VOTING MACHINES = TRIGGER - We must get rid of those g-damned computer voting machines!

[kpete]

Computerized Voting Machines Must Be Eliminated
By: iphoenix Friday March 11, 2011 11:48 am

For all the confident statements of replacing the Red Republican Bastards, there will be no successful recalls or impeachments unless states get rid of computerized voting and return to the tried and true paper ballot. If it takes more time to count them, then “so be it.” Any real democracy is worth it.

America has grown accustomed to hearing the media present all kinds of divergent polling data, but the prevailing narrative always tells a story of Republicans and Democrats running neck & neck electorally — even after the most egregious Republikook rhetoric and behavior — with The Kooks always winning just enough and winning in ways and in places where they can essentially negate any gains Dem’ Dumb-dumbs might hope to realize. Remember how health care, bank, and tax reform turned out? I repeat, “Dem’ Dumb-dumbs”!

This political travesty is already repeating itself. The media is serving us constant video of recently elected Republikooks proclaiming they campaigned and were elected to attack unions and working class citizens; so, The Kooks already are claiming the majority. If those voting machines — which I suspect are rigged or hackable — stay in use, then expect recall results of such monumental irony that the Liberal base and the “Reagan Democrats” who felt compelled to vote for Democrats out of self-interest and self-preservation will be lost in the political wilderness of Conservative savages and corporate beasts, left either to fall to their knees and chain themselves in abject economic servitude or to find another country to call home. Why else would Walker and the rest of the WI ‘Kooks have perpetrated the crime they committed (that “bold parliamentary maneuver” was illegal!) if they did not have some assurance that they and their cause could overcome recall efforts? The Koch Brothers and their ilk very likely have promised the WI ‘Kooks financial security for the risks they are taking. Add that to FAUX Propaganda-News and Turd Blossom’s soon to be incessant poisonous TV ads which a lot of people seem to believe. Those voting machines are now the trigger that could produce the kind of results which would invalidate all the protests happening now as well as the core ideals of the Democratic Party. After what happened in WI, and what is happening all across America now, do you really believe the voting machine trigger won’t be pulled?

Middle America is obligated now, therefore, to make sure that the process of democracy works they way The Constitution declares it’s supposed to work. Otherwise, we may as well bow to the bigots, the corporations, and the super-wealthy plutocrats and call ourselves their slaves. We must make sure that every single one of our votes counts: We must get rid of those g-damned computer voting machines!

http://my.firedoglake.com/iphoenix/2011/03/11/computerized-voting-machines-must-be-eliminated/



???perhaps anonymous could help???
peace, kpete

[jemelanson]

1. K&R

[Blue Owl]

2. Case in point:

CALIFORNIA

The GOP cannot win without lying, cheating, or stealing.

[DemReadingDU]

3. I've had my suspicions since November

that some Democrats should not have lost their elections. Some of those Republicans had to have won via those electronic voting machines. I'm in Ohio and I remember shenanigans in 2004.

edit clarification

[eyesroll]

4. You know we have paper ballots in WIsconsin, right?

:shrug: Even the "computer" that marks the ballot for disabled voters still produces a paper ballot.

There was a post awhile ago showing how difficult it would be to rig the optical scanners that count the ballots, and how hand recounts have historically shown the scanner counts to be accurate.

[Demeter]

5. The fudging come in at the collection point

The individual polls can be accurate, the fudge gets thrown in at the Secretary of State, when all the memory chips are compiled.

In Michigan, in Ann Arbor, poll workers certify and post a true copy of the tabulation at each precinct, and the political parties make note of it. So it can be checked...at that location.

But what about the much smaller townships? What about the Secretary of State? What if only selected local elections are jiggered?

Our election system is far too complex, depending solely on the integrity of the people running the process, to be theft-proof.

[SugarShack]

22. Yes, Florida got a paper ballot and still certifies electronic totals! Only audits 1-2%

That is not enough to verify a winner, it only verifys under 50% of the vote! Come on now.

We need HR811 again!!! Mandatory uniform audits of at least 3%.

[Wilms]

7. Do you have a link to the post you're citing?

Difficult to rig? Difficult for whom? Computer scientist have shown how easily they can compromise a scanner.

As far as accuracy, have you checked out the recent NY SD7 race?

[Peace Patriot]

9. What percentage of the scanned ballots is compared to the machine totals? That is the question.

The states with optiscan systems (ability to verify--HALF the states don't even have this) generally do only a 1% automatic audit (comparison of ballots with machine totals). This is a miserably inadequate. Experts whom I respect say that 10% is the minimum needed to check for machine fraud.* And the REASON for this miserably inadequate audit is the SAME as the reason that this PRIVATIZED, CORPORATE, NON-TRANSPARENT, 'TRADE SECRET' CODE-RUN 'voting' system got spread like a plague across the USA: filthy dirty lobbying.

Having a paper ballot that is scanned into a corporate-controlled system using 'TRADE SECRET' code, with only a 1% audit, is no guarantee against fraudulent miscounts. In fact, it carries the opposite guarantee: there WILL BE fraud.

We have got to ask the basic question: WHAT are corporations DOING in our voting system AT ALL--let alone tabulating all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code?

To say "we have a paper ballot" ignores the critical NEXT questions: WHO is counting those ballots? Are they ALL being counted? And are they being counted in PUBLIC VIEW?

If you were, say, in Colombia, and you voted on paper ballots, and a rightwing paramilitary soldier came in and took the ballot box to an undisclosed location, 'counted' the ballots and announced the winner, would you trust the result?

In an optiscan system, as described, you are trusting a PRIVATE corporation to tell you the result.

And in 80% of the voting systems in the U.S., we are talking about one, private, FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED corporation--ES&S, which just bought out Diebold.

I don't know whether ES&S is operating in Wisconsin (the system could be called "Premier," aka, Diebold, aka, ES&S), but it really doesn't matter. The corporations running the other 20% of the voting systems in the U.S. also use 'TRADE SECRET' code to tabulate the votes, and the main one--Sequoia--is Republican Party-connected.

What's wrong with this picture? WHAT are private corporations DOING running ANY PART of our voting system--let alone the MOST critical part, the tabulation?

Our election system has become a complicated, sophisticated SCAM for stealing elections. But it's not just the filthy money, and it's not just the filthy lobbying, and it's not just the filthy media. It's the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, which can turn one of the most progressive states in the country, Wisconsin, into an ikon of fascism. With these machines 'counting' our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code, we have no chance to reverse things--no matter how hard we work to elect good people.

Our most basic rights and power as a people, and the bottom line of democracy--voting--has been PRIVATIZED. It has been taken out of the public venue. That WAS the coup d'etat.

Here is how it happened and here is the remedy: The Anthrax Congress appropriated a $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle in 2002 (in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution!). That money spread these diabolical machines all over the country, very quickly, during the 2002 to 2004 period. But they did NOT mandate that state/local jurisdictions must buy corporate voting systems. This coup was accomplished entirely by filthy lobbying. The decision power over voting systems remains at the state/local level, where ordinary people have more potential influence than we do in Washington. Your county registrar, for instance, may live right down the street from you. Most Americans do not live that far from their state capitol. The remedy is a broad-based citizen campaign at the local/state level to demand restoration of TRANSPARENT vote counting. Until we restore vote counting that everyone can SEE and understand, we not only have no chance at reform, we do not really have a democracy.

---------------------------------

*(All U.S. states now use 'TRADE SECRET' code, corporate systems. Half the states do NO AUDIT AT ALL (no ballot to count). The other half do only a 1% audit. Venezuela uses OPEN SOURCE code electronics in their voting system--code that anyone may review--and they furthermore do a whopping 55% audit (comparison of ballots to machine totals). Could this be why they now have universal health coverage, with free health care in local community health clinics for the poor majority? Could this be why Venezuela was just designated "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean? Could this be why they have a government that fights "organized money"--as FDR put it--on behalf of the poor majority? I think it is. Let corporations run your elections, and you will get just the result that we are getting: utter scumbags forcing the corporate/war profiteer agenda on the rest of us. Bear in mind, too, that Venezuela has worse media than we do. Yet they have twice elected the most progressive government in the region, by big majorities--in internationally certified elections that are far, FAR more transparent than our own. They do have the USAID pouring millions of our tax dollars into rightwing political groups. But that hasn't mattered much either. The key to progressive government is TRANSPARENT vote counting. They have it. We don't. )

