an Ohio recount??!!??!!


PDA






nipprdog
November 15, 2004, 07:50 PM
Ohio recount all but certain

3rd-party candidates raise enough cash to demand another tally of state's votes

Posted: November 15, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Two third-party presidential candidates say they've raised enough money to file for an official recount of the vote in Ohio, which President Bush won on Nov. 2 and where some observers claim there were irregularities and fraud in the election.

Green Party candidate David Cobb announced today that the $113,600 needed to file for a recount had been raised, "with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range," said his media director, Blair Bobier. The fund-raising effort began on Thursday.


"Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio," Cobb said in a statement.

The Green Party has been working with the Libertarian Party – both parties were on the ballot in Ohio – in securing a recount. Both Cobb and Libertarian Michael Badnarik say they've demanded that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who co-chaired this year's Bush campaign in Ohio, recuse himself from the recount process.

Said Bobier: "The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African-American voters."

The Ohio vote will be certified on Dec. 3 at the latest, Bobier told WND. He says the candidates can file for the recount once the vote is certified.

The Electoral College votes on Dec. 13, so it is unclear whether or not a recount would be completed by then.

"But," commented Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University," those votes are not opened by Congress until Jan. 6. So there is still time to challenge the results in Ohio. …"

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state.

Bush won Ohio by a vote of 2,796,147 to John Kerry's 2,659,664. Despite reports of irregularities and outstanding provisional ballots, Kerry conceded Ohio and the election on Nov. 3.

Badnarik received 14,331 votes in Ohio and Cobb, as a write-in candidate, received 24 votes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41464

If you enjoyed reading about "an Ohio recount??!!??!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TarpleyG
November 15, 2004, 07:53 PM
I guess these folks haven't heard that the election was over a couple of weeks ago.

Greg

Jeff Timm
November 15, 2004, 08:17 PM
As a long time resident of Cuyahoga County, I can only surmise an honest vote count will cost the Democrats 150,000 votes or more.

Geoff
Who is disgusted. :fire:

reagansquad
November 15, 2004, 08:56 PM
The delay in asking for the recount is due to the fact that the 3rd party candidates had to raise $150k. The Green party was the first to come up with the money.

There have been over 48 possible cases of voter fraud in Ohio and Florida alone with the VAST majority favoring President Bush. Like it or not, this election is far from over.

Kaylee
November 15, 2004, 09:32 PM
Like it or not, this election is far from over.

Dude, it's done. Over. Fini. Elvis has left the building.

Even if someone came along and managed to prove that every frickin' Bush vote in the state was personally stuck in the ballot box by Karl Rove, no one is gonna want to go through 2000 again.



Thank God.

Neva
November 15, 2004, 09:48 PM
There have been over 48 possible cases of voter fraud in Ohio and Florida alone with the VAST majority favoring President Bush. Like it or not, this election is far from over.

http://cpltrainer.com/election/election.html

Tag
November 15, 2004, 10:02 PM
IMO a recount will only lead to Bush winning by more votes. Kerry already folded, it's over.

2nd Amendment
November 15, 2004, 10:05 PM
In business and personal life I have always run on gut feelings, and they have served me well. In politics and world events I have the same feelings and they also are generally right. Most recently I canned an editorial piece I was doing on whether Arafat was poisoned. Only to see it pop up a few days later, again and again. I thought my piece was just too tin-hat...

Well, don the aluminum, boys, cause I have a bad feeling we may YET see President-Elect John F'in Kerry...And God help us if I am right.

Headless Thompson Gunner
November 15, 2004, 10:34 PM
Folks, this election is OVER. Bush won. No recount will change that.

Recounts nearly always agree with the initial counts to within about 0.25% to 0.5%. I'v never heard of an election where two counts disagreed by even 1%. A difference of more than 2%, I would guess, is statistically impossible.

Bush won Ohio by 2.490%. That margin is WELL beyond the reach of any recount. The Kerry people would have to "find" more than 136,483 votes to change the results. That's a HUGE number of votes.

Consider it this way: Assuming that paper ballots are the same thickness as the ream of printer paper I have on hand, John Kerry would need to find a stack of ballots 51 feet tall in order to overcome Bush's lead. Does anyone really think that's possible?

2nd Amendment
November 15, 2004, 10:38 PM
Kerry doesn't need to find 136,000 Kerry votes. Kerry only needs to have find enough "fraud" to toss some sizeable percentage of that and then find enough Kerry votes to make up the difference. Still unlikely, I admit, but when you're willing to use fraud to claim fraud, all while using fraud to make your own votes, it becomes much more easy...

Neva
November 15, 2004, 10:44 PM
And that's an average of about 1550 votes per county, every county... and that's if not one of the Kerry votes is turned around.... given that Mr. Kerry has conceded, the point is moot, anyway....

2nd Amendment
November 15, 2004, 10:51 PM
The only thing I will argue with is your last line. A concession literally means nothing legally. If someone can manufacture the votes, however they may do it, then that concession is the only thing moot. But, like I said, I hope to hell I am utterly wrong regarding those votes.

Jim March
November 15, 2004, 10:57 PM
Folks, this recount is necessary.

Here's why:

We won't survive as a nation if each side that loses presumes that they lost via cheating. Too many of the electronic voting systems in use today are *literally* cheat-friendly. Diebold's crap is the best documented offender so far but major questions also surround ES&S, Sequoia and others...it's just that we've got the actual Diebold code to kick around and b'Gawd is it bad. See also:

http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html

I doubt we'll find enough BS to overturn the election although if we do, I think it'll be in Florida, not Ohio. I'm worried about the vote patterns in the Diebold "optical scan" counties...it looks like somebody went "hey, we can booger the results whatever way we want, if somebody catches wise, oh well, this crappy software hides it's tracks REAL well and since everybody thinks optical scan is "safer" because there's a paper trail, who would bother to check?".

I think we WILL find some fraud. Sorry, it's just TOO TEMPTING, okay? Not enough to make anybody say "Yes, President Kerry?" in the White House lunch room but enough to force a serious re-think of the voting processes currently in use.

I mean...OK, take one example: the Diebold central vote-tally software ("GEMS") allows individual login names and then the audit trail tracks what each username does. Sounds great, right? 'Cept that on election night, you've got data flooding in constantly, from modems, memory cards, big optical-scan hoppers for the absentee ballots, it's a madhouse. And to switch usernames, you'd have to SHUT DOWN the tabulator software and re-start it under the new login.

Well nobody does that of course. So everybody just operates under the "ADMIN" username.

Swear to God. And let's not even start with how the audit log can be edited by a goddamn chimpanzee munchin' on Menthos when he gets it right. Literally.

Somebody really did try and hack the vote in Volusia County FL in 2000. They were incompetent; they copied a memory card for a precinct's worth of data where there were 900-something voters so that it read 16,022 negative votes for Gore, 4,000+ for Bush :scrutiny:. Sure, somebody caught that, but they didn't catch the perp(s). Same idiots were probably running around off-leash in that county THIS year and maybe they took some Visual Basic scripting classes in the last four years in which case God help us, they had direct control over the MS-Access runtime edition found in the GEMS box and could do *anything* with less than 20k of code stashed somewhere in a %$#%@#^%$ TEXT FILE.

Is this making sense yet?

We have to KNOW what happened. Period.

Anybody here think I feel that way because I'm a closet Kerryite?

:scrutiny:

hubel458
November 15, 2004, 10:59 PM
A recount will only add to the size-----of the lead..Ed

http://amsam.org/dicksbulge.jpg

2nd Amendment
November 15, 2004, 11:01 PM
The above explains why I have a bad feeling about this... Like I said, it ain't about how many sKerry votes sKerry can find, it's about how many Shrub votes sKerry can get tossed.

one45auto
November 15, 2004, 11:07 PM
You can take off your tin-foil hat. The fat lady has sung, and she doesn't like to give encores.

Believe me, if Kerry and company had thought there was any chance - however slim, of challenging enough votes to win they would never have conceded, especially with a trial lawyer on the ticket.

Neva
November 15, 2004, 11:19 PM
Folks, this recount is necessary.

And go through this crap again?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/president.election/index.html">Gore 'optimistic' as appeal heads to Florida Supreme Court


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/hillary.senate/index.html">Senator-elect Hillary Clinton heads to Capitol Hill


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/recount.wrap/index.html">Gore still sees '50-50' chance of victory


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/congress.returns/index.html">With eye on next year's Congress, lawmakers return for lame-duck session


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/absentee.lawsuit/index.html">Absentee ballot suits may be Gore's best hope for Florida win


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/voting.reform.ap/index.html">Lawmakers introduce voting system reform bills


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/blitzer.debrief/index.html">Wolf Blitzer gauges the presidential battle


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/veeps.hill/index.html">Running mates head to Capitol Hill as court battles continue


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/gore.transcript/index.html">Transcript: Gore talks with reporters outside the White House


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/bush.transition/index.html">Bush pressured to hire conservative secretary of defense


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/factcheck.recession/index.html">Fact check: Economic slowdown doesn't mean recession ... yet


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/hip.replacement/index.html">Former President Bush doing well after hip replacement surgery


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/clark.debrief/index.html">Tony Clark on encouraged, energized Bush campaign


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/franken.debrief/index.html">Bob Franken monitors challenges before federal appeals court


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/05/election.seminole.pol.reut/index.html">Florida absentee ballot case could help Gore


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/latimes.gore/index.html">latimes.com: Last hope for Gore may be 1 word: 'Doubt'


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/potter.debrief/index.html">Mark Potter on the legal maneuvering in Florida


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/thurmond.birthday.ap/index.html">Most senior senator gets one more candle on the cake


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/election.agriculture.reut/index.html">Stenholm, Veneman seen likely as US agriculture secretary


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/lewinsky.clinton.ap/index.html">Lewinsky will 'reluctantly' appear for interview by prosecutors


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/carnahan.appointed.ap/index.html">Missouri governor appoints Jean Carnahan to husband's Senate seat


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/fla.legislature.ap/index.html">Florida speaker raises possibility of no special session


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/05/iowa.certifies.ap/index.html">Iowa results: Gore wins by 4,144 votes

No, this never-ending whining over what this side or that side feels is the same old-same old.

Jim March
November 16, 2004, 12:12 AM
If we don't fix this now and get rid of these crapola machines, we're going to face this EVERY TIME.

By about round four, the whole country will come completely unglued.

Dammit folks, we had ELECTION VIOLENCE this year. We can campaign headquarters buildings on each side raided, vandalized, computers stolen. That didn't used to happen!

It has to end. Period. And yes, this year and if means FL2000 all over again, so be it.

hubel458
November 16, 2004, 12:31 AM
Jim is right....The recount process is just part of the election law
as a whole and our country won't go wrong by following it....They will
do the whole state, not pick and choose where they think they can gain like the Dems did in FL...Ed.

Coronach
November 16, 2004, 01:16 AM
Believe me, if Kerry and company had thought there was any chance - however slim, of challenging enough votes to win they would never have conceded, especially with a trial lawyer on the ticket.DING DING DING!

Until something new has developed, I'll stand by this. We're seeing a lot of "abnormalities" because, frankly, these past few elections are the first ones that have been under the post '00 media microscope, in reference to the actual counting. Combine that with the new (possibly sub-optimal, certainly immature) voting machine technology that has been pressed into service since the '00 Florida debacle, and I'm surprised that there there has not been more of an outcry. But I think much of it is just same old, same old.

But unless there is some new revelation that will change a lot of votes, I cannot help but note that the guy running the race has even said that there is no way to win...and his staff is not exactly ill-prepared to examine the issues in question.

Mike

Headless Thompson Gunner
November 16, 2004, 01:42 AM
Statistically, there will always be some degree of error whenever you try to count anything this large. Any time you try to get 100 million people to do something, there will be errors and abnormalities. The question is whether or not that degree of error is enough to change the outcome. The margins are simply too big this time around. Whatever faults our voting systems have, they're at least good enough that we can becertain that we know the true and correct results this time around.

Our voting systems in the past were too good for there to be systematic error large enough to change the election results this time. If what Jim March claims is true, then perhaps the past performances are no longer indicative of current capabilities. Perhaps the new voting equipment isn't as resistant to error as the old stuff was.

If so, this should be investigated thoroughly. Any guilty parties should be strung up by the toenails. If that were the purpose of these recounts I'd supprt them fully. But it appears that these recounts are simply a bunch politically motivated BS.

Malone LaVeigh
November 16, 2004, 02:21 AM
I haven't wanted to touch this subject, because everyone here knows how I feel about Bush. But I got this the other day by e-mail from a guy that was in Ohio for the election. I'm going to cut-n-paste a small part of it, but you can see the rest at the link. This stuff is important if the country is going to function anything like it's supposed to. And I can't say I think too highly of those that seem to be saying it might be a little inconvienient to open the can of worms. This is your country, fer cryin out loud...

Note: This entire message is posted online at http://www.WantToKnow.info/electionsproblems

Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Board of Elections Website - 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast above the number of registered voters - 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website below. To verify the discrepancies, first look at the number of registered voters for the below precincts, then scroll down to the number of ballots cast for the precinct. In particular, compare the numbers for the precincts listed below.

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm

Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast
Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast
Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast
Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast
Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast
Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast
Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast
Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast
Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast
Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast
Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast
Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast
Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast
North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast
Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast
Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast
Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast
Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast
South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast
Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast
University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast
Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast
Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast
Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast
Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast
Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast
Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast



Michigan City News-Dispatch - In LaPorte County, Indiana, a Democratic stronghold, electronic voting machines decided that each precinct only had 300 voters. "At about 7 p.m. Tuesday," according to this report, "it was noticed that the first two or three printouts from individual precinct reports all listed an identical number of voters. Each precinct was listed as having 300 registered voters. That means the total number of voters for the county would be 22,200, although there are more than 79,000 registered voters."

http://www.wanttoknow.info/041104newsdispatch (article became pay for view shortly after elections)

Destructo6
November 16, 2004, 04:42 AM
There are many others with totals going the opposite direction:
REGISTERED VOTERS - CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 38840
BALLOTS CAST CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 29885

REGISTERED VOTERS - WESTLAKE 25627
BALLOTS CAST WESTLAKE 25173

REGISTERED VOTERS - LAKEWOOD 41983
BALLOTS CAST LAKEWOOD 28531
Those taken more or less at random.

Be sure to also note:
Last Update: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 ----- 2:12:48 AM
That's not exactly the final word, is it?

Jim March
November 16, 2004, 05:01 AM
The part of the process that blackboxvoting.org is involved in began *months* ago. I should know, I helped write the public records requests.

Which started going in the mail on election day all right - before the polls even closed.

Were we interested in a "pro-Kerry recount", or were we checking the dang machines?

:scrutiny:

jsalcedo
November 16, 2004, 07:50 AM
It doesn't sound like the Democrats are screaming for a recount.

Any recount and investigation into voter fraud will expose the democrat's crooked tactics and severly weaken and embarass the party.

Kaylee
November 16, 2004, 09:12 AM
Dammit folks, we had ELECTION VIOLENCE this year. We can campaign headquarters buildings on each side raided, vandalized, computers stolen. That didn't used to happen!

Election violence is nothing new, particularly when hot button issues are up. Remember Bleeding Kansas?

Now I'll admit the system needs fixing.. but another dog-and-pony show like 2000 will make a descent into widespread violence MORE likely in the future, not less.

roscoe
November 16, 2004, 09:39 AM
Any recount and investigation into voter fraud will expose the democrat's crooked tactics and severly weaken and embarass the party

Or, alternately, not.

Dave R
November 16, 2004, 12:26 PM
Lemme put on my "media bias" hat and make a prediction, here.

If the recounts uncover fraud by Democrats--i.e. illegal votes for Kerry--the major media is not going to cover it, or will bury it deep.

If the recounts uncover fraud by the Republicans--i.e. illegal votes for Bush--its gonna be front-page news.

flatrock
November 16, 2004, 02:12 PM
"Folks, this recount is necessary.

Here's why:

We won't survive as a nation if each side that loses presumes that they lost via cheating."

In 2000 there was a recount in Florida. The losers didn't like that recount, and wanted to keep recounting until they won. It took the US Supreme Court to step in and require that Florida State Law was followed to end the recounting (the Florida Supreme Court blatantly ignored Florida law in their decision).

Even after the recount, and the unsuccessful lawsuit by Gore to recount again, and a later recount done by a liberal newspaper which also showed Bush winning, the Dems still claim BUsh was selected rather than elected.

The real problem with the 2000 election wasn't the integrity of the system, it was the integrity of the Gore campaign, and the main stream media.

However, I still don't have a problem with a recount in Ohio and Florida, as long as it's not paid for with taxpayer money. The election ballots or data should be public as long as the public cannot tell for whom individuals voted.

If the libertarian party wants a recount, and can come up with the money to pay for it so that it costs Ohio taxpayers nothing, I think they should be allowed to have a recount. Unless the vote is within the range wher the law specifies an automatic recount, or there is sufficient evidence that the count is incorrect by a wide enough margin to effect the outcome, I don't think the taxpayers should pay for the recount.

However, it's a little early to start a recount when Ohio isn't done with the first count yet.

According to the state elections calendar the official canvas of ballots isn't required to start until tomorrow.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/pubaffairs/elections/elecalen.pdf

Malone LaVeigh
November 17, 2004, 01:40 AM
This is not the same as 2000. In 2000 it is clear to anyone willing to look at the facts that the Florida outcome was rigged by the Repugs. there is so much evidence of black voter disenfranchisement, etc, that it isn't even in question.

However, I think it is highly unlikely that a recount would be able to show a Kerry victory in this election, given the margins in most of the states. It might show, however, that the election was tainted by actions of people acting for the winner. Not necessarily with his knowledge, but for him just the same. That would cast some doubt on the legitimacy of the victory. There's even a chance that high level admin figures were involved, in which case it would be the greatest scandal since Watergate, and might get the prez thrown out of office. However, there is no way anyone could make the case that Kerry should take office. That would put us in an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Interesting times, indeed. Who's speaker pro tempore of the Senate?

0007
November 17, 2004, 05:46 AM
Nothin' quite so funny as a lib still hanging onto the "repubugs di-enfranchising blacks, etc in Fl" LIE. You are correct, it is not even in question. BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE AS COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE. You need to get the new dnc talking points bulletin. As I recall, the only people being ACTIVELY dis-enfranchised in FL were the members of the military who were voting on absentee ballots. And IIRC correctly that was being done by the demo lawyers. Of course for demos, an old lie is as good as a new one.

EvilOmega
November 17, 2004, 06:53 AM
I don't think this has anything to do with who won, more likaly that it's about geting more party names on the ballot or just small partys flexing political mussel.

Langenator
November 17, 2004, 08:09 AM
OK, maybe I'm the only one who's thinking this...since everyone seems caught up in the Dem vs GOP, vote fraud, extra ballots, faulty machines, etc.

Anyone stop to think it might be about automatic ballot slots for parties? I'm not sure how ballot access law works in Ohio, but in most states, a party has to receive either a certain minimum total number of votes, or a minimum percentage of the total for that party to automatically get a spot on the ballot next time around, without having to go through the business of collecting signatures.

The Ohio SecState election results page for 2004 (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/index.html) lists 10 candidates for President. Of those 10, 6 are write-ins, including Cobb of the Greens. The non-write-ins are Bush (GOP), Kerry (Dem), Badnarik (Lib), and Peroutka (Con).

Vote tallies (I'm leaving out Bush and Kerry)

Badnarik: 14,331 (0.26%)
Cobb: 24 (does not register at 2 significant digits)
Peroutka: 11,614 (0.21%)

My guess is that Ohio has aminimum threshold ballot access law, and Badnarik, at least, is trying to get a few more votes to keep the Libertarians above it.

Cobb is probably just being a sore loser Leftist.

But that's just my 2 cents.

flatrock
November 17, 2004, 08:27 AM
This is not the same as 2000. In 2000 it is clear to anyone willing to look at the facts that the Florida outcome was rigged by the Repugs. there is so much evidence of black voter disenfranchisement, etc, that it isn't even in question.


Huh? There was a long series of investigations into black voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. They found no evidence of intentional disenfranchisement.

The only thing they found was that the elections officials in some predominantly black areas didn't upgrade their equipment to the latest equipment available. However, punch cards are still used all across the country and their use is not considered disenfranchisement. Those elections officials were elected by the people in those areas, not some republicans form other areas that were trying to suppress the black vote.

I've voted using punch cards for many years. Is my vote being suppressed?

The only person who tried to steal the election in 2000 was Gore. The election in Florida was held according to the laws of Florida. When he didn't like the results, he sued for a recount. That recount was showing Bush winning, so he sued to change how the votes were being counted.

After the election a newspaper did their own recount using the ballots and Gores method of counting. Gore STILL lost. Yet there are people like you that claim that Bush stole the election even though all the evidence shows this to be untrue.

It was a VERY close election, but Bush won it.

shermacman
November 17, 2004, 09:24 AM
As we look ahead to Bush's re-election in 2008, we will watch a more accurate voting system emerge. As that system weeds out ballot box fraud and illegal voting, the margins will shift even more strongly to the Republicans. The DemocRATs can only lie, cheat and whimper. There was no Black voter disenfranchisement in 2000.

