READER COMMENTS ON
"Busby Issues Email Statement on Election Results, Misses Point of Concerns; DNC Begins Inquiry..."
(45 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2006 @ 10:50 pm PT...
Busby apparently wrote, "I conceded as part of my statement following election night because the margin of difference was beyond the amount to trigger an automatic recount."
Am I alone in being confused by this? Given that tens of thousands of ballots were not yet counted, the margin at any particular moment on election night is irrelevant to the eventual totals. It seems that her concessions was following a formula. If so, it's clearly an outdated one that doesn't take into account the factors that could necessitate a recount regardless of reported margin of victory/loss.
I am heartened a bit to hear that Busby knows her concession is meaningless.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2006 @ 11:30 pm PT...
To reiterate and add to a previous question I made (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2951#comments ; comment #11)
In your blog today (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2953) you say: "She is speaking, of course, about the ballots being counted by the optical scanners, which are now to be considered corrupt and contaminated — never mind their accuracy."
But the testimonies from your poll workers do not mention the optical scanners - only the touchscreen machines being sent home. Do you know for certain that both optical scanners and touchscreen machines were allowed to go home with poll workers??
If it was only touchscreen machines that went home with poll workers:
Were touchscreen machines only used for handicapped voters (one of the letters from poll workers says that the machines he took home were only for this peurpose; see this page: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2932 ) Obviously, handicapped voters need to have the same protection of their votes as anyone else so in principal, whether or not touchscreen machines were used only for handicapped voters is irrelevant. But if only touchscreen machines were sent home with pollworkers, and touchscreen machines were only used for handicapped voters, the number of votes which could have been tampered with is quite small. This doesn't change the fact that federal laws were violated but would mean the effect on the 50th district would be much smaller.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2006 @ 11:44 pm PT...
Bradblog is doing a good job of alerting the public to the problems associated with sending Diebold machines home with pollworkers for up to 2 weeks, in spite of the huge risk of tampering (see http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2950&print=1 ). But you're being overly critical of Francine Busby, and failing to take into consideration what factors she has to weigh in order to have the best chance of winning in November. The district she's in is overwhelmingly Republican - to the point that the Democratic party wasn't even planning on contesting Cunningham in 2004 and provided little support to her then. If it hadn't been for her working so hard in 2004, the Democrats wouldn't have had a viable candidate when Cunningham resigned.
In fact, the problem with the voting machines isn't just a problem with the 50th district - it's a problem with all of San Diego county, which includes 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53 districts. Why not get someone like Bob Filner involved, or Susan Davis, both of whom have fairly secure House seats.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 12:26 am PT...
"...local monitors have been carefully observing the counting of ballots." (Busby)
There are still a few towns in Vermont where this statement would make sense. I.e., little blue-haired ladies sit at a table and hand count the ballots. Nowhere else.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 12:30 am PT...
Wow. And this new system really sucks.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 12:39 am PT...
I'm never giving my money to another idiot like her. I am going to verify that any candidate I support understands the issues of election integrity and the different ways that vote counting can be corrupted.
And to think I dontated $25 of my hard earned money to a candidate 1000 miles away because I thought it would make a difference.
Fool me once (Kerry) shame on you. Fool me twice (Busby), shame on me. You're not going to fool me again.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 12:49 am PT...
"Misses Point of Concerns"
That is the point in all this. There are too many people out there that just don't understand that the GOP will and have done anything and everything to "win" elections. Nothing is beyond them.
"Fool me once (Kerry) shame on you."
This is exactly how I feel. There is not one democratic candidate that I will give money too if secure, verifiable elections are not given top priority.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 12:51 am PT...
One more thing: Does anyone know what the exit polls were for this election?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 1:23 am PT...
i so agree with you charlie L! I gave $25 too & i\'m so pissed. how many elections will these candidates allow to be stolen, just because they feel uncomfortable being seen as a sore loser. i mean really--everyone knew this was a bellwhether race that would have big implications for the fall & the future--i\'m sure Karl Rove did. And surprise--the hackable voting machines go home with poll workers? give me a break. if an election was gonna get fixed--wouldn\'t this be a likely one. everyone seems so afraid to even talk about it.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 1:31 am PT...
I really think the candidate should be a little more interested in seeing to it that our concerns are addressed. WHERE do we keep finding these limp lilies? This woman doesn\'t sound like someone whose face has been all over the place on signs. She sounds like someone hiding in the coat closet.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 2:18 am PT...
What nobody (not RFK Jr., not Dean or Kerry, not Edwards or even Conyers) seems willing to come right out and say is that the Republicans have found a way to change vote totals electronically.
How they do it, I don't know myself. None of us do. It is crystal clear that they don't just tinker with the memory cards in every damned e-machine. Is it accomplished by linking the central tabulators to the Internet? Or is there an algorithm built into the actual e-machine code, that switches votes by, say, 5%?
But it clearly happens. And because no one knows how it is done, everyone wants to talk about inequitable allocation of machines, phone-jamming, scrubbing voter rolls, challenges to minority voters, etc., instead of the Big Enchilada--which is electronically altering vote totals in favor of Republican candidates.
The answer is BIG. It has to be, to affect so many states so invisibly. We need to start talking about it. We need to give this monster a name, so that even though we can't actually see it, we can fight it. I'm sorry, Brad. I know you're right about the machines being susceptible to tampering, and that they shouldn't go home with volunteer poll workers. But there's a MONSTER out there, and we are all trying to stamp on ants on the kitchen floor.
We have to name it. And start talking about it by that name so that everybody begins to understand there is such a thing. This is crucial. You can't fight a monster without a name.
Computer vote fraud?
(And by the way, Brad, this new system sucks. Eg, how the hell do you tell the difference between a 0 and an O? Is there a case distinction? Why does my "back" take me to an expired page warning? Etc.)
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 3:58 am PT...
I hope that you guys that said "you will not donate" to a lightweight candidate haven't read these articles yet, they're quite long and tedious, if you have ADD, you will be missing out on the exact game plan that they use on the American voting public (read between the lines), what they are doing here is exactly the same thing they are doing overseas to influence elections
They are using a supposed 501-(c) program to discourage voting for Social Candidates, only they now have taken the same program and turned it inward to use on our media and voters after they tried it out in other overseas elections
They are also funneling taxpayer money into this group through NED to the Cuban problem to get the Bush's elected by giving taxpayer money to the anti Castro crowd down in S Florida
I think it said Chris Dodd tried to get their 501 c status pulled once, but their isn't enough public attention, so he is'nt trying very hard
Just READ the whole articles and you will understand
there is a lot of links within the Raw Story article to read too, I'm just giving you the main ones as to not lose your attention
This should be shouted from the treetops (as we are the monkeys they are playing games with)
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 5:13 am PT...
After reading unirealist's #11 comment,and reading all of my crap in #12, I might (without too much of a stretch), connect the two together
It would take a little investigating, but they seem to go hand in hand after the hows and whys are put together
This is't just about elections, this is about the big pot of (taxpayer) gold at the end of the rainbow
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 5:14 am PT...
Your commenters are saying this election was stolen. You never used that language to your credit and for them to use it is COMPLETE DISINFORMATION. Useless these people can back up there claim that it was stolen, not unverifiable, but stolen, I think they need to be called on disinformation.
In other news. Interesting piece here.
Little slow this morning?
HOHOHO MERRY FITZMAS!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 5:24 am PT...
Read the articles and you will know where all the Rickys in the world come from
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 6:38 am PT...
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that if someone gets their head wrapped around all this (my #12), feel free to wrap it up in one nice neat little package and make your own article
I know there's a lot of good writers here at "The Brad Blog"
If we could cut the head off of this beast (by getting the 501 c-3 status awawy from the IRI), we would eliminate about 90%+ of our electoral problems by eliminating public funding to these assholes
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 7:16 am PT...
Thanks, Floridiot..good links. Illuminating, in a dark, creepy sort of way.
I guess one could say, in re the last link, that some on the left are still way too reluctant to 'clip the puppy' (with the big Truth shears).
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 7:20 am PT...
btw, I don't see a problem with the new system...works fine so far.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 8:11 am PT...
Can't the producers and purveyors of these voting systems be
fined and jailed for defrauding the public at great public expense (as a sideshow to the Bush/Cheney impeachment & the Halliburton, KBR criminal cases)?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 8:14 am PT...
Joan, Heh,good one, but as one of the articles says the Dems have their own program just like the IRI, whos to say the DLC "left" wants to clip the tail off the puppy
these are the tactics used that keep the third party from getting onto the ticket and being recognized by the MSM
So the 501c should be revoked from their little sweetheart program also, when the two are confronted they will stick together (if their not already)
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 9:08 am PT...
Bilbray was just sworn in as Cunningham's replacement at the House. The clerk said he was sworn in with "unofficial" results, but there were no questions raised regarding the election results.
Jerry Lewis was standing behind Bilbray during the swearing in while smiling like the contemptious crook he is now known to be.
Bilbray made a short speech in which he said that he knew there were many there who would be unhappy to see his return.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 9:29 am PT...
Could someone please show me evidence that this was a stolen election as it is being claimed by you?
I never disagreed that it needs to be verified. Thats a problem for both vote counting and legal voting status.
But I have seen no evidence here about a stolen election as it is being claimed here. And if you are claiming it with no evidence, thats disinformation.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 9:42 am PT...
I don't think Ricky is a part of the problem, though
He is a product of the problem Heh-Heh
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 9:55 am PT...
Did I hear that Busby was a republican...then turned Democrat for what...this particular race? After the mid-terms, then I guess she can turn back to her roots as a republican!!!
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 10:06 am PT...
Re: Comment #22 here is a cross-post from Dr. Baiman's Blog:
I suspect that the Libertarian and independent (a right-wing independent supported by the "minutemen" anti-immigrant movement) vote increase is due to "republican defectors" unwilling to vote for Bilbray. HOWEVER, THIS IS STATISTICALLY A DUBIOUS THEORY, due to the fact that Bilbray received an estimated 100% of all republican voters (that voted in the primary election held at the same time).
In the 2004 general election, some people postulated that the unbelieveable "inflated" republican presidential vote was due to tabulator fraud, but noone was able to provide any concrete proof of tabulator fraud. The CA-50 special election is the first time that an actual instance of tabluator fraud "may" be not only present, but proveable (without the testimony of an insider).
I have presented a theory that the vote discrepancy may be due to tabulator fraud. And if the theory is valid, it can be easily proven or disproven by statistical analysis of the San Diego voting.
Here are two (2)crossposts from the Brad Blog:
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
... Michael Daniels said on 6/9/2006 @ 4:36 pm PT...
Something is rotten in San Diego.
Please see my analysis (comment #46 in your June 8th Blog). However, the numbers on the San Diego website are different (worse) than the reported numbers in the L.A. Times (I used to do my analysis).
There may be verifiable proof of fraud via statistical analysis. The vote totals for the "special election" do not equal the vote totals for the "primary election" for the 50th Congressional District. The discrepancy is over 17K. There are 500 precincts in this district (per the San Diego website). If we can obtain the vote totals for these 500 precincts for several races, we can do some interesting stat work. (Although the numbers appear to be a moving target, my original analysis is still worth investigating).
IF the vote totals for assembly races in the district are close to the "special [sic-should read "primary] election" vote totals, then there is probable cause to investigate possible vote fraud (17K phantom votes). The same test should be conducted on the two (2) propositions races and any local office that effects all 500 precincts (other than Judge races).
17K votes is too large a variance between the special and primary vote totals. I cannot accept that 17K people voted in the special election and not the primary election for the congressional seat.
IT IS "REMOTELY POSSIBLE" that there may be the visible "footprint" of a tablulator computer subroutine that goes somthing like this:
IF VOTE for CANDIDATE V17 in RACE V2 = 1 and VOTE for CANDIDATE A07 in RACE V1 = 0, then add +1 to total for CANDIDATE A07 in RACE V1.
This would result if applied statewide, in the "blessed by the vote god" party having a zero defector rate in RACE V1. Hard to detect on a statewide level (would be assumed to be caused by voter error (spoiled ballot or refusal to vote on a given race) rather than tabulator fraud), but with a potentially deadly effect on the "unblessed" party's chances of ever winning RACE V1.
Comment No. 46 (mentioned above was renumbered Comment No. 44 (see Below)
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
... Michael Daniels said on 6/9/2006 @ 10:28 am PT...
