Democratic Underground BOOKMARKS

Posted in Democratic Underground, General on January 28th, 2006
A Full Recount Would Show that López Obrador Won Mexico’s Presidency by Mo Laotra Sun Jul-09-06 10:27 AM
BRAD BLOG: 2 New Suits Against Diebold & Friends, New Busby/Bilbray Stuff! BradBlog Thu Jul-13-06 02:41 PM
Mexico: Rightist “winner’s” Brother-in-law Wrote VOTE COUNT Software – WOW autorank Wed Jul-12-06 04:33 PM
LA Times asks the $50,000 Question, Bush: War Criminal? Vyan Sun Jul-02-06 10:17 AM
Bradblog: New lawsuit seeks immediate decertification of Diebold!! Stevepol Thu Jul-13-06 07:47 AM
“The Stolen Election of 2004” by Michael Parenti mod mom Fri Jul-14-06 07:28 AM
Greene Co OH ’04 Recount Irregularities Detailed Under Oath mod mom Sat Jul-08-06 03:38 AM
Salon: Mexico 2006: Florida all over again? kpete Fri Jul-07-06 10:41 PM
LIVE NOW: DU’s TruthIsAll on the Mike Malloy Show (+ post) kster Sat Jul-08-06 05:27 AM
Citizen Clinton Speaks Out: Former President Raises Cain – Almost althecat Thu Jul-06-06 01:12 PM
KY: Grand Jury Refers Election Probe to Special Panel Wilms

Sun Jul-02-06 09:27 AM

 

                        



Rolling Stone: Kennedy: company insiders are prepared to testify (2006) ProSense Sat Jul-01-06 12:48 PM
Washington Post, “A single person could swing an election.” Botany Thu Jun-29-06 01:35 PM
A call to investigate the 2004 election ProSense Wed Jun-28-06 10:53 AM
Long Version of Clinton’s REMARKS (thanks to MCM for finding!) mod mom Sat Jul-01-06 03:04 AM
Here we go again. Grand jury probes election inconsistencies in KY. Stevepol Sat Jul-01-06 06:57 AM
CA: Tally is Rising in Registration Fraud Wilms Wed Jun-28-06 08:20 AM
over 1000 metric tons of the deadly U238-isotope serryjw Fri Jun-23-06 06:11 PM
New Report Shows 17 States at High Risk For Compromised Election Results sfexpat2000 Sat Jun-24-06 05:56 AM
Hey, everybody! Las Vegas is going BANKRUPT!!! IdaBriggs Sun Jun-18-06 12:18 PM
“Emergency Townhall Meetings” CA-50 Here we go! kansasblue Fri Jun-23-06 05:05 PM
Scoop: Bush Election Theft Saga Heats Up In Ohio Wilms Tue Jun-20-06 07:15 PM
Best sites & resources for election fraud NEWBIES ? IndyOp Sat Jun-17-06 10:22 PM
NYT Bob Herbert: Kerry ‘almost certainly’ won Ohio in 2004 drm604 Wed Jun-14-06 07:48 AM
1/2 of Bush victory margin in New Mexico in 2004 ghost votes MissWaverly Fri Jun-16-06 01:39 PM
CA-50 2nd Edition, I look at the April 11th Special Primary FogerRox Mon Jun-12-06 10:12 AM
Most charges dropped in phone jamming RW election fraud unpossibles Fri Jun-16-06 07:45 AM
Greg Palast: African-American Voters Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List kpete Fri Jun-16-06 10:30 AM
Courageous Schakowsky (D-IL): WAS 2004 ELECTION STOLEN? “ONLY ANSWER YES” IndyOp Fri Jun-16-06 12:19 PM
It Only Takes One Man To Steal an Election (And It’s Not Who You Think) McCamy Taylor Thu Jun-15-06 08:58 AM
Yurica Report in support of RFK article: A Vast Political Misfortune Ojai Person Wed Jun-14-06 07:20 PM
AUTORANK Kennedy’s Challenge – Salon, Mother Jones & the Tortured Dialogue althecat Thu Jun-15-06 09:36 AM
Massive voter suppression in South Carolina election today? IndyOp Wed Jun-14-06 02:29 PM
DNC contacts Brad–they’re looking into Busby/Bilbray race in CA emlev Wed Jun-14-06 08:55 PM
NYT Bob Herbert (via RawStory): Kerry ‘almost certainly’ won Ohio in 2004 eomer Mon Jun-12-06 06:43 PM
Illegitimate election-Key RFK Source-Responds to Criticism of 04 Election kpete Thu Jun-15-06 06:29 PM
NO, THIS IS **IT** FOLKS!: Bill Bored Sun Jun-11-06 10:14 AM
From the ERD: RECORDS FOR 150,000 COLO. VOTERS MISSING rumpel Sun Jun-11-06 11:26 PM
Dr. Ron Baiman: Something Smells Fishy in San Diego – cross post from GDP bleever Sun Jun-11-06 05:09 AM
bradblog: BUSBY/BILBRAY ELECTION IN DOUBT Wilms Sat Jun-10-06 09:47 AM



