Why are new DU'ers so skeptical of Arneback and Fritakis...and Professor

[KoKo]

Mark Crispin Miller and others who have been working since 2000 Selection to expose the fraud in these "voting machines" mandated by the HAVA ACT which was rammed through by "special interests" after the 2000 Debaucle?

I see folks out there in GD Forum trashing as :tinfoilhat: every article and post about "Election Stealing" and it puzzles me as to why?

If the very people fighting for "free and fair and accountable elections" are trashed here on Democratic Underground then "WHY?"

What is the evidence you have AGAINST "Election Reform Advocates" that they are :tinfoilhat: ?

I have to say...I think many of the "naysayers" are folks from "another side of the spectrum." But, I don't want to tar and feather anyone....I'd just like a reasonable post about why you think Arneback and Fritakis are SCAMMERS!

[readmoreoften]

1. Well, if they'd kill a man, they'd certainly invade a messageboard.

No doubt. :shrug:

[emlev]

3. could you please clarify who you mean by "they"

The first two times I read it, I thought you meant Fitrakis, Arnebeck, and Miller. Don't want others to read it that way if that's not what you meant.

If it's not too late to clarify in your subject line, that'd be best.

[readmoreoften]

12. By THEY I mean Rove. By Rove I mean "any conservative operative".

[emlev]

13. Thank you.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. there's definitely been an attempt

to disrupt this thread and any pointing a finger at election manipulation.

[elleng]

2. BECAUSE they're new to DU,

and are unfamiliar with BradBlog and the 'true' facts?

[mod mom]

17. and haven't sifted through the wealth of information and background that we have

over the years.

[annabanana]

4. They are still under the spell of the jaw-droppingly slanted and just

plain WRONG corporate media. If they do some reading and stick around for awhile, they'll learn.

[madrchsod]

5. we were betrayed by a thing that claimed to be one of us

was`t that thing was indirectly involved in the death of one of our most respected du members?

if those who do not understand were here when this thing took credit for his work then they would understand how we feel.

[KoKo]

7. I hope you are speaking about....

ANDY!

And, so many others who worked so hard for Voting Reform in those early days? Are you? Or, are you just making Mischief..? :shrug:

[madrchsod]

11. yup andy...

i do think that andy and others did make a difference this time...

[Jim Sagle]

6. Because new DUers are mostly not Democrats.

Some are Pug or indy fans of Obama while others are Pug moles.

[KoKo]

8. Well...I guess it's important to be Inclusive. After 2000 Selection we

did need to "reach out" across the "Aisles."

[KoKo]

9. OKAY..why are many here so suspect of Arneback and Fritakis's Motives?

I see posts that they are hyping information that isn't there. I see posts that they are making money off this... I see posts that don't know what they hell they are about and see everything to do with "Election Reform" as some :tinfoilhat: Conspiracy Theory!

So...why? :shrug:

[eomer]

19. I don't question their motives...

but I do think they made a gross blunder by going public with Spoonamore's flawed theory. They should have vetted it better, which would have avoided a bunch of confusion.

[Stevepol]

23. Somebody has debunked Spoonamore's theory?

[Wilms]

24. .

:popcorn:

[eomer]

25. His theory of a MIM attack changing election results as they were transmitted

from county tabulators to state tabulators is clearly false isn't it?

Here's an excerpt from Spoonamore's affidavit where he describes that possible attack:

2) The vote tabulation and reporting system, as modified at the direction of Mr. Blackwell,
allowed the introduction of a single computer in the middle of the pathway. This computer
located at a company principally managing IT Systems for GOP campaign and political
operations (Computer C) received all information from each county computer (Computer A)
BEFORE it was sent onward to Computer B. This centralized collection of all incoming
statewide tabulations would make it extremely easy for a single operator, or a preprogrammed
single "force balancing computer" to change the results in any way desired by the team
controlling Computer C. In this case GOP partisan operatives.

