Watchdog Group Raises Concern About Dead Voters on Massachusetts Rolls

[hedgehog]

Like I said before, you rats in the democrat party lie, cheat and steal:sadwave:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A conservative watchdog group on Tuesday blasted the Massachusetts secretary of state for dismissing concerns about the thousands of dead voters potentially on the rolls as living voters head to the polls in the high-stakes special election for U.S. Senate.

Though one study reportedly found as many as 116,000 dead voters on the rolls in the state, William Galvin, who oversees elections, said the dead voters are removed from the voter lists.
"These are conservative groups who don't know anything about this state," he said, according to The Boston Herald.

But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said Galvin should take the issue much more seriously considering the weight of Tuesday's special election.

"Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin has chosen to ridicule those concerned" about the dead voters on the rolls, he said in a written statement. "With so much at stake in his state and throughout the nation in today's election, one would expect him to be more serious and less cynical. After all, it's his job."

Americans for Limited Government was referring to a study conducted in October by data firm Aristotle International Inc. that found more than 16 million registered voters had either died or moved. Massachusetts had a particularly high number.

CNSNews.com reported that the Bay State had 116,483 dead registered voters, and 538,567 registered voters who had moved away from their listed addresses. The data apparently did not reflect end-of-year purges that states sometimes do to get rid of the excess names.

But the Herald reported that one conservative group was stirring concern by suggesting Coakley supporters and liberal groups like ACORN could pose as dead people to vote for the Democratic candidate.

 

[rusty]

 

[hedgehog]

I guess the machine did not cheat enough, I am guessing Brown really won by 15 % with all the corruption in the democrat party :mj07:

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I guess the machine did not cheat enough, I am guessing Brown really won by 15 % with all the corruption in the democrat party :mj07:

You really are losing it.

 

[Lumi]

This article is about our right to know, not about Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here favors a Democrat, just you wait, I'm still working on anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to 'splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell him to forget it, "I'm a historian, I've got all the time in the world." NY-23 still has history to be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But that's another story.

Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.

That's right.

According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.

Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.

ES&S RESULTS

The greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference -- 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don't prove anything, and probably shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.

As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.

DIEBOLD RESULTS

Diebold's results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272 Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley, with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.

LATE-REPORTED RESULTS

It's always interesting to watch hand counts beat machine count results to the newspaper.

In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand count locations in right away. The slower hand count results represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.

These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to Brown's 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin) Whether the reports came to the media late or the media posted them late is unclear.

ES&S SLOWPOKE VOTES

ES&S had 12 of its 91 locations reported at least 2 1/2 hours after polls closed, a total of 13.2% of all its locations (as compared with just 8.45% of slower reporting hand count locations). So ES&S certainly wasn't faster than hand counts, overall!

These slow-arriving votes represented 88,288 of ES&S's 620,388 votes. Overall Brown got 46,257, for 52.39% of the late-arriving ES&S votes, and Coakley got 41,238, for 46.71%, yielding a margin of 5.68% of the late-arriving votes going to Brown, for a net gain of 5,019 votes to Brown.

North Attleboro and Paxton appear to be the last locations in the state to be reported, and they are both ES&S. North Attleboro brought in 10,881
very late votes, 71.48% of them going to Brown; Paxton brought in 2,036 votes, 65.37% going to Brown.

THE SLOW BOAT FROM DIEBOLD

Yes, I know they're supposed to be called Premier machines now, and ES&S bought the company so it's now all one big monopoly family, and then the whole kit and kaboodle in New England -- Premier and ES&S -- is programmed by the juicy little LHS Associates guys. But I like to just call them Diebold, that familiar name which we all know and love.

Twenty-four of Diebold's 187 locations wandered in late, smoking cigarettes and wearing a bathrobe. That's 12.83% of all its locations. Apparently it was faster to hand count 8,497 ballots, as they did promptly in Newburyport, or 7,339 ballots, as they hand counted in public for all to see in Milton, than to push a button and wait five minutes for the machine to spit out a Diebold results report in Pelham where they had 725 votes. East Brookfield's 899 Diebold votes must have run out of gas somewhere; they weren't reported for hours.

All in all, a total of 170,594 Diebold votes took a long time to stumble in the door, These votes -- surprise! -- favored Coakley. She got 86,214 of them, for 50.54%, and Brown got 82,911 tardy Diebold votes, for 48.60%, putting Coakley on the plus side of the late arrivers by a 1.94% margin, for a net gain of 3,303 slow-moving votes.

They'd called the election by the time the 170,594 tardy Diebold votes showed up. Coakley had conceded. And of course, there are many ways to look at this if you don't trust voting machines, and why should you? It's hard to know who was fooling around, or if anybody was.

You see, the Diebold latecomers represented the strongest showing for Coakley of all and in some heavily populated areas. 32 of 33 Cambridge polling place results couldn't find their way to the media for a long time. Cambridge finally came in with 27,268 votes for Coakley -- 84.11%. Brown was only able to locate 4,921 votes from Cambridge when all was said and done.

And the media couldn't seem to rustle up any Amherst votes for any of its 10 polling places until races were called and candidates had conceded. Amherst generated 84% of its votes for Coakley with only 15% going to Brown.

So this is all very interesting, and hopefully is accurate because I'm spreadsheeting after midnight. And we're talking statistics based on premature and unofficial results which came from the media and not the government, and the Massachusetts Secretary of State doesn't officially tell us which place is using which system, so we're relying on volunteers from the VerifiedVoting Web site who hunted it down.**

** A public service announcement from Disclaimers-R-Us, a subsidiary of the US Elections Industry.

GET OVER IT, SCOTT BROWN WON

Actually, I think any intellectually honest person will see that Brown garnered financing and executed brilliantly, and that's just politics.

He probably DID win. In 71 Massachusetts locations we could watch the counting (woops, he lost those, overall). But in 277 locations, the counting was on computerized voting machines and concealed from the public.

So we can never really know who won, and that is unfair to both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. But it's most unfair to the citizens of Massachusetts, who have an inalienable right to choose their own governance. You can't hold sovereignty over the choosing process if you can't see it.

LATE DIEBOLD LOCATIONS:
Pelham
Northfield
East Brookfield
Warren
Amherst
Wenham
Marion
Groveland
Georgetown
Littleton
Hull
Sterling
Belchertown
Weston
Boxford
Bedford
North Reading
Watertown
Wareham
Cambridge
Holden
Saugus
Plymouth
Billerica

REST OF THE DIEBOLD LOCATIONS:
Southbridge
Wilmington
Erving
Richmond
Becket
Otis
Williamsburg
Bernardston
Lanesborough
Wales
Hardwick
Great Barrington
Lenox
Williamstown
Hatfield
Lee
Oak Bluffs
Adams
Edgartown
Dalton
Deerfield
Lincoln
Hadley
Dunstable
Boxborough
North Brookfield
Barre
Sherborn
West Newbury
Boylston
Bolton
Orange
Ayer
Manchester
Granby
Southampton
Merrimac
Mendon
Dighton
Ware
Stow
Templeton
Lancaster
Dover
Winchendon
Salisbury
Monson
Nantucket
West Boylston
Newbury
Blackstone
Athol
Upton
Maynard
Halifax
West Bridgewater
Rutland
Hamilton
Cohasset
Douglas
Sturbridge
Easthampton
Dudley
Palmer
Townsend
Southborough
Clinton
Spencer
Lunenburg
Webster
Fairhaven
Oxford
Tyngsborough
Westport
Concord
Gardner
Pepperell
Swansea
Norfolk
Lawrence
South Hadley
Charlton
Ashland
Amesbury
Norwell
Raynham
Kingston
Ipswich
Medway
Uxbridge
Randolph
Whitman
Holliston
Holyoke
Everett
Pittsfield
East Bridgewater
Wrentham
Auburn
Sudbury
Bellingham
Abington
Ludlow
Longmeadow
Grafton
Belmont
Norton
Westwood
Hanover
Lexington
Duxbury
West Springfield
Pembroke
Bourne
Brookline
Winchester
Marblehead
Stoneham
Fitchburg
Salem
Canton
Dartmouth
Westford
Easton
Malden
Dedham
Melrose
Bridgewater
Reading
Danvers
Norwood
Agawam
Wakefield
Arlington
Needham
North Andover
Tewksbury
Walpole
Dracut
Marshfield
Westfield
Falmouth
Leominster
Andover
Woburn
Medford
Beverly
Waltham
Lynn
Attleboro
Franklin
Taunton
Framingham
Methuen
Braintree
Chelmsford
Brockton
Lowell
Newton
Barnstable
Weymouth
Worcester
Boston

LATE ES&S LOCATIONS:
North Attleborough
Paxton
Rowley
Topsfield
Lakeville
Groton
Hanson
Carver
Lynnfield
Somerville
Scituate
Natick

REST OF THE ES&S LOCATIONS:
Gosnold
New Salem
Stockbridge
Gill
Shelburne
Buckland
Sunderland
Tisbury
Holland
Brookfield
Nahant
West Brookfield
North Adams
Avon
Princeton
Harvard
Hubbardston
Eastham
Chelsea
Ashburnham
Berkley
Hopedale
Rochester
Mattapoisett
Orleans
Greenfield
Acushnet
Chatham
Westminster
Freetown
Holbrook
Middleton
Millis
Northampton
Plainville
Southwick
Leicester
Brewster
Wayland
Sutton
Rehoboth
Millbury
Seekonk
Swampscott
Sharon
Winthrop
Harwich
Somerset
Northborough
Westborough
Mashpee
Medfield
Acton
Hopkinton
Wilbraham
Rockland
East Longmeadow
Dennis
Foxborough
Milford
Gloucester
Stoughton
Burlington
Revere
Mansfield
Wellesley
Middleborough
Yarmouth
Sandwich
Hingham
Marlborough
Fall River
New Bedford
Shrewsbury
Chicopee
Springfield
Haverhill
Peabody
Quincy

GENTLY PACED HAND COUNT LOCATIONS:
Cummington
Chilmark
Sheffield
Berlin
Montague
Essex

REST OF THE HAND COUNT LOCATIONS:
Monroe
Mount Washington
New Ashford
Aquinnah
Hawley
Alford
Wendell
Tyringham
Rowe
Washington
Plainfield
Monterey
Savoy
Middlefield
Leyden
Hancock
Heath
Warwick
Peru
Florida
Windsor
Sandisfield
Shutesbury
Tolland
Leverett
West Stockbridge
Egremont
Charlemont
Clarksburg
Goshen
Ashfield
New Marlborough
Worthington
Provincetown
Chesterfield
Colrain
Montgomery
New Braintree
Hinsdale
Chester
Royalston
Conway
Whately
Blandford
West Tisbury
Petersham
Russell
Truro
Westhampton
Cheshire
Phillipston
Huntington
Granville
Wellfleet
Oakham
Millville
Ashby
Plympton
Brimfield
Carlisle
Hampden
Shirley
Rockport
Newburyport
Hudson

MYSTERY, PROBABLY OPTICAL SCAN LOCATIONS:
Northbridge
Milton

 

[Lumi]

Unofficial results of the special election for US Senate held in Massachusetts on Jan. 19, 2010. The winner, as declared by the Associated Press, is marked by a "

".
Seat held by: Democrat Paul G. Kirk Jr., who is serving out the term of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and is not running.

• Best and worst towns for each candidate

 

[Chadman]

So, just out of morbid curiousity, Hedge - do you have any proof of fraud in this election? Does the conservative group that has an obvious agenda and no proof displayed of fraud have any?

Until you do, saying that maybe something could have happened, in an election that you just won, is really very sad, even for you.

There is no proof, there is a definite agenda by those bringing up the issue - with no proof of what they are asserting could be a problem.

Carry on, with more bullshit. A true conservative, you are - someone who wins, and still complains about it.

 

[hedgehog]

So, just out of morbid curiousity, Hedge - do you have any proof of fraud in this election? Does the conservative group that has an obvious agenda and no proof displayed of fraud have any?

Until you do, saying that maybe something could have happened, in an election that you just won, is really very sad, even for you.

There is no proof, there is a definite agenda by those bringing up the issue - with no proof of what they are asserting could be a problem.

Carry on, with more bullshit. A true conservative, you are - someone who wins, and still complains about it.

I posted it before he won:shrug: you know dead people voted, are you that nieve?

 

[SKEETER1]

Fraud has gone on in voting for many yrs now. This I do know for a fact....ACORN and the Black Panthers were outside MANY of the voting places in Mass. More of the same ole shit going on.....someone needs to kick ACORN and the Black Panthers right in the azz if they ever try to threaten anyone with how they vote....OK I will do it....but first I have to kick the stupid azz ILLEGALS azz's here in AZ who are in my way also trying to vote. IDIOTS Then Keith no brains Olberman says on Msnbc....This election shows that Mass people are racist. What a stupid freaking statement.

 

[rusty]

I posted it before he won:shrug: you know dead people voted, are you that nieve?

The Article is written by a conservative newspaper about a negative attack by a conservative watchdog group.I guess all the dead people voted democrat:shrug: you make yourself look more gullible than your partner.

 

[Chadman]

My point was, immediately after winning an election, there was a post calling the other side liars, cheaters, and, um, stealers. This coming from a person who regularly calls people with a different viewpoint whiners when they put up the same kind of questioning items, usually in elections when they lose.

I think it takes it to a new level to whine about something that has no real tangible evidence (other than the mystery knowledge that only a select few seem to have here... ) immediately AFTER things go a persons way.

 

[Lumi]

My point was, immediately after winning an election, there was a post calling the other side liars, cheaters, and, um, stealers. This coming from a person who regularly calls people with a different viewpoint whiners when they put up the same kind of questioning items, usually in elections when they lose.

I think it takes it to a new level to whine about something that has no real tangible evidence (other than the mystery knowledge that only a select few seem to have here... ) immediately AFTER things go a persons way.

Chadman

http://www.blackboxvoting.org./

 

[rusty]

What am I missing here A republican candidate beat a democrat.Coakley was winning on an average by 30% 3 weeks prior to election.

Brown vigorously campaigns for 3 weeks even himself going door to door.Coakley on the other hand relys on her attorney general status plus the fact Mass. is known as a dem. state.

And here are people question the integrity of a vote thru watch dog groups?I personally don't get it.

 

[rusty]

Also as a independent voter I received numerous calls from the Brown campaign urging me to vote Brown.

I even received a taped call from Curt Schilling backing Brown and stating that she thinks I am a Yankee fan.How can she know the agenda in Washington.

These call went on for weeks.
Then when Coakley Realizes she under campaigned she starts calling days before the election hoping to sway independent votes.

Sounds to me that Brown EARNED the vote.
I personally think watchdog groups while needed are there to point out fraud but rarely have a impact on a candidate winning a election.

In fact this vote (Brown vs Coakley) discredits watchdog groups mission and me personally would not give them a dime.