Total primary votes cast (per LA Times)
Total special election votes cast (per LA Times)
Variance = 17,210
Attempting to reconcile this variance, I accidently developed the following theory (which I will call Theory T.F.#50):
(a) 45,868 democratic primary voters attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(b) 61 Peace & Freedom primary voters attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(c) 11,329 republican primary voters (aka "republican defectors) attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(d) 1,671 of the Busby "attempted" voters cast invalid (or uncounted) ballots in the special election.
(e) 1,389 republican defectors attempted to vote for the libertarian candidate in the special election.
(f) 4,492 republican defectors attempted to vote for the independent candidate in the special election.
(g) 11,329 republican defectors attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(h) There were a total of 17,210 attempted republican defectors in the special election.
(i) All of the republican primary voters who voted for Bilbray successfully voted for Bilbray in the special election.
(j) 9,868 republican primary voters who did not vote for Bilbray successfully voted for Bilbray in the special election.
(k) For every republican primary voter who attempted to defect in the special election, a fraudulent vote was created and added to the Bilbray vote count in the special election.
32,117 primary voters who voted for Bilbray
9,868 primary voters who voted for another rep.
17,210 fradulent votes (created electronically)
60,319 total votes (credited) in the special election
45,868 democratic primary voters
61 peace & freedom primary voters
11,329 republican primary voters
less 1,671 spoiled/invalid/not counted votes
55,587 total votes (credited) in the special election
Theory T.F.#50 can be proved or disproven by reviewing the district votes for the other races.
If the total number of votes in the other races (assembly, proposition, other local races) is close to the primary election vote total of 105.063 then the theory is worth considering as a reasonable explanation of the vote variance.
If the total number of votes in the other races (assembly, proposition(s), and other local races) is close to the special election vote total of 122,273 then the theory is totally false.
ACTION ITEMS NEEDED:
(1)Obtain vote totals (less absentee ballots) for the 500 CA-50 Precincts for Assembly and the two (2) propositions.
(2) Compare vote totals for the other races to the vote totals for the special and primary congressional election.
(3) If the CA-50 precinct totals for the assembly races and the two (2) propositions is close to the primary congressional total, then Mr. O's razor says TABULATOR FRAUD!
Here is a chance to prove suspected vote fraud. All we need is someone with the time and resources to obtain the 500 precinct vote totals and analyze for the tabulator fraud theory.
(Please crosspost to democratic underground election topic - I don't have access to post there)
Many people are still trying to prove fraud in the 2004 general election by comparing reported vote counts to the released (massaged)exit polling. Without The "Mitsters" raw data, it is a "fool's errand."
CA-50 is a most unusual case. There is a 100% (same day) exit poll for the special election (THE PRIMARY CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION!!!) IF YOU WANT TO PROVE VOTE FRAUD, THIS IS THE PLACE TO START...YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED:
(A) Unusual vote counts
(B) Lack of custody of voting machines
(c) A race the Republicans need to win so much that they may have taken a fatal risk
(d) A 100% SAME DAY EXIT POLL
(e) Statistical evidence of voting patterns best explained by vote fraud
(f) Plausable theory of vote fraud that can easily be proven or "disproven" by easily obtained physical evidence
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 10:11 am PT...
Ann Coulter will be on the The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,..
George Carlin will be on ,.. slide down the couch,.. then out comes Ann Coulter.
This mix of guests could be quite interesting and funny.
Scheduled for Wednesday evening 6/14/06.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 10:11 am PT...
Brad, I just spoke with a women named Seena in Francine's Cardiff office. She said she would put you in contact with Francine if you called her at;760 479-0114. I referred Seena to your website to educate herself about election fraud since she'd never hear of you.
It sounds like Francine feels she needs the support of the San Diego Democratic Party leadership to pursue any question of election fraud. It believe she is in meetings with them, but I'm not sure.
Please call right away while Seena is in the office. I'm not sure that they get how serious this is...But she did seem to get that many of us are not going to bother handing out any more money to candidates or the DNC if they don't take a stand on election fraud.
Where the hell is Howard Dean??
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 10:44 am PT...
Did you consider that this was a primary race where there are some issues everyone votes on and some that only registered democrats can vote on. The "run-off" election was one in which everyone can participate while the other race you refer to is limited to registered republicans in the case of Bilbray and registered democrats in the case of Busby. Could this be the source of the 17K variance? I totally support statistical analysis. It is great stuff but maybe wrong if the above information is accurate.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 11:03 am PT...
