RK ARCHIVE - PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE:

Rev. DeForest Soaries,former head of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) said that voting conditions are Gェripe for stealing elections and for fraud.Gォ When a Bush appointee to the EAC makes this remark, it puts election fraud right at the center of the table. The upcoming elections are critical to the well being of the United States and the rest of the world. Given the recent history of strongly suspected election fraud, we need superior intelligence and added diligence to spot any foul play early. The potential for of investigation, revelations, and pounding the table for a fair election since 2004 has been squandered. Last minute bills for emergency paper ballots are going no where. WeGペre stuck with a voting system that is measurably less reliable than 2000 according to Rev. Soaries.

Yet, there is still a potential for the Democrats to win not only the Congressional Elections but to stave off the many temptations to interfere with the intent of GェWe the people.Gォ Awareness by candidates, party officials, and, most critically, the grass roots activists is imperative. A huge turnout is also part of a fraud fighting strategy. The more participation, the more eye witnesses, the better our democracy is served. This document outlines the states and districts where the margins are thin and extreme diligence is required. Please forward the GェPrintGォ version of this article to the Democratic National Committee Democratic National Committee and the candidates in question.
This analysis by internet poster TruthIsAll is intended to provide a set of focal points and formulae to look for fraud. ItGペs offered in the spirit of winning through awareness and diligence and assuring that the winners are actually those candidates, of either party, who received a plurality of votes in free and fair elections.

For those who donGペt believe that elections are vulnerable to the type of fraud Rev. Soires mentioned:

The Prospects for Democrats Look Very Good

These charts display the positive slope of the Democratic trend vs. the flat GOP trend during the past 12 months across generic congressional polls. Chart 1 Chart 2

The Democrats need to capture 16 Republicans seats (net) to gain control of the House. How many of the 58-contested Republican House seats can the Democrats expect to win, assuming a fraud-free election?

Corollary: How many elections will the Republicans need GェwinGォ to maintain control?

In the most likely scenario other the Democrats will win 60% of the undecided vote, they can expect to capture 32 of the 58 Republican-held seats. There is a 99% probability that they will win 30 or more. Therefore, the Republicans will have to steal a minimum of 16 elections in order to retain the House.

1) Democrats lead in 15 races beyond the MoE
2) Democrats lead in 11 within the MoE
3) Democrats tie the Republicans in 5
4) Republicans lead in 15 within the MoE
5) Republicans lead in 12 beyond the MoE

The closest races within the margin of error are the ones most likely to be Gェripe for stealing elections and for fraud,Gォ as Rev. Soaries says, voter suppression, and those GェcoincidencesGォ or machine malfunctions including vote switching. They are the 22 districts between PA-6 and NY-29 in the chart: http://www.geocities...

The simulation calculates the probability of the Democrats winning a specified number of the 58 seats, over a range of undecided voter allocation assumptions. It provides a very robust estimate of the minimum number of elections that would need to be stolen in order for the Republicans to retain control of the House.

In a published study of over 150 incumbent elections, the challenger won the undecided vote in 82% of the races, the incumbent won in 12%, and the rest were split. Even with the very conservative UVA assumption that the undecided vote will be evenly split, then assuming the elections are fraud-free, it is a virtual 100% probability that the Democrats will net at least 25 Republican seats, or nine more than the minimum required for House control.

There are nine critical races: New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Connecticut, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island

The Democrats need to hold their lead in New Jersey and win 6 of the other 8 seats for a 50-49-1 majority. They have solid leads in 5 GOP seats, a narrow lead in TENNESSEE, and are slightly behind in Virginia. Lieberman (Ind) is far ahead in CT. Assuming they win the 5 solid GOP seats and retain New Jersey seat, they need to win either Virginia or Tennessee for a majority.

Therefore, Virginia and Tennessee should be closely monitored for fraud or other irregularities.

Sensitivity Analysis: Assuming zero election fraud and that the Democrats capture 60% of the undecided vote (UVA), then with an election based on these polls, there is a 99% probability that they will win a 50-49 senate majority. The win probability is slightly lower (91%) if the undecided vote is split (50% UVA).

The analysis shows the relationship between undecided voter decisions at different splits between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate races. At a 50%-50% split with undecideds, the Democrats should pick up six seats right now. The hurdle to a larger pick up is significant given current polls. This can change quickly with adjusted poll data indicating a shift in public preferences. The difficult of getting above six seats reinforces the need for greater attention to signs of election fraud.

Assuming there is zero election fraud and that the Democrats capture 60% of the undecided vote (UVA), and then if the election was today there is a 99% probability that they will win a 50-49 senate majority. The win probability is slightly lower (91%) if the undecided vote is split (50% UVA).

These races are still fluid and shifts are common in the last two weeks of the campaign. Based on the data, these are the races that will determine control of the US Senate. Unless the Democrats plan for a 1994 election shift, special attention is required. Of these states, Pennsylvania had numerous election irregularities in 2004; OhioGペs election was a disgrace; Missouri was the site of poll closing and other controversies; Tennessee experienced problems with electronic voting. In 2005 Virginia had a recount that didnGペt allow counting optical scan ballots!

Note that the polls and associated probabilities do not factor in spoiled and lost votes (mostly democratic) which occur in every election. This suggests that the net Democratic lead may be 1% lower than the polls suggest. On the other hand, the undecided vote (currently 5%) usually splits in favor of the challenger - in this case, the Democrat. So we may have a wash here.

The calculations donGペt factor in a sudden event, an GェOctoberGォ surprise, for example, that might shift more races into one of the three categories. Given the impact of the Foley scandal and the likelihood of more in that or another emerging from the scandal rich terrain of the Republican congress, this is a very real possibility. In addition, ABC News, in part of a general press turn around to more coverage is actually raising the likelihood of what they call GェbiasGォ as a result of e-voting. GェBiasGォ here is surely a code word for fraud since machines need human intervention be biased

The Election Fraud BEAT DOWN

The beat down first showed up in Florida when Republicans unified and did everything they could to scare Democrats off and turn a loss into a stolen election. With the exception of Al Gore resisting, the balance of the Democratic leadership stood back and allowed the distortions, Gェpreppy riots,Gォ and outrageous Supreme Court decision to go unchallenged. Beat down refers to the strategies of voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, and extreme GェleveragingGォ of technology that seems to favor Republican candidates time after time.

Greg Palast outlined key strategies that have nothing to do with electronic voting. These are time honored techniques that have been honed to perfection over decades. The following four points are provided in PalastGペs new article, Recipe for a Cooked Election in YES magazine:

Four Traditional Voter Suppression Strategies from Greg Palast: No E-Voting Required

GА Provisional Ballots Rejected. An entirely new species of ballot debuted nationwide in 2004: the "provisional ballot." These were crucial to the Bush victory. Not because Republicans won this "provisional" vote. They won by rejecting provisional ballots that were cast overwhelmingly in Democratic precincts. The sum of "the uncounted" is astonishing: 675,676 ballots lost in the counties reporting to the federal government. Add in the missing jurisdictions and the un-vote climbs to over a million: 1,090,729 provisional ballots tossed out.
GА Spoiled Ballots. You vote, you assume itGペs counted. Think again. Your "x" was too light for a machine to read. You didnGペt punch the card hard enough and so you "hung your chad." Therefore, your vote didnGペt count and, crucially, youGペll never know it. The federal Election Assistance Commission toted up nearly a million ballots cast but not counted. Add in states too shy to report to Washington, the total GェspoilageGォ jumps to a rotten 1,389,231.
GА Absentee Ballots Uncounted. The number of absentee ballots has quintupled in many states, with the number rejected on picayune technical grounds rising to over half a million (526,420) in 2004. In swing states, absentee ballot shredding was pandemic.
GА Voters Barred from Voting. In this category we find a combination of incompetence and trickery that stops voters from pulling the lever in the first place. ThereGペs the purge of "felon" voters that continues to eliminate thousands whose only crime is VWB GГ Voting While Black.It includes subtle games like eliminating polling stations in selected districts, creating impossible lines. No one can pretend to calculate a hard number for all votes lost this way any more than you can find every bullet fragment in a mutilated body. But itGペs a safe bet that the numbers reach into the hundreds of thousands of voters locked out of the voting booth.

The inherent unreliability of electronic voting Electronic voting is always in secret and controlled by private vendors. Two of the three major vendors are United States corporations with very serious Republican ties. The third is foreign with undetermined ownership. The GOP-friendly voting machines (and companies) have major security risks including vulnerability to hacking, malicious code, subtle pre programming. These apply to optical scan and touch screen machines. These security problems have been clearly demonstrated by world leading computer security expert Haari HurstiGペs hacks of both touch screen and optical scan machines and the recent Princeton University study.

Electronic vote tampering leaves no evidence for a prosecution. If the equipment canGペt be monitored sufficiently to catch fraud, it becomes a menace to voter confidence and the ability to insure that those elected and serving were actually elected in the first place. The ElectionArcive.Org makes the following key points in a pdf on election problems that is vital for everyone concerned about free, fair and accessible elections (click on link to download the entire presentation, a must for activists).

PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE:

PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE:

House and Senate Take Over Looks Good

The Prospects for Democrats Look Very Good

The Election Fraud BEAT DOWN

Four Traditional Voter Suppression Strategies from Greg Palast: No E-Voting Required

Comments