Wisconsin: None dare call it vote rigging

[Huey P. Long]

COLUMNS
Bob Fitrakis

Wisconsin: None dare call it vote rigging
June 14, 2012

If vote-rigging prospers, none may call it vote-rigging. It simply becomes the new norm. Once again, the universal laws of statistics apply only outside U.S. borders. The recall vote in Wisconsin produced another significant 7% discrepancy between the unadjusted exit poll and the so-called "recorded vote." In actual social science, this level of discrepancy, with the results being so far outside the expected margin of error would not be accepted.

When I took Ph.D. statistics to secure my doctorate in political science, we were taught to work through the rubric, sometime referred to as HISMISTER. The "H" stood for an explanation of the discrepancy rooted in some historical intervention, such as one of the candidates being caught in a public restroom with his pants down and a "wide stance" soliciting an undercover cop. The "I" that came next suggested we should check our instrumentation, that is, are the devices adequately reporting the data?

Here's where U.S. elections become laughable. A couple of private companies, count our votes with secret proprietary hardware and software, the most notable being ES&S. Every standard of election transparency is routinely violated in the U.S. electronic version of faith-based voting. How the corporate-dominated media deals with the issue is by "adjusting the exit polls." They simply assume the recorded vote on easily hacked and programmed private machines are correct and that the international gold standard for detecting election fraud – exit polls – must be wrong.

They are not going to go through the rest of the acronym and check to see if the Sample makes sense, that the right Measurements are being taken, or whether or not there's been a breakdown in Implementing the exit polling. They won't check to see if the representative Size of the polling numbers are accurate, or if there are problems with the pollster's Technique, or if there was human Error, or if there's just bad Recording going on.

full-
http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2012/1936

[Huey P. Long]

1. "push and pray"

COLUMNS
Bob Fitrakis

Will "push and pray" voting prevail in 2012? The private companies behind the curtain: The great and powerful advocates of faith-based electronic voting
April 11, 2012

In this election year, the most important companies to watch are two you've probably never heard of -- Smartech and Triad.

In the 2004 presidential election, Averbeck worked closely with the late Michael Connell, the CEO of New Media Communications. Connell was Karl Rove's IT guru before his untimely death in a suspicious plane crash. As the FreePress.org has previously reported, then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell contracted with Averbeck to provide back-up computer services to report Ohio's official election results.

Ohio Secretary of State's office claimed they were unable to tabulate Ohio's votes within the state in real time because their computers had a supposed "denial of service" attack in the wee hours of the morning after the 2004 Election Day. Vote tabulations were then shifted to the Old Pioneer Bank building in Chattanooga, Tennessee where Averbeck ran his internet service company Smartech. (See New court filing reveals how the 2004 Ohio presidential election was hacked)

Averbeck's Airnet Group, Inc., doing business as Smartech, is a key company in the private, well-connected Republican world of electronic election systems. According to Airnet Group's website it is a "...a leading of advanced Internet hosting, network and application solutions for business, delivery services via secure state-of-the-art Internet Data Centers."

-

http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2012/1925

[Huey P. Long]

44. Who's behind these private companies? It's hard to tell: The corporate lines –

Here's Chris Floyd:
Who's behind these private companies? It's hard to tell: The corporate lines – even the bloodlines – of these "competitors" are so intricately mixed. For example, at Diebold – whose corporate chief, Wally O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, has publicly committed himself to "delivering" his home state's votes to Bush next year – the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked in the vote-count business by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing "steering group" stacked with Bushist faithful.

Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, which openly advocates a theocratic takeover of American democracy, placing the entire society under the "dominion" of "Christ the King." This "dominion" includes the death penalty for homosexuals, exclusion of citizenship for non-Christians, stoning of sinners and – we kid you not – slavery, "one of the most beneficent of Biblical laws." Ahmanson also has major holdings in ES&S, whose former CEO is Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. When Hagel ran for office, his own company counted the votes; needless to say, his initial victory was reported as "an amazing upset." Hagel still has a million-dollar stake in the parent company of ES&S. In Florida, Jeb Bush's first choice for a running mate in his 1998 gubernatorial race was ES&S lobbyist Sandra Mortham, who made a mint installing the machines that counted Jeb's votes.

Ahmanson, counter of America's votes, has admitted "My purpose is total integration of biblical law into our lives."

=

Avenging angel of the religious right
Quirky millionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. is on a mission from God to stop gay marriage, fight evolution, defeat "liberal" churches -- and reelect George W. Bush.
By Max Blumenthal

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/index.html

[Huey P. Long]

67. "Hacking Democracy" (HBO documentary link)-

"Hacking Democracy" (HBO documentary link)-

http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

-

The film is in 2 parts: Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2
-

The DVD of Hacking Democracy was released on March 27th 2007, and is available from Docurama. The DVD includes a number of extras including footage from Georgia and California never seen before. The extras chronicle some of the struggles that didn't make it into the final version but should be of interest to anyone interested in democracy.
Play the trailer
CLICK HERE to buy the DVD if you live in the US or Canada.
If you live outside the United States or Canada, then please e-mail us via the Contact Us page




HACKING DEMOCRACY NOMINATED FOR AN EMMY®
Hacking Democracy was nominated for an 2007 EMMY' Award in the category OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM - LONG FORM
The full list of nominations for The 28th Annual Emmy Awards for News & Documentary can be seen here, and the winners are here




The Documentary
The documentary, first broadcast on HBO throughout November & December 2006, exposes the dangers of voting machines used during America's mid term and presidential elections. Electronic voting machines count approximately 90% of America's votes in county, state and federal elections. The technology is also increasingly being used across the world, including in Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe and Latin America. Filmed over three years this expos' follows the investigations of a team of citizen activists and hackers as they take on the electronic voting industry, targeting the Diebold corporation.
"Hacking Democracy" uncovers incendiary evidence from the trash cans of Texas to the ballot boxes of Ohio, exposing secrecy, votes in the trash, hackable software and election officials rigging the presidential recount.

Ultimately proving our votes can be stolen without a trace "Hacking Democracy" culminates in the famous 'Hursti Hack'; a duel between the Diebold voting machines and a computer hacker from Finland - with America's democracy at stake.

"Hacking Democracy" was Executive Produced by Sarah Teale & Sian Edwards of Teale-Edwards Productions LLC


http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

[Huey P. Long]

84. Clint CURTIS wrote Software to STEAL ELECTIONS

Clint CURTIS wrote Software to STEAL ELECTIONS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=0IEo__WDiGQ

Eugene CLINT CURTIS, . EXCLUSIVE I N T E R V I E W a one on One interview with William Wagener,
Mr. Curtis wrote the vote rigging software with a Communist Chinese company
that got major contracts with NASA thru Tom Feeney. Later Mr. Curtis testified in OHIO about writing the vote stealing [ flipping ] to Congressman, but the MEDIA did NOT let the public see it, so we only have a amateur video of it.

[Huey P. Long]

97. Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws

-
Uploaded by helderheidgeloof on Sep 13, 2006

Main Findings The main findings of our study are:

1. Malicious software running on a single voting machine can steal votes with little if any risk of detection. The malicious software can modify all of the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machine, so that even careful forensic examination of these records will find nothing amiss. We have constructed demonstration software that carries out this vote-stealing attack.

2. Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.

3. AccuVote-TS machines are susceptible to voting-machine viruse! - computer viruses that can spread malicious software automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- ! and post-election activity. We have constructed a demonstration virus that spreads in this way, installing our demonstration vote-stealing program on every machine it infects.

4. While some of these problems can be eliminated by improving Diebold's software, others cannot be remedied without replacing the machines' hardware. Changes to election procedures would also be required to ensure security.

[Huey P. Long]

99. Sequoia Part 1 Those with access can hack with programmed ROM chip.wmv

Uploaded by AUDITAZ on Oct 29, 2008

Sequoia Part 1: Princeton University report released (10/17/2008) Video Excerpt of Shocking report on how it could be done is demonstrated on the Sequoia ABC Advantage voting machine. However, WinEDS central tabulator exchanges data before and after the election. This suggests that the data formats are at least similar if not identical.

