And Kerry conceded in the election and there is no way he can get the Presidency even if Kerry won by some miracle.

I’m not sure a concession is legally binding. So in theory, if (by some miracle) massive/widespread evidence of voting fraud was discovered to have swung the election to Bush, the Kerry campaign could easily challenge the election’s legitimacy.

Not that it’s going to happen.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at November 14, 2004 10:52 AM

Two things are legally binding: the vote in the Electoral College, and the Oath of Office administered by the Chief Justice. Concession speeches and victory speeches are mostly empty words.

However, if John Kerry did come close after the ballots were counted, and it could sway the election, it would cost the Dems dearly. The nation does not want a repeat of 2000, and the DNC knows it. Coupled with the revolt in the mass communication channels that don’t kiss up to them (the Internet!), they know they lost this time.

But not to worry. They’re already grooming Hillary for 2008.

Posted by: gus3 at November 14, 2004 12:40 PM

I appreciate people thinking of me, but I have to wonder why so many people would seek to debunk or ignore or downplay possible cases of fraud or error rather than wanting them to be fully investigated. Isn’t the integrity of our voting system more important than getting the desired result?

Here’s the bottom line on Troxler’s column: he’s not qualified to comment on software. Anyone who’s written software can think up myriad ways voting machines could be compromised.

From his July column: Either that, or a single, evildoing programmer has sneaked past everybody. The companies have left it all in this one guy’s hands, you see: “Excuse me, Mr. Luthor, would you please write this code that nobody will ever double-check, okay?”

To name just some of the ways that’s false: there’s frequently code that’s never checked (and, apparently some of this eVoting software hasn’t undergone rigorous testing), hacking into the version control system and not leaving a trail, inserting a bug into code that looks like a bug but is actually a backdoor, hacking the compiler, OS or whatever on the build system to insert malicious code, hacking the transmission software to add malicious code, hacking the CPU’s microcode to do the same, etc. etc. etc. etc. So, once again, when it comes to software, Troxler isn’t qualified to comment.

On a related note, see this discussion of one eVoting system:

Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software. Furthermore, we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered and executed without access to the source code. In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate that the insider threat is also quite considerable, showing that not only can an insider, such as a poll worker, modify the votes, but that insiders can also violate voter privacy and match votes with the voters who cast them.

Posted by: Lonewacko at November 14, 2004 03:26 PM

Here’s a good debunking roundup, not that the Lefties will ever buy it. The more the evidence is not there the more for them it is “proof” of fraud.

Excuse me now while I go invest in some Reynolds stock,.Looks like its going to be a banner year for aluminium foil.

Posted by: Darleen at November 14, 2004 03:26 PM

Folks,

Let’s take a closer look at all of this. Assume, as DJ did, that the absentee votes are a wash. Also, let’s be really crazy here and assume that Bush’s lead is cut to only 120,000 from 136,000 based upon extra vote counting and anything else that the Democrats can cling too. We already know of 4000 extra votes counted that should not have been and that this was an isolated incident. By let’s knock off another 12,000 just for fun.

Let:
x=number of Bush Votes
y=number of Kerry Votes

Then:
x-y=120,000 per above

Assume all provisionals are allowed and that there are 95,000 spoiled ballots. With the provisionals being at 155,000, the total number of votes here is 250,000.

Let:
x1=number of additional Bush Votes
y1=number of additional Kerry Votes

Then:
x1+y1=250,000 —->> y1=250,000-x1

To get a tie in the vote we would need the total number of Bush Votes + the total number of additional Bush votes to equal the total number of Kerry Votes + the total number of additional Kerry votes, or:

x+x1=y+y1

Therefore:
x1=y-x+y1
x1=-120,000 + y1

Or:
x1=-120,000+250,000-x1 or,

2×1=130,000 or x1=65,000

and y1=250,000-x1=185,000

Therefore is Bush only gets 65,000 votes and Kerry gets 185,000 votes and all the provisional ballots are allowed and all of the spoiled ballots are counted for either Kerry or Bush AND Bush’s lead is cut from 136,000 to 120,000 prior to all of these votes being counted then the election will be a tie.

Given the above conditions are met, Kerry would have to get 74% of the vote and Bush would have to only get 25% of the vote. Another way to state this is that Kerry would have to win these votes by a margin of about 3 to 1!

How likely is this? As likely as the mysterious 1908 Siberian blast being caused by an alien fart.

Let them recount; it will only marginalize the Democratic party even more. Also, if I was the Ohio secretary of state I would schedule the recount for February 1st, after the inauguration. Why impact the country, the stock market and send a message of confusion to the world, making us look confused, emboldening our enemies, and putting our troops at stake, if those who are asking for the recount have no change of winning because they won only a very small percentage of the vote. I would state that a recount will only be done prior to inauguration only if there is any candidate that feels like they could actually change the result and that this candidate (Kerry) must officially request the recount. That way Kerry and other demolosers can’t hide behind others to do their dirty work. I say, smoke them out, make them take a stand; make them look like fools, and the next election will be an even better one for the Republicans. There would be so much anger at counting chads, that I believe that the damage done to the Democratic party and any MSM outlet that is idiotic enough to give this a serious voice would be devastating and long lasting.

Rest easy, no recount, we win. Recount, we win and marginalize the opposing party so much that it will be decades before they recover.

Posted by: Gerald at November 15, 2004 04:45 PM