Topic: Ron Paul
Are you really supporting Ron Paul? Yes, there are more Ron Paul signs than street signs. Yes, the $20 million fourth quarter was quite impressive, but what if this entire effort does not secure a Republican nomination for Dr. Paul?by A.J. Antimony
(Libertarian)
Saturday, January 12, 2008
To each Ron Paul supporter across the United States and across the world, are you really supporting your Presidential candidate?
Yes, there are more Ron Paul signs than street signs. Yes, the $20 million fourth quarter was quite impressive, but what if this entire effort does not secure a Republican nomination for Dr. Paul?
Optimists, as they do better than anyone else, answer questions like this with surprising inspiration. "It's the message that counts," they say. "The message will never die," they say. "More and more people are waking up," they say.
These generalizations are certainly good messages and it is true that the message counts, will not die, and more people are becoming aware of problems in Washington. But will a Libertarian such as Ron Paul ever be elected to the Presidency?
Optimists say yes, but other people say no. Some people enjoy pointing out his low poll numbers. Some people claim men like Dr. Paul are "unelectable." Some people however, think there is only one reason why candidates like Paul will never win an election:
Voting machines.
Was I the only one who wondered how it was possible that CNN could project the New Hampshire winner when only 12% of the precincts had reported? Was I the only one who noticed that the election results were virtually the same all night give or take a percentage or two? Strangely, I remember the numbers very well. At 12%, CNN reported John McCain with 37%, Mitt Romney at 28%, Mike Huckabee at 14%, Rudy Guiliani at 9% and Ron Paul at 8%. I watched all night and the numbers didn't change really at all. As the reported precincts hit 80%, I was astonished how similar the results were to the 12% report: McCain 37%, Romney 31%, Huckabee 11%, Rudy 9%, Paul 8% (forgive me if I'm wrong by a percentage point or something). Now, I'm not dismissing that there may be a mathematical way of explaining these numbers, and there probably is, but in either case I began to think. And after doing some research the past few days by reading articles and seeing movies on the subject, I've come to a conclusion:
It's not a conspiracy theory anymore, folks. Voting fraud is real. It's been real for some time now. It has been used to provide controversial results to many close elections, especially the main event fights in 2000 and 2004. It's so real that it has been the subject of an HBO movie. It's so real, you can find articles about it in the New York Times. The fraud, which comes in the form of electronic voting, is being battled once more because it's again time to select the next President of the United States. The most recent story comes straight out of New Hampshire, home of the first primary election.
Not even one week after polls closed, major efforts are being made to address some major concerns regarding the integrity of the final results in New Hampshire's primary. The piece of news that has been getting the most publicity is the recount of New Hampshire votes urged by Democratic hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. He claims that there are "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" regarding the reliability of the reported vote totals.
A piece of news that has not received much publicity is that in Sutton, New Hampshire, Congressman Paul was reported as receiving 0 votes. As Devvy Kidd from newswithviews.com points out, this number appeared on prominent web sites such as politico.com. It was not until the following day that Sutton confirmed that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes. They claimed it was simple human error. Kidd's article also points out other oddities on election night seen from Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org, the leading activist in the fight against crooked voting machines. She points out how in some precincts, results were not reported until four hours after the polls had closed. She points out how one would expect that these votes were the ones being hand counted. Not the case. She says most of those precincts were using Diebold voting machines. Harris goes on to suggest "How the heck can you not push "print" for four hours???" This is certainly a valid point since voting computers are theoretically used to, you know, make the whole process faster.
So how does all of this specifically pertain to Ron Paul supporters? The purpose of bombarding you with credible sources claiming vote fraud is to propose to you the possibility that no matter how many Ron Paul signs you put up, no matter how much money Ron Paul receives via donations, and no matter how truly popular the guy is, it is entirely plausible that your votes will not win an election for Dr. Ron Paul.
That means all of your marching, sign holding, door knocking, fund raising, blimp riding, Fox boycotting, stock stomping, email writing, poll winning, breathtaking efforts could be all for nothing.
You're not campaigning for Ron Paul in 2012, you're not campaigning for the hell of it, and you're not campaigning for a man you're sure will not win.
You are campaigning for Ron Paul to win the Presidency in 2008. You have the signs and you have the money, now finish your obligation and make sure Ron Paul's votes are counted properly. Having faith in democracy is no longer an option.
That is, if you honestly want Ron Paul to win.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 220 thumbs so far
2008 A.J. Antimony, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, January 12, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, January 12, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of A.J. Antimony only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. A.J. Antimony is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-01-12 13:51:46
I agree with your overall message, although it's only fair to point out that the major networks use exit polls to make their determination about who the likely winners are. If the vote is particularly close, then they look for voting patterns in certain towns and counties.
Fair enough, but focussing on the possibility of fraud can't be used as an excuse for failures... in the end if we won by 3000 votes, fraud would be more difficult... we must try harder, we must win with more efficient tactics and we will succeed if we try to do better.
Posted By: Scott McDonnell
Date: 2008-01-12 14:13:50
I think the problem is that this issue gets absolutely no attention and gets nowhere except DURING an election. It needs to be fought outside of elections so we can take away the "sore loser" excuse for dismissing it.
If they are prepared for a rigged recount as they were in Ohio, then the results will not change and it is political suicide for the candidate that asked for it. Thankfully in NH, two candidates chose to be martyrs for this cause. If the recount is done fairly and they are proven right, It will likely help their campaigns. If they are either wrong or there is fraud in the recount, then their campaigns are likely over.
So, then what happens in the next state that they do it? And the next?
Why doesn't this get any attention when there AREN'T candidate's campaigns hinging on it?
Let's keep this fight going hard even after the general election. Something absolutely MUST be done about it. Period. There can be no excuses. There is NOTHING more important than a fair count of your vote. You can't just be sore about this only when you think YOUR candidate is getting shafted. We must put as much energy into this as we do campaigning for our candidate.
I would probably move out of the country if Giuliani is elected, but if that is who the people vote for, then their vote needs to be protected to. We get the government we deserve and if we just don't care all that much, well look at what we get!
We must thank Dennis Kuchinch and Albert Howard for standing up for all of us and calling for a recount. I also noticed that there were a lot of strange things about the NH primary. First, how could the "news" networks possibly “call it” for John “100 years in Iraq” McCain, only 17 minutes after the polls closed, and with only 12%(?) of the precincts reported? Wouldn't it be nice if they would actually count the votes before they tell us who won? Why did the percentages of the Republican candidates Huckabee, Guiliani, Ron Paul, and Thompson stay exactly the same all night? This made no sense to me.
Then, the day after the election, a family from Sutton NH, all of whom had voted for Ron Paul, noticed that their town had reported 0 total votes for Dr. Paul. They posted this on a Ron Paul website, and immediately Bev Harris of Black Box Voting (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/) got involved, called the head clerk in Sutton, and they just happened to magically “discover” that they actually had 31 votes for Dr. Paul, not 0. The Sutton, NH official, Jennifer Call, blamed this on “human error.”
The problem with that excuse is that the election officials have to complete a reconciliation sheet after all the votes are counted, and the total has to add up to the total votes that were cast. So in order to reconcile properly, Dr. Paul’s 31 votes (if that's really how many he got...coincidentally it is 8% of the total for that town, the same percentage he allegedly got statewide) must have been allocated to another candidate. It was later discovered that the same thing happened, again to Dr. Paul, in a town called Greenville. They reported 0 votes, and after the Sutton discrepancy was publicized, they suddenly revised the 0 to 25. More “human error” I suppose…
Also, the convicted felon who was allegedly in charge of the diebold machines, was apparently running around with extra memory cards for the machines, which could have been swapped out during the election.
Something was definitely rotten in Denmark, there’s no doubt in my mind about that. My only concern is that it will just as rotten the second time around. They may have anticipated a recount, and substituted ballots, which could explain why some of the Diebold counties/towns took many hours to report their results. Basically, this whole mess stinks to high heavens. Now it appears that New Hampshire may try to shut down the recount by making it prohibitively expensive. Could it be because perhaps they have something to hide??? We should all be prepared to chip in to cover the cost of this, because it must be done!
Regardless of the possibility that it may also be rigged, a recount is essential! If nothing else, this should put all the other states on notice, that we are watching, we will in fact be watching much more intently, and that we will not tolerate “human error” or any other shenanigans. If our elections are rigged, then we already live in a fascist country, and all is lost. If the recount does show that fraud was involved, then we will need to demand that all votes be cast on paper ballots, which are hand-counted in public.
This recount is of historic importance for the entire country. This election will determine the future of this country, and of the world, as we are at a critical tipping point. I believe Dr. Paul is the only candidate who can lead us out of the fiasco we are in as a country, and he is being marginalized and ridiculed by the corporate media, and perhaps even having the elections rigged against him, because he is for the American people, ending the wars, restoring the Constitution and civil liberties, and greatly reducing the size and power of the federal government. Hopefully we will have the truth in the very near future.
I’d like to see Dr. Paul’s campaign office recommend (demand) that some if not all of the remaining debatesask several key questions to each candidate so voters can hear and make a true "fair and balanced" evaluation of the candidates.
