RFK Jr. files whistleblower suit against Diebold

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s see. Richard Nixon was told about this allegation, and decided not to pursue it, in the interests of having a clean, undisputed election. Are you sure you want to go on record as more interested in converting a civic issue to a partisan one than Richard Nixon?

82

Since Republicans and Democrats both use these same machines, it’s not a partisan issue to make them secure and fraud resistant.

83

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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
[/quote]
Dunno, hope that comes up during the lawsuit about hackable machines.

Since apparently you don’t know, let me be the one to tell you - you’re fairly conservative.

But I don’t see why it would come down on party lines. Why is there a conservative desire for Diebold to win this case?

Because, quite bluntly, it’s in my credit card company’s best interest to make sure there’s as little fraud as possible. To me? Meh. The two times my credit cards have been used fraudulently, I signed something saying I didn’t do it, and they took the charge off. So I don’t care so much.

With my vote, they don’t fix it. And I have no way of knowing if I’ve been defrauded. If the credit card company never delineated charges, nor at the point-of-sale told me how much was going on my credit card, you can be damned sure I’d be concerned.

Moreover, Diebold, at the end of the day, doesn’t have a natural interest in whether the damned things are hackable or not. Their interest in whether it’s hackable is artificially placed on it by the requirements of the contract.

In short, the money analogy is terrible.

Except that the more computerized voting gets, the easier it is to commit fraud en masse.

Besides, if we are now finding out there were problems before, does that mean we shouldn’t care about improving things now? I think you can make machines that make it much harder to cheat.

It’d be great if I got a receipt code that I use to log in somewhere on an SLL later, and see that my vote got recorded as I said.

Again I ask why it’s the “liberal” position to see the machines as easily hackable, and the “conservative” position that they’re hard to hack.

84

[QUOTE=rjung]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Rjung, your link lists your keywords. Cleveland Plain Dealer story, as reprinted at Common Dreams. First four paragraphs:

OK, I brought this up the last time we did the 2004 Ohio election question, and got told by the Usual Republicans that “nothing was ever proven.” Here’s a smoking gun. Note the difference between the vote results and the CNN polls for Ohio, as reported earler in this thread.

I am not saying Warren O’Dell did commit fraud with his machines. I am not saying Ken Blackwell did aid and abet O’Dell in doing so. I am saying that there was a clear statement, made and publicly reported, that could lead one to believe there was chicanery. I remember seeing some stories suggesting that there were fraudulent vote counts, particularly in Franklin and Hamilton Counties. Then nothing. Not proof, not refutation, dead air, no news.

Put it this way: It’s possible O’Dell meant, “I’ll get in there and campaign so hard I’ll bring the State of Ohio in for Bush.” But it’s also possible he meant something nefarious. It’s possible that Blackwell, strong pro-Bush Republican, truly believes that the stuff he pulled about paper ballot weight and certifying Diebold were essential to running a fair election. And it’s possible that he had ulterior motives.

It is not wrong to raise those questions. Diebold has been at the center of alleged vote-rigging scandals more than once. Does it not make sense that the truth needs to come out – whichever way is valid?

Shodan, I will say right now that your allegation is not only beneath you, but beneath december. If a Republican gets 5,280 honest votes to a Democrat’s 4,756 in a given local election, I’ll be the first to say he won fair and square. And I’ll bet half or more the Democrat partisans on this board will agree with me.

But what you’re saying, in effect, is, “Asking questions about whether Republicans played dirty is improper, because everybody knows that the Republican Party stands for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. So you guys must be just wanting to cause trouble when you ask those questions.”

Well, bud, it doesn’t work that way. There are honest men and there are crooks on both sides of the aisle. And the more you defend the probable crooks, the worse you look in other people’s eyes.

If O’Dell and Blackwell were guilty of nothing more than partisan excess, and actually did their respective jobs in a fair and unbiased manner, all well and good. But, thank you, if I smell smoke, I want to make sure there’s no fire, not trust your word that it’s nothing but a couple of smokers hiding from Jackmaniii behind those bushes. Fair enough?

85

[QUOTE=Voyager]
So why are you so dead set against fair and secure voting machines?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
None of the above. It is because your attempt to characterize my attitude is dishonest and self-serving.

[/QUOTE]
You should be careful that the answer you give matches the question that was asked. This makes it appear that you are against fair elections because your feelings have been hurt. I think most adults would consider that a petty reason for a stand on issues that effect our society.

I realize that Voyager’s list of possible reasons was limited and inflammatory. However, I have to assume your response was to the list, not to the question itself. Maybe you should try again to answer the question: Why are you so dead set against fair and secure voting machines?

I’ll leave it in the short-answer form, rather than multiple-choice.

86

[QUOTE=bup]
Dunno, hope that comes up during the lawsuit about hackable machines.
[/QUOTE]

Assuming the lawsuit isn’t tossed out because its complete BS, I’m sure it will. Want to state here for the record that you will abide by the finding of that suit? I will.

And I hope that if there is anything to this that it DOES come out…as I said before. Currently though this whole thing seems faith based to me…there is a distinct lack of evidence IMHO.

[QUOTE=bup]
Since apparently you don’t know, let me be the one to tell you - you’re fairly conservative.

[/QUOTE]

Two things here. First off, by who’s measure am I considered ‘fairly conservative’? By yours? By the measure of this board? By BG or Bob, by Hentor or 'luci? Are these yardsticks supposedly some kind of absolute?

Secondly…so what if I am? Are you trying to say that I’m skeptical because I’m a supposed ‘conservative’? Does the ‘fact’ I’m a ‘conservative’ mean I am blinding myself to some hidden information…or that I don’t drink the koolade? Where is the beef to these statements? RFK Jr. files a lawsuit…and this is supposed to automatically make up for a distinct lack of hard evidence on this subject, despite the frantic digging for said evidence by left wing Dems for nearly 2 years now?

Finally, just to clue you in…‘conservative’ does not equal ‘Republican’. So even if I accept the ‘fact’ you present that I’m ‘fairly conservative’ (by whatever yardstick you are choosing to use to measure me by…your own at a guess), that doesn’t not make me a ‘Republican’. Just like all ‘liberals’ are not ‘Democrats’. No?

[QUOTE=bup]
But I don’t see why it would come down on party lines. Why is there a conservative desire for Diebold to win this case?
[/QUOTE]

I have no desire to see Diebold win this case if in fact they HAVE committed a crime. I have no dog in that fight one way or the other, and would be interested to see what would happen to them if they were found guilty. Hell, IF they were found guilty and they got off scott free I’d be willing to come over to the dark side and start a pit thread myself on how the evil Republicans are fucking with our system in fundamental ways.

What it comes down to though is, thus far, ‘your’ side has produced nothing constituting convincing evidence that anything HAS happened. You are automatically assuming guilt (even before there is a trial), then you are trying to accuse anyone not drinking the ‘2004 election fraud!’ koolaid of doing so for partisan reasons. Show me the money, bup, and I’ll willingly be on board. As I said (though you don’t seem to believe it), I’m not Republican, and really have no dog in this fight. But don’t ask me to buy into this conspiricy theory crapola based on the non-evidence, speculation, handwaving and emotion that has characterized this debate for going on 2 years(!!) now.

[QUOTE=bup]
Because, quite bluntly, it’s in my credit card company’s best interest to make sure there’s as little fraud as possible. To me? Meh. The two times my credit cards have been used fraudulently, I signed something saying I didn’t do it, and they took the charge off. So I don’t care so much.

…

[/QUOTE]

Right…so in a nut shell you have no idea how it works and rely on the companies to do whats in their best interest…which in this case will (in theory) help you out. Since money is at stake you figure its more in their interest to protect it than your vote (which is a rational point).

Recall something though…there are TWO parties who have a stake in this. You guys may want to pretend that the Dems are completely helpless and the 'Pubs can do anything they want and get away with it…but I’m happy to say the reality is a bit different than this world view.

As I said, from my own perspective I’d put the damn things in…so that guys like you (and there are obviously a LOT of folks in this category) wouldn’t fret about it anymore. After all, if its on paper it must be ok (leaving aside that as a programmer, if I REALLY wanted to fuck with the system, I could have it print any damn thing I wanted and still do interesting things internally…or have it print one thing to you and something else for the ‘offical’ printed tally).

[QUOTE=bup]
Except that the more computerized voting gets, the easier it is to commit fraud en masse.

[/QUOTE]

If there was an offical, unified Federal electronic voting system you may have a point. But each state has its own system, and even in a state it varies from county to county in most cases (it does here in New Mexico at least). So, even if several counties have a corrupt electronic voting system from the same company I don’t see how this is different than several counties having a corrupt analogue voting system (New Mexico used to have most of their counties on the same analogue voting system)…which would allow voter fraud ‘en masse’ as you put it. In fact there is evidence that there HAS been massive voter fraud with the old systems in the past.

[QUOTE=bup]
Besides, if we are now finding out there were problems before, does that mean we shouldn’t care about improving things now? I think you can make machines that make it much harder to cheat.
[/QUOTE]

Assuming you find problems (i.e. assuming you find out that the current machines don’t meet the original government RFP for performance specs), then of course you would want to fix them. Actually, what you would do is decommission the current generation of machines, create a better RFP and send it out for a new procurement cycle.

The thing is though afaik the current machines DO meet the requirements in the various state governments RFP’s. If this is the case and you still think there is a flaw in what the government is asking for, then its going to be more difficult. You will have to convince the state governments that their original RFP requirements were flawed and that they need to either junk what they have and cut a new set of requirements (with more stringent security presumably), or have the vendors modify the current machines to a new set of security requirements.

Either way its going to be expensive…so you are going to need more than handwaving and faith to convince them that they need to make such changes. It CAN be done btw…its been done in other things in the past (things like safety for instance). But its going to take a bit more than has been thus far presented.

[QUOTE=bup]
Again I ask why it’s the “liberal” position to see the machines as easily hackable, and the “conservative” position that they’re hard to hack.
[/QUOTE]

Because thus far there has been no PROOF presented that the machines are ‘easily hackable’…whatever that means. There has been no PROOF that the machines do not in fact meet the various states RFP requirements in fact. So, it seems (to me) to be a faith based position by SOME ‘liberals’ that this in fact happened. And it seems (to me) that anyone who isn’t drinking the koolaid on this is being labled (by you) to be a ‘conservative’. So…bobs your uncle. Its breaking down along partisan lines.

-XT

87

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
OK, I brought this up the last time we did the 2004 Ohio election question, and got told by the Usual Republicans that “nothing was ever proven.” Here’s a smoking gun. Note the difference between the vote results and the CNN polls for Ohio, as reported earler in this thread.
[/QUOTE]

If you’re talking about the exit polls, note the links I gave in an earlier post that offer credible evidence that the results were not out of sync.

88

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Please read this interview with a hacker.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve read it before Bob…and responded to it. The short of it come here:

Note the bold/underlined part. ‘It requires physical access to a machine’. Couple things here. First off, if I have physical access to the machine I’ve broken the physical security of the system. Thats up to the STATES to handle and really has nothing to do with how good or bad the actual security of the e-voting system is. Next thing is…if I have physical access to just about ANY machine I can break in. Its really not all that hard Bob if you know what you are doing. Oh, I may need more than a 5 line VB coded program to do it, but if I can physically get to your box (or physically get to your infrastructure) I’m in…and I can fuck you over if I so choose. Be it a sooper sekrit gubberment mainframe or your businesses most secure database server.

The thing here is…does this machine not meet the RFP requirements of the state that issued them? If it doesn’t then you have an excellent reason to throw the book at the state at a minimum. They are SUPPOSED to test those requirements before final acceptance. As I do a lot of government contracting I’ll tell you…they always go over MY work with a fucking fine toothed comb before paying me. :stuck_out_tongue:

Because some guy states he could hack the system (after gaining physical access to the core system mind you) does not mean the system does not meet the requirements of the state. Those requirements may (and probably did) put the physical security on the state to handle.

-XT

89

I appreciate where you’re coming from, XT. But I think you’re asking a lot if the integrity of the totals for a precinct hinge on keeping the machines physically secure. Think of thousands upon thousands of precincts. Some precincts may scrupulously adhere to the most rigid security, some may wink and say “now I’m going out for a cup of coffee. Don’t you go messin’ with the totals while I’m gone” <wink, wink>.

Total integrity may not be possible, but it’s approachable. We could make the machine spit out a paper copy of what the voter did before allowing the ballot to be submitted. Those paper copies could be stored for validation should the need arise. There are technical solutions, but it’s quite obvious to me that the intent is not to create a fool proof system.

90

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Assuming the lawsuit isn’t tossed out because its complete BS, I’m sure it will. Want to state here for the record that you will abide by the finding of that suit? I will.
[/quote]
Depends. I’ll lay out my caveats right now, though.

If Gonzalez and the feds join the suit, and then don’t vigorously pursue it, I will not.

Also, if Diebold wins the suit because the RFP was so poorly written that it allows for crap, I will not.

Otherwise, yes.

Hypothetically, yes, but in actuality I do know how it works. I’m a software engineer and have to deal with ISD all the time - I’m doing it now. I don’t think that has any bearing on the situation, though. As you said, it’s a rational reason for believing money transactions are secure.

Like I said, I’m a software engineer. I disagree with you on this. It’s more than a feelgood. You give the voter a receipt with a unique ID. If there’s allegations of fraud, you can use that to compare to the official tally.

County-wide is plenty wide enough to screw up a state, to screw up a national election. Any major city in a battleground state could turn the whole election.

No, I’m basing it on preconceived notions of who was conservative and not. It’s not circular.

91

[QUOTE=Shodan]
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.

[/quote]

I’m not talking about the hijack concerning Ohio, I’m talking about your claim

[/QUOTE]

I have not noticed anyone claiming that hacked machines affected the results of previous elections. Therefore, the results of the elections can not be the cause of concern about machines. The example of my county indicates that in some places, at least, the honesty of the process outweighs partisanism. As I said, hackers are not guaranteed to be right wingers. I’d laugh like hell if a hacker made one of your boys lose, but it would still be wrong.

And BTW, I was a registered Republican until a year and a half ago, and I worked in two campaigns for the Conservative Party of New York. Are you for secure voting machines or not, or is that something only knee-jerk liberals are for? That’s the attitude that explains why I am no longer a Republican.

92

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I have not noticed anyone claiming that hacked machines affected the results of previous elections. Therefore, the results of the elections can not be the cause of concern about machines.
[/quote]
Sure it is. RFKJr is jockeying for the mid-term elections in a couple of months.

It isn’t just past elections that are the source of partisanship. You will note that in your own country, even though there are lots of Democrats with motives, means, and opportunity, no one is alleging fraud. Why not?

It’s possible to hack a paper ballot system. Therefore, the Democrats should be just as concerned about fraud that benefits them as fraud that doesn’t. But when it comes to fraud and malfeasance among Democrats, I hear crickets chirping.

But you better believe the standard of proof that anything like that had been done by a liberal would be one fuck of a lot higher than the vague accusations bandied around here for the last six years.

And if dishonest mischaracterizations like that are all you can come up with, the Republican party is well shut of you. The knee-jerk party is on the left of the aisle, thankyouverymuch.

Regards,
Shodan

93

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I appreciate where you’re coming from, XT. But I think you’re asking a lot if the integrity of the totals for a precinct hinge on keeping the machines physically secure. Think of thousands upon thousands of precincts. Some precincts may scrupulously adhere to the most rigid security, some may wink and say “now I’m going out for a cup of coffee. Don’t you go messin’ with the totals while I’m gone” <wink, wink>.
[/QUOTE]

Right. But the same thing could (and did) happen with the old analogue system as well. NO system can be designed in such a way that the people running it, if courrupt, couldn’t do this. Again, I don’t think that this is unique to the e-voting systems…nor do I see Diebold as being responsible for this. IF local officials are corrupt and are out the fuck with the election then thats a different problem we need to be focusing on…IMHO.

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Total integrity may not be possible, but it’s approachable. We could make the machine spit out a paper copy of what the voter did before allowing the ballot to be submitted. Those paper copies could be stored for validation should the need arise. There are technical solutions, but it’s quite obvious to me that the intent is not to create a fool proof system.
[/QUOTE]

Thats true…and those stored paper copies could either be switched or otherwise tampered with. Again, if the folks running the thing are corrupt then no system is going to be secure. I don’t see how printing slips of paper are a significant security measure…if the database engine and the code itself is (supposedly) suspect then the printouts could be easily manipulated as well. If its not…then its not. IMHO there is no evidence that the underlieing code or data base engine itelf is corrupt (perhaps flawed but I haven’t seen evidence of this either). If there IS such evidence then thats exactly what would be needed to make this case convincing. For me, I could very well believe that it COULD be done (hell, though I haven’t coded in a decade I can think of several ways myself to do it)…I’ve just seen no real evidence that its been done.

[QUOTE=bup]
If Gonzalez and the feds join the suit, and then don’t vigorously pursue it, I will not.
[/QUOTE]

Right…setting things up for a win/win here. If there is no case at all and this thing gets thrown out because its a politically motivated BS lawsuit simply being done to rally the troops for this years election you are covered…you can say the Feds and Gonzalez put the fix in.

So, only if the suit goes through and Diebold is found guilty are you willing to abide by that decision it seems to me.

[QUOTE=bup]
Also, if Diebold wins the suit because the RFP was so poorly written that it allows for crap, I will not.
[/QUOTE]

Why? Who’s fault will this be? If Diebold in fact delivered a product that meets the state governments request then why would they be at fault?

[QUOTE=bup]
Like I said, I’m a software engineer. I disagree with you on this. It’s more than a feelgood. You give the voter a receipt with a unique ID. If there’s allegations of fraud, you can use that to compare to the official tally.
[/QUOTE]

We’ll have to agree to disagree then. As a software engineer you should know how easy it would be to manipulate this…given the folks running it are supposedly in on it (which they would have to be to do any of this in the first place), and given physical access to the core systems. Myself, I was a programmer analyst for 10 years and am currently a network infrastructure and securities engineer…and I can think of myriad ways to do this given physical access to the core systems and having the data entry folks in on it. In fact, I can think of no way to prevent it…certainly not printing little slips of paper.

The converse though is if the code is good there is no NEED for printouts…its simply a feel good warm and fuzzy for the clueless gawks who think the whole thing is magic and see the system as a mysterious black boxs. Its easy enough to set electronic flags on the systems that if any record is changes you can find out. You should know this as well, being a software engineer. Only if we assume that the code itself has some interesting easter eggs buried in it could such manipulations be done (either automatically or by human intervention) without trace. Thus far I’ve seen no indications of evidence showing this.

As I said though, and given that attitude I’d spend the extra millions on the stupid paper trail thing.

[QUOTE=bup]
County-wide is plenty wide enough to screw up a state, to screw up a national election. Any major city in a battleground state could turn the whole election.
[/QUOTE]

The same was true of the old analogue system though. En masse, to me, means manipulating an entire states voting…or an entire region of the country. Cities or counties though have been manipulated and corrupted in the past using the old technology…i.e. nothing new if the electronic machines have done this, and nothing worse because it IS electronic. Which was what I was getting at.

[QUOTE=bup]
No, I’m basing it on preconceived notions of who was conservative and not. It’s not circular.
[/QUOTE]

Why base it at all on my supposed ‘conservative’ leanings? I’m asking for evidence before I am convinced…evidence thus far lacking. Were this a thread on a supposed conspiricy theory dealing with the US using explosives to take down the WTC and missile strikes at the Pentagon on 9/11, and I was skeptical due to a lack of evidence, would you assume I’m skeptical solely because I’m a supposed ‘conservative’??

-XT

94

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Thats true…and those stored paper copies could either be switched or otherwise tampered with. Again, if the folks running the thing are corrupt then no system is going to be secure. I don’t see how printing slips of paper are a significant security measure…if the database engine and the code itself is (supposedly) suspect then the printouts could be easily manipulated as well.
[/QUOTE]

I think printouts would give enormous credibility to the results. Let’s say your precinct has 1000 people and that 550 voted for Kerry and 450 for Bush Under my system, each of those 550 Kerry voters would have had a printout in their hands confirming that they voted for Kerry and they deposited said printout into a locked box. Exit polls show Kerry took 55% of the precinct. Now let’s say foul play is involved and the precinct official count shows 601 Bush votes and 399 Kerry votes. The Kerry side demands a recount and the locked box is opened up. The fact that 151 Kerry votes got switched to Bush is going to stick out like a sore thumb. The precinct officials go to jail. Perfect? No. A huge step in the right direction? Sure.

95

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
By “voter suppression” I mean trying to scare people away from the polls, trying to get them to try to vote on the wrong day
[/QUOTE]

How do you get somebody to “vote on the wrong day”? :confused:

96

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
How do you get somebody to “vote on the wrong day”? :confused:
[/QUOTE]

I’ll tell you how.

Sure, only the gullible would fall for it. But if you can keep just a few thousand gullible people from voting the wrong way, you can sway the election.

97

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I’ll tell you how.

Sure, only the gullible would fall for it. But if you can keep just a few thousand gullible people from voting the wrong way, you can sway the election.
[/QUOTE]

So are you saying that an effect which disenfranchises the gullible voter will hurt Democrats more than Republicans?

98

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I think printouts would give enormous credibility to the results. Let’s say your precinct has 1000 people and that 550 voted for Kerry and 450 for Bush Under my system, each of those 550 Kerry voters would have had a printout in their hands confirming that they voted for Kerry and they deposited said printout into a locked box. Exit polls show Kerry took 55% of the precinct. Now let’s say foul play is involved and the precinct official count shows 601 Bush votes and 399 Kerry votes. The Kerry side demands a recount and the locked box is opened up. The fact that 151 Kerry votes got switched to Bush is going to stick out like a sore thumb. The precinct officials go to jail. Perfect? No. A huge step in the right direction? Sure.
[/QUOTE]

The votes in their hand would be less than meaningless Bob…it would be the stored votes at the precinct that would be re-counted, not the votes folk take home with them (which have even a higher chance of being altered). Assuming fraud, those votes stored on site would simply be changed or otherwise altered, along with the data base. The votes in your hand are a feel good warm and fuzzy for the voter…yep, it says right there that I voted for Kerry. How do you suppose that vote tab given to the voter could or would be used? The only ones that count (and would be counted) are those official printouts held onsite…on the site mind you where you are already presuming the folks involved are part of the fraud (per your scenerio of allowing someone physical access to the core system)? I think the thing here is that you and others are comfortable with the why and how of paper vote records being altered (i.e. you understand the risk and understand how it could be done and perhaps grasp ways to make it more difficult), while you don’t really understand the relative risks associated with how the electronic system is working…and so are uncomfortable with it. Too me its a further example of how folks are really bad at risk assessment, and assessing relative risks of related things.

If electronic data can be altered (and it can) how much easier is it to alter printouts of electronic data? Or printouts at all? Childs play Bob. If your fundamental assumption is that the local officals are corrupt then NO system that they have a part of is safe. Not analogue, not digital…not stones in a box, marks on a board or marks on a punch card. All can and have been corrupted in the past (and probably will be in the future).

I’ve yet to see substantial evidence though that this was any more the case in 2004 than in any other election of the past…or that it was a major factor. I know its a matter of faith that it WAS, and I conceed that its possible…I’ve just not seen any evidence that convinces me that this was the case.

-XT

99

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Proof that the Republicans engaged in systematic and deliberite vote supression as opposed to the natural mistakes that are inevitable in any human endevor?
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Proof that the Pubs used deliberate voter intimidation tactics in 2004? It’s like you’re asking me for proof a hurricane flooded New Orleans last year. Jeez, what country were you living in two years ago? This was all over the news then, repeatedly. Including news reports from before Election Day about things going on at the time, no chalking them up to sour grapes. You would have had to be living in a cave on Mars to miss it. Or living in the right-wing blogosphere. You’re in deep denial, dave.

Never mind. Here’s something to get you started. A report by People for the American Way. Many concrete examples, organized by time period, most recent first, thoroughly documented in the endnotes. The actions described here were not mistakes. Election officials might not or might not have made “the natural mistakes that are inevitable in any human endevor.” That’s a different matter. These actions were planned and coordinated.

Here’s a more first-person, on-the-ground report from my home town of Tampa.

Oh, and I suggest you go back to post #35 of this thread, open each of the five GD threads linked there, and read them very, very slowly and carefully, including articles linked thereto, if still available online. You will find many right-wing Dopers trying to rationalize the tactics or throw a tu quoque at the Dems, but no instances of anyone seriously trying to deny that the events discussed in the threads were real.

Once again, I am not claiming any of this swung the outcome of any of the 2004 elections. We’ll never know. There would be no way to determine how many people would have voted but for these dirty tricks, or to be sure how they would have voted. OTOH, there is no reasonable way to deny their existence and no reasonable way to justify them.

100

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Sure it is. RFKJr is jockeying for the mid-term elections in a couple of months.

[/quote]

As I said, that’s the future. If you believe you have evidence of a security weakness in a voting machine, you should do nothing until there is fraud? Oh, that’s right, you support the president who did nothing about a terrorist threat until after it happened.

You notice that no one has disputed Daley’s fraud, right? There might be a dispute about its effect on the outcome. If we did things your way, we’d just say there is no proof.

Of course it is possible to hack a paper system - but the paper is still there for a recount. Ditto for voting machines, punch cards, etc. But there is decades of experience in how to run a fair election, plenty of safeguards, a paper trail, and the relative simplicity of the machines. Do you really think its a good idea if no one outside of Diebold ever looks at their code? You really think its a good idea not to have a hardcopy record for recounts?

So, you refuse to admit that there can be any problem with the machines? Why? Because Diebold is a Republican? Because Kennedy brought the suit, so it must be worthless? Or because you think the programmers at Diebold are so smart that nothing can go wrong.