If democrats lose this election to fraud, they deserve to lose

[dilloduck]

I think I'd be content with optical scan if each ballot had to be read twice - once by a machine that the republicans approved of/ran/whatever and once by a machine that the democrats approved of/ran/etc.

If the numbers match up on both sets of software then i think I am happy.

Have you ever considered that someone other than the GOP or Dems might want to tamper with the election results ?

 

[Caligirl]

Oooh. I had, then I promptly forgot.

Righto, then a third machine that I approve of, run, whatever/etc.

 

[DiveCon]

Got to agree with you. We don't use these machines in my county. I have never seen one of these paperless voting machines. We use paper ballots with a ballot scanner. If there is so mch fraud with these Diebold machines, why are they still using them.


I mean we have a Democrat controlled congress. If this is such a huge problem, why haven't they remedied it?

elections are controled by the states


congress has no constitutional authority to do anything about it

 

[Caligirl]

Except HAVA.

 

[DiveCon]

With a paper ballot you have a record .. that is worlds better

I was in your state, Leon County Florida to be exact, when the fraud was proven and proven to be designed for fraud. Legislation to get rid of Diebold began immediately.

The entire country of Canada uses paper ballots and gets results in about 5 hours .. which would be easy to do in America if the votes were counted on a precinct level

with a paper ballot you can have just as much fraud(well, in these machines, it isnt so much fraud as it is glitches in the system)

 

[DiveCon]

Except HAVA.

all HAVA did was have the states enact ways to make it easier to register
which really shouldnt have been done by the fed, it should have been done by the states themselves

 

[Diuretic]

with a paper ballot you can have just as much fraud(well, in these machines, it isnt so much fraud as it is glitches in the system)

Don't you have scrutineers on the ballots??

 

[DiveCon]

Don't you have scrutineers on the ballots??

yeah, they're called poll workers

look up King County Washington
5000 paper ballots, just all of a sudden turned up "found" a week after the election and just happened to be enough to change from a GOP win to a dem win
sorry, no system is fraud proof
again, i have always prefered the paper ballots, but the nuts screaming election fraud because of the machines is insanity
the real fraud is what ACORN is attempting

an after thought:
the machines that didnt have the paper printers were ordered that way by the county or states that bought them, they opted not to buy the printers, and they still could have bought them after as an upgrade
they refused
so thats a bogus issue also

 

[Diuretic]

yeah, they're called poll workers

look up King County Washington
5000 paper ballots, just all of a sudden turned up "found" a week after the election and just happened to be enough to change from a GOP win to a dem win
sorry, no system is fraud proof
again, i have always prefered the paper ballots, but the nuts screaming election fraud because of the machines is insanity
the real fraud is what ACORN is attempting

an after thought:
the machines that didnt have the paper printers were ordered that way by the county or states that bought them, they opted not to buy the printers, and they still could have bought them after as an upgrade
they refused
so thats a bogus issue also

I don't think it's the same system. Our electoral system is run by independent agencies which ar accountable to the parliament (federal and state) and which have their own staff. There are no political operatives allowed near the actual process. Scrutineers are appointed by the political parties and they stand as independent witnesses and checkers of ballot papers but only as passive observers. The actual checking and counting is carried out by the AEC and their state offices.

I think our system is superior. Yours is terribly corrupted. It's a great surprise that you put up with such a corrupted system of elections.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't think it's the same system. Our electoral system is run by independent agencies which ar accountable to the parliament (federal and state) and which have their own staff. There are no political operatives allowed near the actual process. Scrutineers are appointed by the political parties and they stand as independent witnesses and checkers of ballot papers but only as passive observers. The actual checking and counting is carried out by the AEC and their state offices.

I think our system is superior. Yours is terribly corrupted. It's a great surprise that you put up with such a corrupted system of elections.

the problem is it is 50 seperate systems
the states have total control over the process
its written that way in our constitution
and it should be better that way, but it needs some revisions
have to get enough people interested in the change in all 50 states

 

[Diuretic]

the problem is it is 50 seperate systems
the states have total control over the process
its written that way in our constitution
and it should be better that way, but it needs some revisions
have to get enough people interested in the change in all 50 states

Yes, I can see the magnitude of the problem. And while I may be a bit tongue in cheek with my responses I think I understand the problem.

Now don't get upset with me. But the problem is your form of federalism.