All of the candidates would either have headphones or be in a sound proof booth to prevent them from hearing the others responses (to prevent anyone from just agreeing with another candidate’s comments and then adding some tidbit commentary).This prevent any candidate from having the advantage of having “more time” to think of better response. If this could be done, I believe we'll see Dr. Paul's poll ratings start to climb.
Though I believe that he is the candidate proposing "the most change" from either party, I believe most voters are scared of "too much change". I believe his campaign managers need to communicate to voters that everything that he'd like to accomplish would still need to be approved by Congress. If the country isn't ready to implement some of his proposals, they won't be enacted into law or will simply be voted down by Congress.
His campaign managers should also focus on two key issues: the economy (get some expert opinion from respected economists on the recession and possiblility of a depression) and the war. One Strategy for tying the two issues together is:
Creating jobs.Over 80% of all jobs are created by small businesses. The money that US soldiers pump into the local economies in foreign countries could be helping US businesses if they were stationed in the US. I’m sure we’re talking about billions of dollars (you’d have to get the exact figures). Note that this alone will not get us out of a recession/depression but it's a start.Years ago many US bases were closed down or partially closed down due to budget cuts. These cuts affected the local economy of many cities throughout the US (e.g., Fort Devens, Ft. Dix). The gradual withdrawal from foreign bases and bringing back the troops to the aforementioned closed bases would create new businesses and stimulate new job creations in those local economies.
Stopping the occupation of other countries and respecting their sovereignty will help our own economy (as a direct result of bringing back our troops). Voters need to know that the US will isolate itself from the rest of the world and will respond to the request for help from a foreign country if it is a just cause and that Congress supports the intervention.
Posted By: charles ranalli
Date: 2008-01-12 18:48:34
right on the money.
Ron Paul needs an organized system whereby all people who vote for him will testify as such via notarized affidavits mailed to a central location - and used as a legal weapon. this is the only way to successfully challenge the results of black-box computer voting.
Thanks for the responses everyone. Not too bad for a first post, eh?
The only thing that worries me about this recount is that the problem could be in the software, where all the recounting and hardware checks will not spot a problem in the invisible programming in the memory cards.
I'm wondering, if the situation arose, could the state of New Hampshire simply vote again?
They use paper ballots that can be re counted by hand in NH. I would trust that much more than the machines which have been proven to be hackable.
Wake Up America
Time to take back the government never forget We the People.
If you support Ron Paul now is the time to call ALL the people you know personally and talk to them about Ron Paul. Educate the masses because the media never will.
Here's a thought for a more tamper proof system. We should have people turn in a paper ballot and a coin ballot. They make very accurate coin counters that are used at banks and I'll bet they are a lot more tamper proof. Someone should model a voting machine after these money machines. We could have voting tokens of different sizes to represent each of the candidates and make them available in the booths. Rig it so only one token is accepted per voter and have them all tumble into a slotted vault that would stay locked until the paper ballot totals were reported. Certainly voters could be anarchists or make a mistake and vote one way on paper and another way in token. However, if there were a great enough discrepancy between the paper and token counts there could be an automatic recount of the paper ballots. This would spare a candidate the trouble of having to call for a recount and make the system more impartial. People would have a more difficult time hiding their tracks if they tampered with this kind of system.
Some interesting comments on the potentiality of vote counting fraud. It's hard to know the prevalence and effect in these cases without more data. However, there are several things to note:
- The "revolution" is about process and change. Why isn't there more focus from the campaign on what should be done by voters or observers? Especially, right before and after an election? Not everything can be led from the bottom up.
- Statistical anomalies are one of the best means to identify unfairness/discrimination. Statistics are used all the time for lawsuits where the truth is near impossible to determine by direct evidence. Several more elections and the truth will be hard to deny, if there is any merit to the suspicions.
- The election of Ron Paul is not the only thing to be concerned about. There is a vocal percentage of the public who are pushing for change in many areas. Perhaps, there should be an all-out push for vote accountability. Maybe some of the technical wizards could come up with a scheme to parallel the voting process and force the media to take note. (People may have to suffer the loss of anonymity, but it could be worth it.)
If voter fraud did happen, I believe they just shaved off votes from all of the other the candidates and added those to the supposed winners via electronic voting machines. As for a recount, it won't really matter. These crooks are pretty slick. They won't leave a paper trail to follow. They've already switched the paper copies, knowing it would be too easy to get caught in a recount. We're talking about professionals here. They've been stealing votes since before Abe Lincoln was born. Do you really believe that they didn't already think of all the angles? The true results were much the same as the percentages in the hand counted votes. This is NH. The big time crooks aren't going to pay off every small town county clerk in NH. Too many witnesses. I used to live in NH and I know for certain that most all of these people are good honest folk. To them, it is a point of honor to report the election just as the vote reads. If theft took place, it is only with electronic voting in the big cities (which unfortunately is where the biggest percentage of NH citizens live), not the rural towns. I think that everyone should get off of Jennifer Call's back in Sutton. I believe that one to be an honest mistake and I think that everyone who called her should chip in to buy an entire page in their local paper to offer a most sincere apology and send that poor woman about 10,000 roses. I support Ron Paul, and I have to say that I'm pretty embarrassed over the way that some of my brother RP supporters handled this issue in Sutton. I'm sure that RP himself is pretty embarrassed over this as well. If you all want to go after the big crooks with the Diebold machines, I'm with you all, but next time you start attacking some small town people I'll just going to give up on RP and throw in with the Constitution Party because the rest of the Redemopublicrats really sour my stomache.
Scott.. How about getting people like Paul and Kucinich to help make the public aware of Article V of the Constitution. Anyone up for a constitutional amendment to make all federal elections paper-only and to be publicly counted?
It is not just the folks in NH that are honest. I trust the people at my local voting booth.
But pushing a button on a screen - ripe for fraud.
Sound proof booths - it would take just a dozen "yes" or "no" answers for Ron to win the nomination. And, hey, the candidates could be given two minutes to answer the question - now what network wouldn't love two minutes of commercials. And then after posting their "yes" or "no" each candidate could remain in their sound proof booth and be given exactly 90 seconds to explain their answer before the mic was automatically turned off.
Yes, if truth was truly being sought, there are ways. In the meantime, support Warrior Granny, paint your limo, support the blimp, donate on MLK day to show support of Ron.
I am up for anything that would change the current vote recording process, especially a Constitutional amendment from the States--because that would send a clear message to the Fed that the States aren't going to sit back idly while party lackeys and elitists run our election system into the ground. This issue needs to be addressed by the candidates, though. A joint Kucinich-Paul statement on this matter would be excellent.
I'm really for paper, as some people have noted, even if we have to write the candidate's name on an index card and put it in a shoebox. The news coming out of New Hampshire tonight is not unexpected, nor is it promising--vote flipping on the machines may have occurred.
I know the conventional argument already--we can't worry about the past--but I'm feeling unconventional. Let's protest. Let's run this issue into the ground.
Thank you for writing an excellent article. Those were my thoughts exactly -- how could the "winners" be predicted so early in the evening and hardly change?
I would like to know how EXACTLY to go about changing the voting system to a transparent one -- pen & paper ballots; clear ballot box, locked, guarded and videotaped; each voter's name checked off on sheet; votes counted in front of voters at the end. I mean ASAP too -- before this election. Like you said I won't be voting for Ron Paul in 2012; this is our last chance for change, I feel.
How simple is that? As someone else pointed out, it takes longer for the machine counties to turn in the "results" than the hand-counted ones! (they need more time to tamper with them)
Please tell us what we as citizens can do NOW to change the way the voting process is done?? It should be up to the people but I can't seem to find any information on how to change the process -- even on the blackboxvoting, it gives no information.
Posted By: Frank (not Luntz)
Date: 2008-01-14 13:13:15
Please Mr. Antimony, PLEASE TAKE A COURSE IN STATISTICS!
12% sampling will give you less than 1% error on the results (provided the samples are taken randomly)
Except for what I understand and believe was an unfortunate human error in Sutton county, I dont see statistical justification for ANY kind of fraud going on in New Hampshire.
So you know, I AM a Ron Paul supporter, have donated $275 thus far, went to many sign wavings and marches such as the Rose parade and Paul-A-Poloosa.
Please, ask a statistician what the confidence level of 12 percent sampling is.
It's important to be vigilant and monitor the eletions, but please do it on a sound mathematical basis.
If Ron Paul himself thought there was fraud, don't you think he would have asked for a recount?
blakmira - I may post another article which might lightly answer your question so stay tuned
Frank - As I said in the article, I assumed there was a way to explain CNN's numbers and you've seemed to address that. In regard to vote fraud, the reason you don't visually see any is because the fraud could be in an area where you can't actually see it. Click on the "Diebold" link in the article and/or watch "Hacking Democracy". Both show the same experiment--they easily hack a Diebold memory card and put it into a voting machine. They insert 2 Yes ballots and 6 No ballots. The machine reads 7 Yes, 1 No. I suppose recounters could always go back and count the paper that was slipped into the machine, however touch screens from what I understand are a different story.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 A.J. Antimony, all rights reserved.