Debunking the Debunker CrisisPapers Wed Jun-07-06 08:47 AM
Howard Dean on Diebold: “These machines are a problem” kpete Sun Apr-23-06 02:55 PM
Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA – By DU’s Own Autorank althecat Sat Apr-22-06 02:52 PM
Phone records… people in election phone jamming called White House! AGENDA21 Tue Apr-11-06 11:03 AM
28,000 votes stolen from Kerry in Lucas County (Toledo); Noe @ Work Botany Sat Jun-10-06 03:26 AM
WHAT in the Heck does this RFK, Jr. guy WANT anyway?? Man-o-man!!! Land Shark Wed Jun-07-06 05:50 PM
Debate over Rolling Stone Article ignores what’s Important to USA Land Shark Tue Jun-06-06 05:23 PM
Rolling Stone Editorial: A Call for Investigation (Election 2004) ProSense Sat Jun-10-06 08:55 PM
Ken Blackwell must be stopped BobcatJH Wed May-10-06 09:43 PM
6th Circuit opinion (4-21-06) Holds Op-SCan & P-cards Unconstitutional!!! Land Shark Tue Apr-25-06 06:13 PM
Scoop, NZ: The Theft Of The 2004 Presidential Election seafan Fri Jun-09-06 12:45 AM
THIS IS **IT** FOLKS. garybeck Sun Jun-11-06 08:33 PM
Dr Ron Baiman: “CLEARLY A CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN OHIO” mod mom Mon Jun-12-06 06:55 AM
Candidate Clint Curtis Praises RFK Jr – Calls For Fed Investigation kpete Sun Jun-11-06 07:51 AM
Machines change votes in Iowa BeFree Fri Jun-09-06 09:10 PM
Results of Close Busby/Bilbray U.S. House Special Election in Doubt feelthebreeze Thu Jun-08-06 09:54 PM
So Dark the Con of Ken:Blackwell Sins In ’04 Coming Back To Haunt Him Algorem Wed Jun-14-06 05:25 AM
Brand new e-voting machines fail in early voting hours in Kern Co., CA. Cleita Thu Jun-08-06 12:14 AM
Fitrakis responds to Tokaji’s analysis of RFK Jr: mod mom Mon Jun-12-06 08:58 PM
Cliff Arnebeck’s response to Farhad Manjoo article: mod mom Thu Jun-08-06 11:14 AM
Fitrakis responds to Manjoo’s Salon article: mod mom Thu Jun-08-06 09:21 AM
USA TODAY: Spate of Lawsuits Target e-Voting Wilms Mon Jun-05-06 06:42 AM
RFK, Jr & Salon’s Manjoo & DU Election Reformers Agree On: IndyOp Mon Jun-05-06 11:08 PM
Bush – Most Hated President Ever Stole Both Elections WillYourVoteBCounted Mon Jun-05-06 02:56 PM
Diebold video, 46 seconds, at “Current TV” website. Eric J in MN Wed Jun-07-06 09:48 PM
Bobby Kennedy JR. on ’04 election theft in feature Rolling Stone article Amaryllis Thu Jun-01-06 06:41 AM
Convicted Phone Jammer now teaching @ GOP Campaign School mod mom Wed May-31-06 11:27 AM
Preemptive election theft: Is Turdblossom working the CA-45th? kpete Mon May-29-06 10:25 PM
Paper Ballots, Hand Counted, are the “Gold Standard” Around the World Wilms Mon May-29-06 10:17 PM
NM: Court Says That State Should Have Allowed (2004) Recount Wilms Mon May-29-06 08:43 PM
4 STEPS TO HOW THE GOP STOLE THE ’04 ELECTION (and will repeat again) mod mom Sun May-28-06 05:51 PM
Gore: No Intermediate Step Between SCOTUS Decision and Violent Revolution Wilms Thu May-25-06 05:53 AM
“2004 Presidential Election – Compendium of Attempts to Dismiss Vote Fraud papau Wed May-24-06 04:27 AM
UNDISPUTED – HURSTI HACK IS BOTH NEW MATERIAL AND TOTALLY DEVASTATING kster Fri May-26-06 07:46 PM
Exit Poll Margin of Error in North Carolina 2004 BeFree Tue May-23-06 04:11 PM
Will MSNBC put this ON TV ? kster Tue May-23-06 03:35 PM
ANOTHER 100+ Machines Fail in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh)! Amaryllis Wed May-17-06 01:51 PM
Paul Weyrich GOP strategy: Our election wins increase as # voters decrease IndyOp Tue May-16-06 08:28 PM
