By Michael Parenti

The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush Jr., amounted to another stolen election. This has been well documented by such investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, and others. Here is an overview of what they have reported, along with observations of my own.

Some 105 million citizens voted in 2000, but in 2004 the turnout climbed to at least 122 million. Pre-election surveys indicated that among the record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy favorite, a fact that went largely unreported by the press. In addition, there were about two million progressives who had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 who switched to Kerry in 2004.

Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 million votes, about 11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile Kerry showed only eight million more votes than Gore received in 2000. To have achieved his remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept all his 50.4 million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, plus a large share of the very liberal Nader defectors.

Nothing in the campaign and in the opinion polls suggest such a mass crossover. The numbers simply do not add up.

In key states like Ohio, the Democrats achieved immense success at registering new voters, outdoing the Republicans by as much as five to one. Moreover the Democratic party was unusually united around its candidate-or certainly against the incumbent president. In contrast, prominent elements within the GOP displayed open disaffection, publicly voicing serious misgivings about the Bush administration’s huge budget deficits, reckless foreign policy, theocratic tendencies, and threats to individual liberties.

Sixty newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2000 refused to do so in 2004; forty of them endorsed Kerry.

All through election day 2004, exit polls showed Kerry ahead by 53 to 47 percent, giving him a nationwide edge of about 1.5 million votes, and a solid victory in the electoral college. Yet strangely enough, the official tally gave Bush the election. Here are some examples of how the GOP “victory” was secured.

—In some places large numbers of Democratic registration forms disappeared, along with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Sometimes absentee ballots were mailed out to voters just before election day, too late to be returned on time, or they were never mailed at all.

—Overseas ballots normally reliably distributed by the State Department were for some reason distributed by the Pentagon in 2004. Nearly half of the six million American voters living abroad—a noticeable number of whom formed anti-Bush organizations—never received their ballots or got them too late to vote. Military personnel, usually more inclined toward supporting the president, encountered no such problems with their overseas ballots.

—Voter Outreach of America, a company funded by the Republican National Committee, collected thousands of voter registration forms in Nevada, promising to turn them in to public officials, but then systematically destroyed the ones belonging to Democrats.

— Tens of thousands of Democratic voters were stricken from the rolls in several states because of “felonies” never committed, or committed by someone else, or for no given reason. Registration books in Democratic precincts were frequently out-of-date or incomplete. —Democratic precincts—enjoying record turnouts—were deprived of sufficient numbers of polling stations and voting machines, and many of the machines they had kept breaking down. After waiting long hours many people went home without voting. Pro-Bush precincts almost always had enough voting machines, all working well to make voting quick and convenient.

—A similar pattern was observed with student populations in several states: students at conservative Christian colleges had little or no wait at the polls, while students from liberal arts colleges were forced to line up for as long as ten hours, causing many to give up.

—In Lucas County, Ohio, one polling place never opened; the voting machines were locked in an office and no one could find the key. In Hamilton County many absentee voters could not cast a Democratic vote for president because John Kerry’s name had been “accidentally” removed when Ralph Nader was taken off the ballot.

—A polling station in a conservative evangelical church in Miami County, Ohio, recorded an impossibly high turnout of 98 percent, while a polling place in Democratic inner-city Cleveland recorded an impossibly low turnout of 7 percent.

—Latino, Native American, and African American voters in New Mexico who favored Kerry by two to one were five times more likely to have their ballots spoiled and discarded in districts supervised by Republican election officials. Many were given provisional ballots that subsequently were never counted. In these same Democratic areas Bush “won” an astonishing 68 to 31 percent upset victory. One Republican judge in New Mexico discarded hundreds of provisional ballots cast for Kerry, accepting only those that were for Bush.

—Cadres of rightwing activists, many of them religious fundamentalists, were financed by the Republican Party. Deployed to key Democratic precincts, they handed out flyers warning that voters who had unpaid parking tickets, an arrest record, or owed child support would be arrested at the polls—all untrue. They went door to door offering to “deliver” absentee ballots to the proper office, and announcing that Republicans were to vote on Tuesday (election day) and Democrats on Wednesday.

—Democratic poll watchers in Ohio, Arizona, and other states, who tried to monitor election night vote counting, were menaced and shut out by squads of GOP toughs. In Warren County, Ohio, immediately after the polls closed Republican officials announced a “terrorist attack” alert, and ordered the press to leave. They then moved all ballots to a warehouse where the counting was conducted in secret, producing an amazingly high tally for Bush, some 14,000 more votes than he had received in 2000. It wasn’t the terrorists who attacked Warren County.

—Bush did remarkably well with phantom populations. The number of his votes in Perry and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio, exceeded the number of registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as 124 percent. In Miami County nearly 19,000 additional votes eerily appeared in Bush’s column after all precincts had reported. In a small conservative suburban precinct of Columbus, where only 638 people were registered, the touchscreen machines tallied 4,258 votes for Bush.

—In almost half of New Mexico’s counties, more votes were reported than were recorded as being cast, and the tallies were consistently in Bush’s favor. These ghostly results were dismissed by New Mexico’s Republican Secretary of State as an “administrative lapse.”

Exit polls showed Kerry solidly ahead of Bush in both the popular vote and the electoral college. Exit polls are an exceptionally accurate measure of elections. In the last three elections in Germany, for example, exit polls were never off by more than three-tenths of one percent.

Unlike ordinary opinion polls, the exit sample is drawn from people who have actually just voted. It rules out those who say they will vote but never make it to the polls, those who cannot be sampled because they have no telephone or otherwise cannot be reached at home, those who are undecided or who change their minds about whom to support, and those who are turned away at the polls for one reason or another.

Exit polls have come to be considered so reliable that international organizations use them to validate election results in countries around the world.

Republicans argued that in 2004 the exit polls were inaccurate because they were taken only in the morning when Kerry voters came out in greater numbers. (Apparently Bush voters sleep late.) In fact, the polling was done at random intervals all through the day, and the evening results were as much favoring Kerry as the early results.

It was also argued that pollsters focused more on women (who favored Kerry) than men, or maybe large numbers of grumpy Republicans were less inclined than cheery Democrats to talk to pollsters. No evidence was put forth to substantiate these fanciful speculations.

Most revealing, the discrepancies between exit polls and official tallies were never random but worked to Bush’s advantage in ten of eleven swing states that were too close to call, sometimes by as much as 9.5 percent as in New Hampshire, an unheard of margin of error for an exit poll. In Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa exit polls registered solid victories for Kerry, yet the official tally in each case went to Bush, a mystifying outcome.

In states that were not hotly contested the exit polls proved quite accurate. Thus exit polls in Utah predicted a Bush victory of 70.8 to 26.4 percent; the actual result was 71.1 to 26.4 percent. In Missouri, where the exit polls predicted a Bush victory of 54 to 46 percent, the final result was 53 to 46 percent.

One explanation for the strange anomalies in vote tallies was found in the widespread use of touchscreen electronic voting machines. These machines produced results that consistently favored Bush over Kerry, often in chillingly consistent contradiction to exit polls.

In 2003 more than 900 computer professionals had signed a petition urging that all touchscreen systems include a verifiable audit trail. Touchscreen voting machines can be easily programmed to go dead on election day or throw votes to the wrong candidate or make votes disappear while leaving the impression that everything is working fine.

A tiny number of operatives can easily access the entire computer network through one machine and thereby change votes at will. The touchscreen machines use trade secret code, and are tested, reviewed, and certified in complete secrecy. Verified counts are impossible because the machines leave no reliable paper trail.

Since the introduction of touchscreen voting, mysterious congressional election results have been increasing. In 2000 and 2002, Senate and House contests and state legislative races in North Carolina, Nebraska, Alabama, Minnesota, Colorado, and elsewhere produced dramatic and puzzling upsets, always at the expense of Democrats who were ahead in the polls.

In some counties in Texas, Virginia, and Ohio, voters who pressed the Democrat’s name found that the Republican candidate was chosen. In Cormal County, Texas, three GOP candidates won by exactly 18,181 votes apiece, a near statistical impossibility.

All of Georgia’s voters used Diebold touchscreen machines in 2002, and Georgia’s incumbent Democratic governor and incumbent Democratic senator, who were both well ahead in the polls just before the election, lost in amazing double-digit voting shifts.

This may be the most telling datum of all: In New Mexico in 2004 Kerry lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, irrespective of income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns. The only thing that consistently correlated with his defeat in those precincts was the presence of the touchscreen machine itself.

In Florida Bush registered inexplicably sharp jumps in his vote (compared to 2000) in counties that used touchscreen machines.

Companies like Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S that market the touchscreen machines are owned by militant supporters of the Republican party. These companies have consistently refused to implement a paper-trail to dispel suspicions and give instant validation to the results of electronic voting. They prefer to keep things secret, claiming proprietary rights, a claim that has been backed in court.

Election officials are not allowed to evaluate the secret software. Apparently corporate trade secrets are more important than voting rights. In effect, corporations have privatized the electoral system, leaving it easily susceptible to fixed outcomes. Given this situation, it is not likely that the GOP will lose control of Congress come November 2006. The two-party monopoly threatens to become an even worse one-party tyranny.

Michael Parenti’s recent books include The Assassination of Julius Caesar (New Press), Superpatriotism (City Lights), and The Culture Struggle (Seven Stories Press). For more information visit: www.michaelparenti.org.

Re-Posted from ZNet

The One-Two Punch: Disenfranchise Voters & Miscount the Votes
A. Disenfranchisement: Suppress the Vote!
B. E-Voting Problems: Many Different Systems, Different States, Different Elections
C. What You Can Do
D. Voting Systems: Election integrity requires openness & transparency.
E. The Elephant in the Room
F. Common Cause Recommends
G. Online Videos & Interactive
H. Books
I. The BEST Websites & Online Resources

The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush — and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory as nut cases in ”tinfoil hats,” while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ”conspiracy theories,”(1) and The New York Times declared that ”there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.”(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots — or received them too late to vote(4) — after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment — roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America’s voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ”We didn’t have one election for president in 2004,” says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ”We didn’t have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.”

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) — more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio’s Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn?t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

”It was terrible,” says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ”People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct — it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I’m terribly disheartened.”

Indeed, the extent of the GOP’s effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ”Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,” Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ”You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.”

I. The Exit Polls
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren’t just off the mark — they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)

Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent.(17) ”Exit polls are almost never wrong,” Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ”so reliable,” he added, ”that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.”(18) In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down.(19) And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.(20)

But that same month, when exit polls revealed disturbing disparities in the U.S. election, the six media organizations that had commissioned the survey treated its very existence as an embarrassment. Instead of treating the discrepancies as a story meriting investigation, the networks scrubbed the offending results from their Web sites and substituted them with ”corrected” numbers that had been weighted, retroactively, to match the official vote count. Rather than finding fault with the election results, the mainstream media preferred to dismiss the polls as flawed.(21)

”The people who ran the exit polling, and all those of us who were their clients, recognized that it was deeply flawed,” says Tom Brokaw, who served as anchor for NBC News during the 2004 election. ”They were really screwed up — the old models just don’t work anymore. I would not go on the air with them again.”

In fact, the exit poll created for the 2004 election was designed to be the most reliable voter survey in history. The six news organizations — running the ideological gamut from CBS to Fox News — retained Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International,(22) whose principal, Warren Mitofsky, pioneered the exit poll for CBS in 1967(23) and is widely credited with assuring the credibility of Mexico’s elections in 1994.(24) For its nationwide poll, Edison/Mitofsky selected a random subsample of 12,219 voters(25) — approximately six times larger than those normally used in national polls(26) — driving the margin of error down to approximately plus or minus one percent.(27)

On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush’s 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)

As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states — including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida — and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush’s neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina.(30) Against these numbers, the statistical likelihood of Bush winning was less than one in 450,000.(31) ”Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,” a Fox News analyst declared, ”or George Bush loses.”(32)

But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities — as much as 9.5 percent — with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)

According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ”As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,” he says, ”it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.” (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

Puzzled by the discrepancies, Freeman laboriously examined the raw polling data released by Edison/Mitofsky in January 2005. ”I’m not even political — I despise the Democrats,” he says. ”I’m a survey expert. I got into this because I was mystified about how the exit polls could have been so wrong.” In his forthcoming book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, Freeman lays out a statistical analysis of the polls that is deeply troubling.

In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology — so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) — displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry’s favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

Industry peers didn’t buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation’s leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky’s ”reluctant responder” hypothesis is ”preposterous.”(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ”It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.”(37)

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky’s own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters’ questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey — compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ”The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,” observes Freeman, ”but actually contradicts it.”

What’s more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent — a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)

”When you look at the numbers, there is a tremendous amount of data that supports the supposition of election fraud,” concludes Freeman. ”The discrepancies are higher in battleground states, higher where there were Republican governors, higher in states with greater proportions of African-American communities and higher in states where there were the most Election Day complaints. All these are strong indicators of fraud — and yet this supposition has been utterly ignored by the press and, oddly, by the Democratic Party.”

The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state’s exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts — nearly half of those polled — they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again — against all odds — the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush’s favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered ”27,” in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.(40)

Such results, according to the archive, provide ”virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.” The discrepancies, the experts add, ”are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio’s electoral votes if Ohio’s official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent.”(41) According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, ”No rigorous statistical explanation” can explain the ”completely nonrandom” disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are ”completely consistent with election fraud — specifically vote shifting.”

II. The Partisan Official
No state was more important in the 2004 election than Ohio. The state has been key to every Republican presidential victory since Abraham Lincoln’s, and both parties overwhelmed the state with television ads, field organizers and volunteers in an effort to register new voters and energize old ones. Bush and Kerry traveled to Ohio a total of forty-nine times during the campaign — more than to any other state.(42)

But in the battle for Ohio, Republicans had a distinct advantage: The man in charge of the counting was Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of President Bush’s re-election committee.(43) As Ohio’s secretary of state, Blackwell had broad powers to interpret and implement state and federal election laws — setting standards for everything from the processing of voter registration to the conduct of official recounts.(44) And as Bush’s re-election chair in Ohio, he had a powerful motivation to rig the rules for his candidate. Blackwell, in fact, served as the ”principal electoral system adviser” for Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida,(45) where he witnessed firsthand the success of his counterpart Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who co-chaired Bush’s campaign there.(46)

Blackwell — now the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio(47) — is well-known in the state as a fierce partisan eager to rise in the GOP. An outspoken leader of Ohio’s right-wing fundamentalists, he opposes abortion even in cases of rape(48) and was the chief cheerleader for the anti-gay-marriage amendment that Republicans employed to spark turnout in rural counties(49). He has openly denounced Kerry as ”an unapologetic liberal Democrat,”(50) and during the 2004 election he used his official powers to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens in Democratic strongholds. In a ruling issued two weeks before the election, a federal judge rebuked Blackwell for seeking to ”accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”(51)

”The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections — not throw them,” says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Cleveland who has dealt with Blackwell for years. ”The election in Ohio in 2004 stands out as an example of how, under color of law, a state election official can frustrate the exercise of the right to vote.”

