BS: Election fraud

Subject: BS: Election fraud
From: Raptor
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:50 PM

Click here
More proof the Republickers are crooks

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:53 PM

It's already started happening. In West Virginia, people voted for Obama, and their votes flipped over for McCain. And it happened with the other democrats they voted for, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:58 PM

Hi Carole
can you link to this story?
I wouldn't be suprised.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:58 PM

Are we surprised? No. So, WHAT CAN we DO about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:59 PM

Also, how do I find OUT if 'my' vote has been 'flipped'?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Beer
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:06 PM

Wow! that is scarry.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:13 PM

*sigh*

Said it before. Will say it again.

PAPER BALLOTS!

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:14 PM

http://wvgazette.com/News/200810180380?page=1&build=cache

Just like in previous races, they're trying to blame it on the voters. Hopefully people won't fall for it this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:19 PM

Some people can see when their votes have flipped, like the people in that article I linked to. But a lot of the software, like the kind in the video in the opening post, will flip it after the polls have closed for the day, when someone pushes the correct buttons. When that happens, there's no way for the voter to know it's been done.

I've even heard of software that will cause a machine with a printout to print out the correct vote, while registering a fraudulent vote.

This is why we've been hearing so much about the "Bradley Effect" from the punditocracy commentariat. To get us ready to accept yet another stolen election.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:22 PM

What kinda banana republic you got going on down there anyway? Do you need UN observers?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:24 PM

No, we just need to get rid of ACORN!

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:27 PM

Nothing done by any ACORN employees has resulted in any fraudulent votes being cast.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:28 PM

And yes, we do need some UN volunteers as well as other international observers. As many as can be sent, please. If the Republicans aren't trying to steal the election, they shouldn't have any fear of being observed by the international community.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:43 PM

Maybe this is why you need an armed militia?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: John O'L
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:43 PM

"No, we just need to get rid of ACORN!"

Riginslingeer has degenerated from an articulate debater into a troll. I have never seen any election anywhere cause so many good people to turn so nasty. I suspect it must have been something like this in Rwanda. Get a grip, America.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:52 PM

We're trying, but it's not easy when the fascists have taken over our election processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: bobad
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:59 PM

If the Repubs steal this election cities will burn and blood will flow.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 05:59 PM

Joe the Plumber could fix it with a Stiltson wrench!

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:02 PM

Well, they've got concentration camps all ready and waiting for the "cities burning and blood flowing" scenarios. And they've got a private mercenary army (with no loyalties to anyone other than the people who pay them) to enforce their decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:03 PM

They've also got legislation that authorized Bush to completely take over the government in the event of anything he deems a crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:04 PM

Well, but isn't it all justified in the end? Isn't Obama the Antichrist, as I keep hearing?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:05 PM

Joe the plumber couldn't fix a leak & wouldn't know a stiltson wrench from an ajustable, you think he's gonna fix the elections?
He needs to get a license first.
He's not even a real plumber, & you're putting your faith in him? You need to check yourself out before trying to inform other.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:05 PM

Carol, document those last 2 statements please?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:07 PM

Rapture me up, baby!

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:08 PM

Ok. Working on the documentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: GUEST,Pat Cooksey.
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:10 PM

I met two people who voted for Obama early last week, they pressed the Obama button and both times the machine registered them as McCain votes, I saw on CNN in my hotel an official looking guy who said this could happen if a voter put a finger less than dead centre on the line, in the event of a recount there seems no way to verify who voted for whom. I know that in other states the voting system is different, but it seems to me that such a system could possibly be allowed in a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM

So even the voter who is pure at heart and says his prayers at night, might find his votes going to McCain?

I wonder if any McCain votes could be mistakenly tallied for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:17 PM

Concentration Camps

Anyone who can't watch that video on their home computer should go to the library or a friend's house or family member's house to watch it.


