NEW EVIDENCE that Alvin Greene’s “win” in SC was STOLEN!

[rbrnmw]

This is like Deja Vu

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/07/new-evidence-that-alvin-greenes-win-in-sc-was-stolen/


From: Garland Favorito
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:33 AM
To: Garland Favorito
Subject: South Carolina Proves Statewide Unverifiable Voitng Cannot Be Trusted

VoterGA Supporters,

Mail-in paper ballot election results just received from each South Carolina county under
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests confirm that there were enough voting
discrepancies in the recent U.S. Senate Democratic primary to have reversed the election
outcome. That race had dramatic, inexplicable discrepancies between the verifiable mail-in
absentee paper ballot results and the unverifiable electronic voting results recorded on Election
Day, June 8.

In that race, Alvin Greene was declared the winner based on a near landslide 60-40% margin in Election Day electronic voting results. However, certified mail-in paper ballot results, received
from the counties after a 15-business-day response period allowed under South Carolina law,
show that Vic Rawl actually won the verifiable mail-in paper ballot absentee voting by a solid 55-45% margin.

The near 30% total point differential among the two candidates is unheard-of in South Carolina election history, and, perhaps, nationally as well. Neither candidate emphasized absentee voting,
so there is no reasonable explanation for such a vast difference.

VoterGA issued the FOIA requests because South Carolina counties do not report separate
absentee totals for mail-in paper ballot votes and in-person electronic votes. While some of this information was previously known, here is what the official replies to the requests revealed:

In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee mail-in vote count and lose the Election Day vote count
In not one county did Vic Rawl win the Election Day vote count and lose the mail-in absentee vote count
In 41 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day vote percentage exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee percentage;
In 34 of those 41 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day electronic votes exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee votes by an abnormal margin of 15%
In no counties with more than 10 paper ballot casts did Vic Rawl have an abnormal margin of 15% or more (total for both candidates)
The individual county results illustrate the differences between Election Day electronic voting results and mail-in paper ballot absentee voting results much more dramatically:

In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 30%;
In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 63% to 37% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 75% to 25%;
In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 82% to 18%;
In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 67% to 33%;
In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 70% to 30% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 58% to 42%;
In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 76% to 24% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 51% to 49%;
In Lancaster County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 90% to 10%;
In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 55% to 45% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 84% to 16%;
In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 61% to 39% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;
The differences between absentee in person electronic voting and absentee paper mail-in voting are similarly dramatic:

In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 62% to 38% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;
In Jasper County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 56% to 44% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 76% to 24%;
In Orangeburg County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 52% to 48% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%
In Chester County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 71% to 29% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 55% to 45%;
In Coleton County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 58% to 42% but
Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 33%;
In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 73% to 27%;
full story link

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/07/new-evidence-that-alvin-greenes-win-in-sc-was-stolen/

[Beetwasher]

1. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck....

That's bad, man. Really, really bad.

[corkhead]

122. not just because it was wrong, but because of how brazen it was and how it has been ignored by msm

and even by Democrats. If the cheaters can get away with this obvious theft, we are truly Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked....

[Action]

153. Election Stolen

The sad part is that nothing will be done or change in this race.

Repubs rule everything still and you have no idea how much I hate it.

[mikelgb]

2. Names/Values were switched in the code. Has to be the case IMHO.

Either intentionally or by mistake, there was an error in recording votes for that race and it throws the hole election there into doubt.

[ShadowLiberal]

115. OMG, that actually makes perfect sense, that means whoever wrote the program rigged it

I can't believe no one ever said this before (at least in topics I've seen), you're a genius mikelgb. Reversed the electronic vote totals do look fairly normal (at least I think so, we should ask an expert).

Since the secretary of state is in charge of this kind of stuff (in most states, probably in South Carolina to) that would mean that Mark Hammond, or someone in his office, is behind this. Why hasn't his name come up before in suspicion about this contest if he oversees the elections?

If one guy made the master program loaded into all the voting machines (almost certainly someone from the secretary of states office if they oversee state elections), but mixed up where the votes for Greene and Rawl went.... Then people would never know it if no one tested the system at the polling places.

[OnTheOtherHand]

121. mail absentee results are positively correlated with DRE results

So if the DRE results were reversed, I guess the mail-in results were reversed too, and Greene actually won the mail-in absentees. But I really doubt that. The DRE results could be wrong, but I don't think they were reversed.

It's true that the state board does the programming for most but not all of the counties.

[daleanime]

3. But we've had....

200 years of practice.:nuke: :sarcasm: :grr:






Is this even on the WH agenda?:scared:

[NoSheep]

4. Wow. What a great country we live in.

Jesus fucking christ

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoSheep]

120. Oh yea. I forgot I was supposed to be towing the line to appease the lowest common denominator.

:hide:

[Joe Chi Minh]

161. ... in a nutshell.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

163. Wow, the STRANGEST things pop up when you search yourself.

I reiterate: wow.

[dmallind]

5. This misses out one impotant question

and I have no dog in this fight either way. Beyond hearing some vague tales of Greene's eccentricity I know nothing about either candidate.

BUT.

Is there a big difference between the demographics of absentee voters and election day voters? The article never says yea or nay.

I know Alvin Greene to be an African-American. I have no idea if Vic Rawl is. Is there a difference in racial support and absentee voting percentage maybe?

Is there a difference in education level or income or age in support for these candidates and likeliness to be absentee?

I have no idea, but I would need to see answers before crying foul here.

Come to think of it there's an even more basic question: given the usually low rate of absentee voting, would it make a difference?

[CLANG]

37. It would make a big difference because the live vote was manipulated, not the absentee ballots.

[mdmc]

88. I don't know either..

All I know is that helpamericavoteact needs some help..

[rbrnmw]

90. HAVA In Our Family We Call It ..

The Help Karl Steal More Elections Act

[customerserviceguy]

141. It's the essential question when examining this line of reasoning

Who uses absentee ballots more, blacks or whites? I'd say it was white voters, by a long shot, and this explains the difference.

[OnTheOtherHand]

147. maybe, but be careful

Even assuming that you're right about the use of absentee ballots, this election doesn't appear to have been very polarized on racial lines. Greene did on average do better in precincts with higher proportions of black voters, but the difference isn't all that stark; I doubt that race explains much of the difference between mail-in and other votes. I think it's important, as someone posted yesterday, that mail-in voters had an opportunity to research the candidates -- not that I would expect them to spend a lot of time doing that.

[customerserviceguy]

162. That's a point I hadn't considered

It also means that the "I like the name Greene better than the name Rawl" votes were more likely spur of the moment choices in the polling booth, rather than something done by a person sitting at home with an absentee ballot.

In any case, using numerical 'analysis' to identify fraud is useless. If you can find hard evidence of tampering with vote counting systems, then you've got a case. Until then, it's just using selective statistics to 'prove' something, and it's as easy to lie with the right numbers as it is with words.

[OnTheOtherHand]

164. oh, I don't know about that

(Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier.) Obviously there are limitations to what one can do with numerical analysis, but I don't think we should throw up our hands and say in effect that anyone can make statistics say anything. In some narrow sense that is true, but some of the arguments are a lot more persuasive than others. The evidence that Christine Jennings should have won FL-13 in 2006 is a lot stronger than, say, the evidence that the Ohio vote count or tabulation was rigged in 2004. (However, I don't know of any strong evidence of fraud in FL-13. In other cases, I might be pretty comfortable inferring fraud.)

[customerserviceguy]

165. Again, you've made a good point

Clearly, there are some instances where it might apply, but I think people are grasping at straws when they're looking for fraud in the Greene-Rawl race. It simply defies imagination to figure that someone would use that ability to screw with a race that DeMint had in the bag already, rather than use it to mess with a much tighter race.

I have no problem believing that the electorate can simply make the wrong choice when a Repuke wins, I guess I have to accept that it can happen in a Democratic primary every once in awhile, as well.

[ThomWV]

6. Those discrepancies are truly astounding, but what will be done?

[rbrnmw]

9. Well McMasters SC AG refuses to investigate

I hope the FEC will do something

[dotymed]

151. If our recent history of voter fraud

is any indication, the FEC will do nothing. We must demand verifiable voting, whether it is run by state or federal overseers. It is disgusting that in the last 3 decades, the "Great Democracy" has become so corrupt. The (ex-CIA chief) poppy Bush, (IMO) opened his bag of "black op" tricks, to get baby bush "elected."
The CIA (admittedly) has been fixing elections in third world countries for decades.
Now that the "cat is out of the bag" in America, these election riggers work with impunity. If they were actually unmasked, then Americans would learn that their votes have not counted for a long time.
Two parties, one master...

[Wednesdays]

154. Wait a second...if it's truly "two parties, one master"

...then why would elections need to be rigged? :think:

[OnTheOtherHand]

158. +1 n/t

[Webster Green]

7. This was obvious right after the election.

I remember reading about the write-in vote discrepancy shortly after the election. These new numbers are very damning, but there was enough evidence of how the write-ins were out of phase with the machine votes that they should have had a real investigation. The democrats declined to do anything.

[elehhhhna]

93. DING DING DING your last sentence says it ALL. You win this thread.

[bobburgster]

136. I agree

There was enough discrepancy to warrant some type of investigation. Not sure why the democratic party wouldn't push for it....it would have been in their best interest.

[blaze]

8. And the media let the story die

I have no doubt this was a trial run to see how easily an election can be stolen.

That it dropped of the news radar so quickly, just sealed the deal.

[rbrnmw]

13. We need to get it back in the media some how nobody here in SC media seems to care

but I sent every damn one of them the article with link

[Blue_Tires]

27. what's worse is that some media tried to hold him up as some

triumphant grassroots icon over incumbent backlash...But they weren't able to keep up the ruse when Greene said anything longer than a 10-second sound bite...

[rbrnmw]

29. There was link of a Fux News Reporter

Asking him if he was reading these answers off I think it was Sheppard Smith

[CLANG]

38. More like a 10 second tongue bite. The dude is pathetic!

[shanti]

60. trial run??

that happened in 2000! it worked the first time, so they did it again. fuckers! :grr:

[bjobotts]

124. Greene is an idiot who didn't even campaign or raise any money or have fund raisings

[bjobotts]

125. That this is a repub fix is blatantly obvious.They got the opponent they knew they could beat easily

[bjobotts]

126. If Greene gave a shit about dems in his state he'd quit because he knows he's a sure loser.

What an a-hole.

[MilesColtrane]

10. Pretty obvious case of fraud...

But, will anyone care enough to do something about it?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rbrnmw]

71. changed my mind this doesnt deserve a response

[MilesColtrane]

74. Wow, it's like you're a mindreader or something.

goodbye

[whistler162]

139. Don't have to be. Just read the RACIST threads on Alvin Green!

GEEZ!!!

[LostinVA]

149. Not one of those threads is racist

[LostinVA]

77. Calling another poster a racist is against DU rules

Especially when the poster didn't say anything even remotely racist.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

148. So, you get the message deleted doing that and do it again?

:wtf:

And for NO REASON. No one has said anything on these Alvin Green threads that are the least bit racist.

I think he's someone's stooge.

[Poboy]

11. Why can't we get a safe clean, verifiable way of electing people?

And why are both parties happy with this sham 'election' software, owned by shady/criminal characters?

Why has nothing been done since 2000, but more acutely, since 2006 (when Dems took back control of the House)???

[shanti]

62. follow the money

obviously, nothing is being done because they all want it that way.

[glitch]

82. The corporations owning the election machines are intimately linked with the corporations running

and/or buying the people in office. It is really them v. we the people, we have no representation. We will never have representation again until the corporations are removed from our election process.

[Stevepol]

12. I hate to be cynical, but the Dem Party in SC doesn't give a damn.

The Repubs could cheat them, stomp all over them, steal every cent they have on them, and they would thank them wholeheartedly and ask for more.

That's my impression at any rate.

The evidence isn't really new. There's just more of it now. Rawl presented the same "facts" to the Dem Party and the Dems decided not to require a new and fair election, which would obviously have changed the results. It would have called for them to move around a little too much and maybe actually do something about democracy rather than just pretend to be in favor of democracy in the abstract.

[rbrnmw]

15. sad but probably true nt

[blindpig]

72. Yep

The Democratic pols are a bunch of Chamber of Commerce 'B' listers who are true 'republican lite'. There is no 'there' there.

[mitchum]

102. The Dem party in SC are the Washington Generals coached by Alan Colmes

[russspeakeasy]

112. Do not limit your opinion to SC

They are not unemployed, they have great retirement and health
care...People kiss their ass...why would you want to rock the
boat and risk changing that...??

[Kurovski]

113. Why would all those people who claim to love Jesus risk hell?

Polls like to "reflect" how religious The USA is. It' ain't. It's a nation of liars and posers when it comes to the sacred.

Anyhoo, election theft appears to be here to stay.

[Indydem]

14. Who would do this and WHY?

This is the real mystery here, and why I can't understand why people keep beating this horse.

Why would the republicans care enough to do this? Does anyone honestly think that Rawl will unseat Demint? Really? Torpedoing Rawl allowed the pukes to keep that seat? Hardly.

Were they testing the waters, trying to see if it could be done? Then why use such a blatent case as a test?

Is this pure on computer errror, with no human intereference?

And finally, isn't it just as likely that the voters who went to the trouble to obtain absentee ballots were educated voters, and voted for Rawl because he was there candidate and had done their research, while those showing up to vote didn't care and just voted for the first of two names on the list, thinking one was as good as another?

[grahamhgreen]

18. Justy testing the waters - a shot across the bow to see if it would cause a rucus.

Next - on to bigger elections - wait til the fall.

[Renew Deal]

20. I agree

And I think it shows that these sort of things will not really be investigated.

[grahamhgreen]

23. It's a huge deal, I wish the Dems would act to banish the machines.

I spoke with our Dem candidate for Sec of State in GA a couple weeks ago, Gail Buckner, and although she is for a paper trail, she was hesitant to go to optical scans because she felt the local election commissioners thought that would be too much work!

Hopefully we can at least get the machines to spit out a paper trail, which she was for.

[CLANG]

39. A paper trail would accomplish nothing.

If they can program the machine to flip the votes, then they can program it to print an "audit trail" of their original vote. Individuals would not be the wiser.

Of course, if they tallied up the audit trail, then they would see something is wrong, but will anyone challenge the results? Doesn't look like it.

[LisaL]

56. An individual presumably could look at the receipt

and notice something is wrong.
So the paper trail is essential.

[CLANG]

61. And what will prevent the machine from lying opn the receipt?

[LisaL]

64. You go to ATM, you ask for 200 $, you get 200 $, you get a

receipt and it says you got 500$. I wonder what you are going to do with that?

[demigoddess]

106. a computer can be programmed to write out the correct vote

the one the voter voted for and then tally every tenth one, or fifth one for the opposite party. You guys should know this. it is programming 101

[CLANG]

127. That analogy doesn't fit the situation.

If you vote for Obama, and the receipt says you voted for Obama, but internally the machine records McCain, how are you going to know?

[Wednesdays]

157. So, the machine prints a receipt for your vote for Obama.

Problem solved.

Not.

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. it has to be a paper trail that the voter can't walk off with

Adding paper trails to DREs isn't great, because most voters don't look at the paper trails (understandably, since they're focused on voting, and often the paper trails are hard to read anyway). But paper trails that can be audited -- unlike ATM receipts -- are better than nothing.

[glinda]

42. Agreed! Much more of this to come!

[Parker CA]

75. Ding ding ding! Trial run in a small election to gauge results and areas that need fine tuning. nt

[hedgehog]

25. The goal may have been to make the Democratic Party look

really weak by suggesting that the best we could come up with was Al Greene. It's been pretty bad up here in Upstate New York, several times the Republican candidates for Congress have run unopposed.

[Blue_Tires]

28. why does anybody do anything? because they can...

and get away with it...

[Chef Eric]

91. Republicans had plenty of motivation to interfere with the Democratic Primary.

Most obviously, a Greene "victory" allows Republicans to say, "Ha-ha! Look at the idiotic Democrat, Alvin Greene. He can't even string two sentences together." I'm sure Fox News is salivating at the thought of jumping on the Greene-is-an-idiot bandwagon. The point is to make Democrats look bad.

I'm not sure why you have such a difficult time believing this election was stolen. www.bradblog.com was documenting all kinds of funny business from the very beginning:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890

[zeemike]

101. Yes they were testing the waters.

And making it a blatant test is important because if they can get away with this and no one calls them on it they can do it with confidence in November when it really matters.

[WheelWalker]

132. See my post # 131 below...

[NewJeffCT]

152. DeMint does not have a great approval rating

and, a decent challenge from Rawl would have forced the RNC or the RSCC to spend money on this race, instead of spending it elsewhere. I don't think Rawl could have won, unless DeMint had a "macaca" moment, but if he kept it close, it would mean Republics spend resources & time in SC instead of elsewhere.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Why would an unemployed guy pay a 10 grand filing fee to get into the race to begin with?

There had to be collusion with someone else here. Who has this guy been hanging around with?

Don

[KamaAina]

30. More to the point, how did he pay it?

If someone fronted him the money, that's a BIG no-no.

[rbrnmw]

31. I would love a more thorough investigation of that too

This guy isn't the type to just decide to run for Senate Something stinks and I think its Turb Blossom gearing up for the big steal in the General Election

[geek_sabre]

48. This has already been investigated

He had $6K from military (exit pay)
He had $3K in tax refunds
He gets around $1100/mo in unemployment
He has essentially no living expenses ("groceries and haircuts") by living with his parents.

So, basically, his fee was paid for by taxpayers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/10/alvin-greene-paid-senate-_n_641691.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/09/south.carolina.greene.investigation/index.html

[rbrnmw]

50. Not Really

Though the law enforcement agency said it determined that Greene used his own money to pay the party's filing fee, the South Carolina attorney general's office told CNN that it never received a request from SLED to subpoena Greene's bank records.

[geek_sabre]

81. the huffpo article i linked

says that state agents reviewed his bank records.

[Shrek]

96. Maybe they didn't need a subpoena

If Greene cooperated with the investigation then it's entirely possible he handed them over voluntarily.

[hughee99]

97. Paid for by the taxpayers?

I'm no Green fan, but it seems to me if you do your military service, they money you get is YOUR money and a tax refund is YOUR money being returned to you for overpaying your taxes. I guess you could argue that his exit pay is "taxpayer money", which you could say of any government employee, though I don't think you could say it's money he didn't earn. I don't know how you can argue that a tax return is "taxpayer" money, though.

[Kurovski]

137. ...and unemployment is an insurance payment. (nt)

[LisaL]

63. Even if he had that much money, why did he do it?

Most unemployed people I presume would hold on onto 10,000$ and not spend it on filing fees, unless they are really dedicated to politics. He doesn't strike me as someone dedicated to politics. He appeared to have barely campaigned. He also appears to have few talking points which he repeats in every interview, but I don't see anything to suggest there is much beyond these talking points that makes sense. For instance, his plan to get "South Carolina" back to work and create jobs involves making action figures of himself.

[shanti]

65. it's almost

like they are thumbing their noses at the electorate by even allowing this farce. they DON'T CARE how it looks!

[rbrnmw]

67. Action Figures was the most out there jobs proposal I have ever heard

:rofl: Action Figure when I heard that the first time I thought I would die laughing literally I couldn't breathe

[LisaL]

68. Wearing his army uniform, no less.

[rbrnmw]

73. G.I. Alvin

[howmad1]

104. Them southern crackers........

....probably think making action figures is real intelligent work.

[grahamhgreen]

17. The machines are corrupted - we will have no democracy until we get rid of these machines. nt

[Renew Deal]

19. How did Greene get 45% of the mail in paper ballots?

I find that bizarre in and of itself.

And where is Charleston county in this analysis? That's a pretty big omission.

[rbrnmw]

21. he got it because we can go in person early to vote absentee

on electronic machines in actual paper ballots he hardly got 25%

[Blue Owl]

22. WTF?

:wtf:

[Stinky The Clown]

24. BULLSHIT! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT????? We need to have a bipartisan discussion of this.

After all, the South Carolina Republicans are such nice folks. Guys like Jim DeMInt, for example, want to be fair and honest.

Let's reach out to them in a spirit of bipartisanship, and sing Kumbaya.







The above brought to you by the letter S - for SARCASM.

[rbrnmw]

26. Brad Blog About SC Dems decision

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7900

[Kurovski]

32. K&R

to further info on unreliable "vioting".

[JonLP24]

33. Is it because

absentee voters are more likely to research the candidates on the ballot due to the fact they are at home and have some time to fill it out and send it in? Also some absentee voters may have a home computer with internet access to research the candidates.

The reason I say this is aside from my mom voting a straight Democratic ticket on election day, when it came to the judges she voted for all of them because she didn't know anything about them where as I researched every single judge on my absentee ballot because I was at home with a PC and she was at polls with no opportunity to look up a candidate.

However I will say this whole SC primary thing has been very strange and don't discount at all foul play was involved. Just asking a question.

[Ellipsis]

108. I think your'e right on the money Jon n/t

[Ellipsis]

109. .

[sofa king]

130. Also, South Carolina has open primaries.

With an incumbent in the bag, that means that SC Republicans had nothing to do but drop in and cast a vote for the guy they think has the best chance of losing the general election.

And unless things have changed a lot since last I checked, absentee voters tend to be older, less mobile, more dependent upon government services, and better informed--with the obvious exception of right-wing authoritarians, who can be all of those things except the last one.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

34. Our "freedoms" seem to be disappearing faster than clean water in the Gulf.

It's time to ban e-votes.

[femrap]

35. just like

living in the old Soviet Union. Why do we have these stupid, costly machines?

Everyone w/ a brain knew this race was stolen.

[CLANG]

36. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy for the 2010 midterms.

[thereismore]

40. Sounds like Alvin Greene got a lot of absentee votes. Makes you wonder about the voters...nt

[rbrnmw]

41. On the on the Electronic Absentee Ballots Paper Ballots he did dismal at best

We can vote at the BOE before election if we will be out of town for some reason and those absentee voters vote on the same Electronic Voting Machine used on election day. On the Electronic Absentee he did ok but on the mailed in paper ballot type absentee results he barely got 20% in most counties

[thereismore]

58. OK thanks. Bloody paper. nt

[Radical Activist]

43. Absentee ballots almost always favor the endorsed party candidate.

1) Party organizations usually arrange for people to get absentee ballots. That means people getting the ballots also got information from the Democratic Party, which was supporting Rawl.

2) People who make the effort to get an absentee ballot more often make an effort to learn about the candidates.

So the numbers you're referring to should be expected.

[rbrnmw]

45. Sorry Not that much of swing is Expected especially when

comparing in person electronic absentee with paper ballot absentee

[Radical Activist]

54. I've seen it in several elections that use paper ballots.

It's very predictable.

[LisaL]

57. Still, it's rather obvious these kind of results are extremely unusual,

to say the least.
We are talking a huge difference here between paper votes that can be verified and electronic votes that can not.

[Radical Activist]

70. It's pretty typical for what I see in other elections.

Especially since a small number of people mail in ballots, the percentages make the difference sound bigger than it is. I notice the OP doesn't list actual numbers.

I'm all for verifiable paper ballots, but there are plenty of other potential reasons for the result. It's very common for obscure races that receive little attention to have surprise upsets. Who can resist voting for Al Green when he's first on the ballot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfWPDGWP568

[onpatrol98]

135. Al Green

"Who can resist voting for Al Green when he's first on the ballot?"

Best line today....

:rofl:

[rbrnmw]

160. I might agree if it were not for other strange events

like a democrat candidate hiring a known republican operative

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/ben_frasier/

[spanone]

44. AND THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT.

[upi402]

46. cuz the "Democrats" have done zip

to reform the facade of a democracy. In fact, they continue the betrayal of democracy.

[rbrnmw]

49. Warning May Cause Blood Pressure Spike and Nausea

This is the hearing in which Vic Rawl contested the outcome



http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7900

[upi402]

51. 5 hour computer expert testimony refuted Greene's "election"

Yep, I'm furious already though. Rawl won too, I'd bet my unemployment check on it.

[shanti]

66. kind of like they are part of the problem

oops, did i say that? yes i did!

[rbrnmw]

47. not one so called "liberal" media person will

report on this story November will be bad Rove is already spewing the idea of big pick ups in both the House and Senate

[AnArmyVeteran]

53. You're right. The inept MSM doesn't care about facts.

And I bet they even want Greene to be in the general election do they can have cute stories about it, rather than spend a dime trying to investigate the truth.

[AnArmyVeteran]

52. Maybe we can get Honduras to oversee our elections. Or even Afghanistan.

[kag]

92. you read my mind

I was thinking Nicaragua or Russia or maybe Jimmy Carter

[AnArmyVeteran]

103. Purple finger voting would be even better than rigged electronic machines.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

59. They see no need to hide the corruption. They know that this administration will continue in its

tireless inaction and pretense of "democracy".

Giving the teabaggers another load of bone-dry powder to use against us, should they choose.

[w4rma]

94. We can't look backward! Rahm and the DLC says look forward! Saboteurs. (nt)

[rbrnmw]

76. Witness Testimony Presented at Vic Rawl Contest Hearing MUST READ

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/vic-rawl-protest-whitewash-hearing-to-be-streamed-live-3pm-edt/

ALVIN GREENE DIDN’T EVEN SHOW UP
Go to the Vic Rawl for Senate website at 3 pm EDT today to watch the Executive Board of the South Carolina Democratic Party undermine Vic Rawl’s legitimate protest in favor of the Neoliberal Party of America.

the South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee prefers to conduct their whitewash in the dark opting that ONLY corporate MSM be allowed to view the goddamn hearing!

here is the live feed… Vic Rawl TV LIVE BLOG – Things I learned

1 A candidate can stay on the ticket, on the ballot, even if he NEVER files with the Federal Election Committee…. he is just subject to “fines” – wow

2 Vic Rawl protest will be the SECOND hearing on the docket. Mayes (?)vs Hodges is first… (this may take a while )

3 Mayes’ daughter testifying for him says… OMG… that poll workers were offering to buy… oh no, don’t say it… Kentucky Fried Chicken for voters if they voted a certain way…. I know… I didn’t say it…they were bribing voters with fried chicken …

4 THEY HAVE SHUT DOWN THE LIVE FEED 3:30

5 ITS BACK UP – 4:23 (looks like they blacked out the first protest hearing)

6. the chairman is going to make a statement prior to the Rawl protest hearing…

ALVIN GREENE IS NOT THERE AT THIS POINT!!!!! 4:41 edt (he told them he didn’t want to show up… no LAWYER AT THIS TIME FOR HIM EITHER)

see the live blog after the break


7. attorney gives statement first off about the “unusual voting stats” – showing real math and real voting stats, Vic Rawl proof of campaigning, Prof USC expert on how these machines work, forensic expert in computer, staff testimony, voters testimony about what happened when THEY tried to vote… this is not a TRUE reflection of what happened..

8. 1st witness – Walter Ludwig campaign manager Vic Rawl – he states that 3 seperate independent academics contacted them about the anamolies they saw on Weds. and Thurs after the election… 1st clue was the absentee ballots… “Rebaines Test”? states that the probability of corrupted vote counts is between 90 and 95% chance… “manufactured” results results are compatable with fraud or faulty election machines – between 2.5% and 5% advantage from position on the ballot… but that is based on the assumption that the two are equal going into the election… the spread was 19% / racial preference issue brought up – “stunning that there is no relationship between racial makeup of the country and Mr. Greene’s performance” – how would they know he was black – rumors of the “whisper campaign” are just rumors – according to records of registered voters, more voters with the name Greene with an “e” are WHITE… so that does not support that theory… Rawl’s campaigning, 70 campaign events in twenty counties, radio, tv, large presence at state convention, 600 volunteers, 180,000 contacts in database, 3300 followers on Twitter, 10,000 bumper stickers… Greene didn’t campaign at all. CAMPAIGN EFFORT EQUALS VOTES – tom jenson’s poll… 210,000 robocalls in the last week before the election…

9. 2nd witness – mathmatics professor – doctorate – prof USC since 2000 – Institute for defense analysis for the defense department for 15 years – been studying Diebold and ES&S machines – IVotronic machine expert – studied Ohio in 2004 and 2006 midterms – writer of the Everest Report – one of the issues found in the Florida report, passwords were stored in the software and the same all across the country… passwords stored in the source code… you can actually look at them… this is what is being done… if this is what the company was willing to sell in Ohio, I wouldn’t trust them anywhere… before the 2004 election the average age of the poll workers was 74 and these machines are very complicated… the Everest report concluded that by one machine in one precinct could corrupt the entire county wide vote – no system testing during the operation and NO PAPER TRAIL… they ONLY have the SOFTWARE COUNT in South Carolina - I believe that it is entirely reasonable to conclude something is wrong if the stats show something is wrong… no body has looked at these machines carefully and found them acceptable.

10. 3rd witness – Steve Abrams – masters from Columbia and PhD at Columbia computer science professor – computer forensics with law enforcement – network forensics as well – JD in 2007 – looked at the actuall machines, ran tests on the machines, RAN MOCK ELECTION TESTS – was not allowed access to test machines… saw that the machines were actually connected to the internet during the elections? did forensic imagage of the flash card… no file on those cards that showed the actual votes cast on those cards…

11. 4th witness – Ann Ownes – office manager Rawl campaign – log of verified calls multiple counties complaints of voter trying to vote kept saying that Rawl button didn’t work by Alvin Greene button did work – two afidavits show Rawl wasn’t even on the ballot – poll managers in two counties told her the machines and the memory cards had to be replaced, machines kept shutting down.

12. 5th witness - voter – when I voted for Gov a grey screen showed up, with a different font, and then said that she voted for Alvin Greene… grey screen covered most of the screen it was a glitch…

13. 6th witness – voter – I did not see Vic Rawl’s name on the ballot. I had seen him speak several times, even met him personally at an event and told my sister to vote for him. a Teacher with a doctorate…

14. 7th witness – voter – hit Vic Rawl name, it lit up, went to hit the vote button, checked the ballot before submiting ballot and Alvin Greene’s name had a check mark next to it… sent an email to the SC election commission… mcMyers replied “sounds like calibration was the problem…” june 14th 2010

6:00 pm EDT – completes the witness statements… now they have questions for the witnesses from the committee members…

jesus… 45 questions – only one paid for investigation – if the machines are corrupted why is this the only race that is effected “if there is a bug in the software, since they are seperate programs, it would only affect that race that is effected” – do you have any physical evidence the machines were connected to the internet “the pictures show the unity machines were connected clearly” -

if I am correct about this… it seems that the forensic computer expert just testified that Greene “won” 42 of the 46 counties… but the ballots came from the State Election commission in the EXACT SAME 42 counties and they were identical EXCEPT in 4 counties who did their own ballots and in THOSE COUNTIES Vic Rawl won… there may be one exception to that …

these very machines are being reprogramed for the run-off election on the 22nd… meaning the evidence is in the process of being erased as we speak

Rawl did not execute an absentee ballot campaign push…

7:00 pm EDT – Final Argument for Vic Rawl

if this protest is successful there will be a run-off election between just the two candidates Rawl and Greene…

the basis of this protest is - is there enough serious doubt of the results of the election to force a revote.

is there a preponderance of the evidence that shows this is not a true reflection of the wishes of the people of South Carolina.

the decision must be based on the evidence they heard… the preponderance of the evidence… what evidence have they heard that this election was genuine? none… what does the democratic party want to do? do they want a candiate running against demint under a cloud like this.

asking that the body find the election for the senate primary invalid and conduct a new primary election.

7:24 pm EDT – 31-30 to go into executive session to deliberate

Now I have to say as they are deliberating… at first I thought this was going to be just a show trial… that the fix was already in… which is still very possible… but they held a vote whether to go into executive session in private to deliberate and the result was only 31-30 in favor… what does that tell you? I think a large number of these deligates are seriously considering voting in favor of the Rawl protest.

One thing we have to remember, they have to vote based on the evidence presented and no evidence was presented that claimed this senate primary result represents the wishes of the people of South Carolina.

7:55 pm edt – they are back

mr. Moore has put the motion up to reject the protest… they are suggesting Rawl seek judicial action…

one member speaks up that the proponderance of the evidence shows there is a problem. Greene didn’t even show up. Do we have the courage to say this system is flawed… and we deny that protest (huge applause)

another stands up and says that there is not enough proof of individual cases… (supports denying Rawls protest) supports Moore’s motion (no applause)

another stands up, in 2008 the league of womens voters went to the SC election commission and said they have very flawed machines… we have a candidate at the moment that shows disrepect to the democratic party… a no show to convention and to this hearing… supports Rawl’s protest

another stands up and argues for Moore’s motion… what will Greene say? we don’t have the time for this… supports Moores motion

another stands up “I could not allow this to go forward with just white-folk speaking” ” I believe that the election was flawed” “we do the right thing even when it hurts” “I am interested in the facts… if we react on emotion and not based on the law, how does that make us different than the republicans” I think she meant that she supports Rawl.. I am not sure..

vote to dismiss Rawl’s protest…

PASSED – Alvin Greene wins without even presenting a case…. he is the Democratic Nominee for the United States Senate without ever showing up.

——————

[Recursion]

78. People who bother to vote absentee care

And the first name on the ballot always has an advantage if the voter doesn't know or care who the people are.

[tiny elvis]

79. this post is against the rules

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

80. more

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/curiouser-and-curiouser-sc-senate-nom
Curiouser and Curiouser! SC Senate Nominee Alvin Greene Received More Votes Than Were Actually Cast
By Susie Madrak Sunday Jun 13, 2010 8:00am
*****************************************

[Ellipsis]

107. This has beeen refuted long ago. n/t

[Spheric]

83. Unverifiable electronic voting turns us into sheep. This is gross beyond belief.

And, anyone who supports this destruction of democracy is evil. Period.

Votes must be verifiable. And it is the easiest thing in the world to make them so.

The only reason to argue against it is in order to fix elections. Period.

[rbrnmw]

84. I Totally Agree nt

[awnobles]

85. It was obvious

Helloooo.... S

[DFW]

86. Like I pointed out in another thread

My brother, who does high tech stuff for the Defense Department said, "give me a laptop and a cell phone, and I'll
make any one of those voting machines give you any result you want." I'm sure that's exactly what is happening,
except that they don't call my brother, but rather give themselves the results they want.

Please don't tell me there even ONE person on DU who really thinks Greene won the Democratic primary.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

87. We need to get behind our Democratic candidate

and stop with all of this, Alvin Greene won because he is the better candidate, he is the only candidate in the SC Senate race talking about the issues like Justice. GO ALVIN GO!

[Hosnon]

95. Is this just a weird coincidence? [Dons tin-foil hat]

This article is from the Augusta Chronicle. Augusta sits on the border with South Carolina so the paper's coverage includes both states. The spelling of "Greene" is slightly different (no third "e"), but I immediately recognized the name when I read the article.

Woman arrested in Facebook case

"Lt. Calvin Chew said in one case, Mrs. Hamm setup a false MySpace account under the name “Alvin Green” and pretended to be a 17-year-old in order to have conversations with a 15-year-old female in Washington."

Read more: http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-08-02/woman-arrested-facebook-case?v=1280751857

I'm not saying this woman is any way connected to Alvin Greene the politician - but who knows...

[rbrnmw]

98. beyond sick

[LisaL]

99. The article has both spelllings of the name.

Green and Greene.
I would guess she has no connection to Alvin Greene the politician.

[frylock]

100. good thing that dems have worked tirelessly to ensure that election fraud is impossible..

oh wait...

[demigoddess]

105. oh! Gee! I am so surprised! NOT!

when are you all going to listen to us old folks. This is just the sort of candidate the republicans want, if he is not already one of them.

[Ellipsis]

110. Sorry Kids... this dog don't hunt.

Jon's got it right in post #33

The argument of an intelligent voter sending in an absentee ballot and a last minute "dunno' ballot can't be flushed out. I m not sayin' it wasn't manipulated...only that the logic in this argument don't wash and I'm sure OTOH would agree.

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. *blush*

You're right: there's no reason to assume that the absentee and election day vote shares should be equal. (I wonder if Favorito checked the absentee vote in the 2008 presidential election? Actually, I'm pretty sure he didn't. At any rate, I agree that Jon made a very good point.)

The theory that all the "electronic" Greene and Rawl votes were swapped really doesn't hunt, because the paper results are positively correlated with the electronic results -- in general, Greene did best on paper in the same counties where he did best on the DREs. Now, for all I know it's possible that the paper results were hacked, too, but people might want to think twice before leaping down that rabbit hole.

But that leaves plenty of other scenarios in play. The "great" thing about DREs is that we basically don't know if they were manipulated (or glitched), and we probably never will. It might be possible to prove that they were, but not that they weren't. Not my idea of a good voting system.

[hfojvt]

111. I'd like to see some actual numbers

for example, the population of Coleton county is only 38,000. So how many mail in ballots did they have. Saying Rawl won 70 to 33% ??? Could easily mean that he won by a score of 15 to 6. Not enough votes to prevent an anomaly. 70% to 30% looks like a big deal, but 15 to 6 does not.

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. you can download them from the voterga.org website

Typo aside, you nailed it: according to their spreadsheet, Rawl won the mail-in vote in Colleton County by 14 to 6. Statewide there were 5758 mail-in absentee ballots. It's enough to determine that the mail-in ballots don't look like a random sample of all the ballots, but I agree that it sounds less impressive.

ETA direct link: http://www.voterga.org/uploads/voterga/SC%202010%20US%20Senate%20Dem%20Primary%20Absentees.xls -- or just use http://www.voterga.org

[valerief]

114. Electronic voting theft evidence is not valued in this country unfortunately.

Like education.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

116. Paper ballots, hand counted. nt

[Botany]

118. Do you really think the media will touch this

Only a blind man couldn't see that it was a dirty election ....

Greene; no money, no speeches, no web site, no campaign office, no staff, and no name recognition among the voters and yet he won?

[rbrnmw]

143. Yeah 60% to 40%

it's impossible and there are people here who say it's not Why don't more people see what is happening to this Country? Our voting machine are built to be hacked. Why do so many dismiss this with a wave of their hand? Think about what it truly means!!! I am tired of hearing Demint would have won either way, that is not the point. The point is we don't have democracy if we can't even challenge an election because our machine are own by a private company. We can't look at the programming. This is crazy

[OnTheOtherHand]

145. it isn't impossible at all

If I have to pretend that it's impossible that Greene beat Rawl, I refuse. I don't even think it is unlikely.

I think it's a real shame when people with such enthusiasm for getting rid of the machines persist in clouding the issue.

[Dark]

123. COuld anyone tell me why somebody would need to run against him to win in SC?

I mean, it's not like we had someone who could challenge teabagger DeMint in South Carolina in this election, did we?. I could see the point in screwing the 2000 election, but this one? Why bother fixing a race you know you'll win anyways?

[Strelnikov_]

128. "what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how"

that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.

- Josef Stalin

[earcandle]

129. what now my love? I think we need to vote via official web registration and have our own copy.

Easy to do, hard to cheat. 

[WheelWalker]

131. My money is on Julian Assange and Wikileaks...Get ready for a release

that explains how it was done and how easy it is to do. Beautiful, if that's what he's planning.

[orbitalman]

133. THIS IS THE REPUBLICANS....

The cheaters in 2001, etc, etc. They provided a very weak candidate in the Democratic field so Demint could be guaranteed to win to continue as Obama's nemisis to 2012.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

134. From all the reports he will be the official candidate, so when I say Alvin you say Greene no,,, ok.

[Turbineguy]

138. The heartless over

the mindless. The Democrats being the mindless in this case.

[LynneSin]

142. You know what's weird, it's not like DeMint would be losing this election.

I think North Carolina would have been a tough win for even the best of Democrats, so it's even more disgusting that republicans would tamper with this election.

[rbrnmw]

144. Maybe but maybe not SC is sick of being embarrased

by our politicians he had a 50% to Vic Rawl 43% and the election is months away anything could have changed

[Imajika]

146. This just means the absentee voters...

...knew better who the actual candidates are. These are people that are going out of their way to get absentee ballots, so it is not surprising that they are more aware that Vic Rawl was the actual candidate.

Otherwise, there is simply nothing here.

What we can see is that voter day turnout swamped absentee balloting, and further that even with the mail in, paper, absentee ballots Greene managed to win 45% of the vote. This shows you just how little people knew about who was running in this race.

Sorry, there is simply nothing here. Also, there is no reason for Republicans or any other conspirators to tamper with this race considering DeMint was going to win anyway.

The SC Democratic Party knows full well there is nothing here, it is why you really don't hear them complaining about it anymore. The only thing that might have shown some sort of chicanery would have been if someone paid Greene's fee to enter the race - but an investigation concluded that even that didn't happen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

150. I mostly agree, but...

I don't think one can say that there was no reason to tamper with this contest. DeMint will save some money running against Greene instead of Rawl, and it's an embarrassing sideshow for SC Democrats. Also, hypothetically, a hacker who opposed electronic voting would have an incentive to "obviously" rig an election (trouble being that this election isn't "obviously" rigged, despite sputtering to the contrary).

Some SC Dems would say that they aren't convinced the machines were accurate, but they see no strong evidence that the machines were wrong.

I may be misremembering, but I don't think the investigation really "concluded" that Greene's fee wasn't paid by someone else -- only that it was plausible that Greene paid it himself.

[rbrnmw]

155. That right they did not dig deep

investigating it at all.

[mercuryblues]

156. It is not like

the SCGnOP does not have experience tampering with elections. What I see is Rod Shealy, who has worked on deminted's past campaigns and has a history of hiring unemployed people to run in primaries, boosting his candidate of choice chances of winning. Deminted was definitely vulnerable against Rawl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Shealy

Rod Shealy, Sr. (born December 22, 1953) is a Republican political consultant and publisher from Columbia, South Carolina. He has worked on numerous campaigns as a political strategist, including those of André Bauer, Jim DeMint, Jake Knotts, Lindsey Graham, and George W. Bush. Shealy worked with Lee Atwater in the early 1970s and gained notoriety for negative campaigning.
<snip>

Benjamin Hunt, Jr.
While running a campaign to elect his sister Sherry Martschink to Lieutenant Governor in 1990, Shealy, with the help of Robert Kohn, recruited unemployed black fisherman Benjamin Hunt, Jr. to run for Congress against Republican Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Shealy sought to increase the turnout of white voters by playing to the racial fears of the South Carolina electorate. He promised Hunt, who had a prior drug arrest, $900 to run for Congress and paid for his $2414 filing fee. Shealy paid for the fees with an unreported $5000 campaign contribution to his sister from Laidlaw Environmental Services

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/16/876575/-Republican-Southern-Strategy-vs-Judge-Vic-Rawl-(a-shot-heard-around-the-world)


We do know Judge Rawl was polling at 7 points behind with DeMint at only 50% prior to the primary. "The SCINDEX poll showed Vic at 43% and Demint at 50%, published on May 24th. DeMint was vulnerable with Rawl in the mix. There is no record of a poll taken with Greene. Additionally, without a strong viable candidate at the top of the ticket the rest of the statewide Democrats are more vulnerable.