So the Republicans had the means, the opportunity, and the motive to rig the elections with the machines that Diebold so helpfully provided but of course, being Republicans, they would not dream of cheating. We are to believe that it was a coincidence that the voting wait in Ohio was orders of magnitude higher in Democratic areas than Republican areas in 2004. We’re to believe that thousands upon thousands of voters in New Mexico travelled hundreds of miles just to cast blank ballots. We’re to believe that exit polling was remarkably accurate (as usual) except where electronic ballots were involved, in which case the exit polls are wrong. We’re to believe that exit polling is proof positive of election fraud in the Ukraine but entirely useless in Ohio and Florida. And of course no matter what evidence is pointed out that fraud did indeed take place, it’s all sour grapes. I think the OJ jury did a better job of careful consideration of the evidence than have the Republican apologists on this board.
In Democratic strongholds, like Cook County, voter fraud has a long tradition. The ward bosses maintained the voting lists, and kept people on long after their deaths-how does computerization 9minus an identity card0 prevent this?
Cook County gave JFK the 1960 election-based on a few thousand dead people who kept voting.
Well, you can believe anything you like. What I am saying is that there is no significant evidence of any of this, and that will never stop the Sore-Loserman part of the Democratic party from returning like a dog to the vomit of these unfounded complaints.
And mostly because most of the lefties who are doing so much of the complaining ever has a single word to say about Democratic corruption. And would always have us believe that there is no such thing, and studiously ignore “evidence” of the same sort they use to support their fantasies about evil Republican conspiracies.
You people will believe anything if it is anti-Bush.
:shrugs:
Like I said, it is an article of faith, like creationism. Begin with a conclusion (“We were morally entitled to win in 2000”) and then look around for the evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
I believe we have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe that the probability that Bush actually won either of these elections is vanishingly close to zero and that the preponderance of evidence is that the election was stolen.
Sure, JFK did remarkably well in the cemetaries of Chicago in 1960. But the Daley rigging was amateur hour compared to what was pulled off in Ohio in 2004.
The point is not that we have had voting fraud in the past. But,when computer voting machines instead of making it better make it worse we have a problem. They become the problem not the solution. As ive noted in the past , the history of Diebols etal is in the Brad Blog. the blog was fueled by an insider who contacted them. They ,I believe, are the genesis of the Kennedy stance. They gave him a very compelling argument . The archives still exist in the blog.
This admin has been doing its best to gut whistleblower protection. Ita harder to come out now.
I don’t even know which side you’re trying to argue here - that Democrats have cheated too, so we need a tranparent voting mechanism with lots of breadcrumb trails, or the Democrats have cheated too, so stop complaining.
In either case, Kennedy would’ve won 1960 without Illinois.
Why, in this thread, has the belief of whether the Deibold machines need closer scrutiny and checksafes fallen along partisan lines?
I’m really trying to be non-partisan when I look at this. I’m also a software engineer. When a computer, which is a black box to election judges, is used to tabulate votes, the potential for widespread cheating is simplified and increased. One hack can throw the whole thing.
If a company headed by an active Democratic supporter, the head of some state’s election campaign, had made all the electronic voting machines, and refused to make an auditable record of the machine’s tabulations, I’d say that’s a problem.
If Democrats then seemed to win every close election in which those machines were used, I’d understand Republicans distrust. I don’t think any right-leaning board denizens would then require proof of fraud (remember, fraud is usually designed to be hard to detect), before saying the machines should go, or at least the software should be put in the public sphere, and compiled by government officials, and that the machines should leave trails of proof of everything they do.
Has it? I think you’re confusing “Deibold machines need closer scrutiny” with “the Republicans stole the last two elections”. You want to debate the former, but many people here are debating the latter.
That’s not what I see at all. Weirddave, about halfway through, ran his daily search on BrainGlutton and fraud, and inferred that BrainGlutton was trying to prove previous fraud, and Blalron took the bait.
But that’s a hijack. Most of this has been about
[ul]
[li]Are the machines easily hackable?[/li][li]Were they fraudulently sold as more secure than they are?[/li][li]Is there justification for a paper trail?[/li][li]Is the potential for fraud lessened without the machines?[/li][/ul]
and I see the answers coming down predictably depending on what side of things people are on.
bup:
(tooting own horn) It certainly hasn’t completely, see my post # 12.
I admit I’m not familiar with your political leanings.
Well, I’m not seeing many conservatives who want to address the former, apart from a handful. The first reply out of the gate was a spastic knee-jerk from a conservative (albeit a moderately reformed one) about the Republicans stealing elections.
So if the discussion hasn’t necessarily fallen along party lines, the effort at distraction sure has. Hell, some are even bringing up elections from 46 years ago. Seems if everyone were so confident of the “fair and square” claims, they wouldn’t be worried about making sure that the voting machines are all on the up and up.
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
Sure, absolutely. Keep in mind, though that in the end you are still depending upon the integrity of counters, either mechanical or manual.
No. Simply put, it’s not. Election fraud is not new and is not exclusive to Diebold or the Republican Party.
Really? Which side do you think I’m on? I’ll tell you. I’m on the side that was unhappy with the results in 2004 but doesn’t think that because my guy lost that there was widespread fraud involved. 2004 was just another election, same as any other, and the reason that the machines were alleged to have been fixed, the reason why there is such a hue and cry over Kerry losing, is because it is unfathomable to some people that Bush could ever have won, therefore the fix must have been in. This idea permeates every discussion of the topic and is an unwarranted assumption right from the get-go. I find it as hard to believe as a lot of people, but the outcome was what it was, and I will not accept that there was cheating without proof. Ironclad proof.
See, the objection to the machines is that they can be hacked. Implicit in that suggestion is that one party will benefit from such tactics. Given that a) the Democrats have been beating this drum for years, b) a Kennedy (!) is now associated with this lawsuit, and c) as you said, this discussion seems to be dividing down partisan lines, what does that infer to you? Of course, it infers that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of cheating via innuendo. Is it any wonder that these discussions fall along these lines? The well is poisoned before the discussion even starts.
Under the circumstances, this is as close to a reasoned discussion you’ll ever get on this topic without proof.
Does that still happen there?
In my county, Democrats pretty much always win. Yet they’re very concerned about the accuracy and security of voting machines, and used paper ballots in the primary because Diebold can’t pass their tests. So your claim is crap, as usual.
So why are you so dead set against fair and secure voting machines? Is it because
-
you are ignorant of the actual technical issues
-
you refuse to believe any evidence of a problem, because the owner of Diebold is a “good guy”?
-
or you want tobe certain the fix is in?
I think you’re a conservative - more loyal to conservative principles than the Republican party - who got fed up with Bush’ handling of the budget and voted Democrat in 2004. I thought that before your response.
I can follow that logic. But I’d like to point out that the lawsuit is about vendor claims to the government, so I’m hoping people can stop and think about this without the defense-posture-instinct kicking in.
It doesn’t matter if people who believe the machines already have been hacked are wrong. It doesn’t matter if Kennedy’s firm is bringing the lawsuit. If the machines are easily hacked, and there are things that can be done to make the hack more traceable, but haven’t been, or if there are things that can be done to make the machines more secure, or anything that can improve the integrity and avoid even the appearance of impropriety, those things should be done (within reason, of course. I consider a paper trail very reasonable, given that Diebold had to do extra coding to not print).
I disagree with you, btw, that removing the machines does not lessen the potential for fraud. Remember the dumb line about “To err is human, but to really foul things up, you need a computer”? That’s relevant here. One bad guy can do a helluva lot more damage with a hackable computer than with a stack of paper votes.
Is there any independent, non-partisan evidence that the machines are easily hackable? I’ve never seen any that qualifies. If you have some, post it and lets take a look
I suppose we’ll find this out in the trial, correct? Any statement wrt this would be pure speculation at this point…wouldn’t it be? And of COURSE its going to come down on party lines (or in my own case I’m coming down on the side that is skeptical and still seeing a lack of evidence). Since its speculation, what else did you expect?
Is there? Its a good question. From my point of view, as an IT engineer, I come down on the side that I DON’T see the real need for a paper trail. To me a paper trail is used as a feel good warm and fuzzy for those who think this technology is magic or something. Do you suppose there is a paper trail for every electronic transaction done world wide? Why not…we are talking about MONEY here after all?
That said, and because so many people want to go back to buggy whips, I’d put the damn paper trail in. Not because its (IMHO) necessary, but to calm the neo-luddites among us. It would make the systems more cumbersome, it would cost more…but what the hell.
I don’t see how. If you are bound and determined to cheat, you will find a way to get past every system. There was nothing all that secure about the OLD system we used…and there were plenty of examples of fraud using the old analogue machines. It all depends on the PEOPLE who are running the things after all.
Well yeah…of course. Why you put forth pure speculation without any proof (for the question of stealing elections, or of the machines being ‘easily hackable’, etc) then of COURSE its going to come down along partisan lines. If you put down definitive proof then it probably still would come down along those lines for some (some folks are going to be convinced about their side reguardless)…but for those on the fence it would be a different story. Show me some proof that the machines are hackable from a reputable, non-partisan and independant source and I’ll be convinced that at the minimum the systems should be replaced with better ones (or, in reality, the governments RFP specs need to be fundamentally changed). Show me some proof from a reputable, non-partisan and independant source that in fact the Republicans ‘stole’ the election in 2004 (or any other election) and I’ll take the claim much more seriously.
Otherwise I’m skeptical…as I generally am when shown no real proof, just a lot of speculation. Its interesting that folks who are skeptical that Kennedy was killed by a conspiricy, or that 9/11 was done by the US government (or any other conspiricy theory) don’t bat an eye at the distinct lack of (reputable, non-partisan and independant) evidence on THIS subject. Just goes to show you the power of the conspiricy theory when you have an emotional stake in it I guess…
-XT
Because the CEO of Diebold pledged during the 2004 Presidential election to [deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to George W. Bush.](diebold ceo pledge ohio votes bush) I don’t think you need to be a partisan to admit that that statement is a certified eyebrow-raiser, though I’m sure the fraud-denying Bush apologists will argue otherwise.
I’m not talking about your county; I am talking about the Dope.
None of the above. It is because your attempt to characterize my attitude is dishonest and self-serving.
You are making the implied assumptions that “the only possible reason the Dems lost is cheating, and the only possible reason to dismiss their blatantly dishonest six-year whine about it is because you are in on the fix”.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
You gotta understand, not everyone hereabouts is a knee-jerk liberal. And you guys make it awfully hard to believe in this myth of the completely impartial concern for democracy that somehow only appears when Democrats lose.
You guys want me to buy this idea that you are so concerned about the vote, you are going to have to do better than this rewarmed rot.
Regards,
Shodan
Please read this interview with a hacker.
I’m continually baffled by the denial that they have a hackable system (just google for Leon County Diebold and find tons of references). We demand and get 100% reliablity in our ATM transactions. Why should we settle for less for our votes?