Do you have a country or a collection of states? I ask you as a citizen of a nation that up until about thirty years ago had different rail gauges for different states. Think about that. If you want to know the meaning of parochialism, ask us, we wrote the damn manual. But if we can get over it then you can. If you leave this to the states and to politicians then you will have a forever corrupted system.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Here is what I am smoking:

BlackState.com - Why Did All the Voting Errors Favor Bush

and some here

Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

and mostly here


Amazon.com: What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election: Congressman John Conyers, Anita Miller, Gore Vidal: Books

but also here

Boxer Poses a Challenge, Briefly - Los Angeles Times

...and the fact that there is not a single case of a democrat winning an election through electronic fraud that a republican was supposed to win.

So I am smoking numbers, baby, numbers. It's all the republicans. I don't know that the politicians are the actual ones committing the fraud, it could be that some people outside congress want republicans in, and are throwing elections without the republican politicians even knowing.

The question remains .. with all the evidence you posted and the massive amount of more evidence that exists, why haven't the democrats been more aggressive in doing something about this.

It's not as though they don't know this is going on.

If democrats lose they election to fraud .. they should lose, and democratic voters best ask themselves why they waste so much time and enery on a party that seems not to care.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

yeah, they're called poll workers

look up King County Washington
5000 paper ballots, just all of a sudden turned up "found" a week after the election and just happened to be enough to change from a GOP win to a dem win
sorry, no system is fraud proof
again, i have always prefered the paper ballots, but the nuts screaming election fraud because of the machines is insanity
the real fraud is what ACORN is attempting

an after thought:
the machines that didnt have the paper printers were ordered that way by the county or states that bought them, they opted not to buy the printers, and they still could have bought them after as an upgrade
they refused
so thats a bogus issue also

That is stupid as hell.

REGISTERING non-people who won't be there to vote is more dangerous than changing the votes of people who actually vote.

Ignorant

Let me guess .. you don't know shit about software .. but you're an expert on electronic voting integrity

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I don't think it's the same system. Our electoral system is run by independent agencies which ar accountable to the parliament (federal and state) and which have their own staff. There are no political operatives allowed near the actual process. Scrutineers are appointed by the political parties and they stand as independent witnesses and checkers of ballot papers but only as passive observers. The actual checking and counting is carried out by the AEC and their state offices.

I think our system is superior. Yours is terribly corrupted. It's a great surprise that you put up with such a corrupted system of elections.

Americans are an invented people .. easily controlled .. easily manipulated.

 

[Diuretic]

BAC, we are all an invented people. Take me - Anglo-Irish-French-German. I could start several civil wars and a few international wars and a potato famine and several invasions of hitherto friendly nations all by myself. Chuck in the gentic ability to proclaim imperial control of half of the population of Earth and it can get very ugly. And it's all in my genes.

Just as well I've got the little buggers under control.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

BAC, we are all an invented people. Take me - Anglo-Irish-French-German. I could start several civil wars and a few international wars and a potato famine and several invasions of hitherto friendly nations all by myself. Chuck in the gentic ability to proclaim imperial control of half of the population of Earth and it can get very ugly. And it's all in my genes.

Just as well I've got the little buggers under control.

 

[editec]

Americans are an invented people .. easily controlled .. easily manipulated.

As opposed to what people on the earth who are not easily manipulated?

Well...come to think of it, the Afghanistanis seem somewhat imprevious to power and control systems that work pretty much everywhere else.

I wonder why.

 

[Paulie]

If we are still using voting machines that are not accurate, the politicians only have themselves to blame. If there is nothing they could have done to resolve this problem in 8 years the either don't care of someone else controls our election process.

This is exactly the way I feel. The machines have already been proven to be EASILY tamperable, so why are they still even being used?

 

[Caligirl]

The usual explanation is that patches can 'fix' any concerns, that no system is foolproof, and that the pollworkers are properly trained. and that there isn't enough time and money.

For every problem a line of reasons are trotted out as to why we still have to use them.

Democrats have only been in control of congress for a short time. Maybe things can change when they get a larger majority and if they get the executive. I do believe the dems are on the right side on this, if only for selfish reasons.

 

[DiveCon]

That is stupid as hell.

REGISTERING non-people who won't be there to vote is more dangerous than changing the votes of people who actually vote.

Ignorant

Let me guess .. you don't know shit about software .. but you're an expert on electronic voting integrity

no its not stupid
and you are the ignorant one to claim it
the process is to over whelm the election workers and to have others NOT get caught
btw, registration fraud IS voter fraud

and as to what i understand about software, its likely better than yours
this has NOTHING to do with the machines
it has to do with confusion