Digital Vote Theft: How to counter the "negligible wrong counts" argument

Woody Box

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-12-04 11:59 AM
Original message

Digital Vote Theft: How to counter the "negligible wrong counts" argument

I've noticed a tendency to spin the vote fraud by mentioning some smaller incidents with a few thousand irregular votes to let it appear that the sum would not be sufficient to change the outcome (Example: the first WashPost article).

This argument can easily debunked by the attacks on the central tabulator; we're in the digital realm here, and it just takes a mouse click to change the outcome massively.

From this point of view, it is important to prove that digital vote fraud happened; it doesn't matter how many votes have been changed; the potential is infinite, in principle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zbdent

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-12-04 12:03 PM
Response to Original message

1. "I'm sorry, it was only just one typo.

Sorry about that, Mr. Murdoch, but I cannot locate where your vast fortune went . . . Better luck next time. This happens occasionally. Thank you for banking with the First National Bank of zbdent."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

txindy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-12-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. THAT would definitely get media attention! LOL!

How would they spin that, I wonder?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NewYorkerfromMass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-12-04 12:24 PM
Response to Original message

3. SO far they have only found the obvious mistakes

Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 12:24 PM by NewYorkerfromMass

Mistakes with a magnitude of error of 100 to 1000 percent are easy to find.
It is the ones of only 5, 6, and 7 percent that would be harder to find, and may very well have given Bush the election.

Each county could be massaged to hide any outlandish totals. They obviously slipped up badly in that one Ohio town.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Eloriel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-12-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Such a good point you make

Someone else pointed out a few days ago that shaving votes in BOTH Bush and Kerry strongholds is a good idea because, in the case of Kerry strongholds, just as long as he still won that "stronghold" area, no one would ask any questions or be suspicious.

You do that around a state -- even MORE votes for Bush in Bush strongholds and MORE votes for Bush (with Kerry still winning) in Kerry strongholds and it's not all that difficult to win a whole state AND, over a number of states, rack up a 3.5 million margin in the popular vote, which itself helps keep questions at bay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat Apr 20th 2024, 08:25 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.