November 03, 2008
Never Forget
Please vote tomorrow. And remember those who've given everything for the right.
Thank you Tbogg, for the post, and thanks to BOHICA for reminding me of this song.
Posted by jnfr at 09:34 AM | Comments (0)
April 24, 2008
Numbers, numbers
I was curious about the voting totals for Clinton and Obama, since Clinton has been declaring that she's won the most votes cast so far. So I once again ran to the USA Today Election Results page, and tossed a bunch of things in my spreadsheet.
It really is remarkable how close these two candidates are. I'm going to lay out the percentages to each candidate below, along with the "other" percentage. There's something interesting here.
| Clinton | Obama | Other | |
| |||
| Total w/o FL or MI | 47.4 | 49.2 | 3.4 |
| Total w/FL only | 47.5 | 48.3 | 4.2 |
| Total w/FL & MI | 47.7 | 47.3 | 5.0 |
I didn't muck around with leaving out caucuses or any of that silly stuff the Clinton campaign is doing. Obama leads in the "legal" count, which excludes FL and MI. Obama leads with FL in, where at least his name was on the ballot. Only when you add in MI as well, where Clinton was the only name on the ballot, does she eke out a slight lead.
In all cases the "Other" vote is larger than the difference between the candidates' vote totals. And as you add in the two "extra-legal" states, the "Other" vote gets larger and larger, especially when it comes to adding in MI, of course, which went nearly 45% "Undecided".
If you compare the "Other" vote, which includes undecideds, to the difference in vote totals between the two candidates, you find that in the first, legal case, there are still almost twice as many "Other" votes as the difference in vote totals between the two candidates. Adding in FL, it becomes almost six times as many "Other" votes, as the difference between the vote totals. And by adding in MI, you finally get the "Other" count to nearly 15 times the difference between the two candidates' vote totals.
I personally think the only vote total that matters is the legal vote total under the party rules that all candidates agreed to. I know this sucks, especially for Florida, but there it is. Once you start adding in the two states that voted outside the rules, the level of uncertainty rises to a point where Hillary's claims of being ahead in the popular vote just doesn't hold water.
Posted by jnfr at 02:54 PM | Comments (0)
April 22, 2008
Voting Today?
Tell your story. Did you have a problem voting? VoterStory is collecting the experiences of any and all voters. VoterStory works to protect voter rights, and you can use the form below to submit your story.
Also, you can call to find your polling place!
Posted by jnfr at 07:14 AM | Comments (0)
April 19, 2008
What Interests Voters?
One Philadelphia paper dared to ask. Here's what they found.
Posted by jnfr at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)
November 07, 2006
MoveOn.org Call for Change
Because it's too close not to call!
Posted by jnfr at 10:26 AM | Comments (0)
Election Day!
Don't forget to vote. I'm grabbing this Molly Ivins quote from MyDD. Let it be your motto.
"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."
-Molly Ivins
Posted by jnfr at 06:40 AM | Comments (0)
August 02, 2006
My Kind of Vets
60 Years Ago, Vets Took Up Arms in Tenn.
ATHENS, Tenn. (AP) - Harold Powers was only 20 when he watched a frightening sight unfold here 60 years ago: Battle-hardened World War II veterans in a shootout with armed sheriff's deputies.
The so-called "Battle of Athens" began Aug. 1, 1946, when veterans opened fire on the local jail to stop corrupt local officials from stealing an election. ...
Felix Harrod, 84, was a 25-year-old poll watcher at the courthouse during the shootout and said it was common for incumbents in the county about 45 miles northeast of Chattanooga to take ballot boxes to the jail and stuff them with pre-marked ballots.
That was a practice the former soldiers hoped to stop. They offered an all-ex-GI, nonpartisan ticket that promised a fraud-free election and reform. Their rallying cry: "Why fight overseas for freedom and come home and be denied the right to have your ballot counted?"
The shooting continued until the pre-dawn of Aug. 2 when the former soldiers tossed dynamite at the jail, prompting deputies and a sheriff candidate holed up with ballot boxes to surrender. ...
On the 60th anniversary of the uprising, Powers and others who can recall the 1946 violence shake their head as state election officials predict only about 35 percent of voters will cast ballots in Thursday's primaries in Tennessee. ...
If only people took voting so seriously today!
Posted by jnfr at 05:59 PM | Comments (0)
March 09, 2005
Ohio Voting Fraud
Max Sawicky points us to a March Vanity Fair article by Christopher Hitchens. I don't think of Hitchens as a flaming liberal or anything, but apparently he's been looking over the 2004 voting results in Ohio, and believes there's some real evidence of election fraud. At least enough to deserve our attention.
Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. The sheer number of irregularities compelled a formal recount, which was completed in late December and which came out much the same as the original one, with 176 fewer votes for George Bush. But this was a meaningless exercise in reassurance, since there is simply no means of checking, for example, how many "vote hops" the computerized machines might have performed unnoticed.
Posted by jnfr at 05:56 PM | Comments (2)
January 07, 2005
Conyers' statement
This is worth reading in full. It is Congressman John Conyers Jr.'s statement to Congress on the objections to allowing the Ohio electors. Clear and to the point, it outlines just why the Ohio vote was problematic.
__________________________
“We are here today, not as partisans for one presidential candidate or another, but because we want to do our duty under the Constitution to protect our democracy.
We are here because of the inner city voter in Franklin County, who waited ten hours in the pouring rain, while suburban voters in the same county had no wait because election officials decided to reallocate voting machines from Columbus to the suburbs.
We are here because of the Hispanic voter in Hamilton County who was directed to the wrong voting table, and had their ballot thrown out because of a decision by the Secretary of State to throw out ballots cast at the right polling place but the wrong precinct.
We are here because of the elderly voter in Lucas County who requested an absentee ballot that never showed up and was refused a provisional ballot because of another partisan decision by the Secretary of State.
We are here because of the new voter in Delaware County, whose registration form was thrown out because it did not meet the paper weight requirements of the same Secretary of State.
We are here because of the African American voter in Summit County, who was targeted with an unlawful voting challenge because of her race and because she refused to answer a certified letter from the chairman of the Republican Party.
Most of all we are here because not a single election official in Ohio has given us any explanation for the massive and widespread irregularities in that state: No explanation for the machines in Mahoning County that recorded Kerry votes for Bush – No explanation for the improper purging in Cuyahoga County – No explanation for the lock down in Warren County – No explanation for the 99% voter turnout in Miami County – No explanation for the machine tampering in Hocking County.
The debate we have today will not change the outcome of November’s election. We know that. But out of today’s debate, I hope this Congress will respond to our challenge:
• A challenge to hold true bipartisan hearings to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Ohio and around the Nation on election day.
• A challenge to show the same concern about voter disenfranchisement in this country that we show in Afghanistan, and the Ukraine, and Iraq.
• A challenge to enact real election reform; that gives all citizens the right to a provisional ballot; that gives all voters a verifiable paper trail; and that bans election officials from serving as campaign chairs.
The thing we should never fear in Congress is a debate, and the thing we should never fear in a democracy is the voters. I hope that today we have a fair debate and four years from now, we have an election all our citizens can be proud of.”
Posted by jnfr at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)
December 09, 2004
Voting irregularities, cont.
Keith Olbermann, apparently alone out of all the media, continues to follow the problems with the vote in Ohio.
Posted by jnfr at 06:55 PM | Comments (0)
November 22, 2004
Voting irregularities, cont.
Lawyers in Ohio are prepared to challenge the election as soon as a count is certified.
Their challenge could lead to widespread reconsideration of dozens of alleged election irregularities around the state - from reported computerized voting glitches to provisional-ballot mishaps to unusual incidents involving voter rolls, poll workers and machine technicians.
But it is unclear whether the complaint will ever get that far.
Columbus attorney Cliff Arnebeck, a national officer in the Alliance for Democracy, could not predict exactly when members of the coalition will be ready or able to file their request.
And, after they do, the Ohio Supreme Court would have to rule in their favor.
And from Suburban Guerilla we find that the Kerry team is still on the case:
"We have 17,000 lawyers working on this, and the grassroots accountability couldn't be any higher -no (irregularity) will go unchecked. Period," Kerry spokesman David Wade said.
Keith Olbermann is still following the story.
Posted by jnfr at 03:24 PM | Comments (0)
November 19, 2004
Voting irregularities, cont.
I have all these random links relating to voting irregularities in the presidential election. I'm not sure what they amount to, if anything, but I may as well post them here so I can get them out of my browser, at least.
First, I have Greg Palast and Farhad Manjoo duking it out over at Salon on whether and how much the election was tainted.
A post at Suburban Guerilla, who links to a Kos diary, led me to Bev Harris's account of the Volusia vote lockdown. Now there's a mess for you.
Keith Olbermann continues to summarize the problems so far. He seems to be the only mainstream journalist paying any attention at all.
And then there are a couple of stray reports which would seem like tinfoil hat stuff, except they apparently come from experts, so may be worth reading. First, Chuck Herrin on why he's suspicious about the integrity of this vote. He also has an easy, step by step description of how to hack the Gems software.
