🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Nov 2004 00:19:36 -0800, fountaingrove@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon)
wrote:

>November 18, 2004 by Inter Press Service 
>US Election: Democracy in Question 
>by Ritt Goldstein
> 
>STOCKHOLM - John Zogby, president of the polling firm Zogby
>International, told IPS he has been calling it "the Armageddon
>election" for about a year. Independent presidential candidate Ralph
>Nader believes the Republican Party was able to "steal it before
>election day."
>
>Facts suggest something went very wrong on Nov. 2. 
>
>Speculation focuses upon a number of questions -- purposeful
>miscounts, anomalies surrounding electronic voting (e-voting)
>machines, particularly the optical scan types; and numerous reports of
>voting "irregularities" in heavily Democratic areas.
>
>"What they 'do' is minorities," Nader said, highlighting the thrust of
>Republican efforts, "and make sure that there aren't enough voting
>machines for the minority areas. They have to wait in line ... for
>hours, and most of them don't. There are all kinds of ways, and that's
>why I was quoted as saying, "this election was hijacked from A to Z,"
>Nader told IPS.
>
>Zogby was concerned about the difference between some of the exit
>polls (surveys of individuals who have just cast ballots) and the
>official vote counts. "We're talking about the Free World here," he
>pointedly noted.
>
>On Nov. 10, University of Pennsylvania Professor Steven F Freeman,
>whose expertise includes "research methods," compiled an analysis
>entitled 'The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy'. The document was
>prepared in view of the unusually large differences between what exit
>polls had predicted and the recorded vote tallies.
>
>His findings suggest Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry should
>have received far more votes than he did.
>
>In three of the key battleground states -- Florida, Ohio and
>Pennsylvania -- Freeman's analysis states the odds of Kerry receiving
>the percentage of votes recorded, given the exit poll findings, were
>less than three in one thousand, per state.
>
>Freeman also determined that the odds of any two of these states
>simultaneously reaching their stated vote tallies were "on the order
>of one-in-a-million," and the odds of all three states arriving at the
>vote counts they did "are 250 million to one."
>
>"Something is definitely wrong," said Zogby. 
>
>Highlighting both the expected accuracy of exit polls and the
>significant disparity that Kerry's defeat illustrated, Republican
>consultant, commentator and Fox-TV News regular Dick Morris wrote an
>article, 'Those Faulty Exit Polls Were Sabotage', suggesting a
>pollster conspiracy to swing the election for Kerry.
>
>In doing so he, perhaps inadvertently, provided ammunition for
>arguments from the opposite side -- that the exit polls were correct
>but the final results were fudged. "Exit polls are almost never
>wrong," argued Morris, and in 10 of the 11 key states they had
>predicted significantly fewer votes for Republican President George W
>Bush than he was eventually credited with.
>
>In New Hampshire, Bush tallied a surprising 9.5 percent more votes
>than predicted, the most significant difference in any of the key
>states.
>
>Morris observed that outside the United States, exit polls are often
>used to provide a check on official vote counts, in his words, "to
>foreclose the possibility of finagling with the returns."
>
>Among the most cited exit polls were those conducted by Mitofsky
>International, whose founder, Warren Mitofsky, is widely credited with
>having invented exit polling. Zogby, whose firm was not among those
>that provided network TV coverage of the Nov. 2 election, described
>the possibility of either incompetence or fraud causing the
>controversial deviation as "impossible."
>
>According to Zogby, it would have required "wrong sampling in wrong
>areas throughout the country," or the purposeful manipulation of data
>to obtain exit poll results so significantly different from the
>official totals. He viewed neither as a possibility.
>
>When asked what exactly had happened then, Zogby replied, "a problem,
>but I don't know where it is ... something's wrong here, though."
>
>On Nov. 5, Nader requested a hand recount of New Hampshire ballots,
>subsequently telling IPS he had "reports of irregularities there, and
>we have the cooperation of the state government ... the state
>attorney-general and secretary of state."
>
>Nader also said his headquarters had been flooded with requests for
>assistance from a number of states.
>
>On Thursday, five of the 11 New Hampshire voting wards where Nader
>requested a recount will undertake new tallies. According to his
>staff, all 11 wards had their votes counted with optical scan
>machines, primarily the AccuVote models made by Diebold.
>
>"If there are irregularities, it may have broader applications in
>other states," Nader said, adding that the current recount -- a
>45,000-vote sample -- is expected to be completed within a week.
>
>Allegations regarding optical scan machines' potentially allowing the
>manipulation of Florida's vote have been widely reported. In Ohio, the
>Green and Libertarian parties are pursuing a recount, numerous
>instances of voting irregularities having been reported there.
>
>"As far as I'm concerned, this election was clearly stolen. What they
>did in Ohio was systematically deny thousands of African Americans,
>and other suspected Democrats, the vote," charged progressive author,
>commentator and activist Harvey Wasserman of Franklin County, Ohio.
>
>"It was like Mississippi in the fifties, and it was deliberate ... had
>there been enough (voting) machines, and had people equal access to
>the polls with a reliable vote count, there is no doubt that John
>Kerry would have carried Ohio," he told IPS.
>
>The Nov. 14 'Cleveland Plain Dealer', one of the country's top 50
>broadsheets, reported a Nov. 13 voter hearing where: "For three hours,
>burdened voters, one after another, offered sworn testimony about
>election day voter suppression and irregularities that they believe
>are threatening democracy."
>
>"People are deeply concerned that this is the end of American
>democracy, that we cannot get a fair election," Wasserman said,
>poignantly adding, "there was no question of apathy in this election
>-- we had more volunteers than could be used ... thousands and
>thousands of grass-roots volunteers."
>
>If Kerry had taken Ohio, he would have taken the presidency. 
>
>"In the end, what Nader is doing in New Hampshire is the best answer.
>And if there's a recount in Ohio," that is also important, said
>Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political
>scientist who specializes in statistical methods, elections and public
>opinion.
>
>Somewhat concerned about the possible manipulation of e-voting
>machines, Franklin was more concerned over "the ordinary
>administration of elections," citing the simple logistical problems
>that had plagued voters.
>
>He pointedly noted that the last two presidential elections
>highlighted "how the decisions of local people (officials) ... can
>have a considerable influence over who gets to vote, what rules
>govern."
>
>When asked if he was aware of any parallels to the present election,
>Zogby replied, "I'm certainly aware of the election of 1960."
>
>"It's been discussed, overtly, the roll that Richard Daley, and the
>roll that Lyndon Johnson played, separately," Zogby said, referring to
>an episode where the John F Kennedy campaign had supposedly asked,
>"How many votes do you have?", the reply allegedly being, "How many
>votes do you need?"
>
>Of course, such examples also serve to highlight the influence "local
>people" can exert on an election's outcome.
>
>In the end, many people speculated that the 1960 incidents were not
>part of a grand conspiracy per se, but the cumulative effects of the
>actions of a number of individuals who shared a similar perspective,
>acted semi-independently, and did whatever it took to win.
>
>Political "dirty tricks" culminated in the Watergate scandal, forcing
>then President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) to resign, ushering in a long
>era without similar illicit activity, until questions raised by the
>election of 2000.
>
>With American democracy, until now, providing an effective model for
>many, as Zogby said, "we're talking about the Free World here."
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1118-11.htm

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:34:08 GMT, Gary J. English <nospam@nomail.com>
wrote:


>>"Something is definitely wrong," said Zogby. 

Yeah, it's called blowing it big time and then seeing your polling
service lose its luster.


http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. 

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:34:08 GMT, Gary J. English <nospam@nomail.com>
wrote:


>>http://www.commonwhores.org




http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings. 

On 20 Nov 2004 00:19:36 -0800, fountaingrove@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon)
wrote:

>Zogby was concerned about the difference between some of the exit
>polls (surveys of individuals who have just cast ballots) and the
>official vote counts.


http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings.