Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Who controls the voting machines? (22 posts)

  1. emanuel
    Member

    Ok let's cut to the chase. We all know the machines are rigged in many of the key states. The only question is who controls them. The debate ever since 2004 has been between those who say the traditional Shadow Government does, and those who say that the neocons pulled off a coup on 9/11 and wrested control away from the traditional Octopus. I have always believed the former, that nothing really changed in the upper-echelons of power on 9/11, that the neocons/republicans were/are being used as a tool, and that eventually the Dems will be put back in power. Cycling the two parties maintains the illusion of Democracy and is necessary for social control.

    Of course, I predicted they would put Kerry in power in 2004 for this reason, which didn't happen. And I am still predicting they will put Obama in this time, for the same reasons. I just can't imagine they would screw the dems over a third time in a row. That would upset too many people. And Obama will of course do whatever they want anyway.

    But none of this analysis holds if the neocons pulled off a coup, and are the ones who control the machines. There is evidence both ways. But let's look closely...

    Many states were fixed for Hilary Clinton this last primary. No need to review the details. Yet Obama won. What's going on here? My inclination is that they really were trying to fix it for Hilary, but they weren't able to fix enough States. Obama had more support than they figured. The counter claim is that they wanted to divide the Dems in order to justify the eventual fix for McCain.

    However, current polls as well as mainstream media support for Obama indicates they are picking Obama still.

    Yet voter spoilage issues continue in favor of the Republicans in many swing states, and the "Acorn Scandal" seems like classic Karl Rove reverse psychology: accuse the Dems of doing it to cover for your own actions.

    Now of course the one thing that complicates this is that whomever it is who controls the voting machines, they are certainly NOT a huge group of people. They are NOT the republican party. So even if he shadow government is going to fix the election for Obama, the repubs might still be going through all their voter spoilage antics not realizing this. Similarly, whoever it was that fixed New Hampshire, etc. for Hilary, we know it was not the Democratic Party. (My take is Hilary was promised the nomination, which is why she held on so long, and that it just wasn't enough. Either that or they just really wanted to stick it to her for some reason, but the Clinton's are high up as we all know, so I doubt that.)

    But of course, I could be wrong completely, and the neocon/Iran Contra faction might really have pulled off a coup on 9/11 and are now in control of the machines, and will put McCain in power. Maybe they don't care about maintaining the semblence of Democracy anymore.

    All I know is that if Obama loses I cannot imagine the Dem leadersing will just sit back this time and not question the machines. I mean, anthrax threats or not, they will demand their chance at bat. Won't they? It's hard to keep the people placated when the fascism is too obvious. But maybe it is getting too expensive to maintain the illusions, and a more naked fascism is what they are planning.

    Then there is the "third option," which is that the machines are not really in control of any specific political group, that the companies who control them technically just sell the fix to various bidders. Maybe the Hilary camp bought some fixes, but not enough, and the upcoming election will go to whomever purchases more state fixes than the other? The problem with this perspective is that there has been a massive cover-up of election rigging. The mainstream media won't touch the issue. The Dem leadership won't talk about it. Lawsuits have been dismissed. It's all being painted merely as "flaws in the system" yet the government isn't working to fix the flaws. This is strong evidence for a major political entity being in control of the machines, an entity strong enough to prevent a real investigation into past theft, strong enough to get the major networks to stop reporting exit poll results, etc.

    What do all you deep thinkers think?

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    Eman, it's a pleasure to see ya here.

    I have my own ideas on this but before proceeding, we should share the same definitions.

    What's the "traditional Shadow Government" or "traditional Octopus" to you? Also: the "neocons."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. emanuel
    Member

    Thanks Nick. Good to see you here too.

    By traditional shadow government I'm talking about the powerful people who ran the cold war. I see them comprised of members of the military, the various intelligence communities (especially the CIA), and the Investment banking industry mostly. I see them as organized in various and overlapping secret boards, including probably some known secret societies, and strictly hierarchical like a mafia. I can only speculate further, but you probably get the picture. As for the neocons I understand them to be the mostly Republican Iran-Contra-linked people, well integrated into the traditional shadow government but operating as their own faction.

    I don't know how well these definitions match reality, but they are my best guess.

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    Perhaps the first thing we have to admit is that elections DO matter on some levels. Otherwise, why would there be vote fraud or desperate maneuvering from either side? Obviously there are different interests at stake. You could say that there is a group of overarching elites who watch over (and possibly control) the elections, while people like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Dick Cheney, and the Bushes fight each other in a predetermined, meaningless game--but I think that stretches the imagination a bit far. Those people are elites; if there is some other group above them, literally pulling the puppet strings, then they might as well be aliens.

    Structurally, and probably recognized by the high level societal planners, the two party system does serve as essentially a sham show-democracy. Still, one party is more clearly authoritarian and anti-democratic than the other. The true believers (unless they were extremely self-deluded or infiltrators) of the fascist school would not likely to be aligned with the party that tries (however pathetically) to represent democratic interests.

    I'd say that the greed and indifference to others' suffering that pervade our society are well represented in both parties and throughout western culture overall. And so is simple conformism. Our hierarchical system is an inevitable outgrowth of our prevailing values. There is a shadow government, but their ability maintain their illusions and positions of power are dependent on the structure of the system and the prevailing values.

    There have been and still are people in our society who have a vision for something more fulfilling, human, and sane. They are represented to varying degrees in all parts of our system. I'd say the democrats are more on this side of things than the republicans, but that our frame of reference is so skewed in the direction of greed and authoritarianism, that it's not much of a choice.

    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -James Madison

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. chrisc
    Member

    The Unwelcome Guests show before last had some audio from "Velvet Revolution" (I know nothing about this group), someone who worked in computer security who said that all the machines are potentially subject to man-in-the-middle attacks since they all send data over the internet at some point:

    Unwelcome Guests 431 Barbarians at the Gate
    http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/29565

    It was a fair way in, might have been in the second hour, the audio quality of this section is very poor.

    The guy talking about the machines does seem to know what he was talking about. This could indicate that there are probably lots of people fighting to control them...

    if Obama loses I cannot imagine the Dem leadersing will just sit back this time and not question the machines

    Really? But wouldn't that make them look stupid for not questioning them before and also questioning them isn't enough is it -- would they demand a re-run and a paper system?

    Of course, we have a paper system in the UK and still we get crap governments...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. emanuel
    Member

    Nick!

    I'm waiting for your response.

    Eman

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    More W.Va. voters say machines are switching votes
    In six cases, Democratic votes flipped to GOP

    http://www.sundaygazettemail.com/News/200810180251

    Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

    "I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.

    Block the Vote
    Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president?
    ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. & GREG PALAST

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2363832...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. emanuel
    Member

    Incidents like these are red herrings. When you use a touch screen machine and the vote switches in front of your eyes that is clearly an unintentional flaw. I am sure the machines are occasionally flawed in this way. However, these are not examples of fraud. Fraud is hidden and affects only the vote totals. (There are only totals anyway, after the last voter leaves the booth.)

    And Nicholas! Where are you?

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. truthmod
    Administrator

    Very true, the likely fraud would occur behind the scenes (or screens). This example sounds exactly like the Simpsons parody, not exactly the best way to steal votes.

    Could the US election be stolen?
    http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Could_the_US_election...

    If anyone "controls" (some of) the voting machines, I would say it is the far right-wing; the people who don't bother with "morality" or "fairness" but play no-holds-barred power politics.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    Eman,

    Sorry about the delay, but a real answer requires a long essay I'm disinclined to write.

    (As you'll see, I ended up writing a lot anyway.)

    Here are the key points or questions as I see them. I warn you there will be no definitive conclusion, I'm just going to present notes toward a rough battle map and leave out the predictions, since I don't know what's going to happen.

    There's a history here: 2000 and 2004, for starters (we'll leave out 2002). About the former, there is no serious doubt, since they were caught stealing it so many different ways, although that didn't change the result. (The real "election," meaning the event that defined the overall narrative and agenda for the new administration, came on Sept. 11th, which was in planning beforehand, obviously, but I believe was meant to go together with a President Bush and not a President Gore.)

    2004 is strongly indicated as fraudulent through all the anecdotal evidence of incidents in Ohio and other states, and the statistical analysis of differing vote count deviations from exit polling in various states and counties, with measured advantages wherever appearing always going to Bush.

    Anyway, both big steals involved a lot of propaganda preparation (for example, in the form of telling us how close it all was but always having Bush a nose ahead), an October surprise in 2004 ("Osama" Speaks! Endorses Kerry!) and three categories of election-day intervention:

    A. Large-scale on-the-ground interventions

    B. State/legal intervention (Blackwell and Harris, for example)

    C. Going by statistical indications, e-fraud. (In Florida, with the optiscan counties that do have a paper trail which wasn't counted in the end.)

    In 2000 there were also the post-electoral dynamics, the vital importance of Bush having been declared the winner even as the maneuvers on both sides went on for 40 days. This aligned the media narrative and the "get it over with" mood entirely for Bush. If it happens again, this territory is likely to be more contested in 2008.

    The on-the-ground and state/legal interventions would include voter roll purges, voter caging, lack of machines, "lost" and uncounted ballots, barring observers from viewing the counting process (in Warren Cty. by way of a faked homeland emergency!), intimidation through increased police presence, shifting absentee ballots around counties, etc. etc.

    The ground forces are Republicans or their fellow travelers, plain and simple. Overwhelmingly so. People who know that they must prevent a Socialist Takeover, Stop the Blacks, and/or Do God's Will. In short, they want to save America. They're slightly less numerous this year but as mobilized as ever, and I think the Palin pick was designed to keep them mobilized, but more under watch than ever.

    However, Palin backfired with everyone else and has so far (along with the economic crisis) ruined the propaganda preparation for fraud by handing a 10-point lead to Obama. The propaganda preparation is in place, to be sure: ACORN, a sudden rediscovery of the "Bradley Effect," the meme of Socialism vs. the silent Real America, etc.

    As for the machines, well we know the two companies that produce most of them: Premiere (Diebold) and ES&S, both owned and operated by avowed, on-the-record Republican partisans. Some military industrial companies have interests in ES&S. Touchscreen is still widespread but on its way out - hey, look, the election fraud activists actually had an effect! Optiscan (with paper trail that won't necessarily be counted) remains largely unchallenged.

    As has been noted, the machines are susceptible to more localized fraud from clever hackers and people on the ground, too. I suspect that's what was going on in the Franklin Cty (Ohio) voting machines that had more voters for Bush than registered voters. These were located at a fundamentalist church! I can't tell you what impact this may have, obviously, but I'd guess you can lump such actors in with the ground forces. They'll be Republicans.

    The power elite? I would describe them in corporate fractions with opaque networks of personal business relationships running through all fractions. There is no central committee, though there are probably a few tables that think of themselves that way. The biggest power hives are war/energy and banking. Each of these hives reach tentacles into the spook world (parapolitics) and the all-important TV media.

    Normally, most of these folk are happy to fix elections by making sure the available choices are both long ago bought and paid for. When they asked what could be cut from the budget given the "crisis," did you hear Obama mention the Pentagon? Both candidates supported the bailout, both voted for FISA. Obama's biggest contributor is Goldman Sachs, no kidding, who as you know are also the owners of Interim President Paulson.

    Power elite, two: There are true believers there, too, and they will tend to be Republicans, racists, or both. But looking at the Age of Millennial Clusterfuck we've moved into, it's clear that the attempt of management to control anything in the chaos (and believe it or not avoid a tax revolt) is likelier to be stable under Obama than McCain. That's what the big money's been saying in the form of contributions and media messages for months. (The media always faithfully replicate the Republican talking points, but then turn around and celebrate Obama anyway, which is the key.)

    Either way, the Clusterfuck is coming and it may not matter who's playing president, by next year economic developments and geopolitical events will be dictating what happens, as usual.

    Anyway, except for the voting machine makers, I don't see that the power elite have that many means to intervene in the highly decentralized vote counting. They have campaign finance, 527s, and influence over the media, and these have favored Obama. If any of them want a "game changer" either way, my view is they're likelier to attempt it by engineering sudden surprising events. Precedents include international crises in countries most Americans discover just then, synthetic terror and Wellstoning.

    The operative power network for eight years, however, has been the Bush-Cheney-"World Domination Group"-PNAC-"IranContra Veterans" mob. Remember them? Having plundered on such an epic scale, I have no idea what they're thinking in terms of their collective and personal exit strategies, but you can be certain they are. No regime has ever been as obviously criminally culpable, from 9/11, Iraq and torture on down. Neither Obama nor McCain personally is going to go after them, but they probably want the most complete possible insurance against prosecutions down the line (which may hit a few of them chosen as scapegoats, if not the whole lot). Shit that gets them in trouble will yet come out and force at least some exposure or prosecutions, and the overall popular atmosphere is likely to be very, very angry henceforth. I'm sure those guys would feel a lot more secure with McCain. But again, besides trying to fix the vote count, they have so many other options for action. They have their hands on the steering wheel, after all. Wait and watch is all I can say.

    Okay, that all has cleared my mind a bit and no surprise, I'm back where I've been for months. I expect Obama is going to win, possibly even by a landslide that overwhelms all election fraud efforts.

    Then, there will be an almost certainly overwhelming effort, originating from the spook corner, to define the narrative and agenda of the incoming administration through a vast, "game-changing" crisis or event. This won't necessarily be another 9/11. I'm more inclined to think it will come out of an engineered international challenge. Bay of Pigs writ large.

    Or surprise, it might not be American-based hands after all holding the reins. It might be a run on the dollar or some other consequence of the global financial meltdown.

    If Obama is secretly a revolutionary (he's kept it veeeeerrry secret) who hopes to truly change things, or at least revive a New Deal for themiddle class, and if he's a gambler (including with his own life), he could down the line try having the DoJ effect exposures on 9/11 as a means to remove the mob's leverage on everything. In fact, it might be the only way to avoid being rendered powerless a la Carter (but worse). But I don't believe there's any chance he'd do that.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. NicholasLevis
    Member

    PS- It's very kind of you to express such anticipation of my response.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Now here's a good article exclusively on the "ground forces," again a bonafide and overwhelmingly GOP phenomenon. The article completely ignores e-fraud, and even subtly dismisses it at one point ("antiquated machines" are the problem), I believe that's because the authors would gladly and preemptively bend into baroque pretzels to avoid the horrid stench of "conspiracy theory." (Nowadays stealing elections is something you can report on with little fear of the CT accusation, but elections being stolen by a handful of hidden characters through the completely opaque means of computer code is still supposed to be a disreputable idea.)

    Anyway, the point is: the ground forces for fraud most indubitably exist and are doing their damndest.

    URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2363832...

    Block the Vote

    Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president?

    ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. & GREG PALAST Posted Oct 30, 2008 11:10 AM

    Video: Behind the Story With Kennedy Jr. and Palast

    These days, the old west rail hub of Las Vegas, New Mexico, is little more than a dusty economic dead zone amid a boneyard of bare mesas. In national elections, the town overwhelmingly votes Democratic: More than 80 percent of all residents are Hispanic, and one in four lives below the poverty line. On February 5th, the day of the Super Tuesday caucus, a school-bus driver named Paul Maez arrived at his local polling station to cast his ballot. To his surprise, Maez found that his name had vanished from the list of registered voters, thanks to a statewide effort to deter fraudulent voting. For Maez, the shock was especially acute: He is the supervisor of elections in Las Vegas.

    Maez was not alone in being denied his right to vote. On Super Tuesday, one in nine Democrats who tried to cast ballots in New Mexico found their names missing from the registration lists. The numbers were even higher in precincts like Las Vegas, where nearly 20 percent of the county's voters were absent from the rolls. With their status in limbo, the voters were forced to cast "provisional" ballots, which can be reviewed and discarded by election officials without explanation. On Super Tuesday, more than half of all provisional ballots cast were thrown out statewide.

    This November, what happened to Maez will happen to hundreds of thousands of voters across the country. In state after state, Republican operatives — the party's elite commandos of bare-knuckle politics — are wielding new federal legislation to systematically disenfranchise Democrats. If this year's race is as close as the past two elections, the GOP's nationwide campaign could be large enough to determine the presidency in November. "I don't think the Democrats get it," says John Boyd, a voting-rights attorney in Albuquerque who has taken on the Republican Party for impeding access to the ballot. "All these new rules and games are turning voting into an obstacle course that could flip the vote to the GOP in half a dozen states."

    Suppressing the vote has long been a cornerstone of the GOP's electoral strategy. Shortly before the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Paul Weyrich — a principal architect of today's Republican Party — scolded evangelicals who believed in democracy. "Many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo goo' syndrome — good government," said Weyrich, who co-founded Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. "They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

    Today, Weyrich's vision has become a national reality. Since 2003, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at least 2.7 million new voters have had their applications to register rejected. In addition, at least 1.6 million votes were never counted in the 2004 election — and the commission's own data suggests that the real number could be twice as high. To purge registration rolls and discard ballots, partisan election officials used a wide range of pretexts, from "unreadability" to changes in a voter's signature. And this year, thanks to new provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the number of discounted votes could surge even higher.

    Passed in 2002, HAVA was hailed by leaders in both parties as a reform designed to avoid a repeat of the 2000 debacle in Florida that threw the presidential election to the U.S. Supreme Court. The measure set standards for voting systems, created an independent commission to oversee elections, and ordered states to provide provisional ballots to voters whose eligibility is challenged at the polls.

    But from the start, HAVA was corrupted by the involvement of Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, who worked to cram the bill with favors for his clients. (Both Abramoff and a primary author of HAVA, former Rep. Bob Ney, were imprisoned for their role in the conspiracy.) In practice, many of the "reforms" created by HAVA have actually made it harder for citizens to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. In case after case, Republican election officials at the local and state level have used the rules to give GOP candidates an edge on Election Day by creating new barriers to registration, purging legitimate names from voter rolls, challenging voters at the polls and discarding valid ballots.

    To justify this battery of new voting impediments, Republicans cite an alleged upsurge in voting fraud. Indeed, the U.S.-attorney scandal that resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales began when the White House fired federal prosecutors who resisted political pressure to drum up nonexistent cases of voting fraud against Democrats. "They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments that would scare these alleged hordes of illegal voters away," says David Iglesias, a U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired in December 2006. "We took over 100 complaints and investigated for almost two years — but I didn't find one prosecutable case of voter fraud in the entire state of New Mexico."

    There's a reason Iglesias couldn't find any evidence of fraud: Individual voters almost never try to cast illegal ballots. The Bush administration's main point person on "ballot protection" has been Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney who has advised states on how to use HAVA to erect more barriers to voting. Appointed to the Federal Election Commission by Bush, von Spakovsky has suggested that voter rolls may be stuffed with 5 million illegal aliens. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is extremely rare. According to a recent analysis by Lorraine Minnite, an expert on voting crime at Barnard College, federal courts found only 24 voters guilty of fraud from 2002 to 2005, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast. "The claim of widespread voter fraud," Minnite says, "is itself a fraud."

    Allegations of voter fraud are only the latest rationale the GOP has used to disenfranchise voters — especially blacks, Hispanics and others who traditionally support Democrats. "The Republicans have a long history of erecting barriers to discourage Americans from voting," says Donna Brazile, chair of the Voting Rights Institute for the Democratic National Committee. "Now they're trying to spook Americans with the ghost of voter fraud. It's very effective — but it's ironic that the only way they maintain power is by using fear to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to vote." The recently enacted barriers thrown up to deter voters include:

    1. Obstructing Voter-Registration Drives

    Since 2004, the Bush administration and more than a dozen states have taken steps to impede voter registration. Among the worst offenders is Florida, where the Republican-dominated legislature created hefty fines — up to $5,000 per violation — for groups that fail to meet deadlines for turning in voter-application forms. Facing potentially huge penalties for trivial administrative errors, the League of Women Voters abandoned its voter-registration drives in Florida. A court order eventually forced the legislature to reduce the maximum penalty to $1,000. But even so, said former League president Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, the reduced fines "create an unfair tax on democracy." The state has also failed to uphold a federal law requiring that low-income voters be offered an opportunity to register when they apply for food stamps or other public assistance. As a result, the annual number of such registrations has plummeted from more than 120,000 in the Clinton years to barely 10,000 today.

    1. Demanding "Perfect Matches"

    Under the Help America Vote Act, some states now reject first-time registrants whose data does not correspond to information in other government databases. Spurred by HAVA, almost every state must now attempt to make some kind of match — and four states, including the swing states of Iowa and Florida, require what is known as a "perfect match." Under this rigid framework, new registrants can lose the right to vote if the information on their voter-registration forms — Social Security number, street address and precisely spelled name, right down to a hyphen — fails to exactly match data listed in other government records.

    There are many legitimate reasons, of course, why a voter's information might vary. Indeed, a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that as many as 20 percent of discrepancies between voter records and driver's licenses in New York City are simply typing mistakes made by government clerks when they transcribe data. But under the new rules, those mistakes are costing citizens the right to vote. In California, a Republican secretary of state blocked 43 percent of all new voters in Los Angeles from registering in early 2006 — many because of the state's failure to produce a tight match. In Florida, GOP officials created "match" rules that rejected more than 15,000 new registrants in 2006 and 2007 — nearly three-fourths of them Hispanic and black voters. Given the big registration drives this year, the number could be five times higher by November.

    1. Purging Legitimate Voters From the Rolls

    The Help America Vote Act doesn't just disenfranchise new registrants; it also targets veteran voters. In the past, bipartisan county election boards maintained voter records. But HAVA requires that records be centralized, computerized and maintained by secretaries of state — partisan officials — who are empowered to purge the rolls of any voter they deem ineligible. Ironically, the new rules imitate the centralized system in Florida — the same corrupt operation that inspired passage of HAVA in the first place. Prior to the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and her predecessor, both Republicans, tried to purge 57,000 voters, most of them African-Americans, because their names resembled those of persons convicted of a crime. The state eventually acknowledged that the purges were improper — two years after the election.

    Rather than end Florida-style purges, however, HAVA has nationalized them. Maez, the elections supervisor in New Mexico, says he was the victim of faulty list management by a private contractor hired by the state. Hector Balderas, the state auditor, was also purged from the voter list. The nation's youngest elected Hispanic official, Balderas hails from Mora County, one of the poorest in the state, which had the highest rate of voters forced to cast provisional ballots. "As a strategic consideration," he notes, "there are those that benefit from chaos" at the ballot box.

    All told, states reported scrubbing at least 10 million voters from their rolls on questionable grounds between 2004 and 2006. Colorado holds the record: Donetta Davidson, the Republican secretary of state, and her GOP successor oversaw the elimination of nearly one of every six of their state's voters. Bush has since appointed Davidson to the Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency created by HAVA, which provides guidance to the states on "list maintenance" methods.

    1. Requiring Unnecessary Voter ID's

    Even if voters run the gauntlet of the new registration laws, they can still be blocked at the polling station. In an incident last May, an election official in Indiana denied ballots to 10 nuns seeking to vote in the Democratic primary because their driver's licenses or passports had expired. Even though Indiana has never recorded a single case of voter-ID fraud, it is one of two dozen states that have enacted stringent new voter-ID statutes.

    On its face, the requirement to show a government-issued ID doesn't seem unreasonable. "I want to cash a check to pay for my groceries, I've got to show a little bit of ID," Karl Rove told the Republican National Lawyers Association in 2006. But many Americans lack easy access to official identification. According to a recent study for the Election Law Journal, young people, senior citizens and minorities — groups that traditionally vote Democratic — often have no driver's licenses or state ID cards. According to the study, one in 10 likely white voters do not possess the necessary identification. For African-Americans, the number lacking such ID is twice as high.

    1. Rejecting "Spoiled" Ballots

    Even intrepid voters who manage to cast a ballot may still find their vote discounted. In 2004, election officials discarded at least 1 million votes nationwide after classifying them as "spoiled" because blank spaces, stray marks or tears made them indecipherable to voting machines. The losses hit hardest among minorities in low-income precincts, who are often forced to vote on antiquated machines. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in its investigation of the 2000 returns from Florida, found that African-Americans were nearly 10 times more likely than whites to have their ballots rejected, a ratio that holds nationwide.

    Proponents of HAVA claimed the law would correct the spoilage problem by promoting computerized balloting. Yet touch-screen systems have proved highly unreliable — especially in minority and low-income precincts. A statistical analysis of New Mexico ballots by a voting-rights group called VotersUnite found that Hispanics who voted by computer in 2004 were nearly five times more likely to have their votes unrecorded than those who used paper ballots. In a close election, such small discrepancies can make a big difference: In 2004, the number of spoiled ballots in New Mexico — 19,000 — was three times George Bush's margin of victory.

    1. Challenging "Provisional" Ballots

    In 2004, an estimated 3 million voters who showed up at the polls were refused regular ballots because their registration was challenged on a technicality. Instead, these voters were handed "provisional" ballots, a fail-safe measure mandated by HAVA to enable officials to review disputed votes. But for many officials, resolving disputes means tossing ballots in the trash. In 2004, a third of all provisional ballots — as many as 1 million votes — were simply thrown away at the discretion of election officials.

    Many voters are given provisional ballots under an insidious tactic known as "vote caging," which uses targeted mailings to disenfranchise black voters whose addresses have changed. In 2004, despite a federal consent order forbidding Republicans from engaging in the practice, the GOP sent out tens of thousands of letters to "confirm" the addresses of voters in minority precincts. If a letter was returned for any reason — because the voter was away at school or serving in the military — the GOP challenged the voter for giving a false address. One caging operation was exposed when an RNC official mistakenly sent the list to a parody site called GeorgeWBush.org — instead of to the official campaign site GeorgeWBush.com.

    In the century following the Civil War, millions of black Americans in the Deep South lost their constitutional right to vote, thanks to literacy tests, poll taxes and other Jim Crow restrictions imposed by white officials. Add up all the modern-day barriers to voting erected since the 2004 election — the new registrations thrown out, the existing registrations scrubbed, the spoiled ballots, the provisional ballots that were never counted — and what you have is millions of voters, more than enough to swing the presidential election, quietly being detached from the electorate by subterfuge.

    "Jim Crow was laid to rest, but his cousins were not," says Donna Brazile. "We got rid of poll taxes and literacy tests but now have a second generation of schemes to deny our citizens their franchise." Come November, the most crucial demographic may prove to be Americans who have been denied the right to vote. If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat John McCain at the polls — they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering.

    Contributing editor Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the nation's leading voting-rights advocates. His article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" [RS 1002] sparked widespread scrutiny of vote tampering. Greg Palast, who broke the story on Florida's illegal voter purges in the 2000 election, is the author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. emanuel
    Member

    Palast has always dismissed and ridiculed electronic vote fraud claims. Do you really think avoiding the CT label is all that's going on here? I have wondered.

    And thanks for your long response. Yes, we will just have to wait and see, as usual.

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. emanuel
    Member

    Speaking of the "ground forces," here is someone actually going to jail.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/rigging.ele...

    Is this significant?

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Significant in what sense? It was fraud, but not election fixing.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Editing period ran out, so to continue:

    The case you cite was campaign sabotage with the motive of voter suppression, but not direct fixing of the vote count in the presidential race. I think a significant case would be one showing that the election actually went the other way, or else one that demonstrates machine makers intentionally fixing the count.

    I know of only one criminal case associated with the 2000 or 2004 frauds. Two Board of Elections workers were found guilty of violations in Cuyahoga County. They were actually Democrats. They sabotaged the recount initiated there by the Greens and Liberals, even though it was aimed at exposing possible fraud by the Republicans. They pre-selected three precincts to be sampled for anomalies, instead of picking these at random as required by the law. Apparently they didn't want to run the risk of triggering a full recount, which would have forced the staff to work many overtime hours during their precious holidays. And so we don't get to know if there was evidence of fraud in Cleveland.

    I think there's something paradigmatic in there about America: "The best are full of doubt," or in this case the lazy don't want to know shit, "and the worst are filled with passionate intensity."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. truthmod
    Administrator

    Mark Crispin Miller on DN today was pretty hard-hitting. The details he had on fraud were so specific I thought maybe he'd been setup with phony info...

    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/votes

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. chrisc
    Member

    Do you really think avoiding the CT label is all that's going on here? I have wondered.

    I expect we all have due to his past views on peak oil and 9/11...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. emanuel
    Member

    Nicholas,

    I thought it might be significant only in the sense that finally someone was getting prosecuted. It might signal a new willingness of the justice system to go after this issue, eventually leading to direct fraud (rather than spoilage) cases. Just me trying to find some hope again.

    As for the DN show, yeah, I wonder too how Miller got his info. Still, interesting that this is on DN. Does it appear to others like Amy was trying to distance herself from the claims?

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. emanuel
    Member

    Ok so this vote-flipping stuff seems to be getting out of hand. Check this out:

    http://bradblog.com/

    Could this be some kind of purposeful strategy to disrupt the election? Perhaps muddy the waters? It seems to be happening way too much. Or maybe it is a mass hysteria of some sort and is not really happening, i.e., "Karl Rove was hiding behind the voting machine. I saw him. I swear!"

    What is hard to believe is that these cases indicate:

    1. Intended electronic theft (they wouldn't flip the vote on the screen itself for the voter to see).

    or

    1. Accidental flaws (there's too many cases).

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. truthmod
    Administrator

    Bush Orders DOJ to Probe Ohio Voter Registrations

    http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/426-bush-orde...

    In a déjà vu moment from Campaign 2006, President George W. Bush again is asking his Attorney General to launch an investigation into the registration of hundreds of thousands of new voters, many of whom are expected to vote Democratic.

    Bush forwarded to Attorney General Michael Mukasey a Republican request that he intervene in the battleground state of Ohio to force 200,000 new voters to either verify the information on their registration forms or cast provisional ballots, which are often thrown out after the voter leaves the polling place.

    Similarly, two years ago when Bush feared Democratic victories in congressional races, the President “spoke with Attorney General [Alberto] Gonzales in October 2006 about their concerns over voter fraud,” according to a Justice Department Inspector General’s reported released earlier this month.

    In 2006, the White House and some congressional Republicans also put pressure on the Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys around the country to bring last-minute indictments against pro-Democratic voter registration drives.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. Diane
    Member

    Then there is the "third option," which is that the machines are not really in control of any specific political group, that the companies who control them technically just sell the fix to various bidders. Maybe the Hilary camp bought some fixes, but not enough, and the upcoming election will go to whomever purchases more state fixes than the other? The problem with this perspective is that there has been a massive cover-up of election rigging. The mainstream media won't touch the issue. The Dem leadership won't talk about it. Lawsuits have been dismissed. It's all being painted merely as "flaws in the system" yet the government isn't working to fix the flaws. This is strong evidence for a major political entity being in control of the machines, an entity strong enough to prevent a real investigation into past theft, strong enough to get the major networks to stop reporting exit poll results, etc.

    Why is this evidence of a single political entity being in control? Seems to me the above could also be consistent with many different guilty groups, none of whom want an investigation because they're all guilty.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.