"Shocking Republican Trend" or Election Fraud in CA? Let's find out!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: "Shocking Republican Trend" or Election Fraud in CA? Let's find out!
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:27:00 +0000
From: Election Justice News <election@solarbus.org>
Reply-To: Election Justice News <election@solarbus.org>
To:


Vermonters for Democracy,

Our focus is always on elections in Vermont, but I want to let you know about something going on in California that could affect elections nationwide.

Yesterday primary elections were held in California, which included a special election to replace Duke Cunningham, a Republican Congressaman who you may be aware had to resign due to a bribery scandal. This election is being closely watched because if the Democrat wins, it would mean they are one seat closer to taking back the majority in the House of Representatives.

The special election to replace him was conducted on a variety of election machines, but the majority of them were on optical scanner machines, similar to the ones we use in Vermont.

There are some eyebrow-raising and suspicious facts about the way the election was conducted and the results that have been reported. As it stands, the Republican has been declared the winner, and Cunningham's seat in Congress will remain in Republican control.

However, due to the suspicious nature of the election and results, there is a concerted effort underway to call for a recount. If the recount reveals problems, the ripple affects would be tremendous and reach all the way to Vermont. Please join the nationwide effort to call for a recount!

A letter has been written by Jonathan Simon, describing the situation, and how to contact the right people and voice your concern. Please read the letter and take the actions listed:

http://www.solarbus.org/election/articles/060608-simon-letter.shtml

A link to this letter can also be found on the Vermonters for Voting Integrity home page) in the "Action Items" box in the top right corner):

http://www.solarbus.org/vtvoters/

Please spread the word!

Regards,
Gary Beckwith
Vermonters for Voting Integrity
http://www.solarbus.org/vtvoters/

Republicans will do anything to get elected.
Democrats can't trust any election result.

This will get ugly in November.

But we have hope at the moment that we can elect election reformer Debra Bowen, the Dem running for CA Sec of State, despite a probable 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" against her by Diebold/ES&S/Sequoia's "trade secret," proprietary programming code. It is possible to overcome such a handicap in Calif. The stakes are very, very high--our democracy itself. A reformist Sec of State here could lead the nation back to TRANSPARENT elections. But why are we having to elect ANOTHER clean/good government Democrat as Sec of State? Didn't we just do that? Yup, we did--we elected Kevin Shelley a couple of years ago, who banned Diebold touchscreens and sued their asses. So they "swiftboated" Shelley out of office on entirely bogus corruption charges. An uglier moment in Calif history I have never seen. (Bad, bad cowardly state Dems, with a 3 to 2 majority in both state houses, hid under their desks or outright colluded.) Schwarz appoints Diebold shill Bruce McPherson, who just RE-certified Diebold ILLEGALLY. And here we are, having to push that Sisyphean rock right back up that mountain again--to get dishonest McPherson out and Bowen in (a smart and very courageous woman, Debra Bowen!).

Here's a posted letter from Bowen about her big primary victory (over clueless or corrupt Deborah Ortiz--I'm not sure which). It was 50/50 headed in.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2669886

it looks like a lot of innuendo , regarding this particular race.
Bradblog says straight off
"To be clear, at this hour, we have no evidence to show that Democrat Francine Busby -- running in yesterday's special run-off election in San Diego against Republican Brian Bilbray to replace the disgraced Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham for the U.S. House (CA-50) race -- actually won it."

Going after the machines is one thing and I'm all for it, but before you hitch your horse to a wagon, better make sure that you're not setting yourself up to be ignored or discounted as a tinfoilist.

The ability to use a machine to create fraud and the actuality of it happening are two different things.

The Repugs did not have to game the system in CA-50. CA-50 is a very red district. They were reasonably assured of a win there.

I'm going to agree that we should *not* hitch our horse to this wagon.

So, tell us just why you think the republicans wouldn't use the machines to steal the vote? Or anybody for that matter?

In the justice system there is a path of reaching a conviction that says a criminal had the opportunity, had the means to use that opportunity, and had the motive.

Well, that pretty well sums up the case for an investigation. That is after all, all we are asking for: an investigation.