What do I mean by Bush's re-election in 2008? Well, lets give the lunatic left the lollypop and agree that W. was 'selected' in 2000. That means the 2004 election was his first. So in 2008 he will be eligible for his second election.

Which is how it should be.

hubel458
November 17, 2004, 09:51 AM
Sherm- I was thinking same thing, seeing as how dems consider
him just a interim prez for last 4 years, by their reasoning, he could
do it in 08.And do it easy as the dem fraud gets weeded out in
the recount process and election equipment upgrades. AND the
GOP puts a watch on the process like they did this year a little
better. That made difference in SD, as 5000 dead Indians couldn't
get their ghost steeds past poll watchers to vote for D???????.Ed.

one45auto
November 17, 2004, 10:46 AM
"Repugs"? Hmmm....

Sounds as though someone left the door open and a democratic undergrounder snuck in. Time to call Terminix.

jsalcedo
November 17, 2004, 11:56 AM
"Repugs"? Hmmm....

Sounds as though someone left the door open and a democratic undergrounder snuck in. Time to call Terminix.

P.E.S.T

"Distraught Kerry supporters in South Florida contacted the non-profit AHA following their candidate’s Nov. 3 concession to President Bush. AHA officials have diagnosed the disorder as Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST)"

Malone LaVeigh
November 18, 2004, 02:12 AM
You people are so brainwashed by the dominant conservative media that you're almost not worth talking to. I don't suppose anyone heard of the 10s of thousands of blacks who were dropped from the voting lists in Fla because they were supposedly ex-felons, only to find out later that the Repug-linked company that did the purging made a "mistake." Of course, you won't hear about that on CNN or Fox or the rest of the corporate media. That would have given Gore at least enough to win, if they had been allowed to vote.

But the truth isn't worth much around here.

But that's not what I was talking about. That's history, and not likely repeated this time. Or more likely, it doesn't matter that a few thousand votes were stolen, because the margins were mch larger.

I'm wondering what y'all would do if Ohio or Fla did get turned around and Kerry won by the EC while losing in the popular vote. It could easily have happened. I mean statistically, anyway, I know the gangsters in the WH wouldn't have let it happen.

hubel458
November 18, 2004, 02:29 AM
If Kerry won Electoral College he would be prez. That is
the law. As for other deal with votors being dropped, I figure
that the bigger numbers of military guys the dems dis-enfranchised
with their dirty tricks(which they pulled again this year), kinda balances out......Ed.

jefnvk
November 18, 2004, 02:55 AM
My issue here is why is it the Constitution and Libretarian parties doing th recount? I'm going with Lang, there is something in it for them.

And Jim is right. Usually, I am in favor of letting companies keep their software secret if they want. But for something like voting, these things need to be ripped apart and analyzed. They need to be fixed, and locked down. And it needs to be done NOW.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 03:38 AM
CEO of Diebold in as much Guarantees Bush WIN

mid-August 2003, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold, wrote a letter inviting 100 wealthy friends to a fund-raiser at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. He wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. Through Diebold Election Systems, Mr. O'Dell's company is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen voting machines.

If the Ceo of diebold had been A wealthy democrat and said the same things
what would the republicans think ?

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 03:50 AM
Popular Mechanics - A team of former National Security Agency (NSA) computer experts conducted a weeklong exercise with six Diebold machines and a server. According to team leader Michael Wertheimer, the group uncovered "considerable security risks." They found that the smart cards used to provide supervisors with access to the machines could be easily hacked; the removable media containing voting information was protected by flimsy locks that the team picked in under a minute using bent paper clips. The paper clips weren't even necessary, since all 32,000 keys supplied by Diebold for the machines are identical, allowing any key to open all of the machines. On the software side, the most glaring weakness was in election headquarters servers: Dell PCs ran the Windows 2000 operating system without Microsoft's security upgrade patches, which left servers susceptible to viruses and worms, enabling a remote attacker to tamper with election systems by phone."

one45auto
November 18, 2004, 12:03 PM
Speaking of brainwashing, does the democratic underground print a playbook for thier members to quote verbatim from, or does it take days and weeks of repeated reading before one's logical reasoning eventually breaks down and it becomes ingrained? Inquiring minds want to know....

