Forgive me if this topic has been breached before, but there's been a hell of a lot of speculation on the alternative type websites about electronically counted voting trends not matching the exit polls, when in the past the exit polls were a pretty reliable indication.

Anyways, I felt it my duty to bring it up, especially after finding this gem on CNN.com

quote:

---

Glitch gave Bush extra votes in Ohio

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

An example for the conspiracy theorists.

http://thesquanderer.com/votingmachines.html

quote:

---

as of 11/7 (still, admittedly, unofficial results), Florida is currently reporting 237,522 more ballots cast than there were people who voted.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

It was pretty close, but you need a lot of evidence to say that an election was stolen. That is a pretty serious accusation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

The guy that's been the main spokesman of this story in the national news media here is Keith Olberman, of MSNBC (and former, dare I say it, en fuego Sports Center anchor).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

His blog has become nearly ground zero for this stuff on the internet, which is rather spectacular as it's corporate (MSNBC operated). If you're at all interested in the subject, that link above should be your first stop.

North Carolina, btw, may end up RE-VOTING. Not even kidding.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Some of this stuff can be checked. Some of it, sadly, can't (thanks to retarded paperless electronic voting).

If at any stage a president is found to have been elected through fraud or error, what ought to happen? I'd say that they should be replaced because the electoral system is more important than continuity. But, anyhow. Can't see this lot amounting to anything.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Well, my own personal stance is it probably won't make a difference in terms of who is president, but that isn't to say it's not dreadfully important and demanding of attention. If the vote had been say 50,000 closer in Ohio, we would all be in the midst of total electoral breakdown at this point, based on this stuff. I don't think it should be about "This went wrong so Kerry is president, or this didn't so Bush is" sort of thing. It should be "Man, this system here fucking blows. Somebody should fix that."

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Yeah, both sides were worried about electoral fraud before the election, but I guess that what they really meant was 'we're scared it might cost us victory'. Both sides should be bothered about it now even when it won't sway the election.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Only in the sense that it boiled down to Bush hiring the better Madison Avenue execs and persuasion psychologists.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Some of this stuff can be checked. Some of it, sadly, can't (thanks to retarded paperless electronic voting).

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ha ha, trenchant troll.

But... it's pretty bad when even Salon puts the kibosh on the election having been "stolen."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

How can anyone know?

My position would be that you can't necessarily prove the negative (given paperless voting in places), but you can't make the positive accusation without a lot of evidence (because it is so serious) so in the meantime we assume that it was a fair election, at least in the result (there might have been fraud that didn't change the result and that, as paint points out, is really important in itself because it might be replicated at a time when the election does depend on it). So scoffing at the idea that it was cheated, or that it was fair, can't be justified. What can be justified, I think, is the position that we assume that the election was fair.

Incidentally, if the exit polls had been really off, that would raise concerns about the election, once you'd first checked on the polling methodology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

TT, I'm so stealin that pic.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

http://72.3.131.10//gallery/1/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Skalie, it was mentioned once or twice in the Pissed Off thread.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

people should learn to label their threads properly

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

True. 'Amused' would have been better.
Anyway yup, case clear, election stolen. The liberal crackers weren't up to the job.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
http://72.3.131.10//gallery/1/

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Bush's record included.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shouldn't you be invading the North Pole or something?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

As mentioned here:
http://www.asylumnation.com/asylum/...096/index.html?
Venezeula invented an affordable voting rig that had paper auditing, solid state memory, and secure encryption.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1197
And its less expensive than the US company's solution.
There is no excuse for having no physical means of auditing. There is no excuse for retaining the services of a vendor who's company president has plegded to deliver electorial votes.
Even if the election was 100% valid and no wrong doing was done: allowing the perception of tampering by makeing the process so obviously suspicious is not excusable. Especially when the recent electorial history of the country has undeniable incidents of mass electorial tampering.
(Vote purge in Florida 2000 and 2004)
How an the democracy have integrety when the electorial process lacks it?

And, in venzuela's case, why does the press hold a different metric of "possible fraud" to Chavez than it does to Bush?
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=ve...r=&start=0&sa=N
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,64687,00.html

If Chavez can be accused of voter fraud with good evoteing equipment, then surely Bush can be challenged when the equipment is more circumspect.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Even I had to laugh.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Jesus titty fucking Christ.

No wonder I hate Democrats.

Anyways, the election fraud thing is fun, more excitement to follow, since I don't have hockey to follow this year.

-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

A larger point that is largely being missed.

quote:

---

A lot of theories and suspect evidence have been floating around here lately. Emotions are high as tinfoil and supposed reality collide. And in all of the banter I'm afraid that a real, provable election fraud is being overlooked.

While the exit polls are anomalous and some of the so-called evidence has been debunked, proponents of both sides should be able to agree on one thing: there should not even be a question as to who won.

Indeed, the fraud in this election that is incontravertable so far is that private corporations, using copyrighted, proprietary code, counted the public's votes in secret.

Now, we may very well uncover proof of tampering. But I seriously doubt it. The main feature of operating systems that use a Graphical User Interface (GUI) is that you only see the interface. The code and processes run undetectibly in the background. And this is the problem. A poll watcher can sit attentively at the vote counting machine and not see one vote counted. I actually saw a CVM advocate on NBC recently explain how you can in fact do a recount. "You just hit the 'Enter' key again and voila, a recount." It would have been funny...

Unverifiable ballots and ballot tabulation is a violation of the most basic principle of democracy. Proprietary software secretly tabulating our votes is the absolute equivalent to letting some guy named Ed go off into a closed room by himself and count our votes in private. That we're even having to have this conversion is incomprehensible to me.

This is why I, and many others, were so adamant that these things need paper reciepts at least, and should be scrapped at best.

I'm not an election lawyer, but I do know that many states --if not all-- call for a public monitored counting of the votes. And this is why counting votes behind the closed door of a Graphical User Interface is as much a fraud as stealing a box of ballots.

So before you guys and gals get too mad at each other over whether this or that is provable, please keep in mind that the very fact that we're even having to argue about it is the evidence of the real fraud in this election: that we just don't know.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I happen to agree that paper receipts are a necessity. I believe in free and true elections with monitors and some kind of controls in place to ensure that every vote in counted and no hacking has taken place. These paperless machines are idiotic and I'm ashamed of those who put them in place.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged