Explain the mechanism

You analysis appears to founder on the shoals of the actual vote count. As I understand your analysis, your "phantom" voters are not excess votes but either a massive shift in urban voter allegiance or a vast number of votes tallied to the wrong candidate.

A fraudulent count implies an underlying mechanism. You imply the mechanism but not its workings. How was it done?

by cam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 8:51:06 AM
 

How Voting may have been rigged

Most likely mechanism of vote rigging was the optical scan machines. See Chap 5 of Bev Harris' book http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-5.pdf

Quote:

 How to compromise an optical-scan system Optical-scan systems involve filling in an oval or drawing an arrow on a paper ballot, which then is fed into a scanner. People think these systems can’t be rigged because they have a paper ballot, but there are anecdotal reports of optical scan systems flipping elections as far back as 1980.

An election official I spoke with from California reported that in her county, Jimmy Carter soundly defeated Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential election. However, the computer tally from the optical scanner reversed the results, giving Carter’s votes to Reagan and vice versa. By doing a hand audit using the paper ballots, they were able to straighten out the results, but when she requested that the state of California do more audits to see how widespread the problem was, she was ignored.

Most people believe that optical-scan machines are tamper-proof because they provide a paper ballot. But election officials generally don’t use the ballots to check the machine count, and in some states it’s against the law to do so. If you don’t audit properly, opticalscan machines are no safer than paperless touch screens.

Some people think that all we need to do is vote absentee and the touch-screen problem is solved. Unfortunately it will not be solved until we actually look at those ballots. When you vote absentee, your ballot is usually run through an optical-scan machine. Hack either the scanner or the main accumulation and you take the election away, while ballots sit forlorn in a box that no one is allowed to open.

The official results come from the county, not the polling place, so if you adjust the optical scan data before it gets into the county accumulator, you’ve just rigged the election. No one’s going to look at those paper ballots, but if they do a spot check, see below. I’ll show you how a crooked programmer can create a safety net for spot checks.

by Bleeding Heart Liberal (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 48 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 11:22:28 AM
 

Well said Rajiv, bears repeating...

"Some people think that all we need to do is vote absentee and the touch-screen problem is solved. Unfortunately it will not be solved until we actually look at those ballots. When you vote absentee, your ballot is usually run through an optical-scan machine. Hack either the scanner or the main accumulation and you take the election away, while ballots sit forlorn in a box that no one is allowed to open."

People need to have full access to registration, voting, and counting processes...open witnessing. England has it, why not here?

But the key point is that a permissive environment for secrecy and cutting corners has no counterweight, other than those highly focused on the issue, and we lack sufficient girth (to stay with the metaphor).

When results like this come out, they must be challenged.

Those elected have to show that they were truly elected, not just digitally self or "other" appointed.

by Michael Collins (89 articles, 13 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 329 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 2:33:32 PM
 

Thanks for asking...

I focused on the lack of any sensible path to a Bush victory, from a new angle, thanks to web commentator Anaxarchos. There is simply no sensible way to lose your base and rock on into the night picking up huge gains hostile territory, thus winning the eleciton. That hasn't happened before. We're taking this from the simplest vantage point - plausibility - a 66% presidential turnout increase in big citeis; 80% increase in white voters over 2000 in those big cities (5 to 9 million, 80% more white voters); the absense of any Get Out The Vote (GOTV). In the big cities of those called, only 1 in 10 received calls from the Republicans. The nine other calls were from the Democrats. It goes on and on.

Establishing this with obvious arguments that everyone can understand:

Collins: "Bush won it in the big cities!"

City friend: "Knock it off, what's the matter with you today?"

Collins: "No seriously, he's base in rural/red America was on strike election day, way down in total votes and Bush votes. So he used that city charm of his and all those great things he did for cities and pulled it out at the last minute."

City friend: "Nah, com'on...stop messing with me."

My suburban and country friends would say the same thing. That's the imiportance of this case. You don't need a stat background to get it.

The mechanism is well presented as referenced below in a response to your question. Also, take a look at this. It's a comprehensive and elegant statement of the mechanisim of election fruad. Quite persuasive.

Thanks for your point.

Scoop - The Sludge Report - Bigger than Watergate II

by Michael Collins (89 articles, 13 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 329 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 2:26:44 PM
 

still?

still we are trying to convince ourselves that Bush was not elected? How much time will we waste in this futile effort. Bush Won, twice. MOVEON.ORG

by sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 1:18:38 PM
 

Explosion in votes for Republicans...

I did some research a few years ago on prior presidential vote totals for both democratic and republican presidential elections.  Over the past several presidential elections since the late 80's, the Democratic vote totals have always increased at a very steady rate of between 8-12% for each and every election, whereas the republicans experienced a one time only "explosion" voter increase  of 25% increase between 2000 & 2004 elections. (I am recalling the data from memory and apologize if I have misstated the data).

by Alessandro Machi (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 1:38:16 PM
 

What did he do indeed.

He was below 50% throughout the campaign, he was taking a thumping in new registraitons, GOTV activities in cities and suburbs, the small towns turned on him in a huge way, and the rural folks went from 23% to 16% of the electorate.  Yet he won, imagine that.  What nonsense...but we buy it.  The public is more able to find information through alternative channels and theirs a lot of cynicism out there, comendable given the performance of the WH.

I'd be interested to see what you came up with.  There are somethings that just don't happen, like  Bush getting a 153% increase in votes from 2000 to 2004... When do they roll out the slide show for some terrific Bridge in Brooklyn, your's for a song.

by Michael Collins (89 articles, 13 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 329 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 2:39:06 PM
 

Quote on fraudulent vote counting

"It is not the people who vote that count, It is the people who count the votes."

Josef Stalin

I will never trust any method but counting and tallying hand marked paper ballots at the precinct level. Paper ballots always have provided an accountable paper trail in the past. Why ruin a good system by replacing it with one that ordinary voters rightfully do not trust. And further to that it provides jobs at the local level where they are not needed with a minimum of bureaucracy.

by Bucky the Commoner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 1:56:47 PM
 

Bucky, you distilled the issue.

How about something people trust, low tech, and visible. 

Great quote from Stalin.  It's so true.   

by Michael Collins (89 articles, 13 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 329 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 2:40:31 PM
 

The evidence has become overwhelming: And accountability?

The evidence has become overwhelming that this Bush-Cheney White House has lied illegally about 9/11, WMD, Saddam Hussein's links to 9/11, Saddam Hussein's nuclear capacity and the real reason for invading Iraq....oil....to cause a criminal war of aggression against Iraq, criminal wars of aggression, plural, if Bush-Cheney's Lay's Enron also needed 9/11 as an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan to erect and oil pipeline through Afghanistan to connect the "cheaper" oil of the Caspian Sea with Enron's power plants in northern India...yet another criminal conflict of interest.

by HollyBerkowitz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 3:59:51 PM
 

what do the numbers say

There was a strong implication in your article that the total number of votes reported was much greater than the number of votes that were cast. Is it possible that this is true and noone noticed ? Is there any way of getting the numbers ?

by John Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 9:00:06 PM
 

Electoral Controversy

So what if yet another close election is decided by one state with questionable administration of voting process?

 www.swingstatethemovie.com

by jedwardwolf (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 10:16:46 PM
 

2004 Election

While it seems that the bush administration were busy little beavers on election night 2004.  I remember that day so well.  I lost alot of faith in my country that day.  I was a democratic checker in a black area of town.  People stood in line for up to three hours until people thought of ways to speed the process up.  Then the republican party had white people come in from a bible school up north.  I never would have believed that people would harrass someone to keep them from voting if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.  I find myself staying away from anyone who voted for him.  I have no respect for them.  I would not want my choice of President to get into office if he didn't win.  My mother thinks that god works in strange ways.  If her god put king george in office I want nothing to do with him.

by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 10:32:40 PM