RFK Jr. files whistleblower suit against Diebold

Great Debates
121

Oh, I have one…just not on the fileserver I’m currently using. :slight_smile: I’ll look over the HTML version or wait until I get home to look at the PDF version you posted earlier. I’ll just respond to what you further posted for now.

If it was found so easily I’m guessing it was not intentional…or the folks doing it were idiots. Reguardless I’m unsure why you think this is even a smoking gun…after all, it WAS found and corrected, and in a fairly timely manner. As for the cooperation bit, that may be relevant…or may not be. The devil is in the details there. It STILL doesn’t back up the assertion Least Original User Name Ever (which I think I’ll shorten to LOUNE in future :)) made…namely ‘shown voting areas where 100 % of vote went to Bush. And \where more votes went to Bush than were registerered.’. Unless s/he was being dishonest and not providing the somewhat key information that, though originally Bush DID receive more votes than were registered, this was corrected.

Do you have a cite for an uncorrected glitch that would have had a major impact on the election…something similarly over the top and unexplainable? Or for that matter, any uncorrected glitch whether or not it would have made a difference? Were there no glitches in Kerry’s favor? I seem to recall that there were a few (also corrected)?

Again, I’m skeptical. So far I’ve seen no data that I hadn’t seen in the past…and nothing to indicate that the various ‘election fraud’ claims aren’t simple the normal screwups for a system as large as ours. The one you cited of course was corrected. Others I’ve seen cited in the past were corrected too…or the claims made that there was fraud was disputed. Myself, I see no fire…but then, I expect little (or even big) glitches in such a patch work system as we have for voting. Especially when in a time of transition between the old analogue system and the newer, and still buggy electronic ones. I think that, especially in THIS election, folks (yourself included) were and are LOOKING for fraud, and so you are disposed to see fraud everywhere…even if the ‘fraud’ is simply the errors in the system itself.

If there is more in your cite though Bob I will certainly look it over carefully tonight. And I’m not saying that there is no possibility that there WASN’T some level of folks screwing with the system with the intent of shifting the election. I’ve just not seen any convincing evidence thus far.

-XT

122

http://whttp://www.calvoter.org/issues/votingtech/pub/061505memo.htmlww.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm Its not that I have trouble finding cites. They are too numerous and take time to cull through. I would reccommend anyone curious about the get into the internets and spend a day reading. There is so much available.

123

IOW you don’t have anything except a vague ‘its all over the place…find it yourself’, right? There have been numerous threads on this board about this subject, so I’m not exactly completely ignorant of the various, um, arguments, put forth by the ‘fraud!’ crowd. Unfortunately for you, there is still (IMHO) no convincing piece of evidence…unless you are one of the already convinced of course.

As for your suggestion that I go forth and find the answers to YOUR assertions myself…thanks, but no. I’ve read through the data in the past and remain unconvinced. If you wish to undertake sifting through the pile and want to post what you feel is convincing evidence, feel free…I’m not going to do it for you though.

BTW, its ‘Internet’…singular. There aren’t numerous internets out there…at least not as you seem to mean it. Just a nitpick on my part.

-XT

124

That link doesn’t seem to do much for me. What is is supposed to point to?

125

It looks like he put two links together. The first is http://www.calvoter.org/issues/votingtech/pub/061505memo.html which is a memo from the President of the California Voter Foundation to the California Secretary of State’s office, suggesting problems with a new voting machine California is going to adopt.

The second is http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm which is the reprint of an article from the August 28, 2003 Cleveland Plain Dealer, regarding complaints about the use of Diebold voting machines in the 2004 election because Warden O’Dell, the Diebold CEO held and attended fundraisers for President Bush’s reelection campaign.

126

Zero. If you have any proof otherwise, feel free.

Well, there’s a piece of “evidence” we’ve never seen before. :rolleyes:

Now there’s an interesting statement. I wonder what kind of cooperation would be needed to resolve the question as to whether the glitch was intentional. It almost seems that Secretary Blackwell is being asked to prove a negative.

Just so.

Not as far as I can tell. Lots of smoke, but most of it seems to be intended to be blown up my ass.

I did read your cite. But, the first thing I noticed was something I mentoned before.

This is a report, from Democrats, about Ohio. Not voter fraud across the nation, not how our democracy is endangered by possible shenanigans everywhere - focussed and entirely on just one state.

Again I have to ask - why only Ohio? If voters are being disenfranchised everywhere, and the voting systems everywhere are in danger of being compromised - why the universal attention to the states where Democrats lost, and the roaring silence about everywhere else?

Which is part of the problem. If you look hard enough in just one state, and ignore all the rest, then it should not be too hard to present fairly ordinary instances of the normal glitches as evidence of a sinister conspiracy. Because you then lack any sense of perspective.

Because, as I say, nobody seems to be interested in vote fraud anywhere - except if the Dems lost.

The day there is any equivalent amount of suspicious attention paid by Democrats to possible fraud in election won by Democrats is the day I will believe it is motivated by high-mindedness instead of simply sour grapes. Especially if they stop trotting out the same accusations over and over about how Diebold said he wanted the state to go for Bush as if it were proof of something. I’ve made this point in the past - there are any number of similar statements from all sorts of politicians. But they are not interpreted as sinister if they come from Democrats. The Democrats attempted to exclude a whole bunch of absentee ballots in Florida in 2000 (they failed, fortunately). Is this a sign that they were eager to engage in disenfranchising voters? Why are they so passionate about it now?

Ocasionally people will mention that both sides will engage in a certain amount of this sort of thing. Probably true. But only one side gets any traction at all on the SDMB when they make accusations against the other side, and it isn’t the Republicans.

Of which there are, on the SDMB, what - four or five, on a good day. :wink:

Regards,
Shodan

127

2004 United States election voting controversies - Wikipedia There are zillions of stories. Is % s The other big supplier is Diebold owners brother.
The machines dont provide a paper trail. Is that asking too much. The machines have the ability to include printers but didnt. I guess none of this is suspicious.
The night before the election I saw an interview with a representative of the polling organization which had been somewhat discredited 4 years earlier. He defended their numbers and felt they could not have been wrong. But, they tripled their polling and said it was impossible not to get a bad call. Not difficult but statistically impossible.

128

Um…did you actually READ that Wiki article? Its not exactly smoking gun proof that there was fraud…quite the opposite in many cases. Reguardless, its STILL not what I asked you to back up…so posting it (without even bothering to quote whatever the hell you are trying to show) is just adding more trash to the thread. BTW, simply linking to some site without bothering to even quote what you think is helpful is pretty annoying…
Just briefly, here is how it generally works. You make an assertion. I question that assertion and ask you for a cite to back it up. You then provide a link to a cite, and then quote the relevant parts in your post, backing up what you originally asserted. Then I enough acknowledge that you in fact have made your case or I go forth and do some research of my own to provide counter evidence. See?

Here is what you are supposed to be finding: You asserted that there is evidence “shown voting areas where 100 % of vote went to Bush. And \where more votes went to Bush than were registerered”. If either of these are the case I would think it would be fairly easy to find a reputable (IOW non-blog, non-liberal/left wing echo chamber) cite for this.

Simply providing a random link to Wiki (or to the other sites you linked too…like your wonderful google link :)) without bothering to even quote the relevant parts does not constitute backing up your assertion.

Just sayin…

-XT

129

http://www.votersunite.org/info/Dieboldinthenews.pdf A list of Diebold failures. We are not getting more accurate counts. This is what I want. Just a pure count.

130

[shrug] Why not Ohio? It was a presidential swing state in 2004 and many stinking (but not necessarily illegal) shenanigans other than machine-rigging did happen there in that year (and seem likely to happen this year too). If there was machine-rigging to or even if there’s some reason to think there just possibly might have been, that’s newsworthy and worth our attention, even if Ohio was the only only state where that happened ( :stuck_out_tongue: ), what happened there still newsworthy. And in any case, since all elections in this country are run at the state level, a state-by-state analysis makes since. (Don’t forget this thread is based on a whistleblower suit in Florida.) Now, if you have any reason to suspect any fraud, cheating or irregularities in any other state, by either side, we’re all eager to hear it. But you seem to be saying, “It’s not a problem because there’s problems with any state’s election process if you look closely enough,” and that’s pure-D bullshit.

131

From Armed Madhouse, by Greg Palast, p. 230:

132

Because Ohio had the most glaring examples of voter disenfranchisement (inane rules about the weight of paper used for voter registration, grossly inequitable distribution of voting machines) and the Ohio Secretary of State was making no attempt to be impartial in the administration of the election. Everybody knew going in that the presidency hinged on three states: Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Florida. Two out of three would guarantee a win. Blackwell did what he had to do: steal the state for Bush.

133

Cite?

134

Once again, prove your assertion. Prove that the fix was in, that it was a concerted effort to throw the election. Not supposition, not allegation, proof.

Of course, you can do that, right? Silly me, of course you can. Which is why there have been charges brought and impeachment proceedings against the officials involved.

What?

135

:rolleyes: A concerted effort by the responsible public officials to fix the result of an election is (unfortunately) not always a crime. And there is no other reasonable construction to put on Blackwell’s well-documented conduct in 2004.

136

You aren’t seriously asking for a cite for this…are you? Maybe you are asking for a cite for something else and I’m not getting it. This info has been used in just about every debate on the supposed ‘stolen election of 2004’ that I’ve seen.

Assuming you ARE asking for it though (and you’ve been hiding under a rock or something for the last 2 years :stuck_out_tongue: ), here it is. The version I’m citing here is the PDF version…there are myriad other versions in HTML format. Simply google ‘CalTech Bush Election’ if you want an easier version to read.

(sorry, can’t quote the relevent parts here…I’m on the road and don’t have a PDF editor so I can’t cut and paste from it)

-XT

137

Actually, the question was “why only Ohio” (this time) and “why only Florida” last time.

Which is adequately answered in your next sentence;

Which is basically a restatement of what I perceive as the primary reason all along.

You care when you lose. Or maybe I should say you only pay attention when you lose. It’s not about concern for the Dems for fair elections - just the ones they lose.

If I am not mistaken, you (I am addressing BrainGlutton here) have mentioned in the past that you are willing to overlook and condone improper or illegal behavior by those who are sufficiently anti-Bush, so I assume this is another example of the same.

As partisan-to-the-point-of-hysteria-and-beyond as this board is, I don’t think you are alone, although it is certainly not unanimous.

Regards,
Shodan

138

Actually, not only Ohio, that’s just the most glaring example. For instance, in his new book, [in Chapter 4: “The Con,” Greg Palast has some really interesting things to say about systematic vote suppression (by means having nothing to do with touchscreen vote machines) in predominantly Indian and Latino precincts of New Mexico in 2004. Check it out (everybody in this thread check it out), it’s worth a read). Covers a lot of other states, too. In Palast’s view, the machine-rigging matters but it’s mainly a distraction from even more brazen and effective forms of malfeasance. Details available on request.

[shrug] For my part, if there were still a Dem equivalent of the Daly machine in some city crediting itself with dead people’s votes every election, that would piss me off too, big time. You can believe that, or you can depart from me into the everlasting BBQ Pit. But I would expect the Pubs to be the first to raise the red flag over it, as the primary injuried parties, just as the victim of a tort is expected to bring his own lawsuit. If they didn’t, that would be even more suspicious, suggesting some kind of collusion. And the failure of the Dem leadership to raise a bigger fuss over well-documented irregularities in 2004 is likewise suspicious – Palast addresses that in that chapter too.

Let’s see . . . bitch-slapping a Capitol cop . . . rigging elections . . .

Children, can you say “false equivalence”?

I knew you could! :slight_smile:

139

Let me try another angle. Suppose you were running a craps table. Someone comes in and rolls a seven on 400 out of 500 rolls. This is far in excess of the expected value of 83.33 times that seven should have come up. Do you need to inspect the dice to know that they are loaded?

Similarly, when one examines all the anomalies, all the instances of voter disenfranchisement, all the cases where exit polling differed from the final tallies by more than what is statistically feasible- nearly all of these discrepancies favored Bush. Do you really believe that this is mere chance?

140

True.

False.

I care about all election fraud. The highest priority fraud is that which could have turned a national election, either way. Of course swing states where the votes comes out differently than expected is going to get the most scrutiny. That’s not partisanship though.