And finally, Chuck Shea crunches some numbers and explains why he smells a rat.
Posted by jnfr at 08:15 AM | Comments (0)
November 18, 2004
Voting irregularities in Florida
Well, this is interesting. A study done at Berkeley has found inconsistencies in the Florida vote which indicate that electronic voting machines awarded extra votes for Bush at a rate that isn't consistent with chance. The votes were primarily in heavily Democratic counties. The data and working paper are available online. I really hope this gets some attention in the press.
Berkeley analysis of Fla. electronic voting finds Bush wrongly awarded between 133,000 and 260,000 votes
A study by faculty and graduate students and led by University of California at Berkeley Professor Michael Hout has concluded that President Bush was likely erroneously awarded between 130,000 and 260,000 votes in Florida alone, with 72,000 of them being in the largely Democratic Broward County alone, RAW STORY has learned.
The survey, which is the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of Florida’s 2004 election results to date, found that compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show gains for Bush between 2000 and 2004.
Unlike other analyses, this survey accounted for and ruled out other demographic factors which have clouded the results of other studies, such as the “dixiecrat” phenomenon, where Democratic counties have supported Republican nominees in the past.
“For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting - someone must investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida,” Professor Hout remarked in a statement to RAW STORY . “We’re calling on voting officials in Florida to take action.”
...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 predicted a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush’s support in Broward County, yet machines tallied an increase of 51,000 votes – a net gain of 81,000.
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.
“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,” Hout added. “The study shows that a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush.
The odds of this occurring by chance?
“Less than once in a thousand,” he said.
Posted by jnfr at 02:33 PM | Comments (0)
November 11, 2004
Still more voting irregularities
And as always Keith Olbermann is on the story.
Apparently computer voting in the entire state of North Carolina was so bad that they may scrap their entire result and hold a second election day. And you remember Warren County, who locked down their vote count and wouldn't allow media observation? Well their cover story about security issues isn't checking out. There was no special security concern for Warren County on election day.
Looks like Nader is calling for a recount in New Hampshire, and Cobb (the Green candidate) may call for one in Ohio, though it's not clear how either of them could afford to pay for recounts. It's all kind of wacky still, but this story is far from over.
Posted by jnfr at 05:13 PM | Comments (0)
Throwing out votes in Ohio
In the middle of counting provisional ballots in Ohio, a sudden change in the rules means more ballots will be discarded, in what has to be an attempt to keep Ohio in the Bush column. Most of the provisional ballots come from counties friendly to Kerry.
Posted by jnfr at 08:47 AM | Comments (0)
November 09, 2004
More from Olbermann
on the votes from Florida and Ohio, and also about the process of putting together last night's show that covered the irregularities, and he adds some words about blogging and new media. He's really good at this stuff!
Update: He'll be discussing these issues again tonight.
Posted by jnfr at 12:07 PM | Comments (0)
Voting irregularities, cont.
More on the oddities in Florida.
Posted by jnfr at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)
November 08, 2004
Keith Olbermann
is following up on allegations of fraud in Ohio. I'm still paying attention.
What exactly happened in Warren County? Why did they feel the need to close the count to any observers, when no other county did?
Posted by jnfr at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)
Election standards
The New York Times has an excellent editorial outlining ten things we can do to improve elections in this country. They include such obvious measures as allowing a holiday for voting, improving wait times, insuring audit capacities for all machines, and so on. Read the thing to get it all.
Nothing will come of it, I suspect, because not enough people in this country seem to care whether our elections are fair and transparent, and too many politicians stand to gain from the continuing ability to cheat.
Posted by jnfr at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)
Election irregularities, cont.
Here's a good summary of the possible vote fraud in Ohio.
Posted by jnfr at 08:41 AM | Comments (0)
November 07, 2004
More on voting irregularities
The Blogging of the President is maintaining a list of links to all the available info on potential and actual voting fraud in the election.
Posted by jnfr at 02:57 PM | Comments (3)
Voting irregularities
Count Every Vote 2004 is a watchdog group created to monitor voting problems says it has documented hundreds of problems with voter intimidation and faulty voting equipment, mostly affecting poor and minority voters. The group had 700 monitors in precincts across the south, including the hotly contested state of Florida. Their full report is due out in a couple of weeks.
As for the indications of voter fraud, folks over at dKos are doing the heavy lifting on discrepancies in Florida voting (apparently more people voted in some counties than were actually eligible). And the exit poll data sure looks strange. I don't know the truth behind it all, but I'm going to pay attention to these things for a while.
Posted by jnfr at 08:06 AM | Comments (0)