[Mr170IQ]

Please G-d, let there still be hope.

[Catsrus]

Your plan sounds like a long, drawn out, expensive process.

We just have to accept the results and move on. However, I still feel this election was stolen.

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

I agree with you 100% EXCEPT I don't think they had to simultaneously drop the 0bama vote count. THE OBAMA VOTES WEREN'T THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

All they needed to do was DROP the Romney vote count far enough below 0bama's, which they did and I agree. There is NO WAY the Republican turnout was LOWER than for McCain in 2008. I will NEVER believe that, EVER. It's easy to foment that lie when the final tally for Romney is a lie, right?

Thanks for posting this. I read another post here at FR which stated that 1 out of 5 Ohio votes was cast by an unregistered voter. That would be an 0bama vote, most likely. Perhaps in some states they dropped the Romney vote below that of 0bama's and in others raised the 0bama vote above that of Romney's. The former would be easier.

I've been wondering where Eric Holder's been recently. Perhaps busy in the DOJ basement, manning the liaison center for vote manipulation plotting with his plain-clothed ACORN, Black Panther, labor union and 'mysterious United Nations poll monitors' throughout the nation that night?

[hamboy]

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

(National) 11/7/2012 - AMERICA'S CLAIRVOYANT ELECTION SYSTEM - Perhaps one of the oddest moments of all during last night's live election coverage was what happened to Karl Rove on Fox Network News.

With Florida still too close to call and hundreds of thousands of votes still out in Ohio (including a large hunk of votes in Romney strongholds), and with a spread of about 100,000 votes separating the candidates in Ohio, Fox called Ohio for Obama. Karl Rove arranged to come on the Fox network to voice his rebuttal.

Now, whatever you think of Rove, I think most of us agree that he's a numbers guy. His numbers didn't support the calling of the state of Ohio at that point in time. When he explained his reasoning, the Fox anchor quickly shut him down. "It's a science" he was told.

Based not on actual votes, but on projections from a single private entity, the National Election Pool (NEP), we were all told what the election results were going to be. When Rove pulled out his notes and calculations, he was basically told "Shut up, this is a science."

But is that what your vote really is? A science project, to be viewed only by experts inside a nesting set of black boxes, completely out of public view?

If we are to have real self-governance, we need to be able to authenticate each essential step in our own elections -- without need for special expertise to explain to us what the result is. What more centralized, privatized form of declaring a result is there than to commission the NEP to provide a single set of statistics to ALL of the TV networks for a declaration of results without human eyes ever looking at a single ballot.

The media called the election in Tennessee just 11 minutes after the polls closed and by the way, exit polls had already been cancelled in Tennessee because, it was explained, everyone already knew who the winner was going to be so why bother with the expense. Even the voting machines, opaque and controlled by whatever their programmers put into them, had not yet issued results printouts. Is this the new, NEW method for pretending at democracy?

Washington State, where I live, is a forced absentee state, where 100% of the votes are now absentee ballots, which must be postmarked on Election Day. I placed my ballot in the post office at 2 pm. There are no exit polls, because there are no polling places. Apparently a few phone calls now substitute for actual exit polling (to people with land lines? That's an increasingly elderly demographic). Perhaps 40% of all ballots in Washington have not even been counted yet, but we've been told the results.

In California, typically 25% of the votes are counted after Election Day, yet results have been announced. That's a million uncounted ballots in Los Angeles alone. We have no clue what is on those ballots but we've been told not to worry about it. The stats guys have issued their verdict.

Forget voting machines, programmed by insiders to do whatever they do. Let's just skip counting the votes altogether and use statistics.

[FredZarguna]

The problem is that there is a filing and a precinct by precinct submission verified by the judge of elections and his clerk or clerks, and very often witnessed by several attorneys or representatives of the major parties. The vote in the precinct is posted by the State's Secretary of State and I can guarantee you it is checked against what was submitted by the election judge (and others.)

So, in order for the votes to be missing, they would have to disappear throughout the day -- they could not disappear at the end of the process once the votes were tallied. If they disappeared throughout the day, how was that done right under the nose of the poll watchers, clerks, and judges of elections? It's much easier to add votes than it is to make them disappear, nobody "unstuffs" a ballot box.

I find it curious myself that I hear so many stories of huge turnout, but then discover this is a low turnout election. That was not true in my precinct in 2012, where my son was the last to vote at #1538. I third or fourth from the last to vote in 2008, and I was #1414. So our turnout was about 7% higher.

I agree, it seems weird, but I still don't see how it happens under your theory.

[tsowellfan]

If this is proven can he be impeached?

[Chance Hart]

Too early and to tired to research it, but to the best of my understanding, one can go to their Voter Registration Account online to verify that their vote was accepted and counted.
If there was a “sample” group of say 1000 in these swing states that have that feature, it seems to me that it would be easy to see if that type of toss out fraud was committed. If say 5-10% showed up as not voted, or voted for a different candidate than they actually marked, then I think it would be worth the time and money to investigate further. If the sample showed potential fraud, the State would have a duty to hold off on giving the EV to a specific candidate until a broader investigation could be undertaken. WA is one of the states that I think you can check your (after) voting status, (not that WA is a swing state, although it would surprise me if Eastern WA was as BLUE as the “powers that be” claim). Might be worth looking into I would think.

[Captainpaintball]

1. There was an aborted meme a month back about one of Mitt’s sons owning a voting machine company. Maybe he can provide insight into this.

2. Maybe some intrepid “entrepreneur” can break into a warehouse and take a look at a random machine...just saying...

3. Another Freeper posted there are 160,000 precincts, and if 20 Republican votes are taken from each one, that explains why Mitt got less votes than McCain.

4. How about one of the eeeeeeeeevil Republican millionaires offer $1 million dollars to the first person to provide, beyond a reasonable doubt, solid proof of voter fraud. Especially with regard to voting machines.

5. In EACH race, PAY three “Rethuglicans”, a lawyer, and a fifth person (set up like James O’Keefe) to attend every precinct to monitor the situation.

6. I’d like Smokey The Orange Boner to call the Dems’ bluff at the fiscal cliff meetings. Demand paper ballots and ID as part of the budget deal and tell them they can have whatever they want. They will never go for it, thereby raising a lot of questions. (I’m being half serious here)

[tsowellfan]

Crooked Politics: Obama Lost in Every State With Photo ID Law

http://american3rdposition.com/?p=8416

[bike800]

Dont forget that a company in Spain was hired to count a “portion” of the electronic votes...then send the results back to the US. As I was watching the post election coverage, I noticed that Spain was very happy that Obama won....just sayin

[Mr170IQ]

Note,

If we get adequate evidence of widespread voter fraud, we don’t even need to have action at the ‘Secretary of State’ levels to reject the fraudulent election and move the election into the House of Reps.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Presidential_Electors#Joint_session_of_Congress_and_the_contingent_election

The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.[45] The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.[46] Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected House declares the winner of the election; all elections before 1936 were determined by the outgoing House instead.

The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.[46] The sitting Vice President is expected to preside, but in several cases the President pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings instead. The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state’s certified vote and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote (normally one member of each political party). Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.

Members of Congress can object to any state’s vote count, provided that the objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. An objection supported by at least one Senator and one Representative will be followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each House of Congress; after both Houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed. A State’s certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection. In that case, the votes from the State in question are simply ignored. The votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were rejected in the presidential election of 1872.[47]

Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who as Vice President was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised only by several House members and would have favored his candidacy, after no Senators would agree to jointly object. Objections were again raised in the vote count of the 2004 elections, and on that occasion the document was presented by one Representative and one Senator. Although the joint session was suspended, the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both Houses of Congress. If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a State’s votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.

After the certificates from all States are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final result of the vote and, provided that the required absolute majority of votes was achieved, declares the names of the persons elected President and Vice President. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the President-elect and of the Vice President-elect. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals.

Contingent presidential election by House

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc – each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not receive a vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., at present, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice: once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in 1801) and once under the Twelfth Amendment (in 1825).

[Mechanicos]

“When the Spanish online voting company SCYTL bought the largest vote processing corporation in the United States, it also acquired the means of manufacturing the outcome of the 2012 election. For SOE, the Tampa based corporation purchased by SCYTL in January, supplies the election software which records, counts, and reports the votes of Americans in 26 states–900 total jurisdictions–across the nation.

As the largest election results reporting company in the US, SOE provides reports right down to the precinct level. But before going anywhere else, those election returns are routed to individual, company servers where the people who run them “…get ‘first look’ at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.” In short, “this redirects results …to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.””
....
Nevertheless, in spite of warnings by experts across the nation, American soldiers overseas will once again vote via the internet in 2012. And because SCYTL will control the method of voting and—thanks to the purchase of SOE–the method of counting the votes as well, there “…will be no ballots, no physical evidence, no way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes…or the count.”

The American advocacy group Project Vote has concluded that SCYTL’s internet voting system is vulnerable to attack from the outside AND the inside, a situation which could result in “…an election that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters…” “
http://www.westernjournalism.com/spanish-company-will-count-american-votes-overseas-in-november/

[RayBob]

Sorry, but the rats did not steal the election. We forfieted it. Was there fraud? There always is, but that was not the margin of victory. Romney lost and Obama won because the dems turned out to vote and our side stayed home in protest of (1) Romney being a RINO or (2) Romney being a mormon. Its as simple as that. If you want to see the reason why we lost, just look around Free Republic. Elections have consequences... Many of us cast a vote by not showing up. Romney got less votes than McCain did in 2008. We got another r 4 years of Obama, and possibly the end of the Republic because we let it happen.

I expect a bunch of replies that its the GOP-e’s fault for sticking us with a moderate candidate, etc... Hey, that's what primaries are for. Romney won the primary for several reasons, not the least of which was the arrogance and selfishness of the conservatives who split the vote. Those who argue that it is time to abandon the GOP and form a third party, how did Johnson, Goode and the rest of the third parties do? Romney was not the ideal candidate, but would have been light years better than Obama... but our side decided that it was better to have Obama than a not perfect Romney.

[greedo]

General Election - November 6, 2012





I suspect that Mitt Romney probably lost Virginia "fair and square."

• Bob McDonnell and the GOP-e screwed conservatives in the Virginia primary.
  This might have depressed turnout a little bit on Tuesday.

• George Allen voted to give us Bernanke, John Roberts and bush-o-nomics, but he
  wanted Virginians to believe that he is now a limited-government conservative.
  Having a bad retread Senate candidate might have affected the turnout for Romney.

• Obama won by more than the sum of those two unemployed retards, but he got
  fewer votes than Kaine, who will be an absolutely horrible senator btw.

[noinfringers2]

To go along with your proposal I will add mine. When the House members and the Senate members meet jointly to ‘confirm’ the elector votes for Obama/Biden one member from each body should abstain/object or just plain out and out present the issues of fraud and the argument that the named electors for Obama/Biden be held pending resolution of the numerous probabilities of fraud. The members must be confronted with the question of fraudulent voting on an individual basis and forced to deal with any such demonstrated probabilities as to how they look at fraudulent voting. I recall Nixon had the opportunity to challenge the Illinois vote for Kennedy. Nixon chose not to do so for his own reasons of ‘unity’. The same might be true for Romney but this is much more important as to the future of the USA than a ‘Nixon’ feeling of unity. If Romney rebuffs an effort to remedy gross fraud than I believe he should not have been chosen to lead a serious challenge to Obama and Obama’s enablers and is not a fervent believer in the Constitution. I would hope Romney would have such a strong faith for our Constitution that he would not shirk from fighting for a fair and needed action in support.

[noinfringers2]

To go along with your proposal I will add mine. When the House members and the Senate members meet jointly to ‘confirm’ the elector votes for Obama/Biden one member from each body should abstain/object or just plain out and out present the issues of fraud and the argument that the named electors for Obama/Biden be held pending resolution of the numerous probabilities of fraud. The members must be confronted with the question of fraudulent voting on an individual basis and forced to deal with any such demonstrated probabilities as to how they look at fraudulent voting. I recall Nixon had the opportunity to challenge the Illinois vote for Kennedy. Nixon chose not to do so for his own reasons of ‘unity’. The same might be true for Romney but this is much more important as to the future of the USA than a ‘Nixon’ feeling of unity. If Romney rebuffs an effort to remedy gross fraud than I believe he should not have been chosen to lead a serious challenge to Obama and Obama’s enablers and is not a fervent believer in the Constitution. I would hope Romney would have such a strong faith for our Constitution that he would not shirk from fighting for a fair and needed action in support.

[Vaquero]

the rats stole NOTHING

the BROKEN Re-puke-lican Party, LOST, LOST, LOST it.....

by letting duffus scumbags like Steele(past tense) and Carl {Pillsbury do’h boy} Rove run the asylum

either we take back the party or we start a NEW one.

[patriot08]

My advice- don’t give up. Don’t wait until 2016.
Continue to fight him NOW.
Bengrazi
Fast and Furious
Phony birth certificate.

Spread this around:

The best Obama exposure site on the net:
The Obama File ...

http://www.theobamafile.com/index_next_personal.html
The United States Library of Congress has selectedTheObamaFile.com for inclusion in its historic collectionof Internet materials
http://theobamafile.com/LibraryOfCongress.html

Just a few of the pages:
http://www.theobamafile.com/index_next_politics.html
http://www.theobamafile.com/BarackObama.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/FamilyPage.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaPsychology.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaReligion.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaWife.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/ObamaAssociates.htm
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaIconography.htm

[Mrs. Frogjerk]

My husband and I have been sitting around and talking about the low Republican turn out and it just doesn’t make any sense. How do you have such massive crowds in OH yet they don’t show up when it counts? Obama had much smaller crowds. Where the hell were the Chic Fil A crowds. Did they all vote for Obama? That slug Sandra Fluk had ten people show up at her rally. I just don’t get it. Why would Republicans stay at home during an election that was this crucial? Something doesn’t seem right?

[PGalt]

Interesting theory. Absent the verification of your individual vote tally in the pool of individual vote tallies there is no way to guarantee it. A numbered date-time stamped receipt of the transaction is not given. A public record of the numbered receipts/tallies is not provided. The possibilities for fraud are astronomical.

[Churchillspirit]

Don't know how accurate this is, but I read that the votes from 26 states are processed electronically and calculated in Spain by a company wholly or partly owned by George Soros.

What an invitation to fraud.