trusting America to hunks of shit

[Mr. P]

http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf

here is his sworn affidavit

A supposed affidavit OFF an anti GOP BLOG? Seriously, that dog won't hunt. You said he testified in front of Congress, I want to read THAT transcript.

 

[manu1959]

Yup, we stole 2002 and 2004, but forgot how to do it in 2006, got ya. Need any more tinfoil for your hat? Cheney must have that nintendo Control by now and aimed at you.

maybe the dems din't figure out how to hack the system till 2006

 

[Annie]

To the point:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-editnbvoterfraudpnjul28,0,6231104.story

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Voter fraud charges deserve investigation

July 28, 2007

ISSUE: County GOP finds 60 cases where voters cast ballots here and in New York.

They very well may be innocent coincidences, but voter confidence in the integrity of elections is too important to allow the Palm Beach County Republican Party's allegations of double-voting go without a thorough investigation.

Local party leaders say they found 60 instances in which people with the exact same name and birth date voted both in Palm Beach County and in New York in the November elections. That's the county GOP's basis for 60 elections fraud complaints filed with local, state and federal authorities.

Calling their find "the HUGE tip of a massive iceberg," as county GOP chair Sid Dinerstein termed it in an e-mail to reporters, may be hyperbole. In fact, South Florida Sun-Sentinel reporters Sally Apgar and Dianna Cahn talked to several of the suspected double-crossers, who said the computer-generated analysis must be mistaken. One Delray Beach woman swears she hasn't voted in New York in 12 years.

Most, maybe even all, of the 60 matches may be easily explained away. Some may add up to fraud, which mandates the need for a full investigation.

Palm Beach County has been awash in corruption scandals, from admissions of wrongdoing by four county and city commissioners to new allegations of pay-to-play improprieties in Boynton Beach. Investigating all is critical to maintaining the public's trust.

The credibility of our election system is just as essential. State and local governments are spending millions of public dollars, even dumping state-of-the-art equipment, to deliver a paper trail, hoping it brings peace of mind and confidence in voting to skeptical Floridians.

Investigating complaints of voter fraud, and bringing any double-voters to justice in the land of the infamous butterfly ballot, should be a no-brainer.

BOTTOM LINE: There's enough there to warrant a thorough investigation.

 

[Annie]

I've always been sold on paper ballots, for the simple reason, pun intended, I believe in KISS. However, because my tendencies are more towards preaching than explanation, I think this worth reading, note that it came before the last election:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110502A

As I write this, the voting hasn't even started. But I've already gotten an email telling me that there are dozens of lawyers waiting to file legal challenges to elections in my state, and I'm sure that the same is going on everywhere else.

As with Florida in 2000, charges of fraud and voter misinformation will fly. People will say that ballots were tampered with. People will say that voting machines were rigged, or confusing. People will complain about tabulation errors and "hanging chads" and outright fraud.

To these problems (well, most of them, anyway) I have a technological solution. The technology is good. It is easy to understand. It is surprisingly resistant to fraud. And it is inexpensive. It's the paper ballot.

Paper ballots are easy to understand - just put an "X" in the box next to the appropriate candidate's name. I don't find voting machines especially hard to understand, but I do always have to read the instructions on the ones I use, and I'm a law professor who works as a sound engineer on the side. So others may find them more confusing than I do. Everyone, on the other hand, can make an "X."

Paper ballots are surprisingly resistant to fraud. Actually, it shouldn't be that surprising. A paper ballot encodes lots of useful information besides the obvious. Not only is the information about the vote contained in the form, but also information about the voter. Different colors of ink, different styles of handwriting, etc., make each ballot different. Erasing the original votes is likely to leave a detectable residue. Creating all new ballots with fraudulent votes requires substantial variation among them or the fakery is much more obvious; that's hard work. And destroying the original ballots in order to replace them with fraudulent ones isn't that easy - there's a lot of paper to be disposed of, and shredding it, or burning it, or hiding it is comparatively easy to detect. (Protecting the ballots before counting doesn't require fancy encryption, either: just a steel box with a lock, a slot on the top, and a seal.) What's more, because people are familiar with paper documents, fraud is easy to understand when it occurs. Paper ballots are both robust (resistant to fraud) and transparent (easy to understand).

