Skip to main content

A patient walks into his doctor's office.

"Doc, I'm really sick.  I have a tumor the size of an orange growing here, I'm constantly nauseated, tired, throwing up all the time, unexplained weight loss...My dad died of cancer...and I think I might have it too."

"How do you know you have cancer?"

"Well, I have all the symptoms...Something is seriously wrong with me, Doc.  Can you run a test or something?"

"Look, I'm not going to investigate your illness unless you prove to me you have cancer."

"But...that's what the test is for..."

"Do you think you have cancer?"

"Maybe.  Yeah."

"Can you prove it to me?"

"Well, no...but...that's why I came here, so you can test me..."

"Then you're out of luck.  Come back to me when you can prove to me you're dying."

Two months after the Presidential election, there has yet to be a smoking gun that Bush was not the legitimate winner.  No "clear and convincing evidence" has been made public, no whistleblower has emerged to attest to some vast right-wing conspiracy to steal the election.  

Yet November 2 left many plagued by a sense that something went terribly wrong on Election Day.   After two months' worth of anecdotes, affidavits, hearings, and number-crunching, the word "fraud" has begun to escape from the lips of many concerned citizens.

At this point, the only people investigating the disturbing events that transpired in Ohio are the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, along with various activists and concerned citizens.

In a few days, Congress will likely approve the slate of Electors from Ohio.  For those of us who have been investigating the election in Ohio, that day will be a sad and tragic day for America.

For in approving those Electors without due consideration of all the "statistical oddities", coordinated voter suppression, abuse of power, and fraudulent activity, is to essentially proclaim "We, as Americans, are comfortable with a diseased democracy."

Armando's Challenge, linked below, is an attempt not to prove fraud, but to lay out the symptoms, the many circumstances which suggest that Ohio's election was not fair, and possibly not legitimate.

It is a bit lengthy, but a fast read because of the graphics and bullet points.  If you don't want to read everything, just scroll to the last five pages or so :)

I've posted it as a Word document and not a .pdf so you can copy and paste whatever sections you'd like to discuss/rebut/correct.

My hope is that, after reading it, you will acknowledge the injustices that occurred, and you will act to remedy and prevent them in the future.

Let's hear what you think.

Armando's Challenge 2.1 MB .doc (sorry to dial-up users!)

here, courtesy of Pachacutec
here, courtesy of by foot

Update [2005-1-3 7:57:0 by georgia10]:: Until I upload a corrected version, may we can hold off on emailing it around? I should have a corrected version up later today.

Originally posted to Georgia Logothetis on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:51 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Bowl (4.00)
    Just to see how many people read this thing :)

    I'd also like rincewind, ctsteve, and jmknapp to post tip  jars (maybe as a reply to this).  Also, everyone else who's been working on investigating Ohio should do the same (I'd list all the names, but I think I'd offend people if I forget one or something.)

    •  Tip jar brigade (4.00)
      As a newbie I only recently realized what a "tip jar" is. Someone on my Cuyahoga thread said "where's your tip jar?" and I just thought, WTF?

      Will read your paper soon but must hit the sack and then out to see Jesse et al in Columbus tomorrow morning!


    •  Excellent work. (none)
      I'd forward the document to my brother-in-law, who is currently convinced that machines are more accurate than hand-counts, except I don't think he'll bother to read it.

      As for the Freeper response, most of them would dismiss it as false and sensationalistic conspiracy claptrap after reading the third or fourth paragraph. As soon as the "F" word is mentioned, the whole thing gets labelled "tin-foil hat". Those who bother to skim the whole thing would dismiss it as lies from the liberal media. Those who actually read it would either be happy that their party's the one pulling dirty tricks to win, or livid that democracy is a sham... wait. We're talking freepers. They'd only be happy that their party's pulling dirty tricks to win.

      "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

      by EsnRedshirt on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:50:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You Rock georgia10!!!!!!! (4.00)
      Georgia10 you nailed it with this diary!!!!!

      Skimmed your analysis and will read it more thoroughly tomorrow. You are really a super hero in covering the election irregularities(fraud) issues.

      Wish that at least a few  Democratic Congressmen will read it. It is sad to see the end of our democracy if these issues are not investigated now. I used to get mad in the past when people used to tell me that their vote didn't matter, and gave a strong rebuttle. If Bush is inaugerted without investigation of these matters then, damn it saddens me to know the fix is in and my vote truly doesn't matter.

      Hope someone will post the challenge as HTML, with pages linked to your section headings, with your permission of course.

      You Rock georgia10!!!!!!

      Thoughts from Connecticut

      by ctsteve on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:45:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I totally appreciate what you have pulled together (none)

      you have fallen prey to the man.

      Utimately we were all lied to. The challenge was that if we could prove as much fraud as TANG, Armando would frontpage... but then we were convinced that wasn't even important... although the front page of Kos was what got Kos invited to the convention and raised the blog to prominence within the community... just present a convincing enough case... and 'I look forward to promoting it'... but of course that is bull since you said it was a 'work in progress' Armando decided it wasn't 'factual enough' to promote.

      You and all other OH vote activists were played. Plain and simple.

      Armando can say that he recognized the poor job re: AA disenfrancisement, yet the Newsweek article was not discussed and we are still awaiting "proof"... please.

      Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

      by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:11:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait.... (none)
        the front page of Kos was what got Kos invited to the convention and raised the blog to prominence within the community

        Are you saying that the DNC recognizes blogs for the power of communication inherent within them, and that's why they invited kos to the convention? That's a new twist.

        I've always been of the opinion that they let kos into the convention for much the same reason that they let Marua in VA into the convention: because she proved that she could raise money.

        •  ugh. (none)
          M-A-U-R-A. Sorry, Maura.

          I'll take this opportunity, though, to say that what I mean by it being a "new twist," is that I thought we all thought the DNC would never "get it," and would never see that blogs and bloggers are a constituency they need to include for its own sake, as opposed to a way to raise money from people they hadn't previously been able to reach.

          The idea that it's the sheer force of kos' rhetoric that pried open the doors of the palace is a new tack.

    •  This belongs in a larger forum. (4.00)
      Georgia10, I have only two critiques of your work.

      One has to do with the title: leave "Armando's Challenge" out of it.

      It may have been your motivation for writing the diary, but the challenge is way beyond Armando.

      The challenge comes from mainstream America, who have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the MSM whitewash.

      The challenge comes from Neocons yelling "Get over it!"

      The challenge comes from all of those who demand one shred of incontrovertible evidence in the face of a mountain of circumstantial and concrete evidence.

      The other critique:

      Your comprehensive compilation belongs in a forum larger than dKos--the Columbus Free Press,, and the like. I cannot believe they would not jump at the chance to carry your piece. I feel honored to have a first shot a reading this massive undertaking but the work is truly deserving of a wider audience.

      And don't forget to sign your real name to it.

    •  I've been doing what I can (4.00)
      I haven't done as much analysis as you have, georgia10--certainly appreciate all the work you've put into your diaries--but I have tried to, at very least, help keep this issue at the forefront in various blogs.

      Here's the link to the Ohio Counts blog I put together

      I wrote a couple of new entries over at Change for America. One of them is about Kenneth Blackwell's conflict of interests in the 2004 election, and the other is about why some of us are still pursuing this issue in spite of repeated calls to "get over it".

  •  I'm interested in reading it. (none)
    But I think the opening story needs a tweak.

    "How do you know you have cancer?"

    "Well, I have all the symptoms...Something is seriously wrong with me, Doc.  Can you just start me on some chemotherapy or something?"

    Unless Armando's supposed to be the doctor, in which case you're fine. I took it to mean that the greater legislative and law enforcement community of America was the doctor.

    But if not, nevermind.

    •  not Armando (4.00)
      I was trying to get the point across the point that Congress and society are requiring proof of fraud before they investigate it.  Which is the whole point of investigating--so you can prove it.

      Looks like my little analogy didn't go over too well :)

      •  Oh. (none)
        OK. Well, in that case, I'll throw out my thinking and see if it's applicable.

        I was asked in another thread, late last night:

        Are you not concerned with the fragile state of our democracy?  If not, why not?  Do you not consider it fragile at all?  Are you ok with continuing to hold elections on paperless machines?

        I don't mean to imply that you are not concerned with those things, it is just I am struggling to understand people who do not seem "worked up" over this.  If there was any issue that I think people would get worked up over, I would think that this would be one of them, or at least they would be highly concerned.

        My response was this:

        Our ability to hold fair, transparent, suppression-free, and auditable elections is of great concern, and not by any stretch well-enough guaranteed.

        But that says nothing conclusory about anyone's having actually corrupted anything.

        The threat of paperless voting is simple, easy to understand, and in theory, easy to correct. So much so, that people don't really need to have any proof of there actually being fraud to want to see it corrected.

        But other kinds of claims of fraud -- again, NOT suppression -- particularly those which require massive conspiracies, or even collections of large numbers of small conspiracies, are different in kind. Those are harder to guard against, and therefore require more invasive correctional procedures. Procedures for which our criminal justice system generally demands much in the way of proof.

        The only objections to paper trails are costs. That's easy to overcome rhetorically, and the fix (so far as we know) is a good bet to work correctly.

        Not so with the other allegations of fraud.

        So maybe I'm just tired and not thinking straight, but I thought that might be applicable here. At least to your opening story. Haven't read the actual response to the challenge yet, and likely won't for some time, being a dial-up loser.

      •  Well I understood it (none)
        and I'm still waiting for the page to download.  Dang, but it's taking it's sweet time (dial up).

        Can't wait to read it, but I'm not one that needs convincing.  You've always had my ear because your opinions reflect mine, and say it in such a well-written way.

        Thanks for all you've done.

      •  I got it. Used this exact analogy myself... (none)
        ...several weeks ago!
      •  loved the analogy! n/t (none)
      •  Good analogy (none)
        You know something is seriously wrong and you want it investigated so you have a chance to fight it.

        It works for me, regardless of the point of reference.

    •  Question (none)
       If I had to track this down... (none / 0)

      I guess my first question for someone needing this kind of help would be along the lines of, "How did you find out that Democrats needed to find something else out?"

      by Kagro X on Sun Jan 2nd, 2005 at 07:41:31 EST

      Kagro X- this response to my question last night explains why you would change the question.  The correct answer is: you find fraud the same way in both cases, whether you know it occurred or you just are feeling the symptoms.

      You run the tests.

      You should ruminate on that, because Georgia10 is making the exact point with his cancer analogy.

      They were Nazis, Walter?

      by BooMan23 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:42:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure. (none)
        You could run the tests. But Conyers is already doing that.

        I could test you all day long, and at the end of the day, I might even discover that you're right, and you do have cancer.

        Then what?

        But you've changed the question as well. You took a question I would ask -- How do you know you need to find something out? -- and moved it to the wrong position in the chronology.

        In my opinion, this question gets asked much earlier on. In this scenario, when georgia10 enters my office and says, "Doc, I'm really sick [and I need to find something out]," I would reply, "How do you know you need to find something out?"

        Georgia10 would then say, "I have a tumor the size of an orange growing here, I'm constantly nauseated, tired, throwing up all the time, unexplained weight loss...My dad died of cancer...and I think I might have it too. That's why I think I need to find out."

        And I'd say, "OK, it's relatively costless for me do do a biopsy. No problem."

        But if georgia10 were to say, "Well, doc, I was kinda thinking that the symptoms I've described are enough to go straight to a course of chemotherapy," then I'd say, "I'll tell you what. Why don't we run some tests, send the results to a specialist like Dr. Armando, and if he thinks there's something that needs some follow-up, we'll set that up."

        I think the problem here arises from not knowing exactly what the "tests" in this analogy are supposed to be.

        •  We know what they are (none)
          they are looking at the machines and the code, doing manual recounts.

          Your like a doctor who says, "I'm sorry, fuck you, I don't give a shit if you have cancer or not, I'm say you don't, and I'm not letting anyone else give you a second opinion."

          "But if I do have cancer, I could be dead by Jan. 6th., and all you have to do is run some tests?"

          "Get bent."

          They were Nazis, Walter?

          by BooMan23 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:05:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shall I just leave you alone to do this yourself? (none)
            I consider looking at the machines and the code to be a part of an aggressive cancer treatment, not the preliminary tests. They are invasive procedures that entail some risk, but which can be fully justified when biopsies come back that indicate there's a treatable cancer attacking the body.

            I consider the inquiries that can be performed more casually and informally to be the tests. And Conyers' hearings to be biopsies. The first not conclusive by themselves, but good indications that you need to see a doctor. The second giving you a good indication that there is or isn't a cancer involved, and providing some good information about the type of cancer involved, a result from which you can make some informed decisions about which specialists to see, and the likelihood of treatability once you see them.

            You're like a patient who just walks in and says, "Doc, I think I have an expensive disease that my insurance won't cover, and I know how you bastards are about that. So fuck you, I'd rather die than submit to your care, you heartless prick."

            Then, he finds out he was talking to the receptionist.

            •  but... (none)
              in a democracy that depends on the infallability of the voting system, it is unimaginable that the source code for the machines would not have been examined prior to the election to ensure everything was in order.

              The fact that the companies continue to block the examination (either for this election or just in general as a safeguard for democracy) is highly suspicious on its face.

              Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

              by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:46:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. (none)
                You have a problem there. I'm 100% with you on that one. Not only should there be a paper trail, but it should be illegal for public funds to be spent on voting machines for which the code is not open and examinable.

                The fact that companies block access to the code is suspicious, but also easily explained. If I were corporate counsel for those companies, I wouldn't advise them to voluntarily release evidence into the hands of people publicly committed to destroying them, either.

                Their decision not to allow access, just to stay within the medical analogy, would be like complaining of a persistent cough and a stinging pain in your soft palate and throat.

                Indicative of esophagal cancer? Or post-nasal drip? Or both?

                •  both (none)
                  until proven otherwise

                  Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

                  by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:40:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So begin the process. (4.00)
                    First, I treat the post-nasal drip. Easy, cheap, non-invasive.

                    Then I check on the esophagus. If I find something, I send you to a specialist. This is about where I put Conyers. On January 6th, he's going to present your case to the rest of the oncology department at the University hospital, and recommend an experimental treatment.

                    He might be outvoted, and you might not get your treatment. And the department may vote against you because of their AMA-instilled prejudices against this experimental treatment, or because of their fears about liability insurance. But then you need to seek alternatives -- go abroad for treatment (introduce legislation to change the laws prohibiting access to the voting machines, say), or sue the hospital (the manufacturers and the public officials who contract with them) to force them to allow you to go forward.

                    But if you go the second route, you can't cry foul if the judge asks for evidence. It won't help you get better to remind yourself that that's just the way the court system works. But it won't help you win to merely denounce the unfairness of it, either.

                    File suit. If you lose, work on your case some more and file again. Find a crack somewhere. They never got Capone on racketeering. It was tax evasion.

            •  I guess I'm not understanding (none)
              why you would compare an examination of the machines and the software to aggressive cancer treatment and not a preliminary test.

              But then, maybe this suggests that the analogy doesn't go all the way through logically speaking.  Most people who present to a physician really don't know what the best initial test for them might be.  

              But most voters know that insuring that the voting machine is tallying votes correctly must start with the voting machine itself.  They know that if you aren't allowed to examine the machine and its' software that you're being asked to take the honesty of the company providing the machine on faith. This doesn't require specialized's just plain common sense.

              Personally, I feel that if the laws governing computers and software allow a voting machine company to maintain a secret voting system through laws protecting proprietary software then as a first step to insuring fair elections we need to get rid of the machines. I am completely against faith-based voting systems.

              I guess the closest I can come to fitting this in with the analogy would be something like comparing the computerized voting machine to the offending lump the patient that case, clearly, biopsy is an important starting point.  I know I find the machines to be offensive ;)

              •  I suggest another analogy above. (none)
                But here's why I compare the examination of the machines and software to aggressive cancer treatment: it's invasive, and therefore carries risks that need to be justified.

                By invasive, I mean to the proprietary rights of the developers of the voting machine.

                Of course, I also stand with you in the opinion that non-open source machines ought not to be permitted by law. But at the moment, they are. And the reason you can't examine them is that the law stands in your way. The only tool you have to cut through the red tape is invasive surgery: a lawsuit compelling disclosure.

                To get that, you can't just show up in court with nagging doubts.

                This problem should have been attacked at the onset, by preventing the deployment of proprietary vote-counting machines. But we missed that window, and now we're stuck with the avenues afforded by that damned law stuff.

                •  I knew you'd be bringing up the proprietary rights (none)
                  of these people :)  

                  Somehow, I guess I feel that the American people's right to KNOW that the election was fairly conducted trumps the right these companies have.  I certainly don't expect some Repub Supreme Court will agree but them's the breaks in Ohio.

                  I do agree with you that secret-software machines should be banned from the voting arena.  I think every voter should make this a priority issue when considering who to vote for.  At this point, I personally will not be willing to spend my time filling in a bubble for a politician who won't fight to get rid of this threat to our voting system.  

                  I'm still wondering where the hell the Dems have been on this'd think they'd have been shouting about it from the mountaintops.

                  •  I have to bring them up. (none)
                    I reject their propriety, but not their existence.

                    I can't. And neither can you.

                    I also feel that the American people's right to know that the election was fairly conducted trumps the rights these companies have. But the law doesn't.

                    I'm for changing that law, if no judge can be convinced that our feelings are enough.

                    As for where the Dems are, they're all over the map. 150+ of them in the House are cosponsors of Rush Holt's paper trail bill. But others of them aren't. Some are concerned only with voter suppression, at this point. Some are apparently not on board with either. Why they don't get together, I'm still not sure.

                    And as yet, there's no bill that I know of that bans non-open source voting machines. We could write one ourselves, though. Seriously. We couldn't introduce it, but I bet we could get a Congressional sponsor for it.

                    •  HR 2239 (Holt's Bill) (4.00)
                      Section 4(a)(2)(C)SOFTWARE AND MODEMS-

                      (i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

                      •  Yeah, uh, well, I just called ol' Rush, see, and.. (none)
                        OK, right. So, uh, there you go.

                        I'm for that.

                        I didn't know how much until just now. I was for it just based on the paper trail alone. But now that I think about it, how retarded would it be to have legislation with one and not the other.

                        Of course, I say that now, knowing full well that there probably is such legislation out there, and it's probably sponsored by someone I like.

                        Thanks g.

                •  Rights? Rights?? (4.00)
                  How can you say that a corporation's rights to privacy outweigh ALL our rights as voters?

                  This while the current administration is talking about permanently locking up terrorist suspects even with no evidence?

                  The people that made the new voting machines provided no way to make the process a transparant, accountable one, one that leaves a paper trail that is irrefutable.  Yet this is the same company that makes ATMs, which REQUIRE a paper trail.

                  And I should add, that not only is the code being deemed as proprietary (if they really wanted, NDAs could be brought in, so far as revealing trade secrets versus improprieties) but the DATA ITSELF is deemed proprietary.  So we don't even own our own votes?  How convenient!

                  Diebold (and Triad, and the others) collectively have a lot to answer for here.

                  I'm sorry, but I think making sure that we all have individual voting rights trumps an arbitrary corporate decision that ALL information about the voting machines is company property.  This would mean that 80% of this country's voting process now belongs to corporations, and we aren't allowed to investigate just how that process happens anymore?  Bullshit!

                  •  The problem... (4.00)
           not the public's right to know versus corporations' right to privacy or confidentiality.  The problem is that we have a system in place that allowed public officials (of both parties, by the way) to contract with private corporations to count the votes without requiring those corporations to share the information now in question as a condition of entering into those contracts.  The government held all the bargaining power, since these companies' voting machines have only one customer: the government.  At best, the contracting government officials trusted naively and were negligent in their role as trustees of the voters' interest in a transparent, verifiable election process. THEY are the ones that allowed a situation to develop where the election process is being questioned but some of the crucial information needed to investigate it is subject to claims of confidentiality and trade secrecy.  California officials did their job and said, "We're not going to use these crappy machines."  They even got the companies to pony up a couple million bucks to settle the state's claims against them.  

                    "Now watch this drive."

                    by tompaine2004 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:19:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Calm. Calm. Seriously. (none)
                    I don't like it, but I have to say it. It's a real and significant barrier, and no matter how you put it in emotional terms, the judge is going to want a legal basis for pushing those well-established rights aside.

                    I think that if you go back and read through everything I've now put out there, you'll see that I'm 100% with you on the emotion.

                    •  The point you're making is true IMO (none)
                      I also think TomPaine's point just above is very well made:

                      "...At best, the contracting government officials trusted naively and were negligent in their role as trustees of the voters' interest in a transparent, verifiable election process. THEY are the ones that allowed a situation to develop where the election process is being questioned but some of the crucial information needed to investigate it is subject to claims of confidentiality and trade secrecy."

                      These two points together highlight why I feel it's important for the voters to know about the issue and let their reps know it's a priority.  

                      •  Glad to see this discussion alive (none)
                        I'm always pleased to see Kagro X express feelings. Makes me want to be as civil as I can possibly be and appreciate the existence of an opposing point of view.

                        I'd like to continue a discussion we had in another thread in this thread.

                        This was my last, unanswered post [edited to apply to this thread]:

                        The examination of any systems, source code, polling data, etc., could have been allowed by these companies with a condition--those allowed to inspect whatever systems, source code, polling data, etc. would be limited to data verification and security issues.

                        [. . .]

                        What I would like to know: if everything being done by those on the election gravy train have nothing to hide, if they have confidence in the accuracy and the security of their processes, what do these companies have to lose by allowing outside audits? Wouldn't a clean bill of health from non-partisan, independent examination do much to restore faith in the electoral process? Wouldn't there be more to gain from allowing outside audits?

                        Another question I have: is the protection of copyright law more sacred than the protection of the constitutional law? Is this why there is across the board refusal to allow conditional access?

                        Should there be a way to weigh the value of verification against proprietary processes? I do not know if there is any legal precedent. My own opinion is that protection of the democratic election process should trump all. What do you believe? Can you suggest a possible remedy? Will it take new legislation?

                        In the case of proprietary information: is there nothing in the law that allows us to pit one right (copyright) against the other (voting)? Can we use documented cases of the failure of voting systems/tabulation equipment as the grounds for further legal discovery?

                        I'm open to hear the hows and whys but I'm not ready to give in to corporate interests on the basis of copyright law.

                        I am not yet ready to concede that there is no remedy to the present situation, and that the only hope lies in depending upon a Republican Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch to enact election reform.

                        •  Much more thoughtful. (none)
                          Did you write this before or after the sophistry comment? I prefer this one. I think we should discuss my feelings about your other one some time.

                          I would examine the proprietary rights and confidentiality agreement issues against this background: No corporation would think itself well-served by voluntarily releasing proprietary information, whether or not they have something to hide.

                          All the moreso in this situation, when there's an angry public waiting outside to tear you apart. This says nothing about whether or not the public is justifiably angry. It doesn't matter from the corporate perspective. All you'd know is that there are people who want to destroy you, and you don't want that.

                          Even a non-partisan, independent review poses some problems for the corporation. What would be the result of a clean bill of health? Everyone goes home happy, or some portion of the angry mob insists the non-partisan, independent review board has been bought off, either through conspiracy, or simply because they're all too invested in their middle-class lifestyles to risk disrupting the American corporatocracy? Or at least, that's your fear if you're the corporation in this example.

                          There can be plenty to gain from outside audits -- if we were to make them a legal requirement for qualifying for the contract in the first place. Why we don't, I have no idea. Well, actually, it's because we got outvoted (or maybe not -- that's at the heart of this, too) in the contests to decide who would be allowed to make up the contracting rules. But that's another story.

                          Is the protection of copyright law more sacred than the protection of the constitutional law?

                          No, I wouldn't say so. But that's not just an automatic decision we can make for ourselves, as lay people, based on common sense. We can't simply wave the Constitution in their faces as we storm the castle. You have to go to a judge and make a case. You say, "Judge, isn't the Constitution more important than copyright law?" And the judge will say, "Yes it is." And you'll say, "Well, then, can we see the source code?" And he'll say, "What do you think the source code has to do with the Constitution?" And you'll say, "Because they're using it to count votes, and we think they're cheating." And he'll say, "What makes you say that?"

                          And here we are.

                          Statistics alone have been known to be enough to pry open corporate vaults. But that's a subject of much controversy in legal circles. Some judges buy into it, and some don't. Just like the people here.

                          This is something I think a well-made case can win on. Which is why Armando and others would like to see the case made, and made well.

                          Legislation is an alternative route, and one we should be pursuing in parallel. We're stymied on the federal level at the moment, but there are states in which sympathetic forces hold sway. What's happening there? Anything? Or are we all standing outside the U.S. Capitol because it's the sexier story?

                          •  Several questions for you (none)
                            1. Does anyone know what the Ohio contract with Diebold and Triad says?  

                            2. If we wanted to know the wording of that contract how would we find out?  

                            3. Which public officials exactly are responsible for making the contract...which ones are responsible for making sure the contract is fair to Ohio's citizens?

                            4. Regarding Holt's you have any links I could look at that discuss the history of this bill...when it was created, who supported it, etc.?

                            Thanks for any answers to the above you may have.  I'm asking you because you seem to have some knowledge about these issues...not trying to be snarky...just really want to know.

                            Also, as someone pointed out to me, I questioned you about your position on voting machines without having thoroughly read your intial post in this thread which pretty well laid out that postion.  I apologise and at the same time thank you for restating your position in a snark-free response to me.

                            In answer to the question you pose, "...Or are we all standing outside the U.S. Capitol because it's the sexier story?"...I can tell you that although I will be standing in Lafayette Park in Washington, DC on 1/6 for a demonstration about this election, I don't find the idea of it sexy at all. Standing in the rain hundreds of miles from where I live to be in a sign-carrying crowd is NOT my idea of fun.

                            I'm going because I feel very strongly that people who believe that racial disenfranchisement and secret software inside voting machines are wrong should go if they are able to.  I feel an obligation to support the reps I'm asking to put their careers on the line for this issue.  

                            I'm going because I believe a picture is worth a thousand words...and I feel it's important to help create a picture that illustrates that the American people have NOT all been fooled and we're not going away until we get transparent, fair elections for all voters...not just the white, Republican ones.

                            I guess I think that any political movement benefits from the wide variety of actions that different people bring to it.  I can't provide legal expertise...but I can be a warm body in the field-so that's what I do.

                          •  I haven't seen it. (none)
                            And I don't know what Ohio's public contracting law is like, but I'd imagine that it's a matter of public record. But I'd also guess that the contract itself is pretty benign.

                            What's probably more interesting is what's not in the contract, like auditing and open-source requirements.

                            I don't know who's the responsible contracting party on behalf of the jurisdictions using Diebold and Triad equipment and services. I imagine they'd have contracts with the elections authorities in each county that uses their equipment.

                            Holt's bill can be reviewed online in the Thomas system. Search for the bill HR 2239.

                            This link will direct you to a summary of the bill, its status, a list of cosponsors, etc.

                            Holt's web site, of course, also has some info and this write-up.

                            Plenty of good sites offering activist opportunities, as well. Just google "HR 2239" and go to town.

                          •  One other question... (none)
                            Why Lafayette Park on the 6th? All the action on the 6th will be 16 blocks away, at the Capitol. Are you marching? Or did you actually want to be outside of the White House because the action at the Capitol will be about counting votes for president, and so...?

                            I guess I'm asking, why not outside the House, where the votes will be counted and any objections will be made?

                          •  The demonstration is starting at 10:00 am (none)
                            in LaFayette Park.  Cobb and Bonifaz will be speaking there.  Then the group will march together to Capitol Hill where Jesse Jackson, Sr and Cobb will speak.  That portion of the event is called a Defend Democracy Rally & Vigil.  The whole thing is coordinated with a Save Our Votes March which will be coming to DC from Maryland.

                            So far, the action has been supported by United Progressives for Democracy, the Cobb/LaMarche campaign, Code Pink, D.C. Anti-War Network, Green Party of the U.S., Independent Progressive Politics Network, International Labor Communications Association, No Stolen Elections, Progressive Democrats of America, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Truth in Elections.

                    •  core of democracy (none)
                      I think the core of our democracy trumps all laws... I see it as more of a Constitutional matter that would require a judge to chose transparency over proprietary rights. Of course, I doubt too many winger judges would see it that way.
                      •  All true. (none)
                        But you have to ask them, first. And if they don't give you the answer you want, try again from a different angle.

                        At the same time, you should be working to change the law, to remove their discretion from the equation.

                •  I reject many of the rights of the corporation (none)
                  The bill mentioned below is a great start.
                  I am all for corporations making money from their investments, but the other corporate rights, those coming from their artificial personhood legal status, allow for those protections to remain in place far too long.  

                  It is time we do away with constitutional protections to corporations.  This would be a great case to challenge their legitimacy.

                  so i said,"Washington's groovy(laughs). That's what i said. And it is... for Romans"

                  by k9disc on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:25:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (none)
                    not all in the "corporate class" are fighting on the side of the devil, and a small businesspeople like me need corporate protection.  

                    Reform of a series of laws that enable abuses is the best way to go, IMHO.  You can't have the kind of economic stability, growth and job creation that we have typically known by throwing away the legal construct of the corporation.  Otherwise, there will be too many barriers to entrepreneurs, new business entrants (which employ the most people and create the most jobs) and barriers to innovation.

                    I'm hosting a mirror for georgia10's work, and I'm here to tell you, there would be many unitended, undesirable consequences to the destruction of the corporate entity across the board.

                    We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

                    by Pachacutec on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:40:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  IANAEconomist, but ... (none)
                      You can't have the kind of economic stability, growth and job creation that we have typically known by throwing away the legal construct of the corporation. Otherwise, there will be too many barriers to entrepreneurs, new business entrants (which employ the most people and create the most jobs) and barriers to innovation.
                      I Am Not An Economist, but I strongly suspect that corporate law is currently heavily slanted (and becoming ever more so) in favor of larger corporations, the existence of which are much more of a disincentive to innovation and entrepreneurship than would happen even if we threw away the legal construct entirely. (To say nothing of the ongoing reality-warping side-effects of corporate-centric society..)

                      Corporations started off as a reasonable idea, but the implementation was flawed and the feedback cycle has really perverted the idea. (Bigger corporations have more resources for lawyers and lobbyists, which gives them power to change corporate law, which they use to get even bigger, and so on.)

                      At the very least, the idea needs a massive redesign. Unfortunately, it'd be damn near impossible to do that without the redesign process itself being perverted.

                      Proud member of the reality-based minority

                      by Bearpaw on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:17:27 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  we agree on diagnosis but not on treatment (none)
                        I'm more than with you on the way power has been imbalanced to favor anti-competitive, anti-innovative large corporations, who have the resources to buy politicians and write regulations to tailored to their own, narrow advantages.  I've written a number of posts on this subject here and at mydd.

                        I just don't believe, and no one has shown me, that the cure for this regulatory problem lies not in regulatory reform but in the complete abolition of the corporation.

                        We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

                        by Pachacutec on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:28:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It is not complete abolition that I am advocating (none)
                          it is a return to normalcy.  Take away their rights under the constitution.  They are property not people.  

                          This is not wholesale corporate abolition, it is what is required to get them back to heel.

                          You (your small busines) cannot afford the hoops that are required for a corporation to be a super person.  IF you do something criminal with your business, you will get nailed.  If they do it they get the cover of business week.

                          Corporations are not people.  Say it again, corporations are not people.

                          so i said,"Washington's groovy(laughs). That's what i said. And it is... for Romans"

                          by k9disc on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 03:50:34 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  that is abolition (none)
                            The legal fiction of a corporation as a person is the legal construct that defines "corporation."  The other options are sole proprietorships (really small) limited liability corporations (also ruled out by your prescription), limpted liability partnerships (good for some businesses and not for others).  Corporations can be c-corps (typically large) and subchapter-S corporations (usually smaller).  Only corporations have the flexibility to raise capital easily (this is also a big topic) through the sale of stock.

                            Sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about.  There's a lot more here than economics; there's law as well.

                            We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

                            by Pachacutec on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:29:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is shoddy law, (none)
                            Before 1886 corporations were not people.  They were legal fictions, that had rights, but they did not have the rights of people under the constitution.
                            There were many things that corporations could not do before, but have been able to legislate into reality by claiming rights under the 14th amendment, I believe.
                            They were not always people and they should not be people under the law.  They are property.

                            so i said,"Washington's groovy(laughs). That's what i said. And it is... for Romans"

                            by k9disc on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 08:20:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm all ears (none)
                            if you or anyone can make the case in a comprehensive way, showing:

                            •  the history of the evolution of the corporation as person

                            •  the arguments in favor of keeping the law as it is, from the corporate, economic and sociaetal perspectives

                            •  the arguments for changing that part of the law, from the corporate, economic and societal perspectives

                            We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

                            by Pachacutec on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 08:48:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ugh! What a task. (none)
                            I should post a diary on the subject.  Lots of work required for that one.

                            I do not think that I am qualified, nor capable to address all of those issues.  Your vernacular in the above post goes deeper than I am schooled in business.

                            Perhaps you could tell me what the drawbacks of restricting personhood status, outside of commerce.

                            It is my opinion that the current method of operation, a consumer based economy is unsustainable.  Grow or die is not going to be a valid concept when there is nowhere left to expand.  There will have to be major changes in the concpet of economy.  I am unable to provide those solutions.

                            so i said,"Washington's groovy(laughs). That's what i said. And it is... for Romans"

                            by k9disc on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 08:55:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am very interested in reform (none)
                            but the question you ask me to address is beyond my immediate area of expertise as well, to do right.  I'd love to see someone take it on.

                            I probably would disagree with you on the consumer model of economy, because I do not think the growth horizon is bounded.  It is not bounded by land, and what we see more and more is that we can create resources and goods through creativity and conceptual capital.  You and I are engaged in precisely that, using tools produced through just such a process.  And if you would abolish the consumer model, then you'd have to propose a viable alternative.  None have succeeded, and I think, none do so well at understanding human nature for what it is, and in giving people maximal autonomy when making choices.

                            We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

                            by Pachacutec on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 09:05:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know the feeling (none)
                            I think that land is finite.  Resources are finite.   Much can be overcome through creativity.  I believe that the corporate consumer model, status quo, is not only unsustainable, but does not allow for the creativity you desire.  Think of all the products/projects mothballed due to the current corporate heirarchy.
                            Where do you live, by chance?

                            so i said,"Washington's groovy(laughs). That's what i said. And it is... for Romans"

                            by k9disc on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 09:29:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  most of my professional life (none)
                            is focused on promoting innovation, positive leadership and creativity in institutions and businesses, so I don't concede the notion that the engines of our institutions don't promote innovation, though as big corporations have stacked the regulatory deck against new entrants, the job has gotten harder.  In the long run, that will diminish U. S. job growth and increase poverty.  

                            That's why I'd like to see well targeted, progressive political and structural regulatory reform.  Other national economies, with their declining barriers to entry for start-ups and their improving science and educational programs, are catching up to us, and our global niche is weakening.  If you think jobs are fleeing overseas now, you aint seen nothin yet, if we lose our competitive edges in education and innovation.

                            Many of those mothballed products are not yet viable products:  by that I mean that they cannot be produced and presented in ways that consumers will support, at some reasonable rate of profit.  Many good ideas die out due to resistance to change, but that's what businesses hire people like me to help them avoid.  I'm currently in the editing phase of a book I've written on the subject.

                            I live in Alexandria, VA.

                            We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

                            by Pachacutec on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:00:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  With respect you're completely wrong (none)
              looking at the machines and the code is not a treatment at all.  Treatment would be determined after a diagnosis.

              All we have now are symptoms.

              The symptoms are a popular vote the defies all expectations considering Bush's negatives, the numbers on the country moving in the right direction, the state polls, the national polls, and the exit polls.  Plus, obvious voter suppression efforts, anecdotal reports of voting machines misbehaving, and the behavior of Blackwill.

              The only way to prevent a possible theft of the machines is to raise the level of public doubt to the point that the public demands an investigation before an inauguration.

              It's too late for that now, no thanks to people like you and Delaware Dem, who have urged us to get on with it.

              They were Nazis, Walter?

              by BooMan23 on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:24:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's respect? (none)
                I can appreciate a different definition of terms in the analogy, but where have I ever urged you or anyone else to "get on with it?"

                I've been pretty forthcoming in this thread with respect to what I'd like you to get on with, and that's the introduction of legislation to make it illegal to use non-open source electronic voting or vote counting equipment, and in the meantime, using strategic lawsuits designed to make whatever case is possible for prying your way into that proprietary code, on public policy grounds.

                With those goals in mind, I disagree that this must happen before the inauguration. That's the best time for it, but I don't think it closes the door on us.

                In reconsidering the analogy, I would agree that just looking at the machines isn't treatment, although it is invasive. Maybe that's exploratory surgery -- to see if the tumor is removable.

        •  Armandos challenge (none)
          Conyers isn't running the tests, because he hasn't been allowed to have the material needed to do this. ie  hand recount,  raw data of exit  polls, polling books,  the machines themselves, the proprietary source code etc.  
          •  Again... (none)
            I think of getting your hands on the actual machines, source code, etc. as an invasive procedure. Going under the knife and cutting the tumor out. Or perhaps an aggressive course of chemo or radiation therapy.

            They're expensive, invasive, somewhat risky, and can't be had off-the-shelf without vetting from a primary care physician, then an oncologist, and then a radiologist or surgeon. And that's not even to mention the insurance companies.

            Terms need to be defined here if there's going to be any value to this analogy.

            •  Enough with the analogy. (4.00)
              Bottom line:  It is unacceptable that our elections are not transparent, that the code for the paperless machines is closed-source (Republican-owned), and that we do not have access to the machines that is implementing our democracy.

              There's nothing invasive or risky about this.  American elections are not a private business.  We will win on these points eventually and get access to the code and the machines (at some point in the future months, years, whatever).  This is what the fight for a transparent democracy will lead to.

              •  Hey, it's not my analogy originally. (none)
                Elections not transparent: unacceptable. Check.
                Code for paperless machines closed-source: unacceptable. Check.
                Not having access to machines: unacceptable. Check.

                But unfortunately, American election results are counted by private business. They shouldn't be, but they are. And the remedy for that is either legal or legislative.

                The legal remedy requires defeating the contracting companies' proprietary rights in their coding, which requires some substantial amount of admissible evidence to disrupt. And I would favor pursuing this disruption.

                The legislative remedy doesn't actually, technically require any proof at all. You just have to convince the legislature (and the president, veto-wise) to either repeal these protections specifically with respect to the manufacturers of vote counting equipment, or to forbid the use of non-open source machinery in the counting of ballots in federal races (and get the same thing done on the state and local levels). I would also support these goals.

                Why do you think I don't? Because I tell you plainly about the barriers you face?

                •  asdf (none)
                  It was just that the analogy was getting wearisome :-) and I wasn't exactly sure where you stood on each of the listed issues.  I knew, vaguely, that you were on our side, but there were all these barriers (real or imagined) and walls and skeptics and energy-sappers being thrown around, heh, that I just wanted to cut to the chase and make sure that we all still saw the end zone of where we needed to end up, at all costs.
              •  exactly (none)
                "There's nothing invasive or risky"

                so what's the problem? except certain people don't want us to see the source code.

                •  But there is something invasive and risky. (none)
                  As it now stands, you will have to defeat someone's rights in order to see that source code.

                  Now, that ought never to have been the case, because we never should have allowed proprietary, non-open source programming in any machine used to tabulate the vote. But we did.

                  Now, you seek to destroy a private company's privacy rights to press your case. I would actually like to see that happen. But I know that you can't do it by simply talking vaguely about the Constitution. You have to file a winning lawsuit, or change the law.

                  I support both avenues, despite the destruction of rights. I believe that with respect to counting the vote, no such rights ought to exist.

                  •  zero problem (none)
                    I have absolutely no problem with overriding a corporation's rights. We give them those rights to begin with, ergo we can take them when needed (consider it like eminent domain except much more rational and necessary).

                    If some corporate stooge lawmakers made these deals and let them hide their code, that's their problem. There's far too much secrecy in our govt. and business as it is and this is one issue where we have to take a stand.

                    Like I said elsewhere, I think it's a Constitutional issue that goes to the core of democracy so open up the code!

                    •  Let me be clear: (none)
                      I also have no problem with it. But in this country, you don't get to override anyone's rights (and avoid punishment for it) without getting a court's sanction to do it.

                      So file that suit.

                      That's all I mean by what I've said. I don't know how I can make it any clearer, but I'm willing to try, if asked.

                      I can hardly wait to see those proprietary rights in vote counting systems destroyed. It keeps me up nights. I imagine that I literally taste it with every bite of food.

                      But that doesn't mean they're going to surrender the code to me. I have to sue it out of them, or change the law. Or both.

            •  HMO? (none)
              You sound like an HMO employee keeping costs under control and those on the other side of this analogy/arguement sound like the person who is afraid for their life.  Is Conyers the doctor?  The patient lawyer?  The CTscan?  Is Bush the tumor or is it Blackwell?  Who's the candystriper?
              •  You can't tell the players without a roster. (none)
                And you can't win the game without knowing the rules.

                What do you want to accomplish? How do you want to accomplish it? Who's empowered to see it done, and who's not? Do you know?

                You may very well have cancer. Your primary care physician may very well agree.

                But he's not licensed to administer the cure. If you'd like a chance at surviving, find out who is, and go see him. And when you do, be prepared to answer his questions. If he doesn't respond to you, get a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth.

                But make sure you're not talking to podiatrists.

                •  Alright (none)
                  I'll go with this analogy.  The patient's appointment is on January 6th.  The receptionist says "You can't reschedule any time this year.  You may have a slight chance in 2006, but the next realistic chance of an appointment is 2008."

                  To me, the single most important reason to make a big noise about the election now is that (to change metaphors completely) the window of the American publics' attention span is about to close forever on the 2004 election.  We can all pretend that our efforts to make elections clean  will actually change anything in the next two or four years, but I greatly fear (given the sorry election reform history of 2000-2004) that we will be acrimoniously debating election fraud on dKos in November and December of 2008.  Sad, sad, sad.

                  There is a tremendous chance which we are about to let fall by the wayside (yikes, another metaphor!).  That's why Georgia10's work, and the work of so many others is so important.  If Conyers etal are able to get a group of Senators to stand up on 01/06, we will have instant SCLM attention.  Ergo, we will reinvigorate the election reform debate that, to the average voter, was "a Florida problem that got fixed before the 2002 election, didn't it?"

                  We have no, I repeat, no chance of meaningful election reform in the next four years if we don't jostle the sleepy electorate awake long enough to realize that they are being screwed.  On January 7th they will nod off again(oh god, I've started another metaphor) for another two/four years and will be even harder to awaken.

                  •  Excellent Point (4.00)
                    We have no, I repeat, no chance of meaningful election reform in the next four years if we don't jostle the sleepy electorate


                    I just made the point in the "response to Georgia10" diary that the shortest path to future election reform is to prosecute the 2004 election as a theft.

                    In fact, what we need to jostle is not just the puny electorate, but the whole bloody system itself. Because this transmits the shock wave upstream to the powers that pull the strings, the ones that need to be checked and balanced.

                    The specific reason we have "no chance" for reform if we let the moment pass (as you say) is that we have no power in the government.

                    But what we do have is an adversarial system.

                    But that whole premise breaks down if the adversary is too shy to fight. We need to push our cause to the max because the opposition--rightfully, in our system--is doing the same against us.

                    If the evidence backs us up, so be it.

                    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

                    by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:25:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  shortest path to ...? (none)
                      I just made the point in the "response to Georgia10" diary that the shortest path to future election reform is to prosecute the 2004 election as a theft.

                      I disagree. Trying to prosecute the 2004 election as a theft is the shortest path to election reform being written off as a nutcase idea. Even if you're right about the 2004 election. Maybe especially if you're right about it.

                      Proud member of the reality-based minority

                      by Bearpaw on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:26:25 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't see why that's the only appointment. (3.00)
                    The 6th is our first appointment. Are we giving up if we don't win the challenge? Because we're not going to.

                    I think our next appointment has to be with a doctor who will pioneer a new treatment -- i.e., legislation like Rush Holt's. And because we know that'll be blocked, we need to initiate other proceedings in court.

                    I don't understand what's left to fight about in this analogy.

                    I'm for paper trails. I'm for open source only voting machines and auditability. I'm for investigations into voter suppression efforts. I'm even for the electoral challenge on the 6th, even though we'll lose. And I'm for more (and frankly, better) attorneys filing more and better lawsuits to try to find a way into those machines.

                    What else would you like to test me on? Name it, and I'll see if I can agree to it, if that's of any interest to you.

                    What separates me from most of you, apparently, is that I like to approach these frustrations with the idea in mind that there's a solution I can lay out for the specialists who are empowered to help me. I don't just sign petitions asking them to figure it out for me.

                    They can't seem to do it. They're too busy fundraising. So I'd like to figure out the system myself and give them a blueprint, so that there are fewer excuses not to follow it.

                    That's what I'm about.

                    •  Where we differ (4.00)
                      I guess, is that I have little confidence that meaningful reform will happen without great pressure from the public.  No matter how thoughtful and useful of a blueprint you could provide, it would get fed into the law making machine, with Republicans at all the controls, and would come out the other end as an  ineffectual mishmash of legislation, chock full of money making opportunities for partisan constituents and almost unrecognizeable compared to your original blueprint.  

                      I want maximum visibility of these issues now, before the coronation.  For petesake, many Americans are completely unaware that there are serious voting problems.  Why would a legislator give this any kind of priority, when their constituents are so blissfully unaware?  I believe that public awareness is as much a part of this mess as is a good blueprint.  We are approaching a very good chance to wake people up.  I don't think we should waste it.  I say sign petitions, send LTEs, send emails, make this important to people.

                      •  Sure. Fine. Go. (none)
                        There's nothing counterproductive about public pressure and a public awareness campaign, provided it's well-founded. That's what I thought Armando's challenge was supposed to draw out.

                        It might have happened sooner. That would have been nice. And a more coherent statement of the issue might have arisen on its own, without prodding. But it didn't. And I don't see that as the fault of "elite bloggers."

            •  Again... (none)
              what makes you suggest that voters don't have the right to a transparent voting system...or at least something a lot closer than a machine with secret software inside can provide.

              What makes you suggest that it's appropriate that these machines aren't open to public scrutiny?  Why do you support faith-based voting systems?

              •  Again is Right (none)
                Where did he "suggest that voters don't have the right to a transparent voting system?"

                here?  Um, no:

                Our ability to hold fair, transparent, suppression-free, and auditable elections is of great concern, and not by any stretch well-enough guaranteed.

                I know it was a long time (32 minutes) before your comment, and a long way (a couple comments away from this comment on the same thread), but still, maybe you could exert yourself and determine if he really is suggesting they don't have the "right to a transparent voting system."  

                •  point taken (none)
                  I guess like HariSeldon said a short while after my post, "...I wasn't exactly sure where you [KagroX] stood on each of the listed issues."

                  It was all cleared up about a half hour before you posted when KagroX responded to my intial query about this topic...but thanks for your belated insight ;)

        •  but of course you are always free to (none)
          get a second opinion if you don't agree with the findings of the specialist.

          Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

          by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:20:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is like if Your Dog is (none)

          You can tell by the way it is acting. You have circumstantial evidence. He is lethargic, won't eat.
          The vet says sorry, wait til he dies and them bring him in.

          The exit polls are enough of a clue in and of themselves. Plus the witness testimony.

          And because your neighbor's daughter who lives in Boulder (suspicious) sent for an absentee ballot. It never arrived. She calls three times to make sure she can vote where she resides, with her parents, in another country. The day of the election they tell her she can't vote. Sorry! Fill out that provisional. Do you think the provisional votes got counted? NO. The vote wasn't close enough.

          Eyewitness accounts. From people you know.

           My dog is sick.
           Please don't make me shoot my dog
           so you can cure him.
          ( and then trade on the shares for his future )

          ...people will always vote for the sunshine, not for the darkness

          by missliberties on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:33:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Poor doggie. (none)
            So you get to the vet, and you just say, "He's sick?" Or do you give your reasons for thinking so?

            You give them. Of course you do.

            Now, if your dog has something the vet can cure with a pill that's cheap and carries no risk, he doesn't tell you to wait for it to die, does he? What kind of vet is this?

            But if he thinks your dog may need an operation, does he just put him under and start cutting, or does he do something else first, to make sure that what you've observed comports with something that's both serious and operable?

            •  Our Poor Democracy (none)
     needs surgery......

              And the vet keeps telling me my dog is fine,  ((;=O  >furrowed brow with tears<

              ...people will always vote for the sunshine, not for the darkness

              by missliberties on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:45:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK. So see a surgeon. (none)
                You're still talking to the vet techs. They have sympathy for you, but aren't allowed by law to operate. Even on a dog.
                •  You have the HMO (none)
                  method of treatment for election problems.  I just hope the patient doesn't die while we are trying to figure out what doctor and test should be seen and applied.
                  •  It's the only method in existence. (none)
                    The method of gathering in the streets and demanding doctors doesn't actually change the fact that the one you're looking for still has to be a board-certified oncologist.

                    I also hope the patient doesn't die. But gathering the signatures of everyone but doctors (and refusing emergency medical training for yourself and your colleagues while you do it) doesn't increase the patient's chances much, either.

  •  56 pages!!! (none)
    Damn -- this is one productive person.

    Should make for an interesting read. . .

    Fight the American Taliban

    by pontificator on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:56:28 PM PST

  •  Funny (2.00)
    Not really comparable, the two situations.  

    Jan. 6 is 3 days away.  I can't wait for it to come so we can finally move on.  

    When the revolution comes, Republicans will be a good source of protein.

    by Delaware Dem on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:57:48 PM PST

    •  I'm afraid (4.00)

      fraud diaries and meta-fraud diaries will continue long after Jan. 6th.

       Hopefully, they will shift to concrete election reform diaries to make things better in 2006 and 2008 rather than continuing to lament that Kerry won.

      •  Thank you!! (none)
        That is what I want.   Let's concentrate on election reform and not winning Ohio.  We have enough ancedotal evidence of fraud, irregularities and suppression in Ohio to push voting reform as it is.  

        When the revolution comes, Republicans will be a good source of protein.

        by Delaware Dem on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:17:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure you don't want to just tell (none)
          Georgia to shut his pie hole?

          They were Nazis, Walter?

          by BooMan23 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:34:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If we let this incredibly well documented (4.00)
          case of election rigging go unprotested, it will set a very dangerous precedent.

          Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

          by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:49:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, but... (none)
            the comments from DelDem et al are the exact reason I posted by "why the challenge is bull and not" diary yesterday...

            It's just too late now to change minds and generate action.

