What's the best evidence anyone has for electoral fraud?

[amjucsc]

I'll admit I'm a bit of a sceptic toward this--but maybe I just haven't heard the compelling stuff yet.

[robbedvoter]

1. To keep it simple, where are the "glitches" favoring Kerry? (Or GOP-ers

standing in long lines?)

Ukraine, Romania didn't stand for fraudulent results. Why are we?

[morgan2]

2. there are compelling reasons to doubt the accuracy of tallies

The fact that there are errors in the electronic voting machine tallies, that are only detected because they award more votes to a candidate then there are registered voters, shows that these machines are making mistakes. What happens when the mistake is it adds votes to one person and subtracts them to another? There is almost no way to detect this, in how these machines are setup now, and no one is looking at the audit trails.
The computer generated audit trails, albeit very insecure, can be used to detect bugs in the machine. They would not detect fraud, because if your going to be intentionally maniupulating the vote, you can also maniupulate the audit trail.

[Annus Horribilis]

3. For Me

It's the fact the exit polls pointed toward a Kerry victory. Kerry's campaign even thought he won on November 2. And then we look at Ukraine and the whole evidence of fraud was based on exit polls. I know there is a lot more techinical stuff, but I don't really understand it.

[DireStrike]

4. For me it's the exit polls and stonewalling about release of data.

The exit polls were off - mitofsky basically says "no no, it's all a mistake." People say "show us the data". He says "Umm... nah. No need."

At this point any troublesome data could have been "corrected" a dozen times over.

:shrug:

[alevensalor]

5. The most compelling piece for me

has to be Wyoming's 106% turnout rate. Come on, even with same-day registration, 106%? Then again, there was also 2001, when they did not allow same-day registration and had 101% turnout.

It's all here:
http://watchingthewatchers.org/index.php?p=176

There are a lot more, but that was the straw that really got my incredulity creaking.

~A!

[buddysmellgood]

6. Define fraud. There is plenty to show the election was not fair, that

people were denide their right to vote by many means, that all the votes were not counted, that the votes that were counted were not counted properly.

[amjucsc]

7. Yep, that would pretty much be my definition of fraud nt

[w4rma]

8. 3+ hour lines in Democratic areas since voting booths were left in storage

0 minute wait time for Republican areas.

Black box voting booth worker caught tampering with the main database.

Reports of folks voting for Kerry and having their votes switched to Bush on the screens just before they went to confirm (none in the opposite direction) because the way the touch screen was set up was so that folks would accedentally press Bush's name with the palm of their hand while reaching for Kerry's name.

Man contracted by the Republican Florida Senate Majority Leader to write a vote tallying program that would be undetectable if decompiled and switch votes from one person to another. (He wrote it and they paid him, from what I understand.)

[StephanieMarie]

9. The election polls.

All you have to do is look at TIA's analyses. If exit polls were good enough to invalidate the Ukraine's election, they're certainly good enough to invalidate ours!

[Ediacara]

10. "Fixed" exit poll data

That seemed to indicate that for Bush's 51/48 victory, the following conditions need to have been met:

-Every single person who voted for Bush in 2000 voted this time (even the dead ones).

-Eight million of Gore's 2000 voters didn't even bother going to the polls.

-Two million Gore voters switched to Bush.

-Three and a half million Bush voters switched to Kerry.

-Despite record breaking new voter registrations all in Kerry's favor, he only netted three million voters who didn't vote in 2000.

-Bush somehow got eleven million people to vote for him who didn't vote in 2000.

These exit poll data have clearly been fudged to fit to the official tallies. Besides the well known fudging, this stuff is in my opinion the most egregious example of something gone awry. There is no explanation for why these data were fudged, which indicates to me, something is being hidden.

Original exit polls showed 2004 to look like this:


But the official story with fudged exit polling says it was actually this:

[Botany]

11. My own eyes and ears.

I saw "it" with my eyes. I heard "it" with my ears. Let their be no doubt that the
fix was in. I live in Ohio. We have lost 300,000 jobs in the past 4 years ..... no
chance bush won this state. The moral values and keeping us safe are smokescreens
to the theft.

:kick:

[Calvinist Basset]

12. Consider this.

A lot of people indicate that "irregularities" and fraud occur in every election. So, they say, it's no big deal. Bush won despite all that nonsense.

However, even if there were shenanigans on behalf of Kerry, *none* of them equate to the level of things that favored Bush. That alone may not be proof but, if you step in something squishy and immediately smell the pungent odor of manure, you can be pretty sure you stepped in a pile of dog shit.

Some of the facts I refer to:

1. *ALL* of the irregularities in florida favored Bush and other Republican candidates

2. 86 of 88 confirmed cases of vote switching through the e-vote systems favored Bush (the other two favored Kerry)

3. All of the sudden, surprising shifts in the key battleground states favored Bush

4. Bush trailed Kerry all day on November 2nd, and then emerged winning both the electoral votes and popular vote

Now, someone can argue that this is all coincidental or just me looking for patterns that aren't really indicative of anything. But let's be realistic, there is something worth investigating here--something rotten enough to halt any confirmation of the votes on January 6th.