The Diebold meme used by some on the left continues .......

[Stinky The Clown]

As seems ever necessary, I need to start this thread with a statement of intent - or lack of intent, as the case may be. It is my intent to inject some reality into the debates du jour. It is not my intent to say that all is hunky dory in Electionville. Vote count cheating is very real. It has resulted in undeserved wins by Republicans in *at least* the 2000, 2002, and 2004 cycles. It has impacted more recent special elections (Busby in CA and Hackett in OH are two famous ones). Vote count cheating is real and we ignore it at our peril. But it is not just Diebold. Diebold became the poster child for cheating simply because of Wally Odell's famous promise to deliver Ohio for Bush. But there's also Sequoia, ES&S and others.

But the larger issue is that 'Diebold' is not the only problem - and may not even be the biggest problem. Election cheating is a time honored tradition practiced by all sides. It is likely as old as the very notion of free elections. And it will be with peoples long after any of us are gone from this earth. And yet, even today, here on DU and elsewhere, I continue to hear 'we can't win unless we can beat Diebold'. I continue to hear, when the potential victory of one or another candidate is mentioned, the knee-jerk 'not with the machines.'

I wonder how many people who say such know the controversy that swirled when Kennedy beat Nixon? There is credible evidence that Nixon may have won that one.

I wonder how many people who say such things realize they could induce someone less informed or less inclined to vote to do just that - not vote.

Then there's the matter of probabilities and realities and critical thinking. The chances of massive cheating in a midterm are less than in a presidential year. Recent polling shows well over 30 House seats being competitive (most in our favor), with more seeming to fall into that category every day. Are we to believe that in each and every one of those races 'Diebold' will bite us? To those who say that I would ask: how? Think about that for second. Does anyone realize how many people would have to be involved? Does anyone realize how massive a conspiracy it would take to do that? Does anyone realize that the chances for discovery increase exponentially as the size of the group of conspirators increases? Does anyone not see that our side has finally woken up to the problem - even if it might still be said that they have no effective plan to combat it (I'm not so sure that its true that we have no plan)?

Then there's the matter of old fashioned cheating. It is my contention that we have MUCH more to worry about with old school cheating than electronic cheating. And all the talk about 'Diebold' truly defects attention from these myriad but less 'sexy' ways to cheat.

We MUST be vigilant in this next election.

But stop already with the 'Diebold' crap. It serves no one and may well harm us.

[valerief]

1. And once the old-fashioned cheating gets fixed (if it ever does),

there's Diebold and ESS cheating to sway the vote to hundreds or thousands times the voters in a single county. It's been done.

[madinmaryland]

2. I think we need to be vigilant against all forms of election fraud.

Whether it be false registrations, providing inadequate voting machines (or not enough) at the poling places, incorrect voter disqualifications, confusing ballots (butterfly ballots), etc.

I don't believe that Diebold is the only cause of election fraud. The only thing about them that stands out, is their CEO said he was going to deliver the election to Bush.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Thank you

:thumbsup:

[MaineDem]

3. Remember the phone blocking in New Hampshire

It's things like that that that cause major problems. If the GOP can get a few less people to vote for their opponents in every precinct in the county they have a good chance of stealing the election nation-wide.

Sometimes it does pay to be a little paranoid.

But I disagree with you about the need to stop talking about Diebold.

[jus_the_facts]

4. I remember reading here on DU that it only takes ONE modem....

...anywhere in the world to change votes on a Diebold e-voting machine....so it wouldn't take a lot of people...just ONE that knows how....and they're repuke contributors so I fully believe that ONE person WORKS at Diebold. :think:

[saltpoint]

6. I endorse this position, Husb2Sparkly. I also cheer its intent and

strategy.

Thank you for a great post.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. + 1,000

We must remain vigilant, but we can't get caught up in throwing around theories about Diebold and things like that. It can make us look desperate. Let's face it, Republicans legitimately win elections and I'm sure they'll continue to do so. We need to bring the fight to election day and the days preceeding it, not as a post-script.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. There's a rallying cry in your post:

We need to bring the fight to election day and the days preceeding it, not as a post-script.

You DAMN right! :patriot:

[applegrove]

9. Hear Hear!!

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I **just** read in another thread someone saying that Harris would 'beat'

Nelson in Florida because of 'the machines'. As if a 35 point flip will go unoticed. As if even a Republican would try to do that. The St Pete Times, meanwhile, has Nelson over Harris 60/25.

Some people either have nothing to say or have lost touch with reality.

[applegrove]

11. The exit polls didn't match the vote. There are various explanations.

I have my pet explanation which matches the " GOP reluctant responder" theory.

I guess we just don't have enough information to put this one to bed. I would not say that they are loosing touch with reality. They just have settled on another theory. Would be much easier if we could go back and look at every vote. But that is hard with machines. And that is being fixed and looked into in many districts. That lack of information on voting machines too plays into GOP hands by creating wedges between us all on the meaning of machine voting and faulty exit polls. Why it is so important not to get tunnel vision..whichever why you explain the discrepancy on those election days. Personally - I think fewer votes were taken by defaults than by too few machines in heavily democratic districts of Ohio. And personally I do not believe any vote switching took place after the fact on the machines. But I could be wrong. We just don't know yet.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. That's a very rational position

Reality-based, as they say. Evidentiary, as the lawyers say.

[applegrove]

13. I'm a polly anna. I never think the worst thing happened..till there is

overwhelming information. Not always a fun way to be!

[hippiechick]

14. Thank you.

:applause:

[springhill]

15. Please don't try and compare what happned in the past....

with what is happening today. The fraud today is SYSTEMATIC! It is not isolated cases of ballot stuffing. It is an all-out nationwide systematic stealing and switching of votes. There is NO comparison.

[BeFree]

16. Yep

It is an unprecedented action. Never before have so many votes been counted by so few.

Who are those few? The few programmers who work for the machine vendors. With a simple script inserted into the code a machine can be made to count 1+1=3, or any other likewise result.

The crux of this thread's disbelief lies with believing the majority of American people actually voted for bushco.

Voted for bushco after they found out he was never elected in the first place. After the fiasco of Iraq.

That the people voted for a man that told the biggest lie ever. That bushco had the means, the motive, and the opportunity, yet didn't use the machines to alter millions of votes.

Yep, you'd have to believe that they had the tool to give them total power and didn't use that tool to steal another election. That they suddenly found Christ and decided not to be the biggest bunch of crooks ever.

Well, they didn't fool you or I, eh?

[sutz12]

17. Cheating only really works in a close election

One thing that is so galling about losing 2000 and 2004 is how the repubs and media went off about how Shrub had some kind of "mandate" when in truth, those were two of the closest Presidential elections in US history, especially when the popular vote is counted. Hell, Gore WON the popular vote in 2000.

Traditionally, higher voter turnout works as good news for Democrats. Voter turnout is key, not only just to win, but to de-fang the cheaters.

[BeFree]

18. Your theory

Has been totally debunked already.

Look at the Ohio vote last year where the pre-election polls predicted three races as coming in at 60-40 but once the machines had their way the totals were 40-60. Not even close and totally reversed!

[snowbear]

20. We were screwed here too.

You should have seen the Anchorage results in the '04 U.S. Senate race.. (the one that put Lisa Murkowski, appointed by her father in office)!!

In 16 of the 40 State House districts in Anchorage, Diebold calculated over a 200% voter turnout. In some of the districts, the voter turnout came in at 229%, 217%, etc.

One of our radio stations here interviewed Lt. Governor (reTHUG) Loren Leman, who oversees elections on the air answering questions from the public.

He came on the program not knowing he was going to be asked questions, and kept trying to stop the interview by saying "I'm not prepared, you didn't tell me there would be questions" .. but the DJ on the radio told him that as Lt. Governor, he's supposed to know how the voting system in the state works and he wouldn't cut off the interview.

On about 80% of the questions, Loren Leman responded with "I don't know. I'm going to have to get back to you"

Of course.. he never did recontact that station.

Eventually the station was able to contact Alaska Division of Elections Director Whitney Brewster (who works with Leman). She tried to come up with some ridiculous explanation saying that maybe if more than one person was running, the machine just showed that district with a 200% turnout somehow.

The radio host told her that "not only is that impossible, but even if it were true, how did we get 229% turnout?"

She said "I'm not really prepared for this interview, I'm going to have to do some research and get back to you but I can guarantee it wasn't fraud.. it had to be a technical glitch"

Ms. Brewster won't come back on that show either now.

Our machines ensured that Daddy's daughter was sent to D.C. ..But here's the confusing part when it comes to Diebold.. I know the machines can be hacked and manipulated. Yet in the lawsuit underway in Alaska, Diebold is actually cooperating more with the Democrats than with the state.

They agreed that the numbers tallied can't possibly be right and have asked the state to release all original proprietary data from the Diebold system from that night.

Loren Leman and the THUGS still refuse to let residents see the information. (He also didn't run for re-election and will be gone in a few months)

Our only hope is that the lawsuit doesn't take forever and that we'll actually get a chance to see the actual numbers from election 2004 (if Leman didn't already destroy the info)

[ProudDad]

19. Diebold should continue to be opposed

They're a symptom of the real disease. They are a repuke company who builds a machine that can be easily rigged. They refuse to allow their machines' software to be audited..."trade secrets".

As a computer programmer for the last 4 decades I can assure you that voting is a dumb-simple application. There's nothing remotely like "rocket science" about it. Anyone who pretends otherwise is full of shit.

For voting machines, we need OPEN SOURCE software analyzed and audited by the community...not "proprietary" vote-rigging on demand.

We need uniform, national voting standards that guarantee that voting is accessible and that everyone's vote is counted. It's absurd to leave it in the hands of the states and counties...where the majority of the election corruption lives.

The real disease though is private financing of our elections. The cure is PUBLIC financing of all elections. In California, we have a chance to begin that process by voting yes on Proposition 89 -- the Clean Money Initiative.

YES ON 89

[Stinky The Clown]

23. You'll get no argument from me on any of that ......

.... but when all that gets said (gets ***heard*** really) is "Diebold Diebold Diebold" ears roll shut and the case becomes more difficult to make.

Now, you can argue that with me if you like, but I'm not your audience. I'm on the same side of this issue as you are. Your audience is out there on Main Street.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Ridiculous

It takes very few people to rig an election. Conspiracies exist and persist; listen to the Enron tapes if this isn't clear.

If you think we'll be looked as bellyachers for bringing up something like this, you're playing into the hands of those who would steal. What excuse can anyone come up with to not make voting verifiable? Cost shouldn't be an issue, and it isn't. Anyone decrying a totally tight-assed verifiability should be called out as dishonest.

This "Diebold crap" DOES serve a useful purpose: it illuminates the corporatist domination of the very methods by which our desires are registered.

Does it embarrass you? Does it make you think we're looking like crybabies or idiots to call this to account? That's what it smells like here.

We have to remain credible, but we can't shy away from questioning our opponents.

Again: what possible excuse could someone have for standing in the way of making electronic voting verifiable? There are very easy solutions which would make sure the votes are recorded as they were cast, and anyone who doesn't want to use them is deeply suspect.

Yes, to even get these reforms enacted, one has to allege wrongdoing. Bummer. Do you think the hardcore reactionaries have any compunction about accusing us of ANYTHING? We can't be cowed and slink around afraid because we're met with organized ridicule. As it is, we avoid really pointing out the systematic plundering of the middle and working classes because we can't be seen talking about anything like class warfare. People have fled from the term "liberal" because of the abusive chorusing of the right. Yeah, we can't look like idiots, but the true Achilles' heel of leftists seem to be that we're too concerned about what people think of us. That's the road to ruin.

Liberalism already has major structural impediments in its core philosophy, the biggest one being that it's deemed "good"--as it is--to tolerate others. Conservatives aren't encumbered by this mushy tolerance; those who disagree should be cut out of the system or destroyed because they don't deserve to exist.

I'm sick of the mindset that claims that we will look bad if we stand up and call them thieves, manipulators and monarchists.

As for your contention that it's too difficult to engineer such things, that's just absurd. Sure, they can't gin up everything, but they don't need to. A few close races here and there that are thrown is enough to retain control. The power is in the hands of those who run the local elections, and many existing power blocs control districts that have tilted to the other side. It's the people in power now who control the elections.

Conspiracies don't have to be deliberate and meticulous like some intricate caper movie, they just have to see an opportunity and nudge things a bit their way. If you don't see this as possible, then please reconsider. One human being can put a patch on the program and throw an election.

The real fear of electronic voting is how very few people it takes to pull it off. It can literally be done by one person. Do you think there aren't a few ideologue operatives out there dedicated to a little programming at the central collection point? Remember: the source code is proprietary (since profit is much more important than life itself) so delving into the mechanism doesn't get done.

Life isn't like the movies, which is why there are movies. In movies you understand where the big pivotal moment is and there's a big strategic victory that carries the day. In life, it's a series of marginal victories and defeats, meeting engagements that don't really seem to add up to much and murky occurrences behind the scenes that add up and subtract out to victory and defeat. That's the problem.

Personally, I'd hold the bloody shirt of Max Cleland's "defeat" in '02 aloft and use it as the prime proof of electronic rigging.

Conservative demand to have an upper hand; they're monarchists and elitists. They consider themselves better and they hate the concept of democracy; filthy perverts shouldn't even exist, much less be considered equals. This should be thrown in their faces in general, but all is naught if our votes aren't fairly recorded.

If people ridicule us for demanding to make voting verifiable, they should be instantly confronted. There ARE ways to subvert the current forms of electronic voting. If one cares about the concept of individual voting, there can be no argument against making it verifiable. Anyone who fights it should be called a cheater to his/her face. It's shrill and more reminiscent of tactics used by reactionaries, but there's NO legitimate answer.

Look at the statistics of the '04 election: where there was a paper trail, exit polls were generally within a point either way; where there was no paper trail, exit polls were way off, and virtually always to the benefit of the Republicans. The statistical impossibility of the '04 election is undeniable.

[Awsi Dooger]

22. That bloody shirt was down by 4 points in early exit polls

That's right, Chambliss led Cleland by 4 points in the early exit poll margins released on the internet in 2002. The rigged election crew always conveniently ignores that: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000507.html

I would accept DREs in every state if it meant we could eliminate the low tech vote suppression.

[springhill]

37. What experience do either of these people have.........

with exit poll data? I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that over the years it has been hightly inaccurate? If you are saying that, you are dead wrong. It has only been the last five or so years (coincidence?) that we have had these discrepancies.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Now see, you went and attacked the messenger ......

... and that makes no sense. I know as much about this as you do. I'm not arguing any of the broad facts you cite.

My point is that simply saying 'Diebold Diebold Diebold' is tantamount to whining.

Again, if you feel the need to attack me for saying this, have at it. Maybe it will make you feel better. But it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Should we be making a strong push for verifiable voting? OF COURSE. Has cheating happened? OF COURSE. I'm not arguing any of that. My point is messaging, not the core message.

[BeFree]

25. Here is your message...

It is my intent to inject some reality into the debates du jour.
Waiting for that, still

But it is not just Diebold. Diebold became the poster child for cheating simply because of Wally Odell's famous promise to deliver Ohio for Bush. But there's also Sequoia, ES&S and others.
The reality is that Diebold is just the catch all name for the electronic problem.

But the larger issue is that 'Diebold' is not the only problem - and may not even be the biggest problem.
Diebold = catch all. And the electronic problem IS the biggest problem, at least to those who have more knowledge than you.

I continue to hear 'we can't win unless we can beat Diebold'. I continue to hear, when the potential victory of one or another candidate is mentioned, the knee-jerk 'not with the machines.'
Knee-jerk, eh? That's unfairly dimissive of a number of people who have studied this problem.



I wonder how many people who say such things realize they could induce someone less informed or less inclined to vote to do just that - not vote.
Here you start to blame election reformers with keeping people from voting?

Then there's the matter of probabilities and realities and critical thinking. The chances of massive cheating in a midterm are less than in a presidential year.
Here your message shows a near total lack of understanding about the problem. "The chances" are no less now - actually are greater since more machines are in use.

Recent polling shows well over 30 House seats being competitive (most in our favor), with more seeming to fall into that category every day. Are we to believe that in each and every one of those races 'Diebold' will bite us? To those who say that I would ask: how?
Again with the lack of knowledge. But I shall try to educate....
The fact that the counting is done with a computer program means that just a few programmers can "bite" us. The fact that the machines count over 80% of the votes means those few programmers can take a bite out of nearly every race.

Think about that for second. Does anyone realize how many people would have to be involved? Does anyone realize how massive a conspiracy it would take to do that? Does anyone realize that the chances for discovery increase exponentially as the size of the group of conspirators increases?
As you now know, just a few programmers does not make for your "massive" conspiracy, quite the opposite, really.


But stop already with the 'Diebold' crap.
By now, I hope you can see that this "crap" is not that at all, so your demand is unfounded and should be ignored. Yep, so much for your "message".

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Nice parsing

Feel better?

Look, the fact is that 'Diebold' is one of a whole host of ways to cheat. My point, which I continue to stand by, is that to say Diebold is the ONLY problem - a point you seem hellbent to make - is wrong and unhelpful.

[BeFree]

28. We disagree

And the root of that disagreement lies at the different levels of eductaion and understanding the two of us have.

I never have said Diebold is the only problem, but I have said Diebold is the biggest problem. That it is unprecedented in it's control over vote stealing and that it is not nearly so well understood as all the other various ways of theft.

Heck, the $4 billion in HAVA monies spent to install the machines should inform even the most uneducated that something new and massive was underway. And that with Tom Delay as the architect of HAVA, along with his statement that the pukes would now crush forever the democratic party, should have been enough to make everyone sit up and take notice.

Still, I appreciate your attempt at understanding the problem.... it would just be nice to not hear us called "knee-jerks, and whiners, etc." from our fellow dems.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Uneducated?

How dare you?

[BeFree]

35. Yes....uneducated

But then not everyone is educated about this problem. And to be educated would require many hours of study on a subject that is just as disgusting as can be. Tough to do and not everyone has the willingness to do so.

You see, many of us have, in the Elections Reform Forum, struggled mightily with the bits and pieces of this situation, and many of us have been doing so for more than two years now. I have not seen your name in that forum very often, and reading your words here has lead me to believe that you are uneducated as to this matter.

That's fine. No problem... I know myself that there are many matters that I am uneducated about, and in those matters I rely on those who are better educated to inform and educate me. And I fully expect that those folks would respond to my words when delving into their subjects by correcting me. As I am attempting to do here.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. I actually am far more 'educated' on this issue than you might imagine

And it is that 'education' that leads me to conclude that 'Diebold' is, as I stated, NOT the only problem and to say it is, as you are doing, is unhelpful.

I understand as much as anyone the programming issues, the machine hackability, the central tabulator/Windows/Excel issues, and on and on and on.

All that, and I *still* stand by my statement. 'Diebold' is NOT the ONLY issue.

[BeFree]

41. Right.

The electronic theft of the elections is not the only issue, but it is the only issue that can be ameliorated by DU type discussions.

The rest of the minor issues are handled better in local juridictions.

But, as you put it, 'Diebold', is the biggest, newest, most nationally compromising factor involved in federal elections, and can be best beaten by DU type discussions.

In the ER, where people have discussed this for years now, the e-voting issue is seen as the biggest problem. Which flies in the face of your words that 'Diebold is not'.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. That wasn't the intent

Sometimes it's hard to separate the two. It's an ongoing riff around here, and even though you didn't flatly state that it bugs you that we'll look like whiners or fools, that's how it came across. As long as we let ourselves be cowed by people who poo-poo anyone who intimates that conspiracies might exist, the reactionaries can do whatever they please. We shouldn't care so much what people think of us; if electronic voting isn't fixed, we'll never be allowed to win unless something so horrible happens that they can't throw the particular election.

Here we are again, four years after MAJOR evidence of manipulation, and we're going into an election with unsecured machines and many more of them. There's no way anything can be done before this election; it's simply too late.

They don't laugh at us as much for running from the term "liberal" or not addressing economic fairness by their mere barking the term "class warfare" as one would to heel a dog as they do for our not being willing to address unverifiable electronic voting. If people are so lefty-image conscious that they don't want to be laughed at, the latter should sting much more than the other two.

If the harshness stings you personally, remember: your initial post was a tad combative too and dismissive too.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. If that's your take, then you missed the point completely

I don't care *what* we (or me, for that matter) 'look like'.

My point is that 'Diebold' is NOT the whole problem and to focus ONLY on that is unhelpful.

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Wouldn't be the first time

I agree with that: we shouldn't focus on ANY one thing. The issue of electronic voting is a mechanistic one anyway; it has nothing to do with policy.

Then again, policy schmolicy if the votes don't get counted correctly.

I'd suggest that your posting wasn't clear about this. You'll find no disagreement here against fighting people who only want to dispute the method of voting, but that DOES need to be a component. When the inevitable quibbling comes up, it's best that there's been ample airing of the complaint before, otherwise it'll seem like clutching at straws.

Enough. Give a parting shot, but I think we've both said our piece.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. I thank you for that.

I also suggest (NOT directed`at you) that some of what got said was based on responders **assuming** what I was saying and not (even trying) to understand what I was saying.

[beachmom]

31. Do you vote on a Diebold machine in your precinct?

I do. And I, like most human beings, am selfish. Diebold is the #1 electoral issue for me because it affects me directly. The poll workers at my precinct are clueless about it, which shows we have not made ENOUGH of an issue of the machines. Meanwhile, I read that Conn. has disallowed Diebold or other touch screen machines in their state because they're unreliable. But I'm stuck voting on a 3rd rate product. Never mind cheating -- the machines are completely unverifiable and unreliable, and they need to go. Poor and shoddy accounting for the most important thing in this country -- voting -- is unacceptable and should NOT be tolerated by the electorate.

I think we need to get Republicans on board with this -- they need to be told that the chickens will come home to roost one day -- that what is being done to Dems now COULD be done to GOPers way off in the future, and it's best to fix it now.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. Yes, Maryland is 100% Diebold

In the last two cycles there were no issues here - which tells me that cheating due to Diebold DOES occur elsewhere.

Here in Maryland, it was the Dems who brought in Diebold and the Repubs who are working to get rid of it. (That's an oversimplification of the complete facts, but tells the essential story.)

[beachmom]

33. Hey that's interesting re: Maryland

I think we should take this issue from the high ground -- it's a bad accounting system. It makes us sound, well, less whiny. The point is not whether anyone has cheated, the point is someone COULD cheat due to the inherent weaknesses in the machine.

Do you by any chance have a link to an article discussing GOP complaints of Diebold in Maryland?

[Stinky The Clown]

34. No ... but you might check in the DU Maryland forum

[Greyhound]

36. Agreed, once again. Vote counting fraud, while obviously real, has been

used as an excuse to cover for our party's utter incompetence for far too long. I, for one, am really getting tired of it being used to avoid the real issue of our failure to craft and implement plans to fix this country.

I came of age politically, during the reign of ronnie the absurd, and after trying to find answers to what seemed to me to be obvious problems with the new direction they were taking the country, became quickly fed up with the party and spent the next 15 years looking for a voice. After working with several third parties I came to the conclusion that the system was so rigged that it is impossible for any of them to make any progress.

So now we're in exactly the same place we were then and nothing has changed, other than the names and the scale of the disaster.

[BeFree]

39. An excuse?

There you go blaming the victims for the theft of elections. I am tired of it. The majority of people in this country have not voted for the republican party. The dems have failed in the elections department only by not realizing the magnitude of the problem (as we can see in this thread).

The education that must take place is quite evident. All I can say is that if you want to be educated go read the Elections Reform Forum right here on DU.

I must warn you, however, that you will wade through piles of crap put forth by those who wish the public to remain uneducated. It is almost as if there is a campaign by some to distract and deceive. Now, where have we heard that before?

[Greyhound]

42. The vote counting fraud is but one small part of the systemic defect

that this country suffers from. Trying to blame the whole thing on Diebold et al, just serves to avoid the self-inflicted devastation that is The Democratic Party. Every single thing that the cabal has "achieved" has been predicted and warned against for years and years, while the "leadership" went along with the old "We're not as bad as the re:puke:s" strategy.