The report states: Once installed, the fraudulent firmware is practically impossible to detect Once installed on a voting machine, the fraudulent firmware can steal votes in election after election without any additional effort; The AVC Advantage is vulnerable to hacks (fraudulent manipulations) in several different ways; Some of these hacks take the form of viruses that can automatically propagate themselves from one voting machine to another

If that wasn't bad enough, the Princeton study of the Sequoia system proves an even more blatant form of certification fraud: getting a system certified with one set of hardware and software, and then making undeclared changes. One smaller voting system manufacturer (Advanced Voting Solutions) has been thrown out in disgrace as a voting system supplier over this issue already.

The Sequoia voting machines tested in this video by the Princeton team are the older "Advantage" optical scanners. What we use in Maricopa county, Arizona are the slightly newer (mid 1990s-era) and were originally ES&S equipment (Model 100 (5.0.0.0) and Model 150/550 (2.1.1.0). In 2006 they were converted into Sequoia Optech Eagle (1.28/1.50).

Maricopa Countys Central count scanner Model 650 (1.2.0.0) all refitted with Sequoia software and now called the Optech 400-C central count tabulator with (WINETP Firmware version 1.10.5). . The Insight precinct count units, memory pack readers and memory packs are all new with the Sequoia Memory Pack Reader (MPR) (2.15).

Previous public records requests have shown that Sequoia has committed misconduct in the certification process for their overall system by withholding a software component (the ballot layout generator) from all Federal and state level (ANY state) certification. In short, that means only Sequoia knows how their voting system works, legally an anathema in AZ and most other states. Certification means an outside testing agency reviewed the system.

Much of our work in Maricopa on Sequoia is base on our finding from the February 06 Presidential Preference Election - FULL REPORT: http://www.bbvdocs.org/sequoia/Maricopa-County-Elections-Report.pdf (5,769 KB)

For complete Princeton University report and 90 minute video go to:

http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/

[RC]

2. When are we going to do something about this for real.

There are international groups that can come in and monitor our elections. We need to do this if we are to have any chance of getting control of our nation back,

[SemperEadem]

3. I go to the board of elections

and do my early voting there. Paper ballot.

[Huey P. Long]

6. If early voting is similar to other places, your vote is never counted.

They only go to early votes or absentee ballots IF the computer votes are 'close'. I believe 'they' make sure that never happens.

[greiner3]

16. Bizzzzzzzzzzz;

Fail. Early votes ARE COUNTED in ALL circumstances. I'm sure you have seen news stories saying, "despite an early vote lead by candidate x, candidate overcame candidate y and was elected dog catcher by 3 votes to 2.

[Huey P. Long]

28. The hostility/sarcasm is sort of funny in its defensiveness.

The qualifiers are 'if' and 'I believe' in my reply. I did not know if it was the case and said so. I do know that is the case for absentee voting. Sorry to upset you so.

[MrModerate]

34. Excuse me . . .

Absentee ballots are routinely ignored?

[patrice]

51. It's the PROVISIONAL ballots that are almost never counted. nt

[Igel]

106. You're overgeneralizing.

One point doesn't make a line.

After one of the recent national elections somebody was quoted as saying that unless the vote was close, so that provisional ballots could make a difference, they didn't count them.

A few other similar quotes were dug up.

This quickly went from "unless the number of provisional ballots could make a difference" became "unless we have time" to "we try not to" to "we don't." It went from a random practice to universal practice.

I know when I worked the polls the provisional ballots were counted. They were called "affadavit ballots"--same thing--and they were counted within a couple of days. A lot of them were hard to count, and I watched (not realizing it at the time) our precinct chair invalidate a number of (D) ballots by giving the voters incorrect instructions. (I'd point out that our precinct chair was (D), had been (D) for his entire life, and had served as chair of the local (D) committee. He didn't look at his flip card for the right procedure, the arrogant jackass.)

[SemperEadem]

175. where I vote, it is counted

"if" and "I believe" = speculation--meaning you don't know what you're talking about because if you did, you'd have a link to back that mess up.

[robinlynne]

95. Here in LA County, early votes are counted as absentee votes. All absentees are handled by ES&S.

I don't know about your county but I avoid absentee voting like the plague.

[millijac]

138. I'm a poll worker in Massachusetts

ALL ballots are counted by scanner. Paper ballots are only part of the answer. The problem lies in HOW the votes are counted. Not if.

[Atman]

4. The GOP corporate media supports this through constant predictions...

...of a "horse race," and too-close-call polling. Notice, virtually every race has been like this since Bush's selection in 2000. Hmm. This just softens the public and prepares them for when the candidate who shouldn't have won wins. Oh well, we throw up our hands and assume the race was such a squeaker that we there is no point in protesting it.

The crowning GOP achievement of the Bush years was privatized electronic voting. And the biggest disgrace of We The People was that we allowed it to happen.

[sulphurdunn]

5. The corporate news blackout

of vote rigging allegations and evidence to back them up is total. It gives more coverage to Obama's birth certificate. Which is really all one needs know about the real function of corporate media.

[Huey P. Long]

8. Its not just the corporate media. Our 'representatives' are stone silent as well.

They know, and say NOTHING.

[shcrane71]

19. +1000

[madashelltoo]

7. This is why the Repigs are so confident.

They KNOW the fix is in. Every program needs to be checked before the first ballot is cast or we will be lining up for naught.

[DFW]

9. Howard Dean and Rush Holt have been right all along

We should get rid of unverifiable electronic voting altogether and return to physical ballots.

We should never EVER let machines built by partisan companies do the vote counting in any case.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."--Iosef Stalin
"It's all over bit the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."--Rep. Peter King, R-NY on election day, 2004.

[Chipper Chat]

18. I remember watching that Peter KIng quote on TV and was aghast.

Then I realized he appeared to have had a snootfull and made an astonishing major slip-up. The media NEVER made an issue of this. 'Whora O'Donnell' just said "I don't think he really meant that' and MSNBC went on to blame Kerry's loss on his windsurfing.

[Huey P. Long]

31. "are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?"

Uploaded by UNCOUNTEDTHEMOVIE on Jul 7, 2008

http://www.UncountedTheMovie.com

"Mr. Curtis," said the questioner at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee proceedings, "are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?"

And so begins the story of Clint Curtis - computer programmer, Floridian, Republican - who was asked by the company he worked for to create a vote-rigging software prototype that he assumed would be used to try and "catch" would-be fraudsters. It was a standard "opposition research" assignment - or so he was told. The truth, of course, was something completely different and weaves into a tangled web the 2000 Presidential Election debacle, a now-sitting U.S. Congressman, and the number one threat to our national security - electronic voting.

[hue]

10. Thank You for this important article!! K&R

While I respect and see the necessity of self reflection I am repulsed by those who only want to put the onus of the result of the Walker recall election on the Democrats. Indeed the numbers did not equate and no matter how energetic, organized and grass roots we were the win for whoever went against Walker just wasn't going to happen. IMHO it began with the "polls" (propaganda numbers) being 50-50-->just as it is for Pres. Obama/Romney now. Thus the public will not be inclined towards disbelief when the actual unlikely Republican wins via hacked voting machines.
The absolute consistency of the red shift should be a red flag for fraud with our voting machines. We know the results are unverifiable!
The GAB must be held ACCOUNTABLE!!

[GarroHorus]

11. Around here, none dare call it conspiracy theory BS

Too many times I see the assertions of electronic voting machine fraud yet not a shred of real evidence to back up the assertions.

It's every bit as ridiculous as the screaming nonsense from Republicans about "wide spread voter fraud".

It's every bit as ridiculous as the birthers and truthers.

It's every bit as ridiculous as the moon landing deniers.

[Zorra]

14. Wanna buy a piece of land?

1000 acres 74 miles west due of San Francisco. Great ocean view!

A real bargain at only $100 an acre.

There's no need for you to see it before you buy it - just trust me on this.

Call 555-555-1212

[GarroHorus]

17. Ha ha

I read a post almost identical to that in one of the Freeper Birther threads when a Freeper dared to call it conspiracy theory BS. Very entertaining.

Of course, there, the person calling out the conspiracy theory BS was "zotted". I haven't been banned for calling conspiracy theory BS conspiracy theory BS here. At least not yet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. False equivalency

Election fraud is not a conspiracy theory.

