Devil's Advocate - Voter Fraud

[Steely_Dan]

As a dedicated Democrat and one who believes that there is little doubt that some kind of fraud happened here, I must play devil's advocate to feel completely sure. So here are a couple of questions...

If the "glitches" and other irregularities always fell in favor of Bush...we have a problem. In any election, there are going to be errors. Logic demands that whatever errors occur, that they fall to both sides. If, in fact, no errors were made that favored Kerry, it would make our case very weak. Even if Kerry had a small percentage of errors go his way, it may still be a problem. Anything less than the error rate of other elections would not be looked upon as legitimate. The ideal scenario would be that and average number of errors (based on past elections) would favor Kerry and an enormous number of errors favoring Bush.

My second issue has been discussed here before. However, I haven't heard a good argument against it. It deals with the number of people that would have to be behind this theft to make it work. Some say that it wouldn't take that many people to pull this off while others believe that it would take hundreds if not thousands to make the theft complete. My question must be obvious...

How could so many people have kept this quiet? For me...it was either pulled off by a very small number of people (very small) or it could have never been kept quiet.

Please don't flame me...I think it is our job to question ourselves and our position to insure that we can answer any critic.

-P

[bemildred]

1. Control of the media is the key.

It matters little whether you or I are allowed to talk.
What matters is whether we are widely heard.

[LisaL]

2. With a computer, one person can change results of an election

with a key stroke. Why would you need thousands?

[Hamlette]

3. great questions, good observations, I'll be watching for an answer too

my son says small number of people. He actually says, one. He's more computer literate than I am but he is NO expert in stuff like this. I don't think. (I just got this image of my son and his computer geek friends hacking into computers...not to change the vote...but for someother nefarious reason.) Yeah....maybe he does know.

Seems you'd need at least one person in each state but my son says no, it's on a network. I know what a network is but I don't know what effect that has.

[Eloriel]

6. It means someone can be sitting in an entirely different office

even in another country (like, say, Canada -- Vancouver, British Columia, Canada, for instance -- in the case of Diebold) and pull up the votes anywhere they want, and make changes if they want.

We even know their names (where Diebold is concerned) -- one head guy and two (or three?) others. Safely out of reach of the long arm of the law. But then, I'm not sure there are any laws on our books that would be applicable anyway.

[Steely_Dan]

4. Shameless Kick

I'm looking for answers here...help me believe that I am not off the mark.

-P

[Spazito]

5. It doesn't take thousands, only a handful...

it is in the software programs that counts the votes not at the polling stations. Election fraud is not unknown in the US, remember the days of Tammany Hall where fixing elections were the norm. It is just easier now than in those days.

[Eloriel]

7. Okay, I'll take a stab -- but I also have a question for you

If the "glitches" and other irregularities always fell in favor of Bush...we have a problem. In any election, there are going to be errors. Logic demands that whatever errors occur, that they fall to both sides. If, in fact, no errors were made that favored Kerry, it would make our case very weak. Even if Kerry had a small percentage of errors go his way, it may still be a problem. Anything less than the error rate of other elections would not be looked upon as legitimate. The ideal scenario would be that and average number of errors (based on past elections) would favor Kerry and an enormous number of errors favoring Bush.

I don't get this point (or points), at all. So far, we've found NO "errors" or "irregularities" that favored Kerry. See my collection of links in this thread:

URGENT: VOTE FRAUD? Tell everyone you know -- details
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1337662

My second issue has been discussed here before. However, I haven't heard a good argument against it. It deals with the number of people that would have to be behind this theft to make it work. Some say that it wouldn't take that many people to pull this off while others believe that it would take hundreds if not thousands to make the theft complete. My question must be obvious...

It would take only a very small handful (or ONE) -- and there's a link to that effect in the thread above too. Too, remember that those who are involved and actually KNOW all the details of any given conspiracy are fully committed to it, believe they're doing the right thing and even will be rewarded for their deeds (or would be).

Computerized voting machines CAN produce real, honest-to-god errors, and there can be honest-to-god bugs, but what I'm far more concerned about is some of the hidden "features."

The machines we have, both touchscreen and optical scan, are vulnerable to external hacking, vulnerable to purposely interjected malicious code that steals or reapportions votes, and also capable of being hacked by INSIDERS in realtime. All of this completely invisible and undetectable by anyone outside the system, such as local election officials, county and state election officials (altho they're certainly all too capable of also gaining improper access and changing votes, as has been demonstrated by Bev Harris on national cable TV). Those are the simple facts. If you want more details, I suggest you've got a lot of reading to do and one good place to start is http://www.blackboxvoting.org

How could so many people have kept this quiet? For me...it was either pulled off by a very small number of people (very small) or it could have never been kept quiet.

I think I've already answered that. You are correct about the small number of people.

[StickNCA]

8. Good points but

didn't Ohio use something like 70% punch cards?

[tommcintyre]

9. Just control the central tabulator

They all feed into it.

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud.htm