2004 Results

Did Kerry actually win over 360 Electoral Votes?

Gore4US — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:56:17 -0400

Did Kerry actually win more than 360 Electoral votes?
This analysis shows why he very well may have.

In 2004 Bush officially won by 286-251 electoral votes. But who still
believes that reflected the True Vote?

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Kerry367

Assumptions:
1- 110.8m Census 2000 votes cast (105.4m recorded)
2- 125.7m Census 2004 votes cast (122.3m recorded)
3- Uncounted votes: Gore 75%
4- 2000 voter mortality prior to 2004: 5% Gore; 4.8% Bush
5- 2000 voter turnout in 2004: 95%
6- Kerry won 71% of Nader voters (12:22am NEP)
7- Kerry won 57% of DNV2k (did not vote in 2000)
8- Kerry won 10% of Bush 2000 voters; Bush won 8% of Gore voters
9- Mortality and uncounted vote rates were uniform in all states

Key Results
-----------
Popular vote:
Kerry Bush
67.3m 57.5m
53.5% 45.7%

Electoral votes:
367 171

Kerry won the following 11 states which were recorded for Bush:
AZ, AR, CO, FL, IA, MO, NV, NM, OH, TN, WV

The 2004 Election Simulation Model

Gore4US — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:42:21 -0400

The following contains a link to the 2004 Election Simulation Model: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2004ElectionSimulationModel.htm The model is based on four sets of polls:
(1) Pre-election State polls , (2) Pre-election National Polls (18), (3) Post-election State exit polls, (4) National Exit poll.
The model can be used to run simulations, calculate probabilities and perform "sensitivity analysis" to see the
effects of changes in assumptions on the electoral and popular vote.

The model provides a strong circumstantial case for those who believe the election was stolen.
Kerry wins all state and national pre and post-election simulations.

There are only two possible explanations: either the pre-election AND exit polls were wrong - or massive fraud occurred.

2004-2006 Election Fraud Analytics

Gore4US — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:29:04 -0400

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

2004/2006 Election Fraud Analytics

Dec.12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy. Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred. Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data. And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. “Voter fraud” has been shown to be a non-existent distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”. Voters don’t fix elections, election officials do. The corporate media was quick to dismiss claims of election fraud as a left-wing “conspiracy theory” and the statistical polling analyses of “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers”, The said that Bush won again, just like he did in 2000. Get over it. Move on. He won by three million votes. You can’t steal that many.

This is what Richard Morin, a Washington Post Staff Writer, wrote on Thursday, November 4, 2004. The article encapsulates the canard that the early exit polls were wrong because they did not match the final vote count, and therefore had to be adjusted accordingly. This is a clear implication that the election was fraud-free.

“An Election Day filled with unexpected twists ended with a familiar question: What went wrong with the network exit polls?... In two previous national elections, the exit polls had behaved badly. Premature calls by the networks in Florida led to a congressional investigation in 2000. Two years later, a computer meltdown resulted in no release of data on Election Day... Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use...That is why the early leaks anger Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research, which conducted Tuesday's exit poll with Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and the Associated Press…. After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics”.

They continue to maintain that pre-election and exit polls which indicated a Kerry win were biased, but have yet to provide plausible statistical evidence to back up their claim. Instead, they have resorted to tortured explanations: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; Gore 2000 voters must have lied or forgot when they told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush 2000; polls are not pure random samples; U.S. exit polls are not designed to detect fraud; early exit poll data was inaccurate because women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry; the GOTV campaign headed by Karl Rove mobilized millions of Christian fundamentalists for Bush, etc. None of these explanations are supported by factual data and have been thoroughly debunked.

They cited a post-election retrospective NES 600-sample survey as evidence that 7% of former Gore voters lied or forgot that hey voted for him when they told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000. They say it was due to a long-term Bush “bandwagon effect”: former Gore voters wanted to associate with the “winner” of the prior election. But Bush had a 48.5% approval rating on Election Day and Gore won by 540,000 votes. Why would Gore voters lie or forget more than Bush voters? Why would they claim to have voted for Bush when they knew he stole the election? Why would they forgive Bush? Was it because of his job performance?

They noted a built-in Democratic bias in the exit polls. But they dismiss the fact that in every election approximately 3% of total votes cast are uncounted, mostly in heavily Democratic minority districts. Although Bush “won” Florida in 2000 by an “official” 537 votes, there were 180,000 spoiled ballots (3% of the total cast) and thousands of other provisional and absentees which were never counted. Since more than 65% of the spoiled ballots were intended for Gore, he clearly won the state by at least 60,000 votes. Gore’s nationwide margin was two million if all the votes cast had been counted. But we know that in 2004 over 90% of reported electronic vote switching incidents were from Kerry to Bush and that an exhaustive statistical study indicated that 6.15% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County. So it’s reasonable to assume that in addition to the uncounted votes, a certain percentage of Gore votes were switched to Bush. The 2000 election was not even close, although the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was.

They claimed that the vaunted 2004 Republican GOTV campaign brought Bush millions of new Christian fundamentalist votes. But they fail to note that according to the National Exit Poll, the Democrats have won first-time voters in the last four elections by an average 14% margin. Ruy Teixeira wrote about it in The Emerging Democratic Majority.

They rejected the assumption that late undecided voters would break for Kerry. But pollsters Zogby and Harris, who have a combined 60 years of polling experience, indicated they voted 67-75% for Kerry. The National Exit poll also reported that Kerry won a clear majority of undecided voters. But this was not unusual; historical evidence indicates that undecided voters break for the challenger over 80% of the time, especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day.

They dismissed the significance of the Bush 48.5% approval rating on Election Day. But all presidential incumbents with approval below 50% lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush I) while all incumbents over 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton). The near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and national poll average share is further evidence. The correlation was confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%.

They insisted that Bush led the pre-election polls. But they failed to consider undecided voters. Final Zogby polls had Kerry leading by 50-45% in nine battleground states. Assuming that he would capture 75% of the undecided vote, Kerry was projected to win all 9 states by 53-46%. He won just 5 and his average margin was only 50-49%. The margin of error was exceeded in six states - a 1 in 52 million probability.

They also failed to use weighted averages in calculating national vote share based on state polling, claiming that Bush led the weekly state poll (unweighted) average. But except for the first two weeks in September, Kerry led the national weighted average based on state voting population from July to Election Day. Kerry also led the monthly unweighted national pre-election polls all year. The final weighted average of 51 state polls (Kerry 47.88-46.89%) was confirmed by the unweighted average of 18 national polls (Kerry 47.17- Bush 46.89%).