Compare this sophisticated voting technology to that of voting machines. A voting machine captures only the information regarding the vote. Once it has done so, one vote looks like another. There's no handwriting, no style, no ink, just a simple notation of which candidate was favored. Most voting machines store votes electronically, meaning that if they're changed, there's no troubling paper residue for fraud-perpetrators to dispose of. And because voting machines are complicated - and because their actual workings are unseen, and often kept secret - it's much harder for voters, members of the press, and others to identify or understand fraud. Electronic ballots, in other words, are neither robust nor transparent.

The fact is, if you could come up with a new technology as simple and resistant to fraud as the paper ballot, people would be pretty impressed. So why do we use machines?

Perhaps in part for the same reason that some people used to prefer canned vegetables to fresh ones: "it's more modern!" And voting machines do offer some benefits. Most importantly, they're fast: within minutes after the polls close, the totals can be read off and sent to our ever-hungry news media, and to the dwindling, but still large, number of people who pay close attention to election returns as they unfold.

But of course that virtue is now disappearing. With charges of fraud being raised left and right, the voting machine totals are increasingly likely to be recounted anyway, meaning that it may be days (or longer, as with Florida in 2000) before a final total appears. Given that, people might as well spend their time counting paper ballots as recounting machine ballots.

Voting machines are also favored because they're flexible - they can be reprogrammed at the last minute to take account of changes in candidates. But, again, this technological advantage has been undermined by other innovations, such as lawsuits over changing ballots at the last minute, and the growth of absentee ballots and early voting, which make this advantage less relevant.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the paper ballot: An idea whose time has come again.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

Here is Clint Curtis swearing in and testifing at a congressional hearing

 

[CockySOB]

the code written by a life long R for the machines can onlyu throw a % of the vote if the margin is too big they still cant win.

That person who wrote the code has since become a Dem because of the scumery and testified in congress under oath to the request of the R party for a code to steal an election.

You're so full of shit you could fertilize the entire hemisphere... for the next decade....

Care to post some more shit and try for the entire century?

 

[CockySOB]

And I prefer paper ballots for the record. What you don't know about the electronic voting machines would scare you off them faster than the crap that you DO know about.

Of course using paper ballots means that Florida Democrats are SOL yet again.

 

[Annie]

And I prefer paper ballots for the record. What you don't know about the electronic voting machines would scare you off them faster than the crap that you DO know about.

Of course using paper ballots means that Florida Democrats are SOL yet again.

Me too, http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=596446#post596446

 

[Truthmatters]

You're so full of shit you could fertilize the entire hemisphere... for the next decade....

Care to post some more shit and try for the entire century?

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

Here is Clint Curtis swearing in and testifing at a congressional hearing

 

[Mr. P]

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

Here is Clint Curtis swearing in and testifying at a congressional hearing

Ok admit it, you've never read an official Congressional transcript of this testimony, but you have read stuff on wacko sites you keep posting, right?

"Truth" does "MATTER". Produce some or STFU.

 

[manu1959]

I know you will now not answer this thead again.

Its how you people seem to operate.

when you dont like the facts you ignore them.

the dems demand computer voting.....or have you forgotten that fact....you got what you wanted now you blame others for the situtaion you have gotten yourself into....

accusatory and unaccountable for anything....

 

[Truthmatters]

THEY DID NOT DEMAND IT!

The HAVA act was dont by the Rs.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ok admit it, you've never read an official Congressional transcript of this testimony, but you have read stuff on wacko sites you keep posting, right?

"Truth" does "MATTER". Produce some or STFU.

did you watch his congressional testimony?

How is a tape of him actually testifying to congressional commitee not TRUTH?

 

[Mr. P]

did you watch his congressional testimony?

How is a tape of him actually testifying to congressional commitee not TRUTH?

It's called film editing. But no I didn't see it it wouldn't load. I only need the "official" congressional text.

 

[manu1959]

How is a tape of him actually testifying to congressional commitee not TRUTH?

have a video of nancy pelosi saying saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped......how is that not the TRUTH

 

[Annie]

have a video of nancy pelosi saying saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped......how is that not the TRUTH

and that is how the system works.

 

[Paulie]

Lets recall who wanted electronic voting machines, shall we? Who insisted paper voting was unsafe and subject to "cheating" And why they made these demands so loudly that changes occurred.

Last I checked California is heavily controlled by the democratic party as well. Come on, explain to us how Bush is to blame, you know you want to.

Jesus, talk about strawmen.

All i ever see you do is try to make everyone you don't agree with look like they are Left Dems "blaming Bush". Only difference between you and RSR is that you present yourself with a little more composure.

Have you ever taken into consideration that some people don't trust either side of the aisle?

They all fucking pander to the same corporate interests...it's their perceived ideologies that create this division among people, to where more time is spent arguing left/right politics and which side is more corrupt, than just realizing they're BOTH corrupt, and actually agreeing on a solution.

99% of the bastards are bought and paid for. The sooner you fucking realize that, the better off this country could eventually be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jesus, talk about strawmen.

All i ever see you do is try to make everyone you don't agree with look like they are Left Dems "blaming Bush". Only difference between you and RSR is that you present yourself with a little more composure.

Have you ever taken into consideration that some people don't trust either side of the aisle?

They all fucking pander to the same corporate interests...it's their perceived ideologies that create this division among people, to where more time is spent arguing left/right politics and which side is more corrupt, than just realizing they're BOTH corrupt, and actually agreeing on a solution.

99% of the bastards are bought and paid for. The sooner you fucking realize that, the better off this country could eventually be.

Have you bothered to read what truthmatters is saying? He is claiming that the ONLY reason we have these machines is because the republicans decided to make them and steal elections. Both patently false claims. We have them because after Florida in 2000 the Democrats and their lap dogs in the press went on a tear about how BAD our system was because people were to damn dumb to punch a hole in a card. THE dems DEMANDED electronic machines. The Press parrotted those demands. With claims a failure to fix a non existant problem would be proof the republicans were doing what they are now being accused of BECAUSE they did what the dems wanted.

 

[Gunny]

Most vote machines lose test to hackers
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 28, 2007


State-sanctioned teams of computer hackers were able to break through the security of virtually every model of California's voting machines and change results or take control of some of the systems' electronic functions, according to a University of California study released Friday.

The researchers "were able to bypass physical and software security in every machine they tested,'' said Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who authorized the "top to bottom review" of every voting system certified by the state.

Neither Bowen nor the investigators were willing to say exactly how vulnerable California elections are to computer hackers, especially because the team of computer experts from the UC system had top-of-the-line security information plus more time and better access to the voting machines than would-be vote thieves likely would have.

"All information available to the secretary of state was made available to the testers,'' including operating manuals, software and source codes usually kept secret by the voting machine companies, said Matt Bishop, UC Davis computer science professor who led the "red team" hacking effort, said in his summary of the results.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/28/VOTING.TMP&feed=rss.news

This is how we treat the most sacred right of American?

What's your point? There is no foolproof system. Period. Look at your own articles you post and the common denominator is always the same ... the machines, punchcards whatever work just fine ... man's involvement screws it up.

So, until you come up with a human-proof voting system, quit whining about the machines. You sound like a typical lefy blaming the gun and not the hand that pulls the trigger.

 

[Truthmatters]

It's called film editing. But no I didn't see it it wouldn't load. I only need the "official" congressional text.

http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/Congressional.pdf