VOTE: Government Accountability Office Report Used By Freepress: 04 Election Stolen

In a document published October 26, 2005, Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman from Freepress.org combine key voting machine findings from a little-publicized, September 2005 GAO report with more 2004 Election facts into a new report that questions the legitimacy of the Bush administration. The Freepress report draws on many GAO findings that among other things include the possibility that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate, and that this could be done by as little as one person due to easy accessability, major security holes, and single point wide access to voting machine networks. The GAO report is the result of an investigation requested by senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) into electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election.



This is a report of a report of a report. Huh? Let me explain. In this story I am essentially presenting two reports in one, and for your own scrutiny and analysis. First there is the GAO report, which deals mostly with the findings, conclusions, and recommended actions of their investigation- and then there is the Freepress report, which combines elements of the GAO report with some of the things that actually happened in the Election to further fan the fires of stolen election conspiracy theory. And thereby again questioning the legitimacy of the Bush administration.

This report from the GAO basically says that much of what conspiracy theory has stated on this issue is true of the machines, the software, the lax networks, and the dismal security.

While the quality of the Freepress.org report left a bit to be desired with such simple mistakes as calling the GAO the "Government Accounting Office," the value and the rationale behind Freepress's report should not be overlooked, although it seems partisan. But not fully, as they mention where corrections were made. And further on that note, some reports swung the other way, so I have included a link to one of Seekerof's stories to that effect.

But what also should not be overlooked is the fact that the GAO report was not partisan. It is the truth, and the best they assimilated with what they had at the time. And I would suggest anyone interested go to the original GAO pdf document report I have provided a link to below.

On the heels of the Freepress report however, I really wonder with all the wierd anomalies in that election if we are fighting a war in the Middle East that never should have been. Would the war on terror have proceeded the same way if Kerry had been elected? Have all those people died because of the actions of private, partisan voting machine companies?

We as a country have desperately got to find a way to take the election system out of such hands and get a non-partisan, reputable government agency such as the GAO to manage, control and oversee any future elections. I don't care HOW it happens. It's just got to happen.

Somewhere in all of this misery I just had to find something to cheer me up:
www.boomchicago.nl...

Funny, but is it?

Related News Links:
www.gao.gov
www.dailykos.com
www.computerworld.com
www.bbvforums.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Voting Fraud - Long Threads, History, 2004 (Yet Again) & Media Lockdown
Democratic Voter Fraud, Intimidation Confirmed.
The Diebold Factor
The giant conspiracy of our time: Election 2004, and the polarization of America

[edit on 29-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]

[edit on 10-29-2005 by Springer]

The fact that Bush picked up 8 million supporters from 2000 - 2004 alone is statistically impossible given the precedent of earlier campaigns. This is a very interesting report and when you realize that Diebold said they were committed to making sure the Republicans won, I think there must have been tampering.

Please define "statistically impossible" and how it applies in this situation.
I am not aware that Diebold stated what you say - can you please provide a link?

of course there was ! G W Bush had flubbed-up his first term as President, his party knew he did so they had to pull the stealing of the 04 votes to give Dubya what he needed to win. In my voting place the computer quit running for no reason at all.
There's no use screaming over the "foul" now, Bush isn't going to give-up the white house, none of the Republicans are going to give up their seats.

So what can a citizen do ????

What can a citizen do nanna? just sit and keep watching the down fall of the Bush administration is slow but steady and is more to come, in the next three years.

You can be something for sure that the Republican party will not win the next elections.

Its happening in Australia too. The Bush administration and the Aussies are in bed together and its all rotten. Scandalous really and yet nothing is being done.

Personally, I think the conclusions of this study are a long way from confirming that the 2004 election was stolen. The authors certainly confirm that there are problems with the various systems in use that can lead to abuse and a loss of confidence by voters, but no where could I find even so much as a hint that the 2004 election was in any way compromised by any of these problems. This just more whining by sore losers.

Electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the efficiency,
accuracy, and accessibility of the elections process, and many are in use
across the country today. The American public needs to feel confident
using these systems—namely, that the systems are secure enough and
reliable enough to trust with their votes. However, this is not always the
case. Numerous recent studies and reports have highlighted problems with
the security and reliability of electronic voting systems. While these reports
often focused on problems with specific systems or jurisdictions, the
concerns they raise have the potential to affect election outcomes. The
numerous examples of systems with poor security controls point to a
situation in which vendors may not be uniformly building security and
reliability into their voting systems, and election officials may not always
rigorously ensure the security and reliability of their systems when they
acquire, test, operate, and manage them.

These concerns have led to action. Multiple organizations have compiled
recommended practices for vendors and election officials to use to
improve the security and reliability of voting systems, and EAC has
initiated activities to improve voluntary voting system standards, system
testing programs, and management support to state and local election
authorities. However, important initiatives are unlikely to affect the 2006
elections due, at least in part, to delays in the appointment of EAC
commissioners and in funding the commission. Specifically, key security related
improvements to voting system standards will not be completed in
time, improvements to the national system certification program are not
yet in place, and efforts to provide management support to state and local
jurisdictions through a software library and information sharing on
problems and recommended practices remain incomplete. Further, EAC
has not consistently defined plans, processes, and time frames for
completing these activities, and as a result, it is unclear when their results
will be available to assist state and local election officials. Until these
efforts are completed, there is a risk that many state and local jurisdictions
will rely on voting systems that were not developed, acquired, tested,
operated, or managed in accordance with rigorous security and reliability
standards—potentially affecting the reliability of future elections and voter
confidence in the accuracy of the vote count.

www.gao.gov...

Loved that funny link you provided TrueAmerican--and yes, it was funny. Nice report as well. I think every American should be concerned about how we vote and what measures are taken to ensure the confidentiality of and accuracy of our votes.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Personally, I think the conclusions of this study are a long way from confirming that the 2004 election was stolen. The authors certainly confirm that there are problems with the various systems in use that can lead to abuse and a loss of confidence by voters, but no where could I find even so much as a hint that the 2004 election was in any way compromised by any of these problems. This just more whining by sore losers.

Grady, those paragraphs in the GAO report obviously don't match the conclusions drawn by Freepress, because they are both coming at the whole situation from different angles. The GAO went into investigate the machines and systems mostly, and presented its findings. Freepress then took those findings and combined them with other known facts to form the more scathing opinion that the election was stolen, because:

1) the anomalies established the supposed crime
2) the GAO report shows that there WAS means by which to commit the crimes, and far more simply than had been previously thought
3) plenty of other testimony and evidence corroborates both 1 & 2

And so what we have here when combining the two angles is a viable conspiracy. But yeah, the GAO report really only confirms alledged accusations of the faults in the system. And this is why I felt it was important to include both sides of the situation, because it does result in a broader view of the facts that the GAO put forth. I would hardly write this off as more whining by sore losers. If that were the case, I don't think Freepress.org would have published the corrections made in addition to the rest.

Those of us who worked the polls knew Kerry won and the exit polls showed it. We knew there was no way something that had been so consistantly accurate over the years could be so severely off this time. Add that to the CEO of Diebold coming out and saying that he and his company were committed to the re-election of Bush (talk about a smoking gun) and you have ample cause to at the very least suspect a conspirecy. That the GAO has come out and said it creates a very serious situation. I would trust the GAO over any Republican denials anyday, after all it is the Republicans being accused of this crime. Gradyphilpot and Muaddip are true believers and form what I have read of their postings there is nothing that would convince them that their party is as corrupt as most of most of us know it to be. Does that mean the democrats are innocents? No by any stretch of the imagination BUT it is a crime of an entirely different scope to steal an election nationwide, it is essentially to stage a coup and is at it's very core an act of treason. To claim that Bush and his cronies are innocent or didn't know about it is disinginous at best, and totally in denial or blind to the realities at worst. Bush and his gang deserved impeachment long before this and this is just icing on the cake. That the Republican controlled congress will deny, obstruct or ignore these accusations will only further to discredit them and the entire conservative movement. AND ITS ABOUT TIME!!!

Grover its people like you that make my day. Here it almost 06 and your still bitching about the fact Kerry lost. Hell even his own party questioned his ability. Perhaps they should have slipped him a micky so he would'nt change directions every time the wind shifted. Whether you like it or not you LOST. So suck it up man good god.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Nerdling]

Originally posted by Whompa1
Grover its people like you that make my day. Here it almost 06 and your still bitching about the fact Kerry lost. Hell even his own party questioned his ability. Perhaps they should have slipped him a micky so he would'nt change directions every time the wind shifted. Whether you like it or not you LOST. So suck it up man good god.

And its right wingers like you whompa that make me dispise your politics and the politicans you back. What is wrong with you people that you cannot discuss politics or your political opponents without resorting to crude viripudes and insults?...I did not especially care for Kerry and only voted for him because I wasn't about to vote for bush and for me not voting was not an option. What I cannot stand is the insufferable arrogance of the right, as your posting so unelequently demonstrates.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Nerdling]

blah..blah..blah grover. You don't know who I voted for or who I even support first off grover. Its neither my fault nor my problem that you voted for kerry. Did you even take a look at any third party canidates grover? Bet you totally missed that one right? So now your gonna do the only thing you can do is bitch about an election almost two years gone.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Nerdling]

Be civil please, and enough of your vulgarity whompa.

You are crude. There is no point in voting for a third party candidate when they don't even have a passable chance of winning.

Originally posted by grover
You are crude. There is no point in voting for a third party candidate when they don't even have a passable chance of winning.

Since when did elections become about who wins? I always that it was about who's values you agree with and so on. Maybe the third party canidates would actually be able to pick up some steam if people would stop voting for either the reps or dems even when neither of those two agree with the voter.

Originally posted by Whompa1
Maybe the third party canidates would actually be able to pick up some steam if people would stop voting for either the reps or dems even when neither of those two agree with the voter.

I think you're right on with that part, Whompa1. I don't care if my vote doesn't count for squat. But I will vote on principal. And the point is for me neither of the two big parties are happening. It's time to send a message up there. Eventually, maybe a third party such as the Libertarian party or the Constitution party could be given a chance to go back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Because it certainly wasn't THIS.

See thats the problem. This two party system is crap. Both the dems and reps have turned out utter crap for the last god knows how long. People sit there and talk about how they want change and how corrupt our goverment is but when it comes Election day they waddle into the booth and choose either a dem or rep. No one considers these 3rd party canidates who from what I have found seem to have OUR interests at heart rather then big business. Which when you cut to the chase thats all it is. So in short grover instead of voting for some lackluster jackass simply because you dont like who the other main party is fronting look at what the 3rd party canidates have to offer. I promise you it will be a breath of fresh air.

Personally, I never had any doubt Bush was going to take the office for a second term. Kerry was put in place as a safety net... a just-in-case plans didnt pan out. [conspiracy] Skull and Bones people... Skull and Bones[/conspiracy].

Anyway... I didn't even bother voting this term. Actually, I've never voted. And I never plan to. Waste of time to even show up these days, if you ask me.

Originally posted by apc
Personally, I never had any doubt Bush was going to take the office for a second term. Kerry was put in place as a safety net... a just-in-case plans didnt pan out. [conspiracy] Skull and Bones people... Skull and Bones[/conspiracy].

Anyway... I didn't even bother voting this term. Actually, I've never voted. And I never plan to. Waste of time to even show up these days, if you ask me.

I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. Just kidding. You are spot on. Gore farted and blatted to set up Kerry's non issue, he rolled over like an old dog. Two parties, same stripes, SAME MASTERS. You've got to start voting though, that's the only way to get beyond a 2 party system. Let the powers that be that you aren't going to take this coersion any more.