# GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2005, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457 "2005-11-04T09:55:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/201 "2005-11-11T02:52:52Z")
[Marty Feldman]Blucher![/Marty] [Me]Diebold![/Me] This could be fun. I want to see what happens from now on, in the future. In both of the last 2 elections, Bush won (depending on which extreme partisan person you ask) and there were questions. Maybe there is something to it, maybe not. I feel a little bit suspicious, but there is nothing to point to as The Smoking Gun. Actually, I was more “interested” in the Florida allegations. I also feel a bit unwilling to just say He Did It because my own party has been known to pull some shady things too in the past. I would be satisfied if future elections had a paper audit trail that can be checked against the electronic results. For that matter, I’d like to see a regulated and STANDARD polling method for ALL states to follow, in future federal elections. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/202 "2005-11-11T04:29:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I thought the criteria for all Ohio machines was auditability (paper or otherwise). Not to sound like I just moved from Misouri but I found it tough to believe any party would except anything less. > > . Well, in order to get machines in place by the 2004 election, the Secretary of State was willing to certify machines without paper trails; the Republican Party went accepted this, despite complaints from the Democratic Party at the time. After the 2004 election, the Secretary of State had to certify which machines counties could choose from in order to comply with federal requirements for financing switches from older machines (Ohio had already been granted one extension). Initially, he refused to certify any touch-screen machines, because they didn’t leave paper trails. After a political tug of war within the Republican Party, he certified Diebold machines after Diebold managed to produce one that left a paper trail. The lack of paper trails on touch screen machines in 2004 is a large part of what causes people to wonder about the issue of Diebold having a part in underhanded methods. After all, it wasn’t particularly difficult for them to add a paper trail usable in 2005; how hard would it have been to add them to machines certified for use in 2004, the thought goes? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/203 "2005-11-11T04:44:52Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Well, in order to get machines in place by the 2004 election, the Secretary of State was willing to certify machines without paper trails; the Republican Party went accepted this, despite complaints from the Democratic Party at the time. > > After the 2004 election, the Secretary of State had to certify which machines counties could choose from in order to comply with federal requirements for financing switches from older machines (Ohio had already been granted one extension). Initially, he refused to certify any touch-screen machines, because they didn’t leave paper trails. After a political tug of war within the Republican Party, he certified Diebold machines after Diebold managed to produce one that left a paper trail. > > The lack of paper trails on touch screen machines in 2004 is a large part of what causes people to wonder about the issue of Diebold having a part in underhanded methods. After all, it wasn’t particularly difficult for them to add a paper trail usable in 2005; how hard would it have been to add them to machines certified for use in 2004, the thought goes? Bummer. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/204 "2005-11-11T13:22:08Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > [Marty Feldman]Blucher![/Marty] > [Me]Diebold![/Me] > In both of the last 2 elections, Bush won (depending on which extreme partisan person you ask) and there were questions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/205 "2005-11-11T13:45:01Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Not at all. I’d agree an investigation is merited if: > > If you believe that we’re in agreement, you can only have reached this conclusion by ignoring an all-important modifying clause of my statement - just as you’re ignoring the **facts** which point away from vote fraud. There’s a condition which you (or anyone else in this thread) must meet before you and I can be in agreement. You’re claiming victory before the game is over. I’m arguing with you because I don’t believe you have sufficient evidence to support your call for an investigation. I’m arguing with you in an attempt to bring some facts into your opinion. Your “argument” largely consists of, “There is no evidence of a crime, so it’s wrong for us to look into the possibility that a crime was committed.” Your “argument” sucks. I’m through blathering with you about it, I don’t think you’re convincing any reasonable person here, you sure as hell haven’t convinced me. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/206 "2005-11-11T14:24:51Z")
Not at all. My argument consists of showing that there is no reasonable indication of a crime. Everything that people are putting forth as indicators of possible fraud has other—non-nefarious—explanations. > [@](#): > > I’m through blathering with you about it, I don’t think you’re convincing any reasonable person here, you sure as hell haven’t convinced me. “Reasonable, meaning persons who came to this argument holding the same view as Evil Captor,” of course. You, and everyone else calling for an investigation here, have utterly failed to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion—then supported by facts and documentation—that there is any cause to go forth with an inquiry into possible electronic vote fraud in Ohio in the 11/04 general election. Not one single scrap of concrete data has been presented to support that claim. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/207 "2005-11-11T14:36:28Z")
But has there been significant evidence provided that the machines, as presented, were not sufficient for the task, given the grave and deep responsibility they bore? That pen and ink ballots would have been, in fact, an improvement over them? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/208 "2005-11-11T15:01:34Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Not at all. My argument consists of showing that there is no reasonable indication of a crime. Everything that people are putting forth as indicators of possible fraud has other—non-nefarious—explanations. You sound like a defense lawyer. “Sure, he was found in the house with a smoking gun and three dead bodies, but everything that people are putting forth as indicators of possible crime has other—non-nefarious—explanations.” > [@](#): > > “Reasonable, meaning persons who came to this argument holding the same view as Evil Captor,” of course. No, reasonable as in doesn’t dismiss “I will deliver the vote for Ohio to Bush” from the president of the comapny that makes the no-paper-trail voting machines as non-nefarious. Etc., etc., etc. > [@](#): > > You, and everyone else calling for an investigation here, have utterly failed to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion—then supported by facts and documentation—that there is any cause to go forth with an inquiry into possible electronic vote fraud in Ohio in the 11/04 general election. Not one single scrap of concrete data has been presented to support that claim. Last I checked, the evidence of all the voting machines that came out wildly in favor of Bush was fairly concrete. C’mon, you wouldn’t see fraud in Ohio if you were sitting in a room in Cincinnati where Bush and Rove were feeding Dem ballots into a furnace. “Not nefarious,” says Uncle Beer. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457/209 "2005-11-11T15:50:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You sound like a defense lawyer. “Sure, he was found in the house with a smoking gun and three dead bodies, but everything that people are putting forth as indicators of possible crime has other—non-nefarious—explanations.” Problem here is you don’t have a smoking gun, you don’t have a body, and you don’t even have a crime scene that can be investigated. All you’ve got is “some anonymous 911 caller thinks they heard a gunshot over on the west side of town.” We went over there and looked around, but can’t find anything warranting further investigation. > [@](#): > > No, reasonable as in doesn’t dismiss “I will deliver the vote for Ohio to Bush” from the president of the comapny that makes the no-paper-trail voting machines as non-nefarious. Etc., etc., etc. Yep. That’s reasonable cause for suspicion. But even the cursory investigation done here delivered ample facts that a “reasonable” person would see negate that suspicion. > [@](#): > > Last I checked, the evidence of all the voting machines that came out wildly in favor of Bush was fairly concrete. C’mon, you wouldn’t see fraud in Ohio if you were sitting in a room in Cincinnati where Bush and Rove were feeding Dem ballots into a furnace. Then where is that evidence? I’ve asked repeatedly for it to be shown here. The sole instance of you guys coughing that up—Mahoning County—fails the tests; Diebold equipment wasn’t used there. Every other credible source given is from California. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > But has there been significant evidence provided that the machines, as presented, were not sufficient for the task, given the grave and deep responsibility they bore? Nope. The independent certification tests ordered by the Sec State of Ohio show the machines performed as expected and as specified. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-report-upholds-ohio-vote-fraud-claims/329457.md?page=10)