• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Topic: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

  1. #1

    GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    sponsored links

    I know that the Bush supporters out there believe that their guy won fair and square. Hopefully, they also want our elections to be fair and secure.

    So... with the knowledge that the election results will not be overturned, put partisanship aside for a moment and look at the facts. Look not at the results, but at the process. Is this really how we want our elections run in the United States of America?


    Powerful Government Accounting Office report confirms key
    2004 stolen election findings

    by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

    October 26, 2005


    As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the
    Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report
    shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged
    election to the White House is crumbling.

    The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the
    election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful,
    penetrating report from the General Accounting Office that
    has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

    The government's lead investigative agency is known for its
    general incorruptibility and its through, in-depth analysis.
    Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as
    "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case
    that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White

    Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John
    Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting
    machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004
    presidential election. The request came amidst widespread
    complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking
    irregularities defined their performance.

    According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received
    "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged
    re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath
    in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public
    hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free
    Press and other election protection organizations.

    The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of
    [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been
    realized and have caused problems with recent elections,
    resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

    The United States is the only major democracy that allows
    private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate
    the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev.
    Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public
    elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines."
    The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic
    voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the
    2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to
    George W. Bush.

    Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775
    votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection
    advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a
    clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the
    White House.

    Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

    1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast
    ballots or system audit logs, thus making it possible to
    alter them without detection." In other words, the GAO now
    confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open
    door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes
    were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven
    times Bush's official margin of victory.

    2. "It is easy to alter a file defining how a ballot appears,
    making it possible for someone to vote for one candidate and
    actually be recorded as voting for an entirely different
    candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert
    that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

    3. "Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence
    of such an action by using altered memory cards" can easily
    be done, according to the GAO.

    4. The GAO also confirms that "access to the voting network
    was easily compromised because not all digital recording
    electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions
    password-protected, so access to one machine provided access
    to the whole network." This critical finding confirms that
    rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread
    conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number
    of operatives with the power to tap into the networked
    machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With
    800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping
    the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done
    by just one programmer.

    5. Access "to the voting network was also compromised by
    repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily
    guessed passwords," says the GAO. So even relatively amateur
    hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote

    6. "The locks protecting access to the system were easily
    picked and keys were simple to copy," says the GAO, meaning,
    again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

    7. "One model was shown to have been networked in such a
    rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would
    cause the entire network to fail," says the GAO,
    re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the
    Presidency of the United States was decided.

    8. "GAO identified further problems with the security
    protocols and background screening practices for vendor
    personnel," confirming still more easy access to the system.

    In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank,
    grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its
    business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily
    manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

    The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the
    context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State
    simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney
    campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long
    asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic
    network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable
    enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less --
    to turn the whole vote count using personal computers
    operating on relatively simple software.

    The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities
    surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

    # The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an
    unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush.
    Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and
    New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

    # A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former
    ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the
    ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

    # Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at
    least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to
    Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light
    up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the
    problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and
    affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in
    Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties
    were suspiciously low.

    # A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25
    million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

    # In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called
    "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra
    votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The
    tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the
    "loaves and fishes" vote count.

    # In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that
    their vote for Kerry faded away on the without a paper

    # In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the
    county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote -
    19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush
    at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a
    virtual statistical impossibility.

    # In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals
    turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional
    Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring
    wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with
    90% going instead for Kerry.

    # Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts,"
    technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up
    unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and
    removed the computer hard drive.

    # In response to official information requests, Shelby and
    other counties admit to having discarded key records and
    equipment before any recount could take place.

    # In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff
    Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry
    confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had
    a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation
    with ethnicity, social class or traditional party
    affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines
    were used.

    # In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and
    large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter
    is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We
    must demand better."

    But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting
    machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly
    engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with
    minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes
    to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

    Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly
    clear that's exactly what happened.

  2. #2

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    I have a conservative forum I frequent once in a while, actually it's a piano forum, but everyone there is conservative. I posted this there. I'm sure they'll denigrate freepress.org, but you can't dispute the GAO's findings unless this is all made up. All I can say is ouch!


  3. #3

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    We could kick Bush out of office but unfortunately that won't bring back the over 2000 killed in Iraq so far.

    But with Libby being indicted the Bush administration is starting to fall apart and will soon be revealed for the criminals they are.


  4. #4

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    I'd sure like to feel better about the integrity of our elections.

    But even if that's all true, it doesn't come close to being as evil as what the Supreme Court did in 2000.

  5. #5

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    It's crazy that many of you who agree that the government is capable of these things (and they are), are the same people who want the government to run their lives, spend their money, and protect them.

    So, with that, does anyone have any suggestions on how we organize the voting of millions of stupid people? Suggestions are better than complaints no matter what side of the aisle they come from.
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  6. #6

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    Yes...of course. Get rid of those evil electronic voting machines..that everyone should have known were so easily manipulated (or else Kerry would have won) and go to something that easy, has a paper trail for recounts and is verifiable when you vote...like...punch cards

  7. #7

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    Not all governments are capable of that, Danimal, just Republican ones. And why do you think liberals like me want the government to run our lives? On the contrary.

  8. #8

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    dcornutt, is that really your reaction to the article? That everything's fine and these uppity people should just shut the ~~~~ up?

  9. #9

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    There are now three camps:

    1: Those that believe that the elections were fair and square, and Bush won honestly. I call these willfully ignorant.

    2: Those who believe that Bush and minions stole the election and are a ruthless bunch of criminals with strong ~~~~ overtones (witness Prescott Bush, money-lauderer for Hitler - documented in the Library of Congress, not the Berkeley Free Press.) I call these the majority.

    3: Those who believe in the Bush agenda and live by the nudge-wink Bush policies of repression, fear and hate. I call these fellow criminals, and respectfully request that you all go to your nearest police station and turn yourselves in as corporate criminals. It will save the country much capital so we don't have to track you down after the Bush regime is arrested, indicted and jailed.

    It is easy to identiy these accessories before-and-after the fact: they are the ones who, when asked questions like, "Do you think Bush should be indicted for his criminal acts," respond with, "What criminal acts?" and then continue to deny that such activities ever took place, even when confronted with indisputable evidence.

    If you're with them, you share the guilt, the shame, and the criminal complicity. This is the only country where the votes are counted by computer - the day BEFORE the election...
    It's all about the music - really. I keep telling myself that...

  10. #10

    Re: GAO confirms fallability of 2004 election

    I hate to rain on the parade, but did anyone actually read the GAO report? You'll find it here. Unless I missed something it mentions Ohio once.


    The point I'm making is that the GAO report (generally considered to be unbiased) takes a very different tone from the article posted above. I'm no fan of Bush, but it looks to me like you're buying liberal hype, just as the Fox News crowd buys the conservative hype. What ever happened to critical thinking? I'm not saying that the bulk of the 1rst article isn't true, but your conservative friends are only going to pay attention to a government report, just as I don't pay attention to Fox News or Drudge. The government report isn't the serious indictment that freepress.org would have us believe.

    Now if someone can point out the smoking gun in the GAO report I'd love to hear about it.



Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts