Wake up out there! Democracy is dying (Updated)

Is anyone paying attention?

The evidence favoring the "vote fraud" thesis grows each day. And each day, the mainstream media -- yes, the so-called "liberal" press, up to and including the San Francisco Chronicle -- pummels readers with fact-free invective designed to divert attention away from the many earmarks of skullduggery. And each day -- let me be frank -- fewer readers show up to discover the latest news about the fraudulent election.

At least, fewer show up here. This blog, any individual blog, is of little importance -- but the election story is of paramount importance, and the bad guys will win only if the diversion efforts succeed.

Let's look at the numbers. Katherine Yurica, who runs the Yurica Report, has done some remarkably good reporting, particularly on the threat of Dominionism. (This anti-democratic Christian cult has a direct bearing on the issue of election fraud, because the Ahmanson family, which owns much of this country's voting equipment, has definite Dominionist links.) She now addresses the issue of votergate 2004, concentrating on the academic studies.

She directs our attention to Hout and Freeman, of course -- and also to a couple of other studies which have received less attention than they deserve.

A blogger named Ignatzmouse has delivered a comprehensive, detailed analysis of various oddities assailing the North Carolina vote. As Yurica summarizes:

After downloading the precinct data, Ignatzmouse noticed that the absentee vote, which also included the early voting data, was huge. In fact he found that the file held more than a million votes and nearly a full third of the total vote. (30%) It offered him the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. What he found out was stunning. By using benchmark absentee data against election day returns, a compelling case for purposeful tampering of the electronic data is made...

Ignatzmouse discovered what Dr. Freeman observed: with essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee votes and the poll votes, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. But when he compared his data to the Presidential race, he met sheer absurdity. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result, or Kerry should have been behind by 6 points. Instead there was a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of nine points, which more than doubled Kerry's overall margin of defeat. This meant a 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day.

I have said all along that we should study anomalies not just in the swing state vote, but also in the red and blue states. Padding Bush's popular vote win (if it was a win) gave the Republicans an excuse to cry "mandate," while disheartening those looking into vote fraud.

Yurica also directs our attention to Teed Rockwell's study of the filthy tactics used in Cuyahoga County:

You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in Cuyahoga county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost 4,000 extra votes.

But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The evidence discovered by some remarkably careful sleuthing would convince any reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.

In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website...

Let's see the debunkers try to explain away 93,136 votes by muttering vague nonsense about misplaced absentee ballots.

Kerry lost by only 130,000 votes. Subtract 93,000 (let's use round numbers for now) from that amount, and the difference becomes a mere 37,000 votes -- a gap which the outstanding provisional ballots could easily fill.

And now you know the real reason why party hack Ken Blackwell is trying so hard to invalidate as many provisional ballots as possible.

Brad Friedman vs. The New York Times. The NYT continues to bad-mouth vote fraud allegations as the maunderings of internet "conspiracy" buffs. (Side note: I've noted a number of recent stories -- and even a Mallard Fillmore cartoon! -- which grant blogs legitimacy, but only if those blogs veer to the right.) Makes one wonder how the Grey Lady got a rep as a lefty.

Friedman "helps" educates our paper of record with a piece entitled "Some Help for The New York Times: 15 Unanswered Questions about Election 2004." Every single issue he raises is based on solid research.

Do we have a Constitutional right to vote? Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, issued a decision on October 14 of this year -- and he insists that we do not have such a right. As I understand the situation, his ruling is binding unless overturned by the (Republican-dominated) Supreme Court.

Lots of links. My girlfriend tells me my posts are too long and include too many links. Well, if you think I inundate readers, check out the Election Fraud in 2004 site! (No mention of yours truly, but still...)

Pittsburgh. Democracy Now interviews Celeste Taylor, Pittsburgh coordinator for the National Election Protection effort:

We found that the provisional ballot, which was supposed to be a way that all citizens who were registered properly would be able to cast their vote. What we found out is it actually helped citizens not vote. That was the case because there weren't enough of them... Time after time, people would go to vote at their polling site and they would be told that they were not on the poll book. These are people that had their voter registration cards. Then they were denied a provisional ballot.

This emphasizes a point I've tried to make before: Computers can affect the vote even in areas which do not use the new machines. Computers create the poll books, and he who controls the poll book controls the number of people allowed to vote in any given precinct.

Republicans file suit to limit King County recount. So reads a headline over an AP story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

That's King County, Washington. Why would the G.O.P. suppress the results in a blue state? Because proof of vote fraud in one state justifies recounts in other states. And why would the Bush forces pad the vote in Washington, though not to a degree sufficient to swing the state? To add to the popular vote margin, and thereby give Fearless Leader his "mandate."

George Bush confesses! "How I stole the election," by George W. Bush.

Another map shows a selection of serious election problems across the country. I was interested to learn of the vote-switching in Bernalillo county, New Mexico, which has a largely Native American population. Once more, this continent's original inhabitants have shown a strange penchant for voting Republican...

More to come...