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/SpoonamoreAffidavit.pdf

Each county reported their results locally so altering them during transmission from the county to the state would not be a successful approach. The difference between the county results reported by the county and the county results reported by the state would have been immediately obvious.

Please let me know if I'm missing some way this attack could have been the case. It seems to be obviously false, as far as I can tell, and it is the one that Spoonamore has been talking about the most.

He does also mention some other possible attacks that I haven't seen debunked. For example:

3) If scenario #2 described above is true, Computer C, was placed functionally in a central
control position in the network, for Computer C to have even updated instructions for various
tabulators at the county level (Computers A) to change their results at the county level.

But it is the main theory of the MIM altering results during transmission that I am complaining about.

[Bill Bored]

26. Not only that...

...but ultimately, you'd have to change the results of the precinct-based machines, which are supposed to be available on paper, per HAVA. The question is whether these are checked independently of the voting system to verify the county-wide totals.

I do think the MIM thing, at the state level, is insufficient on its own.

It's much more effective and difficult to detect miscounts generated within the precincts, such as the switching of punch cards to the wrong precincts with different ballot orders due to rotation. And there is actual evidence of this. But that kind of evidence takes WORK to uncover -- not just speculation (see Richard Hayes Philips and L. Coyote).

Once the punch cards were switched, as far as I know, there was no way to recover those votes, but I'm shocked to hear that some folks still believe it was possible to switch them back by using precinct IDs on the punch card ballots which most others say did not exist. If we can't even agree on important details like that, we are in sorry shape!

As far as uncovering vote switching software at the precinct level, I think that's pretty much impossible, so that's another, and in my opinion, PREFERABLE way to rig the count. It can be detected by a random audit (hand count) of paper ballots, if the voted ballots are the same ballots actually voted in the election, but we know that the Ohio 3% "recounts" were not conducted randomly and that steps were deliberately taken to prevent larger recounts from happening.

[Wilms]

10. That someone is busting their ass for reform doesn't make them all-knowing.

At least that's one of the lessons I'd derive from a basic logic class.

If you read those guys really closely on this Connell Spoonamore thing, you'll realize that often their headlines say one thing, and the article, another.

People can believe what they want. I believe the 2004 election was stolen. And I don't need MCM, Fritakis, or Arnebeck to hold that notion dear.

And when a headline calls Connell an election rigger, as Fritakis just wrote, and the article says Connell COULD HAVE rigged the election, I call Bullshit.

In fact, I'll go further. I'll call Fritakis a blow-hard who writes misleading headlines that make idiots out of the people who repeat them instead of critically examining them.

And that, for some, will be reason enough to consider me an infidel of sorts. I'll get over it, like junior high school.

[tbyg52]

14. My pet peeve

is posting stuff about election reform in other than Election Reform.

I sort of didn't mind during the 2008 election season, because at least it was getting attention, which might have made a difference, but now I'd like it back here, where I don't miss it. (Which I did - miss it, that is - re the topic under discussion here. I did not see any of this while it was going on.)

[L. Coyote]

15. Because they are not brainwashed yet!

Next question?

A wolf in sheep's clothing bleets, my friend!

[eridani]

16. Because Dems won

Never mind that our margin was probably larger--victory tends to sweep those concerns aside, unfortunately. Just try to get any elected official who won by 53/47 to consider that it might have been 52/48, or 55/45. They don't want to hear it, and they especially don't want to find out it may have been 49/51. We have to keep pounding on this, because it may make a difference next time.

[tbyg52]

18. >>We have to keep pounding on this, because it may make a difference next time.

Amen, brethren and sistren!

:kick:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. hard to tell

I don't necessarily classify Arenbeck, Fitrakis and Miller together ( at least in my mind).
They seem like different flavors.

Maybe most DUers don't have an opinion, but some naysayers glom onto the threads and
just like to make life miserable for the OP writer.

There isn't always a rhyme or reason to what goes on in these forums.

For sure MCM has a different style that doesn't appeal to everyone.

So, it could just be that it is all in the presentation, but Im just guessing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. new DUers aren't so likely to see this query

Personally, I don't think that Arnebeck or Fitrakis are "scammers," at least by intent.

I think Fitrakis is pretty sloppy with facts. For instance, one of the Fitrakis and Wasserman pieces posted on GD (dated 12/20/08) claimed that at 12:20, "...initial vote counts showed John Kerry the clear winner" in Ohio, but "from then until around 2am, the flow of information mysteriously ceased. After that, the vote count shifted dramatically to George W. Bush."

Does anyone else remember (1) Kerry leading -- indeed, a "clear winner" -- in the Ohio vote count until "around 2am" or (2) the vote count freezing for about an hour and a half?

As for Mark Crispin Miller, the first chapter of Fooled Again offers the premise that it was a "miracle" that Bush won in 2004, based on various indicators such as the number of newspapers that endorsed Kerry. It's hard to understand how a knowledgeable political observer could form that opinion.

These are examples, but in my opinion not aberrations.

So, I would guess that some of the people who have "trashed" these activists do so because they are angered, amused, or otherwise unfavorably impressed by the quality of the activists' arguments -- as, at least in some cases, they should be.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mod mom]

38. I spent election night '04 (up until ~ 1:30 am) in an upstairs party room with many

Kerry staffers who remained faithfully stating "don't worry, our boiler room shows we won", while many of us had a lump in our stomachs and tears in our eyes by what was being reported on tv.

I remember reading a Columbus Dispatch article that had a map indicating machine allocation by precincts that I knew to be wrong. I contacted the reporter and questioned the numbers. They said it had been provided to them by someone at the election board. I followed up by contacting dozens of people within the Franklin County BOE until I found one staff person who was willing to share a document of just how machines were allocated by precinct with historical data from both primaries, and the 2000 election. This is the spreadsheet that has been examined (I was unqualified to do the data justice, so I handed it to Bob Fitrakis at one of the public hearing that were held just after the election and he has used it and forwarded it to others for review) and reported on. It shows that indeed there was misallocation of machines that adversely effected predominately Af Am precincts. I also sent it to the reporters from the Columbus Dispatch so that they would correct the misinformation that had been posted in their paper. Guess what? They didn't want anything to do with it. I said I had received it from someone within the BOE. Didn't matter. This was the point that I felt open my eyes to the fact that the truth was being ignored. I knew what I had witnessed as far as registration, turnout and length of lines and was able to contrast my semi affluent predominately white, inner ring suburb (the governor votes in my precinct) while just blocks away in low income Af Am precincts there was a blatant difference. The news media wasn't interested in reporting it. When you have an experience like this, you become distrustful of the "official story".

All Bob, Cliff, Susan Truitt, and Peter Peckarsky asked for was their day in court to prove their case. They have filed many public document requests, gone into BOE warehouses around the state and gathered affidavits from witnesses. They were threatened with sanctions by an overwhelming Republican Ohio SC. They worked with Conyers and the House Judiciary Democratic legal staff in compiling evidence. Let them have their day in court to present the evidence. Bobby Kennedy Jr and Mike Papantonio were convinced AFTER REVIEWING THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE.

I don't claim to know exit poll reliability but I do know what I witnessed. I am not even one iota unsure that major disenfranchisement of Af Am voters occurred in an organized manner. I had canvassed and done voter registration in many of the near east Af Am precincts effected. Everyone was registered ( I approached many young people hanging out on street corners and went door to door seeking registrations, as well as working major festivals in the area). There was going to be a huge wave of new voters in these precincts getting out in force. I did the same early in these (2008) primaries through election day in these same precincts and even organized a 3 day voter registration event at the local Ohio Juneteenth Festival. Guess what? There were very few people to register-mainly young people who were not eligible in 2004. Many people attempted to vote in 2004, but faced many obstacles that suppressed their votes.

