Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Stolen Election

Three Studies Votergate

Home
Next Up 2006 Election
Trac Syr.edu
Ohio Uncovered
Three Studies Votergate
Vote Watch
Library Listings
Bev Harris Election Investigations In Florida Nov 16 2004
Unofficial Results Recount Ohio
Recounting
A Growing Mountain of Evidence
A Real Page Turner - More Articles

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688

By Alan Waldman
Published 11/18/04
 

Despite mainstream media attempts to kill the story, talk radio and the Internet are abuzz with suggestions that John Kerry was elected president on Nov. 2 – but Republican election officials made it difficult for millions of Democrats to vote while employees of four secretive, GOP-bankrolled corporations rigged electronic voting machines and then hacked central tabulating computers to steal the election for George W. Bush.

The Bush administration's "fix" of the 2000 election debacle (the Help America Vote Act) made crooked elections considerably easier, by foisting paperless electronic voting on states before the bugs had been worked out or meaningful safeguards could be installed.

Crying foul this time around isn't just the province of whiny Democrats. Consider that The Wall Street Journal recently revealed that "Verified Voting, a group formed by a Stanford University professor to assess electronic voting, has collected 31,000 reports of election fraud and other problems."

University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. Steven Freeman, in his November 2004 paper "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," says that the odds that the discrepancies between predicted [exit poll] results and actual vote counts in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania could have been due to chance or random error are 250 million to 1. "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion," writes Freeman, "but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate." Unlike Europe, where citizens count the ballots, in the United States employees of a highly secretive Republican-leaning company, ES&S, managed every aspect of the 2004 election. That included everything from registering voters, printing ballots and programming voting machines to tabulating votes (often with armed guards keeping the media and members of the public who wished to witness the count at bay) and reporting the results, for 60 million voters in 47 states, according to Christopher Bollyn, writing in American Free Press. Most other votes were counted by three other firms that are snugly in bed with the GOP.

This election is not the first suspicious venture into electronic voting. In Georgia, in November 2002, Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes led by 11 percent and Democratic Sen. Max Cleland was in front by 5 percent just before the election – the first ever conducted entirely on touch-screen electronic machines, and counted entirely by company employees, rather than public officials – but mysterious election-day swings of 16 percent and 12 percent defeated both of these popular incumbents. In Minnesota, Democrat Walter Mondale (replacing beloved Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash), lost in an amazing last-moment 11 percent vote swing recorded on electronic machines. Then, in 2003, what's known as "black box voting" helped Arnold Schwarzenegger – who had deeply offended female, Latino and Jewish voters – defeat a popular Latino Democrat who substantially led in polls a week before the election.

A RAT IS SMELLED

Realizing that the 2004 election results are suspect, many prominent people and groups have begun to demand action. Recently, six important Congressmen, including three on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the U.S. Comptroller General to investigate the efficacy of new electronic voting devices.

Black Box Voting – the nonprofit group which spearheaded much of the pre-election testing (and subsequent criticism) of electronic machines that found them hackable in 90 seconds – is filing the largest Freedom of Information Act inquiry in U.S. history. The organization's Bev Harris claims, "Fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines."

Florida Democratic congressional candidate Jeff Fisher charged that he has and will show the FBI evidence that Florida results were hacked; he also claims to have knowledge of who hacked it – in 2004 and in the 2002 Democratic primary (so Jeb Bush would not have to run against the popular Janet Reno). Fisher also believes that most Democratic candidates nationwide were harmed by GOP hacking and other dirty tactics – particularly in swing states.

The Green and Libertarian Parties, as well as Ralph Nader, are demanding an Ohio recount, because of voting fraud, suppression and disenfranchisement. Recounts are also being sought in New Hampshire, Nevada and Washington.

Although the Internet is full of stories of election fraud, and major media in England, Canada and elsewhere have investigated the story, you'll find almost nothing in the major U.S. media. "I have been told by sources that are fairly high up in the media – particularly TV – that there is now a lockdown on this story," says Harris. "It's officially 'Let's move on' time."

On Nov. 6, Project Censored Award-winning author Thom Hartmann said, "So far, the only national 'mainstream' media outlet to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seemed to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed."

VOTE STEALING 101

Votes collected by electronic machines (and by optical scan equipment that reads traditional paper ballots) are sent via modem to a central tabulating computer, which counts the votes on Windows software. Therefore, anyone who knows how to operate an Excel spreadsheet and who is given access to the central tabulation machine can, in theory, change election totals.

On a CNBC cable TV program, Black Box Voting exec Harris showed guest host Howard Dean how to alter vote totals within 90 seconds, by entering a two-digit code in a hidden program on Diebold's election software. Harris declared, "This is not a 'bug' or accidental oversight; it is there on purpose."

A quartet of companies control the U.S. vote count. Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and SAIC are all hard-wired into the Bush campaign and power structure. Diebold chief Walden O'Dell is a top Bush fund-raiser. According to "online anarchist community" Infoshop.org, "At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at 'rival' ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy, a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement, which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy." Sequoia is owned by a partner member of the Carlyle Group, which is believed to have dictated foreign policy in both Bush administrations and has employed former President Bush for quite a while.

All early Tuesday indicators predicted a Kerry landslide. Zogby International (which predicted the 2000 outcome more accurately than any national pollster) did exit polling which predicted a 100-electoral vote triumph for Kerry. He saw Kerry winning crucial Ohio by 4 percent.

Princeton professor Sam Wang, whose meta-analysis had shown the election to be close in the week before the election, began coming up with dramatic numbers for Kerry in the day before and day of the election. At noon EST on Monday, Nov. 1, he predicted a Kerry win by a 108-vote margin.

In the Iowa Electronic Markets, where "investors" put their money where their mouths are and wager real moolah on election outcome "contracts," Bush led consistently for months before the election – often by as much as 60 percent to 39 percent. But at 7 p.m. CST on Nov. 2, 76.6 percent of the last hour's traders had gone to Kerry, with only 20.1 percent plunking their bucks down on Bush. They knew something.

As the first election returns came in, broadcasters were shocked to see that seemingly safe Bush states like Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina were being judged as "too close to call." At 7:28 EST, networks broadcast that Ohio and Florida favored Kerry by 51 percent to 49 percent.

In his research paper, Steven Freeman reports that exit polls showed Kerry had been elected. He was leading in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. But later, in 10 of 11 battleground states, the tallied margins differed from the predicted margins – and in every one the shift favored Bush.

In 10 states where there were verifiable paper trails – or no electronic machines – the final results hardly differed from the initial exit polls. In non-paper-trail states, however, there were significant differences. Florida saw a shift from Kerry up by 1 percent in the exit polls to Bush up by 5 percent at close of voting. In Ohio, Kerry went from up 3 percent to down 3 percent. Exit polls also had Kerry winning the national popular vote by 3 percent.

In close Senate races, changes between the exit poll results and the final tallies cost Democrats anticipated seats in Kentucky (a 13 percent swing to the GOP), Alaska, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, South Dakota and possibly Pennsylvania – as well as enough House seats to retake control of the chamber.

Center for Research on Globalization's Michael Keefer states, "The National Election Pool's own data – as transmitted by CNN on the evening of November 2 and the morning of November 3 – suggest very strongly that the results of the exit polls were themselves fiddled late on November 2 in order to make their numbers conform with the tabulated vote tallies."

How do we know the fix was in? Keefer says the total number of respondents at 9 p.m. was well over 13,000 and at 1:36 a.m. it had risen less than 3 percent – to 13,531 total respondents. Given the small increase in respondents, this 5 percent swing to Bush is mathematically impossible. In Florida, at 8:40 p.m., exit polls showed a near dead heat but the final exit poll update at 1:01 a.m. gave Bush a 4 percent lead. This swing was mathematically impossible, because there were only 16 more respondents in the final tally than in the earlier one.

FLORIDA FIASCO II

Kathy Dopp's eye-opening examination of Florida's county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered by party affiliation (http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm) suggests systematic and widespread election fraud in 47 of the state's 67 counties. This did not occur so much in the touch-screen counties, where public scrutiny would naturally be focused, but in counties where optically screened paper ballots were fed into a central tabulator PC, which is highly vulnerable to hacking. In these optical-scan counties, had GOP registrants voted Republican, Democratic registrants gone for Kerry and everyone registered showed up to vote, Bush would have received 1,337,242 votes. Instead, his reported vote total there was 1,950,213! That discrepancy (612,971) is nearly double Bush's winning margin in the state (380,952).

Colin Shea of Zogby International analyzed and double-checked Dopp's figures and confirmed that optical-scan counties gave Bush 16 percent more votes than he should have gotten. "This 16 percent would not be strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly," Shea explains, but it is not. In 11 different counties, the "actual" Bush tallies were 50-100 percent higher than expected. In one county, where 88 percent of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote – three times more than predicted by his statistical model.

In 47 Florida counties, the number of presidential votes exceeded the number of registered voters. Palm Beach County recorded 90,774 more votes than voters and Miami-Dade had 51,979 more, while relatively honest Orange County had only 1,648 more votes than voters. Overall, Florida reported 237,522 more presidential votes (7.59 million) than citizens who turned out to cast ballots (7.35 million).

There were thousands of complaints about Florida voting. Broward County electronic voting machines counted up to 32,500 and then started counting backward. This glitch, which existed in the 2002 election but was never fixed, overturned the exit-poll-predicted results of a gambling referendum. In several Florida counties, early-morning voters reported ballot boxes that already had an unusually large quantity of ballots in them. In Florida and five other states, according to Canada's Globe and Mail, "the wrong candidate appeared on their touch-screen machine's checkout screen" after the person had voted.

Republicans have argued that the Florida counties with majority Democratic registration that voted overwhelmingly for Bush were all conservative "Dixiecrat" bastions in northern Florida, and that all the reported totals were accurate. But Olbermann demonstrated that many of these crossover states voted Republican for the first time. He poked another hole in the Dixiecrat theory when he noted that in Democratic counties where Bush scored big, people also supported highly Democratic measures – such as raising the state minimum wage $1 above the federal level.

Moreover, 18 switchover counties were not in the Panhandle or near the Georgia border, but were scattered throughout the state. For instance, Hardee County (between Bradenton and Sebring) registered 63.8 percent Democratic but officially gave Bush 135 percent more votes than Kerry.

WIDESPREAD PROBLEMS

Voters Unite! detailed 303 specific election problems, including 84 complaints of machine malfunctions in 22 states, 24 cases of registration fraud in 14 states, 20 abusive voter challenge situations in 10 states, U.S. voters in 18 states and Israel experiencing absentee ballot difficulties, 10 states with provisional ballot woes, 22 cases of malfeasance in 13 states, 10 charges of voter intimidation in seven states, seven states where votes were suppressed, seven states witnessing outbreaks of animosity at the polls, six states suffering from ballot printing errors and seven instances in four states where votes were changed on-screen. In addition, the Voters Unite! website cites four states with early voting troubles, three states undergoing ballot programming errors, three states demonstrating ballot secrecy violations, bogus ballot fraud in New Mexico and double-voting for Bush in Texas.

Kerry's victory was predicted by previously extremely accurate Harris and Zogby exit polls, by the formerly infallible 50 percent rule (an incumbent with less than 50 percent in the exit polls always loses; Bush had 47 percent – requiring him to capture an improbable 80 percent of the undecideds to win) and by the Incumbent Rule (undecideds break for the challenger, as exit polls showed they did by a large margin this time).

Nor is it credible that the surge in new young voters (who were witnessed standing in lines for hours, on campuses nationwide) miraculously didn't appear in the final totals; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost support; and that exit polls were highly accurate wherever there was a paper trail and grossly underestimated Bush's appeal wherever there was no such guarantee of accurate recounts. Statisticians point out that Bush beat 99 to 1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

Election results are not final until electors vote on Dec. 12. There is still time to find the truth.

Alan Waldman is an award-winning journalist who lives in Los Angeles. He voted for John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.

Votergate 2004?
Research Studies Uncover Potential Massive Election Fraud
 
By Katherine Yurica 
November 19, 2004
Finding the Corpus Delicti in the 2004 Election Results
 
Ordinarily victims of crimes do not have to prove the existence of the crime. The dead body or the charred ruins of a burned down building provide visual, concrete proof of the wrongdoing. Sometimes, however, the crime is intentionally hidden, buried among honest transactions, covered with obstacles, and driven through layers of deception to lie at the bottom of a muddy pond—or at the bottom of a huge box of ballots in a warehouse or buried in a computer application’s program.
 
But without evidence that a crime was committed there can be no apprehension of the perpetrators, hence the search for the corpus delicti—the dead body or the thing upon which the crime was done.
 
Finding evidence of a crime is not the same thing as finding “who did it.” All the FBI or other investigators need to start a criminal investigation is evidence a crime has been committed. And it is for this reason I have been surprised and shocked at the mainline media’s news bureaus and reporters who have produced articles and comments dismissing valid evidence unearthed by researchers who are investigating the November 2, 2004 elections.

The Studies

The Berkeley Study:

On November 18, 2004 a University of California, Berkeley research team headed by Professor Michael Hout told a press conference that a study the team conducted focused on electronic machine voting in Florida. While all 67 Florida counties were reviewed, the study shows there is a statistical anomaly in three southern counties which gave President Bush between 130,000 and 260,000 or more extra votes. At issue were Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade counties. In Broward County alone, Mr. Bush appears to have received 72,000 excess votes. (See study summary.)

Hout said, “We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.”

The research team is comprised of doctoral students and faculty in the UC Berkeley sociology department. Dr. Hout is a nationally known expert on statistical methods and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.

Hout explained that what happened in the three counties, “was out of pattern with what occurred in the other 64 counties in the state. For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting—someone must investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida. We’re calling on voting officials in Florida to take action.”

According to the study President Bush received a total of 1,157,435 votes when he should have received between 900,000 and 1,020,000. Hout said, “All I know is that the smoke alarm’s gone off, it’s up to the Fire Department now.”

If the extra votes were simply added to Mr. Bush’s total votes, his “stuffed” ballots would have added 130,000 votes to his tally and the county totals should reveal the additional votes by comparing the signed-in number of voters to the actual votes. If however, 130,000 votes were taken away from Kerry and converted to the use of Bush, then Bush’s net gain would be 260,000 votes. Bush won Florida by about 311,000 votes, so investigators would have to locate another 52,000 or more unlawful votes in the state before Kerry could claim the presidency based on Florida's votes.

 

The Freeman Study:

 

On November 15, 2004, Dr. Steven F. Freeman, faculty member of  the University of Pennsylvania, authorized the Yurica Report to post the latest draft of his research paper, “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy.” #4-09 (Dr. Freeman’s areas of expertise include resilience, innovation and research methods.) In this latest draft, Dr. Freeman emphasizes that the exit polls he used were “uncorrected” polls. It is not well known that the media change their exit poll data to conform to the actual poll numbers following the close of the polls. However, Freeman was able to obtain a copy of the uncorrected exit polls that reflect the accurate survey of voters. This is the reason that some research teams have not had the same results as Freeman. (Other teams, Freeman said, “used data in which the count is assumed correct to prove that the count is correct—and then used their report to dismiss allegations that anything is awry.”

Dr. Freeman's paper focuses on the three major battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Freeman said, “The conventional wisdom going into the election was that these three critical states would likely determine who would win the Presidential election.” He was right.

Freeman said, “Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the Internet on Election Day this year, sat down to watch election night coverage expecting that John Kerry had been elected President. Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins.” Freeman pointed out, “Undecided voters broke heavily toward the challenger, and the Democratic Party, possibly better organized and more committed than ever in their history, generated extraordinary turnout.”

It was widely reported that Karen Hughes believed that Mr. Bush was going down to a sure defeat and informed the President of that fact. Then something happened. According to Freeman, “In key state after key state, counts were showing very different numbers than the exit polls predicted and the differentials were all in the same direction.”

Much has been said by the media that exit polls were not intended to verify the results of an election, but Freeman points out the unique accuracy of exit polls. He wrote, “Exit polls are surveys taken of representative respondents from the overall voting population.” People are asked how they voted—not how they will vote.

Freeman conducts an analysis of Kerry’s votes: The likelihood of Kerry receiving only 47.1% in Florida, given that the exit polls indicated 49.7% is less than three in one thousand. Although Kerry did carry Pennsylvania, the likelihood of his receiving only 50.8% given that the exit polls indicated 54.1% is less than two in one thousand. Similarly the likelihood of Kerry receiving only 48.5% in Ohio, given the exit polls indicated 52.1% is less than one in one thousand (.0008).

Freeman says, “The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states could have been due to chance or random error.”

Freeman concludes his study by making it clear that it is the “responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate.”

I suggest that it is also the responsibility of the FBI to investigate on the grounds of suspicion that the government of the United States has been defrauded.

 

 The Ignatzmouse Study of North Carolina:

 

When blogger ignatzmouse looked over the North Carolina election returns, he thought "things looked funny." They were out of sync with the exit polls for one thing and no one could believe Erskine Bowles lost his Senate race. After downloading the precinct data, Ignatzmouse noticed that the absentee vote, which also included the early voting data, was huge. In fact he found that the file held more than a million votes and nearly a full third of the total vote. (30%) It offered him the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. What he found out was stunning. By using benchmark absentee data against election day returns, a compelling case for purposeful tampering of the electronic data is made. (See below.)

Ignatzmouse discovered what Dr. Freeman observed: with essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee votes and the poll votes, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. But when he compared his data to the Presidential race, he met sheer absurdity. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result, or Kerry should have been behind by 6 points. Instead there was a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of nine points, which more than doubled Kerry's overall margin of defeat. This meant a 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day. Read the study and data here.

 

The Cuyahoga County, Ohio Study:

 

There are 93,000 Extra Votes In Cuyahoga County.

By Teed Rockwell

November 12, 2004

Smoking Gun

You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in Cuyahoga county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost 4,000 extra votes.

But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The evidence discovered by some remarkably careful sleuthing would convince any reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.

In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:

 

Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast

Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast

Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast

Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast

Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast

Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast

Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast

Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast

Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast

Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast

Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast

Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast

Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast

North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast

Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast

Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast

Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast

Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast

South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast

Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast

University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast

Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast

Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast

Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast

Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast

Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast

Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast

 

The Republicans are so BUSTED.

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us//BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top ...is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board, providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least 93,000. Kerry lost Ohio by approximately 130,000 votes, so this is not an insignificant figure that can be ignored, particularly when there are numerous other indications of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.

I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio election, if not the entire national election. I'd say the game's up.

America, it looks pretty much like you've been had.

Teed Rockwell
Philosophy Department
Sonoma State University

 


 

 


[1] Evidence, Cases and Materials, Edmund M. Morgan, John M. Maguire, and Jack B. Weinstein, Fourth Edition, The Foundation Press, Inc. 1957, Brooklyn. At page 1.


Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.


Send a letter
to the editor

about this article

 

Related Articles:

 

 

How You Can Help And What You Can Do



Stolen Election 2004: The Voter Rights March Synopsis of Articles



A Comprehensive Case For Voter Fraud in North Carolina



The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy by Steven F. Freeman, PhD

 

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/.

http://wand.stanford.edu/elections/us/FL2004/

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688

 

Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.