Close

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 215
  1. #31
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    I've been puzzling over a

    point related to this and hope some of you can shed some light on it. According to numerous articles I've read,

    minorities and young people registered and voted in droves this election. Normally, both groups tend to vote

    democratic. Just due to populations that should have been most noticable in large metropolitan areas but should have

    swung an equal percentage across the board. So, what happened? Did more of them vote republican than would be

    expected or did all their votes get lost in both rural and metro regions or did the influx of other voters outweigh

    them or were their votes really reflected in the outcome which would have been more heavily weighted towards Bush?



    I'm not offering opinions but find it difficult to explain.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #32
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    7990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Did more of them

    vote republican than would be expected or did all their votes get lost in both rural and metro regions or did the

    influx of other voters outweigh them or were their votes really reflected in the outcome which would have been more

    heavily weighted towards Bush?
    Probably all of the above, although I can't believe that more

    of them voted republican, what with all of the whining that was going on about how things

    sucked.

    Hoping your vote counts
    Obviously it didn't. Not for shit.
    If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen

    Holmes' Theme Song

  3. #33
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    Obviously it

    didn't. Not for shit.
    I'm not sure how obvious it is.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #34
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I've been puzzling

    over a point related to this and hope some of you can shed some light on it. According to numerous articles I've

    read, minorities and young people registered and voted in droves this election. Normally, both groups tend to vote

    democratic. Just due to populations that should have been most noticable in large metropolitan areas but should have

    swung an equal percentage across the board. So, what happened? Did more of them vote republican than would be

    expected or did all their votes get lost in both rural and metro regions or did the influx of other voters outweigh

    them or were their votes really reflected in the outcome which would have been more heavily weighted towards

    Bush?

    I'm not offering opinions but find it difficult to explain.

    There were an equal

    number of people over the age of 45 voting for the first time. So it didn't make a difference.

  5. #35
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    On the face of it, not

    as many young registered people voted as hoped, but young voters voted solidly democratic by 10 points or so. Again,

    on the face of it, Bush got a higher percentage of blacks, women and hispanics as compared to 2000, though

    still trailed with all three populations.

    But I'm not convinced we can conclude much from the resulting

    numbers in this election. The whole process needs to be independently audited to verify that the results matched

    what voters chose, and at least reformed for the next election. If it was "on the up and up", let the audit results

    show it. You can't have avowed, politically active partisans both running the elections and designing the

    "black boxes" that invisibly tally the votes, as it is today; much less without a paper trail. To put it mildly,

    therein is a historic disaster just (no longer?!!) waiting to happen. The many suspicious irregularities in the

    results of the election just completed underscores that. All our rights depend on our voting rights, and there is no

    democracy without legitimate voting.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-08-2004 at 02:16 AM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  6. #36
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Mr. Nader has begun to respond

    to the black box voting scandal:



    http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=4

    00


    Ralph may not be as compelling of a presidential candidate as he could be; but he has always been

    excellent at fighting the corporate abuse of America.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-08-2004 at 11:23 AM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  7. #37
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    I would welcome a non-partisan

    audit for a good many reasons. It was obvious long before the election that no matter which side won, the other

    would cry foul. Hopefully, Mr Nader will be able to sort out what really happened and do away with all the inuendo,

    though I suspect that whatever he says will be disbelieved by whichever party is on the losing end. There is reason

    to be concerned about his perspective too. Reading the site linked above, he is making several mistatements. If the

    computer code can be accessed, flaws and fraud can be detected in it. There's a whole field of programming

    specialty dedicated to just that. A court order allowing the inspection of the functioning code should not be that

    difficult to obtain and I'd imagine there are lawyers working on that right now.

    I agree that it is imperative

    to have a reliable and accurate voting system but I don't believe either major party is all that interested in it

    being so. My bet is that if they are able to fully audit the system, both sides will be shown to have cheated. If

    that is demonstrated, then what?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #38
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    I think that what Nader should

    have said is that finding the corrupt patch within a program with many thousands of lines of code would be

    exceedingly difficult, rather than impossible, even if you had the original code in pristine form. Disguising things

    is pretty easy these days. You could have a well hidden "bug" in the program that would only be detectible or active

    under certain rare conditions, and would serve as a portal for a malicious process to be called in from God knows

    where. Micrsoft is still dicovering bugs in Windows '98 for godssakes, and there is no reason that planned

    idiosyncracies would be much easier to detect, IMHO.

    Moreover, last night I talked to an experienced computer

    programmer that designs systems for the telecommunications industry about black box voting. He had tested fraudulent

    patches in complex telecommunications systems just to see how easy it would be. He said that any corruption would be

    possible to discover only if the criminal programmer made a mistake; such as leaving something on the hard drive, or

    leaving a hard copy somewhere. For example, you could easily program the voter-fraud patch to elimenate itself after

    completing its duty. Or if you know the system in question well you could most probably elimenate the specific

    evidence with a two minute cell phone call from anywhere in the world, five minutes after the patch had performed

    its dirty work.

    For now I believe it will be possible to confirm suspicions, and conclude shenanigans happened

    beyond a reasonable doubt. But nailing the offending network of felons will be next to impossible. For the record,

    I'd not be suprised at all if Rove was behind it.

    So to answer your question, I think it would be reasonable at

    least to hope for reforms to occur before the next round of elections in 2006, to prevent cheating from either side.

    Even that would require a lot of work between now and then.

    I know historically there has been evidence

    regarding both sides cheating (e.g., Kennedy, Chicago, 1960). Both sides have some dishonest people, of course. But

    thus far, I've seen evidence regarding only one side cheating in this election, and lots of it. Clearly, the

    Democrats have been the ones pushing for reform in the process, and the Republicans (e.g., Tom Delay) have resisted

    it. But no matter. I'd hope that anyone of any affiliation fucking with our election would be busted and

    prosecuted. That is one serious crime, amounting to treason in my book for higher degrees of interference.

    The

    best case scenario would be to just throw out the election results altogether and hold another one,

    minus the protracted campaign. The government takes our tax money and owes us a democracy. The American people have

    a right to a legitimate election. Give people two weeks to prepare for it. Then you just live with the results, win

    or lose.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  9. #39
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    The best

    case scenario
    would be to just throw out the election results altogether and hold another one, minus the

    protracted campaign. The government takes our tax money and owes us a democracy. The American people have a right to

    a legitimate election. Give people two weeks to prepare for it. Then you just live with the results, win or

    lose.
    Gee, Doc! Something we can agree on.

    I'd certainly go for it in a minute but would

    want to give them less time to prepare.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  10. #40
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    Since elections are controlled by 50

    different entities, I don't think the vunerablities in the system will go away for quite a while. There's never

    any accountability in goverment anyway, but that is partly because of the people.

  11. #41
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default More information on the chilling voter fraud scandal

    Several investigations are underway to determine why the results from

    electronic voting machines favor Bush above and beyond what exit polls and party registrations would predict.

    News reports on this issue are tracked here:

    www.democraticunderground.com. Among informal findings so far

    include:


    * Results indicated reversals of various historical, statistical

    election precedents or "laws", where: 1) incumbents never do better than their approval numbers; 2) undecideds

    always break for the challenger; 3)and the Harris polls are fundamentally successful predictors. All of these

    precedents were violated. This does not prove anything, of course, but they collectively add to the picture that is

    forming.


    * Kathy Dopp analyses indicate unexpectedly high results for Bush in counties

    with e-voting. For example in Holmes County 72.7% of voters registered Democrats. Only 21.3% registered Reps. Yet

    77% of the votes reported were for Bush. This mirror image result was typical. Franklin County and Holmes county

    were identical in this respect with the scarily precise mirror inverse nature of the results. You can check out

    these types of results in the smaller counties yourself, as well as performing your own analysis, via the links

    below. Compare for yourself the official Florida registration, with the Florida results. A caveat: Charles Smith,

    Chairman of the Democratic Party in Holmes County said that it does not surprise him that the majority of people in

    the county voted for Bush even though they registered Democratic because it is extremely right wing. The only reason

    they registered as Democratic is because until recently it was a "one party county" and folks had to register as

    Democrats if they wanted to vote in the primary. People are checking with other counties to see if they have a

    similar story. In 1996 Holmes county elected Dole over Clinton at 3248 votes to 2310. But they had 9698 registered

    Democrats and 854 registered Republicans.


    http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm



    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voterreg/pdf/2004/2004genParty.pdf



    http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

    * Result from paper ballots match

    closely with exit polls. But the results from the un-verifiable e-voting machines gave Bush a 5% boost.




    http://www.newstarget.com/002076.html



    * Greg Palast reports that an inordinate number of minority ballots were "spoiled". If taken

    into account Kerry would have won Ohio by 136,483 votes.


    * Franklin County's

    unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records

    show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. [AP, linked previously in this thread, at top of large post]

    Curiously, none of the 638 people who "generated" these 4258 votes cast votes for the county commissioner

    race. No votes for that race were recorded in Franklin county.


    * BlackBoxVoting

    reports various security breaches and other suspicious activity related to electronic voting machines on election

    day. The central tabulating nodes for the Diebold machines used Windows and an Excel-type spread sheet program,

    without any special security measures. Supposedly anyone could have hacked in.


    * A

    “bug” in Palm Beach voting machines causes tally to go backwards, as was mentioned before in this thread! Palm Beach

    county also logged 88,000 more votes than voters. That's an 88,000 vote swing for Bush!




    http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000715.html



    http://www.pal

    mbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html


    * And in

    North Carolina, a Craven County district logged 11,283 more votes than voters and actually overturned the results of

    a regional race.




    http://www.democra

    ticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2626456


    * Apparently the

    plan to recount has been accepted by the secretary of State in New Hampshire, according to a blackboxvoting

    associate. NH has a mixture of hand counted paper, ESS and Diebold, so will be good for multidimensional comparison.

    The Diebold votes were grossly out of sync with exit polls there.


    * Here

    are two other sites that call attention to the possible fraud and advocate change in the system:




    http://verifiedvoting.org

    http://www.counterbias.com/152.html

    * Here is a blog

    entry by Bev Harris suggesting ways we can take action:



    http://www.democra

    ticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2636130


    This is a grave

    problem for America and democracy regardless of your party affiliation! I hope everyone can realize this.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-08-2004 at 07:54 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  12. #42
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I've been

    puzzling over a point related to this and hope some of you can shed some light on it. According to numerous articles

    I've read, minorities and young people registered and voted in droves this election. Normally, both groups tend to

    vote democratic. Just due to populations that should have been most noticable in large metropolitan areas but should

    have swung an equal percentage across the board. So, what happened? Did more of them vote republican than would be

    expected or did all their votes get lost in both rural and metro regions or did the influx of other voters outweigh

    them or were their votes really reflected in the outcome which would have been more heavily weighted towards Bush?



    I'm not offering opinions but find it difficult to explain.
    It is interesting that, although a few to

    several million extra young people between 18-22 registered to vote; suggesting a passion for current events;

    results show no increase in counted votes for them as compared to 2000! Hmmm... How could that be??



    I saw one Democratic analyst (in Pancho's post elsewhere) get mad at young adults for this, telling them they

    "suck". Well, I'm not so sure they didn't do their best. I'm a bit disturbed that progressives are so quick to

    attack each other already.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  13. #43
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    The theory is, they just went to the

    social events where registration was taking place, whether it be concerts or college campus thingys.

    More

    young people did vote, as did middle aged people, so I don't think young people failed the country like some are

    making it out to be.

  14. #44
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bjf
    More young people

    did vote, as did middle aged people.
    Really, what numbers did you see?
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  15. #45
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    Thanks Doc. That washingtondispatch

    bit was especially interesting. (Greg Palast carries a lot of credibility with me.)

    Democracy Now had a nice

    piece on e-voting fraud in today's radio report.

    Here's couple of excerpts, which include and interview

    with Bev Harris who wrote "Black Box Voting" and is in the process of filing the nation's largest FOI request in

    history (best of luck to her):

    "Even though Kerry has stopped fighting for the presidency, serious questions

    abound about the use of electronic voting machines. Take this story: In a voting precinct in Ohio's Franklin

    County, records show that 638 people cast ballots. Yet, George W Bush got 4,258 votes to John Kerry's 260. In

    reality, Bush only received 365 votes. That means Bush got nearly 3,900 extra votes. And that's just in one small

    precinct. This in a state that Bush officially won by only 136,000 votes. Elections officials blamed electronic

    voting for the extra Bush votes.

    Meanwhile, a number of Congresspeople are asking the General Accounting

    Office to investigate electronic voting and the 2004 election and the nonprofit group Blackbox Voting has begun the

    process of filing the largest Freedom of Information Act request in history. "

    ...

    "AMY GOODMAN:

    There's been serious questions raised about New Mexico, but does it hurt trying to find out the ultimate counts

    that John Kerry and John Edwards so immediately conceded, despite the fact that Edwards had said as they promised

    during the campaigns, making references to Al Gore squelching protests four years ago, that they would make sure

    that the votes were counted?

    BEV HARRIS: Oh yes, they conceded very prematurely. As I was saying in Ohio,

    they don't even know if they won or lost in Ohio, really. They are basing this on, I think, a verbal okay from

    someone in the Secretary of State's office that said, that they were being assured there was only 150,000

    provisional ballots. Well I said, where is the source data on that? What auditing do they have on those? They

    couldn't tell me. You see, I don't understand how you would concede anyway without even beginning the canvassing,

    because with these voting machines, we don't have adequate auditing in place, but we have some. The full auditing

    we have does -- it does find some anomalies that are quite big and sometimes they flip elections. So, you know, why

    not just wait a couple of days. The other thing I'm seeing is that in some parts the media gave a huge push to

    hurry, hurry, hurry, certify. This was happening in New Mexico. They're saying -- they're putting tremendous

    pressure on Governor Bill Richardson to hurry and certify the election. Well why? You have x-number of days to

    certify the election. One would think you would want it to be right, and you’d think would you want to go through

    and you want to check out the information. And understand, a lot of this is already election procedures. We keep

    saying that election procedures are what really save us from the insecure and mysterious machines, and that the

    election procedures would catch anomalies. Understand, that they have not done the election procedures yet in most

    cases. They have chosen to go ahead and call elections without doing the very procedures that they say protect the

    system. "

    http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/08/1513252

    The whole show can be

    downloaded at:

    http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/08/1513234
    Give truth a chance.

  16. #46
    Phero Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,661
    Rep Power
    8013

    Default none

    there's also Bev's site,

    WWW.BlackBoxVoting.Org. Be careful as there's also the same name at .com. You can donate money and

    offer to help at her site if you are interested in free and fair elections.
    There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!

  17. #47
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    And Broward County Florida

    joins the fracas, with -- suprise! --- backwards vote counting. This time the other main "black box" manufacturer,

    ES&S Systems, was the culprit:



    http://www.pal

    mbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html


    I was looking for that

    story for a while, after hearing talk about it, and was glad to find it. Sorry about the high velocity of posting,

    but the news has been coming in fast and furious, and I'm willing to be faulted for overkill on this.



    November 5th, 2004 5:34 pm
    Software Flaw Found in Florida Vote Machines

    By Eliot Kleinberg /

    Palm

    Beach Post


    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — It had to happen. Things were just going too smoothly.



    Early Thursday, as Broward County elections officials wrapped up after a long day of canvassing votes, something

    unusual caught their eye. Tallies should go up as more votes are counted. That's simple math. But in some races,

    the numbers had gone ... down.

    It turns out the software used in Broward County can handle only 32,000 votes

    per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward. Why a voting system would ever be designed to vote

    backward was a mystery to Broward County Mayor Ilene Lieberman. It had her on the phone late Wednesday with

    Omaha-based Elections Systems and Software.

    Bad numbers showed up only in running tallies through the day, not

    the final one. Final tallies were reached by cross-checking machine totals and officials are confident they are

    accurate.

    The glitch affected only the 97,434 absentee ballots, Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda

    Snipes said. They were all placed in their own precinct and optical scanners totaled votes, which were then fed to a

    main computer. That's where the counting problems surfaced. They only affected votes for constitutional amendments

    4 through 8, because they were the only page that was exactly the same on all county absentee ballots.

    The same

    software is used in Martin and Miami-Dade counties; Palm Beach and St. Lucie counties use different companies.



    The problem cropped up in the 2002 election. Lieberman said that ES&S told her it sent the Florida Secretary of

    State's office software upgrades, but that office kept rejecting the software. The state says that's not true.

    Broward elections officials said they had thought the problem was fixed.

    Secretary of State spokeswoman Jenny

    Nash said all counties using this system had been told that such problems will occur if a precinct is set up in a

    way that would allow votes to get above 32,000. She said Broward County should have split the absentee ballots into

    four separate precincts to avoid that and that a Broward County elections employee has since admitted to not doing

    that. But Lieberman said later, "No election employee has come to the canvassing board and made the statements that

    Jenny Nash said occurred."

    Late Thursday, ES&S issued a statement reiterating it learned of the problems in

    2002 and said the software upgrades will be submitted to Hood's office next year. It said it was working with the

    counties it serves to make sure ballots don't exceed capacity again and said no other counties reported similar

    problems.

    "While the county bears the ultimate responsibility for programming the ballot and structuring the

    precincts, we ... regret any confusion the discrepancy in early vote totals has caused," the statement said.



    After several calls to the company during the day were not returned, an ES&S spokeswoman said late Thursday she

    did not know whether ES&S contacted the Florida Secretary of State two years ago or whether the software is designed

    to count backwards.

    While the problem surfaced two years ago, it was under a different Broward elections

    supervisor and a different secretary of state. Snipes said she had not known about the 2002 snafu.

    Later,

    Lieberman said, "I am not passing judgments and I'm not pointing a finger." But she said that if ES&S is found to

    be at fault, actions might include penalizing ES&S or even defaulting on its contract.

    "I want to fix this

    before the 2006 election," she said.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-08-2004 at 11:08 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  18. #48
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    Really, what

    numbers did you see?
    I can't remember, it was millions more, a 20 increase or something. Like I

    said on another thread though, their were a record number of people voting over 45.


    As an indirect

    result, that young people's vote made up the same percentage of all votes as in the 2004 election.

