DNC RELEASES STUDY OF 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN OHIO

[MaineDem]

DNC RELEASES STUDY OF 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN OHIO

Washington - The Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute will present DNC Chairman Howard Dean their report on the conduct of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. Copies of the report will be available at the press conference tomorrow and at www.democrats.org.

Who: DNC Chairman Howard Dean
DNC Voting Rights Institute Chair Donna Brazile
Julie Andreef, Ohio regional field director and practicing attorney focusing on election law
Cornell Belcher, president of Brilliant Corners Research and Strategies
Walter Mebane, Jr., Professor of Government at Cornell University
Dan Wallach, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rice University.

When: Wednesday, June 22, 2005; 11:00 a.m.

Where: DNC Headquarters, 430 South Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC
Wasserman Family Conference Room

###

**********

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Oh boy.

This could get really interesting.

[Callboy]

21. what is all this sorry business?

hold your ground....

[jillan]

2. Yee Haw!

Glad to know they are still working on this!

[LightningFlash]

3. Finally!!

When the Senate decides to bury the issue, Congress takes up the helm and does a proper investigation.

Let's see what fruit was bore from this and that all the white-washing that happened earlier gets addressed before the limelight.

[meganmonkey]

4. Oh shit -

Recommended. I think a lot of folks will want a heads-up on this.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Why do I expect to be disappointed? n/t

.

[LightningFlash]

6. Brazille did not whitewash it so lets stay tuned. n/t

[pgh_dem]

35. Which planet is this report NOT a whitewash on?

Maybe it'd be fun to live there.

[LightningFlash]

95. The reality based community...

When it says in the report they did not find "widespread fraud" that does not mean there was not fraud. It means there was not huge amounts, and they are not sure if it changed the outcome of the election but that wasn't the point of their study.

All it took was electoral fraud at the county level in three larger counties where votes were doing impossible swings. That's not widespread, and it's still a big problem. The largest problem being the amount of african americans disenfranchised. Read the full report to get the picture.

[pgh_dem]

110. When they say that they did not find widespread fraud AND

they DON'T say that they found ANY fraud, then it is a whitewash.

So your statement "It means there was not huge amounts" isn't accurate. This report does not allege fraud AT ALL. It states that there may have been some vote suppression, but golly, we just can't know what affect that may have had, and somehow none of it is legally actionable, but oooeee we sure need to do something to stop it from ever happening again.

The report touches on the 'vulnerability' of certain voting mechanisms, but explicitly does not state that these vulnerabilities were exploited at all.

This report isn't worth its weight in used toilet paper.

They could have saved a lot of time and money by just putting a cover letter on Conyers' report, with a disclaimer, "Note to the highly coveted Homophobic Evangelical Pro-War Pollyanna Swing Voters: The DNC doesn't officially believe any of the following."

[mod mom]

112. Conyers report was much more thorough! What is with the DNC?

They ignored the fraud in 2000, 2002 now 2004? Do they think it will just go away if they ignore it? Why won't they respond to John Conyers report? So many questions left unanswered.

[pgh_dem]

113. I think it's weirder than that, mod mom.

It's not that they think it will go away if they ignore it.

I think they somehow believe they can correct it without ever acknowledging it happened. That they somehow think they can appease the RW echo chamber if they don't outright say fraud occurred, then can introduce legislation intended to stop future fraud.

This approach leaves one large logical flaw...when they introduce the legislation, the RW echo chamber then pipes up with 'Why do we need this legislation? It isn't like there's been any fraud in the past that makes this so urgent? I mean, the DNC itself said there was no fraud, right?"

Note to Dean
These cliches are worth mulling over:
Stick to your guns. It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees. A coward dies a thousand times before his death, a hero but once.

And a truism:
You can't find evidence if you don't look for it.

[LightningFlash]

118. The report does allege several cases of fraud.

And clearly manipulated machines switching votes (Kerry to Bush). So it is not a complete and total whitewash, it is just incomplete in that they did no analysis that would show widespread fraud and clearly don't know how to do one.



That right there for instance is hard evidence of not some amazing miracle voters brought by Issue 1, but electronic fraud manipulation. Dean knows all of this its the DNC who doesn't want to ruffle the pot.....

[emlev]

96. A planet that's already white? n/t

[meganmonkey]

7. You just had to reply that to me!

After I worked so hard not to say it myself :P

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I don't know why you expect to be disappointed, but

when you figure out the reason, it'll probly be the same reason I expect disappointment.

[IndyOp]

12. Thanks TIA. Sorry to say it was just what I was thinking.

We just have to make sure that it is *not* considered the "mission accomplished" event -- not by a longshot.

:kick:

[garybeck]

14. two reasons

1) that's the pattern so far

2) better to expect to be disappointed and be happily surprised if something good happens, than to expect a miracle and be disappointed.

[MadisonProgressive]

70. And boy, am I familiar with #2!! n/t

[LeahD]

8. Cautiously optimistic, but Dean DID say that there were

would be some big news coming. Maybe this is it!

[grannylib]

9. I'll be praying...I truly believe this nation's survival depends, in the

short term at least, in impeaching EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE BASTARDS, AND THE FELONIOUS FIVE WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE.
Damn, have ANY of these people ever READ our Constitution?????

[bahrbearian]

74. Its "Now or Never"

[Amaryllis]

91. Which felonious five? You have it narrowed down to five? I thought there

were more.

[bornagainhuman]

36. i hope soo and since they have been quiet about it till now that could be

good news since that will have given the bushitler administration less time to try to crush this

[EFerrari]

10. Nominated. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Excellent news

And I am really looking forward to it.

[meganmonkey]

19. Welcome to DU, Hope 2006!

:toast:

[Grateful for Hope]

55. thank you!! n/t

[dooner]

15. Howard knows how to grab media attention

I trust he'll have some really combustible spotlight-grabbing things to say. GO HOWARD.


Don't you miss the boring old days of Terry McAluff's DNC? Not.

[kansasblue]

16. Wednesday !

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Here's to Dean!

He's one of the few politicians left I truly 100% trust. I know he wouldn't say anything unless there was something important. I can't wait to find out!

[GuvWurld]

60. Trust Howard Dean at your own peril

http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

Not Dean
Not Kerry
Not Kucinich
Not Boxer
Not Brazile

Not one Dem is saying the obvious: our election conditions guarantee inconclusive outcomes - we'll never have unanimous agreement about the results.

It doesn't get much simpler, obvious, or true. This is the point at which we should address the systemic nature of what plagues us.

Read the Voter Confidence Resolution and the companion Guide for strategy and talking points.

[Nederland]

111. Oh yeah

like I'm going to trust the International Socialist Review more than Democratic stalwarts.

[GuvWurld]

114. Your suspicion is blinding to you to Dean's record

n/t

[Nederland]

115. There is nothing in Dean's record

that I find offensive. He is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Unlike socialists, I find nothing wrong with that.

[kimchi]

18. Right on.

:smoke:

[Julius Civitatus]

20. How long until Lieberman, Biden and the DINOs ask them to apologize?

I mean, you can't bring up these things any more. It makes you an "anti-American traitor." You can't criticize the Republican party, unless you want the DINOs to chase you down calling for your public apology.

So I wonder how long until the DLC DINOs ask Donna Brazille and Howard Dean to apologize.

:sarcasm:

[upperleftedge]

22. Donna won't back down!

Oh, and her last name is spelled Brazile. Voting rights is her life long focus. Check out her book "Cooking with Grease"!

[Julius Civitatus]

25. Did you miss my "sarcasm" icon in my previous message?

[JRob]

51. Where's the sarcasm? The DINO's a real!

Remember these and others...

[politicaholic]

66. And what's the point of that poster?

The very fact that some dem senators don't vote along party lines just shows you what party has free thinkers rather than a bunch of republican white male drones who are pussified eunichs to the white house.

Freerepublic would love that poster or did you already try it over there and thought it might be a hit on DU also?

Good job on perpetuating the anti-dem propaganda machine.

:eyes:

[LaurenG]

68. please

we're sick of this. Whats a little fun among us. These are dino's and not who we wished they would be. Thats all.

[JRob]

89. Oh are you one of those who play the "freep" card when someone differs?

So do you see their vote on this as positive?

These Dem's and more like them sip the corporate koolaid and are no friend to anyone outside the golden circle. They say one thing and do any other and in this case (as well as in others) some or all are "pussified eunichs to the white house".

You say

"The very fact that some dem senators don't vote along party lines just shows you what party has free thinkers rather than a bunch of republican white male drones who are pussified eunichs to the white house."

Then you throw the Freep card at me and make this statement:

"Good job on perpetuating the anti-dem propaganda machine."

So does that mean being a good Dem involves agreeing with everything Dem? "vote along party lines" so to speak?

Which is it: "vote along party lines" (agree with all things Dem) or am I entitled to my opinion "free thinkers" on dems and republicans based on what they do?

By the way some of the loudest DEM critics of Dean are on the list and some, it seems vote "right" a little too often. I believe Nelson (D-NE) has even publicly cozied up to James Dobson (focus on the Family), you know "sponge bob makes your kids turn gay".

Sorry I stand by my post...

[bornagainhuman]

108. i have to agree with jrob here

to follow anybody blindly and to never disagree with them is how dictators get there power. Now don't get me wrong I am most certainly not calling any of these people dictators by any means however it is always good that we can be critical of those we would chose to lead us otherwise decisions go unchallenged and people become complacent. Dissent is truly patriotic and it is our differences that make this country great.

[Peace Patriot]

27. It's about our right to vote!

Donna Brazile is a beautiful woman and her story of her rise in politics is an inspiring tale. For more about her, see: http://authors.aalbc.com/donnabrazile.htm

But I have to ask of her, and of all other leaders of the Democratic Party over the last several years: WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE BUSH CARTEL VOTING MACHINE COMPANIES TOOK OVER OUR ELECTION SYSTEM WITH ELECTRONIC VOTE COUNTING MACHINES RUN ON SECRET, PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE WITH NO PAPER TRAIL?

Democrats should have been screaming bloody murder about this long before the 2004 election. That they did not was the most catastrophic failure of Democratic Party leadership in our lifetimes.

We MUST, MUST, MUST get our voting systems back into the public venue NOW. The only way to do this is at the state/local level, where control over voting systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some influence. But the DEMOCRATIC leaders' silence, corruption and collusion on this matter, across this land, at every level, is one of our biggest obstacles to reform.

I hope and pray that this report will radically alter party policy on this matter, and will a) inspire a Democratic Party housecleaning of corrupt election and other officials; and b) call for paper ballots and hand counts until we can purge our election system of private, partisan Bushite companies and outrages like secret, proprietary vote counting software.

That's what is needed. We'll see if they come through. But BEWARE of any FEDERAL solution that would have to be implemented by Bush's "pod people" in Congress, or any solution that takes power over voting systems further away from the people at the local level. Beware!

That was a viable solution in 1965--when the Voting Rights Act was passed by a DEMOCRATIC Congress especially to insure the right of black citizens to vote. This is a FAR DIFFERENT power situation, in which the election thieves are running our federal government, and WILL NEVER restore our right to vote. Never! Any meaningful federal legislation WILL BE gutted, or it will be a 'Trojan horse' by which the Bush Cartel will gain total control over centralized election systems and voter databases.

True election reform must be, and can only be, done at the state/local level, in the present circumstances. And if the DNC does not recognize this fact, then they are not sincere and they will be ineffective at restoring transparent, verifiable elections.

Just look at what HAVA did--the total corruption of our election system--and ask yourself if you want Tom Delay's fingers in the "solution"!

[Julius Civitatus]

29. I hope she doesn't screw this one up... remember the Gore campaign

With all due respect, I have had my reservations about Donna Brazile since the 2000 elections. While I think she's very good at driving the point home, she proved to be not an aggressive fighter on most issues. Her role can be better used within the DNC in research and strategic issues rather than PR and campaigning. That's why I think this may be a good development.

When Donna Brazile was in charge of the Al Gore campaign she made the decision to not fight back the lies and innuendo, and she basically allowed the candidate to just sit and take it. I remember Donna in debates on CNN, Hardball and others, allowing the rabid wingers to get away with smears, lies, and slander. She is just not good at playing the words game. She is not a Clifford May, or a Carville. But she is good at researching issues that matter. Still, I was very frustrated with her performance during the 2000 Campaign, and so were many of my Dem fellow activists. It was painful!

I hope Dean understands where Donna's main strengths reside, and doesn't put her in the forefront of the debates on this issue. Instead, let a more aggressive PR bulldog (a Caville spinmeister type) take the fight to the forum of public opinion.

Just saying.

[Peace Patriot]

31. Ohio, Florida...

I would add that focus SHOULD BE placed on the utter failure of the Bush Cartel to enforce the Voting Rights Act in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere in 2004--and on its egregious and official violations of that Act. But that is just one part of the story. It speaks to INTENT to defraud, as well as to the theft of the election in Ohio and Florida in particular. But the overt and visible vote suppression can distract attention from the main problem--Bushite control of the vote count nationwide--which is the problem that most needs fixing. We cannot force the Bush Cartel to obey the law. But we CAN get our election system back into the public's hands, via state/local election rules (the only way it can be done, at present), and we can do it quickly if the Democratic leadership helps out. But they are mostly not helping at the moment, and in some cases (California, for instance) the Dem leaders are ignoring and obstructing--because there are so many Dem election officials who have been corrupted by HAVA (billions of dollars flooding into the states for purchase of shoddy, insecure, fraud-prone election systems owned and controlled by Bushites, and the lavish lobbying of these election theft companies!)

I noticed a comment by Howard Dean, early on, to this effect--that election reform has to be done locally. That makes me hopeful about this report.

[mod mom]

102. What about equal protection clause? I want a real investigation w subpoena

lead by a fair leader interested in the truth. Hmmh...John Conyers comes to mind. If he was allowed to fully investigate I would trust his summary. ALL WE WANT IS THE TRUTH TO COME OUT! We have the evidence now allow a a fair hearing with subpoena power!

[pgh_dem]

34. I guess Eyes Completely Shut could be called a Life long focus

of sorts.

Give Rove a great big kiss on the ass for us, Donna!

Nothin to see here, folks! Move along!

Golly, we DID an investigation (kinda), and an investigation of the investigation (sorta), and we reached a blue ribbon conclusion that we definitely didn't see any evidence of fraud while our eyes were closed.

[Conker]

23. This better get the attention it deserves in the media.

[Botany]

24. Please just come out smoking .....

.... call it what it was .... election theft!

:bounce:

[handywork]

26. I'm excited, but tenative

with this media and the repugs coverup machine, it could be huge news and no one would even know about it...

[Orion The Hunter]

28. RE: Good article

Hopefully what happened in Washington with the Governor's election will make even the Republicans realize how sacred and important the right to vote (and have it get legally counted) is.

[lostnfound]

42. They never realize ANYTHING until corporate media puts in it their faces

So they won't realize this either.

It is being spun into a problem of voter fraud, not election fraud. And the solution in their minds will be more voter intimidation, not less.

[ClintonTyree]

30. Looks like a lot of "Scientific" stuff to me...

you know, there's a lot of Scientists and Academic types on that panel, and you know how the right treats THOSE types! :eyes:

Technology, Science and Truth don't stand a chance in America under the bush junta. They'll dismiss this as "old news" and insist it's "fuzzy math" or something.

I wouldn't expect the corporate media to give it any play either. Call me jaded, but I'm not getting my hopes up that this will amount to anything other than another "feel good" moment for Democrats that will be roundly ignored by everyone else. I really, really hope I'm wrong, but history is on my side.

[LosinIt]

40. thanks for your opinion, Governor

Love your screenname!

[ClintonTyree]

57. I wanted "Skink"...

but it was already taken by someone. :grr: I'm glad someone noticed the connection. I'm a HUGE Hiaasen fan, have several autographed copies of his books and am the first one at the bookstore when he releases a new one. ;)

[angryxyouth]

32. I don't get excited anymore. (learned helplessness)

As long as the Repugs still control the media, no matter what this report shows will never filter down to the stupid masses. A blurb will make it into their collective consciousness though, stating how the Evil loser Dems have cooked a report trying to discredit the elections. This was spearheaded by that crazy "Waahoo!!!" Howard Dean.

I just can't believe that with everything that has been leaking out of Great Britain lately, not to mention the Tom Delay investigation, The networks barley mention anything substantive. Yet devotes an hour long special on the "Runaway Bride".
I mean Fuck!!! what's up with that.

[AtLiberty]

33. Here's a link to the report

http://www.democrats.org/vri/ohioreport/index.html

[mom cat]

76. Give me the old soft shoe..............Not going to contest the election.

George won...Move right along...:puke:

[centristo]

37. wasn't the election

almost a year ago? Why is this just coming out now? It doesn't really do any good, especially since the Democrats are out of power. Will a Republican led Congress initiate sweeping Electoral Reform when they have clearly been the beneficiaries for the past 8 years? PRobably not.

[bklyncowgirl]

38. Report is up at DNC site now. nt

[the phantom shouting]

39. Democrats deny fraud in DNC Ohio report

Read it and weep:

The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

• The tendency to vote for Kerry in 2004 was the same as the tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 (Hagan). That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the opinion of the team’s political science experts, strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

• Kerry’s support across precincts also increased with the support for Eric Fingerhut, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, and decreased with the support for Issue 1 (ballot initiative opposing same-sex marriage) and increased with the proportion of African American votes. Again this is the pattern that would be expected and is not consistent with claims of widespread fraud that misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

[jsamuel]

41. There's your headline!

[renate]

43. well, but there's this:

An exhaustive five-month investigation by the VRI's research and investigative team identified grave problems in the administration of Ohio's voting system. More than 1 in 4 voters in Ohio faced problems at the polls, including illegal requests for identification, long lines, poorly trained election officials, and more. There were also dramatic disparities in voting conditions among different races; African Americans waited nearly three times as long on average as whites to vote.

http://www.democrats.org/vri/ohioreport/index.html

I realize this isn't the same as addressing the lack of a paper trail or the tampering with the computers, but still, it's not all "everything's fine."

[jsamuel]

44. true, but that will still be the headline, dean said himself, dems don't

frame the issues well. They let the Repubs do it and thats why the Repubs win.

[mod mom]

45. THIS REPORT WILL NOT SILENCE ME!

How exhaustive was it, if they failed to utilize the grassroot folks investigating the fraud fromthe start? How exhaustive was it when they failed to investigate Lucas County BOE problems?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/lucas.htm

This report includes the fact that REPUBLICAN VOLUNTEERS were allowed UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to UNSECURED BALLOTS prior to the election, as well as this list:

*failure to maintain ballot security
*Inability to implement and maintain a trackable system for voter ballot reconciliation .
*failure to prepare and develop a plan for the processing of the voluminous amount of voter registration forms received.
*issuance and acceptance of incorrect absentee ballot forms.
*manipulation of the process involving the 3% recount.
*disjointed implementation of the Directive regarding the removal of Nader and Camejo from the ballot .
*failure to properly issue hospital ballots in accordance with statutory requirements.
*failure to maintain the security of poll books during the official canvass
*failure to examine campaign finance reports in a timely manner.
*failure to guard and protect public documents.
*failure to guard and protect public documents ....etc.

[Igel]

81. I hope they have all their ducks in a row.

But somehow, I doubt it.

The executive summary seems to say nobody could challenge a voter unless s/he was newly registered. But the code says:

ORC 3505.20: "Any person offering to vote may be challenged at the polling place by any challenger, any elector then lawfully in the polling place, or by any judge or clerk of elections. If the board of elections has ruled on the question presented by a challenge prior to election day, its finding and decision shall be final and the presiding judge shall be notified in writing. If the board has not ruled, the question shall be determined as set forth in this section. If any person is so challenged as unqualified to vote, the presiding judge shall tender the person the following oath: 'You do swear or affirm that you will fully and truly answer all of the following questions put to you, touching your place of residence and your qualifications as an elector at this election.' ..."

The best I can do is a naive reading of the code. Anybody here admitted to the Ohio bar?

[organik]

47. Flimsy..

Seems like a weak dismissal of fraud to me. Why even include this in the report if not to discourage further investigation? About the first point - the 2002 election was likely fixed as well, and the second, just because a couple trends made sense doesn't mean votes weren't shifted, how can they possibly draw that conclusion?

I don't get it.

[jsamuel]

48. they only added it to make them look less partial

which is obviously impossible BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BY THE DNC...

dumbasses....

[althecat]

98. 2002 was definitely fixed.. and 2000 probably was too...

[Eric J in MN]

86. How does that disprove fraud?

Firstly, someone who switched votes in the presidential race could switch them in other races.

Secondly, it would take a relatively small amount of vote switching to change the Ohio election. It wouldn't be obviously contrary to expectations.

[pokercat999]

46. From the first few paragraphs of the "report"

"The purpose of this investigation was not to challenge or question the results of the election in any way. Rather, the purpose of this effort was to fulfill the Democratic Party’s commitment to ensuring that every eligible voter can vote and that every vote is counted."

Can anyone spell w i m p s or how about c o w a r d s or how about
m i n d l e s s . s t u p i d . s p i n e l e s s . fucking waste of air. If this is the future democrat party, I'm not.

[GettysbergII]

49. Most hopeful part of the report in my opinion is by Dan S. Wallach

Election Fraud

A primary concern of any election system, whether done by hand, via computer, or any other mechanism is that it must provide sufficient evidence to convince the losing candidate that he or she actually lost. Naming the winner is the easy part. When we talk about evidence, however, we bring up all the same issues that might occur in a criminal investigation, including tampering (either by insiders or outsiders) and maintenance of a proper chain of custody over the evidence.

Vote by Mail

A simple system to first consider is voting by mail. Virtually all ballots in Oregon are cast by mail, and a significant number are cast in many other states. Mail-in votes are trivially subject to bribery or coercion (either “I’ll pay you $10 for your vote” or “I’ll break your kneecaps if you don’t give me your vote”) at the level of individual voters. This would become expensive to perform at a large scale, particularly without knowledge of the fraud becoming public. To perform such fraud at a wholesale level, where a small number of people might attempt to damage the system is far more difficult. A corrupt mail courier could only tamper with the ballots that he or she personally handled, and tamper-resistant features on the ballot or envelope might make such tampering hard to disguise. Once the ballots arrive at the central tabulation facility, fewer people would need to be involved, but hopefully stronger security measures are in place to prevent such fraud. If, for example, ballot envelopes are counted before even being opened, then those counts could be compared, in batches, to the tallies after the batches are scanned and processed. Such measures are comparable to separation of duty techniques common in the banking industry, where no one employee can ever embezzle funds without another employee discovering the missing funds as part of their job.

Precinct-based optical scan

Precinct-based optical scan systems compare favorably to vote-by-mail systems. Because the voter must vote privately in a (hopefully) well-controlled polling place, coercion and bribery don’t work. The precinct ballot scanner catches overvoting and allows the voter to try again, a feature not possible with mail ballots. The scanner also keeps its own tally of the votes, which can be rapidly transmitted over a modem or spoken over a telephone. Printouts can be physically signed by precinct-level voting officials, and independently tabulated by interest groups that are willing to send representatives to each precinct. This provides an important hedge against the risk of ballot box tampering, particularly while the ballot boxes are in transit from the local precinct to some form of central storage (probably the single greatest vulnerability in any paper-based election system). However, a significant risk remains. What if the software inside the scanner incorrectly tabulated the ballots? No election observer would be able to independently count the ballots themselves. Likewise, precinct-level election officials generally do not (and certainly should not) handle ballots after they are cast. The risk of software error might result from software bugs, or could possible be the result of fraudulent programming (sometimes referred to as a Trojan horse). Today’s certification and “logic and accuracy testing” are completely insufficient to detect such problems2. However, so long as the paper ballots are handled properly, they will remain, after the election, allowing for a meaningful recount. The ability to perform such a recount provides a critical hedge against the risk of scanner failures.

DRE voting systems

Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems offer a number of benefits relative to precinct-based optical scan systems. They also introduce significant new complexity, new risks, and new costs. A DRE terminal may cost thousands of dollars, and many must be purchased to allow busy precincts to limit voter waiting times to avoid the problems observed, for example, in Franklin County, Ohio. Modern DREs are, at their core, general-purpose programmable computers. Some even run Microsoft’s Windows CE operating system. This gives DREs the flexibility to support a variety of attractive features including large text, speech synthesizers, and multiple languages, all of which help making voting accessible to a wider demographic of voters. This same flexibility, unfortunately, significantly increases the ease with which someone might tamper with the software. Such tampering could occur where the machine was manufactured or anywhere else from the moment the machine leaves its manufacturer to the day of the election. Anyone who has uninterrupted physical access to a DRE voting system for any length of time could potentially tamper with its software. Consider software updates. As with normal consumer software vendors, DRE vendors are constantly improving and modifying their software to satisfy the needs of their customers. They then submit this software for “certification” by an Independent Testing Authority. There are three U.S. companies currently serving as Independent Testing Authorities. However, in cases where outside computer security firms or academics have had the opportunity to independently examine DRE software, they have found significant and wide-ranging flaws. As such, it appears that the ITAs do not have the skills to properly audit voting system software. We also observe that ITAs make no warrant that voting systems are actually suitable for use in an election. Rather, much more weakly, they claim that voting systems “satisfy FEC standards”, which unfortunately require almost nothing with regard to software quality or security, or even about usability or accuracy. More elaborate standards are in development, but are nowhere near adoption. A fundamental attribute of all modern DRE systems is their elimination of the paper trail we have with optical scan systems. While these systems will allow voting totals, or even individual votes in some cases, to be printed at the end of the election, this does not provide a hedge against software failures in the DRE. It’s entirely possible that a DRE voter could vote for one candidate, which would be displayed on screen, while an entirely different candidate could be recorded internally as having received that vote. If such an error occurred, neither the voter nor any election official would be able to undo the damage after the fact. If such an error occurred systematically, it could swing the outcome of an election. And, if the faulty software was deliberately placed in the machine, it could even be programmed to modify itself to eliminate any traces of its having been present. If such fraud were occurring, it would not be visible to poll workers or election observers. As with any other voting system, DRE votes must ultimately be centrally tabulated. This information may be communicated over a modem or carried by hand in a computer memory card. As with traditional ballot boxes, such data may be subject to tampering while in transit. However, while ballot boxes are large objects that can be easily observed and tracked, computer memory cards are small and sleight-of-hand can allow for quick substitutions. Likewise, telephone lines are not terribly secure against attackers who can climb telephone poles. While appropriate cryptographic techniques can mitigate against all of these risks, many DRE vendors either use no cryptography at all or do it improperly, leaving the data effectively unprotected while in transit. Once the data arrives at the central tabulation facility, it is typically stored in off-the-shelf personal computers running a Microsoft operating system and some form of database. These computers, themselves, may be subject to attack by election insiders. Anyone with physical access to these computers and the appropriate tools could execute a database script to directly modify the database records, overwriting any original data without leaving any evidence of such tampering. Furthermore, in the case that these machines are ever connected to the Internet, perhaps to deliver results to an election web server or to the press, these machines could be attacked over the Internet. Even if all the latest security patches have been applied, attackers may well keep other security attacks in reserve, specifically to attack such election computers.


2 Logic and accuracy testing for an optical scanner generally involves running a “test deck” through the machine. After scanning the deck, the tally is read from the machine. The scanner’s tally can be compared to the known totals. Unfortunately, a well-designed Trojan horse can tell when it’s being tested, either by identifying that, in fact, it’s seeing the same test deck it always sees, or even by observing that the test ballots are arriving much faster than “normal” voters might cast their ballots.

[Jackpine Radical]

50. So the goddam DNC isn't gonna fight.

Nothing to see here. Nope. No coverup.

Wonder what TIA will have to say about all this.

[KittyWampus]

82. Fight What? You Expected Them To Actually Question The Election?

great strategy... then the whole report could be shunted aside by the mediawhores.

[Darkhawk32]

52. So what's the difference between this one and the Conyers report? n/t

[JRob]

53. Remember...

There are more too.

I'm not surprised by the report.

In the end, there is but one kind of American "unrepresented". The difference is that some of us realize it...

[angryxyouth]

54. I wonder how Conyers will react to this.

This report will overshadow any other investigation into the criminal political acts of the GOP in Ohio.

I give up!
Load
Snap
Spin
click
AHHH
POW
Brains on the back wall
drip
drip
drip
drip

[mod mom]

103. They want us to give up, they want us silenced. NOT UNTIL THE TRUTH

PREVAILS!

[Peace Patriot]

56. Strategy...

Kerry won the exit polls, and the ways in which the official total varies from the exit polls have been proven to be impossible.
The Democrats blew the Republicans away in new voter registraton in 2004, neary 60/40.
The vast majority of new voters voted for Kerry.
The vast majority of Independent voters voted for Kerry.
The vast majority of Nader voters voted for Kerry.
The vast majority of Gore voters (who won the popular vote in 2000) voted for Kerry, and got all of the above to vote for Kerry, too. (Switch Gore/Bush voters were a wash.)
Bush's approval rating is down to about 40%! --and has been bad for over a year.
The vast majority of Americans disapprove of Bush, and of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, up in the 60% to 70% range.

Major Bush partisans own and control the counting of our votes in virtually ALL voting systems using "trade secret," proprietary programming code!

What's to understand here?

This DNC report is crap. And I think we have to start hunting down and rooting out the corruption within the Democratic Party on the matter of electronic voting systems. We've begun naming names in California. Let's get on with it.

We can't do anything about the Bush fascist Republicans. We CAN do something about the corrupt and collusive Democrats. And that's what we must do.

------

As I said elsewhere, they did not have to use the "fraud" word to describe the 2004 election. But their failure to identify and oppose BUSH PARTISAN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE VOTE COUNT is a catastrophic omission.

I still have been unable to read the full report--it won't fully download--but the pieces that I've been able to download and those that have been posted here are telling me that they OMITTED this crucial information. AND the "revolving" door employment between election officials--both Rep and Dem--and these private, secretive electronic voting companies. AND the lobbying corruption. THESE are the critical problems. And they appear to have been completely left out.

They go for optiscans. Optiscans are crap. They, too, run on secret, proprietary software--owned and controlled by the same Bushites.

I'm really utterly appalled at such deliberate blindness. And unless they have a "secret plan" to address these matters at the state/local level, then we are not going to get any help from the Dem leadership--who are currenly ignoring and obstructing on these critical matters--and this is going to be a very long and tough fight.

------------

It's our right NOT to vote on Bushite-controlled voting machines, stupids!

[Carolab]

59. Re: Optiscans (from above).

However, a significant risk remains. What if the software inside the scanner incorrectly tabulated the ballots? No election observer would be able to independently count the ballots themselves. Likewise, precinct-level election officials generally do not (and certainly should not) handle ballots after they are cast. The risk of software error might result from software bugs, or could possible be the result of fraudulent programming (sometimes referred to as a Trojan horse). Today’s certification and “logic and accuracy testing” are completely insufficient to detect such problems2.

So, they DO recognize the security issues with optiscan ballot systems. The key here is to ensure the state legislators are aware of this too, so that legislation can be written to protect security. This requires teaching the legislators about the security loopholes and how to plug them, which requires some rather specific language be crafted into the legislation.

[Peace Patriot]

65. More strategy...

Re: this report.

1. The DRE section is quotable in our state/local fights--to at least get rid of the worst of these election theft machines. Send to local/state Dem legislators and election officials (and any honest Republicans you may know of).

2. The optiscan section will be used against us in our fight for open source code or paper ballots/hand counts. It needs to be debunked (and we will run up against corrupt Dems on this one.)

3. Do they ANYWHERE mention secret, proprietary software? (--still can't download the full report).

-----

Re: general

The DNC is A YEAR BEHIND the grass roots (us), on understanding this situation, and YEARS behind the Bushites, who have understood it all very well for years, and have acted like the fascists they are to gain control of the vote count with highly insecure and fraud-prone electronic voting systems controlled by Bushites.

The "generals" at the DNC are "fighting last year's war." In fact, they're fighting a "war" that is DECADES old--enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. They are way, way, way behind the Bushites. The Bushites ALREADY have a plan in place--the phony, private Baker-Carter "Commission"--to FEDERALIZE election systems under Bush Cartel control, and take the matter of election systems and voter databases as far from the people as they can get it. Our ability to solve this critical problem at the state/local level will be destroyed. That is the B/C goal, in my view.

And the Dem Party is obviously clueless about this (or corrupt, some of them) and will likely APPLAUD it because it has a "PAPER TRAIL"!!!! (god...)

A word about Ohio: Ohio was election fraud plan B, in my opinion. The highly visible violations of the Voting Rights Act on election day was risked BECAUSE Kerry's victory was looking like a blowout. The electronic percentages scam was not enough (and this would mean that it was probably mostly pre-set programming). That was plan A. Plan C was the "terrorist alert" partial shutdowns of the vote in urban areas, probably in the west, that was so carefully prepared in the "news" leading up to election day.

It took a combination of plan A and plan B to keep the Bush Cartel in the White House (with a sufficient fraudulent vote margin to be able to claim a "mandate"--or at least to make that a headline for a day). Plan C was not needed (except in Warren County.) (If Kerry's margin had been 20% instead of 7% to 10%, we would have seen Dick Cheney's plane in trouble over the Pacific on election day, leading to a vote shutdown on the west coast. So I believe.) (He inexplicably flew off to Hawaii two days before the election, cuz Hawaii was promising to turn "red," don't you know?) (--har, har).

Conclusion: the DNC's obsessive focus on Ohio is, a) an attempt to ameliorate black voters, who are rightfully outraged by what took place there (AND in Florida and other places); b) an attempt to deflect attention from the utterly corrupt and fraudulent election SYSTEM that was foisted upon us (for whatever reason they are attempting to do this--probably mostly their own guilt and malfeasance); and c) evidence that they are stupidly worrying about whether anybody will ever vote again--instead of strongly acting to insure that our votes will in fact be counted (work that must be done at the state/local level).

They STILL despise the grass roots of this party. That has not changed (even with Dean). They're STILL largely pro-Mideast War. That has not changed. (And they don't mind Bush taking the rap for the deaths and the cost.) Many of them are very corrupt on several major matters--including war profiteering and tie-ins ("revolving door" employment and perks.) Although the election facts, and all the polls consistently over time, show a big anti-war majority, and huge disapproval of all Bush policy, the Dems STILL by and large are not acting like representatives of the majority (with some exceptions). They talk about winning the yahoo vote (even Dean did this the other day). They talk about "framing" issues to win over rightwing voters (as if they needed to be won over--they are very much the minority!). And damn few of them are talking about illegal war, about Bush's baldfaced lies about the war, and about torture.

Some of this is just perception. The corporate news monopolies--who colluded on election night in creating the ILLUSION that Bush won, by ALTERING the exit poll results on everbody's TV screens--are stifling the message of those Democrats who ARE trying to represent the majority. But other Dems are actively playing along--out of cowardice, or corruption.

I don't envy Dean his job, working with such a party. I think the man is highly intelligent and has good instincts (and is not himself corrupt). But jeez...

This election was OBVIOUSLY stolen, and the Dems not only fail to acknowledge this, and not only perpetrate the myth that it was not stolen, but they AREN'T DOING WHAT'S NECESSARY to correct the situation. Simple, no-brainer things--like getting the Bushite companies out of our elections!

The DNC report may have been a compromise that Dean was forced to make. Let's hope so--and that he WILL get the party to do what is necessary. If not, we're on our own, citizens, and will have to get this done somehow without the Democratic party.

We sort of knew that (especially after the Kevin Shelley thing in Calif.). This DNC report points further in the direction of Dem cluelessness and/or corruption. They are patting themselves on the back--and people are applauding them--for acknowledging the most egregious crimes against federal election law in Ohio. But their blindness and stupidity in STATING that the election is not challengeable, and in NOT strongly attacking the utterly corrupt heart of the election SYSTEM--the "privatization" of vote counting in Bushite hands--has placed the DNC on the wrong side of this vital matter, as the enemy.

Once again, we have to fight THEM, before we can ever get at the Bushites. Once again, they are running interference for Bushite election theft.

The headline tomorrow will be that the DNC and Howard Dean say that this election was not a fraud. How is that for a kick in the butt?

I think we need to be realistic about all this. We can still win, and we WILL win--but the DNC has now made our task all the harder.

[mom cat]

78. Well said Peace Patriot.....Thanks

[Nothing Without Hope]

58. THIS THREAD has the report. IT DENIES THAT ELECTRONIC FRAUD

MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE ELECTION OUTCOME:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1876361

This is made clear in excerpts discussed in the replies to the thread.

Dean's statement and the overview only talk about those long voter lines, NOT the electronic fraud. It is covered in Section VII of the report - which is printed out in a reply in the linked thread I just gave - but only as a hypothetical set of problems, not as something that actually occurred.

We must blast them with the truth or there will be no change.

If electronic fraud wasn't a big enough problem to affect the election outcome, why push hard to fix it? Most of the public have no idea about the electronic fraud, but many Dem voters know about those long lines. Fix those, and it looks good. The GOPs would probably go along with that, because it removes visible evidence that is hard to suppress while keeping intact the central machine of fraud.

[roseBudd]

61. Why address Fingerhut and ignore Connaly? I live in SW OH & I...

guarantee the repugnants in Warren, Clermont & Butler did not accidentally vote for C. Ellen Connaly a Dem, African American female Cleveland area judge they had never heard of.

[mgr]

64. I'll tender a guess

The relationship between Fingerhut and Kerry is present throughout the state, where the Connally relationship may not. What you have is circumstantial evidence, that may require a second look.

Mike

[roseBudd]

69. C. Ellen Connaly outpolled Kerry in a downticket race...

Fingerhut at least had name recognition. Connaly was so underfunded as to be unheard of in S. Ohio. Yet she received a lot more votes than Kerry in counties such as Warren (think lockdown) and Clermont (white stickers on optiscan ballots)

[mgr]

84. yes, but there is no state wide correlation.

I know what you are saying, and what was done is dispicable, but what the report is addressing are patterns that hold up throughout Ohio. (One of the things is that we do not know is what pattern of fraud they modeled).

Mike

[texpatriot2004]

77. Hey Rosebud57 I love the website. Great Job! n/t

[roseBudd]

107. Thanks, help spread it by sending it to people promoting it for its humor

Many a true word is said in jest...

I tried to get it on fark but it was rejected. Too political I suppose.

[Peace Patriot]

67. Exactly right, Nothing Without Hope!

"Most of the public have no idea about the electronic fraud, but many Dem voters know about those long lines. Fix those, and it looks good. The GOPs would probably go along with that, because it removes visible evidence that is hard to suppress ***while keeping intact the central machine of fraud."***

I think targeting Dem officials' corruption on electronic voting systems has to become a big part of our strategy in fighting this fight.

