Was the 2004 election Screwed Up? Absolutely. Was it stolen?

Of course it was screwed up. Everyone in the country knows that there were a lot of problems with the election. Many people believe that the total vote tally was wrong because of them. But was the election stolen? A lot of us think so. But that's where most people around the country who aren't political junkies like us will step back and say, "Whoa, tin foil hat time". They won't even consider the possibility for a moment, because the word "stolen" is charged with so many strong connotations.

I'm sick and tired of banging my head against this wall of denial. I want to come up with a fresh approach to spreading the word that will get through to people without springing their defenses.

So the election was screwed up. Who's going to argue with that? Anybody who stands up to say that it was a model of perfection is going to be laughed at as a partisan hack. Griping about how badly it was screwed up gets the conversation started. And once people are commiserating about all the screw-ups, it will start to dawn on them that maybe the vote totals weren't quite exactly right. From there, it's a short stretch to admitting that maybe, just maybe, the wrong side came out on top.

Moving on to consider whether it was deliberately manipulated or stolen is a dismaying step that tends to stir up a lot of emotions and conflict. I'm not going to let it stand in the way of convincing people that the numbers came out wrong anymore. Once you've admitted the possibility that the result was wrong, you're a lot more likely to be interested in supporting an independent investigation. Then we can sic the Patrick Fitzgeralds of the world on 'em to get to the bottom of it!

of ES&S and Diebold because he thought is was a good investment or because he wanted to promote handicapped access to elections.

The story that needs to be told is who owns the vote counting system and how little oversight this system has:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html

For example, I'm advising a Congressional candidate. As it happens, her state's Secretary of State is one of her opponents in the race (YIKES). He's a fairly sleazy type. One thing I've done is educate her on what Blackwell pulled, point out that her opponent's conflict of interest is even worse, and dig up tidbits on his SoS performance. She may be able to use it at least to keep people's attention focused on him and limit his dirty tricks.

So in essence, my tactic is to frighten actual candidates and get them to pay attention and maybe publicize their concerns.

When we have the evidence to back it up, and we know what we are talking about, we don't need to avoid saying the truth, in fact it is our responsibility as Americans to tell the truth.

From all accounts and purposes, the past three elections have been intentionally manipulated and stolen by private Republican-connected companies such as Diebold and Election Systems and Software,
who own the ballot data.

At the very least, these companies and those like them (Sequoia, now owned by a Venezuelan individual)violate the vital transparency necessary to have any legitimate election.

We need to be talking with city officials and candidates, and our local parties to find out how to become poll workers. I believe we also need to find out locally how we can tabulate the votes ourselves and have independent tabulations equipped with cameras.

We must create what we want and make legitimate elections happen, if we have to do them ourselves.

For more information, take a look at the Parallel Election Project at ecotalk.org.

of elections when the data (ballots) and the counting methods (analysis) are not disclosed.

Straightforward, bulletproof science. No reproducibility. no verifiability. No accountability.

Shifts the burden to the other side to prove why the public should accept the word from the mystery boxes.

And anybody who objectively investigates the evidence will admit it. I'm not concerned about what people think. The evidence is all on my side. "Conspiracy theorists" are supposed to be working on slim or nonexistent evidence. Here all the evidence is on my side.

SO WHO'S THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST?

Back atcha, then. Stalemate. Enjoy your certainty!

I know what I think, and anyone who thinks differently isn't an objective investigator.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

I think I'm an objective investigator, and I think "screwed up" pretty much nails it, if that isn't an oxymoron as well (can you nail a screw?)

It just takes a bit more hammering.

"It's clear to me the election was fraudulent or stolen.
And anybody who objectively investigates the evidence will admit it."

I agree 100%
I can't see how anyone who reads Armando's Challenge (or something equally in depth) could possibly draw any other conclusion.

:toast:

:hi:

We would not be in this position...

Imagine a Senator or Congressman standing up in session, and, a la Galloway, saying, "You're a pack of liars, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr, Rove, etc."

