WP: Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility

[AtLiberty]

I don't want to post even a portion of the article. The WP is picky about their stuff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/24/AR2005042401545.html

[Kelvin Mace]

1. I will

I'm fearless and they need to get a grip.

Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility
Study Gets Blog Love, But Comes Short of Proof

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sunday, April 24, 2005; 11:27 PM

After my recent column on President Bush's popularity woes, a torrent of e-mail flooded in from angry Democrats insisting that Bush's relative lack of popularity only reinforced their belief that the 2004 election was stolen.

Regular readers are well aware that I'm not a conspiracy theorist. My natural journalistic skepticism applies not just to politicians and people in power, but to wild-eyed theories as well. The Talking Points column that followed the polling piece debunked the idea that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Similarly, it strains credulity to think that there was some sort of massive, coordinated effort to steal an election. Such a conspiracy would have had to cross state lines, involve hundreds or thousands of people and trickle down from the heights of power to the lowest precinct worker.

Yet there's lots of chatter in the blogosphere, but little coverage in the mainstream media, of a study that suggests the early exit polls that showed Kerry beating Bush may have been accurate after all. The study, conducted on behalf of U.S. Count Votes, a non-partisan but left-leaning non-profit organization.

[Jade Fox]

2. Who wrote this?? Sorry, can't seem to log on to the damn WP....

Thanks!

[Kelvin Mace]

3. I just updated with the headers

[Pirate Smile]

4. Here

Talking Points
Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility
Study Gets Blog Love, But Comes Short of Proof

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sunday, April 24, 2005; 11:27 PM

[Peace Patriot]

8. "Such a conspiracy would have had to cross state lines, involve...

...hundreds of thousands of people..." ???

Terry M. Neal doesn't have a clue about electronic voting systems, does he?

[meganmonkey]

9. Aaaarrgghhh! Exactly!

I am so tired of hearing writers and 'experts' go on and on about the thousands of people this would have taken. It makes it so easy for them to write off the whole theory, and it is totally false!

:mad:

[Kip Humphrey]

23. 12 RNC employees on election night in the Oval Office is all you need...

TO STEAL AN ELECTION!

[Amaryllis]

25. You really think 12, Kip? I bet less than that ...with Jeff Dean writing

the code.

[Kip Humphrey]

30. Not sure of the # but there are pictures

of the election war room on election night. There were 6 folding tables with 2 PCs per table. You do the math.

[Amaryllis]

24. Nope. Not a clue...can we send him the Votergate hack the vote demo

wtih Dean and Bev?

[On the Road]

5. This is a Fair Article

I'm glad the controvery is being publicized without the accusations being attributed to a lunatic fringe.

Especially the suggestion that widespread fraud did not need to involve a conspiracy:

"It doesn't necessarily take a conspiracy," he said. "It could just be that there was an atmosphere of 'Hey, we really need to win this election, wink, wink. Whatever you do, we'll stand behind you. There will be no investigation because Republicans control the courts and everything, especially in places like Ohio.'

"It could just be that there are thousands of people working independently but with the knowledge that they are being protected and will never be prosecuted for this crime. . . . But I don't know. That's not my area of expertise."

[KoKo]

6. It is a fair article and glad he wrote it because it keeps attention on

the issue. He didn't explore the "Touch Screen" DRE issue, though, but focused on the Exit Polling. The "conspiracy" is in the DRE's and the code. That's what has to be addressed, because that's where the vote was manipulated.

The fact that most articles won't talk about the ability of the DRE's to be easily attacked and manipulated, shows that that's where it's being covered up. The Exit polls point to "something being wrong" but the something is what has to be exposed as the next step. I think keeping attention on this will eventually bring it out.

Why else would the "Baker/Carter" hastily formed Election Commission be so focused on keeping those DRE Machines in business? :shrug: It's massive cover up and goes into both parties, unfortunately, it seems.

[TruthIsAll]

7. MP: "A Vote stolen here and there"? Then why bother? Very lame.

They know it happened.

They really know it.

They just can't say it.

[rumpel]

10. To throw out the question to the readers instead of taking a stance is

probably a good tactic.

But we have to inform Mr. Neal, that unlike Mitofsky's assertion of "massive fraud particpants", it only takes a handful of software manipulators whithin the vendor's circle, particularly in light of the secrecy sourrounding the codes.

Presumably he has no information of the Clint Curtis statement.

[FogerRox]

11. reporters email-- I will write him

who will join me?

[FogerRox]

21. yeah really fork over his email--lets nail this punk

[Amaryllis]

26. Or of Jeff Dean's (Diebold software developer) criminal history and

skill in building in back doors.

[Peace Patriot]

12. It's my theory that the reason the 2004 election fraud story is being...

...permitted to surface with a few articles and columns here and there, recently, is that these items will bolster a case for nationalizing our election system under Bush Cartel control--what I believe to be the main mission of private Baker/Carter election "commission" that recently seemed to spring out of nowhere.

Nationalization will take away the power of the people to achieve honest elections at the state/local level, where jurisdiction over election systems, procedures and rules still resides--our last and only hope of real election reform.

The Bush "pod people" in Congress need political cover to do this. They could do it right now--they can ram almost anything they want through Congress. But state/local election officials won't like it, and it would be a brazen power grab, involving the states' right to control elections granted in the Constitution. This private "commission" was likely created in order to provide the political cover for this power grab. The "commission" is acting all official (intending to issue a "report to Congress") and has given itself an official-sounding name--the National Commission on Election Reform--despite its entirely private nature (the public has no rights whatsoever with regard to this "commission.") I think that every bit of election fraud evidence that the news monopolies permit into the "news" will feed this purpose: the federal government (the Bush Cartel) taking over elections.

And once they have nationalized the election system, they can do anything they want. It's all over.

I urge election reform activists to beware of the phrase "a national standard" that Carter has been using. I think it's a "Trojan horse." It may sound good, and even include "a paper trail." (Maybe, said Carter. MAYBE "a paper trail.") I repeat, once they have taken the power over elections away from the states and counties--removing it as far as possible from the people--it's all over. There will be no avenue of change and no avenue of appeal.

That's what's important, in my opinion--not what "the national standard" that they recommend contains. It won't likely be adequate (the private "commission" is stacked in favor of paperless electronic systems), but even it seems to be, what's important is WHO has the power to change election systems.

There CANNOT BE a national solution to this problem with the Bush Cartel in power. We already have a Voting Rights Act which should have prevented the abuses in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere. The Bush Cartel didn't enforce it, and were probably collusive in massive violations. What makes us think that any action of this fascist regime (Constitutional amendment, bills in the "pod people" Congress, or executive fiat) will result in honest elections? It just isn't going to happen. But what CAN and probably WILL happen is their use of the election 2004 scandal to achieve yet more power over elections, just as they did with the 2000 election scandal and HAVA (bribing the states to purchase unreliable, hackable, Republican-controlled electronic voting systems).

Keep in mind that Bush Cartel lawyer and election 2000 fixer JAMES BAKER is the co-chair of this private "commission." They are up to no good.

------

Strategy: I'm not sure what our strategy should be to counter this threat. Possibly we should be agitating state and local election officials against any nationalization, and warning people about it now--and, for once, get ahead of the curve on Bush Cartel maneuvers.

The Velvet Revolution's divestiture campaign against electronic voting companies who do not voluntarily disclose their programming code, provide a paper ballot and implement other security requirements, would be one good place to put our energy. If these companies are going to be given total control of our election system (that's what I think is coming, with the nationalization scheme), we had better get on them now. Divestiture and boycott will be the only remedies available.

Any other ideas on strategy? How can we make people understand that something that may sound good--"a national standard"--and that may even contain some good measures, may well be the end of honest elections forever, if the Bush Cartel thus grabs the power to dictate how we vote?

I'm not 100% sure of this theory--that the scam to come is nationalization. It's possible they're just trying to do a pre-emptive strike on emerging election fraud evidence, and to put yet more pressure on the states to purchase paperless electronic systems. But it IS a Bush Cartel pattern to grab more and more power, and in particular to disempower the people of this country with regard to elections.

They disempowered the people by funding a voting system (electronic) that most people do not understand, and that requires "experts" and "professionals" to run. That was a disempowerment all by itself (not even including Bush "Pioneers" controlling the programming code). And I suspect they now want to further disempower the people by taking away our last venues of reform. Where else can we demand a return to paper ballots, or the end of privatization of our voting system, or open source code, verifiability and accountability in the electronic voting systems, except in state and local venues? (Congress is obviously not going to respond.) The first thing--HAVA--was done in the name of "election reform" (hypocrites that they are). So will the second thing--nationalization--if I'm right about this. They will do it in the name of "election reform." (They've got it all set up.)

We need to avoid the Catch-22 that I think they are trying to put us in ("You want reform? Here's reform--a national standard...controlled by us!"). We need to attack the phony officialness of this private "commission." (Always use "private" in front of the word "commission," for instance.) And we need to redouble our efforts at the state/local level, both to educate the public and public officials, and to establish that reform can and will occur (and is occurring) at the state/local level.

We don't have much time. I think they're going to spring the nationalization scheme on us in fall '05 (target date for the private Baker/Carter commission's "report to Congress"). We need to be ready.

[MazeRat7]

19. Standards are a good thing...

I hear your passion and agree completely with the sentiment... however making statements like "tell state governments to reject national standards" is cause for some serious heartburn.

I don't really like the term "national standard" either. I would prefer the term "open standard" as it is known in the software industry. Its these kinds of standards that have driven the vast majority of communications technology we use on a daily basis.

I agree that divestiture of IP in the area of functional source code should be required of any for-profit company that wants to play in the e-voting area. The question is can we use additional financial motivators to "convince" these for-profit companies to adhere to what is currently a non-existent suite of e-voting standards ? Could we enlist academic participants to help draft such an e-voting standard (both technical and regulatory) ? Could we get those standards approved by local legislatures ? And if so...again how do we get the vendors to adopt them ?

Since this is as much a technology issue as it is a legislative/regulatory issue we need to be attacking this from both directions. On the technology side...standards are going to be required.

MZr7

[tandem5]

13. This is a balanced article...

and that's not a good thing. It only exists because Blumenthal went on the record to refute the study. MSM can't seem to literally report a story - they have to wait until they get their "facts" and "experts" so they can completely muddle and confuse the issue. The study came out weeks ago... If you are a real media organization you report on the story then you do follow-ups.

[smartvoter]

14. He needs to be flooded with follow-ups pointing out that paper ballots

would make the issue moot...

[jen4clark]

15. help please

Does anyone know how I can find the email addy for Mr. Neal? Thank you in advance and sorry for yelling! :P

Here's my letter to him:

Dear Mr. Neal,

Thank you for the thoughtful, balanced article in Sunday, April 24, issue of the Washington Post - "Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility..."

I have so many links it's a bit overwhelming, but I want to send you a couple that you may look at sometime if you are interested. I warn you the more you know the more you'll wish you didn't.

I wonder if Mr. Mitofsky mentioned to you that the raw data from the Edison-Mitofsky exit polls has never been released? If you read the U.S. Vote Counts analysis, they point out that their analysis was hindered by the fact that the raw data was not available - 6 months after the election we still hear nothing about it.

In addition to the documented cases of voter disenfranchisement - ranging from shortages of voting machines to thrown out provisional ballots - I wonder if you're aware of the GEMS Vote Tabulating machines? Basically the data (votes tabulated, totals) is stored in a Microsoft Access Database, a primitive Database as compared to many that are available. Because it is stored in Access, the computer language "Basic" can be used to manipulate the data. As you might guess from the name, Basic is a very simple programming language. There is actually a video of Bev Harris of Black Box Voting showing how easy it is to hack into these machines by teaching a chimp to change the vote.

Another very peculiar fact is that in all cases of documented discrepancies in machine counts, in every case, the error was in Bush's favor. Every case of machine shortages was in Democratic precincts.

The election fraud issue gets more complex the more you look into it.
Thankfully, we've got a lot of people working on this but since we're dealing with probably the biggest threat to our democracy, obviously we can use all the help we can get.

Thank you again for addressing this issue in print. It's not something we tin foil hat wearers are used to seeing!

Sincerely, Jen

**************

20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the U.S.A.
http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

The Chimp Video
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/2367.html

Black Box Voting - (in addition to more info than you want to know you can scroll down & on the right column are the chapters to the book Black Box Voting by Bev Harris)
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Lynn Landes has been investigating election fraud for years. This is her website:
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm#9

[AtLiberty]

16. Terry Neal's e-mail address:

[e-mail]

Make sure you thank him for keeping the story alive!

[jen4clark]

17. Thank you!

That was quick! You're awesome!
Yes, I let him know how appreciated any mention of the unmentionable is! :)

:yourock:

[Amaryllis]

27. thanks for the chimp video link; I never could get a link that worked

before. Good letter, Jen.

[Independent_Liberal]

18. I knew something was screwy about that Commission

We have to find some way to counter this "Nationalization" scheme. I had a feeling they were up to no good.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Thank you, Independent_Liberal! You got my point. I am not against...

...a national standard, per se. What I am concerned about is a call for a national standard being twisted into a "mandate" for federal, Bush Cartel control of election systems. If that happens, we will have no hope of election reform. The only venue in which real election reform is possible is local/state. We have no power in DC. None. The Democrats couldn't even get a paper trail out of committee. A no-brainer. (Tom Delay obstructed it.)

I think we really have to get it through our heads that THE BUSH CARTEL IS NOT GOING TO GIVE US BACK OUR RIGHT TO VOTE. They don't care about public opinion. They don't care about nothin'. They are on a roll, and grabbing more and more power is what they are up to. I think they want guaranteed total control over elections, with no controversies, no evidence, no witnesses, no paper trail, no accountability, and at their ease, at the push of a button. They know what that power is like now, and they want more. They want it all.

And it is just like them--it is their M.O.--to disguise it as "election reform" and engineer a private "commission" to "recommend" it.

A "national standard" is NOT good if it contains the "Trojan horse" of a federal power grab over election systems and procedures. Because whatever "standard" they come up with, they can change! And we will have no recourse!

Look, if this "commission" is just about further pressuring the states to purchase electronic voting systems, or if it's a pre-emptive strike on emerging election fraud evidence, we can deal with those things. We have a chance anyway. We can still appeal to and educate local officials and our state legislators and the people who vote for them. We can continue getting the word out by alternative news media. But if they TAKE CONTROL of the election system--a power grab for which they would need some political cover (just what the "commission" may be designed to provide)--then there is NOTHING we can do. The avenues of reform will be cut off.

And they know this. They know that the fight for election reform is taking place in local/state venues (THEY are the ones who cut off the national, congressional venue!). Why I am so passionate about this is what I just saw happen in California. Our Sec of State who was responsive to public concerns about electronic voting, decertified and sued Diebold, and provided Californians with a paper ballot option in 2004, was destroyed. They put out their secret dossier on him and destroyed him (with the collusion of some Democrats who are fearful of Schwarzenegger, or corrupt--or who know that the Bush Cartel has dossiers on them, too). He was the national leader on accountability in electronic voting. He was setting an example for other Sec's of State. He gave us hope that the public interest could still be implemented.

They could not have that--an honest Sec of State who is onto them, and hounding Diebold, and investigating their secret source code. And it is THAT power that I think they are after--the state power over elections. Because that's where we, the people, come into it. We have no say in Congress any more. This Bush Cartel Congress doesn't give a crap about fairness and good government. They are absolutely opposed to it, if anything. But ordinary people still have some influence and some say in state/local affairs.

The Constitution gives the states power over elections. They need political cover to grab that power. Thus, the private Baker/Carter "commission"--yacking on about a "national standard" and maybe giving us a "paper trail." Right.

[FogerRox]

22. heres my email to mr know it all

Dear mr Neal,

I found this very disturbing:

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sunday, April 24, 2005; 11:27 PM

Such a conspiracy would have had to cross state lines, involve hundreds or thousands of people and trickle down from the heights of power to the lowest precinct worker.

I object to the underlined statement. It is simply untrue. Try 5 or 10 people. I went to Broward County FL to work in the Kerry Edwards campaign, came back to NJ on Nov. 3rd. on Nov. 4th I dove into some of the local Libraries and the internet, you can guess the reason.

Some of the very best minds in this country say you are wrong. Please do some reasearch and if you decide that you agree with my assesment that 5 or 10 people is all its takes-- then fine. You can write another article.

On the other hand I am gratefull you did this story, generally speaking.

Roger Fox
South Orange NJ

[Amaryllis]

28. I got your point too. I have been concerned about national standards

for a long time. We have a great system in OR (except for the ES & S and Sequoia tabulators, of course) and I don't want the feds messing with it.

[BeFree]

29. I'm with ya Peace Patriot

The idea that they will strangle reform from the top makes perfect sense.

It is in the local/state arenas where we will have the best chance of success. If that arena is closed to us our chances become limited, and they know that, so, if we are right, then we have a good start on keeping it from happening.

If anyone has doubts about their top level attempts, just look at HAVA and see how a lot of our troubles started there: at the top.

[berniew1]

31. That there was large conspiracy to manipulate the vote is documented

by the hundreds of thousands of reports of irregularities by voters on election day to the Election Protection, Common Cause, VoteWatch, TrueVoteMd, hot lines and SOE officies. This reporter acts like he is not aware of the documented vote switching in 18 states, suppression of minority voters in even more states, manipulation of polling places, ballots, absentees, registrations, systematic dirty tricks, etc. that are documented by the voter reports. This has been dealt with by Congressional Hearings, its hard to believe that there are serious reporters who are not aware of the documentation. The only way they would not be is if there deliberately have avoided looking at the evidence, such as the Conyers reports.

But the USVoteCounts people are part of the problem to. You can't argue seriously that there was a major shift without plausibly suggesting how the shift occurred. Since there is a lot of documentation on this, I think they make a major mistake in not pointing it out. Unless they can make a case that there was fraud and manipulation in the election, it is unlikely that many will take them seriously. And since there has been a huge amount of documentation by the non-partisan organizations that monitored the elections, I think the USCountVotes people are making a major mistake not pointing it out.

One summary of both the Exit Poll case and the reasons for the shift is the following summary that combines the documentation and resarch of several sources and researchers:

http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html

http://www.flcv.com/summary.html