Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted July 7, 2006 at 12:09 a.m.
- Filed under Uncategorized
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
83 Comments
RFK, Jr. on Charlie Rose tonight said–
1. The media spent millions of dollars on exit polling after what happened in 2000. They hired the best and oldest polling firm, interviewed 100 times more voters than needed to get an accurate count.
Exit polls were off in 11 states and all favored Bush. Statisticians said the odds of this happening by random chance was 1 in 60 million–impossible.
RFK said Kerry won Ohio and Florida and that Bush blatantly stole the election.
2. Also said that media is only interested in attracting viewers to profit their shareholders. As a result, viewers know more about Brad and Angelina than about social security. That’s why they vote the way they do . . . out of ignorance.
3. Americans are way out ahead of the politicians on Iraq. We want out now, and the Washington insiders don’t get it.
http://www.charlierose.com
This is must-see TV. Click the link for a video stream.
The Charlie Rose show is still on? Isn’t that the Art Bell’s version on TV?
RFK JR. is lying. He probably believes that Bush is responsible and planned the attacks of 9/11. A plane never hit the Pentagon and the US Airforce shot down flight 93.
RFK Jr has access to good drugs I guess.
Good one Joe, attack the messenger, not the message. You’re sounding more democrat every day. Or is it just the fact you are so brainwashed by this administrations bs, you wouldn’t know truth if it slapped you upside the backside?
Hmmmm. . . not a thread about Larry King live last night with the Bushster?
Could anyone imagine a festival like the Pamplona running with the bulls here in the US?
How many groups would be protesting…let’s see..
Insurance companies; Animal rights groups; environmental groups; “safety” advocates; religious “leaders”; racial bigots demanding more “minorities”; etc.
Did I miss any group?
raptor: Pandering politicians?
Kennedy’s claims were interesting and disturbing. He pointed out that we have used similar exit polls elsewhere in the world to make sure elections are conducted honestly – in many cases (i.e. Ukraine, Georgia) they led to fall of governments as they could not fake the results.
That said, I have to wonder somewhat whether we Americans might give bogus answers to pollsters just to mess them up.
Ben
I know I would; or perhaps answer “none of your damn business!”
And RFK’s charges are mostly BS. I’ll have to find the link to a Democratic pollster (a real one) who carefully takes RFK’s charges apart, piece by piece. I read it a week or so ago; I’ll have to find it again.
Bottom line: RFK, Jr. don’t know what he’s talking about.
ok, I know it’s been awhile since I had high school civics class but doesn’t the popular presidential vote count for nothing? I mean we have the opportunity to mark the little box or punch out the little paper but that doesn’t count. Doesn’t the electoral college really matter? Each state gets so many “votes” depending on population and the powers that be really elect the president? If I remember correctly it doesn’t matter what the people vote – it only matters what the electoral college votes.
“Bottom line: RFK, Jr. don’t know what he’s talking about.”
Still, it’s suspicous. I suspect we’ll see even more screwy results in the next elections. A broken election system benefits no one in the long term.
RFK Jr is doing nothing more than gathering the facts and presenting them. The exit polling discrepancy was only one thing among many in 2004, but probably the easiest for most people to understand.
Why would people lie in 2004 who hadn’t lied before? Just a fluke, I guess.
Very true, Julie. Not only that, but the electors are not required by law to vote the way they were selected. Each presidential candidate has a “slate” of electors, who then meet in DC to vote. They are under no obligation to vote the way the voters intended.
Bit of an anachronism in this day and age of instantaneous voting, isn’t it?
Dear Joe Hill,
Words of wisdom from RFK Jr.
1. Exit polls, a polling of people that have just stood in line to vote, voted, and now have time to answer a few questions about how they voted are more accurate than the actual election results! Yea, right!
2. The reason Kerry lost is because voters are ignorant!
3. And now, the last twisted piece of logic from RFK Jr; He wants us to trust the same ignorant voters, too stupid to get the presidential election correct, to guide us on foreign policy.
Maybe, just maybe, Kerry lost because he’s a lying, war protesting, pantload with nothing new to offer other than the same old democratic BS. Maybe.
Hank
If this had happened to the Republicans instead of the other way around, they’d be marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks. There’d be more lawsuits than the courts could handle. Rush Hannity O’Reilly would be screaming bloody murder 24-7.
But since it only happened to the Democrats . . . silence.
In the Ukraine, the US led the world in opposing the elections that didn’t match the exit polls–
“At least 10,000 opposition supporters are holding a rally in the Ukrainian capital Kiev, accusing the government of rigging Sunday’s presidential poll.
“With about 75% of the votes counted, the pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych is officially just over 1% ahead of his rival Viktor Yushchenko.
“Mr Yushchenko’s supporters say they do not believe the official turnout figure of 96% in eastern Ukraine.
“Exit polls had shown Mr Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal, in the lead.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4031127.stm
Because of the exit polls in the Ukraine, US officials (Republicans) declared the election was fradulant and help force a run-off election.
