When did the country begin to use Electronic Voting machines in elections?

[in_cog_ni_to]

Clinton lost control of Congress during his term. Were evoting machines used back in 1995 when Clinton lost control of Congress? Anyone know if the machines were used in the Congressional districts that SURPRISINGLY picked up seats? I remember that like it happened yesterday! EVERYONE was SHOCKED that the repukes won as big as they did. Was it because of evoting?

I wonder how we find out if evoting machines were used in those races?

Which Congresspeople won back then? Which Senators won? and what system of voting was used in their districts?

If we could show when this crap started???? Maybe, just maybe it would shed some light on the issue.

If, out of the blue, repukes picked up seats and had JUST started using evoting machines....that would explain a lot.

Clinton was still riding VERY high in the polls during his second term. The repukes couldn't chance stealing the Presidential election because of his high poll numbers during the first term.
It would have been too obvious. Their scheme would have been exposed? Did they bide their time for 2000?

They OBVIOUSLY were set up to steal that election. They put Jeb in Florida. (was HE elected on evoting machines??) They purged voters from the rolls. They sent out false fliers with the wrong election date. They developed a fraudulent ballot to be voted on...Pat Buchanan beat Gore in a HUGE Jewish community??? (I don't think so!) They had police out on the streets to harass African American voters. They had road blocks set up to stop people from getting to their voting places. They had Katherine Harris in place to certify the votes.

[Boredtodeath]

1. 1996 in Georgia

In 2000 53% of all Georgia voters were using electronic voting - mostly ES&S opscan, with several Global (now Diebold) opscans thrown in.

In 2000, 83% of Georgia voters used a system which produced a recountable paper ballot. In 2002, that number became 0.

They've been perfecting this theft of democracy for a very long time.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. When corporate amurka realized it would need to steal elections

from that point forward.

[AtLiberty]

3. It's clear that Chuck Hagel won in 1996 via electronic fraud...

After heading up ES&S, he ran for the Senate in an area that had been Democratic for years and he won by highly suspicious margins.

It really helps to be in charge of your own electronic voting company...

Also very fishy in the Senate were the wins of Norm Coleman and Saxby Chambliss in 2002...

There was a thread in DU within the past four or five months with a conservative estimate that 14 seats in the current US Congress had been stolen electronically. The amount was enough to tip the scales both in the Senate and the House.

No telling how many on the state and local levels...

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. YUP! I know Hagel stole his seat.

That was when he won by a HUGE margin in a predominately African American community! ES&S was his friend. I can't believe people wanted him to run with Kerry as VP. :eyes: How soon we forget.

Was that the first time they used evoting machines??? During that election?

How many other "surprise" Congresspeople and Senators used evoting machines during that time? Chambliss and I know Coleman miraculously had PAUL WELLSTONE Progressives who, at the very last minute, decided to vote for a right wing wacko. Was Coleman elected on evoting machines?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Minnesota votes on paper ballots that are scanned electronically

There is room for hanky-panky in the counting (and in the case of Coleman, unfairness in dealing with the people who had voted absentee for Wellstone before the crash). In fact, the MN Secretary of State was putting up some clearly funky numbers (all minor parties getting at least 8,000 votes in a rural-exurban area?) in some areas overnight in 2004, although they were later corrected.

[Boredtodeath]

13. Coleman was "elected" using OpScan

Minnesota is ES&S, I believe.

[Hugin]

4. I keep seeing praise of Hagel around here...

He was president of a company which owned the voting
machines in Nebraska when he was elected in a "surprising
upset".

Check the year that happened and you'll have your answer.

[many a good man]

5. And what about punch card tabulators?

In the early 80s punch card tabulation was offloaded to PCs when the x86 became cheap and ubiquitous. Standards and security were pretty much non-existent. Its pretty easy to design a system that could pass a pre-election test and still alter the totals come election day. Who got the contracts to build these early systems? What political ties did they have?

[oscar111]

7. ALL mach's create complexity in which tricksters can invent theft methods

SYSTEMS THEORY:

simplicity makes it hard to trick observer/voters.

complexity makes it easier...

nooks and crannies in which to hide vote theft tricks.

PAPER BALLOTS HAND COUNTED

is used in most democracies... funny you seldom hear about that.

[many a good man]

12. Point is you have to go back earlier than just touch screens

Punch cards go back how long? 50s or 60s? In the early days they just counted the number of holes punched on each line. One line = one candidate.

My big question is WHEN WAS MANDATORY BALLOT ROTATION LEGISLATED? I would guess that it was about the same time when cheap computer software first gave us the ability to extend the capability of the machine punch card tabulators.

Studies were done that showed that a candidate's position on the top of the ballot gave a built-in bias. Legislation was enacted to counteract this natural human tendency. Before this time candidate's names were simply listed alphabetically, or by party affiliation.

In Ohio 2004 the vast majority of ballots were punch card. Don't let the controversy swirling around Diebold-style touch screen e-voting machines become a red herring. It is certainly much easier to hack these advanced machines but remember software-based punch card tablulators are also vulnerable. Just because they produced paper output (that wasn't properly recounted) doesn't mean they shouldn't be scrutinized!

[Twist_U_Up]

8. check out slide 7

http://www.electionfraud2004.org/presentation/index.html

actually check them all out

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Great presentation there!

:thumbsup:

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Thank you for that link!

That's a wealth of information! :hi:

[goclark]

14. Awesome! The best I've seen yet! Can you start a thread that says

something like: See This! Graphic PROOF of VOTER FRAUD!!

[Twist_U_Up]

15. done n/t

[Junkdrawer]

16. Well, a Fundie billionaire funded the Urosevich bros. in 1979...

and I don't think they could or would go after the Presidency as their first act of election fraud. Several things would have to have been put in place:

1.) They needed time to penetrate the market to their current 80% numbers.

2.) Detailed knowledge of election procedures, including the canvass prior to certification.

3.) Laws would have to be put into place to prevent audits of the software and to lock away or destroy any paper trails.

4.) Friendly Secretary of States would have to be appointed and/or elected as well as friendly local election officials.

This was a long process that probably started at least as far back as the mid 70s.