BBV, California and the Senate

[AngryYoungMan]

I have a question for DUers who are following the BBV/Bev Harris/Diebold issue more closely than I am.

Do you believe that Schwarzenegger's election and the 2002 Republican congressional victories are fraudulent?

In other words, are the "surprising" results in these two recent elections understood to be successful frauds, according to those people who understand the details of the BBV issue? Did Davis "really" win? Did Mondale "win"?

I'd really like to know. Thanks.

[NoKingGeorge]

1. Problem is ,I will never know who won.

There seems to be some questions like how an unknown in Tulare can get 100 votes from a county in Northern California that this guy has never visited. And Usualley when you look at a list of results you expect to see 0's or very low numbers (16 34 )when you get down to the bottom of the list, in California it looks like everybody that ran had at least 300 - 400 people voting for them...
Looks very different than most lists.
BUT , without an audit or further inquiry your question cannot be answered and that is the problem.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

3. That is strange

And while those votes may not have been enough to make a difference (on their own), it could very well be a 'test' of the new system to make sure that they are able to screw around with it like they please without anyone really noticing. All in preperation for 2004.

[4dog]

2. Seconding the above comment, direct evidence is hard to come by...

but a fair number of unlikely happenings have been documented. It's hard for volunteer researchers to do the amount of research necessary to document the irregularities. It is also clear that California does not follow their own laws, e.g., about posting results at precincts. The problem is not only in the black boxes but in the system surrounding them