Ohio Ballot Recount Will Happen....What Will it Reveal? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 06-14-2006, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Diebold was mentioned 10 times in this thread. Above are quotes from members posting in this thread. The funny thing is, NOT ONE Ohio county used diebold machines during the 2004 election.

http://www.ohiodems.org/index.php?di...ails&id=191201

host mentioned this on the first page of this thread in the beginning of his second post:

Quote:

There is a paper trail in Ohio, where 70 percent of ballots cast were of the
paper punch card variety, the same type made famous in Florida in 2000.

taken out of context, it's an easy shot to pull quotes about problems with the validity and security of an electronic voting method (which has since been employed in Ohio, despite what occurred in 2004) and conflate them with the OP's concern with voting irregularities in 2004 that he didn't link to Diebold.

stevo · 06-14-2006, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

taken out of context, it's an easy shot to pull quotes about problems with the validity and security of an electronic voting method (which has since been employed in Ohio, despite what occurred in 2004) and conflate them with the OP's concern with voting irregularities in 2004 that he didn't link to Diebold.

Then why is Diebold mentioned 10 times on the first page of this thread?

Thread titled: Ohio Ballot Recount...
Most popular word in beginning of thread: Diebold

Why even bring up diebold when talking about an ohio ballot recount if diebold wasn't even used in that election?

I can think of 2 reasons to bring it up. One, ignorance. Just plain assuming diebold had to be behind the whole thing, but never really looking into it and see if thats the case. Two, dishonesty. Knowing that other people aren't going to double check and will just take your word for it if you make it sound like diebold was behind it, even if you never say that explicitly. Drop "diebold" a half a dozen times and enough irrelevant articles into the discussion and people will begin to associate the two together. Diebold=election fraud in ohio.

Too bad everyone now knows diebold had nothing to do with the 2004 ohio results...

smooth · 06-14-2006, 06:42 AM

well, stevo, first of all, host himself already posted that the 2004 ohio elections weren't diebold electronic operations. I already quoted him and, as mentioned, I pulled it from the first sentence of his second post, so your smugness about "alerting" the tfp members to this fact is becoming a red herring. worse, it appears that you've used your new "findings" as a springboard to insult a fellow member of tfp. we ought to strive to raise the standards of discourse on this board, and that would begin with reading other people's posts in their entirety. even those you disagree with predominantly, such as host's, and if you had done so you would have noticed that he already posted what you are now "discovering" much later in the discussion.

your question about why someone would discuss diebold in this thread at all is valid...once. I'll explain how I see it as relevant and you can take that explanation or leave it, but I'm not going to chase after your logic any further than this post I'm making right now.

first of all, host's post is a question of whether and to what extent voting fraud or irregularities in ohio should be explored. since there is of yet no direct evidence that deliberate fraud occurred, it appears to me to be appropriately relevent to discuss proven or alleged deliberate fraud in other contested voting regions.

that is, look what apparently occurred in florida and wonder to oneself whether it's even feasable that such things happen at all. if deliberate vote tampering occurred in florida, it's conceivable it occurred in ohio.

secondly, regardless of what method the votes were taken in 2004, the fact remains that in 2006 the machines being used to tally votes in ohio are diebold machines. they are also used in california. in fact, only diebold and one other company produce over 80% of all electronic voting machines in this country.

given that, we ought to look at what is being discovered about their tamperability--as a seperate issue of whether it occurred.

so we have a few issues: whether vote tampering happens at all (let's examine the diebold interactins in florida for guidance) and whether it occurred in ohio (let's examine the physical votes in the form of a recount) and whether it could conceivably occur in the future (and now we examine diebold's role in current ohio elections).

06-14-2006, 06:42 AM	#83 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	well, stevo, first of all, host himself already posted that the 2004 ohio elections weren't diebold electronic operations. I already quoted him and, as mentioned, I pulled it from the first sentence of his second post, so your smugness about "alerting" the tfp members to this fact is becoming a red herring. worse, it appears that you've used your new "findings" as a springboard to insult a fellow member of tfp. we ought to strive to raise the standards of discourse on this board, and that would begin with reading other people's posts in their entirety. even those you disagree with predominantly, such as host's, and if you had done so you would have noticed that he already posted what you are now "discovering" much later in the discussion. your question about why someone would discuss diebold in this thread at all is valid...once. I'll explain how I see it as relevant and you can take that explanation or leave it, but I'm not going to chase after your logic any further than this post I'm making right now. first of all, host's post is a question of whether and to what extent voting fraud or irregularities in ohio should be explored. since there is of yet no direct evidence that deliberate fraud occurred, it appears to me to be appropriately relevent to discuss proven or alleged deliberate fraud in other contested voting regions. that is, look what apparently occurred in florida and wonder to oneself whether it's even feasable that such things happen at all. if deliberate vote tampering occurred in florida, it's conceivable it occurred in ohio. secondly, regardless of what method the votes were taken in 2004, the fact remains that in 2006 the machines being used to tally votes in ohio are diebold machines. they are also used in california. in fact, only diebold and one other company produce over 80% of all electronic voting machines in this country. given that, we ought to look at what is being discovered about their tamperability--as a seperate issue of whether it occurred. so we have a few issues: whether vote tampering happens at all (let's examine the diebold interactins in florida for guidance) and whether it occurred in ohio (let's examine the physical votes in the form of a recount) and whether it could conceivably occur in the future (and now we examine diebold's role in current ohio elections). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman