More Trials and Tribulations for Ohio

[mulethree]

Tova Andrea Wang
The Century Foundation, 12/30/04

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ohio lawyer Cliff Arnebeck, with the backing of a number of progressive organizations, filed a motion in court last week challenging the presidential election. The petition argues it is almost statistically impossible for the exit poll data and the actual vote count to have varied so dramatically absent fraud, which the document alleges for the most part was carried out through the manipulation of electronic voting and counting machines. Whether or not Arneback can prove such a case, these allegations of high-tech fraud only serve to distract from the more mundane but critical ways that voting machine problems disenfranchised Ohio voters. And unlike machine tampering, these failures and abuses of the voting system are disturbingly well-documented.
The machine problem in Ohio was two-fold: (1) there weren't enough of them and the breakdown of who did and did not have sufficient machines was extremely suspicious; (2) the overwhelming majority of machines in use were not electronic, but the same old punch cards Florida made notorious in the 2000 election.

As detailed in my recent piece in the American Prospect, the failure to provide a reasonable number of voting machines in Ohio led to lines and wait times to vote that were not just unacceptably high—they were possibly an unconstitutional denial of voting rights. In Ohio, voters had to wait in line for up to ten hours. Thousands of voters were still waiting in line when the polls closed at 7:30 P.M.

How many people decided not to wait?

What makes this more disturbing are emerging revelations of just where the machines were and where they weren't. According to the New York Times, among the 464 complaints about long lines in Ohio collected by the Election Protection Coalition, nearly 400 came from Columbus and Cleveland, where a huge proportion of the state's Democratic voters live. Completely nonsensically, Franklin County election officials in Columbus actually reduced the number of machines in urban precincts and added them in the suburbs this year. An analysis by the Columbus Dispatch showed that predominantly Democratic Franklin County precincts—those where Democrat Al Gore got at least 70 percent of the vote in 2000—had seventeen fewer machines used in 2004. At the same time, the strongest GOP precincts-where George W. Bush got at least 70 percent of the vote four years ago-received eight more machines.

- more -

http://www.tcf.org/4L/4LMain.asp?SubjectID=4&ArticleID=827

[NVMojo]

1. so much evidence of suppression and the like, pray a senator steps up ...

[O.M.B.inOhio]

34. Shame on any who don't, esp DeWine and Voinovich.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. There comes a time . . .

There comes a time . . . to acknowledge that some are "making hay" grabbing the mike and camera in order to publicize themselves for whatever reason they may have. They play to those who are either unaware of events or who cognitively chose not to acknowledge events.

It's now January 1, 2005. George Walker Bush is the empty-headed president for the next four years, period.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.

[IStriker]

27. With everything I've read on here in regard to fraud in Ohio...

because of the way Ohio is configured county by county with 2 Democrats and 2 Repukes, one of which is the chairman, there is just no way to say that there is widespread fraud without saying that the Democrats were complicit in helping to carry it out. This might work in states where each county is run by one party or the other, but it makes no sense in Ohio. Even if you buy into the Democrats being bribed to go along, this maybe could be carried out in 1 or 2 places, but not all over the state. The reason the Democrats were not anxious for a hand recount for their counties is because it was being requested by the wrong people. If Kerry's people had wanted a hand recount and suspected fraud would prove he had won the state, the Democrats would have bent over backwards to hand count their counties, but they and Kerry's people both knew it was a waste of everybody's time and taxpayer money.

[emlev]

30. Fraud Dems wouldn't have to know about

includes stuffing of ballot boxes, machines programmed to default to Bush, hacking of tabulators...

[IStriker]

32. It's their job to prevent ballot stuffing...

That's why they are there. Granted if somebody hacked the computers counting the votes, it's doubtful that either D's or R's have any knowledge of that, but it is just impossible for me to believe that an elected D isn't in touch with the people who elected him to the point that all of a sudden even though Bush gets 65% of the D vote in his county, he does not notice and does not think there might be something seriously wrong. And the operative phrase is "all of a sudden." In some counties that have overwhelming D registration, the voters have been voting overwhelmingly R for president for years and the surprise would be if they suddenly voted D.

It's my understanding that the Triad Co. has been running the tabulating of elections for ages because this is the optical reading stuff from paper ballots, not touch screen voting machines. Why would they only start now to "fix" elections? How did Clinton win in Ohio?

