TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
by Thom Hartmann
When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.
"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.
And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.
The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm, and noticed something startling.
Also See:
Florida Secretary of State Presidential Results by County 11/02/2004 (.pdf)
Florida Secretary of State County Registration by Party 2/9/2004 (.pdf)
While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking � the results seem to contain substantial anomalies.
In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.
In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.
The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.
Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported that county size was a variable � this turns out not to be the case. Just the use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.)
More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://us together.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm. Note the trend line � the only variable that determines a swing toward Bush was the use of optical scan machines.
One possible explanation for this is the "Dixiecrat" theory, that in Florida white voters (particularly the rural ones) have been registered as Democrats for years, but voting Republican since Reagan. Looking at the 2000 statistics, also available on Dopp's site, there are similar anomalies, although the trends are not as strong as in 2004. But some suggest the 2000 election may have been questionable in Florida, too.
One of the people involved in Dopp's analysis noted that it may be possible to determine the validity of the "rural Democrat" theory by comparing Florida's white rural counties to those of Pennsylvania, another swing state but one that went for Kerry, as the exit polls there predicted. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania analysis, available at http://ustogether.org/election04/PA_vote_patt.htm, doesn't show the same kind of swings as does Florida, lending credence to the possibility of problems in Florida.
Even more significantly, Dopp had first run the analysis while filtering out smaller (rural) counties, and still found that the only variable that accounted for a swing toward Republican voting was the use of optical-scan machines, whereas counties with touch-screen machines generally didn't swing - regardless of size.
Others offer similar insights, based on other data. A professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, noted that in Florida the vote to raise the minimum wage was approved by 72%, although Kerry got 48%. "The correlation between voting for the minimum wage increase and voting for Kerry isn't likely to be perfect," he noted, "but one would normally expect that the gap - of 1.5 million votes - to be far smaller than it was."
While all of this may or may not be evidence of vote tampering, it again brings the nation back to the question of why several states using electronic voting machines or scanners programmed by private, for-profit corporations and often connected to modems produced votes inconsistent with exit poll numbers.
Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since Election Day.
Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.
But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.
Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.
Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.
"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."
He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."
Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.
How could this happen?
On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.
That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.
"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?"
Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."
"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"
Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.
Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.
"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.
But, it's running on a Windows PC.
So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel.
In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.
"Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger."
They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the progress of your election."
As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser.
Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds."
On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv.) And they had left no tracks whatsoever, Harris said, noting that it would be nearly impossible for the election software � or a County election official - to know that the vote database had been altered.
Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.
Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to.
According to congressional candidate Fisher, it makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.
And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states.
So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.
But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
Will you people stop posting this hogwash from conspiracy sites! Get a credible source and THEN i might take the time to read it.
You meant to say "fuck u just because I dont believe in conspiracys"
That makes you stupid because conspiracies happen. Theres been a ton of them exposed over the years. Its human nature to want power even if the people wont give it to you...
Voting machines are the most obvious opportunity to pull something like that off...
Anyone know where the votes went? How they were collected? Or anything at all about how the machines work? No. Only the companies and government know how it worked...
You dont believe that its possible to hack an election performed on voting machines? You must not know much about technology and computers...
You want proof?
http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DemonicAardvark You meant to say "fuck u just because I dont believe in conspiracys" That makes you stupid because conspiracies happen. Theres been a ton of them exposed over the years. Its human nature to want power even if the people wont give it to you... Voting machines are the most obvious opportunity to pull something like that off... Anyone know where the votes went? How they were collected? Or anything at all about how the machines work? No. Only the companies and government know how it worked... You dont believe that its possible to hack an election performed on voting machines? You must not know much about technology and computers... You want proof? http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm |
Well reading the data per county is convincing, several factors come into play:
1: Death - voters die
2: Newly registered voters
3: Bush is an incumbent - undecided voters tend to vote for the incumbent
4: People are dumbasses - In 2000, Flordians could not punch a hole so now they cant push the right button or need a picture!
5: People have the ability to change their mind!!!!! They could be voting for Democrat one year and Republican the next
6: People can vote for the person and not the party. My grandma who is a hardcore Democrat voted for Bush since she thought he could do a better job.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~adamsb6/elections/
to this thread and all you dumbasses out there who just wont give up
| quote: |
| Originally posted by D-res to this thread and all you dumbasses out there who just wont give up |
no prob 
I think Bush won, but it wouldnt suprise me a bit to learn about voter fraud.
By both major parties.
Oh dear God not 4 more years of the same speculative whining ...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Oh dear God not 4 more years of the same speculative whining ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tribu I think Bush won, but it wouldnt suprise me a bit to learn about voter fraud. By both major parties. |
Anyone seen where my tin foil hat? Damnit, can't find it anywhere.
Well, now that my brain's ready to absorb some more conspiracies, I thought this latest one was pretty interesting:
To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:
1. the exit polls were wrong
2. that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll)
3. that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll)
4. that incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong
5. that the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong
6. that the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong
7. that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail
8. that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry
9. that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000
10. that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election.
So if you can believe all of those factors too, well, it looks like you won't need a shiny hat yourself. 
Added in edit: not sure of the source of this piece. Caught it in an email - I surmise it was from a blogger.....
easy inbred, its still LIKELY
Contrary to its title, there's no shred of any evidence of anything in this thread. How ironic.
Here we go again
was kinda worried for a moment that we wouldnt have anything to talk about for the next for years 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Anyone seen where my tin foil hat? Damnit, can't find it anywhere. Well, now that my brain's ready to absorb some more conspiracies, I thought this latest one was pretty interesting: To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: 1. the exit polls were wrong 2. that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll) 3. that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll) 4. that incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong 5. that the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong 6. that the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong 7. that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail 8. that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry 9. that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000 10. that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election. So if you can believe all of those factors too, well, it looks like you won't need a shiny hat yourself. Added in edit: not sure of the source of this piece. Caught it in an email - I surmise it was from a blogger..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Radagast Contrary to its title, there's no shred of any evidence of anything in this thread. How ironic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Radagast Contrary to its title, there's no shred of any evidence of anything in this thread. How ironic. |
I'm not sure if this counts as fraud or most likely just voter "inconvenience," but there were some places in Florida where there would be voting booths but nobody attending to them, so people would need to drive to other districts. A friend of mine's mom tried doing that and couldn't vote because the polls closed too fast for her to get to another place.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by drizzt81 I think there was this random story on CNN claiming that some country with 700 registered voters reported 4000 votes. But let's completely disregard that, 'cause WHO cares if there is fraud during the election; What does an election really matter anyways, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by drizzt81 I think there was this random story on CNN claiming that some country with 700 registered voters reported 4000 votes. But let's completely disregard that, 'cause WHO cares if there is fraud during the election; What does an election really matter anyways, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Radagast Contrary to its title, there's no shred of any evidence of anything in this thread. How ironic. |
The story about the democratic counties in Florida that voted for Bush was picked up by msnbc last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
However, if it's fraud than it's consistent fraud because it looks like those same democratic counties voted for Bush in 2000, and Dole in 1996:
Election of 2000
Baker voted 5610-2392 for Bush against Gore.
Lafayette voted 1670-789 for Bush against Gore.
Liberty voted 1317-1017 for Bush against Gore.
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ele.../7/00&DATAMODE=
Election of 1996
Baker voted 3684-2273 for Dole against Clinton
Lafayette voted 1126-899 for Dole against Clinton
Liberty voted 913-868 for Dole against Clinton
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ele.../5/96&DATAMODE=
So if you ask me, it looks like it's just a bunch of people who once registered as Democrats never changed party affiliation and are just voting republican. Speculation on my part sure, but it looks like that's what this thread is all about ...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider The story about the democratic counties in Florida that voted for Bush was picked up by msnbc last night: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/ However, if it's fraud than it's consistent fraud because it looks like those same democratic counties voted for Bush in 2000, and Dole in 1996: Election of 2000 Baker voted 5610-2392 for Bush against Gore. Lafayette voted 1670-789 for Bush against Gore. Liberty voted 1317-1017 for Bush against Gore. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ele.../7/00&DATAMODE= Election of 1996 Baker voted 3684-2273 for Dole against Clinton Lafayette voted 1126-899 for Dole against Clinton Liberty voted 913-868 for Dole against Clinton http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ele.../5/96&DATAMODE= So if you ask me, it looks like it's just a bunch of people who once registered as Democrats never changed party affiliation and are just voting republican. Speculation on my part sure, but it looks like that's what this thread is all about ... |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.