[GarroHorus]

29. Ha ha

That's what Republicans say about voter fraud.

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. I take it you know all about what they say

LOL

[Zorra]

27. Fine. You drive a hard bargain. $150 an acre, firm.

The owner of the land is a GOP multinational corporation, they don't allow people to see their land before they buy, they say the land is proprietary. You can trust them!

DU Electronic Voting Links Library

There are many things you might get tombstoned for, but posting that electronic voting is a conspiracy is not one of them. However, posting that folks who are critical of electronic voting are conspiracy theorists will get some knowing smiles from long time DUers.

BTW, welcome to DU!

[GarroHorus]

32. No evidence of electronic voting machime fraud during an election has ever...

been presented. It's conspiracy theory nonsense.

[proud2BlibKansan]

113. Except right here in this thread

[GarroHorus]

114. No evidence was presented

Only hyperbole, rhetoric, and supposition have been presented in this thread.

[Exultant Democracy]

127. Exit polls are evidence. They are used to detect tampering in every other real democracy.

[GarroHorus]

130. They only detect tampering when the exit polls are horribly divergent from the results

That was not the case in WI and when all of the exit polling data was tabulated, the results matched up fairly closely, at least within the margin of error for the exit polls.

[Exultant Democracy]

181. 7% isn't even close to the margin of error

[skepticscott]

155. Where is the paper trail for the exit polls?

Can we go back and re-count what people actually said, or do we simply have to trust that the pollsters recorded it honestly and accurately?

[Exultant Democracy]

182. I don't have the time to teach you a poli sci statistics class, but your question is silly.

Occam's razor would dictate that vote rigging is the simplest answer for numerous reasons. That is why in every other real democracy exit polls are used to detect wide-scale vote tampering.

[skepticscott]

183. The question is not about statistics

It's about the keeping of verifiable records, whereby each poll response can be re-examined by an independent auditor, and confirmed as the accurate record of a respondent, not something faked. Your lack of an adequate response tends to confirm that no such records exist. We simply have to go on trust, not a verifiable paper trail.

And Occam's razor notwithstanding, the simplest explanation still requires affirmative evidence to ultimately accept it. Occam's razor is not evidence, simply a guide for where to look first.

[Exultant Democracy]

184. No you question was entirely about the validity of statistical analysis as a check against fraud

Here take this free class by MIT. You should understand why your question really makes no sense by the end of the course.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-science/17-872-quantitative-research-in-political-science-and-public-policy-spring-2004/

[peace13]

139. Ohio SOS Jennifer Brunner called Ohio's electronic machines 'easily hackable'.

When I took the poll worker class form a Diebold contracor I asked him if these machines were attached to the internet. His answer was, 'Do you see any wires hooked to that machine?' At that point in history I sat with a wireless machine in my home on a daily basis. Believe what you want to. I beg to differ.

FYI I was not called to serve at the polls that year and when I asked why the BOE official told me that he couldn't have me quesitoning the machines at the poll. So you see if anyone asks questions they are not called. I told him to ask my workmates if I was professional and concientious. The next election I worked but that was my last. I couldn't stand the farce of it all. The machines are deadly to elections, especially in OHIO.

[Aerows]

162. I'll believe her

and you, a long time DUer, before I'll believe someone that hasn't even been here a month and seems extremely strident about convincing people that voting machines and tallying machines are a-ok!

[sabrina 1]

100. You're trying too hard.

So, back to facts. How do we verify that all votes have been counted accurately? As an expert on the subject I am interested in your view?

[GarroHorus]

104. Actually, I'm not trying at all.

There are no experts on the subject of electronic voting machine election fraud as it does not exist.

[sabrina 1]

117. No experts on voting in the US?

That's a sad statement.

Can you give us one instance of when there was, eg, vote flipping (happened to my GF when she tried to vote for Kerry and her vote registered for Bush three times before Kerry finally came up on the screen, and she was not alone) and it was necessary to check the machines, one instance where that happened and the machines were checked to make sure those mistakes did not register for the wrong candidate?

[Huey P. Long]

107. Actually, the poster is doing the equivilent of the hear, see, speak no evil routine.

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[LanternWaste]

141. I recently read a third graders' essay that read much like your own statement.

:I read a post almost identical to that in one of the Freeper Birther..."

Odd... I recently read a third graders' essay that read much like your own statement. very entertaining too. That third grader too was never expelled for not calling what she considered a conspiracy (breakfast before school) a conspiracy.

(see, a back-handed compliment may fly either way... In the end, six of one is still half a dozen of the other, despite the rationalization that will inevitably be made.)


On the off chance you have anything of substance to add-- sources, citations, hypotheses, etc., they would be much more welcome than petulant implication and labeling something as BS for its own sake. Just a hint...

[zeemike]

21. "not a shred of real evidence "

You hear that all the time...and it is usually about things that have a great deal of evidence.
But that is how language works...truth can be changed by such statements....but only if you are wiling not to look too closely.

And in this case there is lots of evidence but if you don't see it you don't have to deal with truth.

[GarroHorus]

33. Ha ha

That's what birthers say about Barack Obama being.born in Kenya.

[zeemike]

41. I know...that is my point.

They have the the birth certificate and other evidence that he was born in the US but they say there is no "credible evidence"

And in election fraud in 2000 there is the same credible evidence all over the place and you still say there is no evidence...not to mention other elections all over this country...evidence is only credible if it proves what you think it should prove....and all else is called not credible.
All that is necessary is to find someone who debunks it no matter how flimsy the debunking is and you can call it not credible...that is how they control things.

[GarroHorus]

43. You actually took my response wrong

What you said about there being tons of evidence to support your silly allegations of widespread massive electroninc voting machine election fraud is analogous to what the Birthers say about Obama being born in Kenya.

That is to say, there is NO EVIDENCE. There are only allegations with no support.

[zeemike]

76. Except that there actually IS evidence for voter fraud

and a small sampling of it is here...and the birthers have what?...a fake Kenya birth certificate that is shown to be fake?...and the same tired old attacking the credibility of the evidence that he was born in the US?...hardly an analogy in my book.

[GarroHorus]

81. There is NO evidence of widespread voter fraud

Just as there is no evidence of electronic voting machine election fraud.

The Republicans claim illegal aliens and dead people vote in such numbers as to affect the outcome of elections, but there is no evidence of that voter fraud.

[Botany]

147. do you want real proof?

go to the Ohio's Sec. of State Web Site and look @ the 2004 returns ....

lots of places have 99.7% turn outs .... miami county

one can also see the fingerprints of the vote switch too.

[groovedaddy]

178. Maybe the evidence you're looking for can only be found

by someone with expertise examining the evms before and after elections. Is that done? Not where I vote. The Iranians saw no evidence of stuxnet UNTIL it was too late. And that was an attack! There are some other digital "plants" that are on millions of computers and the users don't know it. Some are "planted" simply to watch and don't draw any attention. Clearly, the Iranian techies saw no EVIDENCE of stuxnet, but that didn't prevent stuxnet from doing what it was designed to do.

Anomalies may not be evidence, per se, but they should be raising red flags to any reasonable person.

I called out our County Clerk in a meeting after we started using evms. "What do you do for a recount?" "We make sure the number of people who signed in to vote matches the number of ballots cast on the machine." "How do you verify that the person's vote registered for the candidate they intended to vote for?" "We can't." Paper ballots don't have that problem.

Finally, there is ample evidence that the g.o.p. was involved in purging voter rolls in Florida in 2000 that was targeted toward Democratic voters. Thousands of legit voters were denied the right to cast their ballot. They have proven themselves more than willing to cheat in elections. Anyone who can't see this, is either not looking, naive or a g.o.p. plant trying to get people to look at something else.

[Zorra]

92. Obama has a paper genuine birth certificate.

I have absolutely no proof of my vote.

[GarroHorus]

94. I see the paper recording of my vote when I vote on a machine

It's right there. I verify it before I leave.

[Zorra]

108. Vote flipping:

http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6577

So do you want the land or not?

Price per acre reduced to 175%!!!

Hurry, don't miss out!!!

