Guess what??? Diebold machines to tally Mass. race

[no_hypocrisy]

Next Tuesday's Special Election for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts looks to be coming down to the wire. Surprising pundits in what had previously been thought to be a cakewalk for State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate hoping to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Republican state Senator Scott Brown has come on strong in the final days of the campaign.

But as the election looms, tempers flare, money is poured into the contest from all sides, and Democrats sweat out what should have been a safe seat for them - a Democrat named Kennedy has held that particular seat for more than the last 50 years - questions about whether the election results can be trusted have already emerged in a race where the stakes couldn't be higher.

As the 60th "filibuster-proof" Democratic U.S. Senate seat hangs in the balance - and the party's healthcare reform bill and other key legislative hopes along with it - fears are mounting that the final vote tallies could be as questionable as they were in the recent NY-23 Special Election for the U.S. House. Perhaps even more so.



http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/st-lawrence-news/54-worldnational-news/10625-easily-hacked-voting-systems-to-be-used-in-ma-special-election-for-the-us-senate.html

[Ian David]

1. There's an ES&S touchscreen sitting plugged-in and unsupervised at Caffree Towers in Brockton. n/t

[KittyWampus]

6. she better be prepared to fight. And have lawyers cued up already.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Why do you think the poles are "All over the Place"

[hack89]

3. Are you saying the state's dominant political organization will rig the election

or that they are unable to stop some unknown group from rigging it?

[AllieB]

5. Many of the swing areas are more Red than Blue.

Plymouth and Bristol Counties, and the Cape, for example. So if Republican officials are in charge of the tallies, Coakley will probably lose. They are already trying to jam phones at Coakley phonebanks and harassing attendees at her events. A lot of these 'Brown-shirts' are being bussed in from out of state.

[hack89]

8. So state election officials and law inforcement are powerless?

why do you think they can get away with it?

[BeFree]

7. Unknown group?

Nah, very well known, just hidden.

They are called republicans and they own the computer code that operates the op-scan vote counting computers.

[hack89]

16. And Massachusetts election officials and law enforcement

is powerless to detect and stop it? Is that what you believe?

[BeFree]

18. Massachusetts may

California is trying. Ohio too. But it has been slow progress.

Judges have ruled that we can't look at the code, even a backwards look to see why the computers made mistakes.

Seems the code is privately owned, and not subject to wiretaps. <grin>

Believe me, we know a smoking gun will one day appear that convicts the damned private code once and for all. It may just happen this election. It very well could.

[hack89]

20. So you have nothing but suspicions? nt

[BeFree]

21. Heh

No. Like I said, California has examined the machines and found big problems. Ohio too. In Florida the machines lost 100's of votes, and the experts wanted to examine the code to find out why and were denied a look see.

Computer experts were the first who were suspicious and so they examined the stuff and said drop using the machines.

I thought everyone knew all this. Its been on DU for years and years.
I guess only people who care have looked for it?

[hack89]

24. So California and Ohio have definitively said there was widespread

organized voter manipulation? Or did they merely say that there problems with the software that makes it susceptible to abuse?


The "Bush stole the election " movement is big on taking a kernel of truth and spinning into a massive conspiracy.

[BeFree]

27. Kernel of truth

No, more than a kernel, more like a cornfield full of facts.

I know for some, the idea that Bushco is the biggest crooks ever is hard to accept. And further the idea that "they would steal votes" is hard to swallow.

But the facts are the facts. The facts have been on DU for years and on thousands of posts.

[hack89]

32. So what did California and Ohio officially say? nt

[BeFree]

34. Are you really ignorant?

Or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

Google is your friend if you are just ignorant.
Being obtuse? No friends anywhere.

[hack89]

35. Just like I thought - the states made no official claim of fraud. nt

[BeFree]

36. Thought?

You are just ignorant, no thought.

If google is too hard for you, got to the DU Election Reform Forum and search for Debra Bowen.

Who is she? SoS of California.

[BeFree]

38. I did it for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=512634

Is a DU page wherein the Ca SoS Bowen officially makes a statement about how the machines make mistakes.

Any questions? Sorry I was so mean to you earlier. But my frustration level with the ignorance of this matter is still high.

[hack89]

40. Where is the statement that there was deliberate election fraud

she simply says that the the system doesn't meet California standards.

[BeFree]

41. You asked:

""So California and Ohio have definitively said there was widespread

organized voter manipulation?""

And I showed you that the machines are known to manipulate votes.
And being that Diebold organization is widespread, I think you now have your answer?

[hack89]

42. No - just some voter fraud CT nonsense

She said the machines fucked up. There is no evidence of deliberate manipulation by any group or individual

[BeFree]

43. Not yet

That's the smoking gun we are looking for, and will, one day, find.

As for evidence of manipulative intent, if a judge would let our experts examine the computer code, we feel that we would find a smoking gun. But since no judge has yet allowed any independent examination of any said code, the evidence is hidden from us, and you.

You helped pay for the machines and the coding, but you'll never get a look at the code unless a judge allows it. The most recent case in Sarasota, Fla., our experts spent thousands of dollars in court trying to get a look at the code to find out why it messed up. They were not allowed.

Look, if the code were exposed, then all the past elections would be called into question and democracy, to its core, would suffer a 7.0 quake. So there is aligned against justice being done, a great many, very powerful people who just wish we peons would go away and let them continue on.

Too bad you don't give a flying f'k, we need everybody to stand up for their votes.

The vote you save may be your own.

[BeFree]

44. P.S

In fact, the very idea that so many people are questioning the computers, and looking for discrepancies has forced the manufacturers to be very careful with any manipulations of the vote.

We figure that only the closest races can be stolen because of the other measures of the vote.

And denial of there ever being votes stolen is moronic. It has happened many times in years past. But now, with computer vote tabulations, millions of votes can easily be stolen through just the coding in the counters.

Vote stealing these days really is "New and Improved."

[hack89]

45. Just like the 911 Truthers and the Birthers?

Those smoking guns seem so elusive don't they?

[BeFree]

46. Who loves ya?

The vote stealing bastards, that's who.

They love that you don't give a shit.

Hey, I've heard the same crap from others for going on 6 years now. Every name in the book. You are just another in a long line of naysayers that vote stealers love.

Ever hear of a DRE - Direct Recording Electronic? They are now pretty much outlawed. But close to 50% of the vote in 2004 was counted using those computers. Ask yourself: Why did they outlaw those computers?
Answer: because they were messed up.

How did they outlaw those? Because people who were called every name in the book made them outlaw the damn things.

This is no CT. The computer experts are against using the machines with private code. States are double-checking the counts like they never did before, and are de-certifying and outlawing many machines.

But you just go on looking for love in all the wrong places.

We will save your vote without your help. Because the vote we save will be our own, too.

[robinlynne]

11. They haven't been stopped yet, have they? or do you believe Obama really only won by 2 points.

[No Elephants]

13. Not in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the vote was

Obama 1,904,097

McCain 1,108,854

[hack89]

17. Yes I do believe that

Obama is a polarizing politician who triggers strong opposition in many parts of the country.

[BeFree]

19. Polarizing?

Why would you say that? He's more bi-partisan than Bush.

What is this strong trigger you speak of?

[hack89]

22. I take it you don't live in a red state?

have hung around some conservatives? Don't you think the Birther movement and the rise in threats reported to the Secret Service indicate that many are not comfortable with him?

Ask the Republican leadership if he is bi-partisan. I suspect you wouldn't like the answer.

[BeFree]

23. Oh

Because he is a democrat, he's polarizing?

[hack89]

26. No

because he is black and liberal and "different". Are you always this obtuse?

[BeFree]

28. Different?

Do you have a suspicion that most of Obama's opposition is race related?

[hack89]

30. Down south it is

you have been following the reports about the growth in RW extremist groups? Don't you believe that the Birthers and tea baggers are racially motivated?

