Keith Oberman on possible Voter Fraud

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2004
Keith Oberman on possible Voter Fraud
16
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 2:05pm
I think the following video clip of a Keith Oberman MSNBC report is quite interesting-- yes, conspiratorial fodder and fuel for paranoia. But, statatistically-speaking, it seems quite improbable that Florida would have voted for Bush, once you examine the data provided by the office of FLorida's secretary of state. It will be interesting to see what the Senate's investigation turns up.

(Go to this site for a video link of the MSNBC Keith Oberman broadcast from last night… the Ohio findings are nothing compared to the Florida piece, which comes half way through this segment: http://www.dfnyc.org/cms/node/view/1087 )

From the office of Florida’s Secretary of State:

29 Democratic counties with decided Democratic margins (majority of registered voters are Democrat) suddenly voted overwhelmingly in favor of Bush.

All 29 of these counties had paper ballots that were optically scanned by Diebold (et al).

Baker County - 69% Democrat registered voters

Bush 7738 votes

Kerry 2180 votes

Holmes County – 7:2 ratio of Dems to Repubs

6410 Bush

1810 Kerry

Dixie County – 77.5 % Democrat registered voters

4433 Bush

1959 Kerry

Lafayette County – 83% Democrat registered voters

2460 Bush

845 Kerry

Liberty County – 88% Democrat registered voters (8% Republican)

1927 Bush

1070 Kerry


In the counties that did NOT use OPTICAL SCANNING, there were no violent swings reported.

Counties with heavy Democratic registration voted for Kerry.

Counties with heavy Republican registration voted for Bush.

Newsweek reporting on major Diebold problems and bias: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339650/

Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., told Republicans in an Aug. 14 fund-raising letter that he is ``committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.'' http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/business/6646063.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c

"In the past few months, the computer- security community has been increasingly vocal on the problems of DRE terminals. “I think the risk is extremely high,” says David Dill, a Stanford computer scientist."

"... Avi Rubin, a computer-security expert and professor at Johns Hopkins University who was slipped a copy of Diebold’s source code earlier this year. After he and his students examined it, he concluded that the protections against fraud and tampering were strictly amateur hour. “Anyone in my basic security classes would have done better,” he says. The cryptography was weak and poorly implemented, and the smart-card system that supposedly increased security actually created new vulnerabilities. Rubin’s paper concluded that the Diebold system was “far below even the most minimal security standards.” Naturally, Diebold disagrees with Rubin. “We’re very confident of accuracy and security in our system,” says director of Diebold Election Systems Mark Radke.

After Rubin’s paper appeared, Maryland officials—who were about to drop $57 million on Diebold devices—commissioned an outside firm to look at the problem. The resulting report confirmed many of Rubin’s findings and found that the machines did not meet the state’s security standards. However, the study also said that in practice some problems were mitigated, and others could be fixed, an attitude Rubin considers overly optimistic. “You’d have to start with a fresh design to make the devices secure,” he says."









Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-29-2003
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 2:19pm
Wow.


 


Mich

Avatar for cl_mom2noodles
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 2:20pm
It'll be veeeeery interesting to see how this develops.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2004
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 2:34pm
mommeebear and mom2noodles,

It is a bit freaky, isn't it?

I guess with technology changing so rapidly, the accountability of our voting system needs to be updated. Hopefully, a more reliable system will evolve that all Americans can trust in and be proud of.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 3:18pm

I agree with your assessment, because right now, the conspiracy theorists have the ball and are running with it. The predominant modern


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 6:05pm

Here's a wierd question.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Wed, 11-10-2004 - 7:17pm

Good question!


In this hypothetical situation:


If Senator Kerry captured the Electoral College, he is the rightful winner of the Presidential election. If incorrect tabulation of votes which cost the rightful winner the election is found, then we have an illegitimate election, right? But if votes were found to be improperly credited to President Bush in certain areas, does it not stand to reason that votes were also


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-11-2004 - 9:38am

This guy is a liberal columnist who did some research on these claims.

Avatar for cl_mom2noodles
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Thu, 11-11-2004 - 10:15am
Good article.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2004
Thu, 11-11-2004 - 1:02pm
lbmlbmlb,

Thanks for pasting the Troxler article-- it raises some very interesting points!

For me, the only voting "irregularities" that really got my attention were the 29 "democratic" counties WITH optical scanning that voted for Bush overwhelmingly, meanwhile all the "democratic" counties WITHOUT optical scanning, voted for Kerry overwhelmingly.

Your article states:

"Several impressive-looking charts and graphs are flying around. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann singled out five Florida counties for what he called a "sudden" outbreak of "irregularities:" Baker, Dixie, Holmes, Lafayette and Liberty.

In those counties, Republicans make up only 7 to 24 percent of registered voters. But Bush won there with between 64 and 78 percent of the vote.

How can this be? Easy. They are northern "Dixiecrat" counties where being a registered Democrat but voting Republican is an old habit. The same counties voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000, and his father in 1988 - when registered Republicans made up as little as 2 percent of the electorate!"

Unfortunately, your article only addresses 5 of the 29 Democratic counties that voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Are all 29 of these Democrat counties that voted for Bush "Dixiecratic"? Did all 29 of these counties vote overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000? Also, Troxler did not provide any data from the office of Florida's Secretary of State to support his claims regarding the five counties, let alone all 29 counties... which is what Oberman provided.

I actually called the Secretary of State in Florida this morning to see if I could get information on these 29 counties' voting patterns in 2000 and 1988, but all I got were voice mail messages telling me to call back and ringing and ringing with no answer.

It will be interesting to see what the historic voting patterns are for all 29 of these counties.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2004
Fri, 11-12-2004 - 1:58am
I talked to Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International today... they're the "exit poll" company that the media hires (5 networks plus Associated Press) and has been hiring since the early 1970s. He's a statistician and said he's done some of his own investigating into the MSNBC story regarding the 29 Democratic counties in Florida voting for Bush. He said that he didn't check all 29 counties, but did look at his own archived data on voting patterns in "quite a few" of these counties (more than 5) and that they have indeed voted Republican in the last several elections, even though they remain registered as Democrats. He concurred with the article lbmlbmlb pasted already stating that these voters are "dixiecrats".

This is the first year that Mitofsky's exit poll has been so off-base. He acknowledged that he miscalculated Kerry as the winner of 5 states that he actually lost... he was, however, quite annoyed by Dick Morris's allegations that there was "foul play". He explained that they will need to make some more adjustments in their analysis of the data sets to improve accuracy. In their analysis, they weight the samples to compensate for demographic variables that can skew results, but clearly, they have overlooked certain variables that still need to be controlled. (They already control for skewing variables such as gender, party, ethnicity, SES... all variables that can be counterbalanced using the census for norms.)

Pages