[Frustratedlady]

6. AMEN! I agree wholeheartedly. When those came in, our freedoms went out.

Granted, we've always had political arguments, but when they started using those #$%^@ machines, we started having problems. It was like they opened a door to one snake and we were suddenly overcome with snakes..slime..lizards, whatever you want to call them. (I'm thinking Rove, Rush, Armey, Beck and their ilk.)

This Wisconsin thing has me running scared. Talk about a tsunami...

[think4yourself]

8. Great reminder.

I can't help but worry about this especially seeing how brazen the WI Senators were
ramming that bill through. It's like they knew there wouldn't be any consequences.
They think they're invincible. Glad to hear WI uses more than Diebold/Sequoia/ES&S, etc.

How's the Stalin quote go? Something like "the person who votes decides nothing. The person who counts the votes decides everything."
They cheat at everything. Every thing.

[emcguffie]

10. I have a question but I can't post

I don't know whether I can PM anymore or not, I kind of doubt it.

I've been not participating -- too demoralized and too poor.

Is there an organized effort to pitch this subject to news people like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Cenk Uyger (sp?)?

I know there has been in the past, I just don't have any idea what is going on nowadays.

I'm home on disability nowadays, but before I came home I used to work in a job where we pitched stories to the media. I don't know if I can succeed at this, but I have wanted to at least try for some time now. It is probably more than a little hubristic of me to think I could possibly succeed where I'm sure others are working hard, but I feel like I should try to help in some way, if I can.

So, I had thought about trying to write an article that explains TIA's theory about the six percent theft that's built in to most elections today, which I happen to believe is the case, and which jibes with what I have believed all along. I don't mean to say I saw it as as organized as he does, but I certainly believe now and have believed for some time that any elections the Dems have won since at least 2000 they have won by a much larger margin than was stated, and many elections they lost they actually won. So John Kerry not only won, he won by a lot. And Obama won by a landslide. And the 2010 midterms? I don't believe for a minute that we lost as badly as it seems. If the media is controlled, why on earth should we believe the polls we are told about? I was caught up in an online -- I think it's called a push poll? -- just the other day, about Walker.

I just don't believe the American people are that stupid. But as long as the echo chamber MSM keeps telling us we are, we accept that as truth and hang our heads in shame or grit our teeth in fury at our numskull neighbors. But what if it's all not true?

The lying machine is so organized, and the media is so controlled, and so many of the public grew up believing in a much more truthful media, that it is practically impossible for most of us to keep in mind all the time every day that so much of what we are being told is lies. And if that is true, which I personally believe it to be, then we are being told lies about what we think and believe as well. How else could what is happening be real? It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

So, to get to my point (sorry about that), is there someone doing that? Packaging this story (I mean TIA's theory of all elections with a built-in six percent theft) in an understandable way and pitching it to our friends in the media?

Ellen

[Wilms]

11. Pitching TIA's methodology would be the surest way of having the issue ignored.

And it would be deserved.

TIA thinks he knows the results of piles of contests based on his evaluation of exit polls. No thanks. I'm an old fashioned count the ballots kind of guy.

[emcguffie]

12. But what he says makes sense.

At least about those races that I'm familiar with.

I was one of those people who sat up late in 2004 and saw them change the exit polls to match the stated outcome.

I had no idea that it had become SOP to do that.

FWhich brings me to another one of my longstanding questions. Since our exit polls have been totally corrupted, could there be some way of organizing alternative exit polling, perhaps through colleges and universities? Maybe through math departments? To produce an exit poll that isn't owned by corporate entities and thus will not be subject to change?

I understand that very dedicated activists have been working on this all along. I did for a while, my little bit here in NJ, but became thoroughly demoralized, as well as physically ill (now on disability). But there is virtually no attention on any regular basis in any of the media that I can see.

So, in order to create change, we would need to either force a lot of public attention to the issue or create some alternative systems to validate election outcomes. I suppose there might be quite a few other alternatives, but those are the ones I see.

Citizen action has succeeded here and there in small pockets, but not enough to solve this problem -- look at what is happening today across the country.

I'm not a mathematician or a statistician, so I cannot really evaluate TIA's hypothesis. I know I think he's right about the rampant theft of six percent of the vote. But I'd be willing to pitch any angle that could convince the media and then the public that theft is going on.

Do you believe there is widespread election fraud taking place?

Do you have other suggestions? Please forgive me if that's a stupid question; as I said, I have not been participating in this discussion. I don't want to offend anyone. I just want to get up to speed and see what can be done, and with my background that would mean for me to repackage stories and pitch them to the media. But first I have to understand them.

[Wilms]

13. Like I stated, counting enough ballots would be a really good idea.

We have extremely week audits, if any, in this country. They're useful, mostly, to confirm races that are state-wide and have a wide margin. Narrow margin races and more regional ones may be subjected to audits that aren't likely to provide a high confidence in the reported computer result.

To use an exit poll expecting to determine much seems like the royal road to getting nowhere. And TIA's work, particularly as he turns his attention to races further and further into the past, makes my point.

I've been happy to see them suggest that we have a problem. But a proper audit would accomplish that in a verifiable manner. Relying on exit polls is as questionable as relying on computer counts.

We need to hand count enough ballots to adequately audit the returns.

[emcguffie]

14. Well, I'm guessing that's what a lot of activists are working on.

I hope it is. Really the only skill I have to contribute -- and I'm not saying I'm a really great shakes at it, either -- is to package and pitch stories to the media. It's what I did at work, before I was put on disability. I did it for the UN Dept. of Public Information, which obviously was not exactly a great success in this department either. But it is what I have done and have an idea how to do.

So I'm looking for, first, to gain some basic comprehension about how to explain in a plausible fashion to, first, media people and then to the public, why there is evidence that election fraud has been taking place. Yes, that it can take place anytime, because of these machines (I still don't understand why people would ever trust a voting machine that counts your vote invisibly and gives you no record when they would never trust an ATM machine that didn't give one either), and that these machines must be replaced, but also that, no, really, it's quite likely that there wasn't an overwhelming Republican sweep in 2010, and it's quite likely that Obama won by a landslide, and that there is real evidence that Kerry won but a sizeable margin.

It all makes sense, and it all adds up to the American people not being SO STUPID as we all keep saying we/they are, to keep voting for people who are bound and determined to take away their way of life. It doesn't make sense that they would keep doing it because they wouldn't keep doing it and they haven't kept doing it, but we are so lied to that we just accept it when they tell us we're upset and we're stupid and we're too lazy to go vote, and so the guys who want to take everything away from us keep winning.

We keep tearing our hair out wondering how our neighbors can be so crazy or stupid or hateful, but what if they just plain are not? What if they are just tearing their hair out saying the same thing? But the media keeps saying something else, so we all think the other guy is the stupid mean nasty one who keeps electing the bad guys?

For a long time there was literally no media to go to, but now we have Rachel and Cenk and maybe Lawrence, and we will have Keith again. They are certainly more approachable. I can't help but believe that Rachel could be convinced if she were presented with well organized sensible evidence, because she can certainly understand it and she does have the attention span to follow it.

So I guess I'll just nose around and ask questions, if that's all right. Maybe someone knowledgeable would like to work on it with me?

Can someone explain to me the antagonism surrounding TIA? Is it all just a part of the difference of opinion I have read about regarding how best to count the votes?

I'm not looking to rile anybody up, just trying to get myself up to speed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. for what it's worth...

You seem to be arguing that the exit polls, which are sponsored by major media, are accurate, but other polls -- some sponsored by major media, some not -- are rigged. That argument seems hard to win, and I don't think it is true.

