Provocative Commentary: .. HOW TO STEAL AN ELECTION IN OHIO

November 8, 2004

Commentator Allen L Roland wrote:

Friday, November 05, 2004

HOW THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long

enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer

interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply

too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous:

Carl Sagan

I want to know the truth and I'm not afraid to acknowledge that it appears that

we have been bamboozled again in this election.

There is too much evidence and I'm throwing a red flag on the field . Let's take

a timeout, have an instant replay and review the evidence from all angles and

then make an informed decision. The stakes are too high .

Here's what makes me very uncomfortable;

1. WASHINGTON -- November 4 -- Teresa Fedor, [via Greg Lestini,

glestini]

Ohio State Senator Teresa Fedor said today: " There was trouble with our

elections in Ohio at every stage. It's been a battle getting people registered

to vote, getting to the ballot on voting day and getting that vote to count.

There is a pattern of voter suppression; that's why I called for [Ohio Secretary

of State] Blackwell's resignation more than a month ago. Blackwell, while

claiming to run an unbiased elections process, was also the co-chair of the

Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Additionally, he was the spokesperson for the

anti-business, anti-family constitutional amendment 'Issue 1,' and a failed

initiative to repeal a crucial sales-tax revenue source for the state. Blackwell

learned his moves from the Katherine Harris playbook of Florida 2000, and we

won't stand for it. "

2. Susan Truitt, susan.truitt, www.caseohio.org Co-founder of

the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Truitt said today: " Seven counties

in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That

alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count.

A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of

the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire state to buy new machines

without a paper trail. The exit polls, virtually the only check we have against

tampering with a vote without a paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A

poll worker told me this morning that there were no tapes of the results posted

on some machines; on other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously

shouldn't be the case. "

3. Bob Fitrakis, rfitraki An attorney who monitored the election with

the Election Protection Coalition, Fitrakis said today: " There were far fewer

machines in the inner-city districts than in the suburbs. I documented at least

a dozen people leaving because the lines were so long in African-American areas.

Blackwell did a great deal of suppressing before the election -- like attempting

to refuse to process voter registration forms. The absentee ballots were

misleading in Franklin County. Kerry was the third line down, but you had to

punch number four to vote for him. Bush was getting both his votes as well as

Kerry's. "

2. John Zogby, considered to be the ‘gold standard’ of presidential polling,

predicted that John Kerry and John Edwards would win with over 300 electoral

votes. Following Zogby’s prediction to the letter, the preponderance of the exit

polling stated that John Kerry would carry all of the major battleground states:

Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin

and Oregon. These exit polls were interpreted as further confirmation of Zogby’s

final predictions.

3. When comparing the exit polls to the actual " official " final results, it

appears that EVERY state that had electronic voting, without paper trails, had

an " unexplained " advantage for Bush of about 5%.

And it appears that EVERY STATE that had paper trails on their Electronic

Voting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the

margin of error.

So it appears that they remotely electronically messed with the electronic

voting results in every state where they could get away with it (because there

was no paper trail to disprove it in those states).

See these striking voting comparison graphs:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4175

Does this sound like something Karl Rove might do to guarantee a victory for

Bush ? Don't answer ~ it's a rhetorical question.

SO HOW WAS THE ELECTION TECHNICALLY STOLEN ?

Roz Hill / http://rense.com/general59/steI.HTM / explains how easy it is to

steal an election with paperless electronic voting machines.

So, here are the numbers (so far): 112,596,922 voters counted in the

presidential race. Bush has been consistently polling at 45%, which SHOULD have

given him 50,668,614 votes, instead of 58,073,612. This translates into

7,404,998 votes being siphoned off from Kerry votes. Now, how does that magic

work???

Taxpayers get hit with a bill for $3600 (or more) for EACH of the touch-screen

" voting " computers, which are nothing more than dedicated COUNTERS except that

they are marketed by Republicans (who vowed to ensure Bush's victory); and the

American people have not been allowed to examine or certify the software in

these units.

Here is how easy it is to " make magic "

We need COUNTERS - (B) = Bush; (K) = Kerry; (V) = Vote; (T) = Tally

1. If V = B, add 1 to B

2. If T = 8, add 1 to B; Clear T; Skip 3

3. If V = K, add 1 to K; Add 1 to T

This extremely simple bit of programming would shift 12% of the vote from Kerry

to Bush, it would defy exit polls, and it would make it look like Bush had a

huge popular win ~ which is precisely what happened.

At this point ~ why has no one raised the spectre of criminality or a criminal

conspiracy to inflate votes for Bush and deflate tallies for Kerry via hacking

the computerized voting machines.

In addition ~ it is highly suspicious to note that the scale of Bush’s vote far

exceeded the best of the pre-election polling ~ which could certainly be

explained by this scenario.

Time out is over and you've seen the evidence .

Is it too painful to acknowlege that we have been bamboozled or are you going to

demand the truth ?

Our Democracy is at stake.

Allen L Roland

Catch me on Radio every Monday / TRUTHTALK 7AM PST

YC LIVE webstream / www.conscioustalk.net 7AM PST

KYCY 1550 AM SAN FRANCISCO / WED 9 - 10 AM & SUNDAY 10 - 11 AM

Allen Roland’s weblog: http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/

Website: www.allenroland.com

ONLY THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY

Ed Kohout <crumpo wrote:

Hi,

I'd like you to show me all those red-state Catholics! lol

If Northern Catholics went for Bush, then they were crossovers from

Gore. Yet, Bush and Kerry basically voided out each other's

crossovers, according to the exit polls, though Bush did have a slight

edge. The Nader 2000 vote probably broke heavily for Kerry (I'm

guessing it netted Kerry about two million votes), which leaves these

numbers for each candidate earning a truly " new " voter:

Bush: 80%

Kerry: 20%

Now, I know for a fact that the Deaniacs, way back in 2003, with

MoveOn and other groups began registering voters in amazing numbers.

New voters (ones that didn't vote in 2000) ran 55-45 Kerry in exit

polls. Look at the discrepancy:

Fuzzy Math Exit Polls

Bush: 80% 45%

Kerry: 20% 55%

New voters total over 11,000,000 at last count. Bush has so far

earned just a hair over 9,000,000 more votes than four years ago,

according to the " official " results. Surely more votes are yet to be

counted, such as late absentees and provisionals, but over 99.8

percent of the vote is in. Only Ronald Reagan has ever improved his

vote total by morethan 9,000,000 votes, and he did it at the expense

of the Liberal vote, which fell by 3,000,000. Reagan did attract new

voters to the rolls, and activated dormant Dems, too.

But Bush? Puhleeze! He's no Ronald Reagan.

Voters are finite entities. They have to register, and show up. The

number of new voters in this election, if you believe the results,

broke heavily for Bush.

Surely some did break for Bush, as his " red states " gained in

percentage of the nation's population, but this increase could only

account for maybe a million votes.

America added 13,500,000 citizens to its total since 2001. 25.7% of

the population is under 18. That's about one new voter for every new

elegible voter added by population growth. Yet, Bush only managed to

attract, according to their machines, just under 20% of the entire

citizenry to vote for them. 20% of 13,500,000 is 2,700,000 voters,

and I would admit that a majority of these new citizens live in the

Red States. Add maybe 400,000 Naderites, and maybe Bush gets

4,000,000 new voters in his clutches, an unprecedented amount even for

an incumbent! You see, that's not enough to win, and Karl Rove knew

it. The only way they could win was with dirty deeds.

Here's the totals since 1976. Incumbent increases always come at the

expense of the other party, and oustings take a bit out of the

opposition as well. This will be the first time in history that the

challenger to an incumbent gained new voters and lost! I see that a

large voter turnout rode Daddy Bush out of office as well:

...........votes.........total votes.....new voters

Carter 40830763

Ford 39147793 79978556

Reagan 43904153

Carter 35483883

Anderson 5720060 85108096 5,129,540

Reagan 54455075

Mondale 37577185 92032260 6,924,164

Bush 48886097

Duke 41809074 90695171 -1,337,089

Clinton 44909326

Bush 39103882

Ross 19742240 103755448 13,06,0277

Clinton 47401054

Dole 39197350

Ross 8085402 94683806 -9,071,642

Bush 50456062

Gore 50996582

Nader 2858843 104311487 9,627,681

Bush 59471895

Kerry 55968047

Nader 394578 115834520 11,523,033

- Ed K

sidereal , " Peter " <maypeter@o...> wrote:

> Hi Ed,

> No it is not hogwash!!!!

> Bush got the religious from both Catholic and protestant churches to

get out

> and vote!! The actual poling was the highest ever I believe and THAT is

> where the extra votes came from!!!!!!!

>

> Peter S

> -

> " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...>

> <sidereal >

> Saturday, November 06, 2004 6:38 PM

> [sidereal] The math doesn't work, gentlemen! " Sour grapes " is

> justified

>

> >

> > Hi there,

> >

> > Where did George Bush's new 9,000,000 votes come from?

> >

> > Did the population increase by 33 million people in the " red states "

> > between 2000 and 2004?

> >

> > We can see where Kerry's new votes come from. He polled an extra

> > 5,300,000 than did Gore in 2000. Ralph Nader lost about 2,500,000

> > votes this year, and we assume that Kerry got many of them.

> >

> > That leaves 2,800,000 new voters. Crossovers from Bush to Kerry and

> > Kerry to Bush nearly evened out at about 1 in 10, negating themselves.

> > New voters are 55-45 Kerry according to the aggregate of the exit

polls.

> >

> > In fairness, the populations of Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North

> > Carolina, increased enough to be awarded more electoral votes, the

> > " red states " from 2000 gained 6 EC votes, which represents just over

> > 600,000 people, and of those only 18 and above can vote, and of them

> > only 55% found their ways to the polls. Furthermore, the 2004 EC

> > State total increased over the 1990 Census, not the 2000 Census, and

> > thus any population increase reflected by the addition of EC votes

> > meant that the " red states " were understated in 2000! If the voting

> > population of the " red states " therefore increased by at most a couple

> > million people between 2000 and 2004, we have to, HAVE TO believe that

> > Bush and Rove won the support of at least 7,000,000 newly inspired

> > voters!

> >

> > It's hogwash, no?

> >

> > http://www-personal.engin.umd.umich.edu/~asatanov/fraud/

> >

> >>>> On the other hand, President Bush received only 50.45 million

> > votes in 2000, but now the official results show him having 59.3

> > million votes. That's nearly 9 million new voters that turned out for

> > him. Very impressive isn't it? Remember listening to all the pundits

> > talking about how both sides are planning to register new voters?

> > Remember the hundreds of thousands of new registrations in urban areas

> > in swing states that were overwhelmingly concentrated in Democratic

> > strongholds. This was a well-documented issue and a cause for concern

> > for the Republicans who consequently insisted on challenging voters in

> > urban minority districts. The exit polls didn't exactly show a Kerry

> > landslide among new voters, but they did show him with a comfortable

> > 54-45 majority among those who did not vote in 2000.

> >

> > Wait a minute, how can all of this add up? Pre-election news stories

> > about voter registrations seem to favor Kerry by extreme margins, exit

> > polls of new voters show Kerry winning with a moderate but solid

> > majority, the cultural movement of " Anyone-But-Bush " that included the

> > rise of MoveOn.org and fan base around Michael Moore made it pretty

> > predictable that there would be a lot of new voters out there casting

> > their ballots to get rid of Bush. Heck, the very fact that an election

> > for an incumbent president was predicted to have strong turnout

> > inherently favors the challenger. People do not wait in long lines and

> > break their typical pattern of apathy only to vote to reaffirm what

> > they have, they only vote when they feel a desperate need for change.

> > This is a basic truism that applies to every situation and society

> > involving electoral politics.

> >

> > The fact of the matter is that despite these fundamental and

> > reasonable expectations, the official returns showed that Bush got

> > somewhere in the range of 9 million new voters turning out for him,

> > meanwhile Kerry only got no more than 2 million. Aside from the

> > analysis I've made, this is also a shock for another reason. The

> > Republicans have always turned out their base in great numbers; this

> > problem has only and always been with the Democrats. The official

> > results are an utter shock and a slap in the face of this basic

> > analysis. Without any additional information, it is up to each

> > individual to draw conclusions. The two likely possibilities are

> > either electoral fraud in electronic voting machines, or an

> > unprecedently successful effort by Karl Rove to skim the Bible-belt

> > for 9 million new non-voters to back George Bush along with a massive

> > conspiracy by all exit pollsters to show a consensus of Kerry winning

> > a small but considerable majority of previous non-voters.<<

> >

Visit the Sidereal Astrology Disussion Group at:

sidereal

November 8, 2004

John,

There is no end to this sort of post mortem sour grapes type arguments.

While some may have merit, many do not.

There is no discrepancy in the exit polls. The early exit polls were not

representative of the whole electorate.

And if there were all these biases in place involving pro-Democrat

districts, why didn't the Democrats do anything about it?

And where are their protests now? Seems to me a party that was clearly

rooked in 2000 ought to have been more vigilant this time around. Unless of

course...they're in on the whole thing. :-)

I want to believe,

Chris

-

" JOHN TWB " <jtwbjakarta

Monday, November 08, 2004 11:09 AM

Provocative Commentary: .. HOW TO STEAL AN

ELECTION IN OHIO

Commentator Allen L Roland wrote:

Friday, November 05, 2004

HOW THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long

enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer

interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is

simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so

credulous: Carl Sagan

I want to know the truth and I'm not afraid to acknowledge that it appears

that we have been bamboozled again in this election.

There is too much evidence and I'm throwing a red flag on the field . Let's

take a timeout, have an instant replay and review the evidence from all

angles and then make an informed decision. The stakes are too high .

Here's what makes me very uncomfortable;

1. WASHINGTON -- November 4 -- Teresa Fedor, [via Greg Lestini,

glestini]

Ohio State Senator Teresa Fedor said today: " There was trouble with our

elections in Ohio at every stage. It's been a battle getting people

registered to vote, getting to the ballot on voting day and getting that

vote to count. There is a pattern of voter suppression; that's why I called

for [Ohio Secretary of State] Blackwell's resignation more than a month ago.

Blackwell, while claiming to run an unbiased elections process, was also the

co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Additionally, he was the

spokesperson for the anti-business, anti-family constitutional amendment

'Issue 1,' and a failed initiative to repeal a crucial sales-tax revenue

source for the state. Blackwell learned his moves from the Katherine Harris

playbook of Florida 2000, and we won't stand for it. "

2. Susan Truitt, susan.truitt, www.caseohio.org Co-founder

of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Truitt said today: " Seven

counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper

trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can

verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just

get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the

entire state to buy new machines without a paper trail. The exit polls,

virtually the only check we have against tampering with a vote without a

paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A poll worker told me this

morning that there were no tapes of the results posted on some machines; on

other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously shouldn't be the

case. "

3. Bob Fitrakis, rfitraki An attorney who monitored the election

with the Election Protection Coalition, Fitrakis said today: " There were far

fewer machines in the inner-city districts than in the suburbs. I documented

at least a dozen people leaving because the lines were so long in

African-American areas. Blackwell did a great deal of suppressing before the

election -- like attempting to refuse to process voter registration forms.

The absentee ballots were misleading in Franklin County. Kerry was the third

line down, but you had to punch number four to vote for him. Bush was

getting both his votes as well as Kerry's. "

2. John Zogby, considered to be the 'gold standard' of presidential polling,

predicted that John Kerry and John Edwards would win with over 300 electoral

votes. Following Zogby's prediction to the letter, the preponderance of the

exit polling stated that John Kerry would carry all of the major

battleground states: Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan,

Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Oregon. These exit polls were interpreted as

further confirmation of Zogby's final predictions.

3. When comparing the exit polls to the actual " official " final results, it

appears that EVERY state that had electronic voting, without paper trails,

had an " unexplained " advantage for Bush of about 5%.

And it appears that EVERY STATE that had paper trails on their Electronic

Voting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the

margin of error.

So it appears that they remotely electronically messed with the electronic

voting results in every state where they could get away with it (because

there was no paper trail to disprove it in those states).

See these striking voting comparison graphs:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4175

Does this sound like something Karl Rove might do to guarantee a victory for

Bush ? Don't answer ~ it's a rhetorical question.

SO HOW WAS THE ELECTION TECHNICALLY STOLEN ?

Roz Hill / http://rense.com/general59/steI.HTM / explains how easy it is to

steal an election with paperless electronic voting machines.

So, here are the numbers (so far): 112,596,922 voters counted in the

presidential race. Bush has been consistently polling at 45%, which SHOULD

have given him 50,668,614 votes, instead of 58,073,612. This translates into

7,404,998 votes being siphoned off from Kerry votes. Now, how does that

magic work???

Taxpayers get hit with a bill for $3600 (or more) for EACH of the

touch-screen " voting " computers, which are nothing more than dedicated

COUNTERS except that they are marketed by Republicans (who vowed to ensure

Bush's victory); and the American people have not been allowed to examine or

certify the software in these units.

Here is how easy it is to " make magic "

We need COUNTERS - (B) = Bush; (K) = Kerry; (V) = Vote; (T) = Tally

1. If V = B, add 1 to B

2. If T = 8, add 1 to B; Clear T; Skip 3

3. If V = K, add 1 to K; Add 1 to T

This extremely simple bit of programming would shift 12% of the vote from

Kerry to Bush, it would defy exit polls, and it would make it look like Bush

had a huge popular win ~ which is precisely what happened.

At this point ~ why has no one raised the spectre of criminality or a

criminal conspiracy to inflate votes for Bush and deflate tallies for Kerry

via hacking the computerized voting machines.

In addition ~ it is highly suspicious to note that the scale of Bush's vote

far exceeded the best of the pre-election polling ~ which could certainly be