[Time for change]

90. Talk about electronic fraud

Have you seen this?

I just received this note from USCV. I don't quite understand if this involves actual or potential fraud, but hopefully someone else might.

According to Kathy Dopp of USCV:

This is one of the most important stories in two years. Please forward to your lists.

OPTICAL SCAN MACHINES HACKED IN FLORIDA:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5921.html

[Nothing Without Hope]

62. Here is the list of RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SECTION VII - re electronic

voting fraud prevention. I don't think any of it will be done without a huge public push - which won't happen as long as they keep denying that electronic fraud affected the election. The GOP will "graciously" allow more voting machines in heavily Dem districts. Why not? Less public evidence, the appearance of honesty, while meanwhile the electron fraud machine ensures every election goes as they want it to.

This is a disaster. Without the truth about how important these changes in electronic voting are, they will never be made.

Here is the pdf file of Section VII, "Electronic Voting: Accuracy, Accessibility and Fraud.":
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section07.pdf
Section VII is only 9 pages long, including cover page. The recommendations in Section VII are on its last two pages. The bolded/underlined section is in italics in the text of the report:

Recommendations

- Precinct-based optical scan systems are the most "accurate" voting systems available today. They are also reasonably priced and can satisfy HAVA requirements in a cost-effective manner with devices such as the ES&S A(see Figure 3).

- Current DRE systems are not engineered to meet the needs of elections. They are extremely expensive to procure and maintain. They are not sufficiently robust against fraud. They are less usable to the broad population of voters than earlier, simpler technologies.

- Existing standards and practices for the certification of voting systems are insufficient to the security requirements of DRE systems. Significant effort will be needed to create the next generation of standards.

- Few quantitative studies have been performed on the usability of different voting technologies. Vendor claims of improved usability should not be considered meaningful until they perform significant user studies under controlled conditions. Existing anecdotal evidence, including event reports, are at best mixed in their opinions of different voting systems’ usability. Election official should perform controlled, scientific studies of their own populations using their own voting machines to truly understand where they might be experiencing usability problems.

- Most voting system vendors consider their software to be proprietary trade secrets and generally resist any attempts to disclose and discuss their designs in public. Private, vendor trade secrets have no place in public elections. Vendors are welcome to protect their intellectual property with copyrights and patents, but their full designs must be subject to public scrutiny. As elections become increasingly electronic, such scrutiny is critical to maintaining transparency and public confidence in elections.

- Computer software, at every stage in the process, might be buggy and could well be malicious. Different strategies are necessary to mitigate against this threat, depending on what voting system is used.

• Paperless DRE voting systems generally print precinct-level tallies at the end of the election. These printouts are generally signed by the election officials working in the precinct. Those signed printouts should be treated as important evidence as to the result of the election and should be preserved for recounts and post-election auditing.
  
• Precinct-level optical scanners might incorrectly tally votes as well. The original marked ballots should be independently counted, or at least randomly sampled and compared to the electronic results, before an election result is certified.
  
• Paperless DRE systems should be upgraded to voter-verified paper trail systems. The printouts should be treated in exactly the same fashion as optical scan ballots: they should be carefully preserved as evidence of voter intent and should be randomly sampled and compared to the electronic results.
  
• “Parallel testing,” where some DRE voting systems are pulled out of general use and are tested, on election day but under controlled conditions, is an pragmatic and valuable test that should be performed whenever such voting machines are being used.
  
• The computers used to tabulate election results are a tempting target for election fraud, and as such, require more significant controls, including well-chosen passwords and physical access restrictions. They should never, in their entire lifetime, be connected to the Internet or to any modem or communication device. Instead, an “air gap” style of security should be used. Data can be released to the public through simple measures such as burning a CD with election results and hand-carrying such a CD to a separate, network-enabled computer.

- Election officials need to hire “penetration testing” (also called “tiger team”) consultants to examine the security of their election systems. Where such teams have been hired in the past, significant vulnerabilities have been discovered. Such teams should be hired on a recurring basis to audit voting machines as well as the entire voting process, from registration through tabulation.

- The timely publication of detailed precinct-level election statistics is critical to the public confidence in an election result, and such data is often not available in its entirety for every county. Such statistics can be easily derived from local voting tabulation systems and should be quickly and electronically reported in a standardized fashion.

Sounds good, but I haven't heard Dean say a word about it. Like Kerry, he is only talking about those long lines. Unless this emphasis expands to include an aggressive, all-out campaign to prevent electronic fraud, we are lost.

We need to hammer the Dems and also the Repubs to support fundamental electronic voting reform. We cannot let up. So far, they are not even talking about it enough. They keep talking about those long voter lines but never about the electronic fraud.

I think this is because nation-wide electronic fraud stole the last election, and they are all working at NOT admitting that. Well, unless the Dems admit how bad the situation really is, how massive the numbers of incidents and how extensive the fraud, I can't see how they can make the changes required to prevent it from happening again. It's in the GOP's interest in every way to see to it that their monopoly is kept intact by more fraud. They've taken YEARS to build this fraud machine, and they are NOT going to give it up without a knock-down fight. I believe this can only be accomplished if the public is made aware that the last election was stolen. I believe that only national outrage will fuel change.

Otherwise, nothing will prevent future fraud and our democracy is not only gone - it is already - but will never return. I cannot understand why the Dems don't seem to worry more about that.

My cynical side says that most people in this country don't know about the existence, let alone the magnitude, of the election fraud that stole the 2004 election. Many of them HAVE, however, heard something about those long voting lines. This is especially true in the communities that were affected by those lines. I am hoping that talking about the long lines but not the electronic fraud isn't just a ploy for more votes from the people angered by the long lines.

The unfair voting conditions must be addressed, but unless the electronic voting fraud is also fully and very aggressively addressed, there will be no return of democracy to this country.

[mgr]

63. Um, the long lines were caused by those machines.

They suppressed voting, but not in the sexy way folks here would have it.

Mike

[Peace Patriot]

71. Thanks for the info, Nothing Without Hope!

So they DO say something about secret, proprietary software--item #5 above (although NOT about who owns it!!!), but they go on to say (and how is this for speaking out of both sides of your mouth?)...

"Vendors are welcome to protect their intellectual property with copyrights and patents, but their full designs must be subject to public scrutiny....".

I'm choking on it.

-----

Item #1: "Precinct-based optical scan systems are the most 'accurate' voting systems available today."

This is not only NOT TRUE, it is totally unacceptable. And they're PUSHING **ES&S**--one of the two most criminal election theft companies in the country, funded by the far right.

------

"The computers used to tabulate election results are a tempting target for election fraud..."

Really, I'm on the floor laughing (and crying...).

------

Yup, we're going to have to target the corrupt Dems (people like Diebold shill Connie McCormack, head of elections in Los Angeles). That's the only way we can overcome the huge disadvantage that this DNC report has loaded on our shoulders.

We have to show people WHY the Democratic Party is not calling for dumping these electronic machines into Boston Harbor NOW!

Ordinary Americans will understand the war argument as well. Look how many Dems voted for the war, and are profiting from it! THAT's one reason why they won't cry foul on the election. They LIKE Bush's war.

But the most convincing argument is the outright corruption of so many Dem election and other officials on the electronic systems. They're benefiting from the HAVA largesse (billions!) and lavish lobbying. They're being wined and dined in Hollywood and Beverly Hills. They're looking to future lucrative employment by these companies. They like being esoteric experts riding above ordinary voters who don't have a clue any more how their votes are counted. It's a game of "experts" and "professionals"--what should be simple for every voter to understand. This "expertise" thing is a also a form of corruption. (It's OUR government! It's OUR votes, goddammit!). And some of them are just plain bought and paid for. And all of this heavy corruption in election systems affects legislators and other public officials and party leaders as well.

In California, the Bush Cartel showed what would happen to any public-minded election official who fights Diebold or ES&S or any other Bush donor. They will be ruined by black ops/secret dossier campaigns.

