Enough with "stolen" elections already.

[wixomblues]

Everytime something doesn't go our way, it suddenly doesn't matter, because the Republicans "steal" the elections through diebold. This is so defeatist, and implausible, yet it's the rallying cry around here.

Do some research. Try and find out which counties in which states used electronic polling that was truly "blackbox". Look at the election laws in the states and determine which one even allow "black box" voting.

Ask yourself why it is the NSA can't keep a spying program secret, but all of Diebold' software writer's are in on the fix.

The diebold myth is wishful thinking. It makes some of us feel good, it makes us feel like we're a majority, and really in control.

we're not. Haven't been for quite a while. And now, we're getting upset because a conservative is replacing O'Connor. The same O'Connor who helped steal the 2000 election.

Let's just win. Let's just win. And let's just win.

If the Republicans want to ban abortion, it'll be a hoot. It will put us back in power quicker then gun restrictions got all of our congressmen out of the Southern seats in 1994.

If the Republicans are this out of touch with the people, why get mad? Let them go after abortion. It will only knock them out of office. And if it doesn't, well, God help us all. I guess we are a true minority.

[rman]

1. "do some research" - indeed

Election Reform DU forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

117. INDEED, some of us have been very involved and are very aware of

the facts, the issues, the technology.

So to your advice: NO THANK YOU.

[helderheid]

175. Some light reading for you by a conservative Republican

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts140.html

Evidence of a Stolen Election

by Paul Craig Roberts

As coincidence would have it, Mark Crispin Miller’s new book, Fooled Again(Basic Books), documenting the Republican theft of the 2004 presidential election, arrived in the same mail delivery with the January 12 edition of the Defuniak Springs Herald, the locally owned weekly newspaper in a Florida panhandle county seat.

The Florida panhandle is thorough-going Republican. Even Democrats run as Republicans. Nevertheless, the newspaper’s editor, Ron Kelley, believes that American political life is measured by something larger than party affiliation. In his editorial, "The shepherds and the sheep," Kelley reports that two Florida counties have banned any further use of Diebold voting machines after witnessing a professional demonstration that the machines, contrary to Diebold’s claim, are easily hacked to record votes differently from the way in which they are cast by voters.

The pre-election statement by Diebold’s CEO that he would work to deliver the election to Bush was apparently no idle boast. In five states where the new "foolproof" electronic voting machines were used, the vote tallies differed substantially from the exit polls. Such a disparity is unusual. The chances of exit polls in five states being wrong are no more than one in one million.

Miller describes considerably more election fraud than voting machines programmed to count a proportion of Kerry votes as Bush votes. Voters were disenfranchised in a number of ways. Miller reports incidences of intimidation of, and reduced voting opportunities for, poorer voters who tend to vote Democrat.

Some of Miller’s evidence is circumstantial. However, he documents widespread Republican dirty tricks and foul play. The media’s indifference to a stolen election burns Miller as much as the stolen election itself.

Miller is not alone in his concerns. The non-partisan US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in response to congressional request investigated a number of complaints regarding the electronic voting machines.

<snip>

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts140.html

edited to add info on the author:


Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

178. Yep, silly partisan, oops no he is Republican. I have seen this, it is

a good one!

[helderheid]

170. NO KIDDING!

We won, babe.

[Boredtodeath]

2. OK, you keep believing your pipe dream

And we'll keep fighting against these black boxes........

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. A lot of us don't buy the hype on Diebold...

...whilst still believing that their equipment is crap. However, we tend to keep our mouths shut most of the time, due to the incessant screeching of the every-election-is-stolen crowd.

[stepnw1f]

6. heh?

what hype exactly?

[danalytical]

15. I'm in that category

The tinfoil goes so far overboard sometimes. It's like get as bad as the freepers half the time with the unsubstantiated ranting.

[Demit]

29. Not unsubstantiated. Just un-paid attention to.

Time for you to live up to your screen name. But before you can be analytical you have to help yourself to some facts.

[danalytical]

56. Says who, you?

WHat makes you the authority on elections? I read all the "evidence" presented. So far I am unconvinced. I KNOW that there were attempts at discouraging Democratic leaning voters throug intimidation, technical "errors", and lack of proper staffing and equipment in Democratic areas. But I have seen nothing but speculation and statistical gymnastics on actual "stolen" elections. Proof just isn't there. I want to believe it is, but I am a realist.

[we can do it]

83. Just Keep Your Head In the Sand and It Will All Be Fine!

[danalytical]

Just keep crying wolf

and nobody will ever listen to a word you say.

[we can do it]

98. Try Educating Yourself Instead of Name Calling

[danalytical]

106. try reading what I wrote.

See any name calling? No I didn't think so.

Now lets see all the facts. How can you prove the election was stolen? Prove it to us. I'm quite liberal, and would have no problem claiming the election was stolen if I could verify it myself. I have read countless posts and articles on the subject, and have yet to find any grand plan of a stolen election. The fact is, we may never know for sure. And without proof, there isn't much we can do. We certainly can't claim any credibility on other issues if we revert to "the election was stolen anyway" during every conversation.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

92. How about proof of fraud ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&page=#51782

In 62 of 67 counties in florida the numbers of total ballots cast is different than those numbers certified by the counties whose legal obligation is to count the votes.

The State DOE certification is prima facia evidence of election fraud.

[FormerDittoHead]

149. Do you have the pre-electronic stats?

Just wondering. The implication by your statistic is that the two counts "should" by some measure, be perfect.

I'm wondering if that's realistic, that is, in the real world.

If you tell me, however, that before electronic voting, all of those numbers were the same and they never had an error, (or much lower discrepancies) then I'd think you'd have a point, statistically speaking...

[Ani Yun Wiya]

160. Certifications are important legal documents.

If I have it right this is the process:

1.Citizen goes to polling station in their registered county and casts ballot.
2.All tallies from each polling station is then handed off to a central tabulator for each county.
3.Each county then hands up it's certifications to a central "State" tabulator which tallies all counties certifications.
4.The State then certifies it's tally of all county tallies.

How can there be large dicrepencies between the two sets of numbers??

[peabody71]

182. Anyone remember the U of Penn. report? 1 million to 1.

That is what was determined as the chance that BUsh could defy the exit polls in so many places on election day 2004.

[FlaGranny]

115. I'd like to find some of those technical errors

that benefitted Democrats rather than Republicans. Very surprising that the recipients of the "errors" were not just a little bit more equal (one one think that they should be close to 50%). Even only 75% to 25% in favor of Republicans would be more plausible. Then come up with the same kind of results three elections in a row. I should not be scratching my head over that?

[Stevepol]

153. There's overwhelming evidence of all kinds.

(1) statistical evidence. See Electionarchive.org or uscountvotes.org for evidence of the 04 race. Google information about the GA 02 election (with a 16-point swing in the governor's race). Read Bev Harris's book about the number of patches that were done in GA AFTER THE DIEBOLD MACHINES WERE CERTIFIED (which is illegal). Read about the recent OH referendum with 40-point swings between the pre-election polling and the cyber result. Check out Hagel's 83% win in NE in 96, where the result was counted on a company he was a CEO or leader of before resigning to run for office.

(2) anecdotal evidence. Check out Clint Curtis and Dieb Throat (on Brad Blog)

(3) prison records. Check out the GES, the company which created the software for Diebold. At the time of their acquisition by Diebold in Jan of 02, they had 5 ex-felons in UPPER MANAGEMENT POSITIONS, including Jeff Dean who had just been on an enforced sabbatical in the slammer for 5 years for falsifying computer information over a 2 1/2 year period when he worked for a law firm, etc. etc. etc.

(4) try common sense. Why would Diebold and the other companies refuse to have a paper trail (when they would obviously make more money by doing that)? What do they have to hide? If their machines are counting accurately, why wouldn't they WANT TO HAVE A PAPER BALLOT TO AUDIT AND PROVE THEIR ACCURACY? Diebold does the ATM machines which are as far as I've been able to determine extremely accurate in dealing with my bank account. Admittedly, the numbers are not big, but nobody else complains about the ATMs. Of course the ATMs are checked and cross-checked constantly WITH PAPER.

(5) Read TIA or Autorank or any of many of the contributors to the ERD Forum on DU.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to win, but pretending that we're whining when we demand a fair vote count is just stupid.

Suppose somebody robbed you and took your billfold. Would you just go about your business and chalk it up to experience without doing anything? I don't want to be a "whiner." Without calling the bank to have them stop payment on your bank card, without calling your card owners, without informing the police and giving them all the information you can so they can find who did it and get your billfold back?

If you've got any common sense, you'll do all you can to get your billfold back.

[annabanana]

155. are you also a statistician and mathematician?

Or do your eyes glaze over when the proofs get overly technical?

[Cooley Hurd]

181. If you've actually "read all the 'evidence' presented" as you claim...

...then you would be convinced, and wouldn't be arguing the point. I have a feeling that you suckle at the Corporate Media tit too much to know truth, even if it bit you in the ass.

By the way, Mr "Realist," welcome to DU.

[Occulus]

177. I altered the vote tally using Diebold software (GEMS) on my own PC

and I left no footprints when I did it.

What was that about tinfoil again?

[Marleyb]

88. Do you really trust this administration?

If you know how bad these bastards are...you know that the machines can be hacked.....but you don't think they would do it? Naw, they LIE to start a war of profit, kill over 100,000 innocents(of course I can go on)....but they wouldn't steal an election? Anything they can do, the WILL DO and then some!

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

124. Silly US for believing some elections were stolen , we and members of

the most respected Associations of Computer Scientists and experts in Computer Science who testified at the EAC, Election Assistance Commission. There are many articles written on the poor programming practices for the tabulators.

Such hype from such unlikely sources.

:sarcasm:

Sounds like the anti-science empty rhetoric of the current administration!

[we can do it]

133. Like the State of California Who Had Diebold Machines Decertified?

They must be loons too?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/03/cal_decertifies_diebold/

[vi5]

4. Uh oh, get ready for the flames...

I agree with you 100%. But saying so on here is a recipe for fire.

[rman]

7. It's one thing to say that we should try in spite of election fraud,

it's another thing all together to say that elections don't get stolen.

[vi5]

36. But it's become a catch all excuse for everything....

"Oh we didn't win despite doing A, B, and C? Well then it must be because the election was stolen not because the voters in that particular area didn't WANT A, B, and C."

Should we be dilligent about voting methods and regularity? Yes. But to use it as an excuse to avoid introspection or reality (which is what a lot of people on here seem to do) is going to kill us in the end just as much as anyone else.

It can't always be:
"So and so ran a liberal, populist campaign and won! It must mean that people want to vote for a liberal populist."

but then:

"So and so ran a liberal, populist campaign and lost! It must mean that there was voter fraud!"

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

131. Maybe where there is fire, there is smoke and big Smokescreens

blocking truth.

[stepnw1f]

5. Dude... You Are Way Out of the Loop

Do some research and then get back to us when you actually know what you are talking about.

[rooboy]

8. You're kidding, aren't you? n/t

[Balbus]

9. You are absolutely, 100% correct...

But right now, I guarantee you there's someone rallying every loon from the "election reform" forum to come over here and start blasting you - so be ready.

[Atman]

18. "...every loon from the "election reform" forum..."

Jesus, are you practicing to be a republican shill?

So you completely discount any talk of rigged voting machines and the need for reform, and those who speak of such things you consider "loons?" Maybe Fox has a show for you to host!

[Balbus]

33. Uhhh, yeah, I pretty much discount it completely.

If there was proof there would be indictments, as proven by this link:

http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/news/local/12017344.htm

But so far, the only proof of election fraud is by our own party. As I've said before, it makes us look pretty silly to accuse someone else of stealing the cookies when we have the crumbs on our face and it's our hand stuck in the cookie jar.

[Atman]

34. "If there was proof there would be indictments,..."

Yes, Pollyanna.

[Balbus]

35. When the name-calling starts I've assumed you ran out of gas.

You wouldn't happen to be from the "election reform" forum would you? :P

[Cobalt Violet]

41. Your the one who called other DUers "loons".

Isn't that name calling?

[Balbus]

43. Yeah, good point.

[Atman]

46. No, I'm not from the "election reform" forum, in fact

So :P to you.

I've read your posts many times. You could watch your own vote change to Bush right before your eyes and you'd still say there's no proof that it was intentional. You're a die-hard believer in the kindness of strangers, good for you. You have faith, good for you. You pull out standard defense chestnuts like the "name calling means you've no argument" bullshit. It means nothing of the sort. I've posted my arguments many times, and the research and results of many, many investigations are available to you, but you simply refuse to read them.

Faith. Have faith.

Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq if there weren't WMD.

Bush didn't know Medicare would cost so much.

Halliburton really is the best contractor for the job.

W never met Jack Abramoff. Or Ken Lay.

Have faith, brother, have faith.

If there had been a stolen election, there'd be indictments.

LOL! That's a good one.

[Balbus]

105. "If there had been a stolen election, there'd be indictments."

No, I said if there was PROOF of stolen elections, there'd be indictments. As my link above proves. And when I say PROOF, I mean as in evidence. Not suppositions, not theories, not polls - hard evidence. Which there is none.

[Atman]

121. Scott Peterson was convicted on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

No direct link to the killing of Lacy Peterson. It just all added up.

Your premise is hokum. There is TONS of hard evidence. What is lacking is a will to go up against the BFEE.

[Balbus]

138. Fitzgerald went up against the administration.

Where did he find all this amazing will? You'd think with "TONS of hard evidence" you'd find many takers..... But to ask someone to go up against the administration with "exit polls" or the "he's a republican so it must be fraud" type of evidence, I can see where the will would be lacking.

[Atman]

I mention "circumstantial" and you say "tons of hard evidence."

What's your game?

Why don't you address the point about which I posted, and not make up your own. You did what that OP did, took my argument and added in a bunch of hyperbole to make it sound like nonsense. Likewise comments like "he's a republican so it must be fraud." You know that is not a point I ever made. Why not just address what I posted instead of commenting on your own words and pretending they somehow relate to my comments?

[Balbus]

146. uhhh, "tons of hard evidence" comes directly from your post.

:shrug:

[havocmom]

48. So, if a crime goes unanswered for, it didn't happen?

Even when the criminals are the ones controling the system?

Wow, too early for whatever you are smoking.

[Balbus]

108. If there's no proof that a crime took place, was there a crime?

Who knows :shrug:

[we can do it]

85. And I'm Sure We Could All Watch The Story On the Evening News

[EOTE]

129. Wow, what naivete.

Because a Democrat was indicted on some charges that don't pertain to actual vote machine fraud, but to manipulation, that means that if republicans were involved in a much larger, yet more covert attempt to steal votes, they'd be indicted too? Equal protection? What country have you been living in for the past 5 years? There are literally dozens of things I can bring up, but the most obvious and most quickly ignored is THE EXIT POLLS. Does margin of error mean anything to you? Why is it that after all these dozens of years of using exit polls as a guide to determine the legitimacy of elections (in many countries other than ours too), are they now completely useless? Do you really think that the exit polls just happened to be off, more than the margin of error, and only in the swing states which * needed? If you are truly familiar with the facts surrounding the past two presidential elections, yet still believe they were legitimate, you are a coincidence theorist of the highest order.

[Balbus]

145. Polls as evidence? You're kidding, I hope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2411082#2411168

In the above link we have some of our own admitting they lie on polls. Oh, but wait, I guess on exit polls EVERYONE tells the truth... My bad. :crazy:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

137. One more time: We don't need to prove that the 04 election WAS

stolen.

What really is NOT in dispute is that with the current hardware, software, and lack of transparency the election could have been stolen.

And future elections will be stolen or the attempt will be made.

You can't prove a negative. One could in some circumstances prove it was, but you can not in the current circumstance prove it was not.

Anyone familiar with the issues, with computer science and network security will not so glibly dismiss the problem.

[fasttense]

24. Every loon from the "election reform" forum?

Thanks, you sound like those republicans who said after the 2000 selection by the dancing supremes. "Get over it." There was a fair election for you. Didn't even count all the ballots before the brush was selected. Our president chosen by a group of high powered lawyers. No there is no such thing as stolen elections, there's no such thing as stolen elections, there'snosuchthingas stolenelections.......

[mod mom]

49. LOON? You call individuals who volunteer w/o pay who are interested in

fair, transparent and verifiable elections a loon?

You would trust depositing $ into a system that gave you not receipts, right? Wanna buy a bridge, buddy?

[Verve]

10. Just warning you. I hope YOU have looked at the research! Be prepared

to defend yourself on this post.

(I'd recommend visiting the election reform posts before you go shooting your mouth off. There are some real red flags that keep popping up during election time. If you looked at the info I don't think you would be so hasty in your remarks. Please visit election reform ASAP.)

[wixomblues]

14. Bring it......

Diebold mythology makes you feel warm and fuzzy, buy nearly every state has the right and duty to examine all software in the voting machines. Also, no one, and I mean no one, has been able to give me a precinct by preceinct breakdown of diebold machines. So if you have that, show it to me.

I disagree with the Supreme Court's 2000 decision, and recognize it as blatant nepotism(especially by Scalia).

But all the diebold crowd has is wishful thinking.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Wishful thinking?

Honestly, I think it's a stretch to call it "thinking" at all.

[Atman]

27. "...nearly every state has the right and duty to examine all software..."

Whatever gives you the warm fuzzies, dude.

Now do your research and tell us how many were actually able to? How many did Diebold -- or any electronic voting machine manufacturer (all owned by republican associates of BushCo) -- actually release their source code to?

None.

The law says the states have the right to inspect, but the voting machine companies -- all owned by republican associates of BushCo -- refused to release said code, claiming it was proprietary. So, you'll likely claim that therefore it is a state's issue, not one of fraud. But lets look at one state at random...hmmm...how about Ohio. Ken Blackwell, head of the Bush Campaign, is also head of the voting in the state. He'd have to be the one to call for inspections and challenge Diebold, wouldn't he? I wonder why he didn't?

No offense, but you don't seem to have done ANY research on this. All "the Diebold crowd" has is a mountain of facts too big to ignore. Unless you want to, for some reason I cannot fathom.

[ronnie624]

54. I can fathom.

The disinformation tools are out in force on this thread.

[Verve]

60. self-delete

[ronnie624]

72. Apparently I am not being clear enough in my posts.

I was actually agreeing with the poster to whom I responded. I have been to the election fraud research forum many times and I have read the GAO report. There is no doubt in MY mind that election fraud was massive and rampant.

[Verve]

81. That's why I self deleted!

I misunderstood you! Sorry!:hi:

[ronnie624]

141. Not a problem.

It was my own fault. Sometimes I'm afraid my posts do not convey the meaning with which I composed them.

[wixomblues]

69. Which States Used Diebold? Here's your answer.

Read it and weep conspiracy theorists. Facts are ugly, but this link shows where electronic voting was used. California had the most, Ohio Used it in about ten counties.

It's odd that this graph or picture is not linked to on more "fraud sites".

http://www.lionsgrip.com/voting2004map10.html


STOP BULLSHITTING ME CONSPIRACY THEORISTS!!!!!

It's bad enough the President has to lie to convince anyone to do anything, so why do we need to "omit" facts like this chart that shows Diebold was barely used in Ohio? Seriously, what is wrong with you people? And the most populous counties, where Diebold was used, ALL VOTED DEMOCRATIC!!!!!!

God damn it, does anyone anywhere appreciate the truth anymore?

[we can do it]

96. So - You Think That Was the Only Problem In Ohio Bud?

[wixomblues]

101. So.....we can admit it wasn't diebold...bub?

Ohio had a lot of problems. Just not Diebold.

[we can do it]

151. Lots of Problems Like Diebold Also Made the Tabulators

(Those are the machines that count the votes - for those of you who refuse to do your own research)

"We've already won, it's all over but the counting and we'll take care of the counting..." Peter King

[RaleighNCDUer]

163. And who provided the tabulators? This is a multi-layered thing.

The E-vote machines are one thing, the tabulators are another, and both run on 'proprietory' software. Here in NC we mostly voted on pen-marked ballots, not e-machines, and thought we were safe. Then we come to find that ES&S tabulators can be hacked as well.

I don't know who I voted for. Unless the race was close enough to trigger an automatic recount, the paper ballots will not be counted. I understand that a recount, in places, is simply running the same paper ballots through the same tabulators. If the fix is in on the tabulator, surprise surprise, you get the same result.

We may not be able to PROVE that the election was fixed -- but I defy anyone to PROVE that it wasn't.

[wixomblues]

64. They all had access to the source code. Here's a link.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml


CBS News, prior to the election.

Next?

[Atman]

71. Next?

"We found all kinds of problems in the code," he said. "A computer scientist can look at program and immediately tell you if it was written by professional programmers who know how to do software engineering or if it was just put together by a bunch of hacks. And, upon looking at the source code for Diebold, it was pretty clear that this was a real amateur job."

The reason they were able to look is because of the efforts of bloggers and internet loons like us. Diebold's source code and training manuals were LEAKED, and they sued to try to stop them. Within that leaked code, all sorts of funny shit was found. There are literaly dozens and dozend of articles on this fact.

What is amazing is that damning-with-faint-praise article you posted in your "defense." It starts off reading like a press release from Scott McClellan, then goes into bringing up many of the issues you discount as being non-starters. This article quite literally does nothing to support your argument.

You have to want to find the truth to even begin looking for it.

[wixomblues]

79. Don't talk to me about the truth. You're too worried about the

greater good with this bullshit conspiracy. How can there be a diebold conspiracy when diebold states and counties voted blue?

http://www.lionsgrip.com/voting2004map10.html

Bev Harris found the source code on an open access site. Every state requires that the code be verified by an independent group, if not the state. In fact, only North Carolina asked for the actual code to be given to the public and the entire state Senate/congress.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Now please explain to me how Diebold stole California, Nevada, and those blue counties in Ohio.

Next?

[Atman]

87. No.

The condecending "Next" shit will get you nowhere.

There is no point in me repeating the facts that are already available to you with a couple clicks of the mouse. The ER forum is a good place to start (and no. Nothing you've posted so far jibes with those facts. I believe NC is one of the states to back out of electronic voting, as has CT and others, because of problems with Diebold or one of the other vendors. But keep ignoring all those facts if it helps you believe in "the system." You know where to look for the information. When you decide to actually do so, check back in with us. I really don't have any interest in playing ping pong with you.

[stepnw1f]

89. Haha BUSTED!

I smell something funny with this guy. He ignores facts, research and then calls us loons. Riiiight!!! Have another one there buddy.

:crazy:

[wixomblues]

94. I never called you loons.

And you're ignoring my research. I'd adressing yours.

While Diebold is a friend of Bush, and there were a lot of irregularities in the election, the Diebold counties didn't decide the election. And they were used overwhelminglingly in California and Nevada.

Ohio was ninety percent punch ballot.

Your theories are based on logic, but the end result, the effect Diebold had on the counties it was used in, doesn't support your theories. Period. And no "fraud" site addresses this inconvenient fact.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wixomblues]

109. Oh no. Exposed. Golly.

I guess it's easier then admitting that this diebold stuff is a lot of crap. Here's an excerpt from the article I "lied" about:

"Then there's the software worry. Avi Rubin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent two weeks analyzing the software from the world's biggest voting-machine company, Diebold Election Systems, which has over 50 percent of the market.

"We found all kinds of problems in the code," he said. "A computer scientist can look at program and immediately tell you if it was written by professional programmers who know how to do software engineering or if it was just put together by a bunch of hacks. And, upon looking at the source code for Diebold, it was pretty clear that this was a real amateur job." "

This was a public study, done by Hopkins. Everyone had access to it. All the states had requirements of independend verifcation. Sorry for not spelling it out for you.


Now, before the mods ban me(unlikely to do so for speaking the truth, even if it is an unpopular one), why is it that Diebold, which is half of the electronic machines, is responsible for stealing the election when electonic voting machines were not used in enough states or counties to throw the election? Electronic voting in Ohio was used in about ten counties, all of which voted simiarly, and many of which voted Blue?

Sorry to disagree with your idea. I just like logic and facts, not wishful thinking.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wixomblues]

126. There are rules on this board.

What you are doing is in violation of them.

I'm providing links, and logic. I'm discussing the fact that I don't believe Diebold stole the election.

I'm sorry that is upsetting to you. I don't appreciate the personal attacks, and if you don't want to see what I'm writing, ignore me.

However, calling me a troll, or whatever else, saying I'm a Bush voter, that's weak. I'm sorry you can't respond to my simple question regarding the location of Diebold machines, and the end results. I wish you could.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maru Kitteh]

150. Well then you just broke two DU rules - you might want to look those up

Do some research on them.

[wixomblues]

161. Really?

PM me. I'm not aware of any rule breaking on my part. Seriously.

[wixomblues]

95. I never called you loons.

And you're ignoring my research. I'd adressing yours.

While Diebold is a friend of Bush, and there were a lot of irregularities in the election, the Diebold counties didn't decide the election. And they were used overwhelminglingly in California and Nevada.

Ohio was ninety percent punch ballot.

Your theories are based on logic, but the end result, the effect Diebold had on the counties it was used in, doesn't support your theories. Period. And no "fraud" site addresses this inconvenient fact.

[stepnw1f]

82. "They" all had access to the source code. Where Does it Say That?

No they didn't... you lied. And yes, I read the article, which by the way, does not support you inflammatory conclusion.

[wixomblues]

99. IN the article,

the source code was made public and examined by MIT(?), and they said it was amateurish. This study and the results was public and made available to anyone.

Also, the source code was found online a la Bev in 2003. But I didn't cite that. Sorry.

But every state had the requirement that the code be independently verified, if not made public. The state had access to the code through this channel as well.

So, that would be three ways that the states had access to the source code.

Next?

[Verve]

111. Not next.

A random search of individual machines, checking their individual source codes, is the only reliable way to make sure the source codes are as Diebold says they are. This can't happen. (yet)

BTW, was this the best article you could find to support your case? It's very damming to your case. Also, mentioning Bev Harris on DU won't score you many points either.

[wixomblues]

140. I know.

The Bev thing won't help, but it is evidence.

And the article alleges a lot of the things that the Diebold believers say.

But, the diebold people are considered such a fringe, there is no serious article out there that adresses the other side here. It's hard to find resources. And after some examination, you can see why. Every state has at a minimum the right to examine the software in the voting machines. Not make it public, but have it examined. And as I keep saying, Diebold was in plenty of blue states and counties. It does not appear that the diebold preceincts could have had the effect of "fixing" the election.

[Verve]

164. "It's hard to find resources."

I'm sure it is hard to find resources stating the US had fair, clean and accurate elections. Even Jimmy Carter's organization which has observed 100's upon 100's of elections around the world thought our U.S. elections were fraught with error.

Ironically, he just stated that Palestine's election, despite minor issues, was fair and accurate. Now, go figure! Palestine has better (democratic) run elections than the U.S.

You need to wake up!

[wixomblues]

169. Calm down.....

It's hard to find any resource that provides a counter argument to the concept that Diebold stole the election, since almost no one believes that. Most people think that providing a counter argument will just validate the whole notion in the first place.

So, once again, I find the preceinct breakdown, and look at the statutes. The end result.....no stolen elction by Diebold.

[Verve]

180. You're talking in circles! If you were on the Diebold payroll your

pathetic attempt to defend them here would get you fired.


"It's hard to find any resource that provides a counter argument to the concept that Diebold stole the election, since almost no one believes that..."????????

Your own articles, you referred to on this sight, believe it. What the heck are you saying?????

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wixomblues]

132. I put a question mark next to it, you maniac. Get a life.

I didn't remember the school. The (?) would indicate that. It's Hopkins. Sorry.

[FlaGranny]

134. Ha, ha! I'd advise you to look up

WHO did the independent verification, before you go any further with that.

[Verve]

31. "every state has the right and duty to examine all software". HUH?

Need I remind you that every state is not allowed to look at Voting Companies' software as it is proprietary information. NO state knows what is in their voting software. Therefore, no election company can be held accountable until this is changed. Maybe Diebold and the others have been ethical, maybe they haven't. You can't PROVE to me they haven't fudged their software because NO ONE can look at their software.

[wixomblues]

67. Examine the statutes.

Also, Diebold made the source code public prior to the election.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

[Verve]

73. Where in this article does it say Diebold made the source code public

for the states to compare the source code on the machines they were given to the code they say is on the machines?

"The good news is, these machines don't have any of the problems of paper ballots. The bad news is, they may have much worse problems all their own. "

snip

"So many of the machines malfunctioned or ran unapproved software that Shelley took the extraordinary step of decertifying them.

Then there's the software worry. Avi Rubin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent two weeks analyzing the software from the world's biggest voting-machine company, Diebold Election Systems, which has over 50 percent of the market.

"We found all kinds of problems in the code," he said. "A computer scientist can look at program and immediately tell you if it was written by professional programmers who know how to do software engineering or if it was just put together by a bunch of hacks. And, upon looking at the source code for Diebold, it was pretty clear that this was a real amateur job."

Needless to say, Diebold disagrees.

"There were a lot of issues that were brought up in that study that, quite honestly, were very flawed," says director of marketing Mark Radke. "One of the issues in particular: the report constantly talked about hacking into our system via the Internet, when it is never connected to the Internet."

Diebold did fix a few of the problems that Rubin found, like an unchangeable master password that was the same in every machine. But that's the least of Rubin's worries.

"The concern that I have is not that somebody will tamper with the machine on Election Day and change the outcome. The concern I have is that those machines will be programmed from the start to favor one candidate over another and not to actually record and count the votes," says Rubin. "


ARE WE READING THE SAME ARTICLE?

[Atman]

74. Where does this article state that Diebold made the code available?

You are reading things into it that were never said.

[wixomblues]

118. I guess the part where the Hopkins professor had the code

and performed a public study on it, and slammed diebole as being amatuerish. I sort of interpreted that as meaning that the code was availible, and that Diebold, the owner of the code, must have been the one who allowed it to be study. Or, a prominet researcher at a prestigious university stole the code, and then conducted a public study on it.

Which one is it, in your humble opinion?

[truckin]

144. The code was inadvertantly left on the internet by Diebold and

several computer scientists reviewed it, including Avi Rubin of John Hopkins. He discusses this on the DVD, "Invisible Ballots" and he is a strong advocate against electronic voting machines, especially when there is no paper backup.

[wixomblues]

147. Thanks, good to know.

Is anybody for electronic voting? I'm not. If only becaue no matter what the results are, you create an epidemic of fear and distrust. I don't fault people for that.

[wixomblues]

114. Yes and no....

States like Michigan, my lovely State, didn't use Diebold or anything else electronic, due to blackbox voting laws. We don't allow that sort of thing here. Michiganlegislature.org is a good resource, or thee resource, for our voting laws.

However, Ohio, which used blackbox voting, allows for the independent verification of the source code, if not the public disclosure. Sort of like hiring a mediator in a civil case. So, while this process could have been corrupted by the GOP, it is still allowed. This protects the state's interest, and gives them a right to examine the software. It's through a third aprty, but that party is acting in the state's interest.

fair enough?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

102. try this, it comes from a precinct by precinct analysis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&page=#51782

[Toots]

11. Whatever.....I for one would like voter verification...paper trail

If you think we can get by without that basic concept then I feel very sad for our country...

[Thtwudbeme]

12. I can barely use email....I figured out recently how to get messages off

my 2 year old cell phone--

and I KNOW and UNDERSTAND that the programmers in this country are not joking or being partisan about stolen elections through the use of technology.

If I can be this dumb, and "get it," what part are you missing? Would it help if I went and found some "simple language" threads for you to read?

This post, btw, is harmful. You are creating another "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist and I am OK with my ignorance" myth.

[wixomblues]

40. I understand it perfectly.

I understand programming, and I understand the process through which programs are writtend and examined. It's not a question of "not understanding it", it's a question of seeing no proof whatsoever. You people that believe in this, you want to. You'll hang onto anyone or anything that validates your belief, no matter how uncredible.

You jave anonymous people in chatrooms or message boards who tell you that the election can be stolen, and you believe them. Sometimes it's through hacking, other times through programming, whatever works the best for what you need to believe.

[Thtwudbeme]

55. You know what? I am a religion major---I don't understand computers,

but, I sure as hell understand myths, propaganda and memes.

I stand behind what I think on the diebold issue. I think you are attempting to start a negative propaganda myth here on DU--and you know exactly the correct language to use.

[stepnw1f]

61. You Don't Understand Shit

and you are full of it. RESEARCH or shut up.

[wixomblues]

148. Next.

So clever. Must be a former speech writer for *.

[SeattleRob]

13. Great idea!

We don't want to appear too uppity to our Republican masters. Let's ignore the evidence
and say to the Repukes, "Yes sir. May I have another?"


It's a winning strategy.

[wixomblues]

17. The diebold crowd has catchy slogans, no substance.

You want it to be true. It's like talking to creationists.

Come on. Give me some facts. Let's rock and F'n roll.

[Thtwudbeme]

22. You want "facts" spoon fed to you

or can you search on DU for some technical threads you might understand? Seriously, whatever it takes, dude.

This is the most harmful post I have seen on DU in weeks.

[wixomblues]

44. Not as harmful as the crap that "diebold" crowd shovels.

Rove love's it when he hears us talk about stolen elections. It surpresses the vote, keeps people unmotivated, it's perfect.
No one will give me simple facts, just talking points. It's all theory. The stolen election threads are basically a bunch of fanboys discussing time travel vis a via the rules established in the terminator movies....it's all fantasy.

If this is a harmful thread, good. People need to focus and concentrating on winning, not shadow conspiracies that con artists and kooks promote.

[Atman]

77. "No one will give me simple facts, just talking points."

You simply won't look at the facts. You just use talking points.

[BushOut06]

152. Ahhh, "talking points". The preferred rebuttal tactic

When you disagree with what someone says, it's far easier to dismiss what they say as "talking points" rather than address them. It doesn't matter what facts we present, they'll be automatically labelled as "talking points".

Of course, whatever garbage he shits out is legitimate.

[wixomblues]

159. This is a really productive argument/debate.

I don't look at facts, you don't look at facts....

I'm here because I've looked at the facts and they don't add up. there is a lot of bad stuff floating around out there, but in the end, if you look at the precincts Diebold was in, it's apparent that they did not fix the election. Could they of? Yes. If they weer in enough precincts, absolutely. Does that worry me? yes. did it happen? No. Please go look at the map, compare it with the county breakdowns, and respond to those facts.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

113. No fantasy, just numbers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&page=#51782

[ronnie624]

59. He does not want to do research.

He wants to spread disinformation.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

110. Facts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&page=#51782

Why are the numbers different when comparing county certifications and the DOE certification ?

[BushOut06]

16. Be very afraid of electronic computerized voting with no paper trail

Seriously, we've all seen how easy it is for crooks to hack into the most secure websites in the world. Why should it be so hard to believe that election results can be hacked? We've already seen a very likely case of hacking in Ohio, where the voting machines mysteriously went "offline". All the exit polls had Kerry winning handily, and suddenly Bush pulls out a win?

[wixomblues]

21. Fear is a Republican tool.

I can do without it.

And if Ohio was hacked, does that mean Diebold wasn't a part of the "fix"?

Also, Michigan, my homestate, had no diebold electronic voting, and it was very close, similar to Ohio, only we went blue. We also voted against gay rights. But, no electronic voting.

[Bob3]

58. if you've been following the papers

the stench from ohio reaches to high heaven. The GOP there have stolen public money, handed it to their cronies, and covered it up on a grand scale. After doing all that, hey what's a little election fraud?

I honestly haven't done enough research to be completely sure - however, the ohio vote in particular has several disturbing indicators, mainly the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final outcome. They were off by a number of percentage points and each time they overstated the number of Kerry voters compared to the final official total. This is huge red flag - a couple of professors did some number crunching and came up with the odds of well over a million to one that the differences between the exit poll results the final tally were due to chance. For one thing if the exit poll methodology was flawed the discrepancies would be random both in location, and size not favoring the gop each time. Frankly had these results shown up in Haiti people would be crying fraud. The other red flag was that the discrepancy's were concentrated in the areas were there was electronic voting. This is not conclusive but given the low odds of the difference being the result of chance this is a very interesting result.

