Voting Machine Irregularities

[Tony]

Well, companies whose managers are VERY close to one party, and who have spent LOTS of money supporting that party, provide election machines whichare NOT checked for possible manipulation by independent experts, which do NOT leave a paper trail to insure against election fraud. Then these machines produce a result which strongly diverges from the exit polls, and NO attempt is made to investigate the possibility of fraud.

Not only that, but the head of the company in question sent a memo promising to deliver Ohio to Bush. Only the truest believers would think nothing is fishy about this information.

 

[Chaos]

Not only that, but the head of the company in question sent a memo promising to deliver Ohio to Bush. Only the truest believers would think nothing is fishy about this information.

We it could be that he thought Ohio was going to Bush anyway and merely promised he´d make sure the real results would be provided as fast and flawlessly as possible.

But in the light of all the other things... I doubt it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, companies whose managers are VERY close to one party,

This is correct.

and who have spent LOTS of money supporting that party,

Can you find a cite for this? Various ES&S and Diebold folks have made donations to the Republican party, but on the scale of such things all the donations I have seen evidence for were relatively modest.

I'm just being picky, but I think this is a subject that we should be consistently picky about.

provide election machines whichare NOT checked for possible manipulation by independent experts,

In theory they were checked at the state level, and in theory the checkers weren't linked to political parties or machine manufacturers, but in practise there have been instances uncovered where it didn't turn out that way.

Again you are essentially right in important cases, but we shouldn't make unduly broad statements.

which do NOT leave a paper trail to insure against election fraud. Then these machines produce a result which strongly diverges from the exit polls, and NO attempt is made to investigate the possibility of fraud.

The ****ing doors are standing wide open, and someone has hung a "rig me" sign on the elections. And you ask where the invitation is?

I can't argue with you.

 

[zakur]

New book coming out in August:

What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election

Despite the definitive sounding title, the description uses more ambiguous language:

In the first comprehensive look at the most critical state's voting process in the 2004 presidential election, three pathbreaking investigative journalists (one a member of the legal team that sued the state of Ohio for election fraud), compile documentary evidence of massive potential theft and fraud in the presidential vote—problems that may have changed the outcome of the presidential election in Ohio, and thus the nation.

 

[Renfield]

Electronic voting is

a)expensive

b)unreliable

c)insecure

d)controlled by corporations which are in turn controlled by conservatives

Wonder why the Republicans are so enthusiastic about it?

 

[pgmatg]

Anyone who says that there were no fraud in 2000, 2002 & 2004 is blind & def.
It has been proven that both Diebold and ES&S voting machines (computers) are very much hackable, especially Diebold, their touch screen / server technology has been shown unreliable, and was hacked in front of computer specialists, reversing the voting results with no trace left. Diebold's technology decertified for election in Californian, Florida and few other states. The only thing that will keep the elections from being stolen (Gore actually would have won in 2000, if not for Supreme Court inserting itself in state business) is paper trail, but unfortunately many states have not mandated it yet, short of that the only election results I will be more or less certain are the ones with more then 15% votes difference

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Anyone who says that there were no fraud in 2000, 2002 & 2004 is blind & def.

I'd agree with that, but I think only in 2004 was there enough evidence to say that there was probably enough fraud to decide the election, and that it was probably done with hacked voting machines.

There were a few suspicious elections before then (I think the election of Chuck Hagel was the most suspicious, given he won a surprise victory on his own machines) but no strong evidence of foul play.

It has been proven that both Diebold and ES&S voting machines (computers) are very much hackable, especially Diebold, their touch screen / server technology has been shown unreliable, and was hacked in front of computer specialists, reversing the voting results with no trace left. Diebold's technology decertified for election in Californian, Florida and few other states. The only thing that will keep the elections from being stolen (Gore actually would have won in 2000, if not for Supreme Court inserting itself in state business) is paper trail, but unfortunately many states have not mandated it yet, short of that the only election results I will be more or less certain are the ones with more then 15% votes difference

Yes.

 

[a_unique_person]

A better interpretation is that a system which is impartial through design is better than one which is impartial through circumstance.

Precisely.