National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:20 PM

Yeah, one would think that if it's voter error, some of those errors would also swing in favor of Obama as well, but so far, I haven't heard of any cases where it has happened that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:22 PM

Oh, yeah... and the private mercenary army is Blackwater.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:40 PM

Right...thanks Carol. Only 'god' knows what is going to happen and she ain't telling.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:44 PM

That's true. We'll just have to see how it plays out. But I think it's good for people to know about this stuff. I think the people who are doing this stuff are less likely to succeed the more people know about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:46 PM

Well, we can only HOPE that is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:47 PM

People know they should eat properly and get exercise too.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: pdq
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM

The initial post is refers to a video on Brasscheck.

For fun, here is another piece on "voter fraud" from the same people.

 
 
"Delores Evans' Death Investigation Continues
 
From Brasscheck  
Just days before she was scheduled to be interviewed about the strange happenings at her poll during the stadium bond election in Bayview Hunters Point (San Francisco), poll inspector Delores Evans died along with six children in her care in a suspicious fire. Before the ashes were cold, Mayor Willie Brown who has never been beyond Third Avenue in that neighborhood in his life, was pointing out the building's "faulty construction" to television camera crews.

I have written about this episode at length before. Here's where the citizen investigations stands now according to Doug Comstock. It's a good account of what researchers who seek simple answers to simple questions routinely encounter:
 
"Terence Hallinan finally released the files he promised to provide in May of '98. Though, because we trusted Hallinan's word, our formal request for the investigation into the mysterious fire that killed Poll Inspector Delores Evans and her six children was not made until 2/3/99. The fire occurred in December of 1997 (prior to her expected deposition about the strange occurrences at her poll #3005, which were subject to a separate investigation requested by Germaine Wong in July 1997). The City Attorney still refuses to release the results of that investigation into voter fraud, but it is known that handwriting experts were called in to examine the Roster.
 
Those who have been following the various promises made by the DA regarding these files already know that he promised again at the CSFN to provide them "when Sunshine is passed by the voters." He didn't. Later, while on the hustings before the Harvey Milk Club he told the assembly in an unmitigated lie "Doug, you know that I have already given you all the files you requested." He hadn't.
 
I don't like it when a "friend" pisses on my backside, but when he tells me, with a straight face, that it is raining--I get pissed.
 
Those of you who follow Sunshine battles will be interested to know that, though the formal request was on February 3, 1999, the call came today (March 6, 2000) from the Fire Department, telling me that the DA had released the files and that I could come down to the Fire Department, with my copy machine, and make copies.
 
I am afraid Jennifer Thomas tried to pull that one on the wrong person. Without considering that she was possibly an intern, I informed her, as one of the contributors to the new Sunshine law, I could confidently say that I would not be hiring a truck and bringing my copy machine to her office, "I will be using your copy machine" (the taxpayer's that is). Nor will I be bringing my own generator to plug it in.
 
Unfortunately I do not expect to find any incriminating evidence in the files, but it will be interesting to see what does not appear there. -Doug"
----
 
In what is possibly a first in American history a judge has ruled, and been passively upheld, that a citizen's petition can be removed from a ballot if the wording on the petition does not suit its opponents.
 
You may recall that over 15,000 San Francisco voters signed a petition calling for the 49er stadium election to be re-held due to numerous irregularities accompanying the vote. In any other situation, this would have been enough to have the matter put on the ballot as a referendum automatically. In fact, only 11,000 voter signatures are required.
 
Willie Brown challenged the petition on the grounds it made dishonest claims and the matter was put before a San Francisco judge (who retired a few weeks after making his decision.) Refusing to hear evidence as to whether the claims were accurate or not, the judge decided that they were indeed inaccurate and therefore the petition was invalid and was barred from appearing on the ballot.
 
This is a first in California history and possibly the first time this has ever happened in American history. The case has been appealed up the the State Supreme Court which just denied a petition to review the case.
 
For people not familiar with the story, the "pro stadium bond" forces outspent the "anti-bond" forces $4,000,000 to $100,000 and enjoyed the benefit of a *weekly* private meeting with the editors of the city's two papers. Going into election day, the "anti bond" forces were ahead 20% in the polls and the early count showed the polls were more or less accurate. In its history, San Francisco voters have never approved a tax payer funded cash grant to a private business for the purposes of building a sports stadium.
 
Late election night, the ballot boxes stopped coming in. The delays - some up to 3 hours - were attributed to "rain caused traffic delays." It didn't rain that night and the city of San Francisco is only 49 square miles. A person can walk from one end of it to the other in less than 3 hours.
 
Reports came in in the scores of ballot boxes with their seals removed, intimidation in the polling places, and blatant electioneering by poll observers. When the votes from the delayed ballot boxes came in the "pro stadium" side ended up winning the election by less than 1%.
 
A few days after the election, the mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, directed that a $300,000 grant be made to the business of the man who ran the campaign for Bayview-Hunters Point, the district that supposedly voted 90%+ for the stadium. In one polling place in that district, a review of the polling book showed that many of the voter sign ins had been signed with a single hand. The woman in charge of that polling place died along with five children in her care in a suspicious fire a few months later, the largest number of fire fatalities in San Francisco in over a decade.
 
The last time election fraud was credibly charged in San Francisco, Willie Brown and his close political ally Jim Jones of Jonestown infamy were involved."

{continued at Brasscheck website}

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:40 PM

"It's already started happening. In West Virginia, people voted for Obama, and their votes flipped over for McCain. And it happened with the other democrats they voted for, too."

Why?

Did dome dumbass Democrat neglect to calibrate the touch screen voting machine they demanded?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:41 PM

Did Democrats demand touch screen voting machines in West Virginia?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 10:04 PM

ELECTION fraud is very uncommon. REGISTRATION fraud is common, but almost always (except in Chicago) caught before the registration is complete.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 10:30 PM

Which would probably explain why Obama advanced onto the political stage in Chicago.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 10:32 PM

Hardly. You obviously don't understand Chicago politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 11:11 PM

Voter fraud is extremely uncommon. Registration fraud is rare but more common than voter fraud. Election fraud is the most common of all of the three. It is exceedingly common and comes in many forms, primarily voter disenfranchisement (millions of voters were illegally purged from voter roles and were disenfranchised in other ways in the last two elections), voter intimidation, and hacked voting machines.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 02:55 AM

Did Republicans demand them?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:41 AM

I didn't realize Harlem, New York was in West Virginia. Learn something new every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:53 AM

Oh, tricky tricky. Put a video in there that doesn't have anything to do with the question. I see now that the message the person who posted that video is trying to get across is that Black people are stupid. That's a winning argument if ever I saw one.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:20 PM

Why inject race into every discussion? Are you a racist?

Thanks for the geography lesson anyway.

Polling stations using electronic voting systems suffered more voting discrepancies than polling stations using traditional paper votes in four recent French elections, according to a study sponsored by two groups campaigning for free and transparent elections.

Chantal Enguehard, a researcher at the University of Nantes who specializes in electronic voting, looked at discrepancies between the number of electors who signed the electoral register to confirm that they voted and the number of votes subsequently counted for each polling station. The study compared discrepancies at 6,427 polling stations using electronic voting machines and 14,624 using paper ballots, in both rounds of the 2007 presidential election and two subsequent elections.

There were discrepancies between the number of signatures and the number of votes at around 29.8% of polling stations studied using electronic voting machines, compared with just 5.3% of those using paper ballots.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:43 PM

A very useful link you provided at the beginning of this thread, Raptor.

The amazing thing is that it is not front page news every day. It should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:10 PM

"Counsel for Change: Protect the Vote
by Molly ClaflinSunday November 2 2008 12:41:39 PM

Are you a lawyer? Law student? If so, volunteering for our voter protection team is a great way to have a huge impact on November 4th.

