Liberty and Accessibility

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:57:13 -0400
From: Henry Morgan <>

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know
the whole truth; to know the worst, and provide for it." ~ ~ ~ Patrick
Is real money coming back?
Find out at: HYPERLINK ""www.CurrencyAlert.US
Overwhelmed with credit card debt? Tired of working just to pay credit card
Looking to get out from under? Post me at HYPERLINK


From: Oceania Investigations []
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:40 PM

Here's a short dialogue from pp 50-51 of my 2005 book, Maybe the People Have
the Answers. Arrive at your own conclusion regarding what happened on
Saturday in Ames, Iowa. --------

It concerns the shocking loss by my friend Richard Mack in an Arizona
Sheriff's race in 1996. Mack had been an "enemy" of the DC empire since
filing his opposition to the Brady Bill [which he took all the way to the
Supreme Court and won]. He later spoke with the late James Collier, author
of VoteScam, the first expose' of the computer fraud techniques in America.
Collier had told him on the phone that he had been "had."

"How do you mean?" queried the befuddled sheriff.
"Let me ask you three questions [said Collier]. First, was there a computer
vote count?"
"Strike one!" said Collier. "Second, were the total numbers pretty much the
same in all the precincts?"
"All except two," said Mack.
"Strike two! And was there a power outage?"
Yep, matter of fact there was, at about ten o'clock on election night,
during the vote count."
"Strike three," replied Collier. "You were definitely had."

[Not much difference between a power outage and a contrived breakdown, I
reckon. Both provide the necessary time to reload the results.]

Apparently, the only reason for this otherwise insignificant deception of
who is the front-runner is that the propaganda machine will now not have to
mention Ron Paul's name for the next several months until the next hoopla in
the fall. After all, he finished sixth, right?!! [See Monday's papers for
confirmation.] But if they'd had to report the real figures, it would have
been Romney and Rudy that would have been in the closet, with RP in the
headlines for the next several months. Unacceptable!

However, the deceivers may have shot themselves in the foot again, as they
have exposed to the naive -- for very little reward -- their techniques of
deception, which gives the Paul camp ample time to arm for the real
onslaught in 2008. I predict a bigger groundswell for Ron Paul in 2008 than
the 20 million votes that George Wallace was about to get in 1972. I also
fear that a similar fate could befall this first real voice of the people in
35 years. Surely we will see a lesser attack later this year [before the New
Hampshire Primary] of some kind of phony scandal. Only time will tell of
what variety that will be.

Pat Shannan

Fuzzy Math: The Iowa Straw Poll

Email This Page To A Friend

HYPERLINK "" \nWhat Really Happened

ymath.php&title=Fuzzy%20Math%3A%20The%20Iowa%20Straw%20Poll" \n HYPERLINK
0Poll&" \n
Ffuzzymath.php&t=Fuzzy%20Math%3A%20The%20Iowa%20Straw%20Poll" \n

Fuzzy Math: The Iowa Straw Poll

I met with the Vote in the Sunshine crew on the morning of the Straw Poll in
Ames. They were told by the Iowa GOP that there would be a total of 60
shiny new Diebold Accuvote Optical Scan machines deployed in 3 separate
locations. As the Des Moines Register stated on August 10:

"Employees of the Story County elections office will oversee the casting of
ballots at 60 machines at three buildings on the Iowa State University

I helped with vote verification in the morning and walked around the venue
during the afternoon. There was no shortage of voters queuing up to vote
from my observations, with long lines snaking around the three voting
locations, especially in the early voting.

As to the voting machine 'malfunctions', the Des Moines Register said this:
"Voting machine difficulties delayed the announcement of the vote totals.
About 1,500 ballots needed to be recounted, said Mary Tiffany, a spokeswoman
for Republican Party of Iowa.

Two machines caused the problem, said State Auditor David Vaudt. "What
likely happened is someone submitted their ballot too quickly after the
other," he said. The ballots from those machines were hand counted, then
re-fed into the system to recalculate the vote. A campaign poll-watcher said
in one instance, a black box contained 500 paper ballots but the machine's
memory said it had scanned in 498."

Because of the heat most folks were at least trying to get in the shortest
lines they could find, and it did not appear that any of the 3 locations
were underutilized.

So we know from the state Auditor that one 'problem' machine contained 500
votes. Assuming most machines contained a similar pattern of use, then they
should also contain about the same number of votes. 60 (machines) x 500 =
30,000 votes. That is more than TWICE as many as the official count. Based
on a total vote count of 14,301, if all machines were used about equally,
then the average number of votes per machine SHOULD have been 238 {14,301
(total votes) / 60 (machines) = 238 votes per machine}. What are the odds
that one of the machines that 'malfunctioned' and actually gave up an
audited vote tally would contain TWICE as many votes as the 'average'
machine? But it gets worse…

State Auditor David Vaudt (who unofficially certified the vote count) said
that there were only 2 machines out of the 60 that were inconsistent (paper
printout vs. electronic tabulation) and needed to be recounted. Mary
Tiffany of the Iowa GOP said that a total of approximately 1500 votes were
re-fed into the Diebold machines. Since we know that there were only two
machines that were a problem and one of them contained 500 votes, then the
second machine must have contained about 1000 ballots, which is more than
FOUR TIMES what the 'average' machine should contain based on a total vote
of 14,301. It seems more likely that there were actually 3 problem
machines, and the true average per machine was about 500 votes, which would
have resulted in a total vote of about 30,000 which is twice the official
total vote count.

Also note that 26,000 tickets were said to have been sold, so we are asked
to believe that only about half those people voted.

The day before the election the Iowa GOP stated on their web site that they
expected to raise $1.2 million in ticket sales, which is 34,000+ tickets.
This number jives much more closely with the fact that the single audited
machine (that we know of) contained 500 ballots. The vast majority of
tickets are pre-sold. Yet, on the day of the event they said they had only
sold about 26,000 tickets. How did they manage to grossly overestimate the
tickets to be sold (8000+ off) within 24 hours of the event?

The evening before the Straw Poll, a local TV news show carried a story that
the expected attendance for the next day had just been increased from a
maximum of 40,000 up to 45,000 - 50,000. Yet, according to the Iowa GOP,
the very next day only 30,000 to 33,000 showed up.

It is interesting to note that the Iowa GOP had an online straw poll on
their very own website (HYPERLINK ""
\ Here are the results as captured mid-day on August 9th:

The Diebold optical scan machines can be rigged in so many different ways,
it makes your head spin. This straw poll was owned end-to-end by the Iowa
GOP, but for a detailed 'how-to' on rigging your own straw poll using
AccuVote Optical Scan voting terminals, read this document: HYPERLINK

Under scrutiny, the Iowa Straw Poll seems to suffer from fuzzy math.
Anybody who assumes the final vote count was accurate suffers from fuzzy

A Reader

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 8/13/2007
10:15 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 8/13/2007
10:15 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home

Read the Bills Act Coalition Add to Technorati Favorites