Thanks hoyvenmayven

[lapsedmodernist]

My Election 2004 Bad Dream

By Josh Mitteldorf, Philadelphia Inquirer

ON A RECENT flight to Nashville, I sat next to a man who asked what I was writing. Preparing a talk, I told him, for a conference of people sharing evidence that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. Without missing a beat, he asked. "Isn't that next door to the convention on UFO sightings?"

I wasn't surprised. We've been painted as conspiracy theorists and worse by Democrats and Republicans alike, and even the liberal arm of the press has steered clear of this issue. But when I arrived at Jefferson Street Baptist Church in Nashville, my doubts about the election were reinforced by a group of sober professionals, none who seemed overtly loony.

I met David Griscom, a retired physics prof who spent months with colleague John Brakey poring over election tapes, signature rosters and "consecutive number registers" from Brakey's Tucson home precinct.

They audited and verified, one by one, the 895 votes in the precinct and found: 12 innocent and unsuspecting voters who had their names duplicated on the roster and their votes for Bush counted twice. Twenty-two "undervotes" where the machine had failed to register a preference for president, and these had been dutifully and meticulously converted to 22 votes for Bush.

The "Republican" and "Democratic" co-directors of the polling place were a local fundamentalist preacher and his wife. Thirty-nine of their parishioners from another precinct had cast provisional ballots, which were (illegally) converted to regular ballots and passed through, all 39 for Bush.

I met Richard Hayes Phillips, a geologist from New Hampshire who was invited to Ohio to study the integrity of the vote, and realized that a complete inventory of lost and miscounted votes was needed. To date, Phillips has analyzed 15 of Ohio's 88 counties, and by his most conservative estimate has found 101,000 uncounted Kerry votes - 136,000 is the margin by which Bush officially defeated Kerry.

I heard Clint Curtis talk about working in 2001 as a programmer for Yang Enterprises in Florida. He was assigned to a meeting with State Senate Speaker Tom Feeney, who asked to have a program written into the software that controls voting machines so that the totals could be manipulated without leaving a trace. Curtis, the whistleblower, is now unemployed. Feeney, the politician, is now the U.S. representative from Florida's 24th Congressional district.

I was inspired to hear the travails of Ohio lawyer Cliff Arnebeck. After the Green Party raised $200,000 and obtained authorization for a recount in Ohio, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell staged a charade in which every state rule about the conduct of the recount was thrown out, and two hand-picked precinct captains emerged from behind locked doors to report that yes, indeed the numbers were exactly right and all was hunky dory.

Arnebeck was lead attorney in a lawsuit to expose this sham, and get a real recount. The suit was dismissed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Moyer, who ruled on the case despite the fact that his own re-election was part of the challenge. Arnebeck has continued to pursue the case while he fights for his legal life: State Attorney General Jim Petro has brought an action to discipline Arnebeck for bringing a frivolous suit that wastes the precious time of the Ohio court.

Now I'm safely returned from Planet Nashville, back home in the land of ABC-CBS-NBC-FOX-AP. I find it reassuring to remember that if any of this had really happened, the Democrats in Congress would be screaming about it. I'd read about it on the front page, and it would be all over the network news. Yes, I can be sure that Nashville was just a bad dream. The reality is that President Bush won the election, and it's time to move on. Time to move on. It was all just a dream. Yes, it's time to move on.

Josh Mitteldorf teaches math and statistics at Temple University.

Comments

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

I'm upset that I missed that gathering. It was just down the road from me. Man! It's like they didn't tell anyone. Nobody local heard about it except for a few of the most stalwart at the peace and justice center.

[orpheusinhades.livejournal.com]

I don't know - what are we going to do about it? Assuming that we made a massive enough stink, and some unnamed "people" looked into it, and decided that Bush was not the President, would we put Kerry in halfway? How bad would that fuck up the electoral system? I don't think anyone would remotely trust any American election ever again.

I sort of think the best thing to do is fight against election stealing in the future. I'm not convinced the election was stolen, or that it wasn't, but I think it's imperative that either way we need to make the process less stealable and more transparent. People should have no doubt.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced the election was stolen

It was.


I sort of think the best thing to do is fight against election stealing in the future.

Really? How to we propose we do that? People literally put their all into preventing and then alerting people to the election fraud as it was happening in October and November, and people still say, at best, "well, I am not convinced" and at worst "isn't that next door to a UFO convention?"

It is too late now. Their system is in place, they got their Diebold machines where they wanted and as far as I am concerned we are not going to have another election in the meaningful sense of the word in this country in the near future.

[orpheusinhades.livejournal.com]

I've read Fisher's account, and many other convincing descriptions. I find it *plausible* that it was stolen. Just not proven.

The reasons why I'm not convinced is that a LOT of people have shut up about it, not just major media outlets. I haven't heard Nader complaining lately - didn't he file suit against New Hampshire for this stuff?

Regardless, I feel like arguing about it is pointless. In 2004 there were still liberals arguing that the election was stolen in 2000, and refused to admit that Bush was legitimately declared President. Regardless of the truth or falsity of that statement, just arguing about it made them sound like crackpots to swing voters.

Instead, arguing that people ought to be able to know seems to me productive, and acceptable to average joes.

Besides, I would argue that it doesn't nullify elections; it just makes them suspect. Certainly a lot of the skeptical will be more on guard the next time around, too...

It just seems masturbatory to go on and on about it. I got caught up in it for a while too, but then I decided to give up on it.

Anyhow, you may be right - it may be a simple theft. I'm not willing to say you *are* right. Partially because I don't see what good it would do, except to depress myself.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

> I've read Fisher's account, and many other convincing descriptions. I find it *plausible* that it was stolen. Just not proven.

1. in fact, it has been proved by the preponderance of evidence. the election was stolen. what has not been proved is who were the parties that committed the crime. to think otherwise is to be ignorant of the evidence that has been gathered (which has been reported, but not by any of the large media outlets) and to be ignorant of math. not long ago, the supreme court (which, yes, committed treason in 2000, as many people have noted) ruled that the census bureau could not perform a census by using statistical sampling to correct the numbers that had been gathered by household-to-household surveying. their decision reflected their belief that legal reasoning trumped mathematical reasoning. because they are judges, this isn't too surprising, but nonetheless their reasoning led to a census result that is farther away from reality than it would have been had they allowed the statistical sampling to correct the count.

2. The additional, corroborating proof that you desire is, I suspect, the evidence of someone sitting down and counting ballots by hand, and then finding that the count does not match the what has been reported. This was attempted in Ohio, but the officials involved committed a crime in obstructing and subverting the recount. In many other states, not even this type of farcical recount was allowed. The "winners" have no interest in democracy, only in keeping power. In addition, much of this type of evidence does not exist (but not all or the only kind of evidence of the crime) -- there are no ballots to recount. Put briefly, you say that there is no proof, but the proof you desire is not allowed to be gathered. "you haven't PROVEN that the bank was robbed. what? no, you can't go into the vault and look."

3. This is a democracy ("the world's oldest"). A democracy (rule by the majority) does not, in fact, exist unless the (majority of) the people who make up the democracy have access to the information that is a record of their will.

So, the issue is not "where is the PROOF that the election was stolen?", but "where is the PROOF that the outcome is what it is claimed to be?" This information should be non-controversial. It should be like property records, kept at the seat of government (city or town or county), and available for anyone to inspect anytime they want. That is, elections should be transparent and auditable. "hey, you want to know who won? go down to the county seat and look through the recorded votes for yourself." look how far (away from a democratic government) we have come that this ISN'T the expected way elections are conducted. "no, you can't go into the vault and see that your money's there. trust me -- it's there. we counted it."

> Regardless, I feel like arguing about it is pointless.

So, you state your view, and then tell everyone else that if they disagree with you, they shouldn't say anything ("whatever. it's pointless")?

here's the point: elections don't exist in the country at this time (an election is meaningless if the counting of the votes can be subverted). people need to recognize what the problem is ("elections can, have, and will be stolen") and what the requirements of a solution to the problem are ("transparent, auditable elections") before (you can reasonably expect that) the correct steps will be taken to resolve it.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

In 2004 there were still liberals arguing that the election was stolen in 2000, and refused to admit that Bush was legitimately declared President.

Please define legitimate for me. The 2000 election was stolen, there are no two ways about it, and the legal infrastructure failed to fulfill its duty in handing the election to Bush. So I sort of fail to understand your use of "legitimate" in this instance unless you mean that infrastuctures in place were used to legitimize the theft in such a way that there were no recourses left to contest it.

[orpheusinhades.livejournal.com]

You misinterpreted me to mean that *I* thought the election was legitimate. Regardless, though, *legally*, Governor Jeb Bush has the right in Florida state law to declare whichever set of ballots he wants to be correct. The Supreme Court's decision was silly, but the states still have the rights to determine their own electioneering, and in Florida it falls to the governor to submit it.

As to mjmj's comments:

in fact, it has been proved by the preponderance of evidence. the election was stolen. what has not been proved is who were the parties that committed the crime. to think otherwise is to be ignorant of the evidence that has been gathered (which has been reported, but not by any of the large media outlets) and to be ignorant of math.

Have you read any scientific evidence presented by the other side that it was, in fact, *not* stolen? I don't necessarily find it convincing, but a jury cannot listen to the prosecution without hearing the defense.

Re: the census representation issue, I am well aware of it, and the reasons the court has supported the "exact count" are far more political than even you suggest.

Put briefly, you say that there is no proof, but the proof you desire is not allowed to be gathered. "you haven't PROVEN that the bank was robbed. what? no, you can't go into the vault and look."

I don't deny that - but to simply state that the bank has been robbed and that it is impossible to rationally disagree because you have read convincing arguments to that end is no more reasonable than declaring that there is a lack of God, or that there is a God, on the basis that somebody made a really good argument for it. The proof is not there - that, as I point out, is the problem. Is the fact that the bad guys have everything to gain by the proof NOT being there extremely suspect? Certainly. Does it prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? I am unwilling to say so.

This is a democracy ("the world's oldest"). A democracy (rule by the majority) does not, in fact, exist unless the (majority of) the people who make up the democracy have access to the information that is a record of their will.

This is, needless to say, a new idea. Such information was not commonly available in any known democracy till the age of modern media. It was entirely impossible for a citizen of, say, Abe Lincoln's America to have any reasonable facsimile of transparency in American voting.

So, you state your view, and then tell everyone else that if they disagree with you, they shouldn't say anything ("whatever. it's pointless")?

My view is that to argue about it is pointless. I am not arguing that it wasn't stolen. I am arguing that it is a self-defeating argument to raise and to dwell on. It may well have been stolen. There's lots of good evidence toward that end. If I say, "okay, it was stolen", what does that do for us? Is it just truth for the sake of truth? From my point of view the only thing that can be done with it can be done much better with the statement "many people believe the election was stolen" - which is something you can more easily convince skeptics of than "the election was stolen; I believe it because of the following summaries of statistical analyses."

[orpheusinhades.livejournal.com]

here's the point: elections don't exist in the country at this time (an election is meaningless if the counting of the votes can be subverted).

I really couldn't disagree more. They have not invented a system that cannot be subverted. Many, many earlier American elections have been questioned, as well as for every other long-standing democracy. It threatens the stability of the system, but it doesn't nullify the reality of elections. Elections aren't "corrupt" or "uncorrupt" - they are more or less corrupt based on a whole range of factors. The Kennedy/Nixon election had serious irregularities - was Kennedy authentically president? Rutherford B. Hayes was called "Rutherfraud" because people thought the election was stolen (and maybe it was).

people need to recognize what the problem is ("elections can, have, and will be stolen") and what the requirements of a solution to the problem are ("transparent, auditable elections") before (you can reasonably expect that) the correct steps will be taken to resolve it.

I disagree again. I don't think that telling people "elections have been stolen" makes the speaker sound credible. People have a vested interest in believing that America is a stable and fair system, which is why they buy into the system and bother to vote (and which is why sometimes minorities don't vote). From my perspective you want to say "look, the very fact that this is in doubt means that we should clear it up". Unlike you, however, I realize that logical people can disagree about courses of action. :P