Gee, This Sounds Vaguely Important...
Two election workers in one of Ohio's most densely populated areas and traditional Democratic stronghold, Cuyahoga County, were convicted of illegally rigging the county's recount. According to Erie County Special Proesecutor Kevin Baxter, the recount was fixed not necessarily for political reasons, but because the election employees were too damn lazy to do their jobs properly. Election coordinator Jacqueline Maiden and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer were both covicted of "negligent misconduct of an elections employee," a felony that carries a possible sentence of 6 to 18 months in prison. A third woman, Rosie Grier, the assistant manager of the board's ballot department was indicted but acquitted of the charges.
Under Ohio law, a county is supposed to randomly count 3% of its ballots by hand and by machine. If there are no discrepancies in those counts, the rest of the votes can be counted by machine. If there are discrepancies between the two supposedly random samples, a full recount, by hand, is ordered. According to Special Prosecutor Baxter, what Dreamer and Maiden did, to avoid the labor intensive hand count, was to employ a method known as "hack and stack." The "hack and stack" method, according to blackboxvoting.org works like this:
Some recounts and audits rely on so-called "random" manual counts of a small percentage of the ballots, which are then compared against the voting computer counts for those precincts. The safeguard can be defeated by manipulating the precinct selection process, or by manipulating the ballots in the selected precincts to make sure they match before counting them. This "stacks" the recount or audit so that only subsets of data that match machine counts are examined.
In Cuyahoga County, citizens noticed that the ballots arrived for the public
recount already sorted into sets for Bush and sets for Kerry. Kathleen Wynne videotaped the sorted piles and videotaped as she asked Kathleen Dreamer and Jacqui Maiden to explain the sorting and pre-selected piles. She captured them on videotape admitting that they had not chosen randomly.
So let me get this straight... there is evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt that the recount in one Ohio county was rigged. Is it unreasonable to think that there may have been election fraud in other counties? Nahhhh... I'm sure the results from the other counties were all on the up and up, right? We can take them at their word, can't we?
Oh but wait... there's more. You knew there had to be, didn't you? Oh yes, there's a wrinkle in this story that should really bear some scrutiny. It seems that both Dreamer and Maiden have chosen to fall on their swords to protect their bosses. To date, neither Cuyahoga Elections Director Michael Vu nor Cuyahoga County Board of Elections chair Bob Bennett have publicly answered a single question about the fraudulent election results. But the cherry on top is that the defense attorney for Dreamer and Maiden was one Roger Synenberg, formerly the chairman of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board. Interesting that as defense counsel for Maiden and Dreamer, neither was advised to take a plea bargain. They both could have lessened their sentences had they cooperated with the prosecutors investigating the case. Makes you wonder what dirty little secrets they would have uncovered, doesn't it?
But no, there's no story here. Nothing to see here, move along. Just ask the media.
~Kevin S.
3 Comments:
OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html
"In a sample of 166,953 votes (1/34th of the Ohio vote),
the Kerry-Bush margin changes 6.15% when the population
is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting.
"The 6.15% vote-switch differential is seen when the large
sample is sorted by probability a Kerry wrong-precinct
vote counts for Bush. When the same large voter sample is
sorted by the probability Kerry cross-votes count for
third-party candidates, Kerry votes are instead equal in both subsets."
A second, separate and larger sample confirms the pattern.
Nice - use statistical probability to prove voter fraud! Unfortunately this just adds to populace confusion and another reason for the media to ignore us. People want to know what they can do, not rehash the problem. So, what can we do?
Ummmm... okay. The statistical probabilities are nice and all, but we've got evidence in hand. I'll take hard evidence over statistical probabilities any day of the week.
As for what we can do... write letters to the editor of your local rag, write your Congressperson and your Senators, continue urging them to ban the use of the voting machines. Keep the pressure on and keep encouraging people to join you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home