Besides, the computer security experts have said that the use of machines to count votes is a big mistake. They ought to know. And their advice should have been taken. It wasn't; their advice was willfully ignored.

Therefore the use of the machines - as proven time and again to not count votes correctly - is perpetration of fraud upon the public.

when I didn't say I thought they wouldn't use the machines to steal the vote?

"...before you hitch your horse to a wagon..."

I take that as telling us to not call out on the republican culture of corruption. Your whole premise seems as to be: 'hey, they wouldn't do THAT'.

Well, son, the wagon is rolling; it is out of control. Yes? Do we just sit back and watch? Or do we act?

& guess you need lessons in reading comprehension then -- the wagon is the specific race for Cunningham's seat.
Be sure there is evidence before automatically assuming the guilt, that's all.
Nowhere did I say they wouldn't do that, just asked where's the evidence in this particular race?
If there's evidence, then hitch your horse to it, otherwise don't.

Been awhile since someone called me son ... (pushing 50 here and remember Watergate quite well, so I'm quite familiar with corruption)

Then which race? You are saying sit back and watch. That's stupid. We see what happens when machines count votes: that's our evidence. We also know they have means, motive, and opportunity.

What more do you want?

Hitch up and ride. We sure could use the help to save our democracy.

on edit:

We now have the means, the motive, and the opportunity to fight back, lets not wait for anymore: This is it.

Intelligent discussion perhaps.
Reading comprehension would be a good start.
Things like that.
Where did I say sit back and watch?

Which race?
A race where there is evidence of fraud, that's where.
Gee, I'm repeating myself.

Never mind.

That you don't quite get it, and I'm trying to help you get it.

As for evidence, what about the 2004 presidential election?

Surprised I say that?
Don't be.
I think there is plenty of evidence of fraud and dirty tricks in that one.
So that's a good one to focus on.
I just haven't seen anything that says the election in California this time for Cunningham's seat had fraud. Show me the evidence there and I'll change my tune regarding there. Evidence, specifics ---- not generalities about potential fraud and motive.

I get it just fine thank you.

...now read and comprehend Peace Patriot's post just below. You want intelligent? That is intelligent. Blows ya away, eh?

It's intelligent, but not necessarily right.
I sure as hell don't agree with this statement & in my opinion it borders on stupidity.
It certainly doesn't blow me away.

"We MUST presume GUILT--and ban this practice, or, where we are unable to ban it, hold the former public official guilty until proven innocent. That is democracy."

WTF?
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Anyhow, the underlying current of misreading of stuff and the tone (which strikes me as being too sure of one's access to the Truth) reminds me of why I don't hang around DU that often anymore even though I'm fairly radical.

public officials who purchase election machinery and get employed to sell that machinery by the corporations they bought it from, as "public servants," are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. That IS democracy. Those in power are only held in check by the ACCOUNTABILITY of open government. And when our accountability laws fail to catch something, and allow crap like that, our DEMOCRACY has failed. Democracy PRESUMES that those in power WILL misuse their power. That's what it's all about.

CITIZENS are given the protection of innocent until proven guilty, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. The government is guilty until proven innocent. Government officials can prove their innocence with transparency and accountability. Until proven otherwise, we must presume that Bill Jones and Alfie Charles were BOUGHT, while in office--promised cushy jobs with Sequoia--if they would destroy election transparency in California by, first of all, pushing through laws that permitted 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote tabulation programming code, before anyone in the public--and probably most of the legislators--even understood what it was.

To presume otherwise is naive! I'm not saying we can convict them of it--although I'd sure like to see an investigation of THAT sweet little deal. I'm saying we CAN'T TRUST THEM--we can't and shouldn't trust ANYONE in government, at any time, on any issue. And when they do something that ethically cloudy and suspicious, we must presume the worst. Our remedy may be a law--if we can get one. "Revolving door employment" on ELECTION MACHINERY should have been banned by HAVA. But the last thing in the world that Tom Delay and Bob Ney wanted was ACCOUNTABILITY and lack of corruption.

Same with elections. Non-transparent elections are NOT elections. They are fraudulent going in. And we MUST presume that non-transparent elections are giving us wrong results that serve those in power, and do NOT serve the interests of the public. What else is non-transparency FOR, except to put the wrong people in office and keep them there? If the elections are giving us the right results, why AREN'T they transparent?

junta is spying on you and me right now, in violation of numerous laws, with total impunity--or some other planet, where the Old Republic still exists?

To be "tinfoil" these days is to be a realist--to see things clearly--while the rest of you Pollyannas play your games in what you seem to believe is a "politics as usual" America.

Here are the corporations who are now "counting" all our votes with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, and with virtually no audit/recount controls:

Diebold: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (Bush "Pioneer" right up there with Ken Lay) who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio to Bush/Cheney in 2004."

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture) initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship--they are run by two brothers, Tod and Bob Urosevich. These two corporations together "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004 under a veil of corporate secrecy.

Sequoia: The third big player, which employs former Republican CA Sec of State Bill Jones, and his chief aide, Alfie Charles, to peddle its electronic voting machines--the two who brought this election theft machinery to California--an outrageous example of "revolving door" employment.

----------

Take "revolving door" employment, for instance. When a public official in charge of elections makes big purchases for the state from certain corporations, then goes to work for one of the corporations immediately upon leaving "public service," what should we presume? Innocent until prove guilty? Honest ethical slippage--they just didn't think? Or what?

We MUST presume GUILT--and ban this practice, or, where we are unable to ban it, hold the former public official guilty until proven innocent. That is democracy. And that is what good government MEANS--disinterested, objective service to the public, in a context of open government and accountability.

The same thing is true of elections. The powerful--those running things--are GUILTY until proven innocent. They show their innocence by counting the votes IN PUBLIC VIEW. And when they don't--as with Diebold/ES&S/Sequoia secret programming (not to mention their close partisan connections)--WE MUST PRESUME GUILT.

The Bilbray/Busby election was rife with non-transparency, insecurity and anomalous results. This was NOT at all a sure win for Republicans--and in fact turned out very close. The Repubs have been involved in scandal after scandal in San Diego, and several highly questionable elections. The voters had reason to be fed up--and the Bushites had every reason to rig it--and the CAPABILITY of rigging it, due to highly non-transparent conditions in the control of corporations with close ties to the Bush junta.

As some election reform experts have warned, if the chain of custody of the paper ballots/receipts* has been broken since election day--as they very egregiously broke chain of custody on the voting machines--then a recount may not be able to detect fraud. If THAT is your warning--that FURTHER rigging could occur, in the recount--point well taken. But if you are basing your objection on the LIKELIHOOD of Bushite Republican election fraud in non-transparent conditions, and you are GUESSING that it is NOT likely, then YOU are the crazy tinfoil hatter, not those who distrust the results and are calling for a recount.

As for what the war profiteering corporate news monopolies may report and how they spin the concerns of the public about non-transparent elections, I'm all for playing whatever games are possible with these slimebag fascist news monopolies, but we must NEVER sacrifice the truth about non-transparent elections to fears that they will marginalize this issue or its activists and whistleblowers. Where would we be with this issue today, if courageous activists and whistleblowers had not questioned the 2004 election right at the beginning, when "tinfoil" was the hottest putdown? We certainly would not be having a major political figure like RFK writing about it in Rolling Stone, or top scientists like those at Johns Hopkins, Stanford and UC Berkeley crying foul in NYT articles. The subject was totally black-holed and banned throughout the corporate press AND within the Democratic Party.

I've gained a lot of respect for the "tinfoil" tag. In fact, the original tinfoil hatters--those fearing government microwaves beamed into their heads--might not have been all that wrong.

-------

*(The SD optiscans have a paper ballot that is supposedly securely stored after elections. There is also a large component of other paper ballots--absentee ballots, voters who chose the paper option, and provisionals (none of which had been counted, according to reports, when the Repub Sec of State--a Diebold shill--called the election for Bilbray). The SD touchscreens have a mere paper receipt printed by the machine (could say anything--who would know?--the voter is long gone). Real paper ballots or paper ballot backups predominated and SHOULD BE recounted--given non-transparent secret code in the voting machines and central tabulators, and the closeness of the official count--if chain of custody of the ballots has been kept; and, if it has not been kept, then THAT should be investigated (along with broken custody on the machines themselves). And if the story of election workers taking the Diebold machines HOME before the election is true, then the election should be declared INVALID and done over. That is an outrageous violation of chain of custody--especially given the easy hackability of these machines.)

which fails to look at what I was really saying I feel.

I know the machines are suspect.
I know the Bush administration can't be trusted.
I don't need the lecture, thank you.
I am not a pollyanna either, believe me.
I've read my share of court documents on this stuff in relation to my job also, but I'd rather not be specific, actually precisely because I don't think the Bush administration can be trusted.

to try to marginalize brilliant and courageous people who are fighting the good fight for removal of these INHERENTLY FRAUDULENT--no other reason for their existence--corporate-controlled, private, secret vote counting systems.

I DO agree we should be careful in the fights we pick as bellweather fights--although NOT on non-transparency itself, which needs to be fought wherever it occurs and in whatever form, and no matter who is doing it (Repubs, Dems, or others). But I don't like your reasons for caution. We don't know enough yet about the results and the behavior of election officials to SAY it was likely stolen, but there are plenty of bad indicators, including the fact of non-transparency itself--the fact that much evidence has been deliberately eliminated from the system (especially with the touchscreens that Diebold shill CA Sec of Secretary of State Bruce McPherson went out of his way to ILLEGALLY re-certify). Also, if the Bushites are claiming it as a "bellweather," then for sure you know something's up. And that it's exactly what they and their lapdog press have done.

I'm glad to hear you say you are not a pollyanna. And I'm sorry I threw that word around, and took a lecturing tone. I've just seen so much dissing of election fraud by people who seem to be blind to the bald-faced facts of a fraudulent SYSTEM, quite deliberately put in place by an extremely--off the charts--corrupt Bushite Congress--that I get very strident about it sometimes. My point: When you have a fraudulent, non-transparent election SYSTEM, you HAVE fraud. Period. You must assume it--even without the evidence of blatant Bushite criminality in every other sphere. Our elections have been made so non-transparent, we are headed straight toward conditions like those in Stalinist Russia. And we've got to start looking for the tracks and traces, and anomalous numbers, and weird telltale events, right away--before the evidence is covered up. It may be too late for Bilbray/Busby--I'm not able to judge that yet. But the cautious people always pooh-pooh it, and say, "nothing here, move along"--sloughing off the challenges to this intentional non-transparency with slanders like it's a "tinfoil" conspiracy.

We still have a window of opportunity to restore transparent elections--at the state/local level. This window may close sooner than we think--if Bush, who is grabbing all sorts of extra-legal powers, grabs power over state/local election system decisions. HAVA made inroads in that direction but it did NOT mandate electronic voting. It just provided a $4 billion boondoggle to get this corrupt system entrenched. Return to paper ballots, handcounted, is still possible. We must look into every opportunity to challenge the election system that the Bushites wanted, that they funded with our money, and in which we can no longer see how votes are counted. Bilbray/Busby has many of the telltale signs of a stolen election--signs that are difficult to ferret out BECAUSE of the non-transparent conditions and the culture of secrecy among election officials that these private corporations and their non-transparent electronic systems has fostered. Also, the Democratic Party is far from fully on board, as to vigilance and monitoring. This early stage of investigation is crucial. Why tell people to back off at this point? What do YOU make of hackable Diebold machines being taken to election workers' homes overnight for several days just prior to the election? That's one of the allegations. Don't you want to know if it's true? And who had access to those machines? And whether or not the results from those machines differ significantly from the machines that had paper ballot backup, or from the absentee ballots?

I do! I think you're seeing it as a political thing, in a "politics as usual" world. What if Busby really did lose, close as it was? How will that "fly" with the corporate news monopolies (if there is a recount)? What will the Freeper ridicule machine say? What will Rove's "talking points" be, and how will we "counter" them? Me? I don't give a flying F what these liars and criminals say any more.

I do think it's a possibility, though, that they deliberately planned a VALID count--that will be VERIFIED by a recount--and created it as a "bellweather" election, in order to further entrench the election theft machinery--for more critical uses in Nov. and in '08? With the high-speed, secret powers they have now over the vote count, this could have been a last minute decision, once they saw that Busby really lost. Maybe they sent the Diebold machines to peoples' homes as a red herring. Or--maybe they're rewriting some of the paper ballot backups right now.

It's hard to judge the situation. Further investigation is needed. But I hope you see just how nutso it is that we can't just COUNT THE VOTES and KNOW WHO WON, fair and square. Those days are gone, and every possibility of fraud has been facilitated and the probability of it has been increased a thousandfold, by deliberate Bushite design.

My intention wasn't to marginalize either.
Didn't mean to have it come across that way.
I was actually trying to make a point about sticking close to the facts in order to avoid being marginalized.

backup to certain machines, the optiscans (voter votes on a paper ballot and scans it into a machine), which are run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, and hooked up to central tabulators also run on secret code--and the whole system is, as has been proven, extremely insecure and hackable (especially by insider corporate personnel)--then the paper ballot backup is useless unless it is COUNTED. And it seldom is counted. I think the rule is 1% automatic recount in Calif., which PRESUMES honesty in the county/state election officials who choose where to audit, and is totally inadequate--an antiquated rule--in the face of potential super-high-speed and undetectable fraud. The public can't just go in and recount the paper ballots. Elections these days take place in super secrecy. You and me never get to see the ballots. And its very, very difficult and expensive to get a recount--and even if we do get one, it's a 2% or 3% recount (--not sure of the % in Calif, or the rules--generally, a candidate can get a recount--with the whole political system frowning upon her/him--but others can't get one, and possibly not even through the courts ). So, some 95% of 99% of the the votes are never seen by anybody outside of the power loop. A further factor is the corporate news monopolies and their influence on whether or not a recount is politically viable. They call the election on the basis of the speediest results--always pushing for more and more speed--and create an atmosphere that is hostile to an accurate count and to recounts. This may have been a factor in SD--with the big absentee ballot vote (possibly a protest vote--anti-machines and pro-Busby) lagging way behind in the "count." Diebold was right there with the instant results of its machines (when they don't break down and have to get "service" mid-election).

With these new electronic systems, a 100% hand recount should have been mandated for at least the first couple of elections--with a tangible paper ballot backup REQUIRED FOR ALL MACHINES. But that wasn't what Tom Delay and Bob Ney (and Bilderberg 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd) had in mind with the so-called "Help America Vote Act." They DIDN'T WANT verifiability and transparency. We could have had it, easily. They DIDN'T WANT IT. Why not? (And why didn't the Democrats want it, and demand it, and shut down Capitol Hill until they got it? I'm not sure. Part of it may have been fear--it was the Anthrax Congress. And, once in place, this election system is so non-transparent that it affects everybody. Who among them is not now beholden to Diebold and ES&S for their power?)

In Germany, paper ballots (the only real kind of ballot) are placed in a clear glass jar which is guarded day and night in public view, until the votes are removed in public and counted in public. They also have honest and highly accurate exit polls to verify the election and check for fraud (--unlike the exit polls we have here, which are FALSIFIED to MATCH the non-transparent "official results"). (The exit polls here are run by ONE pollster who is hired by a consortium of war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who control what the public knows about election transparency--including who owns and controls the system, which they don't inform people about--and who combine with the Bushite electronic voting corporations to control the outcome of elections. There are no "checks and balances" anywhere--not the traditional ones of news organizations, generally honest election officials and the traditional voter protection groups. (The League of Women Voters' leadership was either corrupt or extremely naive on electronic voting, and did not provide early warning--there was a rank and file revolt about it.) The only check and balance these days is the blogs--now spreading out to progressive Democrats and new public interest groups, like VotersUnite.org and USCountVotes.org. The movement has also been helped by some AAR shows--Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Majority Report, and now Ring of Fire.)