  19. #49
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Note Florida's

    Columbia, Calhoun and DeSoto counties were also potentially problematic: (Mid page link shows bar graphs for

    them)


    November 6th, 2004 6:53 pm
    Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

    by Thom

    Hartmann / Common Dreams



    When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S.

    House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has

    evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this

    year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush

    would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who

    Jeb beat.

    "It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

    And evidence is accumulating that the

    national effort happened on November 2, 2004.

    The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county

    record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the

    official state information into a table, available at

    [url="http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm"]http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm[

    /url], and noticed something startling.

    While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to

    produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios matched the Kerry/Bush vote, and so did the

    optically-scanned paper ballots in the larger counties, in Florida's smaller counties the results from the

    optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - seem to have been

    reversed.

    In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of

    them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else

    in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

    In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered

    voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but

    4,433 voted for Bush.

    The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was

    probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats,

    went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

    Yet in the larger

    counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats

    equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

    More visual analysis of the results can be seen at

    http://ustogether.org/election04/Florida

    DataStats.htm
    , and

    www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm

    .

    And, although elections officials didn't notice these anomalies, in aggregate they were enough

    to swing Florida from Kerry to Bush. If you simply go through the analysis of these counties and reverse the

    "anomalous" numbers in those counties that appear to have been hacked, suddenly the Florida election results

    resemble the Florida exit poll results: Kerry won, and won big.

    Those exit poll results have been a problem for

    reporters ever since Election Day.

    Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the

    radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press

    Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to

    inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the

    news stoically," noted the AP report.

    But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal

    states.

    Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.

    Dick Morris, the

    infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular,

    wrote an article for The Hill, the

    publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.



    "Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey

    research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by

    substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."



    He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico,

    Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West

    Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."

    Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear

    Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for

    Bush.

    How could this happen?

    On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard

    Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started

    www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev

    pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small

    towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper

    ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that

    simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.



    That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.

    "In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on

    national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as

    in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one

    machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting

    machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all

    of them at once?"

    Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the

    central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."

    "So," Dean said,

    "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"

    Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out

    how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central

    tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that

    was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.

    Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the

    results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the

    PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had

    1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.

    "Of course, you can't tamper with

    this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.

    But, it's running on a Windows PC.

    So

    Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My

    Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris

    noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file

    in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program

    like Excel.

    In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800

    votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.

    "Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers

    from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger."

    They closed the

    database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're

    checking on the progress of your election."

    As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said,

    "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the

    winner, was now the loser.

    Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and

    it took us 90 seconds."

    On live national television. (You can see the clip on

    www.votergate.tv)

    Which brings us back to Morris

    and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.



    Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not

    bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the

    networks didn't do that, and had never intended to. It makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they

    weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.

    And not only for the presidential candidate

    - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the

    most-hacked swing states.

    So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith

    Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine

    irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now

    going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.

    But I agree with

    Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his

    final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election

    night. I suspect foul play."
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-08-2004 at 11:14 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  20. #50
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  21. #51
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    ...And this, from

    Jacksonville, NC. Note that early votes, which tended to be for Kerry, were the ones lost; and that the fault lay

    with the e-voting company, one I'm not familiar with; which gave incorrect information on storage limits (Lord

    knows why you'd not have enough storage if you knew the population ahead of time!):

    ***
    November

    5th, 2004 5:27 pm

    Computer Loses More Than 4,000 Early Votes




    Associated Press



    Jacksonville, N.C. -- More than 4,500 Carteret County votes have been lost because officials believed a computer

    that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did.

    Scattered other problems may change

    results in local races around the state.

    Carteret officials said UniLect Corp., the maker of the county's

    electronic voting system, said each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes.



    When they tried to store more than 7,500 early votes in the unit, some 4,530 were lost.

    Jack Gerbel,

    president and owner of Dublin-Calif.-based UniLect, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the county's

    elections board was given incorrect information.

    There is no way to retrieve the missing data, he said.



    "That is the situation and it's definitely terrible," he said.

    In a letter to county officials, he blamed

    the mistake on confusion over which model of the voting machines were in use in Carteret County.

    But he also

    noted that the machines flash a warning message when there is no more room for storing ballots.

    "Evidently,

    this message was either ignored or overlooked," he wrote.

    County election officials were meeting with State

    Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett and other state elections officials on Thursday and did not

    immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

    Expecting the greater capacity, the county only used one

    unit during the early voting period.

    "If we had known, we would have had the units to handle the votes," said

    Sue Verdon, secretary of the county election board.

    The loss of the votes didn't appear to change the outcome

    of the county races, but that wasn't the issue for Alecia Williams of Beaufort, who voted on one of the final days

    of the early voting period.

    "The point is not whether the votes would have changed things, it's that they

    didn't get counted at all," Williams said.

    Two statewide races remained undecided Thursday.

    The

    candidates for superintendent of public instruction are divided by about 6,700 votes out of 3.2 million cast.



    Candidates for agriculture commissioner are separated by just hundreds of votes, according to unofficial figures.



    The state deadline for official totals is Tuesday.

    Still, it would be hard to say what affect those races

    might feel from changes in individual counties.

    The deputy director of the State Board of Elections, Johnnie

    McLean, said Thursday that the state still must tally 73,118 provisional ballots, plus those from four counties that

    have not yet submitted their provisionals.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  22. #52
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    A couple things in the

    preceeding articles bothered me and I am going to play devil's advocate. The were talking about the GEM program and

    demonstrating that the database could be opened with Excel. First, Excel is not a database prgram, it is a

    spreadsheet and is such is two dimensional where a database is three. In the case of having no security, some

    database tables might be opened in excel but you will only see one aspect of it not the true 3D file. Changes in a

    single table of a database could potentially corrupt the entire database making the changes obvious. Even the most

    rudimentory security would inhibit even that. I have to ask then, which was hacked, the database or the GEM program

    used on the televised demonstration?

    A database can be pretty bulky but it seems strange that so few votes could

    be tallied on a single machine. That implies a lot of stored data per vote. If it was a flat file as implied

    regarding the GEM machine, you could store all the votes in a couple megabytes. A more complex database, even

    something as simple as MySQL which is commonly used for Internet transactions, would take up more space but would

    not be as easily tampered with.

    It is mentioned that the computers upload their data to a central machine. Any

    computer is subject to hacking but I'd hope that some basic precautions were taken. For instance, who had physical

    access to the tabulation computer? Was the OS secured through use of passwords? How was the data transferred: direct

    dial up, VPN? What type of encryption was used, if any?

    If there is a real concern that data was modified on

    the tabulation computer, why haven't they gone back to the voting machines and re-tabulated the results? There is

    no reason to assume that data has been lost. Fraud would be easy to detect through a relatively simple process.



    I am sceptical of both sides of this debate and would like to see some real answers. But I doubt a final version

    will ever come out. Rather I expect there will be several conflicting versions argued over for years and the only

    people who will be sure are the ones who decided what the 'Truth' was before the election.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  23. #53
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    The question is...if there's

    evidence of foul play, what happens? After all, the electoral college doesn't formally vote until December. In

    addition, the election isn't set in stone yet as much as the world would like to think (remember in the 1800's

    that it took forever to count votes, etc...not 4 hours). Of course, everyone would flip out if the election turned

    out to be rigged and it probably wouldn't get Bush out of office, anyway. I noticed that most people are focusing

    on fixing the system and not just trying to redo the election. That's a good way to look at it because I don't

    think you can overturn the election despite the fact that technically it hasn't happened yet and nothing is

    "guaranteed"...I find it funny that if people don't know who's president by the end of Nov. 2, they get mad. They

    should really just not publically announce the results of an election until when the electoral college meets in Dec.

    Then every state would have a whole month to guarantee accuracy. "Sh--- pipe dreams," as 'Red' would say...

  24. #54
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Here is some more analysis of

    the Florida results and disparities from another prominent and topical website.



    http://www.truthisbetter.org/Florida_Election.htm



    http://www.ustoget

    her.org/database/ObjSubPg.php?info_category=all&topic=elections_vot ing
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  25. #55
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    That is interesting. It seems to indicate that there is a greater likelhod that something

    is flakey on the optiscan machines rather than the black box. To tell the truth, I'm not really surprised.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  26. #56
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    A couple

    things in the preceeding articles bothered me and I am going to play devil's advocate. The were talking about the

    GEM program and demonstrating that the database could be opened with Excel. First, Excel is not a database prgram,

    it is a spreadsheet and is such is two dimensional where a database is three. In the case of having no security,

    some database tables might be opened in excel but you will only see one aspect of it not the true 3D file. Changes

    in a single table of a database could potentially corrupt the entire database making the changes obvious. Even the

    most rudimentory security would inhibit even that. I have to ask then, which was hacked, the database or the GEM

    program used on the televised demonstration?

    A database can be pretty bulky but it seems strange that so few

    votes could be tallied on a single machine. That implies a lot of stored data per vote. If it was a flat file as

    implied regarding the GEM machine, you could store all the votes in a couple megabytes. A more complex database,

    even something as simple as MySQL which is commonly used for Internet transactions, would take up more space but

    would not be as easily tampered with.

    It is mentioned that the computers upload their data to a central machine.

    Any computer is subject to hacking but I'd hope that some basic precautions were taken. For instance, who had

    physical access to the tabulation computer? Was the OS secured through use of passwords? How was the data

    transferred: direct dial up, VPN? What type of encryption was used, if any?

    If there is a real concern that

    data was modified on the tabulation computer, why haven't they gone back to the voting machines and re-tabulated

    the results? There is no reason to assume that data has been lost. Fraud would be easy to detect through a

    relatively simple process.

    I am sceptical of both sides of this debate and would like to see some real answers.

    But I doubt a final version will ever come out. Rather I expect there will be several conflicting versions argued

    over for years and the only people who will be sure are the ones who decided what the 'Truth' was before the

    election.
    * You're right to be skeptical, and examine this data. I appreciate that. Were you reading the Bev

    Harris article? The person I heard talk about "Excel" said it was "Excel-type", but not necessarily not literally

    Excel. It probably is a database program. I'm not a computer expert (I thought you could open databases with Excel)

    and neither are many of the people talking about this. Experts are being brought in, however, and some are able to

    talk professionally about that part of it. I have just heard consistently that security was woefully inadequate, but

    we are correct to ask exactly what it was. I know that Bev Harris hacked into GEMS quite easily on Diebold's

    website.

    * Your idea that the fraud would be easy to detect is interesting. What makes you think it would be so

    easy, with all the ways people have of covering their tracks, and my other post about it?

    * Within the next week

    I think we will indeed see some successful movement toward recounting, though I don't have enough training to tell

    whether it will be meaningful. Several states have been approached, and I have heard some optimism from

    blackboxvoting people. Maybe you need a subpoena to get the boxes. I don't know the legal aspects. But I wouldn't

    count on Republican election leadership (e.g., in Ohio, Florida) or Republican e-voting corporations to cooperate

    without being required to.

    * I don't know any answers myself yet, obviously. I am refraining from "scientific

    or judicial conclusions" on this data, and am identifying my intuitions as such so far. I'm suspicious about the

    election results. Other than the pile of accumulating data about this election in the foreground, I am biased by the

    historical background of administration deceit and their consistent pattern of corruption involving elections. The

    last presidential election was that way, as were Bush's victories over McCain and Anne Richards. Biases can be

    reasonable or unreasonable, and that is a reasonable bias. Go see Bush's Brain, the documentary on Karl

    Rove, for more information on this, or pick up the book with the same name. Dirty elections are boring old hat, and

    are just presumed with Rove.

    You too have presuppositions -- correct me if I'm wrong, but one is

    apparently something like -- "both sides of any political conflict or position are equally and predominantly

    wrong; and always will be able to be reduced to mere, mutually conflicting, unreasonable opinions" (from your

    history). And your "devil's advocate character" is apparently imposing this "cynical" presupposition on this

    data, as well as the "years later" future of it, based on a very few things that "bother him" or don't make sense

    yet. Not that it's a big deal. Devil's advocates are usually valuable. But it's early. Things aren't expected

    to make sense or be clear yet, and needn't be bothersome in that way. This is the question forming and

    info-gathering stage, and I urge everyone to avoid making premature conclusions that match their own

    presuppositions. I will humbly try to do the same. My goal is to get the preliminary information out right now, and

    to advocate for investigation. Later it will be to draw conclusions. It's unnecessary to do so now anyway.

    I do

    know that scandals of this grand of stature are hard to pin on anybody. A realistic goal is election reform that

    would benefit the American people regardless of their leanings. That is reason enough to pursue this tenaciously. It

    remains to be seen for now whether throwing out the election results and having another go at it will be a

    reasonable goal.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-09-2004 at 02:07 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  27. #57
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    It seems to

    indicate that there is a greater likelhod that something is flakey on the optiscan machines rather than the black

    box.
    I think the analysis there was not so much what you are saying, but was that the more

    scrutinized
    black boxes from high profile areas weren't so problematic, while the less scrutinized ones were;

    (implying a certain sneakiness), but that the optiscans were also problematic. But I'll look at it more

    thoroughly.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  28. #58
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Here is a site for "elections

    forensics" people who are being enlisted to help. They would be most likely to have their shit together about the

    technical aspects:

    http://www.eff.org/
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  29. #59
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    If they find the possibility

    of a scandal, are they actually going to do anything about it (redo the election, etc.)?

  30. #60
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default An e-mail I got today with some new links and opportunities for action:

    by

    Susan Truitt, Co-founder, CASE Ohio, Citizens' Alliance for Secure

    Elections
    From:

    ILCAoNline

    Saturday, November 06, 2004


    Thank you all for your supportive responses to the

    allegations of
    election fraud in the 2004 presidential election. Here are some concrete
    actions that you

    can take that will make a difference.

    Please keep your indignation alive and use that energy to raise

    the
    issue publicly until the mass media can use the "F" word - fraud.

