Bulletin 159


If you would like to be removed from this mailing list, please indicate so by return mail.

Pour se désinscrire de cette liste, renvoyez svp ce mèle avec votre demande.

4 December 2004
Grenoble, France

Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

Learning the subversive use of humor, a class-conscious humor, would appear to be a useful instument for survival these days. Aimed against authoritarian leaders and reactionary demagogues, the power of laughter can evaporate the most intransigent tyrant, at least for a moment. As a more lasting effect, it can unite people in unexpected ways and encourage them to resist. And there is another a side effect: laughter is simply good for your health. In this spirit of stirring the human comedy to bring forth the repressed collective unconscious, we refer you to item
B. below, from DMY Zookeeper, on American political humor as an organizing tool at the start of the 21st Century.

And Item A. offers readers access to Professor Michael Keefer's comparative analysis of election fraud : "The Stolen U.S. Presidential Election: (1) Comparative Analysis", plus (2) his extensive internet bibliography on the subject.

Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies
Director of Research
Université Grenoble 3

From: Michael Keefer :
Subject: Stolen elections
Date: Thu,
2 Dec 2004

Dear Bertell Ollman,
I read your essay with interest.  It's an issue I've been on since Nov 5 (with a piece on exit polls at www.globalresearch.ca); I've applied the same bank robbery metaphor you use, to different purpose, in a more recent attempt to sort out the key evidence, published on Dec 1st at www.globalresearch.ca. As a companion piece to the essay, I've also prepared a long reading list (due to appear shortly at the same website).
My motive has been exactly the one you propose--to delegitimize a regime that having stolen power twice running is very clearly not going to give it up to any recount process.
I'm taking the liberty of attaching the new article (in somewhat revised form) and the reading list as well, with the thought that you might be able to circulate them to people who might find them of use.
Best wishes,
Michael Keefer
School of English & Theatre Studies
University of Guelph

Please see below : (1)Electoral Fraud-Article and (2)Electoral Fraud-ReadList.


The Stolen U.S. Presidential Election: A Comparative Analysis

byMichael Keefer

(1 December 2004)

i. ‘Let us compare mythologies’: Presidential Votes in the U.S. , Ukraine and Venezuela

Imagine the sensation that would have ensued if a United States Senator had declared, less than three weeks after the 2004 U.S. presidential election, that “It is now apparent that a concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or co-operation of governmental authorities.”  The story would have made banner headlines around the world. 

As a matter of fact, on November 22, 2004, BBC News attributed these very words to Republican Senator Richard Lugar.  However, Lugar was speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee—and he was referring, not to the U.S. presidential election of November 2, but to the Ukrainian presidential election of November 21, 2004 (see “Ukraine cities,” and “In quotes”).[i] 

The primary evidence for Lugar’s charge of electoral fraud is a striking divergence between exit poll data and official vote tallies.  As it happens, wide divergences of just this kind have also been a feature of two other important recent elections: the Venezuelan recall referendum over President Chávez’s mandate held on August 15, as well as the U.S. presidential election of November 2.  In all three cases there is substantial evidence of fraud—though the dishonesty appears to be very differently distributed.  In brief: the Venezuelan election was clean and the exit poll flagrantly dishonest; the Ukrainian vote tallies and exit polling seem both to have been in various ways seriously corrupted; the American election, despite the Bush Republicans’ pose as international arbiters of integrity, was manifestly stolen, while the U.S. exit polling was professionally conducted.  (Though the U.S. exit polls were subsequently tampered with, accurate results had in the mean time been made public.)   

Hugo Chávez’s landslide victory in August was a surprise only to the hostile U.S. corporate press, which had represented the Venezuelan election campaign as a dead heat: the last opinion poll prior to the referendum in fact showed Chávez leading by a wide margin, with 50 percent of registered voters to the opposition’s 38 percent.  In the official tally, Chávez won 58.26 percent of the votes, while 41.74 percent were cast against him.  International observers, including the Organization of American States and the Carter Center, declared that the election had been fair: in ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s words, “any allegations of fraud are completely unwarranted” (see Rosnick). 

But on election day the leading New York polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland disgraced itself by releasing (before the polls closed, and hence in violation of Venezuelan law) a purportedly authoritative exit poll, with a claimed margin of error “under +/-1%,” according to which Chávez had been defeated, gaining a mere 41 percent of the vote to the opposition’s 59 percent.  The exit polling, it emerged, had been conducted—though not in Chavista neighbourhoods, where the pollsters did not venture (Gindin [15 Aug. 2004])—by an opposition group named Súmate, which had been formed to agitate for a recall referendum, and whose leadership had been implicated in the 2002 anti-Chávez coup.  Súmate appears to have been largely funded by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been aptly described as “the CIA’s ‘civilian arm’” (Chossudovsky [28 Nov. 2004]), and by the CIA itself (see “Súmate”); in the period leading up to the election, Venezuelan opposition groups like Súmate received altogether more than $20 million from the U.S., including over $3 million funneled through the NED (see www.venezuelafoia).  As had been understood prior to the event (see Stinard [10 Aug. 2004]), fraudulent exit polling was part of a concerted U.S.-backed project of delegitimizing and destabilizing the government of a geopolitically important oil-producing nation.  Had the election been less of a landslide, and had it not been conducted with what appears to have been scrupulous correctness, the plan might have succeeded. 

Ukraine is likewise recognized as a country of pivotal geopolitical importance (see Aslund [12 May 2004], Chin [26 Nov. 2004], and Oliker); it is a key element in the U.S.’s Silk Road Strategy for domination of central Asia (see Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, pp. 65-75).  Here the election results were much closer, and have been more vigorously contested.  Viktor Yanukovych, the candidate favoured by Ukraine ’s Russian neighbours, was declared the winner, with 49.4 percent of the vote to the Western-leaning Viktor Yushchenko’s 46.7 percent.  But Yushchenko and his party—supported by a growing chorus of Western commentators and governments—have cried foul. 

While the Ukrainian exit poll figures publicized in the Western media do support claims of electoral fraud, the exit polls themselves are not wholly above suspicion.  The most widely disseminated claim has been that an authoritative exit poll showed Yushchenko to have won the election with a 6 percent lead; Yanukovych’s governing party would thus have stolen the election, fraudulently swinging the vote by 8.7 percent.  According to better-informed reports, however, two distinct exit polls were conducted.  One of these, organized by the right-wing U.S. think-tank Freedom House and the U.S. Democratic Party’s National Democratic Institute (NDI), and carried out by the Kyiv Democratic Initiatives Foundation (see Vasovic), perhaps as part of a group calling itself the Exit Pollconsortium (see Kubiniec), found that Yushchenko won 54 percent of the vote to Yanukovych’s 43 percent.  (It may be this poll that is referred to by the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Public Opinion and Democracy in its claim that “an exit poll conducted by independent research firms” showed Yushchenko to have won by 54 to 42 percent.)  The other national exit poll, based on interviews rather than questionnaires, was conducted by Sotsis Company and the Social Monitoring Center, and gave Yushchenko 49.4 percent of the vote to Yanukovych’s 45.9 percent. 

It is not my purpose to attempt an unraveling of the complexities of the Ukrainian election.  The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has challenged the validity of the exit polls, claiming that the exit pollsters they observed in one city were open Yushchenko supporters and were not following proper procedures (see “Ukraine: 2nd Round”).  While Western observers have reported major irregularities in the government’s conduct of the election, Michel Chossudovsky and Ian Traynor have on the other hand adduced strong evidence of interventions in the Ukrainian electoral process by U.S. governmental and quasi-governmental agencies that resemble the same agencies’ interventions in Serbia , Georgia , Belarus , and Venezuela .  The voter turnout figures of 96 percent recorded in Yanukovych strongholds in eastern Ukraine are strongly indicative of fraud; so likewise may be “the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine,” where the British Helsinki Group observed that Yushchenko’s opposition party “exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places.”  Dave Lindorff, in what seems to me a well-balanced assessment, describes the vehement protests against a corrupt election conducted by Leonid Kuchma’s “corrupt and dictatorial” outgoing regime as being largely “indigenous and heartfelt,” while also noting that “the CIA and various American ‘pro-democracy’ front groups [are] playing a crucial hand in destabilizing the pro-Russian regime” (Lindorff [27 Nov, 2004]).  I would like merely to suggest that the interview-based exit poll which gave Yushchenko a 3.5 percent lead over Yanukovych—and hence indicated an irregular swing of 6.2 percent in the latter’s favour—is more likely to have been properly conducted than the exit poll which was organized by Freedom House and the NDI, and which may well have been marked by Súmate-type improprieties. 

Let us turn to the American presidential election, where the same kind of data has encouraged similar suspicions—though thanks to the soothing ministrations of the U.S. corporate media, with nothing resembling the massive public outcry in Ukraine .  George W. Bush was hailed the winner on November 2, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry’s 48 percent.  But there are good reasons to be skeptical of the official vote tallies.  The last wave of national exit polls published on the evening of November 2—polls which appear to have been duly weighted to correct for sampling imbalances—showed Kerry, not Bush, leading by 51 to 48 percent (see ‘Mystery Pollster’).  A divergence of 6 percent between weighted exit polls and the official numbers is a strong indicator of electoral fraud. 

At the decisive point, moreover, the divergence between the exit poll results and the vote tally was wider still (see S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).  Prior to the election, political analysts identified Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as the three key swing states: the candidate who carried these states, or a majority of them, would win the election. 

Bush won Florida, with 52.1 percent of the vote to Kerry’s 47.1 percent.  (This tally, by the way, diverges by 4.9 percent in Bush’s favour from the state exit poll, which gave Bush a paper-thin 0.1 percent lead.)  Kerry won Pennsylvania, with 50.8 percent of the vote to Bush’s 48.6 percent.  (Here again the vote tally differs in Bush’s favour from the exit poll results—this time by 6.5 percent.)   

That left Ohio as the deciding state, the one on which the national election results depended.  George W. Bush won Ohio, according to the official vote tally, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry’s 48.5 percent.  The divergence in this case between the vote tally and the exit poll, which showed Kerry as winning by 52.1 percent to Bush’s 47.9 percent, is fully 6.7 percent. 

Is it possible that these three divergences in Bush’s favour between exit polls and vote tallies could have occurred by chance?  I wouldn’t bet on it.  Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Organizational Dynamics has calculated that the odds against these statistical anomalies occurring by chance are 662,000 to 1 (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).   

Or are exit polls perhaps just not as reliable as people think?  Dr. Freeman has an answer to this question as well.  In the last three national elections in Germany, the differential between the exit polls and the vote tallies was, on average, 0.27 percent; and in the last three elections to the European Parliament, the differential in Germany was 0.44 percent (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).  Exit polls conducted professionally and without political bias are highly accurate—which is why they have been used (more honestly in most cases, it would seem, than in the Penn, Schoen & Berland poll in Venezuela and the Freedom House-NDI poll in Ukraine) as a measure of electoral integrity in situations where improprieties have been anticipated.  The U.S. exit polls were conducted by Mitofsky International, a survey research company founded by Warren J. Mitofsky, who as the company’s website proclaims “created the Exit Poll research model” and “has directed exit polls and quick counts since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests.  He has the distinction of conducting the first national presidential exit polls in the United States , Russia , Mexico and the Philippines .  His record for accuracy is well known” (see “National Election Pool”). 

The fact that Mitofsky International systematically altered the U.S. presidential exit poll data early on the morning of November 3, contaminating the exit poll figures by conflating them with the vote tally percentages, has quite rightly become a matter of controversy (see Keefer [5 Nov. 2004], and Olbermann, “Zogby Vs. Mitofsky”).  But there seems no reason to doubt that the Mitofsky exit poll data made available by the CNN website on the evening of November 2 was professionally gathered and weighted. 

Mightn’t one propose, as a last resort, that Bush’s election-winning divergence of 6.7 percent between the Ohio exit poll results and the Ohio vote tally was, at any rate, somewhat less scandalous than the 13.7 percent swing Yanukovych’s party was blamed for by the Freedom House-NDI exit poll?  (Ignore, if you like, the lesser 6.2 percent swing indicated by the Sotsis and Social Monitoring exit poll—which, if accurate, shows the Freedom House-NDI poll to be skewed in Yushchenko’s favour by fully 7.5 percent.)  But if stealing elections is like knocking off banks, the fact that one practitioner can dynamite the vault of the central bank and get away with it, while his less fortunate compeer draws unwanted attention by blowing out all of the windows of the neighbourhood Savings-and-Loan, doesn’t make the former any less a bank robber than the latter. 

The parallels between the Ukrainian and the U.S. presidential elections extend beyond the exit poll divergences.  Ballot-box stuffers appear to have achieved a 96 percent turnout in parts of eastern Ukraine , with turnout figures in some areas exceeding 100 percent.  There is evidence of similar indiscretions on the part of Bush’s electoral fraud teams.  Twenty-nine precincts in a single Ohio county reported more votes cast than there are registered voters—to a cumulative total of over 93,000 votes (see Rockwell).  And in six Florida counties the total number of votes reported to have been cast exceeded by wide margins the total number of registered voters (see Newberry).[1]  Senator John McCain, manifesting the same stunning lack of irony as other Republican spokesmen, has weighed in on the issue: “IRI [the International Republican Institute] found that in a number of polling stations, the percentage of votes certified by the Central Election Commission exceeded 100% of total votes.  This is simply disgraceful” (see “McCain”).  McCain is of course referring to eastern Ukraine ; when it comes to Florida or Ohio, he keeps his eyes wide shut.     

The question of advance indications of electoral fraud offers a final point of comparison.  In the United States , as in Ukraine (where international observers described the polls and vote-counts in previous elections as deeply flawed), electoral fraud was widely anticipated prior to the 2004 presidential election.  As the materials itemized in the first three sections of the Reading List that is being published to accompany this article make clear, the electronic voting technologies in use in the U.S. were widely denounced by electronic security experts months and even years in advance, as permitting, indeed facilitating, electoral fraud; there is clear evidence that the 2000 election and the 2002 mid-term elections were marked by large-scale fraud on the part of the Bush Republicans; and U.S. computer scientists and informed analysts warned insistently that fraud on an unprecedented scale was likely to occur in this year’s election.  

How has it been possible for the massive ironies arising out of the similarities between the elections in the U.S. and Ukraine to pass unobserved in the corporate media?  Have the media been simple-mindedly buttering their bread on both sides?  If so, it is a habit that makes for messy eating.  On November 20, an article in The Washington Post informed those who might question the U.S. election that “Exit Polls Can’t Always Predict Winners, So Don’t Expect Them To” (Morin).  Two days later, The Washington Post carried breaking news of the early election results from Ukraine —and quoted a purported election-stealer who holds exactly the same opinion of exit polls: “‘These polls don’t work,’ said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for Yanukovych.  ‘We will win by 3 to 5 percent.  And remember, if Americans believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be president’” (see Finn).           

ii. Key Issues and Evidence in the U.S. Presidential Election

Mainstream media assessments of the integrity of the 2004 U.S. presidential election have tended to focus on particular and local problems—computer errors or ‘glitches’ for the most part—that came to light on the day of the election or shortly afterwards.  Naturally enough, the fact that these problems were noticed, and in some cases corrected, works if anything to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. 

The stance of the mainstream media is inadequate in at least two respects.  First, some of the ‘problems’ were not mere accidents, but open and flagrant violations of democratic principles.  Prominent among these was the election-night ‘lockdown’ of the Warren County, Ohio administrative building, on wholly spurious grounds of a ‘terrorist threat’: as a result, the public, the press, and the local legal counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign were prevented from witnessing the vote count (see Solvig & Horn, and Olbermann [8 Nov. 2004]).  This maneuver generated widespread outrage: Warren County’s Republicans may perhaps have ‘misoverestimated’ the degree to which previous conveniently timed ‘terror alerts’ and Osama bin Laden’s late-October Jack-in-the-Box act had tamed the electorate. 

But more importantly, while ‘problems’ and ‘glitches’ have commonly been covered by the corporate media as local issues, they can be recognized as belonging to a larger pattern.  As James Paterson’s compelling analysis of The Theft of the 2004 US Election makes clear, Republican intentions were evident well before the election.  And as Joseph Cannon has remarked, “An individual problem can be dismissed as a glitch.  But when error after error after error favors Bush and not a single ‘accident’ favors Kerry, we’ve left glitch-land.” 

There is widespread evidence, which goes well beyond any mere accumulation of local problems, that “glitch-land” is indeed far behind us.  The landscape to which the 2004 U.S. presidential election belongs includes the murky swamps of Tammany Hall-style election-fixing—and the still more sinister morasses of ‘Jim Crow’ as well. 

It has been reported that Republican-controlled counties in Ohio and elsewhere sought to reduce the African-American vote by deliberately curtailing the numbers of polling stations and voting machines in working-class precincts: large numbers of would-be voters were effectively disenfranchised by line-ups that were many hours long (see Fitrakis [7, 16, 22 Nov. 2004]).  The Republican Party’s purging of African Americans from voters’ lists gained the 2000 election for George W. Bush (see Conyers [21 Aug. 2001]); as informed observers had anticipated (Palast [1 Nov. 2004], King & Palast), this shameful illegality was repeated in 2004 on a wider scale.  Large-scale polling-station challenges were used to further slow the voting, and to turn the new provisional ballots into a mechanism for effectively disenfranchising minority voters.  In the swing state of Ohio this year, it appears that fully 155,000 voters—most of them African-Americans—were obliged as a result of polling-station challenges to cast provisional ballots (see Palast [12 Nov. 2004], Solnit).  Although it is becoming clear that the great majority of these citizens were legally entitled to vote (see Williams), the likelihood that their votes will be fairly counted, or that Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell will permit them to be included in the official tally, remains slender.  The effect of this Jim Crow mechanism appears to be compounded by racially-biased judgments of ballot spoilage.  As Greg Palast reports, 54 percent of all ballots judged ‘spoiled’ in the 2000 election in Florida were cast by African-American voters, and similarly scandalous percentages are expected in key states this time round.  Nor have African Americans been the sole victims of these tactics: it appears that in New Mexico, where Hispanics’ ballots are five times more likely to be laid aside as ‘spoiled’ than those of white voters, 13,000 Hispanics were effectively disenfranchised by means of provisional ballots (Palast [12 Nov. 2004]).  Bush won New Mexico by less than half that number of votes. 

But it is the co-presence of other forms of corruption, in addition to all these, that establishes the difference between an election dirtied by illegalities, and one that was not merely soiled and distorted by fraud but actually stolen.  The evidence presented within the texts listed here suggests with gathering strength that the Karl Rovian maneuvers alluded to above were supplemented on November 2, 2004 by less conspicuous—and yet decisive—manipulations of the machines that recorded and tabulated the votes.  

How precisely this apparent manipulation may have been carried out in different jurisdictions—by rigging machines in advance to mis-record or delete votes, by configuring proprietary software so as to allow ‘back-door’ access for unrestrained vote-tampering, or by hacking into the notoriously insecure vote-tabulation systems—remains as yet undetermined.  However, the evidence has been coming to light with surprising rapidity. 

As observers and analysts noted at once, troubling discrepancies were apparent between the exit poll results published by CNN on the evening of November 2 and the official vote tallies (see DeHart, Dodge, S. Freeman, Otter, and Simon).  No less disturbing, as I observed in my article on the subject, is the fact that the exit poll data was systematically tampered with early on November 3 to make the figures conform to the vote tallies.  At 1:41 a.m. EST on November 3, for example, the Ohio exit poll was altered: Kerry, who had previously been shown as leading Bush by 4 percent in that state, was now represented in the revised exit poll as trailing him by 2.5 percent.  And yet the number of respondents in the poll had increased from 1,963 to only 2,020.  An additional 57 respondents—a 2.8 percent increase—had somehow produced a 6.5 percent swing from Kerry to Bush.  At 1:01 a.m. EST on November 3, the Florida exit poll was likewise altered: Kerry, who had previously been shown in a near dead heat with Bush, now trailed him by 4 percent.  In this case, the number of respondents rose only from 2,846 to 2,862.  A mere 16 respondents—0.55 percent of the total—produced a 4 percent swing to Bush. 

However, the key exit-poll issue remains the divergence between the November 2 exit polls and the vote tallies.  Steven Freeman concluded, in the first draft of his judicious study of the November 2 exit poll data, that “Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the election’s unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate” (S. Freeman [11 Nov, 2004]).  

Other evidence points toward a strengthening, indeed to a substantial confirmation of this “unavoidable hypothesis” of systematic fraud.  Some of this evidence has been emerging from the swing state of North Carolina, and from the two key swing states of Florida and Ohio—either one of which, had John Kerry won it, would have made him the acknowledged President-elect.  

In North Carolina, the tell-tale marks of electronic electoral fraud have been brought to light by an analyst who publishes at the Democratic Underground site under the name of ‘ignatzmouse’.  (“Ignatz,” remember, is the name of the mouse who in the Krazy Kat cartoons smacks the unhappy cat with the inevitable brick.  That pesky mouse is once again on target.) 

What gives the game away in the North Carolina election data is the disparity within the presidential and senatorial vote-counts between the so-called “absentee” votes—a category that apparently includes the early voting data as well as votes cast by citizens living abroad and military personnel—and the polling-day votes cast on November 2. 

In the race for Governor, 30 percent of the votes cast for the Republican and the Democratic candidate alike were absentee votes; the other 70 percent were cast on November 2.  The Democrat won with 55.6 percent of both the absentee and the polling-day votes.  In most of the other statewide races in the North Carolina election there were similarly close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes.  For example, Democrats won the post of Lieutenant Governor, with 55.7 percent of absentee and 55.5 percent of polling-day votes; the post of Secretary of State, with 58 percent of absentee and 57 percent of polling-day votes; and the post of Attorney General, with 56.7 percent of absentee and 55.2 percent of polling-day votes.  In three other statewide races, and in the voting for three constitutional amendments, the correlation between absentee and polling-day votes remains very close (though tight races for three other positions in the state administration were won by Republicans with polling-day swings in favour of the Republican candidates of 4.2, 5.2, and 5.4 percent respectively).  

Given the close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes in ten of the thirteen statewide races, the senate result looks suspicious: the Democrat’s narrow lead in the absentee voting became a clear defeat on November 2, with a 6.4 percent swing in the polling-day votes to the Republican.  And the presidential results look more seriously implausible.  In the absentee votes, Kerry trailed by 6 percent, a result that ‘ignatzmouse’ remarks “is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd.”  But in the election day voting, there was a further swing of fully 9 percent to Bush.  Bush led in the absentee votes (30 percent of the total) by 52.9 percent to Kerry’s 46.9 percent; but on polling day he took 57.3 percent of the remaining votes, while Kerry received 42.3 percent.  In the absence of any other explanation, these figures point to electronic fraud—and, more precisely, to “a ‘date-specific’ alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific [software] activation just prior to the election.”   

The Florida evidence is, if anything, more flagrant.  On November 18, Professor Michael Hout of the University of California at Berkeley released a statistical study indicating that electronic voting technology had produced a very substantial distortion of the presidential vote tally in Florida.  According to the analyses conducted by Hout and his team, irregularities associated with electronic voting machines accounted for at least 130,000 votes in Bush’s lead over Kerry in Florida—and possibly twice that much.  (The uncertainty stems from the fact that the machines may have awarded Bush “ghost votes” which increased his tally without reducing Kerry’s, or they may have misattributed Kerry votes as Bush votes.  As Hout explains, the disparities “amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a ‘ghost vote’ mechanism and twice that—260,000 votes—if we assume that a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the other.”)

Hout’s results have not gone unchallenged (see Strashny); obviously enough, the validity of statistical analyses depends on the extent to which all possible causal factors have been accounted for.  But other data indicates that the ‘haunting’ of Florida’s electronic voting tabulators was if anything more serious than Hout and his associates believe.  As I have already noted, in six Florida counties the number of votes purportedly cast exceeded the number of registered voters—by a cumulative total of 188,885 (see Newberry).  These are apparently “ghost votes,” and unless we’re willing to assume a level of electoral participation resembling those claimed by totalitarian states like Ceaucescu’s Romania or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq , a significant percentage of the other votes cast in these counties must also represent the electoral choice not of human beings but of Republican hackers. 

Further evidence which may help to identify the agents involved in Florida’s electronic voting fraud has in fact begun to emerge.  Brandon Adams, for example, has noted striking divergences among Florida voters according to the makes and models of the voting machines they used in different counties; and a heavy hacking of vote-tabulation systems used in conjunction with the older optical-scan voting machines is now well-established (see Paterson). 