[GarroHorus]

110. Not a single instance of that in any election

Try again.

[Zorra]

126. Hoooweee!!! Should we believe what we see, or what you tell us?

[The Doctor.]

86. That is exactly correct.

The evidence that OH '04 was rigged is overwhelming. Hell, there's outright proof. But so long as someone doesn't want to believe it, they will not see.

[hue]

30. At the risk of being redundant (which obviously is nothing new to you),

I'd say it is ridiculous for you to imagine we are afraid of being called ridiculous for wanting our votes to be valid & verified.

[GarroHorus]

36. I vote on epectronic machines and my vote is valid and verified

There is a piece of paper in the machine that records my vote. Valid and I verify my vote is accurately recorded. No problems.

[Jake2413]

48. Do you really believe

that a program can't show you voted for "X", validate it on the screen that you voted for "X" and then tally your vote for "Y". That is the easiest thing a programmer can do.

[GarroHorus]

55. Do you really believe a massive widespread conspiracy to do that exists?

You do realize that would require a conspiracy on a massive scale, don't you?

[Jake2413]

68. Actually it would take one person putting one line of code is a program.

And it could be done using a virus. All these counts are transmitted to a final count location somewhere, Secretary of State's office, therefore there is a data connection to hack. And from what I have read Case Western Reserve University has been able to hack every electronic voting machine build.

And I don't believe in widespread but very possible selective vote stealing. All that was needed in 2004 was one state and one county in Ohio to give the state to Bush. And I have no proof but why were Ohio's vote sent to a company in TN and then sent back to Ohio. Just a lot if WTF moments. To say you have no proof does not make it so. There is nothing wrong with questioning when the exit polls say there may be an issue. "keep moving, these are not the drone we are looking for" (sorry couldn't resist)

[GarroHorus]

71. Then the same could have been done with the old IBM punch cards

Again, never happened. No evidence and really, you do need a widespread conspiracy no matter how much you wish to deny it. One person would never be able to pull it off. There are tabulators at multiple levels and a trail of data.

[Jake2413]

74. You are correct punch cards could have been hacked as well.

All this is well and good and we will never agree but why after numerous elections when the exit polls were spot on are they now not even close? Exit polls are used world wide to verify elections and suddenly ignored here. Sorry, but where there is smoke there is fire.

[GarroHorus]

83. Early voting

There is no way to accurately exit poll early voting, especially if early voting occurs by mail.

Early voting is more common every election cycle. IT is probably going to wane a bit this cycle but only because Republicans want to shut it down to depress turnout which helps them win.

You concentrate on things that have an actual effect on the outcome of an election, such as efforts to depress turnout. Ignore the crap that has no effect, like the BBV crap.

[Jake2413]

140. Here is link for you to checkout.

www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2011/4239

[Aerows]

161. The Ohio Secretary of State

stated that it was very easy to manipulate voting results with simple techniques. If she went out on a limb and said that, I tend to believe her - a lot more than I believe some random person on the internet.

[GarroHorus]

177. Yes

Unless there is a massive conspiracy to do otherwise.

[eridani]

176. Supply evidence that the record is accurate.

Prove that what is on the CPU is the same as what is on the paper.

[Huey P. Long]

35. Uncounted - Clint Curtis: Million Dollar Programmer

"Mr. Curtis," said the questioner at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee proceedings, "are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?"

And so begins the story of Clint Curtis - computer programmer, Floridian, Republican - who was asked by the company he worked for to create a vote-rigging software prototype that he assumed would be used to try and "catch" would-be fraudsters. It was a standard "opposition research" assignment - or so he was told. The truth, of course, was something completely different and weaves into a tangled web the 2000 Presidential Election debacle, a now-sitting U.S. Congressman, and the number one threat to our national security - electronic voting.

[zeemike]

46. But that is not "credible evidences"

Because he is a democrat plant that just lies about things under oath....Tom Feeney is the credible one.
(the sarcasm should be obvious)

[Huey P. Long]

78. Haha...is that what is said?

Nevermind sworn testimony under oath (for which one does under penalty if untrue). They launch a flimsy off the cuff 'conspiracy theory' to counter the legitimate conspiracy, all the while calling you a 'conspiracy theorist'?

[TomClash]

58. The discrepancy between exit polls and actual results IS evidence

The unverifiable nature of much of the voting is also evidence.

What you want is a "smoking gun" that ends all debate. That's an impossible standard to meet when all of the physical evidence is in the hands of people who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, not rocking the boat. It is a subjective standard applied only to what are deemed "conspiracy theories."

[GarroHorus]

66. No, it is not.

Exit polls have margins of error. Exit polls do not poll early voters. Exit polls are fallible.

[TomClash]

77. It is evidence and you have not refuted that evidence

Exit polls have been remarkably accurate over the years and then were declared inaccurate suddenly. The exit poll-actual result discrepancy still exists, but as Fitzrakis says, it has been explained away only by questioning exit polls, not by investigating the actual results. Why is that so?

[GarroHorus]

79. What has changed is the REPORTING of exit polls

The night starts out without all the data. If early exit polling indicates a fairly wide margin and the early results from those key districts align, the race is called. If early exit polling indicates a blowout, the race is called the moment the polls close. If there are wonky results comparing early exit polling data to early returns but a clear outcome is still expected, they report "too EARLY to call" If early exit polling indicates it's within a percentage point or two, it's "too CLOSE to call".

We saw this play out in WI. Initially, the early data indicated "too CLOSE to call", then additional exit polling data came into play and it was "too EARLY to call" for a few minutes. Then it became clear the results were going to be close to the full exit polling data and hte race was called for Walker.

It's all about the competition in the media, not some weird conspiracy to "hack the vote".

[TomClash]

96. I am familiar with this point

It was the same point made in 2004 in Pennsylvania, where the discrepancy was large, or Florida in 2004, where there was some discrepancy. To believe this, you have to believe that voters who vote later in the day vote Republican. I am not sure that's true.

[GarroHorus]

98. The same thing happens in elections the Democratic candidates win.

It doesn't matter who ends up winning, the effects are the same.

But give any Democratic defeat, people are going to point to media attempts to be the first to call it and scream "TEH MACHINES ATE OUR VOTES!!!"

[TomClash]

128. Why is it so rare for Democratic candidates, though?

And like I said, to believe your explanation, you have to believe Republicans vote late in the day. I don't see any evidence of that.

[GarroHorus]

129. It's not so rare for Democratic candidates

It's about the same for both.

I read blogs and sites for both conservatives and liberals. I see the same crap about "stolen elections" on the rightwing sites as I do on leftwing sites.

It's a form of denial. Nobody wants to believe their candidate actually lost, especially in a very close race, so they adopt the "stolen election" meme. It affects us more when our candidate loses than when they win, too. I assure you, both sides do this.

Heck, after 2006, the Bev Harrises of this world moved over to the rightwing sites to sell their Black Box Voting line of crap. It's a scam all about gaining money from people in denial. Those who were in deeper denial went Birther like many on the left went Truther after 9/11. It's a common human behavior pattern.

[TomClash]

158. "It's the same for both"

Speaking of evidence . . . do you have any?

[EFerrari]

73. Calling Bob Fitrakis a conspiracy nut is in itself embarrassing.

Maybe find out who he is before you dig that hole any deeper.

[Huey P. Long]

75. The tactic is tried and true. Make fun and name call to get people to dismiss.

[EFerrari]

85. Fitrakis is pretty much the gold standard on this topic

so attacking him as some kind of nut only reflects on the attacker and not very well.

[Misskittycat]

91. Yes - agree. Bob Fitrakis is highly credible on this topic. n/t

[Zorra]

93. +1. Yep. It's sheep chow. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

132. +1

[midnight]

160. Take time and listen to Clint Curtis tell us why the Florida Machines were

destroyed....It would of shown code and or hacking access....

Clint CURTIS wrote Software to STEAL ELECTIONS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=0IEo__WDiGQ

[Samantha]

171. Take a look at this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1072861

Here are four paragraphs quoted in the Bradblog thread. Check the link for a picture of those convicted and a link to the entire article.

