No matter how he wants to spin it, he's wrong. Let's take the Electoral Votes received (even BEFORE Obama was declared the winner in Florida). We had Obama at 303 Electoral Votes, and Mitt had 206. Now, Ohio got 18 Electoral Votes for this particular election. I'm no math genius, but if we take Obama's 303 total, minus the 18 Electoral Votes from Ohio, we'd still be looking at 285 Electoral Votes for Obama. He only needed 270 to secure the election. He won with or without Ohio. It was just nice that he got that state.

Their misguided sense of honor requires that they double down on the mental thinking they had been using...regardless of it actual outcome.

needs to be banned from the English language. Now that the election is over, can we please find another phrase. PLEASE?

"Meme" sounds like the name of a virus.

I need a word(s) that covers the idea that not only does a person restate a losing opinion, but at the same time they convey the idea that they are so-o-o-o convinced of that opinion, they think they can convince others that the opinion has merit and value.

to increase a risk or double a wager, and I'm not sure the expression fulfills what you're asking of it. What is the person betting or risking?

That, however, is beside the point. Pundits wore the phrase out about the second day they started using it (somewhere in the middle of this presidential campaign) and when people say it they sound like parrots. The more it's used, the less effective it becomes.

Bull is not adequate. This guy has a vested interest in promulgating false information, because he is still in a 2004 lawsuit in Ohio, suing the wrong people for the 2004 theft. It makes for a good cover-up though, to keep the false memes alive.

Wasserman's thesis is that IF the election has been close, specifically IF it had been within the 18 electoral college votes that Ohio had, which it was not (as you correctly point out), that the potential for fraudulent flipping of the Ohio results might have been activated to steal the election, and that we need to make the changes needed to make this fraud impossible, because the next election may be within reach of the fraudsters.

Wasserman is in no was disagreeing with your correct assessment that we had votes to burn.

Rather, his thesis is predicated upon the facts you correctly point out.

He's not contending, in the face of the arithmetic, that Ohio actually was the decisive state. His argument is a hypothetical one: If Romney had done well enough elsewhere so that Ohio was decisive (certainly a plausible scenario as of Tuesday morning), then Ohio would have been stolen. On this view, the effect of the 285 electoral votes that Obama already had in the bag was that the plan to steal Ohio, which carried risks of detection, was not implemented, because even if successful it wouldn't give Romney the victory. Therefore, it was better for the conspirators to hold off on the vote theft, so as to improve their chances of being able to get away with it in the future.

That's a logical explanation for reconciling two points: the hypothesis of a vote-theft operation that was ready to go so as to steal Ohio for Romney, and the fact that Ohio went for Obama.

Of course, that alone doesn't prove Wasserman's hypothesis. It merely refutes one possible counterargument.

IF it had come down to Ohio Roved thought he had Secretary of State Husted poised to pull the ol' switcheroo. Other states came in for the President though and Ohio was no longer the linchpin that Rove thought it was going to be (My message to Rove: things change, Turd Blossom, it's not 2004 all over again).

Mr. Wasserman concludes his article by stating that it will be shame on us if the current tampering-susceptible electronic voting system is still in effect in the year 2016.

I believe (for the reasons stated in Mr. Wasserson's article) that the 2004 Ohio outcome was flipped by the Republican operatives. I also agree with Mr. Wasserson that the same plan was in place for Ohio in 2012, but that it was aborted on election night because the results from other states indicated that President Obama was on his way to 270+ electoral votes without Ohio.

I realize that many will disagree with Mr. Wasserman's view which I share as I have stated above. I hope that we all can agree that, regardless of whatever happened or did not happen in Ohio in 2004 and 2012, it is time for the federal government to mandate paper trails, strict accuracy standards, and tamper-proof measures regarding electronic voting machines.

Already today in PA there is a move to gerrymander and divide electoral votes.

The Republicans do not accomplish much at all because they spend all their time and money attempting to cheat. The have to cheat because they offer nothing to average Americans.

If it's not taken seriously they'll pull another theft in 2016. That's their goal again though McConnell won't say it!

We have to be vigilant because the Repubs' cheating tactics come at us from so many directions.

Tom Delay showed them how to gerrymander in years between the decennial census cycles. Thus, we got a Pennsylvania electorate which is gerrymandered in favor of the Repubs.

Not long ago, Repubs, knowing that they can not win Pennsylvania in a winner-take-all contest, wanted to apportion the state's electoral votes so that the state would no longer be a nail in its coffin of dashed presidential election hopes. Fortunately, that plan failed.

I agree with you that we must make it a priority to combat their cheating.

as well it's going to be a heavy lift!

Romney would not have won, even if he had won Ohio. Once Obama won Virginia and Colorado, that was it. Ba-da-bing.

I guess I know. Republican Governor and or legislature letting the rats in. You know that no one is ever going to trust the other side controlling those things. If the administration had a way of certifying and monitoring all the machines, the other side would accuse them of hacking or patching the software somehow.

Both side should agree on a uniform election system. Hand counted ballots in the open with both sides watching.

Once a rabid conspiracy theorist latches onto something, it becomes absolute reality.

And the BBV bullshit is amongst the worst of the conspiracy theories out there. It was proven to be nothing but bunk every two years since it really began after 2004.

??

They're an embarrassment to DU.

Both were awarded the sharpshooters badge in the United States Marine Corps.

Also, I notice a similarity of monikers on both sides of the dialog preceding your post 18.

Real BFF's!!!

They're an embarrassment to DU.

I can not believe anyone here would trust BBV. No paper trail, no proof. Period. There are laws in place for Corporate paper trails.

We need a verifiable paper trail for EVERY vote cast.

I do not know why anyone here would talk down the need for this paper trail.
I have my suspicions as to why...

They are also nuclear power advocates on the left and gun nuts. In certain cases emotions, a kind of hate for uncertainty and anything they consider "woo" overwhelms. It's a blind spot that doesn't serve us in requesting and pushing for a clean election system.

Just a hunch.

I think people deny the idea that a presidential election was stolen solely because of a giant conspiracy to "fix" an election via electronic machines.

----

I was a poll worker this year, our machines were ES&S brand with a voter-viewable paper audit trail log printer that we all had to sign the end of when it ran out of paper and/or at the end of the day. I noticed that when I hit "submit" on my ballot when I early voted that it printed out a bar code at the end, I presume to have optical scanning done of the printed audit trail, then if necessary go back through it again by hand.

It logged each action on the touchscreen -- the voter could see when they clicked for one person, then changed their answer, that the printer noted they had first clicked on the original candidate then changed their answer. If they had to go backwards on the ballot to previous pages, that was also noted in the audit printing. I got pretty familiar with the sounds it made and was listening for any ,issed prints or jams.

and more shenanigans were used than just bbv. But, bbv played a role. That is the main thing that brought me to DU after the '04 election.

I live in Ohio and know what the GOP did in '04.

That outsiders profess to "know" otherwise, and insult us with pejoratives like CCT, etc., really chaps my hide.

Many, many others weren't as fortunate in '04.

Kerry lost Ohio by the narrowest of margins. BBV was merely one weapon in the large GOP arsenal of election fraud tactics. You may want to read up to refresh your memory of such election foibles as replacing central tabulator hard drives containing vote tallies by Diebold staffers, the posting of ballot tallies on a bulletin board and instruction on how to pretend to run ballots through the counter and check the board for the number so as to avoid hand counts, etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure you recall that 2 election workers went to prison for their part in '04 vote illegalities. Were you also aware that a whistleblower scheduled to testify that he was hired by Diebold to write computer code to flip the vote died when the plane he was piloting crashed?

We must put aside our naivete, at least long enough to enact major reforms before '16.

.... that election fraud via exploits of electronic voting machines was the *only* reason why Ohio was lost in 2004.

I hope that you will consider, if you haven't already, being a poll worker in future elections.

There was one close call regarding the fact the lady doing the check-in thought a driver's license was *required* to be able to vote. A guy showed up without a license, had driven himself. (Glad he missed the local constable, who was up for re-election as an unopposed candidate, who had voted earlier in the day.) He was the only voter at my precinct at the time, so when he went out to his car to look for ID I decided to take a cancer stick break. (I was calling them "voter attraction beacons" when I went outside, as a joke with the precinct captain, because it was the first time I'd ever worked a poll where I had the opportunity to take more than a pee break at lunch!) I saw he was going through his car and I said "Anything with your address that came from the government.... car registration.... or utility bill..." He found a food stamp application that had been mailed, and his work ID, which was a photo ID. She knew the law enough that when he showed something mailed to his registered address from a governmental agency, that was good enough for her -- she really didn't even look at the work ID. I worked the check-in log in 2008, and the laws had not changed -- I looked over the training manuals to make sure before I drove out to nearly the county line to the precinct I was called to as an alternate.

But if she hadn't.... I would have asked if he could be given a provisional ballot if nothing else, or if they didn't want to let him vote requested a call-in to the county clerk, and would have felt it was my duty to make sure he was given every opportunity to vote. I'm glad it didn't come to that, but I was prepared for it. Being part of the process helps you see even small potential voter disenfranchisement and stand up and do something about it. If your precinct isn't using machines with a proper audit trail, you can speak up about it and make sure verifiable voting continues to be a goal for the county you live in. For your state. (If you have a technical bent, being one of the people who knows how to change out the paper trail printers is a good thing, too -- not sure the demographic for poll workers in your precinct, but so far I've been one of the few who was willing to even touch the machines.)

And since Ohio is so influential in elections, as opposed to my little hick precinct I worked this year, you might have far more of an opportunity to make a difference than I have.... though I'm not going to let the fact Arkansas usually goes Republican stop me from attempting to make our elections as fair as they can be.

Volunteer position for the Kerry campaign, not a paid county worker. What that has to do with the topic, I'm not sure, other than illustrate that you've made an assumption about me just as you have about the election based on your small anecdotal sampling. You know what they say about assumptions.

Anyway, after cutting through the BS I think we're basically in agreement. No one in this thread is suggesting that BBV is the ONLY way repukes perpetrate election fraud. They are far too underhanded, and to suggest otherwise is silly.

That actually surprises me, but every state is different. I know Arkansas allows partisan poll watchers, but not partisan poll workers.

And as far as assumptions, well, no one responded to my poll worker check-in thread, so sadly I had to assume there were fewer than there had been from DU this year. Yes, assumptions do get you places that you don't want to go on occasion, but notice I was encouraging you, and anyone and everyone else, to do it in the future, not commenting on the past except my own personal experience.

and woo conspiracy types, what is your problem?

We'd all have a jolly fucking Christmas. It's time to move past the denial phase of grieving and move on so you can complete the process....

ohio at the time was still too close to call.

I can't believe Rove went on with that tirade when it was FUTILE!

This is basically saying Mitt would have won if the election had really been close, but since it wasn't he lost. This is really deep political insight.

You posted exactly what i thought. I also think that way too much is made about Sandy stopping Romney's "momentum".

But mostly, i agree with you. This statement is little more than "well, duh" with good grammar.
GAC

If they could flip the votes they would have done so.

End of argument.

It is fine to be concerned about voting process integrity.

It is not fine to be a conspiracy nut.

Some are doing careful election protection reporting and their reputation is on the line.

Others throw out crazy conspiracies and don't follow it up or connect with others working on the issue.

It's just like all other problems we need to solve, step by step we build evidence and look for solutions.

In this case it's better to err on the side of suspicion rather than be caught and lose.

It seems such conditions are beyond unacceptable for as something as fundamentally important as our voting process.

Concerned about the process or believing in a conspiracy, it makes no functional difference. A sane process makes for less theories and less concern.

Also, sometimes there are actual conspiracies, the word exists in many languages for a reason and before they are proven they are theories. That is the nature of the beast.

The lack of transparency and ability to independently verify EARN such suspicion, to not be somewhat cynical is a dereliction of duty as a citizen.

There is little possibility of a fact based conversation because we have permitted a process where facts are unobtainable and so an argument of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence breaks out.
I would think that even those fairly certain that things are on the up and up would want a process they KNOW is rather than their best guess and most of those that now have questions would not if the mist was rolled back.

Who cares if the glass is half full or half empty? How does that change the volume? There is a half glass of water and that is that, it doesn't change not a single drop based on perspective.

The default position would seem to logically be for transparent and verifiable elections, it is for those who wish to argue that default to convince.The fact that all elections are not transparent and verifiable means that any all questions are deserved and reasonable, in my opinion.

Certainly nothing to be indignant about. Cheating and trying to cheat in election is about as old as voting, it is probably best that cynics have a great purpose in this area.
Plus, the system is an institution. The more faith can be created the better the function and greater the participation which increases the strength, viability, and the broadest benefit of our self governance.

You don't shut the conspiracy minded up by arguing, you do it by eliminating the planks they stand on by cleaning up the process which is as sane a thing as can be no matter how nutty and flaky you think the arguments and people making them are.

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2012/11/score-one-at-last-for-the-election-integrity-movement/


7
Score one (at last) for the Election Integrity movement!

Late last night, after Obama took Ohio, Karl Rove was on Fox News, doggedly refusing to concede. He insisted that Ohio was still in play, as Romney was going to win in Hamilton County—where the votes were “counted” on machines made and maintained by Hart InterCivic, a company effectively controlled by Romney’s family. (The same machines were also used in Williams County.)

So it’s not surprising that the GOP’s Lord Voldemort foresaw an “upset victory” in that county. It is surprising that he said it on Fox News, and when the game was obviously lost, so that a sudden Romney “victory” in Ohio would have seemed especially suspicious—even in the eyes of Rove’s old allies on Fox News (or those not in the loop).

To those of us with vivid memories of Election Nights 2000 and 2004, it was a creepy moment—and things got even creepier when Brad Friedman reported that the website of the Ohio SoS had suddenly gone down, which had also happened at that very hour eight years before; and when it had come back on, Kerry, who had been ahead, was now behind. And—horribly—the rest was history.

But that didn’t happen this time, as Rove had obviously lost control—of himself (his recklessness in mouthing off like that was staggering), and, infinitely more important, of his well-oiled, fabulously subsidized election-theft machine. For all his plans, and all the preparations made by Ohio SoS Jon Husted (among others), Rove was clearly overruled on this Election Day, as cooler heads prevailed.

The fact is that, this time, yet another late-night “upset victory” would have been too risky—for the US press had finally done its job, enough to make a lot of people conscious of what’s happened to our voting system, and, therefore,of what could happen to let Romney “win.”

The honor roll includes, among many others, Harper’s (for publishing Victoria Collier’s brilliant overview), the Atlantic, Esquire, the Christian Science Monitor, Forbes (which came out with a killer piece about Ohio’s voting system early on Election Day), Huffington Post, and even DailyKos (which had been fervently denialist since 2004).

End of story.

they'll get their game perfected unless blocked.

All is well. All is under control.

"... and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." - Groucho Marx

NOW.

There is no excuse not have this.

Even better would be an independent non-partisan service to run all Federal elections.

All of this. NOW.

We need it.

Hence, their shell shocked-ness, and Rove's disbelief. It seems to fit. They HAD done .... something. Romney knew it. Rove had assured the financial backers of it.

But things went very wrong. The problem was they hadn't rigged it enough. It was supposed to be close. Really close. So certain things were done, but not enough. Because it wasn't that close, after all, in Ohio.

The end result was that Obama won Ohio by less than 2 pts, when he'd been leading in Ohio by several points, up to 5. The Republican rigging only cut 1 or 2 pts down, which wasn't enough. Also, Romney lost Florida and VA, which they hadn't counted on.

It does seem to fit. Imagine it: They had a meeting in 2010, decided to gerrymander districts throughout the U.S. so that more Republicans would be elected. Done. Then they embarked on the next phase: to cut early voting hours, purge voting lists, change voter registration and showing ID procedures throughout the entire U.S. Then they embarked on something they had done before: the trashing ("losing&quot of Democratic registrations and the flipping of SOME votes.

They were caught committing voter registration fraud in NINE counties. And a guy was caught trashing Democratic voter applications in another state (Virginia? NC? I forget). The FL governor cut early voting hours so severely that people had to wait in line for hours, up to 7 or 8 hours, to simply vote.

Anyone who thinks these things aren't done, is naive. That also explains why Romney and Rove were so shocked. With all that, they still didn't win.

It's possible it wasn't rigged. But it's very possible that it was. Congress needs to address some of these issues, and do something about the voting machines, as well as the long lines to vote. Imagine the votes Obama would've had without all the "problems" in Florida and Ohio. Funny that it was THOSE states that had problems, don't you think? It's never a dark red state, like mine here in TX, where we breeze in and out to vote quicly.

Getting tired of these Monday morning quarterbacks.

Masters of the fucking obvious.

get.over.it

Wasserman's assessment and has an Ohio voter I closely watched the 2004 election debacle play out. And I throughly believe the repukes tried to steal it again in this election.