Pivotal Ohio 2004 Vote-Kerry Was Ahead-Then Server Went Down for 90 Minutes-Result-Bush Had Lead!

[kpete]

April 29, 2007 at 12:49:44

The Pivotal Ohio vote in 2004: Who did the counting?

by Josh Mitteldorf Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





A state electorate that was ‘within striking distance’ for vote theft. Pre-election and election-day polls indicated a 4% margin in Kerry’s favor

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

Somehow, that gap was closed, and Bush came out on top in the official count. Until now, there were strong reasons to believe the vote count had been corrupted, but no direct evidence as to how a swing of this magnitude could have been engineered.

This week, in a series of articles by Bob Firakis, Steven Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, a fact has come to light that suggests the answer: On the night of 2-3 November, 2004, the computer designated to count Ohio votes was cut out of the loop. Its web address was diverted to a private company in Chattanooga, TN, named SMARTech.

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

The web redirection on Election Night of 2004 went a step beyond this: Not only did the official website of the Ohio Department of State look just right, but it had the right address: http://election.sos.state.oh.us. Any citizen or press service looking for real time election results from the state of Ohio would have been directed here. In every sense, this SMARTech site became the official vote tabulation for the state of Ohio.

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

SMARTech leases computer servers to the Republican National Committee, and the 12-digit ISP address to which the Ohio Department of State was diverted for the 2004 vote count falls between two ranges known to be leased to the RNC. This raises the suspicion that it was an RNC computer, impersonating the state of Ohio computer, that performed the official vote tabulation in 2004. This diversion is so unusual (and brazen!) a ruse, that it is inconceivable that it happened without Blackwell’s explicit consent.

The Ohio web site was showing Kerry ahead before midnight. Then the server went down for 90 minutes, and when it came back up, Bush had a commanding lead.

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

The above story derives from two articles by Steven Rosenfeld, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, which were published this week on the web site of the Columbus Free Press.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2553
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2562

more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_josh_mit_070429_the_pivotal_ohio_vot.htm

[saltpoint]

1. This would suggest that Ohio voters picked another winner and not

the guy who got its electoral votes.

A few of us have harbored those suspicions since the night of the theft of the 04 election.

This is to say, for all you lurking GOP freepers, that your guy cheated.

[Gregorian]

29. You couldn't have said that better.

It also explains the "Whaaaaa?" moment we all had during that night's election. We all remember it. The total surprise at the REdirection things went, shortly after a specific point during that evening.

[saltpoint]

42. Hello, Gregorian. Yes. That "Whaaaa" moment. Ted Kennedy was

being interviewed after his staff had given the exit polls a close going-over. He was congratulating his fellow Bay Stater, Mr. Kerry, on a hard-fought victory.

Later that evening came the "Whaaa" moment. My strong hunch is that Ted Kennedy's staff knew what they were talking about.

Kerry-Edwards won. Bush-Cheney cheated.

[Radio_Lady]

138. Thanks for recommending this for GREATEST. I just got back from the cinema and

you made my early afternoon to see it in the DU Lobby!

[glengarry]

174. And they rigged the Ohio Exit Poll to cover up the theft...

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Ohio

They argued that the Ohio exit poll does not indicate fraud. But they ignored the massive documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, apart from voter disenfranchisement. And two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. They criticized the 12:22am Ohio exit poll (1963 respondents) which Kerry won by 52-48%, yet believe the 2:06pm Final (2020 respondents) in which the vote shares were changed in favor of Bush to match a miscounted Ohio recorded vote. This was just like the final 2pm NEP in which the vote shares were changed from the 12:22am timeline to match a miscounted National vote. With the original weights, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels. An exhaustive statistical study of actual ballots in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) indicated that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched.



They need to explain these Ohio exit poll anomalies:

-First-time voters: Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%?

-When Decided: Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the other 79% who decided before October 1? Were there any pre-October polls in which Bush led by 10%?

-Party ID: Weights changed from 38D/35R to 35D/40R, a 7.9% shift. With the original 38/35 weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote; he had 8% at 12:22am.

-Ideology: Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/32 to 19/34, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote; he had 13% at 12:22am.

-Voted for Senate: Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate; he had 7% at 12:22am.

[L. Coyote]

89. Kerry votes were switched to Bush before the votes were counted.

Let's focus on the FRAUD instead of these speculative distractions from the FACTS!!

The fact that the Ohio SoS did not update Ohio's online results report for ninety minute, in and of itself, means absolutely nothing more than that Ohio's SoS did not update Ohio's online results report for ninety minutes.

OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259620

Defining the vote outcome probabilities of wrong-precinct voting has revealed, in a sample of 166,953 votes (1/34th of the Ohio vote), the Kerry-Bush margin changes 6.15% when the population is sorted by probable outcomes of wrong-precinct voting.

The Kerry to Bush 6.15% vote-switch differential is seen when the large sample is sorted by probability a Kerry wrong-precinct vote counts for Bush. When the same large voter sample is sorted by the probability Kerry votes count for third-party candidates, Kerry votes are instead equal in both subsets.

Read the revised article with graphs of new findings:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

[msongs]

2. is stealing an election an impeachable offense if proved? nt

[bullimiami]

5. stealing an election should include culpability for EVERY crime that was committed afterward

afterward in the stolen office.

Bush, Rove, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Harris, Blackwell, a few Supreme Court Justices and many many many more should be rotting in jail until the end of their miserable evil last breaths.

[juno jones]

77. And all appointments by the criminals made null and void. n/t

[Joanne98]

126. I hope so!

[sellitman]

13. How can this be proven beyond ANY doubt?

Can it?

If so what next?

:wow:

[L. Coyote]

102. THIS is not the issue. The REAL THIS is.... And, it has been PROVEN!!

beyond any doubt that "Ohio votes were NOT counted as cast. Many votes were miscounted, and Kerry votes were counted for Bush."

Read the article:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

This has been reported to the authorities: FBI, USA for N. Ohio, Ohio's SoSs, Prosecutors, Congressional Committees, Congresspeople, more.

Some are reacting, others are pretending otherwise.

The article was published on the morning of the State of the Union address. It was reported on DU too:

L. Coyote Sun Jan-28-07 02:24 PM
OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259620

And, a lot has happened since the revelation was made:

OhioChick Tue Feb-06-07 12:17 PM
Cuyahoga Co. Elections Director Resigns (OH)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2719564
CLEVELAND -- NewsChannel5 has confirmed that embattled elections chief in Cuyahoga County has resigned. .......

[aggiesal]

130. CLEVELAND -- NewsChannel5 has confirmed that embattled elections chief in Cuyahoga County has resign

We now have in San Diego. :(

[L. Coyote]

147. That was back in early Feb. Here's the thread, still alive w/116 posts today

OhioChick Tue Feb-06-07 12:17 PM
Cuyahoga Co. Elections Director Resigns (OH)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2719564

The last post is a x-post to the current misinformation barrage.

[aggiesal]

190. It stated that he is now in San Diego ....

and that "San Diego officials said they approached Vu about the job and feel lucky to have him."

What is wrong with the ROV in San Diego?
Do they want to make sure that a Republican (i.e. Brian Bilbray) will continue to win the 50th?
Or using a republican stronghold, they might be able to manipulate the results to affect the whole state!

[Kurovski]

80. I think this would fall under the category of "enemy of the Constitution: domestic."

"The terror within." I guess it's pretty clear that they hate us for our freedoms.

[jimshoes]

3. This is the stuff Grand Juries

are made for. This looks all the world like election theft. Hopfully this will lead to indictments, a lot of them.

[loudsue]

131. Is there ANY chance we could get a grand jury to look at this?

There's just a mountain of evidence here.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Skink]

4. Nevermind the Dem voters that gave up after waiting hours to vote.

In my view this was a test run for california 08.

[bullimiami]

6. After all of the shenanigans to keep dems from voting they still had to screw kerry out of

another 5+ percent of votes to take it.

Kerry won in such a huge landslide its scary and he just lay down and took it the next day. This I will never understand.

[garthranzz]

18. He knew what happened to Gore; he knew what the media would do to him

He'd been swift-boated once. Gore, with a clear popular vote majority, still couldn't get the so-called media to get the facts or story straight. Kerry had no proof and no way to get it. It was a strategic retreat, so that he could remain effective. And he has become effective. At a very, very steep cost, yes. But he didn't want to be painted as a Don Quixote.

I spoke to someone who had been a community liaison in the campaign. He said the campaign staff felt relieved - relieved! - when he conceded. If the staff didn't want a fight...

(And who knows, perhaps behind the scenes he was funding some of these investigations.)

[Laurab]

23. You can't fight something you can't prove

and still 2 and 1/2 years later, it can't be proven absolutely. Kerry could have chosen to fight, and made a fool of himself, but he had nothing but possibly suspicion and circumstantial evidence. I'm glad that more and more is coming out - maybe before 2008 there will be proof enough to use in court, and, at the very least, outlaw electronic voting completely.

[JimDandy]

62. This is why the election records access laws in OH

and across the country MUST be changed. The proof was there all the time -- democracy shouldn't have to wait til 2008.

[L. Coyote]

103. THIS is pure seculation, at best. There are reasons to be concerned. NOT THIS!!

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[L. Coyote]

132. WRONG. This has nothing to do with the exit poll server. It is the OHIO SoS.

FACTS: Does anyone have one iota of evidence that would contradict these statements?

The Ohio SoS used an external hosting company on Election night.

The hosting service also was used by the RNC to host georgewbush.com, et.al.
SEE: Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x523978

The election results were updated periodically by the Ohio SoS's office after reports from the counties were submitted to the State.

The site was not dynamic, updating directly or in real time. It was controlled by the SoS's office.

LIES: Does anyone have one iota of evidence that would contradict these statements? My comments, re the truth, in parenthesis.

"the computer designated to count Ohio votes was cut out of the loop" (Actually, the counties counted their votes.)

"an RNC computer, impersonating the state of Ohio computer" (one domain residing on a server beside another does not give it control.)

"the server went down for 90 minutes" (Actually, the SoS updated the tally periodically.

Regarding the ad hominem attack, everyone who has sent me e-mail knows who I am.

[BeFree]

143. Here's what you are missing

On election night, with everybody looking to Ohio to determine the outcome, the process of broadcasting the vote came down to Smartech's output: bush by just 120,000.

Remember GIGO? Garbage In Garbage Out?

Imagine if the report from Ohio came out saying Kerry had won.

Or even that it was tied, or still too close to call?

As it was, the report from the Smartech computer carried the tide for bushco, and the rest is history.

And we still don't know the real total out of Ohio, do we?

[L. Coyote]

148. What is missing is how Ohio voters voted before their ballots were switched

to the wrong precinct because, either, the voted at the wrong precinct or because someone swapped their ballots o the wrong precinct. Read this for yourself and decide which you think it is:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

" In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts 6.15% when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

"Seven-eights of voters in heavily-Democratic Cuyahoga County, more than one of every eight
Ohio Kerry voters, could have voted at an adjacent precinct using the wrong ballot order."

"Many votes were counted for the wrong candidate or ballot option, and a significant portion of the cross-voting resulted in Kerry votes tallied as Bush votes. The 2004 Presidential election hinged on the Ohio results. According to exit polls, Kerry won Ohio. Instead, with a -3.35 percent differential in Kerry's tally, the results gave the victory and the presidency to Bush. With these circumstances, evidence of miscounted voting and Kerry-to-Bush vote switching have particular importance in determining the actual intent of Ohio voters, the reasons for the exit poll discrepancy, and the validity of the 2004 US Presidential election result. Cross-voting also impacted other races and analysis of past elections may reveal similar cross-voting patterns....."

When will the supposed fraud-busters get to this analysis, instead of pushing lies.

[JimDandy]

129. Again...

Your difference of opinion with the OP is exactly WHY good public records access laws and beginning-to-end election oversight, by citizens, is needed in every state on election night -- and definitely before an official count is released.

You say "speculation", he says "redirection".

THE ANSWER IS IN THE RECORDS! (as long as the chain of custody is tight)

[bleever]

170. Go, JimDandy;

go.

[kiteinthewind]

66. "outlaw electronic voting [AND Counting!] completely" BINGO!

Thanks for posting this, kpete!
:kick:

[va4wilderness]

72. Yes, outlaw them- we don't even have mandatory paper trails in most states...

I was listening to the local public radio station here in Virginia this morning and the person overseeing state-wide elections (appointed by Mark Warner and continuing to serve under Tim Kaine!) was getting ready to end her term. She said something about how switching from electronic voting to the old machines would result in many more errors and much more time consumed in recounts. That kind of pissed me off - knowing how easy it would be to hack the vote on these electronic machines.

[kiteinthewind]

136. It is easy to hack the vote on the optiscan 'counters', as well. They all need to be taken out

back and shot. Return to hand counted paper ballots, counted at precinct level, by 'we the people'. Return elections to the people! No more corporate-controlled elections.
:banghead:

[tblue]

40. That always bothered me, too. We were ready to fight and he stood down.

[blm]

52. The Dem party's election LEGAL team and Office of Voter Integrity were supposed

to have these areas under control for the FOUR YEARS they were charged with doing so.

Kerry didn't have the legal evidence to make a case in court at that time and the Dem party's lack of oversight made CERTAIN he wouldn't have it.

[lonestarnot]

140. Me either! I will never never never understand why!

[L. Coyote]

151. Because he could not put the Ohio ballots back into the right precincts.

The ballots did not have precinct identifications, so once they were switched it was over, PERIOD.

Read how it was done here:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Kerry may or may not have know this. It was not reported until after the analysis was completed much later.

That happened here on DU!!!!!!!!!

SEE DU on Jan 12, 2005:

'Caterpillar Ballot' cost Kerry more than 1000 Cuyahoga votes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=172x5139

L. Coyote Wed Jan-12-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. This is incorrect. There is never a collocation with equal probability.


You are overlooking the most significant aspect of cross-voting, switching one major candidate's vote to the other major candidate. This does not create a non-vote or a 3rd party vote trail.

If there were only two candidates and two precincts at a location, cross-voting would switch votes both ways. But, in the 2004 presidential race in Ohio, this is never the case. The precinct probabilities are never equal from the opposing candidate perspectives.

Switching major candidate votes has double the impact of a vote lost to a third party candidate. It subtracts 1 from one column and adds 1 to the opposing column, in effect two votes for one!!

When two precincts have Kerry and Bush collocated in the same position on the ballot orders, one precinct has one set of probabilities that a Kerry vote gets switched to a Bush votes, the next precinct a different set of probabilities, etc. And, in each precinct, the Bush vote switch probabilities are different that the Kerry probabilities.

L. Coyote Thu Jan-13-05 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. The important cross-votes are the ones that switch Kerry votes to Bush.

You are focused on the votes that switch to 3rd party candidates or non-votes, switches that do not have the same impact as major party switches. When a Kerry vote is switched to a Bush vote, the margin changes by 2 votes, not 1. Major party cross-votes have twice the impact on the results. And there is reason to believe that they could be far more numerous, even though they are not evidenced in any real sense.

By starting with the premise you use, you have looked in all the wrong places. There are high 3rd party vote counts where Kerry votes DO NOT get switched to Bush votes. Why don't you look at the locations where Kerry votes DO get switched to Bush. You are giving the impression that there were fewer cross-votes than is actually the case. I get the impression you are working for Bush, trying to hide the real problem.

What you are doing is showing what rate of cross-voting occurred from major to minor candidates in some locations only.

In Cuyahoga county there are 352 precincts in the 2\2 subset, at locations with 2 ballot orders and 2 precincts. Of these, 220 are crawl 1 and crawl 4 ballot collocations, only 130 are crawl 2 or crawl 3. At the crawl 1 and crawl 4 locations, in one precinct at each location, Kerry cross-votes switch to Bush votes. These precincts are where the greatest impact on the results occurs. There are 110 precincts where the probability of a Kerry cross-vote counts as a Bush vote.

These are the P = 1.0 precincts. Of the 110, 30 are in precincts with >90% Kerry support, 28 have 70-90% Kerry support, 22 have 60-70% Kerry support, 12 have 50-60%, 12 have 40-50, and 5 have <40%. Every single Kerry cross-vote in these precincts counted as a Bush vote.

Do you understand this? If not, read the Web pages linked in my first post in this thread.

Yes, the charts are unclear. But that is not the problem. Where's the chart for the number of precincts where a Kerry cross-vote becomes a Bush vote? Those are precincts without inflated 3rd party numbers because cross-votes don't go to the 3rd parties, they go to Bush!!

L. Coyote Wed Jan-12-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. An easy way to determine the 3rd party vote rate is by using all the

precincts with zero probability of a major candidate cross-vote to that candidate. Of course, there are underlying assumptions, like that ballots are counted in the correct precinct, etc.

FINALLY

StudentOfDarrow Mon Oct-10-05 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
49. Wow.

This is incredible. When are Americans going to wake up and realize that America is rigged?!?

============================
Apparently, not any time soon, considering this was posted back in Jan. 2005! And now a new methodology has been developed, probability analysis, and the only people that seem to understand it are the new officials in Ohio. On DU, it's still being ignored in favor of the latest distractions.

[lonestarnot]

162. bookmarking! for tonight. Thanks Coyote!

[Joanne98]

128. Bingo!

[krkaufman]

188. What are you talking about? Who had to wait to vote?

Oh. Right.

(Screenshot from MSNBC election night coverage, 2004.)

[MissWaverly]

7. I hope somebody ends up going to jail for this

for a long, long time, everybody involved in rigging it.

[L. Coyote]

104. THIS is not what they will go to jail for. n/t

[MissWaverly]

135. why do you say this?

[bullimiami]

8. It is seriously time to select some special prosecuters.

Starting with this ohio 2004.

[femrap]

9. I think we need to slam Conyers with some

emails....I'd like to see him pick up this issue again and jam it down Rove's throat.

[tblue]

41. He wrote 'What Went Wrong in Ohio' so he knows it was stolen. Why no action yet?

[femrap]

57. Maybe he needs a reminder from

We, The People.....we haven't forgotten the stolen election.

[L. Coyote]

106. WRONG. Don't play into this deception. IGNORE THE LIES.

If you are going to trouble a Congressperson, try doing so with FACTS that are of real concern instead.

[Occulus]

125. You're saying NAY to this very real issue an awful lot.

I think you WANT us looking elsewhere.

[L. Coyote]

127. You are very, very correct. LIES are LIES are LIES and need to be called LIES

And I WANT you to look for the TRUTH wherever it may be found.

[lonestarnot]

142. And do nothing about the lies? WTF?

:shrug:

[femrap]

166. I live in Ohio.....the election

was stolen. Conyers wrote a book about it. I think we just need to remind him that We, The People still remember. And btw, those 5 million emails 'missing' from 2003 to 2005 will explain a hell of a lot, don't you think?

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Impeachable? Cha! And then some. n/t

[pepperbear]

11. OMG!

:popcorn:

[MelissaB]

12. Snip...If the name SMARTech sounds vaguely familiar, it is because the

If the name SMARTech sounds vaguely familiar, it is because the same web server, run by the same company, was in the news last month. It is the site that handled the email accounts for White House aides who did not want their communications to be subject to Congressional scrutiny. When Congress set out to subpoena the emails of Karl Rove, they had disappeared, along with 6 million other email messages. The entire staff had been communicating secretly, illegally, subverting the system that had been set up by Congress in the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Please raise your hand if you're surprised by this.

[bleever]

16. Small world, huh?

I had hoped for info like this to eventually be revealed, but I'm frankly surprised and de-freakin-lighted.

On November 3, 2004, this day seemed like it might never come.

Thank you, Josh Mitteldorf (and Fitrakis, and Wasserman).

:yourock:

[mojowork_n]

20. Nice Discovery on SMARTech, MelissaB !!!

The pronounciation for that tech firm should probably include at least two punction marks, a long pause, and one completely gutteral clearing of the throat, as in "SMART (?) - eckkkhhhh (!)"
(Okay, my Jon Stewart impersonation is a little weak, tonight.)

I found this in the Guardian, from about a month ago, 2 precinct workers were each "convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee", and sentenced to 18 months, for deliberately rigging a required re-count of votes, in Cuyohoga County:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6478091,00.html


"Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter said in the defendants' January trial that they worked behind closed doors three days before the public recount on Dec. 16, 2004, to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, thereby avoiding a full hand recount."

The prosecutor didn't claim that these workers' actions affected the outcome of the election (a net total of only 11 votes were switched from Bush to Kerry, following the recount), and both of the women (Ms. Maiden and Ms. Dreamer -- those names are not made up) swore up and down that there was nothing improper going on...