    Please keep the energy

    going to help educate the public regarding the
    devastating truth that our electoral process is broken and

    is being
    taken over by right wing zealots and privatization.

    Send financial donations to: Black Box

    Voting, Bev Harris' site. She is
    doing a world of good with her tenacious and brave work. She sent

    out
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to every county in the
    country, and that type of effort requires

    funds. Read Black Box Voting,
    by Bev Harris, available on the web, to arm yourself with the sad facts
    of a broken

    electoral process.

    http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    Also,

    send donations to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The
    Electronic Frontier Foundation has been

    instrumental in all litigation
    across the country relating to e-voting (electronic

    voting).
    http://www.eff.org

    Send donations to

    VerifiedVoting < http://www.verifiedvoting.org

    >and
    VotersUnite <

    http://www.votersunite.org > and BallotIntegrity

    <
    http://www.ballotintegrity.org >. These

    organizations have done a lion's
    share of getting the word out about what is wrong in this country's
    electoral

    process.

    Contact TrueMajority <

    http://www.TrueMajority.org > and MoveOn

    <
    http://www.moveon.org > and CommonCause <

    http://www.commoncause.org >
    and tell them to help

    pursue a post-election challenge to the vote
    tallies. Donate money to these organizations.

    Write to

    your local newspapers to inform the public at large what is
    going on. Tell them to cover the election

    debacle and tell them to use
    the "F" word liberally.

    FAX Ralph Nader, 202-265-0092, and tell him to

    file for recounts and
    reexaminations of the tally in the states in which he was on the ballot.



    Write to John Conyers (D - Mich), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary
    Committee on the

    Constitution, who has requested a Congressional Hearing
    on the 2004 election. Tell him you support the request and

    that you want
    him to push for the hearing to be held as soon as possible.

    Contact Information for John

    Conyers:


    * Washington DC E-Mail Address:

    john.conyers@mail.house.gov
    * Washington DC Web

    Address: http://www.house.gov/conyers;
    *

    Washington DC Web Mail

    Address:
    [color=#0000ff]http://www.house.gov/conyers/letstalk.htm[

    /color]
    ;
    * Washington DC Web Mail Address:

    http://www.house.gov/writerep;



    Washington DC Address
    2426 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515-2214
    Phone:

    202-225-5126
    Fax: 202-225-0072

    District Address - Detroit
    Federal Building, Room 669
    231

    West Lafayette Boulevard
    Detroit, MI 48226-2766
    Phone: 313-961-5670
    Fax: 313-226-2085

    District

    Address - Southgate
    DCC Building
    15100 Northline Road, Suite 257
    Southgate, MI 48195
    Phone:

    734-285-5624
    Fax: 734-285-5943

    Campaign Address
    19512 Livernoise
    Detroit, MI 48221
    Phone:

    313-864-3671

    Write to George Soros and ask him to help fund litigation in Ohio and
    Florida to

    challenge the vote tallies.

    c/o Open Society Institute--New York
    888 7th Avenue
    New York,

    N.Y. 10106
    United States of America
    Telephone: +1-212-757-2323
    Fax: +1-212-974-0367
    E-mail:

    osnews@sorosny.org
    Web:

    http://www.soros.org/gsbio.html;



    Write to the DNC and ask why Senator Kerry capitulated so quickly -
    before the information on

    the vote tallies was even beginning to come
    in. Tell them that Senator Kerry needs to take back his

    concession.
    Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capitol St SE, Washington, DC
    20003. Their phone number is

    202-863-8000. Their web-site is:
    www.democrats.org.



    Contact the Kerry campaign and tell them that he has done a great
    disservice to the American

    people by capitulating so quickly - before
    information could be gathered. Tell him to reconsider in light of

    all
    that is coming to the surface.

    Contact National Headquarters
    Kerry-Edwards 2004,

    Inc.
    P.O. Box 34640
    Washington, DC 20043
    202-712-3000
    202-712-3001 (fax)
    202-336-6950 (TTY)

    Stay in

    touch with CASE_OH@yahoogroups.com and CaseOhio

    .<
    http://www.caseohio.org >
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. VOTE FOR THE BEST PHEROMONES.
    By johnngo19 in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-04-2003, 01:44 PM
  2. Poll - vote for the best cologne!
    By ToBeOrNotToBe in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-06-2003, 06:48 PM
  3. What should my next -mone be? POLL, VOTE BASTARDS
    By pelotudo in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-15-2003, 12:59 PM
  4. VOTE YOUR FAVORATE PHEROMONES.
    By johnngo19 in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 05-09-2003, 07:39 PM
  5. Vote for the best sexual hits
    By **DONOTDELETE** in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2002, 12:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •