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

election fraud post-selection actions

Cobb to address rally at Ohio Statehouse on Monday

green presidential candidate to address public rally monday at ohio statehouse as presidential electors cast votes "under a cloud of suspicion".
Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb will address
recount volunteers, the public and protesters who will gather outside the
Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, on Monday, December 13, the day that
presidential electors meet in all state capitals to cast their votes. Cobb
will make his address at approximately12:15 p.m. on the High Street sidewalk
adjacent to the Capitol grounds.

The Cobb campaign is demanding recounts of the presidential vote
in Ohio and New Mexico. Several Ohio counties are expected to begin the
recount on Monday; others will begin on different days throughout the week.
New Mexico election officials are meeting on Monday to consider Cobb's
recount demand in that state.

"It is absolutely outrageous and irresponsible for the Ohio
and New Mexico presidential electors to cast their votes when the outcome of
recounts are still unknown. Just as in Florida in 2000, we have to question
the integrity of our voting system and those partisan officials who are in
charge of it. With allegations of voter intimidation and suppression
looming, an impending Congressional investigation and the recounts just
beginning, the presidential electors will cast their votes under a cloud of
suspicion," said Cobb.

For more information about the Cobb-LaMarche campaign and its
recount efforts in Ohio and New Mexico, see  http://www.votecobb.org.
Information about the Green Party can be found at  http://www.gp.org.
will cobb want recounts in all 50 states? 10.Dec.2004 17:21

nader04

cobb will milk his vote recount/$$$$$$ for cobb & cronies scam for all its worth

con artists are very adept at manpulating individual/group weaknesses, kerrycrats in denial in this case, for personal gain.

he's a failure at "growing" the green party, but very successful at "growing' his bank account

only list U.S. really wants to count is internal concentration camp list 10.Dec.2004 19:23

?

So Mr so called "Nader '04" does that mean in your twisted logic that your candidate, for recounting in New Hampshire is guilty of the crime of "wanting to know the truth about voting in the U.S." as well?

Some people are seriously spinning a snazzy campaign of "hate the Greens, hate the Libs for wanting to count your actual votes" aren't they?

As for the fake incredulity above about "wow, do they really want to actually AUDIT the election nationally?!--" you are obviously against an auditable election then or any verification. You are basically saying you are for fraud. And what about the exit polls differences? What about the machines that switch the votes? What about the unauthorized modem connections to machines in Florida and elsewhere? There are dozens of such stories if you check the 'election fraud' subsection in the upper right.

In short, keep your eye on the ball folks, people are spinning other evil games about this and "blaming the (Green/Libertarian) messenger". Though it's rather ironic that they choose a public forum to spread the disease of their lies, when it is so easily innoculated against here, by "nature's best disinfectant", a little light shining down on it...

There are more than enough better comments than the one above, and there are over half a dozen COURT SUITS in process put together from Nevada, to Florida, to Ohio, etc., concerning group complaints of voter suppression, vote fraud, e-vote fraud, etc.

likely by the same disinfo team (of Democrats and Republicans?) planted this story here below with the same spin strategy:

Vote Fraud As Fundraiser; David Cobb and the Ohio Recount
15:38 Dec-09 (12 [critical] comments [on this 'story')
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305587.shtml

People, the only parties showing they care about counting your actual votes this election--like it or not--are the Greens and Libertarians and Nader. The Democrats and the Republicans are total TRAITORS to the US--from NAFTA to NORAD to allowing systemic vote fraud to 9-11 and to who knows what else....

To heal this country requires competitive parties, ACTUALLY VISIBLY competitive parties, which is hardly the soft-pedalling of Democratic murmur of "slight disagreements" about the style of fascism to be introducted. Both democrats and republicans stand for fascism now.

Only an dynamic of informal checks and balances from other parties against this collusive fascism will force honesty in elections. The leadership of the Dems and the Repubs by their silences on vote fraud show that they are actively plotting to be a fascist state.

RE: ? 10.Dec.2004 21:19

nader04

why doesn't cobb audit the rigged , scam "nominating convention" he spearheaded in june 04 to become the GP candidate?

the GP nominee at a rigged convention, that he helped ochestrate, is accusing the republicians & democrats of vote fraud.

and many on this site are commending him. the theater of the absurd has become reality.

How many "Convention was Rigged" people were actually there? 10.Dec.2004 22:09

Scotty B.

This post is probably pointless, but...

Nader04, all the allegiations about the 2004 Green Party national convention being undemocratic really piss me off. I'm a 17-year-old high school student from Idaho, and I've been serving on the Green Party Coordinating Committee since December 2003. I voted *for* the convention rules, the same rules that you seem to claim were undemocratic. And I was an uncommitted delegate at the convention.

I really don't understand what your argument would be for it being undemocratic - I've never been given an explanation.

In the first round, delegates to the convention were allowed to vote for *anyone*, whether it be Ralph Nader, Peter Camejo, Walt Brown or Dennis Kucinich (he actually won nominating votes in...Florida?)

In the second round, any candidate who stated they would accept the Green Party nomination was allowed to recieve votes. Ralph Nader could have came to the convention and said he would have accepted the nomination - he did not. But since many people on the Green Party Coordinating Committee were Nader supporters, we bent the rules alittle. We allowed for a 'No Nominee' option that would allow anyone to vote for 'No Nominee' throughout all the rounds. If the No Nominee option won, then a vote to endorse a candidate for the Presidency would be held.

In a way, the convention rules were biased towards Nader.

How else was the convention undemocratic? Lack of state primaries? The vast majority of state's couldn't do state primaries - only 5 states allowed for them. In other states, the party held statewide conventions or polled the membership. In Idaho, most of the membership seemed apathetic, altough we did notice differing opinions. So we all went as Uncommitted, because we felt that was pretty much the stance of Idahoans, and we ended up giving 3 votes for Nader and 3 votes for Cobb. Mind you, those of those that went we're some faceless-entrenched party officials. I was sixteen at the time, and we also had an eighteen year old. We were just regular members that managed to find a way to get there.

Another 'undemocratic' argument that I've vaguely heard was that small states were given too many delegates. I don't find this to be true at all - California had 130+, I believe Oregon had 20 or 30, and Idaho had 6. The argument that's been made is that the delegates should have been alloted based on voter registration (which would have given California over half of the delegates, or around 400). BUT OVER HALF OF STATES WITH GREEN PARTIES DO NOT HAVE REGISTRATION AVALIBLE. For example, Washington and Idaho. If delegate totals were based on registration/membership, Washington and Idaho would have not been given hardly any delegates (1, maybe?).

The delegate formula was also *not* based on the electoral college. It was based on a combination of factors, including the percentage of the vote that Nader recieved in the state in 2000, number of Green Party officeholders, and population.

So...basically, I don't really understand why persons that supported Nader continue to make these allegations. The convention wasn't undemocratic or rigged or anything - I'm pretty sure I'd know as a national committee member. And regardless, the election is OVER. It was a bad year for third parties, and we all just need to move on and reorganize. It almost seems to me that people like Nader 04 are trying to destroy the Green Party, and that would be a very, very bad thing. We *need* an organized alternative political party that can stand up to the Republicrats...we won't get anything done if we allow them to fragment us.

- Matthew Denney
Idaho Green Party

nader04 10.Dec.2004 23:31

George Bender

I'm a Nader supporter, and I wish you would drop it. This isn't doing anyone any good, just generating static. It's time to move on. The Greens will do whatever they're going to do, and Naderites will do whatever we're going to do. We need to focus on what we're going to do.


"what we're going to do" 11.Dec.2004 10:31

so?

just what ARE "we going to do"?

looks to me like "we" are FUCKED,

and NO ONE is "doing" anything.

who wants to bet that GWB is in the White House 4 more years,

that ANWR gets drilled,

and Iran is invaded?

(electronic voting machines - who the fuck cares? no-one or not enough to CHANGE THE ACTUAL OUTCOME of 'elections' anyway . . . )

you people are all too pathetic and coffee-shop theoretical to get anything DONE.

AND IT'S ME, TOO - i'm a progressive activist who also works full-time, and I can't give up my precious job or working-class lifestyle to overthrow the Corporate Media and government.

we are all fucked.

might as well get used to it.

so? 11.Dec.2004 11:19

George Bender

I imagine the Naderites will run Nader again in 2008, if he's up to it. At 70 he still seems sharp and vigerous to me. To do that, however, we need to set up our own party in each of the states so we don't have to go through the battle we did this time, just to get on the ballot, with the Democrats.

We could also run someone against Kulongoski in 2006. It will probably be a close election, like it was last time, and he is making some bad decisions which will hurt people who depend on state services.

Another possibility might be an initiative in 2006 to take away some of the state business tax breaks to finance the Oregon Health Plan. Some legislator said the legislature has been passing out tax breaks "like candy."

There is no shortage of cool things we could do.


Re: Scotty B 11.Dec.2004 18:23

nader08

cut the shit about the idaho GP.

there may be an idaho green club or organization, but there is no idaho green party. cobb recieved only 58 write in votes.

so stop calling it a political party.

people like you were strutting at the "convention?" live on c-span, with state delegate voting rights . but you didn't represent anyone because you don't have a constituency.

and this process was repeated in probably 30 plus states.

I agree Mr Binder. its time to move on.

atleast we know its time to dump the GP, since it currently resides within the vile crotch of the democratic party.

some explanations 13.Dec.2004 08:29

misty

hi Nader08
I would like to bring to your attention that Cobb was not perfect but he was better than a candidate who refused to become a Green last winter. I would have voted for Nader a year ago but he really hurt me rejecting us. So then we had to plan without him. And AFTER the primaries in which my state of MA did not have Nader
but plenty of Nader Shills(yes please admit it, Peter and Lorna and Carole were shills), Nader decided to screw us up again by announcing his candidacy and picking
Peter for veep. THAT WAS REALLY LOW. And Peter screwed his own state of CA by lying
to them.
In short, I would agree the Convention was biased in favor of the Naderites. AND THE NADERITES AGREED TO THE RULES.
A common complaint is that the Green Party has lost power. I disagree.
I think with Nader the Party had a major attack of hubris and now we need to grow up.
My state Party has lost status; we are now only a designation but I see a silver lining. We will be forced to work as a movement for a while rather than a party.
Big deal. It will be good for us.
By the way, many people in my Party hate the Dems. So don't you dare
libel us by saying we are in the Dem's hold.
In hope