Vote Rigging, the New American Paradigm

[PatrickHenry]

The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110604Z.shtml
The machines are producing results for Republicans because they are programmed that way. Exit polls are ACCURATE. But the machines are giving just enough advantage to get us into a one party situation.

About two years ago, I wrote a story for these pages, "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines," that exposed how Senator Chuck Hagel had, before stepping down and running for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, been the head of the voting machine company (now ES&S) that had just computerized Nebraska's vote. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state. And in all probability, Hagel run for President in 2008. In another, later article I wrote at the request of MoveOn.org and which they mailed to their millions of members, I noted that in Georgia - another state that went all-electronic - "USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, 'In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss. 'Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because 'Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them.'" Nearly every vote in the state was on an electronic machine with no audit trail. In the years since those first articles appeared, Bev Harris has published her book on the subject ("Black Box Voting"), including the revelation of her finding the notorious "Rob Georgia" folder on Diebold's FTP site just after Cleland's loss there; Lynn Landes has done some groundbreaking research, particularly her new investigation of the Associated Press, as have Rebecca Mercuri and David Dill. There's a new video out on the topic, Votergate, available at www.votergate.tv.

Like Joe Stalin said, (urban legend) http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/week...y/aa121800a.htm.
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

Is America just a third world sham when it comes to elections? It is lookin like it more and more...

[Scribbler1]

I've always suspected this was the plan from the beginning. There have been fairly lackluster elections in the past where you can sort of expect the votes to be close and not too many people cared all that much.
I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. I have noticed that regardless of how far the social pendulum swings, both major parties ALWAYS seem to keep around 50% of government control. Some years it appears the overwhelming majority of Americans swing conservative and you would think national representation would be around 70-30% in favor of the Republicans. Or the years when more people seem to be liberal the numbers should look the opposite, yet it NEVER changes. The biggest "majority" you usually see is maybe 2-3 seats in the Senate regardless of the makeup of the population. Sometimes the U.S. looks like a different country when comparing it to say, 10 years previous, yet the amount of control both parties keep remains the same although they are "supposedly" worlds apart in philosophy.

It always stays close enough for any party to blame the other for anything wrong in government. How many times have you heard "such-and-such is a mess, but the president INHERITED that from the last guy?"

Unless something is rigged to fool us into thinking this is how it should really be, there is NO WAY one party should keep about 50% regardless of the mindset of the people every single time. I think this last election is an example of that. 2000 doesn't count as neither man had been president and had no actual record. THIS time, however, you have republicans (uncharacteristically) critical of Bush and a lot of them saying publicly they will not vote for him. Then you have Democrats voting the party line as well as a lot of independants saying they were against Bush. Add to that the large number of newly registered or usually apathetic non-voters who boosted the total to almost record numbers of voters this year.
It strikes me as odd that the last group seem to have come out about 50% either way, making the overall outcome STILL about 50-50.

It seem to me that if Old Scratch himself ran for president next time, although he would lose, it would be by about 3-4 percentage points!

[Osborn F Enready]

Great post and clippets Pat.

The coffee is brewing in this country, and another four years of Bush is bound to wake up more people to the facts of politics than the last American Revolution.

Welcome to the New World Order.

[Milton Bradley]

I think that was a wonderfully astute obsevation by Scribbler1.


In my opinion, exactly what you expect to see if you were looking for the "worst case scenario".


I also suggest that this may be the reason for the rampant voter apathy, and non participation.


A two headed beast MUST have two heads, correct?