You've got to be kidding me

[Phi for All]

Here's another article that attempts to put the pieces together behind these bizarre business dealings. My favorite part, for those tempted to dismiss outright any thought of wrongdoing:

 

Now, however much this might sound like an absurd conspiracy theory, it's certainly worth looking into. If the family of a candidate in, say, a Russian election, owned the company that made the voting machines, reasonable observers would howl that the election might obviously be rigged. And they would be justified in doing so.

[Bill Angel]

I'm certain others remember the "hanging chad" controversy in the Bush Gore Presidential election of 2000. Hopefully no more states are still using paper ballots.

[John Cuthber]

No, many of them now use machines made by a company owned by one of Romey's sons (so that's OK ).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/could-romney-linked-elect_b_2025490.html

[overtone]

I'm sure many safeguards have been built into these voting machines since they come out some years back,

Nope.

 

Some states have imposed safeguards in the procedures of use, the most important of which is establishing an independent paper trail of the votes so there is some way to audit the machine vote, but the machines themselves remain inherently insecure.

 

The most telling detail is the vigorous opposition of the makers to publishing the operating code - the software that counts and tabulates the actual votes. That should be routine, a no-brainer.

 

I'm certain others remember the "hanging chad" controversy in the Bush Gore Presidential election of 2000. Hopefully no more states are still using paper ballots.

There are many better systems of paper balloting than chad punching.

 

Besides: The ability to audit the vote was the problem with the chads - not the chads themselves.

 

And the whole thing was a consequence of vote rigging by the Florida Republican Party - the malfunctioning machines and misprinted ballots were both assigned to heavily Democratic districts.

 

Again,where is the evidence of foul play?

Among many other places, in the exit polls - if you recall, in 2000 and 2004 exit polls in key electronic voting machine districts sometimes failed to predict the machine vote count, for reasons never explained (the history of such polls had at the time established a disturbing degree of accuracy for them, so much that there was a movement to ban announcing their results until after the polls had closed).

 

Wiki overviews:

http://en.wikipedia....g_controversies

http://en.wikipedia....ser:Pedant/Vote

 

• Exit polls into the evening of Nov. 2 actually showed Kerry rolling to a clear victory nationally and carrying most of the battleground states' date=' including Florida and Ohio, whose totals would have ensured Kerry's victory in the Electoral College.[*']The exit polls covered both the Presidential and Senate races. The votes reported by voting machines for the Senate races were in line with the exit polls for the Senate race, however the votes reported by the same voting machines for the Presidency often significant disagreed with the exit polls for the Presidency.

And so forth. Not proof, of course - but plenty of reason to require better safeguards than allowing obviously partisan voting machine execs to monopolize vote counting with secret software and proprietary technology.

 

Here's some links re 2004: http://mediastudy.com/election.html#papers

 

http://www.vtcommons.org/journal/issue-16-autumn-2006/joel-bleifuss-and-steven-f-freeman-us-electoral-fraud-ldquocritical

 

and a quote from a statistical analyst:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is

 

impossible' date=' it is impossible that the discrepancies between [/color']

 

predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground

 

states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could

 

have been due to chance or random error... The likelihood of any two

 

of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of

 

one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are

 

250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that

 

something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies

 

between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical

 

battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to

 

chance or random error."

 

 

Edited October 27, 2012 by overtone

[Appolinaria]

Doesn't matter if there's any foul play. It's simply a conflict of interest.

 

A huge "do not", especially if you're a politician, IMO. Obviously Romney don't got time for that.

[Iggy]

We're just saying that questions deserved to be asked. You have to suspect people in power. If there are inconsistencies or the appearance of impropriety then it should be investigated. Maybe the truth is being concealed. And so on...

 

I hate being reminded of the birther argument. Yuck.

[ydoaPs]

With the new "experimental" software patches installed on Romney's machines in Ohio, it's hard to see how this is a fair election. After all of the voter purging. After absentee ballots being thrown away. After "glitches" lose thousands of votes in low income areas. Have no delusion about this being a fair election.

 

 

The GOP makes a big stink about the nonexistent problem of voter impersonation, but they don't bat an eye at the real and rampant voter fraud. Why? Because they're the one doing it and the restrictions they can make in the name of voter impersonation help them do it.

[iNow]

Oops. ^meant that to be a +1

[ydoaPs]

Oops. ^meant that to be a +1

 

Oh noes, that affects the rep I've accrued since 2004 so much and I care so much! </sarcasm>

 

Seriously, though, I'm not sure how this obvious voter fraud and voter impropriety isn't getting more traction. You'd think this sort of thing would be something that would cause (and probably should cause should the cheater win) riots.

[imatfaal]

Oops. ^meant that to be a +1

 

neutralised

[ydoaPs]

neutralised

 

Danke schön.

[imatfaal]

Oh noes, that affects the rep I've accrued since 2004 so much and I care so much! </sarcasm>

 

Seriously, though, I'm not sure how this obvious voter fraud and voter impropriety isn't getting more traction. You'd think this sort of thing would be something that would cause (and probably should cause should the cheater win) riots.

 

Those who rely on lies and half-truths have benefited massively from a pervasive meme that all politicians are bent, that the systems is inherently flawed, and that the voters are not listened to. Very bad, and all too easy to slip into cynicism and inaction; I believe there are honest and principled politicians out there and I do not want them being beaten by dodgy systems. I have heard these very accusations of voting irregularity brushed off as easily "ah - they are probably both at it!" FFS - they are not both at it!

 

Honesty becomes a dangerously expensive luxury for a politician if he or she is to be automatically labeled and treated as a liar ex officio; and we might complete the self-fulfilling prophecy and reach the situation in which both parties end up saying that which hurts the other and benefits themselves regardless of the truth.

[Phi for All]

Seriously, though, I'm not sure how this obvious voter fraud and voter impropriety isn't getting more traction. You'd think this sort of thing would be something that would cause (and probably should cause should the cheater win) riots.

I felt the same way when Gore lost in 2000. I was all set to march on the capital when the Supreme Court gave that ridiculous 2-hour recount ruling to the Florida Election Commission. It became clear later that, had they given them a decent amount of time, the true recount would have meant Gore won the Electoral vote as well as the popular vote. But Gore rolled over and took it, and all those torches went back into my basement.

[Moontanman]

I noticed something odd when I voted, I have never voted a straight ticket before but this time I did but I found out that I had to vote for president seperate from the straight ticket vote. If I had not gone back to check I wouldn't have noticed that I didn't vote for president...

 

I felt the same way when Gore lost in 2000. I was all set to march on the capital when the Supreme Court gave that ridiculous 2-hour recount ruling to the Florida Election Commission. It became clear later that, had they given them a decent amount of time, the true recount would have meant Gore won the Electoral vote as well as the popular vote. But Gore rolled over and took it, and all those torches went back into my basement.

 

 

Yes but this time you have congress critters actually calling for an armed revolt... As a liberal i know I am not supposed to have weapons but silly me I didn't sign the liberal agreement when i joined so i still have guns. I have enough ammunition to hold off a few people for a few hours but a concentrated assault and I am doomed...

[Phi for All]

I noticed something odd when I voted, I have never voted a straight ticket before but this time I did but I found out that I had to vote for president seperate from the straight ticket vote. If I had not gone back to check I wouldn't have noticed that I didn't vote for president...

You mean on a whole separate ballot?

 

 

 

Yes but this time you have congress critters actually calling for an armed revolt... As a liberal i know I am not supposed to have weapons but silly me I didn't sign the liberal agreement when i joined so i still have guns. I have enough ammunition to hold off a few people for a few hours but a concentrated assault and I am doomed...

The quickest way to lose your right to bear arms is to become a terrorist, which you quickly would if you brought your guns to the march. I still have the torches in my basement, so I will swing by and pick you up on the way to the capital.

[Moontanman]

You mean on a whole separate ballot?

 

It was a separate part of the electronic ballot, If I hadn't gone back to check my choices, which should have been redundant since I voted straight ticket, I would not have known I didn't vote for president...

 

 

The quickest way to lose your right to bear arms is to become a terrorist, which you quickly would if you brought your guns to the march. I still have the torches in my basement, so I will swing by and pick you up on the way to the capital.

 

I'll be ready, the guns are for when they chase us back to my place and it's time to take a stand... bring 12 gauge shells...

[Phi for All]

It was a separate part of the electronic ballot, If I hadn't gone back to check my choices, which should have been redundant since I voted straight ticket, I would not have known I didn't vote for president...

That sounds scary. I wonder if it would have automatically voted for Mitt if you'd done straight ticket Republican?

 

I always use absentee ballots. I don't trust the electronic machines. My ballot didn't even have an option for a straight ticket vote (not sure I'd ever use it). We can even go online to make sure our votes were received by mail.

 

 

I'll be ready, the guns are for when they chase us back to my place and it's time to take a stand... bring 12 gauge shells...

I'll bring the shells if you've got sandwiches. Give me liberty, or give me ham on rye!

[ydoaPs]

 

Video description:

My wife and I went to the voting booths this morning before work. There were 4 older ladies running the show and 3 voting booths that are similar to a science fair project in how they fold up. They had an oval VOTE logo on top center and a cartridge slot on the left that the volunteers used to start your ballot.

 

I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney's name and started tapping very closely together to find the 'active areas'. From the top of Romney's button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama's name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein's button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.

 

I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said "It's nothing to worry about, everything will be OK." and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.

[Phi for All]

Holy crap. That's Pennsylvania, right? ^^^

[akh]

This election is a a complete mess. Maybe I am over sensitive after having to cast a provisional ballot because somebody, somewhere decided I might not be a citizen, but something tells me this will go down as the worst, most contoversial election in our history. At least you got to the machines! I had to fill out a bubble sheet.

 

Thank the guy for the recording. I don't know about legality, but just someones word on the experience would not have been of any value. I have already shown the vid to everyone I know, and will continue to do so.

Edited November 6, 2012 by akh

[Phi for All]

I don't know about legality, but just someones word on the experience would not have been of any value.

There are sites encouraging people to use their phone to record anything they think is fraudulent and upload it for posterity.

[Ringer]

You know if shenanigans were going on with this you may find Romney being selected when someone attempts to pick Obama. . .

http://venturebeat.c...machine-glitch/

 

It's not substantial evidence of tampering or anything, but come on. Why the f*$% wouldn't these things be tested and calibrated well enough to last a day.

 

 

[edit] Didn't realize this was already posted. apologies[/edit]

Edited November 7, 2012 by Ringer

[Phi for All]

It's not substantial evidence of tampering or anything, but come on. Why the f*$% wouldn't these things be tested and calibrated well enough to last a day.

Machine glitches are one thing, I guess, but what's really telling to me is the reaction of the volunteer. "It's nothing to worry about, everything will be OK." She saw that it was a major flaw, that there was a major objection, and blew it off.

 

You've GOT to be kidding me.

[Ringer]

But why would a glitch have a one box far overlap another without the overlap moving somewhere else. I could see maybe a box being slightly extended due to an oversight on the programmers part, but to have such a massively oversized selection area that overlaps directly over the oppositions selection box seems to be a pretty egregious error. Imagine the positive rep points slection area grossly overlaping the neg rep area to where you have to hunt to give neg reputation. It shouldn't be that hard to catch on the debugging.

[Phi for All]

But why would a glitch have a one box far overlap another without the overlap moving somewhere else. I could see maybe a box being slightly extended due to an oversight on the programmers part, but to have such a massively oversized selection area that overlaps directly over the oppositions selection box seems to be a pretty egregious error. Imagine the positive rep points slection area grossly overlaping the neg rep area to where you have to hunt to give neg reputation. It shouldn't be that hard to catch on the debugging.

Oh, I'm certainly not discounting what you say. It IS a huge error, so huge it does make it seem like it was intentional. It's certainly not the kind of thing that just suddenly goes wrong after being OK. That machine obviously passed inspection by someone.