The Election was rigged!!!!

[chipmunk stew]

I mean, it must have been. Diebold's voting machines were guaranteed to give the neocons the outcome they demanded. This means they wanted the Dems to take the House...but WHY??? Is it a trap of some kind???

[Horatius]

Clearly they're setting it up so groups of "outraged voters" (==shills) will riot, and give them an excuse to declare martial law, and finally open the FEMA death camps they've been sitting on so long.

This has all been admitted! Check it out for yourself. And buy my merch!

[TxLady]

Thats an easy one! Nancy Pelosi. Forcing the American people to look at and listen to her for 2 years guarantees and Republican win in 2008.

[Brainster]

I mean, it must have been. Diebold's voting machines were guaranteed to give the neocons the outcome they demanded. This means they wanted the Dems to take the House...but WHY??? Is it a trap of some kind???

The New World Order knew that the Deniers were monitoring this election too closely for them to be able to get away with stealing it, so they decided to let their Democratic puppets have a couple minutes on the stage.

[milesalpha]

Maybe the American people are just coming out of the coma? I blame rap music...for everything.

[azazal]

Maybe the American people are just coming out of the coma? I blame rap music...for everything.


Britney Spears filing for divorce on the same day as the elections, it all makes sense now.....

[ZouPrime]

Diebold machines have serious security vulnerabilities whether the republicans, democrats, or any other party try to exploit them or not.

[firecoins]

Diebold machines have serious security vulnerabilities whether the republicans, democrats, or any other party try to exploit them or not.
what method doesn't?

[ZouPrime]

what method doesn't?
None, but that's not the point. When using a traditional voting system (with paper ballots and people counting them), it is ultimately hard to perform large scale frauds because you would need to have a lot of peoples participate in the same time for the fraud to be effective. A hacked computer program can be replicated much more easily and systematically.

The computer age have brought us a whole lot of new attack vectors and that were impraticable before, but are extremelly effective using computers. There's no reason why this shouldn't be the case with voting systems.

[JamesB]

I mean, it must have been. Diebold's voting machines were guaranteed to give the neocons the outcome they demanded. This means they wanted the Dems to take the House...but WHY??? Is it a trap of some kind???

It was a double super secret bluff, and you sheeple fell for every bit of it! HAHAHAHA!! :cool:

It was only the most complicated and well executed plan ever, ever!

[TobiasTheViking]

It was a double super secret bluff, and you sheeple fell for every bit of it! HAHAHAHA!! :cool:

It was only the most complicated and well executed plan ever, ever!

this is giving me a raging clue.

[T.A.M.]

You see they let the DEMs win, to create a false sense of security. Then PNAC will plan a new Terrorist Attack before 2008, so that they will still remain in executive power, sans BUSH, for another 4...BAWAAHHAAHAAHAAA!!!!

TAM (unpaid Canadian Shill)

[R.Mackey]

I mean, it must have been. Diebold's voting machines were guaranteed to give the neocons the outcome they demanded. This means they wanted the Dems to take the House...but WHY??? Is it a trap of some kind???
As I understand the paranoia works like this:

2006, the Democrats regain some control in the Legislature. Which is basically a lap dog of the Executive and special interests, and is also polling mid-20% approval ratings, I think.

That gives the Democrats two years to screw up, not find their message, and not connect with the voting public. And the Republicans two years to paint them as "part of the problem." A vote for Hillary in 2006 is a vote against her in 2008.

Then there's the really paranoid version, wherein the Legislature is completely suborned by the Bohemian Grove cabal, and they engineered it that way to avoid people from catching on. The transfer of power in the House is a false flag. Some politicians who were "defeated" have actually learned too much of the truth, been recalled to Planet Zebulon, or are showing signs of post-cloning DNA degradation.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

[defaultdotxbe]

None, but that's not the point. When using a traditional voting system (with paper ballots and people counting them), it is ultimately hard to perform large scale frauds because you would need to have a lot of peoples participate in the same time for the fraud to be effective. A hacked computer program can be replicated much more easily and systematically.

The computer age have brought us a whole lot of new attack vectors and that were impraticable before, but are extremelly effective using computers. There's no reason why this shouldn't be the case with voting systems.
the difficulty there is paper ballots = $$$ and people to count them = $$$$$$

plus, as you mention, this is the computer age, people expect the results fo the election before they go to bed that night, you just cant so that with traditional ballots, and even that method has its drawbacks (classic ballotbox "stuffing" for one)

an electrnoic system isnt necessarily as vunerable as you think, counting ballots is relatively simple, so fewer lines of code, fewer potential vunerabilities to exploit

also, assuming the software is written from scratch (and not based on existining systems liek windows CE) it will be more difficult to hack since theres no basis to start from, and know none security holes to look for

Then there's the really paranoid version, wherein the Legislature is completely suborned by the Bohemian Grove cabal, and they engineered it that way to avoid people from catching on. The transfer of power in the House is a false flag. Some politicians who were "defeated" have actually learned too much of the truth, been recalled to Planet Zebulon, or are showing signs of post-cloning DNA degradation.
maybe the left are the real puppetmasters, they pull of 9/11 and make it look like the neocons made it look like the islamists did it, so they get legislative and executive power

then they pass all kinds of social programs, free schools, free healthcare, free housing, welfare, free money to whoever wants it, so when the neolibs open THEIR deathcamps, no one will dare speak out because they are so dependent on govt-sponsered social programs

[ZouPrime]

the difficulty there is paper ballots = $$$ and people to count them = $$$$$$

plus, as you mention, this is the computer age, people expect the results fo the election before they go to bed that night, you just cant so that with traditional ballots, and even that method has its drawbacks (classic ballotbox "stuffing" for one)

I agree that electronic voting has numerous advantages.


an electrnoic system isnt necessarily as vunerable as you think, counting ballots is relatively simple, so fewer lines of code, fewer potential vunerabilities to exploit

I wasn't talking about electronic system "in general", but about specific ones, notably Diebold offering. And while you are right in saying that such systems are relatively simple on a programming standpoint, we are talking about security here, not programming. Diebold criticism includes non secure computer casings, problems in the voting process they implement, lack of public oversight in their machine design process, lack of trusted third party evaluation of their security, etc.


also, assuming the software is written from scratch (and not based on existining systems liek windows CE) it will be more difficult to hack since theres no basis to start from, and know none security holes to look for

Funny thing, at least one voting machine produced by Diebold runs on WinCE.

[defaultdotxbe]

I wasn't talking about electronic system "in general", but about specific ones, notably Diebold offering. And while you are right in saying that such systems are relatively simple on a programming standpoint, we are talking about security here, not programming. Diebold criticism includes non secure computer casings, problems in the voting process they implement, lack of public oversight in their machine design process, lack of trusted third party evaluation of their security, etc.
well getting into the case is one thing, but makign the computer do what you want is another entirely, i agree the diebold systems ahve their problems, but the lack of oversight and evaluation could be due to them wanting to keep their systems a secret to prevent hacking

Funny thing, at least one voting machine produced by Diebold runs on WinCE.
hmm, i ddint know that, i definately wouldnt want anything like that running on publicly available software

[PerryLogan]

As an experiment, I'd like to see how things would go if America's votes were counted by wildly partisan left-wing companies for a while. I can see no possible objection to this.

[geni]

There are a few acusations of someone strange going on surfaceing at free republic.

[ZouPrime]

well getting into the case is one thing, but makign the computer do what you want is another entirely, i agree the diebold systems ahve their problems, but the lack of oversight and evaluation could be due to them wanting to keep their systems a secret to prevent hacking


A group from Princeton has produced a video showing how easy it is to open a Diebold machine and insert malicious software.

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

As for your last comment (regarding the lack of oversight), I don't think this is a good excuse. There are many ways Diebold could make a third party review its systems while retaining some kind of secrecy on the technical details. This is common, and isn't something exceptional at all. Better yet, Diebold system should be designed around a government approved and public voting process where multiple private firms could compete, instead of having to rely on "black box" offering.

[Crazycowbob]

On the topic of electronic voting machines, I have to lean towards the view Scott Adams takes (The Dilbert guy). If the machines are going to be hacked, it will be by some super geek, who will most likely pick someone other than the major players, so it's a gauranteed win for the country. I say, let someone hack it, it'll come out better in the end!

[chipmunk stew]

Guys, I think I figured out the conspiracy!

The neocons have been under assault from the Truth Movement about 9/11, so they were forced to strike an expensive deal with the Democrats. Give up the House and the Senate(?) in exchange for suppressing turnout in Florida's 15th Congressional District:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5342

Voters would be so overjoyed over their big win that they wouldn't even notice that the election was stolen from the man who would have brought the 9/11 perps to their knees on the floor of the House.

I suspect the Pelosi neocon Dems will play down any irregularities and be content with their lesser win.

[T.A.M.]

On the topic of electronic voting machines, I have to lean towards the view Scott Adams takes (The Dilbert guy). If the machines are going to be hacked, it will be by some super geek, who will most likely pick someone other than the major players, so it's a gauranteed win for the country. I say, let someone hack it, it'll come out better in the end!


No, because in that case Bob bowman would become the next President...and then everyone should head for the bomb shelters.

TAM

[defaultdotxbe]

they should just make the elctions into a reality tv show, liek american idol

then peopel vote by phone, as much as they want, so its all even


BTW, the diebold machine that princeton hacked was an accuvote-ts, which appears to be winCE-based, ive already stated my opinion on those

if they actually built it up from scratch even getting the case open wouldnt help, because you wouldnt automatically know how to load software, or even have any software available

are these machines in widespread use anywehre? my precinct still has butterfly ballots (and we are smart enough to use them :P)

[brodski]

On the topic of electronic voting machines, I have to lean towards the view Scott Adams takes (The Dilbert guy). If the machines are going to be hacked, it will be by some super geek, who will most likely pick someone other than the major players, so it's a gauranteed win for the country. I say, let someone hack it, it'll come out better in the end!
You mean you'd end up with Badnarik for president and then the troofers finally get their kangaroo court in Congress? Or maybe the libertarians did win this election, and dibold was bought off by the combined forces of the Republicans and the democrats, just to keep the two party system going...

[Fnord]

How many of you wrote down the model and serial number of the machine you voted on?

MFR: JBC Hart InterCivic, Inc. of Lafayette, Indiana.
M/N: eSlate3000
S/N: (Format is LetterNumberNumberLetterNumberNumber)

It's right there, top dead center of the front of the machine!

... unless that was what they want us to think.

Wait, I received notice of my 7% pay increase exactly 7 days before the election on the 7th ... someone left a pile of steel-belted radials on my lawn ... I ran out of peanut butter ... and my wife smiled at me over the Texas Pot Roast supper last night...

Now it all makes sense!

111 days after the election, the Beast of the Revelation will steal the election by radio control from his goober patch in Texas, roast all the people who voted for medical marijuana initiatives, and take over the minds of our fair women!

Why didn't I see this all before?!!

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

[RenaissanceBiker]

Apparently, Donald Rumsfeld rigged the election in order to create an opening for President at Texas A&M University. That clever bastard!

[firecoins]

The election is only rigged when Republicans win. When Democrats win there is no one to complain that elections were rigged.

[Crazycowbob]

The election is only rigged when Republicans win. When Democrats win there is no one to complain that elections were rigged.

That's because there's no such thing as a Republican. They're just something we believe because the NWO has imprinted it into our brains using psychic lasers beamed out of TV's. All so called "Republicans" are actually Reptite plants, there to confuse the masses and hide the truth of 911 and the Moon landing!




Whew, did I miss anyone? LOL

[Housefly]

I had bid on eBay for a book three weeks ago. I had paid for it, however the book did not arrive. I checked at the post office, everything. Eventually I decided that either I had been scammed for my £3 or the book had been lost in the post, and started to bid on another copy.

This morning I checked my bids. I had been outbid for my new copy of the book. I checked the post.

The copy I originally bid on had arrived.

How likely is it that a book I bid on three-plus weeks ago would pop through my door just after I've been outbid on another copy, and that both of these would happen mere hours after the Democrats win an American election?

I need to do some research before I decide how and why I am a target of this conspiracy.

[NoZed Avenger]

I mean, it must have been. Diebold's voting machines were guaranteed to give the neocons the outcome they demanded. This means they wanted the Dems to take the House...but WHY??? Is it a trap of some kind???


I think the neocons should request their money back from Diebold.

[Zep]

If they are using the same machines as last election then sure! It MIGHT be rigged! Who the f**k knows!

[gumboot]

I think the neocons should request their money back from Diebold.


Negative.

Everything is going according to plan.

-Gumboot

[Bubbers]

this is giving me a raging clue.

My clue's pointing to the left.

[TobiasTheViking]

uh, lets follow your clue.

[PerryLogan]

A significant number of American voters--among whom I count myself--believe the Republican Party has been rigging the elections. This is a starkly different demography than the Truther crowd:

"Only 45 percent of Democrats are very confident their votes will be counted, and only 30 percent of blacks are confident...according to the AP-Pew survey."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/motivated.voters.ap/index.html

"Nearly two years into the second term of [George W. Bush's] presidency, less than half of those polled think that the 2004 election victory was fair and square."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3537

I find myself agreeing with the Truthers on this one. Apparently, the Republicans couldn't bring it off this time. The reaction against them may simply have been too vehement.

The funny thing is, the conspiracy guys shouldn't believe in election fraud! It's inconsistent with their paradigm--but they apparently haven't noticed.

The presumed existence of widespread election theft is actually inconsistent with the view of most CT's that the parties are controlled at the top.

Alex Jones, for example, believes there is no significant difference between the parties, because they're controlled at the top by the Moloch-worshipping bad guys who can live forever and who want to kill 80% of us. Like a lot of CTs, Alex believes the parties are basically the same, butthat this fact has escaped the attention of everyone else in the world.

But if that were so, there wouldn't be any election fraud. If you control bot parties, you certainly don't want to complicate matters by having one puppet party stealing elections from the other. This would be unnecessary and messy.

So most of the Truthers have a logical problem with election theft. They're just too stupid to know it.

[maccy]

The funny thing is, the conspiracy guys shouldn't believe in election fraud! It's inconsistent with their paradigm--but they apparently haven't noticed.

The presumed existence of widespread election theft is actually inconsistent with the view of most CT's that the parties are controlled at the top.

Alex Jones, for example, believes there is no significant difference between the parties, because they're controlled at the top by the Moloch-worshipping bad guys who can live forever and who want to kill 80% of us.

But if that were so, there wouldn't be any election fraud. If you control bot parties, you certainly don't want to complicate matters by having one puppet party stealing elections from the other. This would be unnecessary and messy.

So most of the Truthers have a logical problem with election theft. They're just too stupid to know it.

Aha! But you've fallen into the Illuminati trap! Election fraud gives the impression that the Republicans care about who wins, thereby fooling you into thinking that both parties cannot be controlled by the NWO.

[PerryLogan]

May Moloch be praised!

[geni]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1734271/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685607/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685315/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681532/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680612/posts

[chipmunk stew]

I have to post this again. It deserves much more mocking than it's received:

I suspect the Pelosi neocon Dems will play down any irregularities and be content with their lesser win.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5342

:hb: :dl: :hb:

[PerryLogan]

"While it's extraordinary for a candidate to get a vote total that exceeds his party's registration in any voting jurisdiction because of non-voters Bush racked up more votes than registered Republicans in 47 out of 67 counties in Florida.

In 15 of those counties, his vote total more than doubled the number of registered Republicans and in four counties, Bush more than tripled the number.

Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans.

By comparison, in 2000, Bush's Florida total represented about 85 percent of the total number of registered Republicans, about 2.9 million votes compared with 3.4 million registered Republicans.

Bush achieved these totals although exit polls showed him winning only about 14 percent of the Democratic vote statewide statistically the same as in 2000 when he won 13 percent of the Democratic vote and losing Florida's independent voters to Kerry by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000, Gore won the independent vote by a much narrower margin of 47 to 46 percent.

Similar surprising jumps in Bush's vote tallies across the country especially when matched against national exits polls showing Kerry winning by 51 percent to 48 percent - suggest the Bush campaign rigged the vote, possibly through systematic computer hacking."
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

[gumboot]

"While it's extraordinary for a candidate to get a vote total that exceeds his party's registration in any voting jurisdiction because of non-voters Bush racked up more votes than registered Republicans in 47 out of 67 counties in Florida.



:confused:

Do you have to register with a party in the USA?

[rule8] that.

-Gumboot

[brodski]

:confused:

Do you have to register with a party in the USA?

[rule8] that.

-Gumboot

As I understand it you can registers as "independent", but in most places this means that you don't get to vote in "primaries" which determine which determine which candidate stands for each party. It's a very different system to UK and New Zealand politics, where the party rather than the electorate chooses the candidate. To a large extent political parties in the US are convenient badges and sources of funding for candidates, rather than the regimented originations you get in parliamentary systems. Being a registered Democrat in the US probably gives a less clear indication of your political views than being an actual member of the Labour Party in the UK.

[PerryLogan]

Oddly enough, the Republican miracle didn't happen this time.

Incidentally, the recent landslide for the Democrats is even more significant, because the Republicans had thrown away millions of Democratic votes before the election began:

"Add it all up — all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred and spoiled — and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale."
--Greg Palast
http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election

None of this includes such factors as gerrymandering, which is rampant in the U.S. Thanks to Tom Delay--my (Democratic) vote pretty much doesn't count.

All those incredible advantages, and the Republicans still get crushed. It's just not easy creating a mandate.

For our purposes, a landslide for either party proves that everyone isn't waking up. Most Truthers have no use for either political party. If 80% of Americans were waking up to the evil conspiracy, they would not be choosing either the Democrats or the Republicans.

[Kevin_Lowe]

the difficulty there is paper ballots = $$$ and people to count them = $$$$$$

A common argument but a stupid one. Electronic voting machines cost enormous amounts of money, but more importantly money doesn't matter. The USA can afford one paper ballot per person and the people to count them.


plus, as you mention, this is the computer age, people expect the results fo the election before they go to bed that night, you just cant so that with traditional ballots,


This is an argument which is equally stupid but more rarely seen, because most people realise that counting paper ballots scales with almost no inefficiency. If you want votes counted twice as fast you get twice as many people on the job. Many nations do it that way and get the results in a timely fashion. Lastly, once again, "what people expect" does not matter. If it's necessary to an honest election people can go to bed not knowing. it won't kill them.


an electrnoic system isnt necessarily as vunerable as you think, counting ballots is relatively simple, so fewer lines of code, fewer potential vunerabilities to exploit

also, assuming the software is written from scratch (and not based on existining systems liek windows CE) it will be more difficult to hack since theres no basis to start from, and know none security holes to look for


The software is a trade secret of large companies with political connections, and to the extent we know anything about it the software and hardware is usually woefully insecure. Diebold, for example, tabulates your votes on an unencrypted MS Access database.

On the other hand...

"While it's extraordinary for a candidate to get a vote total that exceeds his party's registration in any voting jurisdiction because of non-voters Bush racked up more votes than registered Republicans in 47 out of 67 counties in Florida.

In 15 of those counties, his vote total more than doubled the number of registered Republicans and in four counties, Bush more than tripled the number.

Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans.

By comparison, in 2000, Bush's Florida total represented about 85 percent of the total number of registered Republicans, about 2.9 million votes compared with 3.4 million registered Republicans.

While it would be fun if this was a knockdown argument, the problem is that a lot of Republican-leaning people is some parts of the USA register as Democrats so they can vote in Democrat primaries, since they are effectively totally disenfranchised if they do not.


Bush achieved these totals although exit polls showed him winning only about 14 percent of the Democratic vote statewide statistically the same as in 2000 when he won 13 percent of the Democratic vote and losing Florida's independent voters to Kerry by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000, Gore won the independent vote by a much narrower margin of 47 to 46 percent.

Similar surprising jumps in Bush's vote tallies across the country especially when matched against national exits polls showing Kerry winning by 51 percent to 48 percent - suggest the Bush campaign rigged the vote, possibly through systematic computer hacking."
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

This is the argument you should be focusing on. Taken as a whole, the discrepancy between the exit polls and the tabulated vote was big enough to be disturbing, especially when it turned out that the discrepancies only appeared in Republican strongholds, were absolutely nonexistent in areas that used hand-filled paper ballots, and were broadly proportional to the extent of Republican control. We've been over this in detail in other threads in these forums.

Personally, I think it's overwhelmingly likely (but not proven) that in 2004 in the places where they could get away with it a lot of Republicans with access to voting equipment arranged to pump up Bush's numbers by flipping Democrat votes into Republican votes, and that because it was such a close election that this was what put Bush ahead in the total popular vote. Whether this manipulation swung the election itself, as opposed to the popular vote, is harder to say.

By the same token I think this year they probably did it again, but the real vote was not as close and so the amount of ballot-rigging that want on was not enough to swing the result.

[PerryLogan]

If America really reelected The Worst President Ever™, there is no hope for America. But I'm absolutely sure we didn't.

Here's a further irony:
"The touch-screen voting machines Katherine Harris championed as secretary of state after the 2000 presidential recount may have botched this year's election to replace her in the U.S. House, and it's likely going to mean another Florida recount."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_el_ho/florida_recount

[defaultdotxbe]

A common argument but a stupid one. Electronic voting machines cost enormous amounts of money, but more importantly money doesn't matter.
i work for a company that makes automation software, so i know all about electronic automation, the upfront cost is higher, yes, but the recurring (annual) cost is almost nothing, they pay for themselves within a few elections

The USA can afford one paper ballot per person and the people to count them.
the US can also afford to send every man woman and child on the face of the earth a hundred dollars, while this may not be a bad idea for many people id still consider it a waste

This is an argument which is equally stupid but more rarely seen, because most people realise that counting paper ballots scales with almost no inefficiency. If you want votes counted twice as fast you get twice as many people on the job.
twice as many people = twice as much money

Many nations do it that way and get the results in a timely fashion.
i suspect those nations have fewer voters than the US

Lastly, once again, "what people expect" does not matter.
actually what people want is at the very core of democracy

If it's necessary to an honest election people can go to bed not knowing. it won't kill them.
personally i think theres much more temptation for fraud in hand-counted elections, think about it, how many people would you need? can you really find that many "non-partisan" employees?

The software is a trade secret of large companies with political connections, and to the extent we know anything about it the software and hardware is usually woefully insecure. Diebold, for example, tabulates your votes on an unencrypted MS Access database.
i agree, the diebold machines have their problems, my argument is for electronic voting in general

and the software SHOULD be a secret, without access to the software no one would be able to create a hack for it

and for political connections, every company capable of deploying a national system has political connections, and if they dont people will dig until they "find" some

If America really reelected The Worst President Ever™, there is no hope for America. But I'm absolutely sure we didn't
persoanlyl i know more democrats that voted for bush than for kerry, my grandmother is almost as liberal as you perry, and she voted for bush, she laughed when the DNC put up kerry, she said only in america could they find the one person who can lose to bush, lol

[Kevin_Lowe]

i work for a company that makes automation software, so i know all about electronic automation, the upfront cost is higher, yes, but the recurring (annual) cost is almost nothing, they pay for themselves within a few elections


Assuming they do the job, which the current crop don't. Cheap and bad is not acceptable in an election.


the US can also afford to send every man woman and child on the face of the earth a hundred dollars, while this may not be a bad idea for many people id still consider it a waste


twice as many people = twice as much money


You put a very low price on democracy.


i suspect those nations have fewer voters than the US


More people to vote, more people to count the vote, more taxpayers to fund the process... it all scales together. Isn't that obvious?


personally i think theres much more temptation for fraud in hand-counted elections, think about it, how many people would you need? can you really find that many "non-partisan" employees?


You know absolutely nothing about it, do you?

Traditionally votes are counted in front of one witness each from every interested party.


i agree, the diebold machines have their problems, my argument is for electronic voting in general

and the software SHOULD be a secret, without access to the software no one would be able to create a hack for it


Security through obscurity doesn't work, it just makes you totally vulnerable to leaks, insiders and reverse engineers. Secure, open source software would be far better if we were to use electronic voting at all, which we shouldn't.


and for political connections, every company capable of deploying a national system has political connections, and if they dont people will dig until they "find" some


Which is a damn good reason not to ever permit votes to be counted or stored in digital form inside a proprietary black box.


persoanlyl i know more democrats that voted for bush than for kerry, my grandmother is almost as liberal as you perry, and she voted for bush, she laughed when the DNC put up kerry, she said only in america could they find the one person who can lose to bush, lol

I get the picture. Would you like me to make you a link back to freerepublic.com, or have you figured out how to bookmark it?

[defaultdotxbe]

I get the picture. Would you like me to make you a link back to freerepublic.com, or have you figured out how to bookmark it?

actually ive never heard of it

[ZouPrime]

Security through obscurity doesn't work, it just makes you totally vulnerable to leaks, insiders and reverse engineers. Secure, open source software would be far better if we were to use electronic voting at all, which we shouldn't.

Like I said in a similar thread elsewhere on this board, the whole open/closed source question regarding the implementation of electronic voting isn't a real security issue. The source may be open and thousands of computer programmers can have review it, but until you can be sure that the code you reviewed is actually the code used in the machine, it's useless.

Diebold could ask a third party (e.g. security consultants) to review their code for potential vulnerability and keep their source closed - the result would be the same.

[ZouPrime]

And also (but it's a bit out topic)... security throught obscuricy isn't ALWAYS wrong. It is GENERALLY wrong in the context of software deployed widely, but in many other cases it make a lot of sense to keep the details of the working of a system secret.

[Toro]

It was rigged!

Except it wasn't the neocons. It was the President of Venezuela, Hugh Chav!

Maker of Voting Machines for U.S.
Denies Ties to Chávez, Venezuela
By BOB DAVIS
October 31, 2006; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- Smartmatic Corp., whose voting machines will be used in midterm elections next week, says it adopted a complicated ownership structure to minimize taxes and protect intellectual property, and not to mask any control by Venezuela's government.

Smartmatic, which is owned by Venezuelan entrepreneurs who split their time between Boca Raton, Fla., and Caracas, has been caught up in a government probe over foreign ownership. On Election Day, Smartmatic equipment will be used in 16 states, including Florida and California, and the District of Columbia. ...

The Smartmatic purchase has drawn attention because of concerns that the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, an opponent of U.S. policies, has a stake in the company. Smartmatic came to prominence in 2004 when its machines were used in an election to recall President Chávez, which Mr. Chávez won handily -- and which the Venezuelan opposition say was riddled with fraud. Smartmatic put together a consortium to conduct the recall elections, which included a company called Bizta Corp., in which Smartmatic owners had a large stake. For a time, the Venezuelan government had a 28% stake in Bizta in exchange for a government loan.

Bizta paid off the loan in 2004, and Smartmatic bought the company the following year. But accusations of Chávez government control of Smartmatic have dogged the company since. In addition, late in 2004, Smartmatic scrapped a simple corporate structure, in which it was based in the U.S. with a Venezuelan subsidiary. It adopted a complex offshore structure, with headquarters in the Netherlands Antilles; a main subsidiary in the Netherlands and a variety of subsidiaries in the U.S., Barbados, Venezuela and Mexico.WSJ ($) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116225427459308336.html?mod=todays_us_page_one)

[PerryLogan]

"In 2002, the Republican Party staged their test run of controlling the new Diebold computerized paper-trail-free electronic voting systems that were installed in every precinct in the State of Georgia. It worked like a charm. Two popular Democratic incumbents, the Governor Roy Barnes and Senator Max Cleland, were both "defeated" by Republican challengers. The Democrats were both ahead by several points in both the pre-election voter opinion polls and in the election day exit polls, yet the Diebold voting machines declared the two Republican challengers as winners. The local media claimed to be "amazed" by this election "upset"....

"There was no paper trail, no recount was possible and for good measure, Diebold Corporation "accidentally erased" the disputed 2002 election returns data from their computer hard disk drives a few days after the election. How convenient, how clean, how slick and how crooked is Republican election theft in the 21st century."
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=4084

[Brainster]

So Perry, any thoughts on why the Republicans did not try to steal this election with those Diebold machines? The Allen/Webb race was quite tight; switch a couple thousand votes and the Republicans retain control of the Senate. Did they just forget to steal the election this time?

[Dog Town]

I think K.Rove rigged all the close elections, for the Dems to get controll. After two years of Pelosi, and crew, the Reps will come back swinging. H Clinton will be the slaughter for the feast. Be careful for what you wish...

[rdaneel]

Heh, so much for the parody tag on this thread.

Anyways, I don't know if the Republican/Diabold claims have any truth to it, this last election seems to refute it, but I do feel there is enough appearance of impropriety that Congress should investigate.

In my naive , optimistic dreams, the new congress will work towards serious reform that not only ensures that elections can be properly audited, but also eliminates disgusting practices like gerrymandering. I know, a crazy dream, but it would be nice to see congress restore public confidence in the system.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So Perry, any thoughts on why the Republicans did not try to steal this election with those Diebold machines? The Allen/Webb race was quite tight; switch a couple thousand votes and the Republicans retain control of the Senate. Did they just forget to steal the election this time?

The problem with answering any important question about specific US elections is the electic array of systems used and the different people who administrate them.

If they used direct-recording voting machines with no paper trail, the machines were in the care of card-carrying Republicans, and proper safeguards about access to the machines, memory cards and so on were not observed, then you would have an excellent question.

If they used machines with a voter-verified paper trail, the machines were in the care of Democrat supporters or genuinely apolitical officials, proper safeguards were scrupulously observed and so on it would be less of a mystery why Republicans did not steal that particular election.

[PerryLogan]

You silly deniers! If America really reelected The Worst President Ever™, I'm a gerbil.

To track ongoing Republican election fraud, go to The Brad Blog, by Brad Friedman. Here's his take on the Democratic landslide:

"As we move forward with forensic investigations of what happened last Tuesday, examinations of Exit Polling, reviews of fraud reports coming in to VR's $500k Fraud Tip Hotline and more, I believe the posited notion from my ComputerWorld article yesterday — that Dems "might have taken 40 seats in the House instead of just 30 had they bothered to fight for an accountable, secure, transparent electoral system and instructed their candidates to concede nothing until every vote was counted, verified and audited for accuracy" — will begin to emerge as a more and more likely case.

Such as it is for the moment, however, I think it's fair to suggest that the only reason things went as well as they did is because of the tireless Election Integrity advocates on the ground across the country this time. The bad guys knew that this time they were being watched, and it would be much harder to get away with anything. I'll associate myself with Ohio's democracy champions, Fitrakis and Wasserman who wrote that last Tuesday was a "monumental victory for the Election Protection movement."
http://www.bradblog.com/

[NoZed Avenger]

In my naive , optimistic dreams, the new congress will work towards serious reform that not only ensures that elections can be properly audited, but also eliminates disgusting practices like gerrymandering.

[points and laughs]





Er, sorry. Cynicism got the better of me there.