I'd still like to know how heavilypopulated Dem precincts in Ohio ended up with more votes than voters and those precincts won by Bush.

Even when the proof is there and undeniable, politicians and the elections boards do nothing, they just dismiss it.

And when there maybe 100 people involved in a conspiracy and 1 starts screaming and coming forth with the truth, people are quick to point out that the person is a loon, or publicity seeking or whatever....... so you can have as many involved in a conspiracy as you wish, so long as the action is unproveable and when 1 or 2 speak out discredit them enough so noone listens.

But that would never happen in the US.

True. But some are.

It does not require large numbers of people to cause large amounts of vote fraud with poorly designed electronic voting systems.

Poorly designed electronic voting systems where widely used in the last election.

Thus you faith is wrong.

How many unaccounted electronic votes where there? Not ones that you can prove are corrupt -- but ones someone could have easily corrupted.

Edit: added "easily" -- as in, could corrupt en-mass

Suppose we had a system in which any judge could free any prisoner based off secret evidence presented to the judge -- but you didn't know which judge it was that did the freeing.

We don't know that there would be corruption under this system. But having any faith that there would be no corruption is irrational.

The current models of electronic voting decided the 2004 election. If they are crap, then so was the election.

If you believe that no-paper trail, centralized, easily corrupted electronic voting is something you should have faith in, then the 2004 election was a good election. If you believe that no-paper trail, centralized, easily corrupted electronic voting makes a mockery of democracy, then the 2004 was a mockery of democracy.

It matters not who the people voted for. It matters who and how the votes where counted. A large chunk of the votes where counted by unaudited, insecure, easily corrupted computer systems. As such, a large chunk of the votes have no moral weight.

I'm pretty certain that Bush got more than 40% of the vote. I'm pretty certain that Kerry got more than 40% of the vote.

Please cite a single person -- ideally someone of some providence, but I'd take any poster on this board -- who, in the aftermath of the 2000 election, advocated electronic voting, and are now complaining about electronic systems.

They may exist. But you seem to know of them. I'm wondering if this is just the usual "us vs them" cognative issue human beings have, where you attribute negative things to people you dislike or disagree with.

Voting machines hacked
more proof

and diebolds responce to these hacks is just disturbing....

Proving to state election officials how ridiculously easy
it is to hack one of the most important pieces of democracy.
diebold claims that is foolish and irresponsible?
it may have violated licensing agreements?

.......................Pathetic......................................

Nixonian dirty tricks don't need to be as high tech with voting machines. You can just shut down the Democratic phone lines on election day in key states:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121605O.shtml

Some "mandate", if you need to resort to these measures to insure just enough votes. The Ohio electronic voting discrepancies are not getting the press it deserves.