Election Fraud in 2004

[Naci Sey]

This is one of the most thorough accounts of the issue I've seen.

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast...

Originally published in Rolling Stone Magazine. Full article from commondreams.org - it's a long one, but must reading for any USian. (And one has to wonder if it could happen here.)

[newbie]

Naci, that article won't fly on this forum. Plus, Kerry conceded. Pretty much ends the story.

[BHS]

Plus, as is noted on this Instapundit post (with links) the key points made in the RFK Jr. article have already been debunked by NPR and Mother Jones, two rigidly neo-con organisations if ever there were.

[Naci Sey]

Naci, that article won't fly on this forum. Plus, Kerry conceded. Pretty much ends the story.

Your response surprises me, Newbie.

Electoral fraud is ALWAYS a story. The outcome of the 2004 election isn't the issue - makes no difference whether Kerry conceded. It's how voters were denied and defrauded of their constitutional rights.

The election was fixed, as has also been suggested by investigations into goings-on in Florida in 2000. This issue is/should be in the news currently and not die until a full investigation is undergone, the laws corrected and loopholes plugged. Until then, US voters will continue to be denied absolute assurance that the outcomes of future elections do in fact reflect the people's choice.

[crazymf]

Originally published in Rolling Stone Magazine

HAHAHA!!

Seriously guys, if Rolling Stone said so, it must be true. I mean this is ROLLING S TONE!!!

[Naci Sey]

Originally published in Rolling Stone Magazine

HAHAHA!!

Seriously guys, if Rolling Stone said so, it must be true. I mean this is ROLLING S TONE!!!

Oh I get it. Forget the FACTS of the case. Just shoot the messenger. I'm outta here.

[newbie]

Naci, that article won't fly on this forum. Plus, Kerry conceded. Pretty much ends the story.

Your response surprises me, Newbie.

Electoral fraud is ALWAYS a story. The outcome of the 2004 election isn't the issue - makes no difference whether Kerry conceded. It's how voters were denied and defrauded of their constitutional rights.

The election was fixed, as has also been suggested by investigations into goings-on in Florida in 2000. This issue is/should be in the news currently and not die until a full investigation is undergone, the laws corrected and loopholes plugged. Until then, US voters will continue to be denied absolute assurance that the outcomes of future elections do in fact reflect the people's choice.

My point was that even Kerry wasn't and isn't interested in pursuing the matter. I realize there are probably voter inconsistencies in Ohio, (not to mention Florida 2000) but I don't think the investigation will go anywhere, at least not until there's a change in Congress.

[August1991]

Electoral fraud is ALWAYS a story. The outcome of the 2004 election isn't the issue - makes no difference whether Kerry conceded. It's how voters were denied and defrauded of their constitutional rights.

I don't know if I want to get into this topic since it's ancient history. The only possible use in discussing it now is that future vote-counting will be better organized. US elections are tough because voters often have many decisions to make. Note too that in the US, electoral lists and ballot counting are all a state jurisdiction. The US has no equivalent to Elections Canada.

There is no doubt that Bush Jnr got more popular votes than either Gore or Kerry so the only dispute concerns electoral college votes. In that sense, the majority got the president they chose.

Civics class teaches that democratic government is the expression of the people. That's not true. Representative democracy is a method to pick a leader. The 2000 and 2004 elections were so close that either candidate could have won, and flipping a coin would have been a suitable method to pick the winner. What's more important is that there is a method to pick one leader. I was happy to see the Supreme Court step in in 2000 and make a quick decision. Since the Court split on partisan lines, it was as if they'd flipped a coin.

[Johnny Utah]

Kennedy's have nothing better to do with their time from crying over the 2004 election, coming to Alberta lecturing Albertans on the Enviroment or driving while impared hitting a Police Car in D.C..

[Darth Buddha]

There is no doubt that Bush Jnr got more popular votes than either Gore or Kerry so the only dispute concerns electoral college votes. In that sense, the majority got the president they chose..

Nope. Bush did not get the popular vote against Gore, even WITH the obvious voter fraud.

I've done a rather rigorous statistical analysis of the voting data from the 2000 election, and it's so damned clear that the voters of certain Democratic strongholds didn't end up voting for who they thought they were. Hell, even Patrick Buchanan (the one who recieved most of said mistaken ballots) admits that. Finally, the "tally" of votes for Gore and Bush clearly show that Bush lost that race. I think you should go back to school for a remedial course, though I'm not sure if it is in math or history: 47.9% for Bush, 48.4% for Gore. Just to make it coloring book simple for you, 48.4 is GREATER THAN 47.9.

The voting improprieties in Ohio are pretty well substantiated too, and Ohio would have lead to a popular victory, though he would have STILL been behind in the electoral college. You might want to look that up too, as it apparently not figuring in your determinations

I'm fairly sure Kerry conceded because he knew contesting the election, even justly, would just undermine American faith in their government. Even though I think Bush eis an infantile neo-fascist with dreams of world domination, I have say that it would have been worse if there were another contested election. Two in a row could be the seeds of a new secession. Stolen elections have been known to have that effect, after all.

Kennedy's have nothing better to do with their time from crying over the 2004 election, coming to Alberta lecturing Albertans on the Enviroment or driving while impared hitting a Police Car in D.C..

There you go again, Johhny boy. Mixing up the accuracy and solidity of rationale with who is speaking. I don't care if it's a Kennedy writing it or a Bush, the argument has merit. Only a fools buy into ad hominem reasoning. Oh, sorry, I forgot whom I was speaking to.

Now if you want a REAL issue regarding the Kennedy's and election fraud, check out the election that Kennedy won to get to the White House. There is ample proof that the Democrats stole that election! Given that Kennedy then walked into the Bay of Pigs with his eyes open and then escalated the Cuban missile crisis rather than give in on missiles in Turkey (as he eventually did anyway), I think that's a very bad thing. Much as I despise Nixon, he had far more international savvy, and wouldn't have let the U.S. get so close to nuclear war.

See, if you'd done just a little homework you'd have actually had something worthwhile to say. It would have been a nice change, even if only this once.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I think US citizens should look at a much more important problem here.

Three-level security flaws found in Diebold touch-screens

Touch-screens fail security tests, Diebold retaliates

Diebold Hack Hints at Wider Flaws

Devastating hack proven

Testers claim success in Diebold hack

What is the point of having a democracy (even if it is a limited one at that) when the election results can be changed at the press of a key.

[Oddman]

Electoral fraud is ALWAYS a story. The outcome of the 2004 election isn't the issue - makes no difference whether Kerry conceded. It's how voters were denied and defrauded of their constitutional rights.

I don't know if I want to get into this topic since it's ancient history. The only possible use in discussing it now is that future vote-counting will be better organized. US elections are tough because voters often have many decisions to make. Note too that in the US, electoral lists and ballot counting are all a state jurisdiction. The US has no equivalent to Elections Canada.

There is no doubt that Bush Jnr got more popular votes than either Gore or Kerry so the only dispute concerns electoral college votes. In that sense, the majority got the president they chose.

Civics class teaches that democratic government is the expression of the people. That's not true. Representative democracy is a method to pick a leader. The 2000 and 2004 elections were so close that either candidate could have won, and flipping a coin would have been a suitable method to pick the winner. What's more important is that there is a method to pick one leader. I was happy to see the Supreme Court step in in 2000 and make a quick decision. Since the Court split on partisan lines, it was as if they'd flipped a coin.

When you said you didn't want to get into this story because it was ancient history, you pretty much summed up the Republican Party's mantra - "Don't worry fellas, we can do whatever we want because soon it will all go away, or we will be in such a position (i.e. - Iraq) that we can tell everyone that this is the situation now so quit living in the past."

What a better way to giove yourself a blank cheque.

It's a strange world when we want to give Barry Bonds a hard time an put an * beside his accomplishments but we give Bush Jr. all the breaks because Hey, quit living in the past.

[Shady]

the key points made in the RFK Jr. article have already been debunked

BHS is right, all of RFK Jr's key points have already been debunked. The believe in a stolen 2004 election is only held now by the kook-left. Since they're mostly atheists, it's become like their religion.

The voting improprieties in Ohio are pretty well substantiated too, and Ohio would have lead to a popular victory, though he would have STILL been behind in the electoral college

Pure nonsense. Kerry winning Ohio would not have made up for a 4 million vote deficit.

[newbie]

Kerry winning Ohio would not have made up for a 4 million vote deficit.

Actually, it's electoral votes, not population that Kerry would have won if not for voter fraud.

We also know that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but statewide results were not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 greater than the number of registered voters.

More importantly national exit polls showed Kerry winning in 2004. However, It was only in precincts where there were no paper trails on the voting machines that the exit polls ended up being different from the final count. According to Dr. Steve Freeman, a statistician at the University of Pennsylvania, the odds are 250 million to one that the exit polls were wrong by chance. In fact, where the exit polls disagreed with the computerized outcomes the results always favored Bush - another statistical impossibility. .

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-29.htm

[sharkman]

It's telling that the only place hard hitting facts like that can be dug up on is websites like 'commondream.org.' The media hates this administration like none else. If these rumors that kook left sites and others keep repeating had any merit whatsoever, the New York TImes would be printing it page one above the fold until civil war broke out.

No doubt the NYT and others squeezed these rumors for all they were worth trying to sex them up, but in the end realized that they were the result of bitter dems losing their marbles. They realized you can only go so far when Dan Rather tried his election crap about Bush and his National Guard days, and was badly damaged by reporting outright lies.

I heard that Bush won the 2004 election with a larger margin than either of Clinton's wins.

[jbg]

Kerry winning Ohio would not have made up for a 4 million vote deficit.

Actually, it's electoral votes, not population that Kerry would have won if not for voter fraud.

We also know that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but statewide results were not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 greater than the number of registered voters.

Horsefeathers!!! Cuyahoga County is largely minority and any "overvote" would favor the Democrats. The actual turnouts are quite low there, so the fraud would have created far more Kerry than Bush votes. Thus, Bush's margin would have been bigger.

[jbg]

Originally published in Rolling Stone Magazine

HAHAHA!!

Seriously guys, if Rolling Stone said so, it must be true. I mean this is ROLLING S TONE!!!

Oh I get it. Forget the FACTS of the case. Just shoot the messenger. I'm outta here.

There is no way that Kerry won that election. 51% - 48% is a rather big win in the context of recent contested US elections.