Can Elizabeth Warren win in Massachusetts? Maybe not—regardless of how many votes she gets….

[HomerRamone]

Back in August of 2010, the Election Defense Alliance came out with a troubling study of Scott Brown’s victory (if that is what it was) in the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat the previous January. The piece, by Jonathan Simon, included this observation:

“Where votes were observably counted by hand, the Democrat Martha Coakley defeated the Republican Scott Brown by a margin of 2.8%; where votes were counted unobservably and secretly by machine, Brown defeated Coakley by a margin of 5.2%.”

And aside from that anomaly—which, as usual, went wholly unreported by the corporate and progressive press—there was much else about that race that ought to worry anyone who cares about democracy:

http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/BelieveIt_OrNot_100904.pdf

Those now hoping that Elizabeth Warren will take Brown’s place in the Senate would do well to pay attention.

MORE: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/09/can-elizabeth-warren-win-in-massachusetts-maybe-not%e2%80%94regardless-of-how-many-votes-she-gets/

[mahina]

1. As always, we have to win so big they can not steal it.

same old same.

[ThomCat]

5. If you simply accept that, you're giving them permission to

steal votes.

You're accepting that we need to win by more votes than they do in order to be "allowed" to win an election.

That is not what legitimate elections look like.

We are so far past legitimate elections that a lot of people are accepting that the votes are rigged, and that's just the way it is. :(

[mahina]

11. I'm not saying it is ok.

I'm saying it is a fact. By all means, I think we should raise holy hell and make a stink, complain, participate in the process, eliminate all electronic voting, and every other means necessary to make it impossible to steal elections.

AND win by a big enough margin that they can't steal it.

[ThomCat]

12. Then I absolutely agree with you.

So long as we all know that winning includes fighting like hell to restore clean elections, with verifiable voting, so that winning by large majorities just to appear to barely win becomes a thing of the past.

I really don't think most people realize that all that's necessary to steal most elections is to flip a few percentage points worth of votes. Nothing big. Nothing obvious. Because it's small and subtle, a lot of people can always convince themselves that nothing serious or important happened.

But it is important. It's devastating to our entire system of government. :(

[Scuba]

13. Bingo.

[Tesha]

2. I have complete confidence in Massachusett's ability to run a fair election.

I also have complete confidence that one way to lose
an election is to do nothing more than try and "phone
it in" as Coakley did. Her campaign was pathetic; it
assumed from the get-go that the Senate seat was hers
by right.

Tesha

[CTyankee]

15. That's why it is refreshing to see Warren out there early and BIG.

She's making headlines and attracts the national press. I think we have a REALLY good chance with Warren in MA!

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Big Bad Black Boxes.

n/t

[msongs]

4. The Democratic Party USA Inc does not give a crap about election fraud or its prevention

so far as I can tell. Then again I am an advocate of paper ballots counted by hand at the precinct level because our elections should be sacred, not decided by a computer programmer who can fool the registrars again and again

[ThomCat]

6. Agree. +1

[On the Road]

7. This Again?

The hand-counted precincts are predominantly in rural areas. Of course Brown did better. Unlikley it had anything to do with the method of counting.

[HomerRamone]

8. but we will never know nt

[On the Road]

10. OK, Fair Enough

We will never know for sure. But according to the Truthisall theory, it is the hand-counted ballots that are to be trusted and the electronic ballot distrusted.

[HomerRamone]

14. I trust that Coakley did better in the hand-counted areas.

I allow that it's possible that Brown did better the in other areas. But it could be a complete fabrication, and no one should be allowed to "win" when it can't be verified...

[pipi_k]

17. Just posted down below...No.

Coakley did not do better in hand counted areas.

[On the Road]

23. I Take Back My Comment

after digging more into the article. It appeared to me that the authors were characterizing as an "anomaly" the fact that hand-counted and optically scanned precincts were systematically different. This is to be expected and by itself should not be taken as evidence of miscounting or fraud.

The actual study takes this into account, along with voting history, candidate background, safe vs. contested elections, etc. I have seen a lot of poorly made fraud argument in the last decade, but this is a careful study which raises good questions.

Personally, I don't have anything against optical scanning on principle, but the software has to be open and the results able to be audited. Otherwise, these questions are going to continue.

[abbiehoff]

18. I think you have it backwards

Coakley won the hand counted results.
Brown won the secret counts.

[pipi_k]

20. Really?

Did you come all the way out to Mass from Ohio to watch those counts?


I've just stated twice in this thread WHY Scott Brown won here.

Better campaign.

He ran on an Independent platform and appealed to more people.

No other reason.

[pipi_k]

19. Misconception...

As to why Scott Brown won in the rural areas.

Many of the residents out here in the rural areas are the very liberal "artsy fartsy" types, for lack of a better term.

That's how many of them jokingly describe themselves, anyway.

Some are Left-leaning Independents.

Scott Brown used more of an Independent platform. Not a Conservative platform.


We are not a bunch of redneck hicks out here.

[reformist2]

9. Why do we tolerate computerized voting at all????

Paper and machine only. And even the machines I'm a little leery of... lol

[pipi_k]

16. Just wanted to point out

that I live in a rural area in the western part of Mass.

My town, as well as quite a few others out here, does not have voting machines.

Scott Brown won in a lot of places where votes were hand counted.

Martha Coakley did not run a good campaign. Scott Brown did, and that's why he won.

[millijac]

21. Exactly. I'm in Scott Brown's hometown

and I'm a poll worker. He didn't win by the margin he should have as a "hometown" boy. His "independent" status helped, but Dems were pissed at Martha for running such a lousy campaign and they didn't turn out in big numbers.

He's now got a record. He's numbers have been steadily going down - not by a lot - but still decreasing. The more the voters see how he votes, the less they like him.

I'll admit, I knew we had a fight on our hands though to unseat him, but I thought we could do it if we hung his record around his neck. Ms Warren just made this a whole lot easier.

Still, we've learned to take nothing for granted. We'll still be working our tails off to send him and his ratty barn coat home.

[pipi_k]

22. yeah, seems like the only ones not pissed off at him...

are the true "middle of the roaders".

He's pissing off Democrats, and I've even heard Republicans express some dissatisfaction with him.

I have to admit, though, that when he got elected (I voted for Coakley), things didn't turn into quite the horror show I expected. I mean, he hasn't done anything truly outrageous or heinous as far as I can tell.

If Warren runs, though, I'll still vote for her.

:)