"It is now officially impossible to know whether thousands of paper ballots being counted in the state of Wisconsin's Supreme Court election "recount" are the same ones actually cast on Election Day. It didn't have to be that way, unlike in Kentucky, where the voters never had a chance, and where high-ranking election officials have now been sentenced to more than 150 years in federal jail following "decades" of manipulated elections.

In 2009, a spate of high-ranking election officials in Clay County, KY --- including the County Clerk, a Circuit Court Judge, the School Superintendent, a former Magistrate, and several polling place officials --- were arrested in a massive vote buying/selling and electronic vote-machine rigging conspiracy which netted the criminals millions of dollars over the past decade. The federal charges included the County Clerk and other members of the Board of Elections having intentionally falsified election reports to include inaccurate voting results when submitted to the state.

One Republican election official pleaded guilty after the arrest two years ago, and the other eight were found guilty and convicted last year in federal court. They were sentenced this past March to a total of more than 1,871 months in federal prison.

And last week, in a separate, newly developing case, state officials impounded electronic voting machines in Perry County, KY after Republican candidates in last November's election complained of "vote rigging" on the county's 100% unverifiable electronic voting machines..."


Sam

PS: Those found guilty received a cumulative total of 156 years in prison. Please note, one of them was a County Clerk....

[eridani]

174. It is not up to voters to prove election fraud

It is up to elections departments to prove that results are trustworthy. That's how analytical chemists operate--we submit evidence that our tests are valid. We do not require customers to attempt to prove that we might be wrong.

[rhett o rick]

12. The Democratic Party has a lot of resources. When will they recognize that

there is no use in running candidates that are going to be defeated by simple electronics. The Democratic Party should demand verifiable elections.

How long are my so-called Congressional representatives going to allow election stealing?

[INdemo]

13. Exception,in 2010 when the Repukes gained control of the house there

were races being called strictly on the result of exit polling....I mean hardly 1 or 2 % of the votes were tallied and they were giving us projected winners...Now in the case of a Democrat leading in exit polling they will not use those numbers because ..if all failed they could not use the "rigged results" so they ignore the exit polls..
...In 2004 when John Kerry won Ohio and exit polling confirmed that,then the media ignored those results to report the nearly 200,000 votes for Bush that was "overlooked"...

The Democratic Majority had their chance to insure fair elections and that was the talk for months,then all of a sudden it got buried beneath corporate lobbyists money..

[shcrane71]

23. One only need to watch/listen to which party/politician the Corporate media is fawning over.

That's going to be your winner. There was an ice skating race during a Winter Olympics during the Bush years that was aired live. The US announcers said that we would win that race hands down, and our guy lost. Then the winner was disqualified, and the US got the win. It's the same with our political races. Votes mean nothing.

[INdemo]

80. Our framer's of our Constitution would have the majority of these election thieves in

shackles...This is just unbelievable how we are losing our Democracy more rapidly than we realize....
But do these wealthy bastards really care..Do they care if we become a fascist state,burn the constitution,the bill of Rights as long as they have their wealth I believe the think they can rule the world as a corporate dictatorship.
There is very small percentage of individuals that could bring any country down economically..It happened 4 years ago....
Our free election process ended in 2000......

[shcrane71]

103. +1000

Middle Eastern countries can bring down long standing dictatorships with the advent of social media. WI gets twice as many signatures as they need for a Recall; yet, Walker stays in. Dane County said that they had unprecedented numbers of voters and new voters, but the media isn't talking about unprecedented voter turn-out. Certainly seems that stories are being suppressed.

[liberalnationalist]

15. my question is this

lets say the exit polls show Obama behind nationally -2.56% on election day....but he wins by lets say 7.24%

will we claim the vote is rigged....look exit polls are just that....exit polls

unless there is some proof...pictures,. recordings, a paper trail, something that show the election was "rigged"...then please be quite...I hate that scott walker won...i hate it...I also hate that 36% of union housolds are stupid enough to vote against their own interest...look we the dems got back the senate in Wisconsin...2012 will have more voters...

DEAL WITH IT!

[Chipper Chat]

20. Review the Max Cleland-Saxby Chambliss senate race.

Some exit polls had Cleland up by 14%. There is no way Chambliss "won" that election without fraud.

[Huey P. Long]

37. Yes, that is yet another one... -eom

[GarroHorus]

39. Then PROVE IT

PROVE the fraud or your allegations are just that, unsupported allegations.

[zeemike]

59. You can't prove anything if you decide what evidence's to look at.

And have the power to reject anything you don't like.
That is how they control the conversation.

[GarroHorus]

62. You can show a machine is hackable

The lever machines were hackable. I know of no instances of the lever machines being hacked in an actual election.

The IBM punch cards were hackable. It was not shown, however, errors exist with chads not being completely punched through.

Hell, paper ballots in a ballot box are hackable (aka "stuffing the ballot box). That's been shown

Nobody has shown it happened in an actual election when it comes to electronic voting machines. Until it is shown to happen, all there are are conspiracy theories.

[zeemike]

69. Well that can NEVER be shown because it is a machine

And that machine has proprietary software that cannot be examined and even if it could a program could be inserted that only shows up on election day and then destroys itself.
So it is a perfect crime if done...and you say that because it is a perfect crime it must not have happened...and anyone who questions it is a CTer.

[slackmaster]

125. Are there any paperless voting systems in use in Wisconsin?

I mean machines that only record votes electronically, and have no paper record e.g. an audit tape that the voter can see after casting votes?

Can anyone answer that question?

[zeemike]

133. They probably do have a paper trail in most places

But YOU can't see it unless you get a court order and to get one you must show cause...and sense you can't because you have access to neither machine or paper trail you don't get to see it.
the system is rigged and they will keep it that way.

[EFerrari]

134. Which is why paper trails are useless. We need paper *ballots*

which are certified and require an iron clad chain of custody and a substantial public audit.

[zeemike]

145. Absolute

We are being swindled out of a true certified ballot.

[slackmaster]

135. Your answer is a bit vague, but assuming that there is always some kind of paper audit trail, how...

...would that be any different than a purely paper-based system?

The electronic recording machines I have seen in use in past elections here in California allowed me to see a paper audit tape showing my votes. I have no business seeing anyone else's vote at any time.

That said, any voter in California has standing to ask for a recount, but in order to prevent abuses of the system there are some rules - Time limits and a requirement to reimburse the cost of the recount in the event that it doesn't alter the outcome.

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/elec/15620-15634.html

[zeemike]

142. Much different.

For one people count the vote.
And if every precinct just sold the machines and hired some retired people or people that needed a part time job on election day to count the votes in that precinct with observers of any party present it would be unlikely or impossible to steal an election...or even one precinct.
How many people could you hire for the cost of one machine?
there is absolutely no reason for this other than it is so easy for a computer to get it wrong.

And BTW there is no reason to know the results the moment the polls close ether.

[glowing]

38. You didn't read the article then.... Exit polling is rather precise.. When we send people

to monitor international elections, if there are discrepancies between between the results and exit polling; we cry foul... We, the USA, said that the Ukraine elections were rigged due to a 5% discrepancy between exit polling and actual results.

We should have international monitors to come and watch our elections... Exit polling is not "junk" science. Its normally pretty accurate in predicting wins; and has been the way in which agencies have gone into other countries to "monitor" the results.

[Igel]

112. Perspective.

We cry foul when the final numbers are out of line--and almost always where there's independent observation of what went on.

The problem is that the pollsters do exactly what the guy who took a stat class for PhD students in the Social Sciences say they don't do. He assumes they just "adjust the data" to match the final polls.

They adjust the data in a number of ways, and do it precinct by precinct. That's not matching it up to a single data point, that's matching it up to hundreds and hundreds of data points. You sample certain precincts, you know how they voted. That lets you deal with all the non-respondents. In the past, it's pointed out problems with the survey protocols, it's pointed out sloppy recording, it's currently pointing out that the pollsters had a bad model for interpreting the early data.

Early voting and absentee ballots aside, it's what you need to do. Yesterday there was a lengthy post concerning a racial bias in Gallup's polling methods pointing out exactly how you have to weight (opinion) poll numbers and all the reasons for it, that you can't use "unadjusted numbers". People like the idea that Gallup was misweighting numbers, and all over the idea--in support--that you have to adjust numbers. Mostly, it seems, because they liked the direction the adjustments went in. Not because they believed the math required it, but because it favored them. (Critical thinking? Just say no!)

[zeemike]

54. No exit polls are not just exit polls.

They have been used for a long time to insure fair elections in other countries and until 2000 were used in this country for the same reason...but when they showed Gore wining Florida that all changed and so they needed to "adjust" them to match the reality of what we were being told was real.
Just as they were "adjusted" in WI to match the results given us...

[liberalnationalist]

87. yes they are

1st..the media uses exit polls to conduct another poll just to conduct another poll to give them something to talk about on election night....like approximately how many people making under 50k voted for such and such...

2nd...people lie to pollsters, even exit pollsters....

3rd...the only poll that counts is the the vote made inside the voting precinct.

[Huey P. Long]

90. You confuse the use of them now with the use of them in the past.

Sure, they slice and dice to manufacture concent, but as many have already pointed out, and as in the article, they have been used many times in other countries to expose rigging.
Some must believe all is well though, so there is no place like home.

[liberalnationalist]

102. if there is rigging

we need more than exit polls to prove it

[Nye Bevan]

22. Shouldn't this kind of stuff be in the Creative Speculation forum?

After all, there is no more evidence that the WA vote was rigged than there is for MIHOP etc.

Exit poll numbers released to subscribers just before polls closed in the Wisconsin recall election Tuesday dangled the possibility that Milwaukee Mayor Tommy Barrett (D) could win. The numbers seemed to pop off the screen — 50 percent apiece for Barrett and Republican Gov. Scott Walker, the subject of the recall effort. Walker had a clear lead in independent pre-election polls, so the tie score sent analysts scrambling and buoyed Democratic hopes when the numbers were widely reported elsewhere minutes later at the official poll close time.

Just a half hour later, the exit poll shifted to 52 to 48 percent, tilting in Walker’s favor. (The final margin appears to be seven percentage points.) A potential Gov. Barrett era had ended before it started, and a fresh round of bash-the-exit-poll commenced.

.....

The exit poll is, after all, a poll, complete with a margin of sampling error and other foibles. One issue with the exit polling for the recall election was that there was no telephone survey of absentee voters. NBC News estimates at least 15 percent of all voters voted that way, and that they favored Walker over Barrett. The first exit poll numbers to include estimates of the vote breakdowns for absentee voters was the release a half-hour after poll-close, perhaps accounting for the shift from 50-50 to 52-48.

Another, easily forgotten aspect of early numbers is that they are preliminary. The exit poll includes several rounds of interviews with randomly selected voters as they leave polling places (sometimes augmented with telephone polls of early and absentee voters). Different types of people vote at different times of day, with results from morning interviews varying from those at other times.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-happened-with-the-wisconsin-exit-poll/2012/06/06/gJQA3GYfIV_blog.html

[GarroHorus]

40. I think it should

Since there has never been a single instance of electronic voting machine election fraud nor any evidence of such ever happening.

[hue]

42. There is much evidence that voting machines can easily be hacked...

from Argonne National Lab. I wonder if you are on a learning curve.

[GarroHorus]

45. There is ZERO evidence that they have ever been hacked during an election

Not a single shred of evidence, only unsupported allegations requiring tin foil.

[hue]

47. Who cares if there is "ZERO" evidence. That does not mean there is no evidence.

It simply means the evidence has not been found.

[Nye Bevan]

52. Hey.... that also applies to the shooting down of Paul Wellstone's plane!

And to MIHOP! Contrails! Earthquake machines! New world order! Etc.!

[Huey P. Long]

61. This tactic is old. Can't blame you for trying.

Smear, insult, and try to change the subject.

[GarroHorus]

63. Then prove your allegations

You can't, so you resort to scary supposition.

[Nye Bevan]

70. OK. I suppose "who cares if there is zero evidence" is a better tactic (nt)

[hue]

82. new evidence is being uncovered all the time...

to say "there is no evidence" does not mean evidence does not exist.
If I'm standing on the shore of a sea in the year 600 AD with my friend and notice the horizon we may think that is the edge of the world. We can believe it because there is no evidence it isn't the edge of the world. Yet there is much evidence it isn't the edge of the world, we just don't know it yet.
So if I say" who cares if there is no evidence" that does not mean the reality will not be proven in the future.
But I doubt this will mean anything to you. For example, there are still peeps who believe the world is flat.

[GarroHorus]

57. Yeah, right

Just like the evidence that World Trade Center 7 came down due to demolitions has not been found.

Or the evidence that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Kenya hasn't been found.

Or the evidence that the moon landings were faked hasn't been found.

[liberalnationalist]

88. I agree Garro

are elections rigged from time to time...sure...Lyndon Johson had his second senatorial election rigged by finding extra ballot boxes, just like his predicessor did

what people here on DU might not realize is that may tealibans cook believe that obama stole the election by 10 million votes

and guess what he is going to steal it again by that much or more!

[roody]

60. No paper trail. Where do you get the evidence?

[siligut]

89. Or reported, not found (not looked for) and not reported.

Precisely because the people who actually have the power to rig the vote, believe if we are told a lie often enough and with authority, eventually we will believe it.

[Flatulo]

169. So the evidence for the evidence is that there is no evidence?

[Huey P. Long]

50. "There's no place like home"! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The people know. Too bad for you. There is evidence, you just refuse to look at all of it.

[GarroHorus]

56. If there is evidence, PRESENT IT!

Oops, you can't. There is rhetoric, supposition, and allegations.

Nothing more.

[zeemike]

64. You mean sworn testimony under oath is not evidence?

And as it was posted here you simply ignored it...
And if sworn testimony under oath is not evidence then there can never be evidence...which seems to be what you want.

[GarroHorus]

65. Sworn testimony that something could happen is not evidence that it has happened.

Seriously, you should know the difference.

There is sworn testimony that dead people can end up voting. Just because it can happen does not mean it does happen.

[zeemike]

72. Which goes to opportunity and motive.

There are plenty of people in jail right now based on evidence that showed opportunity and motive.
But apparently there are new rules....you must prove something that cannot be proved and disregard all other evidence...unlike any criminal or civil law.

[Jim Lane]

143. By the legal standard of evidence, there is evidence.

I'm a lawyer admitted to practice in New York. If this question were being litigated in a New York trial court, quite a bit of the information presented in this thread would be deemed admissible evidence.

The legal standard for "evidence" is not "proves beyond a shadow of a doubt" or even the "proves beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases -- and it isn't even the "makes it more likely than not" standard for a verdict in civil cases. The standard for admissibility of evidence is that it makes the proposition at issue more likely than it would be without that evidence. (There are other rules, of course, such as the exclusion of hearsay.)

The legal system, which has evolved over centuries' worth of experience in resolving disputes of this sort, recognizes that, as a general rule, there won't be one piece of evidence that wraps up the whole question. A jury is supposed to consider the evidence as a whole.

While I'm in lecture mode: Nonlawyers sometimes use the phrase "circumstantial evidence" to mean "flimsy evidence" or even "worthless evidence". That's wrong. It simply means that the evidence is indirect. If the eyewitness saw the defendant stab the victim, that's direct evidence. If the eyewitness instead merely saw the defendant running down the street, away from the scene of the stabbing, soon after the time when the coroner estimates that the stabbing occurred, that's circumstantial evidence. It's perfectly good evidence. With enough circumstantial evidence, you can even get a criminal conviction, let alone a civil verdict.

Your repeated demand for evidence isn't articulated very precisely but I'm guessing that you reject what you've been shown so far because it's circumstantial evidence. Referring again to centuries of experience, I can tell you that your heightened standard for what counts as evidence has not commended itself to lawmakers, judges, and juries in the course of the Anglo-American legal tradition.

[Caretha]

156. Ol' Garro

Won't be answering your post...hehe.

Know why? Cuz he doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

His method is to put his fingers in his ears and hum and say "I can't hear you!!!" You don't exist - I refuse to be swayed by anything than what I want to believe.

Gawd what a waste of space.

[sabrina 1]

101. How do you know that? How do we verify that votes have been accurately

by counted by those machines?

