Skip to comments.Stop the Election Day cheating -- or it will spread further (DUmmie Sources Cited)
Posted on 03/16/2006 4:13:01 AM PST by PJ-Comix
If you bet on a race horse, and later heard about serious allegations that the winning horse may have been illegally doped to gain an advantage, would you demand an investigation?
You know the answer. It would depend on whether or not you bet on the winning horse.
That's what has made much of America so hesitant to demand accountability regarding a growing ledger of allegations that the November 2004 election was so badly tainted that one could fairly question the outcome of the biggest race of all -- the one for the Oval Office. Anyone who questions the reliability of the election is assumed to be a sour-grapes bad sport who has fallen into the thrall of aluminum-foil helmeted conspiracy theorists. And the media, ever tremulous about affirming their critics' allegations of liberal bias, would sooner remove a hot radiator cap than make a mission of investigating the anomalies.
But the anomalies were real. Many have been documented. They kept thousands in swing states from voting, and prevented thousands of ballots from being counted.
Not incidentally, most of the 2004 anomalies benefited one party.
What stands out in the analysis of 2004 voting practices in the critical state of Ohio, says Columbus State Community College professor Bob Fitrakis, ``is the asymmetrical nature of the anomalies. Virtually every single anomaly tends to favor Bush, just overwhelmingly.''
Fitrakis, a lawyer who holds a Ph.D in political science, has done considerable research into the critical Ohio election, which Bush officially won by 118,599 votes to recapture the presidency. Fitrakis will present his evidence in a book, What happened in Ohio: A documentary record of theft and fraud in the 2004 election, coauthored by Harvey Wasserman and Steve Rosenfeld, to be released in September.
Among their findings:
Four percent of the 5.6 million votes cast in Ohio -- some 224,000 ballots -- were not counted for various reasons. Nearly two-thirds of those disallowed votes came from urban, heavily Democratic districts.
In certain heavily Republican counties, John Kerry received fewer votes than obscure Democrats running in statewide elections. In Butler County, for example, a retired black judge from Cleveland in a long-shot race for state Supreme Court got 61,000 votes. Kerry got 54,000.
''The drop-off [in votes] was at the top of the ticket, which is abnormal,'' Fitrakis said.
Voter turnout in two precincts exceeded 100 percent of the voters registered. In one precinct, 679 out of 689 voters reportedly cast ballots -- yet, ''In a couple of hours, we were able to find 25 people who said they didn't vote or were out of town,'' Fitrakis said.
(See a 2004 article Fitrakis wrote for The Columbus Free Press at http://www.freepress. org/columns/display/3/2004/983.)
Electoral problems are hardly limited to Ohio. Brad Friedman, the proprietor of the Brad Blog website (www.BradBlog.com), has documented mounting suspicion of the veracity and reliability of electronic voting machines used across the nation.
Friedman told me he blames the reticence of the mainstream media to tackle the issue for the public's lack of fervor about what he sees as a threat to the nation's electoral integrity.
''The people who hear about the information, get it,'' he said. ``But they're just not hearing it enough, and that's because of the media.''
He cites an October 2005 report by the nonpartisan General Accountability Office which concluded that the nation's electronic voting system is rife with flaws, weak security controls and inconsistent voter-system standards.
Had you heard of this report? I hadn't, until Friedman referred me to it. And yet California just recertified a Diebold Co. voting machine even though it contains computer language rejected by federal guidelines because it makes the machines vulnerable to hacking.
Until the public demands changes, we'll continue to be plagued by partisan supervisors of election who -- as in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 -- simultaneously hold high positions in a top candidate's campaign. By electronic vote-counting machines lacking proper security controls or any way to recheck the vote afterward. By voter-purging tactics and preventable Election Day obstacles that mysteriously hurt one party more than another.
There's good reason for Bush supporters and rock-ribbed Republicans to demand corrective action to prevent the anomalies that surely compromised the 2004 election: The risk that failure to curb the abuses will encourage the competition to resort to similar tactics. The last thing anyone wants is a cheater's arms race. Either you stop the cheating, or you encourage more of it.
The key is in the first sentence - "SERIOUS allegations."
I'll listen to serious allegations. I won't listen to moonbat crapola.
how come this article would not have been written if lurch won?
In the last couple of days Limbaugh mentioned some interesting info on this subject. Some city, Milwaukee?, just purged over 100,000 people from its voter rolls. Supposedly they all moved.
Milwaukee's a Dem stronghold, ain't it?
Steinback (regular Miami Herald columnist) is NOT interested in Democrat cheating. You won't be see him writing about KNOWN Democrat cheating in Milwaukee or ILLEGALLY keeping the polls open after closing in Milwaukee. No, he will only go on a wild goose hunt after elusive anomalies that are pointed out to him from Loony Left Blogs.
That's fine :) His lack of interest is telling. How are the paper's circulation figs, do you know?
Compared to the 2000 election, in 2004 President Bush's numbers as a percentage of the votes cast for all candidates, went up in 47 of the 50 states, and the District. I've never seen that fact reported anywhere by anybody but if you check out the certified results, that's what you will find.
The allegations used by this writer are the same allegations raised by the Democrats and not one allegation raised by the Republicans is mentioned. Talk about being biased.
It was recently announced that Knight-Ridder was SELLING the Miami Herald. That came as quite a shock to me because ever since I was a kid I've read the Miami Herald and it was ALWAYS a Knight-Ridder newspaper. I think it was even their FLAGSHIP newspaper. It was sold to McLatchey (sp?).
Noy is Milwaukee a democratic stronghold, it's also less than an hour drive from Chicago --- AND Wisconsin has had about the loosest election day standards in the country. Show up at the polls, and get to vote. No photo ID even required.
The GOP has been trying to tighten that law, and democrats from the Governor on down are opposing it -- they even have been advertising of TV and Radio.
That said -- I still think ANY election fraud, from the left or the Right should be treated very severly -- 8-10 year prison terms sounds about right to me.
It just COULDN'T be that you're losing on the basis of your Liberal principles and dogma, now could it? There's no way. Anyone that hears the Liberal agenda, just KNOWS that it is a common-sense approach, right?
These libbies need to get out into the real world and find out that there is a pretty large group of people here in the United States that don't think like they do.
Gee, go figure.
Works for me. I consider voter fraud equivalent to treason.
Now why did they leave out Philadephia and Milwaukee?
The day Gore began attacking the election system, I was sickened and remain so to this day.
Truth is All got an article in the Miami Herald? Good for TIA.
Uh oh, one of them. He wouldn't lie, would he? And from Google: "The Columbus Free Press is a progressive newspaper and website devoted to reporting on social justice issues. 'Speaking Truth to Power'.... Since 1970."
I see. Nah, he wouldn't lie.
Here's a link to the Berkeley study that made big waves at DU and DailyKos:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.