Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • organik
    Getting warmed up
    • Nov 2004
    • 77

    Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing

    Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
    t r u t h o u t | Press Release

    Monday 15 November 2004

    Green Party Campaign Raises $150,000 in 4 Days, Shifts Gears to Phase II

    WASHINGTON -- November 15 -- There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.

    On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party’s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.

    “Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio,” said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

    “The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days,” said Bobier.

    Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount.

    The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens’ groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe.

    A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet.




    Ohio Voters Tell of Election Day Troubles at Hearing
    By Reginald Fields
    The Cleveland Plain Dealer

    Sunday 14 November 2004

    Tales of waiting more than five hours to vote, voter intimidation, under-trained polling-station workers and too few or broken voting machines largely in urban or heavily minority areas were retold Saturday at a public hearing organized by voter-rights groups.

    For three hours, burdened voters, one after another, offered sworn testimony about Election Day voter suppression and irregularities that they believe are threatening democracy.

    The hearing, sponsored by the Election Protection Coalition, was to collect testimony of voting troubles that might be used to seek legislative changes to Ohio's election process.

    The organizers chose Ohio because it was a swing state in the presidential election as well as the site of numerous claims of election fraud and voter disenfranchisement.

    "I think a lot of us had a sense that something had deeply went wrong on Nov. 2 and it had to do with the election process and procedures in place that were unacceptable," said Amy Kaplan, one of the hearing's coordinators.

    Kaplan said the hearing gave everyday citizens a chance to have their concerns placed into public record.

    Both a written and video report on the hearing will be provided to anyone who wants a copy, especially state lawmakers who are considering mandating Election Day changes, Kaplan said.

    Many of the voters who testified were clearly Democrats who wonder if their losing presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, was able to draw all the votes that were intended for him.

    "I call on Sen. Kerry to un-concede until there is a full count of the votes," said Werner Lange of Trumbull County, who claimed that polling places in his Northeast Ohio neighborhood had half the number of voting machines that were needed.

    "This caused a bottleneck at polling stations, and many people left without voting," he said.

    Others said they were testifying not on political grounds but out of concern for a suspicious election system that should be above reproach.

    Harvey Wasserman of Bexley said he tried to vote absentee with the same home address he has used for 18 years but was told he couldn't because his absentee application had the wrong address.

    "But the notice telling me I had the wrong address arrived at the right address," he said. "I wonder, how many of these absentee ballots were rejected for no good reason?

    "My concern is not out of the outcome of the election," Wasserman said, "but that this could go on and an election could be stolen. And we simply can't have that in a democracy."


  • toasty
    Sir Toastiness
    • Jun 2004
    • 6585

    #2
    I think it is pitiful that, even after the debacle of 2000, we are still hearing stories about things happening in this country that make it sound like we're in the third world. We've been doing this for well over 200 years now -- you'd think we'd be able to get it right by now...

    Comment

    • organik
      Getting warmed up
      • Nov 2004
      • 77

      #3
      Originally posted by toasty
      I think it is pitiful that, even after the debacle of 2000, we are still hearing stories about things happening in this country that make it sound like we're in the third world. We've been doing this for well over 200 years now -- you'd think we'd be able to get it right by now...

      I know seriously... all you need is a paper with the names of the candidates who are running and a pen, and all you have to do is put an X beside the person or party you want to win. In Canada this is all we do and it works!!! Why is it so difficult for people in the US to do this???

      Comment

      • the sun the sea
        Platinum Poster
        • Jun 2004
        • 1449

        #4
        Originally posted by organik
        Originally posted by toasty
        I think it is pitiful that, even after the debacle of 2000, we are still hearing stories about things happening in this country that make it sound like we're in the third world. We've been doing this for well over 200 years now -- you'd think we'd be able to get it right by now...

        I know seriously... all you need is a paper with the names of the candidates who are running and a pen, and all you have to do is put an X beside the person or party you want to win. In Canada this is all we do and it works!!! Why is it so difficult for people in the US to do this???
        because we're a nation that was swept away by the macarena.
        download dj sets at: www.mixwalla.com

        Comment

        • toasty
          Sir Toastiness
          • Jun 2004
          • 6585

          #5
          Re: Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing

          ^^

          Seriously, although I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will happen, could you imagine what would happen if they did a recount and it turned out that Kerry won? Holy moses, would this country freak!

          As unhappy as I am with the result, I do wish they'd just drop it -- I'm ready for some closure on the whole thing, particularly since it is unlikely to change the outcome...

          Comment

          • robprunzit
            Are you Kidding me??
            • Jun 2004
            • 4805

            #6
            Run the numbers, it cant even get close. That why this is a ridiculous waste of time.

            Give me a break! Bush won, hands down, fair and square. Losers are never happy. Look at Gore after 4 years. The green party will diminish the publics ability to make a strong vote. A third party is not the way, and the democrats are a dying breed.

            Get values, ethics, morals, and wake up!
            AT THE FORK, TAKE THE RIGHT DIRECTION

            www.myspace.com/robroyfamily

            Comment

            • toasty
              Sir Toastiness
              • Jun 2004
              • 6585

              #7
              Originally posted by robprunzit
              Get values, ethics, morals, and wake up!
              OK, you almost had me agreeing with you until you spewed this out. I'm not saying that liberals necessarily stand on any moral high ground, but the Republican commitment to morals/values/ethics is a complete load of shit. With every conservative figurehead that goes down in a blaze of hypocrisy, I wonder how it is that people can be so deluded as to think that political ideology has anything to do with morals and values -- that adopting some antiquated poltical label is equivalent to some sort of moral White-Out that obscures the things they do. What a farce...

              If you want to live your life in a moral, ethical, and value-based manner, then by all means do your thing and I salute you. The suggestion, however, that you somehow have a leg up on anyone else in this regard by virtue of your status as a Republican is hogwash.

              Comment

              • neoee
                Platinum Poster
                • Jun 2004
                • 1266

                #8
                Re: Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing

                Originally posted by toasty
                ^^

                Seriously, although I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will happen, could you imagine what would happen if they did a recount and it turned out that Kerry won? Holy moses, would this country freak!

                As unhappy as I am with the result, I do wish they'd just drop it -- I'm ready for some closure on the whole thing, particularly since it is unlikely to change the outcome...
                Kerry and Co. have already dropped this, its the others who are pursuing the matter. The Green and Libertarian partys. I realize that many would just like all this to end but I on the other hand applaud(sp?) their efforts.

                And toasty- your right it will likely not change the outcome but we still have a problem that needs to be addressed before the next election. The irregularities with the electronic voting machines must be taken care of for the sanctity of the election process. If only to eliminate the doubt.
                "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -Benjamin Franklin

                Comment

                • toasty
                  Sir Toastiness
                  • Jun 2004
                  • 6585

                  #9
                  ^^ I don't disagree with any of that, but there is a difference between a recount and an investigation. Believe me, no one would be happier if the recount flukishly shows that Kerry won, but I'd rather see more effort devoted to unfucking the system than simply recounting ballots, b/c I think an investigation devoted to that end is more likely to actually result in positive action, IMHO.

                  Comment

                  • organik
                    Getting warmed up
                    • Nov 2004
                    • 77

                    #10
                    Re: Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing

                    Ohio hearings show massive GOP vote manipulation, but where the hell are the Democrats & John Kerry?
                    November 17, 2004

                    Columbus, Ohio---Hour after hour the testimonies are the same: angry Ohioans telling of vicious Republican manipulation and de facto intimidation that disenfranchised tens of thousands and probably cost the Democrats the election.

                    At an African-American church on Saturday and then at the Franklin County Courthouse Monday night, more than 700 people came to testify and witness to tales of the atrocity that was the November 2 election.

                    Organized by local ad hoc groups, the hearings had a court reporter and a team of lawyers along with other appointed witnesses. At freepress.org we will be making the testimonies available as they're transcribed and organized, and we will present a fuller accounting of the hearings, along with a book that includes the transcripts.

                    But one thing was instantly and abundantly clear: the Republican Party turned Ohio 2004 into an updated version of the Jim Crow South.

                    The principle overt method of vote suppression was to short-change inner city precincts of sufficient voting machines to allow a timely balloting. In precinct after precinct, virtually all of them predominantly black, poor, young and Democratic, the lines stretched for two, five, eight, even eleven hours. The elderly and infirm were forced to stand in the rain while city officials threatened to tow their cars. No chairs or shelter were provided. Crucial signage was mysteriously missing. Thousands came to vote, saw the long lines and left.

                    How many thousands? Enough to turn the election? Almost definitely.

                    None of this was accidental. This was a well-planned GOP attack on the right to vote, and on Democratic candidacies. Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was also co-chair of the Ohio campaign for Bush. A right-wing Republican was in charge of the Franklin County Board of Elections.

                    They all said the election went "smoothly." By their standards they were right. At least 68 voting machines sat in a warehouse while precinct managers called desperately for help. Republican precinct judges and challengers harassed would-be voters. The names of long-time activists mysteriously disappeared from registration lists. The arsenal of dirty tricks was virtually endless.

                    With it the Bush/Rove team deprived countless Ohioans of their right to vote just as surely as if they'd levied a poll tax or invoked the grandfather clause.

                    In the coming days we'll issue a more complete accounting of these devastating hearings. No one who cares about democracy and fears the consequences of its destruction could come away from them without being both infuriated and terrified.

                    But one thing also stood out---the complete lack of Democratic support for these hearings or for the larger vote count movement. Nationally, it all stands in the shadow of the complete disappearance of John Kerry, on whose nominal behalf this was done.

                    A successful grassroots effort involving the Green and Libertarian Parties, among others, has raised---in just four days---some $150,000 to force a recount of the Ohio vote. (Ralph Nader has forced a similar recount in New Hampshire). But where were the countless millions raised by the Democratic Party and Kerry campaign by trusting American citizens who expected them to fight for democracy?

                    Right up to election day Kerry repeated his solemn vow to, in light of what happened in Florida 2000, guarantee everyone's right to vote. But now that another highly dubious election has occurred, where the hell is he?

                    Rumors are circulating that he is biding his time, waiting for the right time to jump in. Or that the Democrats themselves have something to hide. Or that there's a magic bullet just waiting to be fired.

                    Similar rumors spread about Al Gore four years ago. We're still waiting for that fateful shot.

                    This election was not about apathy. Tens of thousands of smart, eager, fiercely dedicated volunteers came out this year, desperate to rid this nation of the curse of George W. Bush.

                    An escalating avalanche of evidence indicates a true vote count would have thrown Bush out of the White House.

                    But once again, the Democrats have dissed the grassroots. Once again, a candidate who promised democracy has disappeared with barely a whimper in the face of those who would destroy it. His silence has allowed an orgy of media bloviation in homage to a bigoted, war-crazed America that, if it won at all, took this election not by national consensus, but by the Rovian staples of dirty tricks and voter suppression.

                    The upcoming Ohio recount is fraught with danger. The Republicans battled successfully to prevent the state's voting machines from including paper trails that can be reasonably recounted. These "black boxes" will require extreme sophistication to be properly evaluated. Unless intensely supervised down to the last detail, the Republicans who control these machines will turn this recount into a "proof" that the election "went smoothly."

                    So a true recount will require serious additional financial resources and a very aggressive, well-organized team. So far we hear not a peep from the mainstream Democrats. So far, they seem utterly deaf to the cries of fury and despair from those who were so wrongly deprived of their right to vote.

                    Democracy itself was lynched in Ohio on November 2, by both high and low tech means. Our freedoms may be the ultimate victim. But where is the Democratic Party?

                    Columbus, Ohio---Hour after hour the testimonies are the same: angry Ohioans telling of vicious Republican manipulation and de facto intimidation that disenfranchised tens of thousands and probably cost the Democrats the election. At an African-American church on Saturday and then at the Franklin County Courthouse Monday night, more than 700 people came to testify and witness

                    Comment

                    • organik
                      Getting warmed up
                      • Nov 2004
                      • 77

                      #11
                      Re: Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing

                      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                      NOVEMBER 18, 2004
                      1:01 PM

                      CONTACT: Berkeley Media Relations
                      Marie Felde mff@uclink.berkeley.edu
                      510-642-3734

                      UC Berkeley Research Team Sounds 'Smoke Alarm' for Florida E-Vote Count

                      Statistical Analysis - the Sole Method for Tracking E-Voting - Shows Irregularities May Have Awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or More Excess Votes to Bush in Florida Research Team Calls for Investigation

                      BERKELEY, CA -- November 18 -- Today the University of California's Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team released a statistical study - the sole method available to monitor the accuracy of e- voting - reporting irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods - what the team says can be deemed a "smoke alarm." Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance - the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team formally disclosed results of the study at a press conference today at the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center, where they called on Florida voting officials to investigate.
                      The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic: Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, respectively. Statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predict a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush's support in Broward County; machines tallied an increase of 51,000 votes - a net gain of 81,000 for the incumbent. President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County, but instead gained 41,000 - a difference of 49,900. He should have gained only 18,400 votes in Miami-Dade County but saw a gain of 37,000 - a difference of 19,300 votes.

                      "For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting - someone must investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida," says Professor Michael Hout. "We're calling on voting officials in Florida to take action."

                      The research team is comprised of doctoral students and faculty in the UC Berkeley sociology department, and led by Sociology Professor Michael Hout, a nationally-known expert on statistical methods and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.

                      For its research, the team used multiple-regression analysis, a statistical method widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of many variables on quantitative outcomes like vote totals. This multiple-regression analysis takes into account of the following variables by county:

                      -Number of voters
                      -Median income
                      -Hispanic/Latino population
                      -Change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
                      -Support for Senator Dole in the 1996 election
                      -Support for President Bush in the 2000 election.
                      -Use of electronic voting or paper ballots

                      "No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," said Hout. "The study shows, that a county's use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero - less than once in a thousand chances."

                      The data used in this study came from public sources including CNN.com, the 2000 US Census, and the Verified Voting Foundation.
                      For a copy of the working paper, raw data and other information used in the study can be found at: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu .

                      Comment

                      • cosmo
                        Gold Gabber
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 583

                        #12
                        GOOD!!

                        That means that Bush will be able to win twice!!

                        Comment

                        Working...