Thread: Potential vote fraud in Ohio.

A recent report unequivocally demonstrates that Diebold electronic vote machines have a code error which drops votes preferentially in democratic regions.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...contained.html

This is the most recent in a long string of problems and whistlebowing (see Clint Curtis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis) about Diebold's management (read fraud) of US presidential elections.

A good summary of Ohio irregularities (read election crime) is shown in the free movie at the link. Please watch it and respond with your thoughts.

http://www.freeforall.tv/

This is the single most important issue in a democracy: The legitimacy of the vote.

Would you say that there is a difference between the legitimacy of the vote and the accuracy of the vote? If not, why not?

Do you think manual methods of vote counting are a) less prone to error b) more difficult to rig?

Do you think the magnitudes of the errors in this case you have highlighted exceed, match, or fall below errors in past elections?

Sorry, Cali, but it looks like a non-story to me. Somebody found a software glitch. No votes were actually lost.

The machines my county used in the last presidential election were decertified by the state - the reason, lost votes. These were actual lost votes, 10,000 of them, not the hypothetical ones you are so worried about. As far as I know Diebold had nothing to do with it. These were Unilect Patriot machines. Look it up.

Harold,
what is your view on the accuracy of vote counting in general. Either today, or historically, within the US.

Boy, from esoteric to pseudopsychic denial!

A legitimate vote will be accurate. Manual vote counting with oversight from all interested parties is much harder to rig on a large scale than code . The scale of error is WAY bigger. For example, in volusia county there was a 16000 vote flip away from Gore to Bush. Ya think that was a random error? Ya think all those types of errors are caught?

Sorry Harold my name's not lori! I am happy ( ) to talk to you in more depth after you watch the movie! Don't worry, if you are right in your closedminded denial, you have nothing to worry about learning from the movie. Only if you are wrong,. What's your democracy worth to you? Are you courageous enough to take the risk and devote 15 minutes of time to a harmless video?

Here's a teaser quote from halfway through for ya:


The Congressman who drafted HAVA, was representative Bob Ney, of Ohio. Bob Ney’s other successful legislation was to rename the capitol hill cafeteria’s French fries, as Freedom Fries to shame France for not supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Diebold paid Bob Ney’s former chief of staff, David DiStefano, 180,000 dollars, and Jack Abramoff 275,000 dollars to convince Bob Ney to include their machines as part of HAVA. Jack Abramoff was later convicted of bribing Bob Ney. And now, in the 2006 race, Bob Ney pled guilty to corruption charges in the Abramoff scandal. He drops his bid for reelection and checks into rehab. One of Ney’s aides reported that he would start drinking at 7:30 in the morning That means that the laws that we now have that govern our national elections were written by a criminal, while drunk.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Harold,
what is your view on the accuracy of vote counting in general. Either today, or historically, within the US.

Ophiolite, I think it's probably fairly accurate. Of course, you hear a lot about vote fraud.

It's not always the Republicans being accused. Mostly its the Democratic machines in the big cities that seem to be the worst offenders.

The Democrats have recently been accused of fraudulent voter registration in Virginia. Kwame Kilpatrick in Detroit apparently got away with sending out absentee ballots with his name already checked. There was a story about some precincts in Philadelphia that had 100% of registered voters turn out to vote, and they voted 97 or 99 % Democrat, something like that.

But it's all second-hand information to me, and probably exaggerated.

Cali, sorry about the name snafu. I was confusing you with somebody on another forum with the name Calilori. By the way, I'm not watching the movie on this dial-up connection. How about filling me in.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Somebody found a software glitch.

Because the SoS was suing their ass!
Do you think Blackwell would have sued Diebold if he was still SoS?

No votes were actually lost.

Yes, actual votes were lost, in the 2006 primaries in Ohio, and the bug responsible has been part of the code for ten years. "Look it up." You can do that by visiting the link in the first post on either of my threads!

Are you saying that a piece of code that was found, in practice, in the 2006 primaries, to drop votes - preferentially in urban areas - !! - did not drop votes in past elections? Are you saying that the code, which the comppany says has been part of the programming for ten years, just magically started behaving as written, ie started to drop votes in urban areas, this year?

What sort of code only follows it's program after ten years??

The machines my county used in the last presidential election were decertified by the state - the reason, lost votes. These were actual lost votes, 10,000 of them, not the hypothetical ones you are so worried about. As far as I know Diebold had nothing to do with it. These were Unilect Patriot machines. Look it up.

Ya, and actual votes were lost in Ohio, flipped in Florida, and the list goes on and on. Read about Diebold here, over 50 cases of problems:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/Dieboldinthenews.pdf

And I already said the other vendors stink too! Who cares if Diebold had nothing to do with Unilect? Throw all the bums out!

Hey, by the way, what is a democratic vote machine? This is the first I heard of it. Got a website for the fraud you mentioned?

Too bad you can't see the movie. The list is way to long for me to summarize.

If I had to summarize it I'd say: "Diebold is a bunch of crooks aided and abetted by members of our congress, with a definite republican emphasis."

But gee, that sounds a bit biased, especially to republicans. You really need to see the movie, as it is all referenced and itemized. It is scary shit. Flip all the republican emphasis to democratic emphasis, you know, as a sort of mental exercise, and you start to get the creepy feeling that democrats have had for a good long time now.

Cali, did you read this part of the Washington Post article?

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has said no Ohio votes were lost because the nine Ohio counties that found the problem caught it before primary results were finalized.

Now that conspiracy theory stuff about Bob Ney and all the connections with this or that politician or piece of legislation - that's just silly.

The Democratic machine I was referring to is the party machine. Good old fashioned corruption, no computer required.

Originally Posted by Caligirl

Boy, from esoteric to pseudopsychic denial!

You really do need to calm down. You can have little idea what my views on this matter are, since I have not yet expressed them. I am asking questions designed to clarify your view on the matter and to explore how you arrived at that view.

And while we are at it, opening a post with an insult may not be the best way to get someone on board.

I'm sorry you think that a legitimate vote will be accurate. Such a position raises the potential for accidental disenfranchisement. A vote is an expression of her voting preference(s) by a voter. A legitimate election is one in which all authorised voters wishing to vote are enabled to do so. If their ballot paper, or voting machine carry their wishes, then the vote is legitimate. If all non-authorised voters are excluded from the process, the legitimacy of her vote remains intact.

What happens next -whether manual or computerised - determines the accuracy of the process. Are all votes correctly counted? Well, no they are not. We can be pretty damn certain of that. So now we have a legitimate vote, a suite of legitimate votes, constituting a legitimate election, but the potential for a a flawed result beacuse of the inaccuracy of the vote counting process.

Harold, I well remember that Kennedy probably won his Presidential election on account of 'irregularities' in Chicago(?). Yes, sir, they don't make mayors like Daley any more. :wink:

Here's the links Caligirl asked for. I couldn't find that one about the Philadelphia 100% turnout. Well, I never said it was true anyway, just that it was alleged.

Virginia

http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8750084

Philadelphia

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

Detroit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

Ophiolite, Chicago still has a mayor Daley, and by all accounts he's as corrupt as his pappy.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Caligirl

Boy, from esoteric to pseudopsychic denial!

You really do need to calm down. You can have little idea what my views on this matter are, since I have not yet expressed them.

Actually, I don't! But I can leave if my enthusiasm is too bothersome for you! And the pseudopsychic was directed at Harold!

I am asking questions designed to clarify your view on the matter and to explore how you arrived at that view.

And while we are at it, opening a post with an insult may not be the best way to get someone on board.

I'm sorry you think that a legitimate vote will be accurate. Such a position raises the potential for accidental disenfranchisement. A vote is an expression of her voting preference(s) by a voter. A legitimate election is one in which all authorised voters wishing to vote are enabled to do so. If their ballot paper, or voting machine carry their wishes, then the vote is legitimate. If all non-authorised voters are excluded from the process, the legitimacy of her vote remains intact.

You really have a knack for going off into the arcane! Whether you think that's a insult or not isn't my issue!

What happens next -whether manual or computerised - determines the accuracy of the process. Are all votes correctly counted? Well, no they are not. We can be pretty damn certain of that. So now we have a legitimate vote, a suite of legitimate votes, constituting a legitimate election, but the potential for a a flawed result beacuse of the inaccuracy of the vote counting process.

If the votes aren't counted right, the result isn't legitimate. This is not a tough concept!

I'm gonna go look at those links Harold posted.

Harold are you saying that having drunk criminals write legislation amounts to no more than silliness? I'd call it something more like .... An incredible failure of our system!!!!

Don't give up on the american dream! A free, fair, just, and democratic society!!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Virginia

http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8750084

Philadelphia

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

Detroit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

The last link was a wiki, how's that connected to Detroit - I couldn't find detroit in the link?

I found it REMARKABLE that these cases amount to voter suppression and intimidation, which is criminal and happens on both sides no doubt! but that these cases don't involve electronic voting!! I wonder why, if the republicans are completely happy to investigate and report vote tampering (suppression etc) from the democrats, why are there not cases of electronic machine tampering by the democrats?? And yet!! There is case after case of electronic irregularities favoring republicans!

As far as the actual dropped votes! Ya! They were dropped! THEN they were caught! That doesn't mean they weren't dropped! The bug has been there for ten years!

DO YOU THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THESE MACHINES HAVE DROPPED VOTES DUTRING THE PAST TEN YEARS THAT WEREN'T CAUGHT? Diebold admits its programming drops votes, in areas that are known to lean democratic. Diebold is run by strongly partisan people. It is an outrage! It sure as hell isn't democracy!

I read your Diebold In the News link and that is a stunning litany of problems, covering programming errors, mechanical malfunctions and human error. Both parties seem to have suffered though. There's no consistent anti-Democratic bias as far as I could see. That's not to suggest that Ohio wasn't a case of deliberate tampering, because it apparently would have been easy for anyone with some limited knowldege of the system.

A paper ballot and a manual count would be preferable, but here we have 12 ballot issues plus the presidential vote and a senate vote making fourteen in all, and possibly more to come. A habd count would be impractical, perhaps.

Caligirl,

This is out of that wikipedia article:

A case for this had occurred into the United States, when Kwame Kilpatrick was running for reelection as mayor of Detroit. Kilpatrick supporters had nursing home residents sign absentee ballots which were either already marked or later marked as voting for Kilpatrick.

Or you could google something like "vote fraud kilpatrick" and find the story several places.

The story on the Diebold voting machines seems to be about a bug that wasn't found in the original testing. Yes, it was there for 10 years. That doesn't prove anybody put it there on purpose or knew about it 10 years ago. It could be very hard to detect if it only happens intermittently when several precincts are uploading their counts to the main computer at the same time.

You may have your suspicions, but that's all you really have. Hence, it's a non-story. Don't expect much to come out of it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Caligirl,

This is out of that wikipedia article:

A case for this had occurred into the United States, when Kwame Kilpatrick was running for reelection as mayor of Detroit. Kilpatrick supporters had nursing home residents sign absentee ballots which were either already marked or later marked as voting for Kilpatrick.

Or you could google something like "vote fraud kilpatrick" and find the story several places.

Three for three cases of vote registration mismanagement, not a single case of electronic tampering.Is it wrong? Yes! Is it telling? Also YES!!!

The story on the Diebold voting machines seems to be about a bug that wasn't found in the original testing. Yes, it was there for 10 years. That doesn't prove anybody put it there on purpose or knew about it 10 years ago. It could be very hard to detect if it only happens intermittently when several precincts are uploading their counts to the main computer at the same time.

You may have your suspicions, but that's all you really have. Hence, it's a non-story. Don't expect much to come out of it.

Until a week ago I had a suspicion that their code was written with loopholes so big you could drive a jeep through them. But that's "all I had, a suspicion."

Now I have an admission FROM THE COMPANY that they HAVE code and have had it for the past ten years that drops votes in democratic areas.

I never said it was intentional (Look it up!) But don't belittle this report!

The company has admitted gross incompetence at best!

Sleep on the information in the privacy of your thoughts and imagine the tables turned. See how complacent you feel then!!!

Originally Posted by Caligirl

Sleep on the information in the privacy of your thoughts and imagine the tables turned. See how complacent you feel then!!!

Oh, I don't have to imagine. I went through 8 years of the Clinton administration, following all those scandals quite closely. I know exactly how you feel. Now, take my word for it and just stick to the political issues. None of the other stuff is really going to convince anybody one way or the other.

I never said it was intentional (Look it up!)

You did call it fraud in your first post. :?

But don't belittle this report!

I agree - it's outrageous that they are only now admitting to the error.

None of the other stuff is really going to convince anybody one way or the other.

Convince them of what, Harold? Diebold has admitted their programming was faulty. Maybe the problems will be fixed by November, but why should we trust Diebold to be able to provide error-free counting, even if that is their honest goal? That's convincing enough for me to decide to vote by mail. Mail ballots are optically scanned, which is still not perfect, but at least there are no in-built flaws.

Bunbury

I don't really think the issue is about whether voting machines are a good idea. Caligirl thinks she has caught the Republicans in a dirty deed, they're all rotten, and everybody will be disgusted with them, throw the bums out, and vote for Obama.

Originally Posted by Caligirl

Actually, I don't! But I can leave if my enthusiasm is too bothersome for you! And the pseudopsychic was directed at Harold!

Don't go. We are simply having a rigorous and vigorous debate. That's one of the delights of a forum.
I had never been called a pseudopsychic before. Now I'm jealous of Harold!

You really have a knack for going off into the arcane!

Thank you. That is much more like it.

If the votes aren't counted right, the result isn't legitimate. This is not a tough concept!

It is however, by my definition, a flawed, restrictive and ultimately dangerous concept: dangerous to your American dream. (Please note that is American, not american. Have some respect.)

Now I have an admission FROM THE COMPANY that they HAVE code and have had it for the past ten years that drops votes in democratic areas.

Now, being very serious for a moment, this statement of yours lies at the heart of what disturbs me in your presentation. This is a science forum. (Yes, I know. It is the politics section.) Science demands precision. Precision is not a bad thing in other walks of life. (You seem to believe it is important in vote counting.) In science statements that lack precision, to the point that they are wrong, are best ignored. Your statement appears to fall on two counts.

1. You do not have an admission from the company. The company has admitted a failing. You did not extract this admission from them. By stating you have an admission you turn this from an objective statement into a subjective crusade. ( "Caligirl is back - and this time it's personal")

2. The code drops votes in areas having a certain demographic character. This demographic character is often associated with a preponderance of Democratic voters. Those two statements are quite different from your statement that the code drops votes in Democratic areas. If you cannot see this difference then take my advice - do not go into sales, science, or politics.

Caligirl thinks she has caught the Republicans in a dirty deed,

The machines are only part of it.

"[W]e anticipate Mr. Rove will be identified as having engaged in a corrupt, ongoing pattern of corrupt activities specifically affecting the situation here in Ohio."

http://current.com/items/89115853_go...election_theft

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Oh, I don't have to imagine. I went through 8 years of the Clinton administration, following all those scandals quite closely.

Ya, like where he put his penis, lied under oath, and how he made a few bucks! The guy was criminal but his election to office was an accurate reflection of the will of the people! If ya want to complain about Clinton's election go talk to Perot!

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 44,909,806 43.01%
George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican 39,104,550 37.45%
H. Ross Perot James Stockdale Independent 19,743,821 18.91%

Having Bush in office when he didn't win it is a bazillion times worse! The economy, the war for those magical disapperaring weapons, the deterioration of respect for america (hell I can't even capitolize it anymore) in the world, the nomination of harriett myers (!!) and two other judges that sure as hell wouldn't be on the court now if the guy that the people voted for was in office, Alberto Gonzales, hiring attorney's for political purpose, a 'permanent republican majority,' abu ghraib and waterboarding and chemical weapons in fallujah, Where's Osama bin Laden???, hurricane response as in nada, warrantless wiretapping, global warming denial, Terry schiavo, record deficit, debt, debt, debt, cooked intelligence !!! that has led to more US deaths than 9/11, underfunding basic research, you have your math I have THE math,

Shall I go on?

So I don't think you know how I feel! But I feel your pain for Clinton's perjury!

Caligirl thinks she has caught the Republicans in a dirty deed, they're all rotten, and everybody will be disgusted with them, throw the bums out, and vote for Obama.

Throw all the bums out no matter WHICH side their on! Do you disagree??? And I don't think all of the republicans rotten, have a looky at this one he seems like a good egg!

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prose...Spoon_Full.wmv

Watch it! It's a real live republican, an IT expert, talking about Diebold!!!!

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I never said it was intentional (Look it up!)

You did call it fraud in your first post. :? .

Ya I was probably a l;ittle overexcited there.

The US Supreme Court has ruled several times, under the First Amendment, that people have the right to speak and that the use of money to project that speech is constitutional. McCain/Feingold Act, was designed to limit this, McCain is sticking with one portion (Government Financed), yet both major candidates will spend record amounts this year. If ever tested in the SC, McCain/Feingold would be found unconstitutional, IMO.

It has always concerned me how folks, not from the US, see the US system to elect Federal Officials. There is simply no such thing as a National Election, that only one person is concerned with a total of all states, this the President. Technically each state is responsible for how their election system operates but by choice follows the dictates of political parties, on many issues. There are stark differences in how each party chooses their Presidential Candidate and how each state applies those rules.

Starting to complain today on what could happen or be a reason for one or more States policy in an election, would seem to show signs of insecurity about the person choice. Caligirl, you obviously should be concerned. Clinton, for all practical purpose, won the primary and under the rules of the Democratic party itself, should be the candidate. If you count only the electoral members that each State has in the General Election, Clinton would have won 75% of them.

Where I would have considered Ms. Clinton, based on qualification, dedication and some success I give her for Bill Clinton's policy, I see nothing admirable in the Candidacy of Obama, how he got there or how he would govern. Since you know this is the same attitude of many people, thinking the upcoming election will somehow controlled is at best setting up a premature excuse for what I believe will be a devastating blow to the Democratic Party, not the systems involved.

Originally Posted by Caligirl

If ya want to complain about Clinton's election

No, I'm not complaining about Clinton. He's long gone. I'm just sharing my experience and perspective on scandals. Of course if you want to keep banging your head against the wall, feel free.

By the way, what's a pseudopsychic?