Re: Question about President Bush


meltedown wrote:
> Shava_X wrote:

> >>>>I don't understand all this nonsense that says if you don't vote you
> >>>>can't complain. Thats about the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life.
> >>>>Someone please tell me why I should vote in an election that's totally
> >>>>corrupt and totally fixed, and why I can't complain about it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You are jumping to conclusions when You claim the elections are "corrupt
> >>>and totally fixed".
> >>
> >>Oh you mean the voting machines encrypted ballots or system audit logs,
> >>and that it was not possible to alter both without being detected ? You
> >>mean it was not possible to alter the files that define how a ballot
> >>looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded
> >>for a different candidate ? You mean the numerous sworn statements and
> >>affidavits that assert that all this did happen in Ohio in 2004 were all
> >>liars ? Even though the General Accounting office agrees that it did
> >>indeed happen ?
> >>
> >>You man that the General Accouting office is wrong when it says that
> >>election results can easily be falsified without leaving any evidence of
> >>such an action by using altered memory cards or uncertified versions of
> >>voting system software ? You mean that, contrary to that the General
> >>accounting office says, digital recording electronic voting systems
> >>(DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one
> >>machine provided access to the whole network ?
> >>
> >>You mean that rigging the vote doesn't only require a very small number
> >>of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus
> >>change large numbers of votes at will ? Gee you better tell the General
> >>Account office because they claim that flipping 118,775 votes (the
> >>margin of bush's victory in ohio) could be easily have been done by just
> >>one programmer.
> >>
> >>You mean that in the last election access to the voting network was not
> >>compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily
> >>guessed passwords ? You mean that locks protecting access to the system
> >>were not easily picked and keys were not simple to copy ?
> >>
> >>Do you mean that all 57,000 complaints recieved by the U.S. House
> >>Judiciary Committee were mostly just a bunch of liars ?
> >>
> >>Pray tell, what is your source for such a claim ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Allegations and complaints do not equal confirmed proof of tampering. A
> > insecure system does not equal a compromised system. What is Your source
> > that any of the complaints were confirmed?
>
> Read it again. I told you already, the general accounting office.
>
>
> ? What is Your source that any
> > of the potential flaws with electronic voting machines (which are still a
> > small minority of the machines used) were exploited?
>
> Read it again. It says the General accounting office says the there are
> weaknesses that can be expoited without out leaving any traces. So
> asking for proof that the machines were exploited means you don't
> understand the problem. Also, it doesn't matter that a small minority
> use electronic voting, its way more than is need to change a close
> election. It only takes a few.
>

Right on meltedown, you've hit the nail on the head. There will never
be any proof of fraud since the machines have no way to verify the
results and prove fraud or even error. Here's a link which contains a
link to the 107 page GAO report. I'm about 30 pages through it, its
pretty clear about the state of our elections where these electronic
voting machines are used.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001940.htm

Or try www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf


While its impossible to prove fraud unless someone is caught in the act
red handed there are some highly unusual results both in the 2004
election and the most recent election in Ohio. Polling data is often
used by the UN election officials to question the integrity of
monitered elections, most recently in the Ukraine "orange revolution."
Yet here its just swept under the carpet. Proof? No, but suspicious,
especially given that there is no way to recheck the results.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002015.htm

(snip)
The Columbus Dispatch's pre-election polling, which Fritrakis and
Wasserman describe as "uncannily accurate for decades", called the race
correctly within 1% of the final result. The margin of error for the
poll was +/- 2.5% with a 95% confidence interval. On Issue 1, the
Dispatch poll was right on the money. They predicted 53% in favor, the
final result was 54% in favor.

But then came Issues 2 through 5 put forward by ReformOhioNow.org -- a
bi-partisan coalition pushing these four initiatives for Electoral
Reform in the Buckeye State largely in response to their shameful '04
Election performance led by the extremely partisan Secretary of State
(and Bush/Cheney '04 Co-Chair) J. Kenneth Blackwell.

On those four issues, which Blackwell and the Christian Right were
against, the final results were impossibly different -- and we mean
impossibly! -- from both the Dispatch's final polling before the
election and all reasoned common-sense. Take a look:



ISSUE 1 ($2 Billion State Bond initiative)
PRE-POLLING: 53% Yes, 27% No, 20% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 54% Yes, 45% No

ISSUE 2 (Allow easier absentee balloting)
PRE-POLLING: 59% Yes, 33% No, 9% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 36% Yes, 63% No

ISSUE 3 (Revise campaign contribution limits)
PRE-POLLING: 61% Yes, 25% No, 14% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 33% Yes, 66% No

ISSUE 4 (Ind. Comm. to draw Congressional Districts)
PRE-POLLING: 31% Yes, 45% No, 25% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 30% Yes, 69% No

ISSUE 5 (Ind. Board instead of Sec. of State to oversee elections)
PRE-POLLING: 41% Yes, 43% No, 16% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 29% Yes, 70% No


http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559

Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's
referenda defeats?
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
November 11, 2005

While debate still rages over Ohio's stolen presidential election of
2004, the impossible outcomes of key 2005 referendum issues may have
put an electronic nail through American democracy.