``This big conspiracy, it's not there,'' Dreamer said. She said she wasn't protecting anyone at the board and had been truthful in the investigation.

Maiden said she wouldn't lie, even to protect someone. ``I've never tried to do anything underhanded,'' she said.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. That and...

Is where the "40 Year Old Virgin" worked.

[pepperbear]

30. Color me SHOCKED AND AWED!!!! n/t

[Patsy Stone]

34. Not me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x469493

:hi:

[SharonRB]

101. Me neither, Pats

:hi:

[WiseButAngrySara]

74. Yep! Not surprised. ....n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. This is important, thanks!

[krkaufman]

14. Direct link to above commentary on OpEdNews.com ...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_josh_mit_070429_the_pivotal_ohio_vot.htm

[madrchsod]

15. in my opinion kerry lost when the governor of ohio buried

on the coin scandal till after the election. it was reported that there was a phone call to the whitehouse in sept before the election. i wonder who he called?
if the coin scandal would have broke before the election the democrats would have taken the state by an amount that the whitehouse could`t fix.

[ladym55]

17. I have always suspected this

But I have a question: HOW do we get SOMEBODY moving on this??? People (including RFK, Jr.) have been waving flags and jumping up and down to get someone to PAY attention to what happened in Ohio in 2004, but it gets blown off again and again.

I am so frustrated.:mad:

[chervilant]

22. How do we get SOMEBODY moving on this?!?

WE the PEOPLE have to get moving on this! Like Cindy said the last time I saw her, we have to get outside our comfort zone and be willing to be arrested! Like Alice Walker said in her newest book: "We are the ones we have been waiting for"! We MUST fight for our great Republic! Do whatever you can--go to DC on May 14 and ensconce yourself in your Senator's office or your Representative's office, and refuse to leave until they agree to work toward impeachment. We MUST impeach Bush and Cheney! They have left us with no choice, if we're to show the nation AND the world that We the People will NOT TOLERATE such criminal behavior! PLEASE ramp up your activism now. We will go down in history as complicitous, whiny, hedonistic brats if we don't.

[ladym55]

25. Well, I haven't camped out yet

But my representative and both senators hear from me regularly, and I'm not shy about using the "I" word. I'm sure Senator Voinovich just LOVES to hear from me. :sarcasm:

[chervilant]

24. By The Way,

Cindy says it's much more scary being arrested by the Feds, and you have to have your bail money with you. I hope to put together a mini-emergency kit that I can stash inside my bra. Good luck, if you decide to participate.

[harmonyguy]

19. Link to the original and related epluribusmedia articles

The Rosenfeld-Fitrakis articles cite ... "Numerous tech-savvy bloggers, starting with the online investigative consortium epluribusmedia.org ....outed the RNC tech network".

It may be helpful to access all of the the original work when considering this latest article..

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/4/24/17510/5470

This link lists the related works in one place.

HG;)

[FogerRox]

35. epluribusmedia has done the heavy lifting on this, bookmark them

I have.

[kittenpants]

26. From my understanding

votes would be tabulated somewhere, and the results then uploaded to a Web server for the public to view. Would it be possible the the Dept. of State saw a spike in traffic coming on election night and needed additional hardware/bandwidth to handle the load. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the article, but I don't believe the votes would actually be counted by a computer, especially one that was online.

[lonestarnot]

27. Are we going to let this crap happen again?

[Peggy Day]

28. Does that mean the the Supreme Court appointees will

be null and void? What the heck could/would ever happen if they could prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. I have known/suspected that the election was stolen-kinda like a silent coup. But there was never good evidence.

[FourScore]

31. K&R

[Roland99]

32. Once again, it's a good thing our *LIBERAL* media is all over this!!!

I mean, it's going to be the top news story on NBC Today, ABC Good Morning America, CBS The Early Show. It will be the top headline in 128pt bold print on the communist NY Times and the uber-liberal Washington Post!

It's all over for the Republicans!!!








Oh wait......

[loudsue]

134. That's it, Roland....the MEDIA IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HDQTRS.

And SOMETHING has to be done about it!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Freedom_Surfer]

33. Two time loser

Figures...really it does

Bush never obtained anything by his own merit his entire life. (except perhaps swindling a Texas town out of millions of dollars for a shiny new stadium....then again...that was probably just name recognition.)

Mommy and Daddy bought his way out of Vietnam, into 'respectable' institutions of higher learning, into business and state government. Why should it stop there?

One can only hope that history holds this man more accountable than life has. I'd take impeachment as a good first step.

[Divine Discontent]

36. Hey There!

WELCOME TO DU! :hi:

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[qanda]

49. Great post!

And welcome to DU!!!!!! :hi:

[Handsome Pete]

37. Kerry rolled over and played dead.

He deserved to lose, 'cause he didn't even try to fight. Instead, he went for the coveted Ms Congenialty sash, and in so doing lost any repect that I held for him.

I would never vote for him again.

just sayin

</rant>

[yardwork]

58. Welcome to DU. Thanks for your support.

:eyes:

[tavalon]

86. Well, I'm an old timer

and I have the same point of view. I was quite relieved when he chose not to run this time.

[Divine Discontent]

38. DEAR KEITH OLBERMANN

I sure hope Keith considers doing a 'tin foil hat' piece on this, just so it gets out there, in the manner he'd write it and give it extreme credibility as it deserves... the whole rerouting of the server with the name staying the same, and Kerry being ahead, the system going down, and Bush being give a commanding enough lead that when the cleveland votes finally came in, he would still beat kerry by more than a point... this is so evilllllllllll (yes there's evil!)

[FogerRox]

39. Give credit to epluribusmedia, they are DU'ers & KOSSACK's

epluribusmedia are a bunch of DU'ers & KOSSACK's,

these are our brothers & sisters

GO here, bookmark, read, you will not regret it.

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/4/24/17510/5470

[WiseButAngrySara]

76. Thanks. Bookmarked! ....n/t

[DFW]

43. IF this can be effectively proved and documented

Then in that case:

Conyers and Waxman need to convene special panels ASAP

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed, and one independent of Bush/Gonzo control

A panel of Senators needs to be convened to initiate a constitutional investigation
of removing Bush's SCOTUS appointments, and the Justices involved must be recused from
voting if it gets to the SC, and THAT removes their right-wing majority.

[loudsue]

137. I'm with you! We need a special panel & a special prosecutor. However,

since a majority of the senate approved the justices, they cannot be recalled even if it is shown that bush stole the presidency.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Senator]

44. How Many Other States "Got Diverted" ??!!??

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- attributed to Josef Stalin ...

... and now also to Karl Rove, James Baker, Kenneth Blackwell, Kathryn Harris, Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sandra O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, some clown in an "I'm The Deciderer" t-shirt, and many lesser traitors to our once-great nation.

---

[The Count]

54. See # 50 for an idea!

[KamaAina]

118. More to the point, how many will "get diverted" in '08?

Hiopefully, none -- if we can stop them...

[JPZenger]

121. Only needed to shift 75,000 votes

Out of the millions of votes cast in Ohio, someone only needed to shift 75,000 from the Kerry column to the Asswipe column.

[Senator]

173. Oh, far more was needed

Keep in mind that your number "accepts" the official results as a starting point.

I don't mean to nitpick, but this is something that gets lost in many discussions of both the theft of 2004 and the theft of 2000. And it is quite damaging to the public perception/acceptance of what really happened. It is this notion that they were "close elections." Simply not the case. It only seems so because the election thieves needed only to steal one vote more than necessary in any race.

It was a large part of the Post-Theft in 2000 to placate people into thinking "it could have gone either way." This suppresses both the outrage at the theft and the impulse to investigate.

In 2000 the simple extrapolation of "uncounted" ballots by precinct demonstrated that Gore won Florida by tens of thousands of voters -- and even this number completely leaves out the voter-suppression stealing. It was the theft of Florida that gave the election thieves their 3 electoral vote margin.

Correct the theft and Gore wins the nation by nearly 50 electoral votes. Equal to over half a dozen of those empty "red states."

Hardly close at all.

--

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

45. This thread needs to be locked, on the Greatest Page...

Permanently!

[The Count]

55. Agree. header has to be a banner on DU! Home page - everywhere.

You know no one else will cover it!

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

65. "You know no one else will cover it!"....

Well MSNBC has time to cover the Natalee Holloway case today, maybe they could cover what is the crime of the century!

[moggie]

46. Why would "the computer designated to count Ohio votes" be on the web?

Seriously, in any sane design you wouldn't actually tabulate the votes on the public-facing webserver. You'd have the vote-counting computer(s) periodically upload the current count to one or more public webservers. And the latter could be operated by anyone, including, for example, a hosting company with enough bandwidth and load-balancing gear to cope with the election night traffic, which would surely be many times what the Dept of State webservers have to cope with at other times.

[Mister Ed]

53. A very important distinction

I admire Fitrakis and have been following his work since late 2004, but I suspect that he's misspoken here. I think he's describing the computer designated to publish the vote count, not tabulate the vote count. I hope that distinction will be made.

Even so, this is damning information. It gives reason to believe that the publication of the vote count was suspended while GOP operatives fiddled with the results.

[eridani]

47. Why would a vote counting computer be online?

Where is the evidence that this was the case?

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. nowhere, as far as I know

Anything is possible, so they say, but I've seen nothing to support it. Ohio counties report their vote counts to the SoS. It isn't as if someone has documented that their punch card readers were controlled over the Internet.

I'm also scratching my head over the headline claim that Kerry was ahead in Ohio, or on "the Ohio web site" (says the story), until a server (presumably the vote count server?) went down for 90 minutes. I hate to say it, but that sounds like a reference to... to... initials e.p. Groan.

Was Kerry ahead in the Ohio vote count before midnight on election night? Is that how people remember it? (Not me.) Is that what the transcripts show? Is there any evidence for that at all?

When folks on Daily Kos worked this over, I'd say the most plausible line of argument was that the Republicans could gain strategic advantage by selectively delaying the reporting of vote counts -- although, even if that is true, I'm not sure why Blackwell would have to outsource the website to an out-of-state host in order to derive the advantage.

I fear that the posts immediately after yours show how this is going to go. I'm thinking of giving my wife a birthday present by completely ignoring DU for the month of May. I have a hard time being indifferent to stuff like this once I read it, and I know it makes me hard to live with. Why do the most prominent ER posts have to be the dodgiest?

(edit to add question mark after "server")

[BeFree]

67. It must be nice

To live with the mindset that the crooks would never do anything to steal votes. As they say: ignorance is bliss.

But then you do have to contend with us on DU that think they would and did. Gawd, how awful!

Hey, do your wife that favor.

And during that time off maybe you begin thinking about how these crooks that have run elections for years now, would do just about anything to steal votes.

But if you did that, then maybe you become less blissful?

What a contravening situation you appear to be in. I do not envy you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. what would help

would be if you would stop making stuff up about me. It would be so very easy for you.

"the mindset that the crooks would never do anything to steal votes."

I have no such mindset. Even if I did, this comment would still be an irrelevant distraction. This is a thread about web servers and such -- not about what "the crooks would... do," but about what actually happened.

If that subject doesn't interest you, then perhaps you should start another thread.

[BeFree]

79. Actually, I just did start another

Go vote.

Its just that as I have read your stuff here and there, I rarely glimpse that your mind actually questions the possibilities of rampant theft.

I dunno, but it just seems like you never really considered it like the rest of us on this forum have, and maybe that's why you need to do your wife a favor?

Really, just asking.

[Febble]

94. Well, you are wrong

OTOH and I have exchanged endless emails about the possibilities of rampant theft, over the course of about two years. Every time one of us seemed about to give up trying to think of yet more ways of teasing out some evidence of rampant theft out of the exit poll data, the other would come up with a new theory.

The problem was that the evidence simply wasn't there.

On the other hand (excuse the pun) you will have remembered, no doubt, as soon as the data from Sarasota 2006 started coming in, OTOH was on to it like a flash.

And I myself found some fishy things in Ohio and New Mexico, even Florida (though I'm no longer convinced those last findings were meaningful).

OTOH and I just seem to be cursed with the drive to get things right. I remain convinced it's the best way to get stuff done. Bad arguments based on erroneous facts and analyses are a gift to those who would stand in your way.

[BeFree]

97. You keep saying

That our arguments are bad.
That there is no evidence.

As if you are the arbitrator of what's what.

It is as if yall are trying to tell us what a forest looks like by describing one tree.

In hundreds of threads here the evidence in it's entirety - the forest - has been well documented. The incessant chopping at one little tree - a tree, mind you, that still stands - will never destroy the forest.

But hey, if you want to keep trying to prove bushco won fair and square...
Well, it's your life.

[Febble]

105. I keep saying it

when it's true. I then attempt to explain why it's true. Why those plots have the wrong labels. Why they don't make the point they seem to be designed to make. Why TIA's arguments don't work. Why Steve Freeman's argument is flawed.

And I say these things simply because you make a better case if you have arguments that don't have glaring great holes in them. You know perfectly well that I don't think "Bushco won fair and square" - if I thought Bushco won I wouldn't give a damn about bad arguments. In fact, I'd welcome them, as they do on sites like conservativeunderground and freerepublic. I'd be only too delighted not to have to bother to make my own straw men.

I think 2004 was a thoroughly corrupt election. I think Gore should be your president now. I want to make sure that the Wrong Man is never elected president of the US again.

Which is why I find it enfuriating when people who agree with me post idiotic plots with the wrong labels on them, and try to argue that the exit polls indicate that Bush electronically stole millions of votes when they do no such thing. And all the time black voters continue to be systematically disenfranchised as usual and no-one seems to give a damn. Audits won't help, HCPBs won't help. But when did I last read the word "voter suppression"? Probably when I last typed it.

OK, </rant>

Good luck.

Cheers

Lizzie

[BeFree]

109. People who agree with you?

Now that is a strawman.

You say that the exit polls don't show bushco electronically show votes were stolen.

You're right. The exit polls just show that votes were stolen.

But when you look at how the discrepancies match the way votes were counted and tabulated you begin to see just where the votes were stolen.

In another post you claimed that bushco probably won the election. But there is no solid evidence to that effect. In fact, all the evidence points to a different conclusion.

[Febble]

111. I disagree n/t

[BeFree]

113. Disagree? With what?

This?
I consider it highly probable that in 2004 Bush won more of the votes cast, nationally. I think it probable that he won more of the votes cast in Ohio.

Found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=471660&mesg_id=471706

[Febble]

115. With this:

"But there is no solid evidence to that effect. In fact, all the evidence points to a different conclusion."

I think the evidence points the conclusion I drew in the link you posted.

But you will be aware that considering it "highly probably that in 2004 Bush won more of the votes cast" is not the same as considering that "Buscho won fair and square". I don't think Bush won fair and square. I think the election was unfair and crooked. As I said.

[BeFree]

116. Oh, splitting hairs now, are we?

The evidence presented about the stolen votes in Ohio does not lead to a different conclusion than the one you hold too? Say what?

The preponderance of evidence points to a conclusion that the election was stolen. So, yes, we disagree!

[loudsue]

139. BeFree!!!! PLEASE quit engaging that person!!!!

Can't you see what's happening here?? Either they are unwilling to read the massive amounts of research that have been done, or they have other motives. Either way, the distraction becomes the issue, rather than the "issue" being the issue.

:hug: I love your fighting spirit, but you're wasting your time with that one.

[Febble]

152. That's very true

He probably is wasting his time.

What is not true is the claim that I have not read a large amount of research. I have, and done a great deal myself. So don't jump to conclusions. I don't.

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. are you kidding?

It ought to be pretty obvious, I would have thought, that I am constantly trying to figure out where and how rampant theft is possible -- in the past and in the future.

You see me considering it all the time; how can you be convinced that I never really considered it?!

Shrug.

ETA: To underscore how confusing this is, suppose you're doing an Easter Egg hunt, and you think there may be eggs left, so you are hunting for the eggs under the car, and in the bushes, and so forth. And someone persists in hollering, "They're under the tree, they're under the tree!" although you already looked under the tree and know they aren't. And you explain this, and the person replies, "Well, have you ever seriously considered the possibility that there are eggs left?"

:shrug:

[BeFree]

100. How?

By reading your words here. That's all I have to go on.

But lets not get too personal. After all what you seem to be trying to do is find ways that disprove that elections have been stolen while the rest of us are digging up the evidence. Like on this thread. And we are winning.

Isn't that evident?

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. BeFree giveth, and BeFree taketh away

"But lets not get too personal. After all what you seem to be trying to do is find ways that disprove that elections have been stolen...."

That's wrong, and therefore too personal.

Go ahead, guy, take the last shot. I've said my piece; it's up to you to believe me or not.

[L. Coyote]

156. Let's not talk past each other because someone wrote some LIES.

OnTheOtherHand has been very diligent, and is a real asset to the election fraud investigations BECAUSE he has the ability to sniff out the BS amidst all that is written.

We have to be critical ourselves about all that is written, and all that's posted on DU too. That is a useful trait, or we'd just be more sheeople. And those who have the god sense to question lies should not be attacked for doing so. It is a reason to give them a merit badge, not a reason to question the broadly.

Why not question the authors of the LIES in the first instance instead of those who know enough on the subject to detect the LIES??

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[L. Coyote]

154. YOU are correct and a voice of reason on DU.

There are still a few left, thankfully, who recognize a falsehood. DU is not a BIBLE, were everything is absolute truth. Quite the opposite. Anything can be pasted or posted, no matter how grand the lie or the money-making scheme behind it.

The counties counted the votes, and votes were switched before the counting. That has ben proven.

Early reporting often has the losing candidate ahead--happens all the time and is basically meaningless.

I've been to the septic pond and I know what floats to the surface!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. ooh, we can probably leave the money out of it

Josh Mitteldorf is someone I like very much, and surely not someone who seeks personal profit by writing this... this....

Sigh. At any rate, yup, anyone can post anything.

What I think is that lots of DUers recognize the, let's say, nuttiness and simply move on. And a fair number of DUers probably tend to associate "Election Reform" with "screwball post," which hardly seems helpful. I think there's a huge credibility gap right down the center of DU. Well, I don't know how huge, and see no way of telling for sure. That's an interesting little research q in itself.

ETA: I appreciate the kind words. I want to counsel some degree of patience, but hey, I've been here for two years, WTF do I know about what works? I can only say, always remember the lurkers. There's always the likelihood that if you just plain make more sense than the people flinging pots at your head, someone will notice.

[L. Coyote]

161. AGREED. Josh is GRREAT. I speak to this quote by Josh.

Josh writes, "The above story derives from two articles by Steven Rosenfeld, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, which were published this week on the web site of the Columbus Free Press."

I wrote Josh today about this. I hope he will take a second look at the author's assertions he is reporting about.

The facts are that Fitrakis is an attorney in the case and Wasserman is a plaintiff. Here is the case:

King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php

Individual voters and three voters' rights groups sued Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell alleging that Blackwell allocated election resources in a racially discriminatory manner and instituted racially discriminatory procedures for provisional voting, purging voters from the statewide voter registration database, and maintaining the chain of custody of ballots. The complaint alleged that these actions led to the dilution and/or cancellation of plaintiffs' vote due to ballot cancellation and tampering, long poll lines, mechanical difficulties with voting machines, and unclear precinct boundaries. The complaint claims that plaintiffs reasonably fear these problems will recur in the November, 2006, election, and asks the court to appoint a special master to perform Blackwell's election administration duties in that election.

District Court Documents .... (PDF files)

Currently, ORDER Granting Motion to Stay pdf file (entered 4/6/07), renews previous stay.

[OnTheOtherHand]

165. gotcha -- as for those guys

For people who do have some economic stake, it's irresistible to wonder how it influences their views. I've seen nothing to convince me that Fitrakis is other than a true believer -- and, no, I don't mean that as a testimonial. Mind you, I have no way of knowing whether he believes everything he says. I have an opinion. But I don't think money matters here. (And that lawsuit seems to have a lot of merit, maybe not in every particular.)

The main thing is: people shouldn't just choose their heroes and believe 'em. Well, not if they want to get things right. Let's just say I belong to the democratic wing of Democratic Underground. ;)

[acmavm]

48. And what do the people (especially here) that said bush** won so

get over it have to say for themselves now?

[The Count]

50. Time for my graph. Also, Kerry, Edwards - feel free to jump in any time- NOW!

[yardwork]

59. THIS is the crucial evidence.

We need to print these graphs over and over again. No matter how it was done, the proof that the vote WAS STOLEN is in the difference between the exit polls and the official vote.

Everywhere in the world except the U.S. exit polls are used to diagnose voting fraud.

[Febble]

69. Well, I wouldn't

They are wrong. Check out the labels on the voting technologies.

[glengarry]

195. Graph:1) state exit poll red-shift and voting machine type; 2)state reported machine problems

From Election 2004 - The Complete Graphical reference (TIA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x352164

1-state exit poll red-shift and voting machine type


2-state reported machine problems vs. exit poll discrepancies

[mnhtnbb]

60. Great graphics. Did you create? Do you have a source?

I was blown away by the NC results, because I had been closely following the polls here and knew the final polls prior to the election showed Kerry/Edwards
closing to within the margin of error (3-4%) vs. Bush/Cheney.

We also knew that votes were dumped by machines in Carteret County, but I never heard about other possible vote counting shenanigans. When I heard the DoD
computers were tallying absentee ballots, I feared for them because of our huge military population.

There's no doubt in my mind that Bush/Cheney stole 2004, just like they did
in 2000.

[Febble]

70. If you find the source, try to fix the plots

they are wrong. I don't know where they came from. I once found them on Wikipedia attributed to me. I deleted them.

The labels indicating voting technologies are virtually random. Maine is half right. That's about it. Most states had several technologies. Wisconsin was optical scan, and is down as paper. New Hampshire was optical scan and some paper, but is down as electronic. The thing is a mess. Don't use it. Or fix the damn things before you do.

Exit polls don't make the case anyhow. If anything they point the other way.

[Febble]

71. If it's really YOUR graph

could you correct the egregious errors on the voting technology labels? They are wrong, crucially wrong. When corrected they don't even make the point they seem intended to make.

Put them out of their misery.

[Febble]

84. See this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=471660&mesg_id=471848

[The Count]

87. I did - you're very determined to discredit the graph - why?. But then I saw this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=471660&mesg_id=471851
I happen to know the people who calculated this at the time using the available exit info BEFORE THE SCRUB - and I trust them more than I trust you.
The fact remains - several states were flipped from exit polls.Other countries having discrepancies (Ukraine, Romania), had a re-vote and the result changed. But we had candidates that conceded and STFU ever since.
We do know electronic fraud was only part of the effort (besides purges, less machines in dem purges) etc. I wonder why this graph bothers you so?

[Febble]

91. I'm actually not disputing the exit poll data

actually I haven't checked it. It's the technology data I dispute. It is wrong. And I am "determined to discredit the graph" simply because it has no credibility. You can check the technology yourself. Follow the link in my other post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=471660&mesg_id=471848

And don't shoot the messenger. If you want to go into battle with crap weapons, it's up to you, but don't say you weren't warned.

[Febble]

178. An additional response to your specific question

which I didn't address. You asked: "I wonder why this graph bothers you so?"

It bothers me for two main reasons. The first is that the labels that indicate the voting technology are simply wrong. Most states used a mixture of technologies, but that wouldn't matter if the label represented, say, the dominant technology, or if there were ANY logic to the division between "electronic" and "paper" categories. But there isn't. Anyone can check that, but no-one seems to.

The second reason is that their provenance is unknown. I once found them on Wikipedia attributed to - me. I deleted them. I'm a scientist and an academic, and the first rule of academia is that you cite your sources. This data is unsourced and demonstrably erroneous, yet it still keeps being linked to.

Now you seem to know the source - if so, perhaps you could inform whoever made the plots that the labels are in error. As exit poll plots alone they are moderately useful. As a set of plots that appear to be assembled to make some point about the relationship between exit poll discrepancies and voting technology, they are simply misleading. In fact, the biggest exit poll discrepancies were not associated with electronic voting at all but with lever machines. This is of interest, but for reasons I can only speculate about, I have seen no interest from anybody in finding out why the exit poll discrepancies should have been most strongly associated with levers than with other technologies (punchcards came second). New York, which had a large exit poll discrepancy, a discrepancy calculated from the actual lever counts at the precincts (not central tabulations), still retains its levers. Its voters like them. They don't like DREs (rightly). So why doesn't this set of plots not show the exit poll discrepancy for New York, in a plot marked "levers"? I can only guess because it doesn't fit the narrative that the election was stolen electronically and the evidence lies in the exit polls. But that narrative is not supported by the data.

Lastly - you mentioned that the authors of the graph used "info {from} BEFORE THE SCRUB". And so they should. The adjusted exit poll numbers don't tell you the discrepancy because, of course, they were adjusted. But it would be wrong to describe the unadjusted data as "before the SCRUB" firstly, because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of the adjustment process (post-stratification reweighting), secondly, it displays an apparent unawareness of the fact that it is, and remains, standard procedure in polls (i.e. it was not some unprecedented cover-up), and, thirdly, implies that the unweighted data was permanently "scrubbed" from the record, when in fact not only was it freely available for download at the time, as it was again in 2006, but was published in great detail by the pollsters themselves (more accurately in fact, as the un-"scrubbed" data was already partially re-weighted).

As I think justice is important, and as I think accurate data is important, I make these points.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Bill Bored]

185. Did someone say LEVERS?

The other interesting thing about levers is that levers are physically incapable of vote flipping. So if levers aren't working, unlike the electronic stuff which can flip votes quite easily, the symptom you get is excessive undervotes. (The counters could jam or not turn over when they reach 99, 199, etc.) NY had an undervote rate of about .77% in 2004 at the top of the ticket. This sets a bound on the amount of lever tampering or malfunction that could have taken place. The exit poll discrepancy was much greater than that so I conclude, unless there is other evidence, that the exit polls were wrong in NY.

[Febble]

186. Worse: someone said EXIT POLLS n/t

[glengarry]

189. Did Bush win 100% of returning NY Nader 2000 voters..and 2.5% of NY Gore voters?

If he did, then the NY exit poll was wrong...
According to the 12:22am NEP, 10% of returning Bush2k voters voted for Kerry and 8% of Gore2k voters voted for Bush.

At this point, it should be obvious that Bush stole the election and padded his vote count in NY. And therefore the NY Exit Poll was closer to the True Vote. Do you really believe that Bush stole the votes in OH, NM, IA and FL to win the EV's? Didn't he also need that 3mm vote "mandate"?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

They cited the final NY pre-election poll which Kerry won by 59-40 (closely matching the 58.5-40.2 recorded vote) to support their argument that the pre-election polls did not match the exits (the NY exit poll was 62.8-35.4). But they failed to mention that the typical pre-election state poll has a 4% margin of error (600 respondents); the corresponding exit poll has a 2-3% MoE, depending on the number of respondents. Therefore, a 4-5% discrepancy between the two polls is not unusual. In fact, the weighted average share of 51 state pre-election polls, adjusted for undecided voters, matched the weighted average exit poll share to within 1%.

They implied that the NY pre-election poll was accurate since it matched the recorded vote. But this is not plausible since the 2000 recorded vote was Gore 60.5-Bush 35.4-Nader 4.1 and the 2004 NEP reported that 10% of Bush2000 voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Assuming conservatively that the Bush/Gore defection rates were equal, the 59-40 recorded vote implies that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush as did 2.5% of Gore voters - an absolute impossibility. The NEP indicated that Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21. Allocating 71% of the Nader2000 votes to Kerry and 21% to Bush and assuming equal defection rates, the vote split is Kerry 63.4-Bush 36.3, which closely matches the exit poll. After allocation of the approximate 3% of votes which were not counted (75% Kerry; 25% Bush) widens the split to 64-35. The True Vote Model determined that 7% of Kerry’s national votes were switched to Bush. A comprehensive analysis of total votes cast in Cuyahoga County (Ohio) showed that 6.15% were switched. Assuming 4% of Kerry’s NY votes were switched, he won the state by 66-33%.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry won the last 5 million votes recorded nationwide by 54.6-45.4%.

He officially won NY by 59-40%. But he won 66% of the last 497 thousand recorded votes. Smoking Gun?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#LateVotes

[Bill Bored]

191. Don't know; don't care. You can't hack levers in the magnitude required

to account for NY Exit Poll discrepancy, especially with a low undervote rate, so you'll have to come up with a theory of how it was done, or acknowledge that the exit polls are blunt instruments ill-suited to confirm close electoral outcomes.

[glengarry]

192. Levers can be rigged

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/BHoCEFiA.html

Lever machines were the first to appear, and they were riggable in a number of ways. One could rig the lever machine itself, or, much more easily, the electronic scanning machines that counted the ballots. (See the Votescam video for footage of ballot rigging under the supervision of both parties and the Dade County Election Supervisor).
.....

When the famous Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin agreed to be Ombudsman for the original Votescam evidence, he brought it to the Florida assistant State Attorney at the time, Janet Reno. The evidence included the shaved wheels of lever voting machines, forged canvass sheets (the sheets that poll workers sign to verify the final vote count), and pre-printed vote tally sheets that were used in conjunction with a lever machine vote rigging device called the Printomatic.

Reno refused to prosecute, claiming falsely that the statue of limitations had run out on the crime. Years later, Rubin would tell my father that behind closed doors Reno had stated that she could not prosecute. Why? Because she would bring down many of the most powerful people in the state.

Would the 2000 election fiasco in Florida have been avoided if Reno had agreed to do her job thirty years earlier and root out the vote fraud thieves?

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


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Landes_Ambush.htm

Advanced Voting Solutions is the new name of another scandal-ridden voting company, Shoup Voting Solutions. Their current top management, Howard Van Pelt and Larry Ensminger, were executives for Diebold-Global until late last year. Officers of Shoup Voting Machine Co. were indicted for allegedly bribing politicians in Tampa, Florida in 1971, according to the San Francisco Business Times. Ransom Shoup was convicted in 1979 of conspiracy and obstruction of justice related to an FBI inquiry into a lever machine-counted election in Philadelphia. Shoup got a three-year suspended sentence. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has bought new voting machines from Danaher-Guardian, which appears to only sell voting machines formerly known as the "Shouptronic."

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


http://www.thelandesreport.com/PaperBallotsOnly.htm

Access - A voting machine creates real obstacles for voters to overcome. Both the old fashioned lever machine and today's touchscreen computers prevent voters from getting direct access to a paper ballot. They prevent voters from marking their own ballots. They constitute a modern day literacy test for voters and election officials alike. Ballot printers will not change that fact. And when machines malfunction, either by accident or design, ballot printers are of no use whatsoever. But, the dangers these voting machines pose are even more insidious. The 2004 presidential election has shown that election officials can suppress voter participation by simply withholding voting machines, thereby creating long lines and frustrated voters.


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


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:mOuvv-7FnjMJ:www.sots.ct.gov/releases/2005/05-23-2005_VVPROpedrevised.pdf+lever+machine+fraud&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us

VVPRs give voters confidence that their vote is being cast and counted accurately. It’s a protection that does not exist with our lever machines. Currently, voters are limited to looking at the pulled levers to check their vote. Voters have no way to know that their vote was accurately recorded. During a recent Bridgeport municipal election, a lever machine was opened at the end of the night and, despite being used all day, the machine had not recorded a single vote for one of the races

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

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/prosem.html

1892, Mechanical lever voting machines

Seen as solution to paper ballot fraud.
Expensive, but widely used by 1920's.
Recount not possible.
Tampering with mechanism possible.
System maintainers must be trusted.
Physical protection of machine essential

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

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/pictures/

Roy G. Saltman has noted that the number 99 shows up in the vote totals on lever machines significantly more frequently than would be expected if vote totals were randomly distributed -- that is, the number of 99's is noticably different from the number of 98's or 100's. The probable explanation is that it takes more force to turn the vote counting wheels in a lever machine from 99 to 100, and therefore, if the counter is going to jam, it is more likely to jam at 99. The fact that this is a frequent occurance in vote totals reported from lever machines is empirical evidence that the lever machines that have been used in real elections are, in fact, inadequately maintained and that this results in the loss of a significant number of votes. Exhaustive pre-election testing would be expected to detect these jams, but exhaustive testing of a mechanism as complex as a lever voting machine is very time consuming, and performing such tests on every voting machine prior to every election would be prohibitively expensive.

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

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:chsZvviKK_IJ:vote.nist.gov/PublicHearings/9-20-94%2520Panel%25201%2520FISCHER.doc+lever+machine+fraud&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=37&gl=us

One means to eliminate ballot tampering is to eliminate document ballots, and that became possible with the introduction of lever voting machines in 1892. The lever machine eliminates the need to count ballots manually. Instead, poll workers read the numbers recorded by counters inside the machine. Because there is no document ballot, recounts and audits are limited to review of totals recorded by each machine. And, of course, tampering is still possible or is also possible with lever machines. For example, the mechanisms could be adjusted so that the counter does not always advance when a particular candidate is chosen.

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

http://bostonreview.net/BR26.5/ansolabehere.html

At the end of the nineteenth century, New York State introduced mechanical lever machines, and by 1930 almost all major metropolitan areas had adopted lever machinery. Here the voter steps into a steel booth, and views a series of candidate, party, and referenda options, each of which corresponds to a mechanical switch. The voter flips the switches that indicate his or her preferences for each office or referendum. When the voter wishes to make no further changes, he or she pulls a large lever, which registers the votes on a counter located at the back of the machine. When the polls close, the election precinct workers record the tallies from each of the machines.

--------------------------------------------
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11449&page=34

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTRONIC VOTING assisted, and central counting is not possible. Lever machines prevent one type of voter error--overvotes. Obviously, they cannot be used for absen- tee ballots. Furthermore, lever machines are no longer manufactured, which contributes to their high overall costs.

These two voting systems--hand-counted paper ballots and lever machines--do not use computers in any stage of the process, although even with these systems, computers--or at least calculators--must be used to tally long lists of numbers

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

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0406930-00&templatename=/article/artic

There are three principal kinds of voting machine: the mechanical, or lever, machine; the optical scanner; and the direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine. With the lever voting machine, the mechanical counters that record the action of the levers (votes) must be inspected and set at 000 before the polls open; then the machine adds the votes as they are cast. When the last voter opens the curtain of the voting booth, the total number of votes for each candidate and for each proposition appears on the counters. The election judge or the inspector locks the machine against further voting and opens the counting compartment in the presence of all persons who are lawfully in the polling place. A certificate of the number of votes cast for each candidate and for each proposition on the machine and on the "irregular ballots" (those cast on paper for persons whose names do not appear on the ballot label of the machine) is then made and signed as required by law for election returns. When the canvass is completed, the machine must remain locked for a stated period, usually 30 days. If a recanvass is demanded, the court may order the machines to be opened and examined, a procedure more accurate and less expensive than a recount of paper ballots.

[glengarry]

194. Updated NY 2004 analysis

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NewYork

New York

Naysayers cite the final NY pre-election poll which Kerry won by 59-40, closely matching the 58.5-40.2 recorded vote, to support their argument that the pre-election polls did not match the exit polls. They claimed that the NY pre-election poll was more accurate than the exit poll (Kerry 62.8-Bush 35.4- Other 1.8) since it matched the recorded vote. But this implies that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush- clearly impossible. The 2000 recorded vote was Gore 60.5 - Bush 35.4 - Nader 4.1. According to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry won Nader 2000 voters by 71-21%; 10% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected. Applying the NEP shares (a very conservative assumption, since NY is highly Democratic compared to the nation) and assuming that 95% of the 97% of 2000 voters still living turned out to vote in 2004, the adjusted vote becomes Kerry 60.8-Bush 38.1, well within the 2.6% NY exit poll MoE (1452 respondents).

This illustrates another flaw in their argument: the typical pre-election state poll has a 4% margin of error (600 respondents); the corresponding exit poll has a 2-3% MoE, depending on the number of respondents. Therefore, a 4-5% discrepancy between the pre-election and exit poll is not unusual. But it’s an established fact that exit polls are more accurate.

As indicated above, the adjusted NY exit poll fell within the MoE. Furthermore, the weighted average of 51 state pre-election polls, adjusted for undecided voters, also matched the weighted average exit poll to within 1%. Once again: It’s the Law of Large Numbers taking effect.

Recorded Vote (000)

2000......................2004
Gore 4112 60.5%... Kerry 4314 58.48%
Bush 2405 35.4%... Bush 2963 40.17%
Nader 277 4.1%... Other 100 1.35%
Total 6794................... 7377


Calculation of Adjusted NY Vote

1) Apply 12:22am NEP vote shares
(conservative, since NY is highly Democratic)
2) Weights based on actual NY 2000 recorded vote
3) Assume 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004
4) Assume 3% mortality

.Calculated

......Weight Votes Kerry Bush Other
DNV 15.1% 1116 57% 41% 2%
Gore 51.4% 3789 91% 8% 1%
Bush 30.0% 2216 10% 90% 0%
Other 3.5% 255 71% 21% 8%

....... 100% 60.83% 38.08% 1.09%
....... 7377 4487 2809 81

NY Exit Poll 62.8% 35.4% 1.8%


Sensitivity Analysis

Kerry% Kerry% DNV
Gore 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 59% 60% 61%

89% 59.3% 59.5% 59.7% 59.8% 60.0% 60.1% 60.3% 60.4%
90% 59.9% 60.0% 60.2% 60.3% 60.5% 60.6% 60.8% 60.9%
91% 60.4% 60.5% 60.7% 60.8% 61.0% 61.1% 61.3% 61.4%
92% 60.9% 61.0% 61.2% 61.3% 61.5% 61.6% 61.8% 61.9%
93% 61.4% 61.6% 61.7% 61.9% 62.0% 62.2% 62.3% 62.5%

[Senator]

95. Yes, these divergences are the "best evidence" of the underlying reality

Those who try to defend the "ofishyl" results have the problem that, unless and until a full audit of each and every voter (in person - to see if they cast a "missing" ballot) is done, they are beginning at point of "no confidence" and theorizing from there.

Any criticism of the statistical evidence for fraud begs the question of "Yes, perhaps a flaw. But compared to what exactly?"

In their efforts to make their "divergent" results unassailable they have rendered them non-defensible.

---

[Febble]

96. If they are they "best evidence"

you don't have a case.

Fortunately, I think they are not.

[Senator]

172. I've explained why they certainly are "best"

Fortunately, you don't decide this case.

--

[Botany]

56. Hello N.Y. Times & Washington Post?

The votes in Ohio were sent to a computer in Tennessee that was
basically a branch of the RNC & bush/Cheney '04. Karl Rove
was in charge of "Ohio's votes."

How many other states went to this computer? So you pass HAVA
have all the vote cast electronically and funnel them to a computer
where they can be looked @ and worked on. Bunch of other states
went bush @ the last minute too ....

God Damn it John Kerry won and won going away and yet our press
says nothing.

[luaptifer]

107. Far as we know only RESULTS of vote

were sent to that Smartech-based IP address.

At ePluribus, we did not have reason to look for, nor did we happen to find, evidence that any votes were delivered to that IP address. As far as we can tell it was intended to deliver the Results of vote-counts to the public.

Presumably those were accumulated elsewhere but I don't know that.

I just want to be sure you don't find yourselves out on a limb by overinterpreting our data.

But please do keep hammering, DU was one of the places that sent me on this hunt!

[byronius]

61. Rage -- Building... Head -- Exploding...

I knew this happened, seemed so common sense on the Day After, but to read about the mechanism brings it all back.

Treason. Traitors to the Nation. The United States of America was catastrophically dissolved, and replace with RoveLand.

Restoration has just begun. Let's take it all the way back, shall we? And imprison Karl for the rest of his nasty, brutish life.

[IWantAChange]

63. I guess Oversight is a good thing huh???

[Sapere aude]

64. Well there is no way to undo the damage that has been done since then.

Acceptance is the hardest thing to have. We had four years after the 2000 election to get something done about fair elections. We did nothing. Now we know about Ohio and still we do nothing.

We must get Congress to stop electronic voting and we must never have a person in charge of elections that is on the election committee of a party.

[ms liberty]

68. Interesting. Important. And nauseating. Not surprising, though. K&R n/t

[Kurovski]

73. K&R.

Geez, what a story.

Can't wait to see it on Wolf Blitzer's show.

[WiseButAngrySara]

78. K & R! Revolting. Exit Polls do tell the truth. ....n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. Someone's gotta go to jail over this.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

83. This is dynamite! Kerry should have been president

(Smarttech didn't operate the radar on 9/11 did it?)

[The Count]

90. He should bring this up to the public. Edwards too. Even now it would make a

difference. Come on, Johns!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

168. Do they know about this?

has anyone told them?

[L. Coyote]

112. Smartech is just a Hosting Service. THIS is just a distraction from FACTS.

[cyberpj]

85. Is anyone paying attention to this but us?! Jesus H. Christ! Can we get a public FACE yet???

With all due respect to the Kennedy/Rolling Stone articles which were great - it's time for someone to INVESTIGATE.

Now that there's proof coming together, will even Kerry - the robbed - come out and JUST SAY IT!?

[Old and In the Way]

88. DU was on it that night-

SoCalDemocrats enlightening screen capture that evening....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1290765&mesg_id=1295180


At 12:21-

<http://members.cox.net.nyud.net:8090/theblack/cnn_fraud1.gif>

At 1:41-

<http://members.cox.net.nyud.net:8090/theblack/cnn_fraud2.gif>

A 3% increase in samples, swings the % of males from 2%+ for Kerry to 5%+ for Bush and females from 6% favorable for Kerry to even? I don't think so....

[The Count]

92. SoCalDem - bless your heart! Didn't know we still have that! needs spreading!

CNN scrubbed the exit polls the moment the mission was accomplished - they "reconciled" them with the results.
I remember seing those exit polls and thinking - if men and women voted for Kerry, must've been them hermaphrodites or aliens who came in the last minutes and changed the results!

[SharonRB]

119. I remember those screen shots

Thanks for posting them as a reminder.

[L. Coyote]

93. WRONG: YES THERE IS and you have been reading about it on DU

You write: "Until now, .... no direct evidence as to how a swing of this magnitude could have been engineered."

YES THERE IS and you have been reading about it on DU for a long time now.

SEE: OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study

Defining the vote outcome probabilities of wrong-precinct voting has revealed, in a sample of 166,953 votes (1/34th of the Ohio vote), the Kerry-Bush margin changes 6.15% when the population is sorted by probable outcomes of wrong-precinct voting.

The Kerry to Bush 6.15% vote-switch differential is seen when the large sample is sorted by probability a Kerry wrong-precinct vote counts for Bush. When the same large voter sample is sorted by the probability Kerry votes count for third-party candidates, Kerry votes are instead equal in both subsets.

Read the article with graphs of new findings:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

There is direct evidence of Kerry-Bush vote switching and wrong-precinct voting. It is in the article, so I won't waste time rewriting/quoting here.

[SharonRB]

99. This is HUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes a lot of sense -- too bad it's taken two and a half years to come up with the evidence, though. I wish there was something we could do about it -- frog march Bush and Cheney out of the White House and install Kerry and Edwards for the rest of the term!

[L. Coyote]

110. This is FALSEHOODS piled on baseless speculation while ignoring the TRUTH!

Geeez, how gullible are all you people? Let's start a "Critical Reasoning" group!!

"Pivotal Ohio 2004 Vote-Kerry Was Ahead-Then Server Went Down for 90 Minutes-Result-Bush Had Lead!"

This is simply a falsehood. The server did not go down at all. It was simply static for a period of time. And, it was static between all the times it was refreshed with new data. That is how the system is intended to work. It was the responsibility of the Ohio SoS to post election results. They did so at intervals, and the timing of those intervals does not constitute evidence of fixing the Ohio election.

There is evidence of election fixing, and these authors and the DU posters pushing them make no mention of the real evidence. Draw your own conclusions.

[SharonRB]

120. This is just one more piece to pile on all of the others

Of course there's evidence of election fixing -- lots of it. No one is saying this is the only piece.

[L. Coyote]

123. BUT, what kind of pile does it go on?

The one behind the barn, or on the one in the Public Commons?

If it has lies, mistruths, and falsehoods, I say, "Put it behind the barn with the rest of the BS."

[earth mom]

114. The THUGS STOLE TWO ELECTIONS...that there is enough for Impeachment.

Yet there are those here on DU who don't want Impeachment. :wtf:

[Extend a Hand]

117. Paul Hackett vs. Mean Jean

in a special election in OH 3rd district: The tabulators went off line supposedly due to 'humidity' :eyes: (in SW OH in the summer it's always f*ing humid) and came back online with mean Jean in the lead. I was never convinced there wasn't some dirty business going on there.

[Peggy Day]

122. Remember the terror threats on election night in Ohio? nt

[Votergater]

133. Exactly what mysterious vote counting computer was this?

There isn't one 'master computer' that counts all of Ohio's votes because that is done at the county level by 88 different boards of elections systems (mostly punchcards at that time). So what does this statement mean?

>>>"On the night of 2-3 November, 2004, the computer designated to count Ohio votes was cut out of the loop. Its web address was diverted to a private company in Chattanooga, TN, named SMARTech."<<<

...and this statement...

>>>"In every sense, this SMARTech site became the official vote tabulation for the state of Ohio."<<<

It doesn't make sense to me.

[BeFree]

141. Here's the context

On election night, with everybody looking to Ohio to determine the outcome, the process of broadcasting the vote came down to Smartech's output: bush by just 120,000.

Remember GIGO? Garbage In Garbage Out?

Imagine if the report from Ohio came out saying Kerry had won.

Or even that it was tied, or too close to call?

As it was, the report from the Smartech computer carried the tide for bushco, and the rest is history.

And we still don't know the real total out of Ohio, do we?

[Votergater]

155. Sorry, but that is not how election results are tabulated and reported

On election night the process was that the paper punchcards were fed into counting machines which were connected to computers running a tabulation program. Triad was one of the main companies tabulating in Ohio on Nov. 2nd 2004. And by 2006 I believe it was Diebold and ES&S tabulators.

True, there is no reason to trust the stated results from those proprietary computers BUT the media was reporting the data coming from each of the systems in each of the 88 Ohio counties as it was reported on 88 county websites... and then also comparing those results with the results posted on the Secretary of State's website.

So the only was to maliciously affect Ohio's statewide total in a way that wouldn't be obvious was to rig the results coming out of the some or all of the 88 central tabulating computers in the individual counties.

Smartech's server couldn't change that original vote data and all those Triad & ES&S & Diebold tabulating computers are where the votes were actually counted.

What's true is that without an accurate hand count of the punchcards we still cannot verify what the real Ohio vote total was.

[L. Coyote]

157. CORRECT. "rig the results ... some or all of the 88 ... individual counties."

You write, "So the only was to maliciously affect Ohio's statewide total in a way that wouldn't be obvious was to rig the results coming out of the some or all of the 88 central tabulating computers in the individual counties.

"rig the results ... some or all of the 88 ... individual counties..." is exactly what happened. The votes were not counted as cast, simple enough!! And 100 recounts cannot change that count. BUT, statistical analysis can quantify the fraud!!!

[BeFree]

163. Right

So, you think those computers were not linked to the smartech?

That the programs running the tabulations weren't set to read and write?

Given that no one knows what the real numbers are, the programming could have ginned the whole thing.

Now, if the computers were all in house at the SoS, we'd have no story. But by Gawd, we got ourselves a story.

[Votergater]

164. So, what you are saying is - we just don't know what happened. . .

And, speaking as a journalist, that is not a story.

[L. Coyote]

176. WRONG. The computers are Ohio Government computers, the results

are only displayed on the Internet by the hosting service with servers capable of election night traffic. The hosted Internet display uses the numbers in the Ohio system for content, and the Ohio election officials controlled when they updated the database electronically.

We knw what the real numbers are. They are the election results the counties provided. Later, official results were published by the counties. Then, recount results became known. Of course, when ballots are switched to a different precinct, where a Kerry vote counts for Bush instead, recounts do nothing to provide relief for the vote-switching.

[BeFree]

179. Say what!

You mean all the computers are connected via the internet? Electronically?
Duh! What do you want to bet Rove had that figured out?

Do you know how data transfers take place - via the internet and software programs that are read and write? Just like DU works?

You say: "We know what the real numbers are." You know what the real numbers are? You're the only one, then. See the credibilty problem?

There are so many cases of the reported numbers being inflated beyond all but the most nefarious of reasons that no one knows what the real numbers are.

[L. Coyote]

180. If only the people participating understood what they are talking about!!

NO, Paul Revere rode from Ohio to SMARTech with a note from Blackwell! GEEEEZZZ. Have you ever heard of secure transmission? Or online banking?

If you do not understand how the IT world works, how can you understand what this issue is all about?

Small wonder this has spun out beyond the orbit of Pluto. People who do not understand how IT functions are writing the articles, and people who also do not understand are proclaiming opinions without a foundation of knowledge, if not assaulting the IT professionals and CIS instructors trying, obviously futily, to bring some reason to this.

[BeFree]

181. I get it!

You don't think Rove inserted his desired numbers into any of the various computers.

Ya know, that's what I thought all along, but just couldn't bring myself to believe that. Now, I got it. You don't think Rove would take advantage. That Rove and Blackwell have clean hands. That explains it.

[L. Coyote]

182. NO, you don't get it at all. The vote-switching happened before the counting.

And 1,000 recounts, all the King's men, John Kerry, and even you can't put it back together again.

But, statistical analysis does reveal that it is so.
So why don't you pick an Ohio county and get to work.
Repeat this analysis in another Kerry stronghold:
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Do you understand this?

"Given the number of switched-votes in Cuyahoga County, results in other Ohio counties and elections should also be analyzed for irregularities wherever more than one ballot order was employed at a voting location. The same needs to be accomplished for past Ohio elections."

Or this?

"In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts 6.15% when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

Or this?

"Multiple ballot order locations constituted 87.6% of the Cuyahoga precincts. Using standard probability (P) notation, the probability that a voter could cross-vote, based on actual ballots cast, was P = 0.875. At the precincts subject to possible cross-voting, over 525,000 votes were recorded. They reported 64.6 % Kerry voting, and represent 9.2% of Ohio's vote or 12.75% of the reported Kerry votes in the state. Seven-eights of voters in Cuyahoga County—more than one of every eight Ohio Kerry voters—could have voted at an adjacent precinct using the wrong ballot order."

How do you explain this?

[BeFree]

183. Not arguing that is false

What I am saying is that the vulnerabilities in the computer based reporting system allowed Rove, et al, to give us the wrong numbers on election night. Inflated numbers that have since been proven to have no basis.

Like the links in the OP describe. You did read the links, right?

[L. Coyote]

145. LIES and more LIES: There was no "mysterious vote counting computer..."

If these authors are not purposely telling lies, they are very IT (Information Technology) illiterate.

You are absolutely correct. The Ohio counties counted the votes, nearly 4/5th of which were punch cards.

It doesn't make sense because it is a pack of LIES.

[Votergater]

160. Agreed - there were in fact 88 mysterious vote counting computers.

The Ohio server story was first reported on the site called epluribusmedia.org on election night and updated again later...

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/11/7/115314/922

What they seem to have found is interesting and could mean that data was being sent to a seperate server for analysis by GOP operatives. But if it came from Blackwell's public government website then that data would only have been second hand election results taken from the counties as they were reporting.

What would be very interesting is if someone somewhere was receiving real vote totals ahead of the press and the public.

[luaptifer]

158. ePluribus results refer to Results server

and that for the November 2006 election night. It's possible that what I'd presume to be vote tabulation from the counties was also done on that machine in 2006 but we don't know that fact and didn't report that observation.

Whether the conclusions are the same for 2004 is a more remote speculation.

It's good that you underscored this important distinction of the processes involved.

[loudsue]

144. Holy shit!! 131 recommendations??

:hug: Well, one of them was mine!! Keep up the good reporting kpete!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[L. Coyote]

146. What does that say about DU? 131 Rec's for a lot of LIES.

Either, very few people understand how the technology utilized on Election night worked and was organized, and what the difference is between a hosting company and leasing a server, etc., etc, (a bunch of e-tards) OR everyone has come to WANT TO BELIEVE whatever little bread crumb of possibility of fraud. That's called fundamentalism in some circles, make believe in others, Santa Claus in others, or just delusional thinking.

What is really disturbing is that the real fraud is being ignored by those who know better.

It is horrible reporting, and kpete gets off the hook because all he is doing is pointing to the false words of other authors.

[jgraz]

149. Same thing happened in the Tester/Burns race

I watched it happen. The count froze, and when it came back online Yellowstone county was flipped to Burns. Luckily it wasn't enough to swing the final results.

[L. Coyote]

150. It happens in every race. The count does not freeze. It updates when

more counties report their votes. This is like saying the Internet is frozen. Web pages are updated at intervals. HELLO, that's how the Web works. And, it does not matter if it is a dynamic SQL link, or a person uploadind a new myspace page. The Web is static beween updates to a database or a document file.

If someone really wants to pursue this line of inquiry, the question shouild be "Why was SoS Blackwell and crew so slow in updating the results coming in from the counties. Were they stalling because the results showed Kerry winning, and they expected Kerry might win. Were they forestalling the inevitable (in their minds) as the counties reported? There are lots of possible things to inquire about, and this seems to be pretty far down the list.

There were significant election irregularities in Ohio 2004, just ask John Conyers:

==============
(from: http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html)

From the Conyers Report: "... we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior...."

"... it is imperative that we examine any and all factors that may have led to
voting irregularities and any failure of votes to be properly counted."

Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, Jan. 2005.
===============

And, so there is god reason to be suspicious of activities on election night. That suspicion needs to focus on tha actual vote counting at the counties.

HERE'S THE REAL QUESTION TO ADDRESS:

"Was someone keeping track of how many more punch card ballots had to be switched from Kerry to Bush before the ballot counting."

[jgraz]

153. Sorry, I missed one crucial detail

It froze, reset to ZERO PRECINCTS REPORTING and then the results came in for Burns.

[Ellipsis]

167. Bingo!

"Was someone keeping track of how many more punch card ballots had to be switched from Kerry to Bush before the ballot counting."

I think your on to something there L.Coyote

[bleever]

169. Kick, because I like the argument about HOW * stole the votes.

I'm a little choked up.

Please discuss.

Everyone: advance your best theory. Resist the temptation to tear down your colleagues' theories, in favor of drilling towards justice.

Thanks!

[glengarry]

175. The debate is no longer IF Bush stole the election, but HOW....

He did it using every trick in the book...from voter disenfranchisement...to voter intimidation...to covenient computer "glitches".. to long lines and too few machines in heavily democratic precincts...to uncounted (lost, absentee,etc.) votes...to electronically switched votes....all the rigging of the FINAL state and national exit polls...

Pre-election state and national polls projected a Kerry victory... and they were confirmed by the 12:22am state and national exit polls.

But later the final exit polls were "adjusted" to force a match to the corrupt recorded vote count...The rest is history.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

[L. Coyote]

177. DON"T FORGET: Kerry-Bush vote-switching shown to be 6.15% in this study.

And the list goes on. From the article:
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

" In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts 6.15% when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

=====================
"In 2004, Ohio's failure to replace punch card voting with improved systems is just one of many issues raised with regard to the Ohio 2004 Presidential election. Other Ohio fairness, fraud, and irregularity issues include politization of process, voter registration fraud, voter suppression including racial discrimination, unfair voting machine distribution, the exit poll inaccuracy, electronic voting security, paperless e-voting, e-vote flipping, the high percentage of and unequal distribution of undervotes, uncounted provisional ballots, vote count secrecy, and recount crimes and irregularities."

ADD to you list this:

" I define "vote-switching" as major candidate cross-voting. One major candidate cross-vote changes the election margin by two votes; as one major candidate loses a vote the other gains the cross-vote. Because impact on results varies according to how cross-votes are counted, vote-switching is distinguished from cross-voting. Vote-switching only occurrs when and where the two major candidates are collocated in the same ballot order position.

My analysis distinguished cross-vote probability outcomes. Cross-voting, when unequal, alters election results and therefore presents opportunities to manipulate election results. And vote-switching doubles the impact of cross-voting. Influencing where and how much cross-voting occurs, and especially what percentage of cross-votes are switched-votes, dramatically changes the results of an election, if not the outcome. Analysis of the impact of wrong-precinct voting reveals election manipulations. Descriptive statistics defines the overall impact. The location examples below demonstrate the variable degree of impact."

[glengarry]

187. And don't forget: 4.5mm (6.8%) of total votes cast for Kerry were switched NATIONALLY

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#UncountedAndSwitchedVotes


Uncounted and Switched Votes

Given the Kerry true vote of 66.1 million (based on the 12:22am NEP with feasible weights) and his recorded vote (59.0mm) we can calculate the number of votes which were switched from Kerry to Bush. If we assume that Kerry won 75% (2.6 of 3.4mm) of the uncounted votes based on the Census total of 125.7mm, then 4.5mm (6.8%) of the Kerry vote must have been switched. Furthermore, if we assume that 6.8% of the votes were switched uniformly in each state and allocate the uncounted votes to each state based on population and racial mix, the True Vote Model indicates that Kerry won 336 electoral votes (Sensitivity Analysis I). This result matched the pre-election Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation base case forecast that Kerry would win 337 electoral votes (the average of 5000 election trials). The assumption was that Kerry would win 75% of the undecided vote.



12:22am National Exit Poll



Voted in 2000
....... Weight Votes Kerry Bush Other
DNV 21.49% 27.02 57% 41% 2%
Gore 38.23% 48.08 91% 8% 1%
Bush 37.83% 47.56 10% 90% 0%
Nader 2.46% 3.09 71% 21% 8%

Total 100% 52.57% 46.43% 1.00%
Votes 125.74 66.10 58.38 1.26

Given:
125.74 million votes cast (2004 Census)
122.295 million votes recorded
3.445 million votes uncounted

Assume:
2.584 million (75%) uncounted votes for Kerry
95% turnout of Gore and Bush 2000 voters

Calculate:
The number of votes cast for Kerry switched to Bush.

Solution:
True Vote (T) = Recorded (R) + Uncounted (U) + Switched (S)
S = T - R - U = 66.097 - 59.027 - 2.582 = 4.488mm

Switched vote rate:
SVR = S / T = 4.488 / 66.097 = 6.79%


SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS II:
Effect of incremental uncounted and switched votes on electoral vote


........... Kerry Electoral Vote

........... Uncounted Vote Share
...... 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%
SVR
6.8% 325 325 325 325 325 336 336
6.5% 325 325 325 325 325 325 336
6.0% 325 325 325 325 325 325 325
5.0% 298 298 325 325 325 325 325

4.0% 289 289 289 289 289 325 325
3.0% 289 289 289 289 289 289 289
2.0% 264 284 284 284 289 289 289
1.0% 264 264 264 264 264 264 284
0.0% 252 252 252 252 259 264 264



SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS III:
Effect of incremental uncounted and switched votes on Kerry vote share

.............. Kerry Vote Share

.............. Uncounted Vote Share
...... 50.00% 55.00% 60.00% 65.00% 70.00% 75.00% 80.00%
SVR
6.8% 51.89% 52.03% 52.16% 52.30% 52.44% 52.57% 52.71%
6.5% 51.73% 51.87% 52.00% 52.14% 52.28% 52.42% 52.55%
6.0% 51.47% 51.60% 51.74% 51.88% 52.02% 52.15% 52.29%
5.0% 50.94% 51.08% 51.22% 51.35% 51.49% 51.63% 51.76%

4.0% 50.42% 50.55% 50.69% 50.83% 50.96% 51.10% 51.24%
3.0% 49.89% 50.03% 50.16% 50.30% 50.44% 50.58% 50.71%
2.0% 49.36% 49.50% 49.64% 49.78% 49.91% 50.05% 50.19%
1.0% 48.84% 48.98% 49.11% 49.25% 49.39% 49.52% 49.66%
0.0% 48.31% 48.45% 48.59% 48.72% 48.86% 49.00% 49.14%



SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IV:
Effect of incremental uncounted and switched votes on margin


................ Margin (in thousands)

............ Uncounted Vote Share
.......... 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%
SVR
6.8% 6011 6355 6699 7044 7388 7732 8077
6.5% 5614 5958 6303 6647 6991 7336 7680
6.0% 4953 5297 5642 5986 6330 6675 7019
5.0% 3631 3975 4320 4664 5008 5353 5697

4.0% 2309 2654 2998 3342 3686 4031 4375
3.0% 987 1332 1676 2020 2365 2709 3053
2.0% -335 10 354 698 1043 1387 1731
1.0% -1657 -1312 -968 -624 -279 65 409
0.0% -2979 -2634 -2290 -1946 -1601 -1257 -913

[L. Coyote]

184. Here we go again. Now a DUPLICATE THREAD has started.

I'm reminded of TruthIsAll. Every time he was criticized, he abandoned his thread and started a new one. It did not make any difference, of course.

FitzmasAgain Tue May-01-07 04:00 PM
That story about Election night 2004 needs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x472011

[kster]

193. BOYBLUDDER, Please be careful about what you say

about TruthisAll.