Democratic Underground BOOKMARKS
Posted in Democratic Underground, General on January 28th, 2006

(AK AZ CA CO FL GA IL IN IA MD MN MO NE NV NH NJ NM NC OH PA TX UT VA VT WA WI WY)




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)

January 24, 2005
By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers
Like biologists with evolution and atmospheric scientists with global climate change, those who warn us that our elections have been stolen and will be stolen again must now be wondering, "just how much evidence must it take to make our case and to convince enough of the public to force reform and secure our ballots?"
The answer, apparently, is no amount – no amount, that is, until more minds are opened. And that is more than a question of evidence, it is a question of collective sanity.
In his new book Fooled Again, Mark Crispin Miller not only presents abundant evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, but in addition he examines the political, social, and media environment which made this theft possible.
When I first read the book immediately after its publication, I confess that I was a bit disappointed. What I had hoped to find was a compendium of evidence, from front to back. To be sure, Miller gives us plenty of evidence, meticulously documented. But evidence tells us that the election was stolen. Miller goes beyond that to explain how and why it was stolen, and how the culprits have managed, so far, to get away with it.
So on second reading, I find that it was my expectation and not Miller’s book that was flawed. We have evidence aplenty, to be found in John Conyers’ report, and the new book by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, in addition to the Black Box Voting website among numerous others. Soon to be added is Prof. Steven Freeman’s book on the statistical evidence of election fraud. What we don’t gain from these sources is an understanding and appreciation of the context in which this crime was committed. This we learn from reading Miller’s book.
If, in fact, the last two presidential elections have been stolen, and if in addition there is a preponderance of evidence to support this claim, then this is the most significant political news in the 230 year history of our republic.
So what is the response of the allegedly "opposing" party to the issue of election fraud? Virtual silence. And of the news media? More silence. Case in point: the media response to Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again. As he reports: "There have been no national reviews of Fooled Again. No network or cable TV show would have the author on to talk about the book. NPR has refused to have him on… Only one daily newspaper – the Florida Sun-Sentinel – has published a review."
Force the question of election fraud and demand an answer, and the most likely response will be a string of ad hominem insults – "sore losers," "paranoid," "conspiracy theorists" – attacks on the messenger and a dismissal of the message. We’ve heard them, many times over.
Persist, and you might get as a reply, not evidence that the elections were honest and valid (there is very little of that), but rather some rhetorical questions as to the attitudes and motives of the alleged perpetrators and to the practical difficulties of their successfully accomplishing a stolen national election. Questions such as these:
The answer to the first two questions is essentially the same: they believed and they dared because they controlled the media and thus the message. Miller’s sub-text throughout his book is that the great electoral hijack has been accomplished with the cooperation, one might even say the connivance, of the mainstream media, without which the crime could never have succeeded.
Immediately following the election, the critics were shouted down with such headlines as these: "Election paranoia surfaces; Conspiracy theorists call results rigged" (Baltimore Sun), "Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud is dismissed" (Boston Globe), "Latest Conspiracy Theory – Kerry Won – Hits the Ether" (Washington Post), and in the "flagship" newspaper, the New York Times: "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried." (Miller, 38.)
Even more damaging than the slanted "reports" in the media, was the silence. The Conyers investigations? Ignored. The scholarly statistical analyses of exit poll discrepancies? Ignored. Evidence that Bush cheated in the debates with a listening device? Dismissed. The recent GAO report on e-voting vulnerabilities, and the Florida demonstration hacking of computer vote compilation? Ignored. And most appalling of all: the media blackout last week of Al Gore’s eloquent speech, warning of the threat to our Constitution and our liberties posed by the Bush regime.
And all this merely scratches the surface of media malpractice. For more, read the book.
The motivation to steal the election, says Miller, combined religious (or quasi-religious) dogma and self-righteousness and a perception of the opposing Democratic party, not as the loyal opposition, but as the enemy – deserving not defeat, but annihilation. ("You are either with us or against us," says Bush). Together, this adds up to what Miller calls "The Requisite Fanaticism." He writes:
It is not "conservatism" that impelled the theft of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power per se… The movement now in power is not entirely explicable in such familiar terms… The project here is ultimately pathological and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale, and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The aim is not to master politics, but to annihilate it. Bush, Rove, DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. believe in "politics" in the same way that they and their corporate beneficiaries believe in "competition." In both cases, the intention is not to play the game but to end it – because the game requires some tolerance of the Other, and tolerance is precisely what these bitter-enders most despise… (Miller 81-2.)
Reiterating a theme that is prominent in his writing, Miller points out that the psychological pathology most conspicuously at work in the right’s demolition of politics is projection: the attribution in "the enemy" of one’s own moral depravity:
The Bushevik, so full of hate, hates politics, and would get rid of it; and yet he is himself expert at dirty politics: an expertise that he regards as purely imitative and defensive. Because his enemies, he thinks, are all "political" – dishonest, ruthless, cynical, unprincipled – he is thereby "forced" to be "political" as well, in order to "fight fire with fire." As we have seen, this paranoid conviction of the Other’s perfidy suffuses and impels the propaganda campaigns of the right, and it was especially important in Bush/Cheney’s drive to steal the last election. Indeed it was their firm conviction that they had to steal the race, in order to frustrate the Democrats’ attempt to do it first. (Miller, 82.)
This is just a brief sampling of Miller’s astute political and psychological analysis of the "why" and the "how" of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. That analysis, which takes up about a third of the book (Chapters 3 and 4), adds an invaluable dimension to our understanding of the political disaster that has befallen our Republic, and that analysis suggests guidelines in the struggle to avoid the theft of the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008.
I have written at length about what might be done if we are to restore the ballot box to the voters. These crucial steps come immediately to mind, as I read Miller’s Fooled Again.
Briefly, we need a media, we need an opposition party, we need an aroused public, and we need a miracle. But take heart: history tells us that political crises have a way of producing miracles.
The mainstream media (MSM) must be discredited and an alternative media established in its place. The internet offers a voice to an opposition that is excluded from the mainstream, and a few independent publications and broadcasts remain, however feeble in comparison to the MSM. If a sizeable portion of the public deserts the mainstream, and directly informs the publishers and broadcasters why they are doing so, the media, and particularly their sponsors and advertisers, will take notice. Recently, some of the media have become more critical of the Bush regime and the GOP Congress, but it is, by and large, too little and too late.
So either the commercial media must resume the role of watchdog of government power, as intended by Jefferson and Madison, or it must be made irrelevant. The Russian dissidents late in the Soviet era have given us an example: if you have no media, create one, even if it is suppressed by the government. It was called "Samizdat" – a painstaking process of typing several carbon copies of forbidden manuscripts on condition that the recipients would do likewise. Similarly, the Iranian dissidents during the reign of the Shah copied and distributed audio tapes of revolutionary speeches. In the computer age, there are huge advantages: Internet publication and, f the Internet is taken from us, CDs and minidiscs. For now, the Internet is our Samizdat.
The Democratic party is the only potentially effective opposition party in sight. But at the moment, it is a toothless tiger. We must tell that party that it must either lead the struggle to restore electoral integrity or step aside. When the Clintons, Cantwells, Liebermans and Feinsteins run for re-election, they must be opposed in the primaries by authentic progressives. Even if those progressives lose, but with a creditable showing, the "establishment" Democrats will nonetheless get the message. Next time you get a solicitation notice from the DNC or the Senate or Congressional Campaign Committees, tell them "no dice" unless they deal with the election fraud issue. Then tell them that instead of a contribution, you are purchasing Miller’s book and donating it to the local library.
As for the public, remember that more than half the public is awake, aware, and opposed to the Bush regime. Of these, a small but significant minority is convinced that election fraud is a serious problem. But that dissenting public lacks a voice, cohesion and leadership. This is a recipe for potentially sudden change: like fuel and oxygen, lacking the third necessity – heat of ignition. A message, from a Tom Paine or a Jefferson, or leadership from a Washington, a Gandhi, a Mandela or a Sakharov, can ignite the fire that will consume this evil regime. Or not. That depends on whether concerned citizens sit by and wait for others to act, or instead take some initiative and join the struggle – writing to Congress, talking to any and all associates that will listen and perhaps a few that won’t, contributing to alternative media, copying and distributing dissenting essays, and generally raising hell.
And finally, miracles: they are, by nature, unpredictable. Some possibilities: A few corporate and financial elites will finally come to realize that where Bush is leading, they don’t want to follow, and they will join the opposition. (There are a few intimations of this already). Similarly, perhaps a few journalists, and even some Republicans, will finally if belatedly decide that they would prefer not to live in a dictatorship. Bushenomics is bound to lead to an economic collapse that is certain to wake up the public. And even now, some state Attorney General or some District Attorney may be preparing an indictment for election fraud against an e-vote company executive that could break this conspiracy wide open.
But don’t wait for miracles to happen – make them happen.
If we are to take back our country, we must first take back our vote. Mark Crispin Miller’s book will tell you what has happened, how and why it has happened, and what must be done about it.
Will we, the people, take up the challenge? On that question rests the fate of our republic, of our liberties, and of "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
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.

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.
________________________________________________________________
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.
http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/MonteCarloP…
Or go here for a complete listing of threads from
TruthIsAll: www.TruthIsAll.net
Posted by autorank on Democratic Underground

RESIGN NOW, NOT LATER. TAKE CHENEY WITH YOU (AND SCHMIDT FOR THAT MATTER)
(Reprinted with the permission of the author.)
PLEASE SHARE THIS POST WITH A FRIEND. Happy Thanks Giving!
All pre-election and election day polls showed Bush 47.8% to 48.7%
1) Bush’s 11-poll average election day job approval was 48.5% (1.0% MoE).
2) His pre-election national 18 poll weighted share was 48.7% (0.7% MoE).
3) His pre-election 50 state poll weighted share was 48.5% (0.6% MoE).
4) His National Exit Poll (12:22am timeline) vote share (gender demographic)
was 47.8% (1.2% MoE, assuming a 40% cluster effect).
5) His State Exit Poll weighted national vote share was 48.3% (0.50% MoE,
assuming a 40% cluster effect).
Here is the Pre-election 50 state poll share calculation:
Bush’s weighted poll share was 47.0%, as compared to Kerry’s 47.5%.
That accounts for 94.5% of the total.
Add 1.0% for third parties, for 95.5% of the total.
That leaves 4.5% undecided.
Of the 4.5%, add 1.50% (1/3) to the Bush share.
Therefore, Bush’s pre-election state poll share: 48.5%
And the Pre-election National 18 poll share calculation:
Bush’s weighted share was 47.30%, as compared to Kerry’s 47.55%.
That accounts for 94.85% of the total.
Add 1.0% for third parties, for 95.85% of the total.
That leaves 4.15% undecided.
Of the 4.15%, add 1.40% (1/3) to the Bush share.
Therefore, Bush’s pre-election National 18 poll share: 48.7%
Consider the Law of Large Numbers.
The mean of the the FOUR independent pre-and post election poll
group means {48.7, 48.5, 47.8, 48.3} is 48.33%.
That’s within 0.17% of Bush’s 48.5% PRE-ELECTION JOB APPROVAL!
The probability is 97.5% that Bush got LESS THAN 48.7% of the vote.
It’s virtually 100% that he got LESS THAN 49.0%.
Want more of this?
Bush’s current 37% job approval is confirmed by TWO INDEPENDENT poll sets:
1) the weighted average of 50 state polls (0.6% MoE).
2) the unweighted average of 12 national polls (1.0% MoE).
These results confirm prior election studies.
An incumbent’s TRUE vote is directly correlated to job approval.
They EXACTLY matched in 2004.
It’s also additional confirmation that the 12:22am exit polls were correct.
So naysayers, will you now claim that
1) 50 pre-election state polls were wrong?
2) 18 pre-election national polls were wrong?
3) 11 pre-election Bush approval polls were wrong?
4) 50 post-election state exit polls were wrong?
5) the National Exit poll (12:22am, 13047 respondents) was wrong?
6) 12 post-election national approval polls are wrong?
At the same time, will you claim that the Final National Exit Poll,
which was the ONLY poll matched to the recorded vote, was correct?
Even though it is a fact that impossible Voted 2000 demographic
weightings are necessary for Bush to have won it?
Naysayers,
You were wrong a year ago.
You were wrong 6 months ago.
And you are wrong now.
If the election were held today,
Bush would lose in a landslide of epic proportions.
Even Diebold couldn’t steal it for him.
Kerry won.
He really did.
He got 12 million more votes (63mm) than Al Gore (51mm).
Maybe this analysis will convince you.
But it’s a moot point.
Al Gore is still President.
Salon?
Mother Jones?
What ever happened to investigative journalism?
Time to get with the program.
Prove it to yourself.
Download the Excel Interactive Election Model.
Find the link at TruthIsAll.Net (link below)
In this chart, note the PERFECT correlation.
BUSH APPROVAL RATING vs. EXIT POLL. Survey USA 11/13/05
Bush exit poll and CURRENT approval rating trend lines have identical slope.
Image
BUSH STATE APPROVAL DEVIATIONS FROM EXIT POLL.Survey USA 11/13/05
This related chart shows the deviations between the state exit polls and current approval ratings
Image
State and National Pre-Election/Exit Poll Simulations and National Exit Poll Timelines.
Image|
Posted on Democratic Underground by autorank.

DIEBOLD ADMITS TO THE GEMS DEFECT (VIDEO CLIP)
On Oct. 17 2005, an ordinary citizen in Cleveland, Mr. Wright, asked
what may turn out be the most important question of the year. What
is Diebold’s explanation, he wanted to know, for the VBA Script hack
of the GEMS central tabulator performed by Dr. Herbert Thompson?
Here is the videotape showing Diebold Election Systems Chief Engineer
Pat Green admitting that Diebold knew of the defect since 2004:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/videos/GEMSDefect.mpg (8,860 KB)
Black Box Voting has learned that the August 18, 2004
CompuWare Report was hidden from the public by Ohio Secretary
of State Ken Blackwell). Here is the tampering risk assessment,
which Blackwell had in his hands BEFORE the Nov. 2004 election,
but withheld from both the public and the Election Assistence Commission
(the federal oversight committee charged with ensuring the security of
elections in all states, not just Ohio:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/reports/GEMS-RISK.pdf
(full report: http://www.bbvdocs.org/reports/diebReasses081804.pdf)
This leads to the crucial question: If Diebold knew, and if Ken
Blackwell knew, why wasn’t the Election Assistence Commission told,
why were no other secretaries of state told, why didn’t Blackwell tell
the Ohio election officials using GEMS, and why weren’t the mitigations
deemed necessary by CompuWare ever implemented?
FEC TO INVESTIGATE RAPPER "P. DIDDY" SEAN COMBS
But Ignores Blistering GAO Report on Insecure Voting Machines
— No Scrutiny of Election Violations —
According to a press release
(http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/13160.html,
)issued by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a conservative
“ethics” watchdog group that specializes in filing complaints against
progressive politicians and groups, the FEC has notified the NLPC
that it will take up a complaint against rapper Sean Combs for his
2004 “Vote or Die Campaign.” The NLPC Web site says the case
has been assigned “Matter Under Review number 5684.” The
NLPC hypes the so-called investigation, though the FEC letter itself
appears more tepid, almost a form letter:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/FECCombs.pdf
Black Box Voting, a minority-governed nonpartisan elections watchdog,
says the FEC has better ways to spend its time and your dime. The FEC
claims they are not staffed for many investigations. If that’s the case,
why is a P. Diddy investigation on their priority list at all?
The FEC is not investigating Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell
who withheld critical security information. Public records requests
submitted by Black Box Voting have revealed that neither Blackwell nor
Diebold corrected the GEMS defects before the 2004 election. These
defects remain uncorrected in nearly 800 jurisdictions.
The FEC is not investigating the findings of the General Accounting
Office voting system security report, released Oct. 21, 2005, which
cites multiple security problems with the voting systems currently in
use. Among the problems cited by the GAO Report: flaws in voting
system security, access, and hardware controls, weak security
management practices by vendors, and multiple examples of
failures in real elections. Full GAO report:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/reports/GAOReport_ElectionSecurity_102105.pdf
The Help America Vote Act allocated $4 billion to buy voting machines
that taxpayers never asked for, many of which have turned out to be
defective. The FEC is not investigating.
A false claims lawsuit filed by Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris
and investigator Jim March recovered $2.6 million for California taxpayers
from Diebold Election Systems because of its poor voting machine
security and improper testing and certification. The FEC never investigated
whether such false claims affect any of the other 31 Diebold states,
even after the California secretary of state requested a criminal investigation,
citing Diebold’s lies to state authorities. More on false claims suit:
(http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/6738.html)
In October 2005, Black Box Voting revealed documents showing that
in 2002, Diebold made misrepresentations to the Georgia secretary of
state. (http://www.bbvdocs.org/diebold/GA-falsehoods.pdf)
In August 2005, Diebold submitted a letter to the Arizona secretary of state
(http://www.bbvdocs.org/diebold/AZ-sos-moreland.pdf)
which contained serious misrepresentations pertaining to a security
problem called “the GEMS defect.” One would think that making false
claims to three secretaries of state in four consecutive years (2002,
2003, 2004, and 2005), might represent a concern, but the FEC is not
investigating this.
(full Georgia sales presentation:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/diebold/GApresentation.pdf)
The FEC is investigating Sean Combs for allegedly flying in a private
jet while conducting a “get out the vote” drive. The complaint alleges
that people who spoke at his rallies made statements beneficial to a
candidate (John Kerry). What the FEC has never investigated is
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel’s $5 million stake in Election Systems
& Software, the company that counted Hagel’s votes
(http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-3.pdf)
when he ran for office in 1996 and 2002. Nor has the FEC investigated
Wally O’Dell, the Diebold CEO who promised to “deliver the votes to
Bush in 2004.”
VOTING MACHINE PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS HIT HARD NOV. 8
2005 elections, casting doubt on Ohio and Detroit elections and revealing
civil rights violations in Los Angeles.
On Nov. 8, 2005 in Texas, new touch-screens could not choke out a
result, so technicians for a vendor “manually retrieved” the votes from
inside the computer. The FEC has asked no follow up questions about
why a vendor’s technicians are handling votes at all, since they are not
certified or sworn elections officials, nor has the FEC inquired how touch-
screens with no paper ballots that can’t find their own votes managed to
pass testing and certification, or how a technician can reach into a touch-
screen to “retrieve” votes.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/13130.html
In Ohio, the Nov. 8, 2005 election produced staggeringly impossible
numbers, but the FEC is not investigating why more votes showed up
than voters, nor why the election reform ballot issue voting machine
results were exactly opposite of the pre-election polls.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559
In Detroit’s Nov. 8, 2005 election, procedures broke down in 26 precincts
causing nine electronic ballot boxes to go missing. These were not all
recovered until two days later. At that time, thousands of other bogus
votes were counted. However, the FEC is not investigating.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/13139.html
Los Angeles citizens aren’t permitted to watch their votes being
counted, a clear violation of California law. Black Box Voting was
told the results “came out the same as expected” so we should not
be concerned. Regardless of whether the votes “come out right,”
hiding crucial vote-tallying processes is a civil rights violation, and
powerful Los Angeles County Elections Registrar Conny Drake
McCormack has a history with minority vote suppression and rights
violations.
Before taking the position in Los Angeles County, Registrar
Conny Drake McCormack was the target of a Texas legislative
effort referred to as the “Get Conny Drake bill,”(See footnote 1)
an unsuccessful effort to find a way to fire elections officials who
engage in voting violations targeting minorities. She had allegedly
been withholding ballots in African-American districts. On another
matter, regarding voting machines, she was found by the Department
of Justice to have violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. She was
also subjected to a two-year election fraud probe by Texas attorney
general Jim Mattox on another matter. While still under investigation
in Texas, Conny Drake McCormack took over elections in San Diego
(replacing Ray Ortiz after he was indicted), then became elections
chief in Los Angeles County, where she has arranged for votes to
be counted on a customized, home-brewed tallying system, hidden
from public view.
On Nov. 8, Black Box Voting observed Los Angeles County election
workers conducting a bait and switch.
(http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/13095.html)
While the press and the public were instructed to look in a window
to a room containing optical scan machines, results actually came out
of a different set of computers in another room, which was hidden from
view. The press was told that the system is certified and tested, but Black
Box Voting cannot find that the Los Angeles tallying system, customized
under Conny Drake McCormack, was ever examined by federal testing
labs or the state of California as required by law. Though she is now
the most powerful elections official in California — and one of the most
influential in the nation — the FEC is not investigating Conny Drake McCormack.
For more information on things the FEC is not investigating, see investigations
(http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html)
and News (http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/114.html)
at Black Box Voting (.ORG)
(Footnote 1) Dallas Morning News, Mar. 31 1987: Elections Chief Resigning
After Troubled Tenure
…"bumpy roads … include Attorney General Jim Mattox’s continuing
investigation into vote-fraud allegations … Ms. McCormack weathered
investigations by the U.S. Justice Department, the Texas secretary of state’s
office and the Dallas County district attorney’s office … legislation dubbed
the "Get Conny Drake (her maiden name) bill’ … Top Democratic officials
called for her ouster. Roy Orr, a commissioner at the time, called her "a jerk
at the wheel’ and "a typical bureaucrat.’ John Wiley Price, now a commissioner,
called her a liar and a racist.
———–
Black Box Voting is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501c(3) elections watchdog. We
are fighting for your right as a citizen to view and oversee your own voting
process. Our focus is on increasing your access to the elections process,
obtaining crucial public records to document what is going on in elections,
and exposing procedural problems that corrupt the integrity of the election.
Black Box Voting is supported entirely by citizen donations. You can support
this important work by clicking here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
or by sending to 330 SW 43rd St. Suite K, PMB 547, Renton WA 98055
———–Black Box Voting