They refused to accept the fact that both state and national projections in the Nov.1, 2004 Election Model had Kerry winning the popular vote by 51-48%. But the projections were confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%. A Monte Carlo Simulation (5000 election trials) forecast that Kerry would win 320-337 electoral votes with 60-75% of the undecided vote - which he did if you believe the National Exit Poll and pollsters Zogby and Harris. The pre-election projections were confirmed in the Interactive Election Simulation Model by the state and national exit polls.

They overlooked the fact that 41 states favored Bush from the final pre-election polls to the recorded vote. But none of the 10 states which favored Kerry was a battleground state. Forty-three state red-shifted to Bush from the 12:22am exit polls. Oregon was the only battleground state which blue-shifted to Kerry – by less than one percent. It was also the only state in which all voting is done by mail. Was this all just a coincidence, a case of bad polling or a powerful indication that fraud occurred? You decide.

They cited “false recall” and non-response bias as explanations for the exit poll discrepancies. But they failed to account for the deviations between final pre-election state and national polls and the recorded vote. Exit poll non-response and false recall are not applicable to pre-election polls – and yet the pre-election polls matched the exits. The best evidence indicates that the “pristine” state and national exit polls were close to the true vote, unlike the final exit polls which were forced to match a corrupt vote count. All they can say is that the polls were wrong.

They hypothesized that the Final NEP 43 Bush / 37 Gore weights were due to “false recall” on the part of Gore 2000 voters who claimed to have voted for Bush 4 years earlier. But the weights were irrelevant and misleading since they were mathematically impossible. What is relevant is who the 2004 exit poll respondents said they voted for just minutes before.

They claimed that exit poll non-responders were Bush voters. But they cannot logically explain why a linear regression analysis showed that exit poll non-response increased going from the strongest Bush states to the strongest Kerry states, indicating that non-responders were most likely Kerry voters.

They said that the margin of error used in calculating probabilities of the exit poll discrepancies was too low. But even assuming a 50% “cluster effect”, the probabilities were still near zero. The exit poll discrepancy exceeded the margin of error in 16 states - all in favor of Bush. The probability: 1 in 19 trillion. Not a single state deviated beyond the MoE for Kerry.

They ridiculed the near 100% probability of a Kerry popular vote victory, claiming that the exit poll “cluster effect” and response bias invalidates the theoretical 1.0% margin of error. But a probability sensitivity analysis showed that even assuming a 50% increase in MoE, Kerry still had a 98% probability of winning a majority of the popular vote.

They maintained that exit polls are not accurate indicators since they are not perfect random samples. But pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the noted to the National Exit Poll that respondents were randomly-selected and that the margin of error was 1%. The MoE was confirmed for various exit poll samples in their NEP Methods Statement.

They claimed that the early exit polls were off and imply that the Final National Exit Poll was accurate. But the Final was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible weights and implausible vote shares. This implies that the recorded vote was fraud-free – not exactly a reality-based assumption.

They failed to appreciate the Law of Large Numbers and find nothing unusual about the fact that Kerry led the National Exit Poll by 51-48% at 4pm (8649 respondents), 7:30pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). But Bush won the 2pm Final NEP (13660) by 51-48% through the use of impossible weights and implausible vote shares which were required in order to match the recorded vote.

They ignored the astounding fact that all 22 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted from the exit poll to Bush and 12 deviated beyond the exit poll margin of error! But the probability of this occurrence is 1 in 32 trillion. The East is a vote-rich Democratic region and the most fertile ground for fraud. Of the 28 states outside the Eastern Time Zone, “only” 20 deviated to Bush while the margin of error was exceeded in “just” 4 states.

They dismissed the 12:22am NEP timeline (13047 respondents) which indicated that 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004 while 10% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry and claimed that twice as many Gore voters (14.6%) defected to Bush than Bush voters (7.2%) defected to Kerry. But this is not plausible if you believe that the Bush 48.5% Election Day approval rating means anything. This is just a last-ditch feeble attempt to justify the Bush recorded margin. And it means that they have no case.

They failed to explain how Bush found 16mm new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62mm in 2004. He had 50.5mm votes in 2000. But only about 46mm returned to vote in 2004. The decrease was due to two factors: 1) approximately 1.7mm Bush voters died (0.87% annual mortality rate) and 2) an estimated 2.5mm did not vote (95% turnout). According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% or 10.8 of 26.3mm new voters. He needed 60% or 15.8mm to reach 62. The 19% discrepancy was 11 times the 1.72% margin of error. The probability of the discrepancy is ZERO. It’s important to note that a solid majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush an approval rating much lower than his total 48.5% average on Election Day 2004. His approval rating has declined almost 1% monthly since Sept. 11, 2001 and is currently at 32%.

They need to explain how Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004, yet won a solid 57-41% share of new voters. Kerry won first-timer voters by 55-43% as well as others by 61-37%. Compare this to 2000: Gore won the popular vote, yet lost new voters by 52-44%. Gore won first-time voters by 52-43%, but Bush won others by a whopping 71-26%.

They claimed that 7% of returning Gore voters told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000 because of a long-term “bandwagon effect”; they wanted to “associate with the winner”. But this was just a last-ditch attempt to explain the mathematically impossible “Voted in 2000” weights. Even if Gore voters they lied, it was irrelevant. What is relevant is who they said they voted for just a few minutes earlier. And 91% said they voted for Kerry.

They argued against the conclusion that the NEP “Voted in 2000” weights (Bush 43/Gore 37%) were impossible and claimed that it was standard operating procedure to re-weight demographics based on incoming votes. But how can 43% (52.6mm) of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004 have been Bush 2000 voters when he only had 50.5mm votes in 2000? Furthermore, since approximately 1.8mm Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election, the maximum number of Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004 was 48.7 million, assuming an impossible 100% turnout. This physical, incontrovertible fact drove the naysayers wild. The longer they tried to refute the logic, the sillier they looked.

They had to accept an inconvenient truth: the Final National Exit Poll inflated the Bush vote by at least 4 million. The weights were contrived to force the exit poll to match the corrupted recorded vote. Even though the weights were mathematically impossible, the exit-pollsters had no choice but to use them. And they hoped no one would notice.

They finally agreed that the Final 2pm NEP “How Voted in 2000” weights were impossible and derived a set of feasible weights. But they had to compensate for the weights by inflating the Final NEP Bush vote shares in order to match the recorded count. This was necessary despite the fact that Final NEP Bush vote shares were already inflated in order to match the recorded vote. With feasible weights applied to the “pristine” 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 52.6-46.4% – a 7.7 million vote margin! Using feasible weights applied to the Final NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 51.2-48.4%. The 3.4 million vote margin more than reversed the Bush 3mm “mandate”!

They were forced to suggest this implausible Bush win scenario in the Democratic Underground Game thread:
1) 14.6% of Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush. But the 12:22am NEP reported 8%; it was increased to 10% in the Final in order match the vote.
2) Kerry won 52.9% of voters who did not vote in 2000. But the 12:22am NEP reported he won by 57-41%; it was reduced to 54-45% in the Final.
3) 7.2% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry. But the 12:22am NEP reported 10%; it was reduced to 9% in the Final.

They belittled a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which indicated that Kerry won all plausible scenarios of voter turnout and new voter share. But assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares and 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout, Gore voter turnout had to be 73% for Bush to tie Kerry and 64% to match the recorded 62-59mm vote.

They need to explain these implausible changes in Bush NEP vote shares from 2000 to 2004:
-The Bush share of male voters decreased by 0.2% while his female share increased by 4.2%
-His share of white females increased by 5.0% while his share of white males decreased by 0.9%
-His share of non-white females increased by 4.0%
-His share of female independents increased by 1.8% while his share of male independents decreased by 5.6%
Didn’t females vote 54-45% for Kerry? Didn’t over 90% of blacks vote for him? Weren’t independents for Kerry by 52-44? Why would independent males defect to Kerry at triple the rate that independent females defected to Bush? Didn’t Nader voters break 3-1 for Kerry?

They neglected to ask why six of the eight states which deviated to Kerry from the exit polls were strong Bush states: TN (1.63), TX (1.65), SD (1.67), ND (2.51), KS (2.37) and MT (0.22). The exit poll discrepancies (shown in parenthesis) were all within the exit poll margin of error. But only two competitive states deviated to Kerry: OR (0.75) and HI (1.25). Is it just a coincidence that Oregon is the only state which votes exclusively by mail (100% paper ballots), and that any discrepancy in that state would be small and could favor either Bush or Kerry? And is it just a coincidence that Hawaii was not exactly a critical state?

They agreed that the vote-rich battleground states would decide the election. But was it just a coincidence that six deep-red states deviated to Kerry and not a single blue state? Was it because Bushco did not want to explain the 50-state red-shift? Did they disregard the six states knowing that Kerry would not come close to winning them? Is that why they focused on thwarting a nationwide blue-shift in competitive states? The beast was in the East, the rest were in the West.

They claimed that the raw exit poll data which have not been made public indicates that there was no tendency for Bush to do better in 2004 relative to 2000 (“swing”) than he did in the 2004 exit poll (“red-shift”). They presented their analysis in a swing vs. red-shift scatter chart and concluded from the flat regression line that the exit poll discrepancies had little effect and therefore fraud was unlikely. But they did not considering the following factors: According to the 2004 National Exit Poll, Kerry won 71% of returning Nader voters compared to 21% for Bush. A similar split would have increased Gore’s margin by 1.4mm. Assuming that 75% of approximately 3 million uncounted votes were for Gore, his margin increases by another 1.5mm. When added to his recorded 540,000 vote majority, Gore’s adjusted margin becomes 3.4mm. And that does not consider the effects of vote-switching. Thanks to Ohio, we know a lot more about vote-switching than we did in 2000. It’s very likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. If 3% (1.5 million) were switched, then his final adjusted margin is 6.4 million: 3mm switched + 1.5mm uncounted + 1.4mm Nader + 0.54mm recorded.

They never normalized the 2-party state votes in calculating “swing”. But adjusted state swing (before vote switching) exceeded red-shift in 24 of the 43 states which deviated to Bush. Adjusted national swing was 3.0 (51.24-48.24). Based on the NEP How Voted in 2000 demographic, red-shift was 3.15 (51.24-48.09); based on Gender, it was 2.53 (51.24-48.71). But red-shift was just 1.75 (51.24-49.49) based on the weighted average state poll. This clearly indicates that the naysayer swing vs. red-shift argument is just another ruse meant to divert, confuse and mislead. With 3% vote-switching, Bush’s adjusted vote swing exceeded red-shift in 34 of the 43 red-shift states. A realistic linear regression analysis of swing vs. redshift shows that for every 1% increase in adjusted swing, red-shift increased by 0.6%.

They still maintain that the Ohio exit poll does not indicate fraud. But they ignored the massive documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, voter disenfranchisement. Not to mention that two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. They criticized the 12:22am Ohio exit poll (1963 respondents) which Kerry won by 52-48%, yet believe the 2:06pm Final (2020 respondents) in which demographic category vote shares were changed in favor of Bush to match the miscounted recorded vote. This was just like the final NEP in which vote shares were also changed to match a miscounted national vote. If the original weights were used, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels. How can they explain these Ohio exit poll anomalies?

-When Decided: Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%? Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the other 79%? Were there any Ohio pre-election polls which showed Bush leading by 10% at the end of September?

-Party ID: Democrat/ Republican weights changed from 38/35 to 35/40, a 7.9% shift. With the original 38/35 weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote, as opposed to his 8% at 12:22am.

-Ideology: Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/34 to 19/21, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote, as opposed to his 13% at 12:22am.

-Voted for Senate: Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate, as opposed to his 7% at 12:22am.

They ignored Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. Bush supposedly “won” Florida by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. But there was a 41- 37% Democratic registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) machine counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. In 2000, Bush “won” Florida by 547 votes, but Kerry must have won by at least 60,000, given his 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes. Kerry won TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47%, but Bush won OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Florida voter registration by party is consistent across TS and OS counties, so it’s not comparing apples and oranges. The total TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush (17,000 votes) and 0.31% for Kerry (12,000). But the Bush OS county share deviated by 9.0% (307,000) while Kerry’s discrepancy was 8.1% (278,000). The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%.

Why was there such a large vote share discrepancy in OS counties? Party ID weights for OS and TS counties were virtually the same. There was massive fraud in OS counties, but TS counties were hardly fraud-free. Assuming a 1.0% margin of error, the probability is 1 in 12.7 trillion that Kerry's total TS county vote share would exceed his total Florida share by 4.2%. Three distinct models indicate that Kerry won Florida by 221,000 votes. Two were based on voting machine type (optical scanners and touch screens). The models assume 2004 NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares with weights set to party registration percentage. Kerry won both scenarios by a total of … 221,000 votes. The third model was based on uncounted and switched votes applied to the 2004 recorded vote. Kerry wins by…. 221,000 votes. Considering that Kerry probably won 70,000 of 96,000 Nader 2000 votes (based on his 71% NEP share), he had a built-in 100,000 advantage on Election Day …assuming that all the votes were going to be counted.

They cited the final NY pre-election poll which Kerry won by 59-40 (matching the recorded vote) to support their argument that the pre-election polls did not match the exits (the NY exit poll was 64-35). But they failed to mention that the typical pre-election state poll has a 4% margin of error (600 respondents) while the corresponding exit poll has a 2-3% MoE, depending on the number of respondents so a 5% discrepancy between a given state pre-election and the corresponding exit poll is not unusual. In fact, the weighted average vote share of 51 state pre-election polls, adjusted for undecided voters, matched the weighted average exit poll vote share to within 1%.

They implied that the NY pre-election poll was accurate since it matched the recorded vote. But this is not plausible since the 2000 recorded vote was Gore 60-Bush 35-Nader 5 and the 2004 NEP reported that 10% of Bush2000 voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Assuming conservatively that the Bush/Gore defection rates were equal, the 59-40 recorded vote implies that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - an absolute impossibility. The NEP indicated that Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21. Allocating Nader 2000 votes and assuming equal defection rates, the 2004 recorded vote is Kerry 63-Bush 36. Allocating the 3% uncounted votes (75% Kerry/ 25% Bush) widens the vote split to 64-35, matching the exit poll. The True Vote Model determined that 7% of Kerry’s national votes were switched to Bush while a comprehensive analysis of total votes cast in Cuyahoga County (Ohio) showed that 6.15% were switched. Assuming that 4% of Kerry’s NY votes were switched, he won the state by 66-33%.

They have never explained why the Exit Poll Response Optimizer confirmed the USCV simulation. Both models analyzed summary exit poll data for 1250 precincts supplied by Edison-Mitofsky and independently debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. The Optimizer employed the Excel Solver algorithm to obtain a feasible 2-party vote share solution (Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%). The constraints included the actual recorded vote (Bush 51.24-Kerry 48.76%), along with response rates and within precinct error (WPE) categorized into five partisanship groupings: Strong Bush, Bush, Even, Kerry, Strong Kerry. The robust solution exactly matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll “Voted in 2000” demographic. Two independent mathematical methods applied to two distinct sets of national and precinct summary exit poll data produced the identical result.

They can try to refute the True Vote Model. The base case scenario determined that Kerry won by 66.1-58.4mm. The model was based on the 12:22am NEP vote shares, with feasible weights adjusted for 1) the 2000 recorded vote, 2) 3.5% mortality, 3) 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004. It assumed that 2.74% of total votes cast were uncounted, based on the 2004 Election Census which reported that 125.7mm votes were cast. Only 122.3mm were recorded, therefore 3.4mm were uncounted. Assuming that Kerry won 2.6mm of the uncounted votes (a 75% share), then 4.5mm (6.8%) of total votes cast for Kerry must have been switched to Bush to match his 66.1-58.4mm margin. By allocating the 3.4mm uncounted votes to each state based on its racial mix, the model also determined that Kerry won 336 electoral votes. This matched the Election Model Monte Carlo Simulation which was based on final state polling and 5000 election trials.

Except for the notorious 2006 FL-13 congressional race in which 18,000 mostly Democratic votes were mysteriously missing, the evidence of massive fraud in the midterm elections is hardly mentioned in the corporate media. But a Pew 2006 Election Analysis describes voting “anomalies” and computer “glitches” that occurred in virtually every state. The fraud probably cost the Democrats 10-20 congressional seats.

The 2006 National Exit Poll “How Voted in 2004” weights were changed from 47 Bush / 45 Kerry at 7pm on Election Day to 49/43 in the Final NEP at 1pm on the following day. Once again, just like in 2004, the exit pollsters had to match the vote count by expanding the weight spread from 2% to 6%! This had a major effect in cutting the Democratic margin in half - from 55-43% to 52-46%. As noted earlier, the 2004 12:22am NEP “How Voted in 2000” Bush/Gore weights (41/39) were changed to 43/37 in the Final at 2pm the next day, turning a 51-48% Kerry victory into a 51-48% loss.

If plausible 49 Kerry/ 46 Bush weights based on the 2004 NEP were used, the TRUE Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120 pre-election Generic Poll trend line. Was this just a coincidence or another confirmation that the pre-election polls matched the 7pm National Exit Poll? You decide.

Major Swift Boat Donor To Kerry: "You're A Hero"

Bob Geiger — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:44:19 -0500

There are some things that you just don’t want to read about or watch on a full stomach -- this is one of those.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to consider the nomination of Sam Fox, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. While it is not unusual for big political donors to be rewarded with ambassadorships -- and Fox is a huge donor to all things Republican -- what made everyone take note of this guy is that Fox gave a whopping $50,000 to help fund the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against John Kerry in 2004.

And in being questioned by the Senate panel yesterday, Fox had to face one of the senior members of that committee in… Senator John Kerry.

What followed was riveting theater, with Kerry coldly staring down a clearly-nervous Fox and Bush's nominee withstanding a barrage of questions from Kerry that the Massachusetts Senator nicely referred to as questions of Fox's "judgment" while many of us would have just flat-out called him a scumbag.

It all started out nicely, with glowing introductions, including one nauseating passage from Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) who said that "professionally and morally, Sam is eminently qualified to hold the post for which he's been nominated."

But it gets far worse than just hearing someone rave about the high morals of a guy who gave 50 grand to the Swift Boat Liars.

Kerry got his turn to question Fox and started out politely enough, praising Fox's up-by-the-bootstraps life story and his generosity with non-political charities, while also asking him about American foreign policy vis-à-vis the European community.

The tone then changed sharply when Kerry switched gears and, indicating he had concerns about Fox's judgment, said "I assume that you believe the truth in public life is important."

"Yes, sir," answered Fox.

"And might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics, as regards the politics of personal destruction?" said Kerry.

This started a lengthy monologue from Fox in which Bush's nominee railed against how campaigns are funded in the United States, saving most of his bile for 527 groups, saying " I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I think, again, they're mean and destructive, I think they've hurt a lot of good, decent people."

I'm sure some people in the hearing room must have been stifling laughs hearing something like that coming from a man who was a major contributor to the scummiest 527 group ever, but the worst was to come in the next few sentences.

"Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this country," said Fox. "I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you. But yet 527s tried to."

Here's the exchange that followed:

Kerry: I certainly appreciate the comments you just made, Mr. Fox, and I'm not looking for anyone to call me a hero. I think that most heroes died, and do die, and those of us who are lucky enough to get out of there are lucky.

But notwithstanding the comments you made, you did see fit to contribute a very significant amount of money in October to a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, correct?

Fox: Correct.

Kerry: Why would you do that given what you just said about how bad they are?

Fox: Well, Senator, I have to put it in the proper context and bear with me. Marilyn and I have lived the American dream -- there's no question about it. My father came here with the clothes on his back and the Fox family and the Woodman family have truly lived the American dream that's been very, very good to us.

I heard someone mention here that we gave to 250 charities. I also went back and had my staff count in '05 and '06, we've made more than 1,000 contributions. More than 100 of those were political, 900 and some odd were charitable and to institutions of learning and so forth. A great deal of those had to do with basic human needs. I think it was Senator Danforth who mentioned every time he got a letter that had Harbour Group on it, he shuddered because it was going to cost him money. Marilyn and I both raise a lot of money from a lot of people.

The point I'm making is this: We ask a lot of people for money and people ask us for money. And very fortunately, we've been blessed with being successful financially and when we're asked, we generally give -- particularly if we know who gave it.

Kerry: So, well, who asked you to give to the SBVT?

Fox: I can't tell you specifically who did because, you know, I don’t remember. As a matter of fact, if I…

Kerry: You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?

Fox: I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to.

Kerry: But you have no recollection of who asked you to give away $50,000?

Fox: No, sir. I've given away sums much larger than that to a lot of other places and I can't tell you specifically who asked me, no.

Kerry: Well, you don’t think that's it's important as a citizen, who doesn’t like 527s to know where your money is going and how it’s going to be spent?

Fox: Well, I think with most contributors and if you go to the other side of the political campaigns and we give to individual candidates, we don’t know how they’re going to use that money and what…

Kerry: Well at least it's accountable to an individual candidate for whom people have to vote or not vote. 527s as you said are mean, ugly and not accountable.

Fox: I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that.

As Kerry pressed Fox to explain why he would give $50,000 to a 527 group when he claims to despise them so much -- and that he now knows spewed lies at Kerry that were quickly discredited -- the Swift Boat Sugar Daddy repeated a theme he used several times in his testimony, which is essentially that he did it to level the playing field with the attacks coming from liberal 527 groups.

In other words, he all but said Kerry was simply collateral damage in a political fight.

Kerry: Why would you give $50,000 to a group you have no sense of accountability for?

Fox: Well, because if 527s were banned, then it's banned for both parties. And so long as they’re not banned…

Kerry: So two wrongs make a right?

Fox: Well, I don’t know, but if one side is contributing then the other side…

Kerry: But is that your judgment? Is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship? That two wrongs make a right?

Fox: No, I didn’t say that two wrongs make a right, sir.

Kerry: Why would you do it then?

Fox: Well, I did it because politically, it's necessary if the other side is doing it.

And no matter what Kerry asked, Fox played dumb, saying he forgot who asked him for the $50,000 and that he had no clue that the Swift Boat Liars were doing such dirty deeds with his money.

Kerry: My question to you is why? When you say you couldn’t have known -- these were people very publicly condemning it. How could you not have known?

Fox: I guess, Mr. Senator, when I'm asked I just generally give.

Kerry: So, again, I ask you the question, do you think now that you and others bear responsibility for thinking about where we put money in American politics? What we're saying, what we present to the American people -- is truth important or isn’t it?

Fox: Senator, if I had reason to believe and if I were convinced that the money was going to be used to, in any untruthful or false way, knowingly, I would not give.

Kerry: Well, sir, let me ask you this question: Did you or did you not in any of the public comments being made at the time, which I assume you were following, hear or read of any of the public statements at that point in time, with respect to the legitimacy of these charges and these smears?

Fox: Mr. Senator, I can say this…

Kerry: Did you miss this: In September of 2004, Vice Admiral Ruth, with the Navy Inspector General, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy that was made public -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, every major newspaper in the country carried, saying their examination found that the existing documentation regarding my medals was legitimate.

Did you miss that too?

Fox: I don’t remember those, but I'm certain at the time I must have read them.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who was chairing the meeting, told Fox that he found his answers to Kerry "somewhat unsatisfying" and said that "The swift boat ads were of a different degree, even in the ugly arena of politics. They were extraordinarily well publicized, that there was essentially a fraud being perpetrated on the American people. It had a profound impact on the election."

And Obama tied a nice bow around the whole afternoon by basically calling Fox, who spent the entire time disavowing any knowledge of the Swift Boaters' mission or methods, a liar.

"To say that you gave because it's ugly out there and somebody asked you to give. I mean, it sounds to me like you were aware of it -- that this was not the best of political practices -- and you thought it was OK to go ahead and contribute to that," said Obama. "By the time you contributed, it was pretty widely noted -- it would have been hard for you to miss the fact that there was something particularly nasty and insidious about these ads. It had been well publicized at this point."

"I don’t think you necessarily crafted the message but you certainly knew at that point what the message was."

I have a lengthy, partial transcript here of Kerry questioning Fox about his involvement with the Swift Boat Liars and how that lack of ethics and judgment should disqualify Fox from representing our country at a cocktail mixer, much less with an important ally abroad.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

2004 Stolen Election Update - the Ohio Recount Prosecutions

CactusPat — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:11:36 -0500

A most thorough review of the fraudulent 2004 Ohio recount...

Do new Ohio recount prosecutions indicate unraveling of 2004 election theft cover-up? by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman January 19, 2007
Three criminal prosecutions in Ohio's biggest county have opened with strong indications that the cover-up of the theft of the 2004 presidential election is starting to unravel. Prosecutors say these cases involve "rigging" the recount in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), where tens of thousands of votes were shifted from John Kerry to George W. Bush, or else never counted. Meanwhile, corroborating evidence continues to surface throughout Ohio illuminating the GOP's theft of the presidency. According to the AP, County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter opened the Cuyahoga trial by charging that "the evidence will show that this recount was rigged, maybe not for political reasons, but rigged nonetheless."...(more) Baxter said the three election workers "did this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months" on the recount.

Jacqueline Maiden, the county election board's third-ranking employee, faces six counts of misconduct involving ballot review. Rosie Grier, the board's ballot department manager, and Kathleen Dreamer, an assistant manager, are also charged. All three are on paid administrative leave, and are being supported by the county board of elections.

The county prosecutors do not allege vote fraud. No do they say mishandling the recount affected the election's outcome.

But Cleveland, which usually gives Democrats an extremely heavy margin, was crucial to Bush's alleged victory of roughly 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million counted. Some 600,000 votes were cast or counted in Cuyahoga County. But official turnout and vote counts varied wildly and improbably from precinct to precinct. Overall the county reported about a 60% turnout. But several predominantly black precincts, where voters went more than 80% for Kerry, reported turnouts of 30% or less. In one ward, only a 7% turnout was reported, while surrounding precincts were nearly ten times as high. Independent studies indicate Kerry (lost) thousands of votes in Cuyahoga County that rightfully should have been counted in his column.

In the Cuyahoga case, the poll workers are charged with circumventing state recount laws that require a random sampling of at least three percent of the votes cast in a given precinct, to be recounted by hand and by machine. The prosecution charges that the workers instead hand picked sample precincts to recount that they knew did not have questionable results. Once they were able to match those recounts with official results, they could then do the rest of the recount by machine, in effect rendering the entire process meaningless. "This was a very hush operation," said prosecutor Baxter.

Similar allegations have been made in other counties. Indeed, such illegal non-random recounting procedures appear to have been common throughout the state, carried out by board of election employees with the tacit consent of Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell was officially charged with administering the election that gave Bush a second term while simultaneously serving as the Ohio co-chair of his Bush's re-election campaign. Blackwell has just been overwhelmingly defeated in his own attempt to become governor of Ohio.

Defense attorney Roger Synenberg, who represents Dreamer, told the jury that the recount was an open process, and that his client and the others "were just doing it the way they were always doing it."

The Ohio recount was forced by the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, which raised over $100,000 to cover costs. They charge the recount was fraudulent due largely to the kinds of irregularities with which the Cuyahoga poll workers are now charged. Those charges carry sentences of up to 18 months in prison each, and include failure to perform duties imposed by law; misconduct; knowingly disobeying elections law; unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks; and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots.

But the trial in Cleveland represents just a small sampling of what happened during the Ohio recount. At a public hearing sponsored by the Free Press in Toledo in December, 2004, sworn testimony claimed that Diebold technicians were party to picking the "random" precincts to be recounted. At least one of the precincts lacked a memory card for the recount using the optiscan machine.

In Miami County, election officials admit that they did not recount to the official vote total, but merely ran the optiscan ballots through the ES 550 counter, and then counted them to see if they matched the machine count. In essence, what they did was a test of the counting machine, not a recount to the actual reported votes. Miami's procedures were thus as illegal as those in Cuyahoga.

Indeed, when the Free Press audited all the recount ballots from Miami County, we found the so-called recount results differed noticeably from the official results. If these differences in results were discovered at the recount in 2004, Ohio law should have triggered a hand recount of all ballots in the county. That was never done.

In Fairfield County, when the recount totals wouldn't match, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell recommended Sam Hogsett, an ES&S employee, to assist with the process. Despite complaints from a Democratic election officer, Hogsettt worked the central tabulator and counter. Hogsett somehow managed to make the recount match, thus avoiding a full manual recount.

Hogsettt is on record in a local newspaper saying that he would like to shoot a “liberal” so the liberal would learn that it wasn’t the gun that killed him, but the shooter, Hogsett. Green Party recount coordinator Paddy Shaffer complained to Delaware County election officials about Hogsett's presence during the recount and his constant use of the computer. Her complaint has had no apparent impact.

In Hocking County, Board of Elections Deputy Director, Sherole Eaton was fired after she submitted an affidavit to U.S. Rep. John Conyers outlining how Hocking BOE officials pre-selected one precinct because it had the "right" number of voters (3%), thus illegally prescreening like Cuyahoga County. Eaton also complained that a Triad technician showed up unannounced on recount day and offered her a "cheat sheet" for the recount. He just happened to have a hard drive for a 12-year-old Dell computer that served as Hocking County's central tabulator. The county's official central tabulator went down mysteriously just prior to the recount. Eaton said the Triad technician installed his hard drive and told the election officials that the recount would match up perfectly if they didn't turn off the computer. Eaton has not been restored to her BOE position, and there has been no full recount in Hocking County.

In Coshocton County, Green Party recount observer Tim Kettler acquired public records showing that election officials pre-counted in secrecy in clear violation of Ohio law. Coshocton BOE officials desperately begged Secretary of State Blackwell for advice when the recount did not match. Blackwell's office urged the county to simply send in the results as official. But after being confronted by angry recount observers, Coshocton BOE officials became the only ones in Ohio to hand count every ballot. The recount resulted in a statistically significant vote pickup for John Kerry among previously uncounted ballots.

In part due to widespread public revulsion over his conduct of the 2004 election, Blackwell was soundly beaten in the 2006 gubernatorial race by Democrat Ted Strickland. Ohio also now has a Democratic Secretary of State and Attorney General. Whether they will conduct further investigations into what really happened in 2004 remains to be seen.

But a federal court decision has preserved the ballots from that election. Whether further legal charges come from the new administration in Columbus remains to be seen. But the Cuyahoga prosecutions provide more evidence that we still don't have a reliable vote count for the election that gave George W. Bush a second term.

--
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org), and, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, published by the New Press.

Also see our original blog post on this - Two Cleveland Election Officials Indicted For Felonious 2004 Recount

Visit FreePress for all the latest dirt on Ohio (s)elections, not only on stolen election 2004, but stolen election 2006 as well...

Dems Admitting 2004 Election Stolen

davidswanson — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:40:13 -0400

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2963

Congresswoman 'Apologizes' for Not Taking Allegations of Stolen 2004 Election Seriously!

Was it Stolen? 'Only Answer is Yes,' says Schakowsky who Claims DCCC to Announce Steps Soon to Avoid 'Repeat Performance'

EXCLUSIVE: Complete Text of Prepared Remarks from today's 'Take Back America' Conference…

I just got off the phone with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) who reportedly wowed 'em a few hours ago during her speech (posted in full below) on the closing afternoon of the "Take Back America" conference being held in Washington D.C.

In her remarks, Schakowsky apologized for "not taking seriously enough the allegations that the 2004 election was stolen." She now feels it was, and claims that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) will be launching an initiative. From today's speech:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2963

Apathy Is for the Elderly

davidswanson — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:31:54 -0500

According to the Associated Press, "the kids rocked after all. Nearly half of all eligible young voters cast ballots in the November 2004 election, raising their turnout rate by more than twice any other age group." Read More.

Two Cleveland Election Officials Indicted For Felonious 2004 Recount

CactusPat — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:37:42 -0400

Stolen Election 2004 just won't go away, 'cause Bush's Grand Larceny Democracy is just too large a crime to cover-up... this COULD open the floodgates to state-wide prosecutions of election theft in Ohio...

(newsnet5) BOE Employees Indicted In 2004 Presidential Recount - Women Charged With Disobeying Election Laws Two Cuyahoga County Board of Elections employees were indicted Tuesday on charges stemming from the 2004 presidential election recount. Rosie Grier and Kathleen Dreamer have been indicted on six counts each. The charges include failure to perform duties imposed upon them by law, misconduct of Board of Election employees, knowingly disobeying elections law, unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks, and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots. If convicted, the women could spend up to four years in prison each...

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has more in depth coverage -

)2 elections officials indicted in recount Two Cuyahoga County elections officials were indicted Tuesday on charges of not handling ballots correctly during the recount of the 2004 presidential election. Kathleen Dreamer, manager of the board's ballot department, and the assistant manager, Rosie Grier, were each charged with six counts of failing to follow Ohio laws that spell out how ballots are selected and reviewed during a recount. The most serious charges carry a maximum of 18 months in prison. Erie County Prosecutor Kevin J. Baxter conducted the investigation at the behest of Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, who recused himself from the case because his office represents the elections board. The charges stem from a complaint first raised last December by Toledo lawyer Richard Kerger, who watched over the recount on behalf of two third-party candidates. Kerger charged that elections officials failed to randomly select precincts that were supposed to be counted by hand and compared against ballots tabulated by a machine; conduct test-runs before witnesses; and investigate discrepancies between vote totals. Baxter would not offer details of his investigation but said he examined allegations that officials took "measures in order to all but assure that there would not be a countywide hand count." Cuyahoga County's four elections board members issued a statement defending their employees and the voting process. "These allegations are based on interpretation of procedures, not on any suggestion of fraud," they said. Dreamer and Grier could not be reached for comment. Roger Synenberg, who represents Dreamer, said the charges are unfounded. He accused Baxter of failing to fully examine the board's procedures and interview all potential witnesses. "It's impossible to investigate this in a three-day grand jury investigation," said Synenberg, a former longtime elections board member. "He took the word of a few people at the board who don't understand the process." Synenberg asked Baxter last week to turn over all evidence to U.S. Attorney Greg White. "Calling into question the integrity of a national election requires that a thorough investigation be completed by the federal authorities," Synenberg said in a letter to Baxter. Baxter said Tuesday that he "thoroughly and exhaustively investigated this" during almost three days of testimony. He said he even allowed a witness suggested by Synenberg to testify Tuesday morning. Baxter said the indictments will probably end his investigation. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: mnaymik@plaind.com, 216-999-4849

Hopefully these two birds will sing and help bring down Blackwell's whole corrupt vote stealing machine.. stay tuned! update: Things are also cooking in the 2004 recount fraud arena in New Mexico... see New Mexico Court Hears Presidential Recount Dispute for more...

Stolen Election 2004: Thursday update

Bob Fertik — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:46:05 -0500

On Wednesday, Ohio's 88 counties finally finished counting the votes, including 156,977 provisional ballots. That's 1,640 more than the 155,337 total reported on Election Day. (Did Republicans need to manufacture 1,640 new votes to keep Bush in the lead? We'll be watching.) Officials validated 121,598 of those ballots, or 77%. For some mysterious reason, Ken Blackwell won't break out the provisional ballot totals separately - what is he hiding? But the diligent folks at Ohio Voter Suppression News did the math and found a net gain of 17,977 (including the Election Night computer error in Franklin County of 3,893 for Kerry). By my tally, Bush's lead is now down to 118,506.

Blackwell will spend the weekend alone with all the data, secretly deciding what to report on Monday. We need some Democratic lawyers to visit Blackwell's office immediately to make this phase completely transparent!

Kerry lawyers are watching like hawks, according to MSNBC - which seems to be the only media outlet (besides Democrats.com and Air America Radio) paying attention to Ohio.

A Kerry spokesperson tells First Read that Kerry's move to join the recount effort in Ohio "was the next step in ensuring that no county is excluded from the recount in Ohio, to ensure an accurate statewide count happens swiftly -- it was important to add the campaign's heft to that effort."

The "swiftly" part is the crux of the issue. According to Knight Ridder,

Any recount wouldn't start until Dec. 11. That would leave only about 24 hours to find enough invalid votes to reverse Bush's victory in Ohio before the state's presidential electors vote for him on Dec. 13, which would seal his re-election.

That may be true in George Bush's imaginary world - but not in Reality-Based America!

The important legal precedent is the fascinating story of the 1960 Presidential race in Hawaii. On Nov. 17 2000, Richard Nixon was certified as the winner by 141 votes. But Democrats charged voting irregularities and demanded a recount. On Dec. 2, Circuit Court Judge Ronald B. Jamieson examined one precinct and found a discrepancy of 45 votes in Kennedy's favor. After finding more problems, Jamieson eventually ordered a statewide recount. While the recount was proceeding, Hawaii's Electors met on Dec. 16. The "official" Electors for Nixon cast 3 votes for Nixon, but 3 other Electors for Kennedy voted for JFK. On Dec. 27, Jamieson declared Kennedy the winner by a 115 vote margin. Hawaii's Democrats brought these results to Congress, and on Jan. 6, 1961, the presiding Vice President - Richard Nixon - appropriately ruled in favor of JFK's Electors!

The important popular precedent is unfolding right before our eyes - in Ukraine.

Ohio will have a statewide recount, thanks to the Glibs. If Kerry ends up with more votes, Kerry's Electors will be the only legitimate Electors.

And even if Kerry does not end up with more votes, attorney Cliff Arnebeck will force federal judges to examine powerful evidence of fraud - including the systematic disenfranchisement of black voters by deliberately allocating too few machines and creating impossibly long lines. If a judge rules fraud did occur, we will make sure Washington looks exactly like Kiev, with millions of us surrounding the Capitol in January demanding Kerry be sworn in.

Which is exactly what we tried to do in 2000, but there were too few of us - a handful of members of the Congressional Black Caucus (memorably depicted at the start of Fahrenheit 9-11), along with Democrats.com, VoterMarch.org, Citizens for Legitimate Government, and a handful of other small groups. But this time, we will not be alone!

Speaking of 2000, the woman whose idiotic butterfly ballot cost Al Gore 20,000 votes and the White House - Teresa LePore - was back in the news yesterday.

After Palm Beach voters finally threw her out of office by defeating her on Election Day, she was hoping to enjoy a lavish going-away party at taxpayer expense in Orlando. But Bev Harris & Co. had other ideas. After filing a lawsuit in Palm Beach, they paid a "surprise visit" to the Harris fete in Orlando, sneaking in through the hotel kitchen.

Harris went onto the podium and introduced herself to the crowd. "I know I'm interrupting. This will only take a minute." She turned to LePore, "Since we can't get your attention any other way, I'm serving you with a courtesy copy of the lawsuit we served on your office this morning."

LePore glared, turned her back on Harris, and refused to take the lawsuit, so Harris set it on the table in front of LePore.

Stephenson stood up in front of the crowd of perhaps 200 Florida elections officials.

"This was a courtesy call on Ms. LePore for failing to produce public records," he said. "For any of you who have not complied, we have more of these coming."

Black Box Voting has identified 13 Florida counties who have earned litigation due to failure to comply with public records requests.

The elections officials erupted into deafening shouts, boos, gavel-pounding, and then Wynne stepped up smack dab in front of the crowd, took a sturdy stance and panned the crowd with her video camera.

"This is what democracy looks like," she said, as the officials scowled and shouted for the sergeant at arms.

Unfortunately, the sergeant at arms was nowhere to be found. (Perhaps imbibing in the Sequoia Voting Systems lounge, just down the hall? We may never know.)

What a hoot! Just for entertainment value, Bev's tapes will be priceless. I assume that's why she won't share them with Keith Olbermann, who went after Bev in his blog:

The usefulness of that videotape to the immediate issue at hand - were there widespread failures of the electronic voting systems in this country on November 2nd, and if so, were those failures enabledby any malfeasance - has an expiration date. If they show irregularities, if they show public servants at their worst, even if they’re guerrilla-style political confrontations, they have a public value - an urgent one.

Have you seen them?

What Ms. Harris has left herself open to is a charge that as much as any interest she has in the justifiable public concern over our most precious right - the right to a reliable, honest election - she may also have an interest in making her own documentary, on her own schedule, for her own purposes.

C'mon Bev, you can at least let Olbermann broadcast a teaser and give us all some holiday cheer!

As for Bev's latest prey, Madame Butterfly will not fade quietly into the woodwork when she leaves her job as Supervisor of Elections. Instead, she will move from the henhouse to the fox's house - as an election-fraud investigator at the Palm Beach County State Attorney's office! This may be the most convincing proof yet that the 2004 election in Palm Beach was actually stolen, as the Berkeley study suggested.

LePore's pals, Florida's other 66 election supervisors hatched a scheme to steal future elections by abolishing neighborhood voting precincts and substituting an 11-day voting period at county-run voting centers.

Taking a cue from this year’s two-week early voting period, supervisors of elections meeting this week in Orlando are proposing to do away with a single Election Day in favor of an 11-day election period.

Under that plan, which must be approved by the state legislature, voters could cast ballots over a span of several days or weeks.

An estimated 2.3 million people cast ballots during the 15-day early voting period this year.

However, because of the overwhelming response, voters had to wait sometimes for hours in long lines to cast their ballots.
Instead of being assigned to a precinct, voters would be allowed to cast their ballots at “voting centers” throughout the county.

To prevent crowds, those voting centers would be staffed with more personnel and voting machines than were assigned during the early voting period.

State Sen. Ron Klein said he doesn’t feel Election Day should be done away with, but early voting should be refined and improved.

The major consequence of this change would be to make it harder for poor people with limited mobility to vote, since voting centers will be further from home. Of course, keeping poor people from voting would suit Republicans to a T. If Florida truly wants to make voting more convenient, why don't they simply adopt the Oregon system of 100% voting by mail?

Lay Off Mayor Newsom

Karl Frisch — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:49:45 -0500

As the saying from Network goes, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

As if "losing" the Election last week wasn't bad enough, now I have to sit and listen to people blaming San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for our electoral woes.

Moral this and moral that. Values this and values that. Evangelicals this and evangelicals that.

According to dictionary.com, morals arise from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.

How can we expect anyone watching this election cycle to know exactly where the Democratic Party stood on the issue of marriage equality?

While the Republicans had a clearly misguided stance, no one could accuse them of wavering in their bigotry.

Don't blame Gavin Newsom.

Mayor Newsom did something few Democrats are willing to do today. He stood firmly behind his beliefs and as a result I predict his margin will not only improve among liberals but moderate voters as well when he's up for reelection.

You see voters don't necessarily want someone they agree with 100% of the time, they want consistency and commitment.

We Democrats are easy to attack on moral issues (and many others) because we continue to nominate candidates that equivocate to appease the supposed swing vote. Equivocation equals weakness in the eyes of the voters whether or not this weakness actually exists.

I'm not asking our party to deny the complexity of issues like George W. But if we refuse to nominate charismatic, plain spoken, candidates with clearly defined principles and beliefs last week's election is only a precursor of what's to come down the road.

When half our Senate and House candidates campaign across the country saying they don't support FMA because they see it as a state issue it not only infuriates the right but confuses the middle and left. Republicans are left thinking our candidates support Gay Marriage and Democrats are left thinking they think the state should outlaw it. Where is the morality in this position?

Imagine if you will our Democratic candidates saying they don't believe the Federal Government should sanction slavery because our FEDERAL constitution should never encourage discrimination. Further more, they believe our states should be left to handle this issue because, as the theory plays out, they are better suited to discriminate.

I defy you to find a shred of logic or morality in this approach.

If we can't stick to our progressive morals how can we expect to match the right on the moral issues?

Had the Democratic Party been as clear and consistent as the Republican Party we'd be able to blame San Francisco... but we weren't. Until we are, we should all lay off Gavin Newsom.