Why no blatant voting machine fraud?
Roedy Green
in the election yesterday.
Such evidence includes:
1. deviations from exit polls
2. deviations from polls.
3. deviations between paper ballots and machine ballots
4. statistically "impossible" numbers of squeaker races.
5. criminal prosecutions for fraud.
6. strange behaviour of voting machines reported.
7. big deviations on recounts.
What discouraged fraud?
1. early voting by paper ballot. The cheaters would have to explain
the discrepancy between paper ballot and machine results.
If the paper ballot overwhelms the machine ballot, a minor fiddle of
the voting machine result won't suffice to tip the election.
2. mail voting. The paper trail means recounts can detect cheating.
Washington did nearly all its vote by paper mail ballots.
3. sabotage. A rather surprising number of voting machines "broke
down". I suspect people were sabotaging them. Voters then had to
resort to honest paper ballots. The expense, breakdowns, limited
number of machines and resulting long lines will discourage future use
of these fraud-friendly machines.
4. paper trail on some of the voting machines. Simple cheating (that
did not corrupt the paper log) could be detected on a recount.
5. stricter inspection and testing of voting machines. That has a
long way to go. Not one machine met federal certification standards.
6. Some jurisdictions hired experts to help them deter fraud. This
included using casino cheat detector expert observers, locked cages,
cameras, removing places to hide extra ballots. It becomes a skill
like figuring out how magicians pull off their slight of hand.
7. Just prior to the election, reputedly Karl Rove's geek was called
into court to testify about his voting machine fraud in 2004 . This
would have had a chilling effect.
Here is an email I received that explains (7). I just pass it on
without vouching for its veracity.
It's not over until Rove & Co. are in jail
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#110108
A funny thing happened on the way to a McCain "victory" in Ohio and
other states.
Karl Rove's computer guru got hauled into court the day before
election day and was ordered to testify about what he did during the
2004 vote count in Ohio.
(For video about the 2004 vote fraud, see:
http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/national/messages/5799.html)
Republican IT "Guru" Mike Connell Ordered To Give Deposition
By Steve Heller
Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG.
Contentious Hearing Today Results in Order For Republican 'High-Tech
Forrest Gump' to Testify Under Oath on Monday
Appearance to Answer Questions on 2004 Election Scheduled Just 24
Hours Prior to Election 2008...
The Republican IT guru, recently described as a "high tech Forrest
Gump" for his proclivity to be "at the scene" of so many troubling
elections since 2000, and even at the heart of the "lost" White House
email scandal, has been ordered by a federal judge to appear for an
under-oath deposition next Monday in Ohio.
The BRAD BLOG has learned that Mike Connell, the Republican IT guru
whose company, GovTech Solutions, created Ohio's 2004 election results
computer network appeared in federal court today, as compelled, and
has been ordered to appear for his deposition on Monday, November 3,
just 24 hours before Election Day 2008.
Today's court order came after a contentious hearing, at which Connell
was present. The hearing was part of a long-standing voting rights
violations lawsuit, King Lincoln v. Blackwell, as previously covered
by The BRAD BLOG and by Velvet Revolution's Election Protection Strike
Force here and here.
Though Connell's attorneys have fought to quash the subpoena, recently
issued after the judge lifted a stay on the case several weeks ago, ,
it looks like his options to avoid testimony, or at least jail for
avoiding it, may have come to an end. The attorneys in the case have
said that Connell's testimony may well lead to the subpoenaing and
under-oath questioning of Karl Rove, who, they say, would be unable to
use Executive Privilege as an excuse to avoid such a subpoena in a
civil RICO case...
For more details on Connell, and his role in the '04 election, and
within the GOP, see the video clip at right from John Ennis'
recently-released documentary Free For All.
The issues in the King Lincoln v. Blackwell suit are complex, but in a
nutshell, some Ohio voters filed a lawsuit alleging voting rights
violations and election irregularities in the 2004 Presidential
election in the Buckeye State. Taking the sworn deposition of Connell,
the man who set up the computers for reporting election results, and
re-routing them through his company's own Tennessee servers late on
the night of the '04 election, has been a high priority for Election
Integrity advocates and attorneys in Ohio.
While this story is still breaking and developing, from what we've
been able to learn so far, sources tell us that Monday's depo will
have a time limit of two hours. Any information gathered regarding
trade secrets related to Connell's company, GovTech Solutions, will be
under seal, as per the judge's order today.
Also under seal will be any and all information gathered about
allegations that Connell has been the victim of witness intimidation
by Karl Rove and/or Rove's associates. As reported by The BRAD BLOG
last Summer, plaintiff's lead attorney in the case, Clifford A.
Arnebeck, had sent an email to Attorney General Michael Mukasey on
July 24, 2008, stating in part:
"We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be
credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal
witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court
in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to 'take the fall' for
election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for
supposed lobby law violations."
In related news, our friends at RAW STORY have an article today
headlined "Documents reveal how Ohio routed 2004 voting data through
company that hosted external Bush Administration email accounts." That
company was SmarTech, Inc., and the architecture for the 2004 election
results reporting system in Ohio has been at the heart of this case.
As reported by RAW's Larisa Alexandrovna today:
Newly obtained computer schematics provide further detail of how
electronic voting data was routed during the 2004 election from Ohio's
Secretary of State's office through a partisan Tennessee web hosting
company. ... The flow chart shows how voting information was
transferred from Ohio to SmarTech Inc., a Chattanooga Tennessee IT
company known for its close association with the Republican Party,
before the 2004 election results were displayed online.
See her story for more, including the schematics for both the '04 and
'06 web servers in Ohio. Of course, we'll continue to update this
story as the case proceeds...
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/199
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Make your vote count. Use a paper ballot.
Voting machines invite massive fraud.
Chom Noamsky
> One thing that puzzled me was the lack of blatant voting machine fraud
Because the outcome was in your favour?
Roedy Green
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>What discouraged fraud?
8. I missed the most obvious point. There is no point is pulling off
voting machine fraud unless it wins the election. Otherwise, all you
do in increase the odds of getting caught. If you pulled it off when
your opponent had a 15 point lead, people would be sure there was
fraud, even if they could not prove it. It would put a cloud over
your candidate. You can use fraud safely only where your opponent has
only a narrow lead.
Obama had too big a lead in too many states for voting machine fraud
to be practical. It could not be used to win the election.
Obama did not need fraud since he was naturally ahead and further the
machines were controlled exclusively by Republican-supporting
companies. There was no motive or opportunity to cheat.
jimjames5417
wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:54:19 -0800, Roedy Green
> someone who said :
>
> >What discouraged fraud?
>
> 8. I missed the most obvious point. There is no point is pulling off
> voting machine fraud unless it wins the election. Otherwise, all you
> do in increase the odds of getting caught. If you pulled it off when
> your opponent had a 15 point lead, people would be sure there was
> fraud, even if they could not prove it. It would put a cloud over
> your candidate. You can use fraud safely only where your opponent has
> only a narrow lead.
>
> Obama had too big a lead in too many states for voting machine fraud
> to be practical. It could not be used to win the election.
>
> Obama did not need fraud since he was naturally ahead and further the
> machines were controlled exclusively by Republican-supporting
> companies. There was no motive or opportunity to cheat.
>
> --
> Make your vote count. Use a paper ballot.
> Voting machines invite massive fraud.
Maybe it was because the Democrats knew that they would be getting
lots of votes from Chicago cemeteries - as they do every election; and
that Acorn had probably registered in excess of 10 Million illegal
voters!!
Sanity
"Chom Noamsky" <be...@bbq.yum> wrote in message
news:hslQk.700$xJ3.643@edtnps83...
.......or perhaps that you had to get passed rather LARGE Black Panthers
with batons just to get to the voting machines?
>
>
Ouroboros_Rex
Not trying to pretend they could vote, are you? lol
Deborah
It won't make any difference if there was some, anyway. This was a
landslide. You don't get a landslide with the small amount of voter
fraud that might have occurred. The actual count surprised me,
because even though it was consistent with the polls, I was afraid the
polls would prove to be overly-optimistic about Obama. They weren't.
They were right on the money.
This is what happens when a country is sick of its government and
wants something new. We've seen it in Canada often enough.
Now Obama has to show Americans they made the right decision.
He has two years. Then there's the mid-term elections, and if
Americans aren't happy they can fill the houses up with republicans.
For now, he's got carte blanche. I personally believe he will impress
all Americans who are in the least open to his leadership. He's
already taking people from Bill Clinton's transition team, so he's
obviously consulting with Clinton. Their policies are quite similar,
and Clinton will be an excellent mentor for him.
Deborah
Roy
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Nov 5, 4:40 pm, Deborah <debo...@youbetcha.com> wrote:
> war criminal and enemy of the poor in America.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A war criminal?