Truth is, no one will ever REALLY know who will win tomorrow.

[helderheid]

We have no way to audit the votes tomorrow. God, had I hoped we would have cleaned up the e-vote mess after 2004.

:(

[2rth2pwr]

1. LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5606315&mesg_id=5606315

[helderheid]

2. I'm not saying anyone is stealing anything. I'm saying without meaningful audits, no one will ever

know. Obama could "win" and we'd never know if Hillary was the true winner, and vice versa. My, aren't you reactive.

[KaryninMiami]

5. I'm with you my dear-- I too have very serious concerns about tomorrow's results-

so do most of us who know the truth about those machines. Brad has an excellent piece on this as well at www.bradblog.com. I'm very worried- even more worried about how few people really seem concerned (except those of us who have been involved with election fraud all these years).

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5916

The Pennsylvania Primary: Democracy of the Gods
Tuesday's Election Will be 'Unrecountable, Unverifiable, and Unauditable'...

On Tuesday night, you will be told who the winner of the Pennsylvania Primary is. You will accept it. You will have no choice. No matter who the winner really is. Or isn't.

This Tuesday's crucial contest will be primarily run on 100% faith-based, Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen or push-button) e-voting machines across the state. There will be no way to determine after the election whether the computers have accurately recorded, or not, the intent of those voters who voted on them. As VerifiedVoting.org summarizes the crucial contest, it "will be essentially unrecountable, unverifiable, and unauditable."

Most of the votes, more than 85%, will be cast on such DRE systems which do not provide so-called "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" (VVPATs), as their use has been found unconstitutional in the state, since its been determined, accurately, that ballot secrecy cannot be guaranteed when using such paper trail systems. Not that it matters.

With or without a so-called "paper trail" printer, all touch-screen/push-button/DRE voting machines are equally unverifiable and antithetical to American democracy. Period.

So, as with South Carolina's primary, so so long ago, and other states since, whatever the officials tell you at the end of the election is what you, and we, will have to accept. Whether votes are counted accurately is completely out of anyone's hands at this point. It's strictly Democracy of the Gods...

snip- read the rest at bradblog.com.

[helderheid]

7. Thanks for the link and thanks for getting the point of my post. I am astonished by some and their

lack of concern, no matter whom they support.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

26. Isn't that so very funny! No way to audit the vote! HAHA.

Not.

Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.

You're rather pleased, aren't you?

[2rth2pwr]

34. I find it funny that the day before the vote, when the polls show Hillary strong,

people are conveniently discovering the fact the the machines are vulnerable.

After I chuckle, I become angry that some Obama supporters will be implying that the vote was stolen by Hillary

after Obama loses.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

41. Just Smile and Laugh, Your girl is sure to get it.

I wonder, just what will this cost our Nation. She is inept and incapable of Humanly responding to any great threat. She is a Fool, a Jester, A Joke. No one takes her seriously, she is laughed at and made a FOOL of across the Earth. For the love of God, she will be even worse than Bush. She will want more Patriot Acts, and more Resolutions against Nations. She et Bill are *,Cheney, and Addington rolled into one.

But, hey, Your Girl will grab the Nomination.

And Fucking the Nations Soldiers is what you all will endlessly do.
What are we up to now? 4030+? What will you Hillbots bring us? 10,000 more?

So long as You "Win".

Congratulations! et Fuck You.

[helderheid]

44. Oh my, you OBVIOUSLY don't know me. I have been active in trying to get rid of these machines for

YEARS. I've shown up to council meetings with the evidence against them - have you? I mention the machines before each and every vote.

Let me be CLEAR. I EXPECT Obama to lose PA. I never thought he would win. This has NOTHING TO DO with either candidate. THIS has to do with TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS. I expect a lot more people will start talking about it again in the GE. Too bad they weren't paying attention after the stolen 2004 election.

:mad:

[rainy]

3. all investors want a return on their money. Those with the most money

and power have put their backing on Hillary. How far will they go to secure their investments? I don't put employing Rove to help them steal the votes. He has done it for the repubs. but, those investors know that the repubs have screwed up so they have to back a dem this time around. Note the huge donations for Hillary. They will steal it again because we keep letting them.

[GoldieAZ49]

4. lowering expectations to the bottom eh?

If they lack accuracy turn off your computer

it may not put the letter you type on the screen either


having used touch screen laptops the technology is every bit as accurate as keyboard computers.

[Exilednight]

6. A keyboard computer is only as accurate as the person who programs it, and if it's running..........

windows, then god help us.

[GoldieAZ49]

13. if you still use windows you should help yourself

ever hear of Macintosh?

[Exilednight]

21. I have one. Two Mac laptops and two PC laptops and and one each in desktop form...............

Mac's are good for certain functions, but they still have flaws. I've had several problems with Mac OS X, but Linux is always kind of buggy for running programs.

[GoldieAZ49]

22. never use linux

I had a print customer that used it exclusively

I haven't had problems with OS X since the second or third version, I don't remember which.

I have never owned a pc, just used them when I had to at work.

[Exilednight]

23. OS X is built on Linux. n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

25. I always use the os x interface

not linux underneath

windows (older versions particularly) ran over DOS, never used it either.

[newmajority]

31. Close, but not quite.

Actually, OS X is built on Darwin BSD. BSD is a Unix based operating system, as is Linux. But there are minor differences in the two. Of course to know the difference, you would have to be a hardcore unix geek, and that's even beyond my level.

The advantage of Linux over the others is that it's free to anyone who can download it, and can be found cheap enough on CD's for those who can't. As opposed to Mac OS X or other branches of the Unix tree which are sold just like any other commercial software. There are some free BSD versions out there as well, but Linux seems to work better, in my experience.

Any of the above would be more secure than Windows, of course.

[2rth2pwr]

35. Based on Unix.

[anigbrowl]

9. Nobody is questioning the technological reliability, but rather the softwre integrity

Since there's no audit trail and manufacturers refuse to open up their code, you only have the operators' word for it that the voting-gathering software does not get abused. It would be extremely simple to include audit facilities, so you have to wonder why these companies keep saying it would be way too much work.

[GoldieAZ49]

15. if it wasn't accurate they wouldn't use it

why are you paranoid about modern technology?

[newmajority]

19. You truly are clueless, aren't you?

Maybe this will help?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhMUtzOxjJY

(sorry about the "she who shall not be named" reference, to all who object. I'm no fan of hers either, but it doesn't change the fact of the demonstration itself. And Dr. Dean's presence makes up for it.)

[helderheid]

20. WOW!!!

:wow:

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm

[eridani]

55. It's the real experts on modern technology who are worried

Only simple-minded twits trust complex equipment that is not extensively and constantly audited for performance.

[helderheid]

10. I'll be curious if you will still lack concern in the GE. n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

17. I don't have a concern with technology

the digital technology is accurate.

Imagine, no hanging chads!

[Firespirit]

42. No, it's not. Nor is it secure.

I'm a software engineer, FTR. I know this stuff.

[stillcool]

8. Counting votes does not matter..

unless one's preferred candidate looses. And counting votes is not an issue until AFTER the election.

[crankychatter]

11. recounts are a constitutionally protected right usurped by HAVA

impropriety is well documented with E voting

it gets no mainstream press

the same people that gave us the Iraq propoganda

are now giving us the Iran propoganda

have coopted the Party's and the government

that control the media

keep YOU in the dark and feed you bullshit

they're counting the votes

[crankychatter]

12. on the upside Palast is lurking in PA

notes on his website... no specifics... on the down low

[helderheid]

14. He is a treasure!

[BlooInBloo]

16. Does anyone REALLY know anything, Descartes?

[WA98070]

18. Anyone know anything about exit polling? Will there be any and, if so, by whom?

[BigDDem]

24. Fucking hilarious

a preemptive strike, we'll never know who REALLY won.

:rofl:

[helderheid]

32. We won't. Not in the primary, nor the GE. Who's laughing now?

ETA this isn't an anti-Hillary post - it's an anti-evote lack of transparency post.

:eyes:

[BigDDem]

58. Gee, why do we even bother with elections?

I mean we'll never know who "REALLY" won.
Why bother????

[stillcool]

37. Read much?

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/Diebold%20Folder/uconn-report-os.pdf
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/info/everest.aspx
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/California_Folder/DieboldReport.pdf
http://www.federalelectionreform.com/pdf/Voting%20Systems%20Issue%20Brief.pdf
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a56eba8edf74e9e12e_r2m6b86s2.pdf
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting.htm
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf

[Kurovski]

27. No way to verify it, one way or the other.

K&R.

[BigDDem]

28. Let me guess, if Barry wins everyone will

feel confident it's legit, right?

[Kurovski]

30. No way to know for sure.

That's been the state of elections in many states for eight years now. There will be perhaps some arguable "evidence" pointing toward it (if it happens) but we are no longer in charge of our own elections. Corporations are taking over the process, and we are not allowed full oversight or verification.

Where you been? :shrug:

[helderheid]

33. Wrong. n/t

[stillcool]

38. Let me guess...

you have not read, nor do you care about how our voting systems work. Nor do you care about the plethora of evidence documented about the wide array of problems voting in these United States.

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/Diebold%20Folder/uconn-report-os.pdf
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/info/everest.aspx
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/California_Folder/DieboldReport.pdf
http://www.federalelectionreform.com/pdf/Voting%20Systems%20Issue%20Brief.pdf
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a56eba8edf74e9e12e_r2m6b86s2.pdf
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting.htm
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf

[helderheid]

39. Great links! Thanks! I've been looking for that other list about the 2004 election

something along the lines of if you believe the 2004 vote was fair than you also believe and then there is this long laundry list. I think TRUTHISALL compiled it originally but I'm having a heck of a time finding it.

ETA a partial list:

To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1- That the exit polls were WRONG...

2- That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

3- That Harris last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

4- The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds break for the challenger)was WRONG.

5- The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)

6- The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)

7- That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.

8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.

9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.

10- That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore agains an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.

13- That Voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election

[stillcool]

40. God Bless Us..

but there is nothing that burns me more than people making accurate elections about one candidate. The other one I love is if you can't prove what can't be proven you have no right questioning anything.

[helderheid]

46. Drives me completely fucking insane.

[stillcool]

48. I found something a while back..

but of course now I can't find it. Anyway, it was a citizen's vote audit, by exit poll. I don't know what year they started, but in each election they were engaged the exit poll matched the vote count. So, they feel confident they will be able to discern problems in this election. Wish I could find the damn thing.

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-140.htm#pgfId-1391952

[eridani]

56. Absolutely not n/t

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

29. K&R

[LWolf]

36. I wish we'd cleaned it up after 2000.

It's not like Congressional Democrats didn't have the opportunity.

A Democrat introduced HR 6200, “hand counted, paper ballots, counted and posted at precinct" in '06. Some more vigorous support from his colleagues in Congress would have been appropriate at that time.

[Hoof Hearted]

43. You are so AWESOME! Usually Obamaniacs wait until the voting actually starts to begin crying STOLEN

You're like, first in your class.

[Firespirit]

45. OP said nothing about election theft

The Clinton supporters are the ones who go from "I'm concerned about the technology used in PA" to "HAHAHA you said Hillary would steal the election."

Do you deny that voting integrity is a serious concern? Do you support the use of DREs with no accountability? If you do, by God have the nads to say it.

[helderheid]

47. See post 2 you jackass.

[stillcool]

49. Do you read?

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-140.htm#pgfId-1391952

[helderheid]

50. HA!

http://www.organikrecords.com/corporatenewslies/tobelievetrifold.pdf

[EFerrari]

51. I know.

:(

[helderheid]

53. .

:hug:

[zulchzulu]

52. The Hillary folks appear to be too stupid to understand what eVoting is doing to the US

It's tragic. I guess that's why so many stupid, uneducated, unsuccessful people support Hillary Clinton. It's obvious.

[eridani]

57. They are defintely too stupid to realize that she would be screwed in the general election--

--if by some odd chance she should get the nomination.

[Swamp Rat]

54. shadowknows69

Where is he when we need him? :D