[BeFree]

37. Growth?

Nah, they are dying. Just a loud death gasp is all we hear.

I am wondering why you think Obama is polarizing. Do you think every politician is polarizing? You think the color of Obama's skin is polarizing? Or is it his style of politics?

Has he polarized you, personally?

[robinlynne]

29. The red voters do not make up 48% of the US population, not even close.

[hack89]

31. Never said they did. nt

[robinlynne]

33. You said that "red states" are the reason Obama only won by 2 percentage points.

That means they represent 48% of the voters.

[Webster Green]

4. "60th "filibuster-proof" Democratic U.S. Senate seat"

In your dreams. It seems that the number of seats the dems hold in the Senate doesn't mean a thing.

I think they could have 90 fucking seats and still not get anything done. :banghead:

[peacetalksforall]

9. There are two huge problems. The 7 Republican networks and our own Congresspeople.

The theft of votes since 2000 could not have been pulled off if the seven networks hadn't done their part. They aided in the propaganda before the election and in reporting the results.

Particularly in 2000 and 2004. They pounded us with propaganda that Florida, then Ohio were going to be the pivot states. They set us up psychologically.

They never covered the news about road blocks, misinformation sufficiently. They never investigated anything - they never gave voice to people who learned things on their own or the computer experts who analyzed and released the findings showing that some of the stuff was impossible.

In 2000 they were involved in their own recount and when they couldn't hide the results, they obfuscated them and gave it no attention.

They were calling the votes. At NBC we had the stories of Jack Welsh's involvement.

In 2004 we had all the hype again about Ohio being the pivot point - it was getting psyched for a theft all over again.

They let the thefts happen. And they have never done any follow-up or raised doubts in anyones head about the results.

Our other problem is our Congresspeople - they were even worse. Yes, Conyers led some hearings, BUT THEY NEVER DIE A THING ABOUT THE MACHINES - EVER!!!!!!!

When Diebold and ES & S were exposed - neither the networks or Congress did anything on their own.

IT IS STILL OK WITH CONGRESS THAT THEIR ARE THEFT MACHINES.

So where to Dems stand today? Do Dems still approve of theft by ignoring it?

What's on the books to make this country legal in their vote efforts?

[Overseas]

10. K&R. //nt

[No Elephants]

12. In 2004, in Boston, I voted for Kerry by paper ballot and have voted that way since.

Lately, you have a machine fill out your paper ballot, but you get the ballot back and can check it before you hand it in. Or, you can still mark it in pencil, if you wish.

A machine counts the votes, but the paper trail is there.

Boston has had a Democratic Mayor for decades, though.

[Arkana]

14. Exactly--I think the tabulator in my little backwater town is a Diebold machine

but we feed paper ballots into it. There's never, ever been a problem with vote counting. That's not to say there isn't one now, but the fact is that we shouldn't tear our hair out over something that probably isn't going to end up being the reason if Coakley loses.

[Stevepol]

25. How do you know?

"There's never, ever been a problem with vote counting."

So how do you know there's never been a problem? How would you know?

Is an audit of the paper done routinely in your town after each vote? This is the only way it's possible to know if the vote was hacked or rigged. Even then, there could be problems having to do with the oversight of the paper ballots. Who's in charge of keeping them, storing them, trensferring them?

In the HBO special of a few years ago "Hacking America," Hari Hursti hacked the machine (the same opscan being used at most sites in MA) easily by using a "memory card" that supposedly (according to testimony by the so-called computer experts at Diebold) cannot be used to alter the results. Like almost everything else the electronic voting vendors say, this was and is a lie.

But it is true that if the paper is kept and not tampered with, it can be used to verify the vote.

In my mind, however, unless the vote can be verified, it's not possible to even have a democracy. Unless the vote is audited to verify the results, you don't have a democracy.

Maybe I'm wrong but it's hard for me to see how.

[crazyjoe]

15. ahh, I was waiting for this post.

[graywarrior]

39. Not in my town