All I’m saying here is that these machines are utter crap, that they fail on a regular basis, that they could be hacked and it would be impossible to tell that it was not a simple failure, and they’re wide open to normal viruses, as well.
No, I’m only against ghosts voting without ID!
That does violate the spirit of the thing. A shade off.
Pshaw. You’re using the specter of a problem that hasn’t been proven yet to push your own agenda. These phantom conspiracies arise from a grave issue in American politics, yet you dismiss them as if they were so much ethereal vapor.
Common sense. You might want to investigate it. I warn you though, it’s addicting. Be cautious lest it lead you where you’re uncomfortable going.
If your grocery store was selling expired meat for 10 cents a pound, would you buy it?
Cheapness is a lousy excuse for ditching technology that works for technology that doesn’t. They’re also going to have to transition, at some time, to technology that actually does the job right, aren’t they?
United States politics covertly manipulated by a South American nation. Goes around, comes around.
Looks like the fix is already in in Florida.
Can you imagine that? The machines in an African-American Research Library are rigged to switch Democratic votes to Republicans! Isn’t it so amazing that every single glitch reported about electronic voting machines just happens to work out in the Republicans’ favor?
This isn’t some whacky conspiracy theory, this is documented genuine vote fraud and it is happening now.
Rigged?!? The touch screen gets out of alignment sometimes.
Well, it might be that the Republican voters are too dumb to notice.
Or, it might have something to do with that word I bolded in your statement. Surely, the reports of malfunctions favoring Republicans would be affected by publication bias. It’s not news if a touch screen in the 'burbs gets out of alignment; that doesn’t fan the flames of the conspiracy crowd.
No, it’s wacky conspiracy theory.
I fully agree that there are issues that need to be resolved with electronic voting machines, but claims that the vulnerabilities and weaknesses were engineered that way are out there in tinfoil hat land.
Sorry, I screwed up the coding in my above post. There should have been a close-quote tag after BobLibDem’s sentence that ends in “Republican’s favor?”
And my words begin with “Well, it might be…”
I expect errors to be random in nature. One-sided discrepancies are not errors. It’s always the Democratic precincts where people have to wait hours in line to vote. It’s always the Democratic candidates that poll significantly below the exit polls. It’s always the Democratic candidates that get screwed by voting screens “out of aligntment”. It’s always in Democratic areas that report huge numbers of people cast blank ballots. It’s always the Democratic demographics that wind up on the purged voter list. These are not errors, this is fraud.
If it’s fraud, you should have no problem whatsoever in getting some sort of evidence. You have voting processes tampered with. Machines tampered with. Ballots tampered with. Voter rolls tampered with. It’s certainly not the same person or small group committing all of these frauds, is it? Of all these individuals, somebody has to make a mistake or get caught or have second thoughts about committing election fraud.
One factor you didn’t include is economics. Poor people wait longer. Poor people are less educated, and will make more voting mistakes. Poor people will get lumped in with criminals, or have less ability to repair the voting log issues. Poor people get older machines that break down more often.
Do you hear about these same problems in rich Democratic precincts?
Sorry, you’re wrong - errors don’t have to be random in nature. Ever hear of systematic errors?
http://www.phys.selu.edu/rhett/plab193/labinfo/Error_Analysis/05_Random_vs_Systematic.html
You touched a hot-button of mine - for the last 23 years, I’ve been in the field of measurements. Those specific things you listed, if true, are plausibly due to systematic errors. If you have evidence that they’re more than just errors, please present it. But the fact that the discrepancies exist is not decent evidence.
Direct material proof of massive election fraud in Ohio in the 2004 U.S. presidential election – click on “View The Presentation” (pdf file)
All you need is one person at the right place, either at the tabulation center or writing the software to do the actual voting.
And writing self-modifying code – alter the results, then self-destruct and remove all evidence of its own existence – is not difficult, either.
I think the opposite tends to be true. Since elections are held on Tuesdays – a work day – poor people are less likely to endure multiple-hour waits to vote, especially if it means they miss a day’s salary.
Given how recent the push for e-voting machines is, there’s no reason for this to be the case. It’s not as if the poorer districts have to make do with a thirty-year-old Diebold Vote-A-Matic Mk I while the richer districts get to use a six-month-old Diebold Vote-A-Matic 2000.
Related: Do you hear about these same problems in poor Republican precincts?
No, actually, it’s not. It’s the same old bullshit. You really need to read a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word “proof”. Hint: It’s not “Hey, I agree with that!”
Well, which is it? Earlier in there thread there was a link to an interesting and thought provolking article about how massive vote fraud COULD be perpetrated. It involved a few tech people moving quietly behind the scenes with advanced hacks and unfettered access to machines. Exactly what you are talking about here, and yet your response was to Cheesesteak who was talking about a report of one or two mechanical glitches which Boblib was touting as proof that the fix was in. So…which is it? Clumsy brute force mauling of the voting machines, or slick, subtle, mission impossible style hacking behind the scenes? You really should pick one scenario and stick to it, you know. If you had any credibility left on these boards, this Life of Brian like attachment to any conspiracy theory that implicates the Republicans in voter fraud (“The shoe is the sign!..Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!”) would pretty much trash it.
Oh, and FTR, there was a report here in MD today of a voting machine foul up. The person it happened to was the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor, who was voting early because she’s disabled. I presume the machine tried to eat her vote because she was voting Democrat. :rolleyes:
No, it is not one person. You have identified fraud in multiple areas.
Software doesn’t make for long lines
Software doesn’t make for blank ballots
Software doesn’t make for voter roll purges
Software does affect the count and the screen layout, that’s the only overlap in your entire fraud description. I’d also like to point out that if you can make self modifying code to screw with the results that you’d have to be an idiot to have the vote review screen show the adjusted vote. That’s some dim-witted yet brilliant programmer you have there.
Want to know why we don’t hear about Republican district problems? Selection bias. Because any problems there are 47th page news. One voting machine in one district in Florida has a problem and it’s “proof” that there’s deliberate fraud, so we have to hear ALL about it.
Oops, sorry rjung. BobLibDem identified multiple areas of fraud, not you.
Multiple fraud is a reality. Consider
New Mexico in 2004, which led the nation in undervoting.
41% of the voters used touch pad machines, but they accounted for 77% of the presidential undervotes. Native American precincts undervoted at a rate of 8.26%, while Anglo precincts undervoted at a rate of 3.14%. On page 11 of the report, you see the undervote as a function of voting machine type and the results are striking. Lest you dismiss this as a partisan cite, the end of the report has a listing of other references for you.