CNN conservative? A network which slants its coverage of firearms toward the anti-gun position, who fawned over Sarah Brady and Bill Clinton, who cooperated with Saddam in censoring and manipulating thier coverage before, during, and after Desert Storm, whose head - Ted Turner, is an admitted socialist, such a network is considered conservative? You've got to be pretty far to the left to think that they're on the right, and if someone is that far gone I shudder to think what they would consider to be fair and balanced.

shermacman
November 18, 2004, 12:37 PM
We start off with an intelligent discussion of politics, voter registration, voter rights, ballot box integrity and technology. Then we get some Left-wing Liberal who feels he has the right to insult a group people by accusing us of being "brainwashed" by the "dominant conservative media". Demeans us by stating: "...the truth isn't worth much around here." Degrades the democratically elected president and his cabinet as a "bunch of gangsters." All to advance a ludicrous and disproven theory that Blacks were denied the vote in Florida in 2000. Nothing to do with guns or RKBA, just idiotic spewing of nonsense. We attempt to not fall to his level of behavior. We attempt to speak back with facts instead of paranoia. Ultimately we fail and attack back. But let's not forget who dragged the debate into the mud.

Iain
November 18, 2004, 01:21 PM
Shermac -

I'm not from your country, but I have been following all this with interest.

If you look back through this thread you'll see this thread had gotten silly before Malone posted. Post no.8 refers to 'John F'ing Kerry'. Somebody else refers to the Dems 'crooked tactics'. Malone has his point of view, I hardly think he dragged this debate into the mud. I suspect you are attacking the 'resident liberal'.

I don't think this is necessarily about Dems vs Repubs as Jim has pointed out - trust in the electoral process goes deeper than party politics.

flatrock
November 18, 2004, 01:26 PM
CEO of Diebold in as much Guarantees Bush WIN

mid-August 2003, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold, wrote a letter inviting 100 wealthy friends to a fund-raiser at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. He wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. Through Diebold Election Systems, Mr. O'Dell's company is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen voting machines.

If the Ceo of diebold had been A wealthy democrat and said the same things
what would the republicans think ?


I'd think it was a good thing that the Secretary of State for Ohio refused to let Diebold voting machines be used in Ohio.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/news/release/07-16-04.htm

Since Diebold voting machines weren't used in Ohio it seems really unlikely that Bush won Ohio's vote by fraud using Diebold's machines.

Edit: Apparently they did use Diebold optical scan machines in the election, just not the touchscreens. I was wrong. Thanks to Jim for pointing that out.

hubel458
November 18, 2004, 01:36 PM
Oh diebold wasn't used!!! Shoots that bit of DU propaganda in
the ass..........

one45auto
November 18, 2004, 02:05 PM
To answer sigmaman, if a Democrat were the CEO of Diebold I would not think any differently and I'll tell you why. It's because no executive, I don't care how partisan they might be, is going to be dumb enough to attempt voter fraud on such a large scale ~ especially not in a presidential election. The chances of getting caught are extremely good and once found out, the wrath of the voting public - to say nothing of the punishment which would inevitably follow - would be severe indeed. To say that an example would be made of them is a gross understatement, the government would come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks. They'd be in jail, thier stock would plummet, thier reputation would be mud for the remainder of thier existence, the media would crucify them, thier employees would bail (after all, how many people would begin asking them if they were in on it, too?), and in the end the company would be sold - if they could find someone willing to purchase a pariah.


No, I think it's safe to say that your average CEO cares more about his own safety and career than any politician they might care to endorse.

Malone LaVeigh
November 18, 2004, 10:19 PM
Almost missed this:
There are many others with totals going the opposite direction:
REGISTERED VOTERS - CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 38840
BALLOTS CAST CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 29885

REGISTERED VOTERS - WESTLAKE 25627
BALLOTS CAST WESTLAKE 25173

REGISTERED VOTERS - LAKEWOOD 41983
BALLOTS CAST LAKEWOOD 28531
Those taken more or less at random.

Well, of course, you would expect fewer votes than registered voters. It's when it's the other way around that you have to wonder.

Malone LaVeigh
November 18, 2004, 10:26 PM
I'm guilty of going along with the hijack of this thread. Flatrock started it. You could look it up.

Therefore I won't say any more about the 2000 election in this thread. But you might want to check this out:

http://evote-mass.org/speakers/ash/What%20Happened%20in%20Florida%202000.ppt

Now, about 2004, the chickens are begining to come home to roost:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

I also find it interesting that both of the people here accusing me of being from DU (a site I've only visited once from a link here) have been here for a shorter time than I have. So take your politically correct attitudes back to freep if you don't like the discussion here, kids.

Jim March
November 18, 2004, 10:37 PM
HOLD IT!

Diebold is in Ohio.

Not the touchscreens, true, but optical scan, hell yes. Which still uses GEMS. Which sucks. Download the proof if you don't believe me:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=111724

Worse, the same failed Federal oversight process that passed certification on Diebold also certified the rest of the electronic voting systems.

:scrutiny:

That said, I'm more worried about Florida than I am Ohio. If there's hacking serious to overturn the race, and I have no idea whether or not that's the case, it'll be found in Florida first I suspect.

hubel458
November 19, 2004, 12:00 AM
We have same card scanners here. But we still have cards and any hint
of hacking( and it can come from both sides), they just recount, and
see if you can find and hang hackers by the balls.Ed.

flatrock
November 19, 2004, 10:37 AM
Jim,

HOLD IT!

Diebold is in Ohio.

Not the touchscreens, true, but optical scan, hell yes. Which still uses GEMS. Which sucks. Download the proof if you don't believe me:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=111724

Worse, the same failed Federal oversight process that passed certification on Diebold also certified the rest of the electronic voting systems.

I wasn't aware of that. I did a number of web searches on Diebold and Ohio, to make sure that the touchscreens didn't get reapproved at the last moment, but I didn't see anything relating to the optical scan machines.

I don't think a recount will change anything, but the poor security on GEMS does appear to justify an investigation.

flatrock
November 19, 2004, 11:01 AM
Malone LaVeigh,

Is sounds like there are some elections officials in Volusia County that have some explaining to do.

If there is found to be fraud, then they should prosecute those involved to the fullest extent of the law, and then go after them in civil court for the costs of the mess they've created.

As for your power point file from 2000. It mentions some accusations which we investigated throughly and couldn't be substantiated.

It doesn't mention how there were a considerable number of people who voted both in New York and in Florida that year strangely enough...

As for voting machines with chads left over from previous years... I've voted with punch card ballots for many years. If I was having trouble pushing the pin through the card because the bin was full of chads I'd say something to the elections officials, and I'd look at the card as well.

No one did that during the election there. Do you really think that hundreds if not thousands of people had trouble voting, but no one said something was wrong until Gore's legal team was searching for possible ways to find more votes days later?

Even when the the newspaper that recounted after the election was over tried to determine votes based on pregnant chads, Gore still lost.

The elections debacle of 2000 did show people that elections officials need to do a better job of maintaining the equipment and making sure the ballots are laid out well.

However, there's no real eivdince that Gore lost the election because of those problems.

In the end, the elections laws were followed, and the election results were properly recorded according to the law.

I'm all for making our elections as accurate as possible and for stomping out voter fraud.

I just don't see that there's evidence that the overall results of either of the last two presidential elections were effected by either.

2nd Amendment
November 19, 2004, 11:38 AM
Malone LaVeigh
You people are so brainwashed by the dominant conservative media that you're almost not worth talking to.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Since nobody could possibly believe that it's good to know you have a great sense of humor...

secamp32
November 19, 2004, 02:39 PM
I don't know about Ohio, but in NY people that were not registered to vote could still vote via an affidavit ballot. I saw lots of affidavit voters this year. Most years there are none. That could account for why there are more votes than registered voters.

hubel458
November 19, 2004, 02:58 PM
Affidavit voters, provisonal voters,etc, just a bunch of crap.
As citizen you have responsibility to vote, and get registered where you live
to be a voter,With registration available when you get your drivers
license, there is no excuse. People can get absentee if away. This idea
of just walking in anywhere and voting is the way we get fraud.
proper registration procedures make sure aliens don't vote and that
people only vote once.As I said before the machine checking and recount will only help GOP.Ed.

fallingblock
November 20, 2004, 02:56 AM
And that if there is a serious question in Ohio, a recount ought to be done.

Go easy on Malone - he's just having a bad eight year election cycle. ;)

*********************************************************
"I know the gangsters in the WH wouldn't have let it happen."
*********************************************************

See? Malone can't even remember the Clintons
(the last 'gangsters' to inhabit the place)
are out of the WH.

Or perhaps HE's been brainwashed by the dominant liberal media in the U.S. ? :D

If you enjoyed reading about "an Ohio recount??!!??!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!