Yeah, there's a lot of BS floating around on voting. It ain't ALL garbage of course.
I got this bit in my EMail yesterday:
---------------------------------------------------------
Amigos: please see two additional summary points at the end of this analysis which demonstrates that it is more accurate than we want to believe.
COLORADO 2 NOVEMBER 2004 ELECTION FIX
BUSH BEAT KERRY BY 100,000 VOTES
STATE RATIO BUSH / KERRY = 1.1
County Ratio Machine Bush Kerry Salazar (% Sal X Total) Kerry Lost
_______ ____ _______ ____ _____ ______ _____________ __________
Douglas 2.0 Diebold 81 40 38 % 46 6,000
El Paso 2.1 Diebold 161 78 35 % 84 6,000
Larimer 1.1 Diebold 76 68 52 % 75 7,000
Weld 1.7 Diebold 56 32 44 % 39 7,000
___________________________________________________________________
Average vote lost by Kerry = 6,500
Salazar is the Democrat who won the Senate race. The assumption is that those who voted for Salazar would also have voted for Kerry.
Kerry Lost = difference between what Kerry got and what he should have gotten if people who voted for Salazar would have voted for him. For example, in Douglas county, Kerry got 40,000 votes but if the Salazar people also voted for him, then he should have got 46,000 votes: a difference of 6,000 votes.
Assumption is that the Diebold machines transferred the Kerry lost votes to Bush.
There were 11 counties out of 64 in Colorado which had 50,000 or more voters. These counties used Diebold and other electronic voting machines.
Assumption: 6,500 votes were lost in each of these 11 counties to the electronic machines.
Therefore Kerry lost 71,500 votes to these electronic machines.
The Bush lead would be reduced to 28,500 (100,000 – 71,500).
The Kerry vote would increase by 71,500.
Kerry would beat Bush by : 43,000 votes .
Kerry rather than Bush would have gotten Colorado’s Nine (9) electoral votes.
SUMMARY POINTS:
1- there was a Democratic sweep in Colorado of which Salazar, a first time U.S. Senate candidate, was a part. Therefore there was a very strong probability that those who voted the Democratic ticket, should also have voted for Kerry.
2- the fact that similar amounts (6,000 + 6,000 + 7,000 and 7,000) were transferred electronically from Kerry to Bush suggests that a "standard computer program" was programmed into the voting machines or used at each county central tabulating headquarters. It is a very complicated issue to write a different "computer program" for each of Colorado's 64 counties. The people managing such a "steal" would find it very difficult to control (i.e place in the computer and than erase the program so no evidence would be left).
THIS IS WHY THE BAYER RULE DICTATES THAT IF YOU MUST USE ELECTRONIC MACHINES (which I oppose) you must have the following control system in place:
1- a paper ballots for each vote cast, locked in boxes and saved for a recount.
2- obligatory recounts based on sampling the votes in each precinct to make sure that each electronic total in each precinct matches the sample drawn. We are NOT interested in how close the vote is or if there was a landslide for one candidate or issue (e.g. Proposition X). OBLIGATORY RECOUNT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS: a random sample of the paper ballots must be drawn to check its results with the electronic results at each precint!
The 2 requirement is a new requirement. Call it the Bayer requirement, if you like. But remember it. If NOT DONE, the process is open to fraud.
3- Polls: Pre-voting polls (three days before the election) and Exit Polls are additional guarantees of voting integrity (read: preventing fraud). In fact, Exit Polls are the most important mechanism for preventing fraud whether or not electronic voting technologies have been used.
Exit polls should be required to be executed by every Secretary of State. Other entities can do them. But there is NO EXCUSE for these not being done by the States.
4- The entire voting system must be in public hands. There should be NO private enterprise participation in the voting process. The Secretary of State position in each state of the union should be NON-PARTISON.
Without such a control system in place, elections are open to fraud as indicated in Colorado and throughout the U.S. in the election on 2 November 2004. Most of your Foundations and organizations working on Election Reform ARE NOT ADVOCATING WHAT I have written in #s 1-4 above, so fraud will continue!
It is more than likely that if the electroinc voting machines were NOT used in nearly 40 percent of the votes cast, the outcome for President would have been what it was in New York (where electronics were NOT used): 60 percent for Kerry and 40 percent for Bush. Even if you cut this 20 percent spread in half to 10 percent or again to 5 percent, it is more than likely---based on all the scientific statistical analyses which are coming in- that KERRY WON THE NATION BY A LANDSLIDE as the exit polls predicted (before the Associated Press Election Pool and the TV networks "contaminated" the polls with actual "electronically manipulated" results data to force the polls to reflect the fraudulent outcome throughout our beautiful nation).
The central question now is: ARE YOU AS A CITIZEN GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE THE JANUARY 6 CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?
Un abrazo a todos,
Republicans or Democrats or Greens or Libertarians: we are all united across all races and creeds and religions as brothers and sisters.
------------------------------------------------------
Here was my reply:
Jim speaking:
David,
This statement in particular caught my eye:
-----------
Salazar is the Democrat who won the Senate race. The assumption is that
those who voted for Salazar would also have voted for Kerry.
-----------
Something about that didn't smell right. I wasn't exactly sure what, but
since I know one particular issue in some detail, I decided to compare
positions between Salazar and Kerry and see if that "assumption" works.