I remain open to the possibility of Ohio being stolen, but I want to see proof, not allegations, especially allegations that strain my common sense.

[emlev]

33. SOS appoints all BOE members, Dem and Rep

I found this snippet from another DU post, but unfortunately I hadn't saved the link:

This from an article by freepress.org
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/10...
-snip (emphasis added)
Under Ohio election law, the members, directors and deputy directors of all boards of elections are assigned by the Secretary of State. They hold these paying jobs at his discretion regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican. A major argument of those who claim Ohio’s 2004 presidential election was fraud-free centers on the myth that local precincts are run as bipartisan operations, deflecting charges of partisan interference while failing to account for the fact that the principles all owe their jobs to the Secretary of State, who in this case served as co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign.
-end snip

Anybody can register Democratic to become eligible for a Democratic appointment, can't they?

[Hey Nineteen]

31. County election boards had little to do with it

A couple days before Christmas it came out that Triad (which runs the vote tabulating software in the punch-card counties) had a direct link to the tabulating computers. Also it appears that a lot of instructions to the local BOE's came down directly from the Secretary of State's office. They were following orders, trying to do their jobs.

[TexasChick]

3. I sometimes get the feeling that even with fraud, perhaps Senator Kerry

would have beat the smirking Chimp anyway if the African Americans weren't so disenfranchised.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[TexasChick]

12. Um, let me guess, you got a link for your analysis to share? n/t

[SicTransit]

13. Here is a link

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_hispanic-data-12_21_pr.pdf

[TexasChick]

17. Thanks for the link, SicTransit. But, I still think it has nothing to do

with the African American vote, which was what I was commenting on in my first post.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

19. Uh no lwbrds...I believe you are wrong...

The networks came out with an analysis a few weeks ago - saying they were wrong, that * didn't beat Kerry w/the Hispanic vote.

Of course in your rose colored world, I suppose facts aren't that important. :eyes:

[SicTransit]

25. No one ever claimed that Bush beat Kerry in Hispanic vote

what was claimed was that Bush did a lot better in 2004 than in 2000 with Hispanics - and that is true.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_hispanic-data-12_21_pr.pdf

[Raster]

28. and what told us that, the exit polls?

[SicTransit]

29. Raster - I gave a link

did you go there?

[mod mom]

4. This is what I experienced in Columbus OH-civil rights

abuses! Very BLATANT civil rights abuses. I hope the exit poll material will help, but if nothing else we have got to stand up and fight for the BLATANT suppression of inner city. It made me sick to see the partisan placement of machines used to suppress this vote. This was UN AMERICAN! I am ashamed that this occurred. This is not democracy!

[SicTransit]

5. The Franklin county Board of Elections chairman is

William A. Anthony Jr., who is also the chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party.

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

"Board of Elections Chairman William A. Anthony Jr. said he’s offended by accusations from "a band of conspiracy theorists."
Anthony, chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party, said long lines weren’t caused by the allocation of machines — a process controlled by a Democratic supervisor, he added — but by higher turnout, the overall lack of voting machines and a ballot that included more than 100 choices for some voters.

He said board members discussed renting punch-card machines to supplement the county’s 2,886 electronic voting booths, but they decided against the idea upon advice from Blackwell. LoParo said Blackwell would not have given such advice. "I doubt that was the case," he said yesterday.

A second type of machine would have been confusing, Anthony said, and the controversial punch cards likely would have brought objections from those asked to use them.

Anthony said he is personally offended by the allegations.

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

[kitkat65]

16. With friends like Anthony who needs enemies?

If he is as true as he says he is then he's a dumbass. He obviously had no concept of what was going to happen or didn't care enough to speak up.

[kitkat65]

6. The unfair allocation of voting machines was so obvious that

it would almost be ironic if that's the first domino to set this thing in motion. Only because so much of the talk has been about the spooks in the machine.

[SicTransit]

7. I am sure if you will be able to prove that the

Democratic officials in Franklin county that were responsible for the allocation of machines to precincts were working for Bush campaign, the whole election will be invalidated. Do you think that'll happen?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[SicTransit]

11. See my post #5

[mulethree]

15. Bush Campaign?

I don't know that that will be proven. But one of the first
"Ah Ha! there it is in black and white" proofs I saw, was the clear correlation between the Franklin machine provisioning and repub/dem voting tendencies and socio/economic/racial distributions.

