Did you even read Rjung’s thread, or link? Diebold themselves don’t have to be evil in order for their system to be an invitation to fraud and conspiracies. What’s more, it already happened.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
According to Diebold themselves, there is a good chance that there was in fact a deliberate conspiracy to rig the 2000 election.
It’s easy to scoff at any mention of the word “conspiracy”.
But in the 2000 election an unknown second memory card WAS uploaded, and it DID reduce Gore’s total by 16,022 votes and add several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates.
Despite Gore losing 16k votes, the total votes remained the same, balanced by additions to Bush and other candidates. That can’t happen by chance. And the card was not corrupted. Again… not chance.
This is all confirmed by Diebold.
In this case, the discrepancy was noticed. But that was a lucky break. Had the official called at a different time, it would not have been noticed.
And there would have been no way to notice it anymore, because the total number of votes remained the same.
It is absurd to suggest that the Diebold system is secure, given that it has ALREADY been confirmed that it failed in one case, and only a lucky break caught it.
Who knows how many similar events were not noticed? What are the chances that it was pure luck that Gore lost 16k votes, and Bush and others got that exact amount to balance out the votes and avoid suspicion?
What are the chances that Bush followers will actually take a look at the facts, rather than brushing even Diebold’s own admissions off as “conspiracy theories”?
Not good.
So what you’re telling me is that you can’t prove it, you’re just assuming it. Well, if Iraq has taught you nothing, it’s that assumption is the mother of all fuckups. If Kerry loses Ohio (where he has a substantial lead, although still within the margin of error, something like 5 percentage points) by the same kind of margin as there was in Florida AND it can be demonstrably proven that there were some shenanigans going on that caused Bush to win, then you might have a case. Will you still claim shenanigans if Kerry wins (which I now think he will), or is this just a setup for a challenge if Bush wins? That’s what it seems like to me. It’s like a manager that challenges something before a game to set up an appeal later, and it all goes away after they win. And to me, that’s just not kosher.
Here’s another issue that I’ve yet to see addressed. Diebold makes ATMs. At a number of ATMs I’ve used around town, it will say
Deposit =====>
Withdrawl ====>
but the electronic arrows pointing to their corresponding button are off by just a little bit. Consequently, I’ll mean to make a withdrawl but instead an envelope will pop out and it will ask me to put money in. It’s only then that I realized I pushed the wrong button and have to cancel the transaction out.
Imagine a situation like that at the voting booth. The electronic arrows pointing to the candidates are off from where they should be. You press the button, vote for the wrong person, and you have nothing telling you you’re voting differently from your intention. Now what?
Well, no, its not “kosher”, Dave, boychik. Assuming that such as you imply is the fact, and assuming that things go as you suggest, and assuming that the Dembs react as you predict…
“…it’s that assumption is the mother of all fuckups…”
Hi, Mom!
There is some evidence of something rotten in Diebold.
After the second memory card subtracted 16k votes from Gore, and balanced the total by adding to Bush and others, the card vanished.
Diebold brushed off the whole thing as a “faulty card”.
However, internal Diebold memos show that they were lying.
They never thought it was a “faulty card”, and in fact they knew that the card was not corrupt.
Now, this can be explained in two ways:
-
Diebold favored Bush in the election, and used their power over the voting systems to help him.
-
Diebold didn’t want anyone to find out that their security had failed.
Personally, I don’t care which is the case. Either way, we should NOT be handing over the next election to these guys, with no seperate way of verifying the results.
Yes, I did. That is different from implying that Diebold’s CEO is colluding with Bush to throw the election, which is what BobLibDem is hinting at.
So who was responsible for this rigging of the election? Diebold? The company that makes 56%-80% of all voting equipment (according to the article quoted in the original thread) knew that Florida was going to be that close so they conspired in advance to fix the state for Gore and hoped nobody would notice the loss of 16,000 votes? Please. Wouldn’t that make every vote ever cast from a Diebold machine suspect?
And you thought we had problems with the butterfly ballot. :rolleyes:
Sure is, especially when it’s about as proven as JFK and the grassy knoll. Sure, it could have happened, but it can’t be proven.
Did it ever enter your mind that the first card might have been corrupted, or any number of possibilities like that? The only thing beyond reproach is the alleged rigging of the second data card? Please. In a case like that NOTHING is beyond reproach. The results should have been tossed altogether.
What is confirmed is that something or someone may have screwed with the results. They didn’t say that it happened. You’re drawing a conclusion not necessartily warranted by the facts.
I didn’t suggest it was secure. I did say that before you start claiming a fix you better have more than this. There was more evidence than this on the Black Sox, and that wasn’t much to begin with.
Who’s a Bush supporter? Surely not I.
I brush off conspiracy theories when they look like conspiracy theories. Come back when it looks like the truth.
Touche. 
Irrelevant questions. The fact that the machines have been proved so horribly vulnerable is more than enough reason to object to their use.
Hey, I have an idea! FUCK THE HELL OFF! It really doesn’t matter how much purported ‘evidence’ there is regarding this matter or any other; Mentioning something dozens of times (including in unrelated threads) is just moronic. Granted, good ol’ ‘One-liner’ rjung is the epitome of ‘moronic’, but the boy really should try to expand his horizons some.
I am mindful how this might be troublesome for someone like you, Brutus, with your delicate sensibilities, and all. In the matter of Deibold, I’m more inclined to suspect stupidity than malice, but the evidence as offered clearly indicates that there is enough reason to suspect a problem, that ought to be enough to alarm anyone who gives a shit. As do I. As do you.
I can certainly empathize with your criticism that friend rjung is a bit obsessed with this issue, but its the obsessives who get things done, then we anal-retentives get to point out how badly.
And, of course, it is nowhere near as important as the epidemic of cognitive dissonance currently amok in the Republic…
That’s great! Super! Super-duper, even! But it doesn’t need to be repeated like a SDMB topic-metronome. The lad needs to give it a rest; Start a thread on the topic and stick with it. No need to glurge about and insert a ‘Diebold OMG!’ in every thread.
Continuing the trend in this thread (a Pit thread behaving like a GD one), I would like to challenge rjung’s implications involving the races in the link.
In no real order:
Illinois Governor: The result is wrong. Blagojevich beat Ryan 52%-45%- the exact amount, btw, in the poll quoted.
New Hampshire Senate: Of the last two statewide polls I found*, the American Research Group poll of 11/2-11/3 gave Sununu a 48%-44% lead, with a 4% margin of error, while the Rasmussen poll of 11/3 gave Shaheen a 47%-44% lead, with a 4.5% margin of error. In short, a statistical draw.
Minnesota Senate: The Rasmussen poll of 11/3 gave Mondale a 48.1%-47.9% lead with a 4.5% margin of error, while the Zogby poll of 11/3-11/4 gave Mondale a 51%-45% lead, with a 4% margin of error.
Colorado Senate: The Survey USA poll of 10/31-11/2 gave Allard a 50%-46% lead, with a 3.7% margin of error.
Georgia Senate: The Zogby poll of 11/3-11/4 gave Cleland a 50%-48% lead, with a 4% margin of error.
In short, of the six races, one (Illinois) was a Democratic win, another (Georgia Senate) was closer than implied, and three (New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Colorado) had contraditory polling, leaving just one (Georgia Governor) with a large swing.
- All polls used were taken from D.C. Political Report, in a members-only section.
Remember folks, this thread is not about Diebold or the 2000 Presidential Election or the fuckups in Florida.
If you want to discuss Diebold’s election machines, I’m sure rjung has a thread somewhere in GD about it.
But I don’t want to beat up on poor ol’ rjung. Still feel bad about the times I took his lunch money.
More of that bleeding-heart ‘redistribution of wealth’ I keep hearing about?
It would be the thuggish conservative ‘redistribution of wealth’ in this instance, methinks.
Well if he was conservative, he’d hand back the money and teach him how to stand up for himself next time.
But it would be me he was standing up to! And maybe I wouldn’t get his lunch money! No, that runs directly counter to the entreprenuerial spirit that has made America…what it is.
<Looks at OP>
Geez, you call that a pitting? I’ve had stronger stuff than that for lunch at 7-11.
Ahem
The fundamental need for fair and impartial elections should be a major obsession for everyone who believes in the idea of an open and democratic society, regardless of where they stand on the issues and candidates.
After reading the (lame-ass) OP, I can only conclude that Bruce_Daddy doesn’t believe in democracy, and suggest he enroll in a civics class or three.