READER COMMENTS ON

"Eternal Vigilance: Not Just for Founding Fathers Anymore"

(100 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... abacus said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:17 am PT...





Bravo! Fists in air!

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:28 am PT...





"urban voters may like Hillary more than rural voters." Why?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:31 am PT...





"In the end, Clinton won because she was more popular in the large precincts which happen to be tallied by Diebold machines. " ...or... "Hillary got the racist New Hampshire voters who vote with DIEBOLD".

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... molly said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:46 am PT...





I am done with gate keeping so called progressive blogs. They only want to rail at Bush and co.But the cause for bush to even be in office is anathema to even give a rational thought. That is the exact same tactics as repubs. Though they do some good and I had started back reading them the gate keepers in the comments did it for me. Kos Firedog Lake and Crooks and Liars...Huff po's Larry O'Donnell is saying Edwards is a spoiler. They all love a corporation best of all.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Dan Stafford said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:52 am PT...





It seems to me that everywhere I else I turn to for information on the status of American electoral procedures and processes, with the exception of Black Box Voting, I get a smokescreen of illogical rhetoric trying desperately to divert everyone from getting to the logical and honest truth: what is really on the ballots, if the ballots even exist? (I am referring to DRE's, etc with that last, where there is no physical ballot to check) Brad has it absolutely correct - and seems to be one of the few Americans left capable of using simple logic instead of emotional angry/whiny bullshit. You keep right on going, Mr. Friedman, these others are spewing a smokescreen. "Don't look at the ballots behind the curtain" indeed. Thank you. Dan

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:00 pm PT...





"While professional pollsters are suprised [sic] that the results were so different than predicted, they are quietly going about the business of determining where they went wrong. They are taking a scientific approach to the problem - something that Friedman has rejected in favor of hysteria and paranoia," Moran continues, before taking another swipe at me as an "intrepid lefty dolt." Yeah, right. Pollsters are trying to figure out what went wrong scientifically- well, the reality is, if you do this scientifically, you go back and analyze the data you used and the DATA OF THE RESULTS. No scientific approach would exclude the potential that the producer of the results- voting machines- would be excluded from inquiry. That means that you hand count the ballots too because you have to take out the variable that maybe the machines miscounted. Nothing the pollsters do means a bucket of warm spit if the scientific process is not completely carried out. You have to inspect the potential, affecting variable of every part of the process. Those alluding to a scientific process by the pollsters are hung by their own canard.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Shawn said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:02 pm PT...





The work Brad is doing is essential and non-partisian and it's beyond me why Kos felt the need to say anything. And the MSM won't touch this story because of their overboard Obama coverage before the vote. I guarantee they're all keeping up with the story because if the results got flipped, it will be over for Hillary.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... barbara said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:11 pm PT...





DKos has ( had )been I site that I liked. But after this last week,

I begin to wonder what the agenda really is. The attacks on Brad defy any rational explanation. This is our VOTE. Without a completely transparent vote-

we do not have a democracy. And - they have been banning people over there for talking about this!!

No warning- just - gone. There is something deeply wrong with the DKos site labelling those who discuss this with urgency as conspiricy theorists. Really makes me wonder what that site is truly about.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Mark A. Adams JD/MBA said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:20 pm PT...





Another great job, Brad. Keep up the great work! You will probably enjoy what I found out Friday afternoon. South Carolina Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?! South Carolina elections are unconstitutional? How could that be? Surely, no one in our government would conduct any election which violated the Constitution, and if any scheme threatened to undermine the very foundation of our government, our power to elect our leaders, the press would expose it, wouldn’t it? See why those who walk the halls of power in South Carolina have been sweating all weekend. Read the article at http://www.opednews.com/...south_carolina_elect.htm Spread the word like Paul Revere! It’s time to demand an end to the unconstitutional practice of counting our votes in secret! It’s time to restore our ability to control our government by returning to hand counted paper ballots which are counted in public at each precinct on election night! It’s time to throw everyone out of office who fails to abide by the Constitution! Anyone who says they want to keep counting the votes in secret on a computer is either a fool or a flack for those who want unlimited power. Of course, they would be fools, too.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:24 pm PT...





The Rovians are having a gigglefest, while Dems tear each other apart over race issues,...meanwhile real thinkers can plainly see, this NH vote was manipulated, and most the talking heads fall right into line. These Diebold machines were quietly ushered in late last year,...does anyone know who was behind this? NH used to have voter integrity. This is so sad, but we gotta keep beating this drum,...if the people of NH find their votes were stolen,..I promise there will be HELL to pay!

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:27 pm PT...





I am ordinarily a loud opponent of statistical analysis because way too many IMPORTANT specifics are missed with it, but, with big enough samples, this is one area where it can really do its job; to wit: give us a nearly accurate idea of where people stand on the candidates and issues. When the polls by seasoned professionals are this far off the result, any objective observer would be suspicious of the vote count before they would suspect poll error. And anyone worthy of becoming president would demand the NH ballots be actually counted by humans. Period. And that goes double for the winner. That is NOT stating there was fraud, and not even saying there was a mistake. That is just stating that the numbers were off so far that it is utterly irresponsible (and unAmerican) not to go back and insure that we get it right. It is outright unbelievable to me that there are intelligent people out there making such a hairy deal against this, and yet it's right here on the internet, big as heck. I'm not kidding: this stuff makes me feel as though someone slipped LSD into my coffee.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... billl4 said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:33 pm PT...





If Tuesday's results really were the likely result of malfeasance, the Obama and Edwards campaigns would be raising holy hell. They would be seeking a recount, and investigation of the voting, and they would be doing it because they saw the irregularities in the vote results. Of course they would, Mr. Kerry. My favorite line! BTW, what did Kerry do with all that money he collected for a "potential recount" in Ohio? Thanks for everything you do Brad. See you tomorrow at the UNCOUNTED screening in Sacramento.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Michael g said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:34 pm PT...





As someone who is intimately involved with local politics, I have come to the conclusion that logic is no longer a given- as a matter of fact, it seems rare anymore. It's hard to comprehend that someone just pointing out obvious misgivings could be such a hero to democracy. Thanks, Brad! Let's just hope it doesn't get to the point where we'll be saying "told you so"...

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... D V said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:34 pm PT...





Thanks again, Brad. For what it's worth, my supportive words from last week at: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/3600

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:36 pm PT...





... barbara wondered... "Really makes me wonder what that site is truly about." As they purportedly exist to elect Democratic Party candidates to public office... ... and as their current meme is "Elect Even More and Better Democrats!" ... and as they are apparently so terrified of being called "Conspiracy Theorists" that all cognition shuts down in the face of such a terrible threat... ... and as one should presume that they wish to elect candidates that reflect their own views... ... then the answer is obvious! Their goal is: "Elect Even More Democrats Who Will Capitulate To Threats Even Faster!"

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:40 pm PT...





"While professional pollsters are suprised [sic] that the results were so different than predicted, they are quietly going about the business of determining where they went wrong. (bd: HOW? Are they hand-recounting?) They are taking a scientific approach to the problem (bd: WHAT is that scientific approach?) - something that Friedman has rejected in favor of hysteria and paranoia (bd: Where is there 'hysteria and paranoia'?)," Moran continues, before taking another swipe at me as an "intrepid lefty dolt." The "straw man" argument: "Make up" that there's "hysteria and paranoia", then assign it as an attribute of your opponent. It's called the "straw man" argument": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Bill Arney said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:44 pm PT...





Markos is kind of a strange bird. I thought he was real smart, until I met him. We were at a Udall event in San Francisco, and I proposed to him that CA Sec. of State Debra Bowden should run against Nancy "impeachment off the table" Pelosi. He thought that was a bad idea on two counts. First of all, why should Bowden scuttle such a promising political career (ironically, her claim to fame is de-certifying touch-screen balloting for the entire state of California), by running against Pelosi. That made a kind of sense. But what made a lot LESS sense was Markos' other reason: Namely, that we should not try to impeach George Bush. We should, instead, let him bring down the entire Republican Party with him. This kind of thinking reminded me of Delay and his "permanent Republican majority" nonsense. It was pure stupidity to give the president such sweeping powers, given that these powers would descend to the next Democratic president. To think that there would never be another Democratic president to take advantage of those powers was, well, beyond optimistic. But it seems equally stupid to think that Bush would completely destroy the Republican Party. Utter nonsense. The electorate have short memories, and the Republican media is the master of spin. I tried to ascribe these opinions to the youth and inexperience of Markos--as a voter. But the ban on any discussion of these voting catastrophies tells me that Markos is afraid of having his site being branded left wing looney if he allows discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories." I would remind Markos of what he writes on a weekly basis--that the right is going to brand us thus no matter what we write, and we should not give a shit what they think. Somehow, when it comes to the core principle of our democracy, Markos lacks the required nerve. Funny, that.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:45 pm PT...





99 is right: "When the polls by seasoned professionals are this far off the result, any objective observer would be suspicious of the vote count before they would suspect poll error." We saw what happens when there's obviously questionable results before actually proving it, and sitting around saying nothing: The politicians who didn't win take office, a few years later it's proven they didn't win the election, and a few lower-level operatives get thrown in jail (maybe). In the meantime, our country is ruined!

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:46 pm PT...





DO I SOUND LIKE I'M HYSTERICAL AND PARANOID??????????????????? (lol!!!)

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:50 pm PT...





Good response to those who try to debunk what you are saying Brad.(from whoscounting.net)

[snip]

"In the end, which is worse: The idea of having a few maligned folks snickering at you and calling you names.....Or losing the ideology of a democracy in America that is representative of the people? If you’re going to be “getting over” anything....get over THAT. The fear of being called a Sore Loser or a Conspiracy Theorist. Don’t get over the fear of having elections left wide open electronically as a free-for-all for anyone who seeks to interfere in democracy. Don’t get over the fact that the appalling lack of security in these systems, now demonstrated time and time again, is still being unheeded, going unheard, and yet unpronounced by a pathetically anemic and ineffectual press. (I will add- some supposedly "progressive" blogs)

In closing this chapter on Conspiracy Theorists, I would humbly, but not without humor, invoke the pithy retort of Sir Isaac Newton when confronted with any of his many skeptics. “The difference between us”, he points out, “is simple---“

“I have studied these matters-- and you, Sir, have not.” -Sir Isaac Newton" http://www.whoscounting..../ConspiracyTheorists.htm

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Bill Arney said on 1/14/2008 @ 12:55 pm PT...





NEW HAMPSHIRE WILL RECOUNT From Huffington Post: The recounts will begin on January 16, at a time and location to be announced after the state has completed an estimate of the cost and received payment based on that estimate. The questions revolve around the AccuVote optical scanning system, used by 111 of New Hampshire's municipalities. The scanner, made by Premier Election Systems (formerly Diebold) was one of the machines analyzed by the Ohio Secretary of State's office in a recent review of the voting systems used in that state. The reviewers, a mix of academics and corporate computer security experts, described how the AccuVote works:

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:01 pm PT...





#19 Big Dan...YES sometimes I have to clean your spit off my screen-from the inside

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Subway Serenade said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:04 pm PT...





What i find most interesting in all of this, if I read it right, is that the contractor takes control of the paper ballots collected on its machines. Efforts have to be made to audit the chain of custody of the paper ballots. It doesn't take a street musician to figure that out. Hate to say it, but Big Orange has gotten way to kos-y with what passes for 'mainstream.' Sorry, but my questions about 9/11 haven't been answered, I think Dick Cheney has been flipping elections with his voting machines, and I think there's a serious effort underway to mess with the 08 vote.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:21 pm PT...





Analogy: A group of scientists conduct a study and research on a new metal made of several different kinds of ore. They have good information on results of the performance of that new metal because they have exhaustively studied similar mixtures. They then produce the product but it does not meet expectations. They go over their research again and scratch their heads. Nope, should have worked. Studies have been correct in the past and current studies don't differ too much from previous ones. Variable: the manufacturing process.

(Not an intentional pun) Conclusuion: Audit the process and find out if the problem is there. Ooops, there was a mistake entered in the computations, a glitch in the robotics, slightly wrong ratio entered- it was the process that botched the results. How the heck can a study be scientific if the process is not studied (audited) too?

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Jon in Iowa said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:21 pm PT...





"Why not count the damn votes?" You should put that on billboards. If I were you, Brad, I wouldn't waste too much time expressing indignation at the courageous cowards over at Kos. It's a political sinkhole, just like any other, and you're bound to find any number of people ready to make up any number of lies and ignore any number of facts. They're far more interested in playing the game than making sure the rules are followed. Kos is image-obsessed, so let him spin himself into a cocoon; so's the better for the rest of us. If you were to put together an op-ed outlining our concerns, defending the New Hampshire recount and refuting the conspiracy-theory mis-reporting--something with "Why not count the damn votes?" at its core--to submit to reputable papers (if there is such a thing anymore), I can all but guarantee none of the Kossacks could find the legs to follow you into the real world of big-boy print.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Michael said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:24 pm PT...





I'm not the fool I used to be --- I used to trust ATM machines. Now, I don't trust that my vote will be counted unless I mark a paper ballot that is then counted by hand, and YES, I now ALWAYS count my ATM $ in front of the camera. TWICE I have been short-changed $20 by ATM machines. I had to jump through $50 worth of hoops just to get my money back. It was only when I threatened to go to small claims court and require that the ATM video be presented as evidence, that my (former) bank became cooperative. Only a fool would trust Diebold in particular, or anything running non-open-source software in general. When no computer in the country has crashed for 5 years straight (LOL), then this issue can be revisited...

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Johnny on the Spot said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:27 pm PT...





Very refreshing to have someone hit back comprehensively with the facts at the sleazy, self-serving DailyKos bully boys. Their self-policing refusal to discuss this issue seriously is an open invitation to more election fraud. Bravo!

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:27 pm PT...





The MSM won't touch the story of election fraud and vote rigging because they would have to do some investigative reporting, and it's expensive and messy to do real investigative reporting. It's much simpler, and way easier on their bottom lines (the main goal of the MSM industry), to forgo the investigative part of journalism and instead, pose an unsubstantiated counterpoint to the argument that our elections are fraudulent. They get more viewers this way, too, because, as everyone here at Brad's blog has discovered, it takes some time and some reading up on the subject to get a complete understanding of what has happened in the past and where we are today. Kos is a humongous and messy site. I think it's great for people who are beginning to question the status quo, to get their feet wet for the first time in the national political dialogue. But at some point, those people will recognize that Kos feeds itself too much from the same riled-up, inarticulate, ready-to-fight mindset that FOX does.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:36 pm PT...





I think this is interesting, maybe you will, too. In every single discussion I have listened to on NPR re the NH primary, every single commenter refers to the polling/results discrepancy as a case of the polling being wrong. (Insert loud scream, with the sound of a keyboard being slammed against a wall.) Are we THAT unable to critically think?! THAT is a conclusion, not an observation of fact. The fact is that there is a discrepancy between the polling and the results. Period. Everything else is a conclusion, which you can't simply state as fact w/o backing it up with additional factual information.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:40 pm PT...





Linda! I just figured it out! OUR TINFOIL HATS ARE PROTECTING US FROM THE MIND CONTROL BEING BROADCAST ACROSS THE COUNTRY!!!!!!! We shouldn't argue with them; we should rescue them!

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... nwmuse said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:45 pm PT...





We've been supporting you over at TheZoo. Here and here as well. We have followed all your updates and those from the Kucinich campaign website.

This is about the process, preserving the integrity of all our votes. If there is any question at all, then we should ALL want to have the votes counted to ensure the process is secure. Its about our right to vote, and have our vote counted for the person we voted for. Its about preserving our democracy.

I personally don't support Clinton OR Obama. But I strongly I support the process.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:51 pm PT...





Agent 99...this is like acid in our coffee,..brown acid! Even Randi Rhodes who was always a huge advocate for paper ballot voting, is convinced women felt sorry for Hillary and voted for her,...with no consideration for the Diebold fiasco! Boy the Dems really know how to destroy our own party! Can we have a viable third party already!!

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Disillusioned said on 1/14/2008 @ 1:59 pm PT...





The vast majority of people just don't get it, on the left or even on the right. Brad "gets it". Elections need to be transparent and verifiable. The only way to ensure that they are transparent and verifiable is to have transparent and verifiable counts and recounts and recounts-of-recounts if necessary. Chain-of-custody must always be a key element since even a transparent recount is worthless if its possible that ballots were tampered with. IMO, don't worry so much about the idiots who don't get it. They'll never get it. Just try to keep up the good work investigating and reporting this election stuff, and let the rest of us deal with the naysayers.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... nwmuse said on 1/14/2008 @ 2:01 pm PT...





I forgot to say in my earlier comment..

Thanks Brad for all your hard work and exceptional coverage of this issue as well as your coverage of the Sibel Edmonds story.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Steve B said on 1/14/2008 @ 2:02 pm PT...





A concern on Kos by the supporters of the two anonymous bloggers mentioned by Brad is that it would be prohibitively expensive to do a hand count of all ballots cast of,let's say,California for example. By gosh!! Can you imagine having to count 12 million ballots by hand? My response to that is: 1. Canada,as far as I am aware,counts all their ballots by hand and they don't seem to have a problem with it. That said,I think there is an effort gaining steam to do what we do here because everyone likes an instant result whether it is a correct result or not. 2. Would you rather spend your tax dollars to ensure that democracy and elections are accurate here or would you prefer to end them to Iraq?

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... jaycee said on 1/14/2008 @ 2:18 pm PT...





Here is some hard evidence of questionable vote counts...backward vote counts! It does not matter that it is a reflection of a lesser known candidate, what else has gone wrong? Howard is the Republican candidate seeking a recount in NH with the help of Ron Paul supporters. http://www.concordmonito...0112/FRONTPAGE/801120402 Primary votes to be recounted

Excerpt: Howard said he grew concerned watching the results roll in on C-SPAN on Tuesday. With 12 percent of the precincts counted, Howard said, C-SPAN showed he had 150 votes, then 187. Suddenly, Howard said, his name disappeared and his vote total dipped down to 30. "I was actually ahead of Alan Keyes for a while," Howard said. "That's what triggered some real emotion in me." According to unofficial tallies, Howard won 44 votes in the primary. Keyes snagged 203. ...Yeah, I would get emotional too if my votes totals started counting backwards!

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... lysias said on 1/14/2008 @ 2:20 pm PT...





Did Hillary get that crying session staged so that there would be an excuse to use once the election had been stolen for her?

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Cindy said on 1/14/2008 @ 2:28 pm PT...





...........When no computer in the country has not crashed for 5 years straight (LOL), then this issue can be revisited... I concur most heartily!! Let me think on that one.... hmmm windows 3.1....ummm no, not so much.... Windows NT 4.0..... ummm no not that one either.... they experimentally tried to run a Navy ship on N.T. 4......... the ship went dead in the water...... Windows XP.... no ...not so much there either... XP SP2.... uh uh nope, about 6 months without self corruption is as good as it gets.....Vista? (choke)........ Solaris, HP-UX,? .... about 2 years, unless there is a power glitch... Unix gets cranky... Linux? now we are getting closer but still no ceegar - its all open source and getting worked over pretty continuously, and its pretty good - for an O.S...... Diebold who knows what??? written in what????? har deee har har harrrr! Again I reiterate - anyone who trusts a computer is not in Information Systems (IS) and is NOT a coder!!!

Trust a machine (computer)???? Excuse me I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Blech ptuuuie!

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... ArchiCoot said on 1/14/2008 @ 2:55 pm PT...





I have followed Kos almost from his first postings and have seen a tightening of free speech towards a more centrist attitude.

I too read every salacious comment on the election ballot recount issue.

I was disappointed and have moved Kos further down my priority bookmarks.

The salient issue is, as Brad states, every vote needs to be counted, and tallied accurately. On another related thought... ex-Bush Press Secretary, Tony Snow, recently used the repug talking point of calling this issue "voter fraud" with Bill Mahr and guests letting him do it twice. HELLO ! We are talking about the possibility of "Election Fraud" which has to do with the election officials, voting machine programers or machines counting the voter ballots.

This is real misdirection ! One item Brad should look into is posting a tip jar as I would tip him generously with kudos on this one.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... clara said on 1/14/2008 @ 3:16 pm PT...





Kos is as partisan and ideologically blinded as any right-wing Republican. He is of no use in politics, except to give narrow-minded, ideologically blinded people like himself a place to call home. Brad, I'm sorry these idiots are calling you terrible names, but please, consider the source and try not to take it to heart. You are doing THE most important work in our country right now. I'm so glad you are still on this case. In fact, I am going to write you a check this week (payday is Wednesday). I hope others here who appreciate your courage and tenacity will pledge to do the same.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/14/2008 @ 3:29 pm PT...





Kos had been censoring the truth for far too long. It has only come to Brad's attention now in this circumstance, but many of us have known the truth of C&L, KOS, HuffPo and others for quite some time. There is some truth they just won't tolerate - therefore castigate and/or censor - and in so doing, reveal themselves as pretenders. The TRUTH is all that matters.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... mateito said on 1/14/2008 @ 3:41 pm PT...





Cheers to Brad. Thanks for not letting attack dogs get you down. Also, thanks for maintaining a positive, journalistic outlook on this, no matter what folks may say. I too have been a frequent visitor at Kos and am more than a little discouraged at the dismissive nature of the recent diaries there. To his credit, Kos does unconditionally support counting paper ballots. While I am unsettled by their dismissive approach to recently voiced concerns about voting integrity, I also think there is a virtue in holding posts to a high standard and promoting unity - we all need to work together to get through this. In truth, voting integrity should be a centerpiece of the Democratic platform. Democrats should welcome all recounts with gratitude, regardless of the state, contest or outcome. We should immediately begin fundraising for random recounts of large states at a moment's notice to act as a deterrent to hacking and increasing the possibility of uncovering even stronger smoking guns. And we should approach the issue with a sense of unity that will be welcome at the larger sites, galvanizing the vocal support of millions. Kudos to Brad for doing his best for staying above the fray of infighting and divisiveness. It must be tough, but it's an honest path of integrity. Thankfully, we're not waiting until the general to revive this issue.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Brad B. said on 1/14/2008 @ 3:50 pm PT...





Germany counts all their ballots by hand (80 million residents). All state workers have the day off their regular jobs to hand count votes. It works with typical German efficiency, even with the razor thin margins of their recent elections.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:01 pm PT...





Storming the gates my ass. Time and again kos has shown himself to be nothing but a close minded, power tripping, corporatecrat. He could give two shits about a progressive movement- he's all about the green, whether it be the Green Room at Meet the Press or the kind of green with dead presidents on it.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Ram said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:02 pm PT...





I think that it's interesting that even Keith Olbermann said this in his post on Dkos: And to report that Dennis Kucinich has put a down payment on a New Hampshire recount is not to claim Hillary Clinton stole a primary. and this: But can anybody reading messages into tea leaves in my newscast, when there isn’t even a teacup, please resume regular breathing patterns? There are a lot of out-of-control control freaks at that site that twist and bend every issue to their own point of view (and then blame their opponents of doing the same) and Markos is leading the charge. It appears that there are some people there that think that we are hanging on their every word (legends in their own minds) --- truth is, I don't even read Markos' stuff (or other front pagers). I go to Dkos to find out what's happening from different points of view --- it is the stuff of 'citizens' of Dkos that I read, not the almighty, all-powerful Oz behind the curtain. I don't understand how Markos can go on the Colbert Report poking fun at the label of 'nazi' and then be so terrified of being labeled a 'conspiracy nut'. Keith's diary: http://www.dailykos.com/...14/12636/5764/715/436605 (sorry, I couldn't get the link button to work) Brad, there are still so many of us that are thankful for your tireless work to protect our vote.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... pat driscoll said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:04 pm PT...





so much election fraud, so little interest from 'liberal' websites. when brad made it so easy for blogs to keep up with the latest evidence, i foolishly imagined kos, DU, huffpo, nation, salon, etc would prominently feature bradblog links on a daily basis. how wrong i was.

instead they are too busy trying to get their man/woman into power, even tho their man/woman has sat on his/her backside since the 2000 election fiasco, doing nothing.

it's bad enough that the whole electoral college system is basically flawed, but to do nothing to correct actual fraud means it's a one-party system - the corporate party.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... mary ann ford said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:16 pm PT...





Fact-machines that count or collect votes have been shown to be absolutely hackable.

Fact-the employee in charge of the machines in New Hampshire is a convict.

Fact-that employee had access to the machines throughout the voting process.

Fact-people across the country have reported machines flipping their votes in past elections.

Fact-private companies owned by people who have made large political contributions control the voting machines before, during and after the election, and they count our votes in private.

Fact-an employee of a voting machine company testified to congress that he was asked to manipulate the machines so the votes could be controlled.

And so on, and so on, and so on….

Is this evidence extraordinary enough for the doubters?

To my way of thinking, knowing all these things, what we need at this time is extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim that our votes are safe.

Brad-keep on keeping on, there is no more patriotic work than insuring the sanctity of our vote.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:18 pm PT...





How can a nation that has spent about $486 billion and almost 4,000 U.S. lives so far to rid the world of a horrible dictator, or make Iraq democratic, or whatever the reasons are for the invasion and occupation, even begin to complain about the paltry (in comparison) costs of a vote recount?!

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Oswald said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:36 pm PT...





The Dems are being naive in their response to this issue. They're assuming that a Dem wouldn't try and steal an election from another Dem. Even if that's true, it's not the only possible interpretation of events. It could be the repugs trying to steal the election on Hillary's behalf. They may think she's easier to beat than Obama. Remember how Nixon's people tried to squelch the Muskie campaign (arguably successfully) and get McGovern as their opponent. They knew he would be easier to beat. I go into this in more depth in a post on my blog.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... TomR said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:39 pm PT...





I would think Mr. Moran would actually quote Mr. Friedman to back up his claims about Brad's position, or at least carefully read what Brad wrote. ----

Instead, my suggestion that, in an election as anomalous as this one (though it should be true for any election, says crazy me) the ballots of the voters should actually be counted, is seen as some sort of crazy, whacked out notion.

---- This is called "normalizing the dysfunction" where the dysfunctional behavior (i.e. not counting the votes in a trustworthy manner) becomes the norm and what would be normal is perceived as dysfunctional. Through the looking glass is where we've gone. - Tom ps. Whomever approved privatizing voting and vote counting without first consulting with security experts and the voters themselves should be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... abacus said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:42 pm PT...





Agent 99 # 11 "what did Kerry do with all that money he collected for a "potential recount" in Ohio?" I have no details about Kerry campaign finances; and I have no respect for the Kerry who took a dive; but it is true that some Kerry money helped pay for the costs of the recount which established Gregoire's victory as Governor here in Washington State {I think you must have too many windows open, abacus, because my #11 had nothing to do with Kerry. I could barely stand voting for him, let alone talk about him now. I think you really ought to provide a link to claims like Kerry helping pay for the Gregoire recount though, because he wouldn't even pay for his own... despite America depending on it. --99}

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:45 pm PT...





That does it. From now on I'm calling myself a 'Conspiracy REALIST.'

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/14/2008 @ 4:52 pm PT...





Brad: You're not alone at all. I don't have the links, but there has been a great deal of coverage in foreign press - and most of the comments on those pages think something is rotten with that election. (I know, you're not saying it is.) Also, this has caused a huge buzz on the right. (Or at least, the libertarian right.) Also, has anybody read the book "VoteScam" by the Collier brothers. It brought up many of these issues back in the 1990s. You can find parts of it online. If Dennis doesn't talk about about chain of custody issues, then it seems like the recount is pointless. I hope you try to cover that, especially as the recount is on. Thanks

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... abacus said on 1/14/2008 @ 5:12 pm PT...





Steve B # 35

Brad #43 Hand counting works... In 2004 here in Washington State we had an election for Governor which made headlines everywhere for the extraordinarily close result. The election was conducted with hand-marked paper ballots and opscan machines. [a few DREs] State-wide, Gregoire won by about 130 votes after a hand recount of more than 2.8 million ballots. It was finally settled at the Appellate Court level after as bitter and well-funded battle by the Republican losers as you can imagine - even they could not stomach appealing the judge's analysis of the count/process to the State Supreme Court....

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/14/2008 @ 5:19 pm PT...





I haven't heard mention of NH's other big city Salem that went to Clinton by about 80%. That was the biggest margin. Ironically Concord, the state capitol was favored for Clinton but the only big city that went to Obama.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... Carol Stein said on 1/14/2008 @ 5:40 pm PT...





The problem is not simply that some electronic voting machines may be rigged. The problem is that it is so easy in our time to determine the few machines in which precincts in which state(s) need to be rigged to control an entire national election. I've been trying today to get NPR stations/shows to pay some attention to this problem, so far without much success. Saturday I was appalled to hear jokes on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" (news quiz show on NPR) about how the pollsters all got it wrong. No questioning, no reasoning --- no thought at all, apparently. Their expert guest was a pollster who made no attempt to say anything other than 'gee, we sure screwed that up, and don't know how!' No explanation I've seen accounts for the exit poll discrepancies, regardless of whether the predictive polls should be so strangely off (only in machine-counted precincts). Btw, I used to teach statistics and investigative methodologies at University, and my IQ is in the neighborhood of 170. Keep on keeping on, Brad!

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... Ska-T said on 1/14/2008 @ 5:49 pm PT...





Brad mentions DemFromCT on dKos. I had a revealing exchange with this person. (Note: I go by a different name over there.) In a nutshell, I replied to someone else that appeared to be taking up Karl Rove's wet dream that we should do away with exit polling because they just "aren't accurate" anymore. I made the comment that exit poll inaccuracy seems to coincide with the privatization of the ballot box. DemFromCT jumps in and tries to cut me down with a quote from Mark Blumenthal about the 2004 exit polls. DemFromCT must have missed the fact that the paragraph he chose included a final sentence that agreed with my premise, "The problem with this reasoning is that exit polls similarly "wrong" before, though perhaps not to the same degree or consistency." In reply, I chose not to provide him with numerous links that support the use and accuracy of exit polls (if done correctly), but rather came back at him with a quote from the same Mark Blumenthal who stated clearly, "I have always been a fan of exit polls. Despite the occasional controversies, exit polls remain among the most sophisticated and reliable political surveys available." But DemFromCT responded with the rock solid one-line argument, "you reveal your misunderstanding of the basics." My point of view was crushed. How can you not agree with such deep understanding of the issues?

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/14/2008 @ 6:06 pm PT...





Kucinich just got in the Nevada debate for Tuesday! Hope he brings this matter up!

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... MrBill123 said on 1/14/2008 @ 6:20 pm PT...





I would suspect that the MSM will not even ask go near election integrety, but who knows when you have THE only candidate for President up there who wants to what "really" happened in NH.

I could see another question about "UFOs" being responded by - "You mean unidentified, like in our election system?"

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... RandyR said on 1/14/2008 @ 6:21 pm PT...





Brad, I want to offer my unconditional support for the work you do. The matter of the NH primary defies consensus for its results. Matters of elections must have consensus as to the results or we must rely on assumptions as to the results, and that's not democracy. I have read diligently every post to your site since the election and from the start your conclusion has been that it's reasonable to hand count the ballots when the results are unexpected. There is a feeling among many Americans that there have been too many elections where the results have been unexpected. Confidence in elections must be restored and stolen elections revealed. What I'm sorry to see is that you are losing sight of the goal of confidence in free and fair elections and have been pulled into discourse with those who disagree with you. Tell those who disagree to stick it in their ear and go on with your work. I enjoy dkos and admire some of their work but they have not been granted Papal Infallibility. Don't waste your energy on those who don't have your vision.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/14/2008 @ 6:57 pm PT...





#58 Elliot yes I just saw that Wonderful news. Judge Grants Kucinich Entry to Nevada's Democratic Presidential Debate

[snip]"Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson said if Kucinich is excluded, he'll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate." http://www.rawstory.com/...ry_to_NV_d_01142008.html (trying the linky thing for the first time)

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/14/2008 @ 7:27 pm PT...





RE: # 61 Spoke too soon, @#%K

"NBC News issued this official statement on the situation: "We disagree with the judge's decision and are filing an appeal."

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/14/2008 @ 8:09 pm PT...





I had forgotten about this video and it might help explain the reason Kucinich asked Iowa voters to support Obama (in Iowa only) if he didn't get enough votes. It's Hillary and Edwards caught discussing (whispering) eliminating some of the candidates from debates. I do like Edwards but find this disturbing.

(Try to ignore that it's a video from Fox "news" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLT4wa0qmzM

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/14/2008 @ 8:13 pm PT...





DHinMI is a dick. I've noticed that in pro-impeachment diaries, his mission in life is to pepper each one (even the not-so-good ones that just scroll by without getting on the rec list) with 50 comments about how stupid and futile it is, how it's never going to happen, where the fuck will 17 Repub votes come from in the Senate, etc, etc. The dude's entitled to his opinion, of course, but he does it with an incredibly obnoxious attitude that makes me want to kick him in the balls. And he goes way over the top with putting down the persuit of impeachment. OK, I get it. He's against it. But the degree to which he WORKS at putting it down is rediculous. There are many activists working on many causes, many of which have low-probability goals, and I don't see him writing 50 comments in scroll-by diaries for those other causes.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... Charles Ponzi said on 1/14/2008 @ 8:40 pm PT...





A simple hack. NH designs a ballot with 20+ names on it. Each name has a circle next to it. To vote, you must fill in the dot next to your candidate. A new program has to be written and loaded on every Diebold machine in the state to correctly read this new ballot.

The scanner reads your ballot and records what number is filled in. Your candidate gets credit for the vote. Let's say some friend of mine, say Larry H. Scammer, made a mistake when he wrote the program for the scanner to read this ballot. Say he mixed up who was on line #8 with line #14. Who would know? Candidate #8 would get all of #14's votes and vice versa. Oops. The total vote count would still be correct. All that would be left is the crying.

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... Tiger said on 1/14/2008 @ 8:40 pm PT...





Indeed quite the incestous lot, thy name is lefty blah go spear.

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/14/2008 @ 8:45 pm PT...





Is there a site manager on the premises?

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/14/2008 @ 9:05 pm PT...





Why is there no online fund for the NH recount? Is Kucinich going to set one up?

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... mick said on 1/14/2008 @ 9:24 pm PT...





these are the type of people you expect uphold "Eternal Vigilance"

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/14/2008 @ 9:26 pm PT...





What's up, Linda? [Yer not worried about the nursery rhymes, are you? Just because he sounds too young to vote doesn't actually tell us anything nowadays... ]

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/14/2008 @ 9:42 pm PT...





BENJAMMIN075!--Yes, there are TWO recount funds going strong. A coupla posts back, Jon in Iowa directed me to the KUCINICH RECOUNT FUND:

http://www.dennis4presid...ty-of-our-voting-system/ ...and the ALBERT HOWARD fund, sponsored by the RON PAUL supporters for a full recount of the REPUB ballots is here:

http://grannywarrior.chipin.com/recount The RECOUNT FEE, annouced today, was surprisingly low. From statement released earlier today: "According to the official letter that Albert Howard signed, the cost is $55,600 for the recount of approximately 240,000 ballots.

The Secretary of State must receive the money in the form of a certified check by 3 PM tomorrow January the 15th..." Last I checked, the Grannies had collected some $36,000 (web-"chip in" counter is busted right now, might be from so much traffic. Sure hope so.

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/14/2008 @ 9:52 pm PT...





...and if any of you need a "pick me up", check out some of the moving comments posted by the RECOUNT contributors, coming in from all over the world: http://grannywarrior.chi...blic/id/f4f0c43cf84bf880 I went there yesterday and read them all to bathe myself clean after dirty, dirty DKos.

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... Excellent said on 1/14/2008 @ 10:09 pm PT...





I'm not reading DKOS anymore; I might as well be reading MSM Newsweek. "Progressive,Democratic blog" my ***. It's hard not to become cynical, but the GA primary is coming up, and we have only Diebold electronic voting machines here, so probably my vote will either be flipped or not counted. What a nasty thought to realize I could actually be voting for Mittens or the other war monger.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/14/2008 @ 10:55 pm PT...





Jeannie, your first link to the Kucinich fund doesn't work. --{Fixed it. --99}-- I looked around his website and found articles, but nothing specifically trying to raise money for the recount fee. This is very short notice! Perhaps some "big money" people will step in, or can Kucinich write the check? If they don't get the money tomorrow, is it goodbye recount forever? What's the deal? We should have been raising money all along.

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:16 pm PT...





Another question about recount fees: are the Republicans seperate from Democrats? e.g. if Albert Howard/Ron Paul/Granny Warriors pay $56,000 but Kucinich does not, does that mean only the Republican race will be recounted? Do we need to raise $111,000 to pay for both a Democratic and Republican recount? I don't see much at the Kucinich website to indicate his people are on top of these breaking developments.

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Laura said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:37 pm PT...





BEJAMMIN075#75, Here is the email I received from the Kucinich campaign about the recount and the debate. Hope it helps. http://us.f301.mail.yaho...=1&view=a&head=b

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/14/2008 @ 11:58 pm PT...





Laura, that link doesn't work (at least, for me). If the email is different than the press releases/news on the Kucinich website, could you paste the text, or some of the good parts, here? Anyone know if $56,000 pays to count ballots of just one party, or both political parties? I did send $30 to the Granny Warriors recount fund.

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... mick said on 1/15/2008 @ 12:19 am PT...



COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/15/2008 @ 12:38 am PT...





Jeannie, where do you get the figure of $55,600 for the recount fee? The Granny Warriors site doesn't mention the fee, or I can't find it there. Also not on the NH SoS website.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Laura said on 1/15/2008 @ 12:42 am PT...





BEJAMMIN075 #77.. Hope this works for you https://services.myngp.c...MqbXSlQlo8TFIHgPSjHUCy8=

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... Laura said on 1/15/2008 @ 12:46 am PT...





BEJAMMIN075....This is the page the link that doesn't work for you goes too. I hope you can access it.

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... Laura said on 1/15/2008 @ 12:49 am PT...





Theres also this page on his website, Good Luck http://www.dennis4presid...ty-of-our-voting-system/

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... bejammin075 said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:04 am PT...





Laura, those links are working, but the fund is for the Dennis Kucinich campaign. To help pay for the recount in NH, it would have been much better for Kucinich to set up a specific fund for it, like the Granny Warriors did on the Republican side.

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:15 am PT...





Bejammin~I am on both mailing lists (I'm a RON PAUL/ DENNIS KUCINICH girl, fighting for both with all my warm, believing stuff like a silly goose.) ALBERT HOWARD has been sending us updates daily. The figure came directly from his e-mail earlier today. You might also find it via the RON PAUL sites, not sure. As I understand it, yes, the DENNIS KUCINICH fund is only for a DEM RECOUNT/ the ALBERT HOWARD fund is to recount the REPUBs on BEHALF of Ron Paul--so seems your math is dead on (as always, I DO enjoy your numbers!) Yes--they just charged the American people $111,000 just to (seemingly) get a fair (ish), clean (we'll see) N.H.PRIMARY ELECTION.

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... Laura said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:21 am PT...





Bejammin Agreed... if I had a say so, But alas I do not.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:25 am PT...





...yes! I thought the same thing when I donated.

A separate fund for a KUCINICH RECOUNT would be MUCH more likely to generate bigger donations. Especially from overseas where apparently they know ALL ABOUT the weird numbers from our NH OUR PRIMARY! So I just gave directly to the campaign and flagged the payment with: "N.H.RECOUNT DONATION!" Thanks for your tenacity on making this double donation, Bejammin!...kina empowering, eh? EXPENSIVE, but empowering. (99-thanks for your ever-vigilant link fixing!)

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... TruthIsAll said on 1/15/2008 @ 2:46 am PT...





Final Exit Polls: Adjusted to Match the Recorded Vote

TruthIsAll http://www.geocities.com...nalExitPollToTheVote.htm The controversy surrounding the New Hampshire Primary proves once again that the vast majority of Americans are uninformed regarding the exit polls. Final state and national exit poll results presented on corporate media web sites, the television networks, NYT and Washington Post are not the actual raw, unadjusted (“pristine”) results. The distinction between unadjusted and adjusted exit poll data is the cause of much confusion and misinformation. CNN has reported the Final New Hampshire Exit Poll results. Now that a recount is going to take place, thanks to Dennis Kucinich, the media should also be reporting the earlier “pristine”, unadjusted Exit Poll results. The Finals “contaminate” the raw polling data as they are “adjusted” to force a match to the recorded vote totals. If the vote count is fraudulent, simple logic dictates that the Final Exit Poll does not provide the True Vote, but rather a corrupt one. The demographics would also be wrong. It’s standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force the final state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote - even if it means using impossible weights and implausible vote shares. The procedure assumes a fraud-free election – not exactly a reality-based assumption. Media pundits and politicians always claim that pre-election and/or early exit polls are wrong if they don’t match the recorded vote. Few dare mention the possibility of Election Fraud as the cause of the discrepancies. In 2004, the pundits never considered that the recorded votes may have been miscounted and the preliminary exit polls essentially correct. They just accepted that the count was accurate. In so doing, they promoted the myth that the election was fraud-free. They also believed that the final exit poll results were confirmed by the vote count. They dismissed the accuracy of the early exit polls, claiming they were not designed to predict the True Vote, only to provide a demographic snapshot of the electorate. But if that’s the case, and the recorded vote count is corrupted, then so are the demographics. They never did the analysis which would have proved that the adjusted Final NEP weights were impossible and that the adjusted vote shares were implausible. If they had, they would have come to the same conclusion as the spreadsheet-wielding bloggers - that the election was most-likely stolen (view the spreadsheet analysis below). There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the 2004 and 2006 elections were fraudulent. Since the final state and national exit polls were forced to match the official results, a serious analyst needs to focus on changes in vote shares and weights from the unadjusted, “pristine” exit polls to the adjusted, “contaminated” final. In 2004, John Kerry held a steady 51-48% lead throughout the National Exit Poll timeline: at 4pm (8349 respondents); 7:30pm (11027); 12:22am (13047) - after the polls closed. But of course Bush won the Final NEP by 51-48% (13660 respondents). The Final was posted the day after the election and was forced to match the Recorded Vote count by using impossible weights and implausible vote shares. The 12:22am NEP “Voted 2000” category indicated that Bush 2000 voters comprised 41% of the 2004 electorate; Gore voters 39% - and Kerry was a 51-48% winner. But in the Final NEP, the weights were adjusted to 43% and 37%, respectively – and Bush won by 51-48%. The 4% increase in the spread between Gore and Bush voters was a major component of the reversal. In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm NEP “Voted 2004” Bush/ Kerry weights were changed from 47/45 to 49/43 in the Final. Once again, just like in 2004, the exit pollsters had to match the vote count by increasing the spread by 4%! This had a major effect in reducing the Democratic margin- from 55-43% at 7pm to 52-46% in the Final. The Democratic Tsunami gained 31 congressional seats. But they actually did much better than that. A regression trend analysis of 120 pre-election Generic polls (all won by the Democrats) projected they would win by 56-42% and gain over 40 seats. The 7pm National Exit Poll confirmed the pre-election trend. But the next day, the Final NEP was once again forced to match a corrupted vote count with implausible weights and vote shares. The Democratic margin was cut in half. The fraud resulted in the loss of 10-20 seats. The State Exit Poll Aggregate Timeline Edison-Mitofsky provided four aggregate state exit poll measures.