Diebold didn't create 40 - 60 million votes for the re:puke:s, the Democratic Party did by abandoning the principles and constituents that made them in the first place.
:kick:

[BeFree]

49. Oh, yes they did

They stole the election in 2000. That after the media scratched bushco's back and scratched Al Gore's eyes out.

Encouraged by that performance, the crooks passed a $4 billion spending bill - HAVA. That $4 B bought the voting machines that altered - who knows how many votes - stealing the election in 2004.

To say what you say, is denying the reality that they would steal it, could steal it and had the tools too steal it. They stole it.

There were no locks on the election systems 2004. There were no local controls on the electronics, no prying eyes, no government control. The complete control lay in the hands of three private companies who reaped the Tom Delay windfall of HAVA.

[Greyhound]

50. Fine, just keep ignoring the real problem. Vote fraud is,and has been,

a real problem. The fact that too many people don't vote for Democrats is the problem of The Democratic Party, plain and simple. They abused and misused their offices and covered for each other to the point that people got fed up and started to vote for the re:puke:s.

So now we have a "choice" between re:puke: and Re:puke:-lite, is it any wonder that more people don't vote than do. While we stray further and further from the core principles that made this party great, and fewer and fewer people bother to vote (as a % of eligible citizens), the Democrats find themselves controlling less and less. Surprised? :crazy:

[spooky3]

40. Diane Rehm had a good program on voting machines--rerun

tonight on WAMU and maybe other NPR outlets.

[Chemical Bill]

43. Please provide a link.

>I wonder how many people who say such know the controversy that swirled when Kennedy beat Nixon? There is credible evidence that Nixon may have won that one.

Even if you take Illinois' 27 electoral votes and Hawaii's 3 electoral votes away from Kennedy and give them to Nixon, Kennedy still would have won the election with 273 electoral votes, 4 more than needed. The next closest state, Missouri, had been carried four years before in 1956 by the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, in the face of Eisenhower's landslide victory. So it would be hard to claim that Missouri was stolen from Nixon. But even taking Missouri away from Kennedy, Nixon still would not have won. The election would then have been thrown into the House of Representatives where the Democrats had a 262 to 174 margin, and a clear majority in 26 of the 50 state delegations.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/kennedy.htm

It's a repug talking point that Kennedy won only because of cheating in Chicago, and it's a lie. I would prefer not to read such lies on DU.

BTW, there was rampant repug election fraud in rural Illinois in 1960.

Some political historians have suggested that another reason Nixon did not challenge the results was that he knew an investigation might also turn up Republican chicanery in southern Illinois and elsewhere.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/111000/gen_1110006773.shtml

Bill

[Stinky The Clown]

44. I'm not gunna refight that one

Thanks for the links.

The fact remains, there were challenges and counter challenges, court filings and filings dismissed, technicalities and unfounded rumor. To say vote cheating didn't occur is wrong. To say the charges of it, even today, aren't credible, is to see but one side. Then as now, no one *knows* the truth - they only assume they do.

[Chemical Bill]

45. I'm not saying vote cheating didn't occur.

It can't be proved to have changed the outcome of the 1960 election, unlike 2000, 2002, and 2004. Hell, cheating in the form of bullets changed the 1964 and 1968 elections, too. That's all I'm saying. I saw one study that said there was almost as much cheating on the repug side in rural Illinois as there was in Chicago in 1960. Sorry I can't find that reference today.

Bill

[Stinky The Clown]

46. 'Rural Illinois'

I recall that, too. In fact, that was what was said by some to be capable of changing the election, as I recall. I also recall (but can't recall the reason why) that Nixon was told to back off on challenging.

Again, I'm going on memory here and this was, for me, a LOOOOONG time ago.

[roseBudd]

51. It takes no more software programmers than are already employed to

design the programs to tabulate the various races.

If you don't understand programming then you don't know how easy and how hidden it is. Only hand recounts will reveal it. Hand recounts rarely happen so the odds of being caught are exceedingly low. DREs just do away with the traditional ballot paper trail.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. One more time ......

I am **not** saying machines are not a problem. I am saying they're not the **only** problem. I am saying that to imply they're the only problem is in itself a problem.

And yeah .... I understand how the scam works.