Its the Voting Stupid ! Blogged by John Conyers,Jr. Twist_U_Up Tue May-16-06 01:04 AM
Update on David G. Mills’ Tennessee Lawsuit on the Unconstitionality of Pa Febble Mon May-15-06 09:32 PM
New York Times — Black Box Voting study “biggest ever” patriothackd Sat May-20-06 05:12 AM
BradBlog/John Gideon: Diebold’s Deliberate Security Vulnerability Wilms Fri May-12-06 05:26 AM
Poll: 2004 Election Was Stolen; according to viewers of all news except Kip Humphrey Thu May-11-06 08:17 PM
Harri Hursti Report II – Diebold touch-screens Steve A Play Sun May-14-06 09:24 AM
May 10 – 4 Arizona Voters Sue Secretary of State WillYourVoteBCounted Thu May-11-06 04:30 AM
Local Boards of Elections Blocking Thousands of New Yorkers from Voting eomer Wed May-10-06 03:06 PM
BREAKING: SEC INVESTIGATION OF DIEBOLD UNDER WAY! BradBlog Wed May-10-06 09:40 AM
AMERICAN BLACKOUT-a must see film: from FL to GA to Franklin Co OH mod mom Tue May-09-06 05:01 AM
$13 Million No-Bid Sweetheart Deal with Diebold Draws Fire from activists Amaryllis Wed May-10-06 07:57 AM
(Ohio) Vote counting goes on up north MelissaB Sun May-07-06 06:27 PM
BBV: more dirt on Diebold, possible lawsuits, heroic officials lauded Stevepol Tue May-09-06 02:22 AM
NEWLY DISCOVERED DIEBOLD THREAT DESCRIBED AS ‘N ATIONAL SECURITY RISK’ Amaryllis Fri May-05-06 08:31 PM
WANTED: This person voted over 6,000 times on 11/2/04 garybeck Wed May-03-06 06:36 PM
Brad: National media finally covers 2006 electoral meltdown Amaryllis Fri May-05-06 05:39 AM
Brad: Indiana and West Va file legal actions against ES&S Amaryllis Sat Apr-29-06 01:26 PM
Help with Ohio Parallel Election (contact info) mod mom Thu Apr-27-06 12:54 PM
Blackwell Distributes Voter Lists with SS Numbers mod mom Tue Apr-25-06 10:16 AM
(Bradblog) Friedman briefs Feingold on election fraud ! kansasblue Mon Apr-24-06 08:10 AM
Clear paper ballot counter, transporter and storage box kster Mon Jun-05-06 09:12 PM
Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA Wilms Mon Apr-24-06 06:18 AM
Free Press uncovers evidence of ballot tampering in Warren County, Ohio Wilms Sun Apr-23-06 04:51 PM
Wed Dec-31-69 04:00 PM
HOPE? Slew of lawsuits hit the voting machine companies garybeck Fri Apr-28-06 10:34 AM
FreePress: Evidence of Ballot Tampering in Warren Co Ohio in ’04 mod mom Wed Apr-26-06 07:16 PM
Brad: OR SOS Bradbury sues ES&S; says “we will not be coerced” Amaryllis Fri Apr-21-06 02:09 AM
Asked @125 judges if confident every vote counted…no hands went up Wilms Wed Apr-19-06 05:53 AM
PA Lawsuit: John Gideon and Joe Hall Illuminate Wilms Mon Apr-17-06 06:55 PM
Update from Alaska… Blue_In_AK Thu Apr-13-06 06:22 PM
MUST READ! – E-VOTING 2006: The Approaching Train Wreck (+) kster Tue Apr-11-06 02:52 PM
HOLT’S RESPONSE!: MARK IT UP! Bill Bored Thu Apr-13-06 09:07 PM
Motion Filed Before Judge Carr Seeking Reconsideration in Recount Case eomer Sun Apr-09-06 09:38 AM
Election Day troubles could be part of ‘international conspiracy’ kpete Sun Apr-09-06 09:58 AM
With voting machine company now bankrupt, CEO speaks out: kster Sat Apr-08-06 11:58 AM
Recount FIXED in Ohio for 04 Presidential Contest me b zola Thu Apr-06-06 04:43 PM
Shocking Diebold Conflict of Interest kpete Fri Apr-07-06 04:05 PM
No Voting Machines for Leon County: You Won’t Believe Why kster Tue Apr-04-06 07:35 AM
Susan Sarandon calls for outside monitoring of US elections due to fraud Amaryllis Tue Apr-04-06 06:14 PM

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: State by State

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, 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)

Alaska:

Arizona:

California:



Colorado:



Florida:


Georgia:

Illinois:

Indiana:



Iowa:

Maryland:



Minnesota:



Missouri:



Nebraska:



Nevada:



New Hampshire:

New Jersey:

New Mexico:

North Carolina:

Ohio:

Pennsylvania:



Texas:

Utah:



Vermont:

Virginia:



Washington:

Wisconsin

Wyoming:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: Main Stream Media

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General, Main Stream Media on January 28th, 2006

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: Electronic Voting & Tabulating

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, Black Box (Electronic) Voting, General on January 28th, 2006

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: Exit Polls & Projections

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, Exit Polls, General on January 28th, 2006

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: General

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General on January 28th, 2006

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


2004 ELECTION THEFT: GENERAL LINKS




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Evidence? We Don’t Want Your Stinkin’ Evidence!

Posted in General, Main Stream Media, TAKE ACTION! on January 24th, 2006

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:

  • How could the GOP campaign managers believe that they could get away with a stolen election?
  • Why would they dare risk failure, and the subsequent criminal indictments and dissolution of their party?
  • What could possibly motivate them to subvert the foundations of our democracy?

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.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem:

Posted in General on December 14th, 2005

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.

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

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Final demonstration based on public data that Bush DID NOT WIN.

Posted in Exit Polls, General on November 25th, 2005

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)

TruthIsAll.Net–Comprehensive Democrratioins of Election Fraud Here including the Excel Interactive Election Model!

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. 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

FEC probes rapper P. Diddy, not Blackwell; VIDEO – Diebold admits GEMS defects

Posted in Black Box (Electronic) Voting, General on November 16th, 2005

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

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page