BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 06:34 PM

Bobert, dear friend,

""In public, Al Gore argued that all the counties in Florida should be recounted. In public, Al Gore asked George Bush to agree to a statewide recount. In public, Al Gore was a true champion of all the votes.

But in court papers and in the court, Al Gore's lawyers always argued for a four county recount and argued against a statewide recount.

It is often claimed that one candidate alone could not get a statewide recount. This is false. Yes, under the Protest Phase, it is difficult, one must convince all 67 counties to do a recount. But under the Contest Phase, a statewide recount can be requested with one lawsuit. If the circuit court agrees to, they can order a statewide recount (see Section 102.168 of Florida Law, as it was in November 2000). The contest phase would have started on November 18, but the Florida Supreme Court delayed the start until November 26.

But the court papers that Gore's lawyers submitted before the courts:

Judge Terry Lewis on November 13, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2000
Judge Sauls on November 27, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on December 7, 2000

only requested a recount of the four counties that he had won by 380,000 votes.

Before each of the courts above, Al Gore's lawyers argued against including the other 63 counties that Bush had won by 380,000 votes. In the publicly televised court hearing on November 20 they did tell that court that if the court wanted to recount all of Florida, that would be okay. But they made it very clear, that they preferred the four county recount over the statewide recount.

Not until December 11, 2000, after it was totally impossible for them to get a four county recount, did his lawyers, in papers submitted and in arguments before the United States Supreme Court, argue for a statewide recount."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 06:07 PM

Okay, BB. I did say that they both cheat in whatever way they can, didn't I? And my point was that a party in power has more ways of getting things done the way it wants than a party not in power. ;-) That is self-evident, and needs no further explanation. For this reason, incumbents everywhere have a built-in advantage of sorts at election time, but they can, of course, squander it by having sufficiently alienated the public in their last term (or terms). Eventually the worm always turns, just because people get sick of the party in power.

But does it really matter much when the 2 parties really serve the same financial/corporate masters? Not too much. I will admit that it might matter a little, depending on who in particular is running in your voting area. Some candidates are definitely worse than others, as we all know very well!

Again, I draw no party lines when I say that...nor do I draw party lines in any of the above. I do not decide good and evil on the basis of party affiliation. Unfortunately, a great many people do just that, and they do it without even a second thought. This is to the advantage of maintaining bad government that is not truly representative, and both parties try by every means possible to maintain that sort of knee-jerk thinking in the public.

Why? Because they're BOTH playing a game, the same game, they're playing it to win (for the money, the power, and the glory) and just as in a football game both sides are very eager to win at any cost, by any means they can get away with, and to build their fanatical fan base and they appreciate it when their fans hate the other team's guts, and when they cheer loudly for the "home team" and boo the opposition.

The whole business is utterly puerile. Infantile almost. It's a wonder how easily people fall for it...but when they have been brought up since Grade school to take such a system for granted, that's what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 05:50 PM

Hmmmmmmmmm, BB...

So you admit that your statement that Gore "wouldn't allow" a complete state recount is not an accurate representation of the facts of the case???

That's a start...

Now as for SCREAMY GUEST... Yeah, okay, I can live (though not agreeing with) a sate saying that ex-felons shouldn't vote but that's not the issue here.... The issue is about the meahodology is purging of the voting roles that were used in Florida where there wasn't any particular oversight thus leading to over 50,000 predominanetly black voters striped of their voting rights, a large percenttage of whom were not ex-felons...

If you want the evidence, which from your SCREAMINg suggests you couldn't care less to have, read Greg Palist's book "Best Democracy Money Can Buy"... But you won't do that because then you might find yourself having to SCREAM at yer own friggin' heros...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 04:31 PM

http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?offset=0&sort=state&selectstate=&selectproblemtype=

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 04:02 PM

When Kerry lost Ohio and New Mexico, there was proof of fraud but instead of contesting the fraud with all the assembled experts, he basicly fired all of them when he conceeded.