There are efforts out there to suppress the vote, and having attorneys at the polls is going to be vital to making sure that every eligible person gets to cast a ballot, and that every vote counts.

Our attorneys are carefully monitoring the voter rolls, and have already defeated Republican efforts in Michigan to keep voters whose homes have been foreclosed from voting. But with so many first-time voters expected at the polls, we're going to need help.

We want to make sure every eligible American gets to vote on November 4th.   

If you live near a battleground state or have some frequent flyer miles you can cash in, join us this on Tuesday and use your skills to protect the vote.

Remember why you went to law school? Make that J.D. count on Election Day, and make a difference for the next four years.

Go to Counsel for Change to sign up. "

(From the Obama campaign website)

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:57 PM

The solution

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 04:14 PM

An extensive interview on mechanisms of vote fraud perpetrated by the Bush machine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 04:16 PM

Vote EVEN IF THEY SAY YOU CAN'T.

Some advice for new voters,.



AQ

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:59 AM

Tuesday, November 04, 2008
A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 7:46 AM
EXCLUSIVE, DEVELOPING--

GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in more than half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening.

It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process.

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

Those on site as describing it as "pandemonium" and there may be video coming of the chaos.

Some of the precincts where Republicans have been removed are: the 44th Ward, 12th and 13th divisions; 6th Ward, 12th division; 32nd Ward, Division 28.

"Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process," said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall.

The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:13 AM

If they're supposed to be there, and the election officials won't let them in, can't they just call the police?

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 10:05 AM

The ultimate voter fraud - My "I voted today" sticker has been making the rounds of the office and has been down to Starbuck's several times this morning for a free cup of coffee.

SIGH! I have insisted that everyione participating in the scam show me proof that they have voted.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:01 AM

Update: Fox News just did a report about the controversy. The Democrats are saying that the polling station is crowded and election board members need to cycle through the areas intermittently.

Update 10:53am: Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes says this matter is already being heard in court and should be resolved soon. He says there was a dispute of the names of the poll watchers on record. This is a different story than the Democratic officials told Fox News earlier this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:28 AM

Wow! They sure got on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:38 AM

My guess is that both your major parties cheat every way they can. But you all only complain about the other one doing it. You need international observers, like an election in some banana republic that is attempting to emerge out of a dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:57 AM

Little Hawk said

You need international observers, like an election in some banana republic that is attempting to emerge out of a dictatorship.

That's just what we're attempting to do today, L.H.!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:16 PM

Amos: Do you agree that people should vote only based on skin color, race, religion or sex? Or should it be based on suitability to the job? I believe people should stop talking about black, white, woman, man, catholic, Muslim, Indian, atheist, etc. Assume you weree blind. Then and only then will the ugliness of racial issues go away. And beware of people that keep bringing up the issue for they will perpetuate it forever.

Everybody knows someone of a particular race or other characteristic that they like. And others of the same characteristic that they dislike. Would it be acceptable for a judge to determine guilt or innocence based solely on race, gender, religion or ethnicity? Remember, justice is blind. Should we take off the blindfold and still pretend it is justice?

Vote for him - because he's Black

by Greg Palast

No question, Mr. Bruce was my favorite teacher in junior high.

I went to this Loser-ville school in the San Fernando Valley. It was all Chicano kids and working class white losers like me. Everyone had to take 'metal shop' so we could work the bottom-end jobs in the Chevy plant.

My brain was dying - until Mr. Bruce showed up, the new science teacher. DOCTOR Bruce, actually - the only Ph.d teacher in the place.

At lunch hour, instead of hanging out in the teachers' lunchroom, Mr. Bruce would invite me and my friends into his classroom. Over coffee made on a Bunsen burner, he would talk about topics from Einstein to Buddha while munching on this strange stuff called "organic" food.

He was simply like no adult I'd ever met - an exceptional guy who could make us dull-brained students sizzle.

