November 04, 2004

Stealing Elections

OK, I'll go ahead and use the F-word: Fraud. I've heard it said that the Republicans would stop at nothing to win this one. In fact, Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold, the maker of audit-less electronic voting systems, pledged that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". What do you good people think of the likelihood that election fraud had anything to do with Bush's victory?

Posted by Norman at November 4, 2004 10:40 PM | US Politics | Technorati links |
Comments

For more info on voting fraud and the good people at Diebold, check out this site: www.blackboxvoting.org

Posted by: Avram at November 4, 2004 11:11 PM

I'd suggest that swaying (defrauding) election results in a battleground state is certainly possible, and evidence supporting that should be followed closely. Manufacturing an additional 3 million popular votes (real, individual votes) nationwide, however, would be a mighty impressive feat, for even the most dastardly manipulators. As much as we'd like the results to be different, claims of an illegitimate victory are less credible and less useful this time.

This individual tree I'm looking at might be interesting, but I can still tell what kind of forrest I'm standing in.

Posted by: Michael Dougan at November 5, 2004 12:13 AM

Michael has a point, but then again a bit is a bit and 3MM of them are as easy to flip as one, if it's done electronically.

Posted by: Norman at November 5, 2004 12:19 AM

Right. Which takes the idea from unlikely but, possible..with an already fragile grasp on credibility...straight over the cliff into paranoia.

Guarded and observant is one thing, but man, 3 million votes, accumulated from all 50 states, the overwhelming majority of these votes are not electronic. No reason to take what appears to be a legitimate defeat and taint it with self-serving speculation.

The "Bush Stole the Election" charge didn't get much traction the first time around (except to focus the resolve of activists and insiders) based on the reality of the results--a compellingly clear Kerry defeat--we can be sure it'll get less traction this time.

Posted by: Michael at November 5, 2004 02:05 AM

This really seems like a sidetrack right now. I really don't even want to read about it, because I've thought for a while that the Florida debacle distracted Democrats from noticing the erosion of support in what could be natural constituencies.

The energy spent fuming and wondering about things we'd never be able to conclusively prove could be better directed towards building broader support for our goals.

Posted by: natasha at November 5, 2004 02:44 AM

i'd say that most mulling over the sad corruption of this country's government is needless deliberation, and nothing new. if you are aware of what you stand for socially, your only real option is to go out there and fight for it. that means organization, action, and persistence.

i bring this up because mostly what i see on blogs is a lot of concern for politics, but almost no suggestions for how to effect change. AND, blogs are an important, unfiltered source of information...anyone whose going to spend time reading these things does not need to be told what a thousand other media outlets already have posted.

okay, that said, a rally is taking place Saturday, Nov. 6 at 1:00pm in Westlake park (Seattle). even had Kerry been elected, we would not feel much different right now. that's because there's a war going on...do we have to wait until there's a draft before enough people speak out against it? it took much more than that for Vietnam, let's hope we're a little smarter for it.

Posted by: luke at November 5, 2004 03:47 AM

natasha makes an excellent point. we are going to need all four years until 2008 to figure out how to get more democratic support. at this point, i would be very interested in organizing a brainstorming session. some questions to ask - who do we put forward for president in 2008? there has been a lot of talk about john edwards and hillary clinton, but are they our best candidates? how can we create more cooperation within the democratic party? in what ways can we talk about democratic values and morals? i personally think (and i can say this now without feeling particularly disloyal) that the kerry campaign spent a lot of time trying to stay in the middle and be "everything to everyone". this has been proven to be inneffectual at best, and offensive at worst. what's our new strategy?

Posted by: kelite at November 5, 2004 08:26 AM

On 11/2 at around 6:30 I called Ohio and likely FL for Diebold on Skippy's site.

See http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

The investigation is quiet. It has at least the two weeks that the OH count of absentee and provisional ballots take place in. There will be more on this. I still believe the counties with Diebold machines were vulnerable -- and still call it like I saw it 11/2.

Posted by: Scorpio at November 5, 2004 09:53 AM

Ok, that last hyperlink didn't work, so here it is again (for those to lazy to type it into their browser's address bar)

Posted by: Avram at November 5, 2004 02:34 PM

Seems an overwhelming response for not going there, but then I receive an email from a rather conservative friend from Ohio and it starts me to thinking that the wingnuts aren't above manipulating the voting system afterall (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6418513/). Partly reads "Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365." That's a 1200% error in a single county.

BTW, I don't buy the "lose your credibility" argument either. In a country in which the president can lie about going to war, the economy, the environment, etc., I don't think credibility has meaning anymore.

Posted by: Norman at November 6, 2004 12:14 AM

Questioning the meaning of the word crediblity (then dragging in subjective list of "Bush Lied!" examples) hardly makes the case that we just witnessed "another stolen election".

Like most here, I'm interested in the evidence, primarily. So far, it does suggest tampering and errors. Whether or not it adds up to distorting the election outcome significantly remains to be seen.

Will it lead to proof that Bush successfully stole the election? That Kerry had the votes and was the true victor? Few here are suggesting that, though a very small minority will always choose to believe so, regardless of the the actual results. Most however, if it proves to be valid (which so far, it appears to be) will accept the outcome of the election, and prepare for the next one.

Posted by: Michael at November 7, 2004 12:25 PM