I'm rambling, but my point is give them their day in court before judging them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. yes, and the evidence of machine misallocation is solid

I don't know if intent can be proven, but there's no doubt that lots of people lost their chance to vote. I don't think I have a problem with anything you wrote here.

This doesn't mean that I think Fitrakis can be relied upon to be factually accurate; I don't. (I'm not impugning his motivations, just saying what I've learned.) But I don't assume that he, or anyone else, is always wrong -- on the contrary, I'm sure he often isn't.

By the way, I know much less about Arnebeck, so while I'm aware that he often works with Fitrakis, I don't lump them together.

[mod mom]

40. Interesting side note.

Cliff was legal counsel for Bob Dole in his primary challenge to defeat GHW Bush. It was the surprising New Hampshire upset between the two that first perked Cliff's suspicions. There's obviously more detail than can be shared here, but he became a Democrat after this experience. Bob and Cliff not only work very closely together on election protection/investigation, but they have shared an office for years.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. wild

I never heard that before about Dole. Interesting indeed!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[creeksneakers2]

28. I think we should start at the beginning

Then what Arnebeck was up to should pan out. Every time I try to discuss the specifics of this whole Connell controversy, I get attacked. Some have helped me with facts and understanding. I've been wrong about a few things. But mostly all I get are attacks on me. Let's start at the beginning with something I've posted before. I want to make it clear here that I divide the evidence that Connell was threatened into two categories. That which was reported up to Connell's testimony and that which was reported after his death. I'm only talking about the threat reports before Connell testified here. Can anybody refute what I've written?

In the original version of the story, there were threats from Karl Rove against Connell to make him take the rap for stealing the 2004 Ohio election. The problem with that idea was that there never was any evidence that Connell did anything wrong. There wasn't even proof that the election was stolen in the first place. All the suit that named Connell as a witness had was a theory about how Connell MIGHT have stolen the election. Experts who reviewed the claims found it was unlikely that Connell could have stolen the election in the manner theorized. The experts said they needed more information to make a conclusion.

Since the suit that subpoenaed Connell had so little merit, it makes no sense that Connell, let alone Karl Rove would be threatened by it. The original threat story from the ______ theory said Connell was supposed to take the rap for stealing the 2004 Ohio election. But if Connell would have taken the rap, he would have had to have admitted that the 2004 election was stolen in the first place. A revelation like that would probably lead to people in the White House going to prison. So why admit to something like that when there is no evidence against you? Why threaten somebody to make them expose everyone by taking the rap?

Another problem with the original version of the threat story was that it claimed if Connell did not take the rap, his wife would be arrested for lobby law violations. As far as I can find, his wife isn't even a lobbyist. A recent article describes her as a stay at home mother of four who was listed on Connell's businesses but played no role in them.

Where did the story that Connell was threatened first come from? In court documents, plaintiff's lawyer Arnebeck says the witness is anonymous and they came across him after the suit got wide spead notice in the "blogosphere." So he's probably just some guy on the Internet. We all know how trustworthy anonymous people on the Internet are. In some places, the source is described as a higher up in the McCain campaign. How many high level McCain staffers follow left wing conspiracy blogs? Supposedly, the same source also told the lawyers that the 2008 election was going to be stolen too. Arnebeck used that to get his case back out of suspension, but dropped it just before the election where the claim would have been proven false.

So Connell goes ahead on November 3 and testifies he knows nothing. Why then was there was any reason for Rove to threaten Connell?

The story and the details have changed now from the fist version. But it all is still coming from people who will not substantiate their claims or name their witness.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. enjoy your cement pizza

freak

[Wilms]

35. By the slice...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. Thank you mods

just thank you.

[lala_rawraw]

32. i agree

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. g'night, gknight

We hardly knew ye....