 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 17, 2006 at 11:59:41
OpEdNews Exclusive by Rob Kall Page 1 of 3 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.
These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.
"We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.
"The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA. "This is a nothing less than a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!" 
"The numbers tell us there absolutely was hacking going on, just not enough to overcome the size of the actual turnout. The tide turned so much in the last few weeks before the eleciton. It looks for all the world that they'd already figured out the percentage they needed to rig, when the programming of the vote rigging software was distributed weeks before the election, and it wasn't enough," Castleman commented.
Election Defense Alliance leaders: Castleman, O'Dell, Simon at work
Election Defense Alliance data analysis team leader Bruce O'Dell, whose expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems for major financial institutions, stated, "The logistics of mass software distribution to tens or even hundreds of thousands of voting machines in the field would demand advance planningļæ½"at least several weeks--for anyone attempting very large-scale, systematic e-voting fraud, particularly in those counties that allow election equipment to be taken home by poll workers prior to the election.
"The voting equpment seems to be designed to support two types of vote count manipulation--techniques accessible to those with hands-on access to the machines in a county or jurisdiction, and wholesale vulnerabilities in the underlying behavior of the systems which are most readily available to the vendors themseleves. Malicious insiders at any of the vendors would be in a position to alter the behavior of literally thousands of machines by infecting or corrupting the master copy of the software that's cloned out to the machines in the field. And the groundwork could be laid well in advance. For this election, it appears that such changes would have to have been done by early October at the latest," O'Dell explained.
In a reprise of his efforts on Election Night 2004, Jonathan Simon captured the unadjusted National Election pool (NEP) data as posted on CNN.com, before it was later "adjusted" to match the actual vote counts. The exit poll data that is seen now on the CNN site has been adjusted already. But Simon points out that both adjusted and unadjusted data were instrumental to exposing the gross miscount.
Simon, surprised that unadjusted polling data was publicly revealed, given the concerns after the 2004 election about the use of exit polls, downloaded as much of the data as he could in real time. Scheduled and planned revisions on the CNN site took place throughout the evening and by the following morning, the unadjusted exit poll data had been replaced with data that conformed with the reported, official vote totals. This was the planned procedure as indicated by the NEP's methodology.
Adjusting the exit poll data is, by itself, not a troublesome act. Simon explained, "Their advertised reason to do the exit polls is to enable analysis of the results by academic researchers--they study the election dynamics and demographics so they can understand which demographic groups voted what ways. As an analytic tool, the exit poll is considered more serviceable if it matches the vote count. Since the vote count is assumed to be gospel, congruence with that count is therefore assumed to give the most accurate picture of the behavior of the electorate and its subgroups.
"In 2004 they had to weight it very heavily, to the point that the party turnout was 37% Democrat and 37% Republican, which has never been the case--leading to the claim that Rove turned out the Republican vote. This was nowhere witnessed, no lines in Republican voting places were reported. As ridiculous as that was, the distortion of actual turnout was even greater in 2006. The adjusted poll's sample, to match the vote count, had to consist of 49% 2004 Bush voters and only 43% 2004 Kerry voters, more than twice the actual margin of 2.8%. This may not seem like that much, but it translates into more than a 3,000,000 vote shift nationwide, which, depending on targeting, was enough to have altered the outcome of dozens of federal races.
"It should be very clear that weighting by a variety of carefully selected demographic categories, which yields the pre-adjustment exit polls, presents a truly representative electorate by every available standard except the vote count in the present election. So you have a choice: you can believe in an electorate composed of the correct proportions of men and women, young and old, rural and urban, ethnic and income groups, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--or you can believe the machines. Anyone who has ever wondered what is really in a hot dog should be aware that the machines are designed, programmed, deployed, and serviced by avowedly partisan vendors, and can easily be set up to generate entirely false counts with no one the wiser, least of all the voters."
Simon concluded, "These machines are completely and utterly black box. The idea that we have this enormous burden of proof that they are miscounting, and there's no burden of proof that they are counting accurately--that, first and foremost, has to change."
Election Defense Alliance issued the following statement
As in 2004, the exit polling data and the reported election results don't add up. "But this time there is an objective yardstick in the methodology which establishes the validity of the Exit Poll and challenges the accuracy of the election returns," said Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance. The Exit Poll findings are detailed in a paper published today on the EDA website.
The 2006 Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll was commissioned by a consortium of major news organizations. Its conclusions were based on the responses of a very large sample, of over ten thousand voters nationwide*, and posted at 7:07 p.m. Election Night, on the CNN website. That Exit Poll showed Democratic House candidates had out-polled Republicans by 55.0 percent to 43.5 percent -- an 11.5 percent margin ā in the total vote for the U.S. House, sometimes referred to as the "generic" vote.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Investigate Vote corruption
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 27 comments |
|
9/11 Too?
Some might take this as evidence that they're competent enough to have pulled off 9/11 too. If so, would that they had underestimated the job then as they did with the Congressional elections this year. "They couldn't possibly beat us by that much." Arrogant to the end. by Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 12:50:58 PM  (0+)
|
|
When you hack
an election the way the last few elections were (most definitely) hacked, you get the feeling you can rig/hack most any election for any desired outcome. I for one, believe the 2006 elections were rigged in favour of the Dems. Why ? The answer is simple. The ones now in place have gone too far. It's time to relax a bit and let the other hand take over. It's still the same ole stanky masturbatory brain that is in charge. Chomsky dismisses 9/11 as an inside job because, as Chomsky put it, these guys can't get anything right...so how on earth would they be able to pull that off (or so)? Well, strike 3 for all of you for being short sighted. Chomsky included. So when Russ says "Some might take this as evidence that they're competent enough to have pulled off 9/11 too".....a bell goes off in my head and I have to reach for the keyboard. Election rigging is not restricted to G.W. Bush and friends, nor is it restricted to any particular political party (in the USA but honestly, not much to choose from, eh?), nor is it restricted to any one company or entity. For all we know, it could be an orchestra of multiple individuals / groups who most probably are very little aware of one another. Same goes for 9/11. Chomsky is dead on when he says BushCo is incompetent of pulling off such an elaborate "inside job". True and misleading. Again and again, the puppets are dangled down before our faces, and we sit and watch as they dance. We fall into a fantasy in which the puppets are given life. They really do exist. The puppets quarrel and spat and we yearn for the "good" to defeat the "bad". Snap out of it. by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 1:22:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: addendum
Aich See Pee Bee HCPB A country that is willing to bomb another country back into the stoneage, should also be willing to take elections back a few centuries to where pen (or pencil) and paper played a major role. No need to go all the way back to when the one with the biggest stick ruled. by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 1:32:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Mark Crispin Miller Says, about this article:
This new report is crucial reading for all those concerned about election fraud--which, last Tuesday, was, again, a massive problem, notwithstanding all the blithe post-mortems issued by the US press from Tuesday night on through the week. (Nor surprisingly, Diebold joined that chirpy chorus with a long mendacious press release promoting Diebold's wares.) Now here's some startling evidence of widespread fraud, assembled by my good friends at the Election Defense Alliance. It's likely that the Dems actually did win, or should have won, some 50 House seats--and that Bush/Cheney's GOP was not just "thumped" but devastated. Please spread this piece far and wide. Mark is author of Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them) by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 1:42:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Required Reading!
I just finished reading Mark Crispin Miller's book, "Fooled Again," and even for an election integrity activist like myself, it is a real eye-opener. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 2:28:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Paper Ballots and Real Reform
This is an all out assault against the very foundations of our democracy perpetrated by the stooges of the corporate/limousine class of politicians. Nothing is more important these next two years than election reform. REAL election reform. by Dean Powers (138 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 1:52:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: open source software
is not what I would include in a "real" reform. Pencil and paper and a bunch of hands.......... now THAT is real ! HCPBs NOW ! Put some people to work and count real slow and out loud. It works again and again. P.S. Software sux and so do S/W gurus by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 2:10:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: 100%
I'm with you one hundred percent on that. Paper, paper, paper. Throw out the three billion dollar voting destruction machines. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 18, 2006 at 5:01:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not just out
but sue them for the return of our tax dollars spent on these outrageous machines, machines that are either incompetent at best or illegal at worst. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Nov 18, 2006 at 9:42:15 AM (0+)
|
|
"Buzz" (vote for) This Story at http://www.buzzflash.net
War Brings out thieves and peace hangs them. ~~Machiavelli ["Buzz" (vote for) This Story at http://www.buzzflash.net ] ======================================================= by Myra (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 2:06:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the best part ......
is "And if you don't like our news go make some of your own." Bravo ! by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 2:15:34 PM (0+)
|
|
So where is the Democratic Party?
My first reaction is: If there is a gram of truth in all this analysis, then where the hell is the Democratic Party? Do they have the integrity to stand up for themselves, for our election integrity, for our democracy?? If not, then what do all the supporters of the Dems do, think, say and demand??? by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 3:42:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Keep in mind
OpEdNEws broke this story. NO mainstream media have covered it yet, and it just got headlined at Bradblog. Give it a little time, and send it out to the people you know. Actually. You just made me realize, I should have included an action page with it. I'm off to add it. CU by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 3:45:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Surprised? Hardly.
Not a bit surprised that Rove and Co. had "their math" but still missed the boat on how much the American people are over their bullshit. The question now is whether the Dems are going to give us their 'new and improved' version of same old sh*t or whether we can hold their feet to the fire enough to get substantial action on this critical issue. So few in government can be trusted. So few... by Jim Prues (15 articles, 33 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 81 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 3:45:58 PM (0+)
|
|
vote hack
It's causes one to wonder if this explains Rove's pre-election boast of having THE numbers. Hmmm. by Barrelhse (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 4:25:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Hmm...This must be Rove's "THE math"
Hmmm, why am I not surprised. This must be what Rove referred to as "THE math" when interviewed by a NPR reporter concerning national polls. So, Rove's special math was nothing more than "0"s and "1"s -- the computer's programming language. That must be "the" special math that he was referring to when he said that he was confident that the Republicans would emerge victorious in the midterms. God, those people are awful. They need to go to jail for a long, long time. Something must be done about this IMMEDIATELY. Bring back the PAPER BALLOT! by Mike Browne (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 17 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 4:35:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Time for a Congressionally Mandated Recount of Entire Nation
If US Congress authorizes $127 TO $160 BILLION on top of $70 BILLION already OKd for this fiscal year for Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (most to Iraq), they can anti-up whatever it takes to GUARANTEE democracy here. I don't give a damn who they have to borrow it from to fund the 2006 Nation Election Recount. 2008 elections can not arrive without this matter resolved. by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 6:16:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Not Clear stupid
Shut up stupid, if there was a vast Republican conspiracy don't you think they would have, umm I don't know KEPT THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAJORITY. I love how you people who believe in this conspiracy crap cling to it no matter what. One of the retards that commented on this oped said "I for one, believe the 2006 elections were rigged in favor of the Dems. Why ? The answer is simple. The ones now in place have gone too far. It's time to relax a bit and let the other hand take over." That's insane Illuminati talk. Why don't you idoits put down the John Grisham novel and actually try to help solve these problems. Maybe try to get your beloved Democrat leaders to do something about these voting machines if there so bad. Just do something besides making up insane babble you 9/11 conspiracy believing morons. And if you want to know I'm a Republican who voted mostly democrat this last election because I think the Republicans messed up the last 6 years, not because I think Bush and seven Jewish bankers are trying to turn the whole world into one huge neo-con corporation. by Bill Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 7:34:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ...
