Before the 'Hackett Wuz Robbed' train gets really rolling...

[WilliamPitt]

I'd like to ask:

Is every election we lose going to be called stolen from now on?

I've been dealing with local elections since I was a little kid. My mom held a small office in our town and worked with the Mayor, who ran every term for 22 years. We were there every election night listening to the results come in and go up on the board. Results from districts would come in late and dramatically change the count. It happened all the time, and it wasn't fraud.

I think everyone is correct to be suspicious of elections these days. But I would offer also a word of caution: What happened here with Hackett is not unusual. Before the accusation of fraud is made as a declarative fact, some proof beyond conjecture and disappointment would be a good thing.

[Alpharetta]

1. I won't be calling it fraud. But the evidence points to questionable proc

As long as the Ohio elections board operates with such questionable procedures and equipment, I think it's a fair question to ask:

How do we know the vote in Ohio is fair? We don't.

Is it possible to have a fair and transparent vote count? Yes. Ohio officials have decided to not bother with that, though.

[WilliamPitt]

2. That late surge

came from Schmidt's home county.

[Alpharetta]

17. I'm not talking about the late surge. I'm talking about poor procedures.

I'm talking about the lack of traceable votes.
Untrustworthy machines.
Counting procedures interrupted by partisans.
A refusal of election officials to run a transparent vote.

[WilliamPitt]

18. What machines were used in the districts?

[ohio_liberal]

19. Punch cards mostly, optical scan in Clermont County

n/t

[WilliamPitt]

21. Which company?

[ohio_liberal]

26. ES&S

n/t

[WilliamPitt]

27. Are there any reports of miscounts, funny numbers, etc.?

[ohio_liberal]

28. Not that i know of

The only irregularity I'm aware of is that they had to hand count part of Clermont because of high humidity

edited for clarity

[lonestarnot]

58. We were asking for this information the night of the election. Why can't

this info be disseminated prior to the election? Is it just a surprise to everyone? I mean do they just set up ES&S equipment the morning of the election wherever they feel like putting it?

[shance]

46. In four minutes, four thousand votes appear? I think the more important

question is William, why you seem more interested in quieting legitimate discussion and/or skepticism, and appear resistant to looking at the reality that Republicans have in fact (as wild as this may sound) been known to engage in dishonest activities once in a blue moon.

You yourself write articles every single day justifiably confronting the wrong doings many Republicans (and others) engage in.

Im wondering where's the disconnect? Why the defensiveness on what is the most important element in maintaining Republican power and "success" - the ability to remain in office and in power.

Do you think individuals who have engaged in the activities these Republicans have engaged in suddenly draw an ethical boundary with elections? The one thing that will ensure their position of power?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. 4 minutes, 4,000 votes? It was 3500 votes in a little more than an hour.

Suspicious, yes in my book, even in that time frame. But we have to get our facts straight.

[liberalnurse]

3. Only if we have the facts.......

I certainly don't want this slogan to be the norm. :scared:

[WilliamPitt]

4. Excuse me?

Random, baseless accusation is better?

I sure hope not.

[kittenpants]

6. I think liberalnurse was agreeing with you

that this should only be alleged if there ARE facts to back it up... however feel free to respond aggressively if you'd like...

[WilliamPitt]

7. I didn't mean to sound aggressive

I was genuinely surprised.

[King Coal]

20. Please don't call LiberalNurse dirty names.

x(

[WilliamPitt]

22. May God strike me dead

and poop on my face if I do.

[King Coal]

24. LOL!

I needed that chuckle today.

[liberalnurse]

41. Hey Will......

you need not become incontinent on my account. :pals:

I'm with you on this. I am very concerned about voter fraud but we can't just run our jib's without the facts. Getting a Democrat as Sec. of State here in Ohio may help.

[liberalnurse]

40. Yes I was indeed.....

I don't want our party to sound like a broken record. We need facts. My point is that we can not shoot off our mouths with speculation.

[liberalnurse]

42. Thanks kitty for clarifying my position.

I was not elaborating my position thus there was confusion.

[ohio_liberal]

5. I'm duping my post from the other thread

It's a bloody miracle Major Hackett got as close as he did.

Let's take a look:

The count paused 662 precincts, all of OH-2 except for about half of Clermont county.