That was his vote for the MIComplex and business as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:56 PM

http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/default.html

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:31 PM

According to a 12 December 2000 article by David Barstow and Adam Nagourney in The New York Times:

"... Gore's failure to ask the Florida courts for a manual statewide recount ... unnecessarily raised constitutional obstacles that made it far more difficult for Florida's courts to fashion a timely remedy that the Supreme Court might have found tolerable. That error ... had been compounded by an earlier misstep by ... Gore's lawyers - a decision to seek more time to complete the first phase of the counting process. The decision, one on which even ... Gore's lawyers disagreed, greatly shortened the time available in the second phase to seek a statewide manual recount.
"He has nobody to blame but himself," said Thomas W. Merrill, a professor of law at Northwestern University, who criticized the Gore campaign for elevating hardball tactics - seeking immediate hand recounts in Democratic strongholds - over a strategy of demanding that all votes be counted regardless of the political consequences. ...

... Gore's principal lawyer, David Boies, erred in failing to respond to a clear invitation from several [US Supreme Court] justices to define more precisely how counters should evaluate voter intent in examining ballots. At least seven of the justices, according to tonight's main opinion, were clearly not satisfied by ... Boies's attempt to argue that it is was enough, simply, to determine the voters' intent.

... Gore ...[did not]... formally petition the Florida courts for a manual statewide recount. Instead, ... Gore had only made the offer ... for a manual statewide recount ... to ... Bush in a televised address nearly a month ago. ... Bush rejected the offer, and

... Gore's lawyers did not pursue ... a manual statewide recount ... in court, even though they were invited to do just that during oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court. ... Boies told the Florida justices that the vice president would "accept" a statewide recount, but added, "We are not urging that upon the court." ...

... Gore lawyers said they never dreamed, given the shortness of time, that the Florida Supreme Court would order a statewide manual recount of some 45,000 ballots.

... Ben Ginsberg, a senior lawyer for the Bush team, said that ... Gore's lawyers pursued an intellectually dishonest course to further one overriding goal: finding enough Democratic votes to overcome ... Bush's lead. ... The Gore team sought recounts in four of Florida's 67 counties - Broward, Palm Beach, Volusia and Miami-Dade - all of which ... had voted for ... Gore. ... "Going statewide, they're really not sure they can win," ... Ginsberg said. "Their overall mistake," he added, "is being so hypocritical about what they were asking for. ... They haven't been able to sustain as a legal matter what they were talking about at press conferences. That hurt them in court." ...".

AND...

"In public, Al Gore argued that all the counties in Florida should be recounted. In public, Al Gore asked George Bush to agree to a statewide recount. In public, Al Gore was a true champion of all the votes.

But in court papers and in the court, Al Gore's lawyers always argued for a four county recount and argued against a statewide recount.

It is often claimed that one candidate alone could not get a statewide recount. This is false. Yes, under the Protest Phase, it is difficult, one must convince all 67 counties to do a recount. But under the Contest Phase, a statewide recount can be requested with one lawsuit. If the circuit court agrees to, they can order a statewide recount (see Section 102.168 of Florida Law, as it was in November 2000). The contest phase would have started on November 18, but the Florida Supreme Court delayed the start until November 26.

But the court papers that Gore's lawyers submitted before the courts:

Judge Terry Lewis on November 13, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2000
Judge Sauls on November 27, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on December 7, 2000

only requested a recount of the four counties that he had won by 380,000 votes.

Before each of the courts above, Al Gore's lawyers argued against including the other 63 counties that Bush had won by 380,000 votes. In the publicly televised court hearing on November 20 they did tell that court that if the court wanted to recount all of Florida, that would be okay. But they made it very clear, that they preferred the four county recount over the statewide recount.

Not until December 11, 2000, after it was totally impossible for them to get a four county recount, did his lawyers, in papers submitted and in arguments before the United States Supreme Court, argue for a statewide recount."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:54 PM

Perhaps it's evenly split (I have not seen the demographics). BUT, it's been in Republican hands in the places that it really counted (Florida and Ohio). Plus, I have yet to see accounts of suspect results favoring Kerry from Democratically-controlled states or counties. Got any citations for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:42 PM

LH,

Now YOU have missed the point. You state " but it's not problem likely to be exclusive to the Republican Party. It's just that they happen to be in power at the moment, and that puts them in a good position to pull strings and make things happen. " BUT you do not seem to realize that election boards are LOCAL, or STATEWIDE at best.

The US is split about evenly at that level. The Dems control about as much, if not more, than the Reps, and HAVE FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:55 PM

The fact is, both those parties cheat in every way they possibly can, and they always have, but the party in power at any given time is better positioned to pull off such cheating...by nature of the symbiotic relationship between big government, big business, and organized crime (of various sorts).

The cheating and vote fraud seen in the last 6 years may have been the worst in modern times, but I doubt that it will be the last.

I don't doubt that the voting machines have been used to falsify results either, but it's not problem likely to be exclusive to the Republican Party. It's just that they happen to be in power at the moment, and that puts them in a good position to pull strings and make things happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:39 PM

HBO Democracy Hacked

watch how my friend Beverly Harris, a simple housewife, found proof of Diebold hacked elections.

If you are human it will make you cry.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:16 AM

"Posted on 04/10/2002 6:59:47 AM PDT

Legislation that would allow Marylanders with repeat felony convictions to regain the right to vote after completing their sentences got final approval in the General Assembly on Saturday.

The Legislative Black Caucus had made passing the bill a major priority the past few years. Supporters said the current law disenfranchises many black voters who have served their time and are working to redeem themselves.

The bill stirred passionate debate, especially in the Senate, where it was approved last week.

Maryland already allows people with one felony conviction to regain voting rights.

Likewise, I just heard on the radio this morning that a voter ID bill was killed in Annapolis. It would be "intimidating" and "racist." We've heard it all before here in the Old Line State. After all, how would have Glendenning got elected in the first place if it wasn't for the absent, moved and dead voters. Now, Ms. Kennedy-Townshed can add the votes of repeat offense drug dealers, robbers and murderers to the steaming heap of corruption.
All we hear about is "disenfranchised" voters. "


Comments, Bobert? You going to call out the DEMS for THEIR efforts to put illegal voters ON the rolls?


BTW, one of the rights LOST upon conviction of a felony, AND NOT RESTORED upon completion of any sentance, is the right to vote. And the right to "bear arms"

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:49 PM

Yo, BB...

You want provide a source that supports your contention that Gore "wouldn't allow" a state wide recount??? "Wouldn't allow" is some mighty tough language and given the actual suit that stopped the recount was Bush V. Gore says alot about how things really went down... But irregardless of the recount question there is the little situation where Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, in conflict with existing laws, disenfranschised over 50,000 voters, disporportionately black, by having them purged from the voting rolls...

And that's just for starters here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:10 AM

Also it was counted, re-counted and re-re-counted by the Liberal Media newspapers and the result was Boosh wun it.

"on the up-'n-up"? You mean one way.

All the Libs are doing is setting up a big jihad type protest if they lose even though they have had a full share of control on how the poles are run and how the votes are counted. Who ordered those unfair Republican voting machines in Palm Beach County? A Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:00 AM

Oh contraire. Bobert's got plenty. If even a fraction of this
is true. You should be very worried. Next time the other team's hackers might be better than your hackers. Will you feel that all is OK then?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 06:46 AM

Bobert,

You offer
"Exhibit A: Florida, 2000

Exhibit B: Ohio, 2004"


As for A,
1. it was Gore who refused to allow a statewide recount (He only wanted the three counties were he expected to pick up votes to be counted, and refused to allow the Panhandle to even count the abnsentee ballots)
2. When the count was done post election, BUSH STILL WON.

As for B,
1. You have claimed that Diebold gave the election to Bush, with no comments as to how. The TWO ( of 67 counties ) that DID uses Diebold machines- Can you give any reason to think that those results were not in line with the real vote besides your preference for a different result?

Leaving you with NOTHING, save the erroneous idea that the last reported state somehow "determines" the elections- if the some other state had reported later, would you then claim the election was a fraud, just because the result was not what YOU would like to see?
It seems that you feel it is OK for massive fraud, as long as a. the candidate YOU want wins and b. the state reports in before the results can be determined nationwide.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:31 AM

Heh! Good point. Okay, if you enjoy it that much, why should I spoil your fun, right? I would not dream of forcing anyone to watch reruns of Sergeant Preston of the Yukon. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:18 AM

LH:

People just have to have something to fight about. Like Ford or Chevy. Sunni or Shia.

It's better than watching reruns of Sgt. Preston of the Yukon ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 10:05 PM

C'mon, guys! ;-) Good and evil are not neatly divided along party lines. They never have been and never will be. If you think they are, you may believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too. These vicious partisan wrangles that you Americans engage in endlessly are about as meaningful as people fighting about whether the Cubs or the Yankees are going to win the next ball game.

They are both employed by the same league fer chrissake. (I mean the Democrats and the Republicans are, I might actually be wrong when it comes to the baseball teams, cos I don't know my baseball minutiae all that well...)

Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

Nah, I ain't sayin' that the Dems won't do well, Old Guy... I am sayin, however, that they would do even better if the vote counting was on the up-'n-up...

Exhibit A: Florida, 2000

Exhibit B: Ohio, 2004

Both states where the vote counters were Repiblicans... Both states where the irregularites were monumental... Both staes which put or kept Bush in the White House...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 07:41 PM

As we can see, senility is a dreadful thing. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 06:59 PM

"Oh, so after yet another Diebold theft, the Dems will be blamed for not showing up???"

So Bobert is saying the election has already been stolen?

Start the protests now. Why wait? Go burn something.

And may I ask why we have he insidious Republican voting machines in the first place?

Because Democrats can not supervise an election. They screw it up through incompetence and they want a machine to do the work.

Why not buy Democratic voting machines from a Democratically owned and operated company?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 11:44 AM

Yes, the votes ARE suspect regardless of who wins, Bearded Bruce! Amusing, isn't it?

Mind you, vote fraud is an old, old story in democratic (and not so democratic) systems. Before there were fairly organized and reliable ways of documenting and identifying voters at the polls, for instance, vote fraud was outrageous in the USA. For example, back in the historical period in which the movie "Gangs of New York" was set....that being the mid-1800's more or less...various factions would get the same people to vote several times on one day by changing their appearance. A man with a beard would show up at 9 AM and vote. Half an hour later he would show up again with a closer trimmed beard and vote. Later he would appear with a mustache and sideburns and vote. Later he would appear sans sideburns and vote. Late he would appear cleanshaven and vote. Later he would appear in a new suit of clothes and vote. Etc....

Elections would end up with a candidate sometimes receiving three or four times as many votes as were available in his constituency! They would run out of ballots, and the "voters" would still be lining up! LOL! This was of course done through bribery, getting people drunk, intimidation, and every form of usury and dishonesty.

It's the people who count the votes and run the system and have most of the money who ultimately control elections. Always has been, probably always will be. The only thing they must avoid is to practice corruption that is so plainly obvious that almost no one is fooled anymore. That can lead to serious trouble, as it eventually did for Tammany Hall in New York City.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 10:15 AM

Bobert,

You have missed the point that Diebold machines , without a paper trail, mean the votes are suspect REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS. If you bother to check, you will find that Maryland, using Diebold machines, will certainly go for the Dems- REGRADLESS of the exit polls. Or at least the 4 populous counties- not sure the State Dems will bother with the rest of the state. Last time 4 counties went overwhelmingly Dem., and 17 were 60% to 80% Rep.

The Rep. Governor has been asking for a paper trail- IT IS THE Democratic state legislature that has been forcing Diebold down the throats of the ENTIRE state, not just the two counties in Ohio that you claim gave the election to Bush- ( I guess the votes elsewhere had no effect on the state totals)



"yer guys run the vote countin'..."

