Did Scott Brown really win in Massachusetts? (MUST-READ)?

[Mark Crispin Miller]

Here's a study that should blow the minds of every sane and patriotic citizen, especially

as we approach this fall's elections (or, to be more accurate, "elections"). It's not for

partisans of either stripe, since neither party wants the rest of us, or anyone, to talk

about election fraud (although it's the Democrats, primarily, who keep on getting screwed).

The study comes from the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), whose experts scrupulously

studied the results of the Scott Brown/Martha Coakley contest for the Senate seat of

Teddy Kennedy back in January. What they've found is doubly staggering:

First, the EDA discovered that there were no checks whatever on the voting process in that

race--a voting process largely electronic: no exit polls, no systematic audit, no spot-checks

of the count, no examination of a single ballot stored in the opscan equipment, and, as usual,

no examination of a single memory card, or of the computer code used to direct the counting.

And so the vote was totally controlled by Diebold/Premier and ES&S, the companies that made

all the machines in Massachusetters, and LHS, the "highly secretive" outfit that programmed

and serviced most of the opscans. All three are private companies, whose records clearly indicate

a heavy bias toward the GOP.

Second, EDA also discovered--on the basis of their careful scrutiny of the 65,000 ballots that

had been hand-counted--strong evidence that Coakley may have been the actual winner

in that race; or let's just say that Brown aooarently could not have won if all the ballots had

been counted in the open:

"Where votes were observably counted by hand, the Democrat Martha Coakley defeated the

Republican Scott Brown by a margin of 2.8%; where votes were counted unobservably and

secretly by machine, Brown defeated Coakley by a margin of 5.2%."

The study goes on to refute the various rationalizations that are always used to explain

such bald anomalies away. And it also notes, correctly, that the media all but universally

proclaimed Brown's "upset victory" a "sign" of the Tea-Baggers' electoral prowess--

even though there was no evidence that Brown had won, beyond the say-so of those

private companies.

So what we have here--and not just in Massachusetts--is a wholly faith-based voting

system, and a political establishment (both parties and the media) inclined to swallow anything,

as long as it advantages the right.

If you do care about this issue, and the integrity of our elections this November, please

send this report to everyone you know, and agitate for its discussion by the press. And

if you have a couple bucks to spare, or know someone who does, please do what you

can do to help fund EDA, without whose work there is no hope of salvaging, or realizing,

our democracy.

MCM

Another Election Corrupted?

By Jonathan Simon

Believe It (Or Not):
The Massachusetts Special Election For US Senate

http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/BelieveIt_OrNot_Final8-30-10_1.pdf

Background

On January 19th, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held a Special Election to fill the Senate seat left open by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. It would be difficult to overstate the political implications of this election. Because the seat was the 60th for the Democrats, it carried with it the effective balance of power in the Senate: without it, in a dramatically polarized and decidedly uncooperative political environment, the Democrats would not be able to override a GOP filibuster. As the media let Americans know, everything from the shape of healthcare policy to financial regulation, from energy and environmental policy to critical judicial appointments hung in the balance.

Just as significantly, the victory by Republican Scott Brown over supposed shoo-in Martha Coakley was taken and trumpeted as a "sign:" the political calculus for the upcoming general elections in 2010 and 2012 was instantly rewritten, with the anger and unrest that apparently produced Brown's victory establishing expectations of catastrophic losses for the Democrats in November and beyond. All in all the political impact of this single, under-the-radar state election was seismic, very nearly "presidential."

The Electoral System

With stakes that high, citizens not only of Massachusetts but of the rest of the United States would hope to find firm basis knowledge, as opposed to mere faith that the votes were accurately counted as cast and that the seating of the certified winner, along with the massive implications alluded to above, at least reflected the will and intent of the voting constituency. Instead, this is what a citizen seeking such knowledge about the Massachusetts Special Election would find:

Download and read the complete article below as pdf:

http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/BelieveIt_OrNot_Final8-30-10_1.pdf