QUOTE
"Ongoing investigations turn up questionable Republican tactics that could
swing election
Chaelan MacTavish
November 19, 2004
Stop the presses! Evidence is now arising that there is verifiable election
fraud in a number of states!
Or, wait, don't do that. The Republican-owned media has shown a distinct
coldness of the shoulder to stories of election fraud this year, and for
good reason. We are invading more cities in Iraq and we don't need a long,
drawn-out recount process like we had in 2000.
But we are getting one anyway. Green Party presidential candidate David
Cobb has declared, "Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio
voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio
presidential vote." (See www.votecobb.org.)
The Ohio Democratic Party is suing Republican Secretary of State (and
co-chair of the state Bush-for-Prez campaign) Kenneth Blackwell for not
allowing equal representation for differing precincts according to the law
codified in - that's right - Bush v. Gore. (See
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/...complaint.pdf.)
Some rural Republican precincts had one voting station per 184 voters,
while adjacent precincts (such as the one in Gambier, a college town) had
one voting station per 1000. Even though these precincts were managed by
the same county board of elections, only the progressive communities had
lines that lasted up to 10 hours. According to the Supreme Court decision
that decided the last election, this is illegal.
Ralph Nader is contesting the New Hampshire count for a number of reasons -
it's small, a recount is cheap, and it may illustrate the defectiveness of
optical-scan voting machines.
"We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the
AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting
in New Hampshire," Nader said. "These irregularities favor President George
W. Bush by five percent to 15 percent over what was expected."
Nader also chose New Hampshire because, thanks to a 1994 state law, its
e-voting machines actually have a paper trail. The manual recount will
determine if Bush's surprising lead in some Democratic precincts was real
or fraudulent.
Bush had a number of statistically improbable leads, according to the UC
Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team. On Thursday morning they
announced a statistical study that measures the accuracy of e-voting
machines. It shows an "unexplained discrepancy between votes for Bush in
counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using
traditional methods."
A discrepancy as large as the one recorded only has a 0.1 percent chance of
occurring naturally. Optical-scan machines may be responsible for
erroneously awarding 130,000-260,000 votes to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's brother.
And Kerry is playing it cool. Whether he conceded or not, Kerry still has a
chance to emerge the victor after a recount. Or, it could be revealed that
the Republicans (who are always the ones trying to keep votes from being
counted) have stolen an indeterminate number of votes. But whether or not
it can be proved that they stole enough to win doesn't matter. If the above
investigations can prove that they stole votes the election will be invalidated."
swing election
Chaelan MacTavish
November 19, 2004
Stop the presses! Evidence is now arising that there is verifiable election
fraud in a number of states!
Or, wait, don't do that. The Republican-owned media has shown a distinct
coldness of the shoulder to stories of election fraud this year, and for
good reason. We are invading more cities in Iraq and we don't need a long,
drawn-out recount process like we had in 2000.
But we are getting one anyway. Green Party presidential candidate David
Cobb has declared, "Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio
voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio
presidential vote." (See www.votecobb.org.)
The Ohio Democratic Party is suing Republican Secretary of State (and
co-chair of the state Bush-for-Prez campaign) Kenneth Blackwell for not
allowing equal representation for differing precincts according to the law
codified in - that's right - Bush v. Gore. (See
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/...complaint.pdf.)
Some rural Republican precincts had one voting station per 184 voters,
while adjacent precincts (such as the one in Gambier, a college town) had
one voting station per 1000. Even though these precincts were managed by
the same county board of elections, only the progressive communities had
lines that lasted up to 10 hours. According to the Supreme Court decision
that decided the last election, this is illegal.
Ralph Nader is contesting the New Hampshire count for a number of reasons -
it's small, a recount is cheap, and it may illustrate the defectiveness of
optical-scan voting machines.
"We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the
AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting
in New Hampshire," Nader said. "These irregularities favor President George
W. Bush by five percent to 15 percent over what was expected."
Nader also chose New Hampshire because, thanks to a 1994 state law, its
e-voting machines actually have a paper trail. The manual recount will
determine if Bush's surprising lead in some Democratic precincts was real
or fraudulent.
Bush had a number of statistically improbable leads, according to the UC
Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team. On Thursday morning they
announced a statistical study that measures the accuracy of e-voting
machines. It shows an "unexplained discrepancy between votes for Bush in
counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using
traditional methods."
A discrepancy as large as the one recorded only has a 0.1 percent chance of
occurring naturally. Optical-scan machines may be responsible for
erroneously awarding 130,000-260,000 votes to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's brother.
And Kerry is playing it cool. Whether he conceded or not, Kerry still has a
chance to emerge the victor after a recount. Or, it could be revealed that
the Republicans (who are always the ones trying to keep votes from being
counted) have stolen an indeterminate number of votes. But whether or not
it can be proved that they stole enough to win doesn't matter. If the above
investigations can prove that they stole votes the election will be invalidated."
http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display...9/419e4360d9ab9