            I appreciate the detail Georgia10 put into the doc and look forward to spending the rest of my night reading it... ;)

            Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

            by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:54:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you say it's too late--we're (none)
              talking about politicians here--the type of vocation where minds often need to change as fast as the wind changes direction.  

              That which is politically advantageous--such as a heroic action that is so well substantiated--is the type of posterity  future history books will rave.

              Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

              by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:01:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  because politicians only respond (none)
                to volume. they only make a move when the support is guaranteed and they will not suffer too many inconvienences from it.

                and because this has not been given the legitimacy of the front page and incidents reported on, the groundswell of support we need (outside of people who are already invested in the process) is not there.... and with 3 days to certification and comments like Del Dem's still occuring, we just don't have enough time.

                Really and truly sad. And I hope to whatever power there is that I'm wrong...

                Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

                by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:04:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmmmm, well (none)
                  without ANY help from the media the Barbara Boxer petition alone has, at last viewing, gathered nearly 30,000 signatures.  See

                  Also, has gathered over 400,000 signatures to investigate the vote

                  When you compare this event to Watergate--a scandal that didn't have anywhere near the amount of evidence we have for this VoterGate scandal--AND

                  When you compare this event to what brought down Clinton,

                  I have to wonder what would it take to get someone to do the right thing around here.

                  Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                  by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:11:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree (4.00)
                    that's why I called out the frontpagers yesterday. My point was, this is a news story with at least as much 'evidence' and information as the WA recount, but relative silence on the frontpage.

                    I don't see our problem as getting the certified results challenged, I think it is convincing citizens like Del Dem that there is a serious problem that needs to be investigated now, not 2 or 4 years from now when the Democrats lose even more seats and the Repubs get more sophisticated at voter suppression...

                    and for that we actually need exposure... hence why I was adament the frontpage was important, no crucial.

                    Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

                    by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:16:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Too late (none)
                is the lazy way out!  

                It's election reform, stupid!

                by TXsharon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:23:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  to call my diary yesterday lazy (none)
                  is really not cool. I have an opinion on why the exposure was necessary all along and why I fear that it is too late now.

                  I have put an enormous amount of energy recently into the OH election and really truly hope I am wrong.

                  Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

                  by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:30:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  As I've said so many times.. (none)
 is not about winning Ohio, it is about pointing to concrete evidence of what happened in Ohio to make sure it does not happen again, prosecute people who did illegal activities. I'm just as interested in irregularities in every state. But by all accounts I've heard, Ohio was the most aggregious.
        •  You guys (4.00)
          seem to find it all oh so tedious..

          You know.. elections.. voting.. all this silly stuff. Things african americans were literally being beaten and even dying for not long ago.

          I mean whats wrong with these people. Wanting to investigate rampant vote fraud when it inconveniences you. Why you have to scroll down! And.. well... they might get people excited or upset. Cant have that. Its all so tedious and if people start talking about that there will be less to relieve your tedium.

          Some of you have come to admit there was election fraud though only belatedly and without giving credit i notice. Others of you attack people like Bev Harris who, rather than sitting on her ass declaring her tedium .. investigates. She even.. god forbid.. leaves her house and goes places where they do zany things like store ballots! The nerve!

          A lot of us here consider our votes and the vote of every american important. A lot of us here have family members who fought in war after war to protect that right. A lot of people here marched or have family who marched in the face of open police brutality to protect Democracy. Because that is what you seem to find so tedious.. democracy itself.

          You think it cant happen. That its a minor thing. That "conspiracies" dont happen.
          In the late 70's and early 80's semi-distant relatives of mine got caught doing what you're saying is impossible. They had been rigging the elections in Clay County kentucky for decades. Votes were openly bought and sold. $50 was the going rate. The dead voted. People who'd never heard of the county voted. People voted twice.

          So if you Dont mind too awfully much I hope they keep making your lives oh so so tedious and investigating. I hope the investigate every detail. And i hope they dont listen to fools who dont seem to comprehend that the very cornerstone of democracy is one person one vote. And whether you like it or not every single vote is important. And whether you like it or not some of us want to weed out every drop of corruption, now and later. Whether if affects the election or not. I have a feeling people like Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Franklin et al agree more with that position and consider your tedium truely inconsequential.

          The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed) My other Drunken ravings

          by cdreid on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:31:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One dollar - one vote (none)
            Our "democracy" is recycled via "one dollar, one vote" and the GOP wingtips proudly proclaim it.  The Dems just did it the old-fashioned way, but the GOP now use laws, process, and contracts to do it their way.  


            Politics is not about ...predictions. Politics is what we create by what we do, what we hope for, and what we dare to imagine. Paul Wellstone

            by bronte17 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:27:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  2 elections (none)
        I'm not sure I understand.  Lots of people swept Florida 2000 under the carpet, and we didn't get the reform we desperately need.  If we simply "move on" from this election, we won't get the reform we need for the next time around.
    •  I assume you will be reading (none)
      the response to the challenge in full.  The case is quite compelling.

      If not, please refrain from telling people to move on.

      Our democracy is in extreme danger of being lost due to corruption, secrecy, deliberate suppression, unauditability, and ease of manipulation of electronic votes.

      •  I already downloaded it. (none)
        and will read it tomorrow in full.  I briefly glanced at it tonight.

        Do not get me wrong.  What happened in Ohio is important and it is good that we have documented it, and I thank Georgia10 and others for their efforts.

        But at the same time, too much concentration is placed by them on either challenging the certification by Congress on January 6, so as to win outright or to just protest, or in winning in Ohio altogether.  That ship has sailed, and we lost.  

        When the revolution comes, Republicans will be a good source of protein.

        by Delaware Dem on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:25:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? The 6th hasn't happened yet (none)
          and too much is at stake to fight up until the end.

          Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

          by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:45:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are not being (4.00)
          fari in your characterization of people who are interested in this issue's not really about getting Kerry elected, or put into office. It is about getting our country,its citizens and the M$M to wake up and start looking at what counts for democracy in this country. That is not happening and noone with power or with a megaphone is willing to do this. Period. And after reading this challenge, that is a Damn Crying Shame!.

           I read the whole challenge already emotions range from rage, anger, frustration, helplessness with tears welling up in my eyes reading this eloquent narrative. Our country voting and election process SUCKS! Our countries leaders suck! I don't trust my sucks!It is a disgrace! I am ashamed and I am furious that this s**t happened and has been happening. I am mad at myself that even I didn't realize just how bad it was and I am mad that noone seems to care.

          Do you understand how 2 months have past since the election and CW has set in, where is the RWCM or MSM putting together and compiling investigative reports on this issue???
          The voting suppression section alone should be making headlines. Never mind the section on the crook Blackwell and the recount efforts...many done illegally.  Since the MSM seem to be absent from this there are only certain instances and ways to get their attention,the  January 6th date is symbolic...perhaps the press will investigate if the electoral college is contested in both houses of Congress(if they can only find a Senator) I urge everyone to contact their Senator to do this. Believe me most people here are not kidding themselves or believe this will get Kerry in office. (Although it probably should..but it won't) Don't be ridiculous. That is not why Ohio is important. It is important in that it might be the first step in finally getting our Congress, the MSM, and our fellow countrymen to do something about our Democracy.  It is the symbolism here...that is why that date is so important. And no it is not too late...but the longer away from the election the more unlikely anything will come of it in terms of election/voting reform and prosecution for those who should be...including a  Kenneth Blackwell.
          I would highly recommend you read the challenge before commenting. To see it all in one place, to see the pervasive, systemic, blatant abuse of the election process by one see them cheat, duck,lie,  and sneak in this manner and do everything they possibly could to win an election..only one word I think sums it up..FRaud.
          Insert  Dean Scream Here!

          Oh yeah, I have moved on...but I won't get over this..our democracy is too important to get over it. Plus I think us dems are pretty savy in that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Meaning we can investigate and push for voting reform while also planning for future elections.

          Lastly, thank you georgia10 and others who contributed to this. I am grateful!

    •  "move on" to what? (4.00)
      Do you think GWB/Rove etal. forgot all the little tricks that Jeb! pulled in FL in 2000 and played fair 2004?  You think they are not tweaking and expanding upon what worked the best for them this year and figuring out how to make it better in 2006?  What exactly is going to stop them and safeguard future elections?  Exit polls are now officially dead as a control/verification mechanism.  

      The DC DEMs are now running so scared that they should be rolling over on abortion in a few more weeks.  How long before they declare "We are all Republicans?"  

      •  Losing the next battle! (4.00)
        sorry . . . couldn't resist
        •  Battle? I thought we just (none)
          concede, roll over, and skip the battle part (Democrats, after all, wouldn't want to appear unseemly by standing up for something like maybe democracy at the ballot box -- we are such an advanced form of democracy that next time we'll skip the election part -- only little brown and yellow people around the world need to engage in fair and open elections).
    •  Move on to (none)
      a committment for fair elections!

      ...people will always vote for the sunshine, not for the darkness

      by missliberties on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:34:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Looking forward to reading ... (none)
    ... and thanks for putting this together!

    One suggestion ... due to size and the less-usual .doc format, any chance you could do the link as something like:

         Armando's Challenge (2.1 MB, .doc format) ?

    That'll help dialup users know what they're getting into, and people who skip straight to the link without a thorough read of the post (I admit I did ... sorry!) will know it's a .doc.

    (OMG ... just finished a first glance into the document.  You put an enormous amount of work into this.  Endnotes/citations greatly appreciated, too.  Thanks again.)

  •  One other thought/offer: (4.00)
    Given the size of the document and number of hits you'll likely get, please holler if you have bandwidth limits, and a mirroring of the document elsewhere would help.  I'd be happy to post the document and send back a link.
  •  I'm halfway through... (none)
    and I have to say, you're being very thorough, but I'm still waiting for a legal definition of vote fraud.  Hope that comes later...
  •  Georgia, You never cease to amaze me (4.00)
    Wow....56 pages full of content on this most important issue. Pictures, charts, stories, news articles, statistical analysis, and tons of links.

    How could anyone read this report and come to the conclusion that there isn't a problem here?

    I am very grateful for your efforts, and am printing out a hard copy now.

    One idea would be to put this all on it's own free blog site like typepad or blogspot. It's great to have it all accumulated in one place. Let me know if you need help.

  •  Suggestion? (none)
    Maybe you could post the document in .txt format as well for the dialup users?

    The more people that get to see this the better.

    When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

    by sgilman on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:17:54 PM PST

    •  Now that I've been able to download (none)
      and start to read.  To much would be lost in text format.

      I'm looking foward to reading all of it.

      When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

      by sgilman on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:23:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Terrific work (none)
    I wonder if you could put it up as an ordinary web page instead of a .doc file.  Even a .pdf would be easier to deal with than a .doc.

    I was able to read the .doc into Open Office and write it out as an html file.  The result isn't so great (I think some of the images don't render properly) but it's useable.  Maybe you can do something similar with MS Word.


  •  in answer to a previous Q (none)
    my polling contact suggests the absentee poll results were immediately incorporated into the exit polls but cannot verify.

    As to this, looks good, but I haven't  come close to finish reading it. Looks very thorough, though much is circumstantial, as you already knew. But it's extraordinarily helpful to have it in one place.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:21:21 PM PST

    •  I'm counting on you to give me a hand (none)
      on this.

      I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

      by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:31:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sure, but I have to read it first (none)
        likely it will take a day. georgia10, it's work but maybe you can collaborate with BMP, rincewind, etc... I really think it needs (agree with suggestions about) a one page executive summary along with whatever legal fraud definition you lawyer types want to agree on.

        That exec summary would then be the diary post with the longer document the link. Also, can tunesmith help suggest dkosopedia placement? I don't know wikis from watchis.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:42:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  would you concentrate on the Exit Poll stuff? (none)
          I know Florida 2000 cold. I feel very comfortable in that section.

          The runup to the Election looks straight forward.

          The heart of the fraud argument seems to be the exit polling issue.

          The motive, opportunity etc are well argued.  We can debate the merits but there is clearly an argument to be made on those points.

          I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

          by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:15:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey Armando... (none)
            ...did you get a chance to check out Freeman's new paper? I know he addressed some (but not all) of the issues you raised in previous threads. Here's a link if you didn't catch it:


          •  you think we should add more about florida? (none)
            as far as the "irregularities" there?  or maybe touch more on Kathy Harris/Blackwell similarities?

            And I agree about the executive summary thingy.  

            •  No (none)
              For me, and this is your document, not mine, I think you could even streamline Florida a bit because the story is told in the upshot - what HEVA was SUPPOSED to do - and how the 6th Circit perverted that.

              Thinking out loud, the Arnold case in the 9th Circuit would be an interesting add on - a YEAR BEFORE the election, the 9th cut California a break, and then a YEAR LATER Ohio STILL isn't ready?

              If it was not intentional, it was gross negligence.

              I know I know, this is more suppression than fraud, but it is the part of the story I actually understand.

              Let me repeat, this is yours - you tell it like you wan to.  

              I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

              by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:34:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I thought you meant (none)
              Florida irregularities in this election. If you and Armando are talking about 2000, then I agree with Armando, trim it down. It's relevant context but well investigated.

              If you're talking about Florida in 2004, then I think anything as well sourced and empiracly sound as your Ofio data should definately be included. Maybe just me, but I've been mortified that Florida has gotten off as well as it has. As you knhow, Florida is just as i5rregular as Ohio.

          •  sure, though tunesmith's summary (none)
            is as good as it gets. I also know a pollster or two  who might review what we write, though I doubt they'll write our stuff for us.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:28:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  wiki and fraud (4.00)
          I'm not sure what to suggest in terms of putting it on a wiki.  Some wikis allow source material to create a pdf, but this is going the other way around.

          I think part of the confusion about this whole issue is what fraud is, so I agree on the need for a fraud definition.  We are talking about so many things here.  In an attempt to integrate all of it, we are talking about:

          1. Whether there was opportunity for irregularities
          2. Whether there was evidence of irregularities
          3. Whether there was proof of irregularities
          4. Whether said irregularities were enough to change the state result
          5. Whether said irregularities were deliberate, IOW "fraud".

          Furthermore, there's a huge difference between irregularities concerning existing ballots, and irregularities concerning opportunity to vote: an honest recount could overturn the former.

          To me, "fraud" is the same thing as a "deliberate irregularity".  But an irregularity can exist without it being fraud.

          I currently think there is no proof of ballot-level result-changing fraud.  I also think there is not proof of result-changing irregularities in general.

          I think there is plenty of everything else, though.  There was opportunity for result-changing fraud.  There is evidence of fraud.  There is possible evidence of result-changing irregularities, but this is very much up in the air.

          What I would really like to see:

          1. One clearly described case of evidence of result-changing, ballot-level fraud.  (I really don't think we have that; I think it is more likely to be a possible result-change when you add in all fraud and irregularities together.)  Arnebeck has alluded to this, but he really hasn't shown anything yet.

          2. A mathematical proof that deliberate and nondeliberate irregularities were enough to change the result - this would include "opportunity to vote" matters. It would not be overturnable through a recount, but it would help vastly with credibility.  I think we do have this, but no one has bothered to pull it together in an airtight paper yet.

          I disagree with Armando about exit polls.  I think that whole thing should just be left alone, at least by us.  There are way too many unknowns that even the PhD's have just been skipping past, only to make asses out of themselves.  I am not an expert at statistics, but I know enough to know that clustered samples don't follow the same margin-of-error rules as random representative samples.

          Exit pollsters don't interview at all polling places.  They pre-select polling places.  They do not know how much turnout each polling place will receive, they cannot project.  Each polling place has a different Bush/Kerry ratio.  Since they cannot project turnout at each polling place ahead of time, then that means that higher than expected turnout in some polling places can warp the results of the exit poll raw samples.  That's just logic.  It's also exactly what happened in this election - unexpectedly high turnout in small rural precincts, nationwide.  (That's my impression of the effect of having many pre-registered evangelicals turn out that didn't vote in 2000, anyway.)  I have not yet seen any explanation that disproves that as a reasonable explanation for much of the exit polling "problem".  Instead I see a lot of people say,

          1. Why was the exit polling wrong?  When actually, the exit polling is supposed to be wrong in the way they are looking at it.

          2. Why was the exit polling not accurate when it's been accurate in the past?  When actually, exit polling is used in an entirely different way to predict election results than how we are choosing to judge its accuracy.

          I've seen both Ruy and Mystery Pollster explain that exit polls routinely overrepresent the Democratic side, because they are seeking to interview diverse populations for greater demographic variety in their datasets.  And when you have more black, asian, and female respondents, you've got more Democrats.  Diversity means Democrats.  The very nature of exit polling means that it is supposed to be corrected later by the actual vote results.

          Some of us do have a more advanced, yet still partial understanding of how exit polls work.  Weighted but not yet corrected.  Crosstabs, partial returns.  Etc.  But no one has really pulled it all together and explained it all.  We've got many attempts to pull together the exit polling argument, but many of them don't even know what clustering or stratifying means.  I don't fully, either.  But I sure know when an author knows less than I do.  None have even attempted to reconcile their arguments with the fact that the pre-weighted-yet-final exit poll numbers in 1988 showed Dukakis beating Bush.

          So leave the exit polling stuff alone.  There are too many unknowns.  Too many unknown unknowns.  Wait for the team of blue-ribbon statisticians to analyze it after the data is released.  Otherwise we are just going to be plastering five layers of intelligance on top of ten layers of ignorance.  It will only be a distraction from the kind of thing that a community like this WILL be able to do well - assemble together known bits of proven information into a compelling presentation.

          •  To be sure (none)
            I don't know from exit polling, but I actually know a great deal about polling generally.

            I think your point on adjusting the raw data to the actual VOTING population is the central problem in all polling - drawing a representative sample from the relevant universe.

            Here the problems are twofold - the representative sample cannot be drawn BEFORE the Election because the relevant universe - who actually went to vote - won't be known until, well people go out to vote.

            It is my central problem with the pre-election likely voter models - the pollsters pretend to know much more than they ACTUALLY do as to who will come out and vote.  The EARLY exit polling -by definition, is given too much credence - the relevant universe - who voted - is simply not fully formed at that time.

            The problem of voter suppression (in the broad sense, including undervotes, etc.) significantly exacerbates this problem.

            And this is the entire rub on the fraud issue - it seems to me the strongest evidence - circumstantial of course - has been the theory that the actual results are widely divergent from the early exit poll results.  But, as you say, the exit polling is shaky at best.

            I often said that "All Polls Suck" and I largely stand by that.

            I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

            by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:28:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As to stratifying and cluster sampling (none)
            I think you make too much of that issue - those are merely techniques to insure a representative sample is drawn. I doubt hte problems stem from that.

            The problem is in NOT knowing the relevant universe.

            I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

            by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:30:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  dKosopedia (none)
          Putting it in dKosopedia is a very good idea.  It will take some work to chop the article into sections and post it as a series of dKosopedia pages.  But that would make it easy to view and to collaboratively edit.  I'm sleepy now, and there's another draft of the article coming up, but maybe I'll take a crack at it this week if nobody else gets to it ahead of me.  (I hope someone else does get to it first.)
  •  Thank you (3.75)
    for this great pamphlet.  It should be called Common Sense.
  •  Um (none)
    This is very impressive work. But Armando's not going to be able to front page a 52 page Word document. Maybe an excutive summary?

    All the snark that's fit liberal street fight

    by Joan McCarter on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:39:13 PM PST

    •  Maybe a highlights summary and (none)
      a link to an FTP site?

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:42:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a very complex subject (none)
      I don't think it can be convincingly presented in brief.

      However, I'm sure Armando is capable of reading it and of coming to his own conclusions regarding its merits.

      If necessary, he can provide his own synopsis and a link to the word doc/pdf/html when Georgia has it together in final form

      •  The only way to present it in brief (4.00)
        is with bullet points, listing like 20 reasons why this election is fishy (to be gentle.)

        Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

        by nephalim on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:20:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Brevity is key (none)
        I'm not Armando (thank god) and so I can't criticize georgia10 for playing by his rules.

        But I do believe someone will need to boil this down to its key points. I've just started reading and it looks good, but if the fraudniks want this to really grow some legs, it needs to be able to be abstracted easily and have the magnum opus be the fully fleshed resource to answer questions that the abstract does not.

        So far, though, it looks damn impressive.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:29:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks again, Georgia. (none)
    I need a shortcut on my keyboard for that.

    That pamphlet - which, while I am sure, contains several errors (which are nearly impossible to avoid without heavy peer review) - is an excellent "lay it all out" document that should be distributed on the streets.

    Who is the Armando? I would like to source everything he sites and include any relevant studies, and make a distributable pamphlet.

    Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

    by nephalim on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:40:39 PM PST

    •  Oh...duh... (none)
      Did YOU write this Georgia?...

      May I assist you?

      Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

      by nephalim on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:51:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was not capable of writing this (none)
        My knowledge on the issues simply doesn't extend into a tenth of the 2004 material.

        The Florida 2000 material is quite easy for me, it was an obsesion of mine in 2000 and 2001.

        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

        by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:16:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I swear (none)
    you must have the ability to type 160 words a minute.

    I'm glad you're on our side.

    The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, they tell us how the media is doing.

    by Thumb on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:44:57 PM PST

    •  I can type 160 words a minute. (none)
      Well, maybe not, but as fast as it gets...

      I am a draftsman, I never realized, but perhaps there might be some use for my drafting skills? Probably not, but if you need a scale drawing, or blueprints for the new porch room on your house, let me know..hehe..

      Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

      by nephalim on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:22:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've read it, from cover to footnotes (4.00)
    and you've laid out a very convincing argument that something didn't just go wrong, but was made to go wrong in myriad, calculated ways.  I am impressed.  (I am also reminded, by the length of the piece, of my own reasons for decline to take up Armando's thrown gauntlet: I don't have that much stamina.)  Many thanks for the time and work you've put into the "challenge".  

    However, one suggestion:

    To make the case that this is more than circumstantial evidence, you have to close the logical loop between what you present in your lovely 56 pages, and the legal definition of vote fraud.

    You do this very nicely in pointing out that Blackwell's decision to seal the Ohio records was, by Ohio legal definition, prima facie fraud.  Without pointing that out, you would simply have been saying: "hey, doesn't this look suspicious?"  (To which we all would have said: "yes, it does, and it pisses us off, but, you know, it's not that anything fraudulent occured.")  And yet, when you presented the legal definition of prima facie fraud, it became clear that Blackwell's actions were exactly that.

    You need to extend this tactic throughout as much of the document as possible.   Somebody, a while back, posted a very long list of the legal definition(s) of vote fraud and the ways in which the apparently circumstantial evidence that had been bopping around on dKos could be connected to it.  Captain someone, I think.

    I strongly suggest trying to dig that diary up, and stealing a bit from it, if you still have the time, energy, and determination.

    Regardless, I'm all admiration.

  •  Thank you for your work (none)
    Two minor suggestions:
    1. Table of contents at the beginning.
    2. convert to pdf version before converting to html version

    "All we have to fear is me." Punter 4:17

    by ex republican on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:47:47 PM PST

  •  By the way, Georgia10 (4.00)
    Your coverage eclipses all news organizations coverage of this topic by several orders of magnitude. You should be proud (and they should be ashamed).

    Outstanding work !

    "All we have to fear is me." Punter 4:17

    by ex republican on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:51:00 PM PST

  •  Beautiful Work (none)
    I for one thank you! Except that it brought tears to my eyes. Dang it!

    You should get an the dkos award of the year for this and more. Like LA Times Coverage. Time Magazine Cover. Hickbilly News Daily. I hope at least some of this gets out!


    ...people will always vote for the sunshine, not for the darkness

    by missliberties on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:23:21 PM PST

  •  Georgia (none)
    I have not read it yet.  Did I read correctly that this is a first draft?

    I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

    by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:33:20 PM PST

    •  yeah (4.00)
      I'm incorporating the actionable fraud stuff now, and some people will be emailing me other sections, too.

      Also, I'm adding a table of contents, and we'll convert it to a .pdf for easy download.

      Oh, and I'll type up a summary of this huge-ass thing too :D

      •  Can I make a suggestion or 2? (4.00)
        I probably should ask before I make them, but, here they are anyway.

        To me there are clearly 3 sections to the story, and I love that you did it that way -Starting with Florida 2000 is brilliant - right where I would want the story to start.

        The first section to me is Florida and its aftermath up to HAVA and its failing and promises.

        The second section is the runup to the election and all the stuff that was going on.

        And of course the critical part is the argument for deliberate systemic fraud - and I understand the case is circumstantial - civil fraud cases often are.  That's not a problem.

        The summaries, to me, should break down that way.  As Hari Seldon notes, I think it's clear that you want to get this up ASAP, and we need to work fast to do that.

        Let me say this upfront, there is no doubt in my mind the finished product will be on the front page.  None.

        But let me say that my front page rights run from Friday to Sunday.  I will petition kos to allow this exception to that rule so we can put this up, hopefully before the 6th.  But I don't have those privileges as a matter of course.

        I think we have to think about presentation as well.  I know the images are important to you, but this post will be very heavily trafficked - there can be no doubt of that.  We need to work to see how we can lessen the load on the site.  To the degree that we can link offsite, we need to try.

        That's it for now, but let me congratulate you on a stupendous effort.  If you want to come down and work in Puerto Rico, I have a job waiting for you.  You'll have to learn Spanish though.

        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

        by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:09:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  noooo, not my graphics!!!! (none)

          Actually, could we maybe do the cliff notes version as a front page and use a link to the .pdf?  

          As for coming down to Puerto Rico, hablo espanol y era presidente de La Sociedad Honoraria Hispánica en mi escuela :D

          So, when can I catch the next flight down there? :)~

        •  Oh whatever Armando (none)
          There were plenty of verifiable facts on the ground the last couple of weeks that you chose to ignore.

          You said yesterday that you looked forward to promoting georgia10's diary once released, yet now it needs the 'executive summary'...

          Whatever, there were plenty of news stories to talk about, making a blogger pull together evidence that was readily available to all lawyers and activists on the ground is a total cop out.

          You said you would promote this diary... where is it???

          Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

          by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:20:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Take it up with Georgia (none)
            She says this is the first draft and that she is still working on it.

            I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

            by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:26:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which totally reinforces my point that (none)
              time is running out and any subsequent accusations of potential fraud are treated as tin foil hat (other than those heavily involved).

              Yes, georgia10 said she would have something that answered your challenge, but my point is that was impossible and there were newsworthy items that could have been discussed prior to it being 'down to the wire'.

              Ugh. Yikes. Sigh.

              I totally appreciate georgia10's effort, but my concerns from yesterday still stand.... and are reinforced.

              Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

              by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:32:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (none)
                I told you my position yesterday and it hasn't changed.

                I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

                by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:33:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and I understand and appreciate that (none)

                  how many times has the AP or Reuters reported a story with just one eyewitness?

                  That's what journalism is... saying, this is what is being claimed... and this is the other side refuting it....

                  But we seem to be waiting for the whole case to be made and the smoking gun discovered before even wading into the discussion.

                  And that does the ideal of democracy a disservice IMO.

                  Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

                  by spiderleaf on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:37:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  But it isn't rough in the least, quite thorough (none)
      already.  It is more of a first edition.  And therefore, given certain shall we say time constraints, more visibility of the document and thread would be much appreciated :)
    •  Armando (4.00)
      I just read (although I admit I read it rather quickly), and I think it's worth a serious read now, without waiting for a subsequent version.

       FWIW, here are my impressions:

      (1) there is good evidence of sytematic voter suppression activity

      (2) there is good evidence that many voting machine executives are a bunch of extreme partisan republicans

      (3) there is good evidence of past elections where the voting machines did not work properly and where there were unexplainable voting errors which could suggest fraud

      (4) There is good evidence of a huge mystery surrounding what happened with the exit polls.  (more below)

      (5) there is good evidence that the Ohio "recount" was a travesty


      (1) there is insufficient evidence of actual voting machine fraud in election 2004

      (2) there is insufficient evidence of actual fraud in the counting of votes in election 2004

      (3) there is insufficient evidence that the voter suppresion activities, taken together, were on a scale where they would have swung the election from Bush to Kerry, in Ohio, or nationally.

      (4) With respect to the exit polls, this is the most infuriating aspect of election 2004 for me ,because it seems clear to me that there was some form of "systematic error," in the exit polling (as opposed to sampling error).  But because the exit polling data is proprietary, we are not in a position to analyze the error.  

      If there was no "systematic error" however, as is alleged by many of the "PhD's" cited by Georgia10, then to establish fraud you have to posit a precinct by precinct organized campaign of fraud --- across dem and repub precincts, and across punch card precincts, optical scan precints, electronic voting precincts, etc. etc.  Literally tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the fraud, and many of those people would be democrats.  Nevertheless, there is no real evidence in Georgia10's piece of any actual vote counting fraud (I'm not including the apparent instances of fraud that occured in the Ohio recount, as opposed to the original count) anywhere, in any precinct whatsoever, in election 2004.

      What went wrong with the exit polls, however, is a huge mystery.  We need to get to the bottom of this mystery.  A good start would be a having a Senator, any Senator, join Conyers in objecting to the elector count on Tuesday.

      Fight the American Taliban

      by pontificator on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:59:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Adding the numbers (4.00)
        "there is insufficient evidence that the voter suppresion activities, taken together, were on a scale where they would have swung the election from Bush to Kerry, in Ohio, or nationally."

        *7,00-21,000: election officials throughout the state improperly told convicted felons no longer incarcerated that they could not vote.  
        *22,000:  conservative estimates of voters in Franklin County who were denied the right to vote because of the voting machine allocation.
        *62,513: number of absentee ballots "up for grabs"
        *96,000: number of uncounted punch card ballots

        Equals: 201, 153
        Bush's margin of victory: 136,000

        I think it at least raises the possibility that, in a clean and proper election, Kerry could have won.

        •  No need to prove it here (none)
          in the comments.  The work goes to the front page.  We just need to work out the stuff I mention in my other comment to you.

          I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

          by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:11:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I for one am damn glad (none)
            Georgia responded immediately to your comment.  If there is no need for here to prove it here, lets not discredit it here eiether.

            Georgia, I haven't reda it yet -- just noticed the diary.  You are a champ.  Make sure no one sticks you in some little cubicle in a law library for the next 5 years 9unless you like that stuff) cause god knows they'll want to . . 56 pages!

            Mambo, FC

        •  Like I said, I gave it a "quick" read (none)
          When you put the numbers together like that, that certainly persuades me that my quick reaction there was incorrect.  Perhaps there is enough evidence of vote suppression to put Ohio in the ballpark for Kerry absent the suppression.

          Anyway, Georgia10, I have to congratulate you on a first rate job putting this info together.

          Fight the American Taliban

          by pontificator on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:17:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This claim by Jeff Graessle: (none)
          (page 20 in your fabulous paper) simply isn't true:
           Jeff Graessle, Franklin County Election Operations Division Manager, says they allocated their machines based on a new criteria determined by active registered voters

          I did an analysis here  of data from Franklin County. Machines simply were not allocated on the basis of "active voters".  The more likely basis was turnout in 2000, thereby "capping" turnout at 2000 levels in strongly Democrat precincts because of the overall machine shortage.  The correlation between "active voters" per machine and Kerry's share of the vote in Franklin county, using the most conservative, non-parametric methods is huge and positive (p<0.00001).  The more pro-Kerry a precinct, the more "active voters" had to share a machine.

          So if the BoE really was using "active voters" as their formula, they were also stacking the odds against Kerry voters.  I find it suspicious that this is what they claim (though I have heard more recent claims that they used 2000 turnout figures), as it suggests that they may be aware that using turnout 2000 figures (as I believe they did) would result in under-supplying pro-Kerry precincts.  Which, to my view, makes it look more like willful than accidental incompetence.

      •  This will be a front page post (4.00)
        We have to work a couple thing out on the timing and the presentation.

        But it is a fantastic effort.

        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

        by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:10:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks! (4.00)
          though we both know I was never writing for the front page ;)
        •  I'm guessing this'll get passed along ... (none)
          ... to a lot of people beyond dkos in the next few days.

          -- We may need more mirrors (monitor as the situation develops?  I've only had 10-12 downloads so far)

          -- Georgia and/or Armando, could you let me know when new .doc or .pdf revisions are available?  I'll replace what's on my server with the latest.

          eric at a-horizon dot com

          Other mirrorers out there may want to do the same (let 'em know when there are revised versions?)


          •  traffic (none)
            I had about 30 downloads of the doc version as of 1o:15 PM EST, but I don't get real time infomration. . . there's a delay in my stat reports.  But I'll monitor this as well.

            We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

            by Pachacutec on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:23:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  My counterpoints. (none)
        I agree with your first five points.

        With regard to your next two points, it depends on what you mean by "insufficient evidence." I completely agree that the evidence is insufficient for proving beyond any doubt that machine and voting counting fraud (i.e., deliberate miscounting) actually occurred. But I would also argue that the information we have (suspicious patterns, access, motive, etc., etc.) is certainly sufficient enough to warrant an investigation. I would also point out that it's next to impossible to have concrete proof without first having a thorough investigation. The only way you could have incontrovertible evidence of vote tampering is if you have access to the actual ballots, machines, polling books, software, etc. We haven't been given access to these. So it's important to keep in mind that although we don't have indisputable proof, we also haven't been given access to the information that would be necessary for that proof. In short, even if proof exists, it simply not possible for us to know about that proof with the access that we've been given thus far. Again, we need a thorough investigation, and in my opinion, the information we have is certainly sufficient to warrant one.

        Finally, I completely disagree with your argument that tens of thousands of people would've had to be in on the fraud. I think that based on the information we currently have, the "fraud hypothesis" would be that votes were skimmed in a wide variety of ways. If there was systematic suppression and differential ballot spoilage, it might've only been necessary to pick up what, another 1-2% of the vote? That could be accomplished very easily by just a programmer or two. A programmer at ES&S and/or Diebold--just ONE programmer--could write a couple of lines of code to switch 1 of every 20 votes or something like that, and it could be enough. OR, just ONE programmer could write the software to default to Bush, so that when a vote isn't registered, the machine counts it for Bush. Or it could be programmed to count undervotes and/or overvotes as Bush votes.

        If you only need to pick up a couple percentage points, it could be done very easily, and no one other than the programmer would need to be in on it.

        •  You've made good points Georgia10 & (none)

          The default idea is what makes voter reports of vote-hopping so important to investigate.  Vote hopping could be the result of programing Bush as the default.  Programming the default to register no vote for president could result in a large undervote which I believe has been shown in a couple of precincts at least.  Just one more reason for a complete investigation.

          I haven't had time to fully read your document yet or all of its' footnotes Georgia10.  I apologise if the paper contains this idea and I just haven't gotten to that part, but perhaps you could reference some of the scholarly work by people like Rebecca Mercuri (sp?) on how vulnerable computerized voting is to hacking.

          I think that there are a lot of people who continue to believe that computerized vote fraud would, by necessity, require a conspiracy of thousands including Dems and Repubs at the county level.  Some expert opinion countering this notion might be helpful.

          Great document so far...the hard work you've put in really shows!

      •  I almost stopped reading (none)
        After the part about the pack of rascals who are in charge of counting votes in this country.  Michael Moore wondered aloud how many of us have been arrested as many times as GWB.  These rascals also are outliers.  Can't we find even one non-ex-con crazy wingnut to count votes?  These sound like shady characters.
  •  excellent work! (none)
    I am constantly awed by the quality of thought and the level of professionalism that is displayed hereat dKos. Am I gushing?

    When I mentioned to my brother the other day that I had read the diary posted friday about the statistical data on exit polling, his response was "There's no way that there are enough people who would be willing to conspire to steal an election. It's impossible." Laying aside the notion that it would take more than a handful of well placed folks, I think I'll print out your 56 pages for him to peruse and digest.


    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

    by timerigger on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:37:38 PM PST

  •  Really... (none)
    looking forward to a link that works without buying software. The original displays nothing, the mirror requires Word to open and the pdf appears to have run out of bandwidth.

    I'll check back in a bit as I was hoping to get all inspired.  In the morning we're going to the first Board of Elections meeting since our recount.

    Thanks for your efforts Georgia10

    •  Here is a craptacular link (4.00) a text version I threw on a webpage.

      Without the pictures/charts/graphs, it  really doesn't do it justice.

      But here it is, until we get a different version:

      •  Thanks! (none)
        I went ahead and read the "craptacular link" and enjoyed it even without the graphics.  I'll catch them later.

        I posted in a comment before but it may not have been caught that Washington County did offer an explanation as to the difference in the "Yes, that's definitely all the votes" results they gave me and the results reported.  They said that when the Director made the floppy disk from which my printout came, she accidently had her computer set to regular voters only.  

        Of course there is absolutely no data provoded on absentee voters.  No matching them to poll books, etc.  I have what I believe to be a printout of the raw count of absentee ballots, but if you add it to the printout of "regular voters", it still doesn't add up.

        We'll see if I glean any more data tomorrow.

        •  Unfreekingbelievable (none)
          The Washington County Board of Elections is counting ballots again today.

          It seems that since there was a different count reported to the Secretary of State's office than that certified originally, that the SoS has some forms that need filled out by the BoE.
          In attempting to fill out those forms, they realized the numbers don't work.  They thought the problem was in the absentee ballots so today before the Board meeting they ran the absentee ballots through the ES&S machines again and <gasp>, the count doesn't match.

          Original absentee ballot total Nov 2nd - 3053
          Absentee total from the ES&S machine Dec 14 - 3062
          Absentee total Board thinks is right - 3081
          Total absentee from count this morning - 3101

          They decided to hand count them after their meeting today.

          There are no two numbers that match up or add up in this county.  I wouldn't let these people collect money for Girl Scout cookies.

    •  if someone can email me a pdf (none)
      I'll post it next to the mirrored .doc and then post the link here.

      (I tried to get the pdf, but couldn't -- bandwidth?)

      I'm at eric at a-horizon dot com.

      Thanks if you can email.

  •  Some suggestions (4.00)
    Great work, Georgia!

    Here are some things I suggest as possible additions, and I'd be happy to help in tracking down links, etc., for them.

    --Include Blackwell's order that registrations had to be on 80 lb. paper. The courts overturned this one shortly before election day, but I still think it's important because it (a) further shows the pattern of Blackwell attempting to suppress the vote through ridiculous technicalities, and (b) there are some reports that local elections officials were not aware of the court's overturning.

    --Expand on the implications of Blackwell's rule that provisionals must be cast in the right precinct. In particular, I think it's worth noting that in urban areas (that of course favored Kerry), multiple precincts voted in the same exact room of the same exact building. So, even if a voter was in the right room of the right building, if they made the simple mistake of getting in the wrong line, their vote may not have been counted. This is how it would happen: since they were in the wrong line, their name wouldn't be on the registration list. Election officials therefore had them fill out a provisional ballot. But because of Blackwell's rule, that provisional would've technically been submitted at the wrong "precinct"--though really just at the wrong table in the right room of the right building--and wouldn't be counted! One report says this amounted to 400 lost votes in just one voting location. And it differentially hurt Kerry voters since this scenario only came into play in urban areas where multiple precincts voted in the same place.

    --I'd also mention the clear screw up in vote counts that occurred in Cuyahoga County, where third party candidates received nearly as many votes as Kerry. This likely happened because ballots cast in the right precinct were counted by machines set up to count ballots for a precinct that voted in the very same room. This again differentially hurt Kerry voters, since it happened where there were multiple precincts in the same place. And note that this very obvious problem was not allowed to be fixed in the recount.

    --There were also ballot issues, where the arrows on the ballots didn't line up with the candidates. Again, there are reports that this problem was selective to urban areas like Cleveland.

    --There's also the Warren County lockdown and the lack of a subsequent investigation into what went on there.

    I might have more, those are just the ones that first came to mind. Hope this is helpful!

  •  Let me get this right... (4.00)
    Prior felons were not allowed to vote on machines that are programmed and tabulated by prior felons.  Hm.  Maybe the thugs will try to exploit that irony as "proof" that they have no bias against felons.  ARGGGHHH.

    Just really want to say...

    As others here have stated, thank you so much.  Even if this doesn't advance our cause to investigate this election or (God forbid) reform voting procedures; you have created a piece that has historical context, thorough coverage and documentation, and reads well.  It may very well be the only clear, concise picture in existence, considering the lack of media coverage.  

    And for that, I offer you my respect, support, and major awe.


  •  Wow, Georgia10! (none)
    I'm nearly halfway through and I am in awe!  I think we need to start calling you've pulled together an incredible amount of information that should put the SCLM to shame.  

    I understand that this is the first draft and I've read the many posts offering suggestions and help (I wish I could do the same, but I'm rather computer-illiterate), but what I'm wondering is, do you have a guess as to when the final draft will be ready?  Ballpark...

    Again, you've put together an amazing and truly scary document.  Congratulations.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:27:41 PM PST

    •  let's see... (none)
      tomorrow is my first day of school :(

      but i should be able to get it done by tomorrow night/tuesday morning?

      Depends on how much input I get here.

      •  Thanks (none)
        On several levels...for taking the time to answer my question in such a rapidly growing thread, for putting this all together in a comprehensive and damning document and most especially for giving Armando the "what for".  ;-)  

        Just kidding, Armando!  Kudos to Georgia!

        Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

        by Barbara Morrill on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:43:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry, most dem's (none)
    and mainstream media's passivity and silence on this obscene rip-off remind me of the behavior of a Vichy government. You Georgia10 are a star of the resistance fighting to get our country back.
  •  Anyone up to this challenge? (4.00)
    How about having this translated into Spanish once the final is complete?

    I know several Spanish speaking people (my husband included) that would benefit from Georgia's "Guide".  I wish I could do it myself, but unfortunately I'm not fluent in translating the written word.

    Just a thought.

  •  OK, here's the deal (none)
    We need to strengthen it.  I'd like to know the weakness (personally, I think the layout/discussion of the exit polls kind of sucks).

    So, let's try this.  If you were a freeper, what would you say about this?

    That'll give me a good springboard for improving it tonight and tomorrow.

    •  Clean up typos (none)
      A few places have wrong words, spacing issues, etc.  Do a "find" for the word "pubic"-- you'll definitely want to fix that!

      "They stole it fair and square!"

      by Sandia Blanca on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:05:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You might want to... (none)
      ...take out the editorial comments that are in different sections.  Personally, I like them, but you have enough factual and documented information to make your case.  I'm thinking about how someone reading this (read that: a Republican) might say, "Well, look at where she says, 'Just because these owners of the voting machines are all blatantly partisan Republicans, just because they all seem to be extreme fundamentalists...' She's obviously has an agenda, so I can ignore everything she says."  

      Just a thought.  

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:37:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some suggestions for strengthening... (4.00)
      Take 'em or leave 'em as you see fit, of course!

      Introductory Sections:

      --Maybe call your opening commentary a preface?

      --You might want to remove all references to Armando's challenge in the actual paper itself. I suspect it'll be widely distributed and that reference will confuse those who don't know about dKos.

      --Maybe leave the fraud definitions for the later sections when possible fraud is discussed? I also like the suggestion from above to discuss/summarize the sections with reference to these fraud definitions.

      --I also like the idea of a table of contents

      Setting the Stage:

      --give a reference for the first sentence? Many still don't know Gore got more votes and I'm sure repubs would jump on that statement.

      Taking It One Step Further:

      --I'd suggest a reference or data for the second point, otherwise you might want to remove it. That statement will be jumped on without support.

      --In the point about Hagel, you might want to expand and include the statement (from the WSJ?) that Hagel's victory was the most surprising upset in the country, and as an unknown, overcame something like a 15% deficit in just a few weeks. I could dig up this info for you if you like.

      --The New Mexico point seems less compelling than the others. Maybe cut it and stick to the strongest examples?

      --I'd suggest adding the 16K-vote glitch from Florida in 2000. 16K votes were SUBTRACTED from Gore late on election night and it appears that this directly resulted in FL being called for Bush, yet the so-called glitch has never been explained. I can dig up this info, too, if you like.

      Starting From Behind:

      --Beginning with this section, might it make for a tighter and more compelling case to focus more on Ohio, sort of as a case study? Here and in subsequent sections, you could, for example, discuss the Ohio cases but only refer to/cite the cases from the other states. I can definately see arguments for either approach, though.

      Hope this is helpful...I'll keep going with the other sections...

    •  About the exit poll stats, (none)
      have you seen this professior's short and easy-to-understand article on the topic?

      Perhaps you could call this Prof. Paulos and email to him what you've got for suggestions.  

      He is a proponent of the idea of "innumeracy" as a cause of a great deal of problems in our country.  As he defines it, innumeracy is the mathematical  parallel to "illiteracy."

      Anyway, he has written on the exit poll problem and has a knack for making stats understandable.

      Just trying to be helpful.

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:52:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Georgia, (none)
      since you said upthread that you'd be doing some edits, here are a few typos I found.  I hope you don't mind my listing them.  Your painstaking work will likely see distribution beyond dkos, so I wanted to help make it as clean as possible.  I truly admire your commitment to your beliefs.  

      p. 2, par 4: There are dozens of websites that seeks [should be "seek"] to compile

      p. 2, par 5:  As you read, you'll realize that the weight of the evidence strong [should be "strongly"] suggests such a conclusion.

      p. 5, par 2: In addition to requiring a verifiable paper trail, the Act also proscribed that "[n]o voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software... [The word should be *"prescribed" because "proscribe" = to forbid or outlaw]

      p. 10, 5th bullet: "malfunction" should be "malfunctioned"

      p. 13, par. 3: Moreover, there is a possibility that absentee allows in Ohio may have been tampered with [should be "ballots"]

      p. 17, bottom:  how many received reasonable notice f [should be "of"] their hearings,

      p. 20, par. 3: the decision to distributed fewer machines ["distribute"]

      p. 20, last par. Why was this "new criteria" [I know "criteria" is part of a quote, but there's a grammatical problem here because "criteria" is a plural noun]

      p. 22, bottom: The highest number of incidents were reported [should be "was," because "number" is singular]

      p. 29, par 2: In a world were ["where"] our voting system isn't privatized

      p. 29, par. 5: the probability that the exit polls were wrong are ["is"] so infinitesimally small

      p. 32, par. 4:  He find the odds ["finds']

      p. 33, par. 1: Did Mitofsky not know more women being sampled?  [insert "were" after "women"]

      p. 33, heading #2: The exit polls were wrong because Bush supports were reluctant to answer.  [should be "supporters"]

      p. 34, par. 1: evidence that Bush supported were discouraged from voting [should be "supporters"]

      p. 39, par. 2: Conyers' question [should be "questions"]

      p. 39, par. 3: The signature of both a Representative and a Senator is required [should be signatures/are]

      p. 40, last par: In his initially filing [should be "initial filing"]

      p. 41, last par: plagues by technicalities ["plagued]

  •  Using Same Logic as the Diary Entry: (4.00)
    ...I stated motive, history, opportunity and evidence:

    Simple Stats for Simple Minds (4.00 / 26)

    I think it's dereliction not to pursue the most serious investigation possible at a speed that could allow reversing the outcome should conclusive evidence turn up.

    A boldly stated willingness to overturn the results seems absolutely essentiall. It's all that gives an election investigation real teeth because it threatens the biggest forces that the law needs to keep in check.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:34:22 PM PST

  •  Your work is outstanding. (none)

    It seems fueled by your collabrative, cooperative spirit: a wonderful appreciation for process as well as outcome.

    Underneath what appears an "unselfish" mind is an open one that produces much "food for thought": thanks for inviting me to the feast.

    I recognize and appreciate your intellectual perserverance and more.... I intend to read it in its entirety .

    "I participate therefore I am, I do not participate therefore I am not." Henryk Skolimowski

    by libby on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:36:40 PM PST

  •  Is there anything about the NASED (none)
    in this essay?  I downloaded and saved the file, but it will not open.  I will try the other link.

    Georgia10, if the NASED's (National Association of State ELection Directors) blowing-off of penetration analysis in its certification of election software is not in there, here is a diary I posted in November on the subject, cribbing from  I tried to link directly to the BBV site, but couldn't find their Nov.7 story on the revamped site. Disclaimer: I share the disappointment of many Kossacks in Bev Harris's behavior, but as most people in the election-integrity movement acknowledge, when she gets something right, she gets it very right.  This seems to have been one of those times.

    BBV filed an FOIA request of the work done by an Independent Testing Authority, a private firm contracted by the NASED to test election software.  The information obtained indicated that the testers openly blew off the hacking-vulnerability of software.  

    This story provided some of the most powerful evidence available of a broken election system, and deserved a whole hell of a lot more attention than it received.  But BBV put it up on Nov. 7, just as the election controversy began to take off.  They also posted it next to a bunch of pictures of goofy-looking guys (the ITA testers) , and hyped it in advance as a possible smoking gun. People expecting something proving massive fraud were disappointed, and started looking elsewhere.  But the failure to test computers for security should be a major part of the election narrative;  it helps tie together the many weirdnesses so well described here and at DU.

    Another thank you, georgia10, for your great work.

  •  I Do Have One Request Georgia (4.00)
    Can we change the name of this thing to the Ohio Challenge?  

    I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

    by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:15:38 PM PST

    •  Why The Ohio Challenge? (none)
      It's about the election not just Ohio. It begins in Florida 2000 and covers the history of the issue. Calling it The Ohio Challenge implies the article has a far more limited focus than it actually does. In fact it's about the whole enchilada.
      •  Fine (none)
        Anything but what is it called now.

        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

        by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:34:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, I think it's a good title (3.66)
          odd but so is the whole damn situation. it is your challenge that georgia10 responded to and it's the only reason her incredible diary is hitting  the front page. It tells a story we at kos are familiar with, and for those who don't know it, well it adds a little mystery.

          If you use a typical fraud diary title, readers will expect just another garden-variety rant or news link from freepress and may not pay attention. But, Armando's Challenge or The Informed Citizen's Guide to the 2004 Election. Now there's a title to conjure with. So what if it's a little different? Different's good.

          in any case I'm happy that Armando's Challenge made it happen.

        •  How about "Show Me: Actionable Fraud" (none)
          As in, "Show me. . . the money"  or

          As in, "Show me. . . I'm from Missouri"  (Isn't that their state motto--meaning prove it to me?)

          Oh well, perhaps it's too obscure--that's my two cents worth--maybe it'll inspire a better thought.

          Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

          by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:49:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I couldn't sleep last night and kept (none)
            thinking about this. . . .

            I really agree that the name should remain

            "Armando's Challenge"  because

            it won't turn the anti-fraud people off, plus it's fun--people like challenges-- BUT

            it could be lengthened for clarity with something like:

            Armando's Challenge:  Show Me Tang


            Armando's Challenge: Show Me Actionable Fraud


            Just a few more ideas to consider. . . .

            Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

            by Einsteinia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:01:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Help! (none)
    I can only save this and open it in word pad -- and then I get an error.  File too big I think. Has anyone created a pdf yet?  

    GA10: Thank you for all the time you've devoted to this.  If I was the manager of a SCLM news outlet (I'm not) at which you were a reporter, you would get a 10% raise, 100 shares of stock, an extra week of vacation and the best parking space on the lot.  Are you sure you want to be a lawyer?  Why not use your energy and smarts to change the world?

  •  Population (none)
    I really appreciate the work you've done Georgia, it's been great.

    I haven't read the document though, just glanced through and looked at the pictures.  One fact screams at me though when I look at the maps comparing Kerry support to voting problems.  It can be assumed that most Democratic strongholds are urban areas, with a whole lot more people.  So, saying voting problems predominantly happened where Kerry's support was strong is the same as saying voting problems predominantly happened where there were a lot of people.  Have you thought about looking statewide and comparing percentages of population and voting problems.  

    Perhaps, and I have no idea, the percentage of problems in Florida is equal to that in New Mexico, and they seem so aimed at democratic areas simply because that's where the majority of people are.  

    I don't know, it's just a thought I figured was worth exploring.

    Keep it up!

    •  Precincts average about 400 voters in size (4.00)
      Regardless of whether they are in the city or the 'burbs.

      Also, more exactly, the voting problems reported to (1-877-OUR-VOTE) were correlated with black percent in each precinct, not Kerry percent per se.

      For example, Parma is a very populous area of blue collar whites and high Democratic support yet reported few problems. Also, Lakewood, bastion of trendy white liberals, reported no problems with machines or long lines. Problems in the Heights were similarly light.

      The operative effect is "voting while black."

      Problems included:

      • mass confusion at polling places
      • people leaving in droves due to long lines
      • broken machines
      • ballot alignment
      • chad buildup
      • precinct mix-ups
      • poor lighting
      • challengers
    •  I thought about that too (none)
      And was initially reluctant to put the maps in, lest they be misleading.

      But the fact remains Kerry is stronger in urban areas, and naturally, anyone who wanted to suppress the vote would do so in democratic strongholds.

      If the complaints were population-type complaints (polling place too crowded, etc.) I think the maps would  be worthless.  But going through the 3,000+ complaints from Ohio, the complaints were based on fraud, deception, and intimidation.

      Also, the number of complaints in each county range from 1-1000+.  Everyone, even in the suburbs, had access to the number (it was widely publicized) so it still seems strange that not even one incident was reported in some rural (and Republican) areas.

      I don't know.  I wouldn't mind taking them out if people think it is an inaccurate comparison.  

  •  thank you (4.00)
    I couldn't wait to read it, and then read it again, and now 200+ comments have said everything I could say.... You've done us proud, Georgia, it's definitely a 10 ;>
  •  asdf (none)
    Hi georgia, I trust you've been following the reporting done at on allegations of Rep. Tom Feeney soliciting a vote-rigging prototype in 2000 from Yang Enterprises. Do you think some kind of recap of this information should be included, or would it just shift the focus and be out of place? I ask the same about New Hampshire where a recount was initiated by Nader, and New Mexico where a recount called for by Cobb and Badnarik has been stonewalled. I'm not sure how the exit polls fared in those states, but it seems like any post-election activity would be relevant and only help the argument - for instance, why did the NH recount go smoothly, but others have proven troublesome? There also seems to be some activity over at which is rarely talked about here, I don't think they've found the smoking gun but I am going to comb the forums and see what, if anything, has been uncovered to strengthen the case.

    Keep up the good fight.

  •  This Is A Subject Line (none)
    Just glanced through so can't comment on the quality of the work, only the quantity (there's a lot there).

    Typo: "at lease six", should be "at least six"

    The map of New Jersey at the end is mislabeled as Rhode Island.

    HTML tarball at a very temporary mirror. It kills Mozilla and Firefox, CSS-positioned "Voting Method" headers on the maps at the end don't show up in Opera, it looks decent enough in Konqueror.

  •  a note of paranoia (none)
    This may be a case where the horse has already left the stable, but it just occurred to me as I was reading, that the document is infinitely ripe for some malicious tampering in its current form, both as Word doc and pdf.

    The final should definitely be a read-only document and if it's not too late, I would put a "DRAFT" header or watermark on every page.

    I'm assuming that this is already speeding across the internets at warp speed.  I'm sorry I didn't think of this earlier. But I also want to make sure all your hard work is protected.

    Lawyer-types--does Georgia have to worry about copyright issues?

    If I'm just being a worry-wart, please feel free to ignore.

    "I still think politics is about who's getting screwed and who's doing the screwing." -Molly Ivins

    by hono lulu on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:27:33 PM PST

  •  Georgia 10--I finally got it to print out and (none)
    just read it over for the first time.

    I don't see anything that I know of, off the top, that is missing except that perhaps you'd like to mention, when mentioning the foreign elections processes, that our election did not even meet Jimmy Carter's MINIMUM standards of electoral hygiene.

    Though I believe I knew most of this--I certainly didn't have the in-depth understanding.  I wanted to cry with joy when as I read the incredible way you wove it all together into a very convincing case.

    THANK YOU!!!!  I can't wait to distibute to my email lists--and I hope you're sending it off to various members of the Senate and media.

    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

    by Einsteinia on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:31:32 PM PST

  •  Okay now i've finally read this thing (none)
    completely. It's overwhelming and in my opinion should be put up via armando asap without substantial alteration, graphics and all. It's worth the bandwith. in fact it should be in the hands of every elected official in the country.
    •  Excellent Point! Time is of the essence! (none)
      This needs to be up tomorrow.  It could be offered as a "work in progress" and updated as it is posted if a single egregious error is found.

      This is not a house of cards where one flaw pulls the whole argument down, and perhaps even state that up front.  It's more analogous to a termite infestation and if you find one termite wasn't hungry--it still doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:40:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, Armando's frontpaging (none)
        abilities is only good for the weekend, so the fate of this excellent work is up to others.

        I would also hope that when it goes up, as was promised, that the thread is brought with it because many have discussed themselves out for the moment, and we wouldn't want a lack of comments in a new thread to give any credence to the argument that placement didn't matter.

      •  for a variety of reasons (none)
        including that it's a draft, that approach is best dropped. Let Armando and georgia10 work out when it gets moved to the front.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:42:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  4 reasons (none)
          1.  It is more like a first edition.  It can be noted as such.  It is quite thorough and compelling already.  The final edition can be posted when it is available.  (hell, I think this story deserves at least two frontpage postings at this point)

          2.  Time is of the essence.  Though this may not affect the election outcome (that's not the issue, it's about our democracy), the necessity for exposure of these issues on these certain upcoming dates are critical.

          3.  We need as many eyeballs on this document as we can get.

          4.  It was promised to be frontpaged (and I realize it will be eventually, that's not the point).  Now, it seems that line or bar or whatever keeps getting farther away or higher.  You must understand after all the frustrations our side has gone through, how this final delay can be quite annoying.  It really will be quite unacceptable if this is not posted til the end of the week.  The earlier in the week, the better.  Like I said, a first edition, but still very thorough and compelling so far.
          •  just stop (none)
            we wasted two months arguing about that. Don't go there. Just let it happen. It'll get on the front page when it's ready, and Armando has committed to do so.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:40:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  There is no smoking gun (4.00)
    About 16 years after Einstein deveoped the General Theory of Relativity, a couple of scientist figured out a way to test it. They would measure the orbits of a couple of stars. When Einstein was asked if the observations had not supported his theory, which they did, he said that the obersvations would have been wrong cause the theory is correct.

    He was right. They didn't need to prove it with stars because it was already proven the same way math formulas are proven. With logic. The evidence Einstein used to discover relativity was old news. The anomalous speed of light was discovered before Einstein.

    But to this day, no one's ever "proven" relativity in a lab. Or with stars. They've found supporting evidence. But the proof is just a thought. A logical sequence.

    Even the best "proof" of the theft of the 2004 election will be much more dificult to find than Einstein's theory. Especially if you use the legal definition of proof, which unfortunately, requires the confirmation of a jury.

    And instead of dealing with rigid natural laws from which to construct your proof, your dealing with statistics, probabilities, and motivated testimony.

    My point is that, while not impossible to know, proving the election was stolen is a fantasy. At least in that legal, court of public opinion sense.

    Even if a seemingly credible witness comes forward and fesses up, it will be less than a week before it's "they said/they said." A tape perhaps? Fake.

    You see, there is no evidence that is indestructable, in that smoking gun sense. Not for Einstein, not for OJ, and certainly not for George Bush.

    But Relativity's skeptics eventually came around. Even the one's who failed to see the logic. Not because of any one smoking gun. But through the consistent discovery of clouds of smoke -- always proximate to a loud bang.

    This is because, even withought the gun, as evidence accumulates, a pattern emerges. Sometimes it takes years for patterns to emerge. Google makes them emerge faster. Which is good, cause it's the only way we'll ever know, whether we could win a conviction or not.

    While I've yet to see any one piece of evidence that individualy proves fould play, which as I said is pretty much impossible anyway, the accumulation, from anecdotal evidence to statistical deviations, has reached a critical threshold. It's a lot like that time when you suddenly realized, not that 10X10=100, but why it does.

    Georgi10's excellent paper documents that accumulation in a precise and condensed form allowing the pattern of this election to emerge. And it is a foul image indeed.

    Unfortunately, to borrow from her poignent metaphor, people don't like to think about cancer. It's scary and depressing. Just so, I'm convinced that there's a lot of people out there who just don't want to know about stolen elections. They want stabilty. Normalcy. Or they want the problems in their lives to be  scaled to their lives. Solvable. Like with an electrician or a mechanic.

    But who knows, maybe if everyone printed out a few copies a day of Georgia10's paper, carried them out to wherever they went, and just left them lying around, or on the magazine rack in the grocery isle, or on tables in coffeehouses, enough people might see the pettern emerge and reach a critical threshold enough to do something about it.

    •  This is a problematic post for me (none)
      I see no parallels to the process by which the theory of relativity came to be accepted.

      Nor can the parallels be drawn in any reasonable way.

      It makes for a nice quip, but it worries me that you think the quip appropriate.

      I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

      by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:00:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand what you don't understand (4.00)
        Georgia10 started her paper saying there is no smoking gun. In a somewhat roundabout way, I'm simply making the point that there can't really be a smoking gun and that, like a physics theory or a math formula, the proof will come from the less glamourous assembly of circumstantial evidence and deductive reasoning.

        The parallel with relativity is that most likely no one's going to come forward with a caught on tape moment and even if they did it would not be infallible in the court of public opinion. Remember the Rodney King trial.

        In a nutshell, the standard for knowing something is true shouldn't require someone walking up and putting it in your hand. A syllogistic proof is just as valid as direct empirical observation.

    •  Actually It Seems the Reverse (none)
      Courts of law routinely prove things that are wrong all the time. It seems a lot easier to prove a shaky case in a court than in science.

      Anyways it seems that this kind of issue and the investigations are not about convincing "people" but convincing decision makers in the power structure.

      That's one of the reason I argue that the push should be ONLY for a potentially-election-reversing investigation at full speed and depth, for this election, and for any that have a dicey odor.

      We need the significant threat of prison or electoral loss to push the decision makers to do the right thing whether it's change of outcome if the investigation shows it's needed, or election reform in all cases.

      The power structure will never perform for those who exercise no force. We've learned this by asking for clean elections for 200 years. Blacks learned it from 300 years of asking, and Natives for c. 500 years.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:31:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're right there is no "smoking gun," (none)
      there are innumerable "smoking guns."

      Did you see this:

      Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two)
      by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
      January 3, 2005

      Also, did you see the burden of proof is not on us, please read this excellent legal analysis by attorney Major Tom:

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:28:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about: Kerry Won? (none)

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:29:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ohio (none)
    From the beginning, I have been unable to understand the reluctance to investigate this Presidential election - especially the reluctance on the part of Democrats.  (Even if I were a Republican, I would like to think that I had won fairly and squarely.)

    We voters deserved a "clean" election - we didn't get it.  

    I have read the reports from four different academic experts on statistics who make a very good case that it is highly improbable, and even impossible, to reconcile the exit poll data with the vote count.  

    The Ohio election deserves an investigation.

    What can we do about it?  We certainly don't cave in and accept Bush as our President.  As a first step, today we can email and/or phone one or two or more Senators and ask them to challenge the election at the Jan 6th joint session.
    As a second step, we can protest Bush's inauguration on Jan 20th.
    As a third step, we can continue to question and challenge that election throughout Bush's term.

    If we do not challenge this election, how many Democrats will just give up and not even bother going to the polls next time?  Would you blame those blacks (who stood in the rain for hours this time in order to vote) for dropping out next time?  And how many other Democrats will realize our system is broke and not show up in the future - if we don't fight now?

  •  georgia10, please contact me re hosting (none)
    I think this is very important stuff. I do web design and hosting, and I would like to provide webhosting free of charge for you. Please drop me a line at inclusivenospam at (remove nospam).

    i believe in the neo-cons-piracy theory

    by inclusive on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:07:08 AM PST

  •  possible redundancy (none)
    I think you might have the Texas race where the landslide win turned into a win for the other guy listed twice.  Sorry I can't be more specific but I can't open the pdf of your work and have dKos linked at the same time.  Appologies if someone else already caught this.  
  •  Recourse stolen with election (4.00)
    This is the part that makes me deeply sad.  We let the 2000 election go.  It was stolen with the use of fraud, shenanigans and the US Supreme Court.  We know this.  It's fact.  But the false election of George W. Bush stood, anyway.  (How a country can KNOW the wrong person was elected and not act to place the rightful electee in office is beyond me.  Welcome to the United States, the greatest democracy the free world has to offer.)

    Speaking of beyond -- the problems go way beyond being the wrong person elected.  You see, this wrong person elected now can stack the deck to make sure that when he is wrongly elected yet again, there isn't one arena in which seekers of truth and justice can be heard.  There is no recourse to be had, thanks to our letting 2000 stand.

    When not vacationing in Crawford, Bush toiled ceaselessly to stack the courts, fiddle with elections to ensure stacking the House and the Senate, and further sealed his marriage with the corporate media.

    Let's talk about our media for a minute.  The media knew 2000 was robbery, but like the benevolent Father it is to all of us, it protected us from the pain of hearing about this information because we had suffered enough pain on 9/11.  My heart throbs with love for them.  I need their shelter and protection to preserve my faith, hope and happiness.

    The way they're acting about releasing 2004 exit poll data leads me to believe they are again protecting us.  Our benevolent Father, our beloved media, knows that we wouldn't be able to handle what their exit poll reports will show.  Isn't it interesting how they've stalled releasing data -- data they claim they're analyzing?  Gee, that analysis just might take them past Jan. 6, past the date of accepting the electoral college votes.  But, hey, what's the hurry, eh?

    Maybe they know 2004 was stolen, too.  There is not a shred of doubt remaining in my mind that 2004 was the second time George W was falsely elected.  

    But, like 2000, I have to admit the media is probably right.  I couldn't have been trusted with the information then, and I can't be trusted now.  You see, I would get way too upset.  I would refuse to legitimize my own so-called president.  I might actually take to the streets.  Think how wearing on my delicate nerves that might be.  Think how chaotic the streets could be with a bunch of crazies like me out there protesting.  Goodness gracious.  What chaos.  I wouldn't want to see that.

    As you so beautifully documented, Georgia10, blatant violations of federal election and civil rights law, along with innumerable state laws, were rampant throughout the country on Nov. 2.  These violations were carried out by partisan officials and Republican citizens.  But, because there is no way to check this behavior, no legal recourse, they got away with it.  What happens when criminals get away with it?  They graduate.

    For those who say, this isn't about overturning an election, just about future reform, I say, NONSENSE.  I want this election overturned, like 2000 should have been.

    Reform will not happen if we don't.  Our arenas of recourse, which barely exist now, will be an even bigger joke if we don't get the election invalidated.  Power enables more power and more power and more power -- until we have no say at all.

    Georgia10, I'm overwhelmed by the massive amounts of research and just plain good old-fashioned brain power that you poured into this.  You are a true patriot -- the real definition of patriot, in my book.  You have become, I think, probably the favorite of the diarists here for a great many of us, but in my view you avoided all the pitfalls that sometimes come with this territory.  You have been wise throughout this whole process.  I have never seen you be anything but kind, to people who agree or disagree with you.  I have seen no swelled head or bursting ego syndrome, or anything like it.

    I can't be the only only Kossahooligan who'd like to give you a big hug and a sincere thanks for everything you've done.  You are a friend to us and a friend to justice.  (Gosh, I'm getting awfully flowery, eh?)

    This is too long for most to want to read, I'm sure.  That's cool with me, because mostly it's been therapy for me to write it.  But, I hope at least Georgia10 reads the last part about herself.    

  •  can't download the file! (none)
    my computer says the file may have a virus and i can't download it.  any suggestions?
  •  Georgia... (none)
    ...will you be MY lawyer, if I ever need one? ;^)

    Great work.

  •  An appeal for contact from georgia10 (none)
    Georgia, there's no way to privately contact you.

    I have some additional important information for you.

    Please contact me at the email address in my dKos profile.

  •  In Common Dreams (and more) (none)
    I've got bunches of stuff to do this week--involving catching up with things in my life that are not election related--but I'll post these links here in case anyone wants to do anything with them.

    Ohio Recount Highlights Continuing Vote Trouble

    Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two)
    by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
    January 3, 2005

    Daily update on the Cobb site

    Rally details here

  •  Other titles? (none)
    Don't know if you have settled on a title yet,Georgia.  These are not as "catchy" as some others mentioned, but they do lend a scholarly air, while lending a sense of "must read" and "readability".  Or maybe these will spur others on to a more creative permutation of the following:

    The Election 2004:  A Closer Look
    The Ohio Case Study--Critical Major Discrepancies

    Election in Question:  2004
    Ohio: A Case Study

    Examining Our Election 2004--Future Elections at Risk
    Ohio:  A Case Study

    Election Debacle 2004--A Thorough Examination
    Case Study I:  Ohio

    (I'm thinking someone should do New Mexico (Case Study II) and Florida (Case Study III) using the same template as Georgia10).  I'd do one of them, but I have this other dissertation that is getting dustier by the minute.  

    •  The Great Right Wing Power Grab: Election 2004 (none)
      This "great right wing power grab" meme has been discussed and developed a bit ay mydd by Paul Rosenberg and Chris Bowers.  

      It's a terrific way to build a narrative that encapsulates what the other side is doing, and it can be an extremely powerful frame, which crosses over to many, many issues, including social security, among others.

      We are not a "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

      by Pachacutec on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:42:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Work Georgia10. (none)
    I read the first 15 pages, will read the rest later. Your argument is well researched and fact based. It pains me to no end that the issue of election fraud continues to be relegated to a "conspiracy theory" even by many readers on kos. Keep up the fight!
  •  Fantastic case, couple of stats quibbles: (none)
    with the exit poll stuff.  As it's a bit too lengthy to post, I've just done a diary here FWIW.

    Just don't want the really telling evidence to lose shine by association with some dodgy stats.

  •  Excellent, excellent work (none)
    What an incredible document!  You are an amazingly gifted and hard working young woman to be able to produce this work, especially as you are obviously using what little spare time you have as a student to do it.

    I was able to download your original document late last night and started reading this morning.  First I smiled when I saw that Triad was a county, not a company, and then I started noting some of the other typos...

    Anyway, other than the usual spacing and punctuation that Word will correct for you, here are some of the other typos if you are going to correct them to use this document for other purposes.  I truly hope that you're not offended.  For 56 pages, there are remarkably few typos!  Apologies to all for the lengthly posting, as I am relatively new (this only my second post) and I have no idea how to try to email someone directly.

    Pg 12 - Sproul canvassers complained they never for paid...change to "were"

    Pg 13 - Moreover, there is a possibility that absentee allows in Ohio ...change to "ballots" (?)

    Pg 16 - The challenge lists, used by Republican party...add "the"

    Pg 17 - It is unclear how many thousands of voters were challenged, how many received reasonable notice f their hearings...add "o" to make the word "of"

    Pg 18 - On October 28th the Might Texans...add "y" to make word "Mighty"

    Pg 19 - "For More Years!"...change to "four"

    Pg 20 - Why was this "new criteria" of rewarding "active registered voters" be implemented...delete "be"
        As one professor put it...change to "said"

    Pg 21 - Damschroder, former head of the Franklin County Republican Party admitted...insert comma after Party

    Pg 22 - At 7:05pm...insert space between 5 and pm
        Cuyahoga County (1,249 incidents), Franklin County, Mahoning, Summit, and Delaware County...change to "Counties"

    Pg 23 - In Columbus OH, voters saw a flyer "Republicans vote on Tues, Democrats vote on Wed...end the quotation

    Pg 24 - A family was registered to vote at a polling site, and they all live in the same home.  Her name not on list but she was offered provisional ballot...add "was" between "name" and "not" - add "the" between "on and "list" - add "a" before "provisional"

    Pg 29 - Exit polls are so accurate, they are used...replace the comma with "that"

    Pg 32 - (which was the ones Zogby used to call a Kerry win)...replace with "were"
        He find the odds against the discrepancies in Ohio...add an "s" to "find"

    Pg 35 - This in spite of the fact that the average sample size in the critical states was nearly twice...add "was" between "This" and "in"

    Pg 40 - pertinent information is disclosed concerning methods that were used so-that consumers of surveys may assess studies...change "so-that" to "so - that" by inserting spaces
        Chief Justice Moyer dismissed the case, claiming Ohio law permitted only one election contest per filing...insert "that" between "claiming" and "Ohio"

    Pg 41 - a decision will not be reached until after Congress approved the slate of Ohio electors for Bush...add "has" between "Congress" and "approved"

    georgia10, I have time throughout much of the day today, and would be honored to do further proofreading for you if you have need.  I do have a public email address in my dKos info.

    Stand! You've been sitting much too long, there's a permanent crease in your right and wrong...

    by auntdeen on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:56:42 AM PST

  •  Can you convert it to PDF so that more people can (none)
    read it?  If you don't have the software, I do and I'd be glad to convert it for you.  It cuts the file size in half.  
  •  to georgia10 (none)
    I have some thoughts about the exit polling portion of the piece I'd like to email you about. Can you contact me at

    I don't see a way to contact you directly.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:19:08 AM PST

    •  you've posted your diary (none)
      on exit polls which is quite different from her take. Why not let her post her view?  You know, so we won't have to refer to the famous georgia10 uncompromised original version. :)
    •  and me (none)
      but you can read them in my diary here.

      Congratulations on a great response to the challenge!

      •  agreed (none)
        my comment will be posted there as it also involves exit polls and we don't need yet another diary.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:59:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  comment about the exit poll section of georgia10's (none)
          opus is posted link.

          While copiously documented, I think it's one of the more circumstantial parts of the paper. In particular, I think the intro to the Hmmm section about the previous accuracy of exit polling and exit polling purposes needs some (minor) tweaking to show awareness of this.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:29:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  P.S. if there's any single non dKos link (none)
            to read on exit poll urban legends (including whatever the hell Dick Morris thinks about anything) it's this one written on 11/19 about the first version of the Freeman paper. This is important because the Freeman POV is the basis of much of the georgia10 exit poll section.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:42:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Does mysterypollster explain (none)
            what methodological differences  made the Ukraine Nov 21 exit polls different from US Nov 2 exit polls (and Nov 2000 exit polls), thus  making  Ukraine's accurate, and grounds for vote rigging vedict, whereas US exit polls since 2000 were inaccurate, and thus not indicative of US vote rigging/fraud, according to your link?
            •  Ukraine, as I'm sure you're aware (none)
              had 10,00 monitors reporting violence and ballot stuffing, making the exit polling merely a piece to the puzzle, just as it only a piece to the puzzle here. Exit polls alone would not have reversed things.

              For more on european polling, see this.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:24:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How many monitors did the US have reporting? (none)

                It's been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes.- John Anderson

                by Anderson Republican on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:46:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you tell me n/t (none)

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:04:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please don't be flip. (none)
                     At least, if you plan on playing Devil's Advocate.

                     We were told about multiple organizations watching the polls for bad things. We were told about armies of lawyers. We were told that 2000 would not be repeated.

                     We have, at last count that I know of, something over 500 reports of long lines, inaccurate machines, and other strange phenomena - just in the state of Ohio. At what numeric point do we pass into the Ukraine level of proof? There seems to be no way of satisfying the naysayers - there's always another hurdle to jump when the last one is crossed.

                    It's been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes.- John Anderson

                    by Anderson Republican on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:52:19 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My mistake. (none)
                       According to, it's 3400+ incidents in Ohio. 1200+ alone in Cuyahoga County.

                      It's been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes.- John Anderson

                      by Anderson Republican on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:59:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  about once in 24 hours someone brings up Ukraine (none)
                        and about once in 24 hours this same argument starts over again. To what purpose?

                        I bring up severity, you bring up frequency. They are the same, you say. They are not, sez I.

                        There were events in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere that were irregularities, many documented. None of them make us Ukraine. Repeat it tomorrow, it still won't be so. Think that's flip? It's merely the truth. And believe me, if you are not persuadable here on this, you are not persuadable to the rest of the country.

                        What does that change? Voter suppression is vile, no less so because we're not the same as Ukraine. Blackwell is still partisan, his activities suspicious. Whatever we need to do, we need to do. If Ukraine didn't exist, that would still be so.

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:28:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I agree. (none)
                           I also do not agree that they are the same. My point is simple, however - people cite mass irregularities in one election, combined with suspicious polling, and one election is invalid, while the other is valid. That's not consistent.

                           I am not saying that we are Ukraine. But we SHOULD be as vigilant about problems with our own election as we are about Ukraine's. I don't get that feeling from the continual detractions from the argument and the continual labeling of the fraudseekers as 'tinfoil hat types'.

                          It's been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes.- John Anderson

                          by Anderson Republican on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:30:36 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I won't take resonsibility for what other people (none)
                            say... I will take resonsibility for what I say. I wish everyone would.

                            There are major differences between the two elections... those 10,000 internationally respected monitors made a huge difference... without them, the exit polls would have meant nothing. And without more support, the exit polls here also mean nothing. And maybe that's okay if they are inaccurate.

                            In fact, there are major differences between 2000 and 2004... 2.5 million votes as the public understands it. We blew it in 2000. This is both different and the same, but the political differences of losing vs winning the popular vote are incalculable. That's why the concern about not just yelling Fire in a crowded theatre in hopes there ought to be a fire.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:41:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  ...and it depends whether you count reporters n/t (none)

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:11:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure how the gobbledy-gook (none)
                in your linked discussion on german election (?) exit polls relates  to US & Ukraine elections, or the question I posed.

                I would posit the simplest logical explanation is that one gets accurate exit polls in honest elections, and "inaccurate" exit polls in dishonest elections.

                We had accurate exit polls all through my previous presidential election voting experience (1968-1998), until we started getting "inaccurate" exit polls with GWB in 2000 and 2004(US).

                You being an frequent advocate the priciple of Ockham's Razor, why the sudden change to propose (or cite) convoluted explanations for the mismatch between exit poll and tally results as you seem to do now?

                •  shumard you need to educate yourself (none)
                  about exit polls. The "gobbeldy-gook" means that exit polls are not nearly as accurate as you claim, nor are they used in the US for what you think... predicting winners. Try this one. if that doesn't do it for you, try this.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 04:27:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Dark Images: I can fix (none)
    I took one of the images and lightened it.

    See the results here:

    I can fix the rest if you want.

    Let me know

  •  Hi Georgia10 (none)
    Thanks for all the great work! After reading the flaming all us "tin foil hat fraudsters" took in Kos's front page rant, I was wondering if you will continue to post here or will you move? I get the feeling we are not really welcome here anymore. I really have enjoyed your diaries. Be sure to let us know if and where you are moving to.
    Keep up the great work

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

    by llih on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:32:03 PM PST

  •  Thank you (none)
    for doing the work for which our public authorities and Fourth Estate have adbdicated responsibility. This work is anodyne to the curious and caustic (or Kostic to a bad punster)front page post by Kos today.  

    "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

    by normal family on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:00:15 PM PST

  •  136,000 (none)
    Just a quick point; If the total of votes between bush and Kerry is 136,000 then you must divide this in half +1 to see how many votes Kerry needed to increase in order to carry Ohio. Soooo I deduce all he needs is 68,001 to win. Not much.......

    Could it be - Barbara Bush's maiden name was Barbara Bush?

    by fugwb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:21:57 PM PST

  •  Very nice work indeed. (none)
    Nicely done.  One comment I have that noone upthread seems to have addressed is about the maps demonstrating voter incidents per county in various states, via the site.

    One of the big problems with the voteprotect maps is that they tally raw incidents, not per capita incidents.  Unsurprisingly, counties with the highest populations almost invariably have the highest number of voter complaints, so my question is this: do the maps show anything of significance, or are they simply accurately graphing population density? (There's also some question about self-selection, since election observers may very well have been motivated to travel to high-density and/or heavily minority polling locations, where trouble could most reasonably "be expected.")

    In order to determine whether or not certain counties had more than their share of incidents, you'd have to map it per capita.  I haven't seen such "adjusted" maps anywhere yet, but if I find them I'll let you know.

    But again, great work.  Can't think of anything you didn't cover, and the footnotes will prove very valuable for people trying to follow up on this information.

  •  I admire your stamina... (none)
    but any time you have to take 56 pages to make an argument, you've lost.  If we can't condense this a bit better, nobody is ever going to "get" it.  
    •  very true. (none)
      I've realized that when I've been limited to 15 pages in my briefs!

      Actually, I think a lot of people misunderstand Armando's Challenge.  It was to lay out the most "comprehensive" case possible, to lay out all the evidence and prove that it was at least as much as AWOL stuff.  That is why it's so long....there's lots of evidence to accumulate.

      But yes, a one or two page synopsis argument is on its way :)

  •  Good article on common dreams... (none)
    Includes some information I haven't seen before, that georgia might want to include...

    Ten Preliminary Reasons Why the Bush Vote Does Not Compute, and Why Congress Must Investigate Rather Than Certify the Electoral College
    Part One of Two

    by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman

    The presidential vote for George W. Bush does not compute. By examining a very wide range of sworn testimonies from voters, polling officials and others close to the administration of the Nov. 2 election; by statistical analysis of the certified vote by mathematicians, election experts and independent research teams who have conducted detailed studies of the results in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida and elsewhere; from experts who studied the voting machines, tabulators and other electronic equipment on which a fair vote count has depended; and from a team of attorneys and others who have challenged the Ohio results; the investigative team has compiled a portrait of an election whose true outcome must be investigated further by the Congress, the media and all Americans -- because it was almost certainly not an honest victory for George W. Bush.

    Crucial flaws in the national vote count, most importantly in Ohio, New Mexico and Florida, indicate John Kerry was most likely the actual winner on November 2, as reported in national exit polls. At very least, the widespread tampering with how the election was conducted, and how Ohio's votes were counted and re-counted, has compromised this nation's historic commitment to free and fair elections.

    On Thursday, January 6, the Electoral College will be challenged by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and other members of Congress under a law passed in 1887 in reaction to the fraudulent election of 1876. A fuller investigation requires assent by at least one Senator.


  •  Cuyhoga ballot ordering problem (none)
pontificator, Marisacat, clyde, Paolo, Greg Dworkin, racerx, Thumb, selise, Roadie, xinhoj, JekyllnHyde, wegerje, OkieByAccident, libby, BrooklynBoy, Nathan in MD, ROGNM, musing graze, Savage, BCF, Fiat Lux, moon in the house of moe, Jeff Simpson, npb7768, TaraIst, Renee in Ohio, DeanorBust, js7a, Gooserock, freedom fried, emal, Alexander, wytcld, Winger, jjc4jre, Mambo, penncove, KansasNate, doug r, rincewind, Pescadero Bill, cotterperson, shumard, democat, Liberation Learning, elial, Voodoo, frisco, lawnorder, Spider Jerusalem, ilona, Carnacki, Sandia Blanca, timerigger, musicsleuth, bumblebums, Cache, FirePombo, JohnT, GreekGirl, Ruth in OR, HariSeldon, Jeff the Chef, Eternal Hope, RubDMC, Idioteque, opinionated, concernedamerican, bronte17, indybend, Einsteinia, ProfessorX, baba durag, tompaine2004, sixmoreweeks, Dee625, Catriana, Ghidra99, peace voter, Paul Douglas Fan, JJG Miami Shores, llih, Ignacio Magaloni, sgilman, Troth, nargel, larryrant, CodeTalker, k2winters, a2jean, kolly, sidinny, MJB, sngmama, maven98, poe, Nate Roberts, erquirk, Terre, ctsteve, asonetuh, nowness, kozmo, Alna Dem, amherstprep, nitetalker, NotFuzzy, Pachacutec, k9disc, SneakySnu, soft dev, deafmetal, b6, ricardo4, nancelot, Miss Alabama, redstateliberal, FightOn, Kamakhya, by foot, missliberties, lungfish, pointsoflight, msdove, dove, Sycamore, Chamonix, Eastside Liberals VP, spiderleaf, Little Hamster, Febble, CalbraithRodgers, roseeriter, Rageaholic, TXsharon, Builderman, Voting Dem, Andrea inOregon, hoolia, gaillard, Red State Refugee, wont get fooled again, smash, katchen, Jill Lehnert, ppr, Black Maned Pensator, EsnRedshirt, i love coffee, NYBri, Oy the Billybumbler, 42, auntdeen, Roger Otip, iambaytor, applegal, Maria in Pgh, Calidrissp, jmknapp, miss love, Eddie Haskell, sarakandel, Green Tea, Justess, 313to212, Dan Hogan, redstaterabroad, terriersmith, epluribus, horatio in il, stayingpositive

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site