My parents had him over for Sunday brunch and he talked about his work as a 'honey-dipper' in the Deep South where he grew up. The honey-dipper was the guy who hunted for lost glasses and whatever else was dropped in outhouse cesspools. Dr. Bruce said he enjoyed the work because it taught him pleasures of quiet grace, of dignified acceptance.

The kids were crazy about him, but not all the parents. Some called to complain about the school hiring him.

So he left.   Months later, Mr. Bruce mailed me a letter from Japan where he'd taken a university post.
It's odd, but it was only this year that I put it all together: his exclusion by the other teachers, his job as a honey-dipper, his need to escape America.

Dr. Bruce, of course, is Black.

So, I'm going to do something that Dr. Bruce would think little of. I'm going to vote for the Black man.

Because he's Black.

The truth is, I'm wary of Barack Obama. His cozy relations with the sub-prime loan sharks who funded his early campaign; his vote, at the behest of his big donor ADM corporation, for the horrific Bush energy bill.

But there's one thing that overshadows policy positions, one thing he cannot change once in office: the color of his skin. The same as Mr. Bruce's.

I'm going to say something that I know the Obama campaign will just hate; but that many others are feeling but won't say out loud. We must vote for Barack Obama because he's Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:58 PM

Well, there's no doubt that one reason for wanting Obama to win is that it'd feel much more comfortable to live in a world where the USA had turned the corner on a past in which it was inconceivable that a black candidate could be elected president, and had moved into a future where the suggestion that black people weren't capable of the highest office wasn't just seen as racist, it was recognised as just bloody stupid.

Fortunately Obama also appears to be incomparably the better candidate. The candidates have just gone through the longest job interview in the world. He's head and shoulders ahead of McCain. And the clincher is the thought of Sarah Palin a single heartbeat away from the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:05 PM

Because this is the last day of the election, I'm not going to comment on the sexist attitudes that some folks seem to have towards Sarah Palin. But if we've turned the corner on race, it seems we still have a ways to go on gender.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:06 PM

Quite correct, Sawzaw, people should vote only on the basis of suitability to the job (plus the candidate's stated platform and policies, of course).

As you say, "beware of people that keep bringing up the issue (of race or something like that) for they will perpetuate it forever".

Dead right.

I favor Obama over McCain on the basis of what I consider simply his better suitability for the job, and his general policy positions, etc. You no doubt favor McCain for similar reasons. That's fine. We each make the best judgement we can about things like that.

I understand Greg Palast's position on the matter, and why he thinks that way. That's his own best judgement, based on his own past experience. But...I would prefer that people simply stop bringing "race" into politics, because it should have nothing to do with whom you vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:12 PM

Mugabe is willing to send independent vote observers over from Zimbabwe.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:16 PM

FOX News - an oxymoron

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: jeffp
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:23 PM

Don't worry Sins, you won't go to jail. Starbuck's changed its giveaway policy after they learned that it's a crime in several states to give anyone a gift for registering or voting. They're giving free coffee to anyone who orders a tall coffee now.

This is according to Slate.com

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: GUEST,Concerned_Canadian
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:24 PM

I wonder if they did something similar in Canada, with Stephen Harper
being re-elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:31 PM

No, I very much doubt that. The reason Harper got re-elected was dead simple:

The Right in Canada is represented at this time by only ONE party.

The Left in Canada is represented at this time by FOUR parties.

Thus the Right (meaning the Conservatives) wins the election by being "first past the post" in enough ridings to form a majority in parliament, even though they are represented by a minority of the population...like 45% at best, I would think.

Were there only two parties in this country, Harper could not possibly have won the election...unless the other party ran a moose for prime minister. ;-) And maybe not even then. Anyway, the Conservatives could hire Sarah Palin to shoot the moose if there was any danger of it winning.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 03:13 PM

What's sexist about saying that Sarah Palin is a frightening prospect as president?

If Sarah Palin's "first dude" husband was the candidate for Vice President, I'd feel even more worried at the thought of him being a heartbeat away from the presidency. And the last time I looked, he wasn't a woman.

Actually, if it was a choice between Sarah Palin and Dubya, I'd reluctantly have to favour Sarah Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 04:00 PM

So you make decisions on if instead of is?

What if Joe Biden's wife was running for VP?

What if your were not biased?

LH: "That's his own best judgement, based on his own past experience"

Correct. But what right does he have telling other people whom to vote for?

Telling me whom to vote for is an arrogant, elitist attitude.

I am not part of his flock that he thinks he has to take care of because he is superior and they are to dumb to take care of them selves.

No thanks Mr. Palast, you can keep your benevolence. Bestow that on your pets. I prefer self determination and self reliance over being herded.

If you need some help trying to decide anything, let me know and I will try to help but until then I trust you can make your own decisions.

I wouldn't want to influence you to agree with me because it is not my right or obligation to do so. To do so would be an indication of superiority and arrogance on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:20 PM

I think you will find, Mister Sawz, that a lot more preachers on the right wing of the spectrum are telling people who to vote for in the name of Gawd than liberals are.

But if you need someone to tell you: Vote for Obama if you possibly can.

If you can't, VOTE ANYWAY.

That's the liberal position.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:35 PM

Palst? He's a columist or something, isn't he? They are in the business of influencing other people.

"What if you were not biased?"

Who is not biased? If you find someone like that, call up the Guiness Book of World Records and tell them you have a "first"! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 12:35 PM

I don't care it is a Bible banger, a person in a foreign country, a flag waver, or a liberal Girlie Man telling me how to vote.

I don't tell them how to vote and they do not have a mandate to tell me how to vote.

They can present their views and why they are voting for so and so. They are welcome to point out what they believe to be flaws in the opinions of others.

But is arrogance to assume you have the right to tell someone how they should vote.

I assume LH Amos and MGH are intelligent enough to make up their own minds as to what they need and want and I hope they return the respect.

I do not know what is needed in Canada and I am certainly not able to form an opinion of how Canadians should vote and it is none of my damned business anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 03:11 PM

I understand your position on that.

The whole world, however, is deeply concerned about American elections...all of them...because the USA is a power that directly affects the whole world. Therefore Canadians and other people all over the world always pay a great deal of attention to an American election, and they have views about it, and they have definite hopes as to who might win it, and they usually know quite a bit about it. Our media is full of stuff about your elections...right from the start and all the way to the end.

This is not the case with Canadian elections, and no one would expect it to be. No one is normally interested in Canadian elections except Canadians! No one else's media would give it more than brief passing mention on the day of the vote, if they mentioned it at all. ;-) We're just not powerful enough that anyone else really cares whom we elect. We are not seen as a potential threat...or a potential major player in other people's affairs.

The fact that you live in the most militarily and politically powerful country in the world, Sawzaw, makes your governmental business everybody's business...not because they wanted it that way, but because there is simply no way they can avoid it.

We have no choice but to be concerned whom you elect and what your government decides to do in the next 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 03:38 PM

Anybody has the right to tell you how to vote. You have the right to ignore said person. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 04:58 PM

part of a poem written 30 years ago, with a photo from a year or so back
                      Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:07 PM

After all, when someone tells you to drop dead, you don't have to feel any obligation to comply.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: GUEST,Concerned_Canadian
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 08:20 PM

Little Hawk, you're right about that. Front page of the paper the
morning after Obama won, for example: Huge picture of Obama, and one of
McCain making their speeches. It must have covered three fourths of the
page at least. Pages were filled with coverage.
Journalists have been covering the election very heavily each day.
After all, not only does the U.S.A. have a lot of power; but who can
be more interested and concerned about their important affairs than
their next door neighbor? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 08:39 PM

Not just Canada. Every paper I saw in the shop this morning front pages dominated by Obama's election - and most of the inside pages as well in many cases. (And I'm not just talking about just the English papers either.)