Sure enough:
---------------
Ken Salazar on Gun Control
* Protect the individual right to use firearms. (Aug 2004)
* Restrict felon possession, and ban assault weapons. (Aug 2004)
* More background checks for gun purchases. (Jan 2000)
http://www.ontheissues.org/states/CO_Gun_Control.htm
---------------
Even that doesn't give a full flavor: Salazar's position on guns and
self defense significantly improved by the 2003/2004 timeframe. He was a
proponent of recent reforms eliminating racism, cronyism and corruption
from the gun carry permit (CCW) process so despite his earlier vote of
2000, by 2004 Democrat gun owners were ready to back him.
As David Kopel put it:
-------------
*Colorado:* Republican brewer Pete Coors (A/A-) has taken rock-solid
positions on all gun issues. Democratic Attorney General Ken Salazar
(D/D) was supportive of Colorado's 2003 "shall issue" law for concealed
handguns. But after the 1999 Columbine massacre, he was widely rumored
to have made a deal with Governor Bill Owens that if Owens would support
some gun control, Salazar would not challenge Owens in the governor's
race in 2002. Owens did announce a five-point gun-control program, which
Salazar supported; all of the Owens-Salazar bills were defeated in the
state legislature. Owens and Salazar then teamed up to support a 2000
initiative that imposed special restrictions on gun shows. Salazar's
national ambitions and strong ties to trial lawyers would probably pull
him further in an antigun position; he is, however, much less antigun
than anyone else the Colorado Democrats have nominated for the U.S.
Senate in the last 20 years (except for Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who was
first elected in 1992 as a Democrat).
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200411021307.asp
-------------
That's not *perfect* but it's not that bad - esp. not by Democrat standards.
KERRY on the other hand gave gun owners of any political party a bad
case of the creeps. His Senate record showed he's a committed activist
against all forms of self defense - on par with Chuck Schumer, Dianne
Feinstein and Ted Kennedy.
Going back to the reasonably non-partisan "On The Issues" site for Kerry
and gun control:
-------------
John Kerry on Gun Control
* Country less safe-terrorists can now buy assault weapons. (Oct 2004)
* Supports 2nd Amendment, but wants to ban assault weapons. (Sep 2004)
* Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility. (Mar 2004)
* Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)
* Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun
violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
(Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec
2003)
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm
-------------
NRA's response to Kerry is best summarized by the amazingly effective
"poodle ad":
http://www.nrapvf.org/media/pdf/doghunt.htm
Here's why this really mattered in Colorado: the 2003 gun permit reforms
Salazar pushed for meant that for the first time, anybody in the state
able to pass a background check and training was able to pack a
defensive, loaded, concealed firearm without need to fork out campaign
contributions to the sheriff, have major political connections or be white.
The people opposed to this, as in the previous 35 reform efforts,
predicted "blood in the streets". As with the 35 times prior, such dire
predictions turned out to be...well, bull. People willing to go
through a background check and training process ain't the ones anybody
has to worry about...to such a degree that cops, when they pull somebody
over and get handed driver's license, insurance, registration and gun
carry permit, the cops *relax* - because no gun carry permitholder has
ever shot at a cop!
And over a year into the process when the Nov. election hit, Kerry's
"eeevil guns!" approach was very obviously a fraud.
People don't tend to vote for fraudsters. Or for those who are committed
to stripping them of their basic human rights.
On this one issue, Kerry and Salazar were on opposite ends of the
spectrum. Bush on the other hand was much closer to Salazar: as TX
governor, he pushed for and signed the same kind of law.
David, I've had Democratic union reps and lobbyists *beg* me to find a
way to make the gun issue go away. Because there are SCADS of
Democratic, union voters who also vote for their self defense
rights...and that's here in California. The problem for Dems in this area
is up to 1,000x worse elsewhere.
Here's the problem in a nutshell:
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com/d/20001010.html
You want to know why the Dems have lost the entire South? Go here:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
(Yeah, I know, the page name is pretty funky. But the data is accurate.)
It shows the progression of the 36 current pro-self-defense states. Note
the years "my people" took over these states, and compare that to when
the Dems stopped being a factor. Hell, compare the latest map here to
the Kerry/Bush electoral college map - the extreme level of correlation
is NO accident!
You want the Dems in power over economic/war issues? Cool. Stop trying
to grab guns. It's idiocy, you're losing, you're killing yourselves over
a failed policy.
In the meantime, the massive difference between Kerry and Salazar on
that ONE issue fully explains the "variance" you're finding, and then
some. And without that particular piece of baggage, Kerry would have won
by such a landslide, no amount of fraud could have possibly saved Bush.
-------------------
And here was David Bayer's follow-up to the mailing list - note that he sent it out BCC so he had to "re-broadcast" my material. He didn't HAVE to, but he did despite being way-left Liberal:
Amigos: At the end of my email, you will find a strong critique by Jim M. Basically he asserts that Salazar has a totally different position on "gun control" than Kerry. This was the key factor which determined that voters in Colorado selected Salazar and Bush, rejecting Kerry. There was no fraud.
Since I believe strongly in scientific explanations of social behavior (as a sociologist, first and always!) and Jim's argument is a strong one, it is being presented to you as an alternative.
Jim's way of arguing is far superior than the "yes men and women" in the Corporate Media and Press who brainwash us daily with their lies, starting with their financial supporters-the advertising agencies and those who produce the bad quality products and medicines which do us more harm than good.
Thanks, Jim, for your critique.
Sorry for the repetition everyone but good debate will educate your mind and make us all better people.
David
