When did YOU, your FAMILY, your NEIGHBORS learn of voting machine fraud?

[blm]

I learned about it in late summer of 2002 and posted an alert here at DU.

ALL of the Dem voters in my husband's family heard about machine fraud between Dec 2002 and fall of 2004.


Only a few in my Republican family know about it via me showing them the graphics based on exit polls and electronic machines in Nov.2004.

My neighbors STILL don't know about it, as I have only mentioned the problem in general terms, not specifics.

When did YOU learn about voting machine fraud? Your family? Your neighbors?

[rumpel]

1. Not until after 2004

when I came to DU, BECAUSE of the strange election night results. However this is perhaps also that in my county these machines have not been in wide use at all. And thanks to former SOS Shelley for having been attentive, while I was not. I did not pay attention to any election system.

For the major 3 Networks and cable news - this subject is still less important than a false confession to a 10 year old murder case - when every day many other murders are committed which never gets this overblown attention...
One would presume an election issue which will affect all of us should at least get equal time with one human tragedy.

Certainly, the values of news-worthy-ness does not agree with mine.

[sakabatou]

2. Same

[blm]

3. So, you never even HEARD about how machines can be rigged till AFTER 2004

election?

I would guess that most of the Democratic party is where you are, and that many more STILL haven't heard of it.

[blm]

4. Interesting - I thought this thread would be an eye-opener.

Or a heart-checker.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I'll challenge your terminology just a tad .......

..... as I make my reply.

I first learned of election cheating waaaaaaaaay back in the 1960 election. It was in all the papers with charges and counter charges. Some still think (not without merit, I might add) that Nixon really won.

Since then, election cheating has at least been hinted at in probably every election that's been held. And although I have no personal recollection, I'm sure it happened before the 1960 cycle, too.

What we have today is just the latest version of it. Don't take that as some sanguine answer; it isn't. But what we have now is hardly unprecedented. Just the means by which it is accomplished seems to be changing. Nefarious people have always done nefarious things ..... and they always will.

What's interesting now (and rather quite hopeful, actually) is the massive data that demonstrates the magnitude of the cheating.

My point about your terminology: to frame it as 'voting machine fraud' understates the issue, in my view, dramatically. Simply 'getting rid of the damned machines' won't end the problem at all. Disenfranchisement isn't a machine issue. Voter intimidation isn't a machine issue. Lack of polling places or voting machines isn't a machine issue. Telling those least likely to understand that the date for voting has changed isn't a machine issue. Voter roll purging isn't a machine.

I'm not arguing with you ..... just trying to broaden the focus. It is far more than the machines ... always has been and always will be.

edit/typos

[blm]

7. I know, Husb - but I want to FOCUS on this ONE aspect of election fraud.

The aspect of election fraud that most Americans are still unaware of at this point.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Fair enough!

:hi:

(seriously, I wasn't arguing with you at all .... )

[blm]

10. And I wasn't arguing back.

;)

[BeFree]

15. Claptrap

Head in the sand terminology. But that's what has made America what it is, so don't feel too bad -- you are not alone.

Such insight as this is quite unbecoming, imo:

"But what we have now is hardly unprecedented."

Unprecedented? The use of windows software has a precedent? The capapbility to alter a million votes with a click of the mouse is unprecedented? C'mon.

Oh, then we read this:

"Just the means by which it is accomplished seems to be changing. Nefarious people have always done nefarious things ..... and they always will."

Like I says - head in the sand type comments.... nothing to see here, move along. Well, son, they stole - lock, stock and barrel, the vote, wholesale.

One programmer can make the loser into the winner, and we all just say: "Nothing new"? C'mon.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Tell ya what 'son' .......

I stand by what I said.

Election cheating is election cheating. That's the fact. it may not fit your worldview, but oh well.

The magnitude may be akin to comparing a fusillade of musket shot to a tactical nuke, but both are still weapons that can kill. Only the magnitude is different.

Robbing a prairie bank with a six shooter and a bandanna is the same crime of bank robbery as using a gang of six skilled technicians and some 'Mission Impossible' gizmos to do the same thing at a fortress of a Swiss bank. Again, only the magnitude is different.

Sorry, 'son' ...... its all the same thing.

And thanks for telling me your clearly expert view of where my head is. I'll leave the location of your head to others to decide.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Stinky The Clown]

23. ..

"Protect myself"?

From what? Half baked rantings that result from your not reading what was said?

Stop it.