The issue in CA-50 is not election fraud.
The issue is mis-handling of elections thru violation of election security protocol.
What if, during a court trial, one of the clerk's took the evidence or the recording equipment home? Or kept a file cabinet at home and placed material there?
Or remember for a second all the recent burglaries where people took sensitive databases home and millions of identiteis of veterans, soldiers, and Nuclear Agency employee data was stolen ... it was on harddrives of laptops employees took home.
It is a huge breach of security.
That is the issue.
And it is one that can be fixed now by a complete HAND COUNT ... not a recount, but a first hand count.
And what can fix it for future elections is to not violate the law and security by allowing the most sensitive tools in a democracy (valid chain of command) to be treated as insignificant.
Only if the hand count comes up with significant discrepancy could the issue of election fraud come up. It does not have to come up even if the hand count changes things ... however ... it could give a prima facia suspicion of fraud.
In a court case there would be consideration for a mistrial ruling, and in the CA-50 case, there should be consideration for a hand count.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 11:07 am PT...
Somebody (obviously P. Kirby #24 is a good first choice) would you please post any links you have to evidence that Busby was ever (EVER!) a Republican? For the DNC (and DFA and others) to allow that would be UNFATHOMABLE to me, but then again, I don't fathom a lot of what the mainstream Dems do (or don't do).
I will continue to support Progressive Dems and other non-Republicans, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY SIGN THE ANTI-FRAUD PLEDGE, and I won't support any Dems who failed to fight in the past (Kerry, Hackett, Busby immediately come to mind).
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 11:13 am PT...
"COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
… Ricky said on 6/13/2006 @ 5:14 am PT…
Useless these people can back up there claim that it was stolen, not unverifiable, but stolen, I think they need to be called on disinformation."
When are morons going to stop making such stupid statements, how can you verify what is not documented or allowed to be recounted! and since it can't why would you say that? I'll send you your credit card bill and you must just pay it don't ask for back ups just believe it's your debt, OK!
Here in Florida we're faced with a jerk Jeb that assured paper recounts would be illegal so even if the people won and got us voting machines with integrity we couldn't legally recount….
How can (not-so…it appears) inteligent people continue to believe in these machines?
At least now with Hugo Chaves owning a piece of the action we should get republicans fighting too since they are afraid of him.
PS...don't quote Drudge and think it's the bible?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 11:23 am PT...
Re: Comment #25:
The 105,063 total includes .7K PEACE & FREEDOM and LIBERTARIAN primary voters. The 122.273 total includes over 6K for the special election LIBERTARIAN & INDEPENDENT candidates (no peace & freedom candidate on the special election ballot).
A very small part of the 17.2K variance may be from "decline to state" voters, but I seriously doubt that there were 17.2K of them. That is why I recommend comparing the proposition vote totals to the special and general (congressional #50) election total. Primarily to debunk the (soon to be Republican Talking Point that the variance was due to decline to state voters who were fanatical supporters of Bilbray). IF over 20K of the Republican primary voters wouldn't vote for Bilbray in the primary election, how can there be 17.2K "decline to state" voters who don't feel they belong to the Republican Party, yet had to come out and vote for Bilbray???
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 11:43 am PT...
"When are morons going to stop making such stupid statements, how can you verify what is not documented or allowed to be recounted! and since it can't why would you say that?"
So you admit there is no evidence, yet retain the right to say it was stolen. Ok. That makes sense.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 12:29 pm PT...
#33 Ricky says "there is no evidence"
There is a great deal of evidence, but since the republicans control both Houses and the Presidency, there will be no investigation into all of the fraud that is being done. Ricky, you are the moron in this case. Your argument is weak and false. If there was/is no fraud occuring, why aren't full recounts being done? Honest, accurate, full hand recounts of questionable or close races would verify that there is no election fraud. We as citizens have the right to know that our elections are being conducted accurately and fairly. We expect and demand that the winning candidate is not hoodwinked out of his/her rightful office. That's why Bush went to court to keep the votes in Florida from being hand counted in 2000. Gore won Florida, but the votes were not counted correctly. If Diebold can easily produce a receipt of your ATM transaction, why can't they do the same thing for this electronic voting machines? The fact that we have a two time resident, not president in the White House is an outrage! It's amazing to me that the so-called "Liberal Mainstream Media" won't cover the cover-up here: George Bush is the first (p)resident in the White House that hasn't been honestly elected TWICE...
