No evidence that Bush stole the 2004 election?? On this planet … there’s a ton
of it (reader comments)

There is a notable conversation thread happening in response to “ALERT! Major vote on labor rights this Tuesday in Ohio—& the 1% is poised to STEAL it!” —

    •   November 6, 2011 at 7:59 pm
      Michael Greenstreet says:

      After reading the comment suggesting that the 2004 presidential election was stolen, I quit reading any further. I would like to point out that every person or organization in the United States who wished to prove that the 2004 presidential election was stolen threw every copper penny they could find and legal expertise as well into finding some evidence to this end. This was particularly the case in Florida. They found none! Therefore, the writers of this piece are simply propagandists.

    •   November 6, 2011 at 9:07 pm
      Mark Crispin Miler says:

      The evidence comes from Ohio, not from Florida, and there’s a lot of it, from the Conyers Report (WHAT WENT WRONG IN OHIO?) in 2005, to the writings of Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman in 2005 and 2006 (and afterward), to Richard Hayes Phillips’ WITNESS TO A CRIME (2008), based on an exhaustive audit of the vote-count in 18 Ohio counties, and including many photographs of altered ballots. The exit polls in that election also stand as solid evidence that it was stolen—the case confirmed by Steven Freeman and Joel Bleifuss’ WAS THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION STOLEN? (2006).

      There’s also been the close analysis of that election by the mathematician Richard Charnin, finding further evidence that it was stolen:

      And, finally, we now have the contract that Mike Connell, Karl Rove’s top IT manager, signed with the office of Ken Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State, in 2003, to set up the computer system that allowed the covert tracking and manipulation of the vote-count on Election Day, 2004:

      I could also mention my own book FOOLED AGAIN (2005), and the essays in LOSER TAKE ALL (2008), which provides still further evidence that Bush & Co. stole their “re-election”; and I could mention further works by other analysts as well.

      But this much is certainly enough to make clear that the only “propagandist” in the conversation here is you.


    •  November 6, 2011 at 9:44 pm
      pilsner says: (Edit)

      Hey Michael Greenstreet, I live in Ohio (the scene of the crime in 2004). Explain these election results as written by Bush backer Christopher Hitchens in the March 2005 Vanity Fair headlined, “Ohio’s Odd Numbers.”

      There do seem to be a lot of eccentrics in the state. In Cuyahoga County, which includes the city of Cleveland, two largely black precincts on the East Side voted like this. In Precinct 4F: Kerry, 290; Bush, 21; Peroutka, 215. In Precinct 4N: Kerry, 318; Bush, 11; Badnarik, 163. Mr. Peroutka and Mr. Badnarik are, respectively, the presidential candidates of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. In addition to this eminence, they also possess distinctive (but not particularly African-American-sounding) names. In 2000, Ralph Nader’s best year, the total vote received in Precinct 4F by all third-party candidates combined was eight.

      In Montgomery County, two precincts recorded a combined undervote of almost 6,000. This is to say that that many people waited to vote but, when their turn came, had no opinion on who should be the president, voting only for lesser offices. In these two precincts alone, that number represents an undervote of 25 percent, in a county where undervoting averages out at just 2 percent. Democratic precincts had 75 percent more under- votes than Republican ones.

      In Precinct lB of Gahanna, in Franklin County, a computerized voting machine recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there are only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up. Once the “glitch” had been identified, the president had to be content with 3,893 fewer votes than the computer had awarded him.

      In Miami County, a Saddam Hussein-type turnout was recorded in the Concord Southwest and Concord South precincts, which boasted 98.5 percent and 94.27 percent turnouts, respectively, both of them registering overwhelming majorities for Bush. Miami County also managed to report 19,000 additional votes for Bush after 100 percent of the precincts had reported on Election Day.

      In Mahoning County, Washington Post reporters found that many people had been victims of “vote hopping,” which is to say that voting machines highlighted a choice of one candidate after the voter had recorded a preference for another. Some specialists in election software diagnose this as a “calibration issue.”

      Machines are fallible and so are humans, and shit happens, to be sure, and no doubt many Ohio voters were able to record their choices promptly and without grotesque anomalies. But what strikes my eye is this: in practically every case where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered and the actual or potential Democratic voters who were shortchanged, discouraged, or held up to ridicule as chronic undervoters or as sudden converts to fringe-party losers.

Please join in the conversation at: