Half the counties in Ohio installed voting machines that did not pass muster here in California.
Now, as many people have said many times, the only indicator of vote fraud we can ever hope to have are discrepancies between polls and the actual tallies. What else is there?
There were no exit polls in Ohio in 2005 -- at least, not to my knowledge -- but the predictive polls conducted by the Columbus Dispatch have proven remarkably accurate in the past. Keep in mind, too, that this election belonged to the Dems elsewhere in the country. Bush's poll numbers have tanked, and Ohio's governor Bob Taft is caught up in scandal.
On five issues of key importance to Republicans in the state, the poll numbers had varied from the actuals to such a degree that we must toss aside all argument based on inaccuracy. I derive (well, actually, I swipe) these tables from Brad Friedman:
ISSUE 1 ($2 Billion State Bond initiative)Are these numbers possible?
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
No. No they are not.
Don't even try to mount an argument about people lying to pollsters. I won't listen to such nonsense, and neither will anyone with any common sense.
Remember, these polls have been highly predictive in the past. Why would the pollsters go haywire only when the vote goes electronic?
My first reaction was: "Someone should tell Kenny to steal only the votes he needs. These numbers are not just crooked, they are inelegant."
After reflection, I understood that Blackwell and his puppetmasters must have wanted to see outrageous results. They're sending a message to people like you and me: Yeah, we're stealing elections. What are YOU going to do about it, chump?
Very likely, the numbers were simply flipped by the "mother machines."
On other fronts: Not long ago, we discussed VoterAction's important suit against New Mexico's election officials.
Vote count data analysis conducted at the precinct level in New Mexico has shown some statistically disturbing patterns that are difficult to write off or explain with anecdotal reasoning. Accredited statistical analysts and elections specialists from around the country have documented an alarmingly high undervote rate in predominately Native American, Hispanic, and Democratic precincts across the state. An “undervote” is when a ballot was cast but no vote was counted. In New Mexico the “undervote” rate is not limited to presidential votes but is consistent down ticket as well. Accepting this high undervote rate at face value would require us to believe that many voters in these communities went to the polls on Election Day to cast a ballot for no one.Now, the county clerks in Bernalillo county have completely refused to allow the controversial machines to be inspected by experts hired by the plaintiffs.
What makes this particularly disturbing is that the undervote rate in problem precincts increases dramatically when ballots were cast on Election Day on paperless, electronic voting machines. The data also reveals a pattern of votes cast on electronic voting machines on Election Day being consistently 15% points lower for John Kerry and 18% points higher for George W. Bush in comparison to absentee and early voting.
The problems do not end there. With minimal effort, additional evidence has come to our attention including:
¨ A high number of incident reports of switched votes on touch screen machines.
¨ Data manipulation by a third party vendor after the canvass report had been filed.
¨ An official voting machine tally that recorded only one vote after a poll worker had watched approx. 141 people voting on the machine throughout election day.
¨ A disturbing review by a certified public accountant hired by the Secretary of State regarding the official results.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- this time in capital letters:
COVER-UP OBVIATES CONSPIRACY!
(English majors, please note the discussion of "obviate" in the comments section.)
The refusal to allow discovery provides all the proof of vote fraud any reasonable person needs.
I know something about New Mexico, having spent a good deal of time there. Thus, I was stunned to discover that downtown Santa Fe supposedly went for Bush in 2004. The very idea is ridiculous; I suppose next we will hear that David Duke carried Encino, California. The only thing less popular than George W. Bush in downtown Santa Fe is an enchilada smothered in sour cream.
(In case you're not up on regional cuisine: Sour cream is California style, not New Mexico style.)
Bottom line: We need international observers!
12 comments:
As Joseph has posted before: OHIO RESIDENTS, DO NOT PAY TAXES. You are officially being subject to taxation without representation, something most of you probably already know. This is just one more reminder of the injustice that has been inflicted on you--and what a reminder it is. So, don't do it. You have my permission. Feel no guilt, my friends. THEY are stealing from YOU.
The accuracy of the previous polls was mentioned in my piece. It staggers belief that accuracy could go off track in the very election in which the voters were asked if they wanted to keep Kenny the Kapo on the job.
From the very link you cite:
"Unlike the mail-in polls of old, the Dispatch poll draws random probability samples from the most recent registered voter list available from the Ohio Secretary of State. Unlike telephone surveys, the Dispatch can sample from the voter lists without concern for unlisted or missing telephone numbers. Then send out over 10,000 packets by U.S. Mail, each containing a cover letter on Columbus Dispatch letterhead, a questionnaire and a postage paid return envelope. They design the paper questionnaire so it closely resembles the look of the actual ballot. They do several surveys during the course of an election year, but on the final survey, they omit the undecided category, thereby forcing voters to chose the way they do in the voting booth."
You say this isn't the holy grail?
I say this is the moment in the "Lohengrin" prelude when the high, distant motif for strings gives way to a loud, deep, profound theme for horns.
BEHOLD! It IS the Grail!
But there are "Undecided" categories listed in the table from Brad: so does this mean that this poll sample is not the last poll they conducted (which won't permit an Undecided selection), or am I missing something?
As far as "Diebold" and DRE machines without a paper trail are concerned, remember:
It's NOT the "paper trail" that is COUNTED. HAND counted paper ballots are the ONLY NON-electronic vote counting system (although I believe punchcards are from an era of "safer" and more rudimentary computerized counting). Optical scanners digitize your vote and the subtotals are then TABULATED by a computer in a central location; as are DRE's; those two methodologies must account for the vast majority of Ohio votes. And the central tabulators have been test-hacked to swap vote totals WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE. PIECE. OF. CAKE.
Next question: who, if anyone, has standing to request a recount (in the optical scan counties), and how many millions will Herr Blackwell order in gold pieces before he recognizes any such request??
Oh, I read them, John. I was just trying to promote Wagner awareness. (He may have been a sunvabitch, but some of that there grail music is awful purty.) When you think about it, society is reaching a point where a PROPERLY designed mail poll may be a tad more accurate than a phone poll, since so many cel phone folks -- such as yours truly -- are unrepresented in phone polls.
COVERUP OBVIATES CONSPIRACY
If I remember right the Ohio
Election Code (for some provisions
anyway) provides that any violation
of its requirements constitutes a
"prima facie case of election
fraud."
And I know you don't like 9/11 stuff
Joseph, but your headline above
resonates for me in the fact that
the steel from the World Trade
Center (which was stamped with
identifying numbers) was hauled away
and recycled post haste and that
NIST has absolutely no core steel
samples showing heating above 250
degrees Centigrade. (But FEMA
does--their Appendix C has samples
showing mysterious high-temperature
sulfidative erosion that turned a
steel I-beam into scrolls of metal
foil.)
Not to be pedantic, but aren't you altering the meaning of "obviate?"
Keep up the good work, otherwise.
Actually, the phrase "cover-up obviates conspiracy" comes from Professor Peter Dale Scott, who has used it in lectures. (I know I have a recorded example somewhere, a relic from the days when I would tape that sort of thing.) Scott's a poet, a scholar, a university professor and a former diplomat. Not only that, but Pat Robertson's ghost writer once identified him as one of the Illuminati. So I've always figured that this guy MUST know his words.
That said, I must confess that I've never heard anyone else use the word "obviate" to mean the opposite of "obfuscate," which is clearly what Scott intends. In my experience, the word usually means "avert" or something of that sort. Unfortunately, I can't find my trusty American Heritage dictionary right now -- it must be somewhere in storage. Could the esteemed poet-professor actually be (gasp!) wrong?
I hope not. "Cover-up makes conspiracy obvious" just doesn't have any zing.
"Actually, the phrase "cover-up obviates conspiracy" comes from Professor Peter Dale Scott, who has used it in lectures."
AH-HA! A PDS quote. I knew I recognized that from somewhere.
The most devastating blow to the left's wholly fabricated vote fraud "controversy" was delivered by the publication of the 2006 World Almanac. That's right, for $12.95 you can do what no mindless, shrieking Bush-basher dares to do: compare county-by-county the results from from 2000 and 2004. Start with Ohio, and what do you notice? Kerry does a little better than Gore in Democratic areas, while Bush's performance in Republican areas stays pretty constant. The huge turnout increases, particularly among black voters, make a mockery of the Dems' ritualistic nonsense about voter suppression. The ground games of both parties were in overdrive, and the Democrats did a little better. Thus, Bush's four-point win in 2000 became a two-point win four years later, which, inconveniently for the fantasists, is exactly what the pre-election polls predicted.
The left's vote fraud Big Lie is a case of the nonexistent anomaly. By the way, the final poll in the NYC mayoral election gave Michael Bloomberg a 38-point lead (68-30) over His Democratic opponent. The final result, a 20-point margin (59-39) "proves" that the Dems stole a lot of votes and performed all sorts of inexplicable magic, right?
Pomeroo:
wrong!
your $12.95 almanac conveniently doesn't include the fact that over a million registered dems got thrown off the voter reg rolls without proper notification. That there were will over 100,000 "undervotes" that never got counted. That Blackwell blackballed his own people: prevented fellow blacks from voting and those that did vote had their votes not counted.
Your $12.95 almanac leaves off that voting machine companies like Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad, interfered with a proper recount and rigged the voting tabulator machines, swapped the harddrives of those machines in areas selected for recount, the list is endless of how the Republicans conducted a widespread campaign of "how not to get out the vote" amongst minorities, dems.
Go read Martin Miller's new book on how the most recent election was stolen: " Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election"
Reason will never change opinions that reason had no role in forming (a paraphrase of a Jefferson quote the exact wording of which I can't recall). Mark Crispin Miller's book is an embarrassingly disingenuous recycling of all the canrads that were thoroughly debunked last winter. That he bothered to mention the Warren County lockdown is an index of his desperation. The issue has been examined many times; Democrats were present at the time: bush received the same percentage he got four years earlier. There is no controversy here beyond Miller's inept attempt to create one.
The Cleveland Plain-Dealer did an excellent job of tracking down the rumors and puncturing the myths. The Kerry campaign was satisfied that there was no evidence of Republican vote fraud in Ohio (by contrast to the mountain of evidence for Democratic vote fraud in Wisconsin). I'm referring to the pros who actually worked to get Kerry elected, not the barking dogs who fabricated stories about magic computers and imaginary voter suppression efforts.
There are undervotes and overvotes in every election. According to Charles Stewart of MIT (Stewart is a liberal Democrat), the 2004 election was quite clean as elections goMore votes were counted and fewer protests were filed. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that people who were entitled to vote was illegally prevented from doing so.
Nobody in the DNC thinks that Kerry got robbed. That's strictly for the tinfoil hat brigade.
Post a Comment