around this election theft is that the Republi-Nazi boil on the Republican Party’s backside can be lanced and drained of Karl Rove, Duh-bya and their ilk.

Great article on why we need to quit trusting our votes are counted and counted correctly. We need real elections that are fair, transparent, and easily verifiable. Until we do, we aren’t the world leaders of democracy but just wanna bees.; Our government is illegitimate until our election system is fixed, period.

Brad, you are correct that election fraud isn’t dependent on party affiliation. So what? Do you really want to keep a system where we have know way of verifying whether the vote is fair and accurate?

Also, the fact that party partisans are put in charge of running the elections is crazy and is an obvious conflict of interest.

Would you let the general manager of the opposing team run the officiating in the Super Bowl, or be the umpires in the World Series? I sure wouldn’t.

Our last three elections reek (2000, 2002, 2004) and it’s time we clean up this mess.

Sour grapes does not refer to envy, but to rationalization.  In Aesop’s fable, the fox could not reach the grapes he wanted to eat, so he said, ‘Probably were sour anyway.’ He was not envious, but rationalizing. 
This article is not doing that.  Stop misusing this phrase.  (Thanks to George Carlin for publishing this en masse in ‘Brain Droppings’).

Brad you are right, cheating is not limited by which party you belong to.  But as Claire ably pointed out, the folks who built the vast majority of the voting machines were connected to the Republican party.  If Kerry had won and the voting machines had been built by companies whose owner’s were publically avowed Democrats, I’m sure you’d be sceptical of the results, and rightly so.

But your point is valid and fair is fair.  The list of people on the uscountvotes.org site do not mention their party affiliations.  I assume they are mostly Democrats, but perhaps not.  Anyone know?  After all, though everyone would lose if the election proves corrupt, the Republicans would lose more. 

Lies, damn lies and statistics - enough said

Chuck Herrin is a Republican.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/

Yes he is.  But he has more than a few issues with the Bush Administration.  One could, I think, argue that he is as partisan re the 2004 vote as any progressive.

I don’t know the political make up of US count votes. I would suggest if you are or know a Bush supporting statistician, that you or they volunteer for them looking at the numbers and judge for yourself.

This is a great article for DUmmies to use to reinforce their 04 fraud fixation.

Thank you for more misinformation and conjecture.

It makes my DUmmie ant farm much more interesting.

Better to be fixated on achieving transparency in elections than where the predisents penis has been.

Nice reFUtation Kurtis.

Kurtis (couldn’t your momma spell?)

Here are some other things you must also believe if you believe that Duh-bya won the election:

1- That the exit polls were WRONG.

2- That Zogby’s 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

3- That Harris’ last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

4- That the Incumbent Rule (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.

5- That the 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn’t do better than his final polling)

6- That the Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)

7- That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.

8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.

9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.

10- That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.

13- That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.

14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.

15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio (and that this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states).

16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.

Kurtis:

Here are even more things you must believe to believe that Bush won:

17. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.

18. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.

19. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.

20. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.

21. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.

22. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.

23. That Bush’s vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.

24. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.

25. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.

26. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.

27. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.

28. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.

29. That Mitofsky (who ran the exit polls), with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.

30. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.

31. That Bush could overcome Kerry’s 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.

Millions of eager people went to the polls early on election day, yet many stood in line for hours & hours due to an insufficient availability of voting machines.  Many of these voters stood in line outside their polling precincts despite pouring rain & despite the fact that they were being detained from their jobs (as well as being docked for hours missed).

The eager anticipation of these voters tells me they did not stand in line for hours & hours, in pouring rain, to vote for an incompetent nitwit.  They wanted change in this country’s direction. 

Think about the pictures taken at Kerry’s many campaign rallies.  Picture the huge crowds of people hungry for a change in leadership. 

Think about the meager campaign rallies of the incumbent, which were closed to those who would not sign a loyalty oath, promising to vote for him, before gaining access just to hear him speak.

I heard Zogby say on The Daily Show the night before the election that, according to his data, Kerry would win the election.

On election night I watched how CNN reported the exit poll numbers, which were indicative of a Kerry victory, then change the numbers dramatically late in the evening.  Was there suddenly a surge of millions of Bush voters at the polls?  I doubt that; Bush voters weren’t likely among those who had to stand in line most of the day.  None of the networks will disclose their exit polling information to this day.  Why?

I hope that there is a congressional investigation into this election.  Our votes are the only way we can keep our public officials accountable.  When elections are stolen, we have no voice; we have fascism.

I never said liberals were angels and conservatives were evil.That’s simplified thinking,and property of the Re-party.Just ask them.They own it just like morality and patriotism are now their sole property.

What I’m trying to point out is how the Re-party has instantly dismissed any possible cheating as being impossible and simply a political tactic.I don’t know exactly how to sabotage a vote count,but I do know that the process is so simple that anyone can do it to any machine in a matter of seconds with the proper training.I would also speculate that the process was not shared with Democrats,especially since the machines were made by a major Re-party supporter.One hand washes the other.Does it not strike anyone as wrong that a voting system should have no method of checking the accuracy of its count other than it saying its accurate?What was so wrong with the two hundred year old practice of paper ballots’other than time consumption?In North Carolina we use scantron balots which can be quickly counted by machine and visually verified if necessary.

Q:What did I have for lunch?
A: an elephant sandwich.

Q:How do you know this?
A:I told you this.

Q:Could I be lying?
A:No,because I’m telling you the truth.

On this system of logic we are going to base our election results?Sure.Maybe later the Easter Bunny will act as mediator of the vote count. 
A system with no method of verifiction is used only if you plan to steal an election because you’re afraid of losing stemming from domestic and foreign policy decisions that have harmed the citizenry.
Q;How many Republicans are there?
A:As many as Fox News tells us.
--Faux News:foul and biased--

Furthermore,if going to talk about evil and election campaigns,let’s talk about the last ten elections.
Q:Who attempted to rig the ‘72 election by breaking into D.N.C.Headquarters?
A:Nixon(R)

Q:Which party launched a smear campaing against the other party in ‘80 blaming them instead of greedy oil companies for the energy crisis?
A: Republicans

Q:Which party twisted the words of their opponent to make a remark about raising taxes on the rich to imply that taxes would be raised for everyone?
A:Republicans-’84

Q:Who stated through false ads that Dukakis let a convicted rapist out on parole when in fact it was his Republican perdecessor?
A:Bush ‘88

Q:Which party from March’92 to...who knows when launched a smear campaign against our last elected president accusing him of anything and finding out that his only crime was perjuring himself in a thrown out civil that he had an affair.The admission of such testimony would have made no difference in the verdict by the jury’s admission.

A:The entire Republican party

Q:Which party sent shills to Florida to disrupt the recount,and which party did everything it could to prevent the recount from taking place at all?
A:You know who-the Republicans.

Q:Last one.Which party abolished the Fairness Doctrine which required equal time for expressing views on political and social issues,then monopolized radio and TV,shutting out political dissent as much as possible,and filling the air waves with multiple proponents of their ideology?
A:The Republicans.

Liberals are not angels.However,we have not spent the past thirty years trying,and sometimes succeeding in subverting the democratic process.

You people will never cease to amaze and amuse me.

Keep up the great work !

We are counting on your efforts to continue alienating reasonable people from the democratic party.

One of the biggest problems with real Christians is that they are easily moved as a block by the fascist in Christian clothing. Christians as part of their culture are sheeple, people who follow the Fascist in Christian clothing like sheep follow their shepherd. Bush is the classic example of this kind of shepherd.  Christians will vote against their best interest if they think there is enough Jesus behind it. This makes many Christians dangerous for a free society because they are so easily led by the Fascist in Christian clothing. Bush is one of the biggest Fascist in Christian clothing in American history. Bush never even went to church until he ran for President. Right now, right here in America, fascists disguised as Christians have taken over our American government and all it took was a little anti-gay talk to fool the real Christians into voting for this bunch of ungodly and completely evil Fascist in Christian clothing.  Where the couldn’t get enough votes there were plenty of sheeple in high places to give him and the Republicans a little boost over the top.  http://www.blogbasis.com

The truth will out.  I hope the GOP enjoys their stolen majority status, because it is quickly fading.  Modern Republicans do not know how to govern, and that is becoming more and more evident.  They see being in power as a way to funnel taxpayers money to their constituents.  This can only last so long.  They are going to f*ck things up so badly over the next four years that they will likely spend another four decades as the minority party.

Claire,

Don’t assume.  I’m probably as progressive as you - well pretty progressive anyway. <g> And I think the article has merit, as Fly by night’s very damning and enlightening information supports (source?).  I’m just saying that unless the source for the article is transparently unbiased, many open-minded Republicans and mainstream media types won’t give it its fair due.  You end up just preaching to the choir otherwise.  Try looking at it the other way, would you readily accept statistical evidence from the Accounting Dept at the Citadel or Oral Roberts U?  Would you want CNN or ABCnews to do so?  Partisan politics works both ways…

Quite frankly, I see very little difference in CNN, ABC, and “Accounting Dept. at the Citadel” or “Oral Roberts U”

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

When you see who owns the media, you know why Monica Lewinski got all the attention and Jeff Gannon/James Guckert didn’t. Why the Jackson trial was far more newsworthy than the FTAA/WTO protests in Miami that resulted in so many wounded. Why the election fraud in the Ukraine is far more newsworthy than the above article (and countless others I can find on the internet but not corporate media). Free press my ass. Liberal media my ass.

You still haven’t learned the basics.

Hey Freeman, how about submitting your work for peer review?

Actually, I know why you don’t, and so do you.

Jeff Hartley— who are you to come on here and post such nonsense?  As far as we can all tell you’ve not a leg to stand on when it comes to critiquing the work of others.  In fact, it seems that you are nothing more than a debunker without a basis for your witless inane statements!  “Hey Freeman, how about submitting your work for peer review”?  Really?  How about you grow the hell up and post your own work proving that the exit polls were indeed wrong and that Mitofsky and Edison were correct in their views of said exit polls?  I don’t see you doing anything but blowing hot air and contributing absolutely nothing to getting to the facts of the matter.

What are the basics, Jeff? 
In response to your peer review comment, it seems (if you look at the bottom of the document) that this analysis is the result of a fairly widespread multi-university effort.  I’m sure that their methods are very open to peer review.  Indeed, it actually says (albeit in kinda small print!)

“Also peer reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of of statisticians and independent reviewers”

Actually, Jeff, you should just re-read (or perhaps just read) the last page.  No one should trust anything just because it’s on the internet—but it’s embarassing when you make assertions that plainly paint you as lazy.

Anyone who reads this and comes away believing that nothing suspiscious is going on did not comprehend what they read.

The exit poll discrepancies are just the indication of malfeasance, the evidence of election fraud is mountainous.

The reasons I believe people refuse to study this issue are twofold.

One is the belief that since no one could get away with this, it must not have happened. (so there’s no reason to look)

The other is that this subject is uncomfortable.
Most people would rather believe that all is right with the world than bear the responsibility that comes with the reality of this issue.

Believe me - I’ve studied this, I know it’s a fact that these elections were heavily tampered with and how, and I am VERY uncomfortable about it.

I wonder how many of you out there remember all the times George Bush looked directly into the camera on the news and said YOU DON"T HAVE TO WORRY, I KNOW I’M GOING TO WIN.  Why was he so confident?
It’s very apparent that the elections both in 2000 and 2004 were rigged.  There was too much information out there saying just what was happening that was illegal.  We Americans are not that stupid.
It’s a darn shame our country has sunk so low.  What ever happened to A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.  We should find a way to get that back.

So Kurtis…

I take it you didn’t actually READ the article.

If you mean that the cries of ‘election fraud’ are alienating, then you may have a point… most people are too lazy to study the issue… or too afraid of what they’ll find.

Which one of those might you be?

Or have I missed your point?

support the fairness doctrine.
www.fairnessdoctrine.com

Rep. King from NY said “It’s over - the election’s over. We won.” then was asked “Why would you say that?” his response “It’s all over but the counting, and we’ll take care of the counting.”

See the clip here:

http://velvetrevolution.us/Content/ElectoralReform/Video/Illegit_Election_2004-2 20-256.ram

There’s ONLY 1 poll that counts on election day and it’s FAR more accurate than any exit poll.  Guess what?  Kerry LOST! Get over it!

Keep having fun with numbers.

Hey Justin, if somebody stole something from you, would you “just get over it”?

Exit polls are used throughout the world to validate elections, because they’re known to be accurate.  In the Republic of Georgia, for example, a recently elected government was forced to resign, because the exit polls diverged from the vote count.  Outside the USA, people are used to fraud, and don’t trust elections, that’s why they trust exit polls.

I’ll get over the theft of this election when the perpetrators of this fraud are caught and punished, and when fair elections return to this land.  Sadly, with small minded attitudes like yours this will take awhile.  When your guy loses an election due to fraud, don’t expect me to to fight for fairness on your count.

Sour grapes?  I like when people use expressions like that incorrectly.

If this article was ‘sour grapes’, it would be diminishing the importance of the election.

