"They've got a secret." In Pennsylvania.

[autorank]

Can you believe it? Pennsylvania, a state I like a great deal, is central to the nomination an
it's about 90% touch screens. There are some great activists there but the powers that be
don't have a clue as to the risks. Watch for some controversy three after this one's over.

Mods - This is a cross post by me of an article I wrote.

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00288.htm

Election Fraud in Pennsylvania?

(Image Source - Diebold Variations)

They've got a Secret

MichaelCollins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington DC

Potential Election Fraud

Almost 90 percent of Pennsylvanians will vote using touch screen voting machines that have no paper record of votes cast. Once you touch the screen, the machine can count your vote any way it's programmed. It can even give you a receipt indicating you voted for Smith and count your vote for Jones. These touch screens total their own votes, invisibly and without any outside checks. We can't watch and even if we could, we wouldn't know what to look for. Our election boards routinely sign contracts agreeing that the computer programs that count our votes are the trade secrets of the e-voting machine companies, no peeking. The companies even "refuse to promise that their products will work."

Our election process is not a serious one when you examine it to any degree but it is very popular with the politicians and the election boards that they populate.

Snip

We elect people who pass laws that are enforced by bureaucrats who then tell us to take a hike when we want to closely examine an election.

"The results are what we say they are," say the keepers of the vote, our so-called public servants. "Move along, there's nothing to see here" is the prevailing attitude toward inquiring citizens.

Actual Election Fraud In Pennsylvania

Anyone who doubts the existence of massive election fraud needs to look no further than this primary. Failing to address real needs and issues of citizens is the biggest election fraud of all. Just turn on the television or pick up the newspaper.

The state faces real issues and the voters have very real concerns. The industrial base for the state left the country some time ago. Nothing replaced it except all those "new jobs" from NAFTA. As a result, there was major loss of well paying jobs for the working class and all the benefits that go with that, not the least of which is health insurance.

Snip

The public officials who control elections behave as though the people are stupid and ignorant of the questionable practices of secret vote counting and outsourced elections. Wrong! The citizens of Pennsylvania know what the story is. Just add the 40% of likely Pennsylvania voters who thought 2004 was stolen with the 35% to 40% who routinely stay home because they doubt the system. That produces a majority of citizens who have serious doubts about a system created to serve the elected and not the electors.

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00288.htm

[AtomicKitten]

1. Effin hell. We saw it coming yet here we are again.

:scared:

edited for K&R

[autorank]

3. Ola Kitten!

Yep but there are some very smart folks in PA who have been doing elections forever, activists, lawyers, politically motivated citizens. They'll show up and catch whatever goes on.

But the crowds are going to be immense. These touch screens are not efficient.

We'll see where the longest lines are and who suffers.

If it goes smoothly, that will be great. If not, that will be a good exposition of the issues at hand.

:hi:

[knixphan]

22. yes, better to expose them now than November...

[electropop]

7. We can discuss the war or lapel pins, but only one issue matters:

Who is counting the votes?

Everything else is irrelevant if the election is stolen again.

[autorank]

36. There's a school of thought that all the noise prior to 2006 turned off a lot of fooling around

with voting. I'm of that opinion but it was based on some input that surprised me.

John and Jane Q Citizen are vastly underrated. They're pissed off, some even "bitter" or irate, and
they don't trust anyone in authority to any significant degree.

If you look at "respect for major institutions," only one tops 50% and that's the military at
51%. The tv news is 16% the print news is 10%. Damn, that's some serious doubt.

I think the winner will be under immense pressure to produce in short order, very short order.

It will be like FDR campaigning with a balanced budget provision in his platform. That went away
real quick. There's reason for hope.

[babylonsister]

2. It sure does seem like we're bending over again, doesn't it.

We had years to fix this, but no-o-o!

You're not the only one concerned:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=121232

[autorank]

5. We're where we shouldu be,, they're way behind.

If McCain thinks he can float into the WH based on a part of his record and not the total effect,
then he's wrong. There's a whole under 40 generation that doesn't think much of him at all ehindother
than this intense guy who likesk the war. He's behind.

If the Republicans think that they can pull their same corporate media garbage, they can ask
Gibson how it felt to be booed and how all those calls were sounding after about an hour of
intensity. They're behind.

Now people aren't associating candidates with issues. In that case, McCain should be ahead by about
10 points with all the nastiness in our primary. But when things are finished with the primary,
then the squadron is deployed and the barrage starts - 100 years war, Bush, collapsing economy, Bush,
Bush, Bush, hug that guy again Sen. McCain... they're in huge trouble. Imho, that's why there is
such, how do I say it, viscousness in this campaign. Whoever wins gets elected.

On the elections, it's pliable. There was so much focus in 2006, the win was preserved, although
there were unnecessary losses likek NM1 (I'll never believe that one).

I think that turnout is it. Just get everyone and their brother to show up and in the mean time
attack the voter cleansing of the lower income and minority groups. Push back extremely hard on
that. Smash the caging even before it starts with massive information campaigns (there's a plan
for that already;).

They'll be embarrassed multiple times if they try to rig and steal this again.

But we need to be skeptical and irate in a controlled way.

[Arugula Latte]

18. I feel like, until our elected Democratic representatives start raising holy hell about this stuff

we won't get far in battling it. :( I've been waiting for some of them (besides Conyers and a scant few others) to push this issue in the media. Most of them don't seem to want to touch it.

[autorank]

31. Here's the good news. We're way ahead of the poo bahs - the people are

In 2006 there were two excellent polls done. One was by Rob Kall of OpEdNews. It was of 707 Pennsylvania voters, Zogby Poll. It found that 40% of the likely voters in that state thought
that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen." Nice sample (1000 plus is national). The only
subgroup that didn't think it was a rip off was Fox viewers;). There were enough of them with
theier skew to drop it below 50%.

Then I put my own question in a Zogby Poll Paul Lehto was doing. His questions were on secret vote
counting, etc. My question was - do you think "the 2004 presidential election was fair and square."
Little softer than Robs but he'd already done that question. 30% had "serious" doubts about the
election.

This was a national Zogby Poll of 1018 voters. Just like his others.
---------------
How confident are you that George W. Bush really won the 2004 presidential election?

45.2% Very confident that Bush won fair and square
-------------------------------------------------------
20.0%Somewhat confident that Bush won fair and square…
32.4%Not at all confident that he won fair and square
02.4%Other/not sure
-------------------------------------------------------
54.8% lack the requisite confidence in the election of a mature democracy. It showed that Bush
lacked legitimacy even then. But it's a taboo topic.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00346.htm
---------------
Take "very confident" and compare it to the other three which are degrees of doubt and you've
got 55% between not at all confident and somewhat (barely) confident. That's huge.

Check the article in the OP out and there's strong suspicion of electronic voting and 92% want to
watch votes counted.e

We're where we should be without MSM. The reps and election officials are hijacking the public
will but at least there's a large group that believes that fraud can take place, did take place.

It would be higher today.

The two polls I believe were those that showed Bush at 18%, one recently by ARG. That's the deal.
Time for a trial or three.

[stellanoir]

4. Good morning cheerful.

Now you go get creating something better.

A reprisal

"Pssssssssst. . . .

This may seem irrational but here's something simple we all can do. . .

Every time you feel the intense sorrow, anger, or frustration over anticipating the possibility of a controversial outcome to the primary due to the insecurity of those nefarious voting machines consider stiffening your spine, focusing your mind, and saying aloud or thinking really loudly and firmly. . .

"I'm creating with spirit that any malicious code implanted or hidden in the vote tally counting software be neutralized during these primaries, and any malfeasance that does occur be so blatant that it will be exposed and corrected immediately, so that the true intent of the majority of the people will be revealed and real representative leadership can be established."

Or perhaps, "I'm creating with spirit that these elections will be free and fair."

(feel free to modify as you feel is appropriate)

You see very simply, if they can rig 'em maybe we can fix 'em. . .with our hearts and minds.

If there is any facet of technology that could be influenced by consciousness it would more than likely be computers. Most of us have personally experienced inexplicable technical anomalies in the past.

Of course it sounds irrational but so are those in power. They have consistently refuted all rational tools and arguments, even when based on heaps of compelling evidence, and have done so with presumed impunity and no accountability for over 7 years if you haven't noticed.

They simply dismiss and marginalize our claims as being "reality based." TRANSLATION: They are using low level magic and mind control. They are masterful at "group think." We have not been so but perhaps we can focus at least for the next 48 hours or so. Theirs' is based on falsehood and fear whereas if we draw from truth and love and humor, can you imagine what may be possible. . ?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4392739

[autorank]

6. I'm open...

I truly hope that people come out and get involved no matter how bad it looks. We have the opportunity
to speak out still (unless you get too popular;). Use it or lose it.

But I think what you're saying is that some of us with a short fuse should be more like the
great TV legend Kung Fu - inscrutably calm unless threatened; then clean implementation of a
winning strategy. I liked that show.

[stellanoir]

9. Okay "gwasshoppah" Good thinkin'

One of my oldest friend's father was one of the writers for that show.

He hung out with L. Ron Hubbard in the 50's after Hubbard's sci fi phase when he was conceptualizing Scientology. They had a falling out though before the cult started because L.Ron called my friend's mum "a subversive" because she preferred to meditate privately and kept her spirituality to herself.

Quite a colorful family. :)

[autorank]

17. ;)

[babylonsister]

8. My heart and mind will be/have been working overtime,

but if the fix is in, no amount of wishing will change that. I think a HUGE turnout might. And 06 did make me somewhat hopeful that the 'fixers' aren't infallible. Maybe they don't even want to win this year; too much to fix!

[mod mom]

10. OSU ELECTION LAW Professors Share your concern:

OSU Election Law: PA SUFFERS FROM VULNERABILITIES THAT COULD MAKE RESULTS LESS CLEAR

Pennsylvania’s April
22nd primary will be
important to determining
the Democratic nominee
for President, and many analysts
believe that Pennsylvania will
be important to determining the
result of the general election as
well. While its 2004 and 2006
federal elections went fairly
smoothly, Pennsylvania does
suffer from some vulnerabilities
that could make the result of the
2008 election less clear. The state
suffers from a history of absentee
ballot fraud that could corrupt the
result of a close election and lead
to litigation. It also suffers from a
lack of central control that allows
local officials to follow inconsistent
procedures, heightening the
likelihood of disenfranchisement
flowing from administrative
error. Finally, Pennsylvania
relies heavily on controversial
touchscreen voting machines that
have been attacked as unreliable.
But before discussing these issues
in depth, it is appropriate to give
the reader some background with
the following nine-topic digest of
the state’s election administration
system.


The 21-page report is available at

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/50Q_for_PA.pdf

and here is the intro to it:

Key Questions for Key States: Pennsylvania
This new feature provides an analysis of Pennsylvania's election system going into the 2008 Presidential election. Part I digests nine key areas of the law that together cover the entire administrative system. Part II analyzes three challenges faced by the system and attempts to predict the outcome of three hypothetical post-election lawsuits that might arise as a result of these challenges. Visithttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/index.php to read the report.

[autorank]

13. I can't thank you enough!

That will be reviewed with pleasure this afternoon. If Moritz and Mr. Collins are aligned (not that
they know Mr. Collins;) then we're at DEFCON 4. But, you know, it's all good...

[mod mom]

15. my pleasure,

although Mr Moritz is probably some fat cat donor ;)

I missed rec'd your ER forum thread-down with a nasty stomach flu, but glad to recd this one :hi:

btw have your heard any report on provisionals in Ohio? no numbers yet I think it's due to audits. I've been busy taking care of a sick family so I feel out of the loop.

