Diebold officials admit actual vote rigging

[DiveCon]

Here's an interview, see what you think....

[youtube]SKnIghBsU58[/youtube]

Makes me ill.

and aweful lot of edits in that video
i wonder what was cut out

 

[DiveCon]

I think the emphasis after 2000 was accuracy and transparency (and I don't mean the abolition of the secret ballot) in the voting process - not merely machines regardless of their accuracy or transparency.

no, the dems all screamed they wanted these new machines
sorry, you got what you wanted and are still not happy
spent a lot of tax payer funds for these things and now you are bitching about them
should have stayed with what they had

 

[ReillyT]

no, the dems all screamed they wanted these new machines
sorry, you got what you wanted and are still not happy
spent a lot of tax payer funds for these things and now you are bitching about them
should have stayed with what they had

Yes, we should have stayed with what we had.

When you say that Democrats wanted machines (which coincidentally, I don't ever remember being a rallying cry for Democrats), that is not really accurate. Democrats wanted a means to make sure that votes were counted accurately. No Democrat wanted to swap a faulty system for a system that is also faulty. You are confusing form with substance.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, we should have stayed with what we had.

When you say that Democrats wanted machines (which coincidentally, I don't ever remember being a rallying cry for Democrats), that is not really accurate. Democrats wanted a means to make sure that votes were counted accurately. No Democrat wanted to swap a faulty system for a system that is also faulty. You are confusing form with substance.

well, you dont remember accurately then

they demanded these machines

 

[ReillyT]

well, you dont remember accurately then

they demanded these machines

OK. I am sure that if they did, they were demanding any machine, regardless of how accurate it is. Why would accuracy matter?

 

[dilloduck]

The Republican and Democrat parties rig the election EVERY FRICKEN TIME.

 

[DiveCon]

OK. I am sure that if they did, they were demanding any machine, regardless of how accurate it is. Why would accuracy matter?

they were demanding these machines because they believed them to be more accurate and easier to compile the results
well, every computer will have glitches(not by design)
while it is easier to compile the results, they do have problems, and the problems dont benefit one side over the other

 

[ReillyT]

they were demanding these machines because they believed them to be more accurate and easier to compile the results
well, every computer will have glitches(not by design)
while it is easier to compile the results, they do have problems, and the problems dont benefit one side over the other

I think the poster was noting that your last statement may not be true... which would be a concern.

 

[DiveCon]

I think the poster was noting that your last statement may not be true... which would be a concern.

uh, it ISNT true
so there is no concern that the elections are rigged by Diebold(or what ever they call the company now)
what i find really interesting is that these problems dont happen in republican areas
maybe they just know how to run them better.




remember, it is the PEOPLE in those districts that actually run the machines

 

[Diuretic]

Why use machines anyway?

 

[Caligirl]

well, why did the dems all scream for these machines after 2000 then
you got what you wanted, now your crying again

I didn't scream for the machines, I say hang the sons of bitches that did.

 

[Caligirl]

The Republican and Democrat parties rig the election EVERY FRICKEN TIME.

But electronic rigging is a new level that affects orders of magnitudes more votes without a clear trail.

Corruption is universal. It's wrong and illegal and we need to be vigilant. But electronic rigging is a whole nother ballgame.

 

[del]

But electronic rigging is a new level that affects orders of magnitudes more votes without a clear trail.

Corruption is universal. It's wrong and illegal and we need to be vigilant. But electronic rigging is a whole nother ballgame.

no, it's just a different playing field. we vote on paper; it seems to work okay.
mark your ballot, feed it into the box and off you go. pretty simple.

 

[Caligirl]

Sure thing and of course EVERYONE that has any control over the machines is a Republican. What a fucking fantansy world you live in.

I live in a fantasy world for believing politicians are corrupt and opportunistic???? Surely the fantasy world belongs to those who believe politicians do not lie cheat and steal.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Your story does not say what you claim it does.

The story says what the headline says, Diebold technicians claim the vote was rigged.

 

[DiveCon]

no, it's just a different playing field. we vote on paper; it seems to work okay.
mark your ballot, feed it into the box and off you go. pretty simple.

paper ballots are easier to fake
look at King County WA

 

[Caligirl]

no, it's just a different playing field. we vote on paper; it seems to work okay.
mark your ballot, feed it into the box and off you go. pretty simple.

Voting on paper a few votes can be switched. maybe a whole ballot box can be re-stuffed.

Voting electronically entire districts can be rewritten without a trace. The courts ruled that we aren't allowed to see the machines, that they are proprietary.

Right there are two whole new levels that should scare the shit out of anyone. An entire precinct or higher can be switched, and the technology is not transparent, per our court system.

To return to the OP, machines in DEMOCRATIC districts were given a PATCH that was supposed to fix a clock that DIDN'T EXIST. Amazingly, Chambliss pulled off an upset of over 5 points against what the polls predicted. Now technicians are saying that they believe the patches threw the election to chambliss. This comes on the heels of the same company admitting that they wrote code that drops votes in demcratic areas.

But hey, tell this libertarian that I am just a liberal with sour grapes. I mean, we wouldn't want to challenge anyone's idea about their democracy.

No disrespect.

 

[del]

paper ballots are easier to fake
look at King County WA

all i have to go on is where i vote and it's never been a problem.
no chads, no software patches, just mark the ballot, zip it through the scanner into the box and you're done. quick tally and a paper back up.

 

[DiveCon]

Voting on paper a few votes can be switched. maybe a whole ballot box can be re-stuffed.

Voting electronically entire districts can be rewritten without a trace. The courts ruled that we aren't allowed to see the machines, that they are proprietary.

Right there are two whole new levels that should scare the shit out of anyone. An entire precinct or higher can be switched, and the technology is not transparent, per our court system.

To return to the OP, machines in DEMOCRATIC districts were given a PATCH that was supposed to fix a clock that DIDN'T EXIST. Amazingly, Chambliss pulled off an upset of over 5 points agaionsty what the polls predicted. Now technicians are saying that they believe the patches threw the election to chambliss.

But hey, tell this libertarian that I am just a liberal with sour grapes. I mean, we wouldn't want to challenge anyone's idea about their democracy.

oh please
thats utter nonsense

 

[DiveCon]

all i have to go on is where i vote and it's never been a problem.
no chads, no software patches, just mark the ballot, zip it through the scanner into the box and you're done. quick tally and a paper back up.

same here, X marks the spot
but i've voted on optical scan ballots in FL, and punch card ballots in MO(not in the same election)

never had the troubles the dems have had with both

 

[elvis]

so basically, there's no way to avoid voter fraud?