In fact, the article STRESSES the importance of the election as a critical component of a democracy.

So, brad, not only did you use ‘sour grapes’ incorrectly, you also couldn’t have used it more incorrectly.

Interestingly enough, I think this provides a nice metaphor for your opinion on the election results:  CAN’T BE MORE WRONG.

bricks. it’s all about the bricks. big fat heavy ones. orange bricks.

Of course the 2004 election was stolen. It worked in 2000 so why wouldn’t they do it again. My question: In 2000, when it was discovered who really won, why wasn’t Bush removed from office?

I don’t know about you Justin, but I happen to care what happens to this country.

I would hope that this country does not descend into chaos.

What happens if 30%, 40%, 50% or so of your countrymen decide that their elected representatives were not duly elected after all and haven’t been for some time now?

If the exit polls are indeed right, and when adding in the disenfranchised voters that the exit polls did not account for, it may end up being that 55% to 60% of your countrymen will soon no longer support their government.

Part of the social contract is that the minority accepts its loss in elections and gets behind the majority.  But losers will only do so if convinced the elections reflected the true will of the majority of the people.

How can you expect this social contract to continue if 30%, 40%, 50% or even 60% of your countrymen come to believe that what happened in November was not an election, but instead was a computer generated coup?

You just don’t tell someone to get over a coup.  It won’t work.

I want the social contract back.  I want people to trust it and believe in it.

Here’s what I don’t get about people who voted for Bush and refuse to even consider - and I mean just CONSIDER the possibility that the election was fraudulent:

If it was stolen wouldn’t you want to know if the person you chose to put in office was involved in criminal activity?

To steal an election is treason (Oxford definition: treachery towards one’s country...) pure and simple, perpetrated on EVERY SINGLE VOTER, not just the losing side. And I dare say, it’s unAmerican.

Do you really want criminals to have that much power? Do you want traitors (Definition: ...one who betrays his country) to:

• Enact laws and legislation?

• Spend your tax dollars?

• Represent your country to the rest of the world?

• Have the ability to wage wars in your name?

To look at the evidence, from the exit polls to the anomolies that went in Bush’s favor, is to turn a blind eye and partisan squawking just makes you look like an accessory after the fact. In that case, you got the leader you deserve. God help us all.

It’ll take time but eventually it will be revealed WHY Bush the squatter is in the White House.

Actually, Dick Morris said shortly after the election that these exit polls had been highly suspect.  Bear in mind that this is someone who has worked with exit polls for 30 years.  Morris postulates that in this case, the Kerry campaign may very well have found out, in advance, where and when exit polling would be conducted, and then contacted their grass roots operatives to get Kerry voters to the polls at those specific locations and times, with instructions to be sure to participate in the exit poll.  The intended effect was to skew the results so heavily to Kerry, that he would look like a shoo-in.  This was supposed to have the effect of discouraging Bush voters and causing them to stay home.  Problem was, it didn’t happen. 

The early exit polls were poorly-weighted, with too much emphasis on urban areas and young, single women (where Kerry would definitely be favored).  One really should not rely on them as definitive proof that Kerry was the “true” winner.

If anyone believes beyond any doubt that Bush won the election hands-down, they should have no problem with the election being fully investigated and having all votes re-counted every which way.

Anyone who attempts to stand in the way of this happening has something to hide (Ken Blackwell, this means you ... get a good lawyer.)

Hartley, Steve Freeman has been both soliciting and accepting peer review for his paper since the very first draft.  That you either don’t know that or don’t care says something about you, but not something complimentary.

Folks, as Zinn tells us, people like Hartley and Kurtis have small, closed minds that are impervious to new information.  And as Tom Paine told us, “to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

Shouldn’t we save our medicine for those who still have a spark of mental life?

“Joan” asks:

“Of course the 2004 election was stolen. It worked in 2000 so why wouldn’t they do it again. My question: In 2000, when it was discovered who really won, why wasn’t Bush removed from office?”

My answer:

- I don’t believe that the 2004 election was stolen, and nothing I’ve read here so far has given me any proof to the contrary

- In 2000, after numerous recounts of the Florida vote (including a symposium of newspapers that really, really, really wanted to show that Gore had won Florida), it was discovered that Bush really had won.  That’s why he wasn’t removed.  As for the Supreme Court decision, the 5-4 decision on the remedy was preceded by a 7-2 decision on the equal protection violation issue.  Two of your guys (Souter and Breyer) apparently agreed with the majority that it WAS a violation of equal protection to have the Florida Supreme Court manufacturing election law on the fly and to have differing standards for recounts from precinct to precinct (and in some cases, from table to table).  The 5-4 decision was a remedy for that problem, and contrary to popular belief, did NOT stop the recount.  The recount stopped because the remedy happened to bump up against Florida state law. 

In any case, Bush won in 2000.  Bush won in 2004.  He’s legitimate, so get over it.

Brenda writes: “The early exit polls were poorly-weighted, with too much emphasis on urban areas and young, single women (where Kerry would definitely be favored).  One really should not rely on them as definitive proof that Kerry was the “true” winner.”

Brenda, you should really read Freeman’s paper.  Or study statistical sampling.  Or both.  As Freeman points out, the only way an oversampling of ‘young single women’ would bias the result is if the poll-takers somehow thought those young single women were really old married men.  How often do you think that was the case?

“ As Freeman points out, the only way an oversampling of ‘young single women’ would bias the result is if the poll-takers somehow thought those young single women were really old married men.  How often do you think that was the case?”

The point that Dick Morris appears to be trying to make is that the oversampling of young women and voters in urban areas was INTENTIONAL.  In that context, Freeman’s comments make no sense.

For those that insist it is “sour grapes”....I suspect they are on the border line of illiterate...they can not understand the article..completely over their heads, might as well be in Chinese..can’t understand the big words....maybe a simple stick figure drawing would help..perhaps they don’t understand what a democracy is or how it should work or even what type of government is left, once you loose it...again perhaps a stick figure drawing of a begginers introduction into civics might be of some use

Chabuka, Chabuka, Chabuka.  I’ve often noticed that those who do not have an intelligent, well-reasoned answer will resort to ad hominum attacks.
They do this out of frustration.

By the way, it’s “beginners”, not “begginers”.

One last comment to Joan:

By the way, even if the special newspaper re-re-recount of Florida in 2000 had shown that Gore had won Florida - which it did not - Bush could not have been removed on that basis.  The Electoral College had already voted, the vote had been certified by the joint session of Congress, and Bush had been inaugurated.  After that, the only way to remove a President is impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.  With Republicans controlling both houses, that was very unlikely to happen.

Hey Justin..why aren’t you in Iraq fighting for Bush’s idea of democracy?

TO ALL WHO KEEP STATING THEIR OPINONS, that it’s all just “sour grapes”, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SYSTEMIC ELECTIONS FRAUD IN THE U.S., WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?  WHY DON’T YOU EVER PRESENT PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS?? (See Claire’s posting for an excellent example of how to do it, or any of the others who provide ample documentation, verifiable sources and reliable data.)

SINCE WHEN IS AN OPINION MORE VALID THAN THE THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DATA AND DOCUMENTED FACTS THAT PROVE IT WRONG? Where are your minds??? IF YOU CAN PROVE THERE WAS NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF ELECTIONS FRAUD, DO IT. IF NOT, WAKE UP!! Further, why is the exact same kind of evidence that was proof positive of election fraud in the Ukraine suddenly supposed to be invalid in the U.S. election??

TELLING THE SAME LIES OVER AND OVER DOESN’T MAKE THEM TRUE: IT JUST MAKES THEM BORING AND TIRESOME.
IF YOU CAN’T PROVIDE ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINIONS, MAYBE YOU NEED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT WHY YOU HOLD ON SO TIGHTLY TO THOSE OPINIONS, EVEN WHEN THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE, SOLID, HARD FACTS, THAT PROVES THEM WRONG?

The persistent inability to change one’s views when confronted with solid proofs that those views are in error is one of the key, defining characteristics of mental illness and/or personality disorder.

Speculation, innuendo, supposition, and conjecture.

So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country.

Lest your supposition be confused for sour grapes, as it already has above, I’ll simply ask why have no charges been brought in this issue?  I would think Kerry or Edwards (perhaps especially Edwards, given his litigious background and his insistance to fight even after Kerry conceded the election) would seize upon the opportunity to stick it to Bush.  I would think that some group out there would SEIZE upon the opportunity to kick sand in the faces of the President/Vice President and all the President’s Men (and women ;) ).

Instead we get written papers on how it should have been this and it ought to have been that. 

Frankly, if Bush/Cheney managed to pull an 8 million vote sway without leaving behind enough evidence to even warrant a court looking into the matter, then I think even our Beloved former President William Jefferson Clinton himself would have to step down as the undisputed king of slick.

Amazingly even those that have sought for the last 4 years to bring down President Bush, those who swore that the 2004 election would be a fair one because THEY would be watching, those who promised by hook or crook to take back the White House, NO MATTER WHAT, .... well.  If THEY can’t bring charges… who can?

To Barney Rubble:

Hey, I’m up for investigating Ohio if y’all are up for investigating Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where the vote was MUCH closer and there were also numerous “anomalies” that favored Democrats.

Go ahead, knock yourselves out in Ohio.  You’ll only tick off the average Ohioan who 1) doesn’t believe the vote there was stolen, and 2) believes this is all a bunch of nonsense that is diverting taxpayers’ money to pay for a sore loser’s vendetta.  That will only intensify when the reports of the investigation reveal that the “anomalies” were the result of honest mistakes or miscalculations, or other factors beyond the control of election officials, and not intentional fraud.  If/when that happens, you will have real problems electing Democrats in that state.

“Get over it” is a phrase commonly used by abusers.  We who truly love American will NEVER get over the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.  Because of the close ties of e-voting companies to Republicans, I will never again believe the results of another election in this country unless the Democrat wins.

You Republicans who support Bush do not love this country.  You do not want a democracy or even a republic.  You want your choice anointed king, and you want YOUR CHOICE of religion to run rampant in every area of our lives.  If you want to live in a dictatorship run by zealots, go live in China.

Linda:

Yes, I’m a Republican.  Yes, I support Bush.  But I also love this country and want to keep the representative republic (which is actually what we have).  I have no use for an anointed king, and I have never imposed my religion on anyone, nor will I ever do so.  Therefore, since you are so thoroughly off-base in your assessment of me or my character, I will refuse your kind invitation to move to China.

In the meantime, you might want to stop judging other people whom you don’t know, and stop throwing temper tantrums because your guy lost and my guy won.  If the results were reversed, who would be telling whom to “Get over it”?

And notice that I did not tell you to move to Canada.

And again…

Linda brings us more speculation and conjecture.

Hey Linda.. You sure are assigning alot of feelings to people you don’t know.  Is it your way or the highway?  Sure sounds like it...lets review.

“Get over it” is a phrase commonly used by abusers… Hmm.. Its also commonly used against people who make allegations they don’t back up as well.  HmmmMMmmmm....

You’ll never get over the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.  Ok.  I might actually care if you PROVED your allegations. See, if you can’t prove something is wrong, then continuing to claim it is wrong and railing against it is simply more “your way or the highway”....

You’ll never believe another election in this country is valid unless a Democrat wins, even though you have no proof that Republicans ever stole an election.  Your way or the highway?

Next you tell us we don’t love this country.  Fine, I think you hate America.  *shrug*

Next you say we don’t want a democracy or even a republic.  Interesting. Incorrect in EVERY way, but interesting.  If you had PROOF the elections were stolen, I’d back your choice, but speculation and conjecture don’t cut it.  Without PROOF, what you are asking for is a dictatorship by where your choice is annointed KING… is that not correct? With no proof of wrongdoing whatsoever you want the democratically elected President removed and replaced with your choice.  Annoint him King?  LOL

Im not religious so your next screed not only makes no sense, but doesn’t even pertain to me.

I don’t want a dictatorship run by zealots.  From the looks of the statements above, it could be speculated, however, that you do.

Mathew.. excellent, a voice of reason in all this sanity...Kudos...you are 100% right...one heck of a lot more proof of a stolen election .. no proof it wasn’t stolen...The facts speak for themselves..the election was a sham and a GOP controlled sham at that...thank you for a very cool level headed response!!

Listen Honking your really full of hot air.  How can you have a democracy if you can;t have a fair election.  Get real.  Does someone feed you with a bicyle pump?

Why have no charges been brought? Talk about being out of touch.  THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CASES, civil suits and criminal complaints both, FROM THE 2000, 2002, and 2004 ELECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN STALLED BY THE VARIOUS STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.

WHO CNOTROLS THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMISSION?
REPUBLICANS.

WHO IS IN CONTROL OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT? REPUBLICANS.

WHO CONTROLS THE ELECTIONS SYSTEMS IN A MAJORITY OF CONTESTED STATES? REPUBLICANS.

WHO DECIDES WHETHER THE CIVIL SUITS AND CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS IN THOSE STATES EVER GET HEARD? REPUBLICANS.

WHO IS UNWILLING TO EVER LET THE EVIDENCE BE HEARD AND TESTED IN ANY VALID FORUM?
REPUBLICANS.

What other avenue than that of public debate and the grassroots movement of a people deeply concerned with the loss of democracy in this country is left to us wherein we might have the truth get heard at all?

As for Kerry, or Edwards, not filing a suit, my personal opinion is that they worked harder than anyone I’ve ever seen to throw the elections from the start, and they are shills for Bush, always were. The Corporatocracy foisted Kerry upon the voting public with a massive scare campaign, launched right after Dean’s strong showing in the first primary. The scare was on, with cries of “electability!”, “electability!”, being shouted by Limbaugh, Fox “news”, Lou Dobbs, Aaron Brown and all the other right wing pundits, in mid-December of 2003. 

Suddenly Kerry was the one and only candidate we heard about from all of the media. The Corporate MEDIA, not the people, selected Kerry to run. And Kerry’s whole campaign, had it been a football game, would have been an obvious case of “shaving points” to throw the game’s outcome to his opponent.

WE NEVER HAD A REAL ELECTION, BUT STILL THE PEOPLE VOTED BUSH OUT!! THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS. IF YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE EVIDENCE, YOU HAVEN’T GOT MUCH OF A LEG TO STAND ON. I notice that there is still no answer as to why these same kinds of exit polls, done by the same consultants, were good enough to prove Ukrainian elections fraud but not valid to prove American elections fraud.. Nor the bigg question WHY ISN’T FREEMAN’S WORK BEING GIVEN ITS PEER REVIEW?

Sobering assessment and sadly right.  But no surprise, given the criminal actions we’ve lived with for 4 years.  Republicans cannot afford to lose their grip on power.  Their personal security literally hangs on maintaining control.

So we Americans haven’t suffered enough...yet. The Justins and Brads posting here are the “winners” afterall.  Their “team” won.  It’s like a big game to them.  And while their celebrating the “win”, getting hammered on high-test kool-aid, their “team” is busy cleaning out their house and bank accounts.  Poor saps....they’ve lost with us, they just haven’t figured it out yet.  But they will.

BTW, TruthIsAll at the DemocraticUnderground has posted some excellent statistical analysis on the probabilities of deviation outside the MOE on this election.  Highly recommended adjunct to this article.  The short read:  chances of the exit polls being wrong to the degree they were is equal to a 3’ snowstorm on Mercury next Thusday.

I enjoyed reading about News Radio Roger and agree people have been having conservatism shoved down their throats for a very long time now.  I’m glad to hear things are changing.  I detest Rush Limbaugh.  Thank you for sharing it with me.

I have yet to read your web site Claire, but I will.

Well Brenda,

Explain why it was just people from bush’s assistants, pages and others who were friends of his were the only ones protesting and standing outside the doors where the counters were busily recounting votes in Florida in 2000.  And why was it then that the Supreme Court called an end to the counting.  The Supreme Court is suppose to be impartial, but I don’t believe they were in this instance.

I wish that people would open their eyes and see what is really going on around them, like the contents of this article for one. It may be 21 years late, but George Orwell’s 1984 is happening. This election, the patriot act, and the oh so familiar “with us or against us” attitude. And nobody sees it happening at all, they just go on, living out their lives oblivious to the royal screwjob that is going on. It just depresses the hell out of me.

The election of 2000 was the greatest gift ever for the left, they no longer have to even pretend to acknowledge another republican administration

What I actually think happened is Kerry and the DNC paid off the polling company to falsify results. They had hoped that by inflating the apparent number of votes for Kerry they would dissuade potential Bush voters who heard the results from even voting, thereby disenfranchising a large block of American voters. It probably even worked to some extent. Without the far-and-wide announcements that Kerry was ahead in exit polling, even more Bush supporters would have turned out to vote. As it was, they figured “why bother?”, because they thought Kerry had it in the bag. Someone needs to investigate this because it smells like a typical Dem tactic. The MSM was in bed with the Dems in 2000 when a similar tactic occurred: The talking heads called Florida for Gore while polls were still open in the Panhandle (Central Time Zone) which caused many Bush voters to pack it in and stay home or go home before voting because they thought their ballot wouldn’t count. Why isn’t anyone investigating that? Oh, and I notice one of the above posters has dragged out that old canard about black voter disenfranchisement in the Florida 2000 race again. If that’s so, why did a six-month investigation by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, headed by a liberal Democrat, and calling by subpoena many top Florida government officials, not find a SINGLE case of black voter disenfranchisement? Dems need to get out of this fantasy land wherein every loss they experience is the result of some grand conspiracy. The majority of the voters in this country are center-right. Always have been, always will be. They heard the Dem message for 2004 and didn’t like it, what little there was of it. All the breath-holding and foot-stamping and tantrum-throwing in the world isn’t going to change it. Just keep moving farther left, like you foolishly believe will save your party. I’ll be celebrating even more Reps in the House in 2006 and another Rep Prez in 2008.

Ok, they stole the election. What exactly can we do to get this exposed or even investigated? Is there a way under the FOIA to get access to all the votes? Can Diebold be called on the carpet soemhow? I wrote my Senator (Durbin) asking him to oppose the election back in December. He wrote back with some typical Dembabble about moving forward. Is there any way this mess can ever get fixed if the Dems in Washington just keep rolling over and letting Bush and Rove have their way with them (and us)?
Just asking…

This is laughable.  You automatically assume that Bush stole the election, even though with your level of “proof,” I could easily spin equally believable stories.  For instance, who’s to say that the locations used by the exit pollsters weren’t leaked ahead of time, and that MoveOn, ACT, etc. didn’t flood them so as to stack the results?  Who’s to say the Kerry campaign didn’t try this trick so as to influence news coverage and trigger lower Republican turnout in the western states?  I’m not actually suggesting any of this ever happened, quite the contrary, in fact.  All I’m saying is that instead of using snide innuendo and citing “statistical impossibilities” (a misnomer on your part, by the way), you should try and look at the situation rationally.

Now, Caltech, MIT, and basically every nonpartisan voting study has found that voter fraud, if it existed, had no effect on the outcome of the election.  Why should I believe you over them, two of the most highly respected educational institutions on the planet?  The answer is that I shouldn’t.  My advice: get some facts, friend.  Then you can write articles.

At this point, all the Right Wingnuts can do is bark out phrases like “sour grapes” and “get over it.” After 2000, the “fixers” figured out that they’d have to show a significant margin of victory for their guy.  They could then rely on yelpers like Brad and Justin to spit out one-liners.

The Fixers had everything controlled - except those durn exit polls.  But eventually, the pollsters themselves could be reached....

Every single bit of evidence and documentation that’s revealed is another strand in a patchwork quilt that screams FRAUD.  And Mitofsky, Brad, and Justin can disavow whatever they want; they cannot support their claims however articulate they may try to be.

Jack, you must be a regular subscriber to GOPUSA, that rag that suggested the Kerry campaign trained it’s volunteers to be “enthusiastic voters”.  Yeah, right.  We had time to pull that crap.

The facts that came out about Ohio alone provided for more than 100 pages in the Conyers Report, buddy.  This isn’t “snide innuendo”; it’s fact.

Further, most studies did not specifically state election results would not have been changed.  Most indicated that they could not definatively assert that the election results would have changed.

If you can’t tell the difference, it’s a small wonder you’re defending the Bushies.

Most importantly, though, whether outcomes were changed or not, election fraud exists, and every effort must be made to eradicate it.

time to put Bush and his crime family in jail where all who commit treason should go.  Do not let me go pass “GO” or collect $200.00.  He stole our election again and the republicans continue with their adminstration built on lies.  We have long memories and we will not forget as Bush tries to destory our economy with his budget and steal from our grandmothers their retirement funds. 

Yes, we have your number the Republican Party and you will pay the price we will demand since you let him run our country right into the ground.  If you dear Republican are stupid enough not to be scared it will only make it that much more fun to bring you down for your evil acts.  Our children are dying on foriegn soil behind your party’s lies, we will not forget their deaths or sacrifies paid behind your deceit.  9/11 stills demands its truth or consequences so Republican Party be afraid, be very, very afriad for we are coming for you and justice will be served upon these innocents graves.

I wish people wouldn’t waste their time responding to the Repugs who infiltrate progressive media forums. They are just spouting the (GOP) party line, which is that anyone who argues that the election was stolen has a case of ‘sour grapes’ and that Americans need to ‘move on’ or ‘move forward.’ No Repug would say these things if the election had been stolen from them. Nothing you write will make them change their opinion, not least because some of them are being paid to write this crap. So it’s wisest to just pass over their comments without a word. Once we start ignoring them altogether they will surely go away.

It’s always interesting that the immediate knee-jerk reaction of Republicans is “sour grapes” while completely ignoring the content.  Note that Brad tries to play the “everyone is dirty” card, which ignores the sampling errors in Kerry vs. Bush strongholds.  The evidence presented in this article (and related studies) clearly points to problems on one side of the fence, which is the foundation for other studies showing the probabilities of election errors consistenly favoring one side as they did in November as being less likely than winning the lottery.  The arguments of Brad dominate right-wing politics today—dismissal of what is factually known in favor of an idea, proposition, feeling or soundbite.  (Note that there is no adademic right-wing counter to what Freeman and others are saying—the math denies them a platform.)

It is this kind of mentality that has allowed a decidedly un-Republican wing of the party to take it over.  So much for fiscal responsibility, states’ rights, citizens’ privacy, smaller government and all the traditional Republican cornerstones.  Too many well-intended Americans are willfully ignorant of facts because of an ingenious system of persuasion that convinces them the media and academia are left-wingers and unreliable, and offers them what they want to hear.

Ah yes, those mysterious, malevolent “Fixers”. Kind of like Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, Men In Black and the Shadow People all rolled into one big boogeyman in the fevered Leftist imagination. Why didn’t those legions of lawyers the Kerry machine had watching and investigating the polls find some kind of cut-and-dried evidence of fraud? Hell, people, if you’ve got it bring it on out and let’s get it in the courtroom. I want to see what this evidence is. And not some BS essay from left-wing bloggers or some statistical model that can be manipulated to mean whatever you want but REAL evidence, admissable in a court of law. Do you know why Democratic leaders and pols are blowing you off and telling you to move ahead? First, they know your “evidence” is nothing of the sort. Pure conjecture and wishful thinking based on false assumptions. Secondly, they know their own house is so dirty with voter fraud that it wouldn’t stand up to close inspection, so they’re doing all they can to change the subject. I say bring it on. Not just Ohio but every state. Let’s see how the Dems tactics stand up to close scrutiny. They practically invented the rigged election, or at least made it into an art.

*sigh*.. do I need to post the 20 amazing facts AGAIN??

sploogedadems is a real gem.  Not one rebuttal to any item in the article or reports.  Classic example of the challenges Americans face when pushing for election reform.

“Facts” by whose reckoning? Just calling them facts doesn’t cut it. Why should I try to refute anything? Get them investigated by competent authority and bring them into a court of law and let the chips fall where they may. I have a feeling though, that that doesn’t fit the agenda. Having them actually litigated may prove them wrong. Best to let them lay until they reach urban legend status. Then it doesn’t matter any more because you will have planted the seed of doubt, like the legend of the Stolen 2000 Election. That’s been refuted by every measure yet it still has a cult of believers because the ignoramuses never stopped to analyze it beyond the initial accusation. Then again, that’s what you’re hoping for in it’s new incarnation for 2004, right? And smarvoter, what’s a “real gem” isn’t what you perceive as a lack of rebuttal from me. No, that particular jewel goes to you for swallowing hook, line and sinker the entire thing without questioning or imposing critical thought upon ANY of it. Have a nice day.

Wait till the RNC outsources their Rapid Internet Response Team Posting function to India. 

“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job.  It’s a depression when you lose yours.”

Claire I just tuned in to the web site you referred me to, and found it very full of truthful reponses from all walks of life. Thank you for sharing that with me.

Brenda, the electorial college had know named Bush as President when the vote counting was going on.  They do not meet to decide who is going to be president until at least 2 weeks after Nov. 2nd.  There was enough time to recount the votes.

Yes it is too bad we didn’t have Dean to vote for in 2005.  It was not the voice of America keeping him off the ballot.  It was democrats in sheeps clothing.

Emm, just guessing, you didn’t check out ANY of the 20 that I posted (which included their source - something I’ve yet to see from anyone here who claims this election was legitimate).

Glad to be of service Grzybowski. Which link were you referring to? I’ve posted a pleanty. :)

We will never have free elections again until we get rid of the machines.  Even then, with the apathy of the American people concerning their own democratic voting process, and the bought out press and TV media, it’s doubtful.  Our election process needs a major overhaul and the sooner the better.  No other country would put up with questionable machine tampering, no paper trail, and optical scanners that can be manipulated. The masses have been lured into complacency.  WAKE UP!!!  Democracy is in a coma in America!

Brenda wrote:

- In 2000, after numerous recounts of the Florida vote (including a symposium of newspapers that really, really, really wanted to show that Gore had won Florida), it was discovered that Bush really had won.

Actually, Brenda, you’re wrong. The symposium which you speak of, consisting of 8 news organizations found that Gore won. Sorry to burst your bubble, honey. Check out the article.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

<snip>
“So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters—whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times. 

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see  Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16.]”
<end of snip>

The results were going to be published around 9/11

<snip>
Yet, possibly for reasons of “patriotism” in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush” [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001]..............

In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in:  “Bush won, get over it.” Only “Gore partisans” – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print.
<end of snip>

Seems Bush is a two-time loser. Get over it.

smartvoter,

ROFL, just like kurtis, who responds with “You people will never cease to amaze and amuse me” after 31 irrefutable points were posted, and after a thorough report by experts in the fields of research and statistical analysis from Penn and Temple University (assuming they bothered to read any of them, never mind attempting to understand the logic). Forget coming up with any refutations - instead, they mock these experts and place their trust in such academic stalwarts as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (whose real name is Michael Wiener, FYI).

But does this pass the Clinton test? Imagine if Bill Clinton had “won” two elections in the face of such overwhelming evidence - the shrieking from the RWLemmingdompubbiehood would be ear-piercing!

This begs the question: if a Right Winger finds a spelling error in a dictionary, will he call for burning all dictionaries, denounce the English language and start signing !?!

Must be nice to be a Right Winger these days - WMD’s in Iraq, Saddam / Al Qaeda collaboration, we’d be greeted as liberators, Iraq would be a cakewalk, Social Security is going bankrupt, deficits don’t matter, tax cuts favoring the wealthy will spur the economy, GeeDubya inherited a recession, Liberals were the cause of 9-11, gays getting married is the end of civilization as we know it - you don’t need to think. Simply check your brain in at the church and have faith that everything is as Fox Jazeera and the EIB report.

From TruthIsAll (numbers genious) on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address s=203x327610
Notice how close the weighted NEP exit poll median (the middle
value) is to the average (mean).

That means it’s a tight fit.

Take it to the bank.
Kerry won it by: 51-48%.

NATIONAL EXIT POLL
13407 Respondents
RANDOMLY SELECTED
1.0% MARGIN OF ERROR

Bush Kerry Nader
GENDER 48.22P.78%1.00%
EDUCATION48.05P.21%1.17%
INCOME 48.12Q.42%0.95%
RACE 47.86P.94%1.00%
AGE 48.17P.53%1.00%
PARTY ID47.77P.69%0.92%
IDEOLOGY48.15I.85%1.00%
RELIGION47.90P.85%1.18%
MILITARY47.62Q.20%1.00%
DECIDED 47.95Q.23%0.54%
ISSUES 47.92P.80%1.28%
REGION 47.95P.53%1.00%
VOTE200047.09P.90%1.19%

AVERAGE 47.91P.76%1.02%
MEDIAN 47.95P.80%1.00%

THIS IS ALMOST EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO THE ACTUAL VOTE
PERCENTAGES:
Bush:62,028,194(50.732%)
Kerry: 59,027,612(48.277%)

Let’s calculate the probability that Bush would go from his
average 47.91% in the National Exit poll to 50.73% in the
vote (a 2.82% deviation), assuming the 1.0% MOE as stated by
Edison-Mitofsky:

Probability = 1-NORMDIST(0.5073,0.4791,0.01/1.96, TRUE)

************** 1 in 61,311,646 ******************

The probability that Kerry would got from 50.76% in the poll
to 48.48% (a 2.28% deviation) in the vote is:

Probability = 1-NORMDIST(0.5076,0.4828,0.01/1.96,TRUE)
************** 1 in 1,708,333 ********************

Again, watch this 8 minute movie.

http://velvetrevolution.us/Content/ElectoralReform/Vide eo/Illegit_Election_2004-20-256.ram

hoefully a non broken link

http://VelvetRevolution.us/Content/ElectoralReform/Video/Illegit_Election_2004-2 20-256.rm

Brenda wrote:

“In 2000, after numerous recounts of the Florida vote (including a symposium of newspapers that really, really, really wanted to show that Gore had won Florida), it was discovered that Bush really had won.  That’s why he wasn’t removed.”

Actually, according to the NYT and Washington Post, if all of the votes were recounted in Florida, Gore would have won in 2000.

Pat Grzybowski wrote:

“Well Brenda,

“Explain why it was just people from bush’s assistants, pages and others who were friends of his were the only ones protesting and standing outside the doors where the counters were busily recounting votes in Florida in 2000.  And why was it then that the Supreme Court called an end to the counting.  The Supreme Court is suppose to be impartial, but I don’t believe they were in this instance.”

I believe you’re referring to the “Brooks Brothers Riot”.  If I recall, they were protesting because the Democrat-controlled precinct there had shut them out and was counting votes behind closed doors.  They were concerned that the Democratic (big “D") vote factory was in full swing, manufacturing votes for Gore that didn’t exist.

And I repeat: The Supreme Court DID NOT stop the counting.  The 5-4 remedy (which followed the 7-2 decision on the equal protection problem) allowed a recount as long as the consistent standards were used, etc.  The problem was that the remedy bumped up against the legal Safe Harbor date, so it was a moot issue.  A recount could no longer be legally done.  And frankly, that was partially the fault of the Gore team, because they cherry-picked counties for the recount that they believed would be favorable to them, and they generally botched the legal maneuverings.

Jack . . . Jack . . . such abject arrogance for someone completely devoid of a single substantive factual rebuttal !!

You posted: “Caltech, MIT, and basically every nonpartisan voting study has found that voter fraud, if it existed, had no effect on the outcome of the election.”

First of all, your unsubstantiated claim that “basically every nonpartisan voting study has found” is too much like a ‘blind quote’ (such as ‘some people say’) to let go by without striking it down. My advice: provide links with names to some of these mythical “nonpartisan voting” studies that have found there was “no effect on the outcome of the election” that you so eloquently mention without presenting proof. Not only do they need to be presented, these alleged ‘studies’ need to be evaluated in order for your claim to be substantiated. If you want to make a claim to support an argument, don’t make someone else do your homework for you. I won’t even ask you to try defending the use of the phrase ”basically every.”

Secondly, why aren’t UPenn and Temple University also two of the most highly respected educational institutions on the planet? And why should anyone believe you over them? This pointedly refutes your wild “basically every nonpartisan voting study has found” assertion.

And before you predictably launch into your ‘Liberal elite’ rant concerning UPenn and Temple University, provide the evidence that this was a partisan study. You may also want to make some inquiries as to the major corporate and individual grants that Caltech & MIT receive before you lump them into the “nonpartisan” column. Their major sources of funding are well documented. Again, do your homework.

Thirdly, you state: “who’s to say that the locations used by the exit pollsters weren’t leaked ahead of time, and that MoveOn, ACT, etc. didn’t flood them so as to stack the results?”

What?!?!  You maintain that this is believable?!? Have you considered how absurd a notion that is?? (rhetorical, don’t answer) Talk about conspiratorial nonsense. Think about what would be required to make even a small dent in exit polling data, even assuming that EVERY MoveOn conspirator that was mobilized got the opportunity to take part in the random exit polling questionnaire. Do you honestly believe that organizations such as those have the resources and manpower to devote to skewing an exit poll AND to getting people to the polls to vote? What would anyone or any entity prefer – to actually WIN an election, or MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH they won an election?

Further, you must believe the firms that perform the exit polling services are in on this vast left wing conspiracy by leaking the exit polling locations. So how logical is it that they would collect intentionally flawed exit-polling data, thereby subverting their ability to land the forthcoming contract to exit poll the next election?!? Not very.

Fourth, you ask: “Who’s to say the Kerry campaign didn’t try this trick so as to influence news coverage and trigger lower Republican turnout in the western states?” This too is supposed to be believable? You must have forgotten that most indications earlier in the day were that Kerry was leading, yet those states that were predicted to have voted ‘Red’ ended up voting ’Red’ anyway. Further, why would only Republicans turn away from the polls? After all, it was to have been a close election, so why wouldn’t they instead be more motivated to head to the polls in greater numbers, and conversely, why wouldn’t Democrats turn away if the outcome was already decided? Again, the ‘Red’ states were going ‘Red’ anyway, which is why Kerry hardly campaigned out west, so once again your supposition is wholly without merit or factual basis.

Actually, you defeat your own points by stating “I’m not actually suggesting any of this ever happened, quite the contrary, in fact.” My advice: it’s not good debate style to beat yourself in your own debate.

I am, however, curious - I have to know how or where you come up with those two examples. I applaud your imagination - but I digress.

Lastly, you state “You automatically assume that Bush stole the election . . .” How presumptuous. It is not automatically assumed. Nor is it to be so easily and summarily dismissed as “snide innuendo” or irrational, especially when you fail to offer one legitimate, factual refutation on any of the points made in the piece by Freeman and Mitteldorf. On the contrary, there is considerable statistical and factual evidence that enough voter fraud occurred at many levels, and in many ways, to make the case that Bush benefited from a rigged election.

Many of us eagerly anticipate your point-by-point refutation of that case.

Pat, you wrote:

“Brenda, the electorial college had know named Bush as President when the vote counting was going on.  They do not meet to decide who is going to be president until at least 2 weeks after Nov. 2nd.  There was enough time to recount the votes.”

OK, let’s rewind.  Immediately after Election Day 2000, when Gore decided that he would not conced, the Gore team airlifted God-knows-how-many lawyers to Florida for legal challenges.  The Gore team then cherry-picked several counties which they felt would be favorable to their candidate for the recount.  When the recounts began, it became apparent that there were problems because the same standards were not being used consistently, and there were questions about what constituted a legal vote, and how far should one go to try to “discern the intent of the voter” and still stay within legal guidelines.  The legal challenges began.  You might recall that the Bush team appealed the first Florida Supreme Court decision to the SCOTUS, which sent the case back to the Florida Supremes with instructions to fix the problem.  The Florida Supremes pretty much ignored the SCOTUS’s instructions.  When the legal wranglings continued and the case was appealed to the SCOTUS again, THAT’S when the 7-2 and 5-4 decisions came down, and that was not until 12/12/00, I believe, which happened to be the day before the legal Safe Harbor date.  By that time, the time for recounting had run out.  The Supreme Court did NOT stop the recount.  The time was burned up by the legal wrangling and the fact that the Florida Supremes had ignored the Supreme Court’s instructions.

STOP_George wrote:

“Actually, according to the NYT and Washington Post, if all of the votes were recounted in Florida, Gore would have won in 2000.”

Oh, really?  Link, please (and I don’t mean one from some left-wing hate-Bush blog).

A quick Google search yields the following links (and yes, I realize this first one doesn’t mention the NYT or Wash Post, but be patient, they’re mentioned further down):

“In the first full study of Florida’s ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled “undervotes”—ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through—to be counted.”

Source:  PBS Media Watch Online 4/3/2001

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

And then there’s this one:

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election using the two most common standards for judging votes, according to a USA Today analysis published Friday.

“The newspaper said the study of 171,908 ballots also found that errors by Democratic voters probably cost former Vice President Al Gore as many as 25,000 votes, enough to have decisively won Florida and the 2000 election.”

Source:  CNN Interactive 05/11/2001

http://www.janda.org/b20/News articles/bushwon.htm

What I found really interesting, however, was this entry on the World Socialist web site, an entry dated 11/16/2001, titled “Media Review of Florida Ballots Whitewashes Stolen Election”.  Here’s a direct quote from that article:

“On November 12, a consortium of major US news organizations, INCLUDING THE NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST [caps mine], Wall Street Journal and CNN, released the results of a 10-month investigation into disputed votes cast in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The media report was calculated to boost the political legitimacy of the Bush administration and obscure the profoundly anti-democratic manner in which Bush was installed in the White House.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/flor-n16.shtml

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s rewind.  The first line includes the names of the New York Times and The Washington Post.  But STOP_George says that the NYT and Washington Post said that Gore would have won the recount.  If that were true, why would the Socialist Web site be whining about just the opposite?

Google is your friend, George.  Use it.  It’s a great aid in fact-checking.

Kathy, I pulled up your link to “Consortium News” with a great deal of interest, only to find that it wasn’t an actual article published by the consortium, itself.  It was written by one Robert Parry, who obviously disagreed with the prevailing interpretation of the consortium results.  VERY misleading.  You should be careful about presenting things like this as “proof”.  What you need is an actual link to the actual articles FROM those papers, or an article that reports the facts of what that consortium found, not someone’s opinion.  I found several which refute this one, simply by doing a simple Google search, and I only scratched the surface of the links that were available.

Why do people persist in arguing with Repugs? The ones who post in progressive forums like this one are just engaging in what they see as Internet activism. There is not the least chance that they will ever change their minds, no matter how lucid the arguments you raise. They are trying to stymie debate not further it. Once and for all, IGNORE THESE TWATS!

Free advice from an independent Bush hater:

In order to make any real progress with election reform or proving election fraud, the voters must come together. This means we must communicate with one another. There are two things we must stop doing in order to communicate.

1. We must stop making sweeping statements about republicans. The problem stems from a relatively small elite group of criminals hiding within and manipula