I have seen NO eviodence of this- votes are counted on the local level, and the split is still about even. Or have you made up some new figures we are supposed to belive without any basis in fact?


As long as you insist that ANY Rep. win is due to fraud, and NO Dem. win is, you will have to provide a little more evidence of fraud than you have chosen to share with us, before.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:35 PM

interesting--Doug agrees with me--the Democrats will take the House, but not by much--and not take the Senate.

pdq--I'll bet a nickel that the Democrats will make more than a net gain of one seat in the House. Will you take the bet?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:08 PM

Yeah, it's a somewhat benign corruption. A long post of mine describing it in detail vanished for some reason...(sigh!)...and I don't feel like typing it all again.

No, I've never been to the Edmonton Mall, but I've been to Alberta.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

"ut where the constitution ends, politics begins. For both houses of Congress wield a crucial power: the right to hold hearings into the conduct of the administration. For six years, Bush has been spared the ordeal of congressional investigation. While Clinton saw his every move subject to televised inquiry by hostile Republican committees, subpoenaing witnesses, demanding sensitive documents, Bush has operated with the lightest of scrutiny.

As of January 2007, when the new Congress is sworn in, that could change. Suddenly, Democrats would chair the pivotal foreign affairs committees. They could instantly establish the kind of sustained inquiry opposition MPs vainly sought in Westminster yesterday, subjecting the likes of Rumsfeld and others to fierce, public cross-examination."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:35 PM

LH:

Yes, but it is a benign corruption, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:49 PM

The Democrats will win a decent majority in the H of R. As to the senate, it is a possibility that if Bush steps on his crank in the next few days, the Senate will give the Dems a on seat majority. And remember, all Bush has to do to step on his crank is open his mouth. The party's over.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:48 PM

Oh, so after yet another Diebold theft, the Dems will be blamed for not showing up???

Is that your final answer, Oldster???

2 stolen presidental elections and we have to listen to this same old crap from the thieves...

I thought you folks were for law and order... You and yer heros are crooks, Oldster, so don't ven start with that old crap about not enough Dems didn't bother to show...

There is a mountian of evidence that a million Dems can't beat back 900,000 repubs and Diebold, or purging Dems from the roles ,or....

You pick...

yer guys run the vote countin'...

Don't even start there... I'll guarentee that any contect where the Repub wins by 3% that that Repub lost....

This game is rigged big time... You know it... I know it and the entire world knows it...

The Dems better get 5 points spread or else...

Tell ya what, Oldster... There are one heck of a lot of folks gettin' purdy danged tired payin' taxes to the Repubocrooks an' if this election is stolen, like the '00 and '04, your guys are going to have a real tax payers revolution on your hands...

We tax payers deserve and honest count and more for our money than corruption...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:41 PM

"But, given half a chance, Canada would be as corrupt as the US."

Canada already is as corrupt as the US. No question about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: pdq
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:31 PM

DougR,

Put down that glass of Flav-R-Aid! It seems like you are actually thinking about drinking it.

The election next Tuesday will be very close, as have the last several. The Democrats will pick-up three house seats, those once held by Foley and Tom DeLay are probably gone since the Republicans are not able to put a new name on the ballot in those two races. However, the Dems will lose two. Net gain: Dems get one more seat. Same in Senate. Dems gain one. Yawn...

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 08:48 PM

The Libs are so smug. Hell, thay have it in the bag. Why even vote?

Imagine the crying and accusations of fraud if they loose.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 08:30 PM

I've never understood the psychology of these things. Whatever the country and whatever the politics, the politicians always seem to predict that they will do better than they actually think they will.

I'd have thought that what you'd do would be the other way round - that you'd say you were doing worse than you thought you were, to try to scare your own people into going out and voting, while lulling the others into thinking it's already won, so why bother. But it never seems to work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 07:52 PM

I think the Repubs will likely lose the majority in the House but not by the land-slide margin the Dems are predicting. It's going to be very close. I think we will hold on to the Senate, but with it's Liberal bent, I'm not convinced that will be holding on to much.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM

On this morning's NBC news, Wayne Slater, the man who wrote 'The Architect, Karl Rove,' etc, was asked why Rove sounds so confident about next week's election. Rove says that Democratic expectations are grossly inflated.