Kerry won the first three; Bush won the Final:

1) WPE 51.8-47.2% (unadjusted)

2) GEO 51.0-48.5% (adjusted to incoming recorded votes)

3) Composite 50.3-49.1% (12:22am-adjusted to pre-election polls)

4) Final 48.5-51.1% (matched to recorded vote) WPE is the only unadjusted (“pristine”) method. It is based on the average discrepancy between the exit poll result and recorded vote for all precincts polled in the state. Measures (2) and (3) are adjusted estimates which incorporate pre-election polls and recorded votes. The final state exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes, therefore implying ZERO election fraud. Why should we believe them? And why bother doing exit polls at all if they will just assume that the recorded vote count was the True Vote?

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... Gary said on 1/15/2008 @ 4:08 am PT...





It is absolutely necessary to establish that machine counted ballots are audited and compared to a paper trail. I work in elections and I know our vote tallies depend solely on the unverified honesty of the vote counters. I am now sorely tempted to hit kos in the nose when I see him at the netroots convention.

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/15/2008 @ 4:31 am PT...





Thanks TruthIsAll # 87, you always make it easier for the layman/woman to understand the numbers.

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/15/2008 @ 4:48 am PT...





Badger #6 ... well said. Brad focuses on an axiomatic moment:

ATMs are fairly reliable. But I have a feeling if you get $300 from one of them, you'll likely count, by hand, all three hundred dollar bills to make sure they are there. Right? You'd be an irresponsible fool to do otherwise. (Oops). Here Brad becomes very opinionated, but his opinion is the exact same as mine. The first thing I do is count the money! I have decades of experience as a high paid software developer (a.k.a. programmer). And I don't "have faith in" the machines or in the software. In America we keep religion and the state seperate, and so I habitually check up on the machine. But we need to face the fact of Amurka vs. America. The basic reason is the same as the astronaut that was asked "What do you think about as you sit strapped into your seat as the countdown goes 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...", to which he replied, "I think about this machine having been built by the low bidder out to make a profit". The election machine business world has been in various troubles from day one, and they have taken every shortcut "profit enchancer" known. And the results are obvious to those who know night from day. The MSM of Amurka frankly does not know night from day. The first thing they do when they get cash from an ATM is not count the money. Indeed, they are very, very FAITHFUL Amurkans in their ideology but they think feel that they are Americans in their ideology.

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/15/2008 @ 4:58 am PT...





Big Dan #16 Perhaps Now we know where the poster "You Moran" came from?

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/15/2008 @ 7:04 am PT...





As far as I've seen, in all the years I've been coming here to Brad's blog, he's never changed and is only concerned about the truth about voting. Non-partisan. If his investigation happens to indict a Republican or Democrat, don't misconsture that as partisan...a guilty person's party affiliation is just a by-product, not important to exposing the truth.

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/15/2008 @ 7:05 am PT...





I have never thought this was a "Democrat" or "liberal" blog...

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/15/2008 @ 7:06 am PT...





...misconstrue...

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... bluebird said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:54 pm PT...





Anyone who reads a little history knows this: where there's power, there's conspiracy. I'm thinking of Richard the Third sticking the princes in the tower, then (probably) murdering them and stealing the throne, Mary Stewart's conspiracy, while incarcerated, to take the crown of England from Elizabeth, Perkin Warbeck's conspiracy with European heads of state to take the English throne from Henry vii. Maybe Musharaff had Benazir Bhutto killed, she seemed to think he was good for it. Bradbloggers could add a slew of others. History is made of 'em. So why is it that so many folks here in the US think conspiracy doesn't happen in this country? A country with so much power? For people not to question voting machines known to be hackable, created and serviced by supporters of a president who has taken power twice because they were, is really, well, madness! And/or it's a really great defense mechanism, a life-raft to keep the fiction afloat that everything's really alright, order prevails and there are no sharks in that dark water underneath. I'd like to know the genesis of the crazy idea blinding this country, that conspiracy doesn't happen here. Because that idea really has been of great benefit to people in control who want to keep a lid on us. It's the perfect cover and the ultimate urban legend, one that may have helped screw us out of our democracy, and seems to work every time. What a useful tool for those who intend to conspire us into fascism.

Brad has said over and over, that he has no idea whether the vote was hacked, but he knows his facts and the facts say you can't trust private, partisan, machine owning companies , or vote tallies that emerge from the secret guts of these machines and reverse all the polling figures. His request is simple: if anomalies appear, recount the vote by hand to make sure it is correct. Because there is a lot of evidence from previous elections that it might not be.

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... DES said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:59 pm PT...





Posting this on all applicable threads for those who are unclear on the distinction... PLEASE NOTE: This is not about Candidate A winning or Candidate B losing. This is solely about the hackable, unsecure voting machines (optical scan in NH) that have been investigated and proven to be crap and yet are still deployed to count the majority of elections in this country. Whenever and wherever there is a discrepancy with electronic voting machines involved --- no matter how big or small the race, no matter if it's Repub or Dem --- Voting Integrity advocates look into it. It's what they do. Please do not assume or assign motives, intentions or conclusions to anyone here that are not EXPLICITLY stated. Brad makes crystal clear that he doesn't care who won or lost, just that the results are ACCURATE. Period. The site owner is not responsible for the opinions of commenters in this open forum. No endorsement of commenters' opinions is either intended or implied. In addition, please note that The Brad Blog does not allege that fraud (or "rigging") has actually occurred --- only that the results of any contest that incorporates electronic voting systems should be subject to exacting scrutiny and independent verification prior to certification. Thank you.

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... bluebird said on 1/15/2008 @ 2:51 pm PT...





re: #95 --- I meant to say " and reverse polling figures" not " reverse all the polling figures"

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/15/2008 @ 9:17 pm PT...





It doesn't matter if it's machine/programming malfunction or intentional fraud- you do not accept the results of these systems without a systems check- in this case, a hand counted audit. Whether its malfunction or fraud, the result is the same- the wrong person in office, less delegates to someone in a primary, and a non-democratic process.

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/16/2008 @ 4:23 am PT...





Truthisall #87 That is democrazy in Amurka.

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... Neal said on 1/16/2008 @ 6:17 pm PT...