Moreover, statistically-based work is being complemented by acquisitions of direct material evidence.  In Volusia County, one of Florida’s six most seriously ‘haunted’ counties, where 19,306 more votes were cast than there are registered voters, Bev Harris’s BlackBoxVoting team caught county election officials red-handed on November 16 in the act of trashing original polling-place tapes which BlackBoxVoting had asked for in a Freedom of Information request.  In addition to filming the behaviour of county officials, her team was able to establish that some copies of the tapes that officials had prepared to give them in response to the Freedom of Information Act request had been falsified in favour of George W. Bush—in one precinct alone by hundreds of votes (see Harris [18 Nov. 2004], Hartmann [19 Nov. 2004]).  The Volusia County materials provide proof, moreover, that the GEMS central vote-tabulation system, which was supposedly “stand-alone” and non-networked, was remotely accessed during the election (Harris [24 Nov. 2004]).  

Ohio, remember, was the deciding state.  John Kerry conceded the election after calculating that the some 155,000 provisional ballots cast in Ohio would not suffice—even if they were properly counted, and even if, as expected, they were very largely cast by Kerry supporters—to overturn the tallied results, according to which Bush had won the state by 136,483 votes. 

However, the exit poll data indicates that it was Kerry who won the state, and by a comfortable margin.  Once again, there is substantial evidence of electronic electoral fraud.  Teed Rockwell found, after careful study of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website, that twenty-nine precincts in this county “reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters—at least 93,136 extra votes total.”  The same website he studied (http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top) also repays further study, for Rockwell’s tallying of ‘ghost votes’ is in fact conservative.  To cite just one example, Brook Park City is listed as having 14,491 registered voters, of whom it is claimed that fully 14,458 exercised their civic duty and cast ballots—for a turn-out rate of 99.4 percent.  I leave it to the curious to discover how many of these high-minded but possibly nonexistent citizens supported their incumbent President. 

Those who want to pursue the questions of vote fraud and suppression in Ohio may also want to consult the studies carried out by Richard Philips, whose work, together with the data available on the websites of Cuyahoga and other counties, provides depressing evidence of successful vote suppression in urban precincts.  (It has been estimated that vote suppression tactics may have cost Kerry 45,000 votes across the whole state of Ohio [see Bernstein].)     

The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates, belatedly followed by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, have called for a recount in Ohio.  But if Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Blackwell permits no more than a recount, without a rigorous audit of the electronic voting machines and tabulators as well, the numbers for a reversal of the election results are probably not there.  On the optimistic assumption that a fair count of the 155,000 provisional ballots would result in 10 percent of them being disqualified and 70 percent of the remainder being validated as Kerry votes, those ballots might reduce Bush’s lead in Ohio by as much as 55,800 votes.  However, it seems unlikely that a recount, including a re-examination of the more than 96,000 Ohio votes (most of them cast on old punch-card machines) that were discarded as spoiled, would turn up the almost 81,000 additional Kerry votes that would still be needed. 

Together with the principle that every duly cast vote must be counted, advocates for democracy need to assert another complementary principle: the principle that votes cast not in polling booths, but in the hard drives of voting-tabulation machines; and not by citizens, but rather by ghosts summoned into existence by Republican hackers’ nimble fingers, have no business getting counted, and should be removed from the tally. 

The effect of turning a ‘Ghostbuster’ computer-auditing team like Bev Harris’s BlackBoxVoting organization loose on the Ohio results, to carry out a serious audit of any polling precinct and computer-log data that hasn’t already been quietly destroyed, might well be startling.  For while a simple recount would probably leave Kerry trailing by several tens of thousands of votes, a thorough computer-audit ‘exorcism’ of the vote tallies, should such a thing ever be permitted, might well lead to a reversal of the national election results. 

Whatever the finally certified results may be, a larger informing context should not be forgotten.  The regime of George W. Bush has made no secret of its scorn for the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, its hostility to any notion of international law, its contemptuous dismissal of the decent opinion of humankind both at home and abroad, its contempt, in the most inclusive sense, for truth. 

Bush has claimed that the 2004 election gave him “capital”—which he now will not hesitate to spend.  An early instance of this expenditure has been the assault on the city of Fallujah, and a compounding of the manifold war crimes of which Bush and those who serve him are already guilty. 

But what is this “capital”?  As the evidence is revealing with growing clarity, the 2004 presidential election was not in fact a victory for Bush, but rather the occasion for an insolent usurpation. 

A ‘president’ who takes office through fraud and usurpation can make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office. 

As the knowledge of his offence becomes ever more widely disseminated, he may yet come, like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “[to] feel his title / Hang loose upon him, like a giant’s robe / Upon a dwarfish thief.”    


Michael Keefer is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Guelph, and a past president of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English.  His publications include Lunar Perspectives: Field Notes from the Culture Wars (Toronto: House of Anansi Press).


Evidence of Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: An Expanded Reading List (Version 3)

by Michael Keefer

(2 December 2004)

This Reading List, a substantially expanded version of previous lists published on 11 and 15 November, has been prepared with the aim of making a wide range of readings on the subject of the integrity—or the lack of integrity—of the recent U.S. presidential election readily available.  It is being published as a companion-piece to my article “The Stolen U.S. Presidential Election: A Comparative Analysis.” 

I have sought to facilitate analytical use of the materials in this revised and expanded list by dividing them into five subject-sections: 

1. The Openness of New Voting Technologies to Fraud;

2. Allegations and Evidence of Fraud in Recent U.S. Elections;

3. Advance Warnings of Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election;

4. Allegations and Evidence of Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election: The Developing Controversy.  

5. Appendix: Selected Articles on the 2004 Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela and the 2004 Presidential Election (Second Round) in Ukraine .[2]

Section 1 includes writings by computer scientists who have specialized in issues of electronic security, by statisticians who have studied questions of the detection of electoral fraud, and by journalists and activists who have assembled and critically analyzed the opinions of experts. 

Section 2 provides some historical context for the present situation by offering a selection of writings in which the evidence of electoral fraud in recent U.S. elections is documented and analyzed. 

Section 3 shows how insistently computer scientists, investigative journalists and activists warned during the past two years about the dangers to democracy posed by electronic voting machines which remove the possibility of electoral recounts and audits—and how, despite their warnings, the U.S. entered the 2004 presidential elections equipped with voting-machine systems most of which were demonstrably open both to back-door manipulation and to hacking at the voting tabulator level. 

Section 4 lists a wide variety of different texts.  These include, most obviously, reports and analyses focusing on specific aspects of the voting and its aftermath, and studies that allege (and in my opinion cumulatively demonstrate) the theft of the presidential election by the Bush-Cheney Republicans and their corporate allies.  But I have made a point also of listing writings by scholars who find no compelling grounds for suspecting large-scale or systematic electoral fraud.  (See, with respect to the Florida vote tallies, Mebane [8 and 12 Nov. 2004], Sekhon [14 Nov. 2004], Wand, and Strashny—and, on the other side of the debate, Dodge, Dopp, Liddle, Mitteldorf, and Hout.)  I have also listed articles by journalists, often writing in mainstream outlets, who have dismissed allegations of electoral fraud as the result of over-hasty or ill-informed analysis, as an expression of conspiracy-theory paranoia, or as mere sour grapes.  (See, for example, Corn, A. Freeman, Klein, Manjoo, Morano, Reid, Roig-Franzia & Keating, and Zeller.  Critics of the mainstream media coverage include Friedberg, R. Parry [13 Nov. 2004], S. Parry [12 Nov. 2004], Smith and Wade.) 

Section 5 seeks to facilitate comparisons between the U.S. election and recent presidential elections in Venezuela and Ukraine in which, as in the U.S. , divergences between exit poll results and official vote tallies prompted charges of election-rigging

The issues are complex, at some points hotly disputed, and in urgent need of further inquiry and analysis.  I would maintain, nonetheless, that the evidence points with cumulative force to the conclusion that the official vote tallies in the U.S. presidential election of November 2, 2004 (listed by The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections2004/2004President.html), were produced by a massive and sustained project of electoral fraud. 


Michael Keefer is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Guelph, and a past president of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English.  His publications include Lunar Perspectives: Field Notes from the Culture Wars (Toronto: House of Anansi Press). 

1. (1) The Openness of New Voting Technologies to Fraud

Brady, Henry E., Justin Buchler, Matt Jarvis, John McNulty.  Counting All the Votes: The Performance of Voting Technology in the United States .  57 pp.  Department of Political Science, Survey Research Center, and Institute of Government Studies, University of California, Berkeley (September 2001), http://www.ucdata.berkeley.edu

Coleridge, Greg.  “Closing the Circle: The Corporatization of Elections.”  The Free Press (17 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/875

Collier, James M., and Kenneth F. Collier.  Votescam: The Stealing of America .  Victoria House Press, 1992.  ISBN 0963416308. 

Collier, Victoria.  “Computerized Election Fraud in America : A Brief History.”  Votescam (25 October 2003), http://www.votescam.com/abriefhistory.php

“Company Defends Electronic Voting System.”  Associated Press, The New York Times (25 July 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://www.macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/AP-Electronic-Voting-Flaws.25jul2003.html

Conover, Bev. “Computerized voting systems cannot be made secure.”  Online Journal (20 October 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/102003Conover/102003conover.html

------.  “Voting: When low-tech beats high-tech.”  Online Journal (25 June 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/062504Conover/062504conover.html.  

Diebold, Inc. “Technical Response to the Johns Hopkins Study on Voting Systems.”  25 July 2003, available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://www.macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/technical.25jul2003.htm

Equal Justice Foundation.  Vote Fraud and Election Issues.  Last updated 27 September 2004.  http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting.htm#fraud

“Groups Question Voting Machines’ Accuracy.”  Associated Press (30 October 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov/diebold/AP-Election-Worries.30oct.2003.html

Halpert, Oscar. “Bev Harris was among the first to raise concerns about touch-screen machines.”  Verifiedvoting.org (1 June 2004), http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2277

Harris, BevBlack Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century.  Renton, WA: Talion Publishing/Black Box Voting, 2003.  ISBN 1890916900.  Free internet version available at http://www.blackboxvoting.org

------.  “Inside a U.S. Election Vote Counting Program.”  Scoop (8 July 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm; Truthout (July 2003), http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/voting.shtml

------.  “Bald-Faced Lies About Black Box Voting Machines and The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File.”  Scoop (10 July 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm.   

------.  “Internal Memos: Diebold Doing End-Runs Around Certification.”  Scoop (12 September 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00150.htm

Internet Policy Institute.  Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda.  March 2001.  62 pp.  Sponsored by the National Science Foundation.  Conducted in cooperation with the University of Maryland and hosted by the Freedom Forum.  http://www.nsfe-voterprt.pdf

Jones, Douglas W.  “Problems with Voting Systems and the Applicable Standards.”  Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science, Washington D.C (22 May 2001), http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting.  

------.  “Auditing elections.”  Communications of the ACM 47.10 (October 2004): 46-50, http://www.portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=0922594.1022622

Kohno, Tadayoshi, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel D. Rubin, and Dan S. Wallach.  “Analysis of an Electronic Voting System.”  IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland CA, May 2004.  http://avirubin.com/vote/analysis/index.html.   

Kocher, Paul, and Bruce Schneier.  “Insider Risks in Elections.”  Inside Risks 169, CACM 47, 7 (July 2004), http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/insiderisks04.html

Konrad, Rachel. “Electronic Voting Firm Drops Legal Case.”  Associated Press (2 December 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/mherald.diebold.02dec2003.html

Landes, Lynn. “Mission impossible: Federal observers & voting machines.”  Online Journal (26 November 2002), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/112602Landes/112602landes.html

------.  “Voting machines violate Constitution: Who will launch legal challenge?”  Online Journal (15 April 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/041503Landes/041503landes.html

------.  “Offshore company captures online military vote.”  Online Journal (21 July 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/072103Landes/072103landes.html

------.  “Internet Voting—The End of Democracy?”  27 August 2003.  http://www.ecotalk.org/InternetVoting.htm; Online Journal (4 September 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/090403Landes/090403landes.html

------.  “Republicans and Brits will count California’s recall votes.”  Online Journal (6 October 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/100603Landes/100603landes.html

------.  “NIST ignores scientific method for voting technology.”  Online Journal (16 December 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/121603Landes/121603landes.html

Mebane, Walter R., and Jasjeet S. Sekhon.  “Robust Estimation and Outlier Detection for Overdispersed Multinomial Models of Count Data.”  American Journal of Political Science 48 (April 2004): 391-400, http://www.elections.fas.harvard.edu/index.html.    

------, Jasjeet S. Sekhon and Jonathan Wand.  “Detecting and Correcting Election Irregularities.”  Working Paper, 9 October 2003, http://wand.stanford.edu/elections

Mercuri, Rebecca.  Electronic Vote Tabulation: Checks and Balances.  Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer and Information Systems, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, 2001.  Available from http://www.umi.com (Thesis # 3003665). 

------.  Electronic Votinghttp://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html

------, and Peter G. Neumann.  “Verification for Electronic Balloting Systems.”  Chapter 3 of Secure Electronic Voting, ed. Dimitris Gritzalis.  Advances in Information Security, vol. 7.  Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.  ISBN 1402073011. 

Norr, Henry. “The Risks of Touch-Screen Balloting.”  San Francisco Chronicle (4 December 2000), http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/04/BU91811.DTL

Rubin, Aviel.  “Testimony, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Dr. Aviel Rubin, Professor of Computer Science, May 5, 2004.”  http://avirubin.com/vote

Saltman, Roy G.  Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying.  NBS Special Publication 500-158.  Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, National Bureau of Standards. Gaithersburg, MD 20899, August 1988.  http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm.   

Schneier, Bruce.  Applied Cryptography.  2nd edition.  New York: John Wiley& Sons, 1996.  ISBN 0471128457 (Paper: 0471117099). 

------.  “Voting and Technology.”  Crypto-Gram Newsletter (15 December 2000), http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0012.html

Schwartz, John.  “Report Raises Electronic Vote Security Issues.”  The New York Times (25 September 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/25VOTE.25sep2003.html

------.  “File Sharing Pits Copyright Against Free Speech.”  The New York Times (3 November 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://macht.arts/cornell.edu/wr,1/gov317/diebold/03secure.03nov2003.html

Sludge, C. D. “ Sludge Report #154: Bigger Than Watergate!  How to Rig an Election in the United States .”  Scoop (8 July 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00064.htm

Thompson, Alastair.  “Diebold Internal Mail Confirms U.S. Vote Count Vulnerabilities.”  Scoop (12 September 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00106.htm

Thompson, Ken.  “Reflections on Trusting Trust.”  Communications of the ACM 27.8 (August 1984): 761-63.  http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95

Wand, Jonathan N. A., Jasjeet S. Sekhon, and Walter R. Mebane, Jr.  “A Comparative Analysis of Multinomial Voting Irregularities: Canada 2000.”  Proceedings of the American Statistical Society (2001), http://wand.stanford.edu/elections/canada/parliament

Williams, Britain J.  “Security in the Georgia Voting System.”  23 April 2003, available at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/index.html.  

Zetter, Kim. “Time to Recall E-Vote Machines?”  Wired News (6 October 2003), http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60713,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

------.  “Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting.”  Wired News (3 November 2003), http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.html

------.  “E-Voting Undermined By Sloppiness.”  Wired News (17 December 2003), http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61637,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

 ------. “E-Vote Still Flawed, Experts Say.”  Wired News (29 January 2004), http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62109.00,html

2. (2) Allegations and Evidence of Fraud in Recent U.S. Elections

Collier, James M., and Kenneth F. Collier.  Votescam: The Stealing of America .  Victoria House Press, 1992.  ISBN 0963416308.   

Collier, Victoria.  “Your stolen vote—the missing piece of the puzzle.”  May 2000; republished by Online Journal (8 February 2001), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/020801Collier/020801collier.html

------.  “Computerized Election Fraud in America : A Brief History.”  VoteScam (25 October 2003), http://www.votescam.com/abriefhistory.php

Conover, Bev.  “Once again, the media try to con the people into believing Bush won.”  Online Journal (5 April 2001), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/040501Conover/040501conover.html

------.  “Florida’s ‘fixed it’ farce.”  Online Journal (11 May 2001), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/051101Conover/051101conover.html

Conyers, John Jr., and Democratic Investigative Staff, House Committee on the Judiciary.  How to Make Over One Million Votes Disappear: Electoral Sleight of Hand in the 2000 Presidential Election.  A Fifty-State Report Prepared for Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary; Dean, Congressional Black Caucus.  122 pp.  Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives, August 20, 2001.  http://www.electionreport.pdf

Equal Justice Foundation.  Vote Fraud and Election Issues.  Last updated 27 September 2004.  http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting.htm#fraud.  

Gumbel, Andrew. “All the President’s votes? A quiet revolution is taking place in U.S. politics. By the time it’s over, the integrity of elections will be in the unchallenged, unscrutinised control of a few large—and pro-Republican—corporations. Andrew Gumbel wonders if democracy in America can survive.”  The Independent (13 October 2003), http://www.news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=452972; also available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/103301.htm

Harris, BevBlack Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century.  Renton, WA: Talion Publishing/Black Box Voting, 2003.  ISBN 1890916900.  Free internet version available at http://www.blackboxvoting.org

------.  “Bald-Faced Lies About Black Box Voting Machines and The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File.”  Scoop (10 July 2003), http://www.scopp.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm

Landes, Lynn. “2002 elections: Republican voting machines, election irregularities, and ‘way-off’ polling results.”  Online Journal (8 November 2002), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110802Landes/110802landes.html.   

------.  Election Fraud and Irregularities—BY YEARhttp://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineErrors.htm

Mercuri, Rebecca. “Florida 2002: Sluggish Systems, Vanishing Votes.”  Inside Risks 149, CACM 45, 11 (November 2002), http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/insiderisks.html#149

Shafer, Jack.  “Defending the Projectionists.”  Slate (15 November 2000), http://slate.msn.com/id/1006506

Zetter, Kim. “Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?”  Wired News (13 October 2003), http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00.html?tw=wn_story_related.  

3. (3) Advance Warnings of Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election

Allen, David.  “Inside An E-Voting Whitewash Conference Call.”  Scoop (23 August 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00175.htm

Boyle, Alan.  “E-voting firm reports computer break-in.”  MSNBC (29 December 2003), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3825143

CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project.  “Immediate Steps to Avoid Lost Votes in the 2004 Presidential Election: Recommendations for the Election Assistance Commission.”  July 2004.  http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/index.html.   

“Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law Clinic Sue Electronic Voting Machine Company: Student Publishers and ISP Aim to Stop Diebold’s Abusive Copyright Claims.”  Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release (3 November 2003), http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20031103_eff_pr.php.  

Fitrakis, Bob.  “Diebold, electronic voting and the vast right-wing conspiracy.”  The Free Press (24 February 2004), http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/834

------.  “Death of a patriot: no more.”   The Free Press (17 March 2004),

------.  “E-Voting: The new battle hymn of the republic.”  Online Journal (11 Septem

------, and Harvey Wasserman.  “Diebold’s Political Machine.”  MotherJones.com (5 March 2004), http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

------, and Harvey Wasserman.  “Twelve ways Bush is now stealing the Ohio vote.”  The Free Press (27 October 2004), http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/810

Fox, Pimm. “Worrying About Election Day.”  Computerworld (27 September 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/09/27/596859

Gillmor, Dan.  “Flawed Vote Could Give IT A Black Eve.”  Computerworld (1 November 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/11/01/641469

Goodman, Amy, et al.  “Will Bush Backers Manipulate Votes to Deliver GW Another Election?”  Democracy Now! (4 September 2003), available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0904-10.htm

Gumbel, Andrew. “Mock the vote.”  Los Angeles City Beat (29 October 2003), available at http://www.wesjones.com/mockthevote.htm.   

------.  “All the President’s votes? A quiet revolution is taking place in U.S. politics. By the time it’s over, the integrity of elections will be in the unchallenged, unscrutinised control of a few large—and pro-Republican—corporations. Andrew Gumbel wonders if democracy in America can survive.”  The Independent (13 October 2003), http://www.news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=452972; also available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1033-01.htm

------.  “Portrait of a Country on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.”  The Independent (24 October 2004), also available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1024-01.htm

Hales, Paul.  “’Civil disobedience’ campaign targets Diebold: Students threaten freedom to manipulate elections.”  The Inquirer (22 October 2003), http://www.theinquirer.net/?article==12261

Harris, Bev.  “Voting industry insiders hold secret meeting to hire PR firm to sell electronic voting to public.”  Online Journal (26 August 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/082604Harris/082604harris.html

Hartmann, Thom.  “If You Want to Win an Election, Just Control the Voting Machines.”  Common Dreams News Center (31 January 2003). http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm; Scoop (31 January 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00009.htm; Online Journal (6 February 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/020603Hartmann/020603hartmann.html

------.  “A Winning Machine.”  AlterNet (4 February 2003), http://www.alternet.org/story/15103.  

------.  “Now your vote is the property of a private corporation.”  SmirkingChimp.com (11 March 2003), http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=10536; Online Journal (13 March 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031303Hartmann/031303hartmann.html.   

------.  The Theft of Your Vote is Just a Chip Away.”  AlterNet (30 July 2003), http://www.alternet.org/story/16474

Heichler, Elizabeth. “Criticism of Electronic Voting Machines’ Security is Mounting.”  Computerworld (15 December 2003), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2003/12/15/335119?from=search

“How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election.”   Infernal Press (25 June 2003), http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html; Centre for Research on Globalization (15 July 2003), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/INF307A.html.    

Jones, Douglas W.  “E-voting: Are our defenses adequate to defend citizens rights?”  Paper presented to the International Telecommunications Union Workshop on Challenges, Perspectives and Standardization Issues in E-government, Geneva, Switzerland (6 June 2003), http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/geneva.  

------.  “The Diebold AccuVote TS Should be Decertified.”  ESENEX Security Symposium, Washington DC (6 August 2003), http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldusenix.html.  

------.  “Recommendations for the Conduct of Elections in Miami-Dade County Using the ES&S iVotronic System.”  13 May 2004, revised 7 June 2004.  http://www.csuiowa/~jones/voting

------, David L. Dill, Peter G. Neumann, Aviel Rubin, Dan Wallach.  “To the concerned citizens and elected officials of the State of Ohio.”  26 February 2004, http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting

“Journalist [Lynn Landes] seeks temporary restraining orders against use of voting machines & absentee ballots.”  Online Journal (18 October 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/101804NewsFlash/101804newsflash.html

King, Martin Luther III, and Greg Palast.  “Jim Crow Revived in Cyberspace.”  The Baltimore Sun (8 May 2003); also available at http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=222&row=1.   

Landes, Lynn. “Voting machine fiasco: SAIC, VoteHere and Diebold.”  Online Journal (20 August 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/082003Landes/082003landes.html.  

------.  Voting Systems Orgs and Companieshttp://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm

------.  “Democrats send mixed signals in voting technology debate.”  Online Journal (29 January 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/012904Landes/012904landes.html

------.  “Questions mount over New Hampshire’s primary.”  Online Journal (11 February 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/021104Landes/021104landes.html

------.  “Faking democracy: Americans don’t vote, machines do, & ballot printers can’t fix that.”  Online Journal (2 April 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/040704Landes/040704landes.html

------.  “Two voting companies and two brothers will count 80 percent of U.S. election using both scanners & touchscreens.”  Online Journal (28 April 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

------.  “Federal commission nixes talk of paper-only elections; stacks panels with proponents of paperless touchscreens.”  Online Journal (12 May 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/051204Landes/051204landes.html

------.  “Could the Associated Press rig the election?”  Online Journal (23 October 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/102304Landes/102304landes.html

------.  “If this election is stolen, will it be by enough to stop a recount?”  Online Journal (31 October 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/103104Landes/103104landes.html

Leopold, Jason.  “Electronic voting minus paper trails makes it easy to rig elections.”  Online Journal (4 September 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/090403Leopard/090403leopard.html

Machlis, Sharon. “A Voter’s Paper Trail.”  Computerworld (5 July 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/07/05/505110

Mercuri, Rebecca.  Press Release (24 September 2002): “MIT vs. Mercuri.  Rebecca Mercuri rebuts recent MIT/CalTech voting systems analysis and calls for moratorium on new electronic balloting equipment purchases.”  http://www.notablesoftware.com/Papers/MITvsMercuri.html

Moore, Steve.  “E-Democracy: Stealing the Election in 2004.”  Global Outlook 8 (Summer 2004); Centre for Research on Globalization (11 July 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO407A.html

“On Election Day 2004, How Will You Know If Your Vote Is Properly Counted? Answer: You Won’t. NJ Rep. Rush Holt Introduces Legislation to Require All Voting Machines To Produce A Paper Trail.”  OpEdNews (n.d.), http://www.opednews.com/holt%20paper%20balloy%20bill.htm

Palast, Greg. “Florida Computers Snatch Thousands of Votes from Kerry.”  Truthout (26 October 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102904X.shtml; also published under the title “Florida’s Computers Have Already Counted Thousands of Votes for George W. Bush.”  Common Dreams News Center (28 October 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/head;ines04/1028-02.htm.    

------.  “Electoral Fraud, Ethnic Cleansing of Voter Rolls, An Election Spoiled Rotten.”  TomPaine.com (1 November 2004), http://www.tompaine.com; Centre for Research on Globalization (4 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PAL411A.html

Pitt, William Rivers.  “Desperate Measures.”  Truthout (20 October 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102004A.shtml.  

Plissner, Martin. “Exit polls to protect the vote.”  The New York Times (17 October 2004), http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinreview/plis.html; also available at Bellaciao.org (7 November 2004), http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4196.   

Redman, Colleen.  “Voting machine voodoo: Democracy at risk.”  Online Journal (19 November 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/111903Redman/111903redman.html

Roberts, Paul.  “Dean, Other Dems Sound Off on E-voting Security.”  Computerworld (2 August 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/08/02/518749

Schulte, Brigid. “Maryland Voting System’s Security Challenged: Electronic Cheating Too Easy, Study Shows.”  The Washington Post (25 July 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/A42928-2003jul24

------.  “Maryland Plans Fixes After Vote System is Faulted.”  The Washington Post (25 September 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://www.macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/A60825-2003Sep24

Slashdot file of stories (dating from July 2003 to October 2004) about electronic voting machines, Diebold Incorporated, and free speech issues.  The file includes the following stories:

“Maryland Tests Voting Machines, Declares Success” (posted 22 October 2004)

Diebold Rejected in Copyright Takedown Attempt” (posted 10 October 2004)

“Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System” (posted 24 September 2004)

“More Diebold E-Voting Vulnerabilities” (posted 22 September 2004)

“California AG Says He’ll Sue Diebold” (posted 7 September 2004)

“No Secret Ballot for Military Personnel?” (posted 4 September 2004)

“Vote Tabulator Security Hole Exposed” (posted 30 August 2004)

“Australian Voting Software Goes Closed Source” (posted 4 August 2004)

Diebold Sued (Again) Over Shoddy Voting Machines” (posted 12 July 2004)

“Who’s Blocking Verified E-Voting?” (posted 11 June 2004) 

“Feds to Open BlackBoxVoting User Logs?” (posted 19 May 2004)

“Indian Voting Machines Compared with Diebold” (posted 14 May 2004)

“California County Sues State Over E-Vote Ban” (posted 9 May 2004)

Evoting in the News” (posted 7 May 2004)

“CA Secretary of State Bans Diebold Machines” (posted 1 May 2004)


Sludge, C. D.  “Sludge #156: SAIC Connected to E-Voting Whitewash.”  Scoop (23 August 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00173.htm

------.  “Sludge Report #157: The ITAA, The Election Center, & Doug Lewis.”  Scoop (23 August 2003), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00174.htm

Sperry, Mac.  “Stopping the vote theft—urgent—drop all else.”  Online Journal (25 October 2003), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/102503Sperry/102503sperry.html

Stroh, Michael.  “Defects detected in voting machines: Hopkins researchers say Maryland’s electronic terminals are vulnerable to hackers.”  The Baltimore Sun (24 July 2003), available (thanks to W. R. Mebane) at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/gov317/diebold/A42928-2003jul24

Verton, Dan. “E-vote at Risk.”  Computerworld (18 October 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/10/18/622389

Zeller, Tom.  “Ready or Not (and Maybe Not), Electronic Voting Goes National.”  The New York Times (19 September 2004); Truthout (20 September 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092004L.shtml

4. (4) Allegations and Evidence of Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election

“Academia still fixated on November 2.”  Associated Press (19 November 2004), http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html

Adams, Brandon.  An Examination of the 2004 Elections.  7 November 2004, updated 10 November 2004.  This site includes the following items:

“President Bush given greater preference than Republican Senate candidate in all but two counties in Florida”

“Total Votes Cast Outnumber Voter Turnout in Florida”

Floridan Votes, Sorted by Voting Technology” 

Floridan Votes, Sorted by Machine Vendor”

Floridan Votes, Sorted by Voting Machine Model”

“Percentage of Candidate’s Votes Contributed by Model.” http://www.electionexamination.blogspot.com.   

Azulay, Jessica. “Amid Charges of Vote Suppression, Activists Look for Larger Fraud.”  ZNet (13 November 2004), http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=6638

“Berkeley Researchers Report ‘Unexplained Discrepancy’ in FLA Vote Totals. Study released Thursday indicates the probability is that electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more in excess votes to Bush in Florida.”  Buzzflash (18 November 2004),

Bernstein, David S.  “Questioning Ohio: No controversy this time? Think again.”  The Boston Phoenix (12-18 November 2004), http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/04256171.asp

Buchanan, Wyatt.  “If It’s Too Bad to be True, It May Not be Voter Fraud. Most statistical enigmas in recent election have logical explanations, despite Web rants.”  San Francisco Chronicle (11 November 2004); also available at http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5239

Burns, Margie.  “Dirty work at Philly polls.”  OpEdNews (15 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/burns_111504_philly_polls.htm

Byrne, John.  “Kerry seen as presidential victor in early exit polls.”  The Blue Lemur (2 November 2004, 3:15 p.m.), http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=386

------.  “Odds of Bush gaining by 4 percent in all exit polling states 1 in 50,000; Evoting/paper variance not found to be significant.”  The Blue Lemur (8 November 2004), http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=405.  

CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project.  “Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote.”  Version 2 (11 November 2004), available at http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5243

Cannon, Joseph.  “The empire strikes back: Data and disinformation.”  Cannonfire (12 November 2004), http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/2004/11/empire-strikes-back-data-and.html.  

------.  “Full court press on vote fraud.”  Cannonfire (24 November 2004), http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2004/11/full-court-press-on-vote-fraud.html

Cardinale, Matthew. “A Genealogy of Votergate Media Coverage 2004: Through the Eyes of Googlenews.”  OpEdNews (10 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/cardinale_111004_votergate_media.htm

caro’. “Reconstructing the Crime.”  Radio Left (12 November 2004), http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/-archives/2004/11/12/181769.html

Chin, Larry.  “The Stolen Election of 2004: welcome back to hell.”  Online Journal (5 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Chin/110504chin.html; Centre for Research on Globalization (5 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html.   

Cobb, Dave.  “ America needs a recount in Ohio.”  The Providence Journal (30 November 2004), also available at The Modesto Bee, http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/1879093p-9804430c.html

Cohen, Ariella. “Voter Suppression Challenged by Ohioans, Allies.”  The New Standard (25 November 2004), http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1249.   

Cohn, Marjorie.  “Litigating the Election.”  Truthout (22 November 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112204A.shtml

“Computer error at voting machine gives Bush 3,893 extra votes.”  Akron Beacon Journal (5 November 2004), http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10103910.htm?1c

“Computer glitch still baffles county clerk.”  News-Dispatch (4 November 2004), http://www.michigancitym.com/articles/2004/11/04/news02.txt

“Computer May Have Lost 4,500 N.C. Votes.”  Guardian Unlimited (4 November 2004), http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-459634,4,00.html

Conover, Bev.  “We Wuz Robbed… Again!”  Online Journal (12 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/111204Conover/111204conover.html.  

“Conservatives rail against MSNBC’s Olbermann for reporting election irregularities.”  Media Matters for America (16 November 2004), http://www.mediamatters.org/items/printable/200411160006

Conyers, John Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler (Members of the Congress of the United States , House of Representatives).  “Letter to GAO Comptroller Walker Requesting Investigation of Voting Machines and Technologies Used in 2004 Election.”  5 November 2004.  http://www.house.gov/conyers

Conyers, John Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler, Robert C. Scott, Melvin Watt, Rush Holt (Members of the Congress of the United States, House of Representatives).  “Follow-up Letter to GAO Comptroller Walker Requesting Investigation of Voting Machines and Technologies Used in 2004 Election.”  8 November 2004.  http://www.house.gov/conyers

Corn, David.  “Going Down the Stolen Election Road?”  The Nation (10 November 2004), available at Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/election04/20458

 “Countinghouse blues: Too many votes.”  6 News Omaha: WOWT.com (n.d.), http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1161971.html

Crampton, Thomas. “Global monitors find faults.”  International Herald Tribune (3 November 2004), http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=articles/2004/11/02/news/observe.html

 ‘DavidAdmin.’  “Answers to Boston Globe’s Dismissal of Voter Fraud Story.”  ReDefeatBush (11 November 2004), http://www.redefeatbush.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=284

DeHart, Sara S. “Something is Rotten in Denmark : Exit poll data in former Soviet Republic of Georgia vs. USA .”  Online Journal (17 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/111704DeHart/111704dehart.html

DemFromCT’. “On Voting Irregularities And Election Integrity.”  dailyKOS (13 November 2004), http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/13/235655/22

Dingus, Doug.  “How Electronic Voting Impacts the Trustworthiness of our Elections.”  OpEdNews (26 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/dingusDoug_112604_electronic_voting.htm

Dodge, David.  “Response to MIT/Caltech.”  Ustogether.org (13 November 2004), http://ustogether.org/election04/dodge/MIT_Caltech_rebutal_11-13-04.htm

Dopp, Kathy. “Surprising Pattern of Florida’s Election Results.”  Ustogether.org (3 November 2004, with later updates), http://www.ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm.  For further analysis and graphic representation of Kathy Dopp’s data, see http://www.ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.   

Drobny, Sheldon. “Votergate 2004: We Don’t Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.”  OpEdNews (9 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/drobny_110904_election_investigation.htm; Centre for Research on Globalization (10 November 2004),

Election Problem Reports.  “Stolen Election Library—With Hundreds of Links.”  National Ballot Integrity Project (17 November 2004), http://www.ballotintegrity.org/DCForumID1/174.html

Engberg, Eric. “Blogging as Typing, Not Journalism.”  CBS News (8 November 2004), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/08/opinion/main654285.shtml

Erdmann, Lisa.  “Bushs automatischer Wahlsieg.”  Der Spiegel (19 November 2004), http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,328692,00.html

Evans, Shaula. “Republican Election Theft Clearinghouse [Updated 11/12].”  BOPNews (12 November 2004), http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002328.html.  

------.  “Outside eye: Dems Abroad Election Fraud Report.”  BOPNews (12 November 2004), http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002420.html#2420

“Exit Polls vs. Actual Results.”  http://www.bandsagainstbush.org/cgi-bin/archives/exit_polls.gif; also at http://www.bandsagainstbush.org/cgi-bin/archives/000117.html

Farrell, Maureen.  “Another Rigged Election? The Elephant in the Voting Booth.”  Buzzflash (9 November 2004), http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/11/far04038.html

------.  “Election Angst Update: Clark Kent Vs the Media Wimps.”  Buzzflash (23 November 2004), http://www,buzzflah.com/farrell/04/11/far04040.html

Fertik, Bob. “Stolen Election 2004: Wednesday Update.”  24 November 2004, http://blog.democrats.com/node/871/print

Fitrakis, Bob.  “Did Kerry Concede Too Soon?”  The Free Press (5 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/981; Centre for Research on Globalization (6 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT411A.html

------.  “None dare call it voter suppression and fraud.”  The Free Press (7 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983

------.  “And so the sorting and discarding of Kerry votes begins.”  The Free Press (10 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985.  

------.  “Document reveals Columbus. Ohio voters waited hours as election officials held back election machines.”  The Free Press (16 November 2004), http://wwwfreepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/990

------.  “How the Ohio election was rigged for Bush.”  The Free Press (22 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995.    

------, and Harvey Wasserman.  “Hearings on Ohio Voting Put 2004 Election in Doubt.”  The Free Press (18 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/886

------.  “More Ohio voter suppression testimony prompts upcoming legal filing for statewide recount.”  The Free Press (20 November 2004). http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/894

------.  “How a Republican election supervisor manipulated the 2004 central Ohio vote, in black and white.”  The Free Press (23 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/917

------.  “New Ohio voter transcripts feed floodtide of doubt about Republican election manipulation.”  The Free Press (25 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/930

Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. “Voter Registration.”  http://election.dos.state.fl.us/regtovote/regform.shtml

Fordahl, Matthew, et al. “Electronic Voting Machine Woes Reported.”  Abc27.com (2 November 2004), http://www.whtm.com/news/stories/1104/184856.html

Freeman, Alan.  “No one cheated (but they could have).”  The Globe and Mail (20 November 2004): F2, http://www.theglobeandmail.com

Freeman, Steven F., PhD.  “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy.” [First Draft]  Buzzflash (11 November 2004), http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/ale04090.html

------.  “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy: Part I.”  Working Paper #04-10, Center for Organizational Dynamics, Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania.  21 November, 2004, http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/ale04090.html; also available at Scoop (23 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00305.htm.  

