The racist voting machines.

[cast]

At first we had the hanging chads, now we have voting machines which are supposedly switching peoples votes.

The subject I would like to discuss in this topic is, do you feel that the last US elections were rigged?

Do you think these machines are a sign that the upcoming elections will be rigged?

Here's a news clip

" At least three early voters in Jackson County had a hard time voting for candidates they want to win.

Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

"When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted."

Source

[Mast3rMind]

At 10/20/08 12:53 AM, cast wrote: The subject I would like to discuss in this topic is, do you feel that the last US elections were rigged?

2000 2004, yes, indeed.

Do you think these machines are a sign that the upcoming elections will be rigged?

It wouldn't surprise me.

[areagle]

That's BS. Its all a bunch of propaganda against the republican party because they cant get anything else against them. Read the rest of the article. Its told by an older woman, and when she tried it, it stayed on Obama. Though, if you read some more, you can find articles about Obama's voting record in Illinois. He pushed a bill to allow the killing of already born babies if they were accidentally spared during an abortion. I'm pretty sure that's worse then a bunch of Democrats saying that there voting machines weren't working... Wow.

[Musician]

Does anyone else find it funny that the CEO of diebold was quoted to have said that he'd "do anything to get George Bush re-elected"?

Just throwing that out there.

[Mast3rMind]

At 10/20/08 01:14 AM, Musician wrote: Does anyone else find it funny that the CEO of diebold was quoted to have said that he'd "do anything to get George Bush re-elected"?

Just throwing that out there.

I remember hearing about that and looking into that.

[altanese-mistress]

The popular vote is easy to manipulate, sure. But no one would do it because the popular vote doesn't matter. Now, the electoral vote? That is tricky. Mostly because it's easier to keep track of a few hundred votes than a few million. That, and the electoral college knows who they voted for.

[Saruman200]

At 10/20/08 01:13 AM, areagle wrote: That's BS. Its all a bunch of propaganda against the republican party because they cant get anything else against them.

Of course, anything against your party is obviously biased propaganda. Everyone knows the Republicans are flawless, right?

Read the rest of the article. Its told by an older woman, and when she tried it, it stayed on Obama.

So? Obviously they can't switch all the votes to McCain, but they can switch some. Just because not everyone has the problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem. We already know the Republicans cheated and in 2000 and 2004, why not now? (and the Democrats have cheated too, such as in 1960)

Though, if you read some more, you can find articles about Obama's voting record in Illinois. He pushed a bill to allow the killing of already born babies if they were accidentally spared during an abortion. I'm pretty sure that's worse then a bunch of Democrats saying that there voting machines weren't working... Wow.

Prove it. I need sources, and I need to see sources that prove that was what the bill was actually about. It's real easy to lie about what's in a bill. Look at the McCain ads about Obama wanting sex education from kindergardeners. Turns out, that bill was about teaching kindergardeners about sexual abuse and molestation, and that you shouldn't let adults touch you in certain places. That's hardly "comphrensive sex education".

[Al6200]

I just find it hard to believe that voter fraud is as prevalent as people claim. I mean, if there was really solid evidence of any voting machine being tampered with, wouldn't it make pretty nice propaganda?

I bet this guy's story about bad voting machines would be used by the Democrats if it had any factual merit. But I suspect the person just wanted attention, and made up the vote switching thing.

[JoS]

Out of curiousity, why does the United States rely on fancy technology that could malfunction to conduct one of democracy's most important functions? I am talkign about both touch screen and punch machines.

In Canada if there is something wrong we just use a the second pencil in the booth.

In Canada we use pencil to mark an X on a paper ballot to vote, no fancy machines required).

[Al6200]

I'd suppose we use electronic machines because it makes the ballots easier to vote, and because they're hypothetically more secure.

I think that we should have a voting machine that keeps both an electronic copy of the vote and prints a paper copy. Then have both copies sent to different vote counting centers, and then have a third center check to see that they all line up.

That would probably be better than just having an electronic ballot.

[Brian]

At 10/20/08 11:08 AM, Al6200 wrote: I'd suppose we use electronic machines because it makes the ballots easier to vote, and because they're hypothetically more secure.

I think that we should have a voting machine that keeps both an electronic copy of the vote and prints a paper copy. Then have both copies sent to different vote counting centers, and then have a third center check to see that they all line up.

That would probably be better than just having an electronic ballot.

I would agree if I didn't know more about programming. Its entirely likely that if the voting machine itself is compromised then the vote would be stored wrong immediately and printed out wrong as well. It would certainly make it more difficult to commit fraud, as people could check their reciept, but that is the only way a difference would be found. The paper would likely register the same information as the electronic version, otherwise it would be traceable.

Any "malfunctioning/tampered" code that worked differently per user would have to be probablistic in nature or time bombed. The chance of that kind system being involved and not caught seems unlikely to me, as does a bunch of programmers going along with a project like that silently, though its not impossible.

Machines can be trusted to always do what they've been programmed to do. People can't be trusted to program ethically or correctly and its up to the individual states to run a series of tests to guarantee that everything is working, that the network is closed and that the hardware/software works correctly. I believe its entirely possible that the states don't have the man power or the understanding to do this correctly.

[Al6200]

At 10/20/08 11:23 AM, Brian wrote:

I would agree if I didn't know more about programming. Its entirely likely that if the voting machine itself is compromised then the vote would be stored wrong immediately and printed out wrong as well. It would certainly make it more difficult to commit fraud, as people could check their reciept, but that is the only way a difference would be found. The paper would likely register the same information as the electronic version, otherwise it would be traceable.

That's an interesting point. I could see a system set up like this:

1. The first machine has a graphical user interface, and accepts the person's vote.

2. The second machine is a separate unit that is connected to the first machine with a single wire. The first machine tells the second machine to print a paper ballot for the electronic vote.

3. The voter turns in their paper ballot and leaves.

4. The votes are counted up, and the paper ballot is compared with the electronic ballot to see that they match up.

This system would be near fool proof, because if the two votes don't match their the voter is instantly alerted to the tampering. The only way to hack the system would be to tamper with paper ballots and the electronic ballots simultaneously after they leave the system.

Very tough.

Any "malfunctioning/tampered" code that worked differently per user would have to be probablistic in nature or time bombed. The chance of that kind system being involved and not caught seems unlikely to me, as does a bunch of programmers going along with a project like that silently, though its not impossible.

Right. And I think having a dual paper-electronic system reduces the risk enormously. You can't just modify the first machine that collects the persons votes, and make it so that it switches the vote, because then the second machine will tell the person of the vote tampering. You can't just switch both machines, because then the paper ballot and the electronic message won't align with each other.

Machines can be trusted to always do what they've been programmed to do. People can't be trusted to program ethically or correctly and its up to the individual states to run a series of tests to guarantee that everything is working, that the network is closed and that the hardware/software works correctly. I believe its entirely possible that the states don't have the man power or the understanding to do this correctly.

Yeah, but I think that the risks can be minimal. I mean, if you had a machine that printed the paper ballot separate from the machine that takes the voter's input, then prints a paper ballot and sends an electronic message to a separate voting center.

I really don't see how someone could break the system because if the ballot prints the wrong name, then the voter is easily alerted to the tampering.

And on a neat/irrelevant side note, there's a cryptography expert at my school who said that there are devices that can read a computer screen from a pretty big distance by detecting the magnetic fields. Crazy stuff.

[fahrenheit]

At 10/20/08 01:48 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: That, and the electoral college knows who they voted for.

Most electoral colleges go on their states popular vote. If you could manipulate the popular votes in closely fought areas like California or Florida you could decide the election.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/20/08 10:20 AM, Al6200 wrote: I just find it hard to believe that voter fraud is as prevalent as people claim.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com

"Voter fraud" is actually incorrect wording here. Voter fraud would be individuals attempting to vote when they're not legally entitled to, say a non-citizen or a citizen attempting to vote several times. That's inconsequential.

What we're talking about here is a systematic failure of the entire voting system. This isn't a huge politicized conspiracy, per say. But it does have political consequences, because poorer (overwhelmingly minority) districts are disproportionately affected.

Here's a press release from a report looking at whether or not we're ready for Nov. 4th. (Full report is linked within the release.)

Included in that press release are these points about failures during the primaries earlier this year:
- In the Republican presidential primary in Horry County, South Carolina, touch screen machines in 80% of precincts temporarily failed, and a number of precincts ran out of paper ballots and sent voters to cast provisional ballots at other precincts.

- In Ohio's March 2008 primary, votes in at least 11 counties were "dropped" when memory cards were uploaded to computer servers due to a software flaw;

- In the August 26, 2008 primary in Palm Beach County Florida, several votes in a judicial contest disappeared during a recount, and then reappeared in a second and third recount, flipping the outcome to a different winner each time;

- In the September 9, 2008 primary inWashingtonD.C., three different counts produced three different vote totals, with thousands of "phantom votes" appearing in the first two counts.

Why is the US system more complicated than Canada's? Historical and political realities, as well as the simple fact that our population is 10x larger.

[Phratt]

Rigged? Yes.

Racist? No.

You throwing the word racist around like that just make people take it less seriously. Use the word where its do, not just anything bad done to a blackman.

[MrHero17]

I really wish we just had a form with some checkboxes.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/20/08 05:24 PM, Phratt wrote: Rigged? Yes.

Racist? No.

You throwing the word racist around like that just make people take it less seriously. Use the word where its do, not just anything bad done to a blackman.

I imagine "discriminatory" wouldn't have fit in the title...

[Proteas]

At 10/20/08 09:59 AM, Saruman200 wrote: We already know the Republicans cheated and in 2000 and 2004

Prove it. Prove there was an actual widespread conspiracy to rig those elections in favor of the Republicans, show how it happened, show that it happened, show who was responsible for it, and show that it was in large enough numbers as to significantly effect the outcome of the election. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

At 10/20/08 10:56 AM, JoS wrote:

In Canada we use pencil to mark an X on a paper ballot to vote, no fancy machines required).

My main complaint with the voting machines in this country is that it changes every few years, and that it's not standardized from county to county. Before the kinks are worked out of a particular system, it's replaced by something else entirerly.....

[areagle]

Prove it. I need sources, and I need to see sources that prove that was what the bill was actually about. It's real easy to lie about what's in a bill. Look at the McCain ads about Obama wanting sex education from kindergardeners. Turns out, that bill was about teaching kindergardeners about sexual abuse and molestation, and that you shouldn't let adults touch you in certain places. That's hardly "comphrensive sex education".

Check this out: http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/ObamaCove rup.html It clearly says he tried to allow already born babies to be able to be killed by a doctor if the parents said so. Its true, hes a communist.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 10/20/08 07:03 PM, areagle wrote:

Check this out: http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/ObamaCove rup.html It clearly says he tried to allow already born babies to be able to be killed by a doctor if the parents said so.

Tell me something, isn't it still the women's choice? Key words: If the parents said so.

Its true, hes a communist.

How exactly id he a Communist if he respects the women's choice to save the baby after her first choice in wanting to abort it? Also, what are the health complications of a baby that survived an abortion?

[JoS]

Seriously people? A system of multiple machines and multiple ballots, both paper and electronic. Why the hell do you need to re-invent the fucking wheel? I fail to see how paper ballots are unsecured. The boxes is sealed until the poll closes, and you fill out your ballot behind a screen so the pollster has no idea who you vote for, then you put it in the sealed box. When the poll closes the boxes are opened and counted in full view of everyone, including scrutinizers.

And guess what, you don't need thousand dollar machines for it. Cheap and effective. Not everything requires a high tech solution.

[areagle]

At 10/20/08 07:11 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 10/20/08 07:03 PM, areagle wrote:

Check this out: http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/ObamaCove rup.html It clearly says he tried to allow already born babies to be able to be killed by a doctor if the parents said so.

Tell me something, isn't it still the women's choice? Key words: If the parents said so.

Its true, hes a communist.

How exactly id he a Communist if he respects the women's choice to save the baby after her first choice in wanting to abort it? Also, what are the health complications of a baby that survived an abortion?

Well most of the abortions these days are used with posion, which is a hit or miss. That means if it survived it most definitely didn't suffer anything to bad. How do you still think its ok to kill an already born baby just because the mother said so? America has a huge amount of people who want to adopt babies, and Im sure a family would be happy with the baby. I don't understand how the same people who want to spend billions of dollars helping feed babies in Africa are the same people who are OK with killing babies up to 9 months after birth.

[Phratt]

At 10/20/08 07:24 PM, areagle wrote:

At 10/20/08 07:11 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 10/20/08 07:03 PM, areagle wrote:

9 months or not, abortion is wrong. If killing a baby at embrionic and fetal stages is okay, by Government standards then why oppose it when its live babies? They are the same thing.

You can't be More dead than someone, just like abortion can't get any more wrong. If its going to be legal, then I dont give two shits about babies dying cause its been happening for years and its going to happen for years to come. Its no reason to not vote for the better candidate seeing as its going to happen anyways. Basically, yes its evil, but its inevitable, so vote for Obama cause hes right on everything else.

And as he said "No one is Pro-abortion, their pro-choice"

[freddorfman]

At 10/20/08 07:03 PM, areagle wrote:

hes a communist.

And just what is so bad about being a Communist

[areagle]

At Phratt:
Oh believe me, theirs a lot more things you can dig up about Obama. Hes not the nice guy the media made him out to be. Do a little more research and I hope you see what I mean. Check out his voting records in Illinois and the Senate, there all full of failed plans and pretty disgusting bills.

At Communist Kid:
Communism sounds good, but will never work. Humans are greedy, and need to make something of themselves to be different. Imagine if the poorest people can move into the biggest mansions. Imagine if the people who sit on their asses all day have as much money as the people who work 12 hours a day making lots of cash. Imagine Obama. There all the same thing. Communism Fails.

[cast]

At 10/20/08 10:56 AM, JoS wrote:

In Canada we use pencil to mark an X on a paper ballot to vote, no fancy machines required).

You guys better switch to pen.

[Bolo]

At 10/21/08 12:27 AM, areagle wrote: At Phratt:
Oh believe me, theirs a lot more things you can dig up about Obama. Hes not the nice guy the media made him out to be. Do a little more research and I hope you see what I mean. Check out his voting records in Illinois and the Senate, there all full of failed plans and pretty disgusting bills.

Like sending aid to poor African nations, protecting innocent civilians in the third world by calling for the destruction of conventional weapons stockpiles, and increasing government transparency by making federal contracts publicly available?

-The Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Act
-The Coburn-Obama Transparency Act
-Relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo
-Death penalty reform
-Sponsored healthcare reform in Illinois, following passage of which 150,000 additional people received health insurance, including 70,000 children
-Sponsorship of ethics reform in order to make the legislative process more transparent for the public.

[1][2] [3][4][5]

What a horrible guy.

[kraor024]

Wasn't Stalin who said "votes don't matter the ones who count them do."

[Randy74]

Ah yes, I saw that on the news about the problem of those contraptions. I forgot who called it, but I think the government called to pull out over 3,000 of those machines because of a suspicion that the votes were getting mixed up.

[Reyals]

At 10/20/08 01:13 AM, areagle wrote: That's BS. Its all a bunch of propaganda against the republican party because they cant get anything else against them. Read the rest of the article. Its told by an older woman, and when she tried it, it stayed on Obama. Though, if you read some more, you can find articles about Obama's voting record in Illinois. He pushed a bill to allow the killing of already born babies if they were accidentally spared during an abortion. I'm pretty sure that's worse then a bunch of Democrats saying that there voting machines weren't working... Wow.

What bills Obama voting for is irrelevant. You should be able to vote for the candidate of your choice, whether it's McCain or Obama.