2004: Doesn't it essentially break down to 3 legal arguments

[m.standridge]

In other words, in demonstrating or invalidating the legitimacy of Bush's 2004 Presidential election, there is a three-part legal scenario:

1. That the Voting Rights Act was violated in key areas, preventing votes for Kerry from being cast in the first place. This argument, it seems to me, has been won by the Democrats, as demonstrated by data at Professor Richard Hayes Phillips website: http://northnet.minstrel.org

2. That deadlines to prove an invalid election have passed without effective arguments by the losing side. This argument, (again, to me), seems to have been essentially won by the GOP.

3. That valid, actual, cast ballots were miscounted in key areas on a scale significant enough to change the outcome of the election, at the very least in the Electoral College. It is this third argument that I think is still, it could be argued, in contention.


Given all this, then, one could say this: if continued study of the numbers actually in the computers in Ohio produce enough anomalies to justify a call for an official computer audit of the state's election computers, this would produce 2 out of 3 three arguments as to the legitimacy of the 2004 Bush election victory, to essentially fall to the Democrats.

Right now, I don't have the latest numbers from the team Professor Phillips was working with, but as of mid-February, 2005, there were still "73 counties to be examined", and, as of early March,'05, 63 counties still left to be examined.

The overall trend in the numbers at that point, was with Kerry. However, there were a number of rural and southern Ohio counties to be looked at, and I haven't seen anything on this since mid-March.

Since this is a very key argument in examining the legitimacy of Bush's Presidency, and also as to whether computer rigging might have gone on in 2004, has anyone got any updates on this from Professor Phillips's group?

My figures were suggesting that, factoring OUT the non-computer-based stats Phillips had found as of his Site posting, and factoring in the computer-based data from the additional 10 counties examined as of early March, there were some 28-30,000 votes to be found in the remaining 63 counties in Ohio, at that point, in order to demonstate enough statistical anomalies to suggest Kerry had pulled to a lead in Ohio, and, thus, the Electoral College.
These, would be cast ballots, not non-cast ones.
Anyone got any further county data from those other 63 counties in Ohio? How are the statistical anomalies in the computers looking?

[drm604]

1. Your link doesn't work.

It goes to one of those bogus search sites. You may have the wrong domain.

[m.standridge]

2. the link is:

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm


or you can use a Search Engine using "Richard Hayes Phillps".

But what I'm seeking is data from people as to what these folks have found SINCE the postings you find up there, anyway. A key point of this thread, is that the info at that link hasn't been updated for awhile.

And we need an update.

At this point, I'm trying to keep from thinking about middle names.

[m.standridge]

3. on Hayes Phillips:

I mean, at the Site there, he has a poem, "Mister Gore," in which he seems--well...the only word I can come up with is... apprehensive, that Gore is going to WIN the 2000 Presidential election.

I've asked a couple of att'ys to respond to this thread; hoping to hear from them soon.
My blog is:

http://maxsundercurrents.myblogsite.com/blog

my websites are:

http://home.att.net/~m.standridge
(this site is larger and is newer and update-able)

http://www.aristotle.net/~m.standridge
(which site is frozen due to lack of space).

On both Sites are my books, as of today, some of which are still in progress, and my research and some external links to other writers' and researchers' sites in the areas I research and write on.
I've been watching, also, for some updates on Warren County, OH. Haven't seen any since Feb.


Currently, I have an article from January 2005 online at
www.freepress.org
re: the 2004 election in Arkansas: "Did Bush Really Win?"
(CBS affiliate KTHV here in LR showed election day pre-election polls suggesting AR much closer than exit polling or "official" tallies ended up showing. AR polls paralleled WI's in 2004. This due in part to the dynamics of the Clark candidacy. Clark kept Bush from gaining momentum after the GOP convention. It also was due to the Clinton active endorsement and campaigning for him. That was 11th hour in nature. On top of that, there was a power failure in LR on election day and a lot of statistical anomalies found by our SOS, who is a Democrat.)
I very recently learned that there was another power failure in or near the town of Minturn, Arkansas. That isn't in my online article. I recall there were power failures in Denver, New Orleans and in Iowa on election day, also.
AR + IA + NV = 270 Electoral votes, on top of what Kerry won. And that's not to mention NM, OH and FL.

VerifiedVoting succeeded in getting legislation ensuring paper trail balloting passed here recently, since first of year.

[Land Shark]

4. while election contest deadlines have passed

the integrity of elections is alive both for the sake of the future as well as for historical fact.

It's not just the 'voting rights act' that's violated, the VRA mostly focuses on discrimination in voting.

[m.standridge]

10. is it possible or will it be possible to look at the computers

and see whether ballots were tabulated correctly or accurately, then?
IF we could do that--continue to do that--Ohio could prove Bush didn't win. That would be a real foot in the door, beyond obstruction of justice, would it not? Would that not be more significant politically, too?
Thanks again to both of you for posting here in response to my requests.

The very real apprehension I feel has increased since this GOP effort to stop the filibuster started. I was already concerned about the loss of control--potentially permanently--of all three branches by the Democrats in wake of apparently rigged computers. Without filibuster, even those in office in Congress would have little leverage, which might have provided an opening to pressure the Administration in ways that would facilitate honest elections.
Yet I'm hearing the GOP may very well have the votes to end filibustering. Bush doesn't seem concerned about placating the Far Right, as you'd think if he'd had a real mandate from them. He added liberal changes into his Social Security bill. And he came out for euthanasia in the Schiavo case. Are these not hints he's not concerned about votes from the Right, which allegedly was key to his 2004 victory?

[davidgmills]

5. As a lawyer, to me the one key legal question

Is whether the government has turned over so many aspects of the elections process to private industry, that private industry has now usurped this vital governmental process.

If it has done so, and I believe that it has, it has made elections unverifiable, and in so doing, is in violation of a plethora of legal principles and laws.

On edit:

We may very well have turned the elections process over to persons or entities who not only have not been elected, they have also sworn no oath, have not been deputized, have not been licensed, may not even be citizens, may be agents of a foreign power, or may be criminals.

[Land Shark]

6. May be criminals?

Keep in mind that it was only sequoia's exclusive agent in louisiana that actually got TIME for bribery, and that the regional vice president indicted in the same transaction (who was an employee) got his indictment ffor conspiracy to commit money laundering and malfeasance related to kickbacks dismissed on procedural grounds because a prosecutor used his use immunity testimony against him, or was going to.

And the SEC violations for cooking books are not criminal, ya know.

4 Out of Touch: You press the screen. The machine tells you that your vote has been counted. But how can you be sure?
New Times; April 24, 2003; By Wyatt Olson. http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2003-04-24/feature.html/2/index.html
5 Out of Touch. http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2003-04-24/feature.html/3/index.html, and
Exec's indictment hits Oakland vote firm. Ballotpaper.org. July 12, 2004. http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000525.html

[davidgmills]

7. I was being kind.

I have forgotten the name of the progammer, Dean, I think, at Diebold who was convicted of 23 counts of computer fraud (. He did Diebold's software and I have read that Sequoia may have used Diebold's.

Mulling this over some more. I think the weak link is the government. Their lawyers will far more readily concede than will those of Sequoia, because they have no finacial interest at stake and actually, may see an opportunity to get out from under some financially onorous contracts. The government's lawyers may also fundamentally agree with the position that the election officials have done wrong by entering these contracts. They may be wondering about whether their own votes were counted.

These are clearly governmental ultra vires acts. It would be interesting to take the depositions of key governmental personnel to show how literally helpless and clueless they are when it comes to vote tabulation. Real good proof of usurpation.

And I really like the idea that these private companies are not only not elected, not appointed, not sworn (yours from the complaint), not deputized, not licensed by law (as in CPA's for example) as a means of getting a court's attention to the problem. I would also seriously pursue the nationality angle of the officers, directors and shareholders of the corporation. Some stock may be held in trust in which case they would have to admit that citizenship is an unknown.

[m.standridge]

9. Please have mercy on my broken heart here

--I'm trying to remain hopeful.
Are you saying, essentially, that you doubt there's any legal remedy possible anymore, significant enough to reverse this computer rigging?

As for this professor--please understand, I want to believe the best of him.

I mean, he's done a lot of hard work on this, and probably on his own time and at his own expense--possibly a quite expensive undertaking, and maybe involving a lot of legal hassles from the other side, to be dealt with.
I got a somewhat nasty forum posting from someone alleging they were working with him, for a posting I'd done some time ago, in which I'd expressed enthusiasm for his findings re: Ohio. The poster implied I was misquoting Phillips, to have come to the conclusion his research led strongly to the conclusion Kerry had pulled into a lead in OH. He also said I should stop misquoting, etc., and implied I needed to donate to some web link.
That was months ago, I haven't seen any updates at Phillips's site.
I put a link intro. at my site at AT&T some time ago, anticipating a future update based on providing a link to Phillips's Site when his update appeared, especially pertaining to Warren County. I'm about to edit it off, as they haven't responded here at the Forum.
I don't understand the thinking here. Why bring all this up about Ohio anomalies, just to shoot it down? Why attack people for expressing hope or enthusiasm about the findings? Why say the research is ongoing and subject to periodic updates, then do nothing?
I've got to move on, somehow, and work locally, apparently.

[davidgmills]

11. Actually, I am beginning to think that Litigation May Work

You obviously don't understand the implications of what I said. They are really quite simple. The major point is that there are certain things that our constitution reserves to the government which can not be taken over by the private sector.

Elections would have to be at the top of that list.

Governments are not supposed to contract this function to the private sector because of the danger. Small parts of the function might be transferred to the private sector without a problem. But that is not what has happened. With DRE's and the like, the entire function is transferred to the private sector because the public officials are incapable or unable to perform the functions for themselves.

I am willing to believe that the law will not allow this. Ironically, the weak link in the chain is the government not the private sector. The private sector will fight like cats and dogs to keep the status quo because of the financial benefit. The county attorneys and district attorneys probably will not have much fight in them because they will know it is wrong once the facts are made known to them. They will probably tell their election officials they have done ultra vires acts (meaning acts they did not have the authority to do on behalf of the people) and realize that voting is something that election officials must be able to do by themselves. They are the ones elected to do the job, appointed to do it, take sworn oaths to do it, have to pass background checks performed on them in order to do it, have to be citizens to do it, may in some instances be deputized or licensed to do it, and a corporation can be or do none of these things.

So I am optimistic that it can be done. Takes money and will take time. But it can be done.

I have not been focusing on litigation because I have been interested in the exit polls. But the privatization of voting is an idea whose time has come and should quickly go because it's dangers are so obvious. It probably would have been gone by now, but nobody seemed to care, so no one challenged it's legitimacy.

[Bill Bored]

12. Those Exit Polls are a Major Diversion!

6 months have gone by and all we seem to know from them is that there were "within-precinct errors." I get more work done when I ignore them.

Kerry lost the Electoral College (which would have been a tie) by less than 40,000 votes and the 3 states involved were all within the MOE of the Exit Polls. But yet we are addicted to them.

We want simple answers and the exit polls provide them -- except when they don't!

[m.standridge]

13. Well, Dave Leip has three "scenarios" or "parallel" events

at www.electionatlas.org
One is that Kerry carries Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, but not Ohio--which results in a tie (269-269)--which'd require Congress to act.
Then there's "no Electoral Vote Majority" (270 required), in which Bush carries Wisconsin, but not Iowa, Ohio or NM (269 Bush, 268 Kerry), in which the election wouldn't have automatically gone to Bush, but would have required Congressional intervention.
Each of these involves circa 40-70,000 votes.

Then there's the more familiar one, that Kerry actually carried Ohio, requiring, supposedly, a change-over of a little over 59,000 votes.
This would have given Kerry an Electoral majority, though not significantly, in itself, affecting Bush's Popular vote lead. Kerry would have had 272 Electoral votes, putting him over in the Electoral College. (Or, 271, assuming the MN Elector still made an error).

That's why I focused on OH, of course.

But, there's also this:
Had Kerry carried Arkansas, Iowa and New Mexico, without either FL, NV or OH, he'd have had 270 Electoral votes.
All these states were close, except the exit polls missed something in AR--and the official results here were extremely "fishy" looking, even according to double-checks by the SOS's office at the statewide level.
There was a power failure here in LR, and apparently one at Minturn, a town up north, as well. All those power failures--there were several around the nation in 2004 on election day, in areas that had become interesting in the Electoral College.

One thing that is probably frustrating to the DNC people, however, about all of these scenarios, is that none of them, in themselves, would demonstrably pull Kerry into a Popular vote lead--only an Electoral one. This clashes with some of the rhetoric from that direction of recent years--hence, more attention being given to the exit poll folks, would be my take. The exit poll theorists provide a claim of a Kerry Popular vote victory as well, apparently, as an Electoral one. I guess that's why I keep bumping up against them on the Intenet more than I do just people trying to see what happened in OH.
I can understand how the DNC feels, but I hope this hasn't interfered with genuine efforts to look into OH. Yet, the feeling I got, back around Dec and Jan, was that it did--that it really slowed things down at a critical juncture, in terms of efforts in OH.
I guess what I'm still trying to determine, is if Professor Phillips is taking the Electoral College perspective seriously, and still pursuing the Ohio computer stats.
I'm glad to hear you think that litigation could be successful in the area of getting ES&S, etc., out of running elections. That returns a sense of hope, in the midst of this about abolishing the filibuster.

[davidgmills]

14. But here is the problem

If we just buy the move on argument, then we have to face all those people who say the democratic message was wrong and that we need to move to the the right to attract a more conservative constituency. Is that what you want?

[Bill Bored]

15. Not saying "move on."

Just that we need to look at other evidence besides exit polls, and other solutions based on that.

[m.standridge]

16. True. There are some other interesting, thought-provoking

numbers in the 2004 election, though, that aren't connected to exit polling, but rather to the election outcomes.

As to official returns as they are now, some interesting data:

Virginia and Arkansas--southern states--are closer than Arizona.
Virginia, Arkansas and North Carolina--all southern states--are closer than West Virginia.
Louisiana is closer than Tennessee (Gore's home state)
Nevada is closer than Florida (which was nearly a tie even by official figures last time)
Both New Mexico and Iowa were Plurality states for Bush
Nevada and Ohio were 50% for Bush--50.47 in NV and 50.81 in OH
Colorado is also closer than Florida--which was NOT predicted by any analyst that I recall. Several weren't sure how close FL would get, but thought it could get close.
It's just intriguing, the way several southern states are closer than some border states. North Carolina is also closer than Tennessee, as are Virginia, Arkansas, and McCain's Arizona.
There are just these odds and ends in several sets of statistics, even aside from the exit polls. One would have thought the southern states would have been much more uniform than they were, compared to, say, Southwestern states. Well, to an extent, they were: NM, NV and CO were closer than any southern state. But, as I mentioned, AR and VA were closer than AZ. You may recall, too, that there were irregularities in both NM and NV, along the lines of the scale in Ohio. There was also another famous power failure in Denver, CO.
These kinds of stats, suggest some measure of popularity for Kerry that is possibly indicative of some undercurrent. There's an irregularity about it that is intriguing. These are the kinds of things that could be pointed to, in suggesting computer glitches.
There was a glitch in Oklahoma that ended up seeming to show rural Oklahoma more for Kerry than the urban area--which is unlikely.
Perhaps, armed with data such as these--against the backdrop of the possibly erroneous exit polls--the move on perspective could be countered to some extent, especially if enough were found in the Ohio computers to suggest Kerry actually carried it with votes that were cast.
But the conservatives would answer, it took too long to prove it. They'd rely on argument #3--the deadlines not being met. Regardless of whether VRA or computer innards were violated to produce the Bush victory. And, therefore, to answer your question, no, I don't think that's necessarily a great thing.
Another sad truth, is that the Left has, to some extent, in the wake of Nader, brought some of this on itself--just as the Perot conservatives have destroyed some of the incentive in the GOP to worry about the federal deficit.
Meanwhile, while all these games, vendettas, intrigues, cheating and right-moving strategies are going on, the average American working stiff, is getting shafted.



Both Virg

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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