Monday, June 20, 2005

t r u t h o u t - The Free Press | Did Bush Steal 2004 Election?

Yes, I think he did, just like he stole the 2000 election.

The controversy surrounding the voting machines remains extremely fierce in part because major manufacturers such as Diebold, ES&S, Triad, and others are controlled by partisan Republican companies with secret proprietary software. This unfortunate lack of transparency calls all US elections into question. In a highly publicized controversy, Diebolt principal Walden O'Dell, a resident of central Ohio, pledged in a 2003 GOP fundraising letter to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to George W. Bush, leaving the indelible suspicion that he might do it fraudulently. US Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is a principle in another major voting machine company, ES&S, on which many millions of votes were cast in 2004. Hagel was elected and re-elected in balloting that relied on ES&S machines. Such apparent conflicts of interest have left the poisonous impression that America's right to cast a ballot in secret has been transcended by a private partisan company's right to count votes in secret. In fact, the question of electronic voting machines remains the single largest "black hole" in the entire electoral process. Nationwide at least 30% of the votes in 2004 were cast on such "black box" machines, more than enough to have tipped the balance in the popular vote from John Kerry to George W. Bush.

So let me get this straight - the companies that control and produce the voting machines are run by partisan Republicans? Should we be surprised when the Republican candidate in the swing states is declared the winner? I've got an idea - how about America has another country, like, say, Canada, provide voting machines and software and then a consortium of international observers does the counting? That way neither Republicans or Democrats have the 'advantage'?

In the months after the election, dozens of polling experts and statisticians have scrutinized every corner of the public exit polling data as it stacks up against the official vote counts. The major pollsters and their national media clients still refuse to release the raw data. The consensus, as shown here, is that the reversal of Kerry's fortunes late on election night was in essence a statistical impossibility, with the odds at roughly 1 in 950,000. According to these experts, John Kerry should have been inaugurated in January, 2005.

It's funny that we rely on exit polls in the Ukraine as proof of corruption and vote-tampering, but when it happens in America, nobody gives a shit. If you think rigging an election is too far-fetched to realistically consider, remember that this is the same administration that misled the American public about its intentions to go to war with Iraq. This is the same administration that lied to Congress and the world about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. This is the same administration that says torture is okay as long as it's not Americans that are being tortured.

Somehow I don't think they'd have a moral problem with pulling a few strings to stay in power.


Post a Comment

<< Home