1
   

Election Fraud Continues in the US

 
 
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 09:52 am
August 13,2005 by CommonDreams.org
Election Fraud Continues in the US
New Data Shows Widespread Vote Manipulations in 2004
By Peter Phillips

In the fall of 2001, after an eight-month review of 175,000 Florida ballots never counted in the 2000 election, an analysis by the National Opinion Research Center confirmed that Al Gore actually won Florida and should have been President. However, coverage of this report was only a small blip in the corporate media as a much bigger story dominated the news after September 11, 2001.

New research compiled by Dr. Dennis Loo with the University of Cal Poly Pomona now shows that extensive manipulation of non-paper-trail voting machines occurred in several states during the 2004 election.

The facts are as follows:

In 2004 Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republican votes that he got in 2000, receiving more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties. Bush managed these remarkable outcomes despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000, and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points. We also know that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but statewide results were not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 greater than the number of registered voters.

More importantly national exit polls showed Kerry winning in 2004. However, It was only in precincts where there were no paper trails on the voting machines that the exit polls ended up being different from the final count. According to Dr. Steve Freeman, a statistician at the University of Pennsylvania, the odds are 250 million to one that the exit polls were wrong by chance. In fact, where the exit polls disagreed with the computerized outcomes the results always favored Bush - another statistical impossibility. .

Dennis Loo writes, "A team at the University of California at Berkeley, headed by sociology professor Michael Hout, found a highly suspicious pattern in which Bush received 260,000 more votes in those Florida precincts that used electronic voting machines than past voting patterns would indicate compared to those precincts that used optical scan read votes where past voting patterns held."

There is now strong statistical evidence of widespread voting machine manipulation occurring in US elections since 2000. Coverage of the fraud has been reported in independent media and various websites. The information is not secret. But it certainly seems to be a taboo subject for the US corporate media.

Black Box Voting reported on March 9, 2005 that voting machines used by over 30 million voters were easily hacked by relatively unsophisticated programs and audits of the computers would not show the changes. It is very possible that a small team of hackers could have manipulated the 2004 and earlier elections in various locations throughout the United States. Irregularities in the vote counts certainly indicate that something beyond chance occurrences has been happening in recent elections.

That a special interest group might try to cheat on an election in the United States is nothing new. Historians tell us how local political machines from both major parties have in the past used methods of double counting, ballot box stuffing, poll taxes and registration manipulation to affect elections. In the computer age, however, election fraud can occur externally without local precinct administrators having any awareness of the manipulations - and the fraud can be extensive enough to change the outcome of an entire national election.

There is little doubt key Democrats know that votes in 2004 and earlier elections were stolen. The fact that few in Congress are complaining about fraud is an indication of the totality to which both parties accept the status quo of a money based elections system. Neither party wants to further undermine public confidence in the American "democratic" process (over 80 millions eligible voters refused to vote in 2004). Instead we will likely see the quiet passing of legislation that will correct the most blatant problems. Future elections in the US will continue as an equal opportunity for both parties to maintain a national democratic charade in which money counts more than truth.
------------------------------------
Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored. Dennis Loo's report "No Paper Trail Left Behind: the Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election," can be viewed at http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 415 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 07:00 pm
First of all, the NORC study was very careful not to make any conclusions on who actually won the election. From their web page
Quote:
The goal of the project is not to declare a "winner," but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida.
Therefore Mr. Phillips incorrectly indicates that NORC "confirmed that Al Gore won Florida". Mr. Phillips is also one of those paranoid America-haters who would like an investigation into the
Quote:
conclusion that elements of various governments - including our own - not only knew about the attacks in advance, but also may have helped facilitate their implementation. From Phillips article Threshold Fears And Unanswered Questions about 9/11.


Look at the NORC study itself at http://www.amstat.org/misc/PresidentialElectionBallots.pdf

However its a difficult read, and recommend the Media Consortium interpretation instead, which states that Gore would have won by 60-171 votes if all counties were recounted (as the Repubs wanted to do incidently) and would have lost in any other scenario. However same report also reports that the around 3% of the most difficult ballots to ascertain could have gone either way, dependent on gender, political affiliation, race, etc. Therefore, Gore's 171 votes (and Bush's 493 for that matter) are in the margin of error that could have gone either way. The statistics are simply too close to conclude "what should have been"

Now to 2004...

As for registered voters vice actual voters, that's disputable...In fact the Berkeley findings were rejected by Princeton professor Sam Wang (an avowed, but obviously disappointed Democrat) in his excellent statistical analysis at web site (http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc-florida.html) where he concludes
Quote:
After chewing over the Berkeley group's analysis (Hout et al.) and corresponding with some of you, it appears that there is no good evidence for a real county-level anomaly. The essential problem is that the largest e-voting counties have large populations and have no counterpart for comparison. Hout et al. have done fits that extrapolate from small counties to large counties. Considering the urban/rural divide, this is not permissible. This problem seems to be insurmountable by statistical analysis. As stated before, Broward and Palm Beach Counties may be worth looking at further, but only by means such as direct counting, ideally as done by the Miami Herald.


Finally I am quite bemused that after quibbling about a chads and dimples on 170 votes in 2000, Mr. Phillips feels that we should now base elections on exit polls.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Election Fraud Continues in the US
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 06:18:20