Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Louisiana GOP Flim-Flam Throws Election Where's the vote? "Caucus Results in Question" says Ron Paul campaign, calling out the Louisiana GOP for their blatant chicanery.by creator
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
In no uncertain terms, the campaign has called on the GOP to "count all the votes." They have charged the Louisiana GOP with failure to properly determine voter eligibility.
"The party needs to correct this mistake by counting all the votes immediately, and releasing the results." said Lew Moore, Ron Paul campaign manager.
The party used a month-old list of eligible voters, which according to the Louisiana Secretary of State, disenfranchised some 2,709 Louisiana residents who registered as Republicans after that date but before the registration cutoff date at the end of November.
Several state-certified Ron Paul delegates were forced to file a provisional ballot despite the fact they were pre-approved as delegates. Last minute GOP deadline changes also suddenly allowed candidates other than Ron Paul to file more delegates after the original deadline had passed.
The aggregate of these mistakes, if remedied immediately, would undoubtedly change the outcome of the election.
Fair-minded citizens everywhere who are concerned about honest elections should put pressure on the LA-GOP to straighten up and fly right. You can read their "unofficial results" here - I suggest that you may want to contact them through their website and recommend that when they publish their "official results" that those results demonstrate they have taken these charges seriously.
For some previous articles on vote fraud and suggestions for dealing with it, please read (and Thumb!) :
The views expressed in this
article are those of creator only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. creator 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.
this is reposted from another page. it brings some interesting points to light.
The events we witnessed in the Republican caucus will do little to allay the perception that Louisiana has had in some quarters as being a state with not only a history, but also an ongoing problem, with corruption.
I suspect the Louisiana GOP was within their legal rights to extend the deadline for the submission of delegate slates. However, it is not simply the fact that they changed the deadline; it is the motivation and coordination between the state GOP and some campaigns that should raise serious concerns.
If the deadline for the submission of delegate slates passed prior to the so-called “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate of delegates being submitted, followed by the deadline being moved to a future date, thereby “re-opening” the window of time for submission of slates, then something is not quite right in the bayou state.
It the deadline was reset after having expired, then the state and national GOP owe the candidates, the citizens of Louisiana and the entire US an explanation. If the deadline was moved, thereby re-opening the window, for the purpose of allowing the “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate to be submitted, then I have serious doubts and questions regarding the ethical nature of the leadership of the Louisiana GOP and the transparency of their caucus.
Support for the supposition that there was inappropriate coordination between the state GOP and some of the campaigns, is now appearing in at least some news bylines. It would seem the Louisiana GOP deliberately decided to change the rules at the very last minute. The deadline by which slates of delegates must be submitted was changed. The original deadline was January 10. Apparently the state GOP did not like the fact that the candidate that had the most delegates submitted for consideration in the caucus as of the deadline was someone they did not wish to see win. Therefore, they extended the deadline to January 12. I wonder what the national GOP thinks about the Louisiana GOP engaging in these activities, particularly to advance the cause of one or more candidates and to the detriment of another. They last thing the national GOP needs is scandal. I wonder if they would have extended the deadline if it the candidate they apparently did not like had wished to submit a slate of delegates late. I doubt it.
For any state party organization to alter the rules at the last minute in order to try to steer and control the results of a caucus is so un-American and unethical it boggles the imagination.
Adding to the scent of impropriety, is the fact that even the state GOP admitted that historically, a delegate would only appear on a single slate at a time, not appear on more than one slate. However, it appears whoever created the so-called Pro-Life slate also included the names of delegates that appeared on other slates. Which ones contained “overlap” is unknown to me, but the information from the Louisiana GOP apparently indicated that delegates appeared to at “overlap” the Pro-Life and John McCain slates at the very least. I suspect the same may true for one or more of the other candidates.
Moreover, I find it highly suspicious that a slate defined as “Uncommitted Pro-Life” would defeat all the other candidate slates. Are we supposed to believe that such a significant number of very enthusiastic and motivated voters not only were able to arrange the reset of the aforementioned deadline, so they could submit their preferred slate, but also then generate a winning turnout to a caucus by people who seemingly had not made up their mind which candidate they preferred? I do not recall ever finding such highly motivated and yet extremely ambivalent people voting in a caucus or primary.
And another thought; are we also to believe that among the Republican candidates who are considered “pro-life”, there was just nobody the pro-life caucus voter could support, and that the typical pro-life caucus voter decided to vote uncommitted and thereby surrender such a motivating factor in their decision to a delegate over which they will have no further influence.
At face value, some of what occurred might simply by met with a shrug and indifference, but if one considers the events, the people involved, and the outcome, I would say I find the Louisiana Republican caucus is suspect. I have an idea that more happened than we are being told.
in light of the fact that it has practically been proved that our elections are being rigged through tampering with the systems of these electronic voting machines. btw, if you havent seen the documentary evidence of this (Hacking Democracy), the vote counts can be rigged and/or changed in a number of different ways & in a number of places along the process with absolutely no record being left in the system. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!! What can we do???? How do we get emergency injunctions (or whatever you call them) from the local courts to make sure these machines & electronic cards arent tampered with? This has got to become priority #1!!!! We must have fair vote counts!!!!!
Can some lawyers, judges, or law enforcement people please put some solutions on the table for us? How about making a youtube video on what we need to do through the courts to solve this problem? That seems to be how I've been getting my best info. lately. Thank You!
Posted By: Neil McLaughlin
Date: 2008-01-25 12:22:00
As a Senior Software Engineer, I could honestly say that I would never hire anyone in this field if they could not write the Diebold voting software on the white board within 5 minutes - it is about 8 lines of code:
Any programmer who claims this should be proprietary should be shot. That's the Amazon one-click patent.
I volunteer to write the code for the US for free.
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.
