Conspicuous by its absence ...

[Scuba]

... is right-wing outrage over the left using electronic voting machines to steal elections.

Since the right is sure "those people" are committing voter fraud by the tens of thousands necessary to swing elections, it seems odd to me that they don't scream about us stealing elections via electronic voting. I can't think of a single Republican who has cited this as a problem (and not enough Democrats).

I must be a cynical person.

[RagAss]

1. Gotcha ...the turn yourself in to the police after going through a red light scenario.

[HopeHoops]

2. No, you are not. Diebold (twice sold, now ES&S) voting machines are a scam.

There's no such thing as a "recount" because all they'll do is spit out the originally programmed pre-determined results. Diebold is best known for ATMs and POS machines. EVERY FUCKING ONE of them produces a paper receipt. There's only one reason the voting machines don't - to rig the election for the GOP. That's it.

[OnyxCollie]

6. ES&S had to divest (Obama's DoJ! Shocking!)

when they acquired Diebold and had a monopoly. They sold off part of the company to a Canadian company called Dominion Voting ("Dominion"- Great.)

[HopeHoops]

7. It's a clusterfuck at best. They're all still original Diebold machines with the same vulnerability

Until they produce both a contiguous serialized reel tracking the votes with a matching serialized voter receipt, they will not and cannot be trusted. I seriously doubt they can steal this election with the polls running so high in Obama's favor, but they'll push the limits to make it seem "close" so FOX can claim Obama doesn't have a mandate.

[slackmaster]

3. I see it as two sides of the same coin

Every US election for several cycles has been marked with unsubstantiated accusations of mass cheating coming from both sides.

The paranoid fringe on the right is outraged that Republican leaders aren't doing enough to stop voter fraud.

The paranoid fringe on the left can't understand why Democratic leaders aren't putting a stop to election fraud.

SSDD

[Scuba]

5. False equivalency. The idea that voter impersonation is effecting elections is preposterous ....

... simply due to the numbers of individuals who would have to perpetrate fraud, while the manipulation of elections electronically is ludicrously easy and can be done by a very, very small number of people.

[slackmaster]

9. I agree that electronic manipulation of elections is easy in theory

But there is no proof that it's ever actually happened; i.e. that the result of an election was actually altered by electronic manipulation.

...manipulation of elections electronically is ludicrously easy and can be done by a very, very small number of people.

Conspiracy theorists have two general strategies for defending their pet conspiracies against fact-based challenges:

A) Expand the conspiracy so that the people who are supposed to be protecting the public from the conspiracy's actions are part of the conspiracy, or

B) Shrink the conspiracy to a small core of all-knowing, dedicated masters who are clever enough to avoid detection.

[OnyxCollie]

11. There's three ways of looking at electronic voting.

Parenti (1993) offers three options for analysis: The first option is the “conservative wonderland,” whereby economic gains achieved by corporate entities would appear only as corollaries. Profits obtained are simply the result of deft management skills and wise investments when opportunities are presented. The second option is the “liberal complaint,” a failure of an otherwise good system. The third option is a more radical analysis which studies the structural mechanisms that exist between corporate and government powers. It is these structural mechanisms, embodied in culture-producing institutions, which determine the laws and norms of society, and in turn, the life chances of those whom they affect.
The use of such a radical analysis is not without its consequences. By using a radical analysis, one crosses an imaginary line into an area of uncomfortable potentiality, where widely-held and readily-accepted beliefs may be rendered invalid. Subsequently, a radical analysis must face challenges on two fronts, the first being the beliefs of those who accept the “official” conspiracy theory and the second being the information provided by those in power to squelch any theories contrary to the status quo.
Sunstein and Vermeule (2008) describe “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have managed to conceal their role” (p. 4) as a conspiracy theory, a pejorative term which denotes a faulty epistemology, rumors, and speculation. Furthermore, it is asserted that such analysis overestimates the ability of government bureaucracies to carry out “sophisticated and secret” (p. 6) plans in an open society. Alternately, Parenti (1993) quoting Karp (1974) suggests that:

When it can be established that when a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown that the actors have an interest in producing these results, the presumptions become a fair certainty- no conspiracy theory is needed.

Sunstein and Vermeule (2008) assume a well-intentioned government may decide to defuse conspiracy theories “if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so” (p. 15), yet they concede that governments themselves may be purveyors of conspiracy theories. The beneficiaries of said social welfare may be, as Parenti (1993) suggests, an entire class interest. Following this reasoning, conspiracy theories may be eliminated to prevent exposure of particular factions, or furnished to enable a certain objective. According to Parenti (1993), the term conspiracy theory can be used to dismiss: “(1) the idea of a conscious design by policy makers; (2) a hidden, but knowing intent; (3) a secret plan; (4) a secret interest.”

For those keeping score, the authors of HAVA have:

Been convicted of bribery and corruption for deals with Jack Abramoff and sentenced to 30 months in prison- Rep. Bob Ney

Been convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering to get repub candidates elected, and have received a sentence of three years in prison (and have yet to serve a day)- Rep. Tom DeLay (See also DeLay's ties to Abramoff.)

Run for President (poorly)- Sen. Chris Dodd. Dodd was also a "Friend of Angelo" Mozillo of Countrywide.

Business and financial ties with ES&S, the company that had a monopoly on vote counting in the US- Sen. Chuck Hagel

[Voice for Peace]

4. that's a very good point and deserves more attention.

so a kick and a rec

[OnyxCollie]

8. The elites who fabricate reality for the inarticulate masses

do not bring these issues to the fore, much the same way they do not talk about drone strikes, or whistleblower prosecutions, or dismissal of torture allegations, etc. Discussion of these subjects would run counter to the chosen narrative, generating opinions not beneficial to obtaining a predetermined objective incentive.

You know who else is not demonstrating outrage against electronic voting machines? Democratic politicians.

Edit to add: Oops! You already answered my question. Two gold stars for you!

[porphyrian]

10. Maybe we should investigate electronic voting ourselves, just to be sure.

Assuming we don't already have data, of course.