[indimuse]

11. GET OVER IT!!

Obama is losing...here come the accusations! tear!

[mod mom]

12. So we should "get over" unverifiable elections if your candidate is ahead? Read the report from OSU

Professors posted above.

[Diamond Dog]

14. Oh fucking bullshit, here we go.

A ~10% loss for Obama is not a victory for Clinton.

[autorank]

16. If I were an Obama partisan, you might have a sliver of a point.

But I'm not. And if you think Clinton is going to be the candidate, you should pay close attention
to this issue. This is a "Republican thing" and some of those who support the party and it's goals
don't understand. They'll nail Clinton just as they'd nail Obama, just like the sole it from Gore and
Kerry, Cleland, Barnes, etc. etc.

Did you know you can't have recounts in touch screen areas? Why? Because there are no ballots.
Lets say Clinton loses and you think it stinks. They'll run the machines again but they're already
programmed to do the same old, same old... NO RECOUNTS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BALLOTS.

I DID NOT say any particular person would manipulate the vote in this article or in any other I've
written. I point out the massive farce the system is and the potential for fiddling around. Just
remember this - Rush manipulated an election right out in the open and in defiance of Ohio law, at
least. You think he's unique.

This is about all of us, all citizens, regardless of party. Nobody wants rigged elections except
a very tiny fragment of crooks. That's why vulnerabilities and lack of verification is so vital
to point out.

No offense meant to anyone, just a warning to all...the system stinks, it's easy to fix, and why
the heck hasn't it been fixed?

[stillcool]

19. yup...there is no such thing..

as the voting machine glitch, phantom votes, thousands of votes disappearing, etc., etc. Who needs to enact simple measures that help secure our voting systems? Not the USA...no way! Although there are I believe 14 states that do just that. It's just the the other 36 that are fucked. The informed electorate doesn't give a shit, until their candidate loses. Unless it is a blow-out no election results will ever be trusted..because they can't be. Viva Democracy! And really, who needs to conduct scientific studies of the flaws and security threats to our elections?

http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/Diebold%20Folder/uconn-report-os.pdf
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/info/everest.aspx
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a56eba8edf74e9e12e_r2m6b86s2.pdf
http://checkthevotes.com/home

[galaxy21]

70. Hillary isn't dumb enough to try anything like that

If she were found out, it would be over for her.

And she's fairly certain to win, anyway. Why risk it?

[izzybeans]

20. That's what Rove and Limbaugh said about Florida.

[autorank]

32. Why is Rove still walking around free, earning a fat pay check

from some news group. What a load.

He'll screw up and get caught soon. The guy must think he's God and that's the speed bump that
drops your tranny;)

[izzybeans]

48. I hope you are right.

[otohara]

41. I See This As More of GE Issue

Unless the kids in the Obama camp have hacked the computer system and they make him win by 20 points - calling much attention to themselves.

So yeah, you're jumping to conclusions - calm down!

[WA98296]

21. My sig's been saying it since I've been here: The people who cast the votes decide nothing..

The people who count the votes decide everything.

[Me.]

23. Too Depressing

K & R

[Timefortruth]

25. It is hopeless.

Now that I know without a doubt what will happen tomorrow I can prepare myself.

90% is insurmountable.

[Me.]

28. I'm At The Point Where This Country Deserves What It Gets

The rest of us will have to soldier on the way we have since 2000

[stillcool]

29. I hope that sooner or later...

the people will stop expecting the government to fix the lack of security in our voting systems, and do something about it themselves at their state level. Nothing will be done as long as people complain about the results, but accept them anyway. I live in an optical scan state, and have written and called the SOS. I asked them to please instate a mandatory audit after each election, but, alas..not yet. I send along the studies, but never get a reply back. It seems that anytime a close election is called into question the sore loser meme comes up, and the candidate is damned for requesting a recount. Maybe a land-slide election, could enable no-fault reform.

