Cheating has a long and bipartisan history in US elections
Here is a view from across the pond..that cheating has a long and bipartisan history in US elections. In 2004, the potential for cheating was known before the election...Oct 04...and verified by Share International editor Benjamin Creme in Dec. 04..
http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2004/dec_04.htm#q&a
Q. (1) Does the final outcome in the US Presidential election accurately reflect the preference of those who voted, or
(2) was there any corruption or manipulation which might have changed the outcome? If so,
(3) which side cheated more?
(4) If the results were ‘fixed’, by which methods was it done?
A. (1) No. My information is that there was much cheating.
(2) Yes, Kerry should narrowly have won Ohio and Florida and the Presidency. I am afraid it is the same old story, more expertly performed this time.
(3) The Republicans. It seems that cheating by Democrats was minimal and only on a personal basis, but cheating by Republicans was pre-planned and widespread, especially with the new electronic machines.
(4) Pre-programmed electronic voting systems and various other methods, cruder but just as effective — delayed postal votes, double voting, non-counting of votes, and more. Of course, the marginal (swing) states like Florida and Ohio were targeted and the machines were programmed to change every fifth vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush. However, even without ‘stolen’ votes, Bush, like Gore last time, did in fact decisively win the popular vote which I personally prefer as a record of democratic public opinion.
Warning about Diebold software was published in Share International magazine in Oct. 2004.
http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2004/oct_04.htm#message
Most of us are so addicted to information that we do not act.. but simply stand and wait..for more information.
Informant: Betsy Whitfil
http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2004/dec_04.htm#q&a
Q. (1) Does the final outcome in the US Presidential election accurately reflect the preference of those who voted, or
(2) was there any corruption or manipulation which might have changed the outcome? If so,
(3) which side cheated more?
(4) If the results were ‘fixed’, by which methods was it done?
A. (1) No. My information is that there was much cheating.
(2) Yes, Kerry should narrowly have won Ohio and Florida and the Presidency. I am afraid it is the same old story, more expertly performed this time.
(3) The Republicans. It seems that cheating by Democrats was minimal and only on a personal basis, but cheating by Republicans was pre-planned and widespread, especially with the new electronic machines.
(4) Pre-programmed electronic voting systems and various other methods, cruder but just as effective — delayed postal votes, double voting, non-counting of votes, and more. Of course, the marginal (swing) states like Florida and Ohio were targeted and the machines were programmed to change every fifth vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush. However, even without ‘stolen’ votes, Bush, like Gore last time, did in fact decisively win the popular vote which I personally prefer as a record of democratic public opinion.
Warning about Diebold software was published in Share International magazine in Oct. 2004.
http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2004/oct_04.htm#message
Most of us are so addicted to information that we do not act.. but simply stand and wait..for more information.
Informant: Betsy Whitfil
rudkla - 14. Mai, 18:35