Look at the differences from each candidate to determine how those last 91 precincts split. They split 60-40 for Schmidt. Clermont county (Jean Schmidt's home county) as a whole went 58-40 in her favor. There's nothing abnormal here.

I'll happily change my mind if someone comes up with concrete proof of irregularities.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Approach this as if you were Andy

1. What kind of ground work did Hackett do in the questioned counties?

2. What was the over-under on taking them?

3. What kind of voting devices were used?

4. Who was favored in the counties that came in late?

[ohio_liberal]

25. I can answer two for certain

I'm sure someone here knows the other two:

1) I can say that there was canvassing the last week in Clermont County and mad phone banking, many of the canvassers (is that the right word?) didn't hold out much hope for Hackett there.

2) can't answer that

3) Punch cards mostly, optical scan in Clermont County

4) Clermont came in later than the others, and Schmidt was favored. Of course, depending on who you talk to, she was heavily favored in the entire district

[Jacobin]

8. Hackett's run was a victory

Paul Hackett easily beat my expectations, as well as those of the Washington punditburo, in Ohio's special congressional election yesterday. He did not, however, beat his opponent, Jean Schmidt, who will now take her rightful place with the other GOP heel clickers in our Chamber of People's Deputies.

The most recent count I can find, as of 1:00 am ET, showed Hackett with 54,401 votes -- about 3,600 votes (or just over 3% of the two-party total) behind Schmidt.

In terms of the expectations game, the political point spread was set by Charlie Cook in his e-mail newsletter yesterday morning:

If Schmidt's victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP.

This, from Billmon:

http://billmon.org/archives/002073.html

Given his platform which is unabashedly liberal, and where he ran, this has got to be freaking the junta out.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Agreed and agreed

[SlowDownFast]

11. Well, whaddya expect

after the last 2 presidential elections were outright STOLEN???

Democracy is America is dead...

[Imagevision]

12. Hey Will Pitt! I believe we've been down this road, Ohio ring a bell

in 2004!!! The people need a voice to decide wheter paperless verification for voting machines has proven it's something that should or should not be mandatory!

anyone agree?? it only keeps things on the up & up.

[bullimiami]

13. why does every election seem to have fishy things happen?

why after all day of basically 50/50 do the machines go down and suddenly 91 precincts need to be hand counted?
and why are those particular precincts the ones that are heavily for schmidt? in fact just about the amount needed to give victory and ensure no automatic recount?


if we had transparent elections and there wasnt always secrecy and then something odd happening then Im sure we wouldnt be questioning it so much.

[Imagevision]

14. Perhaps it's because things are happening!

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. The answer to your question is yes

There are many people here on DU who simply can't fathom the possibility that a Republican could get more votes that a Democrat in a fair election. They believe that a majority of voters have similar political views to them. The only way to they can rationalize election results is accept the idea that the election was stolen. This started immediately after the mid-term elections of 2002.

[madrchsod]

16. didn`t hackett win in the rural area

of this district? if true, that would be a clear indication that the 06 elections maybe closer than the republicans would like....

[devinsgram]

23. To some extent I agree, but

you have to remember one thing, it is not the way it used to be anymore. I am old enough to remember President Eisenhour, actually President Truman also, although it gets a little fuzzy there. Anyway, this is an entirely different time, yes we had corruption back then too, but nothing like the times we are in today. I have never, never seen it this bad. For me, your type of thinking is now long gone, I've taken off my rose colored glasses.

[Alpharetta]

29. Weren't reporters booted from one of the vote tabulation places?

Was there an explanation for that?

America deserves trustworthy vote counts. I'm not claiming fraud. I'm claiming poor procedures.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Link?

[Alpharetta]

39. none. I guess I got confused with the 2004 irregularities

[kevsand]

30. What a lot of people are missing

is that the so-called "late surge" was entirely in one county, and was entirely consistent with the earlier returns from that county. In other words, given the reports on both absentee ballots and the first 100 precincts from Clermont County, the returns from the final 91 precincts were entirely predictable and unremarkable.

What everyone is looking at is how the lead district-wide went from about 800 to about 3200. That's entirely misleading in the context of the actual nature of the late returns.

Unfortunately, given the weirdness of the interruptions, a lot of people are going to assume the worst. These people will probably always assume the worst. I prefer to wait for the full accounting of the facts, and trust our people on the ground until then.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. It's going to become S.O.P.

This gripe has been five years in the making -- it didn't start with Hackett's loss. A good many people now believe that elections can be stolen with little effort and the press and court system will cover for the winners. This idea has even gotten some traction among Republicans, who first used it preemptively in 2000, and will certainly use it the next time they lose the Presidency or one of the chambers of the Legislature.

Cries of electoral fraud are similar to the way "conspiracy theories" act. Where is the demarcation between a reasonable suspicion and a wacky theory? There is none, which sets the bar very low. It's easy to accuse people of spinning conspiracy theories, invoke the Tinfoil Hat of Ridicule, and dismiss their concerns. In the process, we lose those concerns which are valid.

Without publically-available evidence of fraud OR a way for people to inquire on how an election was conducted, suspicions will peak and theories will grow. To most people, the actual workings of elections are mysterious processes. For most of our history, we have simply trusted our leaders to play by the rules. That era drew its last rattling breath on 12/13/2000, and there has been almost nothing done to ensure the honesty of elections in the last 4 1/2 years.

Yes: Every election we lose is going to be called stolen from now on. And every election THEY lose is going to be called stolen from now on. Until a system is in place to ensure that voting and vote-counting is conducted smoothly, honestly, and accountably. This is part of the "New America" of distrust, cynicism, and paranoia. And I am very pessimistic about the next few years. I am convinced that the situation will worsen before any trust and community spirit can be restored or reborn.

--p!

[lonestarnot]

60. As sickening as that sounds I think you are right.

The loosers are never going to trust the winners unless confidence is restored with some type of verifiable record of the vote.

[paula777]

32. Are you talking about the 4000 votes they 'found' late into the eveing?

I heard Randi Rhodes talking about that yesteday - that the race was 50-50 and then some district 'found' 4000 republican votes and the GOP candidate was declared the winner right there and then. Is this what you are talking about? Does anyone have any further info on this?

[ohio_liberal]

34. Found?

I don't think that's the right word. These were votes from 91 precincts that simply hadn't been counted yet. They were not all Republican votes. Hackett got them as well, 60-40. It was Jean Schmidt's home county. The votes from that county were running 58-40 before the pause.

[paula777]

44. Randi Rhodes used the word 'found' so that's why I did. I hadn't heard

much about this, which is why I was asking. Thanks for the info!

[SouthernDem2004]

50. The last areas that came in where heavily Republican and one was her

home district.

[Botany]

35. Mr Pitt

yes the #s seem OK. She could have picked up a lot of support in the
last 91 precincts ..... home turf. But the humidity thing just does not
make any sense. i live in Columbus Oh. I have been to S.W. Ohio
and Claremont county many times. The have AIR CONDITIONING there.

It Get hots in the summer here. All buildings have AC.

Where were they voting a barn? Or was it the central tabulator?
How come it did not effect the other 600 + precincts? Or the
other precincts in Claremont County.

Claremont, Warren, and Butler counties held their vote until the N.E. Ohio
vote came in and put bush over the top. Their is a track record there of
vote manipulation.

Once again a glitch favors the repug.

[catnhatnh]

36. I sat in on several threads election evening...

...at one point after nearly 100 percent of all other precincts had reported the count in Clairmont was stopped reportedly because "humidity" problems were causing the machines to miscount...confusion ensued for an hour or so while there were reports of possible hand counting....When the smoke cleared the percentages DID appear to shift....what had appeared to be heading for an automatic recount instead became a "clear win"...thats my recollection-you could visit the election night threads to check...

[seabeyond]

37. some proof beyond conjecture and disappointment

to do this first, you have to look at it. are we suppose to at least look at it. ask to look at it. we could not even look, and then for sure there wont be any......proof, beyond conjecture

[Junkdrawer]

38. Well, lack of public confidence in election results is one downside...

of non-transparent, partisan control elections.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1982017&mesg_id=1982017

But I'm sure it's a minor inconvenience compared to the rewards. Besides, the 'tinfoil hat', 'conspiracy theory' spin keeps those who question down to a roaring minimum.

[wli]

43. very fishy circumstances, long neocon history of fraud

Hence, fraud until proven otherwise, since there are big red flags of fraud.

[WilliamPitt]

45. .

[Pobeka]

47. Cheney's energy task force was not working the system for profit either.

Why do I say that?

We're not allowed to see the inner workings of an organization, we have a legitimate right to be suspicious *in either direction*.
---

These GOP thugs are back in the old business of war profiteering, making money and gaining power out of *killing people*, and we should adopt the position that they wouldn't rig the vote to gain power? Does that seem a little conflicted? It does to me.

I believe mzmolly called it correctly last fall, this is about voter confidence. We (the people) don't have evidence to prove the vote was rigged, but we also are not allowed access to convince ourselves the vote *wasn't* rigged.

It is *all* about transparency, and until the voting system is fully transparent, with nothing hidden, any political party has a right to raise the vote tampering issue.

[Kalish]

48. Yes

every election we lose is stolen.

[depakid]

49. Welp. the thing is you can't trust the results

There's no way to know, so there's no trust and no accountability-

America is NO BETTER than a bannana republic in that sense (not to mention the fact that one side typically has more than the lion's share of the money and airwaves- and so can lie with impunity).

Then again- this is Ohio- and the people there haven't shown a great deal of intelligence- nor an ability to make what to a reasonable mind would be obvious conections- so they'll get what they get.

and I'll have a hard time feeling even a little bit sorry for them.

[Kenneth ken]

51. I would suggest

that every election - win lose or draw - be called stolen until such time as voter-verified paper balloting is implemented.

Why should it be incumbent on we the people to prove an election was stolen, and not the task of the voting machine makers to prove it was not stolen?

If they want to be able to control how votes are cast and counted, they should be the ones required to prove their process is fair and valid.

[Bluebear]

52. When I was a little kid every election didn't have a fishy occurrence

"Humidity" problems, power losses/surges, blah blah blah. I am not saying Hackett was robbed. But I am not convinced he wasn't.

[SmokingJacket]

53. Hard to believe anyone would vote for that lunatic, Schmidt.

However, strange things happen all the time.

I'm not following the story, at all, but I no longer believe any election at face value. Sad, but true. We're completely f***** here in the USA, where are votes are corporate secrets.

[eridani]

54. We call them "possibly stolen" as long as vote tabulation secret

--and the election process is not transparent and publicly accountable.

The results are certainly plausible, and they might even be true. But Clermont County is where people were caught putting stickers over punch holes for Kerry in Nov. 2004, and Warren County is where there was no oversight whatsoever of the counting process because they put out a fake terror alert.

If I had to guess at what a thorough audit might reveal, I'd say most likely a narrower loss for Hackett plus evidence of hankypanky. But as long as tabulation software is proprietary, no one can ever know one way or another.

[donheld]

55. We cannot afford to be the little boy who cried wolf

If we cry "We Wuz Robbed" after every election we may soon lose our credibility.

[shance]

57. Disagree. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Look at the Republicans.

It has been our fear of being ridiculed and our timidity that has allowed this country to be overrun by individuals like Dick Cheney.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. For a Dem challengers in a "safe" Republicanite district, 48% is amazing

That means there's hope for 2006.

That's how districts flip, people.

[Pathwalker]

61. Oh, like I'm going to believe a CIA operative!

;-)

[rexcat]

62. Will, It is too late...

I have been attacked on several threads here on DU trying to get the facts straight concerning the 2nd Congressional District in Ohio and the supposed fraud. There seems to be a number of DUers who have their tinfoil hats on too tight.

edited for spelling

[Donailin]

63. I dunno. Back in the day, was the voting machine industry privatized?

:shrug:

[Lannes]

64. It cuts both ways

Writing about conspiracy theories or linking articles to them is like opening a door,some people will walk through it.Thats to be expected.

That applies to elections,LIHOP,Rovegate,Iraq,or any other topics out there.

I dont think its appropriate for some to open a door on certain topics of interest to them,then turn around and express disappointment that some walked through another door that was opened by others.

If we going to criticize those who offer their opinions without having all the facts in.In all fairness we should apply that standard across the board to all topics and all topic starters.Wouldnt be much of an open forum though.

The best way in my opinion to get to the truth is an open discussion and let the chips fall where they may.When the Admins or the Mods feel that a thread has run its course or object to it for whatever reason then so be it.But its their job not ours.