Once again, the Buckeye state has hosted an astonishing display of
electronic manipulation that calls into question the sanctity of
America's right to vote, and to have those votes counted in this
crucial swing state.

The controversy has been vastly enhanced due to the simultaneous
installation of new electronic voting machines in nearly half the
state's 88 counties, machines the General Accountability Office has now
confirmed could be easily hacked by a very small number of people.

Last year, the US presidency was decided here. This year, a bond issue
and four hard-fought election reform propositions are in question.

Issue One on Ohio's 2005 ballot was a controversial $2 billion "Third
Frontier" proposition for state programs ostensibly meant to create
jobs and promote high tech industry. Because some of the money may seem
destined for stem cell research, Issue One was bitterly opposed by the
Christian Right, which distributed leaflets against it.

The Issue was pushed by a Taft Administration wallowing in corruption.
Governor Bob Taft recently pleaded guilty to misdemeanors stemming from
golf outings he took with Tom Noe, the infamous Toledo coin dealer who
has taken $4 million or more from the state. Taft entrusted Noe with
some $50 million in investments for the Ohio Bureau of Workers'
Compensation, from which some $12 million is now missing. Noe has been
charged with federal money laundering violations on behalf of the
Bush-Cheney campaign. Taft's public approval ratings in Ohio are
currently around 15%.

Despite public fears the bond issue could become a glorified GOP slush
fund, Issue One was supported by organized labor. A poll run on the
front page of the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday, November 6, showed Issue
One passing with 53% of the vote. Official tallies showed Issue One
passing with 54% of the vote.

The polling used by the Dispatch had wrapped up the Thursday before the
Tuesday election. Its precision on Issue One was consistent with the
Dispatch's historic polling abilities, which have been uncannily
accurate for decades. This poll was based on 1872 registered Ohio
voters, with a margin of error at plus/minus 2.5 percentage points and
a 95% confidence interval. The Issue One outcome would appear to
confirm the Dispatch polling operation as the state's gold standard.

But Issues 2-5 are another story.

The Dispatch's Sunday headline showed "3 issues on way to passage." The
headline referred to Issues One, Two and Three. As mentioned, the poll
was dead-on accurate for Issue One.

Issues Two-Five were meant to reform Ohio's electoral process, which
has been under intense fire since 2004. The issues were very heavily
contested. They were backed by Reform Ohio Now, a well-funded
bi-partisan statewide effort meant to bring some semblance of
reliability back to the state's vote count. Many of the state's
best-known moderate public figures from both sides of the aisle were
prominent in the effort. Their effort came largely in response to the
stolen 2004 presidential vote count that gave George W. Bush a second
term and led to U.S. history's first Congressional challenge to the
seating of a state's delegation to the Electoral College.

Issue Two was designed to make it easier for Ohioans to vote early, by
mail or in person. By election day, much of what it proposed was
already put into law by the state legislature. Like Issue One, it was
opposed by the Christian Right. But it had broad support from a wide
range of Ohio citizen groups. In a conversation the day before the
vote, Bill Todd, a primary official spokesperson for the opposition to
Issues Two through Five, told attorney Cliff Arnebeck that he believed
Issues Two and Three would pass.

The November 6 Dispatch poll showed Issue Two passing by a vote of 59%
to 33%, with about 8% undecided, an even broader margin than that
predicted for Issue One.

But on November 8, the official vote count showed Issue Two going down
to defeat by the astonishing margin of 63.5% against, with just 36.5%
in favor. To say the outcome is a virtual statistical impossibility is
to understate the case. For the official vote count to square with the
pre-vote Dispatch poll, support for the Issue had to drop more than 22
points, with virtually all the undecideds apparently going into the
"no" column.

The numbers on Issue Three are even less likely.

Issue Three involved campaign finance reform. In a lame duck session at
the end of 2004, Ohio's Republican legislature raised the limits for
individual donations to $10,000 per candidate per person for anyone
over the age of six. Thus a family of four could donate $40,000 to a
single candidate. The law also opened the door for direct campaign
donations from corporations, something banned by federal law since the
administration of Theodore Roosevelt.