When the exact same thing happened here, the newspapers barely reported it.
The United States of Ukraine?: Exit Polls Leave Little Doubt that in a Free and Fair Election John Kerry Would Have Won both the Electoral College and the Popular Vote
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997by Ron Baiman
How old are you Joe?
It happened to republicans. JFK stole Illinois from Nixon. They admit it. They laugh about it. Dead people are still voting democrat in Illinois.
Nixon made a conscious decision not to take it to the courts. It would cause too much devision in the country.
As a result we had a thousand days of one of the worst presidents in our history.
Hank
“It’s not who votes that counts. It’s who counts the votes.” Joseph Stalin
Hank–
Even assuming that were true, which I don’t, it wasn’t decisive in the ‘60 election.
Also, two wrongs don’t make a right, in case you forgot.
Thank goodness for Oswald, right Hank?
The fact that there are questions about election results doesn’t bode well for the Union. Conservatives can poo-poo our concerns, but it serves no one for our election system to have even the appearance of impropriety. Currently the party in power refuses to investigate anything, much less election fraud. Having a whole class of people who feel they’re denied representation is an unhealthy situation. (Civil war? It can happen here)
The nation is split down the middle politically. Republicans don’t grasp the concept that our government represents all the people.. Not just the ones that voted for them.
Dear Joe,
It’s true. I wasn’t justifying the Kerry loss with Nixon being robbed. I was merely pointing out that it happened before, and to republicans. Therefore your assertion that there would be “they’d be marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks. There’d be more lawsuits than the courts could handle” is just so much BS.
Furthermore, it was decisive in the election. You see my dear friend the two states involved in election fraud was Illinois, Cook County delivered dthe vote to Kennedy and Texas, Johnson’s home state. The two together stole the election.
Now historians disagree, I admit, but still true or not, just like Ohio, the charges remain.
Hank
“In 1960, Bobby Kennedy’s uncle Jack won what was until then the closest election in US history amidst charges that the vote count in Chicago—-and thus the presidency—-had been stolen. No doubt many Foxist rightwing bloviators will bring this up as Kennedy makes the talk show circuit.
“But it’s a lie. It is likely many graveyards voted in for JFK Chicago 1960. But many also voted for Nixon downstate. And though rightwingers have portrayed Nixon as a “great patriot” for (reluctantly) declining to fight that election’s outcome, in fact he could have carried Illinois and still not won the presidency. JFK won the Electoral College that year 303 to 219. Illinois gave him 27 electoral votes. You do the math.”
Hank, if you pursued the facts with the same zeal that you repeat what you hear on Fox and Rush, you’d be a Democrat.
Texas Joe, Texas!
Kennedy’s father with the help of his mafia friends stole Illinois. Johnson owned Texas. In some Texas districts more voters voted for Kennedy than were registered.
Democrats still brag and laugh about it.
Hank
I thought that the election Johnson stole in Texas was for himself in 1948.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/lbj/
I have heard Daley helped deliver Illinois to Kennedy in 1960.
Hank, got anything that backs up your claims about Texas in 1960?
Diebold’s CEO said he would “deliver” Ohio to Bush. Then after the election, he resigned. Top-notch computer scientists examined Diebold machines and found them easily hackable, i.e. real results could easily be reversed.
But politicians would NEVER cheat. We all know they are ABSOLUTELY HONEST. Even though it is on record that dead people have “voted” in past elections. Other people have voted early, and often.
Frankly, I would have voted for John Dean(sorry Apophis was ignorant about me) or Wesley Powell. But having the choice of two Yalie secret society brothers (Skull and Bones) turned me off. I saw Kerry implode his own candidacy, just as Ross Perot did by pulling out just when polls showed him climbing to the lead, and then reentering so late in the 92 campaign that he couldn’t get back into the lead.
We have heard “cut and run” colored as cowardice. I guess that means George Herbert Walker Bush was a coward when he should have been able to re-orient Iraq and drive Saddam from his throne, but didn’t.
You want Americans to show true courage? How about having every citizen sign his or her ballot, and then posting results online? Have each voter be given a receipt signed by a poll worker, with the poll worker’s fingerprints on the receipt. Then election fraud would be impossible.
Hey DD,
You can do a GOOGLE search and find ‘facts’ and opinions both ways. The 1960 election is fun to study, what with Byrd in the mix!
Since I’m just an ignorant, confused zealot you know which ‘facts’ I believe!
Hank
Diebold’s CEO said he would “deliver” Ohio to Bush. Then after the election, he resigned. Top-notch computer scientists examined Diebold machines and found them easily hackable, i.e. real results could easily be reversed.
But politicians would NEVER cheat. We all know they are ABSOLUTELY HONEST. Even though it is on record that dead people have “voted” in past elections. Other people have voted early, and often.