This would suggest to me, at any rate, that the allegations of fraud should be taken seriously and not simply dismissed. After all this administration lied our way into a war which to date has cost the us over 2,100 lives, thousands of wounded and billions of dollars. Given that, I doubt a little voter fraud would make them lose any sleep at all.

[lynne]

20. Yikes! Don't you know -

- you can't express a conflicting opinion around here unless you've got at least a 1 Gazillion post count??? :)

I agree with you 100%. Looks like we're not alone, either. BUT - put on your asbestos suit because the FLAMES will soon be here!

:popcorn:

[dogday]

23. Election Fraud does not just include Diebold

there are so many tactics that were used to decrease the Dem vote. Purging of the rolls, saying the paper was wrong weight on registration forms, not enough machines in crowded areas, shutting down certain election centers because of fraudulent Homeland Security notice. These were well founded and recognized procedures used successfully in Florida 2000 and again in Ohio 2004.

Believe or not, it is very true....

[wixomblues]

51. I'm only talking about Diebold.

Everything else is everything else.

I don't dispute the purge, or the long lines, but every election has these sort of things happen, historically. These aren't tantamount to fixing the actual election machine.

A reasonable person would understand that a fixed machine is worse then a long line, eh?

[Matariki]

86. how do *you* explain the huge difference in the exit polls?

it was unprecedented.

[chefgirl]

25. Well, maybe not all elections

They didnt need to steal ALL the elections, just the two most important ones. You know, the ones that make certain people actually believe we are in the minority.

Ask yourself why it is the NSA can't keep a spying program secret, but all of Diebold' software writer's are in on the fix.

Here's a news flash, all of Diebolds software writers don't need to be in on the fix. Just a few criminals, that's all. Aren't computers wonderful?

And while I'm at it, here's a question, why is it that millions of ATMs handle BILLIONS of transactions every single day and never have the irregularities that showed up in just one state, OHIO, on election day??? And thats not even mentioning the other states, conveniently, all states where Kerry was expected to pull an upset, who also had countless irregularities.

Look around, the NSA didn't keep the spying secret, you're right, however, neither are the stolen elections any big secret.

It's only the people who are still refusing to believe they were able to put one over on everyone so easily who are attempting to make it sound that way.

Research, yeah.

-chef-

[guruoo]

26. That's easy

'Ask yourself why it is the NSA can't keep a
spying program secret, but all of Diebold'
software writer's are in on the fix.'

In each case, both the information
and responsibilities are compartmented, which allows the
both the NSA whistleblowers and black box code hackers to
go undetected.
The question you should be asking is, what, and who do
they use for command and control of this operation?

[BushOut06]

Check out this website - votefraud.org

http://www.votefraud.org/

That should answer any questions you have. I'm sorry if you feel this is all "hype", but it does exist. It's up to us to come out in numbers so overwhelming that will expose the fraud.

[Bruce McAuley]

28. I don't think there's EVER been a "fair" presidential election.

I am presently reading "Deliver the Vote-A History of Election Fraud, An American Tradition-1742-2004" by Tracy Campbell.
One interesting quote is from William "Boss" Tweed in 1868, "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?". I thought that quote came from Stalin, but Tweed beat him by well over 100 years.
The cry of fraud and stolen election seems to follow MOST of our previous presidential elections. I can't think of one election that was even close to being fair, according to Campbell.
Screw the past, it's time to go forward and WIN, rather than wasting energy bitching about Diebold. Not that we should not work to get rid of those machines, but the object is to WIN for the Democrats , not complain about the past.
Good book, well worth a read.

Bruce

[lonestarnot]

30. And you would like people to believe they can win; now that is a pipe

dream. The fix is in alright.

[meisje]

32. I agree

[Cobalt Violet]

37. How many more elections do they need to steal for you to believe it?

Kiss 2006 and 2008 good by.

[linazelle]

38. You're kidding right? Have you read the FL and OH chronicles?

If you haven't please do before posting such ignorance.

[zbdent]

39. How many times have we heard about this:

"With just one vote for Nixon in each precinct in Illinois, Nixon would have been President, not Kennedy" . . .

Someone else never "got over it" . . .

[mod mom]

42. Stolen elections are so much more than Diebld. Educate yourself!

We must confront the stolen ELECTIONS ((2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 ) and examine fully how they were conducted. In Ohio and elsewhere, the GOP gained control of the SOS office and implemented various programs aimed at surpressing the Democratic vote. Purges (In Cuyahoga County alone it is estimated that 100,000 voters were stripped from the registration list), caging techniques, misinformation to voters, challenges, mis-allocation of machines were all used to suppress the vote.

If you are truly a progressive, then educate yourself, if not go bury your head in the sand and spew your mis-information elsewhere.

[Atman]

52. "Diebold" had become a generic term, like "xerox."

Don't get hung up on Diebold. It has become a euphamism for stolen elections in general. I think everyone is aware that there were more companies involved than just Diebold. But, the other companies were/are also GOP associates; Sequoia and ES&S are just two tentacles of the same GOP-owned companies which split a few years back to better capitalize on the vote-stealing trend. It takes to long to list and explain everything, so we now just say "Diebold."

Use "election fraud" or "vote theft" if you'd prefer.

[JHB]

45. One does not negate the other

I'll grant you that I also rank some of those who think the Republicans can steal elections at will as "defeatist and implausible", but there is still ample evidence of Republican dirty tricks throught the past several election cycles that have put them over the top and into the driver's seat. And for the good of the nation that HAS to be dealt with, even if we can't nail anyone right now.

And even if it were "wishful thinking", so what? The Republicans seem to have great heaping piles of success by nursing just such a "wishful thinking" grudge about Kennedy beating Nixon.

We know they've pulled dirty election tricks, which should be an affront to everyone who believes in our system. Why should we NOT hold it against them?

[magellan]

47. Read "What Went Wrong in Ohio"

...by Congressman Conyers. It's at Amazon and details many of the shenangians and unanswered questions. Watch the hearings Conyers held; the video stream should be available somewhere.

[Cocoa]

70. but it doesn't say the election was stolen

[magellan]

84. It doesn't say it wasn't, either

Convenient logic might make you feel good, but it doesn't get proper investigations and reform done.

[Cocoa]

97. the BBVers has nothing to do with the Conyers report

they are trying to coopt it, to suggest repeatedly that the Conyers report, and Conyers himself, is with them.

But it's not true.

The BBVers say not only that they have proof that the election was stolen, but that the truth is undeniable, that anyone who doubts it is blind or complicit.

The Conyers report says nothing of the sort.

[magellan]

136. What Went Wrong in Ohio

...is just one example of collected evidence that points to multi-faceted failures and holes in our election system. None of the evidence, from Ohio or elsewhere, has been seriously and independently investigated. Every attempt to do so has been derailed by willful ignorance and stonewalling from both sides of the aisle.

If that doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth then I don't know what will.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. My Straightforward Take

Since stealing an election is a crime, i will maintain my adherance to the american system of jurisprudence. Innocent until proven guilty.

