Stealing the election in MA. (Honestly?)

[Motown_Johnny]

In a state that is almost completely run by Democrats, how exactly are the Republicans stealing the election with the Diebold machines?


Are the Democrats in charge of this so inept that they would allow this to happen?



Even the Daily Kos poll has this as a dead even race. 48-48

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/17/MA/429



If we lose today then it is because We Lost!!! If we win then We Won!!!


I am not buying the argument that we really won except that we are so stupid that we let it be stolen. Hiding your head in the sand instead of learning from the mistakes that were made isn't going to help anyone. We need to face facts, this race was FUBAR from the beginning. The argument could be made that Sen. Kennedy should have resigned once it became clear that he was not going to recover from his illness. Then he could have hand picked his successor and released statements helping that Democrat hold his seat.



We need to deal with reality, not hide from it blaming everything on what Bush/Cheney (probably) got away with.






Edit, spelling error

[Warpy]

1. Conservative Democrats have always had their heads

way up their butts on the issue of DREs enabling stolen elections. You'd think fellow DLCer Richardson of NM could have given them a clue: the theft here was so naked in 2004 that we got 100% paper opti-scan ballots in record time. One opti-scan counter was found to delete all Democratic straight ticket votes on testing. It was removed from service. Opti scan ballots can be hand counted if there is ever another massive discrepancy like there was in 2004. Those easily hacked Diebold and Sequoia jobs were not able to be recounted.

Personally, I think the MSM and GOP are hoping to demoralize Democratic voters in Mass and hold turnout down by calling the election of the incredibly awful Brown a sure thing.

I just hope the ornery people I know back there hand them an ugly surprise. I don't want Coakley to win. I want her to win a landslide.

[DrDan]

2. agree - there are too many here afraid to face reality . . .

all this talk about Diebold . . . and not a single fact to back up any conspiracy.

[BeFree]

9. Right

There has never been a conspiracy to steal votes.
So why start now?

Trust the computers. They're always right and they never lie.

[DrDan]

11. did I say that? I don't believe so.

Do you have any real basis for a conspiracy involving Diebold machines?

[BeFree]

15. Yes, I do

Thanks for asking. And anyone can find it thru google.

Or even right here on DU in the Election Reform Forum.

There's even a thread of mine with a bit of info, if you are interested.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7502238

[Motown_Johnny]

21. So your evidence is a your own post that has no links anywhere else?

I don't doubt that these things can be hacked but that is just silly.

[BeFree]

37. Check this out

If you really want to know more, google is your friend.

Harry Hursti hack of diebold counters on HBO:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=502570&mesg_id=502721

[Motown_Johnny]

43. yes, we all saw that back in 2008

I still see no evidence that it is being done today in Mass.

Just because it is possible is not evidence that it is probable.

[BeFree]

44. Yeah, of course

We can trust diebold and the republicans.
Just because they have the means, the motive, and the opportunity in the bag, doesn't mean they'd use it.

Yeah, we can trust diebold and the republicans this time.

Heck if they were gonna do it, they'd just announce it first, eh?
Just like every honest crook that tells everyone what and when they're gonna break the law?

Is that really the way you're thinking? Really?

[Motown_Johnny]

46. I don't think they have the opportunity, that was the point of my OP

[BeFree]

47. Oh

If the votes are counted solely by diebold and there is no human audit of at least 10% of the count, the opportunity is there the whole way.

What kind of audit is set up in MA?

Do you know how easy it is to hack the counters?
Do you know how computers make mistakes?
Can you read the code in the machines?

They have the opportunity.

[KittyWampus]

24. if you think Diebold is NOT a problem, then you are the one not facing reality.

[DrDan]

30. thanks - could you provide me a link with respect to Diebold and the MA election

not doubting you - would just like to read about what is driving the suspicion. I guess I just missed the links.

[LLStarks]

42. No paper trail should piss you off plenty. nt

[xchrom]

3. It was an awful campaign. Nt

[LaydeeBug]

4. diebold. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

5. thanks

[demodonkey]

6. Not sure about today, but folks there are VOTING MACHINES AT RISK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Still.

Just because Obama won, this problem has NOT gone away. Actually the situation coming into 2010 and 2012 is more dire than ever.

Millions and millions nationwide still have no paper ballot to back up their vote, or to audit or meaningfully recount.

Multiple scientific studies have proven these machines are insecure, hackable, breakable, and poorly designed.

ES&S recently bought out Diebold, meaning that one privately-held corporation will control the counting of approximately 75% of our votes nationwide.

And perhaps worst of all, there is a new nationwide push toward Internet Voting, which is so insecure and hackable it makes problems with electronic machines in the polls look like childsplay. Internet Voting is all the problems with paperless touchscreens on steroids, magnified a hundred times.

All this WILL come back to bite us again sooner or later in a future election.

Please, pay attention and support the Election Integrity organization of your choice. The vote you save may be your own.

[BeFree]

10. I dunno

I read it on DU that there is nothing to worry about.

Just because votes are counted by one corporation - and not by a million little old ladies the way votes used to be counted - doesn't raise any alarms.

I'm sure Diebold/ESS only wants the best.

[goclark]

14. Thank you! Rove's Elve's are still in control of Diebold

IMO, the votes were just so overwhelming for the Democrats the last time that even the elves couldn't steal it.

I'm sure they tried and they will try again.

[keepthemhonest]

7. Ok but lets throw in the tea party candidate... are you readyfor this

Joe Kennedy.Some people are going to choose Kennedy because they think he's a real Kennedy taking the place I'll be very suprised if this does't make a large impact on the outcome.We be screwed man.We should have just run a kennedy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15massachusetts.html

[Motown_Johnny]

8. We all know the (I) has the last name Kennedy. It was even posted that

he is trying to confuse things and throw the election to Brown.


It never should have come to this. We should have beaten the (R) and the (I) combined by 10%

[keepthemhonest]

34. yeah we should have for sure nt

[WI_DEM]

12. I saw this a mile away automatically some on DU will yell "Diebold" if Cloakley loses

forgetting that she has run a lousy campaign and took voters for granted and that right now the in-party (dems) are having the same problems because of the economy that the in-party (GOP) had in '06 & '08.

[EFerrari]

16. There is no reason to have any confidence in a result you can't verify

no matter what that result is.

[Orsino]

26. We ought to be yelling "Diebold!" either way.

The machines must go.

[timeforpeace]

13. Couldn't agree more. Plus it will look silly if we scream Diebold! and she wins.

[brooklynite]

17. But if we can blame the voting machines...

We don't have to blame ourselves for bad candidate selection, bad campaigning, etc.

[Mudoria]

18. Same old DU meme

the Democratic candidate wins and the voters have spoken. The Republican wins and the election was stolen. Sometimes you just lose and the reality is someone the voters liked better won.

[Orsino]

19. Thank you for certifying the Diebold machines as completely trustworthy.

I've been waiting for an anonymous Internet poster to do that.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. I am saying the people running this election should be trusted. not the machines themselves

I don't doubt that they can be hacked.

I am doubting that the (D)s in charge of this election are allowing them to be hacked in this instance.



I think that was pretty clear since you are the only one who seems to have gotten any other message from it.

[Orsino]

22. I'm not clear on the difference between our positions...

...or that trustworthy people will be able to negate any hacking just by wishing hard.

With the goddamned machines in the way, we will never be able to identify a Diebold-biased election.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. I am of the opinion that the machines can also Not be hacked. You seem to think

that they will always produce false results no matter what.

[Orsino]

25. Not at all.

I'm saying that without transparency and verifiable ballots, we can never know which elections were run correctly--no matter how well-intentioned our Dem leaders are.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. I agree that all votes should have a paper ballot

but I am working on the assumption that the Democrats in charge of the MA. election have checked the machines to make certain the count it accurate.

I believe you can run test votes on them prior to the election and make certain that the tally accurately reflects what was input.

[Orsino]

29. Yes. The machines (usually) don't go into place without being certified.

But they can be hacked. It may be inevitable that they are hacked, but as long as they remain proprietary, we'll never know for sure.

[BeFree]

31. Certified?

Not according to the Calif SoS....

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

[Orsino]

32. Yes. n/t

[Bombtrack]

27. thank you, we can't learn from our mistakes if we keep blaming everything on the unknowable

unprovable, and, if true-all powerful.

[Tailormyst]

33. No- if we lose its for alot of reason, none of which would be fraud.

[BeFree]

35. Really?

You know this for a fact? That there will be no fraud? Wow.

[Tailormyst]

36. Yes

[BeFree]

38. How?

How do you know that? I think you are wrong. I know you are wrong.

Maybe you are one who has faith that votes are never stolen?

[Tailormyst]

40. The same way I am sure that I won't wake up next to a pink unicorn tommorrow

As for my views on stealing votes: I am absolutely sure that FL was stolen in 2000 and in 2004 I was with other campaigners as we watched the votes flipping miraculously to Bush. So I absolutely believe votes can be stolen.

I just am absolutely sure they won't be stolen here in Mass today. It is not a problem we have ever had and the state is almost completely run by Democrats. If you choose to believe that the only way Coakley could lose here is through theft then my response would be that you either know nothing about Mass politics and people OR that you just haven't been paying attention.

[BeFree]

41. Dream on

With what I know about republicans and their dirty tricks and what I know about the computers counting votes, I'd have to be dreaming that the election could not be stolen.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. A DU'er yesterday called the election, and blamed Diebold. "It's already in the bag" was

the term used.

[ddeclue]

45. THANK YOU! +1 NT

[apocalypsehow]

48. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[BeFree]

49. Heh

""Hiding your head in the sand instead of learning from the mistakes that were made isn't going to help anyone. We need to face facts,"""
Fact is: diebold can alter a great many votes.

I find it odd that you can blame Ted, while saying the party has complete control of state politics, and in the same thread do every thing you can to deny the reality of the vote counting machinery.

Hiding your head in the sand, indeed.