Why can't someone just sue Diebold for stealing the election?

[garybeck]

It seems that the only thing needed is a judge who will accept the lawsuit, based on the preliminary evidence. It could be done in any of the states that had big discrepancies from the exit polls. I think the exit polls are a red flag and then consider the "means and motive" which I would think would be enough for any reasonable judge. I mean, there doesn't have to be a prepoderance of evidence just to convene a grand jury. It seems we have enough for that already.

Once there is a trial, I would think they could have subpeonas, crack open the machines, recheck any paper ballots that exist, view the software code, question diebold employees, etc..

[stellanoir]

1. good question

[leveymg]

2. You got $5-10 million in your pocket?

That's what it would take to do it right. Diebold and the other companies sure do.

[jhawk_tim]

4. AND

If you lost, Diebold would counter sue for reputation damages and end up owning the next 4 generations of your family.

[garybeck]

6. I was thinking, more like a State Attorney General or a DA

they file criminal suits all the time, don't they?

[leveymg]

8. OH Attorney General Jim Petro is a __________?

This from Harvey Wasserman:http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1045

Republican Attorney General Jim Petro has attacked attorneys Bob Fitrakis, Susan Truitt, Cliff Arnebeck and Peter Peckarsky in front of the Ohio Supreme Court. Petro is demanding they be sanctioned and fined for filing the Moss v. Bush lawsuit that challenged the seating of Ohio's Republican Electoral College delegates.

Moss v. Bush has already entered the history books as the suit that set the legal framework for an unprecedented grassroots/internet campaign that brought the first Congressional challenge in US history to a state's Electoral delegation, a challenge that infuriated the Bush/Rove GOP.

Petro claims that Moss v. Bush suit was "frivolous." He says his punitive attack is about the "serious" nature of the court system.

In fact what Petro's doing is about revenge, intimidation and contempt for democracy and the law. SNIP

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

42. that is an excellent website

saw this there --

Also, as I have repeated before, rich developers are lusting after the land the black’s homes are located on. They reason that since blacks are poor, most of them are on the welfare rolls and their homes are little better than African-style sheds and the only thing of value here is the land they sit on. Ergo, get them out of NO, condemn the houses most of which are rental property anyway, and then rebuild NO again but without all the poor blacks.

“It ought to keep the crime rate down,” Rove said recently, and “Let Houston find out about that gang,” another staffer said at lunch on Friday.



Also, that the White house Hates Anderson Cooper, but can't do anything about him, because people love him and his mother is extremely stinky rich!

Go Anderson!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for that link

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. I don't but

the Democratic Party could raise it? This is a sensible concept to me. Get the evidence together and make a case.

[Blue Shark]

11. No...

...but John "reporting of duty" Kerry has a reported $15M left over that a'int doing much.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Subpeona those machines, by all means

Even if the evedince is thrown out, it would prove that massive fraud has been committed.

[mod mom]

34. Dems have no subpoena power. :(

[garybeck]

37. maybe they suffer from "poena envy" :)

[mod mom]

39. LMAO!

[petgoat]

7. I've been thinking more along the lines of a "defective product" lawsuit;

pretty modest, simply technical (not criminal), simply asserting that
paperless DRE machines do not properly count the votes because they
are unverifiable, and the mere fact that they meet the specifications
written by clueless election officials is not sufficient, especially
when the officials in many cases are unable to run elections without
the help of manufacturers' technicians and often are unable to run
them according to the manufacturers' instructions.

And then I suppose you could go into a punitive phase where you claim
that the voting machine manufacturers should have known an unauditable
machine was unsuitable (evidence of discussion of the issue from the
Diebold emails would be interesting if it exists) and show that the
manufacturers bamboozled naive election officials with flash and bs
and expensive entertainment.

But I'm not a lawyer. I suppose that if I were, I'd know why such a
case can not succeed.

Actually the pending Lehto and Wells v. Sequoia and Snohomish County
case has a great deal of potential, as cookie-cutter cases could be
filed all over the country.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/10/173154/362

Its legal theory as I recall was that by counting the votes
electronically in blackbox machines the election officials have
improperly outsourced the vote-count function to the voting machine
manufacturers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. well, not _any_ of the states with big exit poll discrepancies

The average WPE in New York ("Best Geo Estimator") was 13.9 points, which ranked third worst among the exit polls. But practically the whole state uses lever machines.

[applegrove]

10. Could be the exit polls were fluffed and helped suppress the vote.

Nefarious manipulators do not leave footprints like software. They would never go as far as stealing votes by machine. By all other forms of intimidation, recount suppression, long lines, messing with polls, etc. etc. yes.

We need a voting transparency act.

If they had the proof on diebold - there would be a case. They don't have the smoking gun. Because there isn't one.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. I nev-- I mean, I rarely say never

Personally, I think most likely the polls were just plain wrong.

I don't have any trouble believing that someone/s might have hacked the electronic vote (or any other part of the vote) if they figured they could do it and get away with it. I'm just not convinced that it actually happened -- partly because there were some really egregious exit poll discrepancies in non-Diebold states.

Again, if we can't agree who got the most votes in the 2004 election, we sure do have a problem, no matter who got the most votes.

[applegrove]

13. I think the exit polls were fluffed. Diebold - no proof but it pays off by

keeping us at each other's necks.

I think GOP is all about voter suppression in elections. Aggressive that they will do it with redistricting and vetting poor neighborhoods for felons & parolees if they are black but not if they are latino in Florida. And on and on.

But I am curious about the exit polls not matching with the actual vote all the way back to Bush days in Texas. Before diebold was invented. Everyone knows americans vote in pathetically low numbers (65%). And how hard is it to convince the lazy voters to stay home if your guy is winning the exit polls early on in the day.

I think the science of looking into the games repukes & GOP & Rovbots play is just getting better. We are becoming more subtle. Not reacting knee-jerk. And beginning to keep our minds open - until the whole story is laid bare & itemized. Then we can war each other as Democrats how not to fall for the tricks. And how to catalog and video-tape the creepy tactics.

[petgoat]

14. "They don't have the smoking gun."

People are convicted every day. Rarely does the prosecutor have a smoking gun.

Motive, means, opportunity and circumstantial evidence are frequently
sufficient.

The fact that the unauditable machines were installed when legislation
that would have outlawed them was derailed by the machinations of Bill
Frist and Tom DeLay is circumstantial evidence.

The fact that the Elections Assistance Commission that was charged to
develop standards for the HAVA voting machines was sabotaged by
inadequate funding is circumstantial evidence.

The fact that the exit polls are widely divergent from the vote counts
in key battleground states is circumstantial evidence.

The fact that Mitofsky will not release the raw data of the exit polls
for analysis of the source of the error is circumstantial evidence.

The fact that the voting machine manufacturers will not allow their
source code to be examined by experts is circumstantial evidence.

The fact that the machines were designed in such a fashion as to
make detection of fraud impossible is circumstantial evidence.


The Republicans often asserting that lack of incontrovertible truth
means that something need not be investigated. That position may be
useful politically, but it is not logical.

[applegrove]

15. The exit polls didn't match in areas that didn't have diebold & in Bush

Texas elections before Diebold machines were invented.

We need to look into that angle.

One thing for sure - the "diebold machine" sure does a good job of keeping us fighting amongst ourselves.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. at least two angles there, I think

Obviously we agree that it's important to note that the exit polls weren't discrepant only in places that had Diebold DREs, or any DREs. More generally, one angle is to see whether there are patterns in where the exit polls were most discrepant. I often hear that it was in battleground states -- but the biggest "Best Geo" errors were in Vermont, Delaware, and New York, none of them a battleground state. (So maybe it was an eastern pattern, as TIA sometimes argued -- which would tend to support your argument. I'll say in a moment why I'm not really convinced about that.)

I don't think I know about the Texas exit polls you describe -- is that in 1994? But other exit polls have been substantially off, too, in the U.S. and elsewhere. So, another angle is to compare exit polls across elections.

(And obviously we need to talk about things besides exit polls.)

I'm not sure how you think the exit polls were fluffed or fiddled, but setting aside the how, I don't think it would be worth a lot of effort. Several people tried hard 20+ years ago to find evidence that major-media early calls of presidential elections suppressed West Coast turnout, and as far as I know they came up empty. The idea that Internet leaks would change the course of the 2004 election -- or that whatever other leaks would change the course of a Texas election 10 years ago -- seems like a stretch.

Just comparing notes. As Pete Seeger says, "We don't always have to agree, you know. And if I say Down, you can say Up -- and if I say Up you can say Down!" And then he sings about sailing up and down the Hudson River, and how "the river may be dirty now, but it's getting cleaner every day." Whoops, sorry, wrong board. ;)

[applegrove]

19. The point is that in "tight spots" all manner of voter suppression was

used. Why-ever do you think the GOP or Rovbots only do one thing at a time?

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. now, there is an excellent point

I can tell you why I doubt that they did one particular thing -- although heck, if it was easy, they may have done it even if it didn't have much effect. But it's not inherently an either-or situation.

[FogerRox]

20. Diebold bought GLobal Election Sysytems IIRC in 2000

DREs use goes back to 1986 That I can document easily.

[applegrove]

21. Whatever. No need to ignore the "exit polls" and all other voter

suppression in favour of Diebold. There were inconsistancies with "exit polls" in Texas.

Keep your eyes open.

[Febble]

24. You say:

The fact that Mitofsky will not release the raw data of the exit polls for analysis of the source of the error is circumstantial evidence.

I see this repeated many times. The raw data is released, in the form in which it has always be released, i.e. in quite extraordinary detail. It is completely open access and you can download it yourself here:

ftp://ftp.icpsr.umich.edu/pub/FastTrack/General_Election_Exit_Polls2004/


What is not included, and never is, is precinct identifiers, which means that the vote totals for each precinct cannot be determined. The reason is participant confidentiality, and it is a real issue. Pollsters are not permitted, under the ethics regulations for their own profession, to make public any information by which a participant in a survey can be identified.

This means that if anyone wants to research the relationship between precinct polls and precinct results, as opposed to the "raw" results and the statewide count, they will have to do as ESI did, and have "blurred" datasets released, in which a small amount of random "noise" is added to the vote totals in order to make the precincts unidentifiable.

Ironically, this is because of the extraordinary amount of data that is already in the public domain regarding the characteristics of the respondents. Voters - and their vote - could be identified from the data if the precincts could be definitively identified. This is not ethically acceptable in any branch of social science research, and in any case would be appallingly bad for the future of polling. Who is going to want to participate in a poll if they know that the information they divulge on the assurance of confidentiality is going to end up in the public domain?

ESI commissioned a set of usable data. Other groups could do the same. "Mitofsky will not release the raw data" is simply evidence that Mitofsky adheres, as he must and should, to the ethical guidelines of AAPOR. In any case, as a poster elsewhere points out, Edison-Mitofsky, in their report, confirm the large magnitude of the exit poll discrepancy. No-one is suggesting it was due to "chance", least of all E-M.

[petgoat]

25. The "raw data" files you provide are dated 1/27/05.

The USCountVotes report of 9/8/05 says (p. 3) "the precinct level exit
polling and official vote count data that would enable independent
investigators to analyze the exit poll discrepancy has not been
provided to the public."

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/USCV_exit_poll_simulations.pdf

Surely the data could be released to an investigative team operating
under non-disclosure agreements. That is by no means release to "the
public domain". The fact that someone hell-bent on identifying an
interviewee through use of supplemental investigations could possibly
do so should not be used as an excuse to keep the data from experts
who want to examine them for legitimate separate reasons. It's as
absurd as the claim that showing pictures of flag-draped coffins
violates the privacy of the families of dead soldiers.

[Febble]

26. Exactly

The raw data from the polls were provided in January. But because there are no precinct IDs the data can't be matched to precincts, and therefore can't be matched to vote counts. And this means that the analyses that can be done on the data are limited.

But you are also right to say that "data could be released to an investigative team" under certain conditions - and that is precisely what happened with ESI. ESI commissioned the preparation of a dataset for Ohio in which the precinct vote counts were included, but "blurred" slightly to prevent identification of the precincts themselves (as could be done if precise vote counts were known). So they were able to do their study.

[petgoat]

27. So are you saying USCountVotes is being disingenuous in stating that

the data has not been provided?

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. no, it's a matter of (1) semantics and (2) inference

Febble of course may have a different take on this than I do, but surely she wasn't going after USCV. It's clear what has been released, and it's clear that USCV wants access to something that hasn't been released. There's no need to get hung up on arguments about whether "the data" have been provided.

Here is, I think, an important point: Edison/Mitofsky has released the same sort of data from this exit poll as has been released from prior exit polls. A few weeks ago, I downloaded data from, I don't quite remember, maybe seven different exit polls (including several from some years) that are archived with ICPSR.

As Febble said, the data are never released with precinct identifiers that would allow users to match to the actual precinct.

So, the fact that the data again weren't released with precinct identifiers doesn't seem like circumstantial evidence that E/M is trying to cover up fraud in 2004. It is standard operating procedure. And, as Febble pointed out, it has a privacy rationale, one that survey researchers and political scientists have generally accepted as valid.

Whether something different should be done for the 2004 data is a different question.

[Febble]

30. No, I'm not

although I simply disagree with them that the full data, with precinct identifiers, should be placed in the public domain as the poll data is. I think it would be a violation of E-M's contract with the participants in the poll, as it would be if I published the data from my research into dyslexia in such a way that participants in my study could be identified by any member of the public.

But don't see any reason why other state datasets could not be prepared for investigators just as the Ohio dataset was prepared for ESI, although, of course, these things, as with all research, need to be funded.

What I was protesting was the implication that the very fact of the "non-release" of the "raw data" is "circumstantial" evidence of election theft. It isn't. It's completely normal, and right, ethical practice.

[petgoat]

32. The suppression of the data when there is a controversy takes the

present situation out of the realm of previous contexts.

Perhaps Edison-Mistofsky has offered the disguised raw data you speak of
at a price of $800k. I don't know.

The point remains. It is not an either-or between keeping the data from
the statisticians and releasing it to the public. It could be released
to statisticians without the privacy concerns of public domain release.

[Febble]

33. I have no idea what it costs

to prepare a blurred dataset, and nor do you, as you say. Your $800k suggestions seems, to say the least, unlikely, otherwise I can't imagine how a group such as ESI could have raised it.

And the point you were making originally was that non-release was circumstantial evidence of fraud.

I'm saying it is not. Because:

a) all poll data has been released and
b) data for Ohio was released to statisticians after appropriate blurring to protect privacy.

I expect if another group of researchers want data released to study another state it could be done.

I agree with the point you are making now. Yes, the data could be released to statisticians - because it actually has been.

[garybeck]

35. smoking gun is not required to convene a grand jury

all they need is enough evidence to convince a grand jury that there's a possibility that a crime was committed. I think we're way beyond that.

[Stevepol]

16. This is definitely a possibility. If it's publicized, they would have no

problem whatever raising the money. There are a million people in this country who, if they're aware of the stakes and what's being asked, will contribute a lot of money. But just $5 a piece and you've got $5M. But I'd contribute a helluva lot more to put these criminals on trial.

And don't tell me the exit polls can't be used. We've got the work of 6 PhD's in statistics testifying to the discrepancy between the polls and the actual vote and Mitofsky himself admitting as much. What more could you ask? In any other country, a discrepancy like that would lead to a revolution or a recount (as it did in the Ukraine). You've got every computer scientist (not computer "expert") in the country willing to testify that the machines are totally insecure. You've got several whistleblowers beginning with Rob Behler in GA 02 and going thru Clint Curtis, etc. etc. The companies have got motive, means, and opportunity. With the source code off limits and audits almost never done, there's absolutely no way they can ever be caught, so why wouldn't they throw the election? You've got example after example of how it COULD have been done by tweaking the central tabulators, etc. You've got evidence out the yang yang of mal-functioning machines. Micro-Vote, e.g., lost a law suit in Montgomery County PA 1995/1996 (after they had first sued the county saying that the county had agreed to buy more machines and because they didn't buy more machines the other machines malfuncioned). The jury awarded Montgomery County the judgment for $1,048,500. The verdict was upheld on appeal.

You've probably got a hundred web sites that have tons of evidence pointing to fraud. I don't think there's a jury in the country that wouldn't find in favor of the plaintiffs. Of course, the corruption is so great that it's possible you'd get a corrupt judge or some such eventuality.

It seems to me the ACLU should take the case. I'd contribute beaucoup of money (at least for me) and I'll bet many many others would too if the ACLU took the case.

[applegrove]

23. We can still discuss what "exit polls" being used means. Why the

exit poll problem follows Bush where-ever he tries to get elected. Not all in Diebold ridings. Some funny "exit polls" way back.

We can discuss. Could be one amongst many ways to suppress the vote.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. I think not "where-ever"

The 2000 exit polls were pretty close to official results, nationally. (Actually they were pretty close in Florida; the calls and un-calls had more to do with processing of incoming vote reports.)

Also (changing the subject to the other President Bush) apparently one of the 1988 exit polls was pretty accurate, while one of the others had Dukakis winning. I haven't gotten around to sorting out which network got which result.

Yeah, we can discuss how all this stuff fits together. It certainly doesn't seem like a slam dunk to convince a jury that Bush stole the election based on the exit poll results plus the machine vulnerabilities -- one use that some people (of course not you) seem to want to make of the results.

[Time for change]

17. Why put all the emphasis on Diebold?

Diebold supplied a small proportion of machines nationwide, and in only two counties in Ohio.

[garybeck]

36. they are the most vulnerable, and

in many places where they didn't provide the voting machines, they were still counting the votes on their central tabulators.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be more difficult to prove that two companies conspired (diebold and sequoia for instance) than to show that just one company did something wrong. Just think of it. If they cracked open the machines and just found one piece of malicious code, that would be it. Or if they scared one employee into testifying, that would be it. Without a case or a trial, none of this can happen.

I hear your point, but on the other hand, I think there is too much emphasis on just Ohio. There's no doubt in my mind that Diebold stole Florida as well. If the company is attacked, the suit can go anywhere the company does business. if the suit is too narrow, they'll never be able to look at some of these other places (like NM) where the smoking gun could be waiting. Just my thoughts, and again I'm not a lawyer, but the main point is we need some kind of trial so that there can be a discovery phase with subpoenas and such.

[Time for change]

41. I think that Ohio deserves a great deal of emphasis

It is the only state, other than Florida, that would have given the election to Kerry. In fact, there is no other plausible combination of states that doesn't include Ohio (or Florida) that would have given the election to Kerry. And it is much more likely that Kerry really won Ohio than Florida, given the much larger margin that needs to be accounted for in Florida, and the fact that Kerry didn't even win the exit poll there.

Anyhow, I like the idea of suing the bastards, but I think we need input from a lawyer. I know that Landshark is involved in one or more suits, and so are some other lawyers, but I believe that they all involve much more specific issues than stealing the whole election.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

22. Recommended n/t

[babsbunny]

40. If it was possible, wouldn't Kerry have thought of it?

[garybeck]

43. uh, er... not exactly... I mean... NO WAY would he

hello

with all due respect if you think Kerry was interested in doing anything whatsoever to contest the election or fight election fraud, I urge you to look at what he did (or actually didn't do). He did nothing. He was out of town when they voted to contest the electors. He never spoke out against any of the things that happened. He actually fought AGAINST the lawsuits and recount efforts. So the answer to your question is a resounding NO, if it were possible to sue Diebold for stealing the election, Kerry would absolutely NOT have done it, nor would he be interested in doing it now. It would have to be someone else.

[kster]

44. Why can't we sue

the media for violating our trust. There has been a blackout on the news on the election theft or anything from our side. Dont we own the airwaves?

[petgoat]

46. Dont we own the airwaves?

Yes, we do. But under Michael Powell the primary activity of the
FCC seemed to be the extension of First Amendment rights to the right
of corporate media to express their political opinions.

Also the weakening of rules that prevented corporate conglomerate media
from owning too many outlets (newspapers, TV, radio) in one region.

[kster]

47. I 'm not no expert

but if we had 50,000 or a 100,000 lawsuits filed against the media simultaneously thru the country it should shake them up a bit.They would have to respond to each and every one.The Simplest way out for them is to give us some prime time slots to get our story told, Or pay millions to fight it out in court with us.

[kster]

45. kick.nt