When i see proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i will reconsider my position. In the meantime, i find the concept modestly plausible, likely improbable, and certainly unproven except for conjecture and supposition.

I must admit that the secondary root of my opinion is that i just don't think these guys are that clever. They're winning close elections because they've found a few hot button issues that rally the idiots.
The Professor

[Atman]

57. It takes far more "cleverness" to orchestrate the thoughts of millions

than to program the machines they vote on.

Think about what you're saying...they're too dumb to have a wealthy CEO from Ohio who owns a voting machine company, rig some machines for them, but they're not too dumb to manipulate the thoughts and votes of millions of people in dozens of states, and actually be certain of their outcome? If I wanted to be certain of an outcome, I'd rig the machines, not spread out far and wide preaching hate and fear in the hopes that people would be scared into voting for me. Too much to chance that way. It doesn't make sense that they'd be smart enough to control millions of people's thoughts, but not a few voting machines.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. Whatever

I told you what i think. They're stupid and nothing will change that opinion. And, you're still providing conjecture not proof.

And think about what you're saying. They're so clever that despite the fact that it is all about making as big a pile of money as possible, everybody associated is abjectly loyal and not motivated by money. The conspiracy to loot the treasury is all about money, but nobody is co-opted in the long run.

Also, Bush won in states without any automated voting machines. My premise explains that. Your's does not.

Lastly, i said that was my secondary point. It's still innocent until proven guilty. You haven't proven anything.
The Professor

[IdaBriggs]

65. Preach it, Atman! Common frickin' sense! Woo Hoo! nt

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Huh?

How is it common sense to say that i'm wrong that the Republicans don't have to be smart to find hot button issues that allow them to attract the least and dimmest? That's exactly what's happened. It would seem that common sense would apply more to the idea that they have a strategy to attract the morons to vote their way and without breaking a single law, win elections, than to develop a vast criminal conspriracy of folks in it for the money, who would then maintain absolutely loyalty. People in it for themselves are, by definition, not prone to loyalty.

That's common sense.
The Professor

[Atman]

103. Here is the fault in your argument...the republicans do it all the time...

"...develop a vast criminal conspriracy..."

Now, who here has argued that this was a "vast criminal conspiracy?" No one that I saw. The republicans are famous for this tactic. Say that you think there is fraud, they say "What, you think a massive, huge, vast conspiracy of millions of criminal master minds...". They pile on the hyperbole in an attempt to make your position sound ludicrous, ridiculous.

But take out the "vast criminal conspiracy" meme and just say "crime." It already sounds ten times more plausible. You're just playing games with words now in a not-so-subtle attempt to influence the reader. Let's stick to the facts, please, professor.

[mopinko]

90. please read mark crispin millers book, prof.

i'd be happy to lend you mine. seriously.
diebold is a large and growing part of election corruption. but there was a lot more. if you only read the conyers report, you will see all that it was stolen in many small ways as well. like nathan sproul and assoc. who were indicted, then not heard from again. death by a thousand cuts.
but the burden of proof in an election is not the same as in a crime. they have the burden of being free, fair and transparent.
and as "the idiots", i think they are more of a smoke screen than anything else. they were meant to counter the feeling everyone got after raygun was elected(?), when you looked around and went, 'wait, everyone i know hates this guy. who voted for him?'
same deal.
i'm making it my personal mission to convert you, prof. sort of a pet project. seriously, we would not stand for it in uganda.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

123. No conjecture, just numbers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&page=#51782

[RaleighNCDUer]

179. American jurisprudence still allows you believe a crime was

committed when you get home and find your back door kicked in and you TV anc computer missing.

All you need for an investigation is evidence of a crime, and the evidence abounds. So what is wrong with starting the investigation and finding out where it leads?

[Lost4words]

53. The Titanic is unsinkable. n/t

[IdaBriggs]

63. Please go read this thread --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3461087

I get tired of having the same conversation over and over again. Election fraud is a real issue. Programmers have already come forward and testified that they helped perpetrate it, and Conyers put out a 114 page report on Ohio alone.

Its a little bit like racism; everyone knows about it, but actually DOING something about it is difficult.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mod mom]

80. I did the same. These are disruptors, not interested in forward progress

[Maru Kitteh]

156. I beleive you both just violated a rule

Brilliant. Because someone has a different opinion they must be disruptors. Life must be very difficult for you.

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

78. It is a real issue....

we need to address every aspect of it. even the claims of fraud that make our party look bad. No election will ever be worth having unless the process is pure and free of doubt.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. *sigh* Lets just win?

You people amaze me. WE CANNOT WIN WHEN PEOPLE ARE VOTING ON EVOTING MACHINES! Why is that so fucking hard to understand??? Diebold MYTH? *sigh* You are why we lose elections. You REFUSE to see the truth when it's right in front of you. SURELY you have read about what happened in Volusia and Leon counties in FL. right? If not, I suggest you do.

[skipos]

75. VA, CA and NJ 05. It may be an uphill battle, but we can win elections.nt

[bobthedrummer]

91. You drank the KoolAid or something, imo.

[Twist_U_Up]

93. Get a Clue

as soon as people like you get over your denial perhaps our Reps will speak up. Election Fraud Happened Dont beleive me then you better do some research. Heres a start:

http://nightweed.com/printableusavotefacts.html

http://hamburgsteak.sandwich.net/mirrors/EyeOnOhio/

http://www.legitgov.org/coup_2004.html

http://www.whoscounting.net/ConspiracyTheorists.htm

http://avirubin.com/vote/dailyshow.mov

http://www.electionfraud2004.org/presentation/index.html

http://projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=2&id=11529

http://www.google.com/search?q=woz-curtain.wav

[Atman]

119. Yeah, but...but...CBS ran a story about Diebold 2 years ago!

but...but...but...

[robbedvoter]

100. lemme draw you a picture, dear - as I can't change my handle

These were exit polls in 2004 vs results. The last ones - Diebold states.
as for "Let's just win!" - it's funnier to me than "moran" I promise to quote you often as you created an instant classic.
let's just win" - almost as good as second virginity and "electable" candidates.

[mtnsnake]

104. Bravo! This "stolen election" excuse is the most counterproductive

and overused excuse for getting nothing done because everything can simply be blamed on Diebold.

How dare anyone try to come up with positive solutions when we did nothing wrong during the elections and it was simply stolen from us. Yeah right.

Good post and nominated

[robbedvoter]

107. "let's just win" - the hugh series slogan!

[libertypirate]

116. Your not to bright!!!!, just ignore the stolen elections...

Yeah that will get them fixed; just ingore the problems.

[Twist_U_Up]

125. Ill Nominate Too !! But not for your reason

Just so people can see how blind some of our people are to ELECTION FRAUD.

[Twist_U_Up]

127. Whoa this belongs up a thread or 2.

[Maru Kitteh]

157. Is that you're not too bright or your not to bright?

So who's actually not too bright?

[we can do it]

120. 20 Amazing Facts about Voting in the USA

20 Amazing Facts about Voting in the USA
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Lan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804La...
3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Lan...
4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sun...
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886
5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/colum...
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitr...
6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the
Senate Ethics Committee.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.p...
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php
7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm
http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html
8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Land...
9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data
coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evote...
10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm
11. Diebold is based in Ohio.
http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm
12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that
counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml
13. Jeff Dean, "Diebold's Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts
of felony theft in the first degree.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf
14. Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of
sophistication " to evade detection over a period of 2 years.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf
15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html
16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could
not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it! (See the movie here <http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov> .)
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190
17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sund...
18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican
candidates.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermat...
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modloa...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm
19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/ne...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articl...
20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are
recommending further investigation.
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeR....
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/governm....
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html
http://uscountvotes.org/

[RaleighNCDUer]

183. Thank you.

Not that I expect the people who need to read the links actually will.