Hey oricyst, and I ONLY ask this out of curiousity... How exacltly *does* one pronounce idoits? by brutalentropy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 8:43:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rove did plan on maintaining their majorities
Didn't you read the reference article? Rove and his fellow co-conspirators exuded confidence about the upcoming elections because they believed that a bonus hokus-pokus electronic vote of +4% for the Republicans should be enough to do the trick and keep their majorities in Congress. Why don't you read the article before you criticize? by Mike Browne (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 17 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 11:25:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: duing nothing
I have only been a member here for about five, or six month, so I am not as familiar as you are with folks here. But now that you mention it, I will suggest to Rob Kall he put a little thought and action in about those machines. A little confrontation from the real guys never hurt no one. by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 18, 2006 at 1:55:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: We du a lot
We have a voting integrity editor here, Joan Brunwasser, who has done an extraordinary job building a library of articles here that may be unsurpassed on the web. Go to the table of contents and check out election and voting. You'll see thousands of articles and links. We've published and distributed thousands of DVDs on e-voting and have sent Joan to cover the latest conference. We got the exclusive scoop on this article because we earned it. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 18, 2006 at 5:00:11 AM (0+)
|
|
on Sunday, October 15, 2006 I posted in Diaries:
To Rove and the small cadre of operatives who have been at his side throughout the administration -- including Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and White House political director Sara Taylor -- confidence that Republicans will keep their majorities in Congress flows from a conviction that a political operation that has produced three consecutive national victories is capable of one more, despite voter disaffection with Iraq and GOP scandals in Washington. Does that political operation include control of electronic-voting machines? After George W. Bush won the 2004 U.S. election, tales of vote fraud began circulating. University of Pennsylvania organizational-dynamics professor Steven J. Freeman has said that Bush's final-day tallies were significantly higher than exit-poll results in 10 of the 11 battleground states. Freeman says there is a 250,000,000:1 chance of those discrepancies occurring simultaneously in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Much attention focused on touch-screen electronic-voting machines, which don't require paper ballots, making it impossible to physically verify Voter's intention and election results. In 2004, when touch-screen voting machines were widely deployed for the first time in a national election, questions about the security and reliability of the machines--and therefore, the 2004 election results--abounded. Edward Felten, Ari Feldman, and Alex Halderman of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, in a report titled "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine" detail simple methods to compromise the security of electronic-voting machines to steal an election. Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that voters "know something is wrong" in Washington and urged Democrats to create change in the November elections. "I have never seen the American people so serious," said Clinton. "I think I know why. People know things are out of whack. The rhythm of our public life and our common life in America has been disturbed." The Republican establishment "know something is wrong" too and are in widespread panic about the coming Democratic victory in the 2006 midterm elections. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. Incongruously, there are two in the Republican establishment whose confidence about GOP prospects hit even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove. Party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats -- shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats. In the Senate, Rove and Bush believe, a Democratic victory would require the opposition to "run the table," as one official put it, to pick up the necessary six seats -- a prospect the White House seems to regard as nearly inconceivable. "They aren't even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing. The official White House line of supreme self-assurance comes from the top down. Bush has publicly and privately banished any talk of losing the GOP majorities. The question is whether this is a case of "justified confidence" -- based on Bush's and Rove's inside knowledge of the electronic-voting machine technology at their command -- or just another "State of Denial by Runner (11 articles, 35 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 39 comments) on Friday, Nov 17, 2006 at 9:41:12 PM (0+)
|
|
They couldn't quite steal this one
Why does eveyone think this year will be different? They already stole 2 presidential elections (wide scale fraud). You really think they cannot steal House elections (small scale fraud). This is the same group that managed to legalize warrantless wiretaps, suspend habeas corpus, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detain demonstrators and start 2 illegal wars based on lies. The Republicans lost the House and Sentae, however, he'll still invade Iran on behalf of Israel. Support indy media. Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't will and drops the title): America Deceived (book) by Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Saturday, Nov 18, 2006 at 6:37:28 AM (0+)
|
|
You Might Find This Interesting..
This article has been shouted on shoutwire.com, http://tinyurl.com/y6mxrg - and I thought you might be interested in seeing the below Lying Liar's response. This sick puppy spends a great deal of time spreading dangerous lies and disinformation on shoutwire and I wonder if he could be working for that new propaganda group that Herr Von Rumsfeld created before being kicked out. ------------------------------------------ CommunismIsForRetards said: Basing this assertion ENTIRELY upon exit polls is probably the first clue this story is full of sh*t. Exit polls have historically ALWAYS been off... long before electronic voting and even back during the Tammany Hall days when Democrats were the ones accused of election fraud (only that one was documented). Maybe the problem with exit polls is 1) that they're typically female grad students (who overwhelmingly vote Democratic) asking people and 2) more importantly, the pollsters tend to get their sampling from the places where it's the easiest to get answers from the most people... metropolitan areas (which also overwhelmingly vote Democratic). So basically, you've got people who Republicans tend not to associate with asking people who are statistically more likely to be Democrats. MAYBE exit polls are the problem... which even after the 2004 election, the polling agencies themselves acknowledged was probably the case. by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Nov 18, 2006 at 11:41:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
and no knowledge at all is a tragedy. You might note that exit polls have always been dead on, and not, as this poster insists, inaccurate at all. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Nov 19, 2006 at 6:29:32 PM (0+)
|
|
A way to make e-voting better than paper
Although the choice of the people combined with the efforts of a massive but underacknowledged keep-the-vote-honest movement gave control of Congress over to the Democrats, the need for honest counting of votes, in time for our very _next_election_, is, by far, the highest priority we can have. We can't count on a similarly overwhelming majority to overcome cheating. We need the count to be honest. Even the idea of "getting rid of the machines" is probably the wrong direction to go. We need a different kind of machine system. What we need, is to know that each and every actual vote is actually counted. First, the software cannot be a black-box, at all. There's _no_ way of testing that a black box works by "experience". Even if it worked perfectly on 1000 monitored tests, certainty that a cheat cannot be "triggered" by some "normal" use of the system, when important, can _never_ be guaranteed. The mechanics of such a "trigger" might be, for example, a specific one-in-a-billion binary sequence formed by 30 successive ballots for one of two specific 3rd-party candidates. The code might look for such a condition and go into a mode that could "never" happen accidentally, such as could be caught by random or systematic testing. The gaming-for-cash industry has machines that do have to be _that_ secure, and the approach used is that the Gaming Commission goes over the code line-by-line, and the code has to be obvious enough for the Commission programmers to _know_ that no "malware" is included. The certified code can not be _touched_ by the manufacturers, after deployment, and deployed programs are spot checked to make sure that's the case. Another level of certainty for a voting system that _should_ be available is checking that the actual votes, by the people, are what formed the totals. This _could_ be done by having the machines issue an unforgeable (digitally signed) receipt which includes the actual vote (human readable) _and_ a serial number. Such a serial number would be kept _in_ the database with the actual voting. This would not keep any identification of the voter, any more than paper ballots do, and the only thing that could _testify_ that "this is what _I_ voted" was the presentation, by me, of the numbered receipt. Then, after the fact, even years later, any holders of such saved receipts could voluntarily present them, and they could be checked against the historic database of the vote. Without this level of checking, even our paper ballot systems are subject to uncheckable cheating, via ballot destruction, ballot modification, and just dishonest counting, since recounting is so expensive as to be impractical. _This_ is what should be demanded of our voting systems, _within_the_next_two_years_. Congress, to this point, has _known_ about the problems with the machines, starting from a case of a programmer actually testifying, under oath, about being assigned to make such a system, and onward down to the point of being told by statisticians that the maximum deviations from an exit poll are also known to high certainties. Congress, itself, has to be forced to implement a system that disallows cheating. Ultimately, the ability of the voting-machine companies to lobby to keep things as corrupt as they are, needs to be fully remedied. _Nothing_ is more important than this level of recovery of what little "democracy" we ever had. If necessary to get that done, then impeachment of Bush can be included as a subtask. If not, then let's just get our voting fixed. Anyone who attempted to prevent that can be put on a list for removal, later. - Lenny Gray - by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Sunday, Nov 19, 2006 at 6:57:06 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
