READER COMMENTS ON
"Miami-Herald Talks About E-Voting Fraud - Out Loud!"
(37 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Shan de Bayou
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:29 pm PT...
Keep it coming y'all. I'm beginning to think their may be more than "6 or 7" of us...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:54 pm PT...
{ed note: The following comment from "Mark Cook" is very cleverly disguised disinformation. Normally it would earn deletion, but since "he" went to all the trouble to source it and all --- a rarity for the wingnut disinfo experts --- I'll leave it stand for your education along with this caveat as a warning: Reader Beware. BF}
============================
From Mr. Steinback's article:
"In certain heavily Republican counties, John Kerry received fewer votes than obscure Democrats running in statewide elections. In Butler County, for example, a retired black judge from Cleveland in a long-shot race for state Supreme Court got 61,000 votes. Kerry got 54,000."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0315-20.htm
This Democrat Judge got more than he should have?? This is a paper ballot county. BradBlog should use the Freedom of Information Act and recount those paper ballots.
We have allegations that Diebold stole Ohio. Every Diebold machine in the state of Ohio for 2004 used a paper ballots.
http://verifiedvoting.or...te=ohio&county=Lucas
http://verifiedvoting.or...e=ohio&county=Hardin
BradBlog should use the Freedom of Information Act and recount this county.
We now have a third arrest for not following the laws on recounts in Cuyahoga County. It turns out that the board specifically asked to review the recount procedures. Democrat Attorney Bill Mason said that those procedures were correct. Turns out that there was no recount because of those procedures. Was there no recount because the Democrats did not want one?? Did they stuff that ballots boxes in this county??
"The Board operates under the advice and counsel of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office. The Prosecutor's Office was specifically asked to review the recount procedures consistently utilized by the Board since 1982. The Board was advised to continue operating under the precedent used for more than two decades. Unfortunately, this same process has now resulted in indictments based on alleged procedural defects."
http://www.wkyc.com/news...ticle.aspx?storyid=40043
"Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, a Democrat who has been mentioned as a possible attorney general candidate, turned the grand jury probe over to special prosecutor Sammon in February."
http://www.enquirer.com/...News_mday_treasurer.html
It is time for BradBlog to use the Freedom of Information Act and recount Cuyahoga County.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/15/2006 @ 1:12 pm PT...
If the election for Gore and/or Kerry was fraudulent, then we need to stop picking on and persecuting them for "having a loosing campaign strategy".
Some bloggers here argue it both ways. These macho folk like to put down the "spineless" democrats. Why? Because they were defrauded and victimized? Who knows, it makes no sense.
Or we can have a neutral comprehension and focus on what the people want now. Look to the future and to November.
The polls say the people want to replace republicans with democrats. The amount this poll is holding at is double digit and growing.
And those are people who do not know about election fraud because the MSM, with few exceptions like Steinback, do not tell them about it.
The bloggers here need to be reminded that if a fraudulent election took place that makes the democrats victims of crimes.
And yet some here continue to say they will continue to victimize these victims.
I am with the American people, and I want the democrats to replace the republicans in November.
It is the correct and American thing to do. Give the victims back what was stolen from them, and stop badgering them.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Tim Bishop
said on 3/15/2006 @ 1:23 pm PT...
Dear Mr Steinback:
Bravo for treating this subject! It is absolutely crucial that our country set this right. Your appeal to republicans that we don't want a cheater's arms race was especially good.
I have been reading Brad's blog for a while now. He specializes in the issue of voting problems. Some of the stuff just blows my mind, what went on in Ohio especially. How can 'they' get away with even the appearance of it? What would it take for the press to focus on the actions of Secretary of State Blackwell, for instance? Would he have to be sending out red shirted death squads riding on elephants into democratic districts to get and hold their attention?
Also Kudo's on the article about the Scholars for 9/11 truth. That got me reading their papers, escpecially by the physicist Jones. I am a chemist with lots of physics and math under my belt, and his argument is very strong that the WTC buildings were imploded by controlled demolition. The other top members of the organization are all very sober and serious people, - not tin foil hellicopter beanie types at all. It is my hope that their movement gains traction in the near future. They are having a big conference this June. A chance for more publicity.
Thanks and good luck with your next undertaking!
TB
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Joan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 2:05 pm PT...
Good article! I sent Mr. Steinback a thank you, and said I was glad that he had mentioned the Bradblog & tireless warrior-for-truth Brad Friedman (and he's modest, too, lol!)
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 3/15/2006 @ 3:49 pm PT...
This is great Brad! , I wonder what the new owners of the Herald will think and do with a story like this when they get their noses in the business
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 3/15/2006 @ 4:00 pm PT...
Oh, I see,they've already dumped him
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Bob Bilse
said on 3/15/2006 @ 4:42 pm PT...
This article is the kind of thing we need to be seeing.
Too many people out there have no source to the information that these machines are unaccountable and hack-able. They know nothing about widespread voter disenfranchisement, which is just as diabolical.
If they don't see it in the papers, or on the TV, far too many people in this country are willing to believe that nothing's wrong at all.
Something is very wrong. We need a couple of hundred more Robert Steinbacks out there, but how are they going to get past the tycoons that own the press in this day and age?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
**'Expose Tom Feeney'**
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
__www.clintcurtis.com__
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Arry
said on 3/15/2006 @ 4:49 pm PT...
Brad --- Of course, that's Common Dreams, not Common Cause.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Roger
said on 3/15/2006 @ 6:45 pm PT...
The Steinbecks of this country need to stand up. Get more of these stories in the MSM. Congratulatins to you Mr. Steinbeck. I tried to send you a thank you with the link but it came back unsent. Sorry. Hope you read Brad Blog on a regular basis now. One of the few not afraid to tell it like it is.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/16/2006 @ 4:23 am PT...
"wingnut disinfo experts". Brad, that is a nice diversion from the real point.
In Florida 2000, there was the claim that Volusia County, Florida "lost" 16,000 votes for Gore. He asked for, and received, a full manual recount of the county. We found that he was not cheated.
Keith Olberman claims that 5 paper ballot counties may have been stolen for Bush in the 2004 election.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6442857/
Wouldn't a simple manual recount of those paper ballots prove one way or the other??
What about Diebold and Ohio for 2004?? Every Diebold machine used in the state had a paper trail. Again, a simple manual recount would prove the point.
Butler County, Ohio, the same applies.
Where is the media? Where are the Democrats?? Where is the NORC???
As soon as someone calls for a manual recount, you run for the hills. What are you scared of Brad?
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/16/2006 @ 5:43 am PT...
Brad #11
Thanks for the heads up about "Mark Cook". I had not read his stuff.
I have read his stuff now and he is a medium to lite troll.
I feel quite confident that Savantster, BVAC, Big Dan, Floridiot, Peg C, Jo, RLM, Kira, Peggy, Arry, Joan, Czarazorn, Catherine A, et alia, will shine some light into the darkness of his presentation in due time. If he sticks around.
Mark Cook #2, #12
These misarguments you have made here have not addressed polling science. You know, that stuff the Bush regime quoted to raise holy hell about the elections in other countries.
"... the exit polls, which were funded by the United States ..."
Which the cheaters in the Ukraine did not like, and said:
"These polls don't work," said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for Yanukovych. "We will win by between 3 to 5 percent. And remember, if Americans believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be president." (link here)
That science concerns and focuses on exit polls. Around here we are many notches above Rush Limbaugh level, and all the way up to the tools of political science, not political pseudo-science.
The exit polls were so devistating and revealing, as we have discussed for several years here, that the Bush regime demanded that they be adhered to in the Ukraine Election, but like the cheaters in the Ukraine, said the exit polls in America were just polls. The same science works in the Ukraine, but not in America, according to bu$hit doctrine.
Can you say hypocrisy, double standard, disingenuous, corrupt, liars, and crooks?
I refer you to BBV and to VR if you really want to get some depth into your understanding of voting machine issues. Time magazine calls BBV work "the gospel of the movement".
Hey ... we do political science here ... not tin hat kool aid Rush Limbaugh mantras of deceit. Be forewarned ... as a courtesy.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/16/2006 @ 6:06 am PT...
Dredd, please by all means, bring them on, I welcome the debate.
You can call me a "wingnut disinfo expert" or a "medium to lite troll", but that does not address the point that I have made.
What is the use of demanding that we all use paper ballots, if we are not going to use them to prove the validity of an election?
Which "political science" theory says that evidence that would prove a claim should be ignored?
What is it that you don't like about manually recounting these ballots???
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/16/2006 @ 6:54 am PT...
Mark Cook #14
One of the indiscretions trolls do first is to put everyone into a single bag.
Not everyone here is against good machines, but in general, everyone here is against bad machines.
Especially bad voting machines that have been proven ad nauseum to be flawed to the point of incredulity that anyone would support them.
So, in this climate, many are saying the safest thing to do, since election officials in general are technology challenged, is to use paper ballots and hand counts and hand recounts as needed.
That is reasonable.
If you research the links I gave you, where the experts are, you will find out that when paper ballots are used, then tabulators (bad machines) are used to count the votes, the fact of paper ballots becomes irrelevant.
If there is a bad machine anywhere in the link, it is the weak link, and that makes the entire election area subject to fraud.
And the greatest election fraud in history has been done by bad machines.
Machines that are the servants of the fascism that is running amok in the United States.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/16/2006 @ 9:04 am PT...
Dredd #15.
First, let me help you out here. When you get tried of calling me a troll, go ahead and start calling me a dirty sob. Just as calling me a troll doesn't bolster your argument, neither will calling be a sob. But it might might help you feel as if your arguments are superior.
Second, no system is fraud proof, thus the reason why we would want a paper trail that can be audited.
As you wrote: "If you research the links I gave you, where the experts are, you will find out that when paper ballots are used, then tabulators (bad machines) are used to count the votes, the fact of paper ballots becomes irrelevant."
History shows us that this is a defeated point. Again, let me take you back Volisua County Florida in the 2000 election. Were those ballot irrelevant??? Of course not, they proved that Gore was not cheated.
The same applies to Ohio and Florida's paper ballot counties in 2004. A simple manual recount would prove these claims. But to this day, no one who is making these claims is willing to prove them. And when I have made this common sense suggestion, I get labeled a "troll" or a "wingnut disinfo expert".
You have dodged this question several times. Why don't try to deal with my point and answer the question?
What is it that you don't like about manually recounting these ballots???
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
PetGoat
said on 3/16/2006 @ 9:37 am PT...
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but it seems to me the Green Party is STILL trying to get a recount in New Mexico. Of course since they flushed the memories of the electronic machines, the point is moot.
Re: the Miami Herald article. Note the ad disguised as a poll at the bottom of the page. Are you happy Bush won? Yes or No?
Right after the election these ads were all over the internet, reinforcing the meme that Bush won. I wonder who paid for them?
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/16/2006 @ 10:15 am PT...
Mark Cook #16
When you do as a troll you are a troll, and when you do not you are not. You control that. I will call your behavior at the keyboard what it is. No more, no less.
I did not reply to your citation of one county because one county is not one country. The exit polls I have cited, and you have ignored, is the big picture. Your citation of one county is a small picture, and about 1/3000 th of the reality.
I do not wish to major in the minors.
You asked "What is it that you don't like about manually recounting these ballots???
I did not say that and I do not appreciate lame straw man arguments.
It is my understanding that manual recounts of machine votes are illegal in Florida, but that is one interpretation. Do you think manual recounts of machine totals is legal in Florida?
I strongly urge manual counts and manual recounts, without any machines whatsoever. The reason is not that I am paranoid or biased against machines ... at all. If election machines were the product of bi-partisan entities and were fully inspected and tested to the degree avionics are, I would favor using them in a secure election environment.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/16/2006 @ 10:28 am PT...
Response to PetGoat #17
(Disclaimer: I am about to give a link to the truth on this matter. But of course, it will involve the Democrats, and how they have blocked this recount. I am sure this will bring on Brad's wrath. Let me go ahead and issue this warning. When you read the report from the Green Party, you are free to ignore it, because, afterall, it was posted by "wingnut disinfo expert".)
First, in 2004, New Mexico used a mixed system. Some e-voting, some paper ballots. You are right, some machines will not be able to be audited.
But further, the state (1 of 27 so far) has since passed a bill requiring paper ballots (Verified Voting has not included Maryland at this point).
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Second, yes, the Green Party is still trying to get a recount, but according to them, the Democrats have been blocking the recount. In fact, these same Democrats have erased the e-voting machines so that they cannot be checked.
"Democratic Officials Block the Recount
New Mexico's Democratic Governor Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron were against the recount effort from the start, possibly because much of the alleged fraud happened in Hispanic precincts. Although the alleged fraud seems to have helped Republicans, having a recount would cast a shadow on the state's two highest-ranking Hispanic Democrats. Governor Richardson has presidential aspirations, and Ms. Vigil-Giron currently serves as national president of the National Association of Secretaries of State."
and
"January 14, 2005
New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron authorized county election officials to clear voting machines despite pending appeals that could result in a recount of November 2 votes. Cobb and Badnarik objected, and filed a request for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent clearing of the voting machines.
http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/new_mexico/
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/16/2006 @ 11:05 am PT...
Dredd #18
I have gotten my point across. If you still need the name calling as a crutch, then by all means please keep it up.
The exit poll argument has been defeated long ago. Democrats such as Mark Blumenthal warned about using raw exit poll data.
"2) The mid-day numbers do not reflect weighting by actual turnout - the end-of-day exit poll used to assist the networks in determining winners will be weighted by the actual turnout of voters at each selected precinct. The weighting will then be continuously updated to reflect turnout at comparable precincts. In the past, mid-day numbers have reflected a weighting based on past turnout, so the leaked mid-day numbers may tell us nothing about the impact of new registrants or the unique level of turnout this time. One point needs emphasis here: even in past elections, networks never called an election based on raw exit poll numbers alone. They were first weighted by a tally of the full day's turnout at each sampled precinct. This end-of day data is (obviously) not available at 12 noon."
http://www.mysterypollst.../11/exit_polls_what.html
Dredd wrote: "1) It is my understanding that manual recounts of machine votes are illegal in Florida, but that is one interpretation. Do you think manual recounts of machine totals is legal in Florida?"
Yes, manual recounts can be ordered by the courts under Fla. Stat. 102.168 (2005).
In close elections, manual recounts are also available under Fla. Stat. 102.166 (2005).
And of course, after the fact, if the media is not satified, they can use the Freedom of Information Act to gain access.
The point that I am making is that while not all of the allegations can be proven, several can be proven or disproven. But the Democrats, the media, ect, have set on their hands, and not taken the opportunity to prove these claims.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 3/16/2006 @ 12:14 pm PT...
Shan de Bayo - Sssh...don't tell anyone!
Arry - Thanks. Corrected
Dredd - With due respect to your worthy campaign of late, if you're responding in this case to "Mark Cook", see the "ed note" warning I've now added to the top of his comment.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/16/2006 @ 2:13 pm PT...
Mark Cook #20
Can I call you Mark?
You said "The exit poll argument has been defeated long ago".
Mark, "the" is not anywhere near an honest address of exit polls. There is no "the" ... there are reams, books, university classes, and a long history proving exit polls are science.
Here are some Phd's who labor in that science:
Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department; Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President; Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania; Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin; Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah; Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame; Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University; Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University; Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University.
You must be more intellectually honest than that. The folk who blog here, whether readers or posters, include the most competent and expert people in this arena.
Please do not play the role of an idiot commenting on matters of great import with one line bullshit like that. It will put an end to our 'debate' and you will fade into history ... like a troll should.
Can't you do better than that? I am hoping so.
Mark, exit polls are science, not argument. Let me refer you to a quote from a Phd. who teaches political science, and specifically, issues related to the science:
"Exit polling is a well-developed science, informed by half a century of experience and continually improving methodology. Accurate prediction of election results with exit polls involves three steps: (a) In each state a set of representative precincts is chosen that mirrors the state as a whole in demography and historic voting patterns. (b) Voters from those precincts are randomly selected for polling as they exit the polling place. (c) In constructing a prediction for statewide outcomes, algebraic weightings are used to correct for the observed demographic composition of the sample. For example, responders are re-balanced by race and gender in this process to assure a representative sampling of the state" (link here, bold added).
In my post to you I pointed out that the US Government paid for the exit polls in the Ukraine election, to prove that fraud had been committed. They paid for exit polls, not because "the exit poll argument had been defeated long ago", as you falsely or mistakenly claim, but because it is science.
If you cannot acknowledge that exit polling is a science, then we are finished. You are a jerk troll who cares nothing for truth, a whore who wants to spread lies, and you are done with here.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss the science of exit polling, and the import of it in any election, then we can proceed.
But be forewarned, I do not waste my time with lame trolls.
So what is it Mark?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/16/2006 @ 8:51 pm PT...
Dredd #21.
First, a little house keeping. You start off in a civil manner, but within a few paragraphs, you go right off the deep end.
"If you cannot acknowledge that exit polling is a science, then we are finished. You are a jerk troll who cares nothing for truth, a whore who wants to spread lies, and you are done with here."
Let me get this straight. If I disagree that exit polling is a science, then it follows that all I want to do is spread lies. What kind of logic is this??? I post a link to the Green Party discussing the Democrats blocking recounts in New Mexico. Using your logic, this post must be false because I disagreed with you on the point of exit polls. Did the Green Party really lie because I disagreed with you?
Then we have the link to Verified Voting. They claim that 26 states (it should update to 27 as soon as they count Maryland) have enacted laws that require paper ballots. But again, if I disagree with you that exit polling is science, then this link is also a lie.
Do I need to cite more examples of the fallacy of your comment?? In the beginning of this thread, I thought that you gotten past your need for a crutch in your discussions, but apparently I was wrong.
For the record, I don't care if exit polling is considered an art or a science. For this discussion, it does not matter. That is just an attempt on your part to have an excuse to leave the discussion. All I care about is reporting the correct numbers. But if it makes you feel better, yeah, yeah, exit polls is a science. :rolleyes:
My point still stands. Using unweighted numbers does not prove your case. Your cite from uscountvotes.org says that Kerry was up by 3%, the full exit polls show Bush up by 3%.
"On Election Day, the "national" exit poll had Kerry ahead by three points (51% to 48%) at 3:59 PM and by the same margin (51% to 48%) at 7:33 PM when the polls were closing on the east coast. By 1:33 PM the following day, the completed, weighted-to-match-the-vote exit poll showed Bush leading (51% to 48%). These numbers had been previously reported by the Washington Post's Richard Morin and Steve Coll on November 3."
http://www.mysterypollst.../01/those_leaked_pd.html
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 3/16/2006 @ 9:19 pm PT...
MARK COOK - For a start, I'm unable to read all comments, and reply continuously in older threads. Please do not take my lack of reply in comments as anything more than I likely didn't see your comment to reply to.
Secondly, you intimated that being critical of Dems would incur my wrath. You couldn't be more deluded.
That said, you conflated Dems who blocked proper recounts in NM (which they did, and for which I have been justly critical if you look back through these pages) with Dems blocking proper recounts in OH, which they didn't. Aside from not calling for recounts themself. Of which I have also been justly critical of them.
In another comment you prove your very clever disinfo ability, by suggesting that the count in 2000 in Volusia was hunky-dory. It was not. And legit counts of the entire state (no, Gore never got a complete one in Volusia, as far as I know) showed that indeed Gore did get screwed as there were more votes for him than for Bush.
Finally, you are very good at creating strawmen arguments, as with this one:
What about Diebold and Ohio for 2004?? Every Diebold machine used in the state had a paper trail. Again, a simple manual recount would prove the point.
Butler County, Ohio, the same applies.
Where is the media? Where are the Democrats?? Where is the NORC???
As soon as someone calls for a manual recount, you run for the hills. What are you scared of Brad?
Scared of nothing. I'd be delighted to see a full manual recount of Ohio! The Greens and Libs tried exactly that, and were thwarted by Blackwell and friends at every turn.
Indeed they are still fighting for that recount, and I support them on it.
And if you think Blackwell would ever allow any such thing (he didn't the first time, and was happy to violate state law to avoid it in the bargain) why would he do so now?
But, by all means, bring it on. Make your public records request for those ballots (you won't get them), even if they're just in "Democratic areas" and I'll be happy to help support your manual recount of them! Sounds great to me!
Beyond that, be very careful with your comments as they are clearly meant as both mis and disinfo, but I've let them roll for now since I'm too busy, frankly, to delete each and every one of them, only to give you "evidence" that I am attempting to hide something.
And no, it makes absolutely no difference to me that Mark Blumenthal is (as you say) a Democrat. He was wrong on the Exit Polling matters as he was wrong on the Ohio '05 matters. Look it up here and over at his site if you're not clear what I'm referring to.
If he's a Democrat (and I have no idea if he is or not), he would seem to come from the Zell Miller / Joe Lieberman / Hilary Clinton side of the party... which I have absolutely no interest in.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/17/2006 @ 5:59 am PT...
Brad #23
Brad, just because YOU don't know what happened in Volusia County, does NOT make my point an attempt at disinformation. Facts are Facts. Some of us are more up to date than others. You seem to have a knee jerk response to those who test your knowledge.
"Nov. 14:
With full machine recount and Volusia County's hand count completed, Bush has a lead of 300 votes on this deadline day. A state judge upholds the deadline but says further recounts can be considered later. Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, a Republican, gives counties until 2 p.m. on Nov. 15 to give reasons for them."
http://www.post-gazette....n/20001217pztimeline.asp
"Tuesday, Novermber 14
*A Florida county circuit judge upholds the 5 p.m. deadline but Palm Beach decides it will resume its recount tomorrow. Miami-Dade County decides not to conduct a full hand recount. The county does a manual recount of one per cent of the votes but it shows little change from the original results.
Volusia County finishes its hand recount by the 5 p.m. ET deadline, with Gore gaining 90 votes."
LINK
"TUESDAY, NOV. 14:
Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rules that the state should collect returns from all 67 counties by the 5 p.m. deadline. But he says counties still counting ballots by hand after the deadline can make a case for filing the results late and Harris must consider each request. Palm Beach County decides to start recount next day; Volusia County completes its recount; Miami-Dade votes against full hand count.
Harris says official results, except for overseas ballots still to be counted, put Bush 300 votes over Gore in the state. She gives counties until 2 p.m. the next day to justify why she should accept late returns."
http://www.courttv.com/a.../111500-timeline_ap.html
What makes this fact "clever disinfo"? Here are three sources that say it was finished, I can come up with many others. You say there was something wrong with Volusia's manual recount, but you never say what it is??
Further, Why are YOU spreading disinformation? Your point that "legit counts of the entire state" showed that Gore was screwed. That is utterly false. No such recount exist. The NORC did not complete a full recount of the state, nor did they check all of the "spoiled ballots".
"NORC reported serious problems with record keeping at many local election offices. NORC relied on these offices to produce the rejected ballots, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECI...allots/stories/main.html
Is this your attempt at "clever disinfo?? You point is NOT factual, it is myth. You may not like me, you my not like my point of view, but I bring LINKS it to support my claims. I DO NOT make them up. And I EXPECT the same from you. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to pass of these myths as fact.
Second, If the press, or the Democrats, were interested, they could again hire the NORC to do a recount in the state of Ohio. If they wanted to prove the reliablity of Diebold voting machines, it only takes a recount of Lucas and Hardin County (only two counties to use their machines). Or if they wanted to check the state (81 of 88 counties used paper ballots), it could be done.
That is not a "strawman's argument", you start your "disinfo" rant over my simple solution to this dispute. I am glad to see that you support such a count. How would Blackwell be able to stop the exercise of the Freedom of Information Act?
And yes, Blumenthal is a Democrat, or at least he claims to be.
"Finally, I understand completely the frustration of Democratic partisans with the election results. I'm a Democrat too. Sure, it's tempting to engage in a little wishful thinking about the exit polls. However, to continue to see evidence of vote fraud in the "unexplained exit poll discrepancy" is more than wishful. It borders on delusional."
http://www.mysterypollst.../11/the_freeman_pap.html
Last, Hillary is not on the Miller/Lieberman side of the party. Hillary is far left, Lieberman is middle left, and Miller is on the right (conserative) side of the party. I am not sure where Blumenthal would fit, nor am I sure that it matters.
I will check to see what you have on Blumenthal.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
Arry
said on 3/17/2006 @ 1:16 pm PT...
Oh, the Freedom of Information Act! I'll email David and his lawyers right away. Whop! Why didn't we think of that?
I'll have to say Mark's one-liners are a hoot.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/17/2006 @ 4:53 pm PT...
Arry #25
"Oh, the Freedom of Information Act! I'll email David and his lawyers right away. Whop! Why didn't we think of that?"
I am assuming that are talking about David Cobb. This suit has moved to the point that he is challenging the recount laws in the state. Why would he want to abandone this suit, and spend his money on recount of type?? Especially when there are others who could put in the time and money without taking away from his suit.
http://votetrustusa.org/...mp;id=962&Itemid=113
"I'll have to say Mark's one-liners are a hoot."
What is a hoot is that you such a simple concept goes right over your head. Have you never heard of Florida and the recount by the NORC? Have you asked yourself why such a recount has not been conducted this time?? Have you asked yourself why other groups have got involved??
Just exactly, what part of this simple concept do you fail to grasp?
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Arry
said on 3/17/2006 @ 9:44 pm PT...
Mark - Absolutely. I'm very simple-minded, and I'm failing to understand some of the concepts you are putting forth. Can we concentrate on Ohio for the time being as you did bring up the subject?
Maybe you can answer some questions just to bring some of us simple-minded BB readers up to speed. Because, dogone it, it doesn't add up to us benighted hicks considering that your links and, excuse me, what seem to be laughably simple-minded one-liners, are a drop in the ocean of credible links and articles we've seen delineating fraud and election shenanigans, overwhelmingly perpetrated by Republicans.
-- Have you ever looked into why David Cobb brought suit to begin with? - which is more meaningful to our purposes than looking at the current status of his suit. I mean, in detail? Why was he not interested in a "recount of type", do you think? (Freedom of Information, you know - something I'm sure Mr. Cobb is well aware of.) Your link - which I am quite familiar with - is good in explaining this in part the first part of the question, thanks.
What is the difference between a standard legal recount and "recount of type"? (I know - simple-minded, but I'm sure an explanation would help many BB readers.)
Have you read (to name three prominent reports), in detail, the Conyers Report, the Fitrakis book on the Ohio election, the statistical work of Dr. Stephen Freeman? Just wondered because - as an example - your cavalier and inadequate brushing off of Dredd's interest in exit polls and focusing entirely on a "recount of type" looks like, excuse me again, an attempt to ignore the multiplicity and specific nature of irregularities (and look like you're not) that are the bases of these reports, the underlying intent and reason of Mr. Cobb's suit, and so many other things. You wouldn't have an "agenda" would you?
Come to think of it, Dredd's probably right in his assessment.
(BTW, BB'ers, you know I'm a big fan of Tom Tomorrow. Check out his latest skewering of "Nitpickers". We may be dealing with a slick version of that breed here. Not worth the time looking for it with my slow dialup, but it's on target, as usual. Maybe Brad can find it.)
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/18/2006 @ 1:12 am PT...
Arry #27.
First things first. My agenda? Two fold.
First, I voted for the first time on e-voting machines in 2004. I have been around computers for 30 years. I don't trust them. I want a paper ballot, that I mark, and that can be manually recount if the need arises.
I have called both of my US Senators, and Congressman, asking them why the VIVA 2005 has not been pasted (Vertified Voting said this bill is the best one out there).
Dredd doesn't trust the machine voter counters, fine, let's hand count them all FAIRLY (we don't need another Miami-Dade 2000 style recount).
Second, I don't believe Diebold stole Ohio for Bush. I don't believe that any of these paper ballots machines stole the elections. If I am wrong, I want is proved to me with an actual manual count. I don't believe this can be proven by an "ocean of credible links and articles".
What is more convincing to prove fraud? A study of exit polls? Or a manual recount??
A news article, or blog, ect, that quotes the CEO of Diebold saying that he was going to deliver Ohio to Bush? Or a manual recount of every ballot that was counted by Diebold machines in the state?
I would believe that we would both agree that a full and fair manual recount would prove the point. You may view this as "a laughably simple-minded one-liner", but am I wrong?? Would that not answer the question?
What does it take to get a manual recount in the state of Ohio?
According to Ohio Code, ......"If a recount is conducted, the contest must be filed within 10 days after the recount is certified. The contest procedure is set forth in R.C. 3515.08 - 3515.16."
We both know what has happened on this suit, and the questions surrounding the recount laws. Even if he wins the suit, and a recount is conducted, the results are non-binding.
The public/media can conduct their own non-binding recount. If it is accepted as full and fair, it can be used to prove fraud just as can a "legal" recount.
What is the next step? A couple of options. One is laid out here:
https://bradblog.com/archives/00002063.htm
Which links to:
http://www.mysterypollst.../11/ohio_update_the.html
"Following the completion of the canvass of election returns under R.C. 3505.32, pollbooks used in an election are public records of a board of elections and are subject to public inspection in accordance with any reasonable regulations the custodian board of elections has established under R.C. 3501.13, except as may be provided by a proper order of a court."
While this is not a "legal", i.e. an offical or binding recount, a full and fair "recount of (this) type" should be able to settle the question.
If there was resistance on the state level, then it could be moved to the federal level by using the Freedom of Information Act.
Could the state stop the media, a political party, or the NORC from using either of these laws?
You can bring in "ocean of credible links and articles" that you like, but isn't this only way to really settle the question?? Is that an impossible task?? Volusia County, was able to count approx 185,000 similar ballots in less than a week. There are less than 250,000 of those Diebold ballots in the state.
To me this question is so simple to settle, yet we are 18 months out, and no one seems to be interested.
Those who would have the most to gain are the Democrats. What would a "smoking gun" such as this do for the politically??
Dredd seemed to understand this point: "If the election for Gore and/or Kerry was fraudulent, then we need to stop picking on and persecuting them for "having a loosing campaign strategy".
It would go to show that they have winning agenda, but they are sitting on their hands. The question is why? It seem odd to me that those with the most to gain, yet they have done nothing to prove their case.
Let's go back to my point on Cuyahoga County. Three arrest have come about because of the way that the recounts were handled in that county. Before the election, the board asked for these policies to be reviewed. They were found to be correct by Bill Mason, who is a Democrat.
What this a mistake by Mason?? Will those arrested be aquitted because they actually followed the law?? Or is it like New Mexico, and the Democrats really don't want a recount of that county?? Do they not want a recount of the state??
Again, what is the simple solution?? The public via the media, or the NORC, or the parties use the laws to conduct a manual "recount" of those ballots.
As to Dredd and the exit polls. The first question that has to be answered is what are the correct results. The unfinished 3% Kerry numbers? Or the 3% full numbers for Bush. According to Blumenthal, the full numbers are correct, and they show Bush as the winner.
Dredd would not address the point. He brought to the discussion a study conducted on the unfinished numbers. If the those numbers are not right, then why link to the study of those numbers?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/18/2006 @ 7:31 am PT...
Mark Cook #24
Your post draws attention to how important exit poll science is and why the administration made such a big deal out of it in the Ukraine elections.
And why we make such a big deal out of it in American elections.
We need good methods to test election proceedings. The reason is that we do not have reliable electronic voting machines, uniform standards, or uniform practices.
Another thread (started after this thread) links to a Washington Post article that exposes the election machine mega-problem (thread link).
The Washington Post Article compares the testing done on election machines with the testing done on gambling machines.
Clearly exit poll science is an important tool for telling us when recounts should be done.
I have read some of the ongoing case files in Ohio and the courts have pointed out many violations of federal law in the '04 election, and as Brad points out in his post #23, the Ohio landscape is infected with criminality and is against open election processes.
Florida is about the same. And these two states have been pillars as to how the elections have gone in the presidential races for many years now.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/18/2006 @ 7:48 am PT...
Mark #28
You said "Dredd would not address the point. He brought to the discussion a study conducted on the unfinished numbers. If the those numbers are not right, then why link to the study of those numbers?"
I brought to the discussion what I would not address? One of the DNA markers of those who seek to obfuscate is word games. I am trying not to do any word games.
The increasingly certain method for detecting election fraud is going to come from exit poll science:
"Exit polling is a well-developed science, informed by half a century of experience and continually improving methodology"
(link here, page 7, bold added). See also Polling and presidential Election Coverage, Lavrakas, Paul J, and Holley, Jack K., eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage; pp. 83-99).
It is the number one weapon against fraudulent elections. But as with most fraud, the strength and the weakness in all systems is in the people of the system.
We know that "Edison/Mitofsky samples voters for a nationwide exit poll as well as for each state's exit poll" (ibid).
We know then, where the attack to establish the coverup will come from. We can expect a major movement to corrupt Edison/Mitofsky from the inside. That is the pattern we see in the electronic voting machine industry.
Lets take a look around and check them out.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
Mark Cook
said on 3/18/2006 @ 10:48 pm PT...
Dredd #29 and #30
#29 "Clearly exit poll science is an important tool for telling us when recounts should be done."
#30 "I brought to the discussion what I would not address? One of the DNA markers of those who seek to obfuscate is word games. I am trying not to do any word games."
and
"Exit polling is a well-developed science, informed by half a century of experience and continually improving methodology"
Again, here is a principle in this well-developed science.
"2) The mid-day numbers do not reflect weighting by actual turnout - the end-of-day exit poll used to assist the networks in determining winners will be weighted by the actual turnout of voters at each selected precinct. The weighting will then be continuously updated to reflect turnout at comparable precincts. In the past, mid-day numbers have reflected a weighting based on past turnout, so the leaked mid-day numbers may tell us nothing about the impact of new registrants or the unique level of turnout this time. One point needs emphasis here: even in past elections, networks never called an election based on raw exit poll numbers alone. They were first weighted by a tally of the full day's turnout at each sampled precinct. This end-of day data is (obviously) not available at 12 noon."
http://www.mysterypollst.../11/exit_polls_what.html
One of the principles of exit polling is that the day's turn-out out is used to determine the correct weighting of the voters (men v. women, D v. R, ect).
".......This end-of day data is (obviously) not available at 12 noon."
The end-of day date is also not available when voters are still at the polls in the late afternoon. I am not playing any word games, I am asking a valid question. Which numbers are correct? The 7:33pm, where voting is still going on in the western states, that shows Kerry ahead?? Or the 1:33am numbers that show Bush ahead?
The point here is that violating the established rules of exit polling makes the results invalid. How can the 7:33pm numbers be correct, if voting is still taking place?
You keep pointing how this is a science, yet your report brings in numbers that violate the rules of exit polling.
"On Election Day, the "national" exit poll had Kerry ahead by three points (51% to 48%) at 3:59 PM and by the same margin (51% to 48%) at 7:33 PM when the polls were closing on the east coast. By 1:33 PM the following day, the completed, weighted-to-match-the-vote exit poll showed Bush leading (51% to 48%). These numbers had been previously reported by the Washington Post's Richard Morin and Steve Coll on November 3."
http://www.mysterypollst.../01/those_leaked_pd.html
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Bob Bilse
said on 3/19/2006 @ 1:12 am PT...
Bollocks.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
**'Expose Tom Feeney'**
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
__www.clintcurtis.com__
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/19/2006 @ 4:29 am PT...
Mark Cole #31
It is quite easy to tell when someone does not have an eye on a valid destination.
They spend more time looking into the rear view mirror than they do looking out the windshield.
You keep looking back thru the rear view mirror to try to tell where you are going.
I keep referring to a science, like the scientists do, and you keep trying to place yourself above that science and those scientists by looking out the rear view mirror and describing what is out in front, only visible thru the windshield.
I refer to all future elections, and point out that exit poll science is the number one tool for determining if those elections are going to be valid or not.
Whether machines are used in vote counting, or whether or not it is all done by hand. Paper ballots or machine ballots can be fraudulently processed.
So exit poll science is the way to monitor any election anywhere. And to spot fraud.
But those of you who cannot fathom fraud being committed in American elections are the source of the problem. The problem is no where near voters being asked how they voted at the wrong time of the day.
If you read the major factors in the link I gave you, instead of playing with minor factors, you would be able to step up to bat. Play the game according to the rules. Even read the document I linked to.
The major factor is that the mentality and psychology of the pollsters cannot fathom an American election being fraudulent. Notice:
"3. Inaccurate Election Results
Edison/Mitofsky did not even consider this hypothesis, and thus made no effort to contradict it. Some of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data may be construed as affirmative evidence for inaccurate election results. We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters’ intent was not accurately recorded or counted cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation" (link here, page 3).
Your citation of data to argue that point, therefore, is unavailing and misplaced because the mindset you labor under, like Edison/Mitofsky, cannot allow for a presidential election to be stolen in the US. It would cause you psychological problems. But those problems would be less than the ones that are a plague to you now.
Science cannot have a bias injected so as to demand results. No, the results must be the product of the evidence. When a particular conclusion is ruled out, prior to viewing the evidence, the resultant analysis is bogus.
That is why I can hear only your bias screaming "my good government would never do anything like that, so do not even bring up such a thing". And why I think the evidence screams out "you better watch out, science says that this election surely could have been stolen, so do not rule it out".
It is a valid destination which can only be reached by using the windshield more than the rear view mirror.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/19/2006 @ 4:31 am PT...
I meant Mark Cook ... typo ...
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/19/2006 @ 5:25 am PT...
Mark Cook There, I corrected the typo.
Another comment I wanted to make is that you cite to a blog by Mark Blumenthal, who says of himself:
"My academic background includes a Political Science degree from the University of Michigan and course work towards a Masters degree at the Joint Program in Survey Methodology (JPSM) at the University of Maryland"(link here).
He is not a doctor of science, as many are who I have been using as a source. He has indicated he has worked towards a masters degree. So, you use one source who does not specialize in exit polls, but does general poll work.
In my post #21 I point out that the source I am quoting from, was prepared by 8 Phd's and one MS. So while I do not discount your source, neither do I give your source greater weight than mine. That would be a mistake.
Next, my source goes directly to the source of exit poll data, Edison/Mitofsky, and cites to and utilizes their official data as the platform for analysis.
And they point out right from the beginning, that the official pollsters did not even consider whether fraud or inaccurate election official results could have been a factor. Instead, Edison/Mitofsky ruled that out and concluded that more democrats took the exit poll because republicans were shy.
These 8 doctors and one master of science look at the data and conclude that Edison/Mitofsky erred when they ruled out any factor, and concluded as they did.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 3/19/2006 @ 3:13 pm PT...
Mark Cook -
I don't have time to get into the minutea of your posts, so I'll simply point you towards a summary of the NORC report [PDF] on the consortium's count of the 2000 Florida votes.
The results summarized VERY clearly show that Gore won in every scenario where all ballots in the state were counted.
If you challenge that evidence from NORC (the report you seem to keep citing) then I don't know what to tell you. Chances are I won't see your response here, since I can't keep up with all comments, particularly in older threads, so feel free to Email me.
And to one other point that I caught in one of your posts: I'm not sure how you consider a Flag-Burning law such as the one Hilary supports to be "Far Left". I don't recall the "Far Left" pushing for laws to ban burning the American flag.
Finally, I couldn't care less what Mark Blumenthal is or isn't (Democrat or not).
I'm not a Democrat, didn't vote for Kerry, and couldn't give a rats ass about marginalizing the issue to run along party lines.
Transparency and Integrity in Electoral Democracy is the issue here. Party affiliation (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with any of it as far as I'm concerned. Despite your clear insinuations to the opposite.
Want to prove our elections are clean? Go ahead and do that FOIA request you believe will give you ballots.
If it's anything like the one filed by Dems in Alaska where they were told first they couldn't have the data because it was a Diebold "company secret", then told they could have it, but only after the state and Diebold were allowed to "manipulate the date" and then finally told they couldn't have it at all because the state determined it to be a "security risk" - then I'm guessing the Republican snake-pit that is Ohio won't be letter *any* such data be released any time soon.
Search this blog for "Alaska" and you'll find all of the above since I don't have time to go hunting it down for you.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 3/20/2006 @ 12:41 pm PT...
Again, I'm impatient with the back & forth between the troll & the patriot.
It's a waste of the patriot's energy & ours reading it.
Why AM I reading it, you ask?
Well, you don't know when the troll will shut up--you keep thinking some real information of interest will occur any minute.
You're just jumping through the troll's hoops & behaving exactly the way the troll wants---he wants you to take him seriously--so other readers will too--& he wants you to continue to ask him questions so he has a reason to continue to spread his crap.
CREATE DOUBT & conquer is the troll's m.o.