OT:Bush & Gore "Win" Iowa Caucus: Proof of Fixed Elections?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Anyone who's studied the "mystery" of the Voter News Service in New York, Jim Collier's book Votescam, or thought through the problems with "computerized" voting machines, has probably wondered how many (if not ALL) of American elections are rigged.
I propose it's getting worse. There is/was grass-roots support for candidates like Robert Kennedy, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan...How many people do you know that ever said...oooh, i sure HOPE George Bush Jr. or Al Gore run.
These 2 have absolutely NO grass-roots support. I don't think Bob Dole, George Bush Sr, Bill Clinton, Mike Dukakis or Walter Mondale had any either. So the elections ARE rigged, right?
-- INever (email@example.com), January 24, 2000
I Agree. To make a long commentary short, FOLLOW THE MONEY. I think the Fed. Res. has already decided who the next presidential "pawn" will be. It's truly a sad situation,indeed. Without going into a long dissertation, I drew this conclusion after long and hard research. Sure wish someone could convince me otherwise. They're sure putting on a good "Dog & Pony" show for the sheeple though.
-- Larry (Rampon@Dallas.com), January 24, 2000.
It's not that they are rigged. It's that the voters are clueless.Government education and the media have destroyed their ability to think. They will follow the obvious trend because it feels right to go in the direction of the herd. BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
-- James (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 24, 2000.
After all, the "herd" says "I don't wanna waste my vote..."
Peer pressure, ADULT (?) style.
-- Dennis (email@example.com), January 24, 2000.
Why go to the trouble of rigging when your candidates are virtually identical up to Nov 2, and entirely after?
-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.
for info on VOTESCAM and the rigging of computerized balloting, please go to
-- Joe O (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 25, 2000.
The Iowa Caucus
The fix is in!
A microcosm of how our election system has been compromised.
By Jim Condit, Jr
Veritas News Service - January 24, 2000 - Just so everyone understands, the Iowa Caucus operates like 2000 classroom elections. There are 2000+ caucuses in each major party, one for each party in each of the 2000+ precincts in Iowa. A precinct is about 5 or six streets around one,s house, a little larger geographically in rural areas, and usually housing 200 to 800 eligible voters.
First we will take a brief look at the actual mechanics. Then we will examine a letter by Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in which he tries to defend the mechanics of the 1996 Iowa Caucus; and in so doing unwittingly provides us with a perfect illustration of why a tiny but well organized elite has succeeded in wresting the election process away from the American people during the last quarter century.
Using the GOP side of the Iowa Caucuses, Republicans gather in living rooms, cafi,s, high school classrooms, and social lodges all across Iowa. Each eligible voter must attend his own neighborhood precinct meeting if he wants to vote. In 1996 about 100,000 people participated in the Republican Caucuses, or a little less than 50 voters per precinct on average.
At each precinct meeting an agenda is suggested by the state party although many precincts just vote for the Presidential candidates. The voting in the GOP is done on a piece of paper. The votes are counted immediately with all factions welcome to participate or witness the count. This is the way it should be done.
Next the total vote count for that precinct is reported to the GOP County Chairman. There are 99 counties in Iowa, and 99 county chairmen. Next, each county chairman calls the total vote for his county into a central location. In 1996 that central tabulating center was Voter News Service in New York City, the exit polling arm of AP wire, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. On our website www.networkamerica.org there is a button in the lefthand column which leads to a picture of a Voter News Service exit poll box used in New Hampshire which we videotaped. This box has the logos of all the above mentioned TV Networks and wire services. Ted Koppel showed an identical box at a different location on the Nov. 2, 1996 Nightline in a lame attempt to try and refute the contention that the election night competition between the Big TV networks to project winners and loser is a hoax. We have that on videotape.
Whether or not Voter News Service is counting the GOP Iowa Caucus vote in 2000 is not yet confirmed. If you are in Iowa and you will be with a County Chairman, it will be on his tally sheet as to where he should call in his results. If anyone in Iowa can confirm who is counting the Iowa Caucus Republican and Democratic county vote, it would be greatly appreciated. I think you will find that both the Democratic Iowa Caucus and the Republican Iowa Caucus in counted by the TV networks and Voter News Service. If we can confirm that, I will do an entire e-wire just on the implications of such a state of affairs. If you can help us out with that, please email us at email@example.com, thanks.
In any case, in 1996, the tally sheet told the County Chairman to call his county totals into Voter News Service, and reminded the County Chairman that the first 10 or so who called their totals into New York City would get a free Voter News Service mug, - whooppeee!.
The final step is that Voter News Service announces the totals or partial totals, as was the case in 1996. The final totals for 1996 have never been released to this day. Please bear in mind the timing involved; the Networks claim to be able to accurately project the caucus 1 minute after the Iowa Caucus begins, and before even one vote has been cast based on supposed Voter News Service entrance polls. Then Voter News Service claims to be able to tabulate enough of the Caucus vote to go home by 11:15 PM that night, four hours and fifteen minutes after the Caucus begins. But, when it comes to getting the final totals, explaining discrepancies, and answering questions about their performance, neither the Iowa GOP or Voter News Service are able to accomplish that task even with four years in which to do it.
The reality is: the Iowa GOP relinquishes its responsibility to count the Iowa Caucus Vote to Voter News Service so that it will insulate itself from any discovered vote manipulation. The fact that the GOP trusts the 4 Big TV Networks and their exit polling arm to do the counting for the Iowa Caucus should tell all who are not totally brain dead volumes about the way this country really works. Then, when vote fraud must be done, as we believe was the case in 1996, Voter News Service deliberately stops the count and goes home before finishing, at least that's what they tell us. They know from experience that once the TV networks have announced the winner, they can go home and never release a final count. And that,s exactly what they did in the 1996 Iowa GOP Caucuses.
In 1996, the Voter News Service abruptly announced that vote tabulation was being cut off at 11:15 P.M. Did they have a bedtime curfew? Of course not. They cut off the counting at that point in 1996 so as not to reflect over the airwaves the strong Buchanan vote in Dubuque and Souix City, they didn,t want the public to get the impression that Buchanan had finished strongly ahead of Dole.
The same thing happened at the despicable GOP Convention in San Diego in August, 1996 when the GOP Gangsters actually tried to prevent a Buchanan vote from being announced during the convention roll call. They didn't succeed, but they illegally denied hundreds of Buchanan votes from being announced on the floor. We published that story in 1996, and it will be on our website soon. Most important the reason VNS went home before the final tally was announced was to leave some loose ends in case they were caught red-handed in the vote-fraud by a voice loud enough to be heard, in which case they would feign confusion and backtrack.
Microcosm of how our election system has been compromised nationwide: In our e-wire of a few days ago, we promised to explain how it could be that a handful of mega-software companies could gain so much power over our voting system with no checks or balances. Senator Charles Grassley's, R-Iowa, remarkably candid letter tells us how that occurred.
Senator Charles Grassley stated in response to a letter from Mrs. Lois Pusateri of Dubuque, Iowa asking if Voter News Service was counting the vote, his letter is on file:
"To start with, let me explain the system. Seeking to ensure an honest reporting of voting information, since 1988, the Iowa Caucuses have operated under the system whereby the precinct gives its results to the county which, in turn, passes the information on to the official reporting outlet, the Voter News Service (VNS). All reports go directly from the county to VNS. The State Republican Party has no role in this reporting process and no independent verification of the votes. VNS is the first entity to get the results and then it reports them. I don,t know for certain why there was a discrepancy between what you saw reported and what the actual numbers were; but there is a significant lag time between the time the votes are cast and when the state party gets the final confirmed information from the county. This is why the final numbers aren't available for several weeks. I certainly understand your concern regarding voting fraud. It is, indeed, a very serious matter. But, under the system I described above, I believe a fair accounting of the Iowa Caucuses takes place. Please contact me again when you have questions or concerns on any matter."
By the way, the entire nation owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. and Mrs. Sam & Lois Pusateri of Dubuque, Iowa for gathering, preserving, and extracting information, such as the Grassley letter, and research on the Dubuque, Iowa vote-fraud. This investigation would have been ineffective without them. The response to Sen. Grassley by Mrs. Pusateri is on our website, in archives, in the vote-fraud section, and in the section about the 1996 GOP Primaries.
Also, the Dubuque story would not have been uncovered in such detail without the hawkeye observation and investigation of Tim Wozniak, at that time a student at Loras College in Iowa, who noticed in the midst of the Dubuque County caucuses that the county chairmen were calling their vote into Voter News Service. Doug Zeitz, and Chris Schaper, both Buchanan Brigaders who flew in from California for the last week of the Caucus, and amidst doing many other vital tasks, noticed as they were about to Board their plane back to California on the morning after the Caucus, that the results reported in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, via AP and Voter News Service, had shorted Buchanan in Dubuque County by a full 13% of his vote.
Now let's analyze Senator Grassley's letter in catechism form, Q & A, and from it extrapolate information which tells us how and why public officials all across the United States have abdicated their solemn responsibilities to the American Voter.
Q. Does Senator Grassley confirm that the GOP has turned its authority over the Iowa Caucus vote count to the exit polling arm of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and AP wire?
A. Yes, Senator Grassley confirms it. He calls VNS the official reporting outlet, and further tells us that it's been going on since at least 1988.
Q. Does Grassley tell us that the Democrat side of the Iowa Caucus, and the Republican side of the Iowa Caucus are entrusted to Voter News Service?
A. Yes, he seems to say that, as he does not restrict his comments to the Republican Iowa Caucus, but simply talks about the Iowa Caucus.
Q. Is Senator Grassley concerned that his party has turned the final tabulating process over to a New York City based private company, which we know, and he should know, is an arm of the Big TV networks?
A. Not at all. He states that he believes, "under the system I described above," that, "a fair accounting of the Iowa Caucuses takes place".
Q. Why does Senator Grassley say he believes this?
A. He doesn't say, and he is reproached for this glaring omission by Mrs. Lois Pusateri in a follow up letter, for she had asked him this question in her initial letter.
Q. Is Grassley concerned that the Iowa GOP has totally relinquished its responsibility in the vote count to VNS?
A. Not at all. He seems only to be concerned about making it clear that the GOP has no part whatsoever in the count. He says, "The State Republican Party has no role in this reporting process and no independent verification of the votes. VNS is the first entity to get the results and then it reports them".
Q. How does he address Mrs. Pusateri,s question as to why the final results have not been published even 3 months after the Caucus was over?
A. Incredibly, Grassley defends this absurdity on the part of the Iowa GOP and VNS by stating, "there is a significant lag time between the time the votes are cast and when the state party gets the final, confirmed information from the county. This is why the final numbers aren,t available for several weeks".
Q. But isn,t Grassley's letter dated June 6, 1996 a full fifteen weeks after the Iowa Caucuses?
A. Yes, it is. It doesn,t seem to cross Grassley's mind that the 99 GOP County Chairmen of Iowa can call in their final results to Voter News Service in 4 hours, but that these same 99 County Chairman can't get their results to the Iowa State GOP Headquarters in 4 months, now 4 years.
Q. Doesn,t Grassley address the question as to why the final results still hadn't been released at the time of his letter, or why the Dubuque total is still falsified, shorting Buchanan 13% of his vote?
A. No, he does not.
Q. Doesn,t Grassley express any concern about the situation?
A. Yes, he states that he understands Mrs. Pusateri's, "...concern regarding voting fraud. It is, indeed, a very serious matter".
Q. Is Senator Grassley talking like a moron?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. But is he talking any less absurdly and cravenly than election officials and elected officials across the United States of America?
A. No, he is not talking any less or any more absurdly than the others. They all sound alike when addressing the "vote-fraud vs. honest elections issue. He sounds like a bought and paid for company man who must stick to the party line if he wants to have a chance to remain where he is.
And the Grassley attitude is the exact same attitude we find exhibited by Board of Elections officials and Secretaries of State all over the country. The changes in the law after Watergate gave the major parties at the National level increased power over the state and local parties. By 1999-2000, all you have left are petty people and petty bureaucrat types in all those election related positions. We,d love to find some exceptions.
All the election officials we have experienced fit into one of three categories:
1. Ambitious climbers who want to prove to the party that they are loyal, and who wouldn,t think of rocking the boat no matter what was at stake.
2. Aging women who need the job.
3. Bureaucratic types who have never had a better job, and don't want to lose it for any reason.
By the late 1980's the computer revolution in elections that began about 1973 was almost complete. These individuals serving in election- related positions are by the late 80's told that such and so a company will provide the software and the know-how all they had to do is sign the results as true about a week after the election. Easy, Convenient, no fuss, no muss.
Item: In the 1999 Iowa Straw Poll, the county Board of Election Supervisor was running the count. After the press conference, which was held about 24 hours before Straw Poll, I asked the Elections Supervisor, "Who programmed the software that they used to count the votes?" She couldn,t say.
Pressed a second, and third, time, she said, "Someone in my office". Turning to a co-worker, she said something like, "Isn't Bob involved in that?" No full name for "Bob" was ever given... typical. That's the way all of them are. She was a nice lady... in way over her head.
When they do give a name, it usually means that that person loads the software onto their computers, which means absolutely nothing. Any honest programmer will tell you there are numerous ways to warp an election, and have the program hide what it did after voting hours are over. Honest programmers will tell you that no one can really read a computer program except the person who wrote it.
Item: Under oath, in Cincinnati, during our case against the Hamilton County Board of Elections in 1985, the Board of Elections admitted that no one locally could read the software used to count the election ballots. Computer expert Robert Strunk gave a massive expert opinion to the court on this matter. His opinion may be found on our website.
Item: In a mid 1980's case in West Virginia, State Representative Leo Underwood, a Protestant Pastor, found it odd that he had gotten exactly 11 votes in every precinct in an, "unsuccessful bid for the state Senate". He sued and finally got the local programmers to the stand. All took the fifth amendment. Since he knew them all, he later asked why. They told him that their lawyers told them they must, because since none of them could read the program provided by the national mega-software company, none of them could say for sure if there was fraud or not.
Item: Every judge in every part of the United States has blocked inspection of any computer program ever contested in court, which amounts to over a dozen cases. One of these cases, from Indiana, was covered on the Dan Rather CBS Evening News 5 minute report which appeared in early November, 1988. We have it on videotape.
Item: In 1996, Pat Buchanan's local chairman, Dan Giroux, went to Hamilton County election headquarters on Primary night and asked to see the vote being counted. "Can't," said Bruce Taylor, head of the BOE at that time. "Why," asked Giroux. "It might compromise ballot security," was the reply. Dan Giroux later told me he wondered, "Whose security?"
Item: On the Wednesday morning after the 1999 November Cincinnati City Council Election, the head of the local Democratic Party, Tim Burke, and the head of the local Republican Party, Mike Allen, appeared on the Jerry and Craig Morning Talk show on 55 WKRC radio.
I called in and asked them, on the air, with tens of thousands of people listening, if it were not true that, as heads of the Board of Elections as well as heads of the local major parties, they would sign a document stating that the election results announced the night before were true. They both agreed.
I then asked them, what is the name of the person who had programmed the computers to count the votes the night before. The Democratic Chairman Tim Burke said, I think it's so and so (forgot the name he provided). Bluffing, I snapped back: I think you,re wrong. Mr. Burke backed off admitting that he did not know.
Then the liberal host, Craig Kopp, said, "OK, Jim, who is it?" I responded that I had no idea, but that the heads of the two major parties who were about to sign the computer-generated results as true in their capacity as election officials, had just revealed before tens of thousands of Cincinnatians that they did not even know who wrote the program to generate the results they were going to sign as true.
Keep in mind that the system in use in 1999 is the same crooked system about which Judge Niehaus had ruled tha, "There is no safeguard against the computers being programmed to distort the election results in 1985!" A crooked Appeals Court had overturned his decision without comment in 1987.
Now, if you met either Tim Burke or Mike Allen, you would immediately recognize them as competent professionals. These guys are not stupid; nor are their backgrounds mysterious. Mike Allen went to Elder High School a few years after I went to St. Xavier High School, and Tim Burke graduated from the Latin/Greek Philosophy program at Xavier University a few years before me in the early 70s. But that's what's happened to our election system. The elite have formed a few computer companies and voting machine companies. It is so easy for those election officials now. So convenient for the voters. All we have to do is go home after work, turn on the TV, and watch the results just like microwaving a cup of coffee.
This is what is happening. This is the way in which election officials in over 3000 counties, and all 50 Secretaries of State in all 50 States have been tempted and/or coaxed and/or ordered into relinquishing their responsibilities, and betraying the trust of the American people.
Did I say all 50 Secretaries of State? Yes, for even in New Hampshire, 30% of the precincts now count the votes by computer with no provision for citizens checks or balances. That's 3 out of 10 people whose right to a fair election is not being protected even in New Hampshire.
So while you are watching the Iowa Caucus results this Monday Night, think about these things. And try to figure out how it is that the talking heads on the Big TV networks are curious about everything else, are allowed to talk about anything else, anything at all except how the vote is counted.
Jim Condit Jr. is the Director of Citizens for a Fair Vote Count
To contact him, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
Copyright ) 1999 Excel Studios Corporation. All rights reserved. Revised: January 24, 2000.
-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.
Watched the local fox affiliate news on iowa closely. Along this vein, the news showed Gore and announced he was the Demo. first place winner. Then it showed Bradley and announced he was second. Then it showed Bush and announced he was the Repub. first place winner. Then it showed Forbes and said he was second. Then it showed McCain and said KEYES CAME IN THIRD.
I am not a really big Keyes fan but I am beginning to be converted, on the sheer total effort of the network news "blackout" on Constitutional conservative candidates.
-- zygote (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 25, 2000.
A choice between a Bush and a Tree?
-- Mark Hillyard (email@example.com), January 25, 2000.
Guess that's why they call it a STUMP speech.
-- INever (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 25, 2000.
"We demand shrubbery" ;-)
-- Tim (email@example.com), January 25, 2000.