Page 1 of 1
IMPORTANT! URGENT! Read! Re-count Effort
Posted: 11-05-2004 06:59 PM
If you have access to a FAX machine, and you want to see a re-count/challenge, then FAX Ralph Nader NOW--not later, not tomorrow, NOW! Tell him that you want to see him challenge the results in New Hampshire, and then the other 33 states where he was on the ballot. He can do this, and he IS WILLING. But he wants to hear from America. DO THIS. It is urgent as there is a deadline.
I know I have said harsh things about Ralph, but if he does this, then he will redeem himself in my eyes. THIS is the kind of thing that Ralph is good at. So, let him know NOW if you would support this.
This is NOT partisan in my eyes. I want to see ALL the votes counted accurately. Period. There are tooooo many problems being reported.
FAX RALPH NOW!
Phone numbers: 202-265-4000
Email addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted: 11-05-2004 08:12 PM
Headed to work and will do this IMMEDIATELY!!!
Please FAX... Actual Signatures are Needed!
Posted: 11-05-2004 08:13 PM
From Ralph's website:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2004 For Further Information:
Kevin Zeese 202.265.4000
Nader/Camejo Challenge Electronic Voting Results in New Hampshire
Washington, DC:The Nader/Camejo campaign has filed a challenge to the voting results in New Hampshire after receiving numerous complaints from voting rights activits. Below is Nader's letter to New Hampshire requesting a recount. Also, below is Nader's view on electronic voting without a paper trial. In addition, the Nader/Camejo campaign offered our campaign to poll watchers who wanted to be credentialed to be inside to monitor electronic voting. Hundreds of democracy activists in Maryland working with TrueVoteMD.org were credentialed to monitor polling through the Populist Party which was created by Nader-Camejo supporters in Maryland.
November 5, 2004
Via fax: 603-271-6316
To The Secretary of State of New Hampshire:
The Nader/Camejo campaign requests a hand recount of the ballots in the presidential election in New Hampshire. Numerous voting rights activists have requested that we seek a recount of this vote.
We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire. These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.
We are requesting that the state undertake this recount or a statistically significant sample audit of these vote counts.
We would like to make sure every vote counts and is counted accurately.
Paperless Electronic Voting
A bedrock of democracy is making sure that every vote counts. The counting of votes needs to be transparent so people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded no analysis could discover it. Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This Primary Day six million voters will be voting on paperless electronic voting machines. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud.
On July 23, 2003 the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security “far below even the most minimal security standards . . . .” Johns Hopkins computer security experts concluded: “If we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate.”
Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions. Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.
The seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. This does not pass the smell test. Voters should report immediately any suspected malfunctions and deficiencies at voting precincts around the country to their Board of Elections. And voters should urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts.
Posted: 11-05-2004 09:01 PM
Thank you, Joolz. It's good to know that Ralph is on this too. The next few weeks should prove very interesting.
Posted: 11-05-2004 10:15 PM
Do I understand correctly, that Nader HAS already filed the challenge and is awaiting an answer??
Posted: 11-05-2004 11:29 PM
Yes, Cinny. It's a long story... but he did contact the NH Sec of State by the deadline today and made a request for a recount there. He needs actual signatures to proceed now. This is a first step. It opens to door to him being able to do the same in all 34 states where he was on the ballot.
Posted: 11-05-2004 11:50 PM
If you are having trouble understanding what is going on here and why, this may help. Click HERE
to see the graphs representing these discrepancies. Please note that these discrepancies are occurring in states where there was black box voting. The states where paper ballots were used don't show these huge differences. Be sure to scroll over to the right to see all the graphs!
Posted: 11-06-2004 02:53 AM
I shall fax Mr. Nader tomorrow. All elections should be honest and fair. I personally do not like all the discrepencies I am hearing about. I make no bones about who I wanted to win but if he won due to large scale voter fraud and Kerry really won I could accept that. Wrong is wrong.
Posted: 11-06-2004 04:16 AM
Thanks, shecoda. I don't see this as a partisan issue at all. I see it as an outrage against the American people. This affects us all, regardless of our political views. If we do not have fair elections, then we are not a free people.
Posted: 11-06-2004 09:56 AM
Are you sure this is the right fax number, (202-265-0092I tried for about four hours last night, For the most part it was busy but every once in a while something or some one would pick up but my fax never went through. I'll try again in few minutes.
Posted: 11-06-2004 04:13 PM
I'm still not having any luck with it. The fax has been in the machine all day and still hasn't gone through.Every once in a while I have to reset it because something answering but the fax doesn't go through.
I'll continue to try.
Posted: 11-06-2004 10:03 PM
Nader filed for a recount with no money so it was denied!
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader requested a hand recount of ballots in New Hampshire after getting seven-tenths of 1 percent of the vote.
“We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire,’’ Nader wrote.
“These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5 percent to 15 percent over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.’’
Nader’s recount request came in as a fax at 4:59 p.m., one minute before the deadline.
The application is not legal, however, because it did not come with payment, according to Assistant Attorney General Bud Fitch.
Posted: 11-06-2004 11:04 PM
Here's all I know to tell you on this Tiff... the woman who did the research and contacted Nader is a member of DU. Her posts about this can be read there. I believe her because she posted information about this before there was anything about it at Nader's site. She contacted Nader in a panic as a last resort on Friday, after being unsuccessful at attemting to pierce the fortress around Kerry for most of the day, and knowing that there was a 5:00 PM deadline to file.
According to her, what happened concerning the money was that she was told it was going to cost $1,000. They had a person on the ground with a check for $1,000 on his or her way to deliver it by the deadline when they were informed that--oh sorry--it wasn't $1,000, but $2,000 needed. sheesh
However, they are dealing with the Secretary of State, and this statement was issued by the Asst. Attorney General. I don't know if that makes any difference or not. This woman did say last night that Nader's people called her and told her that negotiations regarding this were supposed to resume on Monday. So, heck if I know what is going on... but that's what I have.
Now... keep in mind that New Hampshire was chosen for two reasons: 1) it is a state that Kerry already won, so if fraud is found it is just that--it can't be contrued as an attempt to change the election results in and of itself (although it would set a precedent); and 2) the Friday New Hampshire deadline is just the FIRST of all the deadlines in states that can be challenged. This is WHY the woman who decided to study the results chose New Hampshire, and it was not Nader's decision. He merely chose to act on her research.
There are other states that can be challenged...
Posted: 11-06-2004 11:10 PM
Here's another interesting tidbit snatched from a letter someone posted that they received from Michael Badnarik's campaign manager, Stephen Gordon, just a short while ago:
Please rest assured that we are looking into these and other cases of voting irregularities. To begin, I spoke with Nader's campaign manager yesterday, and she assured me that the initial paperwork had just been filed in NH to challenge the vote there.
Badnarik seems to be the only one who can challenge in Ohio.
Nader and Badnarik just spoke together and are discussing some sort of plan to cooperate on this general issue.
Too much is going on, with too little hard objective data, for me to indicate any firm campaign position on this at the moment. We are looking at all of the options, however.
I will be flying to DC early next week, where I hope to learn more. Also, there will be an unrelated press conference at the National Press Club on Tuesday, where I expect we (Badnarik, Nader and Cobb campaigns) will be asked about this. I sincerely hope to have better answers by then.
My advice? Hang in there... there are wheels in motion, or so it appears...
Posted: 11-08-2004 01:46 AM
Me talking here: Rader's office was upset that their fax machine was coming off the hook with a deluge of faxes. Now it's $80,000. We need to bother the people below and demand they count the votes. $80,000 give me a break!
"I talked with Kevin Zeese, spokesman for Nader's campaign and he said Ralph intends to pursue the recount and that they will needs financial support and any data showing discrepancies in vote totals in New Hampshire.
If you would like to contribute to Nader's effort for a recount (which will require $80,000) you can contribute here.
To let the Secretary of State for New Hampshire know of your support for the recount, you can email him at:
The NH attorney general can be FAXed at :
Tell these people to let the recount happen!"