radtimes
About Those Election Results
Sun Nov 14, 2004 23:06
64.140.159.79

About Those Election Results

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/opinion/14sun1.html

Published: November 14, 2004

There have been a flood of reports, rumors and theories over the last 12 days about problems with the presidential election. The blogosphere, in particular, has been full of questions: Why did electronic voting machines in Ohio add nearly 4,000 phantom votes for President Bush, and why did machines in Florida mysteriously start to count backward? Why did the official vote totals for Ohio's largest county seem to suggest that there were more votes cast than registered voters? Why did election officials in yet another part of Ohio lock down the building where votes were being counted, turning away the press and public?

Defenders of the system have been quick to dismiss questions like these as the work of "conspiracy theorists," but that misses the point. Until our election system is improved - with better mechanics and greater transparency - we cannot expect voters to have full confidence in the announced results.

Electronic voting proved to be, as critics warned, a problem. There is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale. But this country should have elections in which the public has no reason to worry whether every vote was counted properly, and we're still not there. In Franklin County, Ohio, one precinct reported nearly 4,000 votes for President Bush, although the precinct had fewer than 800 voters. In Broward County, Florida election officials noticed that when the absentee ballots were being tabulated, the vote totals began to go down instead of up. Voters in several states reported that when they selected John Kerry, it turned into a vote for President Bush.

These problems were all detected and fixed, but there is no way of knowing how many other machine malfunctions did not come to light, since most machines do not have a reliable way of double-checking for errors. When a precinct mistakenly adds nearly 4,000 votes to a candidate's total, it is likely to be noticed, but smaller inaccuracies may not be. There is also no way to be sure that the nightmare scenario of electronic voting critics did not occur: votes surreptitiously shifted from one candidate to another inside the machines, by secret software.

It's important to make it clear that there is no evidence such a thing happened, but there will be concern and conspiracy theories until all software used in elections is made public. Voters who use electronic machines are entitled to a voter-verified paper trail, which Nevadans got this year, so they can be sure their votes were accurately recorded.

The outrageous decision by Warren County, Ohio, to lock down the building where votes were being counted is an extreme example of another serious problem with the elections: a lack of transparency. In some states, reporters are barred from polling places. The wild rumors about Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where the official results appeared to include an extra 90,000 votes, were a result of its bizarrely complicated method of posting election results, which is different in even- and odd-numbered years. The nation needs to develop an election culture in which officials in every part of the country automatically keep things as open - and as simple - as humanly possible.

Besides election equipment that is easy to check for error, the strongest defense against conspiracy theorists is election officials who act with openness and integrity. Here, too, the current system is at fault. Ohio and Florida, two of the key states in the election, have highly partisan secretaries of state who favored the Republicans all year in their rulings. If we want the voters to trust the umpires, we need umpires who don't take sides.

.
====================================================

VOTEGATE 2004
Links to Vote Fraud Websites & Info.
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/VOTEGATE.HTM

Our Readers React to 'Votegate'

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111404.html

November 14, 2004

We have received dozens of e-mails from readers about our articles on possible voting fraud in the Nov. 2 election. Some criticized us for contributing to baseless suspicions. But many more readers said they share our opinion that a careful investigation into alleged voting irregularities is warranted.

While we can't respond to each e-mail individually, we want our readers to know that we appreciate your interest. We also are encouraged by the number of Americans who have expressed determination to revitalize the nation's democratic institutions. Below are samples of the recent e-mails and some of our responses. We have not used full names to protect the privacy of our readers.

On 11/9, David wrote:

A recent article at Consortiumnews said "Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans" I did a quick tally of registered Republicans in the first six small counties that I saw were predominately Democratic-Baker, Bradford, Calhoun, Columbia, Desoto and Dixie and came up with about 24,253 registered Republicans. In those counties Bush got 45,767 votes. That's about 21,514 more votes than there were Republicans in just those six counties- so it seems statewide, unless my arithmetic is wrong, there would have been considerably more votes going to Bush, possibly in error, than the 20,000 mentioned. Have I calculated something incorrectly?

Our response:

There are many small and rural Florida counties, mostly in the north of the state, where Democratic registration has been much higher than Republican registration for many years but have voted Republican, particularly at the top of the ticket. But these counties are relatively small and are offset in part by tallies in the larger counties throughout the state.

Even so, there were 14 counties with at least 100,000 registered voters that gave Bush more votes than there were registered Republicans – notably the swing counties of Hillsborough (Tampa) and Orange (Orlando) and the Democratic counties of Leon (Tallahassee) and Alachua (Gainesville). If an examination of systematic voter fraud were done, it would make sense to focus on these 14 countries where Bush's totals were unexpectedly high.

On 11/9, Frank wrote:

Do you think the optical scanners are the source of fraud, or just happen to be located in rural (pro-Bush) counties?

Our response:

Optical scanners were not used just in Bush counties, but throughout the state. Some useful information on the optical scanner issue can be found at this Web site: http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm .

It is interesting to note that 44 out of the 47 counties that recorded more Bush votes than registered Republicans used optical scanners and of the 13 counties that for the first time turned out more GOP votes than registered GOP voters, every county but Hillsborough used optical scanners.

The good news here is that the use of optical scanners should mean that there is a paper trail. If there is sufficient public demand, investigators could at least audit selected precincts to see if the electronic totals and the paper ballots match.

On 11/9, Ola wrote:

Examine the states that are strongly Republican. They can also give clues. For example, I recall (maybe erroneously) that in 2000, the Dems in Texas got 32% of the total vote; however this year, they got 38%, which means that the Repubs lost votes in this state. Of course, no one had any reason to play with Texas's votes, but it is funny that we went against the grain in some states, especially since Bush is "our boy." I know the Dems were motivated by the redistricting situation, but still, it seems that voters were only motivated to vote Repub in "certain" states.

Our response:

John Kerry did earn nearly 400,000 more votes in Texas than Al Gore earned in 2000, however his percentage of the vote total was about the same – 38.25 percent for Kerry and 37.98 percent for Gore. Outside of Florida, where Bush earned more than 1 million more new votes over his 2000 performance, Texas saw the second largest increase for Bush with more than 700,000 new votes.

A good source for historical voting totals is http://www.uselectionatlas.org . For some of the data on the site, you need to sign up as a member. But, for those who want to dig into the county-by-county break out in each state over many election cycles, it is well worth the fee.

On 11/9, Drew wrote:

I certainly am deeply disturbed that Bush won, and would love to believe that he and/or his operatives fixed the results, but at least some of the evidence you provide just doesn't add up. You make the statement, "national exits polls show(ing) Kerry winning by 51 percent to 48 percent" but when I checked the link you provided to the CNN exit poll, it shows that Bush received 55% of the 46% of the voters who were male (25.3%) plus 48% of the 54% of the voters who were female (25.92%) for a total of 51.22% of the vote. …

Of course this doesn't preclude the possibility that the reported exit polling data have been altered, but you don't seem to be suggesting this.

Our response:

CNN did revise its exit poll data to make the numbers conform with the "actual" vote tallies. That approach may seem to violate the integrity of the original figures which showed Kerry winning. But CNN apparently was operating under the assumption that the "actual" vote totals are correct and therefore the exit polls must be adjusted accordingly. CNN's approach does eliminate the value of using exit polls as a test against voter fraud, which is how exit polls are used around the world.

On 11/10, Marcy wrote:

Thank you for Sam Parry's November 9 article, "Bush's Incredible Vote Tallies." I applaud you for a straightforward account of the voting discrepancies, indicating the enormity of voter fraud that occurred on 11/2.

What is it going to take though for the media to come out and simply tell it like it is? The majority of people in this country, at this point, know Bush and Co. for the liars, thugs, and thieves that they are. What more proof is needed before the press stops conspiring with them? The powers behind the throne don't have to worry about repercussions when they blatantly steal elections and assume office while ineffectual "investigations" give the appearance of propriety and responsible journalism or oversight.

The continued degrading of the electoral process and of the country as a whole, as aided and abetted by the press, is beyond sad, disgusting and shameful. It is profoundly tragic.

Our response:

For nearly a decade, we have been writing about the need for media reform. Indeed, we started Consortiumnews in 1995 because we felt that many important news stories were being ignored or underplayed by the existing media outlets.

Our analysis is that the Republicans and conservatives achieved an advantage in the media wars when they began investing heavily in media outlets, starting in the late 1970s. As the conservative media grew, the mainstream press tilted increasingly to the right as well. For various reasons, liberals largely stayed on the sidelines. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

In recent years, Internet journals and blogs have helped report news that is ignored in the mainstream and conservative media. There also have been a few hopeful signs that the liberals are finally recognizing the need to address the media imbalance. The launching of Air America Radio earlier this year represented a halting first step to compete in the sphere of AM talk radio. But much more needs to be done to restore some balance in the U.S. media.

On 11/12, Randall wrote:

Why don't you cry babies just give it up? The public rejected the ideology you advocate. Get a life.

Our response:

On the matter of voting irregularities in the choice of a U.S. president, it would seem reasonable to expect that the American people should have full confidence in the vote tallies. That's especially true after Election 2000 when the popular vote loser, George W. Bush, was installed in office by his political allies on the U.S. Supreme Court. We will continue to follow and report the facts as they develop.

Many find election results hard to accept at face value — JAMES BAKER, Sun Nov 14 23:09