Here it is, FINALLY - VOTER FRAUD STORY

[texpatriot2004]

No Paper Trail Left Behind:
The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election

http://projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

[texpatriot2004]

1. Oh my, would you look at this...

<snip>

"The delicious irony for the GOP is that the Help America Vote Act, precipitated by their theft of the Florida 2000 presidential vote, made GOP theft of elections as in the preceding examples easy and unverifiable except through recourse to indirect analysis such as pre-election polls and exit polls.(38) This is the political equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Or, more precisely: stealing elections, running the country, and aggressively, arrogantly and falsely claiming that “the people” support it."

<snip>

[Stevepol]

2. This post is well worth kicking and recommending!!! n/t

[kster]

3. Kick-n-recommend...nt

[bliss_eternal]

4. Kicked and recommended!

...thanks for the link! :hi:

[Fly by night]

5. It's election theft, not voter fraud.

Thanks for re-posting this article for people who didn't read it when a thread was posted on it last month.

[electropop]

11. Right, it wasn't the voters who committed fraud.

It was our government.

[texpatriot2004]

14. You guys are right. I was just going with the title of the article. n/t

[IndyOp]

6. We CAN use HAVA against them - and we MUST --

If the post below are right, there are only two voting machines in the US that are certified for the 2006 election - and both make up a tiny, tiny fraction of all voting machines in the US. We can keep them from using DRE's in the 2006 election if we PUSH!

Decertify a DRE Today, Episode 1
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x390084>

Decertify a DRE Today, Episode 2
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=391261&mesg_id=391261>

I have started talking with the my city council members about this...

[FogerRox]

22. I have bad news

recently the Diebold TSx DRE HART Eslate DRE, & the ES&S iVotronic DRE recieved
so called 2002 certs---

GO to NASED.org

[IndyOp]

24. There is no available emoticon for the expression of

disappointment and disgust on my face. A few that will have to do in this pinch, however:

x( :mad: :puke: :grr: :nuke: :argh: :wtf: :freak: :hurts: :scared: :banghead: :dilemma: :hide: :yoiks:

[Joanne98]

7. Nominated! Thankyou Truthisall! May favorite part here....

Welcome to a world where statistical probability and normal arithmetic no longer apply!(36) The Democrats, rather than vigorously pursuing these patently obvious signs of election fraud in 2004, have nearly all decided that being gracious losers is better than being winners,(37) probably because – and this may be the most important reason for the Democrat’s relative silence - a full-scale uncovering of the fraud runs the risk of mobilizing and unleashing popular forces that the Democrats find just as threatening as the GOP does.

This makes total sense to me. I'm beginning to hate the Dems as much as I hate the Republicans. I'm REALLY looking forward to throwing out TRAITORS in the 200g primaries.

[Moxygirl]

8. Doesn't matter a vast majority will never see this story. n/t

[INdemo]

9. Voter Fraud

I know and I knew in my heart without a doubt that John Kerry won the election by midnight on election night..
But why O why did John Kerry and the Democrats give up so easily. I mean ....you know and I know that had the tables been turned there would be people in prison today for committing fraud..The Repubs would still have the counting process going on ,now 9 months after the election..
Look ..up until the 2000 election I thought this sort of voting fraud only happen in 3rd world countries where people don't really care who gets elected.
The only possible reason that I can think of as to why John Kerry and the rest of the democrats gave up so easily is becasue the Repubs were threatning peoples lives, if a formal and drawn out protest evolved.
I would jsut like to know WHY did the Democrats hand over this election so easily knowing that voter fraud had occured?

[barbaraann]

18. Welcome to DU, INdemo!

:hi:

Many of us have the same thoughts you posted.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. Simple answer really

No way to prove it.

[roseBudd]

10. Just added it to the links page for BushCheated04.com...

Bush Cheated:
http://bushcheated04.com

The proof:
http://bushcheated04.com/links.html

The song:
http://bushcheated04.com/loser.html

[Nictuku]

12. Language is important

The Republicans have mastered manipulation through language, and they have coined the phrase 'voter fraud', which makes it sound like the fraud is committed by the voter.

I'd like to re-frame to express more clearly where the fraud lies, and it is not with the voters.

"Election Fraud" is more accurate.

[liberalla]

28. Yes, ELECTION FRAUD !

Excellent observation!

ELECTION FRAUD

ELECTION FRAUD

ELECTION FRAUD

[xynthee]

13. The time is ripe to bombard people with this!

All it took for my husband was hearing his hero, George Carlin, say that the last election Shrub won was for Governor, and his mind is suddenly open to the possibility of election fraud!!

And after hearing "This American Life" yesterday on NPR (discussion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4726664) , his mind is opening up to all kinds of horrible possibilities (martial law, detention camps, etc.)

The response (or lack thereof) to Katrina has shown Americans what we've known all along, i.e., that the B*sh Administration is capable of truly unconscionable things. If they're willing to let tens of thousands of people suffer and die right in front of our eyes, they're probably capable of lesser crimes such as, oh, I don't know, stealing elections.

And once someone's mind begins to open, there's no going back (I hope)!! I say we bombard the shit out of people NOW while the iron's hot!!

Sorry if I went off on a wild tangent there!! This is an excellent article, and I'm recommending it!!

[jean]

19. It's wonderful Carlin can inspire people over this issue but ironic becaus

in an interview of him I heard pre-election last year, he couldn't repeat enough times ... the fact that he does not vote and has not in years. It was so discouraging to hear him say that.

[assclown_bush]

15. Kicked, Reccommended...and Thanx for the link. n/t

[Wilms]

16. kick n/t

[emulatorloo]

17. kicking and Nominating EOM

[jarnocan]

20. thanks

quoted and linked to the OLS political forum election fruad thread-
keep hope alive http://vvlobbydays.blogspot.com and here I'll update.

[Griffy]

21. SO.. I ask again.. ANY DU'ers STILL think bush won.???

some people... even here fall into the Kerry was weak.. or bush and his propagnda fooled too many... yea.. its still fooling people to think he won! Please.. do the research, read the facts and stop supporting lies! (sure Kerry coulda done better.. so.. he still got more people to vote for him than bush!)

I mean, does ANYONE here still think bush won 2000 had we counted the votes? Same thing here.. Kerry got more votes and bushco counting is like Enron math!

I am starting to suspect election fraud naysayers as freeps... the evidence is overwelming!

Like Iraq war lies.. we know bush lied us into war, and anyone defending him is obviously a freep type kool-aid drinker! I mean seriously... read the DSM, listen to Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke, or just look at the history of government lies for war! (the USS Maine was not struck by a Spanish mine... Our Navy was not attacked in the gulf of Tonkin.... )

So.. I challenge any DU'er to defend the "official" results!

Kerry won.. GET OVER IT!

[FogerRox]

23. yeah--- BUSH WON

the race for Texas gov.






Maybe

[dchill]

43. Sure - by cheating...

and calling Ann Richards a lesbian (among other things.)

[ginnyinWI]

26. If the exit polls are true,

They took 5 million away from Kerry, and gave 3 million phoney votes to *. That's a Kerry win by 8 million votes! Even if half of it is true, he still wins easily. How many of us thought that our votes were counted?
What a dark time in our nation's history--at least I hope it will be looked back on as a dark time. That would mean that it gets better at some point.

[texpatriot2004]

29. That would mean that HOPE is on the way! I remember hearing

that once before not so long ago, there were lots and lots of happy people who were excited and hopeful and there was music,
"we are family, I got all my sisters and me..." The building was quite large and the speakers were powerful.

[Cocoa]

41. I do, and so does John Conyers

:shrug:

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. Kick for this important new compilation. n/t

[tuvor]

27. Sorry, I don't see the big deal.

Not much here you and I haven't heard already at DU.

More importantly, though, where will this story go from here? Down the memory hole like all the others--why wouldn't it?

[New Earth]

30. i'm sorry

but i don't see much being said there that refers to voter fraud, or, voters committing the fraud.

i thought i taught you better than that, texpatriot? :hi:

[rman]

31. The RW refers to it as "voter fraud" - don't play by their rules,

suggesting it was the voters who comitted fraud.
Call it what it is: Election Fraud.

[autorank]

32. You're right! ELECTION FRAUD...and for the RW also ERECTION FRAUD!

[Febble]

33. The author says

16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.

This simply isn't true. None of it. And it isn't new. I think I've read almost all of it before.

Recycling an assertion doesn't make it any truer.

The fact that this author can repeat this statement should lead any discerning reader to read the rest with a large pinch of salt.

No, the exit polls were not always wrong in Bush's favour, as anyone can tell with a bit of googling.

No, some kinds of survey error will give errors in both direction, but other kinds of survey error will give more errors in one direction than the other. Non-response bias is one; sampling bias is another. These are well-researched and documented.

No, in fact half a century of polling tells us that polls can be biased. Mathematics is not wrong, but interpreting polls solely in terms of sampling error is.

Yes, the election may have been stolen. But let's not invoke patently untrue assertions in support of the case.

[Usrename]

34. I don't understand your criticism. Are you saying that some exit

poll data projected * as the winner and the actual vote went to Kerry? This seems to be your point and I'm not sure it is accurate.

[Febble]

35. It depends what you mean

by projected. Some states had "blue shift" and some had "red shift". there were more "red shift" states than "blue shift" states. There was "significantly" more shift in the red direction than the blue direction - i.e. more shift than would be predicted by chance.

That is the sense in which the discrepancy was statistically "significant". The errors did not cancel out to zero. Although there were errors in both direction, the net error was in Bush's favour (in the sense that the count had a bigger proportion of votes for Bush than the poll).

But no state was projected to go for Kerry and went for Bush. However, that is because a very conservative standard of confidence was used to "call" the states. And it is a matter of debate whether any one state was outside its MoE.

But none of that alters the fact that the discrepancy simply could not have occurred by chance. The odds against this happening are astronomical. However there are many non-chance factors other than fraud that are potential causal candidates. Discrepancies that are not due to chance, but also not due to fraud are quite common, for example in the UK. Non-response bias and/or sampling bias is quite difficult to avoid, especially where participation rates are low.

[Usrename]

38. I get the "red shift/blue shift" , but did any of the "blue shift" count.

The "red shift" seems to have been key to the outcome. And I thought FL was going to Kerry all day long, listening to the exit polls. I'm no good at ciphers but I understand the purpose of statistics. I understand that "perfect deals" are observed every few years in bridge parlors and the odds are 2X10E22 to 1. The machines in the I-4 corridor here were rigged, period.

Sorry, this whole post is rhetorical and doesn't warrant a reply, but I'm seething over this and the stupidity of the media. Consider this a rant.:banghead:

[Febble]

40. Well, in a sense it didn't

in that the fears of those who feared a blue shift were allayed by Bush's victory (whether apparent or real) whereas the fears of those who feared and observed a red shift were realised all too well.

I was making two points. One is simply that in the article cited, the author claims that all shifts were Bushwards. This is not true, and making patently untrue statements does not, IMO, further the case for fraud, or even for electoral reform. The other is that just because the phenomenon cannot, statistically, be due to chance does not mean that it is due to fraud. I have read more times than I've had hot dinners the inference that because the exit poll discrepancy cannot be due to chance (and it cannot) that fraud "must" have occurred. This is not true. The statistical "significance" of the discrepancy is simply evidence that it arose from non-random factors. Of which there are many plausible candidates, one of which, sadly, is fraud, but another is non-random polling error, of which non-response bias and sampling bias are well documented sources. There is a tendency to assume that all polling factors are random and the that the "margin of error" in the poll accounts for all possible polling factors. This is not the case; the margin of error accounts only for random error, or what is called "sampling error". Sampling bias and non-response bias are additional sources of polling error, and cannot be controlled for using statistical methodology.

So "perfect deals" have nothing to do with it. There was no way that the exit poll discrepancy was a random "perfect deal". It had a non-random cause. That is as certain as statistics can be. What that cause was is a legitimate and vital issue for debate, but any a priori assumption that it was either fraud or polling error is unwarranted. It could have been either or both. Contrary to many assertions to the contrary, the Edison-Mitofsky report does present evidence that polling error played a substantial part. How substantial a part we may never know, because correlational statistics, which is the only tool we have here, cannot unambiguously establish causality. However, we can use statistics to test specific hypotheses. Some fraud hypotheses have been tested, and, in my view, but not in the view of others, have not been supported. In contrast, some polling error hypotheses have been supported.

Nothing I have read rules out fraud. Nothing I have read rules out massive fraud. But nothing I have read rules out polling error as the primary explanation of the exit poll discrepancy. My current belief is that the case for a stolen election is best supported by actual instances of irregularities, for example in Ohio and New Mexico, many of which are of a kind that would not be reflected in the exit polls anyway.

The reason I post these things is not that I am a freeper trying to undermine the case for a stolen election, but because I think that trying to interpret the exit poll discrepancy as evidence for a stolen election is fraught with pitfalls. Alternative explanations for the exit poll discrepancy are only too plausible, and, IMO, citing the exit poll discrepancy evidence in exaggerated terms merely sets up a convenient straw man for those who would denigrate the very real possibility that the election was stolen. And even an attempt to steal an election is an impeachable offence, as Nixon discovered.

[vanboggie]

37. And all this led to the mess we're in now

Election fraud - the most important neo-con lie we need to expose. Gore won. Kerry won. Yet the bad guys led by Cheney and the Chimp have killed our kids in a war for oil and power, killed the people of NO, and killed who knows how many more by polluting our environment, limiting medical care, etc. etc. etc.

If Election FRAUD continues, we will never NEVER be rid of them.

Kicking because of the ultimate importance of this issue over all others.
:kick:

[dchill]

44. "And all this led to the mess we're in now"

Yes, indeed - and we have our criminally corrupt corporate media to thank for it. Plus the millions upon millions of ostrich-citizens who bought it all, lock, stock and barrel.

[LiberalMandrake]

39. testing limits of electronic vote fraud

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=testing+limits+of+electronic+vote+fraud

[Cocoa]

42. finally!

another rehash.

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. Another thread has just been posted on the Loo article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x394455