[GarroHorus]

105. The same way we verify the votes were accurately counted with the old paper ballot.

If the election is close, we recount the votes. If not, we do nothing.

[sabrina 1]

118. I'm talking about votes flipping on the machines. Give one instance of when the machines were

checked to find out why they were mal-functioning and what happened to the votes that registered incorrectly?

[GarroHorus]

119. Give one instance where vote flipping actually happened.

Vote flipping is a nonsense argument. If it's close, there will be a recount. If it's a blowout, vote flipping would be obvious.

And you can't tell how it will go until the actual vote.

The vote flipping argument is pure bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

122. So, iow, people cannot verify the votes in those machines.

Thanks, you answered that exactly as expected.

[GarroHorus]

124. Sure you can. I did it the last time I used a touch screen

I read my vote on the paper receipt through the window. It registered my vote precisely. They used touch screen in early voting. On regular ballots, I fill out the ovals. Record of my vote right there precisely how I voted.

But keep making a non-issue and issue. It'll detract from the real issues.

[RC]

131. Never ever, with proprietary machines, with proprietary software, owned and maintained by private

companies, run by people openly supporting Republican and Conservative issues and candidates?

No chance of election fraud there. We know how civic minded and honest Republicans are.

To believe some people on DU, all conspiracy theories are fairy tails, no matter how well documented.
To believe that, is to believe that our government would never lie to us citizens.

[Huey P. Long]

136. When you are paid to 'not believe' something and your check depends on it

chances are you are going to continue to 'not believe' even when there is overwhelming evidence.

[The Doctor.]

24. Those machines must be destroyed.

I can't believe they're legal.

[Nye Bevan]

53. I agree, Doctor. Daleks are evil machines. Or did you mean cybermen? (nt)

[shcrane71]

26. I lived in a very RED state when the Tea Baggers were taking over.

No one, not even the biggest GOPers I knew, were tea party activist. Their rallies weren't well attended, but the Tea Party takes over all branches of government in traditionally blue states? That's really quite odd. Good thing the corporate media told me this is true, and we've had not investigated reporting on what changed people's minds.

[patrice]

49. Instant RunOff Paper Ballots, Marked by Hand, Encrypted Receipts, & Ballots Counted In Public on

a radically Patriotic National Voting Holiday that starts on a Friday and ends the following Tuesday morning.

[hrmjustin]

109. I agree that fraud may have been involved, but...

...what makes you think that he just won?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

115. Spending tons of money to alter the results of an election is vote-rigging. nt

[slackmaster]

120. Yes, it's unfortunate that A) unlimited amounts can be spent on an election by anyone, and B)

...that voters are so easily influenced by things other than a candidate's qualifications, or the merits of a ballot proposition.

That is the real scandal in modern elections.

The OP teases us by mentioning Wisconsin because this audience feels so strongly about that particular election, but fails to present any evidence that the official result isn't correct.

[librechik]

123. this issue is the ONE

issue which shows how little effect citizens have on the democracy of the present time. Under normal circumstances, multiple experienced voting experts with their hair on fire should have resolved this wrong turn within months of Dec 12, 2001.

But NOTHING. No investigations. No commissions. No special prosecutors. No changes in the way Certain States continue to Game the Vote. Just Repubs who happen to be the Secretary of State, and declare the winners despite the uproar.

All this while scientists, statisticians, voting officials with integrity, outraged citizens and others all scream for assistance. Year after year after year after year after year.

What a shocker--ALL these skewed elections favor Bush Repubs. That's why we know it is just a routine glitch and not to be worried about. Right?

Face it. There was a coup. "They" (faceless invisible powers) won. Now only the people they allow will ever take office. All while pretending it's just a fair election, stars and stripes, booyah.

[LiberalLovinLug]

116. We need Anonymous

I'd like to see a group like Anonymous totally hack the next election, making results come out so warped to the extreme that it would put an end to the "myth" that those machines cannot be manipulated. And maybe be the end of them. Of course Anonymous would have a more difficult time than those insiders with all the passwords and code right in front of them. But I'd love to see it happen.

[ryan_cats]

121. I'd never seen an electronic vote machine here in California until 2008 and it was unused where I we

I'd never seen an electronic vote machine here in California until 2008 and it was unused where I went.

We've always had paper ballots where you used to punch a hole until Florida so now we fill in the oval like a scantron. They could still hack the scantron reader but I still prefer paper ballots that can be used for a recount.

I don't trust electronic vote machines at all; you always hear how people trust ATM machines but when was the last time you heard of an ATM machine doing something wrong and they've been around since the late 70's?

It figures that the Bush klan is involved in this.

[Huey P. Long]

137. GOP even does it to themselves when needed-

GOP even does it to themselves when needed-

Published on Mar 22, 2012 by Kenny34515

2012 GOP vote rigging OFFICIAL STORY FRAUD GOP Delegate selection caucus. Athens/ Clarke County, Georgia

===

Uploaded by IrishStorm1 on Feb 22, 2012

They are at it again. Just as they had rigged the Bush election, they are now doing the same against Ron Paul. However, we need to be careful, as they are hoping that we will have been conditioned and accustomed enough to accept rigged elections by now, we all need to stand up and get much more assertive this time around and be prepared to fight back harder than ever before.

[Clouseau2]

144. I just posted this to my facebook ...

There was this wonderful short story, written decades ago, about how in the future, polling had gotten so accurate that the entire will of the population could be extrapolated from a single vote, so the election became a reality TV show about who was going to be the "citizen voter" that election. In the meanwhile, the entire country seemed unaware that in fact democracy had been replaced by tyranny and the election was a sham. Fast-forward to today, where more and more of our voting is done by electronic machines, the results tabulated and controlled by these machines sold by corporations with an agenda. Without PAPER ballots hand-counted by actual CITIZEN volunteers you cannot trust the results of ANY election. Other countries that care about the integrity of their elections do it this way. The 2000 election debacle did not spur us into creating more secure and accurate elections; it was just an excuse to throw billions to companies selling voting machines, manipulated by lobbyists and contracts given out to whatever company promised the cushiest jobs for the government election officials once they resigned their public sector jobs (the revolving door).

[xxqqqzme]

146. so if the Korporate Konservative

Kounters are so well placed and functioning, why are they so damned obsessed w/ voter suppression? Is rmoney doing so poorly that even hacking the count is dangerously obvious?

[Ghost of Huey Long]

148. well written, so glad someone is saying it

We need independent exit polls in every election, the corporate media cannot be trusted to serve the public interest.

If we cannot trust the media to serve the public interest (as required by their FCC license) and protect our democracy, the corporate
media can and should have their licenses revoked.

They should not be allowed to use our public airwaves for their personal profit.

[valerief]

149. That's because we live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy.

[Hubert Flottz]

150. Don't blame me I voted electronically

New Bumper Sticker...

[a2liberal]

151. I was dismayed when I saw long-term posters HERE

dismissing the obvious possibility of fraud and making fun of those considering it.

[Nye Bevan]

153. Do you think Paul Wellstone's plane may have been sabotaged?

Or that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives?

Because there is the same amount of evidence for these scenarios as there is for the voting machines in WA being hacked.

[shcrane71]

159. Are all the mail-in ballots in Washington tallied by hand?

I've always wondered how that works.

[TrollBuster9090]

152. I'm sure they'll get around to calling it fraud as soon as they label the 2004 Ohio exit poll

I'm sure they'll get around to calling it fraud as soon as they label the 2004 Ohio exit poll 'discrepancy' as fraud, and as soon as they label Don Siegelman as a POLITICAL PRISONER, and as soon as they label the 2000 election as being STOLEN by Florida voter purges and the crime BURIED by the Supreme Court.

That will, no doubt, happen as soon as the "American Exceptionalism" meme dies out, and people stop foolishly believing that things like that can happen HERE. 'Nah, only Italians can become Fascists, Germans can become Nazis; and ballot box stuffing only happens in Ferdinand Marcos' Philippines. But we don't have to exercise any diligence to maintain our democracy. We're EXCEPTIONAL!'

But frankly, if THE SIMPSONS make fun of it, it's GOT to be true!

[12zelda12]

154. Germany outlaws electronic voting

This should be a non-partisan issue because if the Republicans are hacking the machines, the Democrats are doing it or will be doing it too. In fact, here's a story in Pennsylvania during the Republican primaries, people were complaining:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-state/problems-with-new-voting-machines-scattered-minor-458349/

It's important to note that Germany outlawed electronic voting in 2009. Their reason: "the German Federal Constitutional Court declared that the electronic voting machines used in the 2005 Bundestag elections for the German national parliament were outside of the bounds of the German Constitution.

They reasoned that electronic voting is not verifiable because citizen votes are counted in secret. It obscured a technology inaccessible to all but a very few initiates. Most importantly, the German high court noted, electronic voting machines don't allow citizens to "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner" Mar. 3, 2009."

Also, go to this story reported on Brad's Blog in which 5 Kentucky Election officials were arrested in 2009 and eventually went to jail (accumulated sentences of more than 100 years) due to election fraud using touch screens:

http://www.cfvi.us/?q=node/68

People are deluded if they think electronic voting machines can't be rigged.

[Aerows]

165. From the article:

"In addition to the absurd charge that those of us who believe in transparency are unduly "attacking" election officials, the latest PR line from e-voting vendors, and election officials alike, is that there is no proof that any election has ever been manipulated electronically."

Sound familiar? I think I've heard this a few times in this very thread...

[Zorra]

167. You mean this part? What they call "the latest PR line from e-voting vendors"?

"there is no proof that any election has ever been manipulated electronically"?

Yep. I've seen it a few times in this thread too.
;

[Blue Owl]

157. K&R

glad to see this break 100 recs!!!

[shcrane71]

180. Me too... Without an election system that people believe in, we can't

resolve our other woes and build a just society.

[josejimenez]

163. The same people

The same people who get away with vote rigging, get away with bank account rigging, and get away with having undocumented workers as employees.

[lonestarnot]

164. We could do a massive show-up on our own and count them ourselves. What do you suggest we do?

[mojowork_n]

170. There may be a window of opportunity.

The date for certification of the June 5th election is the 23rd.

The state of Wisconsin's General Accountability Board has a procedure in
place for a "random draw procedure for voting system audit." I think it's
supposed to take place within a two-week window following the certification
date.

I could find a link here:

http://gab.wi.gov/node/1409

That page actually describes what was in place for the September primary election in
2010 (couldn't find a link to this year's, it may not exist on that state agency's
website), but it's basically a two-step process. A "random" sampling of several
different types of voting machines is selected for a paper-counted audit, with
steps in place to make sure that "at least 5 reporting units" will be selected to
test each of the different types of voting machines used in Wisconsin. So that
the audit actually checks the reliability or accuracy of all of the different
manufacturers' models. Then, when the audit list is complete, the county clerks
in each of the "randomly selected" reporting units are notified, and they perform
the audits locally. For the September primary in 2010, the web page reports that
"...Each municipal and county clerk selected shall be contacted by the close of
business on Wednesday, November 3, 2010."

So there are maybe still a few weeks left before that audit process begins.

But here's the kicker, this is the line on the web page that says how voting
machines will be picked for the paper audit:

"The staff shall use the random number generator in Excel to select 250 reporting units for audit by local election officials."

That's it. Nothing about any precautions to make sure that the (networked?)
PC on which the copy of Excel has been installed isn't, itself, subject to any
possible intrusion.

In this case, when we've already had people named and indicted for a "secret
wireless network" that was installed within 20 feet of Scott Walker's office, while
he was County Executive (that some people think was installed to allow 'unofficial'
partisan work and campaigning while they were also on the clock for state-paid
official job responsibilities), it might not be inconceivable that someone could
insist a few extra precautions are taken. (A judge, somewhere, I don't know.)

The circumstances of the 2011 recount for the State Supreme Court election
were also somewhat unusual, when bags full of ballots were discovered unsealed,
busted open and otherwise compromised.

With some of the Governor's top aides already named and indicted in the criminal
John Doe investigation....

...and last Sunday's largest circulation daily having taken note of the following:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dominance-in-rural-areas-ensured-walkers-win-h85ptpl-159315385.html

.....consider the swing nature of the 11-county Wausau TV market in north-central Wisconsin. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle won the Wausau market by 11 points in 2006. Democrat Barack Obama won it by 12 in 2008. Then Republican Walker won it by 12 points in 2010 and by 18 points in 2012.

Consider the Green Bay market. Obama carried it by seven in 2008 and Walker carried it by 23 in 2012.

Consider the La Crosse-Eau Claire market. Obama carried it by 19 points in 2008 and Walker carried it by nine points in 2012....

...Many of the same outstate counties Obama carried by single or double digits in 2008, Walker ran away with in 2012.

The fact that Walker won them by such unusual margins is clearly an encouraging sign for Republicans in November.

By the same token, Walker's performance in outstate Wisconsin was so exceptional it may be hard for other Republicans to duplicate.

One of the hardest things to know about elections is: When does something pretty unusual constitute a trend? And when is it just something pretty unusual?

Would it be possible to insist that instead of using some PC in a state office building somewhere -- that's almost certainly connected to other PC's in the state network, and other PC's beyond that network's firewall (?), the "random" audit is made truly random?

Get a brand new PC, never connected to the web or a network, and use the copy of Excel that's ever so

...c a r e f u l l y...

installed on it to generate 100 separate lists of the required 250 'reporting units.'

Pick one of those at random, and then go through the required steps.

Using a machine that's simply available, in some state office somewhere -- and known to how many people as the "official audit PC" -- completely defeats the purpose of holding a random audit. It would be the digital equivalent of going to a casino to place bets where you know that almost anyone, at any time, could wire up an invisible magnet to the roulette wheel. Or to use a more common analogy, like buying meat or deli items at a grocery where the person behind the counter has an invisible, electric thumb that could be applied to the scale. At any time.

If enough people get behind the idea, maybe we could make it happen. If every paper ballot that's hand counted exactly matches the machine-tabulated results in every reporting unit, it'll simply quiet all the talk about vote rigging. We can go on with politics as usual for the November election. Talk about messaging, and how to connect with all those out-state, Northeast voters who gave up on the Democrats in the recall. (Did they really? The anecdotal stories I heard had people out-state who were paid 100 bucks a pop to put huge Walker signs in their front yards actually intending to vote for Tom Barrett.)

It would really be a good way to separate and answer two distinct, unrelated questions. Question 1.) "What happened in the minds of voters that caused them to view the election as a choice, in the way that they did." and Question 2.) "Was the vote tabulation recorded by all the electronic voting machines -- that have been discontinued and banned in so many other countries (the U.K., Holland, & Germany among them) -- accurate and reliable?"

PS -- With the exception of one question I can think of -- "Why didn't Russ Feingold want to run against Walker?" -- many of the questions that were raised up-thread have been discussed in the Wisconsin forum here at D.U., and also at bradblog and Thom Hartmann's blog. In case anyone wants to go ahead and do some note-taking and research, before writing up a good, concise bullet-point petition.

(That is, assuming it's worth going through with that small amount of extra time and effort; if there's no chance that there could have been back-tampering with bags of ballots, to make machine tabulations match the paper count.)

[12zelda12]

166. What to do?!

Truly. It is not going to be easy to change this. It is actually pretty simple to get away with it. This is not rocket science. You would think lots of people need to be involved in the ruse but it is not. The vote tally totals being sent out can be altered by just enough not to cause alarm or trigger a recount. It will be interesting to see how the WI senate recall challenge will turn out. I am guessing shenanigans based on how badly they need to keep the majority. Laws need to be passed to go back to paper hand counted ballots with the results delivered by hand. The damned media can wait. If the FBI can be broken into, don't you think it a teensy bit plausible that voting machines can be rigged? We need someone big to bust this case. hat a story it would be, huh?

[tritsofme]

168. The most shocking part is how public opinion polls before the election

largely matched the actual election result. That's probably not important though...

[slackmaster]

179. Yes, it is indeed shocking how they have managed to rig public opinion.

[Angry Dragon]

172. kick

[RKP5637]

173. American Exceptionalism at work again! n/t