[Me.]

40. Blessedly, We Stll Have The Lever Machines

Yet we're the state where in areas like Harlem, not a single vote was cast for Obama. I can't even imagine how that happened. :sarcasm:

[autorank]

33. I'm hopeless, not the election. We're way out front on awareness.

We know what the deal is. Massive quantities of citizens know. Just add the "likely/registered"
voters who have substantive doubts to the 35-40% who don't vote because they think it's rigged.
We're a mass movement waiting to happen. And not like that US Govt. supported Ukrainian deal.
The people her just want some truth. In addition to what he brings to the table, I believe Obama
is the repository for a lot of that. Virginia's 2004 primary which was a good one had 450,000 voters.
2008 hit nearly 1.0 million. Who were those voters? The stay at homes, the youth, the disaffected.
The Democrats here still have not integrated fully the opportunity. That's amazing, the increase.
Those new primary voters are three for the taking. Obama was just the first there and a lot of it
was "we'll show them" I believe. I'm not saying he didn't run a very good campaign here, he did but
the excitement was beyond him alone. You can't un ring that bell and in that there is optimism.

[Timefortruth]

24. There is a pattern in results from the states

with rigged systems. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. It would surprise me if it weren't fixed.

[kster]

26. K&R...nt

[backscatter712]

27. Now we know the true reason why Hillary does better at primaries than caucuses.

Caucuses are counted by hand, verified by observers from both sides - any attempt to cheat will be called out.

Primaries are counted with Diebold voting machines, and the count is unverifiable by design.

Look at Texas.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

35. Exactly.

I wonder if Edwards has said anything about these machines recently.

[barack the house]

30. Provisional ballot is allowed I hear.

[autorank]

34. Pennsylvania has clear written regulations on absentee and provisional ballots

Unfortunately for citizens, it's absentee with an excuse and they're pretty tight about it.

The absentees, provisionals, and optical scan areas - maybe 15% - are the only areas with
voter intent marked on paper. Most of the rest touch screens with some of those lever things (I
believe).

They had better pray for a win of 4-5% at least. If there's serious trouble anywhere, particularly
in touch screen areas, then it's going to be a problem. You can't do recounts. You just have
the touch screen produce the totals again. Absent operator error or replacement of memory cards,
it should be the same result. No ballots, no paper trail, no nuttin'.

To get a recount, the difference is 5%, for the automatic recount. Otherwise you pay, dearly I'm
sure. Each county has its own election policies, very decentralized.

That's all fine because this issue needs to be pressed. I think it will be close and I think
there will be a lot of kvetching on the losing side. It's all so unnecessary, completely.

Failing to fix this inculpates those who failed to fix it - not just in Pennsylvania. It's pretty
easy and not that expensive, but zip, zilch, nada. Another issue for Steph and Charles to bone up
on the next time the interview a candidate;)

Too much happening with too many motivated people involved to have these issues un addressed.

And then there's the general. This is our tutorial.

[chill_wind]

38. Great points. n/t

[Alii]

51. A question of sorts..

You said; "They had better pray for a win of 4-5% at least."

Let's assume, as an Obama supporter, that Hillary wins by 4-5% ... do we really care? There would be a minimal change in the pledged delegate count. North Carolina 20+ for Obama, Oregon 12+, etc., would more than make up for this differential...delegate count-wise.

Now let's further assume that Clinton wins by 1% and fraud would indicate that Obama actually won by 2%. Again, except for bragging rights, should we really care, at least as it effects Obama's candidacy? If this happened in the general election it could be a major disaster. But obviously, by any measure, electronic balloting should be foolproof. Should be.

Just curious, my delegate count calculator knows that Obama IS the candidate for the Democratic Party.

Damn, Joe Scarborough is back with "Race for the White House With David Gregory." Thought that Rachel Maddow had effected his ouster. Deservedly. Pat Buchanan is relatively harmless. Does anyone pay any attention to him?

Excuse the rambling, watching the program as I type. It takes a lot of patience to sift through the BS.

Well, maybe that was more than one question of sorts.

Mahalo...

[autorank]

71. Pardon my shorthand

There can be machine errors or outright fraud in any spread between candidates after an election (this is generic stuff).

But lets say that Clinton wins by 1% or less and lets say, that in the 90% of touch screen counties,
there are massive reports of vote flipping (you vote for one candidate and the machine shows a vote for
the other). It would immediately cast doubt on the outcome because touch screen e-voting machines
have no paper record. Furthermore, the counties all give away the right to look inside the machine
to see if malicious code was introduced as part of the purchase agreement. Therefore, if you are
for Clinton: a) you know these machines make a fair number of errors and b) you really don't want
those errors to cloud a victory, no matter how slim (but you know that they will). That's why they
hope for at least 4-5%. Avoid the questions that can never be answered because of the nature of
the machines.

All your vote is on a touch screen is a notation in memory. If the total votes on the machine
match up with the total votes on the verification method at the polling place (we call them 'ballot
books') then how do you challenge the results? At the same time, if you can't verify the results,
how do you claim victory when questions arise.

As for the delegate count etc., proportional representation means that ALL Democratic votes count
toward the final goal and, other than the expectations and public relations impact of a loss or the
missed opportunity to close the deal, you gain delegates in any reasonable scenario even if you
lose the total vote count.

[Kurovski]

37. K&R.

Thank you, Mike.

[2rth2pwr]

39. Where is the Obama camp on this? Silence equals consent.

[otohara]

42. Here's My Take

it's okay if Obama steals PA, but it's not okay if Hillary steals nomination through super-delegates.

Don't be silly, no one wants to see anymore stealing of any election.

[autorank]

44. It is not my intenteion to blame either candidate, rather point out the rotten system & potential fo

manipulation. These systems are a disaster - touch screens. The staff at the National Institute of
Science and Technology made a big gamble when they released this report.

http://vote.nist.gov/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf

The administration there said it was not official etc. It's stunning. I'll bet no candidate from
the primaries has read it. They're not accepting this as an issue despite wide public support for
action now.

I don't know how you steal a super delegate, really big net maybe;)

But an election can be tampered with by either side against any candidate. If the opportunity is
there, it's awfully tempting.

The final candidate, whomever that is, will face a party that got elected when losing the popular
vote; the Florida vote; the vote in Ohio at least; and scads of other freaks of logic.

Forewarned is forearmed. Can't be without protection in 2008. It's a generic comment.

I'm agnostic on the candidates now, although I'm not thrilled with HRC's tactics.
I'm not an Obama partisan and I'm not writing this for his benefit only. Our candidates don't matter
on this issue. The candidate for the Democratic Party needs to do some preemptive work to stall any
fooling around by the other side. It's just a matter of saying, we know and you know that we know
and if you do it, even a little bit, we'll call you out. Then incorporate simplified, citizen
controlled elections free of any outside money, with all citizens voting with ease as a key
platform commitment. The Republicans would freak out.

[DemReadingDU]

49. Whoever the Democratic candidate is,

We must all get behind this person. The polls need to reflect the Democratic candidate is leading by double digits. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for the Republicans to steal the election.

If the race is close, the Republicans will surely steal it. Think back to 2004 in Ohio. I really really don't want to go thru anything like that again.

[Kurovski]

43. Kick. (nt)

[autorank]

45. Prince - Hail fellow well met n/t

[Kurovski]

46. Sir auto, dude!

:hug:

[H2O Man]

47. Thank you.

This is very important, and it is somethat that we risk overlooking. Your work is very much appreciated.

[autorank]

54. You're most welcome!

Yours as always also.

It's the issue for 99.999% of the country. Hardly anyone wants to win
a rigged election. Hence the necessity to lock down abuse. Hardly anybody
wants to arbitrarily deny the vote to any one. That argues strongly for a
clear and consistent position on stupidity like the fake "voter fraud" issue,
centralized registration with it's "cleansing effect," and grotesque practices
like voter caging (this will someday be known as "The Era of Abuse")

We need to be bold and loud on these issues. Voting rights had huge support
initially and it still does. Where are the warriors?

[tritsofme]

50. Why is all this junk leaking out to the main forum?

Don't we have a special place for threads like this?

[mod mom]

52. Election problems effect the entire party. Perhaps if James Carville wouldn't have

given his wife & the WH Kerry Campaign info on election night 2004, we would have had a Democratic president who would have corrected the many issues (unfairness, inaccuracy, unreliability, unverifiability) that exist. Seems like Clinton crony, James, thought HRC would have a better chance (they thought it would be a cake walk to the presidency remember) if the 2004 went to bu$h:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[tomp]

67. i've never understood this. so the white house knows....

...kerry's intent to question provisional ballots. so what? what does the white house do about it?

[autorank]

55. Assign voting rights to the dungeon? Marginalize elections?

I've only posted about 70 original posts to GD on voting rights.

Try looking at a massively vulnerable voting system, a hugely disaffected public that believes
it's rigged, and the outcome of elections like Florida's 13th as central issues for citizens who
have the right to vote and have that vote counted and make decisions in an environment free of
any money other than government subsidized campaigns.

[JanusAscending]

61. JUNK ???????

Perhaps your vote doesn't count much to you, but tomorrows a big F***EN DEAL!! I'd really spell it out for you if I weren't a lady!! So your saying to us, as a Hillary supporter, you don't care if it's a legitimate win or not????:grr: :banghead:

[tritsofme]

65. No, I'm saying I don't want to have to run into the tinfoil vote fraud nutter threads

on the normal parts of DU.

That's all.

[tomp]

68. you ought to be ashamed of yourself...

...but i doubt you're smart enough for that. that's all.

[Kurovski]

53. Kick. (nt)

[Tribetime]

56. can't let it happen again in nov. K&R

[lonestarnot]

57. K & R

[bhikkhu]

58. K&R - all eyes and ears open

can we do better? are precinct tallies available to anyone prior to tabulation?

[bleever]

59. It's government BY the people.

Whether it's the voters or the vendors (of the machines, and their political patrons) is a separate question, and easily derided as a question for kooks and sore losers.



Just beat me up on the playground. That was easier to take.

[Lugnut]

60. I have one regret

I can't recommend this post ten times.

[Swamp Rat]

62. k&r

[davidpdx]

63. Christ they need to throw those things in the river

Or better yet, turn them into information kiosks for tourism. They ought to have enough to put one at every rest stop in PA.

[InsultComicDog]

64. Bloody hell

While I agree that the machine pose *potential* fraud risks, I don't see where you have shown actual fraud, especially in a primary that has yet to take place. You have a subheading, "Actual Election Fraud in Pennsylvania", but nothing substantiating that charge.

We have been using the touch screen machines since 1992 in my voting district. The first ones we had broke down a lot and were replaced by the Sequoias that we now have. We have had a lot of close elections since then, and have had winners in both parties for Congressional seats both here and in nearby CD's. We have had very close races for the Presidential vote in these areas that could have made or broke the Democrat, but the Democrat has always won PA since then. The Republicans usually seem to win the little dinky local races here, but I don't have any reason to think that there is anything foul going on other than that they have usually been incumbents and better organized.

In short I agree that the machines have potential vulnerabilities and should be eliminated for that reason; however I haven't seen any specific accusation nor a shred of evidence that actual election results in Montgomery County have been manipulated, despite having touch screen machines for 16 years.

[Pooka Fey]

66. K&R

[Kurovski]

69. Today, Tuesday--ELECTION DAY PROBLEMS (links)

Voting Problems Already Reported in PA: Here We Go Again--kpete


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x500959


Big Trouble? - DOJ to monitor Pennsylvania primaries--kpete


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x500964

[autorank]

72. K

Thanks