Through the Looking Glass: The 2004 Election

I don't normally repost other editorials here, mostly because I'm too vain, but this one needs a wider circulation.

No Paper Trail Left Behind: The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.

I tried to post it in its entirety, but reformatting it to fit the blogspot template drove me nearly as insane as the actual content of the piece. I will sumarize the points, but you should read the entire piece and check his source material.

Like Alice, who didn't seem to believe that anyone could believe an impossible thing, we are confronted with the fact that if we really think that, we haven't been trying hard enough.

To believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.

• A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.
  
  
• Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.
  
  
• The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points. (Try, try, try to uderstand....he's a magic man....)
  
  
• Florida’s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.
  
  
• The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.
  
  
• Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.
  
  
• Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).
  
  
• The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong.
  
  
• On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.
  
  
• The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.
  
  
• Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.”
  
  
• Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.
  
  
• There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 larger than the number of registered voters and where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count.
  
  
• CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.
  
  
• Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.
  
  
• The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.
  
  
• In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.
  
  
• It must be merely a stunning coincidence that exit polls were wrong only in precincts where there was no paper ballot to check against the electronic totals and right everywhere there was a paper trail.
  

Loo goes on to point out that this list is only a partial listing of the irregularities from this election. He also does an amazing job of analyzing in incredible detail the problems surrounding Bush's landslide and mandate in the last "election." He is meticulous in his documentation.

You have to scratch your head and wonder about what has happened to this nation when Jimmy Carter says that he wouldn't monitor US Elections because they don't meet his minimum standards. (Source) How are we supposed to be bringing democracy to the Middle East when we can't even prove we have it here at home?

You really need to read this entire article, and to circulate the link to as many people as you can. Only outrage is going to change anything, and a lot needs to be changed.

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

You will be chanting "Holy Crap, Holy Crap, Holy Crap" long before you get to the end of the article.

If you aren't chanting it already.