Or a newspaper - actually printing BARE FACTS instead of dancing around the issues...

The 2000 presidential election was STOLEN, period. As were the 2002 representative elections and the 2004 presidential election. STOLEN - not "problematic," or "flawed" - "STOLEN" and "FRAUDULENT" and "CRIMINAL."

What a world we live in...sigh...

Boy, does it ever '..stir up a lot of emotions and conflict.'

The only way around it is to speak without emotion. Use a monotone voice and keep from mentioning anything but common sense facts such as these:

Could it have been stolen?
The machines are quite capable of being programmed the wrong way. Look at how many times your computer did what it wanted, not what you wanted.

Computer scientists who have studied these machines don't want these machines to be used in elections.

If someone wanted to, they could have rigged the machines since the code that runs them is a secret. The Japanese, the electronics wizards, don't use computers in Japanese elections.

The question is: did anyone have motivation to steal the election? Has anyone ever tried to steal elections before? Yes, there is always motivation and there has always been a problem with elections being stolen. Same thing, different day.

Given the way the exit-polls showed Kerry in the lead right up until midnight, and given the use of secretly coded machines on which nearly 70% of the votes were counted, I simply must conclude the election could have been stolen.

Peace.

If one side manages to thwart the lawful process of determining the winner and substitute it with an illegal process designed to make themselves the winner then I say the election was stolen.

The unlawful actions in the Ohio recount at the very least denied us the opportunity of knowing who the lawful winner was. That is enough to justify saying the election was stolen.

I'd modify that: I think it justifies saying your democracy was stolen. As Land Shark said so eloquently, a democracy is based on the consent of the governed. That includes the consent of those who did not choose the government to be ruled by that government.

If you erode the basis for that consent, you don't have a democracy.

but I still think mine is justified.

Let's say you are playing poker with a buddy. When your buddy goes to draw 2 cards, instead of taking them from the deck, she takes them from her sleeve. Your buddy wins the hand and thereby your bicycle.

Did your buddy steal your bicycle? After all, she may have been the rightful winner in any event. All she did was thwart the agreed upon rules and substitute a process that was designed to ensure that she was the winner.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call it stealing your bike even if there was a chance she might have won anyway. And I'm not going to hold back and only say she stole your "fair poker environment". After all, she's out there on the street riding your bike isn't she?

And Bush is in the WH, isn't he? If he got there by stealing my democracy then he stole my election too.

But, as I said, I like your wording too and will certainly applaud anyone who goes around spreading the word that our democracy was stolen.

of course, how Bush won re-election by being a "war president" and controlling both houses so investigations were slow or overly partisan... I mean it is obvious he stole hearts and minds.

But as to the machines - no annecdotal evidence that votes were taken by software. None.

So be honest and call it speculation when it is in fact speculation.

that switched votes from Kerry to Bush.

defaulted improperly and complaints were made by both sides.

I meant after the vote was put in - and the person walked away secure that they had voted for Kerry because that is what they did and what the machine told them they did.

You claimed there was no anecdotal evidence. When I gave you some anecdotal evidence, then you would like to switch the frame and say that, well, yes there is that anecdotal evidence but we should ignore it because it happened on both sides (which, by the way, it didn't if we look at percentages).

And you want to narrow what kind of anecdotal evidence you really meant (you really meant only votes switches that happened at some particular time, not ones that happened at some other particular time) in order to reject my anecdotes.

The anecdotes I referred you to are a strong indication that votes intended for Kerry were counted for Bush and it was the machines that did it. Use whatever technicalities you want to to try to cover your eyes to that fact but it is still a fact.

Edit to add: no, not the default. That is an attempt to spin it and make it seem like something more benign. I am talking about the cases where the voter touched Kerry on the screen and later the vote switched to Bush when they got to the summary screen. This was a "switch", not a "default".

I listened to a woman from S. Florida give detailed testimony at a hearing. She had other eye witnesses because she insisted that election workers should come to the machine and see what was happening.

What is speculative about it?

instances. And that it went both ways - but often against Kerry.

I am saying that it is speculation to say that votes were stolen from people who had no default problems and were satisfied and moved on. To say there votes were stolen from people who didn't have anything to complain about .. is speculation.

I wholeheartedly agree that all the annecdotal infor shows a pattern of dirty tricks and attempts to skew the election. And these instances should be highlighted and fought against with transparency legislation.

It is speculation to say votes were taken by software inside a diebold machine and that your vote will be taken again.

That is speculation. You do not have witness evidence on that. You do not. You can read what you want into how the machines were set up (softwarewise). I can read what I want into it. Because we don't have the evidence that votes were stolen that way. Exit polls were way off in many ridings that didn't have diebold machines.

Fight for transparency? Yes. Review everything about diebold when dems finally get some power? Yes. Receipts? Yes. Laws that will punish any election organizer if they send too few machines to ridings? Yes. Laws that will penalize any group that tries to intimidate voters and shows a pattern of intimidating by voter? Yes.

I agree with so much. I just cannot say that the idea votes were stolen by diebold machine - above and behond and hidden from the annecdotes we know of.. that is speculation.

We have eyewitness reports on the behavior of a machine. There are cases where multiple people compained about the same machine and election workers replied that that same machine had been doing that same thing all day long. It is clear that that machine was switching votes.

The only thing left is for those angry voters to bring the machine over and hit you on the head with it.

what people mean when they talk about diebold software stealing votes in a planned and nefarious & software way.

There are many problems. Many annecdotes. And I agree with so much. I just know that so far, the idea that diebold was programmed to steal massive amounts of votes (other than by putting too few machines in place) is speculation.

We are taling apples and oranges.

Sorry. We don't see eye to eye. I say it is speculation - you say massive voter fraud in the deibold software is a reality. I cannto agree. So let's agree to disagree.

Here's your statement I was responding to:
"But as to the machines - no annecdotal evidence that votes were taken by software. None."

I have shown that there is evidence that votes were taken. Some.

Now if you want to talk about the question of how many votes were taken, that is different.

usually not including in all the statistical studies done that to some people seem to proove massive vote stealing by software when annecdotes do not exist.

Somebody else set up the goal posts.

Darn it is hard arguing this issue when the speculators do not even agree amongst themselves. Or like you and I - agree it is speculation.

Sorry if we crossed each other. It happens. Most people who argue diebold say "my vote will be stolen" not - some people had default problems with a few machines.

You said:
"some people had default problems with a few machines."

That phrasing seems designed to minimize both the problem and the importance of the problem.

People who attempted to vote for one candidate had their vote counted for the other candidate. That seems to me to be as "stolen" as a vote can get. How much more stolen could it be? Counted two or three times for the wrong candidate? Would that make you say it was stolen?

And, I don't have the data in front of me but from what I remember of the reports, the phrase "a few machines" would be misleading. I don't think it was 3 or 4 machines.

And finally, once again, it was not a default problem. Not on the machines I'm talking about. It was votes that had been properly cast being switched over to the other candidate. The voter pushed Kerry and the machine switched it to Bush.

who were totally unaware of it?

Like I said. We seem to be arguing different things.

I give up.

Once again, here is your original statement that prompted this exchange:
"But as to the machines - no annecdotal evidence that votes were taken by software. None."

That statement by you is in absolute disgreement with the proposition "Diebold stole the votes of people who were totally unaware of it."

I say, yes, Diebold (and ES&S and others) stole the votes of people who were totally unaware of it. The evidence I've pointed you to is evidence of just that.

I can't tell from your latest post whether you just switched your position over to my side or what you really mean, if anything.

proof of votes being switched en mass. Just a few annecdotes about machines that defaulted improperly.

The people who try and make a case about diebold using stats is what I was refering too.

The facts:
It wasn't "just a few anecdotes". It was more than just a few. Try using the phrase "more than a hundred" in place of "just a few". That will be more accurate (and we want to be accurate don't we?).

It wasn't machines that "defaulted improperly". It was machines that switched votes. Try using the phrase "machines that switched votes" (the accuracy thing again).

The question:
Now to the question you would like to switch to (which is different than the statement you originally made):
"No proof of votes being switched en mass."

You are right - we don't have proof of that.

But we wouldn't would we? We are not allowed to examine the secret voting machines. Those are proprietary property of private corporations. Why should we be allowed to see them? I mean, we're just regular old citizens - nobodies really.

The conclusion:
We do however, have proof that the machines are not trustworthy. More than a hundred anecdotes of machines switching votes (see how that phrase feels more accurate) right in front of the voter's eyes are certainly proof of that.

Any reasonable person would look at that evidence and realize there is no way of knowing what "mistakes" the machines can make in the processes that are not in front of our eyes.

Any reasonable person would look at this situation and switch it around on the authorities. Rather than asking "do we have proof of massive fraud?", a reasonable person would ask "can we exclude the possibility that massive fraud occurred?". And the answer would be no. The facts as we know them give us no assurance that massive fraud did not occur.

admit is is speculation. We need to be discerning. And because the Bush WH is capable of much horrors. Does not mean that they act that way in every instance where there could be a possibility.

We have proof that machines switched votes. We don't have proof that the number of touch screen votes switched was massive.

The important point is that we have a significant number of reports of votes switching. The fact that we can't prove how many votes were switched when, of course we would not have any way of knowing that under the privatized counting regime of the Republicorporations, is not the point at all.

Look back through our exchange from the beginning and you will see you implied originally that there was no evidence of vote switching whatsoever. None. That's why I objected and jumped in. Because there is significant evidence of vote switching. I never said there is proof that the vote switching was massive. And to me it is not necessary to show that.

Why is it not necessary to show that the vote switching was massive? One reason is that the approach to stealing the election was not one technique applied massively. Rather it was a death of a thousand cuts. In Ohio, for example, there wouldn't need to be any touch screen vote switching at all to steal the election. The techniques there were voter registration dirty tricks, vote suppression, op scan ballot tampering, op scan counting irregularities, recount fraud, etc. In New Mexico, on the other hand, the margin between Bush and Kerry was small enough that vote switching on touch screens of some amount that was less than massive may have been enough to flip the result.

So let me agree on your point - we don't have proof that touch screen vote switching was massive. But please recognize that this point is not the point at all.

we really agree. Massive diebold voter fraud is speculation. Massive problems with voter transparency and game-playing to influence elections results is annecdotally obvious.

So why not stick to what we know when we discuss. Call it voter transparency seeing as how we agree there is no proof of diebold stealing elections.

The ones I'm talking about were switching votes. Nothing to do with any kind of a default.

It is speculation too think the machines counted all the ballots as cast. Pure speculation. The election as it stands is built purely on speculation that the winner actually won. There is no proof, beyond speculation.

The very idea that our democracy is based on speculation is sickening. Yet, we have people telling us that they trust the voting machines!

THEY TRUST THE VOTING MACHINES!!

Gawd, I've never met anyone knowledgeable who trusts the voting machines, yet we have someone here who does? What are we doing wrong that we can't even convince a DU'er? Hmmmm.

much needed. And I think the GOP uses the fear of new technology without verifiable ballots to divide us.

I just don' assume the software stole votes. I need annecdotal evidence and witnesses.

So I agree - i am speculating. And trusting. On all other electoral issues - I would agree with the annecdotal evidence and that there are serious issues.

Good news though. The Justice Department just announced they will be monitoring elections in all manner of ways.

Most DUers are not quite as optimistic as you are. Check this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1907194

if lawyers show up for all the "problem" sites - that is a good thing. Surely you know there are only 12 of the neocons. That is why they have to keep moving each other around and promoting the same people. I don't think the justice department lawyers - the ones out of law-school and dreaming of well "Justice" are going to start lying or not doing their jobs.

So - this is a sign that the 2006 election may be flooded with lawyers? Good. Then the next time the hotel staff notices funny phone calls in their lobby - they know who to call.

It is little. But it is something.

For starters, take a look at the report compiled by Congressman John Conyers and the staff of the House Judiciary Committe.

What Went Wrong in Ohio

And the collection of articles on his website.

http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={BD0FBB2E-BAE6-4A15-9517-E9E135D8F0C7}

The arguments that spring up like weeds over this subject are such a pain-in-the-ass distraction. Personally, I'm completely convinced that the election was stolen, so there's no need to try to convince me on that point. But look at how the question instantly divides up even people who agree on 90% of everything else!

I'm looking for a way to approach the subject with co-workers, friends, and acquantainces that will make them curious rather than putting them off. Here where we're already in the mudpit, of course it would be lame to try to stop the fighting with euphamisms. It's to lure in the unsuspecting masses, is all.


B-)

as speculation. I see it as speculation. I completely don't think votes were stolen by software on diebold machines. But yes - we agree on so much else. Where there is no abject proof - let's not make each other wrong. If witnesses show up some day - then we can discuss further.

What basis do you have for your faith?

Do you think they wouldn't steal the vote?

That the machines/programming is incapable?

Actually you can not give us one reason to have faith in the election.

There is no reason to beleive it was fair and square, and the proof it wasn't is squatting in the WH.

great chance messing took place. Where there is no evidence of anything and machines are a pretty risky way to cheat - I don't think the GOP would be so stupid as to do treason. They only cheat when it is all vague and fuzzy. Code in a machine is not fuzzy. Forensic computer experts can find anything. Someone like Karl Rove tried to steal elections by 'bugging his own candidates offices and blaming it on the challenger during the election'. After the election he was under investigation for a bit.

Why would manipulators manipulate in such a way - that is easy to catch? In my experience the nefarious manipulate only in ways where they are 100% in control (or think they are). And putting code in a machine and then handing it over to strangers across the country is in no way controllable.

The reasons I see for people thinking the votes could be stolen is because their are software linkages in the machines - but that is normal for software companies. Remember how hard microsoft made it to get Netscape for a while? Backwards and forward linkages are standard operations for any product line.

The issue of keeping the count (unverifiable) is a new one. So too the machines. People are scarred of new technology (remember microwaves).I think the GOP uses the machines to create fear and thus separate us from each other. And that will pay off in squabble after sqaubble - between you and me today - lookout for when the likes of you and me are paired together during 2006 and go door to door. We will be wrestling with each other on the doorstep of some moderate we are trying to convince to vote Dem.

That is my speculation. That this is just another GOP wedge. It works for them. I hope we can see past our differences on this one issue - so that in 6 months - we can work together.

That is what I hope.

Not until you come to your senses. I don't have time to spend with someone who doesn't think there is a serious problem. Your quotes:

I don't think the GOP would be so stupid as to do treason

Code in a machine is not fuzzy

Why would manipulators manipulate in such a way - that is easy to catch?

Forget it. You are neither here, nor there. You make no sense at all, and your speculations, while seemingly innocent, do give pause as to considering your reasons for posting so relentlessly.

They stole the damn election. As soon as you can accept that, we can talk, until then consider me as the opposition.

They could have stolen votes by leaking "exit polls favoring dems" by mid-day - encouraging Dem voters with children to get a babysitter for or lined up with too few machines to give up and not vote.

Rove is quoted as having told the Brits that the U.S.A. was prepared to wait only until 2004 for them to sign onto the war in Iraq. Now that is stealing the election if you need war on an election timeline.

I never said there are not serious issues. That obvious voting crimes took place. And playing between laws like "vetting only black voters for felonious pasts", etc.

And all sorts of votes will be stolen in the next elections as people like you and I fight. It will piss off people and push them to give up, or vote for someone other than dems. Just how angry are all the people like you going to be if the Candidate chosen by vote to lead the Dems - does not happen to believe diebold stole votes? Will you vote for Nader?

You complain elections are being stolen. I agree. I don't want you to fall into any traps. And be a part of that.

...John Forbes Kerry behind the scenes admissions and the retractions are so fucking damaging.

...Be a Man. You were screwed...stand up and say so. Don't be for the "Stolen Election Theory" right before your retraction of saying you DON'T believe it was stolen. You will never again be the nominee. Quit dreaming and get on board. For once, be the person we all voted for. Come down, and come down hard on the evidence of fraud in Ohio and MANY OTHER PLACES.

...Good Grief

http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html

and Florida as well
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

but as long as no one in the Government will stand up in front of a camera and say "there are allot of people who think it was stolen" the least we can do is look into what they got, we (the government) will go on prime time TV and or CABLE and discuss e-voting.

So long as e-voting problems is not discussed on TV for all to see, I, for one will not take the Government seriously.

Silence from our government and media on this important issue, makes Your vote and mine a PRETEND-A-VOTE.

It was so obvious election night. Kerry had it in the bag at 6pm. All media said Kerry will win.

is the constitutionality of secret vote counting. if you want to forget what happened in 04, that's fine. looking forward, it states in the 1965 voting rights act that the elections must be observable. DREs and opscans incorporate secret vote counting, which is unconstitutional on state and federal level. Check the lawsuits in TN and WA for cutting edge on this approach.

There are many good suggestions on this thread about how to present the problem/solution/crime to rational people who are open to reason.

But your question was about the "whoa, tin foil hat time" people.

For those there is no point to "educating" or "persuading" them. They are well-trained (by the propagandists and the euphemedia) to dismiss rational argument. Yes, this is a sad state of affairs but one we must come to terms with.

The thing to remember about these people is that, while they may be saying "you're crazy," that's not what they really think (at least in the sense that we understand "thinking"). They are trying to convince themselves, through denial, that "all is well." (It's like Bill Cosby's joke that "Parents are not interested in justice, they just want quiet.")

These people are more easily swayed by the opinions of others, rather than by facts and reasoning. They really believe that an extreme, strongly-help position is more legitimate than a rational, factual, well-reasoned one. (No, that doesn't make sense.)

So it is more productive to simply disagree with them, leaving the impression that you know something that they don't. Better yet, is to leave them with the meme "Everybody knows the election was stolen."

Yes, it is a form of intellectual/rhetorical "violence," but violence is all they understand and respect.

----
www.january6th.org

The only vote that mattered was the Electoral College vote. If Kerry won Ohio, he won the Electoral College, and the election.

Electronic voting was not a significant factor in Ohio (only 6 of the 88 counties had DREs). And there is no evidence, so far, that there was tampering with Ohio county electronic tabulators.


However, it does appear that there was more than enough urban and minority voter-suppression to have cost Kerry Ohio - and thus the Electoral College. And urban/minority voter-suppression is not innocent or accidental. That should be fairly easy to argue.

(See posts on voter suppression in the Election fraud analysis evaluation thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=399216&mesg_id=399216 )

I trust the machines.

And the use of machines makes it easy, easy, easy, to run elections. That's what all the election folks tell me.

Why, it's been made so easy that sometimes the ballot is marked for me! Or, if I forget to vote in a race, the machine can make sure a vote gets cast! No more undervotes! Whooppee! I was so worried about undervotes.

Pretty soon, if we get enough of them machines, elections will be a piece of cake. Heck, we won't even have to leave the house, we'll just let the machines figure it all out, I mean, the machines already control how the vote is counted now, and my election officials want elections to be easy, what could be easier?

\\\\\\\\\flip side////////////

Imagine how outraged you would be if you were handed a paper ballot that already had votes marked for you?

Well, that's what you get when your ballot is nothing more than a vapor trail on a DRE.

Where is the outrage?