[LeftNYC]

122. This is a joke right. Read whats out there...

stolen elections is at the heart of the matter. It is the single biggest problem this country faces.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[otohara]

130. Let's Just Stick Our Head In The Sand

Diebold didn't disenfranchise thousands of black voters - did they?

[plasticsundance]

139. wixomblues, you've offered nothing to support your argument.

In fact, it's not even an argument, because outside of the premise you posit, you fail to give an explanation that is either deductive or empirical. You then pursue your argument in the apparent belief that mere insistence will validate it. You do the latter even when others on this topic have offered links that do provide evidence of election fraud. Simply neglecting to consider the evidence is not a well thought thesis. There has even been Congressional testimony that refutes your naive claims of no election fraud.

I think it is you, wixomblues, that wants to comfort yourself with the good old college try, but I find this a notion not based in reality. Then you have those that support you criticizing those that dare contradict or offer an alternative to your position, as if somehow one should agree with you by default because you have manufactured an argument lacking any substantial evidence to support it. I believe this further shows the weakness of your case.

Proof of Ohio Election Fraud Exposed

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)

BuzzFlash interview: Mark Crispin Miller
Connecting the dots on election problems>

[wixomblues]

166. Here's my proof.

http://www.lionsgrip.com/voting2004map10.html

The green counties are the diebold counties.

Thank you for your links. I'm going to peruse them now.

[Bridget Burke]

176. The rest of that site indicates that voting "problems" are a real danger.

Wouldn't paper ballots be a better solution?

[annabanana]

168. thank you

You have stated my postion much better than I could.

[Maru Kitteh]

142. THANK YOU! THis place is starting to look just like what the freakers

accuse it of being, a place where only those who swear an oath to accept every lunatic tinfoil conspiracy theory are welcome. It's become a place of whining and hand wringing defeatism.

[FlaGranny]

154. I want to ask you,

have you actually read all the reports and newpaper articles on this subject? I believe if you had, you would not call those of us who believe there was fraud lunatics. I'm certainly no lunatic. I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone is honest and above board - here and in the greater world. If I believed that, I would not worry about the state of our country and the world. Everything would just be hunky dory because we could trust everyone. I wouldn't even need to vote in a world like that.

It seems that some people just want us to "trust" that there are no problems, when there is a boatload of stuff that indicates we better be skeptical.

This current administration has turned me from a trusting person (five or six years ago) to one who believes that if this administration says it, it must be either a lie or bad for us, and most probably both. I see no reason to exclude voting rights. They have taught us by their actions. Bad is good and down is up.

[Oilwellian]

143. One more thing...

You say:

If the Republicans want to ban abortion, it'll be a hoot.

It'll be a fucking hoot?? It'll be a god-damned fucking hoot????? What the hell kind of statement is that? Are you so naive to believe our rights can so easily be regained once they're taken away?

Your entire post wreaks of ignorance.

[Yollam]

158. You're right and you're wrong.

Teere is a serious problem with a lot of people that it has now become an article of faith that any election lost by a democrat was automatically BBV, Diebold, STOLEN. This is a real problem because it turns into a major copout where it concerns election campaigns that were run ATROCIOUSLY (John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill, Bob Shrum ring a bell?)

That being said, it is important to also realize that these electronic systems are VERY HACKABLE, NON-VERIFIABLE, and completely untrustworthy. It is crucial that we A.) demand that our candidates run their campaigns in a competent fashion and work for democratic values and b.) Keep the heat on our elected officials to get suspect Diebold or ES&S machines raplaced with machines that have a voter-verifiable paper trail, or different, unhackable systems altogether. We are democrats, and we should be able to understand the nuance betwee, "ALL THE ELECTIONS ARE BEING STOLEN" and "THE REPUBLICANS WOULD NEVER CHEAT, THE DEMOCRATS JUST CAN'T WIN AN ELECTION!" The truth lies somewhere in between, and until the two factions wake up and realize that the other side also is making some valid points, we'll be stuck in the same morass.

FIX THE MACHINES, and MAKE OUR CANDIDATES RUN LIKE CHAMPS!

[ima_sinnic]

162. looks like this is one of the many RW memes now being planted

on LW forums.
whatever. it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, and neither do your supporters on this thread.

[wixomblues]

167. Everyone is wrong but you.

[ima_sinnic]

172. devote most of your waking hours to it for months & years, as

some have done. Those are the ones I pay attention to, not RW paid operatives.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

173. Have you looked at this yet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49624&mesg_id=49624&page=#51782

[leftofthedial]

165. sounds like you need to "do some research."

"NSA can't keep a spying program secret" because there are one or two patriots who work there.

[Lars39]

171. It's all about the TRANSPARENCY.

The onus should be on the companies to prove the transparency, or honesty of the machines/systems.
They have failed to do so.

[Bridget Burke]

174. Elections can be stolen without Diebold machines...

Although you haven't critiqued what the serious researchers have offered. What about Florida in 2000? Do you think we should "get over it"?

According to your game plan, we should hope that abortion is banned. And get rid of all gun restrictions. Yes, that's the ticket!

[Hosnon]

184. I agree 100% nt

[grace0418]

185. **Want to know what I don't understand?**

Why it's so hard for some of you to believe the elections were stolen? I mean, seriously, in all honesty? What is so outrageous about that?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of the people you're referring to who give up because they say the elections are stolen. My point all along has been that we have to get ENOUGH of a majority to override the tampering. There simply has to be a point where it's too blatant for them to rig. If Dems win in a landslide we'll overcome anything.

However, I fail to understand how DUers can come here every day and read about the lies, the corruption, the hidden agendas, and the dirty tricks of the Republican party and think they WOULDN'T rig elections. Bu$hCo has shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, civil and human rights, and basic decency. The GOP is bed with Corporate America, Big Oil and MSM. They have literally nothing keeping them from rigging elections because they don't give a shit about consequences, only power and money. Think of how many thousands of Americans and Iraqis are DEAD for NO REASON. What, suddenly they're going to be worried about getting caught rigging an election?

Ask yourself why it is the NSA can't keep a spying program secret, but all of Diebold' software writer's are in on the fix.

First of all, ALL of Diebold's software writers don't have to be in on the fix. It only takes a few to do some serious damage. My husband is a software engineer and he doesn't have access to what anyone outside his immediate team is doing.

Second of all, I'm not surprised that Diebold would be better able to keep a lid on their doings than the NSA. Despite the work Bu$hCo has done to keep secrets, there is still a certain amount of leaking that goes on in all government agencies. Moreso than in corporations anyway.

I mean, goddamn, saying that it's implausible the election was stolen is like saying the burglar who's running out your back door with your valuables, your wallet and your keys WOULDN'T POSSIBLY steal your car, too! C'mon, that's just preposterous! Anyone who suggest otherwise is crazy!

[Cooley Hurd]

186. How the fuck did this piece of crap thread get 9 votes???

:crazy:

[Moderator]

187. Locking...

This has become flamebait.