Help!! I've wondered about this for 2 years less 54 days

[galloglas]

OK, ranchhands. This is it.

I've thought someone would bring this up ever since election day 2004. So fill me in on the details, 'cause if you can't, we all need to jump on this and find the answer.

I spent much of Election Day driving in my car, while listening to PBS.

Early on, no one really knows squat, so the (invisible) Talking Heads jabber, jabber, jabber until something happens.

Sometime, mid-morning to early afternoon, something caught my attention and I have never forgotten it. The voice is even fresh in my mind and, I think, it was Neil Conan speaking. I can't remember the precise phrases, but his perplexed tone, manner, and substance are crystal clear.

The puzzle:

Bush spent the night before the election in Crawford, Texas. He was expected to fly back to Washington early Tuesday. The announcer (Conan, or whomever) discussed an unexpected, last minute itinerary change by Bush, his plane making an unscheduled stop in... Dayton, Ohio!

Conan finished reporting that tidbit before asking his guest, "Isn't this the first time a President has ever done that? Campaigning on Election day, itself? Perhaps he feels that, with reports of a heavy turnout, he can shore up some support in the battleground state of Ohio."

Now I have spent the last two years, less 54 days, wondering if the stop was to tell Wally Diebold to "flip the switch" if things continued to head South.

It is really just too weird and someone must have the answer. Otherwise, I'd really like to know the whereabouts and timelines of all the important players moves that day. Particularly, Karl Rove and his lieutenants.

Can anyone help me out?????????

[Warpy]

1. Why would he do it in person?

A phone call would have served him just as well. Remember, Wally was a Koolaid drinker, ready and willing to do the bidding of his lord and savior.

[NVMojo]

2. then why go there at all???

[Warpy]

4. He needed Ohio to "win"

and it had to be a credible vote. I think it really was a campaign stop.

[galloglas]

5. Surely you can't buy that!

"a credible vote"???

This is the DU Election Reform forum.
Is there anyone here, including you, who actually believes that Bush won Ohio honestly? Or that there was any semblance of "a credible vote"??

If so, I'd say read up on Blackwell, Tom Noe, Randy Ney, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[galloglas]

3. That is what I figured. But...

that still leaves the question. WTF was he doing there in that precedent setting situation. Why? How many votes is he going to turn in an unannounced 45 minute (I think) stopover?

And, perhaps with something that sensitive, one wants no possibility of an accidental overhearing (or tapping) as happened at the G-8.

[diva77]

9. maybe so that it would look like his visit to OH when the results were

"neck and neck" was enuf to tip the scale in his direction

:shrug:

[soothsayer]

17. that's what i think too

[pansypoo53219]

6. except

it seemed to me, like he didn't really WANT to win, my hard werk wanted to go back to his fuckin texass pig ranch. you can't tell me that he really tried during the debates. they probably MADE him go to ohio. the underbosses stole it for him. and now pissypants gets to fuck up somemore for his abysmal record.

[galloglas]

7. Uhhhh,.. sure,.. uh,

Doesn't anyone really know?

Or is it just that it's Friday and everyone is out partying-hearty with their bountiful "Good Economy" bucks?

[Amaryllis]

8. Can't remember the facts but I do remember reading something

about him meeting with Blackwell but Blackwell denied it...that's all I can remember; fuzzy on any details or where I read it. You might find something in Bob Fitrakis' book on it. He's up on all the Ohio stuff.

[galloglas]

14. I'll check that out. N/T

[kster]

10. Just a thought

Bush was losing big time in Ohio, and the slightly honest people in charge of the secret vote counting machines, (that didnt want to get caught), started making noise (they needed assurances), because they knew that if they flipped it, that they would be exposed, Which they were, if we had a media that was on the up and up.

Their ONE AND ONLY ASSURANCE in order for them to proceed ahead, was to have Bush show up in person, and he DID IT.

Thats just me thinkin-out-loud........... Carry on..........

[galloglas]

12. A good thought, I think because

the very act of pulling this off is one of the most audacious things ever done.

I've long thought that the idea of this Grand Theft probably first occurred to someone in the mid 70s. About the time that the 8008 and 8080 chipsets appeared, with future development of certain devices for Micros (like "floppy disks", ROMs, etc.) on the near horizon.

I bought an IMSAI VDP-80 computer for my business in 1978. The dealer promised custom programming, which never happened. So, I hunted for a micro-computer programmer who could do what I needed done. The best I could find (in a metro area over 1MM) was a fourteen year old Whiz Kid. I suspect there were few, at that time, over 20 years who could have done it.

Probably some politician, election official, or the like, dreamed this scheme up while sitting around picking a whiz kid's brains.

And, when the lust for total power bumps up against a burgeoning new technology (like the Nazis learning about the potential of nuclear fission) someone will take a flyer on it.

So, you may just be right. If only because the would-be tyrants can't do it with just whiz kids. They need dutiful lackeys.

And, when the game is afoot, it is the lackeys (not knowing, from start to finish, how the Game runs) who are the first to freak out if things turn dicey, as was happening in Ohio.

It may have taken the sight of "The General", in person, to keep the troops from bolting.

Your surmise, kster, could be the blue ribbon answer. I'm going to sleep on this and see if I can't find some timelines tomorrow.

And, thanks for the thoughts. A bunch.

[diva77]

11. This is over my head, but possibly relevant

http://www.slate.com/id/2108640/

Game Theory for SwingersWhat states should the candidates visit before Election Day?
By Jordan Ellenberg
Updated Monday, Oct. 25, 2004, at 3:59 PM ET

Some campaign decisions are easy, even near the finish of a deadlocked race. Bush won't be making campaign stops in Maryland, and Kerry won't be running ads in Montana. The hot venues are Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have in common rich caches of electoral votes and a coquettish reluctance to settle on one of their increasingly fervent suitors. Unsurprisingly, these states have been the three most frequent stops for both candidates.

<snip>
To simplify our problem, let's suppose it's the weekend before Election Day and each candidate can only schedule one more visit. We'll concede Pennsylvania to Kerry; then for Bush to win the election, he must win both Florida and Ohio. Let's say that Bush has a 30 percent chance of winning Ohio and a 70 percent chance at Florida. Furthermore, we'll assume that Bush can increase his chances by 10 percent in either state by making a last-minute visit there, and that Kerry can do the same.


If Bush and Kerry both visit the same state, then Bush's chances remain 30 percent in Ohio and 70 percent in Florida, and his chance of winning the election is 0.3 x 0.7, or 21 percent. If Bush visits Ohio and Kerry goes to Florida, Bush has a 40 percent chance in Ohio and a 60 percent chance in Florida, giving him a 0.4 x 0.6, or 24 percent chance of an overall win. Finally, if Bush visits Florida and Kerry visits Ohio, Bush's chances are 20 percent and 80 percent, and his chance of winning drops to 16 percent.

What Bush's advisers ought to notice here is that, whatever Kerry does, Bush is better off if he visits Ohio! Visiting Ohio is what game theorists call a dominant strategy, and it makes game theory pretty easy: Bush should go to Ohio and ignore Kerry. If you run the numbers, you'll find that going to Ohio is a dominant strategy for Kerry, too, which means that if both campaigns act rationally they'll converge somewhere near Dayton and cancel each other out.

The combination of the Bush and Kerry strategies is an example of a Nash equilibrium. In general, we say that a game between two players B and K is in Nash equilibrium under the following condition: B and K would each be satisfied with their current strategy, even if they knew in advance what their opponent's strategy would be.

Now, let's change the game. Suppose Bush starts out with a 50-50 chance in each state. If Bush and Kerry visit the same state, Bush's chance is 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25. If they go different ways, Bush's chance is 0.6 x 0.4 = 0.24. In other words, Bush prefers to visit the same state as Kerry, and Kerry prefers the opposite. It seems there's no possibility of a Nash equilibrium here—whatever strategies the two candidates choose, either Bush or Kerry will want to switch.

But there is a Nash equilibrium; it's just a bit more subtle. Suppose Bush flips a coin. If it comes up heads, he goes to Florida; tails, he goes to Ohio. Kerry does the same. Is Bush happy with his strategy? Certainly—given that Kerry plans his visit randomly, it doesn't matter what Bush does. Whatever choice he makes, there's a 50-50 chance he'll wind up in the same state as Kerry, which means his chance at winning is 0.5 x 0.25 + 0.5 x .24, or .245. Since the same computation applies to Kerry, we've arrived at a Nash equilibrium. A strategy like this one, where chance plays a part in determining a player's action, is called a mixed strategy, and in this case it's the strategy that game theory recommends.

How can it be to either player's advantage to outsource his campaign management to a coin flip? The key is that rational behavior tends to be predictable, and in a game of strategy, predictability will leave you with a decided disadvantage. Think of rock, paper, scissors—you're doomed if your opponent can guess your next move. Or ask yourself why baseball pitchers don't just throw their best fastball time after time. Acting at random may not seem strategic, but sometimes it's the best strategy there is.

Of course, mixed strategies don't work very well unless the players act simultaneously, which is why I started with the assumption that we were on election eve. If Kerry flips his coin a week before Election Day instead, there's plenty of time for Bush to match him visit for visit in whatever state the coin chooses. But games with multiple rounds, where each player gets the chance to respond to the other's moves, pose a game-theoretic problem beyond the scope of this article.

That's not the only simplification we made in crushing a real-world strategic problem down to something math could handle. Let's now try to make the model more realistic by putting Pennsylvania back in play. How should Bush and Kerry arrange their visits to maximize their chances of winning two of the big three? If we assume that each state is equally likely to tip toward either candidate, the question is simply: How should Bush allocate his travel time so that, in two out of three states, he's made more visits than Kerry? This is what game theorists call a Colonel Blotto game, and, once again, only mixed strategies can be Nash equilibria.

<snip>

[galloglas]

15. The only difference might be

the timing.

Even Nash would have to acknowledge that the Game Theory implies an end of game scenario, and as Ellenberg implies in the title, the game is played up until the day before Election Day.

The thing that haunted me was the tone of the PBS host. The news had him gob-smacked, stunned almost. Because such had never been done on an Election Day when the POTUS traditionally waits things out in D.C.

Good theory, but I think it only held until Monday Night. And, after the votes are cast (or being cast) there should be no overtime.

Still, one would need to know what the POTUS, Rove, and lackeys were up to that day. Guess we need to find his Election Tuesday agenda.

[kansasblue]

13. Bush met Blackwell

On Election Day 2004, Franklin County voting officials told the Free Press that Blackwell and Damschroder were meeting with George W. Bush in Columbus. AP accounts place both Bush and Karl Rove unexpectedly in Columbus on Election Day. Damschroder has denied that he met personally with Bush, but refuses to clarify whether or not he was at GOP meetings with Bush in attendance on Election Day.

An eyewitness ally of Blackwell told a small gathering of Bush supporters, with a Free Press reporter present, that Blackwell was in a frenzy on Election Day, writing percentages and vote totals on maps of rural Republican counties, attempting to figure out how many votes, real or manufactured, Bush would need to overcome the exit poll results in Cleveland and Columbus.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00089.htm

[Febble]

16. So you are postulating

that it could be done by a single switch? Not by pre-loaded memory cards? An actual, realtime hack?

How?

And where's the evidence?

On edit:

I'm just bothered by this argument. I think it is possible that the election was stolen my means of stealing Ohio. But Ohio can't have been stolen by a flip of a Diebold switch.

So what you are suggesting is that Bush went to Ohio to tell Wally O'Dell to flip switches on Diebold machines everywhere else. So what is the evidence that votes were stolen on Diebold machines elsewhere? The exit poll discrepancies? But the exit poll discrepancies were greater where levers or punchcards were used (e.g. NY), not where Diebold digital equipment was used. And horrific though the security flaws on Diebold machines are, flipping votes on them seems to involve a screwdriver, or a preprogrammed "easter egg" code - not a remote hack.

As far as I can see, the only argument that millions of votes were stolen in 2004 has to be that they were stolen in all kinds of different ways, on different kinds and makes of machine, and done in such a way as to prevent Bush's vote being anomalously greater than expected on the basis of his 2000 performance, which, frankly, seems like a tall order to me.

Or that it was stolen by voter suppression tactics.

And neither of those would be likely to be changed by a visit by Bush to Ohio on election eve.

[galloglas]

18. Your several questions are better than my SINGLE one, so

let me tackle them, even though I'm bleary-eyed from waking and searching archives all night (finally coming that I have to locate the original program archive. This because the PBS announcer was seemingly announcing "breaking news" and could even have mentioned the incorrect city).

Kansas Blue has correctly sourced the city as Columbus (I found that last night) where Bush was. But the announced city was different. And, I realized, it could have been Canton, not Dayton, which would be even more perplexing. So, I will actually have to find the recording and listen again.

That said, let me tackle the questions.

"that it could be done by a single switch? Not by pre-loaded memory cards? An actual, realtime hack?"

Single switch? Either metaphorically, or theoretically, it could be (though I was using it metaphorically). In the long hours quizzing my "Whiz Kid", we discussed the future of a software package I was designing.

"Updates" were critical because the package was for the insurance industry where all fifty states had different laws. The Financial Planning Module was one single program but had to comply with the separate laws.

We discussed the ability to do it by modem and opted for mailing 8" floppies. Yet, planning for the future, the Whiz Kid noted that future software updates would be easier and cheaper because we could modify the packages, selectively, and update the by Cable Modems or, as he noted, "Communications Sattelites, when the industry gets that far".

So, the answer is yes. It would be possible, if that what was initially planned as the best, easiest method.

"And where's the evidence?"

Buried deeply, if it is there. Selling software is different from committing criminal election fraud.;)

Yet, I have looked at some interesting intersecting business histories. The GEM in GEMS software stood for Global Election Management. And, any machine using an EPROM or BIOS system that can be modified by wireless, could be reprogrammed (and then reversed) by "flipping a switch". And done globally.

"But Ohio can't have been stolen by a flip of a Diebold switch."

I agree. "Flipping a Diebold switch" was a metaphor for "Let's do what we have to."

Unless all of the machine companies are quietly in collusion, it doesn't work. They would rat each other out. But, trusts, interlocking directorates, etc., are what corporations tend to grow towards when unregulated. Particularly with "proprietary software", open source or not.

I imagine corruption on such a scale requires that, and the ability to selectively alter one race, multiple races, or none, if needs be. The terrifying aspect is that the "total control" of such an enterprise would lie in the hands of a very few people.

Ultimately, the 2 year old radio commentary that has dogged me, made me wonder if some (or most) of those "few" people stopped in Ohio, on their way from Crawford, TX to DC.

"So what is the evidence that votes were stolen on Diebold machines elsewhere? The exit poll discrepancies? But the exit poll discrepancies were greater where levers or punchcards were used (e.g. NY), not where Diebold digital equipment was used."

I don't think there is one single way the frauds are committed. Levers and punchcards are areas where "lackeys", as kster and I spoke of up-thread of this, come in.

Exit polls are one example of the evidence.

But, why greater one place than another? Why was there less variance where Diebold digital equipment was sued?

I suspect the answer may be in another thread here at Election Reform. In essence, the falsification of pre-election polls, if not exit polls. Use as much smoke and mirrors as possble to cloud the real truth.

This is the thread about poll falsification.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=448483&mesg_id=448483

And horrific though the security flaws on Diebold machines are, flipping votes on them seems to involve a screwdriver, or a preprogrammed "easter egg" code - not a remote hack.

Those all work. But why limit yourself to one method if you are going to commit a crime of that magnitude?

Any voting device, Diebold or otherwise, that has the hardware capablity to be altered remotely (like RF, Flash ROM, etc.), can be.

We must ask ourselves why there is the technical capability built into some of these machines to communicate, via satellite, if they were never planned to be used that way.

As far as I can see, the only argument that millions of votes were stolen in 2004 has to be that they were stolen in all kinds of different ways, on different kinds and makes of machine, and done in such a way as to prevent Bush's vote being anomalously greater than expected on the basis of his 2000 performance, which, frankly, seems like a tall order to me."

I happen to agree. But thirty years is more than enough time to test and debug a system created to commit the greatest technical crime in the history of the world.

And I think that is what we have been watching. I see it as far back as Chuck Hagel's election, for sure. Probably as far as 1992, in selected cases. Maybe even further back, that I have not noticed.

"Or that it was stolen by voter suppression tactics."

In theft, as in wars, sometimes there in no single answer or method. It can be a combination of tactics. Like the military 's use of Land, Sea, and Air. Along with PsyOps, disinformation, subterfuge, Intelligence, etc.

And neither of those would be likely to be changed by a visit by Bush to Ohio on election eve.

Unless one considers the possibility of a massive, organized, and closely controlled criminal operation to steal the government by electoral theft.

In which case, like in WWII or the America Civil War, the sight of the General upon the field can turn the tide of the battle. "Stonewall Jackson would be an example.

Though I would detest, personally, any comparison of Bush with Napoleon, the Duke of Wellington once said (in reference to Napoleon) "The sight of him upon the field is worth a full three divisions!"

[diva77]

19. have ya seen Bleever's post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=423695