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52) Frustrated by his party’s failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee’s minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ”massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.” The problems, the report concludes, were ”caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.”(54)

”Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,” Conyers told me. ”He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.”

When ROLLING STONE confronted Blackwell about his overtly partisan attempts to subvert the election, he dismissed any such claim as ”silly on its face.” Ohio, he insisted in a telephone interview, set a ”gold standard” for electoral fairness. In fact, his campaign to subvert the will of the voters had begun long before Election Day. Instead of welcoming the avalanche of citizen involvement sparked by the campaign, Blackwell permitted election officials in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo to conduct a massive purge of their voter rolls, summarily expunging the names of more than 300,000 voters who had failed to cast ballots in the previous two national elections.(55) In Cleveland, which went five-to-one for Kerry, nearly one in four voters were wiped from the rolls between 2000 and 2004.(56)

There were legitimate reasons to clean up voting lists: Many of the names undoubtedly belonged to people who had moved or died. But thousands more were duly registered voters who were deprived of their constitutional right to vote — often without any notification — simply because they had decided not to go to the polls in prior elections.(57) In Cleveland’s precinct 6C, where more than half the voters on the rolls were deleted,(58) turnout was only 7.1 percent(59) — the lowest in the state.

According to the Conyers report, improper purging ”likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide.”(60) If only one in ten of the 300,000 purged voters showed up on Election Day — a conservative estimate, according to election scholars — that is 30,000 citizens who were unfairly denied the opportunity to cast ballots.

III. The Strike Force
In the months leading up to the election, Ohio was in the midst of the biggest registration drive in its history. Tens of thousands of volunteers and paid political operatives from both parties canvassed the state, racing to register new voters in advance of the October 4th deadline. To those on the ground, it was clear that Democrats were outpacing their Republican counterparts: A New York Times analysis before the election found that new registrations in traditional Democratic strongholds were up 250 percent, compared to only twenty-five percent in Republican-leaning counties.(61) ”The Democrats have been beating the pants off us in the air and on the ground,” a GOP county official in Columbus confessed to The Washington Times.(62)

To stem the tide of new registrations, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party attempted to knock tens of thousands of predominantly minority and urban voters off the rolls through illegal mailings known in electioneering jargon as ”caging.” During the Eighties, after the GOP used such mailings to disenfranchise nearly 76,000 black voters in New Jersey and Louisiana, it was forced to sign two separate court orders agreeing to abstain from caging.(63) But during the summer of 2004, the GOP targeted minority voters in Ohio by zip code, sending registered letters to more than 200,000 newly registered voters(64) in sixty-five counties.(65) On October 22nd, a mere eleven days before the election, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett — who also chairs the board of elections in Cuyahoga County — sought to invalidate the registrations of 35,427 voters who had refused to sign for the letters or whose mail came back as undeliverable.(66) Almost half of the challenged voters were from Democratic strongholds in and around Cleveland.(67)

There were plenty of valid reasons that voters had failed to respond to the mailings: The list included people who couldn’t sign for the letters because they were serving in the U.S. military, college students whose school and home addresses differed,(68) and more than 1,000 homeless people who had no permanent mailing address.(69) But the undeliverable mail, Bennett claimed, proved the new registrations were fraudulent.

By law, each voter was supposed to receive a hearing before being stricken from the rolls.(70) Instead, in the week before the election, kangaroo courts were rapidly set up across the state at Blackwell’s direction that would inevitably disenfranchise thousands of voters at a time(71) — a process that one Democratic election official in Toledo likened to an ”inquisition.”(72) Not that anyone was given a chance to actually show up and defend their right to vote: Notices to challenged voters were not only sent out impossibly late in the process, they were mailed to the very addresses that the Republicans contended were faulty.(73) Adding to the atmosphere of intimidation, sheriff’s detectives in Sandusky County were dispatched to the homes of challenged voters to investigate the GOP’s claims of fraud.(74)

”I’m afraid this is going to scare these people half to death, and they are never going to show up on Election Day,” Barb Tuckerman, director of the Sandusky Board of Elections, told local reporters. ”Many of them are young people who have registered for the first time. I’ve called some of these people, and they are perfectly legitimate.”(75)

On October 27th, ruling that the effort likely violated both the ”constitutional right to due process and constitutional right to vote,” U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott put a halt to the GOP challenge(76) — but not before tens of thousands of new voters received notices claiming they were improperly registered. Some election officials in the state illegally ignored Dlott’s ruling, stripping hundreds of voters from the rolls.(77) In Columbus and elsewhere, challenged registrants were never notified that the court had cleared them to vote.

On October 29th, a federal judge found that the Republican Party had violated the court orders from the Eighties that barred it from caging. ”The return of mail does not implicate fraud,” the court affirmed,(78) and the disenfranchisement effort illegally targeted ”precincts where minority voters predominate, interfering with and discouraging voters from voting in those districts.”(79) Nor were such caging efforts limited to Ohio: The GOP also targeted hundreds of thousands of urban voters in the battleground states of Florida,(80) Pennsylvania(81) and Wisconsin.(82)

Republicans in Ohio also worked to deny the vote to citizens who had served jail time for felonies. Although rehabilitated prisoners are entitled to vote in Ohio, election officials in Cincinnati demanded that former convicts get a judge to sign off before they could register to vote.(83) In case they didn’t get the message, Republican operatives turned to intimidation. According to the Conyers report, a team of twenty-five GOP volunteers calling themselves the Mighty Texas Strike Force holed up at the Holiday Inn in Columbus a day before the election, around the corner from the headquarters of the Ohio Republican Party — which paid for their hotel rooms. The men were overheard by a hotel worker ”using pay phones to make intimidating calls to likely voters” and threatening former convicts with jail time if they tried to cast ballots.(84)

This was no freelance operation. The Strike Force — an offshoot of the Republican National Committee(85) — was part of a team of more than 1,500 volunteers from Texas who were deployed to battleground states, usually in teams of ten. Their leader was Pat Oxford, (86) a Houston lawyer who managed Bush’s legal defense team in 2000 in Florida,(87) where he warmly praised the efforts of a mob that stormed the Miami-Dade County election offices and halted the recount. It was later revealed that those involved in the ”Brooks Brothers Riot” were not angry Floridians but paid GOP staffers, many of them flown in from out of state.(88) Photos of the protest show that one of the ”rioters” was Joel Kaplan, who has just taken the place of Karl Rove at the White House, where he now directs the president’s policy operations.(89)

IV. Barriers to Registration
To further monkey-wrench the process he was bound by law to safeguard, Blackwell cited an arcane elections regulation to make it harder to register new voters. In a now-infamous decree, Blackwell announced on September 7th — less than a month before the filing deadline — that election officials would process registration forms only if they were printed on eighty-pound unwaxed white paper stock, similar to a typical postcard. Justifying his decision to ROLLING STONE, Blackwell portrayed it as an attempt to protect voters: ”The postal service had recommended to us that we establish a heavy enough paper-weight standard that we not disenfranchise voters by having their registration form damaged by postal equipment.” Yet Blackwell’s order also applied to registrations delivered in person to election offices. He further specified that any valid registration cards printed on lesser paper stock that miraculously survived the shredding gauntlet at the post office were not to be processed; instead, they were to be treated as applications for a registration form, requiring election boards to send out a brand-new card.(90)

Blackwell’s directive clearly violated the Voting Rights Act, which stipulates that no one may be denied the right to vote because of a registration error that ”is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote.”(91) The decision immediately threw registration efforts into chaos. Local newspapers that had printed registration forms in their pages saw their efforts invalidated.(92) Delaware County posted a notice online saying it could no longer accept its own registration forms.(93) Even Blackwell couldn’t follow the protocol: The Columbus Dispatch reported that his own staff distributed registration forms on lighter-weight paper that was illegal under his rule. Under the threat of court action, Blackwell ultimately revoked his order on September 28th — six days before the registration deadline.(94)

But by then, the damage was done. Election boards across the state, already understaffed and backlogged with registration forms, were unable to process them all in time. According to a statistical analysis conducted in May by the nonpartisan Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, 16,000 voters in and around the city were disenfranchised because of data-entry errors by election officials,(95) and another 15,000 lost the right to vote due to largely inconsequential omissions on their registration cards.(96) Statewide, the study concludes, a total of 72,000 voters were disenfranchised through avoidable registration errors — one percent of all voters in an election decided by barely two percent.(97)

Despite the widespread problems, Blackwell authorized only one investigation of registration errors after the election — in Toledo — but the report by his own inspectors offers a disturbing snapshot of the malfeasance and incompetence that plagued the entire state.(98) The top elections official in Toledo was a partisan in the Blackwell mold: Bernadette Noe, who chaired both the county board of elections and the county Republican Party.(99) The GOP post was previously held by her husband, Tom Noe,(100) who currently faces felony charges for embezzling state funds and illegally laundering $45,400 of his own money through intermediaries to the Bush campaign.(101)

State inspectors who investigated the elections operation in Toledo discovered ”areas of grave concern.”(102) With less than a month to go before the election, Bernadette Noe and her board had yet to process 20,000 voter registration cards.(103) Board officials arbitrarily decided that mail-in cards (mostly from the Republican suburbs) would be processed first, while registrations dropped off at the board’s office (the fruit of intensive Democratic registration drives in the city) would be processed last.(104) When a grass-roots group called Project Vote delivered a batch of nearly 10,000 cards just before the October 4th deadline, an elections official casually remarked, ”We may not get to them.”(105) The same official then instructed employees to date-stamp an entire box containing thousands of forms, rather than marking each individual card, as required by law.(106) When the box was opened, officials had no way of confirming that the forms were filed prior to the deadline — an error, state inspectors concluded, that could have disenfranchised ”several thousand” voters from Democratic strongholds.(107)

The most troubling incident uncovered by the investigation was Noe’s decision to allow Republican partisans behind the counter in the board of elections office to make photocopies of postcards sent to confirm voter registrations(108) — records that could have been used in the GOP’s caging efforts. On their second day in the office, the operatives were caught by an elections official tampering with the documents.(109) Investigators slammed the elections board for ”a series of egregious blunders” that caused ”the destruction, mutilation and damage of public records.”(110)

On Election Day, Noe sent a team of Republican volunteers to the county warehouse where blank ballots were kept out in the open, ”with no security measures in place.”(111) The state’s assistant director of elections, who just happened to be observing the ballot distribution, demanded they leave. The GOP operatives refused and ultimately had to be turned away by police.(112)

In April 2005, Noe and the entire Board of Elections were forced to resign. But once again, the damage was done. At a ”Victory 2004” rally held in Toledo four days before the election, President Bush himself singled out a pair of ”grass-roots” activists for special praise: ”I want to thank my friends Bernadette Noe and Tom Noe for their leadership in Lucas County.”(113)

V. ”The Wrong Pew”
In one of his most effective maneuvers, Blackwell prevented thousands of voters from receiving provisional ballots on Election Day. The fail-safe ballots were mandated in 2002, when Congress passed a package of reforms called the Help America Vote Act. This would prevent a repeat of the most egregious injustice in the 2000 election, when officials in Florida barred thousands of lawfully registered minority voters from the polls because their names didn’t appear on flawed precinct rolls. Under the law, would-be voters whose registration is questioned at the polls must be allowed to cast provisional ballots that can be counted after the election if the voter’s registration proves valid.(114)

”Provisional ballots were supposed to be this great movement forward,” says Tova Andrea Wang, an elections expert who served with ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford on the commission that laid the groundwork for the Help America Vote Act. ”But then different states erected barriers, and this new right became totally eviscerated.”

In Ohio, Blackwell worked from the beginning to curtail the availability of provisional ballots. (The ballots are most often used to protect voters in heavily Democratic urban areas who move often, creating more opportunities for data-entry errors by election boards.) Six weeks before the vote, Blackwell illegally decreed that poll workers should make on-the-spot judgments as to whether or not a voter lived in the precinct, and provide provisional ballots only to those deemed eligible.(115) When the ruling was challenged in federal court, Judge James Carr could barely contain his anger. The very purpose of the Help America Vote Act, he ruled, was to make provisional ballots available to voters told by precinct workers that they were ineligible: ”By not even mentioning this group — the primary beneficiaries of HAVA’s provisional-voting provisions — Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”(116)

But instead of complying with the judge’s order to expand provisional balloting, Blackwell insisted that Carr was usurping his power as secretary of state and made a speech in which he compared himself to Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the apostle Paul — saying that he’d rather go to jail than follow federal law.(117) The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Carr’s ruling on October 23rd — but the confusion over the issue still caused untold numbers of voters across the state to be illegally turned away at the polls on Election Day without being offered provisional ballots.(118) A federal judge also invalidated a decree by Blackwell that denied provisional ballots to absentee voters who were never sent their ballots in the mail. But that ruling did not come down until after 3 p.m. on the day of the election, and likely failed to filter down to the precinct level at all — denying the franchise to even more eligible voters.(119)

We will never know for certain how many voters in Ohio were denied ballots by Blackwell’s two illegal orders. But it is possible to put a fairly precise number on those turned away by his most disastrous directive. Traditionally, anyone in Ohio who reported to a polling station in their county could obtain a provisional ballot. But Blackwell decided to toss out the ballots of anyone who showed up at the wrong precinct — a move guaranteed to disenfranchise Democrats who live in urban areas crowded with multiple polling places. On October 14th, Judge Carr overruled the order, but Blackwell appealed.(120) In court, he was supported by his friend and campaign contributor Tom Noe, who joined the case as an intervenor on behalf of the secretary of state.(121) He also enjoyed the backing of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who filed an amicus brief in support of Blackwell’s position — marking the first time in American history that the Justice Department had gone to court to block the right of voters to vote.(122) The Sixth Circuit, stacked with four judges appointed by George W. Bush, sided with Blackwell.(123)

Blackwell insists that his decision kept the election clean. ”If we had allowed this notion of ?voters without borders’ to exist,” he says, ”it would have opened the door to massive fraud.” But even Republicans were shocked by the move. DeForest Soaries, the GOP chairman of the Election Assistance Commission — the federal agency set up to implement the Help America Vote Act — upbraided Blackwell, saying that the commission disagreed with his decision to deny ballots to voters who showed up at the wrong precinct. ”The purpose of provisional ballots is to not turn anyone away from the polls,” Soaries explained. ”We want as many votes to count as possible.”(124)

The decision left hundreds of thousands of voters in predominantly Democratic counties to navigate the state’s bewildering array of 11,366 precincts, whose boundaries had been redrawn just prior to the election.(125) To further compound their confusion, the new precinct lines were misidentified on the secretary of state’s own Web site, which was months out of date on Election Day. Many voters, out of habit, reported to polling locations that were no longer theirs. Some were mistakenly assured by poll workers on the grounds that they were entitled to cast a provisional ballot at that precinct. Instead, thanks to Blackwell’s ruling, at least 10,000 provisional votes were tossed out after Election Day simply because citizens wound up in the wrong line.(126)

In Toledo, Brandi and Brittany Stenson each got in a different line to vote in the gym at St. Elizabeth Seton School. Both of the sisters were registered to vote at the polling place on the city’s north side, in the shadow of the giant DaimlerChrysler plant. Both cast ballots. But when the tallies were added up later, the family resemblance came to an abrupt end. Brittany’s vote was counted — but Brandi’s wasn’t. It wasn’t enough that she had voted in the right building. If she wanted her vote to count, according to Blackwell’s ruling, she had to choose the line that led to her assigned table. Her ballot — along with those of her mother, her brother and thirty-seven other voters in the same precinct — were thrown out(127) simply because they were, in the words of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), ”in the right church but the wrong pew.”(128)

All told, the deliberate chaos that resulted from Blackwell’s registration barriers did the trick. Black voters in the state — who went overwhelmingly for Kerry — were twenty percent more likely than whites to be forced to cast a provisional ballot.(129) In the end, nearly three percent of all voters in Ohio were forced to vote provisionally(130) — and more than 35,000 of their ballots were ultimately rejected.(131)

VI. Long Lines
When Election Day dawned on November 2nd, tens of thousands of Ohio voters who had managed to overcome all the obstacles to registration erected by Blackwell discovered that it didn’t matter whether they were properly listed on the voting rolls — because long lines at their precincts prevented them from ever making it to the ballot box. Would-be voters in Dayton and Cincinnati routinely faced waits as long as three hours. Those in inner-city precincts in Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo — which were voting for Kerry by margins of ninety percent or more — often waited up to seven hours. At Kenyon College, students were forced to stand in line for eleven hours before being allowed to vote, with the last voters casting their ballots after three in the morning.(132)

A five-month analysis of the Ohio vote conducted by the Democratic National Committee concluded in June 2005 that three percent of all Ohio voters who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot.(133) That’s more than 174,000 voters. ”The vast majority of this lost vote,” concluded the Conyers report, ”was concentrated in urban, minority and Democratic-leaning areas.”(134) Statewide, African-Americans waited an average of fifty-two minutes to vote, compared to only eighteen minutes for whites.(135)

The long lines were not only foreseeable — they were actually created by GOP efforts. Republicans in the state legislature, citing new electronic voting machines that were supposed to speed voting, authorized local election boards to reduce the number of precincts across Ohio. In most cases, the new machines never materialized — but that didn’t stop officials in twenty of the state’s eighty-eight counties, all of them favorable to Democrats, from slashing the number of precincts by at least twenty percent.(136)

Republican officials also created long lines by failing to distribute enough voting machines to inner-city precincts. After the Florida disaster in 2000, such problems with machines were supposed to be a thing of the past. Under the Help America Vote Act, Ohio received more than $30 million in federal funds to replace its faulty punch-card machines with more reliable systems.(137) But on Election Day, that money was sitting in the bank. Why? Because Ken Blackwell had applied for an extension until 2006, insisting that there was no point in buying electronic machines that would later have to be retrofitted under Ohio law to generate paper ballots.(138)

”No one has ever accused our secretary of state of lacking in ability,” says Rep. Kucinich. ”He’s a rather bright fellow, and he’s involved in the most minute details of his office. There’s no doubt that he knew the effect of not having enough voting machines in some areas.”

At liberal Kenyon College, where students had registered in record numbers, local election officials provided only two voting machines to handle the anticipated surge of up to 1,300 voters. Meanwhile, fundamentalist students at nearby Mount Vernon Nazarene University had one machine for 100 voters and faced no lines at all.(139) Citing the lines at Kenyon, the Conyers report concluded that the ”misallocation of machines went beyond urban/suburban discrepancies to specifically target Democratic areas.”(140)

In Columbus, which had registered 125,000 new voters(141) — more than half of them black(142) — the board of elections estimated that it would need 5,000 machines to handle the huge surge.(143) ”On Election Day, the county experienced an unprecedented turnout that could only be compared to a 500-year flood,” says Matt Damschroder,(144) chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections and the former head of the Republican Party in Columbus.(145) But instead of buying more equipment, the Conyers investigation found, Damschroder decided to ”make do” with 2,741 machines.(146) And to make matters worse, he favored his own party in distributing the equipment. According to The Columbus Dispatch, precincts that had gone seventy percent or more for Al Gore in 2000 were allocated seventeen fewer machines in 2004, while strong GOP precincts received eight additional machines.(147) An analysis by voter advocates found that all but three of the thirty wards with the best voter-to-machine ratios were in Bush strongholds; all but one of the seven with the worst ratios were in Kerry country.(148)

The result was utterly predictable. According to an investigation by the Columbus Free Press, white Republican suburbanites, blessed with a surplus of machines, averaged waits of only twenty-two minutes; black urban Democrats averaged three hours and fifteen minutes.(149) ”The allocation of voting machines in Franklin County was clearly biased against voters in precincts with high proportions of African-Americans,” concluded Walter Mebane Jr., a government professor at Cornell University who conducted a statistical analysis of the vote in and around Columbus.(150)

By midmorning, when it became clear that voters were dropping out of line rather than braving the wait, precincts appealed for the right to distribute paper ballots to speed the process. Blackwell denied the request, saying it was an invitation to fraud.(151) A lawsuit ensued, and the handwritten affidavits submitted by voters and election officials offer a heart-rending snapshot of an electoral catastrophe in the offing:(152)

From Columbus Precinct 44D:
”There are three voting machines at this precinct. I have been informed that in prior elections there were normally four voting machines. At 1:45 p.m. there are approximately eighty-five voters in line. At this time, the line to vote is approximately three hours long. This precinct is largely African-American. I have personally witnessed voters leaving the polling place without voting due to the length of the line.”

From Precinct 40:
”I am serving as a presiding judge, a position I have held for some 15+ years in precinct 40. In all my years of service, the lines are by far the longest I have seen, with some waiting as long as four to five hours. I expect the situation to only worsen as the early evening heavy turnout approaches. I have requested additional machines since 6:40 a.m. and no assistance has been offered.”

Precinct 65H:
”I observed a broken voting machine that was not in use for approximately two hours. The precinct judge was very diligent but could not get through to the BOE.”

Precinct 18A:
”At 4 p.m. the average wait time is about 4.5 hours and continuing to increase?. Voters are continuing to leave without voting.”

As day stretched into evening, U.S. District Judge Algernon Marbley issued a temporary restraining order requiring that voters be offered paper ballots.(153) But it was too late: According to bipartisan estimates published in The Washington Post, as many as 15,000 voters in Columbus had already given up and gone home.(154) When closing time came at the polls, according to the Conyers report, some precinct workers illegally dismissed citizens who had waited for hours in the rain — in direct violation of Ohio law, which stipulates that those in line at closing time are allowed to remain and vote.(155)

The voters disenfranchised by long lines were overwhelmingly Democrats. Because of the unequal distribution of voting equipment, the median turnout in Franklin County precincts won by Kerry was fifty-one percent, compared to sixty-one percent in those won by Bush. Assuming sixty percent turnout under more equitable conditions, Kerry would have gained an additional 17,000 votes in the county.(156)

In another move certain to add to the traffic jam at the polls, the GOP deployed 3,600 operatives on Election Day to challenge voters in thirty-one counties — most of them in predominantly black and urban areas.(157) Although it was billed as a means to ”ensure that voters are not disenfranchised by fraud,”(158) Republicans knew that the challengers would inevitably create delays for eligible voters. Even Mark Weaver, the GOP’s attorney in Ohio, predicted in late October that the move would ”create chaos, longer lines and frustration.”(159)

The day before the election, Judge Dlott attempted to halt the challengers, ruling that ”there exists an enormous risk of chaos, delay, intimidation and pandemonium inside the polls and in the lines out the doors.” Dlott was also troubled by the placement of Republican challengers: In Hamilton County, fourteen percent of new voters in white areas would be confronted at the polls, compared to ninety-seven percent of new voters in black areas.(160) But when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court on Election Day, Justice John Paul Stevens allowed the challenges to go forward. ”I have faith,” he ruled, ”that the elected officials and numerous election volunteers on the ground will carry out their responsibilities in a way that will enable qualified voters to cast their ballots.”(161)

In fact, Blackwell gave Republican challengers unprecedented access to polling stations, where they intimidated voters, worsening delays in Democratic precincts. By the end of the day, thanks to a whirlwind of legal wrangling, the GOP had even gotten permission to use the discredited list of 35,000 names from its illegal caging effort to challenge would-be voters.(162) According to the survey by the DNC, nearly 5,000 voters across the state were turned away at the polls because of registration challenges — even though federal law required that they be provided with provisional ballots.(163)

VII. Faulty Machines
Voters who managed to make it past the array of hurdles erected by Republican officials found themselves confronted by voting machines that didn’t work. Only 800,000 out of the 5.6 million votes in Ohio were cast on electronic voting machines, but they were plagued with errors.(164) In heavily Democratic areas around Youngstown, where nearly 100 voters reported entering ”Kerry” on the touch screen and watching ”Bush” light up, at least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for chronically flipping Kerry votes to Bush.(165) (Similar ”vote hopping” from Kerry to Bush was reported by voters and election officials in other states.)(166) Elsewhere, voters complained in sworn affidavits that they touched Kerry’s name on the screen and it lit up, but that the light had gone out by the time they finished their ballot; the Kerry vote faded away.(167) In the state’s most notorious incident, an electronic machine at a fundamentalist church in the town of Gahanna recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry.(168) In that precinct, however, there were only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up.(169) (The error, which was later blamed on a glitchy memory card, was corrected before the certified vote count.)

In addition to problems with electronic machines, Ohio’s vote was skewed by old-fashioned punch-card equipment that posed what even Blackwell acknowledged was the risk of a ”Florida-like calamity.”(170) All but twenty of the state’s counties relied on antiquated machines that were virtually guaranteed to destroy votes(171) — many of which were counted by automatic tabulators manufactured by Triad Governmental Systems,(172) the same company that supplied Florida’s notorious butterfly ballot in 2000. In fact, some 95,000 ballots in Ohio recorded no vote for president at all — most of them on punch-card machines. Even accounting for the tiny fraction of voters in each election who decide not to cast votes for president — generally in the range of half a percent, according to Ohio State law professor and respected elections scholar Dan Tokaji — that would mean that at least 66,000 votes were invalidated by faulty voting equipment.(173) If counted by hand instead of by automated tabulator, the vast majority of these votes would have been discernable. But thanks to a corrupt recount process, only one county hand-counted its ballots.(174)

Most of the uncounted ballots occurred in Ohio’s big cities. In Cleveland, where nearly 13,000 votes were ruined, a New York Times analysis found that black precincts suffered more than twice the rate of spoiled ballots than white districts.(175) In Dayton, Kerry-leaning precincts had nearly twice the number of spoiled ballots as Bush-leaning precincts.(176) Last April, a federal court ruled that Ohio’s use of punch-card balloting violated the equal-protection rights of the citizens who voted on them.(177)

In addition to spoiling ballots, the punch-card machines also created bizarre miscounts known as ”ballot crawl.” In Cleveland Precinct 4F, a heavily African-American precinct, Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka was credited with an impressive forty-one percent of the vote. In Precinct 4N, where Al Gore won ninety-eight percent of the vote in 2000, Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik was credited with thirty-three percent of the vote. Badnarik and Peroutka also picked up a sizable portion of the vote in precincts across Cleveland — 11M, 3B, 8G, 8I, 3I.(178) ”It appears that hundreds, if not thousands, of votes intended to be cast for Senator Kerry were recorded as being for a third-party candidate,” the Conyers report concludes.(179)

But it’s not just third-party candidates: Ballot crawl in Cleveland also shifted votes from Kerry to Bush. In Precinct 13B, where Bush received only six votes in 2000, he was credited with twenty percent of the total in 2004. Same story in 9P, where Bush recorded eighty-seven votes in 2004, compared to his grand total of one in 2000.(180)

VIII. Rural Counties
Despite the well-documented effort that prevented hundreds of thousands of voters in urban and minority precincts from casting ballots, the worst theft in Ohio may have quietly taken place in rural counties. An examination of election data suggests widespread fraud — and even good old-fashioned stuffing of ballot boxes — in twelve sparsely populated counties scattered across southern and western Ohio: Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren. (See The Twelve Suspect Counties) One key indicator of fraud is to look at counties where the presidential vote departs radically from other races on the ballot. By this measure, John Kerry’s numbers were suspiciously low in each of the twelve counties — and George Bush’s were unusually high.

Take the case of Ellen Connally, a Democrat who lost her race for chief justice of the state Supreme Court. When the ballots were counted, Kerry should have drawn far more votes than Connally — a liberal black judge who supports gay rights and campaigned on a shoestring budget. And that’s exactly what happened statewide: Kerry tallied 667,000 more votes for president than Connally did for chief justice, outpolling her by a margin of thirty-two percent. Yet in these twelve off-the-radar counties, Connally somehow managed to outperform the best-funded Democrat in history, thumping Kerry by a grand total of 19,621 votes — a margin of ten percent.(181) The Conyers report — recognizing that thousands of rural Bush voters were unlikely to have backed a gay-friendly black judge roundly rejected in Democratic precincts — suggests that ”thousands of votes for Senator Kerry were lost.”(182)

Kucinich, a veteran of elections in the state, puts it even more bluntly. ”Down-ticket candidates shouldn’t outperform presidential candidates like that,” he says. ”That just doesn’t happen. The question is: Where did the votes for Kerry go?”

They certainly weren’t invalidated by faulty voting equipment: a trifling one percent of presidential ballots in the twelve suspect counties were spoiled. The more likely explanation is that they were fraudulently shifted to Bush. Statewide, the president outpolled Thomas Moyer, the Republican judge who defeated Connally, by twenty-one percent. Yet in the twelve questionable counties, Bush’s margin over Moyer was fifty percent — a strong indication that the president’s certified vote total was inflated. If Kerry had maintained his statewide margin over Connally in the twelve suspect counties, as he almost assuredly would have done in a clean election, he would have bested her by 81,260 ballots. That’s a swing of 162,520 votes from Kerry to Bush — more than enough to alter the outcome. (183)

”This is very strong evidence that the count is off in those counties,” says Freeman, the poll analyst. ”By itself, without anything else, what happened in these twelve counties turns Ohio into a Kerry state. To me, this provides every indication of fraud.”

How might this fraud have been carried out? One way to steal votes is to tamper with individual ballots — and there is evidence that Republicans did just that. In Clermont County, where optical scanners were used to tabulate votes, sworn affidavits by election observers given to the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were filled in to replace them. Rep. Conyers, in a letter to the FBI, described the testimony as ”strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud.” (184) In Miami County, where Connally outpaced Kerry, one precinct registered a turnout of 98.55 percent (185) — meaning that all but ten eligible voters went to the polls on Election Day. An investigation by the Columbus Free Press, however, collected affidavits from twenty-five people who swear they didn’t vote. (186)

In addition to altering individual ballots, evidence suggests that Republicans tampered with the software used to tabulate votes. In Auglaize County, where Kerry lost not only to Connally but to two other defeated Democratic judicial candidates, voters cast their ballots on touch-screen machines. (187) Two weeks before the election, an employee of ES&S, the company that manufactures the machines, was observed by a local election official making an unauthorized log-in to the central computer used to compile election results. (188) In Miami County, after 100 percent of precincts had already reported their official results, an additional 18,615 votes were inexplicably added to the final tally. The last-minute alteration awarded 12,000 of the votes to Bush, boosting his margin of victory in the county by nearly 6,000. (189)

The most transparently crooked incident took place in Warren County. In the leadup to the election, Blackwell had illegally sought to keep reporters and election observers at least 100 feet away from the polls. (190) The Sixth Circuit, ruling that the decree represented an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, noted ominously that ”democracies die behind closed doors.” But the decision didn’t stop officials in Warren County from devising a way to count the vote in secret. Immediately after the polls closed on Election Day, GOP officials — citing the FBI — declared that the county was facing a terrorist threat that ranked ten on a scale of one to ten. The county administration building was hastily locked down, allowing election officials to tabulate the results without any reporters present.

In fact, there was no terrorist threat. The FBI declared that it had issued no such warning, and an investigation by The Cincinnati Enquirer unearthed e-mails showing that the Republican plan to declare a terrorist alert had been in the works for eight days prior to the election. Officials had even refined the plot down to the language they used on signs notifying the public of a lockdown. (When ROLLING STONE requested copies of the same e-mails from the county, officials responded that the documents have been destroyed.) (191)

The late-night secrecy in Warren County recalls a classic trick: Results are held back until it’s determined how many votes the favored candidate needs to win, and the totals are then adjusted accordingly. When Warren County finally announced its official results — one of the last counties in the state to do so (192) — the results departed wildly from statewide patterns. John Kerry received 2,426 fewer votes for president than Ellen Connally, the poorly funded black judge, did for chief justice. (193) As the Conyers report concluded, ”It is impossible to rule out the possibility that some sort of manipulation of the tallies occurred on election night in the locked-down facility.” (194)

Nor does the electoral tampering appear to have been isolated to these dozen counties. Ohio, like several other states, had an initiative on the ballot in 2004 to outlaw gay marriage. Statewide, the measure proved far more popular than Bush, besting the president by 470,000 votes. But in six of the twelve suspect counties — as well as in six other small counties in central Ohio — Bush outpolled the ban on same-sex unions by 16,132 votes. To trust the official tally, in other words, you must believe that thousands of rural Ohioans voted for both President Bush and gay marriage. (195)

IX. Rigging the Recount
After Kerry conceded the election, his campaign helped the Libertarian and Green parties pay for a recount of all eighty-eight counties in Ohio. Under state law, county boards of election were required to randomly select three percent of their precincts and recount the ballots both by hand and by machine. If the two totals reconciled exactly, a costly hand recount of the remaining votes could be avoided; machines could be used to tally the rest.

But election officials in Ohio worked outside the law to avoid hand recounts. According to charges brought by a special prosecutor in April, election officials in Cleveland fraudulently and secretly pre-counted precincts by hand to identify ones that would match the machine count. They then used these pre-screened precincts to select the ”random” sample of three percent used for the recount.

”If it didn’t balance, they excluded those precincts,” said the prosecutor, Kevin Baxter, who has filed felony indictments against three election workers in Cleveland. ”They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full, countywide hand count.” (196)

Voting machines were also tinkered with prior to the recount. In Hocking County, deputy elections director Sherole Eaton caught an employee of Triad — which provided the software used to count punch-card ballots in nearly half of Ohio’s counties (197) — making unauthorized modifications to the tabulating computer before the recount. Eaton told the Conyers committee that the same employee also provided county officials with a ”cheat sheet” so that ”the count would come out perfect and we wouldn’t have to do a full hand-recount of the county.” (198) After Eaton blew the whistle on the illegal tampering, she was fired.

(199) The same Triad employee was dispatched to do the same work in at least five other counties. (200) Company president Tod Rapp — who contributed to Bush’s campaign (201) — has confirmed that Triad routinely makes such tabulator adjustments to help election officials avoid hand recounts. In the end, every county serviced by Triad failed to conduct full recounts by hand. (202)

Even more troubling, in at least two counties, Fulton and Henry, Triad was able to connect to tabulating computers remotely via a dial-up connection, and reprogram them to recount only the presidential ballots. (203) If that kind of remote tabulator modification is possible for the purposes of the recount, it’s no great leap to wonder if such modifications might have helped skew the original vote count. But the window for settling such questions is closing rapidly: On November 2nd of this year, on the second anniversary of the election, state officials will be permitted under Ohio law to shred all ballots from the 2004 election. (204)

X. What’s At Stake
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. ”We’re in a terrible fix,” Rep. Conyers told me. ”We’ve got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse — to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That’s why our citizens are not up in arms.”

The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. ”I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers,” he said. ”And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night — and then everything flipped.” Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. ”I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters,” he said. ”The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes — and no one covered it. Shouldn’t someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?”

Olbermann attributes the lack of coverage to self-censorship by journalists. ”You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble,” he said. ”You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our electoral system.”

Federal officials charged with safeguarding the vote have also failed to contest the election. ”Congress hasn’t investigated this at all,” says Kucinich. ”There has been no oversight over our nation’s most basic right: the right to vote. How can we call ourselves a beacon of democracy abroad when the right to vote hasn’t been secured in free and fair elections at home?”

Sen. John Kerry — in a wide-ranging discussion of ROLLING STONE’s investigation — expressed concern about Republican tactics in 2004, but stopped short of saying the election was stolen. ”Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had an intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can’t. There’s no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse.”

Kerry conceded, however, that the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the outcome reflected the will of the voters. ”I think there are clearly states where it is questionable whether everybody’s vote is being counted, whether everybody is being given the opportunity to register and to vote,” he said. ”There are clearly barriers in too many places to the ability of people to exercise their full franchise. For that to be happening in the United States of America today is disgraceful.”

Kerry’s comments were echoed by Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. ”I’m not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided,” Dean says. ”We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That’s what we suspect has happened, and we’d like to safeguard our elections so that democracy can still be counted on to work.”

To help prevent a repeat of 2004, Kerry has co-sponsored a package of election reforms called the Count Every Vote Act. The measure would increase turnout by allowing voters to register at the polls on Election Day, provide provisional ballots to voters who inadvertently show up at the wrong precinct, require electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts verified by voters, and force election officials like Blackwell to step down if they want to join a campaign. (205) But Kerry says his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to push the reforms, fearing that Republicans would use their majority in Congress to create even more obstacles to voting. ”The real reason there is no appetite up here is that people are afraid the Republicans will amend HAVA and shove something far worse down our throats,” he told me.

On May 24th, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried unsuccessfully to amend the immigration bill to bar anyone who lacks a government-issued photo ID from voting (206) — a rule that would disenfranchise at least six percent of Americans, the majority of them urban and poor, who lack such identification. (207) The GOP-controlled state legislature in Indiana passed a similar measure, and an ID rule in Georgia was recently struck down as unconstitutional. (208)

”Why erect those kinds of hurdles unless you’re afraid of voters?” asks Ralph Neas, director of People for the American Way. ”The country will be better off if everyone votes — Democrats and Republicans. But that is not the Blackwell philosophy, that is not the George W. Bush or Jeb Bush philosophy. They want to limit the franchise and go to extraordinary lengths to make it more difficult to vote.”

The issue of what happened in 2004 is not an academic one. For the second election in a row, the president of the United States was selected not by the uncontested will of the people but under a cloud of dirty tricks. Given the scope of the GOP machinations, we simply cannot be certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office — which means, in effect, that we have been deprived of our faith in democracy itself.

American history is littered with vote fraud — but rather than learning from our shameful past and cleaning up the system, we have allowed the problem to grow even worse. If the last two elections have taught us anything, it is this: The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system. If people lose faith that their votes are accurately and faithfully recorded, they will abandon the ballot box. Nothing less is at stake here than the entire idea of a government by the people.

Voting, as Thomas Paine said, ”is the right upon which all other rights depend.” Unless we ensure that right, everything else we hold dear is in jeopardy.

For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary

1) Manual Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating, ”Latest Conspiracy Theory — Kerry Won — Hits the Ether,” The Washington Post, November 11, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html

2) The New York Times Editorial Desk, ”About Those Election Results,” The New York Times, November 14, 2004. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70615FA3C5B0C778DDDA80994DC404482&n
=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fE%2fElection%20Results

3) United States Department of Defense, ”Defense Department Special Briefing on Federal Voting Assistance Program,” August 6, 2004. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040806-1502.html

4) Overseas Vote Foundation, ”2004 Post Election Survey Results,” June 2005, page 11. http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/downloads/surveys/ovf_survey_01jun2005_
v1.0_usletter.pdf

5) Jennifer Joan Lee, ”Pentagon Blocks Site for Voters Outside U.S.,” International Herald Tribune, September 20, 2004.

6) Meg Landers, ”Librarian Bares Possible Voter Registration Dodge,” Mail Tribune (Jackson County, OR), September 21, 2004. http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0921/local/stories/02local.htm

7) Mark Brunswick and Pat Doyle, ”Voter Registration; 3 former workers: Firm paid pro-Bush bonuses; One said he was told his job was to bring back cards for GOP voters,” Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), October 27, 2004.

8) Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf

9) Ellen Theisen and Warren Stewart, Summary Report on New Mexico State Election Data, January 4, 2005, pg. 2. http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/files/
NewMexico2004ElectionDataReport-v2.pdf

James W. Bronsan, ”In 2004, New Mexico Worst at Counting Votes,” Scripps Howard News Service, December 22, 2004. 10) ”A Summary of the 2004 Election Day Survey; How We Voted: People, Ballots & Polling Places; A Report to the American People by the United States Election Assistance Commission,” September 2005, pg. 10. http://www.eac.gov/election_survey_2004/pdf/EDS%20exec.%20summary.pdf

11) Facts mentioned in this paragraph are subsequently cited throughout the story.

12) See ”Ohio?s Missing Votes.”

13) Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf

14) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio,” June 22, 2005. Page 5 http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/fullreport.pdf

15) See ”VIII. Rural Counties.”

16) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofksy International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3 http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

17) This refers to data for German national elections in 1994, 1998 and 2002, previously cited by Steven F. Freeman.

18) Dick Morris, “Those Faulty Exit Polls Were Sabotage,” The Hill, November 4, 2004. http://www.hillnews.com/morris/110404.aspx

19) Martin Plissner, “Exit Polls to Protect the Vote,” The New York Times, October 17, 2004.

20) Matt Kelley, “U.S. Money has Helped Opposition in Ukraine,” Associated Press, December 11, 2004. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html

Daniel Williams, “Court Rejects Ukraine Vote; Justices Cite Massive Fraud in Runoff, Set New Election,” The Washington Post, December 4, 2004.

21) Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count,” Seven Stories Press, July 2006, Page 102.

22) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3. http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

23) Mitofsky International Web site. http://www.mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm

24) Tim Golden, “Election Near, Mexicans Question the Questioners,” The New York Times, August 10, 1994.

25) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 59.

26) Jonathan D. Simon, J.D., and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D., “The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won the Popular Vote? An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data.” FreePress.org, December 29, 2004, P. 9 http://freepress.org/images/departments/PopularVotePaper181_1.pdf

27) Analysis by Steven F. Freeman.

28) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 134

29) Jim Rutenberg, ”Report Says Problems Led to Skewing Survey Data,” The New York Times, November 5, 2004.

30) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 134

31) Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies. U.S. Count Votes. Baiman R, et al. March 31, 2005. Page 3. http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

32) Notes From Campaign Trail, Fox News Network, Live Event, 8:00 p.m. EST, November 2, 2004.

33) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 101-102

34) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 4.

35) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 120.

36) Interview with John Zogby

37) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 4.

38) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 128.

39) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 130.

40) “The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount,” U.S. Count Votes, National Election Data Archive, January 23, 2006. http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

41) ”The Gun is Smoking,” pg. 16.

42) The Washington Post, “Charting the Campaign: Top Five Most Visited States,” November 2, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html

43) John McCarthy, “Nearly a Month Later, Ohio Fight Goes On,” Associated Press Online, November 30, 2004.

44) Ohio Revised Code, 3501.04, Chief Election Officer http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

45) Joe Hallett, ”Blackwell Joins GOP?s Spin Team,” The Columbus Dispatch, November 30, 2004.

46) Gary Fineout, ”Records Indicate Harris on Defense,” Ledger (Lakeland, Florida), November 18, 2000.

47) http://www.kenblackwell.com/

48) Joe Hallett, ”Governor; Aggressive First Round Culminates Tuesday,” Columbus Dispatch, April 30, 2006. http://www.dispatch.com/extra/extra.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/30/20060430-B1-02.html

49) Sandy Theis, ”Blackwell Accused of Breaking Law by Pushing Same-Sex Marriage Ban,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 29, 2004.

50) Raw Story, “Republican Ohio Secretary of State Boasts About Delivering Ohio to Bush.” http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/blackwell_campaign_letter2_105.php

51) In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Ohio Northern Division, The Sandusky County Democratic Party et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04CV7582, Page 8. http://electionlawblog.org/archives/10-20%20Order.pdf

52) Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio, Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (Rep. John Conyers, Jr.), January 5, 2005. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

53) Preserving Democracy, pg. 8.

54) Preserving Democracy, pg. 4.

55) The board of elections in Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties.

56) Analysis by Richard Hayes Phillips, a voting rights advocate.

57) Fritz Wenzel, ”Purging of Rolls, Confusion Anger Voters; 41% of Nov. 2 Provisional Ballots Axed in Lucas County,” Toledo Blade, January 9, 2005. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334&SearchID
=73195662517954

58) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

59) Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

60) Preserving Democracy, pg. 6.

61) Ford Fessenden, ”A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States,” The New York Times, September 26, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics/campaign/26vote.html?ex=1254024000&en=
cd9ae70cb6e69619&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

62) Ralph Z. Hallow, ”Republicans Go ?Under the Radar? in Rural Ohio,” The Washington Times, October 28, 2004. http://washtimes.com/national/20041027-115211-1609r.htm

63) Jo Becker, ”GOP Challenging Voter Registrations,” The Washington Post, October 29, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2004Oct28.html

64) Janet Babin, ”Voter Registrations Challenged in Ohio,” NPR, All Things Considered, October 28, 2004.

65) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Amy Miller et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-735, Page 2. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2004/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

66) Sandy Theis, “Fraud-Busters Busted; GOP?s Blanket Challenge Backfires in a Big Way,” Plain Dealer, October 31, 2004.

67) Daniel Tokaji, “Early Returns on Election Reform,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 74, 2005, page 1235

68) Sandy Theis, “Fraud-Busters Busted; GOP?s Blanket Challenge Backfires in a Big Way,” Plain Dealer, October 31, 2004.

69) Andrew Welsh-Huggins, ”Out of Country, Off Beaten Path; Reason for Voting Challenges Vary,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 27, 2004.

70) Ohio Revised Code; 3505.19

71) Directive No. 2004-44 from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec?y of State, to All County Boards of Elections Members, Directors, and Deputy Directors 1 (Oct. 26, 2004).

72) Fritz Wenzel, ”Challenges Filed Against 931 Lucas County Voters,” Toledo Blade, October 27, 2004. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041027/
NEWS09/410270361/-1/NEWS

73) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Amy Miller et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-735, Page 4. http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/election2004/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

74) LaRaye Brown, ”Elections Board Plans Hearing For Challenges,” The News Messenger, October 26, 2004.

75) LaRaye Brown, ”Elections Board Plans Hearing For Challenges,” The News Messenger, October 26, 2004.

76) Miller v. Blackwell, (S.D. Ohio), (6th Cir. 2004) http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/election2004
/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

77) James Drew and Steve Eder, ”Court Rejects GOP Voter Challenge; Some Counties Hold Hearings Anyhow; 200 Voters Turned Away,” Toledo Blade, October 30, 2004. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041030/NEWS09/410300450/-1/NEWS

78) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 04-4186 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/
petitionforrehearingenbanc.pdf

79) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 04-4186 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/petitionforrehearingenbanc.pdf

80) Kate Zernike and William Yardley, ”Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several States,” The New York Times, November 1, 2004.

Greg Palast, “New Florida Vote Scandal Feared,” BBC News, October 26, 2004.

81) Kate Zernike and William Yardley, ”Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several States,” The New York Times, November 1, 2004.

82) Greg J. Borowski, ”GOP Demands IDs of 37,000 in City,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 30, 2004. http://www2.jsonline.com:80/news/metro/oct04/271173.asp

83) “The Disenfranchisement of the Re-Enfranchised; How Confusion Over Felon Voter Eligibility in Ohio Keeps Qualified Ex-Offender Voters From the Polls,” Prison Reform Advocacy Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 2004. http://www.prisonsucks.com/scans/Ohio%20Felon%20Voting%20Rights%20Paper.pdf

84) Preserving Democracy, 64.
Note: Additional reporting contributed to this paragraph.

85) Gardner Selby, ”Hundreds of Texans Ride Bandwagons Around U.S.; Volunteers Say Election is Too Important Not to Hit the Campaign Trail,” San Antonio Express-News (Texas), October 15, 2004.

86) ”Down to the Wire,” Newsweek, November 15, 2004.

87) Lynda Gorov and Anne E. Kornblut, ”Gore to Challenge Results; No Plans to Concede; top Fla. Court refuses to order resumption of Miami-Dade County,” The Boston Globe, November 24, 2000. http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Gore_to_
challenge_results+.shtml

88) Al Kamen, “Miami ?Riot? Squad: Where are they Now?” Washington Post, January 24, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

89) Al Kamen, “Walking the Talk,” Washington Post, April 21, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042002067.html

90) Secretary of State Directive, No. 2004-31, Section II, September 7, 2004.

91) Tokaji, pg. 1227
and
Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(2)(B) (2000).

92) Jim Bebbington and Laura Bischoff, ”Blackwell Rulings Rile Voting Advocates,” Dayton Daily News. 93) Congress of the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, letter from Conyers to Blackwell. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellfollowupltr12304.pdf

94) Catherine Candisky, ”Secretary of State Lifts Order on Voting Forms; Lighter Paper Now Deemed Acceptable for Registration,” Columbus Dispatch, September 30, 2004.

95) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 2004, Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition, updated May 9, 2006, page 14. http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/Analyses_Full_Report.pdf

96) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, page 5.

97) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, page. 1.

98) Lucas County Board of Elections — Results of Investigation Following November 2004 General Election, April 5, 2005, Richard Weghorst and Faith Lyon. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/electionsvoter/lucas/LucasCountyInvestigationReport.pdf

99) “Feds Confirm Investigation of GOP Campaign Contributor,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 28, 2005.

100) Mark Naymik, ”Coin Dealer Raised Chunk of Change for Bush,” Plain Dealer, August 7, 2005.

101) Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, “Noe Indicted for Laundering Money to Bush Campaign,” Toledo Blade, October 27, 2005. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/
DEVELOPINGNEWS/51027023

Mike Wilkinson and James Drew, “Grand Jury Charges Noe with 53 Felony Counts,” Toledo Blade, February 13, 2006. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/BREAKINGNEWS
/60213015

102) Lucas County Report, pg. 2.

103) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

104) Lucas County Report, pg. 10.

105) Lucas County Report, pages 9-10.

106) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

107) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

108) Lucas County Report, pg. 18.

109) Lucas County Report, pages 18-19.

110) Lucas County Report, pg. 19.

111) Lucas County Report, pages 4, 6.

112) Lucas County Report, pg. 6.

113) “Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally,” Seagate Convention Centre, Toledo, Ohio, October 29, 2004, The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041029-16.html

note: Bernadette and Tom Noe?s last name is incorrectly spelled “Noy” in the official White House transcript.

114) Help America Vote Act, Title III, Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Election Technology and Administration Requirements, Subtitle A Requirements, Section 302. http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

115) Directive No. 2004-33 from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec?y of State, to All County Boards of Elections 1 (Sept. 16, 2004.).

116) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, The Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04CV7582, Page 8. http://electionlawblog.org/archives/10-20%20Order.pdf

117) Gregory Korte and Jim Siegel, ”Defiant Blackwell Rips Judge; Secretary Says He?d go to Jail Before Rewriting Ballot Memo,” Cincinnati Enquirer, October 22, 2004. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/22/loc_blackwell22.html

118) Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, (N.D. Ohio), (6th Cir. 2004).
And
Tokaji, pg. 1229

119)Tokaji, pg. 1231

120) ”Judge, Blackwell, Spar Over Provisional Ballots,” The Associated Press, October 20, 2004. 121) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, The League of Women Voters of Ohio, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04 CV 7622 http://www.moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/lowv/doc15a.pdf

122) David G. Savage, Richard B. Schmitt, “Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights,” Los Angeles Times, October 29, 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1029-10.htm

123) Judge Julia Smith Gibbons August 2, 2002
Judge John M. Rogers November 27, 2002
Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton May 5, 2003
Judge Deborah L. Cook May 7, 2003
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_of_appeals/courtappeals_judges.htm

124) Darrell Rowland and Lee Leonard, “Federal Agency Distances Itself from Ohio Official; Blackwell Says Their Provisional-Balloting Positions are the Same,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), October 20, 2004.

125) David S. Bernstein, “Questioning Ohio,” Providence Phoenix, November 12 -18, 2004. http://www.providencephoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi_1/documents/04259695.asp

126) Norma Robbins, ”Facts to Ponder About the 2004 General Election,” May 10, 2006. http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/Facts_to_Ponder.pdf

127) Fritz Wenzel, “Purging of Rolls, Confusion Anger Voters; 41% of November 2nd Provisional Ballots Axed in Lucas County,” Toledo Blade, January 9, 2005. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334/-1/NEWS

128) Interview with Stephanie Tubbs Jones

129) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio,” June 22, 2005. Page 6.

130) Democracy at Risk, pg. 5.

131) Ohio Secretary of State Web site, Provisional Ballots; Official Tabulation, November 2, 2004. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=148

132) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ?Lost? Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004.

Christopher Hitchens, “Ohio?s Odd Numbers,” Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050214roco05?print=true

Additional analysis by Bob Fitrakis, editor of the Columbus Free Press, and Richard Hayes Phillips.

133) Democracy at Risk, pg. 3.

134) Preserving Democracy, pg. 29.

135) Democracy at Risk, pg. 5.

136) Bernstein, Providence Phoenix 137) U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, Funding for States, http://www.eac.gov/early_money.asp
and Tokaji, pg. 1222.

138) ”The Battle Over Voting Technology,” PBS, Online NewsHour, December 16, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/sr_technology_debate.html
Paul Festa, ”States Scrutinize e-Voting as Primaries Near,” CNET News.com, December 8, 2003. http://news.com.com/States+scrutinize+e-voting+as+primaries+near/2100-1028_3-5114062.html

139) Preserving Democracy, pg. 27.

140) Preserving Democracy, pg. 30.

141) Matt Damschroder, chairman of Franklin County Board of Elections. 142) Preserving Democracy, pg. 26. 143) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64737-2004Dec14?language=printer

144) Correspondence with Matt Damschroder.

145) Suzanne Hoholik and Mark Ferenchik, “GOP Council Hopes Rising; Party expects ruling on peititions will put its candidate on ballot,” Columbus Dispatch, March 26, 2003.

146) Preserving Democracy, pg. 25.

147) Mark Niquette, “GOP Strongholds Saw Increase in Voting Machines,” Columbus Dispatch, December 12, 2004. http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/12/12/20041212-A1-03
.html&rfr=nwsl

148) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64737-2004Dec14.html

149) Columbus Free Press editor, Bob Fitrakis.

150) “Voting Machine Allocation in Franklin County, Ohio, 2004: Response to the U.S. Department of Justice Letter of June 29, 2005,” Walter R. Mebane, Jr., February 11, 2006, Page 13. http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/franklin2.pdf

151) Tokaji, pg. 1238.

Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004).

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

152) Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

153) Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, slip op. At 1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLineOrder.pdf

154) Washington Post, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, December 15, 2004.

155) Preserving Democracy, pg. 25.

156) Affidavit of Richard Hayes Phillips, December 10, 2004. http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/AffidavitPhillipsShowsKerryCouldWinOhio.html

157) Mark Niquette, “Finally, It’s Time to Vote; U.S. Appeals Court Overturns Ban, Allows Challengers Back in Polling Sites,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 2, 2004.

158) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Marian A. Spencer, et. al., v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-738, page 3. http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Spencer.65.ord.pdf

159) James Dao, “The 2004 Campaign: Ohio, G.O.P. Bid to Contest Registrations is Blocked,” The New York Times, October 28, 2004. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C11FA39590C7B8EDDA90994DC404482

160) Marian A. Spencer, et. al., v. J. Kenneth Blackwell; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division; Case no. C-1-04-738. http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Spencer.65.ord.pdf

161) Dan Horn, Howard Wilkinson, and Cindi Andrews, “Supreme Court Justice Allows Challengers,” Cincinnati Enquirer. http://www.enquirer.com/midday/11/11032004_News_mday_challengers03.html

162) Tokaji, pages 1237-1238.

163) Democracy at Risk, pg. 20.

164) The Columbus Free Press.

165) “Errors Plague Voting Process in Ohio, Pa.” The Vindicator, November 3, 2004, Vindicator Staff Report http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/281829446390855.php

166) Voters Unite catalogues news reports from around the country that give examples of dysfunctional voting machines, among other election stories. http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL
&selectproblemtype=Machine+malfunction

167) The Columbus Free Press.

168) Jim Woods, “In One Precinct, Bush’s Tally was Supersized by a Computer Glitch,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 5, 2004.

169) Hitchens, Vanity Fair.

170) Letter from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State, to Doug White, President, Ohio Senate 3 (Feb. 26, 2004).

171) Sixty-eight counties used punch card ballots. Thirteen used optical scan machines. Seven used touch-screen technology.

172) Malia Rulon, “Congressman Calls For FBI Investigation Into Ohio Election,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, December 15, 2004.

173) Tokaji, Page 1221.

174) Jim Konkoly, ”Volunteers Complete Local Recount,” Coshocton Tribune, December 18, 2004.

175) New York Times, “Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul,” James Dao, Ford Fessenden, December 24, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html?ex=1261544400&en=
0e0adbe08ff79c22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

176) Ken McCall and Jim Bebbington, ”Two Precincts had High Undercounts, Analysis Shows,”Dayton Daily News, November 18, 2004.

177) Lisa A. Abraham, “Punch-Card Voting is Illegal,” Akron Beacon Journal, April 22, 2006. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14404305.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

178) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

179) Preserving Democracy, pg. 57.

180) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

181) Analysis completed by using official tallies on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.
Official tallies for Kerry:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=135

Official tallies for Connally:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=138

182) Preserving Democracy, pg. 55.

183. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=135

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=138

184. Letter from Rep. John Conyers to Chris Swecker, assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See attached affidavits.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohelecfbifollowupltr12805.pdf

185. Miami County Board of Elections.

186. Confirmed by Bob Fitrakis of the Free Press

187. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

188. Erin Miller, “Board Awaits State Follow Up,” The Evening Leader.

http://www.theeveningleader.com/articles/2004/11/06/news/news.01.txt

189. “Preserving Democracy,” pages 58-59.

190. The Associated Press, “News Groups Sue Ohio Elections Chief Over Poll Access,” Associated Press, November 2, 2004.

and

Mark Crispin Miller, “None Dare Call It Stolen,” Harper’s, August 2005.

http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

191. Incidents in Warren County were catalogued in a series of articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Erica Solving, “No Changes in Final Warren Co. Vote Count; E-mails Released Monday Show Lockdown Pre-planned,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 16, 2004.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041116/NEWS01/411160355/1056

Erica Solving, “Warren’s Vote Tally Walled Off; Alone in Ohio, Officials Cited Homeland Security,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 5, 2004.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

Erica Solvig and Dan Horn, “Warren Co. Defends Lockdown Decision; FBI denies warning officials of any special threat,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 10, 2004.

Erica Solvig, “Warren Co. Recount Goes Public; After Election Night lockdown, security eases up,” Cincinnati Enquirer, December 15, 2004.

192. Erica Solvig, “Warren’s Vote Tally Walled Off; Alone in Ohio, Officials Cited Homeland Security,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 5, 2004.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

193. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

194. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 52.

195. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

196. Joan Mazzolini, “Workers Accused of Fudging ’04 Recount; Prosecutor Says Cuyahoga Skirted Rules,” The Plain Dealer, April 6, 2006.

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/
1144312870224340.xml&coll=2

197. Malia Rulon, “Congressman Calls for FBI Investigation Into Ohio election,” The Associated Press, December 15, 2004.

198. Affidavit, December 13, 2004, Sherole Eaton, Re: General Election 2004, Hocking County.

http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/5.121004.Robersondep.pdf

199. Jon Craig, “’04 Election in Hocking County; Worker Who Questioned Recount is Asked to Quit,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), June 1st, 2005.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/06/01/20050601-B3-03
.html&chck=t

200. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 81.

201. www.opensecrets.org

202. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 82.

203. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 83.

204. Ohio Secretary of State’s press office.

205. Count Every Vote Act of 2005

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_493.pdf

206. Dena Bunis, “Senate Limits Immigration Debate,” The Orange County Register, May 24, 2006.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1153484.php

207. Tokaji’s blog, Election Law at Moritz, “McConnell’s Voter ID Amendment,” May 22, 2006.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/05/mcconnells-voter-id-amendment.html

208. United States District Court Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/Order%20Granting%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20email.pdf

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Reposted from Rolling Stone Magazine

March 7, 2005

By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers

The accumulated weight of evidence of election fraud – statistical, circumstantial, and anecdotal – has failed to move the mainstream media to report or investigate this evidence, or the Democratic party to acknowledge and protest the apparent Republican control of our elections.

This essay is not yet another account of that evidence, which I have spelled out extensively and which I firmly believe to be compelling.

Instead, I wish to deal with another indicator that our national elections no longer represent the will of the voters, but rather are manipulated to produce the outcome desired by the "winning" candidates and party. This indicator is the behavior of those who manufacture, program, and operate the paperless, unauditable machines (direct recording electronic: "DRE"), and those who benefit from this technology.

Perhaps this new electronic voting technology is as honest and reliable as the private election industry and the winning candidates tell us it is. However, they simply do not behave as if this were the case.

My contention might be illustrated by this parable:

Suppose that a drug-sniffing dog at an airport identifies a suspicious piece of luggage. The customs officer then locates the individual whose name is on the tag, and orders him to open it. Now suppose further that this person then proceeds to do one or more of the following:

a) He denies that the luggage is his.

b) He calls his lawyer who presents an injunction against further inspection of the luggage.

c) He claims that he is a diplomat, and thus not subject to luggage inspection.

d) He offers a bribe to the inspector if he will "forget the whole thing."

Might one not suspect that the traveler was trying to hide something?

The dog then gets back to work, and soon identifies another bag, and the owner of this parcel is identified and ordered to open the luggage for inspection. He does so willingly and without qualm, having packed the bag himself and thus knowing that there is no contraband therein. He is also aware that the dog has a record of 30% false positives.

Which of these two responses more closely resembles the behavior of the DRE manufacturers (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), of the Republican Congress, and of the Republican National Committee? Are the DRE manufacturers and the Republicans acting in a manner consistent with their claims that "e-voting" is both honest and accurate? Or are they behaving as if they have something to hide?

Here are a few indicators. Because there are so many, I will be brief. For details and documentation, follow the links:

• First and foremost: DRE machines use secret software and produce no separate record of the voting to allow auditing and validation of the votes. Thus, by design, it is impossible either to prove or disprove directly the accuracy of the vote totals of a DRE machine or the neutrality of the software. (However, there is abundant indirect evidence of e-voting fraud: statistical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. But that’s another topic).
• The manufacturers and programmers of DREs (all of whom have close ties with the Republican Party) insist that their software ("source codes") must be kept secret – for no apparent and defensible reason. (They claim to be concerned about copyright infringement. But music, essays, fiction, drama, etc., all are public by nature, and yet all are protected by copyright).
• The e-voting manufacturers also make ATM machines and automated gas pumps, both of which produce paper receipts. Yet they steadfastly resist demands that their "touch screen" voting machines produce printouts, which might then serve to validate the accuracy of the votes.
• DRE manufacturers will not allow "test hacks" of randomly selected machines. (Unauthorized hacks have proven DREs to be extremely vulnerable to fraudulent manipulation. So too a recent report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office: a report that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream press).
• A bill by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would require validated printed paper receipts of the votes and random inspection of the DRE machines has been locked up in committee by the Congressional Republicans. A discharge petition, which would allow a vote on the bill, is unavailing, due to insufficient support by the Republicans.
• In 2000, computer programmer Clinton Curtis was asked by a GOP congressional candidate, Tom Feeney, to create a software program that would alter vote counts in favor of the Republicans. Curtis testified to this under oath, signed an affidavit, and took a polygraph test. Of course, Feeney, now a congressman, denies Curtis’ allegations, but unlike Curtis, Feeney refuses to state his denial under oath or to submit to a polygraph.
• In California, Stephen Heller, a temporary employee of Diebold Election Systems, obtained copies of memos indicating that Diebold may have used uncertified voting systems in the 2004 primary and suggesting that thousands of voters might be disenfranchised in subsequent elections. Heller’s "reward" for blowing this whistle? He was charged with three felony counts and, if convicted, could serve more than three years in state prison.
• In 2004, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified Diebold DRE machines. In a special recall election, Republican Arnold Schwarznegger replaced Democrat Gray Davis. Kevin Shelley was then harassed and forced out of office and replaced by Republican Bruce McPherson, who "conditionally" recertified the Diebold machines. (These are two types of machines: Optical scan with paper ballots, and "TSX" with touch-screens and no paper record. It is the paperless TSX machines that are especially vulnerable to undetectable manipulation and fraud." There is a heated debate within the election reform community as to whether Optical Scanning is an acceptable improvement over DREs, or whether, on the other hand, only hand counted paper ballots will do. But that’s a topic for another essay).
• The Alaska "flip-flop." The Republican state government of Alaska refused to release to the Alaska Democrats the Diebold database files from the 2004 election on the grounds that it was "a company secret." (These were records of a public election, mind you). After persistent requests, the state relented albeit under very restrictive conditions. But then, just two weeks ago, the state again denied the request, claiming that it was a "security risk" to the state of Alaska.
• December 20, 2005: Rather than obey a North Carolina law requiring that source codes be made public, Diebold withdrew its machines from the state elections.

There is much more, which you might find here and here. But this much suffices to make my point.

What we find, then, is an industry and a political party which, on the one hand, insists that the totals from electronic voting machines are entirely accurate and honest, though these same machines are so designed that they preclude any independent evidence to support these claims. On the other hand, this same industry and party steadfastly resist any and all attempts to introduce reliable methods of validation, much less the most reliable system of all: hand counted paper ballots.

Persistent suspicion and charges of fraud are damaging to the industry and the GOP. If they are as innocent as they claim to be, why don’t they just eliminate these damaging suspicions by offering proof, and then allowing, and even encouraging, paper records, independent audits, and exit polls?

Despite a near-total embargo by the mainstream media of news, analysis, investigation and commentary on ballot security and allegations of fraud, combined with an astonishing indifference to the issue on the part of the Democrats and their allies, public doubts about the security and accuracy of elections and hence of the legitimacy of the Republican control of the White House and the Congress, simply will not go away. In fact, these concerns appear to be increasing and will likely continue to increase, as the credibility and public approval of the Bush regime continues to drop.

Here’s a thought experiment for those who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the past three elections were above reproach and doubt. Put this confidence aside for a moment and just imagine, hypothetically, that the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 were all fixed, and that the coming election of 2006 will be fixed. Then ask yourself: if this were so, how would the behavior of the industry and the GOP be in any way different from what it is now?

Then ask, if the elections are honest and accurate, why don’t the industry and the Republicans act like it? In short, if they are innocent, why do they willingly persist in appearing guilty?

These questions must be asked by the Democrats, loudly and persistently, for as Karl Rove and the GOP propaganda machine knows so well, repetition is the key to successful persuasion of the public. Satire and ridicule are also very much in order. We must "pile it on" until continuing silence by the GOP and by the compliant mainstream media becomes unendurable.

And if the e-voting establishment – party and industry – are ever forced, however reluctantly, to enact reforms consistent with their protestations of innocence, what might they do?

Here is a list of proposals that any honest voting machine industry and political party should be willing to endorse:

a) Publish the source codes. (The copyrights can be fully protected.)

b) Include printers with all machines. Stipulate by law that in case of recounts, the paper receipts are to be the official ballots of record.

c) Require independent audits – of local balloting, and of regional compiling of election returns.

d) Allow examination and "test hacks" of machines, selected randomly.

e) Outlaw all data inputs (by direct line, wireless, or UV) to voting machines and compilers with the exception, of course, of the "inputs" by the voters.

f) Rigorously enforce and prosecute election fraud laws.

If the industry and the Republicans won’t agree to these assurances, then they must present a plausible explanation as to why they decline to do so. Absent that explanation, we citizens of this alleged democracy under an alleged rule of law must demand that every vote be counted and verified, and we must be supplied with proof that this has been accomplished. Furthermore, every individual who has engaged in election fraud must be tracked down and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We are entitled to no less than this.

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly and co-edits the progressive website, The Crisis Papers. He is at work on a book, Conscience of a Progressive, which can be seen in-progress here. Send comments to: crisispapers@hotmail.com.

Crisis Papers Archive

Re-posted from Democratic Underground

by Buzzflash.com columnist Maureen Farrell
Extracted from Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 2.
See also… Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 1

"There was one exact moment, in fact, when I knew for sure that Al Gore would Never be President of the United States, no matter what the experts were saying — and that was when the whole Bush family suddenly appeared on TV and openly scoffed at the idea of Gore winning Florida. It was Nonsense, said the Candidate, Utter nonsense. . .Anybody who believed Bush had lost Florida was a Fool. The Media, all of them, were Liars & Dunces or treacherous whores trying to sabotage his victory . . Here was the whole bloody Family laughing & hooting & sneering at the dumbness of the whole world on National TV. The old man was the real tip-off. The leer on his face was almost frightening. It was like looking into the eyes of a tall hyena with a living sheep in its mouth. The sheep’s fate was sealed, and so was Al Gore’s."
— Hunter S. Thompson, ESPN, Nov. 27, 2000

"[The Bush Family’s] sense of how to win elections comes out of a CIA manual, not out of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution."
— Former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips, BuzzFlash, Jan. 7. 2004

While some believe a coup began on Sept. 11, others will tell you it began with the 2000 election. Even though George Bush’s first cousin declared him the winner and his brother Jeb assured him he’d won Florida, many Americans remained unconvinced.

First there was the surreal sight of the Bush family on national TV, as staged and phony as Susan Smith’s tearful plea to return her "kidnapped" children. Then came the well-groomed thugs, sent on Enron and Halliburton planes to stop the Florida recount. But it wasn’t just James Baker’s ploys or the Supreme Court’s ruling that signaled something was amiss — it was the attitude of ordinary citizens who were more concerned about their "team" winning than about democracy itself.

Unless you rely solely on FOX news (the modern equivalent to "living under a rock"), the shenanigans that occurred in pre-election Florida are now old news, and have been dissected at length in documentaries, magazines and to some degree, in the mainstream press. A St . Petersburg Times op-ed later deemed the election "stolen," the Associated Press reported that Florida had "quietly" admitted "election fraud," and Vanity Fair devoted a sizable portion of its Oct. 2004 issue to exactly how Team Bush pulled it off. By the time CNN sued the state of Florida for its ineligible voters list in 2004, the underbelly of the beast was plainly visible.

But in Nov. 2001, when Greg Palast uncovered then Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ role in the shameful voter roll purge in Florida, the news was explosive. The New York Times — the paper that would later print front page disinformation to sell the war in Iraq — took a pass, however, until three years later, when it was too late to do anything about it.

At first, election irregularities were featured as anomalies, like when the Washington Post covered computer glitches that literally subtracted thousands of votes from Al Gore and gave them to a Socialist candidate. By the time similar problems were reported during the 2002 midterm and 2004 primary elections, people were understandably skittish, with e-voting failures having "shaken confidence in the technology installed at thousands of precincts" — with as many as 20 states introducing legislation calling for paper receipts on voting machines.

In early 2004, Mother Jones predicted that "Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago" and sure enough, Americans awoke the day after the election without a decisive winner. And though John Kerry later conceded, questions have since been raised by computer programmers, mathematicians, journalists and others. "Was the election of 2004 stolen?" columnist Robert Koehler asked, before addressing the many "numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don’t make sense."

There were warnings before the election, of course, with red flags being raised by researchers at prestigious Stanford and John Hopkins Universities. But despite Diebold’s CEO’s promise to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell’s prominent role in the Bush/Cheney campaign, and the suspicious election night lock-down in Warren County, Ohio, many still believed election angst could be attributed to a super-sized case of "sour grapes."

When Christopher Hitchens, who is admittedly not a Kerry fan, also weighed in, however, that excuse flew out the window. "Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. . . ," he wrote.

