Electronic Voting - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 11-29-2005, 09:28 AM

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.

Yakk · 11-29-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The possibility for corruption does not mean corruption. Not every cop is on the take, not every judge can be bought, not every politican is crooked.

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.

Quote:

Part of the faith comes due to the ineffeciency of the system. It requires so many people to be involved that it would require a great deal of people to corrupt to really change anything but a very close election. I am not going to claim the sky is falling when it most clearly is not.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Which is why I am against the current models of electronic voting.

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.

Quote:

The ironic thing to me is the same people who were complaining about the 2000 election issues and pushing for electronic systems, now seem to be the same ones complaining about the electronic systems.

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.

alpha phi · 12-16-2005, 07:21 PM

Voting machines hacked
more proof

Quote:

UPDATE Dec. 16: Volusia County (FL) joins Leon in dumping Diebold. Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. On Tuesday, the most serious “hack” demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes.

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

Quote:

One test was conducted for Sancho's office and the nonprofit election-monitoring group BlackBoxVoting.org by Herbert Thompson, a computer-science professor and strategist at Security Innovation, which tests software for companies such as Google and Microsoft. Another test was done by Finnish computer expert Harri Hursti.

After BlackBox and Sancho announced the results in May, Diebold's senior lawyer, Michael Lindroos, sent a letter to Sancho that questioned the results and called the test "a very foolish and irresponsible act" that may have violated licensing agreements.

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......................................

Elphaba · 12-16-2005, 08:57 PM

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

Quote:

Jurors Return Mixed Phone-Jamming Verdict
The Associated Press

Thursday 15 December 2005

A former top Republican Party official was convicted on telephone harassment charges Thursday for his part in a plot to jam the Democrats' phones on Election Day 2002.

The federal jury acquitted James Tobin of the most serious charge against him, of conspiring to violate voters' rights.

Tobin, 45, of Bangor, Maine, was President Bush's New England campaign chairman last year. He could get up seven years in prison and $500,000 in fines when he is sentenced in March.

For nearly two hours on Election Day 2002, hundreds of hang-up calls overwhelmed Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks in New Hampshire and a ride-to-the-polls line run by Manchester's firefighters union.

Tobin, who at the time was New England chairman of Bush's re-election campaign and a top regional official of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, was accused of orchestrating the phone-jamming.

The former executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, Chuck McGee, who admitted coming up with the idea, served a seven-month sentence for conspiracy.

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.

11-29-2005, 09:28 AM	#41 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"