[Homestead] second stolen election :
Toni Hawryluk
tonihawr at msn.com
Tue Nov 23 17:44:23 EST 2004
Gene asked :
>Toni, the question remains (unaswered, too). What would the election
>results have to be for Bush to win but it not be stolen? So far it sounds
>like you're saying that if Bush wins, then de facto the election is stolen.
>
> For those who wish to pursue this thread, go to:
> http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/index.html<http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/index.html>
After having read through a few links, this one caught me :
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112204A.shtml<http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112204A.shtml>
"statistical study - the
sole method
available
to monitor the accuracy of
e-voting" .......
There are enough "whoa - heads up" to go 'round -
in every aspect of the voting process leading
up the actual voting - *and* in the counting - *and*
in the follow-ups showing "discrepancy" after
"discrepancy" - add them all together and you
have a mish-mash that a raft of 'Solomons' might
not unravel. And then there's the plain ole gut
feeling that says it got away with it once, has had
four years to put other 'systems' in place, and *has*
including paying for those systems to work in
its favor. As in the link and excerpt above - even
if the 'accuracy' of the vote is supported, who
knows how much money it may have taken to
*buy* that support ? There is so much hiding
and lying that has gone on for so long how can
anybody *not* doubt ?!?
More information about the Homestead
mailing list