General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2291044

    Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?


    by aldanatech ·

    Recently, there have been reasons to believe that Bush got excess votes both in Florida and Ohio. In Florida, the UC Berkeley Research Team sounds ‘Smoke Alarm’ for Florida E-Vote Count; 130,000 – 260,000 or more excess votes may have been awarded to Bush in that state. In Ohio, Election Officials discovered that about 2,600 ballots from nine Sandusky County precincts were counted twice:



    Does this mean that will have a re-count on those states after all? If all of this is confirmed, do you think it might have an impact on future elections?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3291007

      More on Florida…

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?

      BERKELEY, Calif., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ — Today the University of California’s Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team released a statistical study – the sole method available to monitor the accuracy of e- voting – reporting irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods – what the team says can be deemed a “smoke alarm.” Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance – the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team formally disclosed results of the study at a press conference today at the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center, where they called on Florida voting officials to investigate.

      The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic: Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, respectively. Statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predict a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush’s support in Broward County; machines tallied an increase of 51,000 votes – a net gain of 81,000 for the incumbent. President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County, but instead gained 41,000 – a difference of 49,900. He should have gained only 18,400 votes in Miami-Dade County but saw a gain of 37,000 – a difference of 19,300 votes.

      “For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting – someone must investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida,” says Professor Michael Hout. “We’re calling on voting officials in Florida to take action.”

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

      For its research, the team used multiple-regression analysis, a statistical method widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of many variables on quantitative outcomes like vote totals. This multiple-regression analysis takes into account of the following variables by county:

      * number of voters
      * median income
      * Hispanic/Latino population
      * change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
      * support for Senator Dole in the 1996 election
      * support for President Bush in the 2000 election
      * use of electronic voting or paper ballots

      “No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained,” said Hout. “The study shows, that a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero – less than once in a thousand chances.”

      The data used in this study came from public sources including, the 2000 US Census, and the Verified Voting Foundation. For a copy of the working paper, raw data and other information used in the study can be found at:

      • #3302681

        Election over, court begins

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to More on Florida…

        The presidential race may have been settled in Florida this year without the acrimony of 2000, but many of the state ballot measures approved on Election Day have ended up in court.

        Legal tussles over ballot initiatives are not uncommon, but the number of challenges in Florida is unusual, said John Sowinski, an Orlando political consultant.

        “The presidential election four years ago probably awoke people to some of the legal vulnerabilities of the process,” he said.

        One case has already been decided. The Florida Supreme Court rejected a suit before Election Day claiming language in a measure seeking to limit the privacy rights of girls so lawmakers could pass a parental notification abortion law was misleading. Voters approved the measure.

        In a challenge to an initiative allowing slot machines at South Florida race tracks and jai alai frontons, an anti-gambling group and two animal rights organizations allege massive fraud in the petition drive.

        The groups say thousands of signatures submitted to get the measure on the ballot were forged, including signatures from at least three dozen dead people. A trial is scheduled for late January.

        A second lawsuit has been filed by another anti-gambling group seeking a recount in Broward County, where 78,000 absentee ballots weren’t counted correctly on election night. The adjusted total helped the initiative pass several days later.

        Two other measures to increase the minimum wage and scrap a high-speed rail project are being contested because backers did not include the name and address of paid signature-gatherers on petitions to place the issues on the ballot.

        A lawsuit against a measure to change the deadline for future petition drives alleges the ballot language didn’t fairly explain the effect of the constitutional amendment.

        Lastly, Florida’s hospitals have gone to court to challenge two attorney-backed medical malpractice initiatives.

        The hospitals want a judge to delay implementation of one measure that will release health records to patients injured in “adverse medical incidents.” The hospitals argue there is too much confusion over implementation.

        A judge temporarily halted another measure which would yank the license of doctors who commit three acts of medical malpractice. Hospitals argued there were too many implementation questions with that initiative, too.


    • #3291005

      More on Ohio…

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?

      COLUMBUS, Ohio – Election officials in one Ohio county found that about 2,600 ballots were double-counted, and two other counties have discovered possible cases of people voting twice in the presidential election.

      Prosecutors were trying to determine Wednesday whether charges should be filed against a couple in Madison County accused of voting twice. In addition, Summit County election workers investigated possible double votes found under 18 names.

      In the other case, Sandusky County election officials discovered that about 2,600 ballots from nine precincts were counted twice, likely because of worker error, elections director Barb Tuckerman said.

      Tuckerman believes the votes were counted twice when they were mistakenly placed alongside a pile of uncounted ballots. The room where the ballots were being fed into optical-scan machines on election night was so crowded that ballots had to be placed on the floor, Tuckerman said.

      “It was totally hectic,” she said.

      The problem was discovered when Tuckerman found that one precinct showed 131 percent of registered voters had cast ballots.

      President Bush won the election by taking Ohio with 136,000 votes more than Democrat John Kerry, according to the unofficial tally.

      The couple who voted twice in Madison County cast absentee ballots in October, then voted in person on Election Day, county elections director Gloria Herrel said. The couple said election workers told them their absentee votes were lost, prosecutor Steve Pronai said.

      In Summit county, typically the votes were made by absentee ballot or in person, and then a second vote was cast with a provisional ballot in another precinct, elections director Bryan Williams said.

      Under Ohio law, people who vote twice could be charged with election fraud, falsification or illegal voting, according the Secretary of State’s Office. The maximum penalty for the most severe charge is 18 months in prison.

      Double votes could have affected the result of a local schools income tax request that failed by one vote in Madison County.

      In Illinois, thousands of provisional ballots cast on Election Day did not count, in most cases for lack of evidence the voters were actually registered. The Associated Press count was based on checks of several election jurisdictions. State officials were still gathering information Wednesday on provisional ballots cast statewide, a day after the deadline to count them.


      • #3293971


        by mlandis ·

        In reply to More on Ohio…

        Air America had mentioned a recount in Ohio this week, commencing Monday, November 22.

        The whole voting system is long overdue for revamping.

        It’s not so much about that Kerry will get in on a recount or not – as much as I would like to see that. It is that there have been human errors and possibly questionable practices that impact the outcome of any election, and need to be addressed, and corrected. Returns have to be certified, as in attested and sworn to.

        In terms of certain precincts a miscount of 1, 50, 500, or 2500 could impact a local election, so Ohio may be looking at different returns on its local, county and state levels affecting the proclaimed winners, as well as any issues that might have beeen thought to be passed or failed.

        That would be true in any area where a recount is needed.


      • #3314619

        One month later…

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to More on Ohio…

        According to Yahoo news, nearly a month after John Kerry conceded Ohio to President Bush, complaints and challenges about the balloting are mounting as activists including the Rev. Jesse Jackson demand closer scrutiny to ensure the votes are being counted on the up-and-up.

        Jackson has been holding rallies in Ohio in recent days to draw attention to the vote, and another critic plans to ask the state Supreme Court this week to decide the validity of the election.

        Ohio essentially decided the outcome of the presidential race, with Kerry giving up after unofficial results showed Bush with a 136,000-vote lead in the state.

        Since then, there have been demands for a recount and complaints about uncounted punch-card votes, disqualified provisional ballots and a ballot-machine error that gave hundreds of extra votes to Bush.

        Jackson said too many questions have been raised to let the vote stand without closer examination.

        “We can live with winning and losing. We cannot live with fraud and stealing,” Jackson said Sunday at Mount Hermon Baptist Church.

        An attorney for a political advocacy group on Wednesday plans to file a “contest of election.” The request requires a single Supreme Court justice to either let the election stand, declare another winner or throw the whole thing out. The loser can appeal to the full seven-member court, which is dominated by Republicans 5-2.

        Jackson said he agreed with the court filing planned by lawyer Cliff Arnebeck, who has represented the Boston-based Alliance for Democracy in other cases.

        “The integrity of our election process is on trial,” Jackson said Monday in Cincinnati.

        Elections officials concede some mistakes were made but no more than most elections.

        “There are no signs of widespread irregularities,” said Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell.

        Blackwell, a Republican, has until Dec. 6 to certify the vote. The Green and Libertarian parties are raising money to pay for a recount that would be held once the results are certified.

        Other critics have seized on an error in an electronic voting system that gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in a suburban Columbus precinct where only 638 people voted. The extra votes are part of the unofficial tally.

        Some groups also have complained about thousands of punch-card ballots that were not counted because officials in the 68 counties that use them could not determine a vote for president. Votes for other offices on the cards were counted.

        Jackson said Blackwell, who along with other statewide GOP leaders was a co-chairman of Bush’s re-election campaign in Ohio, should step down from overseeing the election process.

        “You can’t be chairman of the Bush campaign and then be the chief umpire in the seventh game of the World Series,” Jackson said.

        Blackwell’s office responded by saying the state has a “bipartisan and transparent system that provides valuable checks and balances.”

        “The problem seems to be that Rev. Jackson’s candidate didn’t win,” said Carlo LoParo, a Blackwell spokesman.


      • #3302680

        New Round of Challenges

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to More on Ohio…

        Two major challenges are expected to unfold Monday when Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certifies the state’s final presidential election results, declaring President Bush the winner by about 119,000 votes.

        Lawyers representing voters upset about problems at the polls plan to contest the results with the Ohio Supreme Court, citing documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighborhoods.

        In addition, third party candidates, bolstered by a favorable federal court ruling, plan to file requests for a recount in each of Ohio’s 88 counties. About 400 people rallied at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus on Saturday to demand a recount begin immediately.

        The efforts represent “an incredible long shot,” said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law professor. “Courts are just incredibly reluctant to overturn the results of an election absent a really strong showing that something happened that affected the outcome.”

        Bush came out with a 2 percentage point victory over John Kerry in the state when the provisional and absentee ballots were counted.

        That was much closer than the totals election night showed but not close enough to trigger an automatic recount.

        However, the Green and Libertarian party candidates have raised the $113,600 required to pay for a recount themselves. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus on Friday, rejecting Delaware County’s attempt to stop a recount, paved the way for it to begin after Ohio’s electors meet Dec. 13.

        Republicans say it won’t change the final result.

        “There’s simply nothing in the election process that could possibly meet that standard, so the contest will fail like all the other legal maneuverings that failed,” said Mark Weaver, an attorney representing the Ohio Republican Party.

        Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus lawyer working for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, said overturning the result is not the objective.

        “We should verify the accuracy of the vote and the process by which the vote was achieved,” he said.

        Arnebeck wants Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to review evidence of election irregularities, an option allowed under state law.

        The last time the law was used statewide was during Paul Pfeifer’s 1990 challenge of Lee Fisher’s 1,234-vote victory in the attorney general’s race.

        Pfeifer, a Republican now on the Supreme Court, argued that irregularities such as discrepancies between the number of ballots and the number of signatures in poll books could have cost him the election. The court disagreed and Fisher won.


      • #3290588

        These are the allegations of vote fraud and irregularities in Ohio

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to More on Ohio…

        From truthout on December 3rd.

        Democratic Representative John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, ranking Minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold a hearing on Wednesday 08 December 2004 to investigate allegations of vote fraud and irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election. The hearing is slated to begin at 10:00 a.m. EST in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington DC. These are the allegations and the questions waiting to be answered:

        I. Counting Irregularities

        A. Warren County Lockdown ? On election night, Warren County locked down its administration building and barred reporters from observing the counting. When that decision was questioned, County officials claimed they were responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a ?10″ on a scale of 1 to 10, and that this information was received from an FBI agent. Despite repeated requests, County officials have declined to name that agent, however, and the FBI has stated that they had no information about a terror threat in Warren County. Your office has stated that it does not know of any other county that took these drastic measures.

        In addition to these contradictions, Warren County officials have given conflicting accounts of when the decision was made to lock down the building. While the County Commissioner has stated that the decision to lockdown the building was made during an October 28 closed-door meeting, emailed memos ? dated October 25 and 26 ? indicate that preparations for the lockdown were already underway.

        This lockdown must be viewed in the context of the aberrational results in Warren County. In the 2000 Presidential election, the Democratic Presidential candidate, Al Gore, stopped running television commercials and pulled resources out of Ohio weeks before the election. He won 28% of the vote in Warren County. In 2004, the Democratic Presidential candidate, John Kerry, fiercely contested Ohio and independent groups put considerable resources into getting out the Democratic vote. Moreover, unlike in 2000, independent candidate Ralph Nader was not on the Ohio ballot in 2004. Yet, the tallies reflect John Kerry receiving exactly the same percentage in Warren County as Gore received, 28%.

        We hope you agree that transparent election procedures are vital to public confidence in electoral results. Moreover, such aberrant procedures only create suspicion and doubt that the counting of votes was manipulated. As part of your decision to certify the election, we hope you have investigated these concerns and found them without merit. To assist us in reaching a similar conclusion, we ask the following:

        1. Have you, in fact, conducted an investigation of the lockdown? What procedures have you or would you recommend be put into place to avoid a recurrence of this situation?

        2. Have you ascertained whether County officials were advised of terrorist activity by an FBI agent and, if so, the identity of that agent?

        3. If County officials were not advised of terrorist activity by an FBI agent, have you inquired as to why they misrepresented this fact? If the lockdown was not as a response to a terrorist threat, why did it take place? Did any manipulation of vote tallies occur?

        B. Perry County Election Counting Discrepancies ? The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has received information indicating discrepancies in vote tabulations in Perry County. For example, the sign-in book for the Reading S precinct indicates that approximately 360 voters cast ballots in that precinct. In the same precinct, the sign-in book indicates that there were 33 absentee votes cast. In sum, this would appear to mean that fewer than 400 total votes were cast in that precinct. Yet, the precinct?s official tallies indicate that 489 votes were cast. In addition, some voters? names have two ballot stub numbers listed next to their entries creating the appearance that voters were allowed to cast more than one ballot.

        In another precinct, W Lexington G AB, 350 voters are registered according to the County?s initial tallies. Yet, 434 voters cast ballots. As the tallies indicate, this would be an impossible 124% voter turnout. The breakdown on election night was initially reported to be 174 votes for Bush, and 246 votes for Kerry. We are advised that the Perry County Board of Elections has since issued a correction claiming that, due to a computer error, some votes were counted twice. We are advised that the new tallies state that only 224 people voted, and the tally is 90 votes for Bush and 127 votes for Kerry. This would make it appear that virtually every ballot was counted twice, which seems improbable.

        In Monroe Township, Precinct AAV, we are advised that 266 voters signed in to vote on election day, yet the Perry County Board of Elections is reporting that 393 votes were cast in that precinct, a difference of 133 votes.

        4. Why does it appear that there are more votes than voters in the Reading S precinct of Perry County?

        5. What is the explanation for the fluctuating results in the W Lexington AB precinct?

        6. Why does it appear that there are more votes than voters in the Monroe Township precinct AAV?

        C. Perry County Registration Peculiarities

        In Perry County, there appears to be an extraordinarily high level voter registration, 91%; yet a substantial number of these voters have never voted and have no signature on file. Of the voters that are registered in Perry County an extraordinarily large number of voters are listed as having registered in 1977, a year in which there were no federal elections. Of these an exceptional number are listed as having registered on the exact same day: in total, 3,100 voters apparently registered in Perry County on November 8, 1977.

        7. Please explain why there is such a high percentage of voters in this County who have never voted and do not have signatures on file. Also, please help us understand why such a high number of voters in this County are shown as having registered on the same day in 1977.

        D. Unusual Results in Butler County

        In Butler County, a Democratic Candidate for State Supreme Court, C. Ellen Connally received 59,532 votes. In contrast, the Kerry-Edwards ticket received only 54,185 votes, 5,000 less than the State Supreme Court candidate. Additionally, the victorious Republican candidate for State Supreme Court received approximately 40,000 less votes than the Bush-Cheney ticket. Further, Connally received 10,000 or more votes in excess of Kerry?s total number of votes in five counties, and 5,000 more votes in excess of Kerry?s total in ten others.

        It must also be noted that Republican judicial candidates were reportedly ?awash in cash,? with more than $1.4 million and were also supported by independent expenditures by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

        While you may have found an explanation for these bizarre results, it appears to be wildly implausible that 5,000 voters waited in line to cast a vote for an underfunded Democratic Supreme Court candidate and then declined to cast a vote for the most well-funded Democratic Presidential campaign in history. We would appreciate an answer to the following:

        8. Have you examined how an underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate could receive so many more votes in Butler County than the Kerry-Edwards ticket? If so, could you provide us with the results of your examination? Is there any precedent in Ohio for a downballot candidate receiving on a percentage or absolute basis so many more votes than the Presidential candidate of the same party in this or any other presidential election? Please let us know if any other County in Ohio registered such a disparity on a percentage or absolute basis.

        E. Unusual Results in Cuyahoga County

        Precincts in Cleveland have reported an incredibly high number of votes for third party candidates who have historically received only a handful of votes from these urban areas. For example, precinct 4F in the 4th Ward cast 290 votes for Kerry, 21 for Bush, and 215 for Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka. In 2000, the same precinct cast less than 8 votes for all third party candidates combined.

