I don't think they had any machines switching votes this time

[Quixote1818]

This is difficult to explain but I will give it my best show.

The advantage (or problem) of having a machine that switches votes, is if the opposition is way ahead then that means they end up WAY behind in the end. The bigger one sides lead, would mean the more that side loses by. This is why I am sure (back in 2004) they only targeted heavily Republican districts where fewer democratic votes will be turned. This looks less obvious and Republicans were expected to win in those precincts anyway. It also plays right into Roves claim of bringing out the base. It's too risky if the opposition is going to win big, unless you can target specific precincts which is what I think they did in 04.


The fact that they tried to suppress the vote so much, seems to suggest they didn't have the machines this time, unless they had targeted precincts or unless they thought the Democrats were going to have huge turnout which would have turned into a huge Republican blow out. If you have machines switching votes then you wouldn't want to suppress Democratic turn out in Republican districts. Anyone see what I am saying?


I don't think they were willing to take the chance on corrupt machines this time. They knew too many people were going to be checking out the machines if it looked too strange and they knew Democratic turn out was going to be too high. Corrupt machines only work in close elections, used in heavy republican districts where fewer democratic votes will be turned.

Rove's clam's of getting the base out in 2004 is even more suspicious now, because you really can only use corrupt machines in Republican districts or the results will look really fishy. Corrupt machines would turn every Democratic district into a Republican blow out.

[emulatorloo]

1. Check out this thread -- Repubs complaining about too many paper ballots

in Virginia:

Machine malfunctions'problems meant they had to hand out paper ballots. Which meant a paper trail they can't mess with

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2646420

TOO RICH! VA GOP concerned about voting machine glitches! (Too MUCH paper!)

[dogday]

2. They would have to be able to predict the turnout

and if they overpost a negative number and the turnout is low, then the negative figure would show itself...

[EFerrari]

7. Couldn't they work on a ratio? They wouldn't need to predict

a number but only a relationship (i.e., 3-1 or something)?

[Quixote1818]

9. It would have to. It would look too fishy otherwise. nt

[dogday]

10. They would have to have a negative and

a positive to offset each other so there would not be more votes than voters... That kinda gives it away, so by offsetting the figures, no new voters are recorded...

[unpossibles]

3. I think they tried to use them

and maybe some were successful. A lot of folks reported that their votes changed before final confirmation, but the difference is people were watching for it and refused to submit.

[EFerrari]

4. Vote flipping happened all over the country, sadly.

There's a thread in the ER forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=456854&mesg_id=456854

[silverojo]

12. Howard Dean mentioned vote-switching today

I saw his press conference on C-Span. Sadly, it did happen. Happily, enough people were on hand to make sure it didn't affect the outcome!

[EFerrari]

14. It's really amazing how many more people are aware of this

this time around.

:toast:

[emlev]

5. lots of complaints called into hotline re: votes switching eom

[Nozebro]

6. Presidency is the Real Prize, so they won't do anything "fuuny" til 2008

nt

[flordehinojos]

16. yes. and you should've heard tom delay tell soledad o'brien just that this morning.

he said all of these democrats elected this term are, in his words, "just one term congressmen". and he added, "we will take it back in 2008."

[The Count]

8. Did you see that map in the election protection site?

Only uncontested elections didn't have problems which makes things fishy right there. There waa theft - but limited by our vigilence.
read this:
HOW THEY STOLE THE MID-TERM ELECTION



« Steal Back Your Vote
HOW THEY STOLE THE MID-TERM ELECTION
Published by Greg Palast November 6th, 2006 in Articles
http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election#more-1530
by Greg Palast
and then the following article: Steal back your vote

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Yes they did have vote flipping in MO

[CJCRANE]

13. Presidential election is based

on the electoral college so the targeting of "fixes" can be more specific to particular pivotal states (or precints within those states) as per Flordia 2000 and Ohio 2004 (would be my guess).

on edit: i.e. I would guess less fixing is needed for a bigger result (to secure the electoral college votes of a particular state).

[Imagevision]

15. Cheney spoke volumes when he decided to go hunting on election day