Fear and corruption are what's happening. And I think we need to face this front and center, and take it on.

Because if we don't, we are constantly going to be frustrated and stymied by these questions, "If the Democrats think the election was stolen, why don't they say so?", "If the Democrats don't trust electronic voting, why are most of them for it?," and "If it's important, why isn't it in the news?"

How many times do you want to hear these questions over the next year?

This means hurting some of our own. But we've got to realize that anyone who shills for Diebold and ES&S (and a few others--such as Sequoia) is NOT "one of our own." And there are far too many of these bad actors within our own party.

[Peace Patriot]

72. P.S., one of the things that Kevin Shelley was cracking down on, in...

California, was "revolving door" employment between state and county election officials and private voting machine companies.

[Nothing Without Hope]

75. I agree - there are reasons why the Dems refuse to say "electronic fraud"

or "the election was stolen." We have to work against those reasons, or democracy will never be returned to us.

You say:

Fear and corruption are what's happening. And I think we need to face this front and center, and take it on.

Because if we don't, we are constantly going to be frustrated and stymied by these questions, "If the Democrats think the election was stolen, why don't they say so?", "If the Democrats don't trust electronic voting, why are most of them for it?," and "If it's important, why isn't it in the news?"

That is exactly the way I see it. The Dems are suppressing the truth too - it's not just the Repubs. Public pressure and threats of legal suits are the only things that have a chance of turning them away from this course.

[Peace Patriot]

73. There are two simultaneous threads going on, on this topic. Neither

can be ignored. See also

"DNC report online now"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x379765

[Nothing Without Hope]

79. A fully documented REBUTTAL TO THIS REPORT will need to be written

and aggressively publicized.

Fitrakis' new book is extremely valuable, but too long to serve by itself - 772 pages and nearly 4 pounds, and it's a paperback! But it can be used as a documentation source.
Read about his new book in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3890361
and at this Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971043892/qid=1119478003/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-7816307-8571037
http://images.amazon.com.nyud.net:8090/images/P/0971043892.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

We need a rebuttal that is readable and clearly and forcefully shows the coverups and distortions in the official DNC report. Where the DNC report is accurate, we need to point that out too. We must emphasize the vital importance of fundamental changes in electronic voting status strongly and clearly enough for the public to comprehend it, or it is all over.

We cannot allow this coverup to stand unchallenged, or electronic voting fraud will remain in place forever, or at least until they don't even bother to pretend any more that this is a democracy.

[petgoat]

83. Perhaps a Supplement over a Rebuttal?

I agree, it would be great to assemble a "Parts Left Out of the DNC
Report" assembled to familiarize people with the statistical evidence,
the voting machine technology, the specific events in Ohio (and
Florida!), a summary/update of the "Preserving Democracy" Report.

Do you suppose Fritakis, Arnebeck, Lytel, Cobb, Georgia10 ... etc.
etc. etc. might be up for it? A lot of stuff that kind of got buried
in the shuffle could be highlighted, facts checked, updates written,
and copy edited for clarity, brevity, and force.

[Nothing Without Hope]

85. Parts of it would have to be a rebuttal, because this DNC product

specifically states that there is no evidence that the "problems" with the Ohio election might have made a difference in the election outcome.

That is unacceptable. Not only is it false, but it undermines any urgency in reforming the system that resulted in the corrupted election. If it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, what's the hurry?

The "supplement/rebuttal" - I don't know what it would be called - would also need to make clear that Ohio was not an isolated site of "problems." The omission of any other states in the report could be taken as implication that fixing the long lines in Ohio - never mind the electronic fraud, that didn't make any difference anyway - is all that is needed to feel good about our elections again.

This report is a coverup. If it is taken at face value and used as a blueprint for action, we will never have democracy again. Period.

[petgoat]

92. I understand your feelings about the inadequacies of the report

but in presenting it to the public, a "supplement" might be more
engaging. "Rebuttal" looks like we're a fringe on a fringe, and
fighting amongst ourselves--it sounds wearying.

"Supplement" if presented in an interesting way and with more
interesting facts just ....might.... attract more readership than the
DNC report itself. And thus even bypass its soporific aspects. Why
would somebody read a boring report that says everything is all right
when they can read the supplement (or the rebuttal) and go right to the
scandal?

[LightningFlash]

97. Supplement.....

I think this supplement should be provided by the Ohio lawyer team, and much of the evidence consolidated. USCountVotes could finish the rest of the supplement...What's more important than anything is finding out who had access to commit this fraud, and when.

[annabanana]

101. EXCELLENT Point petgoat.........

The DNC statement can lay the groundwork with those who are just hearing about the problems with voting (i.e. the huge numbers of people not really paying attention)..

"Supplement" can augment and fine tune the information therein!!

Good framing! and a
BIG Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Nothing Without Hope]

80. OT but vitally related - WE MUST ALSO FIGHT HR 1316, which would make

bought elections and massive fat-cat political contributions and other sources of corruption LEGAL. It would also legalize nonfederal spending for sample ballots and voter registration campaigns - and we know how the GOP runs voter registration campaigns.

Here is a thread on it and a summary of its provisions. The thread has its full text and a list of its sponsors. I will be posting again on HR 1316, aka the Pence-Wynn Bill and serveral other names - tonight if I am able - with additional information and updates.

It is already out of committee and shows signs of being rushed to a vote. We cannot let it e passed - and yet it seems to be running under the DU radar. I'm the only person who has posted on it to my knowledge, and there has been little response so far.

Here is the official Thomas summary of its provisions. Think about them and what they would mean for any hope of free and fair elections in this country. Needless to say, Tom DeLay loves this bill.

H.R.1316
Title: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to repeal the limit on the aggregate amount of campaign contributions that may be made by individuals during an election cycle, to repeal the limit on the amount of expenditures political parties may make on behalf of their candidates in general elections for Federal office, to allow State and local parties to make certain expenditures using nonfederal funds, to restore certain rights to exempt organizations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Pence, Mike (introduced 3/15/2005) Cosponsors (35)
Latest Major Action: 6/8/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported (Amended).

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/15/2005--Introduced.

527 Fairness Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to:
(1) repeal the aggregate limit on contributions by individuals;
(2) increase the limits for House and Senate candidates facing wealthy opponents;
(3) repeal the limit on the amount of party expenditures on behalf of candidates in general elections;
(4) index limits on the amount of contributions made to or by multicandidate political committees;
(5) permit expenditures for certain targeted electioneering communications by specified kinds of organizations;
(6) permit corporations and labor organizations to solicit political contributions from members by communications of any sort (currently, only by mail); and
(7) permit State and local political parties to use nonfederal funds for voter registration and sample ballots.

[IowaGuy]

87. Page 186 - paragraph 1 & 2

<snip> "There is, however, an important caveat to make with respect to this data. In some counties, the board of elections responded to concerns over long lines in certain precincts by distributing additional machines during the course of Election Day. Virtually none of the counties that distributed additional machines kept track of the precise number of machines distributed, the polling locations they went to, or the time the machines were distributed.

Although it appears that the number of additional machines distributed was relatively small, we do not have data to show precisely how many machines were present in each precinct at all times during the election." <snip>

Huh?....How would you be able to tally the count for a precinct without knowing which machines were there? I guess I'm preaching to the choir here, but something really stinks.....

The context of this is, it is given as a reason as to why they could not accurately collate data. It seems much more relevant to ask "how could you know what votes were cast in what precinct if you did not know where the voting machines were?

[autorank]

94. You are a great reader. This is their weasel language...you know

the part of the paper, contract, presentation where you lay out a little "caveat" in case all Hell breaks loose and you look stoopid (sic).

I think this was written by a smart staffer who knew the thing was stolen. Woohoo...for small things and thanks to you. This is a gem!

:hi:

[mod mom]

104. How do you have control of the vote if you don't have control of allocatio

n of machines?

[kster]

88. Please tell me there

is a grand Grand Finale, to this report. Have we heard from Conyers on this ?

[autorank]

93. That Lion will roar so loud the world will hear, and he WILL NOT STOP!

We're like soldiers in his political movement to resore democracy. Hey, let's call it "The Restoration."

He will not betray us and that's why we can look to him as the truth in this movement. God, the guy walked into the belly of the beast, Ohio, right after the election. I'm surprised he didn't show up and say "Make my day."

It's a process not a product and big mo is on our side.

[althecat]

99. Is there anything in this report about the TOTAL FAILURE OF THE RECOUNT

[Peace Patriot]

100. athelcat, I have been unable to download the report, and I've posted a

thread here asking for tech help. From the bits and pieces I've read, I would guess that it has nothing about the failure of the recount--but I'm not sure. The report is a whitewash on electronic election fraud, due, I think, to so many Dem election officials and elected representatives being in Diebold's, ES&S's and Sequoia's pockets, and it is a whitewash on Ohio in that it states that Ohio election fraud was not big enough to change the outcome. They then conveniently ignore Florida and other blatant election fraud states, and utterly fail to mention that Bushites own and control the election system.

Is anyone else here having trouble downloading this report?

[mod mom]

105. You mean like this report from Lucas County(home of Noes, Coingate, BOE

major problems and utilized Diebold machines:

December 22, 2004
 
Report from Recount Observer, Lucas County, Ohio
Emailed report from Lucas County, Ohio, Recount Observer:

i was a witness for the testing of the optiscan machines on tuesday the 14th.

what is puzzling to me, after the tests of the scanners were finished, the witnesses were not allowed to compare the hand count results to the printed results from the scanners. the ballots, the hand count sheets and the printed tapes were all taken away, to another room, out of sight of any witnesses and about 40 minutes later, the director comes out and tells us everything checks out.

we go to lunch and when we come back, we find ourselves waiting in the lobby. why? we were waiting for diebold to reprogram the scanners. what? didn't they just verify that everything was on the up and up? what is the need to reprogram the scanners?

also, during the testing process, one precinct, sylvania 3, continuously had the test ballots spit back out at least 3 times for approximatley 50% of them. during the election, how many times did this occur and what poll worker is going to stand there and continuosly feed the scanner to get it to scan 1 ballot? therefore, how many of the ballots were put in the spoiled pile that were really not spoiled?

another thing that was very interesting was the two people that i was witnessing actually did not know how to run the scanner. are they the type of people that were the normal who were overseeing the election? am i crazy? what is wrong with this picture?

after witnessing the fiasco of a test recount being conducted at the lucas county government center, i am definitely for scrapping this election and having a re- vote. there isn't any other way we are going to get a legitimate election.

Please also visit "Ohio Election 2004" athttp://ohioelection2004.com.

WHY WOULD THEY LOOK INTO THAT, UNLESS THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH?

[Peace Patriot]

106. Okay, get this!

(By the way, I finally got the report downloaded, thanks to a DUer who is more techncially savvy than I am.)

From the Executive Summary (sec 3B):

---Scarcity of voting machines caused long lines that deterred many people from voting. **Three percent of voters who went to the polls left their polling places and did not return due to the long lines.** (emphasis added)

---Of the counties using DRE (touchscreen) voting machines, Franklin County (Columbus and surrounding cities) was the worst— 74 percent of voters waited more than twenty minutes to vote. **There were also proportionally fewer voting machines in Franklin County’s minority neighborhoods than in its predominantly white neighborhoods.** (emphasis added)

---Statewide, African American voters reported waiting an average of 52 minutes before voting while white voters reported waiting an average of 18 minutes.

---Overall, 20 percent of white Ohio voters reported waiting more than twenty minutes, while 44 percent of African American voters reported doing so.

----------

Now think about this. If the longest waits occurred in minority precincts, which generally have a very high Democratic vote (70% to 80% or more), and 3% of the voters statewide LEFT THE POLLING PLACE before voting, because they couldn't wait that long, what is the percentage of lost Kerry votes?

The DNC does not connect the dots in the Exec Summary. Maybe they do--or give more data--in the main text. But 3% seems like A LOT to me--and most of it was probably African-American votes (the huge majority of which would have been for Kerry. (Note: 3% was the margin by which Kerry handily won the exit polls, nationwide.)

What was the Ohio vote? Anybody know that, off hand? And how many votes did Kerry "lose" by, in the official tally? And what is his "loss" margin's percentage of the total vote?

----------

What I'm getting at, of course, is that this statistic alone might have meant a Kerry victory in Ohio (and therefore the nation--in the Electoral College).

And when you combine it with OTHER types of vote supression and vote stealing in Ohio?

The report's flatout statement in the Exec Summary that it is not challengng the results of the election therefore appears to me to be disengenuous. My very quick scan of the Exec Summary main findings seems to me to point very strongly at a wrong outcome.

[mod mom]

109. PP, Here are your numbers:

Franklin County T Ohio
Badnarik 1,615 14,676
bu$h 237,253 2,859,768
Cobb 20 192
Duncan 0 17
Harris 1 22
Kerry 285,801 2,741,167
Parker 0 2
Petrouka 1,129 11,939
s 7 114
z 1 11

Please note: there was a post election canvass to help determine the approximate # of voters who did not vote due to the long lines in Franklin County. It was lead by activist Evan Davis (formerly of CASE, now J30 and Pacifica Radio) It was determined that about 20,000 voters in Franklin county alone did not vote due to the long lines in high dem areas. It should also be noted that the neighborhoods most adversely effected had dem % over 90%.

[autorank]

116. Well, Peace Patriot, of course you're right. But then, again you're

about four times as smart as anybody at DNC who looked at this problem. There were some nice titles and university affiliations on that report but if I were a student of those professors, I'd want a full refund on my tuition.

As I recall, DNC said touch screens are more reliable than opti-scans. Well didn't TIA do an analysis of Florida that showed huge opti-scan machine bias across the state.

Wow, I'm just doing this from memory. Imagine what they could have done if they'd fucking reached out for some help. I'm still of the opinion that the glass is half full and that this report was essential. I'm also angry that the other 1/2 is not there. The minor inconvenience is that we have to take the taunting of those who just love to prove Kerry lost. The major inconvenience is for the country now and through 2006.

Bummer...Peace Patriot, paging Peace Patriot, report for duty to the DNC immediately.

[Peace Patriot]

120. autorank, I think you meant to say...

"As I recall, DNC said OPTI-SCANS are more reliable than TOUCH SCREENS. Well didn't TIA do an analysis of Florida that showed huge opti-scan machine bias across the state."

You stated it the opposite way--in favor of touchscreens. DNC cast some aspersions on touchscreens, and said optiscans are better, and even provided an endorsement to those fascist election thieves and rightwing-funded scam artists at ES&S!

Hey, DNC! I'm here! You want me and other 40 year Democratic Party loyalists, and all the new voters, to stay with you? Better wake up, people! Cast corruption aside! Open the voting system to PUBLIC VIEW! Do it NOW!

[mod mom]

121. my prediction (what do I know):

progressives will merge with greens after continued frustration with corporate minded dems); DLC type moderate dems; moderate republicans: and reich-wing neocons will form 4 political parties in US.

[autorank]

122. You're right what I should have said was--Corruption/fraud is the issue.

The perpetrators are smart enough to use one technology here and another there to create a trail that might confuse the naive but not those who accept the presumption that if fraud can occur, it will when you have people who recognize few, if any, social, political, or interpersonal boundaries. Whew...now I feel better.

[Nothing Without Hope]

123. Very well said. I'll have to save that one.

:applause:

[kster]

117. The report

was good but,these guys know about the problems with electronic voting, Why are the not doing anything about it now, for future elections ??? Whether they have proof about election fraud in the last election or not, they have all the damn proof as to WHY they should put a stop to it for future elections. But nothing ??

[LightningFlash]

119. They're trying to force through road blocked legislation..

And there was Ohio fraud and manipulation which has a clear pattern, it needs to be fully documented.