Whether you believe that 51% of voters in 2004 voted for W., or only 48% as the 'raw' exit polls indicate, either way that's a lot of people. It doesn't seem to me as if one way, Americans are "SO STUPID," and the other way, they aren't. Any way you slice it, Democrats and Republicans are pretty evenly matched. And the swing voters tend to be the people who pay the least attention to politics. I wouldn't call that "stupid"; I think we all sometimes wish that we could stop paying attention to politics.

This post by EarlG, explaining why TruthIsAll was banned, might shed some light on some possible sources of antagonism. But I think it's more interesting to consider what has happened in the almost six years since then. TIA has come back several times and been banned again; he has gotten some other DUers to post his writing; but it is really unusual for anyone to defend TIA's specific arguments in their own words. Consider: if I understand correctly, you are saying (more or less) that you think TIA's conclusions make sense because they dovetail with your beliefs about the American people, but you don't feel knowledgeable enough to explain his arguments plausibly to media people. That's how it generally goes with TIA. Very few people who agree with his conclusions feel knowledgeable enough to explain his arguments -- and by "very few," I really mean that I can't think of any in years. That is not a good sign. Lots of people (not on DU, of course!) will try to talk you into Young Earth Creationism. Granted, TIA doesn't have a major religious sect behind him, but still, where are the people who are willing to try to explain why he is right?

I'm happy to explain at any length why I think he is wrong, as I have in the past. But it's hard to rebut arguments that no one is actually interested in, which is how it seems to go.

If someone comes up with some new and persuasive evidence that voting machines have been rigged, that would be a great news story. In the meantime, there are lots of voting machine stories that deserve more attention than they have gotten.

[emcguffie]

19. Well, I disagree.

As long as we have machines that we cannot prove are accurate or are thieving, we are hopelessly screwed.

Have you read Votescam? Do you think Bush won New Hampshire honestly?

[Wilms]

16. Part of the problem is that TIA's work is offered up as some absolute proof.

Proof? I can't make sense of that claim. And I think the 2000/2004 elections had serious problems. But why bother at this point? There's plenty of proven truths around to help start the discussion. And as OTOH has pointed out, they don't get a lot of airtime.

One would be the Florida count done long after the 2000 election. It showed, had ALL the ballots had been counted, that Bush lost. In Ohio in 2004, people went to jail for screwing with a canvass that might have led to a recount. Then there's piles of scientists demonstrating that these computer systems are hackable. And I think half the reason we don't hear more about that is because of all the noise created by the TIAs and their respective cheerleaders.

Plus, too many who hang out in the election reform world are there because of partisan interest. You can be a partisan, and be logical and truthful. But it doesn't always work out that well. And the partisanship is a road block to a discussion with a wider audience.

Finally, it seems that many who complain about elections have little idea of all that's involved. They think voting on a paper ballot solves the problem. Or that "getting rid of Diebold" somehow puts you in a better position. They'll argue right past the notion of an honest mistake or malfunction insisting that it's fraud. TIA posts EIRS complaints claiming that a lever machine malfunctioned by not punching the ballot through and leaving chads. The most considered affirming comments to such nonsense is "K&R". And there are many more examples of that kind.

More reasonable folk walk away.

[emcguffie]

20. Maybe I'm really stupid.

But I honestly don't think so.

I don't get what your point is, honestly. Granted, I definitely have not been hanging out in the election reform world, because I find the whole thing rather too horrifying. I think anyone who believes elections are mostly honest is very naive, indeed. There was a time I could have pointed at some numbers to back up my opinion, back in 2004, but I can't do that now.

I do know that when we finally got these stupid machines in NJ, Christie got elected. Do I know anyone who voted for him? No. I'm sure lots of people did. But generally speaking the people who move to NJ to live and work, possibly in New York, but certainly in the metropolitan area, do it knowing that they will be paying high taxes so that their children will be well educated. Now I'm to believe these same people elected someone who wants to cut taxes for the rich at the expense of education?

Another thing is we all know, at least I think we do, that lots of Republicans have very little compunction about lying. Do you think Karl Rove loses sleep about telling a lie? These people stand to gain millions and millions of dollars and lots of power. We now know the Chamber of Commerce has been conspiring against liberals. We also know that Walker outright lied about his emails.

I think I could go on and on, especially if I tried. I'm not exactly trying hard here.

Then we should just trust that these political operatives that we know will lie will operate easily hackable voting machines honestly? At the same time that we see them caging votes (sorry, I don't even know the terminology), getting folks whose names resemble those of felons thrown off voter rolls, having them tell likely Democratic voters to vote on the wrong day -- the list is endless. What would they not do? And we should assume the elections are honest and fair? GIve me a break.

Yes, I think TIA's right.

And DU isn't the be all and end all of Dewmocratic thought, not by a longshot, not to me and many other people who are perfectly honest, dedicated, thinking Democrats. But once again I am reminded of why I do not post. I seem to live in an alternate universe, somehow. One where people tend to vote for their own self interests and where confirmed liars are not considered trustworthy.

Now, I apologize, if I have lost my head and posted this to the wrong reply. I'm not familiar with any of you specifically. But I disagree quite strongly. They have been stealing elections. Bush lost twice. Kerry won by 4 million. Obama won by a true landslide.

And Chris Christie? -- give me a break. Not with our new electronic machines with no paper trail.

They're already setting thigns up for 2012. OBama has dipped behind a Republican challenger in PA? Bullshit. Lies. Oh, no, they don't ever lie! I forgot. :sarcasm:

But I guess I should crawl back under my rock. You've clearly got things under control. The universe is as it should be. Republicans are honest folk. So are pollsters. And it doesn't matter that we have computers counting our votes, because we know TIA has to be wrong, right? He has to be wrong because some people here think he is. If he's wrong, then the elections are honest, yes? Then what is this forum about? This is all just way too confusing for poor little old me! I just can't think as well as you can, or add, or make distinctions, or anything like that! I need a big, strong smart someone to do it for me, and to tell me!

Yech!

[Wilms]

21. You asked why some give TIA a thumbs down. I told you why I did.

Then you jump to the conclusion that I think elections are fair and honest and that no one ever lies.

I said no such things.

It's a given that the wrong guy wound up in the WH in 2000. A year later a newspaper group counted ALL the ballots in the state and confirmed that. That's how you figure out who won. You count paper. Not electronically, and not via exit poll calcs.

Exit polls prove the same thing that electronic tallies do: nothing.

K&R THAT!

[Democracydiva]

17. Electronic voting

I have had the same sense of concern over possible election theft in Wisconsin..In fact, though I live in Calif., I called a couple of Wisconsin State Senators today and asked them to contact Ed Schultz and tell him to keep it simple and explain to the American people that the GOP CHEATS TO WIN!!!...In fact there is overwhelming evidence numerous elections have been stolen. Brad Freidman, Mark Crispin Miller and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should be on his radio and TV show at least once a week educating and warning the public. Ed and the folks at MSNBC should be shaming the Dem. Pols for refusing to take this issue seriously...Obama and his Dept. of "Justice" suck!!

[emcguffie]

18. Well, thank you for that.

It will take me a while to write a response to the two posts above yours. But I'm going to work on that.

There is so much evidence of election fraud it's hard to describe it. It is all around us. I don't know about Wisconsin, and that is a question I would like answered, but I feel like I shouldn't even ask it as I am so ignorant.

I don't know what kinds of machines are hackable and which ones aren't. So when someone says they could have been hacked, and someone else says they couldn't have been hacked, I have no idea who is correct. I do know that here in NJ back in -- whenever it was, I forget -- I went to meetings with our local reps, freeholders they are, I think, and watched a computer scientist from Princeton tell them that the machines they were putting in were terrible, could be hacked, couldn't be made safe, on and on and on, and what did they do? They put those machines in. That in itself makes me suspicious. Something is wrong when that happens. Makes me wonder about Carmine Casiano (SP?).

I still believe they are stealing the elections. Regularly and in an organized fashion.