Rep. John Conyers and the Government Accountability Office also found widespread irregularities, and when statisticians picked apart the election results, Bush was not the legitimate winner. Pollster John Zogby compared the 2004 election to 1960’s suspicious contest, and University of Pennsylvania professor Steven F. Freeman put the odds that exit polls were that wrong, in that many states, at 250 million to one.

The evidence was so compelling, in fact, that NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller took it upon himself to tackle the proverbial suggestion "somebody should write a book." His extensively-researched yet largely ignored Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them) shines a crucial light on the "stealthy combination of computerized vote theft, bureaucratic monkey business, systematic shortages of viable equipment and old-fashioned dirty tricks. . . " that led to democracy’s last debacle, and will most likely lead to the next.

Ohio’s 2005 election also failed the smell test, and by late Jan. 2006, the Washington Post looked into allegations of election tampering — without the dismissive, lazy reporting usually afforded the subject. Describing tests conducted by Florida’s Leon County supervisor of elections Ion Sancho, using "relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques," the paper quickly uncovered how easy it is to steal an election. "Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?" election officials asked test participants, and though two marked their ballots "yes" and six said "no," by the time they went through Diebold’s optical scan machine, the results read seven "yes" votes and one "no."

"More troubling than the test itself was the manner in which Diebold simply failed to respond to my concerns or the concerns of citizens who believe in American elections," Sancho said. "I really think they’re not engaged in this discussion of how to make elections safer."

Hmmm. You don’t say.

There is a reason, you see, that "None Dare Call It Stolen," and that reasons extends beyond the preponderance of evidence. "If electronic voting machines programmed by private Republican firms remain in our future, dissent will become pointless unless it boils over into revolution," former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts wrote. "Power-mad Republicans need to consider the result when democracy loses its legitimacy and only the rich have anything to lose."

James Madison predicted a similar scenario. "The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility," he reportedly told the New York Post. "It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few."

Those would be the "one percenters." And chances are, you aren’t one of them.

*************

© Copyright 2004, Maureen Farrell

Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

Extracted from Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 2. See also… Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 1

From Scoop Independent News

• The Election Model – by TruthIsAll (probably what REALLY happened on Nov.2nd)
• Electoral College Meta-Analysis (election.princeton.edu) (very, very good!)
• Again History Is Made On DU – EXIT POLL THEORY Bounces Back
• A Must Read ** Breakthrough ** – EXIT POLL ANALYSIS FOR 47 STATES
• GOP Wants to End Exit Polls – Gee, I wonder why?
• “… exit polls were adjusted to reflect official vote tallies.”?
• Exit Polls Right, Tallies Wrong?
• Exit Polls vs. Reported Results
• Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam – by Michael Keefer
• Cal Tech exit polls (corrupted) & Freeman-U of Pa exit polls (uncorrupted)
• Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions:Full 51 State Early Exit Poll Data
• THIS IS THE TRUE FRAUD-FREE ELECTION RESULT
• Exit Polls MATCHED Pre-Election polls within 1/7th of ONE percent
• 8.1 million Gore voters didn’t bother voting this month
• News Groups Will Delay Future Exit Polls (…to buy more time to alter them?)
• US Election: Democracy in Question – John Zogby, Ralph Nader
• National Election Pool is a secret consortium with intelligence ties
• Mirror of Zogby’s 5pm Election Day Prediction submitted by Jesse Stewart (11/21)
• New analysis of Ohio exit polls. – TennisGuy2004 on DU (11/22)
• Errors in exit polls still a puzzle to many John Allen Paulos (11/24)
• Bush-Cheney Campaign Headquarters: What They Don’t Want You To Know by Wayne Madsen (7/27/04)
• Pre-election State Polls vs. Exit Polls vs. Actuals: ONE Graph. Look Close by TruthIsAll (11/24)
• ONE OUT OF 4.5 BILLION! by TruthIsAll (11/25)
• How could exit polls have been so wrong? by Eric Fried (11/26)
• An Ongoing E-mail Arguement with Mitofsky by truehawk on DU (11/26)
• The exit polls WERE adjusted to the election results from John Helge on DU (11/28)
• Final Tallies Minus Exit Polls = A Statistical Mystery! by John Allen Paulos (11/24)
• 15 QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD DISPARAGE EXIT POLLING. by TruthIsAll on DU (11/28)
• Why is it that exit polls since 1988 have ALL overstated the Dem vote? from TruthIsAll on DU (12/5) Analysis Reveals Dramatic Evidence of Election Tampering By Webb Mealy, PhD (12/5)
• THE PROBABILITY IS ZERO from TruthIsAll (12/5)
• Pre-election advice on Exit Polls from Edison Media !!! from k8conant on DU (12/5)
• Electoral-vote.com’s map based on exit polls from latteromden on DU (12/7)
• Edison – Mitofsky Exit Polls Method Statment and the questionnaire (.pdf) used from sabra on DU (12/8)
• Zogby Polling Seeks Damage Control After Election Day Flub from sabra on DU (12/9)
• Zogby Defense: ‘My Polling Was Very, Very Good’ from blitzburgh55 on DU (12/12)
• WTF!? Exit Polls Were Correct for Other Races from BlueDog2u on DU (12/12)
• Eliminating Exit Polls … a new strategy? from sunnystarr on DU (12/12)
• Kerry: Exit polls (50.6%/311EV) MATCHED pre-election polls (50.52%/322EV) from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
• IT’S GRAPHIC: KERRY VOTE TALLIES VS. EXIT POLLS from TruthIsAll on DU (12/14)
• SMOKING GUN? 2000 EXIT POLLS ACCURATE TO WITHIN 0.17%. STRAWMAN DOWN! from TruthIsAll on DU (12/24)
• TV Networks Officially Refuse to Release Exit Poll Raw Data by Gary Beckwith (12/24)
• THE SMOKING GRAPH: GORE (tight) VS. KERRY (wide) EXIT POLL DEVIATIONS from TruthIsAll on DU (12/24)
• THE NATIONAL VOTE/EXIT POLL TIMELINE AND THE OHIO/FLORIDA EXIT POLL DISCREPANCIES. from TruthIsAll on DU (12/26)
• CONFIRMING DR. BAIMAN: THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL SAMPLE PROBABILITIES from TruthIsAll on DU (12/26)
• ExitPollz.org (12/30)
• SMOKING GUN? THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLL SITE PROVES THAT KERRY WON! from TruthIsAll on DU (12/30)
• Mitofsky 4 Zone Data (individual .pdfs)
• Mitofsky 4 Zone Data (all .pdfs zipped)
• National Election Poll: Analysis of Voter Demographics from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
• Freeman disputes critique of his analysis of exit poll discrepancy from Amaryllis on DU (1/25/05)
• Coincidence?100% paper-ballot OR is MOST accurate (within 0.40%) Exit Poll from TruthIsAll on DU (1/24/05)
• GRAPH: Exit Poll Deviations Weighted by State Voting Method Mix from TruthIsAl on DU (1/20/05)
• Mitofsky on Nightline:”26 of 30 deviations to Bush” Wrong. It was 30 of 30 from TruthIsAll onDU (1/25/05)
• Exit pollsters to release election report to media (but not to public) from dzika on DU (1/20/05)
• THREE PROBABILITIES from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
• THE 2000 STATE EXIT POLLS WERE ALMOST PERFECT from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
• I HAVE JUST UPDATED THE EXIT POLL ANALYSIS: THE RESULTS ARE ASTOUNDING. from TruthIsAll on DU (1/15/05)
• Bush’s win was a historical anomaly– is this evidence of fraud? from spooked911 on DU (1/25/05)
• 1/23 UPDATE: NATIONAL EXIT POLL DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS from TruthIsAll on DU (1/23/05)
• Mitofsky’s background and an outrageous endorsement! from RaulVB on DU (1/26/05)
• Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf (2/15/05)
• BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS: MITOFSKY’S “RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER” THEORY by TruthIsAll (2/12/05)
• THE MOST DEVASTATING STATISTIC OF ALL: 17% OF THE VOTERS WERE NEW by TruthIsAll (2/10/05) Response to Tokaji Critique of USCV Edison/Mitofsky Exit Poll Discrepancies – uscountvotes.org (2/04/05)
• Naysayers, its time to take your strawmen elsewhere. 9 phd’s call for election investigation! (2/15/05)
• THE BARE TRUTH WHICH SHOULD HAVE FLIPPED OUT THE DEMOCRATS BY NOW. – TruthIsAll (1/29/05)
• ULTIMATE PROOF KERRY WON: COMPARE THE NATIONAL EXIT POLLS -1996,2000,2004 from TruthIsAll on DU (2/20/05)
• FASTEN SEAT BELTS. THIS IS THE CLINCHER. from TruthIsAll on DU (03/28/05)
• THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: KERRY WON BY 7 MILLION VOTES from TruthIsAll on DU (3/28/05)
• Exit Poll Deviations vs. Governor’s Party and Straight Party Voting Option from Bill Bored on DU (3/22/05)
• 100% ABSOLUTE PROOF: FINAL NEP OVERSTATED BUSH VOTE BY AT LEAST 2 MIL. from TruthIsAll on DU (03/21/05)
• A TIA MEA CULPA: THE “SIMPLE” NEP EXPLANATION IS WRONG… from TruthIsAll on DU (2/30/05)
• The Exit Polls were heavily biased against Kerry- here’s why. from BernieW1 on DU (3/09/05)
• UPDATED: MY COLLECTION OF EXIT POLL THREADS from TruthIsAll (3/13/05)
• IF THIS PRELIMINARY NEP WEIGHT WAS CORRECT, WHY WAS IT CHANGED? from TruthIsAll (3/13/05) A Mathematical proof: Exit polls are accurate from TruthIsAll (3/10/05)
• The Nat Exit Poll Crime Line: 7:58pm(K) to 12:22am (K) to 2:04pm (B) from TruthIsAll (3/10/05)
• Kerry won Nat. Exit Poll (11027 respondents) posted on CNN @ 7:58PM from TruthIsAll (3/06/05)
• Exit Poll Electoral Map – is this right? from garybeck (2/23/05)
• NATIONAL EXIT POLL: PRELIMINARY TO FINAL – WHAT HAPPENED? from TruthIsAll (2/26/05)
• 2002 Senate Election Fraud Probability Analysis: re-written for clarity from TruthIsAll (Sat Jul-26-03)
• THE 13047 NATIONAL EXIT POLL CONFIRMS THE STATE EXIT POLLS (WITHIN .06%) ! – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-24-05)
• Truth: 0 to 13,047; Fiction: 13,048 – 13,660 – TruthIsAll (Tue Apr-19-05)
• U.S. General Election Poll-7:37pm,11/02/04: “Estimates NOT for on-air use” – TruthIsAll (Mon Apr-18-05)
• Bush Exit Poll Job Approval: A smoking gun? – TruthIsAll (Mon Apr-18-05)
• This Jan 3 post on the IMPOSSIBLE Bush 43%/37% NEP weight is NOT from me! – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-17-05)
• National Exit Poll Analysis: Using FACTUAL Historic Data – TruthIsAll (Mon Apr-11-05)
• ELECTION 2004: THE COMPLETE GRAPHICAL REFERENCE – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-03-05)
• Collective Bellaciao, France: Science proves that vote fraud is real! – MelissaB (Sun Apr-03-05)
• From Selection 2000 to 2004 (NEP): Voted, Died, Reborn, Did Not Vote – TruthIsAll (Fri Apr-01-05)
• The Nat Exit Poll Crime Line: 7:58pm(K) to 12:22am (K) to 2:04pm (B) – TruthIsAll (Mon Mar-07-05)
• Kerry won Nat. Exit Poll (11027 respondents) posted on CNN @ 7:58PM – TruthIsAll (Sun Mar-06-05)
• The Oregon Smoking Gun – TruthIsAll (Fri Mar-04-05)
• HOW KERRY WON OHIO BY 51-48%… – TruthIsAll (Fri Apr-29-05)
• A PUZZLE FOR DUERS: THE NATIONAL VS. STATE GENDER DEMOGRAPHIC MATCH-UP – TruthIsAll (Sat Apr-30-05)
• Kathy Dopp’s Most Recent Post Concerning Lizzie Liddel’s Criticism of USCV – davidgmills (Sun May-01-05)
• The Reluctant Gore Responder (RGR) -TruthIsAll (Sun May-01-05)
• THESE NUMBERS TELL THE WHOLE STORY – TruthIsAll (Fri May-06-05)
• 1988-2000 Exit Poll Deviation trend was moving to ZERO – until 2004 – TruthIsAll (Thu May-05-05)
• LET’S MOE DOWN THE LAST FEW NAYSAYERS ONCE AND FOR ALL – TruthIsAll (Wed May-04-05)
• IS rBr STILL BREATHING? THE REQUIRED BUSH % OF REFUSERS IS IMPOSSIBLE! TruthIsAll Sat (May-21-05)
• Mitofsky invented reluctant Bush responder scam for Bush Sr. in ’92! tommcintyre (Sat May-21-05)
• STATE / NATIONAL EXIT POLL ANALYSIS BY REGION by TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-24-05)
• I can’t believe this sh*t from Mitofsky…again. by MelissaB (Sat May-14-05)
• NON-RESPONSE BIAS? HERE’S WHY IT HURT KERRY MORE THAN BUSH.. by TruthIsAll (Sat May-14-05)
• PROBABILITY ANALYSIS PROVES: THE RBR HYPOTHESIS IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE! by TruthIsAll (Sat May-14-05)
• RBR and Rove by Carolab (Tue May-10-05)
• BYE, BYE rBr: IMPLAUSIBLE VOTER TURNOUT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS by TruthIsAll (Mon May-09-05)
• IT COMES DOWN TO THIS: WHERE DID BUSH FIND 13 MILLION NEW VOTES? KISS… by TruthIsAll (Tue May-10-05)
• Even assuming rBr, it takes a MIRACLE to reverse Kerry’s 51-48% margin by TruthIsAll (Sat May-07-05)
• Yes, the Reluctant Republican Responder (3%) was a KERRY voter! by TruthIsAll (Fri May-06-05)
• The UK and Ukraine have very accurate exit polls…interesting. (Fri May-06-05)
• Reluctant Republican Respondents….who voted for Kerry by davidgmills (Fri May-06-05)
• A non-statistician’s view of the E-M exit poll controversy – Time for change (Sun May-22-05)
• CNN changed their Exit poll numbers – chrisclub (Thu Jun-02-05)
• EXIT POLL QUESTION: Party IDs vs. MOEs – Bill Bored (Fri Jun-17-05)
• 15% OF GORE VOTERS (7.65 MM) SUFFERED FROM ALZHEIMER’S IN 2004 – TruthIsAll (Mon Jun-27-05)
• ELECTION 2004 BY THE NUMBERS – TruthIsAll (Tue Jun-28-05)
• Ohio Exit Poll Raw Data – minvis (Fri Feb-18-05)
• It’s a shutout: FRAUD 3 , rBr 0 – TruthIsAll (Tue Jul-05-05)
• Exit poll vs. current Bush Approval – chrisclub (Wed Jul-06-05)
• EXIT POLL RESPONSE OPTIMIZER: KEY RESULTS – TruthIsAll (Sat Jul-09-05)
• EXIT POLL ANALYSIS THREADS – 7/12/05 UPDATE -TruthIsAll
• EXIT POLL ANALYSIS – ESSENTIAL DU THREADS – TruthIsAll (Thu Jul-14-05)
• Here’s where the “hypothesis” is refuted again… – LightningFlash (Sat Jul-02-05)
• To believe Bush won, you must believe this. – TruthIsAll (Sun Jun-26-05)
• Bushco stopped stealing votes after they had it in the bag. – TruthIsAll (Sat Jul-30-05)
• Exit Polls show Shrub not winning 1994 Gov race.. Any DU Scoop? – Melissa G (Mon Aug-08-05)
• RETURN OF THE CLINCHER: Kerry wins 120 of 120 scenarios – TruthIsAll (Tue Jun-21-05)
• To Believe that Bush won….. – TruthIsAll (Fri May-13-05)
• Dear Dr. Dean: – TruthIsAll (Wed Jun-29-05)
• Freeman vs Mitofsky debate! – Melissa G on DU (Mon Sep-26-05)
• Time Line of Exit Poll Irregularities Election 2004: Dopp and Freeman – Stevepol on DU (Sat Oct-22-05)
• Steve Freeman Summary of Debate – Melissa G on DU (Thu Oct-20-05)
• New Math PROOF that ESI/Mitofsky Logic is Invalid (Not Correct) – sunshinekathy on DU (Sat Oct-29-05)
• 1.1 for Elections. TIA, Even “Plainer” English. Law of Large Numbers,etc – autorank on DU (Dec-17-05)
• Exit polls 2004 discrepancies made quick & EASY for the math impaired ! – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.

Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ”

– Margaret Mead – US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)

READ THIS FIRST

• Election Fraud Beginner’s Guide
• What’s Wrong with the News?
• Learn How the Broadcast News Media Deceives You!
• The 14 Characteristics of Fascism – flash video
• AmericanFascism.com
• Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
• Media manipulation – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TruthIsAll

WHO SHOULD READ THIS?

It’s for everyone who voted in 2004 or plans to vote in 2006.

It’s for those who say: "Math was my worst subject in high school".
If you’ve ever placed a bet at the casino or race track,
or played the lottery, you already know the basics.
It’s about probability.
It’s about common sense.
It’s not all that complicated.

It’s for individuals who have taken algebra, probability and
statistics and want to see how they apply to election polling.

It’s for graduates with degrees in mathematics, political science,
an MBA, etc. who may or may not be familiar with simulation concepts.

It’s for Excel spreadsheet users who enjoy creating math models.
Simulation is a powerful tool for analyzing uncertainty.
Like coin flipping and election polling.

It’s for writers, blogs and politicians who seek the truth:
Robert Koehler, Brad from BradBlog, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer,
Mark Miller, Fitrakis, Wasserman, USCV, Dopp, Freeman, Baiman, Simon,
Scoop’s althecat, Krugman, Keith Olberman, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes,
Stephanie Miller, etc.

It’s for Netizens who frequent Discussion Forums.

It’s for those in the Media who are still waiting for editor approval
to discuss documented incidents of vote spoilage, vote switching and
vote suppression in recent elections and which are confirmed by
impossible pre-election and exit poll deviations from the recorded vote.

It’s for naysayers who promote faith-based hypotheticals in their
unrelenting attempts to debunk the accuracy of the pre-election
and exit polls.

People forget Selection 2000. Gore won the popular vote by 540,000.
But Bush won the election by a single vote.
SCOTUS voted along party lines: Bush 5, Gore 4.
That stopped the Florida recount in its tracks.
Gore won Florida. Why did they do it?
And why did the "liberal" media say he lost?

But Gore voters did not forget 2000.
So in 2004, they came out to vote in droves.
Yet the naysayers claim Gore voters forgot that they voted for him
and told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000.
It’s the famous "false recall" hypothetical.
The naysayers were forced to use it when they could not come up
with a plausible explanation for the impossible weightings of
Bush and Gore voter turnout in the Final National Exit poll.

Put on the defoggers.
We had enough disinformation
We had enough obfuscation.
Now we will let the sunshine in.

This is a review of the basics.

________________________________________________________________________

A COIN-FLIP EXPERIMENT

Consider an experiment:
Flip a fair coin 10 times.
Calculate the percentage of heads.
Write it down.

Increase it to 30.
Calculate the new total percentage.
Write it down.

Keep increasing the number of flips…
Write down the percentage for 50.
Then do it for 80.
Stop at 100.
That’s our final coin flip sample-size.

When you’re all done, check the percentages.
Is the sequence converging to 50%?
That’s the true population mean (average).

That’s the Law of Large Numbers.

The coin-flip is easily simulated in Excel.
Likewise, in the polling simulations which follow,
we will analyze the result of polling experiments
over a range of trials (sample size).

_____________________________________________________

THE POLLING CONTROVERSY

Naysayers have a problem with polls.
Especially when a Bush is running.
Regardless of how many polls or how large the samples,
the results are never good enough for them.
They prefer to cite their two famous, unproven hypotheticals:
Bush non-responders (rBr) and Gore voter memory lapse ("false recall").

How do pollsters handle non-responders?
Simple.
They just… increase the sample-size!
Furthermore, statistical studies indicate that there is no
discernible correlation between non-response rates and survey results

How do pollster’s handle false recall?
Simple.
They know that in a large sample, forgetfullness on the part
of Gore and Bush voters… will cancel each other out!
There’s no evidence that Gore voters forget any more than Bush voters.
On the contrary.
If someone you knew robbed you in broad daylight,
would you forget who it was four years later?
Gore was robbed in 2000.

They claim that polling bias favored Kerry
in BOTH the pre-election AND exit polls.
They offer no evidence to back up these claims.
In fact, National Exit Poll data shows a pro-Bush bias.

They maintain that the polls are not random-samples.
Especially when Bush is involved.

_____________________________________________________

THE MARGIN OF ERROR (MOE)

Naysayers ignore the fact that each poll has a Margin of Error (MoE).
Are we to ignore the MoE provided by a professional pollster?

The MoE is the interval on either side of the Polling Sample mean
in which there is a 95% confidence level (probability) of containing
the TRUE Population Mean.

Here is an example:
Assume a poll with a 2% MoE and Kerry is leading Bush by 52-48%.
Then there is a 95% probability that Kerry’s TRUE vote is in the range
from 50% to 54% {52-MoE, 52+MoE}.

Futhermore, the probability is 97.5% that Kerry’s vote will exceed 50%.

Here is the standard formula that ALL pollsters use to calculate MoE:

MoE = 1.96 * sqrt(p*(1-p)/n) * (1+CF)
where
n is the sample size.
p and 1-p are the 2-party vote shares.
CF is an exit poll "cluster effect" factor (see the example below).

The MoE decreases as the sample-size (n) increases.
The poll becomes more accurate as we take more samples.
It’s the Law of Large Numbers again.
Makes sense, right?
Remember the coin flips?

This result is not so obvious.
For a given sample size (n), the MoE is at it’s maximum value
when p =.50 (the two candidates are tied).
To put it another way:
The more one-sided the poll, the smaller the MoE.
In the 50/50 case, the formula can be simplified:
MoE = 1.96 * .5/sqrt(n) =.98/sqrt(n)

Let’s calculate the MoE for the 12:22am National Exit poll.
n = 13047 sampled respondents
p = Kerry’s true 2-party vote share = .515
1-p = Bush’s vote share = .485

MoE = 1.96 * sqrt (.515*.485/13047)= .0086 = 0.86%
Adding a 30% exit poll cluster effect:
MoE = 1.30*0.86% = 1.12%

The cluster effect is highly controversial.
We can only make a rough estimate of its impact on MoE.
The higher the cluster effect, the larger the MoE.
But cluster is only a factor in exit polls.
There is no MoE adjustment in pre-election or approval polls.

Why would a polling firm include the MoE if the poll was
not designed to be an effective random sample?

Pollsters use proven methodologies, such as cluster sampling,
stratified sampling, etc. to attain a near-perfect random sample.
________________________________________________________________

THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION

This model demonstrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).
LLN is the foundation and bedrock of statistical analysis.
The model illustrates LLN through a simulation of polling samples.

In a statistical context, LLN states that the mean (average)of a
random sample taken from from a large population is likely
to be very close to the (true) mean of the population.

Start of math jargon alert…
In probability theory, several laws of large numbers say that
the mean (average) of a sequence of random variables with
a common distribution converges to their common mean as
the size of the sequence approaches infinity.

The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) is another famous result:
The sample means (averages) of an independent series of
random samples (i.e. polls) taken from the same population
will tend to be normally distributed (form the bell curve)
as the number of samples increase.
This holds for ALL practical statistical distributions.
End of math jargon alert….

It’s really not all that complicated.
The naysayers never consider LLN or CLT.
They would have us believe that professional pollsters are
incapable of creating accurate surveys (i.e. effectively random
samples) through systematic, clustered or stratified sampling.
Especially when a Bush is running.

LLN and CLT say nothing about bias.

__________________________________________________________________

USING RANDOM NUMBERS TO SIMULATE A SEQUENCE OF POLLS

Random number simulation is the best way to illustrate LLN:
These are the steps:
1) Assume a true 2-party vote percentage for Kerry (i.e. 51.5%).
2) Simulate a series of 8 polls of varying sample size.
3) Calculate the sample mean vote share and win probability for each poll.
4) Confirm LLN by noting that as the poll sample size increases,
the sample mean (average) converges to the population mean ("true" vote).

It’s just like flipping a coin.
Let Kerry be HEADS, with a 51.5% chance of winning a random voter.
This is Kerry’s TRUE vote (the population mean)
Bush is TAILS with a 48.5% chance.

A random number (RN) between zero and one is generated for each respondent.
If RN is LESS than Kerry’s TRUE share, the vote goes to Kerry.
If RN is GREATER than Kerry’s TRUE share, the vote goes to Bush.

For example, assume Kerry’s TRUE 51.5% vote share (.515).
If RN = .51, Kerry’s poll count is increased by one.
If RN = .53, Bush’s poll count is increased by one.

The sum of Kerry’s votes is divided by the poll sample (i.e. 13047).
This is Kerry’s simulated 2-party vote share.
It approaches his TRUE 51.50% vote share as poll samples increase.
Once again, the LLN applies as it did in the coin flip experiment.

________________________________________________________________

SIMULATION GRAPHICS

These graphs are a visual summary of the simulation.

Image

Image

________________________________________________________________

RUNNING THE SIMULATION

Press F9 run the simulation
Watch the numbers and graphs change.
They should NOT change significantly.

The graphs illustrate polling simulation output for:
Kerry’s 2-party vote (true population mean): 51.50%

Exit Poll Cluster effect (zero for pre-election):30%
The exit poll "cluster effect" is the incremental adjustment
to the margin of error in order to account for the clustering
of individuals with similar demographics at the exit polling site.

Play what-if:
Lower Kerry’s 2-party vote share from 51.5% to 50.5%.
Press F9 to run the simulation.
Kerry’s poll shares, corresponding win probabilities and
minimal threshold vote (97.5% confidence level), all DECLINE,
reflecting the lowering of his "true vote".

________________________________________________________________

POLLING SAMPLE-SIZE

Just like in the above coin-flipping example, the
Law of Large Numbers takes effect as poll sample-size increases.

That’s why the National Exit Poll was designed to
survey at least 13000 respondents.

Note the increasing sequence of polling sample size as we go
from the pre-election state (600) and national (1000) polls
to the state and National exit polls:
Ohio (1963), Florida (2846) and the National (13047).

Here is the National Exit Poll Timeline:
Updated ; respondents ; vote share
3:59pm: 8349 ; Kerry led 51-48
7:33pm: 11027 ; Kerry led 51-48
12:22am:13047 ; Kerry led 51-48

1:25pm: 13660 ; Bush led 51-48
The final was matched to the vote.
So much for letting LLN and CLT do their magic.
Especially when a Bush is running.

________________________________________________________________

CALCULATING PROBABILITIES

The Kerry win probabilities are the main focus of the simulation.
They closely match theoretical probabilities obtained from
the Excel Normal Distribution function.

The probabilities are calculated using two methods:
1) running the simulation and counting Kerry’s total polling votes.
2) calculating the Excel Normal Distribution function:
Prob = NORMDIST(PollPct, 0.50, MoE/1.96, true)

The simulation shows that given Kerry’s 3% lead in the 2-party vote
(12:22am National Exit Poll), his popular vote win probability
was nearly 100%. And that assumes a 30% exit poll cluster effect!

For a 2% lead (51-49), the win probability is 97.5% (still very high).
For a 1% lead (50.5-49.5), it’s 81% (4 out of 5).
For a 50/50 tie, it’s 50%. Even money. Makes sense, right?

The following probabilities are also calculated for each poll:
1) The 97.5% confidence level for Kerry’s vote share.
There is a 97.5% probability that Kerry’s true vote will be greater.
The minimum vote share increases as the sample size grows.

2) The probability of Bush achieving his recorded two-party vote (51.24%).
The probability is extremely low that Bush’s actual vote would deviate
from his true 48.5% two-party share.
The probability declines as the sample size grows.

________________________________________________________________

DOWNLOADING THE EXCEL MODEL

Wait one minute for the Excel model download.
It’s easy.
Just two inputs –
Kerry’s 2-party true vote share (51.5%) and
exit poll cluster effect (set to 30%).

Press F9 to run the simulation.

Or go here for a complete listing of threads from
TruthIsAll: www.TruthIsAll.net

Posted by autorank on Democratic Underground