        This pattern is found in at least 10 precincts through throughout Cleveland in 2004, awarding hundreds of unlikely votes to the third party candidate. Notably, these precincts share more than a strong Democratic history: the use of a punch card ballot. In light of these highly unlikely results, we would like to know the following:

        9. Have you investigated whether the punch card system used in Cuyahoga County led to voters accidentally voting for third party candidates instead of the Democratic candidate they intended? If so, what were the results? Has a third party candidate ever received such a high percentage of votes in these precincts.

        10. Have you found similar problems in other counties? Have you found similar problems with other voting methods?

        F. Spoiled Ballots

        According to post election canvassing, many ballots were cast without any valid selection for president. For example, two precincts in Montgomery County had an undervote rate of over 25% each ? accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president. This is in stark contrast to the 2% of undervoting county-wide. Disturbingly, predominantly Democratic precincts had 75% more undervotes than those that were predominantly Republican. It is inconceivable to us that such a large number of people supposedly did not have a preference for president in such a controversial and highly contested election.

        Considering that an estimated 93,000 ballots were spoiled across Ohio, we would like to know the following:

        11. How many of those spoiled ballots were of the punch card or optical scan format and could therefore be examined in a recount?

        12. Of those votes that have a paper trail, how many votes for president were undercounted, or showed no preference for president? How many were overcounted, or selected more than one candidate for president? How many other ballots had an indeterminate preference?

        13. Of the total 93,000 spoiled ballots, how many were from predominantly Democratic precincts? How many were from minority-majority precincts?

        14. Are you taking steps to ensure that there will be a paper trail for all votes before the 2006 elections so that spoiled ballots can be individually re-examined?

        G. Franklin County Overvote ? On election day, a computerized voting machine in ward 1B in the Gahanna precinct of Franklin County recorded a total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic challenger, John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered voters in that Gahanna precinct, and only 638 people cast votes at the New Life Church polling site. It was since discovered that a computer glitch resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President George W. Bush.

        Fortunately, this glitch was caught and the numbers were adjusted to show President Bush?s true vote count at 365 votes to Senator Kerry?s 260 votes. However, many questions remain as to whether this kind of malfunction happened in other areas of Ohio. To help us clarify this issue, we request that you answer the following:

        15. How was it discovered that this computer glitch occurred?

        16. What procedures were employed to alert other counties upon the discovery of the malfunction?

        17. Can you be absolutely certain that this particular malfunction did not occur in other counties in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election? How?

        18. What is being done to ensure that this type of malfunction does not happen again in the future?

        H. Miami County Vote Discrepancy ? In Miami County, with 100% of the precincts reporting on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, President Bush had received 20,807 votes, or 65.80% of the vote, and Senator Kerry had received 10,724 votes, or 33.92% of the vote. Miami reported 31,620 voters. Inexplicably, nearly 19,000 new ballots were added after all precincts reported, boosting President Bush?s vote count to 33,039, or 65.77%, while Senator Kerry?s vote percentage stayed exactly the same to three one-hundredths of a percentage point at 33.92%.

        Roger Kearney of Rhombus Technologies, Ltd., the reporting company responsible for vote results of Miami County, has stated that the problem was not with his reporting and that the additional 19,000 votes came before 100% of the precincts were in. However, this does not explain how the vote count could change for President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes were added to the roster. To help us better understand this anomaly, we request that you answer the following:

        19. What is your explanation as to the statistical anomaly that showed virtually identical ratios after the final 20-40% of the vote came in? In your judgment, how could the vote count in this County have changed for President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes were added to the roster?

        20. Are you aware of any pending investigations into this matter?

        I. Mahoning County Machine Problems ? In Mahoning County, numerous voters reported that when they attempted to vote for John Kerry, the vote showed up as a vote for George Bush. This was reported by numerous voters and continued despite numerous attempts to correct their vote.

        21. Please let us know if you have conducted any investigation or inquiry of machine voting problems in the state, including the above described problems in Mahoning County, and the results of this investigation or inquiry.

        II. Procedural Irregularities

        A. Machine Shortages

        Throughout predominately Democratic areas in Ohio on election day, there were reports of long lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines. Evidence introduced in public hearings indicates that 68 machines in Franklin County were never deployed for voters, despite long lines for voters at that county, with some voters waiting from two to seven hours to cast their vote. The Franklin County Board of Elections reported that 68 voting machines were never placed on election day, and Franklin County BOE Director Matt Damschroder admitted on November 19, 2004 that 77 machines malfunctioned on Election Day. It has come to our attention that a county purchasing official who was on the line with Ward Moving and Storage Company, documented only 2,741 voting machines delivered through the November 2 election day. However, Franklin County?s records reveal that they had 2,866 ?machines available? on election day. This would mean that amid the two to seven hour waits in the inner city of Columbus, at least 125 machines remained unused on Election Day.

        Franklin County?s machine allocation report clearly states the number of machines that were placed ?By Close of Polls.? However, questions remain as to where these machines were placed and who had access to them throughout the day. Therefore, what matters is not how many voting machines were operating at the end of the day, but rather how many were there to service the people during the morning and noon rush hours.

        An analysis revealed a pattern of providing fewer machines to the Democratic city of Columbus, and more machines to the primarily Republican suburbs. At seven out of eight polling places, observers counted only three voting machines per location. According to the presiding judge at one polling site located at the Columbus Model Neighborhood facility at 1393 E. Broad St., there had been five machines during the 2004 primary. Moreover, at Douglas Elementary School, there had been four machines during the spring primary. In one Ohio voting precinct serving students from Kenyon College, some voters were required to wait more than eight hours to vote. There were reportedly only two voting machines at that precinct. The House Judiciary Committee staff has received first hand information confirming these reports.

        Additionally, it appears that in a number of locations, polling places were moved from large locations, such as gyms, where voters could comfortably wait inside to vote to smaller locations where voters were required to wait in the rain. We would appreciate answers to the following:

        22. How much funding did Ohio receive from the federal government for voting machines?

        23. What criteria were used to distribute those new machines?

        24. Were counties given estimates or assurances as to how many new voting machines they would receive? How does this number compare to how many machines were actually received?

        25. What procedures were in place to ensure that the voting machines were properly allocated throughout Franklin and other counties? What changes would you recommend be made to insure there is a more equitable allocation of machines in the future?

        B. Invalidated Provisional Ballots

        As you know, just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, you issued a directive to county election officials saying they are allowed to count provisional ballots only from voters who go to the correct precinct for their home address. At the same time, it has been reported that fraudulent flyers were being circulated on official-looking letterhead telling voters the wrong place to vote, phone calls were placed incorrectly informing voters that their polling place had changed, ?door-hangers? telling African-American voters to go to the wrong precinct, and election workers sent voters to the wrong precinct. In other areas, precinct workers refused to give any voter a provisional ballot. And in at least one precinct, election judges told voters that they may validly cast their ballot in any precinct, leading to any number of disqualified provisional ballots.

        In Hamilton County, officials have carried this problematic and controversial directive to a ludicrous extreme: they are refusing to count provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place if they were cast at the wrong table in that polling place. It seems that some polling places contained multiple precincts which were located at different tables. Now, 400 such voters in Hamilton county alone will be disenfranchised as a result of your directive.

        26. Have you directed Hamilton County and all other counties not to disqualify provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place simply because they were cast at the wrong precinct table?

        27. While many election workers received your directive that voters may cast ballots only in their own precincts, some did not. How did you inform your workers, and the public, that their vote would not be counted if cast in the wrong precinct? How many votes were lost due to election workers telling voters they may vote at any precinct, in direct violation of your ruling?

        28. Your directive was exploited by those who intentionally misled voters about their correct polling place, and multiplied the number of provisional ballots found invalid. What steps have you or other officials in Ohio taken to investigate these criminal acts? Has anyone been referred for prosecution? If so, what is the status of their cases?

        29. How many provisional ballots were filed in the presidential election in Ohio? How many were ultimately found to be valid and counted? What were the various reasons that these ballots were not counted, and how many ballots fall into each of these categories? Please break down the foregoing by County if possible.

        C. Directive to Reject Voter Registration Forms Not Printed on White, Uncoated Paper of Not Less Than 80 lb Text Weight

        On September 7, you issued a directive to county boards of elections commanding such boards to reject voter registration forms not ?printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight.? Instead, the county boards were to follow a confusing procedure where the voter registration form would be treated as an application for a form and a new blank form would be sent to the voter. While you reversed this directive, you did not do so until September 28. In the interim, a number of counties followed this directive and rejected otherwise valid voter registration forms. There appears to be some further confusion about the revision of this order which resulted in some counties being advised of the change by the news media.

        30. How did you notify county boards of elections of your initial September 7 directive?

        31. How did you notify county boards of elections of your September 28 decision to revise that directive?

        32. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many registration forms were rejected as a result of your September 7 directive? If so, how many?

        33. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many voters who had their otherwise valid forms rejected as a result of your September 7 directive subsequently failed to re-register? If so, how many?

        34. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many of those voters showed up who had their otherwise valid forms rejected to vote on election day and were turned away? If so, how many?


    • #3294023

      Get Over It

      by olprof67 ·

      In reply to Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?

      if there were any hope of this succeeding, I guarantee that every Democrat hack from Astabula to Cincinnati would be screaming bloody murder.

      And we didn’t hear them whine when the Democrats stole the 1960 election with serious frauds in at least four states.

      But that one turned out OK….it set the stage for the rise of Ronald Reagan 20 years later.

      You lost….you will continue to lose….get over it……grow up!

      • #3291298

        Its not even about changing the election results

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Get Over It

        My questions were specific:

        1) Do you believe we will have a re-count on those states?


        2) Do you believe this might have an effect on future elections?

        I didn’t say:

        Do you think John Kerry will be elected after all?


      • #3290843

        Get Over It ?!?!

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Get Over It

        Don’t start bleating on about getting over it and then refer to an election that took place 44 years ago! Good god man do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

        • #3290557


          by olprof67 ·

          In reply to Get Over It ?!?!

          For the record, in 1960, I was ten years old.

          Richard Nixon refrained from pursuing the fraud issue at the time, in part because he believed it would undermine the nation’s security at the height of the Cold War we won thirty years later….

          no thanks to the Democrats.

          What it all boils down to is the belief at the center of the Democratic party that the grittier, more-short-sighted nature of their core constituency allows them to claim that lower expectations are justifiable.

          Like left-wingers everywhere, you apply a double-standard, just as you currently are on Condolezza Rice and Justice Thomas, who decided to leave your plantation.

          Whine as much as you like; you lost.

    • #3293711

      Government accountability office to conduct investigation of 2004 election

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?

      According to Common Dreams, Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler, Robert Scott, and Rush Holt announced on November 3rd that, in response to their November 5 and 8 letters to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the GAO has decided to move forward with an investigation of election irregularities in the 2004 election. The five Members issued the following statement:

      “We are pleased that the GAO has reviewed the concerns expressed in our letters and has found them of sufficient merit to warrant further investigation. On its own authority, the GAO will examine the security and accuracy of voting technologies, distribution and allocation of voting machines, and counting of provisional ballots. We are hopeful that GAO’s non-partisan and expert analysis will get to the bottom of the flaws uncovered in the 2004 election. As part of this inquiry, we will provide copies of specific incident reports received in our offices, including more than 57,000 such complaints provided to the House Judiciary Committee.

      “The core principle of any democracy is the consent of the governed. All Americans, no matter how they voted, need to have confidence that when they cast their ballot, their voice is heard.”

      The Members listed above were joined in requesting the non-partisan GAO investigation by Reps. Melvin Watt, John Olver, Bob Filner, Gregory Meeks, Barbara Lee, Tammy Baldwin, Louise Slaughter and George Miller.


    • #3314530

      Smoke and Mirrors

      by toucan ·

      In reply to Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?

      The illusion of democracy. One person one vote, I guess there should be a legal contract that stipulates that you vote would actually be counted and have meaning.

      Despite the flaws we have a great state here. How many other governments would allow the wide open discussion, dissention and opinions that verge on treason. Freedom comes with responsibility to watch both sharp edges to keep balance.

      • #3314449

        I think you’re right

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Smoke and Mirrors

        You know what Toucan, you’re right. They should provide us with some means to assure us that our vote does in fact count; or at least a paper receipt for voting booths.

    • #3299682

      Supreme court case names Bush, Cheney, Rove, and others in fraud

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Excess votes for Bush in Florida and Ohio?

      I found a copy of the an Ohio election fraud suit that names Bush, Cheney, Rove, and others:

      Do you consider that these people were in fact involved in an election fraud?

Viewing 5 reply threads