Election Fraud

Home Election Fraud

And Re- the Media…

  • snot (636 posts)
    Profile photo of snot Donor

    And Re- the Media…

    An email exchange I had with a friend immediately following the 2004 election:

    {dear snot}

    The NYTimes must have deleted the line referred to in the text below that you sent yesterday. You can still access the article, but the line is gone. Did you actually go to the story and see the line?

    The rug is being vacuumed at the Times I’m afraid.

    {my friend}

    —–Original Message—–
    From: {snot}
    Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:22 PM
    To: {my friend}
    Subject: Re: {something else that turned into this discussion}

    So glad to get your message. As always, so sensible. I can’t blame the Dems for conceding, but I can’t help wanting to know more about the mechanics of the election.

    Per the New York Times, “surveys of voters leaving the polls .. . . showed Mr. Kerry leading Mr. Bush by as much as 3 percentage points nationally.” Nonetheless, “[w]ith 98 percent of the national vote reported as of 8 a.m. Eastern time [Nov. 3], Mr. Bush was leading Mr. Kerry by a margin of 51 percent to 48 percent . . .”(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campaign/04electcnd.html?hp&ex=1099544400&en=ba992171a995deaf&ei=5094&partner=homepage)).

    –so those exit polls were off by as much as 6 percent. Is that an unusually large discrepancy?

    Meanwhile, in this same election, the VNS Exit Poll System broke down—the main system that could have provided data to either discount or point toward any tampering. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/05/politics/main528252.shtml) The system that was extensively overhauled after the 2000 election in order to make it more accurate.

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/article/0,20967,714491,00.html
    “Adding to the chaos, one network news reporter has received a tip that mercenary hackers were hired to alter the code of a particular brand of machine so that every 10th vote for Candidate A was recorded as a vote for Candidate B. Meanwhile, in Colorado, another group of hackers is boasting that they stole a box of electronic smartcards used to activate e-voting machines and reprogrammed them to allow multiple votes .. . . ..
    “On Election Day, a group called TechWatch, made up of computer scientists and other volunteers, will monitor e-voting machines across the country. When trouble strikes-machines crash or suspiciously large numbers of votes for one candidate show up in a low-traffic polling place-the problem will be posted to the group’s Web site, and a TechWatcher will be dispatched to document the problem and attempt to fix it. After the polls close, the group will have a detailed picture of which machines failed and where security may have been breached. If there’s a recount, TechWatch can use this evidence to determine whether concerns about voting machine accuracy in particular areas are well founded.”

    So, what did TechWatch find?

    Does anyone know what proportion of the voting machines in the swing states, especially Ohio, were electronic machines without any paper trail? Will there be any comparisons of results as between those with and those without paper trail?

    eridani, draa, NVBirdlady and 1 otherdjean111 like this
    There is no responsibility, without freedom; no freedom, without power; no power, without knowledge; no knowledge, without love.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.