Is Democracy in Trouble with Electronic Voting Machines?

[amp]

In a CNN story the CEO of Diebold-you know the company that makes electronic voting machines- told a well known politician that his company "would deliver all the votes he needs" to win the 2004 election. Now, how can that be? Perhaps, because the politico is GWB and he doesn't want to take a chance that there would be a 'fair', open and honest election where the pereson elected to the Presidency is elected by the voters of the US. THe flaws in the Diebold machines have been documented and proven.

Here->http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00036.htm

here->http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=31&contentid=905

There are quite a few more sites where the problems built into the Diebold machines are put in the spotlight. No wonder Bush denied the UN observers and will deny them access again. Not that it matters, even Congress is rebuffed by his admin. Being denied access to documents that would more than likely provide grounds his impeachment.
Oh, for those nostalgic days when there was at least the semblence of open, free, honest election results.

 

[Zero]

Here we go again, with those pesky facts! Can't you just be a real patriot, and parrot the administrations lies?

 

[amp]

Oh yeah,

Thanks for reminding me Zero. (Shhh) (be wery wery quiet- the NSA might be watching) Takes me back to a song - They'er coming to take me away... HA HAaa.

 

[russ_watters]

Both url's link the same conspiracy theory website and neither include the quote you posted (though I could have missed it).

Sometimes I wonder if people in here understand the concept of "credibility."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Both url's link the same conspiracy theory website and neither include the quote you posted (though I could have missed it).

Sometimes I wonder if people in here understand the concept of "credibility."

This isn't a conspiracy theory...exactly.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
This isn't a conspiracy theory...exactly.

Hmm... Well, at least they picked and apt name for their website.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Hmm... Well, at least they picked and apt name for their website.

Well, some conspiracies actually exist...and no, I don't think they are out to get me.






Ok, I do think John Ashcroft is out to get me.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Both url's link the same conspiracy theory website and neither include the quote you posted

No kidding. conspiracy planet dot com? come on.
And the geocities link from that page didn't work either. Aside from the asininities here, vote rigging with electronic ballots is possible and threatening. Ballots ought to be hand written and counted by hand.

 

[amp]

Well I beg your pardon, Russ. I didn't really want to fill up the post with a lot of site links. But for you, I'll go the extra mile.
Many of the following links are about the succeptability of Electronic Voting machines to ... let's say tampering (a nicer word than fraud)others deal with issues that would make Americans if they had the interest the early colonist had in their Government want to revolt. All though we know - The revolution will not be TELEVISED.
Russ I must in all fairness correct myself- the CEO was referring to Ohio, although the equipment is to be distrubuted nation wide. Well here we go...

http://www.nogw.com/electionfraud.html

I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
- Wally O'Dell, CEO Diebold
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/
About a quarter of the way down the page – caption March 9, 2003 – pretty good article on the unreliability of the electronic voting machines.

http://www.americanassembler.com/
This site has a plethora of articles of interest.

http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Stolen+Election+2002
Obviously a Dem site, still articles worth reading.

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

http://www.robertscheer.com/

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030901&s=block

http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=000706
Some previous are repeated.

http://hnn.us/articles/1659.html
If you are working class (blue collar) read on.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=4116

“…If I were asked to choose one of Noam Chomsky's major contributions to the world, it would be the fact that he has unmasked the ugly, manipulative, ruthless universe that exists behind that beautiful, sunny word "freedom". He has done this rationally and empirically. The mass of evidence he has marshaled to construct his case is formidable. Terrifying, actually. The starting premise of Chomsky's method is not ideological, but it is intensely political. He embarks on his course of inquiry with an anarchist's instinctive mistrust of power. He takes us on a tour through the bog of the U.S. establishment, and leads us through the dizzying maze of corridors that connects the government, big business, and the business of managing public opinion.
Chomsky shows us how phrases like "free speech", the "free market", and the "free world" have little, if anything, to do with freedom. He shows us that, among the myriad freedoms claimed by the U.S. government are the freedom to murder, annihilate, and dominate other people. The freedom to finance and sponsor despots and dictators across the world. The freedom to train, arm, and shelter terrorists. The freedom to topple democratically elected governments. The freedom to amass and use weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological, and nuclear. The freedom to go to war against any country whose government it disagrees with. And, most terrible of all, the freedom to commit these crimes against humanity in the name of "justice", in the name of "righteousness", in the name of "freedom". …”

http://falloutshelternews.com/EMERGENCY_BROADCAST_NEWS.htm
Some tidbits.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by amp
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
- Wally O'Dell, CEO Diebold
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

Lol, damn amp, that's not even CLOSE to what you posted before in quotes:

"would deliver all the votes he needs"

If you do something like that in school, you'll get kicked out.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Aside from the asininities here, vote rigging with electronic ballots is possible and threatening.

The sad thing is, you're absolutely right. There IS a legitimate issue to be discussed here, but as is often the case, the crackpots destroy any chance for reasonable discussion. Sometimes I wonder if these people even realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

actually, amp is not a crackpot. The issue is deadly serious. Diebold, I just learned, has (in '99) contributed over 100K to the Bush campaign, and is run by a prominent white Republican. The source code for the voting machines was mistakenly (?) parked on a public server, and investigators have been able to open its files. The machines transmit vote counts by modem, which as we all know, are two-way devices.
Why wouldn't a candidate who had the power to do so, rig an election in his favor? Next thing you know he'll be trying to change the 22nd Amendment.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The way that they ought to do electronic voting is this:

-Have multiple companies make multiple machines that record votes. The gov could set some specifications about inputs, and they could all be wired to the same buttons. Each machine would have its own

-Have governmental inspection of source code. Any such inspectors would be composed of people selected from at least Repub and Dem parties, if not others.

-The votes would not be transmitted over the internet. They would be stored on disks and transported by vehicle.

 

[megashawn]

How about making a site that has you login via SS#. Then it would be relatively simple, and many more people would vote simply because they could do it in there living room, at work, etc.

And of course websites are subject to attack. But for something so important, seems they could hire a person to monitor every possible port of entry.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Punch cards have been shown to be more reliable than the digital stuff. A study has already shown even a completely computer illiterate person could exploit the system to have an infinite number of votes.

Fyi, it isn't the popular vote for the president that counts, it is the state wide vote which determines the electors. This system is for stability.

And by the way, democracy is where every individual has a vote. In Athens, a pure democracy, there were over 40,000 voters yet only 6,000 of them voted on issues. That's because they had lives to lead, jobs to do, only a few want to be pundits can sit at town hall all day and make decisions. Now, enlarge that on a scale of tens of millions of american voters. Democracy is a sure fire way to get anarchy and tyranny going.

What we live in is a Federalized Representative Democracy.

This is the state wide election map for 2000:

http://www.politicsol.com/gifs/2000map.gif

By no small margin did the Republicans win and Bush.

Here's county by county:

http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/e2000map.jpg

Notice even most of the Californian counties were won by Republicans.

And as for voter fraud in florida, that's such a myth. Jesse Jackson took a few witnesses to court to testify and all of them said they had voted. Huh? But I do remember reading a quote from the Washington Post from a man in the bronx who said quote "I think hillary is what will save this country. I'll give her six of my votes, I only get one but I'll give her six". Hmm, fraudulent huh?

As you can see from the map, if we got rid of electoral college we would be in trouble. Especially since the U.S. population expands fast and most voters aren't responsible anymore.

 

[Zero]

PsYcHo_FiSh, you are wrong on almost all counts...keep posting though, seeing someone be wrong all the time is rather entertaining!

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Bwahaha, list examples and then refute them.

 

[Zero]

Well, you think that Bush actually won the election...how much more wrong could you be?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Since the first presidential election in the United States we've been using electoral college. That means that the party that wins a state wide election get their electoral nominees. The electors then go on to vote for who they think should be president. The Republicans won the majority of states and Bush won the majority of electoral votes. Therefore, he won. In the case of the presidential elections, popular vote practically means nothing. Gore only held the lead by a few hundered popular votes but since they don't count it shouldn't be a trifle.