Slater's opinion is that Rove is trying to energize Republican voters. On the other hand, he said, if Rove is right and the Democrats fail spectacularly, Rove would be "the god of all political gods." If the Democrats garner the seats they need, Rove's star will dim and his legacy will be diminished.

They didn't go there- might Rove (and some others) have a trick or two up his sleeve?

Rove, Slater said, has lost a few 'small' races but never one that had Bush in it.

Of course, Slater also said that the Repub are confident that even if they lose control of either house or both, that would be just a small blip in the inexorable course of the Republican machinery they have created and put in place, machinery that they expect will prevail for "a generation."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:12 AM

U.S. Investigates Voting Machines' Venezuela Ties

New York Times

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: October 29, 2006
The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez.


Tim Boyle/Getty Images
A touch-screen machine by Sequoia Voting Systems was used this month during early balloting in Chicago.

The inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, the Smartmatic Corporation, and is trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm's operations, government officials and others familiar with the investigation said.

The inquiry on the eve of the midterm elections is being conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or Cfius, the same panel of 12 government agencies that reviewed the abortive attempt by a company in Dubai to take over operations at six American ports earlier this year.

The committee's formal inquiry into Smartmatic and its subsidiary, Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, Calif., was first reported Saturday in The Miami Herald.

Officials of both Smartmatic and the Venezuelan government strongly denied yesterday that President Chávez's administration, which has been bitterly at odds with Washington, has any role in Smartmatic.

"The government of Venezuela doesn't have anything to do with the company aside from contracting it for our electoral process," the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, said last night.

Smartmatic was a little-known firm with no experience in voting technology before it was chosen by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country's elections machinery ahead of a contentious referendum that confirmed Mr. Chávez as president in August 2004.

Seven months before that voting contract was awarded, a Venezuelan government financing agency invested more than $200,000 into a smaller technology company, owned by some of the same people as Smartmatic, that joined with Smartmatic as a minor partner in the bid.

In return, the government agency was given a 28 percent stake in the smaller company and a seat on its board, which was occupied by a senior government official who had previously advised Mr. Chávez on elections technology. But Venezuelan officials later insisted that the money was merely a small-business loan and that it was repaid before the referendum.

With a windfall of some $120 million from its first three contracts with Venezuela, Smartmatic then bought the much larger and more established Sequoia Voting Systems, which now has voting equipment installed in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

Since its takeover by Smartmatic in March 2005, Sequoia has worked aggressively to market its voting machines in Latin America and other developing countries. "The goal is to create the world's leader in electronic voting solutions," said Mitch Stoller, a company spokesman.

But the role of the young Venezuelan engineers who founded Smartmatic has become less visible in public documents as the company has been restructured into an elaborate web of offshore companies and foreign trusts.

"The government should know who owns our voting machines; that is a national security concern," said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, who asked the Bush administration in May to review the Sequoia takeover.

"There seems to have been an obvious effort to obscure the ownership of the company," Ms. Maloney said of Smartmatic in a telephone interview yesterday. "The Cfius process, if it is moving forward, can determine that."

The concern over Smartmatic's purchase of Sequoia comes amid rising unease about the security of touch-screen voting machines and other electronic elections systems.

Government officials familiar with the Smartmatic inquiry said they doubted that even if the Chávez government was some kind of secret partner in the company, it would try to influence elections in the United States. But some of them speculated that the purchase of Sequoia could help Smartmatic sell its products in Latin America and other developing countries, where safeguards against fraud are weaker.

A spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which oversees the foreign investment committee, said she could not comment on whether the panel was conducting a formal investigation.

"Cfius has been in contact with the company," said the spokeswoman, Brookly McLaughlin, citing discussions that were first disclosed in July. "It is important that the process is conducted in a professional and nonpolitical manner."

The committee has wide authority to review foreign investments in the United States that might have national security implications. In practice, though, it has focused mainly on foreign acquisitions of defense companies and other investments in traditional security realms.

Since the political furor over the Dubai ports deal, members of Congress from both parties have sought to widen the purview of such reviews to incorporate other emerging national security concerns.

1 2

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM

Well said LH, I was yanking your chain a bit. But, given half a chance, Canada would be as corrupt as the US.

I do like the wide open spaces up there. Ever been to the Edmunston Mall?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM

Sounds like you have some good candidates in Washington state, Don. That's great. If I was in your place, I'd vote the same way I figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:47 PM

How 'bout that, cookieless again--that last one was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:46 PM

I would think the Republicans may lose the House--but not by much. I'd be real surprised if they lose the Senate. Especially in Virginia and Tennessee, there are lots of good ol' boys--who may well not be caught by pollsters--or may not be honest in responses. In Tennessee, for instance, the Republican Senate candidate is stressing that there are differences between him and Harold Ford. One of the most obvious differences is race--Ford is black. I've seen it put that race in the Tennessee contest is "the quiet issue"--you won't hear about it til after election day.

Also, as the WSJ pointed out, the "Religious Right" still has its turnout machine churning away--and the recent New Jersey decision on homosexual marriage has--unfortunately--brought that issue to a high profile--again. "Values voters" are being told it's their Christian duty to vote--they should hold their noses and vote--and guess what their litmus test issues are--again: homosexual marriage, abortion, pornography, flag-burning--and now stem-cell research.

They will be out in force. I hope those voters to the left of center don't insist on a simon-pure candidate as the only one to deserve their votes. ( Other candidates are of course all part of the evil "duopoly", don't you know).

It's also questionable how many Hispanic citizens will come out to vote-- the Democrats have not made it a clear choice between them and the Tancredo mob.

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM

The Republicans will lose the H of R, and it will be real close in the Senate. Bush is going down! And any Republicans who want to have a hope in hell of getting reelected in future will have to distance themselves from Georgie.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:38 PM

Good analysis, Little Hawk. I agree.

Unfortunately, just about the only viable choices the voters have are candidates affiliated with the two major parties. I know there are those out there, and some here on Mudcat, who get real ticked off at me for saying that, but it's just being hard-headedly realistic. I don't like it any better than they do, but within the context of the configuration, that's what we're stuck with until we manage (somehow!) to change it.

For what I would like to see the country become—or at this point, prevent the country from continuing to become—I will go on voting for the Democratic candidates because to do otherwise will only accelerate the country's slide into corporate imperialism combined with the establishment (contrary to the Constitution) of a state religion (evangelical fundamentalist Christian). Back to the Rome of Constantine and the beginning of a new Dark Ages!

Fortunately, in this mid-term election, Washington State has some pretty good candidates for Congress. Although early on, Maria Cantwell, the state's junior senator, voted for giving Bush war powers (Patty Murray, the senior senator voted against it, and delivered an impassioned speech to Congress as to why they should not, earning her the title of "Taliban Patty" from the Right-Wing), Maria has since developed both a brain and a spine, and is working like a little beaver on environmental and energy issues especially. She's become a real pain in the patoot to those who want to cut down all the forests and pave over them and drill holes everywhere looking for oil. She's gung-ho for developing renewable energy resources. My congressional representative, Jim McDermott, is very anti-war, very pro-single payer universal health care, and a burr under the saddle of those opposed to election reform, which has made him a special target for the Right-Wing's bile. But Jim is pretty much a slam-dunk. In the last election, he got 85% of the votes. Folks in the 7th District like Jim. And there are several other very good candidates from the area. From listening to them being interviewed on the radio, the Republicans in this area seem to be trying to distance themselves from Bush, but when it comes down to cases, they're pretty much a collection of Bush yes-men. So I'll be voting straight Democratic ticket this time around.

In 2008? Remains to be seen. But Barack Obama was in town a few days ago. I heard him being interviewed several times, and although he won't come right out and say he's game to run, he won't deny it either. He's quite progressive, is as yet unspoiled by the system and is fully aware of the traps, knows where the bodies are buried, he's sharp, articulate, quick on his feet, and has one helluva sense of humor. He knows where his towel is. I don't know how he'd play in the Confederate South, but if he runs in 2008, I'd sure vote for him.

In ancient Athens, the citizens were expected (it was their duty as citizens) to know the laws and be up on current issues and affairs. It was especially important for them because the Athenians chose their public officials from the citizens at large by lottery. And at the end of their term, their performance in office was reviewed by a jury of 501 other citizens, and either lauded or condemned for their performance in office. In short, they were held accountable. There were various factions, of course, but there were no political parties.

Athenian democracy (the world's first) had a lot of flaws, but it had a lot going for it, too. I think we could learn a lot from them.

Excellent book. Very enlightening.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM

Yes, Peter, we're all well aware you will complain about anything you want to.   That actually was never in any doubt. But thanks for confirming.

And thanks for your calm, well-reasoned response.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM

Chongo says that if chimpanzees got a chance to run things instead, all that would clear up right away.

Mind you, he says a lot of stuff like that, specially when he's had a few drinks. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:58 PM

Isn't there room for more than one point of view on this forum?


Sure there is, Doug!! As long as they are civil.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:51 PM

One hundred percent with you there, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM

Why oh why do so many folks on this forum resort to personal attacks when someone has a view other than theirs? Isn't there room for more than one point of view on this forum?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:17 PM

You make a lot of interesting points in that post, Don, many of which I would agree with.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I definitely do NOT think that "all Democrats and Republicans are the same", when we're talking about ordinary people who are party members. Not at all. They are tremendous in their variety, their intentions, and their capabilities.

It was not members of the 2 parties I was pointing my finger at, it was the great and shadowy forces that control those 2 parties that I was talking about. Those people are beyond allegiance to any party or any credo, as far as I can see, except the credo of "the bottom line".

The problem with political parties is that they necessarily fall under the control of the largest money interests who decide whether or not to back them. Without enormous financial backing a candidate will not get elected, because he will not be able to conduct an effective campaign and get enough media attention and public exposure. Thus the most powerful financial people in the system basically control the agenda and they control all the major parties. They don't really give a damn about tiny little parties that most people don't vote for, because those are no threat to the ruling order.

And that is the situation that is occurring, not only in the USA but in most countries which hold "democratic elections"...perhaps all such countries.

It's an incredibly corrupted system. I won't deny that there are many individual politicians who genuinely wish to serve the public and do good things...but how far will they get if they don't play ball with the powerful who control the pursestrings? Not very far at all. Maybe as far as a ruined career or a pine box.

I'm not saying the Democrats and Republicans are identical, I'm saying they are both indirectly controlled by huge corporate entities that the public has no recognition of and no control over...and I can't see that changing, because the mechanisms are simply not in place to change it. It can all be done legally. One can legally circumvent and eviscerate a democracy and turn it into autocratic rule by secret corporate committee...IF one has the money to do it and one also owns and controls the main national media outlets. And they do.

By all means, though, one party may be somewhat preferable to the other at any given time...so of course when the time comes to vote, vote as you think best. That's what I do in Canada...but I don't expect much from it, I can tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM

Little Hawk, your viewpoint on the two-party system in the United States is accurate to a point, but I think there are a lot more differences between the two parties than you are aware of, or at least, acknowledging. Personally, I would favor a proportional system like many countries have, or at the very least, preferential voting so I could vote for the candidate I really like the best (third party or tenth party) without fear that my one vote will go for naught, one of a few voices crying out, but lost in a howling windstorm. But unfortunately, we're stuck with what we have until we get off our butts and change it.

In the meantime, I wrote a little dissertation for another thread which I think is relevant here. I would be interested in reading your comments on it.

Clicky.

Don Firth