10.24.2008

reminder: obama can't win if they don't count the votes

As the US "election" draws closer, I find it so frustrating to watch the mainstream Canadian media treat the US circus as if it's completely legitimate. Not a whisper about fraud, not a mention of disenfranchisement, no context even suggesting that the last two presidential elections were stolen.

I don't scour the mainstream media, so perhaps I missed some twenty-word paragraph buried on page 23 somewhere, but as far as I can tell, Canadian media act as if the US election is everything it purports to be. The Democrats are liberal, the Republicans are conservative, and whoever gets more votes wins. To quote one of my favourite comedy bits: "Fake, fake, fake, fake."

Alternative media isn't much better. Most progressive Canadians I know are expecting Obama to win, and - bizarrely - expecting the US to "turn around" after he does. These people generally know the US for what it is. They know that Bill Clinton would have been a great fit for the old Conservative Party of Canada: reversing 60 years of social policy by ending the federal guarantee of welfare, massive deregulation that eventually led to the current banking crisis, war crimes, and free trade, to name just a few acts that call the liberal label into question. They know what the US was like under Reagan and Bush I - and for that matter, under Lyndon Johnson. Yet they act like Obama is going to turn the US into Canada under Trudeau.

But for me, the most frustrating part is that most progressive Canadians also treat the US election as if it's real. In the US, many liberals are still under the thrall of magical thinking, about the election and the Democrats. I expected more in Canada, but I've been disappointed.

If you haven't read the story in Rolling Stone by Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. outlining the Republican plans to steal the 2008 election, I hope you will. You'll recall that Kennedy published a long article in the same magazine proving that the 2004 election was stolen. Here's the pre-game for 2008.
Suppressing the vote has long been a cornerstone of the GOP's electoral strategy. Shortly before the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Paul Weyrich — a principal architect of today's Republican Party — scolded evangelicals who believed in democracy. "Many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo goo' syndrome — good government," said Weyrich, who co-founded Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. "They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Today, Weyrich's vision has become a national reality. Since 2003, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at least 2.7 million new voters have had their applications to register rejected. In addition, at least 1.6 million votes were never counted in the 2004 election — and the commission's own data suggests that the real number could be twice as high. To purge registration rolls and discard ballots, partisan election officials used a wide range of pretexts, from "unreadability" to changes in a voter's signature. And this year, thanks to new provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the number of discounted votes could surge even higher.

Passed in 2002, HAVA was hailed by leaders in both parties as a reform designed to avoid a repeat of the 2000 debacle in Florida that threw the presidential election to the U.S. Supreme Court. The measure set standards for voting systems, created an independent commission to oversee elections, and ordered states to provide provisional ballots to voters whose eligibility is challenged at the polls.

But from the start, HAVA was corrupted by the involvement of Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, who worked to cram the bill with favors for his clients. (Both Abramoff and a primary author of HAVA, former Rep. Bob Ney, were imprisoned for their role in the conspiracy.) In practice, many of the "reforms" created by HAVA have actually made it harder for citizens to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. In case after case, Republican election officials at the local and state level have used the rules to give GOP candidates an edge on Election Day by creating new barriers to registration, purging legitimate names from voter rolls, challenging voters at the polls and discarding valid ballots.

To justify this battery of new voting impediments, Republicans cite an alleged upsurge in voting fraud. Indeed, the U.S.-attorney scandal that resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales began when the White House fired federal prosecutors who resisted political pressure to drum up nonexistent cases of voting fraud against Democrats. "They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments that would scare these alleged hordes of illegal voters away," says David Iglesias, a U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired in December 2006. "We took over 100 complaints and investigated for almost two years — but I didn't find one prosecutable case of voter fraud in the entire state of New Mexico.

There's a reason Iglesias couldn't find any evidence of fraud: Individual voters almost never try to cast illegal ballots. The Bush administration's main point person on "ballot protection" has been Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney who has advised states on how to use HAVA to erect more barriers to voting. Appointed to the Federal Election Commission by Bush, von Spakovsky has suggested that voter rolls may be stuffed with 5 million illegal aliens. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is extremely rare. According to a recent analysis by Lorraine Minnite, an expert on voting crime at Barnard College, federal courts found only 24 voters guilty of fraud from 2002 to 2005, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast. "The claim of widespread voter fraud," Minnite says, "is itself a fraud."

Allegations of voter fraud are only the latest rationale the GOP has used to disenfranchise voters — especially blacks, Hispanics and others who traditionally support Democrats. "The Republicans have a long history of erecting barriers to discourage Americans from voting," says Donna Brazile, chair of the Voting Rights Institute for the Democratic National Committee. "Now they're trying to spook Americans with the ghost of voter fraud. It's very effective — but it's ironic that the only way they maintain power is by using fear to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to vote." The recently enacted barriers thrown up to deter voters include...

For more on this, see the wmtc category election fraud.

And a reminder: the US military is quietly training for domestic operations.

96 comments:

penlan said...

Actually, I think more Canadians are aware of this than you may think. Especially those that watch U.S. Cable channels like MSNBC & CNN.

Yes, we see, & hear, little in Canadian MSM but go online to any of the big U.S. online newspapers & they are talking about it. And ACORN is out there too with what the Republicans are trying to do. And that has been reported here too, on our TV Cable channels.

Good post!

M@ said...

I'm almost at the point that I'm hoping McCain wins, because it would finally expose the whole system for the sham that it is. I've been wondering what it would take for Americans to take to the streets and demand their democracy back; maybe this would be it.

However, I know I'm probably wrong for two reasons:

1. It would have to be a massive taking-to-the-streets, at a magnitude far greater than the anti-Iraq war demonstrations in 2003, or else the media would again hide it.

2. They're already preparing for that eventuality.

To quote a great philosopher: Yeah, they're boned.

L-girl said...

Thank you, Penlan!

Actually, I think more Canadians are aware of this than you may think.

I don't see evidence of it on blogs or in person. I work with progressive, informed people who don't seem to be aware of this. But I'm glad to hear you have a different sense of things.

One thing I'm not clear on. Are you saying that CNN and MSNBC do cover election fraud, vote stealing, disenfranchisement, etc., in an honest way?

Because CNN's coverage of 2000 completely misled the public. You might want to see the film "Unprecedented" for more on how the 2000 election was stolen. And in 2004 no one said boo. So I find it more than a bit strange that a stalwart MSM outlet like CNN is reporting honestly on voter fraud now.

L-girl said...

I'm almost at the point that I'm hoping McCain wins, because it would finally expose the whole system for the sham that it is.

I know what you're saying, but unfortunately I don't think it would expose that. Most people would simply believe that he won b/c he got more votes - and no one will tell them otherwise.

redsock said...

If the votes will be rigged for McCain, expect some new polls in the next week saying the race is getting tighter. (Or they may let Obama win and give him the job of trying to clean up the huge mess Bush has left before returning in 2012.)

I also will not be surprised if Obama is declared the winner and McCain claims voter fraud.

***

Also:

Colorado Democrats accused a Republican county clerk Wednesday of falsely informing Colorado College that students from outside the state could not register to vote if their parents claimed them as a dependent on their tax returns. ... Robert Balink, the El Paso County clerk and recorder, who was a delegate to the Republican National Convention ... [said] his office had misinterpreted state law and "mistakenly published information that was incorrect."