The GOP measure sparked howls of public outrage. Though again opposed
by the Christian Right, Issue Three drew an extremely broad range of
support from moderate bi-partisan citizen groups and newspapers
throughout the state. The Sunday Dispatch poll showed it winning in a
landslide, with 61% in favor and just 25% opposed.

Tuesday's official results showed Issue Three going down to defeat in
perhaps the most astonishing reversal in Ohio history, claiming just
33% of the vote, with 67% opposed. For this to have happened, Issue
Three's polled support had to drop 28 points, again with an apparent
100% opposition from the previously undecideds.

The reversals on both Issues Two and Three were statistically
staggering, to say the least.

The outcomes on Issue Four and Five were slightly less dramatic. Issue
Four meant to end gerrymandering by establishing a non-partisan
commission to set Congressional and legislative districts. The Dispatch
poll showed it with 31% support, 45% opposition, and 25% undecided.
Issue Four's final margin of defeat was 30% in favor to 70% against,
placing virtually all undecideds in the "no" column.

Issue Five meant to take administration of Ohio's elections away from
the Secretary of State, giving control to a nine-member non-partisan
commission. Issue Five was prompted by Secretary of State J. Kenneth
Blackwell's administration of the 2004 presidential vote, particularly
in light of his role as co-chair of Ohio's Bush-Cheney campaign. The
Dispatch poll showed a virtual toss-up, at 41% yes, 43% no and 16%
undecided. The official result gave Issue Five just 30% of the vote,
with allegedly 70% opposed.

But the Sunday Dispatch also carried another headline: "44 counties
will break in new voting machines." Forty-one of those counties "will
be using new electronic touch screens from Diebold Election System,"
the Dispatch added.

Diebold's controversial CEO Walden O'Dell, a major GOP donor, made
national headlines in 2003 with a fundraising letter pledging to
deliver Ohio's 2004 electoral votes to Bush.

Every vote in Ohio 2004 was cast or counted on an electronic device.
About 15%---some 800,000 votes---were cast on electronic touchscreen
machines with no paper trail. The number was about seven times higher
than Bush's official 118,775-vote margin of victory. Nearly all the
rest of the votes were cast on punch cards or scantron ballots counted
by opti-scan devices---some of them made by Diebold---then tallied at
central computer stations in each of Ohio's 88 counties.

According to a recent General Accountability Office report, all such
technologies are easily hacked. Vote skimming and tipping are readily
available to those who would manipulate the vote. Vote switching could
be especially easy for those with access to networks by which many of
the computers are linked. Such machines and networks, said the GAO, had
widespread problems with "security and reliability." Among them were
"weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate security
testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management and
vague or incomplete voting system standards, among other issues."

With the 2005 expansion of paperless touch-screen machines into 41 more
Ohio counties, this year's election was more vulnerable than ever to
centralized manipulation. The outcomes on Issues 2-5 would indicate
just that.

The new touchscreen machines were brought in by Blackwell, who had
vowed to take the state to an entirely e-based voting regime.

As in 2004, there were instances of chaos. In inner city, heavily
Democratic precincts in Montgomery County, the Dayton Daily News
reported: "Vote count goes on all night: Errors, unfamiliarity with
computerized voting at heart of problem." Among other things, 186
memory cards from the e-voting machines went missing, prompting
election workers in some cases to search for them with flashlights
before all were allegedly found.

In Tom Noe's Lucas County, Election Director Jill Kelly explained that
her staff could not complete the vote count for 13.5 hours because poll
workers "were not adequately trained to run the new machines."

But none of the on-the-ground glitches can begin to explain the
impossible numbers surrounding the alleged defeat of Issues Two through
Five. The Dispatch polling has long been a source of public pride for
the powerful, conservative newspaper, which endorsed Bush in 2004.

The Dispatch was somehow dead accurate on Issue One, and then
staggeringly wrong on Issues Two through Five. Sadly, this impossible
inconsistency between Ohio's most prestigious polling operation and
these final official referendum vote counts have drawn virtually no
public scrutiny.

Though there were glitches, this year's voting lacked the massive
irregularities and open manipulations that poisoned Ohio 2004. The only
major difference would appear to be the new installation of touchscreen
machines in those additional 41 counties.

And thus the possible explanations for the staggering defeats of Issues
Two through Five boil down to two: either the Dispatch polling---dead
accurate for Issue One---was wildly wrong beyond all possible
statistical margin of error for Issues 2-5, or the electronic machines
on which Ohio and much of the nation conduct their elections were
hacked by someone wanting to change the vote count.

If the latter is true, it can and will be done again, and we can forget
forever about the state that has been essential to the election of
every Republican presidential candidate since Lincoln.

And we can also, for all intents and purposes, forget about the future
of American democracy.

.

Loading