[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