DAMMIT. I'm SICK of this same old story over and over and over.

[Carolab]

WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO GET IT???

WAKE UP DNC!!!

WAKE UP EVERYONE!!!

THEY ARE STEALING ELECTIONS LEFT AND RIGHT and IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU HAVE A PAPER BALLOT OR NOT!!! THEY ARE USING THEIR "PROPRIETARY" SOURCE CODE, THEIR SECRET PROGRAMMING, THEIR MEMORY CARDS, THEIR DATA TRANSMISSION HACKING, THEIR MYSTERIOUS MACHINE CRASHES, ETC. ETC. TO STEAL ENOUGH VOTES EACH TIME SO A RECOUNT CAN'T EVEN HAPPEN!!!!

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vickie]

1. This election was not stolen. Let's accept Paul's great battle

in a 70% GOP district as a arbitar of things to come. He had no experience, less money and made a huge fight of it. No whining! Let's hone our skills and lock and load for 06!

[Justitia]

2. Why do YOU believe PROVEN LIARS???? -eom

[PA Mamma]

4. Will someone please explain...

Why I'm watching the results come in here:
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/08/02/election_results.html
updates every 10 minutes and all was smooth until...

the last county, where Schiet is from. Waiting, waiting, waiting,
at least an hour until all of a sudden she wins.

I'm not a whiner but it doesn't look good. That's all I'm saying.

[Carolab]

5. BS. He was winning and there was suddenly a machine crash?

When have we heard this story before?

Hmmm, let me see....in 2000, 2002 and 2004!!!!!!!!!!

This is RIDICULOUS. They are getting away with GRAND THEFT of our votes!!!!

Paper ballots are not the solution. Ohio replaced their systems with optical scanners. The problem is the GODDAM electronic tabulators, owned by Republican companies, using PROPRIETARY (secret) software, LAX security procedures around elections, precinct/county tabulator memory cards that can be swapped out for others with other results, data that can be hacked as it's being transmitted to central tabulators, databases that can be hacked into and results changed without a trail, etc. etc. etc. And those paper ballots don't help a DAMN bit unless there is a recount, which will ONLY happen if the election is within a "certain margin", which they MAKE SURE does not happen by rigging it just enough to avoid it!!!

[Tiggeroshii]

7. He wasn't winning.

Schmidt was winning and after the votes were counted, she won, following the trend of things.

[Justitia]

9. Says who? You?? I watched those counts ALL NIGHT. -eom

[Carolab]

12. C'mon. He was leading all along before that mysterious "crash".

What are we, a bunch of hayseeds?

[Fly by night]

23. No he wasn't winning all along. It see-sawed quite a bit after the first

one-third of the precincts reported in. And as I have read this morning, the Repug was slightly ahead (around 800 votes) before the crash. The important thing about that margin is that it would have triggered a hand-recount.

Don't get me wrong. I believe as strongly as you do that they stole another election. But we need to keep our facts straight and it is not true that Hackett was in the lead all night until the end. Not true. Just re-visit any of the many threads from last night that provided a periodic updating of the votes. I posted one about halfway through that had the Repug ahead by 4%. It narrowed soon afterward but when I went to bed, the Repug was still very slightly ahead.

[Carolab]

34. Thanks and you're right, here is a critical point!

"The important thing about that margin is that it would have triggered a hand-recount."

This is what they do--boost the opposition enough so that there IS no opportunity to recount by hand and discover the cheating!!!

[dchill]

15. It's bad enough that Republicans believe this crap -

But Democrats? Get a grip. Every time there's one of these "crashes" it's when the Dem is ahead or catching up, then "Uh-oh!", the machines aren't working "Right".

[smartvoter]

16. And then the recount rules are ignored and recounts rigged. nt

[Land Shark]

19. Nobody has a basis to have any confidence in the election results

because (1) the data is and will be kept secret (ballots) and (2) the analysis or counting is and will be kept secret (trade secret vote counting software) even from elections officials in most cases.

What basis is there to trust such a system?

How is this jeffersonian SELF-government and democracy when no one can have knowledge about how the sausage is made?

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

17. Nice post, except for . . .

... the first sentence ("This election was not stolen.")

Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't.

It is an unsupported assertion.

[In Truth We Trust]

3. I agree. Time to take to the streets!

[Tiggeroshii]

6. chill out.

It's a district that had 70% or more for the regular rethug over the last 30 years. This candidate had half a million dollars invested into her and still barely won by a hair. Look Eeyore, take some prozac and open yur eyes to the chances of this district in 06. the dem is guaranteed the seat in this district and many other distrcts in the country if we are simply true to our roots. There is no doubting that there are dirty players out there, but 48% in this district -nobody would have even expected this to happen last year! the fact a Democrat even gave the Rethug a run for their money is enough to already feel victorious about.

[Justitia]

8. So we just roll over when they tell us to? Fuck that. -eom

[Tiggeroshii]

10. It's a gerrymandered district...

70% GOP, the guy was close to winning.... look in 06 you'll realize how useless this whining is.

[Justitia]

13. I live in TX goddamit and even I don't roll over like you do!

I guess fighting for democracy is something I'm more used to.

Fucking wimps.

[PlayOn]

18. I'm with you...

Funny how so many "progressives" instantly dismiss the notion of electoral fraud, even given the fact that votes are being collected and counted on machines programmed and operated by Republicans, and said machines aren't allowed to be independently analyzed. These people are PROVEN LIARS and they are criminals (literally) and yet we're supposed to believe -- in spite of strange vote counts -- that they would never tamper with an election. Because that would be taking things just too far. I don't know which is worse: the right wing criminals leading our country straight to hell, or the punk ass liberals who are letting it happen by rolling over time after time.

[Land Shark]

20. the "70% GOP" baseline is also set by the same totally secret

process for which there can be no rational or scientific basis for confidence.

NO DATA/BALLOTS DISCLOSURE + NO ANALYSiS/COUNTING SOFTWARE Disclosure =

NO Basis FOR CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS. ZERO.

Period.

That's science. That's solid. That's unshakeable, and not in any way speculation. You can't walk into any court in this country and expect to testify to the end result of a process without opening up the data and the analysis process to disclosure and cross examination.

Except elections.

no basis for *rational* confidence.

'cept faith. There's always that. But that's not rational, it's a choice to believe in things THAT CAN'T BE PROVED.

Elections could be proved. they're not.

[meganmonkey]

27. You're probably right - because in 2006

when a whole lot more 'machine malfunctions' happen and the results are shady in races all over the country this whining will have been useless because NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WORKED TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS>

Are you going to act surprised in 2006? When all predictions are that dems will be taking back seats in the house and senate and suddenly the results change and the repubs win? I certainly won't be. They have perfected the 'irregularities' to the point that it is almost impossible to fix the system. I have NO faith in the election process here and anyone who does is fooling themselves.

If you don't know what I mean, read this report - not just the executive summary but the whole 100 page report linked at the bottom. And THEN come back and refute it all and tell me everything is okay:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

[wli]

11. I am not going to chill out; it's time to hit the streets, go on strike

That "last county" shenanigan was blatant. Believe your eyes. It's exactly what it looks like, It's fraud.

[Donailin]

21. that's what they want you to think

sorry. no thank you. what they want me to think and what I know are two entirely different things.

What they want me to think: that they play fair and square, that they're honest and uncorruptable, that they don't play dirty.

what I know: they cheat, they're liars and crooks, and they play down and dirty and for keeps.

So don't tell anyone here to "chill out and take prozac"

We've been paying attention, you apparently haven't.

[roseBudd]

38. Duh, that is why they steal elections in the so-called repug counties...

because people will assume the whiteness of the white flight suburbs, the size of the McMansions is all you need to know. Of course they don't steal it in Cuyahoga where the brownness would raise eyebrows.

I live in SW Ohio right now, and Bush voters in Butler, Warren & Clermont counties did not accidentally pull C. Ellen Connaly's name out of their asses and accidentaly vote in a downticket race for an unknown, underfunded African American Democratic judge from Cleveland because thay could not remember the name of the incumbent, newspaper endorsed Republican judge Thomas Moyer, who had yard signs right next to Bush/Cheney signs.

Connaly got more votes than Kerry, a lot more votes than Kerry in Butler, Warren and Clermont, the counties in Ohio that could not have been more geographically distant or politically different from the city of Cleveland.

I did not vote for Connaly because when I got to the bottom of the ballot I could not remember her name and I had tried to memorize it. Unfortunately there were 2 other republican female judges and my mind went blank trying to remember which female judge was the dem.

Fool me once shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me

If they can cheat in the tabulation, do you really think that they wouldn't? The party of Atwater and Rove?

All it takes is a software programmer on the take. Or someone who places round white stickers over the penciled in bubbles on an optiscan ballot and then colors the opponents bubbles with a pencil.

That's right Clermont Cty recount observers saw round white stickers on ballots. Spin that as innocent. Spoiled ballots? You give the voter a new ballot. You do not peel off a teeny tiny round white sticker and place it on a ballot.

[smartvoter]

14. 48% is indeed a win in that district, but if we did literally win, let's

get to the bottom of it.

There could be an opening here to try and pry the election fraud door open again.

It died out nationally as soon as the tyrants started their death and destruction campaign, forcing everyone to focus on other issues.

If this turns out as bad as it looks tonight, we can try again to bring this to center stage, and it will be an AGAIN story, which is a different play (hopefully with more success)...

[adolfo]

22. Clermont Screenshot Results

CLERMONT

				

Time			Schmidt		Hackett		Precincts Reporting

9:28:08 AM		0		0		0/191
8:24:09 PM		1158		750		0/191
9:30:23 PM		7869		6099		100/191
10:49:17 PM		17320		12439		191/191

note: write-in votes not listed (0.20% of vote total)	

[Fly by night]

24. Thanks for posting. But how do you explain your 8:24 pm numbers?

with 0/191 precincts reporting? Are those absentee ballots, or was there early voting allowed at the election commission? What is the explanation?

[adolfo]

25. Early Voting

According to the screenshots.

[Land Shark]

26. A quick calculation

if the trend of the first 100 precincts (a sample of over half of the precincts) had continued (the reports from 824 to 930 p.m.) then Schmidt would have ended up with around 900 fewer votes. (around 16,456 total) That would have dropped her almost 4% lead down to ??? in the overall 2nd District standings.

For those more familiar with Ohio, what is the recount threshold?

[Carolab]

28. I read in another thread it's 1/2 %. n/t

[adolfo]

30. I think it's 0.5% margin

[adolfo]

31. Assuming

Assuming the trend for the first 100 precincts in Clermont continued, Hackett would have lost by 2.51% instead of 3.48%

I wonder if there is more to Clermont.

[SnoopDog]

29. The question we should all be asking is...

Election officials, prove that the winner had more votes. Show me every individual vote. Let the 'audit committee' recount the votes. Prove to me that my vote was recorded properly and counted as such.

Hey, it is our country, these votes are not proprietary - we have a right to know that our votes were counted properly.

As we all have said at one time or another - if we cannot have our vote counted properly, we have no democracy.

[Land Shark]

32. You nailed it snoopdogg, there's no rational basis for confidence

in the results when they don't disclose data or methods...

they are the elections "professionals" and public "servants" who should PROVE to us that they've done their job correctly and reached the correct conclusion.

What could be more important in a legitimate democracy?

[tommcintyre]

33. "MYSTERIOUS MACHINE CRASHES"

This pattern/strategy is well-documented has been repeated over and over (2002 VNS "meltdown", etc.).

Simply put, they will continue to get away with this stuff as long as people continue to remain in denial and say things like: "If we just try harder, we will do better next time".

[FogerRox]

35. Stand your ground DONT BACK DOWN

Hey George-- you can have my civil rights when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Bitch

[nicknameless]

36. Just found this, from 2004. LOTS about optical scan fraud.

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8705&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

In the Alabama 2002 general election, machines made by Election Systems and Software (ES&S) flipped the governor's race. Six thousand three hundred Baldwin County electronic votes mysteriously disappeared after the polls had closed and everyone had gone home. Democrat Don Siegelman's victory was handed to Republican Bob Riley, and the recount Siegelman requested was denied. Three months after the election, the vendor shrugged. "Something happened. I don't have enough intelligence to say exactly what," said Mark Kelley of ES&S.

<snip>

This crushing defeat never happened: Voting machines failed to tally “yes” votes on the 2002 school bond issue in Gretna, Nebraska. This error gave the false impression that the measure had failed miserably, but it actually passed by a 2-to-1 margin. Responsibility for the errors was attributed to ES&S, the Omaha company that had provided the ballots and the machines. According to the Chicago Tribune, “It was like being queen for a day -- but only for 12 hours,” said Richard Miholic, a losing Republican candidate for alderman in 2003 who was told that he had won a Lake County, Illinois, primary election. He was among 15 people in four races affected by an ES&S vote-counting foul-up.

<snip>

According to the Wall Street Journal, in the 2000 general election an optical-scan machine in Allamakee County, Iowa, was fed 300 ballots and reported 4 million votes. The county auditor tried the machine again but got the same result. Eventually, the machine’s manufacturer, ES&S, agreed to have replacement equipment sent. Republicans had hoped that the tiny but heavily Republican county would tip the scales in George W. Bush’s favor, but tipping it by almost 4 million votes attracted national attention.

<snip>

Much, much more at the link. Chilling information ... once you get past who the author is.

[nicknameless]

37. And Firmware:

From: http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

Two voting companies & two brothers will count 80 percent of U.S. election using both scanners & touchscreens

<snip>

Even if states or counties hire their own technicians to re-program Diebold or ES&S software (or software from other companies), experts say that permanently installed software, called firmware, still resides inside both electronic scanners and touchscreen machines and is capable of manipulating votes. For those who are unfamiliar with the term “firmware,” here's a definition by BandwidthMarket.com: "Software that is embedded in a hardware device that allows reading and executing the software, but does not allow modification, e.g., writing or deleting data by an end user."

The ability to rig an election is well within easy reach of voting machine companies. And it does not matter if the machines are scanners or touchscreens, or are networked or hooked up to modems.

So, for those states and counties who think they're dodging the bullet by not buying (or not using) the highly insecure and error-prone touchscreen voting machines (which will process 28.9 percent of all votes this year), a huge threat still remains—computerized ballot scanners. They will count 57.6 percent of all votes cast, including absentee ballots.

And don't count on recounts to save the day. In most states, recounts of paper ballots only occur if election results are close. The message to those who want to rig elections is, "rig them by a lot." In some states, like California, spot checks are conducted. But, that will not be an effective way to discover or deter vote fraud or technical failure, particularly in a national election where one vote per machine will probably be enough to swing a race.

<snip>

[roseBudd]

39. Exactly who are the so called Clermont Cty BoE dems?

Time to do some investigating.

[Pobeka]

40. What, you think people who start wars for money

... killing completely innocent civilians, and raking in profits -- would stoop to rigging the vote?