Apparently, Christine O'Donnell's "stunning upset victory"
in Delaware was yet another stroke of electronic magic--just like Scott Brown's
"stunning upset victory" in Massachusetts in February.
There, as the Election Defense Alliance has reported, it turns
out that Martha Coakley won the hand-counted paper ballot vote by 2.8%, while
Brown "won" his 5-point "victory" only where the "votes" were
"counted" electronically (with no spot-checks of that "count," no systematic audit and no exit
And now it turns out that Christine O'Donnell's "win"
in Delaware was just as iffy; or even iffier, since she "beat" Mike
Castle--electronically, which is to say,
unverifiably-- by 6+ points, while Mike Castle actually beat
her, according to the paper-based absentee ballots, by over 10 points. (Brad Friedman goes
into the details below.)
It's all quite weird, of course. But what's far weirder is the
total silence on such matters by both parties and the media. Somehow the doubtfulness of
Brown's "win," and now O'Donnell's, hasn't raised the faintest question as to whether
the Tea-Baggers really represent electoral majorities. And so the Standard Narrative
all keep hearing now --the Tea-Party's booming, the GOP is badly split, the
Democrats are in big trouble, blah blah blah--is just about as useful as the
horoscope in this morning's New York Post.
I'd like to know what it would take to get the press to pay
attention to these wild anomalies--not just the two I've noted here, but also Alvin
Greene's preposterous "win" in South Carolina, and all the many others of
this campaign season and the last ten years.
It's starting to appear as if there's nothing that will
make the penny drop inside the heads of all those jounalists and pundits, who couldn't any
longer blather on about the game of "politics" (as they imagine it) if they
allowed themselves to look into the by-now-overwhelming evidence that this whole game is
rigged--and will stay rigged until we, as a nation, finally stop ignoring all the
of fraud, and start
discussing what to do about it.
p.s. Publicly, Karl Rove's been lobbing many spitballs at
O'Donnell, thereby creating yet another tasty "story" for the press, about the
"rift" between the GOP's "insiders" and the "insurgent" Tea-Baggers, etc., etc.
I'd say we all should be a wee bit skeptical about Rove's noisy
putdowns of his party's nominee. For one thing, we can generally tell that Karl Rove's
lying when his lips are moving; and, secondly, it's not so easy to believe that Rove
would have much problem with a candidate who, however "nutty" he may claim to
find her, has the same good shot at "victory" on Election Day that she enjoyed last
week., since Team Rove will no doubt themselves be running the election apparatus.
Perhaps I'm being too cynical. So let's just say that, if Rove
is genuinely put off by O'Donnell's victory over Mike Castle, he should stand up, right
now, and demand a thorough probe of her election. (Certainly no Democrat will
O'DONNELL IN DELAWARE
Tuesday's hotly contested race for the GOP's U.S. Senate
Delaware ended in victory for the
state's moderate, much-beloved former Governor and nine-term
Congressman Mike Castle --- at least according to the tabulation
ballots cast in the race which can actually be verified by
recorded accurately as per the voters' intent.
State of Delaware's Elections website with 100%
Verifiable Paper-Based Absentee Results:
CASTLE: 54.7% - O'DONNELL: 45.3%
Unverifiable Election Day E-Voting Machine Results:
CASTLE: 46.7% - O'DONNELL: 53.3%
Nonetheless, the Tea-Party/Palin/DeMint-endorsed Christine
who was getting trounced by the popular Castle in pre-election
until only recently after losing twice before in her quest for a
seat, was declared the "winner" of yesterday's race and ---
BRAD BLOG detailed yesterday ---
nobody can prove whether the voters of Delaware actually
enough for the far Rightwinger, the
"victory" was 100% faith-based, since it's strictly
impossible to know if even one citizen's vote cast
the 100% unverifiable e-voting machines Delware forces voters to
on Election Day was recorded accurately...
That said, while we've seen examples of similar disparities
paper-based absentee results and electronically cast results
(the unknown Alvin Greene's "victory" over Judge Vic
South Carolina's recent Democratic U.S. Senate primary comes to mind)
are logical-ish reasons --- as there always are, in every
to justify O'Donnell's computer-reported "victory"
noted in response to a reader in comments on yesterday's
Delaware item, O'Donnell received a late endorsement
from Sarah Palin on September 9th, just 5 days before the
That brought with it a surge of last-minute support from the
Party" and others.
number of absentee ballots cast as a percentage of the total
was quite small (1,499 absentee ballots, versus 56,083 cast on
Election Day), so one should be careful of reading too much into
numbers as the bulk of absentee ballots were likely cast prior
O'Donnell's endorsements surge.
factors, and certainly others, could certainly explain
nearly-reversed percentages as reportedly cast on Election Day
e-voting systems, versus those seen on the paper-based,
human-countable, absentee ballots.
But the point here is: Who knows? Absolutely nobody does. I
don't. O'Donnell doesn't. Castle doesn't. The State of Delaware
doesn't. Even the manufacturer of the e-voting system,
Danaher/Guardian, would be unable to prove who actually
lost the race one way or another.
spent years detailing, this continues to be no way to run a
representative democracy based on self-governance. But we
continue to do it anyway despite years of documented, scientific
evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's both
antithetical to the representative democracy and self-governance
pretend to have. It's also a disgrace and a horrible example for
rest of the world, which used to look to this nation as a beacon
Republican establishment is beside itself after last night's
results (Castle, whom they'd supported, was thought to be an
over Democratic nominee Chris Coons, while polls currently show
O'Donnell getting trounced by him), the same 100% unverifiable
e-voting systems will be used again in Delaware (and 20% of the
of the nation) on Election Day on November 2nd this year. If
loses the general election --- or wins --- there will be no way
prove that she did --- or didn't.
Partiers" who support O'Donnell, and who claim to give a damn
about representative democracy and self-governance, would be
finally start taking notice of the real threats to our
supposedly inalienable right of self-rule. HINT: The threat
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin
Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. If you'd like to donate to
News From Underground, please visit http://markcrispinmiller.com/donate - we appreciate your ongoing support.
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to email@example.com OR go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground
and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow
bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the
For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
Mark's new book, Loser Take All
: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, a collection 14 essays on Bush/Cheney's election fraud since (and including) 2000, is just out, from Ig Publishing.
He is also the author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform
which is now out in paperback (more...