Minority voters in New Mexico report to TPMmuckraker that a private investigator working with Republican party lawyer Pat Rogers has appeared in person at the homes of their family members, intimidating and confusing them about their right to vote in the general election.

In a local news special investigation, Harris County (Houston) Tax Collector (and Voter Registrar) Paul Bettencourt (Republican) is claiming wide-spread "voter-fraud" to disenfranchise HUNDREDS (perhaps THOUSANDS) of newly registered voters that the investigation finds are mostly all eligible (and Democrat).

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's last name is spelled "Osama" on hundreds of absentee ballots mailed out this week to voters in Rensselaer County. ... "This was a typo," Rensselaer County (N.Y.) Republican Commissioner Larry Bugbee.

A Republican county election clerk distributed copies of an apparent chain letter referring to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as a "young, black Adolf Hitler" to two employees but later told police she intended it to be a joke.

***

If you think these and many other stories are linked in any way, then you are nothing but a silly conspiracy theorist.

M@ said...

Most people would simply believe that he won b/c he got more votes - and no one will tell them otherwise.

I admit, it's more of a fantasy of mine than anything else.

Plus, I can see an even worse scenario. Obama loses, thousands take to the street to protest a stolen election. Media covers it as "race riots" and creates the narrative that it's angry blacks protesting. And things get worse from there.

Okay, now I've really depressed myself.

Penlan -- I'm not sure I'd agree. I am constantly talking about the vote fraud in the US from the last four elections, and I don't get any sense that the people I'm talking to know what I'm talking about. Though I readily admit that that could be me... :)

deang said...

This exact issues has been bothering me so much lately that I was considering emailing you to vent. Why are even progressive writers treating this election as legit?!

Mark Crispin Miller has been trying to get the enormity of the situation communicated to people for a while (massive voter fraud already underway, mobilized military, etc) and he's getting some traction (Democracy Now), but it's frustrating to see otherwise aware people not paying attention to this.

Miller points out that the Republicans already have the public aware of the narrative that if Obama "loses," it will be because of millions of covertly racist white people expressing their racism in the voting booth, contradicting all polls.

Miller has also spoken about the fact that several of the figures behind the programmed-to-be-fraudulent electronic voting machine companies are vocal members of the religious right who don't believe the public can be trusted to vote in a way that evangelicals would approve of. Aaaaahhh!

The military is probably being mobilized to quell the public revolt that ought to happen when the election is given to McCain despite what is predicted to be an overwhelming, not-at-all-close victory for Obama. I'm not so sure the public will do much of anything. There was very little response even in 2000, when most everyone knew Bush was arbitrarily appointed.

L-girl said...

DeanG and Redsock, thanks for this.

(Or they may let Obama win and give him the job of trying to clean up the huge mess Bush has left before returning in 2012.)

I see this as very unlikely, only because powerful forces don't keep and consolidate power by giving it away. Autorcratic govts don't generally expand and grab power only to turn it over to the so-called opposition.

But I don't have a crystal ball.

L-girl said...

Plus, I can see an even worse scenario. Obama loses, thousands take to the street to protest a stolen election. Media covers it as "race riots" and creates the narrative that it's angry blacks protesting. And things get worse from there.

Yup.

Kevin said...

As a progressive in Seattle, waiting until I'm solvent enough to apply to Canada, I'm frustrated. People seem to magickally believe that the votes will count AND that Obama will somehow be progressive.

I see no change in his rhetoric, just more empty promises and outlines of bills that will be whittled down to shite.

I so so soooooooo need out :)

redsock said...

Autorcratic govts don't generally expand and grab power only to turn it over to the so-called opposition.

If it's opposition in name only, then it isn't really the "other side". The power remains in the family.

Also, Biden made some comments recently that were very bizarre (and a bit scary). Saying that soon after Obama is in office, there will likely be a huge crisis and many people will not like what Obama/Biden may have to do, but that Americans should stick together regardless and save any judgment of their actions until after.

I'll post it later today from work.

L-girl said...

If it's opposition in name only, then it isn't really the "other side". The power remains in the family.

I guess it depends how phony we think the phony opposition is - that is, if it's *actually* a one-party system, or only *technically* a one-party system.

L-girl said...

Kevin, I hear ya. Keep saving those dollars and filling out those forms.

penlan said...

The murmurings of voter fraud are getting louder. And becoming difficult for the media to ignore.

I don't watch CNN much at all anymore but definitely MSNBC. Olbermann & Maddow have been on this, a lot, & it was either last night or the night before that Maddow had Robert Kennedy on talking about the voter fraud. I know that a lot of Canadians are watching this.

Bloggers here, for the most part, are blogging on Canadian issues, although, here & there are some paying deeper attention to what's going on the U.S. campaign.

I read lots of different U.S. blogs as well & not one has yet to mention Canada - except for the Nafta incident that came up with Obama.

I have been reading a lot online on the voter fraud, the new military outfit to be "deployed" for "safety at home", etc. People here are not completely oblivious to it, they just aren't talking about it.

I expect to see more & more of that type of behaviour/activities, the longer the Cons are in power, here. They all follow the same playbook & are also members of the same think tanks, etc.

L-girl said...

The murmurings of voter fraud are getting louder. And becoming difficult for the media to ignore.

Knowing the US media, they'll manage to ignore it anyway. Thank goodness for Olbermann and Maddow, although they are exceptions.

Bloggers here, for the most part, are blogging on Canadian issues, although, here & there are some paying deeper attention to what's going on the U.S. campaign.

I see lots of Cdn bloggers writing about the US elections, but most of it seems very superficial to me. The attitude seems to be "when Obama gets in, things will improve a lot".

Of course there are so many blogs - we each only see a small portion of the whole. So our perceptions can be very different, yet equally valid.

I read lots of different U.S. blogs as well & not one has yet to mention Canada - except for the Nafta incident that came up with Obama.

Yes, that's the usual. USians don't pay much attention to what goes on in Canada. US wingnuts like to crow about Conservatives being elected here, without much understanding of what that means. And that's about it.

I expect to see more & more of that type of behaviour/activities, the longer the Cons are in power, here. They all follow the same playbook & are also members of the same think tanks, etc.

That's true to an extent, but not IMO to the extent claimed by progressive Canadians. At least here elections are overseen by a nonpartisan agency, and there is simple paper ballotting. Not that that is the only difference, but it's a big one.

Thanks for your thoughts, Penlan - and welcome to wmtc.

Kevin said...

@l-girl thinks for letting me whine at you. You seem to be the only blogger that "gets it".

L-girl said...

Kevin, you're too kind, or at least I hope you are! But whine away, whatever keeps you sane. In the early days of this blog, I was prone to posts like "get me the fuck out of here" and "I am ready to leave NOW!!!".

Kevin said...

@l-girl -- My friends have pretty much all told me to "move already."

I've been lurking and reading wmtc to get a better education on Canadian Politics, which as you no doubt remember, its hard to get in the States.

There's this whole manic belief that Obama will be the JFK of my generation -- which I don't see happening. While I agree that he'll be a historic president; he won't do what Trudeau did for Canada.

M@, I'd love to tell you that would be the end of it. Quite frankly, the people of the United States no longer believe that the government is theirs. They believe that the government is an entity to be endured, its unchangeable. Protests simply do not happen on any scale here -- and that makes me weep.

thefinalhalo said...

While I'm stuck here, I've got to do my part and at least vote for Obama. I've spent so much time since before the primaries lobbying my friends and anyone who will listen about Obama, talked about voter fraud, and tried to get people to listen. That's all I can do.

If you turn out to be correct and the election is stolen, which, believe me, I haven't ruled out. then I will submit my immigration application. I've read up and down all over cic.gc.ca, and I don't believe I'd receive enough points yet, but I can't see it being wise to chance staying around here to see what kind of destruction McPalin will reign down from the skies.

I don't know how long it will take me to save the remaining $8k that I still need to have a proof of funds, but I'm hoping that after I graduate from school in two years and land a teaching position somewhere I'll at least be on my way.

redsock said...

Here is the Biden thing. It is very odd. More paranoid people might think he knows a bit more than he's saying. Biden, to supporters in Seattle (my emphasis):

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. ...

"And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. ...

"This guy [Obama] has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us.

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'. Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound. ...

"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here."

***

redsock said...

Obama favours U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan

Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

"We're confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan ... It's time to heed the call ... for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan," he said in his most hawkish promise to date. ... "The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting," he said, echoing Mr. Bush's oft-repeated refrain.

***

Huffington: John McCain, who has harshly criticized the idea of sitting down with dictators without pre-conditions, appears to have done just that. In 1985, McCain traveled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile's military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, one of the world's most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others. The private meeting between McCain and dictator Pinochet has gone previously un-reported anywhere. According to a declassified U.S. Embassy cable about the meeting secured by The Huffington Post, McCain described the meeting with Pinochet "as friendly and at times warm ..."

***

L-girl said...

Thefinalhalo, that sounds like a very good plan. In my last summer in the US, I spent a huge amount of time working on a GOTV campaign, even though I already had one foot out the door (immigration application already in). It felt right to contribute in that way.

Allan, thanks for the links. Those Biden quotes are very strange. I don't know what to make of them.

thefinalhalo said...

I had read sections of that speech that Biden gave just yesterday and I didn't notice anything particularly strange.

However, in this context it definitely adds some more mystery to whatever it was he was referring to. Very interesting.

Kim_in_TO said...

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's last name is spelled "Osama" on hundreds of absentee ballots mailed out this week to voters in Rensselaer County. ... "This was a typo," Rensselaer County (N.Y.) Republican Commissioner Larry Bugbee.

'B' and 'S' are nowhere near each other on the keyboard.

redsock said...

'B' and 'S' are nowhere near each other on the keyboard.

Yep.

There have also been numerous examples on CNN and MSNBC and Fox of either "OSAMA" on screen over a picture of Obama or a picture of bin Laden with the word "OBAMA". Cable news hosts have also said Osama when they meant Obama and vice versa -- and never corrected themselves -- or been corrected by the person sitting next to them.

I wish I had been keeping track of these as they were reported, but there have been at least a dozen.

All honest mistakes!

Ooop-sie!

Kim_in_TO said...

We heard a lot about the problems with ballots in Florida (that was in 2000, right?). But Bush's re-election in 2004 was more of a mystery and we were led by the mainstream media to believe that he just had a lot of support from the religious right. There wasn't any talk about this type of voter fraud, that I was aware of.

I've been listening to the talk on wmtc about "stolen elections", and while I know Laura and Allan well enough now to be able to immediately trust anything they say, I have to admit I didn't know about most of this. I've been learning it by following links here, and have come across some other stories myself - articles and video clips - but not through mainstream media.

In these last few years, I've become more politically aware and enough of a social/political activist to know not to trust mainstream media. I check in with Progressive Bloggers regularly, and I don't see a lot of talk about these issues. I don't get the impression that Canadians are very aware of this at all.

L-girl said...

I wish I had been keeping track of these as they were reported, but there have been at least a dozen.

Check your Gmail - you've been sending a lot of them to me.

L-girl said...

Kim, thanks for your comment. This is the impression I have, too - that Canadians heard about "hanging chads" (you're correct, that was 2000), and then scratched their head and wondered why so many USians voted for Bush in 2004. And indeed many did - but not as many as the tallied votes said. This perspective seems completely absent from Canadian media.

I will be back momentarily with some links...

redsock said...

But Bush's re-election in 2004 was more of a mystery and we were led by the mainstream media to believe that he just had a lot of support from the religious right.

That was the spin from the "liberal media" -- but when people actually looked at the data, long after the election, they found it was completely wrong and total bullshit.

What went on in Ohio (for starters) in 2004 was huge -- it made Florida look like a summer picnic -- I can't believe that was not reported here.

redsock said...

One of my favourite stories from Ohio was from the county that eventually tipped the balance from Kerry to Bush.

Votes were being counted and oftentimes local reporters are allowed to observe. But on this night Ohio election officials (headed by Republican Kenneth Blackwell) said the FBI had told them of a super-severe terrorist threat to *that very building* so everyone but the actual vote counters had to leave.

The building was evacuated, the pro-Bush results were announced -- and a few weeks later, the FBI said that it had never made any terrorist warning announcemnt to anyone that night.

Kim_in_TO said...

BTW - I passed on the Rolling Stone link to my friends in Missouri and Ohio.

My friend in Ohio (Toledo) has twin boys, now age 23. She reports that she and one of her sons are registered as "independents", so they are sought-after voters because they are supposedly undecided (they are not). In the last election, they were able to vote, but the other son, who votes democrat, arrived at the poll to find he had been deleted from the list. He was able to fill out a "provisional ballot", but as explained in the Rolling Stone article, provisional ballots are not necessarily counted. My friend said as much - they had no idea if his vote was worth anything.

Lest anyone here still have doubts about whether the reports of Republican vote tampering are overblown...

L-girl said...

Some 2004 stolen election material. I'm going to link to my own posts, because it's easier, and anyone who wants to can follow links from there.

1 - Look for "None Dare Call It Stolen" by Mark Crispin Miller, originally run in Harper's. I blogged about it here, with some quotes.

2 - Krugman adding to the above.

3 - Follow links to Mark Crispin Miller and Fitrakis/Wasserman in this post.

4 - I found at least 4 wmtc posts about the first RFK Jr. Rolling Stone story, but I did find the original story. This one is long - worth printing and reading the whole thing.

5 - More Fitrakis and Wasserman here.

6 - More Mark Crispin Miller here..

7 - Steven Freeman here. Author of "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count." (Answer: yes.)

8 - Fitrakis and Wasserman ask Will Bush Cancel the 2008 Election?. This was last August.

9 - Ohio Sec'y of State admits 2004 election could easily have been stolen.

OK, I'll stop now. But if you're really interested, there's a lot more.

Kim_in_TO said...

the FBI had told them of a super-severe terrorist threat to *that very building* so everyone but the actual vote counters had to leave.

Because vote-counters' lives are not worth as much as others', apparently.

L-girl said...