Obviously you lack a understanding of the system. But go look at those maps on my last post. Did you even read all of it?

If we got rid of electoral college we'd be heading for anarchy even faster than we are now.

Entropy, entropy entropee entupEe entUrpe...

 

[FZ+]

In the case of the presidential elections, popular vote practically means nothing.

It means the difference between one president and another.

Which is rather significant, isn't it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Gore only held the lead by a few hundered popular votes but since they don't count it shouldn't be a trifle.

That should read 'couple of hundred THOUSAND', and Florida was illegally rigged even before the election to skew towards Bush...plus, Bush won the empty, low-population states, so looking at a map doesn't prove anything...unless you claim that cows voted for Bush too? Bad enough that so many sheep voted for him...

 

[Zero]

So, when do we revive democracy by abolishing the electoral college?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you think that Bush actually won the election...how much more wrong could you be?

If he were any more wrong, it would be debateable! It is not. Bush won. Get over it. Hell, even if Gore had succeded in getting the courts to intervene in the election and they had accepted his challenges, he still would have lost the election.

It means the difference between one president and another.

Since when? (hint: overall popular vote has NEVER decided who would be president)

So, when do we revive democracy by abolishing the electoral college?

During those elections when it favors the Democrats of course! Hey, while we're at it, that Senate thing is unfair too... Two votes for Delaware?! Pffffft.

Obviously you lack a understanding of the system.

Psycho, you're new - these guys understand the system just fine. The problem is that the system doesn't always produce the result they are looking for and that is unacceptable to them. Flip the coin over and they reverse their arguements.

 

[Zero]

'get over it' is Republican-speak for 'stop telling the truth about how Bush stole teh election.' I know Republicans love lies and liars, but give me a break!

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Hey, do you know what the definition of rhetoric is? If you don't, QUICK go look it up!

I don't think abandoning the electoral college would be a good idea. Unless you work under the slogan of 'Death to Democracy in the U.S.' and 'Mob Rule 100%'. There is no way to keep such a large democratic republic going without some sort of system like electoral college.

Thing is, 500 years from now I hope some future republic learns from our mistakes. In my opinion, England and the U.S. corrected some major mistakes past republics and even 'democracy' have had. However, still a lot to hammer out.

Eventually our society will collapse and so will the west. Nations will rise and fall. All that matters is the human race because in the end that will be our nation. Only problem with consolidation though is corruption.

It's all about moderation and less authoritarian or centralized regulation. Then again, also less anarchy.

The thing I see that is possible in the future is more of a confederation of nations all walking under the same human banner. All of which value inalienable rights of individuals and understand the fundamentals necessary for a free civilization.

 

[FZ+]

I don't think abandoning the electoral college would be a good idea. Unless you work under the slogan of 'Death to Democracy in the U.S.' and 'Mob Rule 100%'.

But is the US even really democratic? We have here two parties with no real opposition or any incentive to change, who are essentially the same. We have mounting apathy levels. We have frankly disgusting appeals for "patriotism" to support the president. Where is the democracy in the US?

Since when? (hint: overall popular vote has NEVER decided who would be president)

But to say that it is insignificant that because this is disregarded, the majority of Americans did not get the president they want is rather risible, isn't it?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

But is the US even really democratic? We have here two parties with no real opposition or any incentive to change, who are essentially the same. We have mounting apathy levels. We have frankly disgusting appeals for "patriotism" to support the president. Where is the democracy in the US?

Take action, exercise your rights. Everyone, do this! Apathy is for morons, take action. I think if you are a teenager or a beaten down hermit you have a right to be apathetic but by and large Americans are able people. History proves this, we know this, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today.

I think its ok to whine, release some steam etc but bottome line you have to stand up for your rights.

Personally, if you want to derail both parties vote libertarian or green. That will turn heads if enough do it. Change takes time but it also takes responsibility.

But to say that it is insignificant that because this is disregarded, the majority of Americans did not get the president they want is rather risible, isn't it?

Ok, a point worth noting. However, the electoral college wasn't created just for kicks. It's there for a reason, to keep stability. Be realistic, democracy doesn't work but you can still have a free society. In fact, democracy isn't really free because a minority votes everyone into anarchy. In our society the majority can speak and act, it is our hope for salvation. But, we need education and communication. We've got one but we lack the other.

The electoral college was created so populus states like California and New York can't whore out the entire country. It protects the little guy, or the majority of states. It is also a little known fact that the senate (probably among other reasons) was created to protect the little states.

If you want a real civil war, get rid of the electoral college.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh

I don't think abandoning the electoral college would be a good idea. Unless you work under the slogan of 'Death to Democracy in the U.S.' and 'Mob Rule 100%'. There is no way to keep such a large democratic republic going without some sort of system like electoral college.

I think that the "founding fathers" expected the electoral college to be a deliberative body, like the Senate. However, that is not how it works, everybody goes there with a set mind to vote for a certain person, and rarely has anybody voted otherwise, at least in the past century and a half. It does nothing to diminish mob rule. It can actually the make the mob smaller than majority, as we saw in the 2000 election. Making the size of the mob a bit smaller does nothing to reduce mob rule. A majority of electoral votes still wins. The electoral votes are decided by the votes of the people. The electoral college just makes it so that presidential candidates appeal to certain key states, rather than trying to get a wider spectrum of supporters (There's not much need to do a lot of campaigning where you are a shoe-in or where you really have no chance in hell of getting that State's majority).

What this does is enhance the probability of the fears associated with mob rule coming to fruition, because it enhances the importance of local prejudices.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
But to say that it is insignificant that because this is disregarded, the majority of Americans did not get the president they want is rather risible, isn't it?

Better do the math again: Bush got less than half of the popular vote - and so did Gore. And neither got anywhere close to half of the voting age population to vote for them. In fact, the majority of Americans by choosing not to vote said in effect they don't care one way or another.

'get over it' is Republican-speak for 'stop telling the truth about how Bush stole teh election.' I know Republicans love lies and liars, but give me a break!

Zero, we've had this discussion before. The thread is probably even still around if you care to look at it. And I know you've read the reports on the election study. Why you keep saying these things is beyond me: you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Its simply not debateable.

Gore lost the election. Had Gore won his challenges to the election, he STILL would have lost the election. There WAS a convoluted set of criteria under which Gore could have won (and others that were specifically illegal), but Gore didn't fight for it in his challenge.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

In any case, the election is what is known as a "statistical tie." The problem was that Bush's margin of victory was smaller than the error inherrent in the election process. Things like electronic voting can reduce the error, but there is no way to completely eliminate error in such a process.

 

[Zero]

Russ, I'm also talking about the voter fraud that Katherine Harris commited before the election, which no one in the 'liberal media' challenged for some reason.

 

[amp]

Russ, I think your wrong...

There were probably a few stories/studies of the rigged Florida voter counts, some were skewed towards your side and some towards mine(opposite yours). The point is that the electorial process was not allowed to be completed in Florida which is what Gore wanted and I believe the citizens of the U.S. deserved. It was hijacked by the Bushs(George(Sr.),Jeb,G.W.) and their henchmen(in the Supreme Court). Now, we find little openness in this administration(secrecy is the word) Dick Cheny's company (Haliburton) is defrauding the U.S.(BILLING THE MILITARY overexaggerated prices for oil(N.Y. TIMES- Oct16,03) and likely other such excesses. Feel free to defend them since you trust them.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by amp
There were probably a few stories/studies of the rigged Florida voter counts, some were skewed towards your side and some towards mine(opposite yours).

The study I cited was THE study conducted as a collaborative effort by a number of the biggest media outlets, CNN, AP, Reuters, etc. It was the largest, most thorough, and by its nature the most liberal.

The point is that the electorial process was not allowed to be completed in Florida which is what Gore wanted and I believe the citizens of the U.S. deserved. It was hijacked by the Bushs(George(Sr.),Jeb,G.W.) and their henchmen(in the Supreme Court).

Gore was quite selective about WHICH votes he wanted re-counted and in any case, that is covered in the study. He still lost even if he won his challenge.

I will however, say that the election was (regardless of who was declared the winner) a statistical tie. Most polls, even the most careful, have a 1-2% margin of error that cannot be eliminated. Electronic balloting will eliminate the ambiguity of the counting process (so people won't argue as much afterward), but it will not eliminate the margin of error.

Also, I'm reasonably sure I responded to Zero's post as well: I haven't heard of that conspiracy theory you are alluding to, Zero. If you can point me to a link discussing it, I'd appreaciate it.

 

[RageSk8]

Gore was quite selective about WHICH votes he wanted re-counted and in any case, that is covered in the study. He still lost even if he won his challenge.

Here is the really funny thing about the election in Florida that no one, Republicans or Democrats, like to bring up. After the hand recount was completed, Gore would have won in every category except for the one that he was calling for (the whole "chads" debate). In other words, if the recount would have gone through in the way that the Democrats would have wanted, Gore would have lost. If the recount would of gone through (had the Supreme Court let the recount be valid, they didn't, under existing Florida law) in the way the Republicans were willing to concede to (if worse came to worse), Gore would have won. That is why Democrats can technically say that the election was stolen, but few do. Anyways, I find this really funny (seeing that I am a Democrat, in a black humor sort of way).

edit - I am pretty sure this is how it worked out. I remember laughing at the irony when I heard the results. But, unlke most things I say, I am not absolutely certain for some reason.

 

[russ_watters]

So, this issue is back again:

It is the only way for Bush to ensure victory, besides rigging the election again.

Just because you don't like the evidence, doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist...

So, to remind everyone where we left off (scroll up) the last time, I asked for evidence, Zero declined to offer any.

Zero, I bring this thread back again because of the impressionable types who are inclined to believe things simply because they hear them over and over again ('gee, Zero keeps saying it, so it must be true, right?'). You pump out the rhetoric, but you have not substantiated your claims. Here is your opportunity.

To paraphrase, you have claimed that Katherine Harris comitted voter fraud under the direction of Bush, which would then make him guilty of conspiracy to commit voter fraud (and maybe votor fraud as well).

In making a claim like this, besides actually explaining it, you are also required to substantiate it with evidence of the sort that might hold up in court. Its a two part requirement. You must show evidence that:
1. Voter fraud occurred.
2. Harris/Bush knew about/directed it.

For example, THIS link quotes a press release about voters complaining about illegal actions by Democrats in polling places. Thats real evidence that votor fraud occurred, but not evidence that Gore directed it. That sort of tampering happens on a local level all the time, perpetrated by individuals from both sides.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1029&catcode=11 is better. Its an actual prosecutorial investigation into alleged fraud by the Democratic candidate for senate (who won) in South Dakota in 2001. Still, afaik, he hasn't been prosecuted, so though the evidence is there, it must be pretty thin.

The best I could do for finding out what this particular conspiracy theory even is was http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html , which is an attack against a Florida anti-fraud law. The law is designed to "cleanse" votor rolls against multiple-entries and people not eligible to vote, etc. What is disupted is removing felons from votor rolls. There was apparently a mistake where some people were re-instated but didn't get their names back on the eligible votor rolls. But then, many counties didn't use the list of people not allowed to vote anyway. So the errors worked both ways.

The main issue democrats seem to have with this law though is that those not allowed to vote - convicted felons - are disproportionately black, which makes them disproportionately democrats. So, its in the best interests of the democratic party to have as many convicted felons voting as possible. Pretty funny actually.

Zero, I'm not even asking you to convince me that Bush comitted fraud. I don't think that can be done - if it could, the evidence would be clear and easy to find (and he'd already have been charged). All I want is some evidence that you have a basis for saying what you keep saying. I think you probably believe what you are saying, I'm just not convinced you actually have a basis for believing it - you just keep saying it because you want it to be true.

 

[Zero]

Russ, go to your local library and read a couple of books...how about one by Joe Conason, or one by Molly Ivins(her books are shorter).