Voter Meltdown

US citizen, to world: HELLP!!!

Here I am, sitting in the belly of the military behemoth that purports to be the "light of freedom and democracy," yet we cannot seem to be able to conduct our own Presidential elections without nationwide improprieties cropping up.

In Ohio: Republican officials have hired hundreds of "monitors" to challenge and question new, first-time voters. The reasons for this ploy are obvious: in an election with large voter-turnout, Republicans always get the short end of the straw.

And then, of course: there's the funny-business of Diebold, the company whose CEO promised to "deliver the election to George Bush," and I guess he succeeded. Diebold fostered the ignominous "electronic voting" that you've all heard about--the paperless trail of hacker-friendly machines that may, or may not, decide to register your vote in the manner of your choosing. Accountability? Who needs it, when you have a cool, hi-tech machine with neato buttons, to press?

And then there are impersonators of elections technicians.

"The impersonators were going into the polling places and asking the inspectors which machines they having trouble with and writing down the serial numbers of those machines. Then, they gave the inspector their cell number and asked them to call if there were any other problem machines and they would come fix them.

And don't even get me started about Florida...! Glenda Hood, the Secty of State of Fla (and, a Jeb Bush appointee), has recently done an end-run around the law, saying that recounts WILL be allowed, so long as they do not change the course of the current lead. So, if W has the lead in Fla, and a recount is needed in some counties (as it most likely will be, as there are already reports of machines broken down), then we can rest assured on Nov 2nd eve, that no recounts will upset the status quo.

Whew! Now THAT'S a load off my mind!

And, speaking of Florida shenanigans...

New Florida vote scandal feared

secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Portrait of a country on the verge of a nervous breakdown

Elsewhere, there were computer breakdowns during early voting in Memphis. Pre-election testing of electronic machines in Riverside County, California, and in Palm Beach County, Florida, led to multiple computer crashes. Elsewhere, machines have manifested problems handling basic addition - especially when asked to display instructions in a language other than English. Several county administrators have chosen simply to skip the non-English language part of the test. In Nebraska, dead people were found to have applied for absentee ballots. In Ohio, a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was found to have offered crack cocaine to a known drug addict in exchange for completed voter registration forms, which he duly submitted in the names of Mary Poppins, Janet Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer. How the courts will react to this hypothetical state of affairs is anybody's guess. They could accept the given election results, however flawed. They could allow the arguments to rage until December, when the electoral college is supposed to meet, or even into the new year, when an undecided election would be thrown into the House of Representatives. Or they could be trumped, once again, by the Supreme Court. The most disconcerting possibility is that the highest court in the land could remove the electoral process from the voters altogether and turn it over to the state legislatures. Technically, they can do this under Article II of the Constitution, which offers no automatic right to vote. We know from the deliberations in 2000 that two, possibly five, of the nine justices have doubts whether the people should be the ultimate arbiters of presidential elections - a strict, literal reading of the Constitution that no modern Supreme Court countenanced before the current crop of ultra-conservatives. "After granting the franchise in the special context of Article II," the majority declared in its Bush vs Gore ruling, "[the state] can take back the power to appoint electors."

One bright spot in all this chaos, however: is the excitement over voting. I have never seen so many people so eager to vote. No matter what, this election will not be dull...hang onto your hakama's; it's gonna be a wild ride, come November.

You didn't mention Amendment 36 in Colorado.
(And the potential for a lot of legal wrangling if those 9 votes are enough to tip the electoral college one way or the other.)

I was listening to a news report on the radio about the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio the other day, and there was a (not entirely serious) suggestion that UN inspectors need to be sent in to oversee the election.

Sean
x

I don't think this election will be perfect. We've never had one before, why start now?
Thomas Jefferson, founding father and author of the Declaration of Independence, wasn't clean in one election (I forget which one). Many large cities used to have political "machines" that would deliver for one party ( I'll let you guess which one). Chicago's famous for doing this well into the 60's.
I don't see any reason to panic, yet. The last election was a true aberration. I think the electoral college and popular vote will match this time.
I'll support whoever becomes president.

Dan Guthrie wrote: I don't think this election will be perfect. We've never had one before, why start now? . I don't see any reason to panic, yet. The last election was a true aberration.

Wanna bet...? Come on: I'll lay odds, on this one (unless there's a landslide result, of course).

I think the electoral college and popular vote will match this time. I'll support whoever becomes president.

Sure, there have always been shenanigans in the past. But, never on this scale. Certainly, both the Dem and Repub parties think that this election will have major flaws: the Dem's alone have a team of 800 lawyers standing by, to jump in when improprieties pop up (as, they already are).

And yes, Florida has a long history of dead ppl voting, of nursing homes trundled into buses and intimidated into voting on candidates. This sort of thing is not new. But it's the SCALE of the thing, that is so daunting.

Respectfully, I think you're too complacent about this election. It's a mess already, and the problem lay not with whether or not the popular votes will match the decisions of the electoral college, IMO: it's the nightmare scenario of whether or not the Concervative-packed Supreme Court will, once again: appoint our next President, as several have already stated that they feel that the selection of President is too important, to leave to the masses.

I wish I had your confidence in the system: but the system has already proven to be flawed, and nothing has been done to fix the problems. Worse, more problems have been added to the pile.

Sean Orchard wrote: You didn't mention Amendment 36 in Colorado. (And the potential for a lot of legal wrangling if those 9 votes are enough to tip the electoral college one way or the other.)

Interesting: thanks for the tip, Sean.

What Colorado's Amendment 36 means for America...

The most important issue on the ballot in our state is Amendment 36, which would change our electoral voting from "winner takes all" to a proportional voting system. But I haven't told you the best part yet. If it were passed, Amendment 36 would go into effect IMMEDIATELY. Like ON THIS ELECTION. See, we get nine electoral votes. If George Bush got 51% of the vote (and despite how close the polls are, this is the most likely scenario for our traditionally red state) and Amendment 36 passes, he would only get five electoral votes instead of the whole kielbasa.

I was listening to a news report on the radio about the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio the other day, and there was a (not entirely serious) suggestion that UN inspectors need to be sent in to oversee the election. Sean x

Not to mention, of course: Jimmy Carter's warning that he doubts that Florida can actually HAVE a fair election, at this time. And actually, I have heard that int'l election observers WERE called in, but the suggestion was turned down, by the gov't.

Anyone else heard of any election stories? Post them here.

Sean Orchard wrote: You didn't mention Amendment 36 in Colorado. (And the potential for a lot of legal wrangling if those 9 votes are enough to tip the electoral college one way or the other.)...Sean x

I had heard on one of the news channels that there was an 1800's federal law that would prohibit this Amendment 36 from going into effect for this election - that it would have to go into effect for the next one, regardless of the Amendment language.

Perhaps someone can provide further info.

Oodles of requested absentee ballots haven't made it to their destinations. The Republican supervisor of elections blames the PO. They say they don't have a problem.

If folks don't have those ballots in hand by election Tuesday...they can't vote. If they try to early vote, the ballots can be cancelled on site.

Dan;

Interesting point about the lack of clean elections.

I'm sure Sean also remembers the rotten boroughs of his country.

Just as it is near impossible to graft one political system directly on another country, it is a given that political systems do evolve to fit a particular society usually with a significant lag. Doesn't start perfect and never gets perfect.

Stable democracies (2 generations/40 years) usually evolve in the direction of more open, more accessible, more fair and therefore it is a cause for concern when there is a huge increase in the number of people that don't expect a fair election.

Could be increased sensitivity or it could be fact - no matter, it is a problem.

I just remember the panic over Y2k. Much ado about nothing. I recognize the fear many have I just don't have it myself. I'm concerned but that's about it.

Peter is quite right, we have a few problems with the state of our democracy over here too. I think the root cause of our problems is apathy born of cynicism, and I think our cynicism about our politicians is well founded.

Quite apart from all the electoral shenanigans that're going on, and the seemingly inevitable legal wranglings we'll be seeing next week, I think there are deeper problems with the US presidential system though. Problems that can't be sorted out so easily.

It takes more than a vote to make a democracy, the electorate have to have access to the information they need to make a decision. That means freedom of information and freedom of speech. (It also requires the electorate to be reasonably well educated, but lets not open that can.)

I'm really concerned about the state of freedom of speech in the US. Here's an example: GWB's local paper, The Lone Star Iconoclast.

It surprised everyone by endorsing Kerry this time around, rather than Bush as it did last time. Now you can't buy a copy over the counter in Crawford. Advertisers dropped it, shops and gas stations stopped stocking it.

This is not freedom of speech.
When someone is saying something you don't want to hear, you can put your fingers in your ears and go "La la la", thats stupid but its ok. What you cant do is prevent them from saying it, or prevent anyone else from hearing it.

If you value freedom of speech, you have to defend the rights of people to speak even if you disagree with them. People who don't want to buy the paper anymore are putting their fingers in their ears and thats their right, but the shopkeepers who're refusing to stock it are engaging in censorship of a legitimate point of view, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Now about that mass media. More and more of the media is owned by a handful of super-rich individuals. Newspapers, radio and tv stations have their editorial content shaped by fewer and fewer people, so they're dancing to the same tune. They shape public opinion, people believe what they see on tv, and what they read in the papers.

The majority of Republican voters still believe, in spite of all the evidence, that Saddam Hussein had access to WMD's prior to the war. They still believe there was a connection between Bin Laden and Saddam. Even GWB has had to admit that there is no truth in this.

But the fact is, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes 'the truth'.
And with so much of the media owned by a small group of people with their own agenda, those people can repeat the lies relentlessly, the truth simply cannot compete.

Another worry is the sheer amount of money you need to run for President. It simply can't be done unless the candidate is seriously rich or has the backing of some huge businesses. Global corporations don't just spend millions of dollars without expecting something in return, so if you want to vote for a President who'll represent your interests you'd better be rich, or the CEO of some big company, otherwise you just don't have a candidate, sorry.

But don't think that means they're both the same, Bush has got to go. Then Republicans, who I believe are basically decent people, in spite of everything, have 4 years to find themselves a sane, humane candidate for the next time around.
(And no, I don't mean Schwartzenegger. )

Sean
x

By the way, there was an interesting edition of Question Time on the BBC last night, from Miami. (A serious, panel/debate talk show - at least its usually pretty serious, I this week's studio audience were more used to Jerry Springer.)

The panellists were:
Michael Moore
David Frum
Sidney Blumenthal
Richard Littlejohn
Lida Rodriquez-Taseff

If you have access to the BBC World channel, it'll be on at the following times: Saturday 30 October at 0810, 1410, 2110 GMT; Sunday 31 Oct at 1810 GMT
or you can follow the link from here to watch online.

Dan Guthrie wrote: I just remember the panic over Y2k. Much ado about nothing. I recognize the fear many have I just don't have it myself. I'm concerned but that's about it.

Well, AFAIC, this story is getting hotter, by the day.

Check this out:

Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights (subscription required, but it's free)

Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election. Veteran voting-rights lawyers expressed surprise at the government's action, saying that closing the courthouse door to aspiring voters would reverse decades of precedent. Since the civil rights era of the 1960s, individuals have gone to federal court to enforce their right to vote, often with the support of groups such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters or the state parties. And until now, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court had taken the view that individual voters could sue to enforce federal election law. But in legal briefs filed in connection with cases in Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the administration's lawyers argue that the new law gives Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft the exclusive power to bring lawsuits to enforce its provisions. These include a requirement that states provide "uniform and nondiscriminatory" voting systems, and give provisional ballots to those who say they have registered but whose names do not appear on the rolls.

HALLOWE'EN'S A' COMING!

Be afraid...be VERY afraid...

My friend (a masters in computer science) wrote this short article in his livejournal about why electronic voting is flawed.

Everyone should read this.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spa...58.html#cutid1

and the electoral college is bull. Honestly... So some cities are bigger than others? Well guess what, this is how democracy works. The majority gets their way. The states have senators and representives to make things more equal.

Popular vote is the way to go...

This might interest--

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR VOTE ON ELECTION DAY:

To find your polling place, click here.

If you want to volunteer to be a "mystery voter" and help collect polling data and exit polls, visit www.votewatch.us

Sign up to be a poll watcher at www.electionprotectionvolunteer.org.

Call the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law at 1-866-OUR VOTE for immediate, legal assistance to voters during the early voting period and on Election Day.

For a map of the specific voting technology used in your area, visit www.verifiedvoting.org.

To report an election irregularity, visit www.voteprotect.org

Also, check this out: http://www.indyvoter.org/index.php

Since no one has pointed this out, yet. Nyah nyah nyah. Everything went smoothly. Perhaps the vote went against your candidate or proposition but civil war was avoided and if the streets ran red with blood it was cleaned up before 6 a.m. when I woke up.
Quite a few votes didn't go my way but I think our country will survive.
I hope this doesn't reveal my personal politics too much but I pray our President chooses Supreme Court justices that are easily accepted but both sides of the political spectrum. I know the chances are slim but if he chooses justices that offend his conservative base we might have a chance at pulling this country together and attack the real enemy, Belgium.
I think the other major issues - the war and jobs - will probably go conservative no matter what we wish.

Dan Guthrie wrote: Since no one has pointed this out, yet. Nyah nyah nyah. Everything went smoothly. Perhaps the vote went against your candidate or proposition but civil war was avoided and if the streets ran red with blood it was cleaned up before 6 a.m. when I woke up. Quite a few votes didn't go my way but I think our country will survive. I hope this doesn't reveal my personal politics too much but I pray our President chooses Supreme Court justices that are easily accepted but both sides of the political spectrum. I know the chances are slim but if he chooses justices that offend his conservative base we might have a chance at pulling this country together and attack the real enemy, Belgium. I think the other major issues - the war and jobs - will probably go conservative no matter what we wish.

Haha!

Nice post.

Dan Guthrie wrote: Since no one has pointed this out, yet. Nyah nyah nyah. Everything went smoothly

If you believe this, then I have some states to sell you. Merely because you woke up and it nothing untoward was reported on the news, doesn't mean that shenanigan's didn't happen.

Elsewhere, a bogus flier with the McCandless Township, Pa., seal said because of long lines, Republicans should vote Nov. 2 and Democrats should vote on Nov. 3; a faked NAACP letter in Columbia, S.C., said voters with outstanding parking tickets or unpaid child support would be arrested if they voted; and in Miami, Haitian Americans said they were threatened with deportation by several "thugs" who walked along lines at a polling site and demanded to see identification. Also, fliers in Missouri and Wisconsin were sent to black voters showing a photo of a firefighter hosing a black man in what appeared to be a civil rights confrontation from the 1960s, blaming Republicans for past and present voter discrimination; a faked letter purportedly from the Republican National Committee went to Wisconsin voters saying the party's chairman had endorsed Sen. John Kerry; and telephone callers told senior citizens in Pennsylvania that Mr. Bush was going to take away Social Security benefits.

And then there are the Diebold e-voting machines. At least one group, www.blackboxvoting.org, is instigating the largest FOIA request in history to investigate the extent of e-voting hacking.

The question is not whether or not there was tampering (as there certainly was): the question is was the tampering was sufficient to throw the election results. For the answer to THIS question: we'll have to wait awhile.

Perhaps the vote went against your candidate or proposition but civil war was avoided and if the streets ran red with blood it was cleaned up before 6 a.m. when I woke up. Quite a few votes didn't go my way but I think our country will survive.

Firstly: Kerry was not "my" candidate. I'd have been out on the streets Nov.3, no matter who won (BTW, the march went COMPLETELY unreported by the mainstream media, even tho there was 5-10k marchers present, by my estimation). Secondly, I never thought that this would "plunge" the country into civil war. Never said it: never thought it.

I hope this doesn't reveal my personal politics too much but I pray our President chooses Supreme Court justices that are easily accepted but both sides of the political spectrum.

You can pray, but that's all the good it'll do. Bush has already said that he "plans to spend his political clout," and I doubt it means that he plans to buy jelly-beans, in honor or Reagan.

You can start kissing Roe v Wade goodbye, for starters.

I know the chances are slim but if he chooses justices that offend his conservative base

Now, why would he do this? It's against his interests, and his character.

I think the other major issues - the war and jobs - will probably go conservative no matter what we wish.

And a lot of other things, too. We lost 5 seats to Con's in Texas, due to gerrymandering. Civil rights, abortion, more giveaways to corporations, and a lot more is in store for America. The Con's control all brances of gov't now, and changes certainly are on the horizon, for us all...few of them good.

I was in the locker-room of my University, changing in to my gi and hakama before teaching class. Everyone, everywhere, seemed to be talking about the election, and the basketball-team didn't seem to be an exception.

Now, I expect athletics students to be more Conservative than other students, and so I wasn't surprised by their assessment. But at the end, they were trying to comfort themselves with the notion that Congress would "never" accept a draft.

I wanted to say to them: gosh, I hope you didn't vote for W, because karma is a real bitch. I can almost imagine these guys reporting for draft-duty, wondering how this all could happen. But I kept my mouth shut, as my opinions are unimportant when it comes to invididual fates, or karma.

The trouble is: karma is also collective, and the totality suffers for the decisions, of a slim minority of misguided voters. We all go down, when the ship starts to sink. No one was more surprised as the passengers, when the Titanic hit the iceberg.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original posting and the entire subject of this thread. Perhaps you'll explain " nationwide improprieties", "an election with large voter-turnout, Republicans always get the short end of the straw.", "New Florida vote scandal feared ", and "Portrait of a country on the verge of a nervous breakdown"?
BTW the "you" in my post was generic and not directed at you.
In a nutshell; I'm merely observing the relative calm and quiet of a typical election. For some reason a large number of people on the left have turned into some of the strangest paranoiacs I've ever seen. I just don't understand anyone who doesn't have an unshakable faith in democracy.
If this election didn't work out the way you wanted it to, volunteer and work for the next election. This ranting and fuming is not going to move your position forward or get your candidates elected.
The last part of my post was just wishful thinking.
It's just my opinion but if Bush tries to load the Supreme Court he'll go down in history as the "President who was blocked at every turn."

Dan Guthrie wrote: If this election didn't work out the way you wanted it to, volunteer and work for the next election. This ranting and fuming is not going to move your position forward or get your candidates elected.

As I stated earlier, it's not about "my" candidate getting elected. John Kerry wasn't "my" candidate.

Check out the link's I've posted: there are huge improprieties in this election. And, it's not about "ranting and raving" because of sour grapes: there is good, hard evidence surfacing that this election was rigged.

Was it rigged enough to throw the result...? Too early to tell. But, there are odd discrepancies btw the exit-polls, and the results of Ohio precincts. If they were all for Bush before and after the polling, that's one thing. But, that's not the way it went down. Again, go read the links; then decide for yourself.

The last part of my post was just wishful thinking. It's just my opinion but if Bush tries to load the Supreme Court he'll go down in history as the "President who was blocked at every turn."

Yes, we agree: that last part IS wishful thinking.

Dan Guthrie wrote: I just don't understand anyone who doesn't have an unshakable faith in democracy.

Elections are, in the end: run by human beings, who are just as capable of placing party affiliation over job responsibilities as anyone else. Ballots often go missing (in SF, I remember a story in 2000 about a huge boxfull of ballots found floating in the SF Bay), dead ppl sometimes vote, the elderly are forced out of their nursing-homes and extorted to vote, etc.

Expecting these things to happen commonplace, for an election. But, the reports of the frauds attempted in Fla, etc hit an all-time high.

So, it's not about questioning one's "unshakable faith in democracy:" it's about making sure that the election wasn't rigged, to a point that it threw off the result.

All the Leftie's want, is a guarantee that the result was fair. With the leering, apelike gloat staring back at them from the newspapers, can you hardly blame them?

None of my posts were directed specifically at you, Neil, except for the requests for explanation of your first post. No offense, but I don't care who you voted for and I never meant to infer Kerry was "your candidate."
This wasn't a perfect election but it wasn't anywhere near being the most corrupt. It actually seems to be less corrupt than usual. Maybe all the attention kept the fraud to a minimum. The people who predicted it would be a horrible election were wrong, plain and simple, in my opinion.
If anyone broke the law, I hope they're punished.
The main point of this thread isn't whether or not the vote would be fair. The point was whether or not it would be "voter meltdown."

We're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

PS Neil, I don't think "apelike gloat" is going to help. The more hyperbole you throw at Bush the more difficult it will be for every elected official. Everyone want's to get their licks in now.
Whatever happened to the phrase, "I disagree?"
Why isn't that enough?

There was a good (IMO) "This American Life" show on NPR last week. It had a special segment on voter suppression, which showed that the amount of fraud and suppression attempts on the part of republicans was far greater than that of democrats. It seemed rather persuasive.
The same show had a series of interviews with an undecided guy from Ohio, who, being a pro-choice physician (IIRC) and having serious reservations about Bush's policies, the war etc., still couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry because he thought Bush had more integrity, conviction and determination, even if this meant allowing Bush to continue with policies the guy doesn't like. I suppose this just goes to show that the democrats didn't do such a great job with the candicate and the campaign.

Dan Guthrie wrote: This wasn't a perfect election but it wasn't anywhere near being the most corrupt. It actually seems to be less corrupt than usual.

Since you have no way of knowing how much corruption is "usual:" let's just say that I'm taking this comment with a great deal of salt.

If anyone broke the law, I hope they're punished. The main point of this thread isn't whether or not the vote would be fair. The point was whether or not it would be "voter meltdown." We're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

Since I was the originator of the thread: I suppose that I should know what this thread was "about." But yes: agreeing to disagree is fine by me.

PS Neil, I don't think "apelike gloat" is going to help. The more hyperbole you throw at Bush the more difficult it will be for every elected official. Everyone want's to get their licks in now.

Oh please: usually I am quite restrained in the description-dept, of Our Beloved Leader. I cannot think of a more descriptive phrase to describe W's face, as he lays out his supposed new regime, so "apelike gloat" will just have to do.

And I'm sorry: dissing Bush seemed to be a pastime for a lot of Leftists (not particularly me, as I find it ultimately self-deating to engage overmuch in Bush-bashing...see my comments on the "anti-Americanism" thread, for more on this vein), but a little grousing is healthy, and I fail to see how it will "be difficult for every elected official." You totally lost me, there.

Whatever happened to the phrase, "I disagree?" Why isn't that enough?

When W torpedoes Roe v Wade, you come on back and tell me if your protestations of "I disagree" is enough, OK?

But, this election was fine: no problems at all.

Kerry Won: Here Are The Facts

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded.

Yep, just a typical fair & clean election, in the good old, democratic USA.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed. But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

Now, why is this not being reported all over the mainstream?

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/.

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is implementing fraud diagnostics on the state of New Mexico. Information we recently received is indicative of widespread vote manipulation. We are not going to publicize the specifics here. BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is requesting legal assistance for a specific county in Georgia. Indications of corrupt voting processes, with possible criminal actions by local officials. BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is launching a fraud investigation on Pima County Arizona. BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is launching a fraud investigation on the state of Nevada. Pro bono legal help certified to practice in Nevada, needed immediately. Multiple irregularities. Need people to take affidavits from election workers, statewide. BREAKING -- FRIDAY NOV 12 2004: Ralph Nader to audit Diebold machines in New Hampshire. According to Nader, the current situation with voting machines warrants investigation. Several elements make voting machines "probative" for investigation, according to Nader, a consumer affairs lawyer: proprietary ownership, secret code, vested interests, a high-value reward, and lack of any real consequences, or likelihood of getting caught, for vote manipulation. "We are told that shenanigans are just politics," said Nader at a press conference on Nov. 10. "Well, it's not politics. It's taking away people's votes."