Yes you can prove that the machines were distributed with a bias and a clear civil-rights-violation intent. The Board of elections is responsible including Mr. Anthony, Mr. Damschroder and the two underlings from the warehouse and operations that they blame it on. As Mr. Damshroder is quick to point out, the underlings are Dems as well.

If you oversee underlings and approve something malicious or negligent that they're doing, you are in charge and responsible.

I don't suppose you get to be head of a party for a large county by being stupid or a fool. So I'm afraid we have to assume that Mr. Anthony is a liar. But I also don't think you get to be head of a party for a large county without being a good liar - er a politician, and that would seem to preclude lying right into the face of clear evidence, so we have to assume he's a stupid fool?

[Raster]

8. There wasn't one single act that stole 2004, but a loose

collection of everything from at-poll minority harassment to questionable tabulation software to simply controlling exposure to the voting equipment itself. it's probably easier to name the dirty tricks NOT used to throw 2004. There is no one predominant smoking gun at this time, except that multiple statistical examinations of the election results using available data at this time strongly suggest that the overall odds that bush* fairly won 2004 are in the approximate area of little to none.

Instead of quibbling, now is the time for everyone to bring out the big guns. Approach the legal fight against 2004 from every angle possible. The junta that have seized control will stop at nothing to stay in power, at least for four more years to (1) obscure the evidence of their actions as much as possible; (2) richly reward their backers with several plum prizes: social security reform <gag> and continued wholesale transfer of public wealth and resources to private sources; and (3) the real prize, remake the American Judiciary to best support corporate theocratic fascism and curtail individual citizen rights.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. How about

infinitesimally small to none, Raster?

[Raster]

18. Literally. it just boggles the mind. i bet you there isn't a single

rational person in the United States that truly believes deep down that (s)election 2004 was squeeky clean fair and exactly reflected the wishes of the electorate. No one.

[SicTransit]

26. Raster, that is a silly statement on its face

You are right, there isn't one person in the US with IQ above 50 that believes that "2004 was squeeky clean fair and exactly reflected the wishes of the electorate.". Same goes for elections in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 etc etc back as far as you care to go. There is just no such thing as a "squeeky clean" election that "exactly" reflects the wishes of the electorate. Wake up.

[mulethree]

20. Need to define 'fair'

I was looking for a quote, can't find it maybe someone will point it out.

"Theres no question that the election was stolen, the question is whether it was stolen fair and square."


The article was mentioning how much control a party that dominates a state - Governor, SoS, AG, Courts, Legislature, etc. Has over the whole political process. Gerrymandering, internal legislative allocation, whether to be stringent or lax in enforcing laws. How each of those things can give you an edge in an election.

So you add all that up, and consider it 'the American political tradition' and regard it as 'fair and square'. You take over a state, and you get an electoral prize in the form of a big degree of control - combined little 'edges' - over the state's vote.

So, it was stolen, but was it beyond the 'usual' level of manipulations?

I don't know, but I have hopes that it will end up in some court that disregards those traditions and addresses not just 'stolen' but also what is/should be considered fair.

[Raster]

21. American elections have a rich history of corruption and fraud.

This isn't the first dirty election in US history. What sets 2004 apart is the audacity of the various schemes. One that comes to mind is the amazing amount of predominantly democratic precincts where supposedly large swaths of previously democratic voters switched and voted for bush*. Please. If anything, most switched to vote against bush*.

[kitkat65]

22. Agreed. The brashness is mind boggling.

[kitkat65]

23. Oh! And it almost makes me wonder if there weren't some moles

who played their part but left behind just enough tell tale signs to throw up a red flag. Threw in their monkey wrench and still made a nice profit.

[Stevepol]

24. It's not just the DREs; it's the central tabulators, maybe Triad.

"Whether or not Arneback can prove such a case, these allegations of high-tech fraud only serve to distract from the more mundane but critical ways that voting machine problems disenfranchised Ohio voters."

This is the right tack to take it seems to me because this is where the critical differences were achieved. The other stuff is more easily documented but it's also easily weaseled out of. The high-tech fraud is where it took place, and remember it's not just the single machines; it's the central tabulators, and evidently Triad had a good deal to do with that. This has to be a case like Brown v Bd of Education where the facts of social science and in this case statistics and mathematics are brought to bear on a clear fraud. If only the key precincts can be hand counted all over the state and compared with voting rolls and so on!