Daily Kos

IN-09: Dems demand a recount

by kos

Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:17:45 PM PDT

Here's a place were election machine shenanigans may actually have miscalled an election. From the subscription-only Roll Call:
The Indiana Democratic Party on Friday requested a recount of votes cast in the 9th district, where Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) was narrowly defeated by Republican Mike Sodrel on Nov. 2.

The recount request was made after an election-equipment malfunction was discovered in Franklin County, which is not in the 9th district.

On Nov. 3, Hill conceded defeat to Sodrel, a trucking company owner, and the most recent vote tally available from the Indiana secretary of state?s office showed Hill trailing by 1,485 votes. As of midday Friday, Sodrel had 142,257 votes to Hill?s 140,772.

An emergency meeting of the state?s recount commission was held Friday afternoon and the machines, ballots and all other material relating to the election were ordered impounded. The commission will meet again on Tuesday to decide the next course of action and to hear cross petitions from Republicans.

"They want to hear from the other side as well," Kate Shepherd, a spokeswoman for the Indiana secretary of state?s office, said Friday.

Last week, Rock Island, Ill.-based election equipment vendor Fidlar Election Co. acknowledged that some of its vote-scanning machines counted straight Democratic ticket votes as Libertarian votes.

Hill was the only Democrat incumbent outside of Texas to lose his election.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 131 comments

  •  another place (3.20 / 5)

    elelction machine shenanigans may have miscalled an election:
    Ohio

    wake up kos.

    by warbly on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:15:01 PM PDT

    •  kos (3.50 / 4)

      has made it pretty clear where he stands on the Ohio voting machine issue.

      the more instances of proven malfunctions the stronger the case for reform grows.  if the recount successfully proved that the dem won the election two good things happen 1) we get another House seat 2) more fodder to push election reform.  either way the process is moving as the post shows.

      by juls on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:20:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, i'm just cranky (none / 1)

        no offense kos. love your blog. i'm cranky because the media is ignoring this story. we have recounts proceeding in NH and Ohio and I can't even find the story on most of the blogs, much less the MSM.

        by warbly on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:24:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not really (4.00 / 3)

        "election machine shenanigans may actually have miscalled an election"

        Is this not a defacto statement of belief that no shenanigans have taken place elsewhere?

        If my interpretation is correct, Kos is indicating that he does not support the very real possibility, even probability, that something is amiss.

        It's one thing to need empirical evidence, it's another to dismiss outright what has become exceedingly clear: something is wrong here.

        We've been warning people that voting technology was a serious danger to the integrity of the voting process. We've been saying for two years that the only way we'll ever know is if the exit polls are suddenly "wrong".

        Then it happens and people bury their head in the sand. "It had to have been a legitimate election. They said so on tv."

        Awside from Dr Freeman's analysis, which is compelling, what if the exit polls were right? Then all this utter fucking crap about values and mandate and needing to move to the center is completely wrong.

        Responsible Democrats should pay extremely fucking close to exit polls even if we can't turn the vote around because they're the accurate polling you'll ever have access to and it's the last time we'll have access to that data four another two years.

        But instead everyone's buying the latest pundit script as though they have an ounce of credibility.

        by TocqueDeville on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:38:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hmmm (4.00 / 2)

          let's see...yet another case of "machine" shenanigans that favor the republicans...i have heard of very, very few such shenanigans favoring the democrat candidates...why is it that these machine malfunctions favor one party so overwhelmingly?

          separate from the issue of possible tampering, what possible explanation might there be for one party being favored so consistently with these malfuncions...shenanigans, indeed...well, of course, there's nothing here, it's just a programming error or a glitsh in the hardware...

          by tompaine2004 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:20:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  while I agree (none / 0)

          that the possible fraud and voting machine malfunctions should be a major issues....

          I find it  hilarious that people before the election bitched about the inaccuracy of polls and now  are claiming that the exit polls are strong  evidence for fraud

          Sure you can say both claims are valid but don't try to get the msm to look that close...they see a hypocrite on the surface

          NO! no! NO!

          by AJS on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:21:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  exit polls (4.00 / 2)

            are compleatly different then the polls leading up to the election. They are generally VERY reliable

            by fabacube on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:39:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly: exit polls have always been MUCH better. (4.00 / 5)

              Pre-election polling relies on calls to people's houses.   There are plenty of sources of error:

              a) some people don't like being bothered at dinner

              b) what is the relation between people who are called versus those that actually vote?

              c) what is the relation between random phone numbers and actual distribution of precincts across demographic groups?

              Exit polls eliminate the primary sources of systematic error:  sampling bias in choosing who to ask (as it is a scientifically generated sample across precincts), and bias in who actually shows up and votes.

              The only remaining bias is in who may choose to answer the pollsters.  But even this is different from pre-election polling.  In exit polls, people just voted, and had voting on their mind and not the Broncos game or whatever.  And usually there's personal bias in favor of who they voted for and people are proud of it.   In other countries they have proven to be very accurate as well.  

              The issue with exit polls is (was!) that they were so accurate even with incomplete samples that by publicizing their results they may influence who shows up to vote later while voting time is still left.

              But for some odd reason, despite great attention to these issues and the strictest scrutiny (from 2004 where they called Florida early, and incorrectly because of the tiny margin of difference---maybe) somehow the exit polls were consistently wrong and in chimpoleon's favor.

              Hmm.......

              Also, the exit polls in 2000 weren't really wrong in Florida.  The exit polls measured who people thought they voted for.  Some ended up marking votes for Buchanan based on a poor ballot design, and in other precincts, which just happened to be frequently minority, the rate of "spoiled" ballots was much higher than the norm.   There's no question that if one were to consider the true will of all those people who were eligible to vote in Florida and actually did show up and vote, Gore won.

              Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody thereof.

              by mbkennel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:51:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Another reason (none / 1)

                exit polls are accurate is that there is no "likely voter" uncertainty thrown into the mix. Exit polls are often used in emergent democracies by outside election monitors to detect fraud.

                As for FL, all one need to do is look at the double marked ballots (because some idiot ballot designer  didn't know the difference between "write in candidate here" and "write-in candidate here") and one will see a change in the outcome. Exit polls were on the money, and what was the response? They dropped exit polling from the 2002 election and Max Cleland loses Georgia, a state served by Diebold. In case you can't tell, I'm still pissed.

                The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

                by cavanaghjam on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:52:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  In a word, no. (none / 0)

          Is this not a defacto statement of belief that no shenanigans have taken place elsewhere?

          In a few more words, the listing of specific evidence or incident does not preclude others being true. It makes no judgement either way.

          You want Kos (or anyone speaking of voter irregularities) to list each and every permutation that's been whispered?

          That's not debate, that's tail chasing.

          Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

          by boadicea on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:09:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No shit (4.00 / 7)

      The New York Times (and the others) was lying whan it said the blogs were stirring up conspiracy theories. In fact, aside from the diaries here as DKos, the top bloggers have been as cowardly as the SCLM. Or naive.

      I did a scan of every major blog today for every post since the election. Narely a mention of the historical aberration of the descrepencies between exit polls and the count. Barely a mention of the countless "glitches" that miraculously all favor Bush.

      As of yet, we have no absolute proof that the election was stolen. But the circumstantial evidence is mounting and mounting.

      What's it gonna take?

      by TocqueDeville on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:25:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Washington state (none / 0)

      We still don't know who the next governor of Washington state will be. Since half of our state votes by absentee ballot, and a number of those were not mailed until election day, they're STILL COUNTING! As of last night it was down to LESS THAN 200 votes between the two candidates, and it has been going back and forth for two weeks now. When all the votes are finally counted, they're going to recount them because it will be so close!

      Talk about election reform needed!

      I say we ditch all electronic machines and switch to absentee, but mandate that ballots must arrive by election day to be counted. If the whole state of Oregon can do it, why can't we all? I'd like to hear an end to all the computer conspiracy theories.

      by jenng on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:09:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This should be a major story. (none / 0)

    The press should be talking about national standards for voiting equipment.  But it won't be.  We need to rehaul the media, starting w/ taking out the pillars of the right-wing noise machines:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/15/192613/47

    by VirginiaDem on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:15:17 PM PDT

  •  p.s. (none / 1)

    the fidlar machines: manufactured by Diebold.

    by warbly on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:16:04 PM PDT

    •  Yes, indeed, and isn't it time... (none / 1)

      ....we did a 'sinclair' on this evil axis of Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and their various distributors.

      Isn't it time to press for the most widespread media coverage of just exactly who these people are, what their 'beliefs' are, what their 'memes' are, what their political affiliatons are??

      Isn't it time that we move from oh, let's say a very few thousand, if that many, American citizens who are aware of just exactly who these people are, to having all 56,000,000 American citizens who voted for Kerry, know.

      And, for 'collateral damage' how about if we could get even 20% of the those who voted for Bush to know exactly who these people are.

      What would the state of our franchise be in 2 or 3 days if we forced this message into broad media coverage?

      What do you think? Is it time to do a 'sinclair' on vote-afia?

      Thank you.

      by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:28:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a DKosopedia entry for Diebold (none / 1)

        here

        by CSTAR on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:58:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, yes, and it is an excellent... (none / 0)

          ...reference base. Now, if we can just 'sinclair' the issue and point the media to the dKosopedia resource, most of the 'background' work will have been done for them and that should lower the 'activation barrier' for them to publish/broadcast something.

          Thank you.

          by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:02:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This takes more evidence (none / 0)

        Wait for the evidence.  The audits will accomplish this.

        Then, yes, we start bringing down the hammer ala Sinclair.

        Molinari on Hardball is telltale.  They're getting nervous.  But we need more than we have right now, to start mobilizing like we did against Sinclair.

        by Aquaman on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:39:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you look at the dKosopedia... (none / 0)

          ....information and other resources, you will see that the 'story' I'm talking about, is not about yet to be proven 'fraud.'

          The story[ies] I'm talking about doing a 'sinclair' are exposing the owners of these firms and all the research that has been done on their products. That is necessary 'backgrounder' info that we need to bring to the attention of at least the 55+million citizens who voted for Kerry so they understand why we are concerned not just about e-vote machines but about all aspects of the technologies used, especially at the central tabulating centers.

          So the first story I'm suggesting can be written today [and should have been written before the election] is the story about just who these people are and just how untrustworthy their technology is.

          The banking industry holds them to entirely different standards; one would have thought our elected Federal and State officials [folk who are supposed to be working for us] would consider the validity and security of our democracy franchise at least as important as a bank transaction. <sarcasm>

          Peace and thank you for your comments.

          by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:28:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We both have the same objective (none / 0)

            but I think we just don't have a catalyst.

            We need fresh evidence, and that backstory will kick in.  I'm less hopeful the MSM will bite on any of it without something fresh and sexy.  Maybe Bev is a few days away from providing that.  Let's hope so.

            by Aquaman on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:40:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps we should start calling (none / 0)

        our local banks.  Raise some questions about Diebold's ATM machines.  Surely they work on the same principles.  If the voting machines are so easily manipulated, what safeguards are in place with my money.

        I'm just speculatin', mind...

        Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

        by boadicea on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:03:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bayh (none / 0)

    This will be a good chance for Bayh to raise his profile among the Democratic base.  Some activism here will go a long way if he wants the Dem nomination in '08.

    Netroots Nation: Changing the face of progressive politics.

    by pontificator on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:16:35 PM PDT

    •  Some activism here.... (none / 1)

      .....may mean we'll have an election in 2008.

      And, I very much think you are among those who realize just how serious the situation is so please excuse my terseness.

      "It's about America" [on life support and in need of immediate, sustained heroic treatment]

      by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:22:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bayh...Ugh (none / 1)

      As a Hoosier, I know that Bayh will not to the right thing in this case. He never does the right thing and would be a terrible nominee in 2008.

      He doesn't care about activism. He only cares about power.

      I am a hard-core Democrat and coulnd't bring myself to vote for Bayh this year. His GOP-lite self made me vote for the Libertarian candidate for Senate.

      He voted for the war, the tax cuts and the hate ammendment.

      If Bayh runs in 2008, he will be the Lieberman of that election cycle.