Friedberg, Lilian.  “An Open Letter to the New York Times (and by implication) the Rest of the US Media Who are Trying to Whitewash the 2004 Presidential Election Scandal.”  OpEdNews (15 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/friedberg_111504_media_whitewash.htm.  

Gagliano, Richard A. “A Petition to Congress requesting an investigation into the Presidential Election of 2004.”  http://www.petitiononline.com/cgi-bin/mlk?http://www.dtmagazine.com

Galen, Rich.  “Exit Polls Miss Election Goals.”  CNS News (22 November 2004), http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5Ccommentary%5Carchive%C200411%5CCOM20041122a.html.   

 “Glitch causes Franklin Co. recount.”  Indianapolis Star (11 November 2004), http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/193880-4433-102.html

Goldstein, Ritt.  “US Election: Democracy in Question.”  Inter Press Service (18 November 2004), available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1118-11.htm

Goodman, Amy.  “The Ohio Factor: Did Homeland Security and the FBI Interfere With the Vote Count?”  [Interview with Erica Solvig.]  Democracy Now! (10 November 2004), http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/10/1536254

------.  “Dave Cobb Discusses the Ohio Recount.”  [Interview with Dave Cobb, Green Party presidential candidate.]  Democracy Now! (19 November 2004), also available at Scoop, http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00262.htm

“GOP Wants to End Exit Polls: A Buzzflash News Analysis.”  Buzzflash (10 November 2004), http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04027.html.  Includes the text of Doug Halonen, “GOP Wants News Organizations to Abandon Exit Polls, TVWeek, http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?news/d=6674%OD

“Green and Libertarian Presidential Candidates to Demand Ohio Recount.”  Green Party News Release (11 November 2004), http://www.gp.org/press/pr_11_11_04.html

Guina, Greg.  “Suspicions stir belief that presidential election was hijacked.”  Vermont Guardian (11 November 2004), http://www.vermontguardian.com/national/0904/votingfraud.shtml

Gwin, Harold. “Democrats’ leader decries voting glitches.”  Youngstown Vindicator (2 November 2004), http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/288078640794824.php

Hargrove, Thomas.  “Election commission: Voting problems widespread.”  Scripps Howard News Service (23 November 2004), http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MISCOUNT-REACT-11-23-04&cat=PP

Harris, Bev.  “The Tampering of Electronic Voting Systems on November 2nd.”  BlackBoxVoting (7 November 2004), http://www.blackboxvoting.org; Centre for Research on Globalization (8 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAR411A.html

------.  “Vote Fraud, Volusia County on Lockdown. County election records just got put on lockdown: Dueling lawyers, election officials gnashing teeth, Votergate.tv film crew catching it all.”  Scoop (16 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00246.htm

------.  “Dems Pocket $52 Million, CNN Ignores Evidence, and Officials Stonewall… What Vote Fraud?”  BreakForNews.com (24 November 2004), http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/WhatVoteFraud.htm

Harrison, Ann.  “The Ghost Votes in the Machine: Voting Snafus Across the Nation.”  Counterpunch (3 November 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org/harrison11032004.html

Hartmann, Thom.  “The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy.”  Common Dreams News Center (4 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-38.htm

------.  “Evidence Mounts that the Vote May Have Been Hacked.”  Common Dreams News Center (6 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm.   

------.  “Restoring Trust in the Vote.”  Common Dreams News Center (15 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-24.htm

------.  “‘Stinking Evidence’ of Possible Election Fraud Found in Florida.”  Scoop (19 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00258.htm.   

Hasty, Michael.  “When fascism comes….”  Online Journal (20 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/commentary/112004Hasty/112004hasty.html

Herrin, Chuck, CISSP, CISA, MCSE, CEH. “How to Hack the Vote: The Short Version.”  Chuckherrin.com: Computer Security Stuff (10 November 2004, revised 22 November 2004), http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

Hout, Michael, Laura Mangels, Jennifer Carlson, Rachel Best; with the assistance of the UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team. “The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections.”  Working Paper, UC Data (Data Archive & Technical Assistance), UC Berkeley Survey Research Center (18 November 2004), http://www.ucdata.berkeley.edu.  

‘Hunter’.  “Ohio Provisional Ballots, Recounts, and Fraud [UPDATED].”  dailyKOS (5 November 2004), http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/4/224812/643

Hutchinson, Earl Ofari. “The Painful Truth.”  Alternet (15 November 2004), http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20504

ignatzmouse’. “Unofficial Audit of NC Election: Comprehensive Case for Fraud.”  Democratic Underground (12 November 2004), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003

Jackson, Jesse.  “Something’s fishy in Ohio.”  Chicago Sun-Times (30 November 2004), http://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse30.html

“Judge Denies Demand for Ohio Recount.”  Associated Press (24 November 2004), http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041124/ap_on_re_us/ohio_vote_4

Jurkowitz, Mark. “Media Accused of Ignoring Election Irregularities.”  The Boston Globe (17 November 2004), available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1117-01.htm

Keefer, Michael.  “Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam.”   Centre for Research on Globalization (5 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html; Autonomy & Solidarity (5 November 2004), http://www.auto_sol.tao.ca.  Other observers have provided graphic confirmation from CNN’s screens of the alterations of exit poll percentages noted in this article.  See “Why Did CNN Change Their Exit Poll Data for Ohio After 1:00 a.m.?”  Buzzflash (3 November 2004), http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04025.html; and “Proof CNN is tampering with the election to cover the fraud.”  DemocraticUnderground (3 November 2004), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1290765&mesg_id=1295180&page=.     

“Kerry/Edwards Campaign Participates in Ohio Recount.”  U.S. Democratic Party Press Release, Scoop (22 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/W00411/S00261.htm

Klein, Rick.  “Internet buzz on vote fraud is dismissed.”  The Boston Globe (10 November 2004), http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed?pg=2

Kleinberg, Eliot.  “Broward machines count backward.”  Palm Beach Post (5 November 2004), http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html

Konrad, Rachel. “State settles electronic voting suit against Diebold for $2.6M.”  The Sacramento Bee (12 November 2004), http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/11380251p-12294653c.html

------.  “Conspiracy Theorists Still Question Bush’s Victory.”  Associated Press, The Miami Herald (21 November 2004), available at http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5327.  

Kucinich, Dennis.  “A Note on the Presidential Election in Ohio.”  Common Dreams News Center (10 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm

Kuhn, David Paul.  “Online Liberals: We Wuz Robbed.”  CBS News (10 November 2004), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/politics/main655005.shtml

Levy, Steven.  “Black Box Voting Blues. Electronic ballot technology makes things easy. But some computer-security experts warn of the possibility of stolen elections.”  Newsweek (3 November 2004), http://msnbc.com/id/3339650

Liddle, Elizabeth. “2004 Presidential Florida by County by Voting Machine Type Election Analysis.”  Ustogether.org (c. 12 November 2004), http://ustogether.org/election04/Little_Analysis.html

Lindorff, Dave. “Double Standards on Exit Polling and Voter Fraud.”  This Can’t Be Happening (24 November 2004), http://www.thiscantbehappening.net; also available as “Double Standards on Exit Polls: Hypocrisy Sans Irony.”  Counterpunch (24 November, 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11232004.html

------.  “Nation [ U.S. ] of Sheep, Turkey of an Election: Ukrainians Show the Way.”  This Can’t Be Happening (25 November 2004), http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

------.  “Blowback: Did US Techniques for Undermining Eastern Europe Elections Find Their Way Back to America ?”  This Can’t Be Happening (27 November 2004), http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Lynn, Kali Autumn.  “Media Blackout on Election Fraud by Media News Group.”  The Denver Voice (26 November 2004), http://denvervoice.org/features/Nov_2004/who_is_the-denver-post.htm

Madsen, Wayne.  “Grand Theft Election: Karl Rove’s turd droppings all over this one.”  Online Journal (5 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Madsen/110504madsen.html; Centre for Research on Globalization (5 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD411A.html

------.  “Saudis, Enron money helped to pay for US rigged election.”  Online Journal (25 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/special_Reports/112504Madsen/112504madsen.html

------.  “More on the buying of electoral fraud by the Bush campaign.”  Online Journal (26 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/112604Madsen/112604madsen.html

------.  “Votergate: More details emerge.”  Online Journal (1 December 2004), http://www.onlinejounral.com/Special_Reports/120104Madsen/120104madsen.html

“Major bugs found in Diebold systems.”  The Washington Times (12 November 2004), http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-112037-7263r.htm

Manjoo, Farhad.  “Was the election stolen? The system is clearly broken. But there is no evidence that Bush won because of voter fraud.”  Salon.com (10 November 2004), http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index_np.html

Marcus, Jacqueline.  “Voting: Is It All for Nada?”  Common Dreams News Center (15 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-33.htm

Margasak, Larry. “GAO to Investigate Voting Irregularities.”  Associated Press, Yahoo!News (25 November 2004), http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/2004/1125/10_on_el_ge/voting_investigation

Maxwell, John.  “A Lobotomy for Democracy.”  Jamaica Observer (7 November 2004), available at Autonomy & Solidarity (8 November 2004), http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/990?PHPSESSID=67dcd93a21b5e80b2ac3a259df156ee1.  

McCarthy, John.  “Machine Error Gives Bush Thousands of Extra Ohio Votes.”  Associated Press (5 November 2004); also available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04//1105-23.htm

------.  “Ohio glitch favored Bush.”  Associated Press (6 November 2004), available (thanks to B. Adams) at http://www.electionsexamination.blogspot.com

Meacher, Michael. “Did Dubbya rig the election?”  New Statesman (29 November 2004), http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200411290018

Mebane, Walter R.  “Letter Sent to the Editor of Common Dreams Regarding ‘Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked,’ by Thom Hartmann.”  8 November 2004, http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/commondreams/commondreams.html

------.  “Letter Sent to Kathy Dopp (organizer of ustogether,org) Regarding the Responses to My Letter that were Posted at ustogether.org (12 November 2004), http://www.macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/ustogether/ustogether.html

“Media Largely Ignored Berkeley Study on Florida Voting Irregularities.”  Media Matters for America (22 November 2004), http://mediamatters.org/items/200411220005

Mitteldorf. Josh. “Response to the VTP [CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project] criticism of the study by Dopp/Little.”  (c.13 November 2004), http://ustogether.org/election04/mitteldorf/MITCaltechctp-response.htm

Morano, Marc. “Left Wing Claims Exit Polls Were Accurate, Bush Stole Election.”  Crosswalk (n.d.), http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1296007.html

Morin, Richard.  “Surveying the Damage: Exit Polls Can’t Always Predict Winners, So Don’t Expect Them To.”  The Washington Post (20 November 2004), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html?sub=AR

Mulligan, Buck.  “Florida numbers vs. 2000—something is wrong.”  dailyKOS (3 November 2004), http://www.dailykos.com/story/11/3/52213/1921

‘Mystery Pollster’ (Mark Blumenthal). “Exit Polls: The NEP [National Election Pool] Report.”  Mystery Pollster (5 November 2004), http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/u/exit_polls_the_.html

“National Election Pool (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC News), Conducted by Edison/Mitofsky.”  http://www.exit-poll.net

Newberry, Stirling. “The Voters Are Restless: Election Fraud Story circulates the internet.”  BOPNews (n.d.), http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002403.html#2403

------.  “Not ‘Was It Stolen’, but ‘Was it Stealable’.”  BOPNews (11 November 2004), http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002412.html

nodictators’. “Miami County, Ohio. Fraud or incredible coincidences?”  Democratic Underground (6 November 2004), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x26390

Ohio Department of State.  “Voter Information: Office of J. Kenneth Blackwell.”  http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/voter/index.html

Olbermann, Keith. “Did Your Vote Count? The Plot Thickens.”  With Richard Engel, Jim MiklaszewskiCountdown, MSNBC (8 November 2004).  Complete transcript and video stream available at Centre for Research on Globalization under the title “November 2nd: Voter Fraud and Homeland Security Terror Threat ‘Advisories’ in Ohio and Florida: Fraud on a massive scale is now corroborated by Network TV.”  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MNB411A.html

------.  “Zogby Vs. Mitofsky.”  Bloggerman (24 November 2004), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

Ollman, Bertell.  “What Constitutes a Stolen Election?”  Dialectical Marxism: The Writing of Bertell Ollman (c. 1 December 2004), http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/stolen_election.php

Otter, Faun.  “Vote Fraud—Exit Polls Vs Actuals.”  Scoop (4 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00072.htm

Palast, Greg. “Kerry won… Here are the facts.”  TomPaine.com (4 November 2004), http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php; CommonDreams.org (4 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm; Centre for Research on Globalization (4 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PAL411B.html; Online Journal (5 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Palast/110504palast.html.     

------.  “Kerry Won Ohio: Just Count the Ballots at the Back of the Bus.”  In These Times (12 November 2004), http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=0; also published as “Most voters in Ohio chose Kerry; here’s how the votes vanished.”  OpEdNews (15 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/palast_111504_ohio_chose_kerry.htm.   

------.  “Why Kerry Conceded Though He Had the Most Votes.”  Salon.com (16 November 2004), http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=395&row=0

“Palm Beach County Logs 88,000 More Votes Than Voters.”  The Washington Dispatch (5 November 2004), http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000715.html.

Parry, Robert.  “Evidence of a Second Bush Coup?”  Consortium News (6 November 2004), http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110604.html.  

------.  “Explaining Ourselves.”  Consortium News (10 November 2004), http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111004-htm

------.  “Big Media, Some Nerve.”  Consortium News (13 November 2004), http://www.consortiumnews/2004/111304.html

------.  “Big Media’s Democracy Double Standards.”  Consortium News (23 November 2004), http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/112304.html

Parry, Sam.  “Bush’s ‘Incredible’ Vote Tallies.”  Consortium News (9 November 2004), http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html; Centre for Research on Globalization (9 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PAR411B.html

------.  “Washington Post’s Sloppy Analysis.”  Consortium News (12 November 2004), http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111204.html

Partridge, Ernest.  “Is This the Smoking Gun That Proves the Election was Stolen?”  The Crisis Papers blog (9 November 2004), http://www.crisispapers.org/features/ep-blogs.htm

Paterson, James, Ph.D.  The Theft of the 2004 US Election.  16 pp. http://www.freewebs.com/stolenelection/index.htm

Paulos, John Allen. “Errors in exit polls still a puzzle to many.”  Philadelphia Inquirer (24 November 2004), available at November 2nd Truth (25 November 2004), http://nov2truth.org/article.php?story=20041125002114235

Penenberg, Adam L. “Calling the Election: A Primer.”  Wired News (2 November 2004), http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65557,00.html

Penn, Thomas.  “Can we trust the vote count anywhere? In any race? In any election?”  Online Journal (14 November 2002), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/111402Penn/111402penn.html

Peterson, Evan Augustine III, J.D.  “E-Voting Machine ‘Error’ in Ohio Gives Bush Thousands of Extra Votes.”  OpEdNews (7 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/peterson_110704_error.htm

Philips, Richard Hayes, Ph.D.  Precinct-by precinct analysis of electoral fraud in Cleveland.  Quoted in its entirety in Bob Fertik, “Widespread Election Fraud in Cleveland?”  Democrats.com/unity (22 November 2004), http://blog.democrats.com/node/812

------.  “Stealing Votes in Columbus.”  The Free Press (23 November 2004), http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/914

Pitt, William Rivers.  “Worse Than 2000: Tuesday’s Electoral Disaster.”  Truthout (8 November 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804A.shtml

------.  “Saving Your Right to Vote.”  Truthout (22 November 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112304Z.html

Plissner, Martin. “In Defense of Exit Polls: You just don’t know how to use them.”  Slate (4 November 2004), http://slate.msn.com/id/2109186

“Presidential Votes Miscast on E-Voting Machines Across the Country.”  Kansas City infoZine (2 November 2004), http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4154

Quirk, Kevin.  “Something amiss in Ohio.”  Online Journal (5 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Quirk/110504quirk.html

Reid, Chip.  “Internet theories on election abound: Even Democratic Party officials discount claims of unfair practices.”  NBC News (11 November 2004), http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6463505

Rockwell, Teed.  “93,136 EXTRA Votes Found in ONE Ohio County.”  Rense.com (19 November 2004), http://www.rense.com/general59/one.htm

Roig-Franzia, Manuel, and Dan Keating.  “Latest Conspiracy Theory—Kerry Won—Hits the Ether.”  The Washington Post (11 November 2004), http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41106-2004Nov10?language=printer

Rosenfeld, Steven.  “The Perfect Election Day Crime.”  TomPaine.com (12 November 2004), http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_perfect_election_day_crime.php

Royle, Andy, et al. “Urban vs. rural voting patterns in Florida—comments by Andy Royle and others.”  4 November 2004, http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/royle_florida.html

Sekhon, Jasjeet S.  “The 2004 Florida Optical Voting Machine Controversy: A Causal Analysis Using Matching.”  14 November 2004, http://elections.fas.harvard.edu/index.html

Shafer, Jack.  “Updated Late Afternoon Numbers. Mucho flattering to Kerry; plus Nader makes an appearance.”  Slate (2 November 2004, 4:28 p.m. PT), http://slate.msn.com/id/2109053/#Post1

------.  “Exit Zone. The official excuses for the bad exit poll numbers don’t cut it.”  Slate (5 November 2004), http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2109310

Shane, Cory.  “Should America Trust the Results of the Election?”  The Washington Dispatch (2 November 2004), http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10500.shtml

Shea, Colin. “I Smell a Rat.”  Zogby International (15 November 2004); also available at Common Dreams News Center (16 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-20.htm.  

Shepard, Scott.  “Electronic Votes Touch Off Doubts.”  Atlanta Journal-Constitution (6 December 2003); also available at Common Dreams News Center, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1206-01.htm

Simon, Jonathan.  (Introduction by Alastair Thompson, Scoop Co-Editor.)  “47 State Exit Poll Analysis Confirms Swing Anomaly.”  Scoop (11 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/votergate2004.htm

Sludge, D. W.  “Sludge Report #164-Vote Fraud 2004-WTF!!!”  Scoop (9 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00124.htm#13

Smith, Sam.  “It’s the Internet’s Fault Again: Stupid journalist tricks.”  Scoop (15 November 2004), http://scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00168.htm

------.  “Watching the Count: Blame It On the Blogs.”  Scoop (15 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00175.htm

------.  “Watching the Count: Counter-Journalism Debate.”  Scoop (23 November 2004). http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00296.htm

SolarbusA Stolen Election? Documenting what could be the highest crime in the history of our country.  [List of Readings]  Solarbus.org, http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/index.html.   

------.  “713 pages of Diebold internal memos leaked.”  Solarbus.org (24 November 2004), http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/index.html.   

Solnit, David. “Massive Vote Suppression and Corruption in Ohio.”  Centre for Research on Globalization (3 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SOL411A.html

Solomon, Ian H.  “Did Lawyer-Observers on Election Day Miss Fraud Incidents?”  Hartford Courant (14 November 2004), http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/OPINION04/11114009/-1/opinion.   

Solvig, Erica, and Dan Horn.  “Warren Co. defends lockdown decision; FBI denies warning officials of any special threat.”  The Cincinnati Enquirer (10 November 2004), http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/10/loc_warrenvote10.html.  

Stapp, Katherine.  “ U.S. Election: Unease Over E-Voting.”  Verifiedvoting.org (16 November 2004), http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5263.   

Strashny, Alex. “Working Paper: The lack of effect of electronic voting machines on change in support for Bush in the 2004 Florida elections.”  Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Irvine, available at Verifiedvoting.org (21 November 2004), http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5347

Swanson, David.  “Media Black Out on Vote Fraud Allegations: Votes Aren’t the Only Thing Missing in Ohio.”  Counterpunch (8 November 2004), http://www.counterpunch.com/swanson11082004.html

Take Back the Media, and People to People TV.  Electile Disfunction: Take Back Your Right to Vote.  DVD (for release 13 December 2004), available from Buzzflash, http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/04/11/pre04073.html.      

‘TennisGuy2004’.  “Comparison of Exit Poll Data from 2000 and 2004 Election—Pass it On.”  Democratic Underground (18 November 2004), http://www.democraticunerground.com/discyuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=62147&mesg_id=62226&page=

‘The Squanderer.’  “Did Bush Lose… Again?”  16 November 2004, http://www.thesquanderer.com/votingmachines.html.  

Thompson, Alastair. “Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions: Full 51 State Early Exit Poll Data Released For The First Time.”  Scoop (17 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.ht.#ftnote

------, and Ed Shalom.  “Scoop Images: 2004 Exit Poll ‘Red Shift’ As Seen In Vote Numbers.”  Scoop (19 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00264.htm.   

Thoreau, Jackson.  “Never say Die-bold: So you don’t think the Bush campaign stole this election? Think again.”  Online Journal (5 November 2004), http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110505Thoreau/110505thoreau.html.  

------.  “How You Can Help Fight the Vote Fraud That Stole the 2004 Election.”  OpEdNews (13 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_111304_help_fight.htm

TruthIsAll.’ “Spot the Difference—Exit Poll Variations Swing States Vs Non Swing States,” “To Believe That Bush Won the Election, You Must Also Believe…”  Scoop (9 November 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00124.htm#13

------.  “There should be limits to freedom. A dictatorship would be better. Who cares what you think? Here are 100 Exit Poll Links: Be forewarned. Only a few know what they are talking about.”  Democratic Underground (19 November 2004), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x65001.  

------.  “One Out of 4.5 Billion! Those are the odds that Kerry’s EXIT poll percentage would EXCEED his ACTUAL reported vote prercentage BY MORE THAN THE MARGIN OF ERROR in 16 out of 51 States by chance alone.”  Democratic Underground (26 November 2004), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79760

“2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities.”  Wikipedia (12 November 2004), http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities#Evidence_of_electronic_voting_bias.  

Urie, Heath. “Activists protest electronic voting: Opponents of the technology gather at the Capitol and question exit-poll data.”  The Denver Post (21 November 2004), http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2549008,00.html

Vasquez, Betsy R.  “Think Kerry Is Not Involved in This Fight? Think Again.”  The Moderate Independent (10 November 2004), http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

Verified Voting Foundation.  “Our Position on Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election.”  Verifiedvoting.org (15 November 2004), http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5249

Verton, Dan. “Officials Defend System, Despite Early E-voting Problems.”  Computerworld (1 November 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/11/01/641499.   

------, and Patrick Thibodeau. “Electronic Voting Systems Pass Their Big Test-Maybe.”  Computerworld (8 November 2004), http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Computerworld/2004/11/08/644061

“Volusia County lawsuit alleges irregularities in Nov 2, 2004 election.”  BlackBoxVoting.org, http://www.blackboxvoting.org/#lawsuit

“Voting-Machine Woes in Carteret [North Carolina] Have Officials Looking for Answers.”  Associated Press (23 November 2004), http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5342

Wade, Anthony.  “Keith Olbermann Plays Hardball, Breaks Votergate Story on National, Mainstream Media.”  OpEdNews (8 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/wade_110904_olbermann.htm

------.  “Diversionary New Tactics, Votergate 2004.”  OpEdNews (9 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/bloganthonywade.htm

------.  “Pimping for Bush, NY Daily News Sells Out Its Readers and the Country, Continuing the Votergate 2004 Cover-up.”  OpEdNews (16 November 2004), http://www.opednews.com/wade_111604_pimping.htm

Waldman, Alan.  “Was It Hacked?”  Orlando Weekly (18 November 2004), http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688

Wand, Jonathan.  “Evaluating the Impact of Voting Technology on the Tabulation of Voter Preferences: The 2004 Presidential Election in Florida.”  Working Paper, Version 0.2, 15 November 2004, http://wand.stanford.edu/elections/usFL2004

Webb, Cynthia L.  “Bloggers Let Poll Cat Out of the Bag.”  The Washington Post (3 November 2004), http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21932-2004Nov3.html

Weissman, Steve. “Who Counts in Ohio?”  Truthout (11 November 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111104A.shtml.  

Welsh, Ian.  “Thinking about Vote Fraud.”  BOPNews (9 November 2004), http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002357.html#2357

Whitney, Mike.  “Sour grapes or voter fraud?”  SmirkingChimp.com (4 November 2004), http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=18549

------.  “The Ohio mandate.”  SmirkingChimp.com (7 November 2004), http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=18588

Williams, Mark.  “Ohio Provisional Ballots Seem Legitimate.”  Associated Press (17 November 2004), available at Truthout (18 November 2004), http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111804V.shtml

Wyoming Secretary of State.  “Profile of Wyoming’s Voters: Voter Registration and Voter Turnout.”  November 2004.  http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/profile.htm

Zeller, Tom, Jr.  “Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried.”  The New York Times (12 November 2004), http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/politics/12theory.html?ei=5006&en=b09c80ele3bbf1d0&ex=1100840400%02%22ner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

Zerbisias, Antonia. “Webb Abuzz With Vote-Rigging Tales.”  The Toronto Star (14 November 2004), also available at Common Dreams News Center (16 November 2004), http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1114-22.htm

Zweifel, Dave. “Integrity of Voting System Paramount.”  Capital Times, Madison, Wisconsin (17 November 2004), available at Common Dreams New Center, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1117-22htm.  

(5) Appendix: Selected Articles on the 2004 Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela and the 2004 Presidential Election (Second Round) in Ukraine

(a) Venezuela

Barone, Michael. “Exit Polls in Venezuela .”  USNews.com (20 August 2004), http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm

Carter, Jimmy.  “President Jimmy Carter: Venezuela Election Trip Report, Aug 13-18, 2004.”  The Carter Center, http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

Del Valle Marcano, Vanessa Carolina“Experts consulted by The Wall Street Journal ratify that patterns and ceilings are normal.”  Vheadline.com (21 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22538

Hardy, Charles.  “Charles Hardy: Penn, Schoen & BerlandUS News & World Report.”  Vheadline (1 September 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22625

Gindin, Jonah. “Subverting Democracy.”  Venezuelanalysis.com (14 August 2004), also available at Znethttp://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6045&sectionID=45

------.  “ Venezuela ’s Opposition Resorts to Phony Exit Polls.”  Venezuelanalysis.com (15 August 2004), http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1248

Giordano, Al.  “Penn & Schoen’s Inaccurate and Dishonest ‘Exit Poll’ on Chávez Vote: Maneuver by U.S. Political Consultants Violated Venezuelan Law and Professional Ethics Codes.”  The Narco News Bulletin (19 August 2004), http://www.narconews.com?Issue34/article1046.html

Golinger-Moncada, Eva. “New York Lawyer Eva Golinger: 15A Testimonial from Ground Zero Caracas.”  Vheadline (19 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22506

O’Donoghue, Patrick J.  “Opposition Sumate claims electronic switch of final results to favor government.”  Vheadline (17 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22477

Podur, Justin. “The Calm Before the?”  Znet (15 August 2004), http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=6048

Rosnick, David. “Polling and the Ballot: The Venezuelan Referendum.”  Center for Economic and Policy Research (19 August 2004), http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_referendum.htm

Satanovsky, Alex. “Opposition leaders and their endangered parrots of the commercial media, are deservingly the laughing stocks of authentic journalists worldwide.”  Vheadline (22 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22552

Selsky, Andrew.  “ U.S. polling firm lands in middle of Venezuelan referendum dispute.”  Venezuela Information Office (19 August 2004), http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/news/08-19-04ap.html

Smith, Ron.  “ UK ’s Independent Newspaper Falsifies Venezuelan Election Results!”  The Narcosphere (15 August 2004), http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/8/15/205259/595#1

Stinard, Philip. “Governor Enrique Mendoza: Greenberg’s man for the Venezuelan Presidency.”  Vheadline (4 July 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=21881

------.  “The Washington Post: A Venezuelan Monitor.”  Vheadline (30 July 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22217

------.  “PPT [Patria Para Todos] denounces opposition plan to sabotage referendum results via ‘exit polls’.”  Vheadline (10 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22360

Súmate.”  [Súmate is a Venezuelan opposition group funded by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy to promote a campaign for a recall referendum on President Chávez; this file includes Jeremy Bigwood’s FOIA request to the CIA for information on the group.]  http://www.venezuelafoia.info/NED/SUMATE/SUMATE%20index.htm

The Providence Journal: Reason to be skeptical about Venezuela ’s referendum.”  Vheadline (19 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22511

“The Venezuela Recall: Answering all that is answerable.”  Vheadline (31 August 2004), http://www.vheadline.com/printer_news.asp?id=22620

(b) Ukraine

Aslund, Anders.  “ Ukraine ’s Future and U.S. Interests.”  Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Europe.”  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (12 May 2004), http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1533

------.  “ Ukraine At A Crossroads.”  The Washington Post (29 September 2004), available at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment,org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=15893

------.  “ Ukraine ’s Voters do not need Moscow’s advice.”  The Financial Times (11 November 2004), available at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16120.

Chin, Larry.  “Cold War Crisis in the Ukraine : Control of Oil: Key Grand Chessboard ‘Pivot’ at Stake.”  Centre for Research in Globalization (26 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411D.html

Chossudovsky, Michel.  War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11.  Shanty Bay, ON: Global Outlook, 2002.  ISBN 0-973110902. 

------.  “IMF Sponsored ‘Democracy’ in The Ukraine .”  Centre for Research in Globalization (28 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411D.html

“Eurasia Foundation Grantees Pave the Way to Democratic Elections in Ukraine .  A Eurasia Foundation Grantee Profile.”  Eurasia Foundation, http://www.eurasia.org/sucess%20Stories/article-elect.html

Finn, Peter.  “Partial Vote Results Show a Tight Race in Ukraine Runoff.”  The Washington Post (22 November 2004), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2478-2004Nov21.html.  

Foulner, Martin.  “ Ukraine is part of a wider US pattern.”  The Glasgow Herald (26 November 2004), available at the Centre for Research in Globalization (27 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TRA411A.html

Holley, David.  “ Ukraine : Russia-Backed Candidate Declared Winner.”  Los Angeles Times (24 November 2004), http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-112404ukraine_lat,0,2214793.story?coll=la-home-headlines

“In quotes: World concern at Ukraine election.”  BBC News (23 November 2004), http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4034013.stm>. 

Kubiniec, John. “Election Fraud in Ukraine Presidential Vote.”  Freedom House (22 November 2004), http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/112204.htm.

Kuzio, Taras.  “Post-Election Blues in the Yanukovych Camp.”  Eurasia Daily Monitor, Vol. 1, issue 124 (10 November 2004), available at Talkaboutnetwork (15 November 2004), http://www.talkaboutculture.com/group/soc.culture.ukrainian/messages/119741.html

Laughland, John. “How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine ’s elections.”  The Spectator (5 November 2004), available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (25 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAU411A.html

------.  “The revolution televised: The western media’s view of Ukraine ’s election is hopelessly biased.”  The Guardian (27 November 2004), http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1360811,00.html

Lindorff, Dave. “Nation [ U.S. ] of Sheep, Turkey of an Election: Ukrainians Show the Way.”  This Can’t Be Happening (25 November 2004), http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

------.  “Blowback: Did US Techniques for Undermining Eastern Europe Elections Find Their Way Back to America ?”  This Can’t Be Happening (27 November 2004), http://www.thiscantbehappening.net; also available as “Blowback in Ukraine : The Hand of the CIA?”  Counterpunch (29 November 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11292004.html

“McCain Statement on Elections in Ukraine .”  International Republican Institute (23 November 2004), http://www.iri.org/11-23-04-McCain.asp

“New EU-Ukraine oil pipeline completed.”  EU Business (20 August 2001), http://www.eubusiness.com/imported/2001/08/55762

Oliker, Olga.  “ Ukraine and the Caspian: An Opportunity for the United States .”  Issue Paper 198, RAND Center for Russia and Eurasia (2000), http://www.rand.org/publications/1P/1P198

“Opposition pulls out of election talks.”  The Guardian (30 November 2004), http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1362804,00.html

“Planned Coup d’État in the Ukraine .”  Itar-Tass (26 November 2004), available at the Centre for Research in Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAS411A.html

Popeski, Ron.  “ Ukraine exit poll shows liberal winner.”  Reuters (21 November 2004), http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=625014&section=news

“Press Release.”  [Exit Polls in the March 2002 Election to be conducted by the Kiev Institute of Sociology, SOCIS Company, and the Social Monitoring Center, coordinated by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation.]  http://www.def.org.ua/ep/en/pr

Traynor, Ian. “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev.”  The Guardian (26 November 2004), available at the Centre for Research in Globalization (28 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TRA411A.html

Ukraine .”  Centre for Public Opinion and Democracy, The University of British Columbia.  http://www.cpod.ub.ca/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewitem&itemID=2591

Ukraine cities defy poll result.”  BBC News (22 November 2004), http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4033475.stm

Ukraine Crisis: A Western circus with Yushchenko, the clown.”  Pravda (25 November 2004), http://english.opravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14639

Ukraine : 2nd Round of Presidential Election.”  British Helsinki Human Rights Group, http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=22&ReportID=230.  

Vasovic, Alexsandar.  “ Ukraine ’s Early Results, Exit Polls Differ.”  Associated Press (21 November 2004), available at Findlaw, http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/ap_stories/i/1103/11-21-2004/20041121220016_16.html

Woronowycz, Roman.  “ U.S. expresses strong support of Odessa-Brody oil pipeline.”  Ukraine Weekly (8 June 2003), http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2003/230808.shtml

From: "Ian K \(DMY Zookeeper\)" <zookeeper@democracymeansyou.com>
Subject: Get your new Kerry/Edwards 2004 buttons! -- How many Bushies does it take to screw in a light bulb? -- and more...
Date: Thu,
2 Dec 2004

Greetings Readers,

Be the first in your district to have Kerry/Edwards buttons and magnets!
We've got four brand new designs, plus a few older ones, from standard to
snide. You choose! Way better than the boring old campaign button fare from
the DNC and Kerry central.


Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a light

A: http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/lightbulb.htm

Regime Change Party in Your Neighborhood!
Fundraising continues--but we only have a few more weeks. The GOP has
another month to raise money, and they're already raising record breaking
numbers. Be scared. VERY scared. Then set up a party in your neighborhood to
even the score!

Reagan the Overrated
With all due respect to the recently deceased, Reagan's "great legacy" is
just another misinformation campaign by the right.


Patriot Power: It's My Damn Flag, and Yours, Too.
Enough defeatist bullshit about the stars and stripes: reclaiming the flag
and patriotism for all.


And hatemail continues....

It's the Bush Urinal and Toilet sticker. Put it in your favorite urinal or

Foam stadium hand... with the real #1 finger pointing up...

Stickers and buttons with strangely Marine-like artists raising the American
paintbrush over the world.


As usual, all links are found on the homepage in case any of these are broken in your e-mail.

Questions? Comments? Abuse? Drop us an e-mail or give us a call...


Ian Kleinfeld
(215) 895-9604
The mainstream media is sooooo RIGHT. We're what's LEFT.

If you do not want to receive this update, please reply with "UNSUBSCRIBE"
in the subject line. If you are receiving duplicates, please reply with
"DUPLICATE" in the subject line. If you have already unsubscribed and are
still receiving this update, please reply with "UNSUBSCRIBE FOR THE LOVE OF
GOD AND ALL THAT'S HOLY" in the subject line and we'll investigate and get
it taken care of. We do not want people to receive these updates unless they
want them.

Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research at CEIMSA-IN-EXILE

[1] In the state of Wyoming the number of votes cast likewise exceeded the number of registered voters—but in that case there are no evident grounds for suspicion.  As the Wyoming Secretary of State’s website explains, “There were 232,396 registered voters in Wyoming prior to the [2004] General Election and 245,789 voted.  This was possible because Wyoming state statute allows voters to register and vote at the polls on General Election Day.”  (Wyoming’s current voting age population numbers 376,359, of whom 232,366 [62 percent] were registered; 245,789 people voted [106 percent of registered voters], for an overall turnout rate of 65 percent of eligible voters.)  In Florida and Ohio, however, election-day registration is not permitted.  According to Florida’s rules, “The registration books will be closed on the 29th day before each election and will remain closed until after that election.  You must be registered for at least 29 days before you can vorte in an election.”  Ohio’s requirements are similar: “You must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of Ohio for at least thirty (30) days before the election and you must have registered to vote in Ohio at least thirty (30) days before the election.”  Within these states, therefore, a surplus of votes cast over and above the number of registered voters is a clear indicator of electoral irregularities.   

[2] In the November 15 version of this list, the fifth section was devoted to texts making or responding to allegations of a cover-up.  In the present version those articles have been merged into the fourth section, which also incorporates studies and journalistic articles that contest allegations of fraud.