No Stolen Election!

 Don't Let Him Steal Another Election! [At this point, I don't know if it was stolen, but there certainly are quite a number of odd phenomenon that should be investigated. However, none of these claims should be taken as truth without independent verification. There are a lot of claims floating around. Some are false, and some have innocent explanations when examined carefully.]

TAKE THE PLEDGE! November 3rd Pledge of Action: No Stolen Election

Don't Mourn! Organize!

November 3rd Pledge of Action:
”I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 2nd. If that right is systematically violated, I pledge to join nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in the state where the fraud occurred or in Washington DC."
League of Pissed Off Voters is holding hearing on voter fraud. (POSTED: November 11, 2004)
Voter Registration Fraud Clearinghouse. (POSTED: October 20, 2004)
Black Box Voting [This is Bev harris', NOT some rival, however they are.] (POSTED: November 6, 2004)

After November 2

In Utah: 33,000 ballots lost in shuffle. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 13, 2004)
Check out the latest news from Black Box Voting. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 13, 2004)
More on the Ohio recount effort: A Legitimate Recount Effort in Ohio. (PUBLISHED November 12 and POSTED: November 13, 2004)
Major bugs found in Diebold vote systems. (PUBLISHED November 12 and POSTED: November 13, 2004)
The Digital Encryption Standard 56-bit encryption key used can be unlocked by a key embedded in all the source code, meaning all Diebold machines would respond to the same key. Rubin, his graduate students and a colleague from Rice University found other bugs, that the administrator's PIN code was "1111" and that one programmer had inserted, "This is just a hack for now."
Trouble in Minnesota: Minnesotans kicked off voter registration lists asking why. (PUBLISHED November 12 and POSTED: November 13, 2004)
Washington, Republican may have won on machine error: Democrats Sue Wash. County Over Ballots. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Indiana: Kerry votes became Libertarian. Why did NONE of the "glitches" detract from Bush's vote? Glitch causes Franklin Co. recount. (PUBLISHED November 11 and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Election equipment counted straight-party votes for Democratic candidates as Libertarian votes, an error that could affect election outcomes in as many as nine counties, the Richmond Palladium-Item reported today.
Kerry sends lawyers to calm the waters, dispell concerns that he was fairly whipped: Kerry campaign lawyers checking Ohio vote. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Green & Libertarian Presidential Candidates to Demand Ohio Recount. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Jonathan Simon in Scoop: 47 State Exit Poll Analysis Confirms Swing Anomaly. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Must Watch! MSNBC Vote Fraud Video [Quicktime]. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Democracy Now! The Ohio Factor: Did Homeland Security and the FBI interfere With the Vote Count? (PUBLISHED November 10 and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Donna Britt in the Washington Post: Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities . (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 12, 2004)
Steven F. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania has posted a report of a study he conducted on: The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy concluding that it is extremely unlikely that the discrepancies between the exit polls and poll results were due to chance. He is very careful to point out that the paper has not gone through peer review and is admirably cautious in the conclusions he draws. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 11, 2004)
Harvey Wasserman on the post-election desertion: Why Did John Kerry Abandon His Crew (US!) in Battle? (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 11, 2004)
During the campaign, the Kerry campaign spent unlimited time, money and effort on denying the public the ability to vote for Ralph Nader. The attacks were political, personal, procedural---and endless. But after spending all that energy attacking the left, the Kerry campaign lost to the most powerful and dangerous crew of right wing extremists this nation has ever seen---and then had no time at all to make sure the vote count was fair or accurate. Kerry's hurried, feeble plea that George W. Bush heal the wounds of disunity in this country must have been greeted with gales of laughter in Karl Rove's White House. The 2016 US Presidential election will not be stolen. The decentralization of the system and the many layers of oversight and control mean that any attempt to engage in voter fraud widespread enough to impact the result is doomed to failure. That reality, however, won’t stop many Americans from believing that it was rigged, and the past gives us a good indication of exactly what the “evidence” of vote rigging will look like. It’s important to start off by noting that Americans are generally open to believing that voter fraud is widespread. In a 2013 PublicMind poll, 23 percent of Americans (and 37 percent of Democrats) said that it was “probably true” that President Bush’s supporters stole the election in Ohio in 2004; almost identical numbers of Republicans said the same about President Obama in 2012. For whatever reason ? motivated reasoning, a willingness to believe in the nefariousness of political opponents, lack of social contact with members of the other party ? Americans commonly believe that our elections are rigged, even without a major party candidate encouraging such beliefs, as Republican nominee Donald Trump has done. Because of this predisposition, it’s likely that “evidence” of voter fraud will begin to circulate on Election Day, and continue to swirl around the internet for weeks and months afterwards, fueling beliefs that the likely winner, Democrat Hillary Clinton, is illegitimate, and hardening opposition to her. The first piece of evidence that’s likely to be used to demonstrate fraud is early exit polls. While exit poll results from the consortium funded by the major news outlets aren’t officially released until after the polls close (in order to avoid influencing voters), the first data from them is released around 11 AM on Election Day. This data isn’t supposed to be made public, but at least some results from it generally leak. These results will, in some cases, be very different from the official vote tallies, and those differences will be taken as proof that the election was stolen. After all, if the early exit polls show Trump winning in Ohio by 5, and he winds up losing by 3, either the exit polls or the vote must be wrong, right? Such “evidence” is mostly the result of misunderstanding how exit polls work. Exit polls, unlike most surveys, are not designed to be representative of voters. Rather, they sample precincts which have served as good indicators in the past, with the results then carefully weighted in order to project results for a state as a whole. In addition, early exit poll results only include voters who go to the polls in the morning, a group which is disproportionately Republican. All of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that exit polls cannot include the increasing number of voters who vote early, or by mail. But exit polls won’t be the only evidence mustered to show that the election was stolen. A recurring talking point in this election has been precincts ? mostly in Philadelphia, but in Chicago as well ? that recorded literally no votes for Mitt Romney in 2012. A precinct can include a lot of people, and the precincts (technically called “divisions” in Philadelphia) in question, while strongly Democratic leaning, do include some registered Republicans, so the fact that no one voted for Romney in these precincts is seen as evidence that some malfeasance must have taken place. It’s to prevent just this that Trump has been urging supporters to keep an eye on polling places in Philadelphia to “make sure that this election is not stolen from us.” As it turns out, however, the precincts in questions are relatively small, and the few Republicans registered in them, when contacted by reporters, either didn’t vote, or didn’t know that they were registered as Republicans. Given that Trump has single-digit support among African-Americans nationwide, and the number of precincts operating in heavily non-white inner cities; it would be rather surprising if there weren’t any that didn’t cast ballots entirely for Clinton. A third source of evidence will be misunderstanding of how election results are recorded and reported in many areas. The US is a hodgepodge of different balloting and election systems, and the way in which some are reported can cause confusion. For instance, in 2012, St. Lucie County, Florida (in east central Florida, north of Palm Beach) had 175,000 registered voters, but reported almost 250,000 votes were cast. It’s not a particularly Democratic county, but this seems a clear sign that something was going on here. Of course, another thing going on is weird ballot design. St. Lucie County, along with several others across the Southern US, makes use of a multi-page ballot, in which each page of the ballot is counted separately by the tallying system. In the 2012 general election, the ballot had two pages, so each completed ballot was counted as two votes. Rather than 142 percent voter turnout, the county had something like 71 percent turnout: high, but certainly not impossible. The people who are motivated to look for evidence of voter fraud are nothing if not resourceful, and they’ll likely find even more evidence than what’s described here to prove to them that the election was stolen. And the elections will be fixed, in a way: through voter identification requirements, registration deadlines, felony disenfranchisement laws, gerrymandering, restrictions on ballot and debate access for independent candidates, and so. This sort of real rigging is widespread, and entirely public: but that’s not likely to stop some partisans from continuing to dig up false evidence of a stolen election that allows them believe that they didn’t really lose. Voter fraud and potential solutions to it (voter ID laws) have become increasingly important issues in US elections over the past decade. While in the past several election cycles conservative pundits and groups such as Hans Von Spakovsky and the Heritage Foundation worked to push voter fraud onto the election agenda, the 2016 election is the first time one of the major party presidential candidates in the modern era has openly and visibly discussed the possibility of voter fraud impacting election results. Donald Trump’s recent statements on ‘needing to watch polling booths’ in parts of Pennsylvania and raising the issue at campaign stops increases the visibility of the issue and may undercut Americans’ trust in the electoral system. Clearly, the re-invigoration of Trump’s fraud rhetoric is tied with his falling fortunes in the polls and poor election forecasts. Thus, and as in the past several elections, one might believe this tactic is simply a way to increase white, Republican turnout; and potentially discourage minority voting. The difference with Trump’s rhetoric is the suggestion that he might not accept the election results if he loses because of the belief in widespread voter fraud. He already claimed the presence of fraud when he lost in the Iowa caucuses in February, but contending a rigged system exists in the general election is raising voter fraud to an entirely different level. Political and social scientists have spent the past decade demonstrating the lack of actual voter fraud cases and the strategic use of voter fraud claims to increase Republican turnout. Recent research has shown that voter identification laws decrease minority turnout; turnout which is mostly Democratic voters. Research has also examined why many Americans continue to believe in widespread voter fraud. This has shown conspiracy theory beliefs in voter fraud, particularly when voters’ preferred party or candidate loses, and differences among Americans based on views of immigration, partisanship, and race. My colleagues and I’s research has examined a potential source for the disconnection between the existence of voter fraud and Americans’ widespread belief in voter fraud ? the media. In one study, we examined local newspaper coverage of voter fraud during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. In both elections, we found that the number of voter fraud cases was unrelated to news coverage on fraud. That is, evidence of voter fraud played no measurable role in whether fraud was reported on. Instead, we found that during the 2012 election, battleground states and states that had recently passed restrictive voter identification laws saw a significant increase in voter fraud coverage. Newspapers in battleground states were expected to have roughly 8 more stories on voter fraud and newspapers in states that recently passed restrictive voting laws were expected to have around 6 more stories on voter fraud during the election season. This suggests parties and campaigns were able to place voter fraud on the news agenda despite having little to no evidence. In doing so, Republicans in particular may have been able to increase Republican turnout and concern over voter fraud. In a related paper, we examine the content of voter fraud news coverage during the 2012 elections. We find the content of news stories heavily revolved around photo identification laws and their legality. Several states (e.g., Mississippi and Texas) that has passed new laws were being challenged in court prior to the 2012 elections and thus the progression of those cases and whether the laws would be in place on Election Day were obviously newsworthy items. However, as Jon Stewart notes, passing photo ID laws for voting is equivalent to ‘passing leash laws for unicorns’ ? passing laws for non-existent problems. We found limited indication that local newspapers discussed the lack of voter fraud evidence or the potential consequences from enacting voter identification laws; specifically, the suppression of minority voting. For example, the term ‘Civil Rights’ was only the 13th most discussed phrase in context to statements on voter fraud. In essence, our research shows that local newspapers allowed elite rhetoric to drive coverage on voter fraud over actual facts and spent minimal time discussing potential negative consequences of voter identification laws. The two other youths in the vehicle were not injured. They were arrested at the scene but have since been released. Two RCMP officers, who have between two and four years of service, received minor injuries during the incident. Police closed Hospital Street near the Highway 63 off-ramp as they investigated. The area remained blocked off Sunday morning. The shooting will be investigated by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team, an independent agency mandated to investigate all incidents that involve serious injury or death that may have resulted from the actions of a police officer. The RCMP major crimes unit in Edmonton is investigating the original stolen vehicle offence. Elite US newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post have attacked and challenged the ‘myth of voter fraud’ in regular news stories and editorials during the past several election cycles. In this election, rebutting Trump’s claims and suggestions has seemingly become a weekly event for such papers. However, our research from past elections suggests this message is not filtering down to local newspapers ? the place where most voters receive information about elections in their districts and states. It may turn out impossible for newspapers and the media writ-large to challenge Americans’ beliefs on voter fraud given the current post-fact information environment. However, when allegations of voter fraud move from a conspiracy theory-level to mainstream politics-level, the media have a responsibility to defend the democratic system from such spurious attacks. Through a planned and concerted effort to refute voter fraud claims, the media may fulfil their role in the democratic ideal where the press hold officials and elites responsible for their actions and words. Three plainclothes officers from the Wood Buffalo RCMP crime reduction unit attempted to stop a stolen vehicle in Fort McMurray around 3:15 p.m., RCMP said in a release. Shots were fired when the vehicle, occupied by three male youths, attempted to flee the scene, RCMP said. One shot struck the 16-year-old boy allegedly driving the stolen vehicle. He was taken for treatment to the Northern Lights Regional Health Centre, and was later flown with serious injuries to hospital in Edmonton, RCMP said. He is currently listed in stable condition. Again, no trends! These are my observations that I think you will see happen in 2017 in a real tactile way. Happy New Year and happy 2017. It’s been a fascinating and great year at Honeypot Marketing. You’re going to see the introduction to the Knows Network and I’m super excited about that. We are going to start doubling down on our own projects and community. Subscribe to The Marketing Drive YouTube channel Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes I’ll be covering the latest and greatest marketing, business and start-up tips every day from the road. Agency Life: The ups, the downs of agency life. How to build your agency successfully. Marketing Execution: Every day we’re launching, reviewing and optimizing marketing campaigns. Marketing and Business: How to survive as an effective marketer without losing your sanity. Marketer Knows is a community for marketers who are in the trenches each and every day.