Frankly, I would have voted for John Dean(sorry Apophis was ignorant about me) or Wesley Powell. But having the choice of two Yalie secret society brothers (Skull and Bones) turned me off. I saw Kerry implode his own candidacy, just as Ross Perot did by pulling out just when polls showed him climbing to the lead, and then reentering so late in the 92 campaign that he couldn’t get back into the lead.
We have heard “cut and run” colored as cowardice. I guess that means George Herbert Walker Bush was a coward when he should have been able to re-orient Iraq and drive Saddam from his throne, but didn’t.
You want Americans to show true courage? How about having every citizen sign his or her ballot, and then posting results online? Have each voter be given a receipt signed by a poll worker, with the poll worker’s fingerprints on the receipt. Then election fraud would be impossible.
Sorry for double-posting. My computer acted up.
No sense arguing about the past. It’s done and over with, and it can’t be changed. What is needed is reform NOW. Stop discussing it, stop arguing about this election and that election. Correct the problem. I’d like my vote to count, even in this red rage state.
And while we’re at it, why not do something about the archaic electoral college? The reasons for it are irrelevant in this day and age, and have been for many, many years. Let each person’s vote count as one vote and get on with it. Put an end to this insanity.
I just read the Humane Socity is reducing the cost of adoption on cats,thats sad too many cat and not enough homes. I know this cause I feed the unwanted where I live.
The EC is an anachronism, certainly. And after the 2000 election, I’d have thought there would be a clamor to reform or eliminate it, but their wasn’t.
Frankly, the States want it. It guarantees that certain states will be the deciding states (NY, TX, CA, etc.), and simultaneously overrepresents the small states (like Kansas). Within the state capitals, thus, there is no desire to abolish it, ironically, for somewhat opposite reasons.
I doubt there will be any clamor to abolish it. Should there be? Maybe. Sometimes we forget that the US was created as a union of states, not a single unitary national government. The States do not exist at the convenience of the federal government (though the Feds often think that is the case).
I have posted this before, but I am in favor of retaining the electoral college. The current system insures that a winning candidate has sufficient numbers and distribution of votes.
Again, an example I have used before, there was a world series in which the total scores for the 5 game series was 14 to 4, with the team getting the 4 runs being the winner of the series. How so?The first game was won by the series losers by a score of 14 to zero. The team winning the series won 4 consecutive games 1 to zero. Thus their runs were distributed in such a way to insure victory. The electoral college insures the distribution of votes across the country. This has the added advantage of not allowing huge population centers having undue influence. The electoral college was a brilliant idea by the founders. IMO.
I would be in favor of adding the electoral college electors to the ballet. Nebraska does this.
Dear DD,
We have found common ground! Even though State’s rights have been deminished over the years since the Northern War of Agression, the Electoral College is still a very effective way to elect the president.
It insures that the presidential elections won’t be decided by a few major cities in a few coastal states.Hank
Hank- Doesn’t that mean that 1 voter in Nebraska is equivalent to 53 voters in some other state? Is this an election of people voting for a candidate, or states voting for a candidate?
Gary
See this .pdf for a description and history of the Electoral College.
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
In some ways it is like the states electing the president. But the number of electoral college votes is roughly proportional to the states’ population.
It would make sense to me that voters in low population states like Kansas would favor the EC system. It enhances our representation.
DD- Thanks, I’m not a political scientist- that was the worst class I had at WSU!
Dear Gary,
It’s the states electing a president.
You’re in Kansas. The president is the president of all the people, but if the elections were decided by the popular vote then all the candidates would have to do is promise California and New York everything and the rest of us would be paying for it.
Because we are electing delegates to the electoral college, and because each state gets delegates based on their population, your vote is worth just the same as a person’s in California.
It’s really a very simple system to understand, also it’s a simple system to blame if your candidate loses the electoral vote but wins the popualr vote.
Hank
Damn,
DD beat me to it! Takes me a while to finish a thought at work!
Hank
I took an intro to poli-sci class in college and it was so boring that wakefulness was difficult to maintain.
I wish now, I had paid more attention.
Hank,
You added to what I said. Your points are also covered in the .pdf I linked above.
The .pdf states that the founders, who were students of history, borrowed the idea of the EC from the ancient Romans. Our founders knew what worked and what did not. That being said, problems with the initial EC had to be corrected with the 12th ammendment. See the .pdf for a fascinating history.
The electoral college–pro or con?
Sounds like a great high school term paper topic.
But the issue is did Bush and his pals steal the 2004 election?
Answer: based on the exit polls, the suppression of votes in key states (see the eight hour waits in Cleveland), and the eyewitness accounts of election result fraud, the answer is hell, yes.
Thanks DD & Hank- I’ve never taken the time to delve into this subject, obviously I should have!
G
I agree Joe Hill and welcome to the forum by the way.I still remember election day 2004. You could hear the fear in the voices on talk radio. They were scared. ALL the exit polls had it looking bad for bush. They didn’t know the fix was in.
I don’t have any faith in the electoral process in this country anymore.
And they just keep doing it–
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3036
there is no reason in the world to have any faith that Bilbray won the race.
The fact that the thin margin between the two at this hour (with “100% of the votes counted”, according to the CA Sec. of State’s website) is a mere 4,732 votes — in a race where 125,882 votes were reportedly cast in a county with more than 355,000 voters registered — is not even the largest question. Neither is the so-far unclear question of how the race will be affected by the 68,500 absentee and provisional ballots still to be counted in San Diego County according to the SD Registrar of Voters website at this hour.
The biggest concern about the race, by far, is that San Diego County uses two types of Diebold voting systems — optical-scan and touch-screen — both of which have not only proven to be disastrously unreliable in San Diego County and California in the past, but have also been demonstrated over the last six months to feature dozens of exceedingly well-documented and remarkable security vulnerabilities, making them extremely accessible to tampering. Especially if anyone has unsupervised physical access for more than a minute or two with them.
The voting machines used in Tuesday’s election were sent home with volunteer poll workers the night before the election, according to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters office today. As well, The BRAD BLOG has received reports that in some cases, poll workers may have had the machines alone at their houses, unsupervised, for a week or even two prior to Tuesday’s election….
heartlander……………just because you CLAIM you “would have voted for Dean” does not mean that you are a true progressive.
A true progressive would stand behind the largest union in the Untied States of America, the NEA. We are the voice of public education whether YOU like it or not. Over 3 million of us can’t be wrong!
“The electoral college–pro or con?
“Sounds like a great high school term paper topic.”
Sorry we didn’t get your approval for the digression. Since the 2000 election, the idea of disbanding the EC has been a knee jerk reaction tossed around a good deal. I did not think it is a good idea. Hence my comments.
For a statistical analysis of the apparent Ohio 2004 vote/exit poll discrepencies – see this impartial research report:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf
Because these questions/allegations have been raised about the Ohio vote in particular, I would favor an investigation. Edison/Mitofsky have data that could help clear up the question of whether their methodology was flawed or not. They should release this data as recommended in the above .pdf.
Dear DD,
Don’t have time to read about Ohio at work, however, does the analysis of the results of the election poll take into account that the sample couldn’t exactly be random?
Many times when polls are taken, only about 20% of the people asked to participate actually take the time. Therefore we are constantly getting poll results from a group of people that have such bored and useless lives that they have time to participate in a poll.
Hank
The .pdf goes to lengths to dispute the various reasons given for the exit poll data not matching the official vote. If I recall correctly, all of the criticisms of the exit poll were given by the authors of the exit poll themselves (viz., Edison & Mitofsky). Each of these reasons are challenged by the group that did the analysis contained in the above .pdf.
If I understand you correctly on your question, Hank — one thing they looked at was the pollsters’ contention that they must have oversampled Kerry voters and undersamepled Bush voters. This explanation was discounted as to why the discrepency occurred.
I would suggest reading the pdf. I think the authors are pretty clear on their constructs and how they addressed the various questions. They call for the orignal pollsters to release more data to see if there might be other explanations for the discrepency.
The .pdf authors go to lengths to explain why exit polling is usually much more accurate that polls that predict future voting behavior. Exit polls are standard practice in monitoring elections which I think Joe Hill notes above.
The U.S. is involved in exit polling in other country’s elections. I would go so far as to say that if we had exit poll/officlal vote count results in another country like we had in Ohio, we would be suspicious that something was wrong and might not certify the results.
This is a five page summary of the longer .pdf above:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_summary.pdf
This study was done by U.S. Vote Count, a non-profit organization in Utah.
The exit polling in Ohio was very accurate in terms of the all other races except the presidential race. Which the above group offers as an indication that the methodology of the exit pollsters’ was not flawed.
If we’re going to base election results on exit polls, why are we bothering with ballots? Isn’t that what secret voting is supposed to be about? And what’s to keep you from lying to the poll taker? The whole thing is and always has been a pretty thin reed; ask the networks who have been wrong time and time again.
It has been noted that Mr. Tihart has not taken up the fight for a paper trail of every vote. This state needs Mr. Tihart and the other state house of representatives to take up this action and co-sponsor and vote for this bills passage. I believe that the following points and the very fact that electronic voting machines are vulnerable to attack mandate that there be a paper trail for verification of votes cast.In 2004, only 27% of voters cast their ballots on voting machines in states requiring a paper trail. But this year, 65% of voters have a paper trail or are about to have one. Paper trails are now in the majority.
CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has devoted 10 nights of coverage throughout the month of June to the vulnerabilities of paperless voting machines.
Last week, a major new study of electronic voting machines from the respected Brennan Center for Justice confirmed the need for a paper trail.
Our representative in Congress, Todd Tihart, still hasn’t taken up the fight for a paper trail of every vote. We need our representative to co-sponsor H.R. 550—the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.
As the Brennan Center for Justice said, “These machines are vulnerable to attack. That’s the bad news. The good news is that we know how to reduce the risks and the solutions are within reach.”If enough Kansan Citizens write or call Mr. TiHart’s office and the other representatives we as American Citizens can have some hope of being able to have a “fair and impartial” election. Mr. Tihart’s point of contacts are:Wichita Officeaddress: 155 North Market St.Suite 400Wichita, KS 67202phone: 316.262.8992fax: 316.262.5309Washington Officeaddress: 2441 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515phone: 202.225.6216fax: 202.225.3489
In respect to the 2004 elections here are some other articles;
Workers accused of fudging ‘04 recountProsecutor says Cuyahoga skirted rulesThursday, April 06, 2006Joan MazzoliniPlain Dealer ReporterAfter the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County election workers secretly skirted rules designed to make sure all votes were counted correctly, a special prosecutor charges.While there is no evidence of vote fraud, the prosecutor said their efforts were aimed at avoiding an expensive – and very public – hand recount of all votes cast. Three top county elections officials have been indicted, and Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter says more indictments are possible.Michael Vu, executive director of the Cuyahoga County elections board, said workers followed procedures that had been in place for 23 years. He said board employees had no objection to doing an exhaustive hand count if needed, meaning they had no motive to break the law.Internet bloggers have cried foul since 2004 about election results in Ohio, one of the key states in deciding the election. They have been tracking Baxter’s investigation with online posts about the indictments.Baxter’s prosecution centers on Ohio’s safeguards for ensuring that every vote is counted.Baxter charges that Cuyahoga election workers – mindful of the monthlong Florida recount in 2000 – not only ignored the safeguards but worked to defeat them during Ohio’s 2004 recount.Candidates for president from the Green and Libertarian parties requested the Ohio recount. State laws and regulations specify how a recount works.Election workers in each county are supposed to count 3 percent of the ballots by hand and by machine, randomly choosing precincts for that count.If the hand and machine counts match, the other 97 percent of the votes are recounted by machine. If the numbers don’t match, workers repeat the effort. If they still don’t match exactly, the workers must complete the recount by hand, a tedious process that could take weeks and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.But the fix was in at the Cuyahoga elections board, Baxter charges.Days before the Dec. 16 recount, workers opened the ballots and hand-counted enough votes to identify precincts where the machine count matched.”If it didn’t balance, they excluded those precincts,” Baxter said.”The preselection process was done outside of any witnesses, without anyone’s knowledge except for [people at] the Board of Elections.”On the official recount day, employees pretended to pick precincts randomly, Baxter says. Dozens of Cuyahoga County election workers sat at 20 folding tables in front of dozens of witnesses and reporters.They did the hand and machine count of 3 percent of the votes 34 of the 1,436 precincts and when the totals matched, the recount was completed by machines.The recount gave Kerry 17 extra votes and took six away from Bush.But observers suspected that the precincts were not randomly chosen and asked a board worker about it, said Toledo attorney Richard Kerger. The worker acknowledged that there had been a precount.Kerger wrote a letter to Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, complaining and asking for an investigation. Mason recused himself, and Baxter was appointed special prosecutor. He brought elections workers before a grand jury to find out what happened.”They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full countywide hand count,” Baxter said.Everyone expected the recount to “be conducted in accordance of the law,” he said.Vu said the precincts were chosen as they had been in the past, by a Democrat and a Republican in the ballot department.Because of Baxter’s investigation, Vu declined to comment on whether the board’s longtime procedures involve precounting precincts before the recount.Vu acknowledged that the selection of precincts was not completely random because precincts with 550 votes or fewer were not used.Nor were precincts counted where the number of ballots handed out on Election Day failed to match the number of ballots cast.Vu said the board also had asked for legal opinions from the prosecutor’s office before and after the election to ensure all rules were followed.Kathleen Martin, who headed the civil division at the prosecutor’s office and worked with the board on the issues, has since died.”If Kathleen Martin was still alive, she could put so much light on this,” Vu said.Regardless, he said, the board was prepared for a full hand recount.”Why do all that work to prepare for the election, conduct it, audit it, canvass and then not meet this last obligation?” Vu said.”Our plan was to regroup after Christmas and just work through it.”Baxter has said he can’t understand why the three people indicted all managers – continue to work at the election office. None has the same duties they had in 2004.Kathleen Dreamer was manager of the board’s ballot department. Rosie Grier was assistant manager. Jacqueline Maiden was Elections Division director and its third-highest-ranking employee. All have been charged with misdemeanor and felony counts of failing to follow the state elections law.A May 8 trial date is set for Dreamer and Grier, but Baxter wants to combine all three cases, including Maiden’s, who was indicted later.Kerger said he was surprised by the charges.”We wrote, not to have any criminal charges, but just to find out what happened,” he said. “The special prosecutor has the ability to conduct an investigation and not file any charges.”Kerger said he believes there are two reasons, generally, why an elections board would precount before a recount. The first is to change the results of the vote, which he does not believe happened.The second, he speculated, was that “the workers were so tired and didn’t want to hassle with doing a hand recount.”To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:jmazzolini@plaind.com, 216-999-4563
Free Press uncovers evidence of ballot tampering in Warren County, OhioApril 19, 2006
After locking out all media observers and declaring a Level 10 Homeland Security Alert, the Republican-dominated Warren County, Ohio reported the vote tally in the wee hours of the morning on November 3, 2004 — and gave George W. Bush a surprising 14,000 vote boost. Two election workers told the Free Press that the ballots had been diverted to an unauthorized warehouse where they had been possibly stuffed. That is, punched for Bush only. Maps were supplied to the Free Press showing the locations of the warehouse and the Board of Elections.
Warren County officials refused to allow the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism to handle the ballots, but they did allow us to photograph a few. Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., has analyzed the ballots for the Free Press and concluded that there is evidence of fraud in Warren County. The ballots as photographed with Dr. Phillips’ commentary below each ballot are included here for the first time.
The Free Press predicted early on that the ballots would be found punched only for Bush in Warren County. The Moss v. Bush lawsuit pointed to Warren, Butler and Clermont Counties as the three counties that provided more than Bush’s entire margin in the Buckeye State: Bush won Ohio by 118,000, and 132,000 votes were supplied in these three southwestern Republican counties.
Now, for the first time, the Free Press is releasing images of the obvious election fraud in Warren County. The Free Press will continue its ongoing investigation in Ohio despite stonewalling by Republican state officials. See the images by clicking on the link below.
View the actual ballots. (6.48MB — PDF)
In the above .pdf summary, there is pretty convincing evidence that there is the least amount of discrepency between paper votes and exit polling. Which I take as a support for paper back-ups on electronic methods of voting.
Exit polling is accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_poll
Another .pdf describing and defending the accuracy of exit polling.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/exit-poll-discrepancy-1110.pdf
Just playing a bit of devil’s advocate here – I wonder if we might be more likely to make up our answers to a pollster just to ‘mess with them’ than people in other countries.
I just read the comments above about the Electoral College. I don’t think this was mentioned. All states get electoral votes in the same number as they have Congressman PLUS TWO VOTES FOR THEIR TWO SENATORS.
So this means Kansas with a population of about 3,000,000 and with four congressmen and two U.S. Senators gets SIX electoral votes. Wyoming, the smallest populated state with less than 100,000 as I recall, gets THREE electoral votes. Washington DC which also receives electoral votes now, also gets THREE electoral votes, disproportionally high for its relatively small population.
If the founders of the electoral college system really wanted to give each state a proportional number of electoral votes they could have given each state the same number of electoral votes as the state has Congressmen and NOT added in votes for the U.S. Senators. This way electoral votes would have been roughly proportional to population.
So, bottom-line, this system gives a little more weight to the small populated states such as Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas AND a little less weight to the large states such as California, Texas and Florida.
Additionally, and I have never read this in an explanation of the electoral college system — the electoral system seems to me to provide a way to select an ALTERNATIVE president and vice-president if one or both should die after being elected but before taking office. This would have been especially important back in the 19th century. However, I don’t think this situation has ever occured so far.
The original idea was that we would elect electors who were real thinking people. They, in turn, would elect the President and VP. During that time the state legislature elected US Senators. The theory was that without mass communication and travel the masses could not be fully informed and therefore delegated their vote to their electors.
How many people here have ever met an elector? How many can tell me who they voted for in 2004?
Jack Ranson
I don’t know if I ‘voted’ for him, but I know him. He was the Bush/Cheny elector from Wichita.
Hank
The ultimate failure with the EC was when not even 2 of them would switch their vote to make the electoral college match the popular vote in 2000.
I don’t know how any of those electors that kept their vote with bush can live with themselves after that. They subverted the will of the people for that smirking moronic simpleton. May they rot for that.
Come on JR!
Your last post shows you haven’t been paying attention.
If an elector switches his vote he is ’subverting’ the will of the people in his state! Furthermore, he is completely undermining the whole electoral college process. A process of which you seem to have very little understanding.
Hank
Ben Huie: I would be interested in letting our state legislature elect our Kansas Governor. Or perhaps nominate governor candidates for the people to vote on.
In our current system, we get candidates who, in effect, nominate themselves by filing for the office. In my opinion, too often the candidates are state department heads (sec of state, insurance commissioner, attorney general, etc.) or former or current state legislators. The current and past governor came from the elected department head positions and because they had some name identification related to state government, they were elected. In my opinion, neither really mixed it up in our state government leadership — basically wasting the expensive position.
Our state legislators often irritate the h— out of me. However, the 40 state senators and 125 state representatives come from an assortment of backgrounds and geographical locations across our large state. I compare them to a pack of hungry, growling wolves ready to rip issues apart with their bare teeth. I hope this is close to the actual practice.
I would trust them better to nominate good candidates than to let the candidates too, in effect, nominate themselves.
We wouldn’t have voting irregulatities if people:
1. Registar to vote2. Registar to vote on time (depending on State election laws)3. Vote in the precinct4. Show picture I.D.5. Don’t vote more than once
Did you know that Mexico, you actually have to show a picture I.D. and they double check with a photo copy of your I.D. and a voters registar list. After you vote, then you are given ink, so you don’t vote twice.
You won’t have this is America. Democrats take advantage of voting irregularities and call it fraud, when actually no fraud took place.
Democrats also oppose picture I.D., saying it is discrimintory and against the Voters Rights Act. How in the hell do you say that?
As much as I’m disappointed with Republicans, I just can’t swim to to the sess poll of BS that is the Democratic Party. I would join you’re guys side, if only you guys were on the up and up, but that is far from the case.
Cesspool! My bad!
Joe W–
Have you actually ever voted? Because if you had, you would know that the poll workers have your name on a list at your polling place.
When you go vote, they cross your name off the list.
It’s virtually impossible to vote more than once–photo ID or no photo ID.
AND the laws governing voting fraud are quite severe–a local couple was caught not too long ago TRYING to vote twice (absentee and then in person) and paid a heavy fine with jail time.
Photo ID’s are more impediments that Republicans put in the way to keep folks from voting.
Joe Hill! Yes and more often than you. You are talking about Kansas. Other states don’t have it as good as we do.
Plus! Joe Hill! This election, stand by and watch the other voters coming in. You will see a number of them not being on the list. They get to still vote. It’s called the provisional ballot. Of course the election office has to double check to see if it can be counted. Most of the time it doesn’t. But in close and contested elections, Democrats want all of them counted and if not, cry foul!
Georgia try to pass a law that required that all voters show picture I.D. It was met with fierce resistance from the Democratic Party. Why? Tell me why?
In Mexico! I saw this on television. They didn’t have a name and address like we do here. They actually had a booklet of the photocopy of your picture I.D. in the there. They ask for I.D. and check visually.
Here! Anybody could impersonate me! Because they don’t ask for I.D. in the polling places at all.
So it’s not impossible to vote twice. In Democratic controlled states and cities i.e. Detroit, there is always massive overvoting and fraud.
I understand the electoral process very well Hank. I also understand the demonstrable and clear will of the people in 2000. The slate of electors did too. They just couldn’t see past their partisanship at the train wreck that was coming. If only a few electors had switched vote, THEY would have been the “villains”..just them…to people of your persuasion who would have thus had no legitimate gripe against a Gore presidency. Instead they made the Supreme court, and the electoral process the “villains” and gave us a President who many of MY persuasion justifiably never will accept as legitimate or respectable.
Joe Williams?
We have not given up hope on you. It would take just a nudge to bring you back into the light! The Evangelicals Joe, and Outlander…..remember your experience with Outlander.
Thanks for the links, Joe W.
But back to the topic, J.M.W. and Ben Huie ask can’t people just lie to the exit pollsters?
Yes, of course. But DD has already nipped that one in the bud. The exit polls correctly predicted the OTHER races, meaning that people would have to tell the truth about all the local and state races, but then lie about who they voted for for Pres.
In fact, this was another piece of evidence that the votes were tampered with. Democratic precincts who were electing democratic candidates somehow had a weird statistical swing for Bush.
These were Democrats voting a straight Democrat ticket except for President.
It doesn’t by itself prove election fraud, but it is another strong piece of evidence that lends itself to the inescapable conclusion (that I refused to believe for many months) that Republican operatives threw this election for their man.
Sigh!
http://www.voteks.org/expect/provisional.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4558628
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702171.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170958,00.html
(Trying to use sources that you may find reputable)
http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5254036/detail.html
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=8016
Any more? I know you won’t click a single link! But I always back myself up if called upon.
Any questions?
Which links go with which assertions?
I don’t believe that massive voter fraud takes place every election in Detroit just because you say so.
Sorry.
Even if it did, it’s not relevant.
The election of the president of the United States isn’t supposed to be a contest of who cheats most successfully.
Explain how exit polls in eleven states can be off in the last election when in Germany and the Ukraine and the United States (until 2000 and 2004) they’re never off.
JR! I know! Nothing makes me upset than people hijacking a political party in order to use the force of government to perpetuate a religious agenda.
I agree with Democrats in practically all social issues, with the except of gun control and the abolishing of the death penalty.
But man! I just ademently disagree with their economic policies and platform. That is the one thing that holds me back so much from the Democrat Party. Not that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats, because most memebers of Congress only care about Power and that includes practally all Republicans and they will waste and spend tax dollars away like flushing a toliet, just to secure and gain more votes to keep them re-elected. Democrats are really bad at this.
I like Democrats for their compassion and heart. They mean the best. Just have to so no-no on their economic stance. Just too far to the left for me to agree with.
Okay, I clicked on ALL your links, Joe W.
None of them even begin to make the case that Detroit has massive voter fraud even once let alone every election.
One article said something about “coaching” old folks about who to vote for.
This is nothing compared to programing computerized “black box” voting systems to change millions of votes.
Question–if Democrats cheat so much, why do they LOSE so much?
The fact that Bush always “wins” the close ones is suspicious on its face.
I believe somebody already answered that.
Exit polls are different than actual vote tallies and how many of the people being polled on the exit had their vote counted due to irregularites, not fraud?
Also! It is a fact. Lots of Democrats voted for Bush. They voted straight ticket Democrat for every seat, but when it came to the President, they voted Bush. Many Democrats didn’t like Kerry! And that’s the truth!
Bush recieved many more voted in 2004 than in 2000. How? Because there was an overwhelming number of Republicans that came out and registar to vote for Bush? Or did a lot of Democrats vote for Bush?
You probably say that this can’t happen. That not a single Democrat would ever vote for Bush. Well! You think wrong. Just like there were Republicans that voted for Kerry. It happens in every election.
Plus you are using the Ukraine as an example of accurate exit polls vs. actual results?
Dude! Don’t you remember Yushchenko and the Orange Revolution and the out right voter fiasco in 2004? The Poison, the fraud, the three rounds of voting just to get it right.
You honestly picked the wrong example of using exit polls to results accuratcy.
Where do you get your talking points? Randi Rhodes?
I believe somebody already answered that.
Exit polls are different than actual vote tallies and how many of the people being polled on the exit had their vote counted due to irregularites, not fraud?
Also! It is a fact. Lots of Democrats voted for Bush. They voted straight ticket Democrat for every seat, but when it came to the President, they voted Bush. Many Democrats didn’t like Kerry! And that’s the truth!
Bush recieved many more voted in 2004 than in 2000. How? Because there was an overwhelming number of Republicans that came out and registar to vote for Bush? Or did a lot of Democrats vote for Bush?
You probably say that this can’t happen. That not a single Democrat would ever vote for Bush. Well! You think wrong. Just like there were Republicans that voted for Kerry. It happens in every election.
Plus you are using the Ukraine as an example of accurate exit polls vs. actual results?
Dude! Don’t you remember Yushchenko and the Orange Revolution and the out right voter fiasco in 2004? The Poison, the fraud, the three rounds of voting just to get it right.
You honestly picked the wrong example of using exit polls to results accuratcy.
Where do you get your talking points? Randi Rhodes?
Joe Hill! Are you saying the only reason that Republicans are winning elections because they cheat?
You gotta be kiddin. How did Sebelius win in an overwhelming Republican State? How did Bill Clinton win red states like Arizona? Come on! You need to do better than that. ;)
Most of the dems I know followed the ABB rule: Anybody But Bush!
That included those who were extremely inclined not to like Kerry. They didn’t vote Bush, they voted third party, and it probably made a difference in how close the race was. But whether Bush rightfully won is still an unresolved issue.
Joe the biggest difference between 2000 and 2004 was this country was attacked and Bush was seen as a savior in the beginning he acted like one. 2000 maybe in question but 2004 was a give-me for him. Even though some had seen where he was taking the country. The majority still had stars in their eyes.
If he could run in 2008 you would not see such support for him. He would only be re-re-elected if Rove was standing there at the voting booth with a gun to each voters head.
Joe,
I still say you belong on “our side” but I am forced to point out some errors you have posted above…..for your own good.
“Sebelius won in a Republican state” Yeah Joe. Because she is a very moderate democrat and was running against the far fringe Shallenburger.
“How did Bill Clinton win in red states like Arizona?” Well Joe, in 1992 the GOP vote was split by Perot. In 98 the GOP candidate was Bob Dole before he got a personality.
“Lots of democrats voted for bush in 2004….. That’s the truth !”Joe?
I SERIOIUSLY doubt that ANY democrats at all voted for bush in 2004. Remember 2000?
Joe? If you ask them, the evangelical christians will tell you that it was THEY who got out the vote among their like and got bush his second albeit illegitimate term. They had massive get out the vote campaigns. Why do you think they feel such a right to dictate policy? You have seen that yourself! You tell me how much more they will demand.
Quote of the Day:
“The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”President Eisenhower, 1954
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
JR – “Well Joe, in 1992 the GOP vote was split by Perot.” Actually, polls I saw indicated that Perot took more votes from the challenger than from the incumbent. On the other hand, in 2000 the votes taken by Ralph Nader clearly came from Gore and would easily have swung both New Hampshire and Florida to Gore.
Actually you’re wrong. Arizona voted Republican in 1992. It was 1996 that it voted for Clinton.
What Clinton did to win the election in 1992, was that he picked up Califorina.
California for a long time was a Republican state. But Clinton was able to win in in 1992 and therefore secure the win. California is a recent switch to the Democrat side.