portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

election fraud


Justice Through Music offering a $100,000 reward for providing conclusive, verifiable evidence that results of the presidential election not correctly tabulated.
Justice Through Music,  http://www.jtmp.org/ is offering "at least a $100,000 reward" for providing conclusive and verifiable evidence that the results of the 2004 presidential election were not correctly tabulated because of one or more of the following:

1) hacking into the voting machines;
2) software or coding problems with voting or tabulating machines;
3) multiple counting by machines or humans,
4) improperly implanted codes in voting machines;
5) tampering with voting machines, voting cards or final tabulation numbers;
6) officials or machines not counting all the votes or adding votes;
7) official influence which changed vote totals, or
8) other problems with vote tabulation not noted here.

They supply e-mail addresses for information and evidence submission at their web site.

"In order to receive the reward, the evidence provided must be sufficient to affect the outcome of the presidential race, and evidence from more than one state can be used for that purpose. If a person who provides the information desires confidentiality for any reason including a fear of retribution, he or she should indicate that in their submission. A board of five persons will determine the disbursement of the reward on or before February 1, 2005."

They invite tax-deductible contributions to the reward fund "to provide the strongest incentive possible for people to come forward with substantial inside information."
Raisin' the bar pretty high there 10.Nov.2004 21:57


"Sufficient to affect the outcome"? What does that mean? The outcome of the entire presidential election, or just the outcome for a particular state? Obviously, it would not be easy to provide such evidence, because no single case of fraud in any single state would be enough to affect the entire outcome. So what they are really asking for is a whole litany of instances of fraud. We can already provide a whole litany of instances of fraud, to varying degrees of certainty. It seems to me that even ONE instance of fraud committed by public officials with partisan motives ought to be enough for them. Surely one verifiable instance is enough to prove that fraud is a real and legitimate concern, and two or three should be enough to justify the strong suspicion that the fraud was systematically orchestrated. It's doubtful that any single person could provide them a single fraud so enormous it could have swayed the entire election. By raising the bar so high, it looks to me like they're just trying to hold onto their money in order to discredit the allegations that have been made.

what constitutes "fraud"? 10.Nov.2004 22:14


Another problem with this is the definition of "fraud." You don't have to commit an obvious fraud in order to disenfranchise people. All you have to do is pick a multitude of nits (this person didn't go to the right precinct, got a provisional ballot, therefore it doesn't count, this one's voter reg card got delayed in the mails for unknown reasons, got a provisional ballot, but we won't count it, etc etc). There are so many ways to do it that aren't by themselves obviously fraudulent. But at some point you have to look at the pattern and ask whether a reasonable person would conclude that this was deliberately orchestrated voter suppression, and if so, who orchestrated it.

It seems obvious that if this reward is no more than an effort to discredit the allegations that have been made, the panel will have no trouble finding excuses to discount any such reports of voter suppression as "too debatable" to be considered "incontrovertible." If they are doing this because they sincerely care about the problem, they will probably also have no trouble finding enough reports to warrant serious consideration of the probability of a deliberately orchestrated campaign of voter suppression. That evidence has existed for months now. Do they want "solid proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? If so, they'll probably never find that because, once again, short of one single "mastermind" admitting to orchestrating the dastardly deed, there wasn't just one but a whole vast array of actions that contributed to the problem, no single one of which may necessarily be totally obvious fraud. They should really be applying the same standards that a court in a civil rights case would use, which is the preponderance of the evidence, not the standard that a court in a murder case would use ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). In any case, I really have to wonder, since the evidence is already out there and voluminous and they could judge it for themselves, what is the point of this "reward"?

Right, an effort to discredit the allegations 10.Nov.2004 22:44


"A board of five persons will determine the disbursement of the reward on or before February 1, 2005." After Bush is safely installed again, not before when it could make any difference.

It's as if the fraud was really hard to see and you need to offer a reward to come up with anything. Then they beg money to pay for the fund.

Give us a break.

Let's not be too cynical 10.Nov.2004 22:46

a cit

Perhaps they are trying to motivate a "whistleblower" with some inside knowledge.

Perhaps they live in a world where they don't have quite the same concepts of money as "working folks" do.

They say at website where the money will go should the reward not be given.

But remember 11.Nov.2004 09:50


The people who should have to PROVE that they are NOT committing FRAUD are the voting machine companies, not INDIVIDUALS who use them.

That's the real absurdity of the above proposal. This system was DESIGNED to not allow for any way to expose the fraud (unless the programmer who did it wanted to rat on them), so this effort will likely go nowhere. It appears to have good intentions, but the point would be not to turn it into a media tool, only a means to reward those who could find *some* details with enough effort, which likely will NOT involve the central tabulators.

evidence should just lead to a conviction 13.Nov.2004 06:44


A reward is necessary but I agree -- the bar set by this one is too high. This won't bring people out. No one can be guaranteed that what they submit will affect the election. The evidence will likely be cumulative, and the people supplying it could have only bits and pieces. But cumulative evidence may mount up to affect the outcome, so it's necessary to get all the bits and pieces.

A reward should be offered to anyone that can provide evidence that leads to a conviction, as is done by the police & FBI in criminal investigations. Therefore the reward pool will have to be larger. I hope they can combine forces with other influential groups like Common Cause and those who are most concerned at the highest level, like the lawyers for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Also, there should be an anonymous TIPS hotline. This is a criminal investigation and both the reward and Tips hotline are the best best for bringing people out.