      He will do nothing to stand up for voters...he's too much of a coward.

      by BillyZoom on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:56:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agree (none / 0)

        from everything i've seen, Bayh is unimpressive.

        Aside from the fact that he keeps winning in heavily Republican Indiana.

        But he is Republican-lite, all the way.

        by diana04 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:44:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Place holder (none / 0)

        I am actually okay with a republican-lite candidate being our nominee in 2008.  In fact, I think it may be a necessity to win.

        For the past 20 years, the Republicans have tarnished the words liberal and democrat.  It is going to take years to reclaim these words and to educate people what this party stands for.  I don't think we can achieve it in just 4 years, that is why I am okay with a placeholder.  In the meantime, we continue to promote the true ideals of the democratic party and supporting liberal/progressive candidates at the local, state and congressional level.  By the time 2012 rolls around, we will have laid the ground for a truly progressive candidate to win the presidency and everything else!

        by Swingers on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:41:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't matter (none / 0)

          It doesn't matter who we run in '08, the GOP will call them a liberal Democrat.  We could send out a Lieberman-Bayh ticket and they would tar them as far on the 'left bank'.  It should be clear now that they believe in one-party goverment, and if you're not with the party, you're outside the mainstream.

          "Well... you could always hang yourself!"

          by Jugwine on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:58:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  well (none / 0)

        Bayh does get 60% from the ACLU, so he seems to be more on this side than on the other one.  Not 100%, sure, but take a look at the ratings of your average Republican, and they're quite a bit lower than 60%.

        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

        by Delirium on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:44:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bayh did NOT vote for FMA! (none / 0)

        Bayh voted against the Hate Amendment. We should remember this and thank him, because he may vote for it in the next Congress. We have to stop him if we can. I don't like the man, but please don't harangue him for something he didn't do.

        by JamesB3 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:10:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know, though, (none / 0)

          I wrote him about this and, being a constituent, apparently got the FMA form letter in return. My letter to him cited a handful of gay people I know (not by name!) and how they live their lives just as we all do, going to work, sometimes raising kids, dealing with house issues, etc. One example was a close relative. The form letter I received was full of wishy-washy language like "an amendment should be a last resort" and "I agree with my senate colleagues, we can deal with this in other ways" and "it's not yet time" blah blah blah. In no way did I feel like he was standing on any kind of principle here, much less defending the American value of equality.

          So, no, he didn't vote for it, but he certainly isn't any kind of Dem I feel like I can get behind. (And he was conspicuously absent on my sticker-bedecked car this election.)

          tragically un-hip
          ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-

          -5.88, -6.82

          by Debby on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:14:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ditto (none / 0)

        Re; not voting for Bayh; I did the same. In fact, I've never voted for Bayh, not even when he ran for Sec. State.

        Every year, more & more dems are disenchanted with him which is why his high margin of votes in this past election is so ironic. Many of them were not endorsements, just votes.

        by Hoosiercat on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:51:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think we already may have settled on (none / 1)

    using the plural: shenanigaii :)

    Thinking Caps ON!

    by Patsy Stone on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:16:45 PM PDT

  •  Haven't they heard (4.00 / 2)

    All stolen elections are final!

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:20:36 PM PDT

  •  history of southern Indiana (none / 0)

    Wasn't there a particularly nasty House race in southern Indiana where the House Dems refused to seat a Republican election winner, essentially vetoing the local election officials?

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:25:32 PM PDT

    •  9th district (none / 0)

      includes bloomington, where IU is (and where I spent much of my youth, incidentally). Big campus liberal organization there...although also substantial wingnuts.

      Also includes Columbus, which has a very mixed voting history (and fabulous architecture).  HMMMM!

      by Chicago Lulu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:40:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Regarding Bloomington (none / 1)

        The College Democrats here were very active in this race.  There was canvassing every weekend for months leading up to the election and a lot of volunteering at the Kernan-Hill headquarters.

        This is to say...we all are excited to hear that a recount is in order.

        The RNC essentially bought the district, (assuming they won), flooding the television with irritating and damaging ads against Hill.  This was our one hope after election night, but in the end, it was the icing on the disappointment cake.  

        Here's to a recount in our favor!

        Blue Indiana -- Building a progressive Midwest movement

        by Yoss on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:16:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You all should be proud (none / 0)

          because I don't think Monroe County went for Gore, but Kerry won it.

          We did a lot of work in Indy and although neither Clinton nor Gore won Marion County, Kerry did, as did Kernan. Canvassing and grassroots outreach is so important!

          tragically un-hip
          ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-

          -5.88, -6.82

          by Debby on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:16:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  9th District is Lee Hamilton's old district... (none / 0)

        Been Democratic for many many years.

        by Fro on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:07:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bloody 8th (none / 0)

      I believe you're referring to the Bloody 8th.  This is actually roughly the same area... Call it the bloody ninth.  Its a area full of conservative dems, and it's a cultural extension of Kentucky and Appalachia.  

      by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:13:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Bloody 8th (none / 0)

      That was in the 8th District in southwestern Indiana.  The Republican Sec. of State declared the Republican the winner by less than 100 votes (I believe), but the House refused to seat him, and launched a special task force which determined the Democrat (the late Frank McCloskey) had won by four votes.  It's a legendary race.

      by droy20 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:18:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Source (none / 0)

    URL? Thanks.

    by Mickazoid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:25:34 PM PDT

  •  i wish evan bayh would make a stand (none / 0)

    he's pretty wishy washy unfortunately.  i know, he's my senator.

    i try hard to LIKE him.

    he's risk adverse and risk is part of getting the job done.

    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing, there is a field. I'll meet you there." Rumi

    by sudiepatou on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:27:45 PM PDT

    •  Regarding Bayh... (none / 1)

      He is my Senator as well, (currently at IU, from west of Indy), and I up until recently was in the camp that hoped Bayh's actions were due more to his constitutency than any true ideological beliefs.  But all of this was thrown to the side when I saw him on O'Reilly last week.  If anyone doubted rather Bayh wants in the '08 games, that should be gone now.

      In response to a question regarding his ambitions:

      BAYH: Well, look, the future of our country and the future of our party lies in both the geographic and the ideological center of the country, not the far left, not the far right, and if we can nominate someone who stands for that center, I think we have an excellent chance.

      We're the longest continuous party in history, not because we've allowed ourselves to be marginalized. We occasionally go through these periods in the wilderness, but I'm hopeful we'll have the fortitude and the intelligence to instead go to the center so that we can lead the country.

      Bayh wants to be at the forefront of the 'centrist revolution' within the party.  I know people who have met with him for government business, and they say he is a nice guy...and the idea of putting Indiana in play for 2008 is exciting...but I just don't think he represents the direction the party needs to go.

      Blue Indiana -- Building a progressive Midwest movement

      by Yoss on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:37:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bayh (none / 0)

        weird, because about 5 years ago, I heard bits of a speech he made.  He was spectacular: concise, firm, and while hardly radical, quite left of center.  Do you think the Senate has changed him?

        by Chicago Lulu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:42:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who knows... (none / 0)

          I am not an expert, but I still think the constituency has a big effect on it.  The state loves his centrist attitude, and he has been reaping the benefits in his super-high approval ratings, (some of the highest in the Senate).

          Blue Indiana -- Building a progressive Midwest movement

          by Yoss on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:19:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Left out of the article (none / 1)

    The Libertarian candidate picked up 4,698 votes in this district.  Sodrel's margin of victory was 1,485.

    This looks very promising.

    http://election.cbsnews.com/election2004/state/state_in.shtml

    by nhc1978 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:28:45 PM PDT

    •  not all those votes are straight ticket (none / 0)

      Even the best case scenario, where all the straight ticket libertarian votes were meant to be Dem votes, wouldn't give us another 4,698 votes. Some of those votes were votes spefically for Al Cox (Libertarian). You can tell this by going through the IN election data county-by-county for the 9th. If the votes were all straight ticket libertarian, Badnarik would have gotten at least as many votes as Cox. Since Cox got more votes than Badnarik in most of these counties (about twice as many seems to be the norm in the large ones), we can assume that not all of Cox's votes will be transferred to Baron. If anyone wants to do a more complete analysis (i have to run models and get to bed, so i can't tonight), the IN election data is here.

      by redvolution on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:03:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Checked Out the County Figures (4.00 / 2)

        I noticed that IU/Bloomington's home county, Monroe, reported only 48% turnout of registered voters, which is surprising to me in that a) it's got Bloomington and b) it's heavily Democratic.

        If the turnout there was 5-10% higher Baron Hill would have taken the election, irregularities or not.

        I live in heavily Democratic Lake County, IN, and the turnout here was barely 56%--and I thought that was shameful. It makes the 48% in Monroe look either highly suspect or highly shameful, as well.

        by wanderindiana on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:04:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Monroe turnout (none / 0)

          The reason for the low turnout% is that the voter rolls have not been purged. Before the election, the voter rolls had 100k plus. Many of these students left.
          The township district I live in (Perry 18) had 75% turnout. Most of the districts that does not have heavy student housing had much higher turnouts.

          by jmuss101 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:06:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the No Purge Info (none / 0)

            The Indiana SoS Election pages don't break down to precinct level, so thanks for that info, too.

            by wanderindiana on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:48:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Stuck In My Craw All Day (none / 0)

              I just went back to the IN SoS numbers for Monroe County, because something about them has been bothering me all day--now I have more numbers to look at with more questions.

              According to this .pdf report dated 11/2/2004, there were 104,813 registered and 51,061 voting, for a 49% turnout.

              According to these results from the IN SoS, 37,239 people voted in the IN-09 House race, at 48% turnout.

              Monroe County contains parts of IN-09 and IN-04. 10,691 votes were cast in the IN-04 race at 48% turnout .

              A 6% gap exists between the number of people voting, 51,061, and the combination of votes cast in the U.S. House races, 47,930.

              There are 3,131 "under" votes in these races. If they are broken out between the two Congressional districts in Monroe County, about 80% or 2,500 of those "under" votes are likely to be from the IN-09 race.

              What this all means for the Indiana Democratic Party? Waiting for analysis.

              by wanderindiana on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:42:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Franklin County issue not apparent in district 9 c (none / 0)

      The Franklin County results showed the Libertarian Candidate getting 7% of the vote in the 8th district race.  This was way out of line with other counties in this race.  There is nothing like this sort of discrepancy in any of the 9th district counties.  The Libertarian vote appears to be in line (0-3%) with other counties.  In other words, it doesn't appear that the same problem that affected Franklin County happened in any of the other counties.

      There may be other reasons to have a recount, but don't expect a repeat of what happened in Franklin County because that symptom does not exist here.

      Indiana house results, as of writing, you can see the 7% discrepancy here by Franklin County

      by exclue on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:42:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Libertarian candidate (none / 0)

      Compare Al Cox with the other LP candidates for the same office.  His vote total was about average for the race.

      And 7% of the race in limited districts is not per se surprising for a Libertarian in a three way, though it is quite good.  A few towns over from here in a 3-way race for State Senate, Libertarian Carol McMahon got over 10% of the vote.  Also, Indiana has one of the stronger Libertarian state organizations in the country.

      Of course, I am in Massachusetts.

      Had enough yet?

      by phillies on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:02:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's not confuse the issues.... (none / 0)

        Libertarian candidates may get 7% of the vote in some areas, but this did not happen in Franklin County.  That error was found and corrected (though not reflected in the yahoo/ap results).

        The main post seems to suggest that the issue that happened in Franklin county might also have happened in district 9 counties.  Based on the numbers alone, that does not appear to be the case.   There may be other issues and the result was close enough to make a recount reasonable, but people shouldn't derive false hope from the Franklin County issue.  The same issue is not apparent in the vote totals for other counties.

        by exclue on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 05:34:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  baron hill is a good man (none / 0)

    let's hope this works out for the best.

    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing, there is a field. I'll meet you there." Rumi

    by sudiepatou on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:28:47 PM PDT

  •  Same thing happened in Utah (none / 0)

    Of by 30,000 votes or so (for Kerry). I'll see if I can find the story.

    by PitterPatter on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:31:14 PM PDT

    •  not that it would change (none / 0)

      Anything, however. 33,000 ballots lost in shuffle

      by PitterPatter on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:35:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice catch (none / 0)

        Thanks!

        by Tomtech on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:39:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Use one public goof to justify more counts (none / 0)

        We're not getting far at disincenting SOSs to buy Diebold with public criticism. In MD, for example, all the anti-Diebold activism still couldn't convince a Dem election official to find some reliable machines.

        So barring getting the machines thrown out using public comment, let's get them thrown out by making them very very expensive to use.

        Everywhere there is a close race using the same brand of machine that had a very public problem, let's call for a recount, insisting that since the manufacturer insists all of this stuff is the same, then it stands to logic that one "snafu" indicates another snafu is likely.

        Let's get local election officials having to do recount in county after county after Congressional District. This seems to be a more effective way to convince election officials not to buy this crap than to actually ask them not to. Let's punish them for buying them.

        And, if we win a few contested seats in the process, great!!

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:05:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Folks, these people are morons (none / 0)

    I'm an electronics/electrical engineer. I can tell you how easily it is to rig an election by changing some of the firmware code in the system. I can also tell you that if the program was made right, it would have been bench tested enough to ensure these kinds of errors wouldn't be made.
    I have to wonder what the hell these people are doing at all these election voter machine companies that they can't get these things to work right? I really can't?
    I could personally design a very simple circuit to perform all of the required functions. I could easily write code in either basic, C++, or assembly that would peform all the software/firmware code. It's really not that hard people. I wonder if these morons aren't hiring on the cheap to make these things?
    Give me a simple 8-bit processor and I could do it all using it and some assembly. I could spend less than $20 on the whole of the circuit needs. The major cost would be in the mechanics and the interface. In which case a special monitor would be required. But I could do it.

    MYOB'
    .

    by MYOB on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:31:55 PM PDT

  •  Promising... (none / 0)

    All the better. The "victor" Mike Sodrel is another wingnut from the heartland. If Hill succeeds, all the better.

    by lzmd on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:32:49 PM PDT

    •  We'll get rid of Sodrel pretty easily... (none / 0)

      A Republican in Congress is very abnormal for the district.  This should be a race we target in 06 because it's going to be pretty easy to pick back up.  Sodrel only "won" because of Bush's coattails and a big negative advertising campaign by the RNCC and some other groups who played up Gay Marriage.

      by Fro on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:09:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was shocked the other day (none / 0)

    to learn the pronunciation of "election equipment vendor" Fidlar.

    Like a Car Talk credit to the law firm of Dewey Cheatham & Howe.

     

    by musing graze on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:35:11 PM PDT

    •  Ah, the clues are everywhere! (4.00 / 2)

      They're just trying to make us crazy, or at least make us appear crazy to any "average American" (though lately I think they lopped a zero off the IQ scores while I wasn't looking) we grab by the shoulder and try to tell about it.

      "See!  See!  His name is Fidlar.  Fidlar!  That sounds like "Fiddler", see, you know, like to fiddle with the election results.  That means to play around with the answers; you know, like cheating, like playing unfair, you know what I mean?  See?  --  What?  YES, I've been taking my Gingko Biloba.  The St John's Wort you gave me?  Of course!  And my vitamins, too.  No, I haven't been watching X-Files re-runs all night long.  Not lately anyway.  Who are you calling?  PUT THAT PHONE DOWN!"

      If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

      by HenryDavid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can I ask something about election tallying? (none / 0)

    Not having had time to read across Koslandia thoroughly, this may have been answered elsewhere, but:

    Sounds like a lot of the computer and machine and other misbehavior had to do with altering totals that were made up from the raw data sent in by precincts, for the purpose of quick and early conclusions.

    Allegations about things like spreadsheet columns being reversed, and totals by party being interchanged really sounds like comic book stuff that could not possibly stand the first time somebody actually drives all the raw tallies to one place and sits down with a calculator.

    It really does not sound like anyone could think they could persist in those early tallies with the raw data so out of joint, a third-grade class could correct it for them.

    Unless it was just the accomplices of raw idiotic power asserting their "fait accompli"

    In any of these contested localities, is the upstream raw data flushed at some early stage and therefore not available for re-tallying by another method than first done?

    Sounds like elections d'Aubuisson "won" in El Salvador with his masked goons standing by to remember anyone who asked for a recount...

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:36:04 PM PDT

    •  tallies (none / 0)

      My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that the precinct votes were submitted via modem to central tallying machines, which then added up the numbers.  The central tallying machines are Windows based, and the program used to tally the votes is essentially Microsoft Access.  The actual code used to program the count is proprietary.

      There are numerous places along the line to hack this.  However, there is no point at which the central computer's results would be checked against the raw vote. UNLESS there's a recount- or "audit".  Yep.  We're safe.

      by Chicago Lulu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:12:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the official recount-to-be is just that (none / 0)

        taking the raw numbers from each precinct, and adding them up by some normal means that is ordinary people can do themselves.

        I mean, unless they had some kind of Diebold armored car that went around, after they had transmitted the precinct's total (maybe this was all automated ?, with no humanly-visible stopping points along the way <shudder> ) and told the precinct workers, "OK we'll take all those papers, disks, lists, whatever -- go home now"

        Paper trail: old, old principle, from programming, to accounting, to voting...  One would think that any investigation would BEGIN with "Who gave the order to leave no audit trail?"

        If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

        by HenryDavid on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:03:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Keep the recount issues front page (none / 1)

    Glad to see that the recount has made frontpage news here!!!

    There are many issues throughout the country where voters are not sure if their vote has been properly counted.

    This is not a Democrat or Republican issue but a core value of our nation - To have our vote counted.

    Republicans : Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor

    by ctsteve on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:38:12 PM PDT

  •  shenanigaii, (none / 0)

    actually.

    by nycnat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:13:18 PM PDT

  •  They want to hear from the other side as well, (4.00 / 2)

    Why are there "Sides". isnt the SoS's job to hold fair and accurate elections.  Shouldnt they be on the people's side.  I just don't get why people don;t want to count or recount votes.  Many people will give their time williling and the taxpayers have already paid the government people to do their jobs.  why are recounts so expensive?

    "She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz, she's got it all." Terry McAuliffe

    by naufragus on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:28:00 PM PDT

  •  ONly incumbent Dem? (none / 0)

    Are you talking only the house?

    Daschle seems to have lost... and I am not sure about this being even the only House incumbent the Dems lost outside Texas, the Dems lost 5 incumbent races in the house, not sure if Texas and Hill account for all 5.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:44:23 PM PDT

  •  Thanks to all... (none / 1)

    who contributed to the Ohio recount. The money is over the top today! Stay tuned.

    It's verifiable vote counts,stupid

    by CFnAR on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:51:40 PM PDT

  •  "conspiracy theory" my ass! (none / 1)

    These are real issues, not "conspiracy theories". A voting machine glich almost changed an entire election in Indiana- http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/10173663.htm

    If an  election wasn't called for, the republican would have won.

    by gorbal on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:00:19 PM PDT

  •  Hill (none / 0)

    used to be my rep when i went to Hanover. Hes a good man and a good fit for that district.  i really cant imagine that sodrel beat him.

    by Samaritan on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:12:30 AM PDT

    •  Not his first try (none / 0)

      Sodrel had run against Hill at least once before unsuccessfully.  

      Sodrel has the good fortune of being part of a wealthy family.  Sodrel trucking has lots of big rigs on the road.  Therefore Sodrel had the money to challenge Hill.

      Also don't forget that much of S. Indiana (except Bloomington) is very Republican country.  Sodrel has always pushed the anti abortion, anti gay agenda.

      I guess the stars just aligned for him -- conservative district, popular president (in that district), social issues at the forefront.

      by Buckland on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:07:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well... (none / 0)

        Sodrel opposed Hill in 2002 and lost 52-48 with virtually zero backing from the national party. Obviously, getting that backing this year made some part of the difference.

        Hill inherited the original 9th, which did not include Bloomington, in 1998 with the retirement of Lee Hamilton. Hamilton, a moderate to conservative Democrat, served from 1964 to 1998. He's highly non-partisan, almost to nasea-inducing levels, but he was pro-choice, pro-education, and all those other lefty causes. Yet, he still managed to get elected 17 times over 34 years in this supposedly GOP strong-hold.

        The truth has been that party matters less (although, GDub seems to be changing that) in this area than economics. Sodrel ran a very blue-collar style campaign, let the national party and a few rabid 527s paint Hill as a commie-pinko-faggot, and he (apparently) squeaked through on a 49.6 to 49.4 margin. Hardly the stuff of a GOP landslide.

        What's troubling is that now he'll have the benefit of incumbency next time. But, he also has the only true Blue city in the state in his district, which may be the difference maker in 2006, provided the Dems find someone that can inspire more than luke-warm support to oppose him.

        "Who the hell you gonna nuke?" -- Mike Gravel

        by Taylor on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:00:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bullcrap, it's not a conservative district... (none / 0)

        Lee Hamilton was Representative here for about 40 years.

        by Fro on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:10:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hill is new to Bloomington (none / 1)

    We in Bloomington were redistricted a couple of years ago.  So although he's technically an incumbant, Hill is a relative newcomer here.  (His original district was further east.)  He's also got a very "mixed" district now... partially conservative (everywhere outside of Bloomington) and partially very liberal (Bloomington) -- well at least by IN standards.
    This makes it tough for him.

    Personally, although I voted for him and I hope he wins the recount, I believe we can do better here.  As Dems go, he's fairly conservative.  (And I was annoyed at his stance on the war.)
    But I guess we're stuck with this given the type of mixed district we have.

    What's surprising to me is that this has so far gotten very little coverage in even the local news:
       Herald Times - newspaper
       WTIU - local PBS

    Social advance depends as much upon the process through which it is secured as upon the result itself. --Jane Addams

    by shock on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:41:37 AM PDT

  •  Contacting the Indiana Democratic Party (none / 0)

    Kos' article says that the IDP is requesting the recount, yet their website looks like it hasn't been updated since well before the election.

    I have emailed the IDP asking for their official position on IN-09 and on the auditing of electronic voting systems' source code if the recount reveals "shenanigans". If they lost enough straight party votes throughout the state, it would sure make the loss of the governor's race look less embarrassing for them.

    I invite others to do the same.

    by wanderindiana on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:30:54 AM PDT

    •  Still Waiting (none / 0)

      I received this prompt reply from Anne Koester, IDP office manager, first thing this morning--but to no avail, because I have not heard from anyone else as of yet:

      Thank you for your inquiry. I have forwarded your message to the appropriate people in our office, and they should return an accurate response. If you don't hear from them soon, feel free to write or call Terry Burns at tburns@indems.org, or 317.231.7103.

      Sincerely,
      Anne Koester
      Office Manager
      Indiana Democratic Party
      One North Capitol, Suite 200
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      (317) 231-7100 phone
      (317) 231-7129 fax
      akoester@indems.org

      Time to write Terry Burns--I waited until the end of the business day with no reply. I guess the IDP doesn't much care about publicizing this challenge.

      by wanderindiana on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:03:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Election shenanigans (4.00 / 3)

    From [here http://www.commondreams.org)

    I Smell a Rat
    by Colin Shea

    I smell a rat. It has that distinctive and all-too-familiar odor of the species Republicanus floridius. We got a nasty bite from this pest four years ago and never quite recovered. Symptoms of a long-term infection are becoming distressingly apparent.

    The first sign of the rat was on election night. The jubilation of early exit polling had given way to rising anxiety as states fell one by one to the Red Tide. It was getting late in the smoky cellar of a Prague sports bar where a crowd of expats had gathered. We had been hoping to go home to bed early, confident of victory. Those hopes had evaporated in a flurry of early precinct reports from Florida and Ohio.

    By 3 AM, conversation had died and we were grimly sipping beers and watching as those two key states seemed to be slipping further and further to crimson. Suddenly, a friend who had left two hours earlier rushed in and handed us a printout.

    "Zogby's calling it for Kerry." He smacked the sheet decisively. "Definitely. He's got both Florida and Ohio in the Kerry column. Kerry only needs one." Satisfied, we went to bed, confident we would wake with the world a better place. Victory was at hand.

    The morning told a different story, of course. No Florida victory for Kerry--Bush had a decisive margin of nearly 400,000 votes. Ohio was not even close enough for Kerry to demand that all the votes be counted. The pollsters had been dead wrong, Bush had four more years and a powerful mandate. Onward Christian soldiers--next stop, Tehran.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics

    I work with statistics and polling data every day. Something rubbed me the wrong way. I checked the exit polls for Florida--all wrong. CNN's results indicated a Kerry win: turnout matched voter registration, and independents had broken 59% to 41% for Kerry.

    Polling is an imprecise science. Yet its very imprecision is itself quantifiable and follows regular patterns. Differences between actual results and those expected from polling data must be explainable by identifiable factors if the polling sample is robust enough. With almost 3.000 respondents in Florida alone, the CNN poll sample was pretty robust.

    The first signs of the rat were identified by Kathy Dopp, who conducted a simple analysis of voter registrations by party in Florida and compared them to presidential vote results. Basically she multiplied the total votes cast in a county by the percentage of voters registered Republican: this gave an expected Republican vote. She then compared this to the actual result.

    Her analysis is startling. Certain counties voted for Bush far in excess of what one would expect based on the share of Republican registrations in that county. They key phrase is "certain counties"--there is extraordinary variance between individual counties. Most counties fall more or less in line with what one would expect based on the share of Republican registrations, but some differ wildly.

    How to explain this incredible variance? Dopp found one over-riding factor: whether the county used electronic touch-screen voting, or paper ballots which were optically scanned into a computer. All of those with touch-screen voting had results relatively in line with her expected results, while all of those with extreme variance were in counties with optical scanning.

    The intimation, clearly, is fraud. Ballots are scanned; results are fed into precinct computers; these are sent to a county-wide database, whose results are fed into the statewide electoral totals. At any point after physical ballots become databases, the system is vulnerable to external hackers.

    It seemed too easy, and Dopp's method seemed simplistic. I re-ran the results using CNN's exit polling data. In each county, I took the number of registrations and assigned correctional factors based on the CNN poll to predict turnout among Republicans, Democrats, and independents. I then used the vote shares from the polls to predict a likely number of Republican votes per county. I compared this ‘expected' Republican vote to the actual Republican vote.

    The results are shocking. Overall, Bush received 2% fewer votes in counties with electronic touch-screen voting than expected. In counties with optical scanning, he received 16% more. This 16% would not be strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly. It is not. In 11 different counties, the ‘actual' Bush vote was at least twice higher than the expected vote. 13 counties had Bush vote tallies 50--100% higher than expected. In one county where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two thirds of the vote--three times more than predicted by my model.

    Again, polling can be wrong. It is difficult to believe it can be that wrong. Fortunately, however, we can test how wrong it would have to be to give the ‘actual' result.

    I tested two alternative scenarios to see how wrong CNN would have to have been to explain the election result. In the first, I assumed they had been wildly off the mark in the turnout figures--i.e. far more Republicans and independents had come out than Democrats. In the second I assumed the voting shares were completely wrong, and that the Republicans had been able to massively poach voters from the Democrat base.

    In the first scenario, I assumed 90% of Republicans and independents voted, and the remaining ballots were cast by Democrats. This explains the result in counties with optical scanning to within 5%. However, in this scenario Democratic turnout would have been only 51% in the optical scanning counties--barely exceeding half of Republican turnout. It also does not solve the enormous problems in individual counties. 7 counties in this scenario still have actual vote tallies for Bush that are at least 100% higher than predicted by the model--an extremely unlikely result.

    In the second scenario I assumed that Bush had actually got 100% of the vote from Republicans and 50% from independents (versus CNN polling results which were 93% and 41% respectively). If this gave enough votes for Bush to explain the county's results, I left the amount of Democratic registered voters ballots cast for Bush as they were predicted by CNN (14% voted for Bush). If this did not explain the result, I calculated how many Democrats would have to vote for Bush.

    In 41 of 52 counties, this did not explain the result and Bush must have gotten more than CNN's predicted 14% of Democratic ballots--not an unreasonable assumption by itself. However, in 21 counties more than 50% of Democratic votes would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result--in four counties, at least 70% would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely.

    The second rat

    A previously undiscovered species of rat, Republicanus cuyahogus, has been found in Ohio. Before the election, I wrote snide letters to a state legislator for Cuyahoga county who, according to media reports, was preparing an army of enforcers to keep ‘suspect' (read: minority) voters away from the polls. One of his assistants wrote me back very pleasant mails to the effect that they had no intention of trying to suppress voter turnout, and in fact only wanted to encourage people to vote.

    They did their job too well. According to the official statistics for Cuyahoga county, a number of precincts had voter turnout well above the national average: in fact, turnout was well over 100% of registered voters, and in several cases well above the total number of people who have lived in the precinct in the last century or so.

    In 30 precincts, more ballots were cast than voters were registered in the county. According to county regulations, voters must cast their ballot in the precinct in which they are registered. Yet in these thirty precincts, nearly 100.000 more people voted than are registered to vote -- this out of a total of 251.946 registrations. These are not marginal differences--this is a 39% over-vote. In some precincts the over-vote was well over 100%. One precinct with 558 registered voters cast nearly 9,000 ballots. As one astute observer noted, it's the ballot-box equivalent of Jesus' miracle of the fishes. Bush being such a man of God, perhaps we should not be surprised.

    What to do?

    This is not an idle statistical exercise. Either the raw data from two critical battleground states is completely erroneous, or something has gone horribly awry in our electoral system--again. Like many Americans, I was dissatisfied with and suspicious of the way the Florida recount was resolved in 2000. But at the same time, I was convinced of one thing: we must let the system work, and accept its result, no matter how unjust it might appear.

    With this acceptance, we placed our implicit faith in the Bush Administration that it would not abuse its position: that it would recognize its fragile mandate for what it was, respect the will of the majority of people who voted against them, and move to build consensus wherever possible and effect change cautiously when needed. Above all, we believed that both Democrats and Republicans would recognize the over-riding importance of revitalizing the integrity of the electoral system and healing the bruised faith of both constituencies.

    This faith has been shattered. Bush has not led the nation to unity, but ruled through fear and division. Dishonesty and deceit in areas critical to the public interest have been the hallmark of his Administration. I state this not to throw gratuitous insults, but to place the Florida and Ohio electoral results in their proper context. For the GOP to claim now that we must take anything on faith, let alone astonishingly suspicious results in a hard-fought and extraordinarily bitter election, is pure fantasy. It does not even merit discussion.

    The facts as I see them now defy all logical explanations save one--massive and systematic vote fraud. We cannot accept the result of the 2004 presidential election as legitimate until these discrepancies are rigorously and completely explained. From the Valerie Plame case to the horrors of Abu Ghraib, George Bush has been reluctant to seek answers and assign accountability when it does not suit his purposes. But this is one time when no American should accept not getting a straight answer. Until then, George Bush is still, and will remain, the ‘Accidental President' of 2000. One of his many enduring and shameful legacies will be that of seizing power through two illegitimate elections conducted on his brother's watch, and engineering a fundamental corruption at the very heart of the greatest democracy the world has known. We must not permit this to happen again.

    Colin Shea is author of "The Freezer Box"

    "The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing." The Tao Te Ching

    by hester on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:36:55 AM PDT

    •  Recounts (none / 0)

      Former Presidential candidates Badnarik and Cobb have raised the money for an Ohio recount, about $150,000, in four days, or so I see it reported.

      Let me put this on scale.  The Badnarik Presidential campaign in total raised $1 million by election day, and that was slightly more than the 2000 LP Presidential campaign raised.

      Had enough yet?

      by phillies on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:06:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yee ha! (none / 0)

    As an Indiana resident (Monroe, not Franklin county), I was truly disappointed that Baron Hill lost.  The smear campaign against him in the final days of the election was truly sickening - though I must say that Hill's campaign did not do a good enough job countering the huge, glossy, full-colored hate pamphlets that the Repubs kept sending me in the mail.

    Sondrel = Scoundrel and I'd love to see this election flip!

    by ShadowRunning on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:19:38 AM PDT

  •  Baron (none / 0)

    Baron's a good guy.  Due to the scummy Sodrel ads, I woke up each morning and checked to see if the Baron Hill Liberal Homosexual Mob had come to burn my flag overnight.

    Hill gives one of the great night-before-the-election rabble-rousing speeches.  He's a genuinely good guy, and a good fit for our district.  Sodrel reminds me of J.D. Hayworth.

    by lameduck on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:14:40 AM PDT

  •  I work in the e-voting industry (4.00 / 2)

    I have been working within the e-voting industry for over five years.  I have worked for the largest names in the industry at a relatively high level.  The dirty little secret that most everyone in the business knows, is that there are virtually NO elections held in this country with truly "certified" voting equipment.  

    What this means to voters is that without a review by an independent third party, a hack or a trojan can be easily inserted into the software.

    Here is how it could happen:
    Where: Alaska
    Race: '04 U.S. Senate
    Why:  One company (Diebold) developed the counting software for the entire state.

    In Alaska the U.S. Senate race was very close. In theory, the outcome of which party controlled the Senate, could have depended on the outcome of the Alaska Senate race.  

    Alaska is a small jurisdiction where fewer than 1,000 votes could have changed the outcome of the race and thus potential control of the Senate (and Supreme Court).

    We spend hundreds of millions per election cycle to influence who controls Congress.  It is a much less costly investment to spend only a couple of million and pay off (or blackmail) an employee to simply insert an "if/than" statement into the counting sofware.  (If "Democrat" than change to "Republican".)

    To be very clear, I have no evidence that this has happened.  However, since the proprietary software is not certified for every election there is a clear probability that this will happen, if it has not already.  

    Certification documents are a matter of public record.  Interested parties could request the information from their local Elections offical.  Then compare the certified version (and date) of their jurisdiction's voting system with the actual version used on Election Day.  If it does not match up, then you will know that your vote was counted on uncertified equipment, which is against the law in most states.  

    by evoting insider on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:40:17 AM PDT

    •  Are you suspicious? (none / 0)

      by nowness on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:29:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really, I will tell you why... (none / 0)

        The individuals who run these companies are not techies.  In most cases they had to rapidly transform their traditionally paper (punch card/optical scan) companies to become a technology company in order meet the demand for e-voting, post-2000.

        It would very hard to keep an organized, planned, multi-person hack secret. (As most secrets among more than one person are not kept.)  These companies would not want to risk their entire company for the sake of one election.

        There is a concern however, that at some point, one individual may be prone to blackmail or bribe.  If that person is at the wrong position at the wrong time, there is no question it could open the door to comprehensive vote fraud.  

        by evoting insider on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry if this is old news (none / 0)

    But I just saw it yesterday and don't remember seeing it posted here.  It's what I've been saying all along, that Kerry and Co. are seriously looking into the possibility of election fraud, but they are deliberately maintaining a low profile because they don't want a media circus like the one in 2000.  The mainstream corporate media machine just won't spin it for Kerry, just like it didn't for Gore.

    Think Kerry Is Not Involved In This Fight?  Think Again.
    by Betsy R. Vasquez

    INSIDE THE ELECTION FRAUD BATTLE

    When Senator John Kerry (D-MA) talked about how his policy would be different in Iraq, he kept saying, in effect, `It's the how, stupid.'  He said repeatedly he would fight a "smarter" war.

    Flash forward to today.  Following the election, there was a problem apparent.  The exit polling didn't match the ballot count, and many reasons for that began to become apparent.

    John Kerry was faced with three options.  One, fight on publicly rather than conceding and put the nation into a media frenzied limbo.  Two, concede and go on with his life, turning his back on his promise to his supporters to ensure that "every vote will be counted."

    Most people are assuming that John Kerry opted for the second of these while John Edwards, his runningmate, opted for the first, and since Kerry was the big dog, he won out.  But people who think this are thinking in Bush terms, all or nothing, either you are for the war or against it, that either Senator Kerry was for recounting the votes or he was against it.

    The reality is, John Kerry has chosen a third, much smarter course - just as he said he would all along.

    John Kerry realized that to launch a public campaign calling the