[BeFree]

29. Stop it? Stop what?

Maybe you are in the wrong place? Stop it? Then read what you wrote down thread. You are not interested in a debate, are you?

You say this is nothing new, and yet we all know it is new - this window of opportunity to steal elections on a broad scale, and when you get called on it you stoop to "Stop it"?

NGU.

[Sparkly]

34. Stop "replying" to things that were never said

while somehow disregarding things that WERE said.

Again... I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. H2S began this as a question about *machine* election fraud, but made the point that election fraud by various means has been around for a long time.

That doesn't negate the truth of today's machine fraud.

That doesn't mean anyone's avoiding "debate."

Accusations aren't going to advance the debate.

Please read what was actually written -- machine election fraud is a HUGE issue, as yet another incarnation of a problem that's been around for centuries.

[Sparkly]

22. Hellooo??? Anybody there?

Husb's post did not deny machine fraud is an issue; it said it's only ONE incarnation of a larger issue. Election fraud, in various forms, has been around since black men were given the right to vote, if not before.

You TOTALLY misinterpreted the post. This isn't "head in the sand," it's "look even further."

Just some general observations:

1. Reading is important.

2. Thinking through what one reads is helpful.

3. Knee-jerk reactions are not helpful.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I wrote about it in a 2002 Postmortem article

when I wrote for a Green paper, for which I was invited to speak on a panel in Monterey, CA with the honorable Dr. Dill from Stanford. I then went to work with Rush Holt's office on HR-2239 to get a paper trail on EVMs, a bill that never saw the light of day in the House.

The education of America on this topic has been up until now exclusively over the internets. Now Lou Dobb has take up the cause, several years after the fact, but I guess better late than never. I do believe another stolen election will officially make it too late.

[blm]

9. That's why I wrote this post - as much as I knew and directed my attention

to newspapers and media outlets all this time to get the greater word out, along with so many others here, and the issue is STILL largely unknown to the public.

And yet we expect others to know and grasp an issue that has been largely misrepresented or buried up until a few months ago.

[AtomicKitten]

11. the MSM chose to ignore it

just as exiting polling (owned and operated by the MSM) was conveniently "unavailable" for the 2002 election when this really reared its ugly head in the most blatantly obvious ways.

[blm]

13. Y'know, that right there should have prompted an all out alert by the Dem

party and its election specialists.

What WERE they doing?

[AtomicKitten]

14. It was announced the day before the election.

and it makes my blood boil to this day. Aaaaagggghhhhhh!!!!!!

It was a HUGE red flag that no one seemed to notice. It was an invitation to fraud, as if the MSM was turning a blind eye to what they knew was going to happen.

[applegrove]

12. It is speculation. Much evidence of faulty defaults and such. And

voter suppression in other ways. Voting machine fraud...on a huge scale? No direct proof. Still speculation.

[BeFree]

16. Speculation?

The crooks design a system, get us to pay for it through HAVA, then make it impossible to have even one hearing in court and evidence of the machines being misprogrammed somehow makes it past the media's biased screenings and all you can say is that we are only speculating?

It's like saying we are only speculating that the sun will rise tomorrow. Claptrap!

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Yellin' louder doesn't make ya righter ......

... just sayin' .....

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[applegrove]

26. I like conversations to involve as many as possible. All replies are

welcome.

We just don't know all the suppression that has taken place or all that will. We know that locally some democratic organizers can be as sleazy as the next guy... some younguns will tear signs apart on people's lawns. That is unacceptable and the adults usually control that type of behaviour when they see it. But as to the machination from the leadership of the GOP? We don't know everything. Therefore we have to be smart to all the possibilities and fight voter suppression on all fronts. We cannot just have one call. That works for loons, roosters and other small brained animals. Not for us. We gotta be sophisticated and not go with the sexiest speculation. But be vigilant on all fronts.

Oh - and the little issue of 35% of americans not voting. That is something that is much more serious than the few anecdotes about defaulting to Bush voting machines. Those 35% are people who likely on the whole..vote either Dem or moderate. And those 35% should be attended to, reached out to and their voices heard by Democrats. Creating apathy by telling them your worst fears..is not going to help them. They are apathetic already.

Note to self: When trying to convince people who think "MY VOTE DOESN'T MATTER" to vote.... do not say to them "YOUR VOTE WILL NOT BE COUNTED".

[applegrove]

21. What about the speculation that faulty exit polls kept some Dems

home? Cause the exit poll discrepancy points to that explanation too?

We just don't know. The people who studied it said "reluctant responder among the GOP". I think that is a little bit of a euphemism for "big fat liar/patsies". I have to go with the scientists on this.

I'm just a believer in science.

[BeFree]

24. Science?

That exit poll stuff and the people who speculated on the reluctant responder theory have all been blown away. The exit polls were corrupted to make it look like bush won.

Real science of the exit polls says that Kerry won the election and the real scientists who looked at e-voting say the machines can be used to steal elections.

So we know they had motive, means and opportunity, and their previous history shows thet would steal an election. Add it up. You do believe in math, right?

[applegrove]

27. On the day of the vote, the exit polls, the early ones, gave Kerry a win.

Please. Don't say things that are not true.

[BeFree]

32. That's not what I said

I said the final polls were corrupted. But you have no reply to the rest?

[applegrove]

36. I'm saying we don't know. One way or another..the exit polls didn't

match the count. You can speculate and so can I. I choose to go with the "reluctant responder" hypothesis. You prefer the other. You cannot say it is a done deal..in terms of explanations for the massive discrepancy... any more than I can.

Sorry - I did just read your second sentence and stopped there.

[AtomicKitten]

25. Well, Dr. Dill of Stanford

is convinced there has been massive electronic voting machine fraud after doing an extensive study of the data.

I believe him.

[Sparkly]

28. And, if I may remind people, H2S pointed out that DATA is indeed key

to the potential for uncovering some of this fraud (while pointing out that there's even more than that, and while the methods have changed, the motives and efforts have been around a long time).

[Stinky The Clown]

30. In fairness ......

.... no one in this thread said that e-vote cheating, specifically, can not or did not occur. I suspect everyone here believes it did..

The point of this and one other subthread is that e-vote cheating is not the *only* cheating that can, did, and likely will again occur.

[AtomicKitten]

33. hell no

They have a potpourri of cheating techniques. Voter roll purging is a technique they are working on in a big way RIGHT NOW. Screwing with the absentee ballot. Manipulating the voting equipment available in Democratic districts causing long lines in order to discourage voting. Creating stringent and sometimes illegal (a la Blackwell in Ohio) voting registration criteria intended to disenfranchise.

Cheating has been crafted into an art by the Republicans and EVM is only a part of it.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. And on that .....

... we agree.

And not addressed to you, but as an example for others reading this ......

Voter roll purging is a time-honored method of cheating. It is older than silicone chips, let alone evoting machines.

Absentee ballot 'mokeying' has almost nothing to do with evoting machines. It may have to do with the central tabulators, but most likley only to the extent that data entry is .... uh ..... not reliable.

Faulty equipment designed to make waiting so long that people leave can be done in many ways. Evote machines are but a tangential issue to that. More likely, as we've seen, is simply too few voting booths (machine or otherwise), or the right number of booths but with too many 'out of order' signs.

The weight of the paper for self-printed registration forms has nothing to do with machines .... except one's home printer.

Indeed, the GOP of today have raised this to an art form.

[applegrove]

38. I agree that voting machines, a new technology, give all sorts of

"new opportunity" for nefarious assholes to play & suppress. Most of the ones you mention like too long line ups for too few machines, etc.

So too - the lack of trust that comes with new technology - is an opportunity for the GOP to have angry democrats run around to the 35% of apathetic voters who never vote... well...how would you feel if you were apathetic and easily dissuaded from voting, and someone comes to your door and says "please vote, it will not count, but please vote"?

Don't fall into the trap. Stick with the truth. And if you don't know for sure that massive vote switching occurred, or if vote switching will occur on the exact machine the person will vote on, don't tell them it will not count.

[applegrove]

37. Actually - I don't believe massive vote switching occured by machine.

I believe that some machines defaulted to Bush. I believe in all the other annecdotal stuff. I don't believe in massive vote switching by micro-chip. I just don't speculate that way..where the exit polls are concerned. I believe faulty exit polls follow some mystics in the GOP, in all the elections they hold, and give the advantage to the person whose vote is under-reported.

That is how I speculate. So I am challenging the OP. Not to say they are wrong. Just to say they have to admit it is speculation to say the jig is up and there is proof of massive vote switching. We don't have clear answers or clear proof.

And so we should not concentrate on the type of voter suppression (microchip) that there is the least proof of. We need to concentrate on it all. All of it.

[agincourt]

31. 2003

and on this site somewhere or from Bartcop.