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 1:05 pm PT...
The issue is not election fraud, so therefore evidence of election fraud is a straw man argument (link here).
A hand count is done, not to prove or give evidence of fraud, but rather is done when there is a prima facia reason to doubt the machine results.
In one republican primary recently an incumbent republican was running against a kid in college. At least on the ballot ... the polls showed that the incumbent was double digit in the lead ... and it was not much of a race.
However, the machine counts showed that the collenge kid was in the lead. The election official felt that this was a prima facia case of need for a hand count.
The hand count showed that the machines were wrong. Fraud was not at issue, machine performance was. Which could then lead to questions of fraud, but need not to solve it.
In the current Busby case, there are questions, and election integrity was compromised by sending instruments (election machines) home with poll workers.
That violates a valid chain of custody, and if it were a court case, there would have to be a new trial or the evidence would be thrown out or both.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for the body politic to be very, very sure of the proper count in an election?
Your answer indicates the value you give to a fair democracy.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 1:50 pm PT...
Just ignore comments from "Ricky". He has been posting here for a long time, spouting the same mindless, dead ender crap. His comments show that he either can't understand the information posted here by Brad and others or that he chooses to totally ignore it. He makes NO valid, informed arguments to back up his comments/challenges and it is obvious he never has and likely never will be moved by any valid arguments posted here. SO WHY BOTHER!! Why let him divert any of your/our time and effort here. This is not a question of free speech. He can post here and elsewhere to his hearts content. What this is is an argument against an individual who never really addresses the issues at hand but constantly tries to divert and dilute the argument by asking you to respond to his phony, mindless and uninformed comments. It is my intention to post this whenever I see a comment by Ricky here, unless by some miracle he actually brings some useful and intelligent information to the table. If I am wrong in making this suggestion, please let me hear why.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 2:03 pm PT...
Reading your blogpost and all of the above comments... I am left with one uneasy conclusion... that has Karl Rove written all over it.
Is it possible that Ms. Busby might have been paid to take a fall for Bilbray?
It sure seems fishy that Ms. Busby is not letting the facts get in the way of her rush to concession.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 2:12 pm PT...
On thinking about this further, I can definitely tell you that, irrespective of who won that night...
neither candidate can claim a voter mandate. It shouldn't matter who won... but by these paper-thin margins... Bilbray or Busby need to work constructively with the opposite party in the House.
If that's the case, then maybe... just maybe... this divided America will slowly begin the healing process.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 4:06 pm PT...
Please folks! Let's not call Busby names here. I've met the lady, and I don't think she's this DLC turncoat many are asserting her to be. She's as upset with Republicans distortion of her, etc. as the rest of us are.
I've tried to say this over and over, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. If you make the constant argument of there being 17k more votes than the primary totals again, you are just making us as skeptics here look like fools. That is looking at the WRONG statistic. I'm not saying there isn't fraud, but this isn't it. 21% of the voters (about 360k registered voters) in this district are "decline to state" voters (aka independents). 17k isn't too large a number of voters as an excess over the primary totals. 21% of 360k is around 75.6k voters. You add in other party voters that didn't have primaries and I believe the total is arond 25-26%. 17K (or around 18-19% of the registered voter totals for decline to state voters) is actually pretty low, considering that Dems had over 40% turnout and Republicans around a 37% turnout. If anything we should be wondering if some of those votes got removed, because independents was where Busby was gaining a lot of ground in pre-election polls.
Secondly, many here and elsewhere weren't correctly correlating that district 50 likely only had a third or less of those 68,500 total absentee and provisionals that weren't counted. When you say that the total is only around 15-20k possible absentee and provisionals (and how many of those provisionals will be validated too), it's not hard to see how some poll examiners might have advised that getting 5000 or more votes over what Bilbray gets out of that total might be pretty tough to do, especially since absentees mostly went towards Bilbray anyway. The ones precounted before the election showed an 8% advantage to him.
It is also a good question on which machines went home with people. If it was the document scanner machines and/or the central tabulator machines, then that's a problem. If it is the TSX machines, and it can be shown that the TSX machines didn't record a sizable number of votes (perhaps less than the difference in numbers of votes), then it also is hard to make the case for a stolen election then too.
I'm all for being skeptical and asking that we have a hand recount still (because I still don't trust those central tabulator machines that they try to seemingly intentionally keep far away from the "observor booth" (like they did in the Mayoral special election). But let's not jump to conclusions too quickly, or we'll get the same credibility that Jason Leopold got on his Karl Rove news that (even though it might be correct) gave fuel to the right wing for discreditting us. We have to be skeptical and ask for ways of making sure of these counts, but let's be careful how we go about doing it. And don't eat one of our own. Francine is a decent person, and though she might not be a voting machine expert like Debra Bowen would be (who I know probably won't take shit if McPherson's totals are distorted ahead of hers), I think she wants to feel that she's doing the right thing and not alienating people in the upcoming house race in November, which isn't too far off. She depends a lot on people in the middle voting for her, so she has to be skeptical in a cautious way, a lot more than you or I are able to be in places like here.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 5:29 pm PT...
Charlie L, will you post your candidate's pledge again, and may we copy it?
I think it is fantastic, and would like to spread it around, with your permission. thank-you.
and, thank-you Brad, of course.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 8:14 pm PT...
Why isn't there a consumer fraud or defective product lawsuit gliding up the docket now? If there is no person in office or in the party willing to fight, why is there is nobody claiming to have been injured by this mess?
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2006 @ 8:58 pm PT...
So, it looks like voting is a blatant unsecure farce, with part-time McDonald's workers taking our democracy home with them. What a joke our country has become. What do the Iraqi's think of people taking voting machines home with them? They're too busy being bombed, I forgot.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2006 @ 6:09 am PT...
Big Dan #42
The world is more aware of America than the public is, and we end up being correct.
Our concern that the American reputation is more and more tarnished, has come true (link here).
If we can't do elections honestly, fairly, transparently, and competently, but want to use military force to spread our gospel of democracy, we can expect hatred, distrust, fear, and loathing from our neighbors far and wide.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2006 @ 7:54 am PT...
Let's get something clear right off the bat. The Busby campaign had had their heads up their rear ends from the get go on the voting machines. La la la, we think they are fine, and we know that that those who criticize the machines have an agenda, money. For a county of 3 million people, this place is surprisingly "small town."
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 6/15/2006 @ 12:17 pm PT...
Dredd - Comment #30
You have a very analytical mind.
Breach of security protocol - not fraud just yet.
First hand count - not recount just yet.
Their failed security procedures
caused the need to confirm the veracity and the integrity of the vote count. They brought this problem on themselves.
Their breach of security protocols now necessitates
further analysis of the vote count to determine the degree of contamination introduced into
the process. This contaminated vote count was a direct result of their negligent conduct. Brad (all electors) should now be entitled to a hand count of these votes,.. without cost. They should pick up the tab.
Brad is not the perpetrator of this negligence,.. he is only the messenger who tried to forewarn them. They did not heed the warnings,.. or follow the law,.. they should suffer the consequences and be made to absorb the costs of a hand count. Technically it is "CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE" - the election administrators should shoulder part of the blame,.. and Diebold should shared in the remained of total negligence. Fail-proof/fool-proof e-voting machines
are needed,.. these vendors have failed fill that need.
These e-voting machines invite a miscount,.. too many gaps,.. too many holes.
It irks me too when RFKJr does not use the proper distinction/"speak". He often discusses voter fraud,..
not ELECTION FRAUD. He also allows interviewers or
phone call in participants use the terminology of voter fraud. Voter fraud is only 1% of the problem. Ney,.. Baker,.. Rove,.. and republican operatives yap
incessantly about voter fraud. It is a ploy to disenfranchise as many voter off the rolls as they
95% of the problem is election fraud,.. that is the issue we must hammer away at. Next time RFKJr. or Levin Papantonio LLC contacts Brad to drain his brain and database of knowledge,.. maybe Brad can clarify that important distinction with that group. Right-Wing talking points,.. Frank Lunt speak,.. hone language
skills,... we on the left should get on that bandwagon.
How you frame/form/construct/deliver your message is often crucial. It is unfortunate the right exploits language to specifically deceive and confuse rather than inform and educate.