Slashdot Mirror

"During the 2000 race, Bush's team quelled the allegations by stating that Bush had not used illegal drugs in the past 25 years."

So there. Former crackhead.

Actually, the fraud was so obvious in some places you don't need a CS degree to know something was wrong.

Here's one: Palm Beach County Logs 88,000 More Votes Than Voters, which from this web-site you can see would almost definitely benefit Kerry.

I decided to search for a second one, but couldn't find one. I'm fairly certain I could find a second one if I really, really tried, but don't see it's worth the effort. That said, I could easily find 5 instances (and probably 10) where it benefitted the Republicans. That's where my other conspiracy theories fit in! :)

(I really just like to argue - I voted for Kerry and was sad that Bush won, although I don't think it spells the beginning of Armageddon like some of my more liberal colleagues.)

November 5, 2004 04:56 PM

Update: Palm Beach County has updated their numbers and added 91,802 absentee ballots and 1,041 provisional ballots. Note that the vote totals for president only increased by 1,543 votes. To view an archived copy of the previous report, click here. While Palm Beach County appears to have accounted for the discrepancy, this underscores the flaws in the system and data compilation.

1. Common Dreams report: Nice. Common Dreams. An extremely "progressive" (in their own words) news source with rave reviews from Bill Moyers and (go figure) Ralph Nader, which Don Imus (of MSNBC) calls "a must read from the left". Hmmm....
2. optically scanned votes have a strange anomoly: From UsTogether.org, a web site dedicated to "peace, democracy, and well-being". The list of local resources display a myriad of internet sites dedicated to the Democratic and Green parties, and ONLY to those parties. Hardly an unbiased news source.
3. 88,000 more votes than there were voters: While I couldn't find a clear agenda on their site, the article referenced in the posting has already been updated with the fact that Palm Beach County had no such discrepancy. If you look at the page that the Washington Dispatch quotes, the actual numbers from Palm Beach County are quite different. In fact, there were 544,378 votes cast for President from 547,340 voters that turned out, showing 2,962 voters that never cast a vote for President, as opposed to the 88,000 votes over voter turnout that the article claims. Interesting...
4. discounted 50,000 voters: CmdrTaco claims this took place in LaPorte, Michigan ... when it actually took place in LaPorte, Indiana. This shows a complete lack of effort to verify this data. LaPorte was, in fact, a problem. They believe it was due to a power surge of some sort. They are still working on sorting through the mess there and are still counting ballots and working to certify the election there. At any rate, to state they "discounted 50,000 voters" is not only misleading, it's flat out wrong. In fact, the current data from LaPorte, INDIANA states that they had 43,278 voters voting (with 42,582 votes being cast for President) with just over 79,309 voters registered. That's a 55% turnout for that county, which is just about on par with the rest of the state. Whie I have yet to see viable precinct-by-precinct data for that county, it's clear that "discounting 50,000 voters" is not what happened at all. Incidentally, for all you Kerry fans out there, Kerry actually had more votes in this county.
5. gave Bush an extra 4,000 votes: Oh. My. $DIETY. The county in which this took place, still shows more votes for KERRY than for Bush. However, this is actually a problem if you look at the (still unofficial) data from Franklin County. The key here is that the document here referenced is UNOFFICIAL, and even CNN (left as they are) admits to that. The offical tally for Bush in that precinct is 365 votes. Perhaps the headline should read "Glitch gave Bush extra votes in Ohio According to an Unofficial Document That is Only Used by the Media".
6. counting backwards: Again, a valid probl

There were a ton of groups ready to swoop in and challenge result they didnt agree with.

That's the true story here. These types of actions are reprehensible.

What exactly is reprehensible about challenging and verifying America's voting procedures and results? I don't see any possible harm from the challenge, and I see a potential benefit that could come from inconsistantsies being brought to light.

For instance: "According to the official election results posted on the Palm Beach County election website, 542,835 ballots were cast for a presidential candidate while only 454,427 voters turned out for the election (including absentee). This leaves a discrepancy of 88,408 votes cast for the presidential candidates."

The above strikes me as a problem with our voting system. Problems such as these will never be corrected if there's no one challenging and verifying the election results.

P.S. Yes, I know that Palm Beach county has apparently accounted for the discrepancy by adding the absentee and provisional ballots to that 454,427 number. But if there's no one asking why the numbers didn't originally add up, then we'll never know if there's a problem.

The e-touch optical scan comparison referenced as 'strange anomaly' may be explained if one considers that counties with small populations used optical machines and those with large populations used the e-touch machines. Bush's campaigners focused on the demographic more likely to be found in rural areas. The red vs blue by county results and the swing from expected to actual vote in rural Florida suggest it was a pretty successful campaign. I know some of the progressive democrats are painting this as an ignorant, rural, right-wing christian uprising. The variation in swing vote as a function of population size, supports at least the 'rural' aspect of their claimed uprising.

The remainder has been pretty well covered by other /. posters

In the very article referenced by commandantTaco one reads (if on is able) "...Palm Beach County appears to have accounted for the discrepancy..."

I guess the article from Aa href="http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2004/ 11/04/news/news02.txt">Laporte Michigan might lead one to believe: poll workers experienced a huge operator error; election systems and software only sold ONE system and it's fscked; one, the other, or both of the aforementioned parties conspired to screw up the count. The traditional trick is extra vote, not tossing a huge number in the $hitcan. My bet is operatorerror. I mean no one ever screws up when using a computer!

Reading the Broward County article we learn, "Bad numbers showed up only in running tallies through the day, not the final one."

The bit from NM doesn't reflect much weirdness. Obviously all those folks that were too ignorant to check their paper MUST have been Bush supporters.

Total Registration 729,575
Total Turnout 547,340 75.02%
Election Day Turnout 404,666

Total 544,378 100.00%

Steve Gardner didn't like Kerry because Kerry didn't like him, allegedly cussing him out when he mowed down a little twelve year old boy who he said had a gun, upon which Kerry rushed out, looked up at Gardner in the boat tub operating the 50 caliber machine guns, called him a son of a bitch, and said, "I ought to court martial you." No, that didn't make for a fast friendship.

But every one of his crewmates but this one man...every one, had glowing words of praise for John Kerry, saying things like: I knew back then in Vietnam that the skipper, John Kerry, was bound for high places. Stand up for John Kerry the same way he stands up for veterans. He took care of all of us...he really did. He made good decisions, I believe proper decisions, and the fact that we all returned alive is a good indication that they were the right decisions. Always, when there's a new guy on the boat, you check him out...It only took me a few days...we knew we had somebody special that cared for us...we bonded! What I saw back then was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues...and he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way. I figured with the abilities he had, he was going to go high, but I didn't have any idea about him running for president. Humble seaman. The decisions that he made saved our lives. He never shot from the hip when it came to decisions...he'd always confront problems head on. I never saw John back down from anything. He wouldn't let you go randomly down the river shooting up everything in sight.

The One And Only

When Swift Boat Veterans For The Truth leapt out to savage Kerry's military record, I thought they'd have more people who actually served with or on Kerry's boat. Here was O'Neill on Monday:

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

Somewhere in there, I thought they'd have actual people who served with Kerry. You know, to add some shred of credibility to the obscenely partisan attack on his record. Via the Boston Herald:

The only of Kerry's crewmates to criticize him, Steve Gardner, yesterday said Kerry "made indecisive moves'' that put their boat in jeopardy.

But Kerry crewmate Drew Whitlow called that charge "totally false.'' "They're entitled to their opinions, (but) I served alongside him,'' Whitlow said.

Yes, of the people to actually serve with Kerry, a single one is now criticizing him. Of the people who had direct knowledge of his actions and activities, only one is speaking out against him. Out of two hundred people plus in this group, only one actually served with Kerry. That, to me, says more about this entire enterprise than anything else.

I am "dude", to whom you responded. The numbers I quoted originated here: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/opinion/article_ 8756.shtml. I note that Mr Blair's numbers, in the article you reference, have not been confirmed (see last paragraph).

In any case, I stand by my original point, which is that MPI really, really sucks right now. Maybe once this mis-founded 'war on terrorism' is over, the cost of oil, in lives, will drop to only include those of the poor sods who work at the wells.

And if you read enough articles, you'd know that what he said last week was plenty accurate and his assessment was more accurate than many that supposedly "know football." But keep carrying that liberal banner way up high if it makes you feel better about yourself. Just don't be surprised when others give you about the same credibility as we give Rob Enderle.

An insightful opinion piece by CK Rairden, which can be found here, makes an important point. Howard Dean is loved by the most far-left winged Democrats, who would do anything to see Bush out of office. However, it is exactly this attitude that would guarantee failure for the Democrat Party should Howard Dean win the party's nomination, as it would ensure a second Bush term as President.

Actually, somebody is calling to repeal the 22nd Amendment, but it's not Bush.

I think this sums it up.