(headed by Republican Kenneth Blackwell)

In case you don't know this name, Kenneth Blackwell worked overtime to throw thousands of Ohio voters off the rolls, make sure there were inadequate voting machines in low-income districts, and every other dirty trick you can think of.

When I was working with ACT in the summer of 2004, ACT Ohio was forever running to court to challenge Blackwell's latest attempts.

One I remember clearly was that 1000s of newly registered voters had filled out forms printed on ordinary paper instead of heavy card stock. Blackwell disqualified - and shredded - the forms, citing a law from the late 1800s that had never been enforced.

The court ruled in favour of the voting-registration drive, against Blackwell. But the forms had been destroyed, and there was no time to re-register all those people.

redsock said...

Because vote-counters' lives are not worth as much as others', apparently.

They are heroes, really.

redsock said...

From Kenendy's earlier RS article (my emphasis):

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes. ... In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots. And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

****

redsock said...

Franklin County (Ohio)

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

If there was malicious code inserted to take every 10th vote for Kerry and give it to Bush, and the programmer accidentally added Kerry's running total instead of 1 vote (B=B+K instead of B=B+1) to Bush, it would have produced exactly these results.

An electronic voting machine added 3,893 votes to President Bush's tally in a suburban Columbus precinct, even though there are just 800 voters there. Error is referred to as a glitch.

***

Youngstown (Ohio)

One precinct recorded a negative 25 million votes.

***

Taken from here.
Info from:
Florida
Indiana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

M@ said...

I first came across what appeared to me to be concrete proof that the Ohio results were invalid no later than early 2006. I believe it was an official study of the election results, and it concentrated mainly on the voting machines.

That made me pick up Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse in a bookstore, a book that provided some perspective on how, much more importantly, votes were being denied to large sectors of the population in four key states. It was a map in that book that superimposed precincts with high numbers of voters denied their ballots over precincts with predominantly black or Hispanic populations. Surprise -- they might as well have been the same map.

That was a slam dunk for me. So I was very receptive to the Fitrakis and Wasserman article and a number of other sources. I started looking out for articles on the subject, and have yet to find anything even representing an opposing view. Nothing. The topic seems to be so bizarrely obscure that there's no actual answer needed from the perpetrators.

It's depressing on many levels. I don't know whether any result will surprise me in this election. Okay, two possibilities: one, the result will match both the last polls before the vote and the exit polls. Two, the elections will be cancelled, probably for security reasons.

(Laura, you've made me very much aware of the possibility, but it will still surprise me if it happens. Just not as much as it would have before.)

penlan said...

L-girl,

Thankyou for the welcome. :)

I'm not at all surprised by Biden's remarks. First, it has usually been the case with a new president that something international does happen to so-called "test the mettle" of the new Prez. Very common.

If elected Obama is going to do, or not do, things that are going to really suprise all of his supporters - & they won't be pleased. It will sound as though he's flip-flopped on what he said before being elected. Biden is basically saying "hang in there, go with it" & you'll see it'll all be ok in the end. Just keep supporting him.

In many ways there is little difference between Obama & McCain in many areas or between Dems & Repubs. Yes, to me it's basically the same party with just a few differences. And both parties are controlled by big money (corporations, oil industry, & the military industrial complex).

Obama is a warmonger, just like Mccain - only a little more low-key about it verbally. But it's there. I don't think, once he's in office, that he will pull troops out of Iraq. Yes, he's already said he will leave a contigent of around 50,000 there for training Iraqi military & fighting "terrorists". Once he has more info on Iraq he will most likely say "we can't leave right now". Too dangerous.

There will be a lot more conflict in the Middle East & the U.S. is going to become deeply involved in other countries there. Plus the Africom issues. Africom has been kept fairly quiet but things will begin to heighten there as well. China has become very pervasive there & it's a threat to U.S. interests & this will cause problems.

And we also have Russia flexing it's muscles even more now in response to Bush plans to have missile stations in parts of Europe which border on Russia as well. Another escalation of "nuclear" power, etc. Another impending/increasing "cold war".

So there will be much that Obama will have to deal with which will make the American public very unhappy. Even in domestic issues.

All the hope & change hype - as nice as it may be - will not be easily implemented, if at all. And there is the economic mess that will not allow him to implement plans like Health care for all, etc. Obama has been so hyped as a "saviour" that it's ridiculous & plays only to emotions - not intellect & reasoning.

I do think that if the election is "stolen" due to voter fraud by the Repubs there will be a huge outcry. I don't think the electorate will stand for it this time & will want to know all the gory details of how that could possibly happen. There will be strife in the streets & as others have remarked that will be the 1st reason to bring in the new militia group, in a huge way, to really crackdown on dissenters.

My two cents worth.

L-girl said...

Penlan, thanks for your thoughts. I certainly agree with you about the slim difference between Democrats and Republicans. I've been completely finished with the Democrats and the hope rhetoric for a long time. Magical thinking, as we've been saying.

I do think that if the election is "stolen" due to voter fraud by the Repubs there will be a huge outcry. The problem is, there was an outcry in I don't think the electorate will stand for it this time & will want to know all the gory details of how that could possibly happen.

This assumes (a) people will know about it, (b) they will protest in very large numbers and (c) something will come of that protest.

In the US, there is no "won't stand for it" at this point.

There will be strife in the streets & as others have remarked that will be the 1st reason to bring in the new militia group, in a huge way, to really crackdown on dissenters.

This I can see. Even if the protests are small, they can be used as an excuse. It's not hard to incite violence - real or staged - and that's a good excuse for a serious crackdown.

The only thing you said that I disagree with is your interpretation of Biden's remarks. I've been listening to US campaign talk my whole life, and this bit sounds mighty strange to me.

L-girl said...

That was a slam dunk for me.

It's a very compelling case - leaves little room for backpedaling or excuses.

I started looking out for articles on the subject, and have yet to find anything even representing an opposing view. Nothing.

Yes! There are only people like a former commenter on JoS who says he's read "everything" on the topic and is satisfied the elections are fair. When we ask him to share one or two sources from "everything", he calls us wacko conspiracy theorists.

It's depressing on many levels.

Depressing and scary.

I don't know whether any result will surprise me in this election. Okay, two possibilities: one, the result will match both the last polls before the vote and the exit polls. Two, the elections will be cancelled, probably for security reasons.

(Laura, you've made me very much aware of the possibility, but it will still surprise me if it happens. Just not as much as it would have before.)


If my worst fears come true, it will - on some level - surprise me too. And on another level will not. My brain is half-expecting it. My heart will still be affected.

redsock said...

Bush Orders DOJ to Probe Ohio Voter Registrations

George W. Bush late Friday asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters in the battleground state of Ohio would have to verify the information on their voter registration forms or be given provisional ballots, an issue the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on last week.

The unprecedented intervention by the White House less than two weeks before the presidential election may result in at least 200,000 voters in Ohio not being able to vote on Election Day if they are forced to provide additional identification when they head to the polls.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Bush Friday asking that he order the Department of Justice to probe the matter.

"I strongly urge you to direct Attorney General Mukasey and the Department of Justice to act," Boehner said in his letter. "Unless action is taken by the Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of names whose information has not been verified through the procedures mandated by Congress will remain on the voter rolls during the November 4 election; and there is a significant risk if not a certainty, that unlawful votes will be cast and counted. Given the Election Day is less than two weeks away, immediate action by the Department is not only warranted, but also crucial."

*****


Now they are tampering with the election right out in the open.

And naturally, they time this for the late Friday news dump, since Saturday is the day with the lowest newspaper circulation.

redsock said...

My irony meter busted.

AP: "The U.S. Embassy in Nicaragua has released a statement criticizing the country's delays in accrediting election observers, saying it places in doubt the fairness of upcoming municipal balloting."

Amy said...

As someone who will vote on November 4, I find it both frightening and depressing to read all of this (again). The sense of futility is overwhelming. I am not so naive as to believe that Obama is the savior, but he is certainly is a far better choice than McCain. I am not sure what I will do with my rage if he loses.

My own experience when talking to people here in the US about voter fraud is that most people just pooh-pooh it as inconsequential. Even within my own family, I get shrugs and little more when I say the 2004 (and 2000, of course) elections were stolen. I just sent the RFK email on to see if that generates a different reaction. Maybe he has more credibility than I do.

Having said that, I still do hold out hope that Obama will be elected. I just hold out little hope that even if does, much will change here.

(And don't even get me started on the evil of the electoral college system.)

Thanks for pulling this all together, much as it makes me sick to read it all.

Amy said...

As for Biden's remarks, who knows? Sometimes that man just talks for the sake of talking. I agree that it is a bit strange. What kind of audience was he addressing? Just a regular rally or some special group?

The press made a big deal (as has McCain) about his description of Obama as a "young President," but the rest of his comments have not gotten much play in the MSM.

cyberwanderer said...

I know this tactic have been in used. But I just realized something here. Harper like to play dirty politics which tends to turn people off from voting. The consequence whether intentional or not seems to go in his favor. Because like the Republican, the less incline people are to vote, the higher their chance of winning. The election that has just concluded have shown that while Harper gain more seats, he gained it with fewer votes for him. But the large number of people who did not vote for the other parties help him gain more seats.

So why bother running a civil campaign when the dirtier the politics is, the more people would be turn off and more chance of them getting more seats.

Amy said...

I meant RFK article, not email. I emailed the article---that's what I meant to say.

L-girl said...

My own experience when talking to people here in the US about voter fraud is that most people just pooh-pooh it as inconsequential. Even within my own family, I get shrugs and little more when I say the 2004 (and 2000, of course) elections were stolen.

If they are like you - educated, liberal, generally concerned with what's going on in the world around them - I have to think they're in heavy denial. It's a fairly common coping mechanism in the US right now.

Having said that, I still do hold out hope that Obama will be elected. I just hold out little hope that even if does, much will change here.

That's how most smart USians I know feel.

And thanks for thanking me/us. :)

L-girl said...

Cyberwanderer, thanks for your thoughts. I haven't been following Canadian elections long enough to know if there really is a marked change in the "dirtyiness" of the campaigns.

Reading about election campaigns from Canada's early days (in Pierre Berton's books, for examples), I know Canadians are no strangers to dirty politics, and in those days it was mainly Liberals, the party with the most power, doing the dirty dealing.

redsock said...

Me yesterday:
If the votes will be rigged for McCain, expect some new polls in the next week saying the race is getting tighter.

Well, well, lookee here.

In the very important state of Ohio, it appears that "the race remains a statistical dead heat" with Obama up by only 3% (with a margin of error of 3.3%). (NBC has McCain leading in Ohio 46-45.)

redsock said...

AP: "Elections officials were untangling early voting glitches in at least two states Friday after a Tennessee county reported some voters had gotten ballots for the wrong district and an Atlanta-area county discovered problems with some of its absentee ballots."

But don't worry:

Atlanta Journal Constitution: "Several hundred elections workers in Gwinnett will be sequestered in a warehouse on Election Day to transfer votes from 10,000 flawed absentee ballots onto correct ballots that can be read by a machine."

"sequestered in a warehouse" -- that sounds pretty above board ... carry on ...

****

I should also say that Obama may very well be declared the winner. However, we will never know how the country truly voted.

redsock said...

As for Biden's remarks, who knows? Sometimes that man just talks for the sake of talking. I agree that it is a bit strange.

That's an awful lot of specific stuff for "the sake of talking". And in light of how "events" have been manufactured, allowed to occur, and then exploited, it raises my eyebrows.

What kind of audience was he addressing? Just a regular rally or some special group?

Regular, I think. There is audio tape of it.

Mary said...

"But for me, the most frustrating part is that most progressive Canadians also treat the US election as if it's real. In the US, many liberals are still under the thrall of magical thinking, about the election and the Democrats. I expected more in Canada, but I've been disappointed."

Maybe the reason the Canadian media, progressive or otherwise, don't devote more ink to election fraud in the US is that it isn't news. Even the (few) Canadians I know who voted Harpie have no difficulty believing that the last two US elections were stolen and that the next one could well be stolen, too. And I don't think Canadian progressives believe that Obama and the Dems will turn the US around in dramatic fashion; yes, we prefer Obama to McCain, for a lot of reasons - not least of which is that the next POTUS will make at least one and perhaps as many as three SCOTUS appointments. Given the stakes, and the fact that there are only two viable candidates, and the fact that attempted theft by the GOP is a foregone conclusion, we find it frankly bewildering that many of our USan counterparts are unwilling to hold their noses and vote for Obama.

L-girl said...

Maybe the reason the Canadian media, progressive or otherwise, don't devote more ink to election fraud in the US is that it isn't news.

This doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me, given how the MSM - both Canadian and US - report on tons of stuff that isn't news. Canadian media spends a lot of time on the US elections, and treats it all with complete seriousness, at face value, as we've mentioned above. They *do* report on the elections - but they *don't* report on election fraud.

Even the (few) Canadians I know who voted Harpie have no difficulty believing that the last two US elections were stolen and that the next one could well be stolen, too.

That's good to know. Other Canadians, such as M@ and Kim_In_TO, feel there is little or no awareness of it at all, so I'm glad to hear you disagree.

And I don't think Canadian progressives believe that Obama and the Dems will turn the US around in dramatic fashion; yes, we prefer Obama to McCain, for a lot of reasons - not least of which is that the next POTUS will make at least one and perhaps as many as three SCOTUS appointments. Given the stakes, and the fact that there are only two viable candidates, and the fact that attempted theft by the GOP is a foregone conclusion, we find it frankly bewildering that many of our USan counterparts are unwilling to hold their noses and vote for Obama.

Thanks for the perspective. I don't see it reflected in the Canadian blogosphere, but I'm glad to know it's out there.

redsock said...

Canadian media spends a lot of time on the US elections, and treats it all with complete seriousness, at face value, as we've mentioned above. They *do* report on the elections - but they *don't* report on election fraud.

They are not even reporting that people are worried -- considering the problems that occurred in 2000 and 2004.

They are treating it as if it does not exist. There is no way this can be an oversight or a mistake. For whatever reason(s), the mainstream Canadian media has chosen to completely ignore the glaring issue of vote fraud.

It should be the #1 issue during this campaign. Why are they silent?

Amy said...

If the votes will be rigged for McCain, expect some new polls in the next week saying the race is getting tighter.

Well, well, lookee here.

In the very important state of Ohio, it appears that "the race remains a statistical dead heat" with Obama up by only 3% (with a margin of error of 3.3%). (NBC has McCain leading in Ohio 46-45.)


Actually, the polls in September had McCain leading in Ohio, so the race is tightening in Obama's favor there, not the other way around.

redsock said...

Okay. Either way, an even race is easy to tip one way or the other.

Mary said...

"Thanks for the perspective. I don't see it reflected in the Canadian blogosphere, but I'm glad to know it's out there."

Thanks for yours.

I don't spend a lot of time in the blogosphere, Canadian or otherwise, and I don't plumb the depths, if you call them that, of the Canadian mainstream media, either. Also, I've been too busy with something else to follow things as much as I would otherwise. So my opinions are just that.

I guess I think that it's a bit much to expect the Canadian media to take on this vital story when the USan media and the USan electorate have had eight years since the first theft to address it and haven't.

L-girl said...

"I guess I think that it's a bit much to expect the Canadian media to take on this vital story when the USan media and the USan electorate have had eight years since the first theft to address it and haven't."

That's one way to look at it, certainly.

But media outside the US often has a more skeptical perspective on US affairs than media within the country itself.

For example, BBC and CBC were both highly skeptical of the US claims re WMDs and the invasion of Iraq. Reporters were practically rolling their eyes - while CNN and the NY Times were playing stenographer for Bushco. There are many examples of this type. If non-US media only took its cue from US media, there's a lot of things we wouldn't know.

About many other USian interests, Canadian people and Canadian media will take a skeptical view. But not about the elections.

gomonik said...

Is there any way US citizens could demand some kind of election oversight? Other countries get international monitors, like when Ukraine had their elections back in '04, a stink was raised when exit polls didn't jive with the results. It is evident that there were a lot of suspicious goings-on during the last US election, not to mention the utter ridiculousness of using insecure electronic voting machines running proprietary closed-source software, machines incapable of producing a verifiable paper trail. How ANYONE could have trust that system is beyond me. What they need is a return to pencil and paper voting. It may take a couple days to count all the votes, but who the hell cares. Voting needs to be as transparent as possible, and always, ALWAYS verifiable.

L-girl said...

Is there any way US citizens could demand some kind of election oversight?

Several groups have tried. But you know how much the US govt cares about international opinion.

What they need is a return to pencil and paper voting.

Yes indeed. But that will not be happening. This system is working too well for the people who put it in place.

redsock said...

Reuters:

"Democrat Barack Obama's lead over Republican rival John McCain has dropped to 5 points, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday ... after hitting a high of 12 points on Thursday. "Things are trending back for McCain. His numbers are rising and Obama's are dropping on a daily basis ..." pollster John Zogby said.

*********

"Pennsylvania Republicans are disavowing an e-mail sent to Jewish voters that likens a vote for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to events that led up to the Holocaust. ... "I had authorization from party officials" to send the e-mail, [political consultant Bryan] Rudnick said, but he declined to say who had signed off on it."

*********

"John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states, it has emerged. ... [Nathan Sproul] has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms ... [In 2004, Sproul and Associates] trained staff only to register Republican voters and destroyed any other registration cards..."

Canada Calling said...

So, let me see if I have got this right . . .

If (and that is a big if) an election is allowed to happen, barring Martial law being invoked and staged race riots in the streets of DC, Obama will have to win by a large enough margin to offset the voter fraud/theft (covertly racist white people expressing their racism in the voting booth and/or faulty machines erroneously casting votes for the current regime to be represented by McPallin). Then, (as per Joe Biden) some catastrophic event manufactured to test Obama's mettle will happen that will make us all question Obama/Biden judgment. But we are all supposed to stand firm behind the party even though our mere mortal minds won't be able to comprehend the course of action the charismatic Obama in his most soothing preacher voice will say "is in our best interest". In the long run, when we look back on this descision, it will make perfect sense as to why it was the only option.

I feel so much better.

Andrea said...

this is all mind numbing.
What scares me is that the PC's up here changed some election rules before our last election a few days ago that suddenly made tons of people ineligible to vote. Address changes that affected the recently moved and students.
It has already begun up here.
sigh

L-girl said...

It has already begun up here.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

Fair elections always require vigilance, but I wouldn't base a big leap on that evidence - not yet.

L-girl said...

the PC's up here changed some election rules before our last election

Can a provincial govt change eligibility requirements for a federal election?

Do provinces have the right and mechanism to do that?

penlan said...

L-girl...No, a Provincial govt. cannot change eligibility requirements Federally. Elections Canada makes the rules - & Harper is suing Elections Canada.

Also, Andrea is correct & that isn't the only incident of people being turned away in the last election. It happened in many places.

And there has been talk, by the Cons, of wanting to put in voting machines. You seem fairly adamant that what's happened in the U.S. can't happen here. I disagree with you. We are going down that path, albeit slowly at the moment. It will happen.

L-girl said...

And there has been talk, by the Cons, of wanting to put in voting machines.

Oo, that has to be fought tooth and nail.

You seem fairly adamant that what's happened in the U.S. can't happen here.

Not sure where you get that from, but it's not from anything I wrote. It could happen anywhere. Canada isn't some magical place immune to people trying to subvert democracy. We have to always be vigilant that voting stays fair and transparent in Canada.

I merely said we shouldn't jump to conclusions that it's already happening here. It may be, but I would need more information before I conclude that.

Scott M. said...

I have to say it seems weird that CNN has a "hotline" for people to call in when they have problems at the polls... it's so foreign an idea.

The worst infractions I've ever run into at a poll is a line up. That's it.

Oh, and poll workers complaining about being bored or hungry. They all seem to not bring enough food.

redsock said...

Following the script:


Thursday, October 30:
National polls tighten a bit; Obama hangs on to lead in battlegrounds
With less than a week till Election Day, any movement in the polls is big news. In the Real Clear Politics national poll average, Barack Obama's 8-point lead from Saturday has decreased to 5.9, due mostly to a gain in John McCain's average.
Three major polls have seen a significant squeeze in the past five days, causing this trend. Today, a Rasmussen poll put Obama at a 3-point lead. McCain has gained 3 points in their survey since Saturday and Obama has lost two, putting the race at the narrowest margin this poll has seen since late September.
This followed the drastic squeeze seen in the Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN this weekend. After enjoying a 12-point lead in their poll last week, Obama's lead shrunk to around 5 points and held steady there for a few days. ....

*********

redsock said...

This is also part of the script:

(ABC News) Exclusive: U.S. Expects Bin Laden Message Near Election
Multiple senior government officials tell ABC News the intelligence community is anticipating a message from Osama bin Laden before or just after the presidential election.

***

Damn. You can set your friggin watch by these jokers.

BOO!

redsock said...

Vote-Flipping Diebold Machine Removed, Quarantined in CO!
Karen Long, Adams County Clerk Takes Action After Voter Sees Vote Flip Repeatedly to Republican Candidate in State With Long History of E-Voting Failures -- Watchdog Group Issues Press Release Calling for No 'Recalibration', Immediate Removal, Impounding of Such Machines...

A county clerk in Colorado has finally done the right thing for the voters by removing a touch-screen voting machine from service, and quarantining it, after it was discovered to be flipping votes from one candidate to another. The failed machine in this case was a Diebold Accu-Vote, a frequent flipper.

Long is to be lauded for being the first election official in the country so far during the general election (that we're aware of) to have taken the correct action in such a vote-flipping case. ...

Colorado has a troubling history with electronic voting, even as the Secretary of State found all of the state's machines to be faulty and easily hackable in late 2007, but has capitulated to pressure from election officials to allow them to be used by voters again this year anyway...

*****

ALSO
More Vote-Flipping in Texas by Machines Other Than Those Made by ES&S
Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems Made by Hart InterCivic and Diebold Also Reportedly Now Flipping Votes From Democratic to Republican in Texas
UPDATE: 7 Texas Counties Now Reporting Vote-Flipping!

***

Brad Blog special page on 2008 touch-screen vote flipping here

***

I have a question:

Has there EVER been a case of vote-flipping that has gone from Republican to Democrat?

redsock said...

This report is one month old:

CBS News: New Study Details Massive Voter Roll Purges Underway in At Least 19 States
CBS Has Noticed, Why Hasn't Obama or the DNC?

Tonight's CBS Evening News finally covered what may well be the November Surprise that we've been trying to warn about for months here at The BRAD BLOG: Massive voter roll purges being done in secret, with little or no oversight, and often under federal Justice Department cover, in states and counties around the country.

And the Democrats, who likely have the most to lose via such secret purges, are doing little or nothing about it.

The CBS story, posted below (appx 2 mins) starts with an elderly New Jersey voter who was suddenly removed from the voting rolls after thirty years, for apparently no reason whatsoever, before launching into findings from a new non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice study on "Voter Purges".

We've yet to read this Brennan report, but the brief coverage from tonight's Evening News notes 10,000 voters purged in Mississippi, 21,000 in Louisiana and "to top it off, another new study discovered 19 states are ignoring federal law (the National Voter Registration Act), banning systematic purges within 90 days of a federal election."

Among those 19, are a number of battleground states. The report lists: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Masachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas and Washington, as places where massive purges have recently taken place. ...

In Pennsylvania, for example, where almost the entire state votes on unverifiable touch-screen voting machines, the Democrats in charge of the state have recently declared that paper ballots needn't be given to voters until all voting machines in a particular precinct break down. Why isn't Obama and the DNC raising holy hell about that? ... Instead, all we get when we inquire is the same old John Kerry/DNC line, "We'll have thousands of lawyers on call on Election Day, should anything go wrong, blah, blah, blah."

************

redsock said...

Machines flipping votes from D to R in six West Virgina counties (even after the machine is supposedly re-calibrated), Tennessee, Indiana, seven counties in Texas, and Missouri.

Problems also in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Ohio, and New Mexico. (Actual quote from Broward County, Florida, Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes: "No one could have anticipated that this election would be so historic and draw as much attention as it has.")

And through it all, Brad Blog says that Obama's legion of lawyers have been dead silent.

redsock said...

A computer glitch slowed early voting in Orange County Friday morning, causing three-hour waits at some locations and frustrating Floridians trying to take advantage of early voting. About 500 people were waiting in line to vote at the Alafaya Branch Library, located off state Road 50 in east Orange County ...

***

If they cannot handle 500 early voters, what the hell will they do on Tuesday morning?

P.S. Vocabulary Update: Fixing Votes = "Glitch"

Amy said...

I have been following all these stories with such a heavy heart and sense of futility. But the good news (if there is such a possibility) is that I have seen several stories this year about all these matters in the mainstream media---CNN, ABC News, etc. I am somewhat hopeful that if there is a close election and Obama loses that this time there will be unrelenting outrage. Too many people now know that there is voting machine fraud and voter disqualifications going on to just let this happen quietly. At least I hope. (Actually I more hope that Obama wins and we don't have to have a revolution, but I am preparing myself for the worst.)

OTOH, at least one story I heard on TV said it was McCain claiming that there was fraud in the voting process. Perhaps to divert attention away from the fraud the Republicans are committing? Perhaps to prepare for a possible loss in the election that HE can challenge?

I am losing sleep over this election, more than I have over any other. Not because I think Obama will make such a difference, just because I think this may be the year that the system falls apart. Not that it has been working, but this may be the year that its flaws are so huge that it really leads to chaos.

redsock said...

I am somewhat hopeful that if there is a close election and Obama loses that this time there will be unrelenting outrage.

I don't see any outrage happening. There was a HUGE amount of similar stories in 2004 -- mostly in alternative media and online, but then again, that is where most of the news this year has been. There were stories of vote flipping on CNN in 2004, but they all ended with "but we fixed the minor glitch and now Mrs. Jones can vote so all is well".

And on Election Day 2004, many quick stories were broadcast of trouble voting (names not on lists, police blocked roads), long lines (10-12 hours in the rain) and broken machines (always in heavily-Dem areas), but nothing came of it.

If the media reports on it once on one day, and then forgets about it, it will never stir anger. And days or weeks later, when you bring up a story that you saw once CNN but never again, you'll be called a conspiracy theorist.

Plus in 2004, Kerry tossed in the towel before the fucking sun came up the next day. Quite odd behaviour.

Perhaps to prepare for a possible loss in the election that HE can challenge?

I'll go with this one. I wonder if the machines can be programmed to create some clear weirdness that would go in Obama's favour as the "smoking gun" in a swing state.

Actually, of course they could be programmed for that -- and from a remote location -- but will it happen?

L-girl said...

I am somewhat hopeful that if there is a close election and Obama loses that this time there will be unrelenting outrage.

If you play out that scenario in your head, what happens? What does the outrage look like, and what is the outcome of the outrage?

Too many people now know that there is voting machine fraud and voter disqualifications going on to just let this happen quietly.

???

OTOH, at least one story I heard on TV said it was McCain claiming that there was fraud in the voting process. Perhaps to divert attention away from the fraud the Republicans are committing? Perhaps to prepare for a possible loss in the election that HE can challenge?

I thought at least some of the links in this thread make that clear. That's a distinctly possible scenario.

I am losing sleep over this election, more than I have over any other. Not because I think Obama will make such a difference, just because I think this may be the year that the system falls apart.

I understand that, as I had similar feelings in 2004. I knew the election was about to be stolen, but hoped against hope that it wouldn't come about, that Kerry would protest and demand justice. Then it was stolen, and Kerry was silent, and it was the end of all hope for me regarding the US.

We were leaving regardless, our application was filed in 2003, but I still had some amount of hope in my heart. 2004 extinguished it.

I hope 2008 leaves you in better shape.

impudent strumpet said...

You might be interested that it was mentioned in the Star today.

It also might have been mentioned in the French-language media (I overheard a conversation about in French without code-switching) but I can't seem to google anything up because I'm not certain on the vocabulary. (Yes, I have the bizarre ability to overhear things without retaining the vocabulary.)

redsock said...

AP:
Hundreds of voters in southwest Atlanta were waiting in line until nearly 10:30 p.m. Thursday because of computer problems at an advanced voting location. Matt Carrothers, spokesman for the Georgia Secretary of State's office, said some of the computers at the Adamsville recreation center had trouble connecting to the state's voting system throughout the evening ...

***

Georgia was apparently the first state in the US to have 100% of its voting done on Diebold machines (2002).

redsock said...

Interesting.

Federal Judge Compels GOP 'IT Guru' Mike Connell To Give Deposition in Ohio '04 Election Case
Appearance to Answer Questions on 2004 Election Scheduled Just 24 Hours Prior to Election 2006

The Republican IT guru, recently described as a "high tech Forrest Gump" for his proclivity to be "at the scene" of so many troubling elections since 2000, and even at the heart of the "lost" White House email scandal, has been ordered by a federal judge to appear for an under-oath deposition next Monday in Ohio.

The BRAD BLOG has learned that Mike Connell, the Republican IT guru whose company, SmarTech Inc. created Ohio's 2004 election results computer network appeared in federal court today, as compelled, and has been ordered to appear for his deposition on Monday, November 3, just 24 hours before Election Day 2008.

************

Palm Beach Post: "Republicans are questioning thousands of voters in Montana and New York over their addresses, and Democrats fear similar challenges will crop up in swing states such as Florida."

L-girl said...

You might be interested that it was mentioned in the Star today.

Thank you! I definitely would not have seen that.

JakeNCC said...

I just saw on CNN where Oprah said it happened to her. She votes and the electronic X disappears after she voted the rest of the ballot. There seem to be so many anecdotal stories of electronic machines switching or cancelling obama votes. UnFuckingBelievable.

L-girl said...

I just saw on CNN where Oprah said it happened to her.

Thanks, Jake. I'm glad to know the word is getting out. If it happened to Oprah, people will know about it. (Sad, but true.)

Will anyone reading this let me know if they see it on CBC (on TV)? I've been appalled at their campaign coverage so far.

redsock said...

Slate:

"Of 20 new statewide polls, 15 show a shift in McCain's direction. The biggest comes from a SurveyUSA poll in Kansas, where McCain leads 58-37; he led 53-41 in the same poll a week earlier. CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corp. and Quinnipiac polls in Florida showed shifts toward McCain of one and three points, respectively, though both polls still show Obama ahead. The same CNN/Time poll in Missouri shows a one-point shift—within the margin of error—to McCain, who leads 50-48. The largest shift to Obama was in a SurveyUSA poll in Delaware, where he increased his lead from nine points to 30 points. The previous survey was conducted in February. The CNN/Time poll in Georgia shows a three-point shift toward Obama. McCain is still ahead in the state 52-47."

Delaware: 9% to 30%?!?!?

redsock said...

November 01, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll:
Is McCain Making a Move?

John McCain made a small gain against Barack Obama and has pulled back within the margin of error, now trailing Obama by five points, 49.1% to 44.1% ...

There is no evidence [Obama's 30-minute commercial] helped him, as he has dropped 1.1 points in the last two days, while McCain has gained 0.8 points during the same period ...

Pollster John Zogby: "Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today, 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. ... Obama's lead among women declined ...

************

If the right can keep it close -- through bullshit polls -- they can steal it without too much fuss from the populace.

redsock said...

Gallup: Voters' presidential preferences remain favorable to a Barack Obama win on Tuesday, with 51% of traditional likely voters supporting the Democratic nominee for president, and 43% backing John McCain. An additional 1% say they support some other candidate, leaving 5% undecided.

***

I can't decide which is more likely: McCain winning through vote fraud or the vote being fixed for Obama so he can take the blame for the next four years of shit and then the Repubs will come back and "win" in 2012.

I suppose Obama is more likely. Then so many Americans can say "whew, the nation's blight is gone, now we are a good country again" -- all the while the same shit goes on.

Which reminds me: Has Obama EVER been asked if he will repeal the illegal/dictatorial laws now on the books -- like the one that allows the President to say "hey you, you're a terrorist" to any American citizen and lock him or her up without charges forever?

L-girl said...

I suppose Obama is more likely.

Not me. I say no one gives up power to keep power. Vote fixed for McCain - or worse.

M@ said...

Has Obama EVER been asked if he will repeal the illegal/dictatorial laws now on the books

Although I'm not sure of the legal meaning of it, it's been reported that part of his transition team will be groups who examine every one of Bush's executive orders. Does that mean he'll substantially change or get rid of any of them? I don't know. Does that mean that he'll deal with things like the Patriot Act too? I don't know because I don't know what "executive order" signifies.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he'll do something. I share your cynicism insofar as I don't really think it'll amount to much.

redsock said...

Obama voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and supported its continued use at the end of 2005.

redsock said...

Obama:

voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State

agreed to not filibuster the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney General

voted to confirm Michael Chertoff as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

voted John Negroponte as National Intelligence Director

voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion

voted for H.R. 2419, providing billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs

refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war

voted for the Defense Authorization Act which restricted the right of habeas corpus

confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863)

voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers

voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act

voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding

voted for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631

voted to confirm Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense

****

I do not think he'll rock the boat all that much.

redsock said...

Newly obtained computer schematics provide further detail of how electronic voting data was routed during the 2004 election from Ohio’s Secretary of State’s office through a partisan Tennessee web hosting company.

A network security expert with high-level US government clearances, who is also a former McCain delegate, says the documents – server schematics which trace the architecture created for Ohio’s then-Republican Secretary of State and state election chief Kenneth Blackwell – raise troubling questions about the security of electronic voting and the integrity of the 2004 presidential election results.

The flow chart shows how voting information was transferred from Ohio to SmarTech Inc., a Chattanooga Tennessee IT company known for its close association with the Republican Party, before the 2004 election results were displayed online. ...

"The computer system at SmartTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmartTech computers," Spoonamore wrote in the affadavit. ...

Spoonamore notes that on election night in 2004, he observed what he calls the "Connally anomaly," in which eight Ohio counties that had been reporting a consistent ratio of Kerry votes to Bush votes suddenly changed at about 11 pm and began reporting results much more favorable to Bush. Election tallies in these counties, plus a few others, also showed the unlikely result of tens of thousands of voters choosing an extremely liberal judicial candidate but not voting for Kerry.

Spoonamore immediately suspected that a Man in the Middle attack had occurred but had no idea how it could have been carried out. It was not until November 2006 that the alternative media group ePluribus Media discovered that the real-time election results streamed by the office of Ohio's Secretary of State at election.sos.state.oh.us had been hosted on SmarTech's servers in Tennessee.

****

M@ said...

Obama: voted...

I do not think he'll rock the boat all that much.


Yeah, I guess even a few ripples might be the most we can hope for.

It kind of makes the right-wing meme that Obama is the most liberal senator in congress seem kind of stupid, doesn't it?

James said...

A few more examples of voter suppression attempts.

James said...

It kind of makes the right-wing meme that Obama is the most liberal senator in congress seem kind of stupid, doesn't it?

Well, the meme was pretty stupid to start with...

If nothing else, it will be nice to have an intelligent and articulate US President around for a change.

redsock said...

It kind of makes the right-wing meme that Obama is the most liberal senator in congress seem kind of stupid, doesn't it?

The right wing needs a BIG enemy. How they got people to believe that Hillary Clinton (and Bill before her) was a raving-mad socialist radical is beyond me. She undercut their claims every time she opened her mouth.