Date

The Honorable your Senator's name
United States Senate
Your Senator's address
Washington, DC 20510-3703

Dear Senator (fill in name),

I am asking that you come to our country's aid and join with the brave members of
the House of Representatives who have called for a GAO investigation into the many
documented errors, questionable results, and instances of voter disenfranchisement,
voter intimidation, and vote suppression that occurred in last month's presidential
election.

As you know, there can be no investigation -- and our country will never get to the
truth about whether or not election fraud occurred on November 2nd -- unless at
least one US Senator is willing to add his or her name to the list of House members
making this request and stating officially that the American people deserve answers
to the many questions that have been raised regarding the conduct of this election.

Please consider the evidence attached. After you have read it, I trust you will agree
that the burden of proof lies not with the US citizenry, but with our elected officials
who have pledged to uphold our laws. Therefore, I call upon you to speak out
and call for an independent investigation at this critical time. This will not only reassure
voters that the right man is to be inaugurated on January 20, but also will ensure
that our election procedures are safe, accurate, secure, and fair in the future.

It would be a great tragedy if the citizens of Ukraine are permitted a recount to
validate their recent national election, while the citizens of the United States, the
greatest democracy on Earth, are not granted that same right.

Our democracy, and our standing in the world, is at stake. I appeal to you to
exercise the leadership granted to you by your constituents, and to demand a just
and verifiable vote count in America. Please stand with those brave members of the
House who are calling for an investigation into what really happened in Election 2004.

I await your reply.

Sincerely,

***** YOUR NAME *******

I) Exit Polls:

The statistical probability that election fraud occurred, based upon historically
reliable exit polls vs. reported computer voting results, is conservatively estimated at
over 99% by research experts and polling professionals.

Dr. Steven F. Freeman of the Univ. of Pennsylvania has recently released a research
paper that puts the chance of exit poll statistical anomalies being off, to the degree
that reported computer voting totals suggest, at a mere 1 in 662,000.

In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Freeman, who has a Ph. D from MIT
and whose expertise lies in Research Methods, states:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is
impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the
three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance
or random error."

Professor Freeman concludes: "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature
conclusion, but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an
unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling
agencies, and the public to investigate."

Dr. Freeman's research paper can be read in its entirety at:
http://www.ilcaonline.org/freeman.pdf

Dr. Freeman can be contacted via the e-mail address that appears at the above PDF
file, or at sf@alum.mit.edu

In addition to Dr. Freeman's study of the voting anomalies, the website cited
immediately below provides a link to a similar study done by the UC Berkeley
research security team on this issue. They concluded that the probability of
fraudulent reported election results were over 99%.

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WPwappendices.pdf

Professor of Mathematics David Anick, formerly of MIT, prepared an in-depth study
of the discrepancies between exit poll results in "swing states" and the voting totals
reported in those states. He concluded that the chances of the exit polls being as
wrong as the reported vote totals would indicate are only 1 in 50,000.

A comprehensive master list of the voting problems documented in the recent
presidential election, including links to scholarly analyses of the computer voting
totals can be found at http://shadowbox.i8.com/stolen.htm

II) How does computer voting fraud occur?

Immediately below is a link to a four-step demonstration of how computer votes can
be manipulated, using Diebold's own GEM operating system software, provided by
Chuck Herrin, a certified Microsoft Systems Engineer and IT auditor:

http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

III) Suspects: Should we be suspicious of computer voting companies?

No less than five Diebold's developers are convicted felons, including senior vice
president Jeff Dean, who tops the list with 23 counts of felony theft in the first
degree. Mr. Dean was convicted of all 23 counts by planting "back doors" in his
software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection. (See Case
File No. 89-1-04034-1, State of Washington.)

Mr. Dean, who pled guilty to 23 counts of embezzlement, was given the position of
senior programmer of the (Diebold) GEMS central tabulator system, the very system
responsible for counting approximately 50% of the votes in the (Bush-Kerry) election
in 30 states, using both paper ballot and touch screen machines.

Diebold's software is proprietary, with reported results that cannot be verified by a
paper audit trail, since none exists.

Both ES&S and Sequoia, the other two major computer voting companies, also have
a track record of criminal behavior, which can easily be verified by checking the legal
histories of these companies.

IV) Summaries of the most serious 2004 Presidential Election errors found
so far:

In addition to the 57,000 voter complaints concerning voter disenfranchisement
received by People for the American Way, including inoperative or insufficient voting
machines, below is a summary of some of the most serious presidential election
errors found so far, which are almost certainly just the tip of a very large iceberg:

- The almost 4,000 votes awarded to Bush in Columbus, Ohio, reported by the AP,
which only came to light because more votes were recorded in the precinct than
there were registered voters.

- Approximately 4,500 votes lost in one North Carolina county.

- 3,000 phantom votes added by a Nebraska "vote tabulator" which doubled the
votes.

- 22,000 North Carolina votes which later had to be added because the computer
initially discarded them due to system overload.

- A "glitch" in San Francisco computers which caused many votes to be uncounted.

- Florida's anomalous results in which only districts with touch-screen voting
had disproportionately more votes for Bush than could reasonably be expected. This
analysis has since been duplicated by a UC Berkeley professor and others.

- AP reports in Florida and Ohio of voters who stated that when using touch-screen
machines, their votes for John Kerry would appear on the screen as votes for George
Bush.

- Long lines in urban Ohio areas, causing many voters to leave in frustration after
eight or more hours.

- 21 voting machines in Broward County, Florida, that malfunctioned, eliminating prior
votes that had been cast on them in this most heavily Democratic county in the state.

- Warren County, Ohio's, refusal to allow independent monitoring of vote counting
based on a terrorist incident which turned out later to be nonexistent.

- Machines in Oklahoma that counted BACKWARDS for Kerry, with a net result of
37,982 Kerry votes lost to the ES&S Optech Machines. During the same time period,
President Bush gained 393,825 votes.
(http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=344)

- Malfunctioning vote cassettes in Palm Beach County, Florida.

-Boxes of absentee votes discovered after the election in a Broward County election
office.

- Reports of less than a 20% voter turnout in Cleveland's most heavily Democratic
wards, such as Precinct 6-C and Precinct 13-F, despite record turnout in most cities.

V) Conclusion:

I believe that the information cited above demonstrates that the means, the
opportunity, and a criminal track record of those involved in writing the computer
voting software all exist. These three points, along with the vast discrepancies
between historically accurate exit poll data and the reported computer voting results
in swing states, point to a very strong possibility that fraud did, indeed, occur on a
massive and significant scale in last month's presidential election. These allegations
must be investigated fully.