http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in Cuyahoga county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost 4,000 extra votes. But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg.

In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:



Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast

Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast

Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast

Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast

Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast

Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast

Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast

Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast

Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast

Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast

Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast

Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast

Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast

North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast

Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast

Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast

Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast

Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast

South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast

Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast

University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast

Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast

Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast

Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast

Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast

Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast

Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast


http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/c...esults1.htm#top is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board, providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least 93,000.



Kerry "lost" Ohio by approximately 130,000, so this is not an insignificant figure that can be ignored, particularly when there are numerous other indications of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.

NOTE: Ralph Nader is finally doing something useful again - he's filing a "recount" suit in New Hampshire that throws into question the counts of hundreds of possibly-hacked Diebold voting machines across the nation - including other "swing" states.

BUSH HAS NOT YET BEEN CHOSEN BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. THE ELECTORS MEET AND VOTE ON DEC. 13. QUESTIONS NEED TO BE RAISED ABOUT THE RESULTS TO GET AN INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED BEFORE THAT DATE.

Thanks Tela, I just put this on the blog.



http://commongroundcommonsense.blogspot.com/

It here any chance that the votes are form people not registered?

Provisional ballots?

The stuff about Cuyahoga County is old, old news that has already been explained. The activist who originally called attention to these numbers has posted an update saying that this is not evidence of any fraud. You can read that here:

http://pages.ivillage.com/americans4america/id20.html

The incident involving 4000 extra votes for Bush was in Gahanna, Ohio -- which is in Franklin County, not Cuyahoga County. This has been corrected. However, it is worth noting because it shows that the electronic technology being used can give wrong results. In this case, the problem was detected because the results were so clearly out of line. But if the results had not been so out of line the error most likely would not have gone noticed.

I don't know about you, but I get a little nervous whenever I hear about official polling results being "revised" -- like when CNN "revised" their exit poll data... <_<

Well, except that I do have to say that, personally, I would hope that the election boards WOULD revise their numbers.

What I mean is that it is naive to believe that 100% of the precincts get 100% of the counts right, and there were no typos or any other types of human error.

So, it makes sense that the numbers first released may not necessarily be correct and that they should certainly be corrected before being sent to the SOS for certification.

Then there should be a recount in which many people from different parties, including the general public, can observe what's going on -- but just saying we should blindly trust whoever is doing the "revising" is foolish. Of course 100% of the precincts don't get 100% of the counts right, I completely agree -- and that's why auditing through recounts should be a NORMAL part of the electoral process, not an "unusual" thing the Republicans can represent as "being a sore loser" and wanting to steal the election. That's how they got away with their fraud, in 2000 and this year -- skewing the original vote count in their favor through various nefarious means (for which there is copious evidence), and then claiming that any attempts at recounts were "letting the vote be decided by lawyers rather than voters." Like just about everything else in this campaign, the Repubs set the agenda and the Dems went right along with it -- just think about the reason Kerry gave for conceding!

Which is exactly why there are laws in place that provide for automatic recounts if the results are close enough. And additional laws that allow any candidate (at the very least) to request a recount.

I am sorry, but I do actually disagree with you completely. This would be like saying that any company that releases preliminary earnings estimates and then revises them with correct numbers should be audited. It is not at all an abnormality for the initial *results* from any precinct to be corrected before certification.

IMHO, this is nitpicking to the nth degree.

I didn't copy the link from democratic underground, but I saw a report of an election watcher in Ohio challanging the registrar about people voting that hadn't signed the registration book,after a few minutes(and some phone calls) the registration book was taken away.

The major media better get a clue that this isn't just a few bitter tin foil hat wearing democrats, THIS IS SERIOUS, and they better begin treating it that way.


I'm having trouble with reporters being threatened with facing prison or give up their sources,and Universities being the source of computer specialists challanging the election results. EVERY coup does two things initially, they silence the media, then take over Universities.

For more hard evidence, get everyone, including all the crews to seize the polling books in the poll offices. Get a copy of all the names.

All I'm asking is how one is to determine objectively and verifiably which number is correct -- the initial count or the "corrected." I don't think this is being nitpicky at all -- only providing for voter confidence that results are accurate. Furthermore, the initial count is not considered to be an "estimate" at all -- it is considered to be the outcome, so it would be irresponsible not to be willing to verify it. A better analogy would be a bank account -- the bank sends you a statement (which is not supposed to be an estimate of your balance, but an accurate amount), and a responsible person compares it with the result of their own attempt to balance the account -- even (or especially) when the bank makes a "correction." This is all not only because humans (and machines, BTW) are fallible, but also because humans can have malevolent intentions, which they can more easily get away with acting on if they are in some position of power.