Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections
= new reply since forum marked as read
Later on, in 2006, the code writer and witness in this clip, Clint Eugene Curtis, ran against Feeney.
Awkward!
Feeney's 2006 congressional opponent, Clint Curtis, has previously provided a sworn affidavit alleging that in October 2000, Feeney asked Curtis, then a computer programmer at Yang Enterprises, to design a computer program to falsify touch-screen voting results in Palm Beach County.[18][19] Curtis subsequently passed a polygraph test commissioned by a Washington, D.C. private investigator.[18] A Wired News story noted that Curtis had no direct knowledge of the vote counting software having been used in a public election.[20]
Feeney claimed that he has no recollection of even meeting Curtis; that he could not have engaged in such a scheme because Palm Beach County did not even consider obtaining touch screen machines until after the 2000 election; and that although Curtis wrote a book in the summer of 2004 accusing Feeney of a wide variety of misconduct, Curtis did not mention the alleged scheme to commit election fraud in the edition published prior to the 2004 election.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Feeney#Election_fraud
When did the hearing take place?
Was it in Ohio or Florida?
All they can do is run a report.
Disgusting.... VA uses touchscreen....easy to use....no paper trail. Grrrrrrrrrr
When does the revolution begin?
Conclusion:
Electronic voting machines are controversial. And in the past, at least, they have been blamed for some mysterious voting results, in Ohio and elsewhere.
The close connection between the Romneys, the Romney campaign, and the voting-machine company, therefore, looks bad, regardless of whether the Romney family-linked fund actually has a "direct or indirect" investment in the voting machine company.
Not the "appearance of impropriety" but the "appearance of the potential for impropriety."
Isn't it from one of the old threads? 
From November 5, 2004:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2612492
I've seen it a few times. Like on these sites:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1976.cfm
http://www.nogw.com/electionfraud.html
It's quite telling, yet no investigation?
And, after talking to the Secretary of the State (who I think unofficially cleaned some stuff up), the entire state went "blue" the following election - in the case of the State House and State Senate, (I believe) it was the first time in over One Hundred Years.
new ones coming out during voting, and no one able to agree on anything, so everyone just goes off and does their own thing for free.
What government could contract for something like that?
and sadly, nothing has changed. 
on what I see as a storm on the horizon here at DU. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x340188
Just to bring the newbies up to date.
to everyone who has been paying attention since
electronic voting first started to be implemented.
My experience is that locks are only to keep honest people honest. Build a bigger mouse trap, then build a bigger mouse. Just saying.
I have had the book for years and didn't know they still had a board, so I'm putting it out there
This has been an even stranger 2nd decade, and I hope we'll get something out of "the fight" to understand why people stopped caring how they are led around not to vote, not to care if their vote counts, not to care who's representing them.
You get politically charged and run and no good deeds go unpunished sometimes... Maybe I'll figure it out.
