So, What Are the Facts that 'Prove' Ohio '04 was a Rigged Election?

[The Doctor.]

18. Yes, a starting point.

Unfortunately, you're not in the least bit interested in researching or understanding the many events, anomalies, and coincidences that, taken together, overwhelm any doubt of fraud in OH and FL.

You have long since made up your mind, in ignorance of all of the information that is available, and are now engaging in the very typical tactic that climate change deniers use.

By saying that a single tree is not proof of a forest, you may examine a million trees and never know that you're standing in the middle of one.

Every piece of evidence I bring to an AGW denier, they discount as 'not proof' of AGW. They perhaps do not possess the intellectual capacity to 'see the whole picture'. It could also be the case that they have simply made up their mind and have no wish to learn and change it. In which case, they become a 'denialist'.

You are exactly that.

There is no evidence, no matter how compelling, that you will not simply dismiss while refusing (or unable) to recognize that the multitude of evidence could not exist absent deliberate efforts to skew the elections.

The Salon article does not consider the vast body of evidence, instead, it engages in the same kind of 'pick and pluck' tactic you would expect a hit piece to do. It is plain that the article sets out to prove Kennedy wrong, but does nothing to consider the implications of the vast number of incidences as a whole. But even in the second paragraph:

To date, dozens of experts, both independently and as part of several research panels, have spent countless hours examining 2004′s presidential election, especially the race in Ohio. Many of them have concluded that the election there strains conventional notions of what a democracy ought to look like; very little about that race was fair, clean or competent. Way back in January 2005, a panel headed by Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan reported that it had found enough irregularities in Ohio to call into question the state election results and the entire presidential vote. A report by the Democratic Party released last year found “evidence of voter confusion, voter suppression, and negligence and incompetence of election officials.”

The article admits, for the sake of appearing fully legitimate, that there is a prima facie case for fraud. But then it goes on to only pick apart Kennedy's assertions. As it does so, it claims that because 'such anomalies (as the Connally discrepancy) have occurred elsewhere', then the case in Ohio 'must not be linked to fraud'.

That's so weak a line of reasoning, yet you're perfectly willing to accept it.

Even worse:

He {Kennedy} says that 174,000 mostly Kerry voters didn’t vote because they were put off by long lines. But the source states it was actually 129,543 voters, and that those votes would have split evenly between Kerry and Bush.

Where the hell did the author get the information that "those votes would have split evenly"? Nowhere. When Kennedy cited that, he was referring directly to the fact that the long lines were in heavy Democratic precincts. As we now know, many of the machines that should have been deployed in those precincts were kept in storage by... you guessed it, Republican-led BOEs.

Document reveals Columbus, Ohio voters waited hours as election officials held back machines

The Board of Elections’ own document records that, while voters waited in lines ranging from 2-7 hours at polling places, 68 electronic voting machines remained in storage and were never used on Election Day.

An analysis of the Franklin County Board of Elections’ allocation of machines reveals a consistent pattern of providing fewer machines to the Democratic city of Columbus, with its Democratic mayor and uniformly Democratic city council, despite increased voter registration in the city.

The result was an obvious disparity in machine allocations compared to the primarily Republican white affluent suburbs.

The legendary affluent Republican enclave of Upper Arlington has 34 precincts. No voting machines in this area cast more than 200 votes per machine. Only one, ward 6F, was over 190 votes at 194 on one machine. By contrast, 39 Columbus city polling machines had more than 200 votes per machine and 42 were over 190 votes per machine. This means 17% of Columbus’ machines were operating at 90-100% over optimum capacity while in Upper Arlington the figure was 3%.

Of course, there’s a direct correlation between affluence and votes for Bush and below medium income areas and votes for Kerry. Franklin County, Ohio’s formula served to disenfranchise disproportionately poor, minority and Democratic voters under the guise of rewarding the “likely” voter or active registered voters.

A clear pattern and practice of voter disenfranchisement is emerging:

Franklin County BOE Director Matt Damschroder [remember him from above?] admits he ran the election with a “fixed and exhausted” pool of voting machines, the Dispatch reported. Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy pointed out that Damschroder and Franklin County election officials told her “We’re fine, we’re fine” and never requested additional money over the initial allocation - despite an increased registration of more than 167,253 new voters.

Franklin County’s voting machine allocation report shows that Damschroder deployed his Danaher (formerly Shooptronics) voting machines, which have been in use since 1992, in a formula that favored Bush over Kerry.

In precinct 55-B on Columbus’ near east side, there were 1,338 registered voters and, according to Franklin County Board of Elections estimates, 956 active voters who had voted in the last two federal elections. Despite voter registration being up 17%, and by the BOE’s own guidelines the polling place requiring ten machines (one per 100 voters), the polling site had only three machines, one less than for the 2000 elections.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00293.htm

The conclusion that the author of the Salon article simply 'made shit up' rather than doing the diligence required to cast real doubt on Kennedy's assertions is foregone.

But you don't care about the quality of the information or the source... so long as it supports your conclusion.