US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Politics
Computer Fraud Even in Oklahoma
22 Dec 2004
On November 3, the Tulsa World reported that Sen.John Kerry was winning in 57 Oklahoma counties with 70% of the vote counted. But, by the time the rest of the votes were added in (or
subtracted out, as the case may be), George W. Bush carried every county in Oklahoma, one of only two states where he managed that feat. It
was a simple case of the Bible Belt voting for yet another Republican Presidential candidate, just as we have every year since 1980 (maybe
longer, but you get the point). Or was it?
Tulsa World on Oklahoma Vote Totals: We Have No Idea
by Mark Faulk

>
On November 3, the Tulsa World reported that Sen.John Kerry was winning in 57 Oklahoma counties with 70% of the vote counted. But, by the time the rest of the votes were added in (or
subtracted out, as the case may be), George W. Bush carried every county in Oklahoma, one of only two states where he managed that feat. It
was a simple case of the Bible Belt voting for yet another Republican Presidential candidate, just as we have every year since 1980 (maybe
longer, but you get the point). Or was it?

Why then did the Tulsa World report that Kerry was
leading in 57 counties with 70% of the vote counted, and why then
did Kerry actually lose in every one of those counties when the
final
vote was tallied?

>
Because when the final votes were tallied, Kerry actually LOST
votes
in all 57 counties, 37,9982 to be exact, while Bush
GAINED an incredible 393,825 votes in the same counties. That's
right, as the Oklahoma Independent Media Center put it, "Voting
Machines
Count Backwards in Oklahoma".
http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=344

For example, with 70% of the total vote counted in
Bryan County, the Tulsa World had Kerry leading Bush by a whopping
4,016
votes, with 6,864 votes to Bush's 2,848. But, after the official
vote
was tallied, Bush had 8,615 votes (a gain of 5,767 votes), while
Kerry
ended up with 5,745 votes (a LOSS of 1,119 votes). In Carter
County,
Kerry
led by 2,947 votes with 70% counted, 7,955 to 5,008, but once
again, when the "official" vote was finalized, Bush won with 8,615
votes (again of 5,767 votes), while Kerry ended up with only 5,745
votes (again, a LOSS of 2,210 votes). It truly appears as if the
voting
machines counted backwards....but only for Kerry. This pattern is
repeated in all 57 counties. Kerry lost votes, while Bush gained
massive
amounts of votes.

Now, truthfully, I'm as skeptical as the next guy
(provided the next guy isn't a neocon) about our current system of
voting, especially when the votes are tallied by EE&S Corp (as they
are in
Oklahoma), who has clear ties to numerous ultra-right individuals
and
organizations, and have already been implicated in several other
voter
fraud investigations. But let's be honest about this - why
would anyone waste their time rigging the election in a state that
Kerry
didn't even bother to campaign in, and that Oklahoma Democratic
Party
officials conceded to Bush without even a semblance of a fight?

There had to be a simple explanation. A phone call
to the Tulsa World would clear this right up. On Sunday night, I
spoke to reporter Mike Decker, who sounded a bit surprised by the
vote
total discrepancy.
It seemed like a simple question: "What was the source
of the information that you printed in your newspaper....in
other words, where did you get your numbers?" He had no idea.

Could I call back on Monday and speak to Randy
Krehbiel, who handles their election reporting? I could. According
to Krehbiel, "On election night, things get very hectic. My
recollection is that we used AP results, because it's faster than
State Election
Board numbers."
Except, umm, Krehbiel had the night off, so he wasn't
around when the story was printed, so he really didn't know where
they
got their vote totals from.

I really needed to speak to Executive Editor Joe
Worley, who was just walking out the door. Could I call and leave a
message for him, and he'd call me back Monday afternoon? No
problem.
I left
a message Monday morning.....and waited. I left another message
Monday
afternoon....and waited some more. Then, on Tuesday morning, I left
another message....and waited again. And yet one more on
Tuesday afternoon.

While I was "busy" waiting, I called the Oklahoma
State Election Board, and spoke with Vada Holstein, who had a
simple
explanation for all the fuss. "Apparently, the Tulsa World
inadvertently added the straight party vote total to the numbers
that they got
from the State Election Board, who had already included the
straight
party vote totals in their figures, which inflated both candidates
vote
totals." In other words, the straight party votes were added in
twice.
It made perfect sense, except for one thing. If they added the
straight party totals to both candidates' totals, why then did
Kerry's vote
total actually drop by over 37 thousand votes, while Bush's vote
total
gained 393 thousand votes. I did the math on a handful of the
counties,
using the numbers provided on the State Election Board website. It
didn't add up. She was wrong.

Then, finally, on Tuesday afternoon (actually
Tuesday evening), Worley called me back. Now we would put an end to
this
mini-voter fraud scandal once and for all. Simple question: "What
was
the source of the information that you printed in your
newspaper....in
other words, where did you get your vote totals from?"

"Actually, we've spent a good part of our day
looking into that very issue. We subscribe to the AP wire service,
and that's
where those numbers usually come from, where they're supposed to
come from.
However, as of right now, we have no idea where we got our
numbers from. When we do find out, we'll make a statement in the
Tulsa World
newspaper, and I'll answer any other questions at that time."

Wait a second here.....let me get this straight.
The Tulsa World printed the election totals from what many
considered
the most important Presidential election of the last forty years,
and
they don't know where those numbers come from? They had Kerry
leading in 57
counties with numbers that actually went in reverse from their
published figures, and after two days of looking, they still can't
figure out
who gave them those numbers?

In the end, the "voting scandal" in Oklahoma might
turn out to be nothing, but that's not the real issue here. The
real
issue is the pattern of deceit, confusion, and misinformation that
this election has spawned, not just in Oklahoma, but nationwide.
Unless
we demand a full and thorough accounting of all the votes that have
been miscounted, lost, stolen, or simply misplaced, we can never be
certain whether our most important right as an American, our right
to
vote, is still intact.
In Oklahoma, we still have our paper ballots, and they
don't have "hanging chads". We can, and should, demand a full
recount.
Unfortunately, many states don't have that luxury, if
we allow our entire voting system to be taken over by an electronic
voting system controlled by a few questionable companies, our vote
won't matter, and our elections will become nothing more than
another
commodity to be bought and sold by those in power.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
---
----------

To see the Tulsa World vote totals published on Nov. 3, go to:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2004/Final/A_10_11_3_2004.pdf

And compare them to the Oklahoma State Election Board totals at:
http://www.elections.state.ok.us/04gen_co.pdf

This article may be reprinted either in part or in its
entirety, provided a link is included.
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Commentary/1022.html

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.