Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 8

message: While I'm slightly confused as to where people stand, I'm guessing that you don't have a problem with the summary -> daughter concept Ryan, you just don't like the idea of replacing this article outright with JML's.  So how about this.  I will take the page as it is currently and put a copy at 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities/summary , let us discuss here what major subtopics we should have, and try to reduce them to two paragraphs (number flexible), then cutting what is currently there verbatim into a main article (and hopefully adding what has been dropped in the past for clarity's sake).  Once we have a summary article which contains all topics that people can agree on, we will replace this current page with the summary, and expand upon the daughter articles.  What does the group think? --kizzle 02:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
:We don't need a copy, and I strenuously disagree with creating a parallel version. Edit here in good faith. Edit the summary if you want in good faith. Why can people not see the most direct path? What is the fear? What is the problem?
:Also, we must allow days for answers, not minutes, before a consensus of the available is assumed. A lot of folks have not weighed in at all, and we've created massive cruft in this spinning argument that could have been edits. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. This article has lots of great info, but it needs such a huge overhaul that working on a temporary version is probably the best way to proceed. I also hope that there's as much discussion about what goes in the article as there is about what comes out. Carrp 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification of summary -> daughter article relationship 

message: I think this daughter article deserves treatment in the main article consistent with that of the vote suppression, voting machines, and exit polls daugther article: a section w/a big link and about two paragraphs.  As it stands now, there's one link to it somewhere on the page.  Finding it is like playing "Where's Waldo?" Kevin Baastalk 20:58, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
:People shouldn't have to play "Where's Waldo", but a "See also" section shouldn't contain redundant links.  See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections. JamesMLane 12:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recounts and legal challenges

message: In the second paragraph of the Introduction, we say "a Federal suit may be pending". I haven't found any mention of this elsewhere in the article, or in the daughter article on recounts and legal challenges. Can anyone please point me towards further information about this? -- Avenue 20:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had removed that - the lawyers initially said they intended to file a federal case, but nothing has been done thus far. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Federal lawsuit

message: Does anyone have a the content that was deleted, or want to transcribe it from a c-span video?  We could post the transcription on WikiSource and link to it, and/or we could post it in the recounts and legal challenges daughter article if it's not too long. Kevin Baastalk 20:41, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
I'll go digging. I've got the transcript, and I've got the video. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted from the congressional record!?  Alarm goes off in my head.

message: Remember when we removed the line about Cliff Arnebeck et. al. having withdrawn their OH Supremem court case re: irregularities, and seeking a federal case, pending more info? Here's the latest:
:Arnebeck: "Three days after we did the voluntary dismissal (of Moss. v Bush) I filed a motion to intervene in a federal pending case to essentially proceed with the same litigation and take these emergency depositions of Bennet and Blackwell. We're hoping to get into this federal case and prove the fraud and all the civil rights conspiracies.
:"And if the case we selected is not available because the judge won't let us in, we intend to file additional litigation. We are intending to broaden the investigation to prove how the votes were stolen all over the country." ''
Here's the case he's trying to join:
:Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell
:U.S. District District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:04-cv-01055
:Here is a PDF of the actual filing pdf.
:Here is all the documentation of the case .
This case was filed on election day. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arnbeck's latest and greatest

message: I was just wondering if Florida Representative Feny has every officially responded to the Clint Curtis conspiring to write vote switching software allegations?  Anyone have any info on that?  zen master    T  04:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rep Feney response to Clint Curtis allegations? 

message: I always wondered why, when I know for a fact, that early voting is allowed in the state of ohio, if done by absente ballot, and why when 90% of the people I called to register, 2 weeks before the elcetion had already voted by ballot, why were the absentee ballots disregarded as insignifigant?? other than the fact that most of these people had voted for kerry? - (anon) 14:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OHIO

message: Here's a report of Lucas County's irregularities, by and for Blackwell's administration, which points to some serious wrongdoing by Bernadette Noe, the wife of GOP fundraiser Bill Noe, now embroiled in the 'coingate' scandal. pdf
::Bernadette Noe, who served dual roles as chairman for the Lucas County Republican Party and the Lucas County Board of Elections, sent twelve "partisans" into a warehouse on Election Day, according a memo authored by Ohio's Director of Campaign Finance Richard Weghorst who was present at the time.
::The assertion is part of a comprehensive investigation prepared for Ohio Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell regarding reports of irregularities in Lucas County. The report found gross failures on the part of Ms. Noe's board in preparation for and administration of November's election.
::{...}When the volunteers refused to leave the premises, Weghorst called the police, who then escorted the group away from the warehouse. It later emerged they had come at Ms. Noe's request.
::A Diebold employee, Robert Diekmann, was also present at the warehouse that night.
:Noe an advocate for Diebold
::Ms. Noe was an advocate of Diebold's optical scan software as chair of the Lucas County Board of Elections. In April 2004, she and another fellow Republican board member voted to approve a $350,000 contract with Diebold to lease machines for the election. The county was forced the lease the equipment after a deadlock and a rebuke from Blackwell.
::"It's going to cost us more than we thought it would, but it's going to be a fair election," Ms. Noe said at the time. "I am confident with the system we will have with Diebold."
::"Every vote is going to get counted, and it is going to be an efficient election," she added.
::The contract was no-bid. After Democrats on the board revealed a cheaper bid from another company, the Lucas County board was forced to open the contract for bidding, over Ms. Noe's objections.
:Possibly involved with ballot tampering
::Reminiscent of the ballot sticker controversy in Clermont County, Ohio, Ms. Noe was involved in an incident through which Republican volunteers were brought in to "assist" processing returned voter confirmation postcards. On her authority and that of several other board members, partisan volunteers were allowed to copy the returned cards.
::They were subsequently caught by a Lucas County Democratic official peeling the return stickers off the voter confirmation cards, and were told to leave. Weghorst's inquiry found no evidence they had been supervised.
::The investigator's report was submitted in April 2005.
:Rep. Conyers' response
::Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is expected to ask the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel today.
::"The facts that have come out indicate a culture of corruption in the Ohio Republican Party," Conyers in a statement to RAW STORY. "An investigation such as this, which is rife with conflicts of interest, begs for the appointment of an independent prosecutor who would be immune from the partisan gamesmanship we have seen so far."
::Conyers' letter to the Justice Department will be posted shortly. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Noe, Lucas County and Ohio

message: The 'Research and Maps' link on the main voteprotect.org site  is the source of the information in the second paragraph (40,000+ 2004 Election incidents). A more direct link may be desirable. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voteprotect.org site

message: Thanks for culling some of the dead links, and for leaving the content in place to aid in updating them. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Culling dead links

message: Stop revert warring please. I've blocked a group of IP addresses for 3RR violation. Radiant_>|< 11:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks Radiant!. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I am sure you know, blocking those IPs is rather useless.  But, carry on. 172.138.13.214 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: The article mentions the second/proper election better agreed with the original exit polls. This is not too relevant. What's much more important and I assume it it the case that the second election agree with the exil polls for that election. It doesn't matter much with regards to the second election what the exit polls for the first/fraud election showed as it's easily possible a number of people changed their minds as a result of the controvery (the fraud, the poisoning etc). I personally suspect if the first poll hadn't involved so much fraud, it would have been closer then the second election although I suspect it would have still given a majority to the winner of the second election. Regardless, what's important is the first election 'results' did not agree with the exit polls for the first election and the second election results agreed much better with the exit polls for the second election which I would assume was the case. 60.234.141.76 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine exit polls