Right now, if they had an election for World President I think Obama would walk it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 08:39 PM

Darn right. In just the same way, the ancient world was quite concerned about what was going on in Rome during the time of the Caesars. They had reason to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:40 PM

Minnesota Ripe for Election Fraud
Monday, November 10, 2008

By John R. Lott Jr.


Minnesota is becoming to 2008 politics what Florida was in 2000 or Washington State in 2004 -- a real mess. The outcome will determine whether Democrats get 58 members of the U.S. Senate, giving them an effective filibuster-proof vote on many issues.

When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn't even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won't even start until November 19.
Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.

Virtually all of Franken's new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior -- a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.

To put this change in perspective, that single precinct's corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.

The two other precincts (Mountain Iron in St. Louis county and Partridge Township in Pine county) accounted for another 100 votes each. The change in each precinct was half as large as the pickup for Obama from the corrections for the entire state.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of mistakes to "exhausted county officials," and that indeed might be true, but the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.

Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482). It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

The recent Washington State 2006 gubernatorial recount is probably most famous for the discovery of ballots in heavily Democratic areas that had somehow missed being counted the first and even second time around. Minnesota is already copying that, though thus far on a much smaller scale, with 32 absentee ballots being discovered in Democratic Hennepin County after all the votes had already been counted. When those votes are added in, they seemed destined to cut Coleman's lead further.

Indeed, it is probably through the discovery of new votes that Franken has his best shot of picking up new votes. Despite the press pushing a possible replay of election judges divining voters' intentions by looking at "hanging chads" to see if voters meant to punch a hole, that shouldn't be an issue in Minnesota. The reason is simple: optical scan vote counting machines return ballots to voters if no vote is recorded for a contested race.

The Associated Press piece with the title "Most Minn. Senate 'undervotes' are from Obama turf" misinformed readers about what undervotes really imply. The Minneapolis Star Tribune headline similarly claimed "An analysis of ballots that had a vote for president but no vote for U.S. senator could have recount implications."

Voters themselves insert their ballot into the machine that reads and records their votes, and if the machine finds that a vote isn't recorded, voters can either mark the race that they forgot to mark or didn't mark clearly. Or if voters "overvoted" and accidentally marked too many candidates, voters can also get a fresh ballot. There should be no role to divine voters' intentions. If a voter wanted a vote recorded for a particular race, the machine tells him whether his vote in all the races was counted.

But voters also have the right not to vote in particular races. In this election, 0.4 percent of Minnesotans didn't want to vote for president. The number for the Senate race was only slightly higher at 0.8 percent. For congressional and state House races, the rates were 3 and 3.5 percent.

This pattern of fewer people voting in less important elections has been observed as long as people have studied elections. There are always at least a few people who don't vote for even the most closely contested races at the top of the ballot and fewer people follow and vote for races the farther down the ballot that you go. But this is not evidence of mistakes, quite the contrary.

With ACORN filing more than 43,000 registration forms this year, 75 percent of all new registrations in the state, Minnesota was facing vote fraud problems even before the election. Even a small percentage of those registrations resulting in fraudulent votes could tip this election.

To many, it just seems like too much of a coincidence that Minnesota's one tight race just happens to be the race with the most "corrected" votes by far. But the real travesty will be to start letting election officials divine voter's intent. If you want to discourage people from voting, election fraud is one sure way of doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 12:20 AM

"No one is normally interested in Canadian elections except Canadians!"


And damn few of those. 55% voter turnout. Shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 12:35 AM

Good grief. I just realized that I'm an expert on Canadian matters. After all, it's only a matter of a few hundred feet (up) and I can see right into that country. But warnin' you: Don't you go rearing up your head at us.

Subject: RE: BS: Election fraud
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 01:20 AM

Too damn cold for that kinda nonsense.