Retired NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections

[ProfessionalLeftist]

By Denis G. Campbell and
Charley James
(c) 25 October 2012

Why is Mitt Romney so confident?

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.

This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

MORE...

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html

[RomneyLies]

1. ooooookay

I don't buy it.

Same shit was spewed in 2008. Obama won.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

5. I don't know...I know some of the damn machines DO flip votes

But to what extent...and are they programmed to do that or does the software just suck that bad. Being that the code is essentially black-box and no one can see or audit it, I inherently don't trust it or the companies who make it. It should all be public and open-source.

OTOH, I don't want to buy into a dumb-ass conspiracy theory that makes no sense, either. So I don't know.

[reusrename]

42. Mike Collins has an article that explains it.

OpEdNews: Rigged Elections for Romney?

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Rigged-Elections-for-Romne-by-Michael-Collins-121022-13.html



eta: The links in the article give the forensic proof of the systematic vote switching:

http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf

http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf

[docgee]

73. i write software and design control systems...

These systems won't screw up like that unless programmed to do so. That would be like pressing the 'A' on your phone and the 'M' being displayed. A voting machine would be a no brainer to design, and there would be no reason not to have it open source. They're rigged, definitely.

[ekimline]

225. just askin

If a gasoline pump can spit out a paper ticket with accurate billing and expense info, how difficult to build a voting machine that punches out a paper receipt ?

[hunter]

241. Problem is politicians could buy votes that way.

"Show us your receipt and we'll pay you twenty dollars!"

If you are talking about a paper receipt you could put in a ballot box, that's bad too because a computer generated "paper ballot" would be easy to counterfeit. The bad guy gets printer the same as the voting machines and prints as many votes as he likes.

With hand marked paper ballots none of the marks will look the same.

[upi402]

252. thanks

kick

[JonLP24]

177. I remember watching on PBS

Some computer guy hacked into it rather easily, said it isn't difficult to program votes or what it is you can do if you want to steal votes.

I wish I remembered the specifics as this was during the 2008 election. I believe it was on Moyers program where he had that guy on.

[AikidoSoul]

229. I own a computer services company -- it is very easy to create programs that disappear, reappear

and do whatever you want them to do. You can design them to disappear and then reappear in four years, or whatever time frame you wish.

These voting machines are proprietary. If fraud is suspected, you're shit out of luck because trade laws prohibit that you investigate the firmware, hardware or software.

It should be paper ballots, preferably optical scan, because then at least you have something solid....paper...not ethereal electrons.

But then there should be OPEN SOURCE tabulation software that counts the optical scan ballots.... because that tabulation software can also be rigged.

Stalin said, "it's not he who votes that counts, but he who counts the votes."

I don't get why we haven't learned from the 300,000 flipped votes in OHIO when Kerry suddenly was on the other side of the lead. How can we be so stupid as to let our Democracy be stolen by these thieving thieves! Election laws should be done at the federal level, open source, and rigidly enforced.

We have spilled much blood over the idea of Democracy....now it's time to protect that idea.

[FiveGoodMen]

239. "trade laws prohibit that you investigate the firmware, hardware or software"

And when it comes to voting in a democracy, THAT should be illegal, unconstitutional, and unthinkable.

When that first came up, America should have erupted with outrage.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

256. FiveGoodMen FTW!

It's almost impossible to believe this open invitation to electoral theft ever was approved. Does no one have the interest of the voter in mind? I don't recall Dems making any fuss about this. Those who question it now are marginalized as conspiracy theorists. We have got to fix this.

[AsahinaKimi]

226. Its worse than flipping..its losing votes...

I AM so depressed over this..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101772068

[EOTE]

6. There are a few things to explain that.

One of which being that perhaps TPTB actually wanted Obama to win, it's hard to deny that Wall St. and corporations have done pretty damned well under Obama. Another is perhaps the margin of victory in 2008 was too much to overcome.

Election fraud exists whether or not you acknowledge it.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. That's what continually concerns me since 2000 (and even before that really)

And that is that any close election can so easily be stolen. Unless there are always large margins like in 2008, we don't even know whether they have or not. I suspect it's likely they have with all the bullshit going on and the machines being privately owned and proprietary. But when there is anything like this that puts out a theory as to how, it can't be fully verified.

[RomneyLies]

8. WTF is a TPTB?

Election fraud does exist. the guy in VA throwing away registrations committed it.

"Black Box Voting" has always been a scam to separate those whose candidates lose from the money

[PCIntern]

9. The Powers That Be nt

[RomneyLies]

10. WTF is "The Powers That Be"? nt

[Jackpine Radical]

33. Does the name Richard Charnin mean anything to you?

Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll
Richard Charnin

http://www.amazon.com/Proving-Election-Fraud-Uncounted-National/dp/144908527X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351203770&sr=8-2&keywords=election+fraud

Richard Charnin is an expert in this field, the real deal, and, to put it simply-- He proves amazing things with numbers. He does amazing things with the data, and it isn't magic, it's Math. He's like that great teacher whom you (hopefully) had in high school, that took the data that everyone else could see but didn't know what to do with, applied proven formulas, and extracted dramatic answers from it all that you hadn't even suspected were there. He does that clearly and concisely and it has broad, striking implications. Great book.

[RomneyLies]

43. I don't buy into black box voting Ct

You're free to do so, this is a free country.

If a candidate I support loses, it's not because of weird conspiracy theories.

[Jackpine Radical]

46. I don't buy into refusing to look at evidence

before leaping to conclusions.

[RomneyLies]

117. If there was any real evidence, I'd look at it. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

146. If you don't look, how do you evaluate the quality of the evidence?

[Duppers]

224. you don't want to be confused with facts?

You haven't read them, so how do you know?

[AikidoSoul]

231. If you don't get why it's so easy to steal elections when computers are used,

then you're not using your good marbles.

Ever get a virus?

All it is is a program, usually small, to wreak havoc (usually) on your computer. Viruses can be programmed to do anything at all. They can also disappear themselves, and reappear later. Not that they have to when it comes to voting machines and software because it is illegal for an investigation to open the computer, examine the firmware, examine the software, or do any kind of a hands on forensic investigation.

I've been in the computer business since 1991 and have seen a lot about how incredibly powerful certain software can be. Also firmware...which almost nobody even thinks about.

Just 'cause you can't "see" it, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

258. "Not using your good marbles." I'm stealing that.

[sabrina 1]

295. It doesn't matter whether or not you 'buy into' the fact that those machines

can easily be manipulated or not. It is a fact and facts don't change because some people are in denial about them.

Btw, were/are a member of Daily Kos? They became notorious for their owner's, (a 'former' Republican who worked for Henry Hyde although people have always wondered about the former part), irrational attitude towards this topic. A lot of theories for his rage over any discussion of the subject have been put forth, some quite believable.

I ask because only on DK do you see this total anger and denial regarding election fraud (on the Left).

[INdemo]

75. So here we are discussing election theft and vote flipping

and all that and I am curious, are we to think that the Obama campaign,the FEC and Our United States attorney General are not aware of the possibilities of these thefts and what states they should be watching.??

[drm604]

106. That's the one thing that makes me feel a little better.

But then again, what can they do? What are their powers in regards to this? What can they watch for and what can they do if they do suspect something?

[randome]

111. If they can't do anything, then no one can.

So this entire discussion is pointless.

But I think it's safe to assume they know what's going on.

[Doremus]

153. I believe the Obama campaign is well aware of RW election fraud

Hence their huge push to get people to vote early. I think they believe early voting makes it harder for them to flip the results vs. during election night chaos.

[AikidoSoul]

233. SPOT ON! Let's ask ourselves why, why, why??????????????? They've known about the theft potential

for a long time.

Has anyone tried to get a national set of rules about voting? Computers with proprietary firmware, software, and hardware should NEVER be used. There is no recourse whatsoever if fraud is suspected.

What kind of a fucked up system is that? It's ours!

It's sickening.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

257. We need to organize over this. But the fact the neither the Dems nor the Rs has made a fuss makes me

wonder if Palast isn't right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101772068

I really, really, really hope he's wrong, but my sickened gut says he's not.

[RomneyLies]

62. Still waiting for somebody to name these "Powers that be"

Name names or they don't exist.

[Wednesdays]

66. Reading OP's not your strong suit?

[RomneyLies]

69. I read the OP and the article the OP linked to.

Not a single mention of htese so-called "powers that be".

Names names or there is no such thing.

[MynameisBlarney]

70. Names.

Diebold, Rove, Koch Industries, Freedomworks, and now Tagg Romney.

[RomneyLies]

74. Prove it.

You have allegations. You have not a shred of evidence any of these people were involved in anything close to the allegations that voting machines were used to change the outcome of any election ever. Rove uses dirty tricks. He would not resort to his dirty tricks if he could magically mystically "flip votes" on voting machines.

All two of the people you named are pretty odious. Diebold is not. I get my money out of a Diebold ATM all the time. Koch industries sucks, but I don't recall them making voting machines. Gotta link where anybody from Koch was prosecuted for election fraud by hacking a voting machine?

You threw out a pile pof spaghetti hoping something would stick to a wall. Pretty lame attempt.

[JonLP24]

178. If Diebold is not odious, then they must be incompetant

They have well documented security issues that they can easily be tampered with. Many states rejected them and the company publicly, didn't take the issues seriously.

There systems suck so bad they changed the name.

[MessiahRp]

180. RE: Diebold

You do know that Diebold's CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio to Bush in 2004 in speeches where he stumped for him and then in the middle of the night Ohio flipped thousands of votes in favor of Bush to throw the election his way. The machines they used in Ohio, were Diebold. Just because you get your money from a Diebold ATM doesn't mean that Diebold is some clean company.

[eridani]

183. ATMs fuck up all the time. Unlike with voting, though, it makes no difference

There is a unique transaction number for every transaction--do that with a ballot and kiss the secret ballot goodbye. Also, you have months to fix any problems that occur--not true of voting.

[TBF]

193. You're defending republicans brilliantly -

enjoy your stay.

[sabrina 1]

296. Yes, I noticed that also ... n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. You know there is a way to take care of that problem

use paper and not hackable central tabulators. Why is it that people resist this?

[RomneyLies]

44. Too costly.

Computers are cheaper and definitely more secure.

[Jackpine Radical]

47. Wow.

[RomneyLies]

61. Absolutely. I work in IT

Paper ballots are much more costly and are much easier to defraud.

It's why the move to the lever based machines and IBM punch cards started in the 60s.

And both of those were decried as easy to commit fraud with by the luddites of their day, just like the BBV CTers today.

[FiveGoodMen]

93. If you really work in IT, then you know how easy it would be

to write a program that says one thing on the screen and writes another one into the database.

Of course, you could tell that's what it was doing if you examined the code, so anyone that wanted to get away with that would have to refuse to let anyone see the code (perhaps claiming intellectual property rights).

But no one would do that, would they?

[RomneyLies]

113. I know how dicciult it would be to do so withoout leaving a trail. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

118. What kind of trail could be found on machines that can't be examined?

[drm604]

122. It all depends on how you do it.

You should know that. If, for example, the machines record the wrong vote when the person votes, there is NO trail whatsoever.

[randome]

125. See post #100.

I think there is more to electronic voting than just incrementing numbers. No doubt there are backup systems, etc.

I don't profess to know all the levels involved but I bet it's more than just local tabulation.

And I bet the machines are thoroughly tested before going live.

[robinlynne]

143. not according to the NASA IT guys. who , underoath it is the easiest thing in the owrld to make

the code destroy itself after doing whatever it does.

[randome]

145. So we would have voting machines that were wiped of code.

Which would be solid evidence of tampering. I haven't heard of that happening, have you?

This would take a conspiracy of the writers of the code and the manufacturers of the machinery and their bosses and co-workers. I suppose it's possible but it sounds EXTREMELY unlikely.

[robinlynne]

155. not at all. google Clint Curtis and congress. He was a NASA programmer hired to write this

code in 2000 to flip the vote sin Soithern Florida, and not be detectable. . he wrote it easily. Said it was a piece of cake. Said any decent programmer can do it.
We "would" have machines where the vote was flipped, and you can not see that code. It has been done.

It isn't something that could happen. It HAS happened. This republican went public. and is no longer a republican. his name is Clint Curtis.
Another Rpeublican IT man, the one who wrote the code in Ohio 2004, sending all the votes to another state where they were tallied, then back to Ohio, died in an airplane crash the week before he was due to testify in Court about what he did.

[Doremus]

158. You are aware that it's illegal to look at the "proprietary" code of these machines?

How would it be possible to detect a machine 'wiped of code' if the only people allowed by law to look at it are employees of companies owned by those with a vested interest in the outcome?

I'd suggest you read up on the numerous Ohio election anomalies in 2004. Quite the eye opener, especially the county that closed the vote counting to the news media claiming Homeland Security threats. If I'm not mistaken, there was even the death of a whistleblower getting ready to testify that he had written Diebold code that flipped election results in numerous counties. Here in Cuyahoga, 2 board of elections staffers were convicted of illegalities during the recount and sent to prison.

When it comes to vote counting, we would do well to lose the naivete, sad but true.

[randome]

163. And all these attempts were discovered so there are ways to tell.

I don't profess to know the intricacies of HOW they were discovered but obviously they were.

[Doremus]

171. Don't believe I've ever read a more disingenuous reply.

Not inclined to play the game, so shovel it in another direction, thanks.

[robinlynne]

204. Many have been discovered. I doubt that ALL have been discovered.

When experts do random testing of the machines, they can always hack them easily.
but as log as people continue to believe the myths that they are safe, (because the Democrats will make sure they are safe?) there they are.

[randome]

207. I don't believe ANY ballot system is 100% safe.

That doesn't mean there is wide-spread fraud. So far, there has been no evidence of it. Florida was full of 'irregularities' but no proof of fraud that was wide-spread enough to trigger prosecutions.

[robinlynne]

209. I will fiond the link for you. you are incorrect. Florida was rpogrammed to flip the vote in all of

Southern Florida. by the GOP. I'll find a link to the congressional hearing about it. watch it.

[randome]

210. Is this the link?

http://www.iwantmyvote.com/lib/downloads/references/house_judiciary/final_status_report.pdf

Lots of findings of 'irregularities' -and most of it due to people actively working against the Democratic process- but no evidence of wide-spread voting machine fraud.

[robinlynne]

212. no. I posted link below. here it is again:

[randome]

215. Thanks. I'll have to look and listen after work.

I don't recall what happened back then but my initial impression on this is that if an investigation was done, why were no changes made?

Did this guy go to prison?

Democrats may not be as aggressive as we'd like them to be but I really don't think they would lay down and do absolutely nothing to stop wide-spread voting fraud.

[robinlynne]

216. You think wrong. sorry. This I can tell you from personal election monitoring experience.

[randome]

264. I'm sorry but this proves nothing.

This Curtis guy testified that it would be easy. That is not any sort of proof that it was actually done.

There is still no evidence that wide-scale fraud has been used to swing an election.

All these voting machines are tested and re-tested before an election. COULD something be rigged to throw an election? Of course. But there is no EVIDENCE that it has been done.

All the bullshit in Florida and Ohio were the result of individual GOP operatives, not vote flipping by electronic means.

[robinlynne]

266. He testified that he was hired to and wrote the software to flip half of Florida. watch again.

[randome]

270. And was this software ever used? Not according to his testimony.

[robinlynne]

271. Your point? It is proven beyond any doubt. done. proven. argument over. watch Dan

Rather reports for a lot more PROOF of election fraud in 2000.

[robinlynne]

217. oh, and what happened back then was Terry Schiavo. On the exact same day this Congressional hearing

took place. The GOP got the entire country to look the other way on exactly that day.

[randome]

164. All these examples are relatively small in scale.

And they were discovered and dealt with. That's all the GOP can do -fiddle with the votes on the margins, not engage in the kind of wide-scale, national fraud that some seem to fear.

[Doremus]

169. You have obviously not read up on the 2004 Ohio election.

If by "small in scale" you're referring to county board of elections, you're correct. However, the fraud affected the national election for president, not just local races.

If I get a chance I'll grab you some links to read up about the blatant election theft in 04. If not, you can google the county board in Ohio that allowed a Diebold employee to change out the hard drive of the central tabulator PC before the recount. Or the county that posted the ballot counts on the bulletin board and actually coached workers how to pretend to run the recount and then look at the bulletin board for the number.

There's much more. All one need do is look.

[robinlynne]

205. not true. half of florida in 2000 is not small. How was it dealt with? noone even went to jail?

[randome]

208. Why do you think no one went to jail?

Do you think Democrats and state prosecutors are in on the conspiracy, too? I'm not saying that voting machines are 100% safe. They're not. But where is the evidence of wide-spread fraud that cost Democrats an election?

[robinlynne]

213. Why do you think Dick Cheney did not go to jail for war crimes?

[randome]

214. Because he was one of our elected leaders.

Unfortunately.

[robinlynne]

218. There is your answer.

[robinlynne]

202. Yes. the GOP head IT man died in an airplane creash rihgt before he was suppo to testify about the

2004 election.

[randome]

203. And what caused the crash?

Was there an investigation? Was it a bomb?

[sabrina 1]

220. It only sounds extremely unlikely to someone who has apparently

missed, or simply ignored all the evidence available over the past number of years. I would link to some of that evidence, but from past experience of having done this before on numerous occasions regarding numerous topics, it would most likely be ignored so I see no point in doing so.

[randome]

221. Yeah, well, I've been busy.

But feel free to contribute to the conversation with links or opinions.

[Zorra]

236. LOL! Well I'll be darned! I've had that very same experience.

[drm604]

108. Bullshit.

[Fawke Em]

168. I work in IT security and you're off your rocker.

If I can hack into your system, I can flip any vote I want. Most local government networks are, unfortunately, not all that secure because many of the people running them have little experience with IT security (disclaimer: this is what the company I work for does - helps customers secure their networks and fall into compliance).

Hell, if someone on the inside is in on the gig, that makes it that much easier to enter the system remotely and flip votes. Most of these voting tabulators are using Microsoft Access, for cripes sake! Access! That's about as safe as leaving your door wide open.

[EOTE]

188. I became a network administrator the day I turned 16.

And if you truly believe what you say, then you belong nowhere near a computer. You believe 100% unverifiable and proprietary voting machines are more difficult to defraud than 100% verifiable paper ballots? Do you honestly not understand that some of these voting systems have no recourse in the event of a recount? Really, you should educate yourself before you make yourself look even more foolish.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

260. Sorry to join the mob, but you're just wrong. The errors of your reasoning have been presented

clearly, but you cling to you silly notion. It's not about luddites. Make the tech work in a verifiable manner and I'll vote on a freaking hologram.

[sabrina 1]

297. What utter nonsense.

The real CT is that we can have secret voting machines that no one can see inside of and that they are totally trustworthy and 'secure' and that we should not worry at all that all of them are owned by Republicans.

Do you have any other funny stories or Conspiracy Theories to share with us?

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. WOW just wow

[crunch60]

141. +++++1

[TahitiNut]

82. "more secure"?

In WHAT FUCKING UNIVERSE??

I spent the majority of my career in MIS/IT, mostly at Fortune 100 corporations, and the rest of my career in Internal Audit and Operational Analysis (which FOCUSES on management control, fraud detection, AND security) and I can tell you without a shred of doubt that the claim "computers are ... definitely more secure" is LAUGH-OUT-LOUD ridiculous!

You seem to be lost.

[RomneyLies]

89. Yes, much more secure.

Boxes of ballots end up in weird places all the time. I've never heard of a machine showing up in a river.

Worst case I've seen is the crap that single clerk in Wisconsin pulled. That shit affects local elections, but not statewide elections.

[Doremus]

160. "Worst case I've seen is the crap that single clerk in Wisconsin pulled." Then you are uninformed.

Read my post #158 for a tiny sampling of irregularities and outright fraud in Presidential elections here in Ohio.

You should educate yourself before opining on something you obviously know very little about.

[RomneyLies]

166. Again, I refuse to believe the conspiracy theory bullshit

You will never convince me until I see a successful prosecution. Nobody has even been charged, not even the clerk in Wisconsin.

All you have are the theories and no hard evidence, so it remains a scammers load of bullshit to me.

[Doremus]

170. Two clerks in Cleveland were not only charged but went to prison.

But by all means, continue to believe in Happy Land and Fairy Dust.

And enjoy your short stay.

[meanit]

97. Personally,

I could give a shit if computers are cheaper or if you or anybody else think they are "more secure". It's MY fucking vote. I don't want my vote processed and counted by a corporate entity using their proprietary machinery. I could care less if no one has been caught and convicted of computer vote tampering; if it isn't transparent and verifiable in all phases, it is suspect. End of story. These are our elections we are talking about here.

I want proof of my vote, and American citizens that I can question and confront counting my vote, not an on-line computerized network with a corporate CEO telling me "everything is A-OK; just trust us."

[RomneyLies]

101. Ever vote on punch cards? Ever vote on optiscan? Ever vote on lever machines?

This has been going on since the sixties. Third party entities have been counting the vote for decades.

So now that it's touch screen instead of obsolete punch card I'm supposed to change my opinion?

Technology advances. Live with it.

[meanit]

119. With all due respect

I could care less what your opinion is about how my vote is processed. This isn't about what you think or believe. Computers and programs are successfully hacked and tampered with every day and it may not become apparent that it happened for quite a while , if ever. Especially if the programs are proprietary and uninspectable by the public. You can take apart a punch card or lever machine and inspect it on the spot. Optiscan is a glorified copy machine. Yet all leave a verifiable trail.
There is nothing wrong with equipment that helps people to count the votes, but equipment that controls the voting process is all together different.

[RomneyLies]

120. With all due respect

I could give a shit what you think should happen with voting. Under the constitution and the law, that is up to the several states. don't like it? Change your state legislature.

As for me, I fully support the voting mechanisms in the state of Illinois and fuly support the cost effective measures in place. Touch screen in early voting. Optiscan for most precincts and touch screen for the rest.

Not a blip in voting in Illinois.

[meanit]

284. Very telling

But by all means enjoy your 100% accurate computerized voting in Illinois.

[robinlynne]

211. watch this video. you wanted evidence. And 3rd parties have been counting votes

since exactly 2000, when George Bush started implementing it with Karl Rove. Read up on HAVA, the help america vote4 act. HAVA is why private corporations now count our votes. they did NOT in the 60s. your facts are nonsense.

link to Congressional testimony of the man hired to flip Florida votes. Not a few. 50% of Florida votes. The program was written by him. personally. Paid for by the GOP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. Actually SON, yes SON...

private corporations counting the votes DO NOT go to the 1960s, or the 70s, or the 80s, or the 90s. They started after Bush came to power, with HAVA.

There is more, 'xplain to me why several Secretaries of State, among them Bowen in California, went back to Optiscan since they said DIEBOLD touch screen machines did NOT meet the security standards of the State, as in THEY ARE HACKABLE!

New Mexico has gone so far as to go back to PAPER... yes PAPER and you know funny, the state is no longer in the toss up category. HMMM...

There is more the EU... looked at Diebold and those nations went NO THANK YOU in multiple languages.

You might believe computers are non hackable, and are more secure, but the number of industrial hacks that regularly happen are a fact... not your opinion.


Sorry, but something here smells.

[sabrina 1]

298. 'Something here smells'! I agree!

[robinlynne]

206. bcause they drank the kool aid Bush/Rove sold the country....fast is good. private is necessary.

[EOTE]

24. I'm sure you know far more than the statisticians whose job it is to analyze this data.

Every modern U.S. election has suffered due to "Black Box Voting". Apparently you are all too comfortable trusting elections to voting machines and software which are completely unverifiable due to their proprietary nature. I'd rather KNOW my elections are valid, rather than trusting corporations with political ties to assure me that's the case.

[RomneyLies]

45. Anybody with a "job" promoting black box voting nonsense

is a scam artist.

End of story.

[EOTE]

186. Anyone who is fine with proprietary voting software that can't be audited in the least...

is an utter idiot. End of story.

[Nine]

219. +1

[AsahinaKimi]

230. agree and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101772068

[nadinbrzezinski]

227. You seem afraid, yes AFRAID, of openly audited elections

why is that?

[drm604]

99. How can you make a blanket statement that it's a scam?

Yes, the "Black Box Voting" organization run by Bev Harris appears to be a money making scam, but one scam artist making money off of it doesn't invalidate the idea any more than fake charities invalidate the idea of charities. Surely you can see that.

Please explain to me how it couldn't happen. Please explain to me how software can't be hacked. Please explain to me how data can't be modified. Please explain the anomalies in this article. Keep in mind that you'll be explaining to someone with a BS in computer science and many years of IT experience.

Hand waving dismissals of it as a scam are a very weak argument.

[RomneyLies]

115. Shjow me a single instance of it happening

then I'll stop considering the whole affair to be complete and utter scam artist conspiracy theory bullshit.

[drm604]

121. Wow.

Please explain to me why the US built a large nuclear deterrent during the cold war, given the fact that no one had ever launched a nuclear attack at us.

Whether it's happened in the past isn't the point. The point is that these machines make it all too easy for someone to commit large scale fraud. Educate yourself. You claim to work in IT. Explain to me why it couldn't happen. You can even use big words. I also work in IT.

And why do you keep harping on the "scam artist" thing? Other than Bev Harris, how many of the people who've written about this and talked about it have scammed anybody?

The scam is the claim that it can't be done. How anyone who works in IT can accept that claim is beyond me.

[RomneyLies]

123. Scam atists?

All of them.

[drm604]

126. Obviously you have no real arguments.

[RomneyLies]

127. Since the BBV scammers fdon't have any arguments, I don't need anything to counter them. nt

[drm604]

129. I done with you.

It's a waste of time.

[RomneyLies]

131. Good

I'll stop posting in the nutball conspiracy theory threads. They're a waste of my time.

[billh58]

262. Are you implying that

Bev Harris is a scam artist? This Bev Harris?:

"Bev Harris is an American writer, activist, and founder of Black Box Voting Inc., a national nonpartisan, nonprofit elections watchdog group. She helped popularize the term Black Box Voting, while authoring a book of that title.

Original investigative work by Harris has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC, as well as by the Associated Press, NPR, and many other mainstream news outlets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Harris

[billh58]

261. Sounds like

you may work for Diebold. As another poster stated, why are you so afraid of the truth?

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/howtouse.html

This organization has been around for several years, and has been instrumental in having black box voting replaced by paper ballots in several voting districts. CT? Not so much...

[Mc Mike]

259. Disagree strongly

with your anti-Bev Harris assertion. If I heard this from BradBlog or Mark C. Miller, or someone with that level of credibility, I'd be more inclined to believe it.

[Whiskeytide]

12. I still default to the simple logic...

... of the REAL question being "Do they have the technology to rig the machines?" Because if they do have that technology (and clearly they do), then they are using it. Why wouldn't they?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

13. Right. Who would put it past them?

I wouldn't.

[EOTE]

25. That's all you really need to ask.

And then ask yourself a second question: If they did it, would they be able to get away with it?

And the answer to that one is undoubtedly yes. It's hard to have your crimes exposed when no one is allowed to see the code which enabled those crimes.

[redwhiteblue]

36. whiskeytide

The question was raised if the voting machines could be rigged. My answer to that is , I emphatically believe YES. Do they rig slot machines so they only give just so many winners?I have thought for a month or two that something was not right . It happened in Wisconsin with the Walker recall. Obama would win in a landslide if this election were honest.

[elehhhhna]

49. I welcome you

to DU.

In the spirit and memory of our beloved Andy Stephenson - you are totally welcome here.

Elena

[D23MIURG23]

92. Nate Silver predicted the WI recall election result.

There were a lot of people hoping that strong Democratic turn-out would finish Walker, but ultimately the results of that election were consistent with polling. However disappointing that election was, there is no reason to invent conspiracy theories about it.

[juajen]

250. Welcome to DU!

[RomneyLies]

48. I default to simple logic

If they used this technology in 2004, why didn't they use it in 2006 and 2008.

The CT nonsense about spooky conspiracies of "powers that be" (who are never ever named) is just crap.

[D23MIURG23]

87. +1

For being the Illuminati they sure suck at exerting totalitarian control over the American electorate.

[randome]

91. And +1 for you, too.

Whoever thinks the GOP is organized enough to pull off fraud on a national scale has not been paying attention to politics lately.

These guys are duds. Every single one of them.

[FiveGoodMen]

94. That must be why so many races are neck-and-neck

[randome]

95. Well, the geniuses that brought us Palin and Romney can't be that good at their jobs.

Maybe it's the idiots who keep electing them who share the blame.

Or maybe the polls are all faked, too. Wow, it's an even BIGGER conspiracy than we thought!

[FiveGoodMen]

105. Most of the blame certainly goes to the idiots who vote GOP

A sane group of voters would never show a close enough split for anyone to steal.

If every person you met (save one or two) voted for the same candidate and the OTHER guy was declared the winner, we'd all know something was up.

However, the GOP leadership's purpose is to gain control. They've done very well at that, so saying they're too dumb and disorganized to get anything done is the worst and most transparent denial.

[RomneyLies]

116. They must have run out of black helicopters for the operation. nt

[drm604]

124. Who claimed they were the Illuminati?

If someone were to do this, or if someone already is doing this, they would know the limits of what they can get away with. If they flip an absolute blowout landslide people will know it. If you're going to do this, you only flip it when it's close.

[randome]

128. But you have no evidence of this happening. You're just afraid.

Do you think, at the end of the day, if the vote totals are too close, numbers magically get changed? I suspect that operation would leave a trail, too. Plus it would differ from any backup servers involved.

[drm604]

133. Read the OP.

They've found some pretty strange statistical anomalies.

And no, I do not believe in magic. Did you really believe that I do or are you just bullshitting me? I know, I know, it's a figure of speech. But it's one that's often used by someone who has no real argument. Accusing someone of being a coward - "you're just afraid" - is another symptom of having no real argument.

It's not magic, it's technology. If you program a voting machine to, for example, record 10 percent of the Democratic votes as Republican than there is no trail and backup servers would have nothing to do with it. The original first record of that vote is wrong and any backups, etc. from there on are also wrong.

I don't know if it's ever happened. I don't know that it will happen this time. But it's silly to argue that it can't happen.

[D23MIURG23]

138. Its possible to have election fraud on many different levels...

And some of them have been documented this election season. But I've seen no evidence of "the power that be" meeting in a back room deciding whether the election is close enough to flip, and then (more importantly) orchestrating systematic election theft in hundreds (maybe thousands) of polling places nation wide.

That would be a BIG conspiracy. Conspiracies that big are improbable by nature.

Moreover, if they have this whole thing sewn up already, then why all the overt crap? Why Rick Scott's purge list, the effort to end early voting in Ohio? Its wasted effort if "the powers that be" have it all taken care of.

I wouldn't rule out a situation in which a few precincts get compromised, but when the OP stated
"In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote (Romney) already knows he will win", I just laughed. No need to read past that.

[randome]

140. I didn't mean to come across as snarky.

I just think that if no one has contested an election because of voting machine fraud, it's likely because there is no evidence.

I also know that someone can hack into my phone and steal my personal ID. It's possible. Has it happened? So far as I know, it has not.

All I'm saying is that until there is actual evidence of wide-scale machine fraud, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. That's just my outlook.

[robinlynne]

268. There is no trail. You imagine a bunch of wrong things. You need to read up.

[Supersedeas]

194. Bush v. Gore tells you just how far they are willing to go

[robinlynne]

15. That is your proof that the elections are honest? Are you kidding?

Did you not notice the 13 congressional races contested by the Dems who believed their seats were stolen?
Did you not notice the lines around the block to vote for Obama, yet he only officially won by a few points?

They just did not steal quite enough in that specific race.

[Whiskeytide]

17. That, or they didn't try to steal the Pres race...

... because they knew it would be a landslide, and instead focused their efforts down ticket and on the 2010 mid terms. I know this is tin foil hat shit, and full of circumstantial evidence. But sometimes that's all you CAN have due to the nature of the beast. Maybe I worry too much about this, but I can't help myself.

[robinlynne]

38. of course they did. they just did not steal enough votes. Obama's win was huge. not 3 points.

[brooklynite]

22. Name one who publicly said their race was stolen...

[RomneyLies]

51. Every election results in sore losers contesting the results

That doesn't mean some nefarious cabal of super secret programmers are determining elections.

[Scuba]

18. They didn't expect Obama to win by the margin he did, so their cheating was insufficient to cover...

... in reality, he probably won by 20 million votes, not the "official" three million.

[BlueinOhio]

32. Ohio

In 2008 JennIfer Brunner was Secretary of State. During the 2004 it was Blackwell. And another thing the polls were not close in 2008 so it would not have been hidden.

[proReality]

34. I saw my vote flipped in 2008. n/t

[madokie]

52. If the votes were honestly counted the last time it would have shown that Obama won by a landslide

way more than the numbers they said

[RepublicansRZombies]

56. They wanted Obama to win so they could dump Bush's shit on him

Isn't that obvious by now?

[RomneyLies]

59. And the moon landings were staged in a Hollywood sound stage!

[BrainGlutton23]

85. Well, yes and no . . .

The Moon landings were real, but the footage was staged, at a studio in Burbank, I think. This was done solely to cover up the Apollo program's real purpose: A diplomatic/trade mission to sell Tang to the Selenites in exchange for velcro and digital-watch technology.

[randome]

86. I KNEW it!

[RC]

71. Obama was not the only one running.

We have both a House of Representatives and a Senate that matter a lot. To say nothing of races for offices in all 50 states.

[RomneyLies]

72. And not a single case of voting fraud on a wide spread scale due to voting machines.

The record of accuracy for these machines is beautiful and is better than any prior voting technology.

I'll stick with the proven technology. Luddites can figure it out later.

[RC]

132. I am far from a Luddite as far as computers go

But you seem to be defending the proven indefensible here.
I hope you enjoy your stay on DU.

BTY, that's Election Fraud.

[RomneyLies]

134. I did not read your response

I am only responding to say that I will no longer be posting in these wacked out conspiracy theory threads.

[cui bono]

176. Good. If we need you we'll go look for you in the whacked out posters threads.

[EOTE]

248. Ahh, so you're continuing your long standing tradition of responding to posts which you haven't read

You might want to try actually reading one sometime, you might educate yourself.

[Matariki]

88. Obama probably won by a MUCH bigger margin than we may ever know.

I know for a fact that I have NEVER in my life time seen people party in the streets after a presidential election as happened in 2008.

[drm604]

102. Perhaps because he won by too large a margin to believably flip.

I don't know if it's happened or if it's going to happen, but "Obama won" is a weak argument.

[RomneyLies]

114. Wouldn't matter under the CT floated here

All Rove has to do is flip his magical mystical button and he wins.

What complete and utter idiocy this CT is.

[cliffordu]

147. Hmm......

relative newby dissing the idea that the R's have been trying to fix elections since........

[randome]

149. Take a little more time to read the thread. No one is saying they haven't been trying.

[RomneyLies]

151. So I guess I'm not one of the cool kids

since I refuse to believe a conspiracy theory.

[ReasonableToo]

174. they didn't want '08. One word: Palin. look at '04

Obama was too far ahead of McCain/Palin to tweak '08. Also, they wanted to leave the Dems holding the bag when the s#!^ really hit the fan. Look at Kerry in Ohio. Kerry's results were lower than exit polls show.

The average low info voter and even well-meaning skeptics won't sort through all the statistics and graphs in the supporting links that others have provided in responses below (see the graph that shows the Santorum/Romney flip) so they'll be happy when they're told that there is nothing to see here.

I'd love to be proven wrong but I doubt that this will get much play (or objective coverage) in the mainstream media. The folks that are calling the shots for the elections are also calling the shots for the corporate media. There are third rail topics that the media knows that they can't touch no matter how much objective, scientific, logical evidence exists. (Climate change is a small third rail and 9/11 truth is a major third rail lest you get fired like Phil Donahue even though he had very high ratings.)

Think back to the primaries with record LOW republican turnout because their choices were non-candidates. Did anyone on this site think that any of those idiots would poll higher than 30% against Prez O? Yet here we are looking at neck and neck polls. They have to stay close so that the 10% thumb on the scale will work. They have to change or get rid of exit polling so that the 10% thumb on the scale will work. They have to establish confusion at the polling places with ID laws and purging rolls and challenging votes with caged letters so that they 10% thumb on the scale will work.

(note: yes, I'm pulling much of this from my reply on a duplicate thread)

[marions ghost]

195. yes the confusion & challenge

to mask the unseen manipulation.

yep, it'a a third rail--a pretty big one...

[eridani]

182. So if our margin is strong enough to overcome fraud, that makes fraud OK?

It's a sad thing that so many Dems dropped election integrity as an issue after this, given that Obama in reality won by larger than the reported margins.

[Zorra]

232. Cuz those nice honest republicans would never do that, would they?

[brooklynite]

2. Same machines that the GOP "rigged" in 2004 gave us wins in 2006 and 2008.

I stay in the reality-based world, thanks.

[robinlynne]

16. and losses!

[brooklynite]

20. So, ANY loss is an indication of rigging?

Personally, I can't think of a significant race we lost in 2006/2008.

[robinlynne]

156. You are arguing apples and oranges. Either an election is verifiable, or it is NOT. Either each cit

citizen gets one vote, and that vote is counted AS CAST, or NOT. Our votes are counted by private corporations. not publicly.
The computer code used tot ally votes doe s not even belong to the public or the government.

Did you not watch 2000 happen?
2004?

Obama winning one race does not an honest election make. That is sophism. not reason.

[brooklynite]

157. We're not talking about verifiable elections...

...we're talking about VOTE RIGGING using ELECTRONIC VOTING. We're talking about allegations that an unidentified group of conspirators rigged the 2004 Presidential vote in Ohio, but couldn't rig votes in 2006 and 2008.

[randome]

161. Or 2012.

Anyone who thinks Obama is not going to win handily has not been paying attention.

And if these conspirators are so adept at what they do, why did they let Palin and Romney spoil the show? Why put up such complete imbeciles as their chosen ones?

No one is running the GOP. The GOP is running itself into the ground.

[brooklynite]

162. Well, YOU'RE no fun...

I sometimes think some people here wouldn't have a reason to get up in the morning if there wasn't a conspiracy theory to worry about.

[Doremus]

167. And yet, depending on the poll, Romney's neck and neck with Obama. Pretty good for a party

running itself into the ground, huh?


"And if these conspirators are so adept at what they do, why did they let Palin and Romney spoil the show? Why put up such complete imbeciles as their chosen ones?"

If you control the vote count, it doesn't matter who the players are. Bush was arguably the most vacuous candidate in history yet served 2 terms.

[robinlynne]

201. oh they could and they did in 2006 and 2008!

[thesquanderer]

76. If the rig "only" gives the preferred side a 10 point advantage...

...then the other side can still win, if it wins the actual vote by more than 10 points.

And the advantage of keeping the skew within ten points (or some other "reasonable" figure) is that it provides the "desired" results most (albeit not all) of the time, while still keeping the results arguably plausible (i.e. not TOO out of whack with polling).

[Selatius]

130. I dunno. It might have made a difference if we had 62 or more Democratic senators, not just 59.

The landslide against McCain was so big that it would've been foolish to make it look like McCain beat Obama. After a certain point, the vote rigging becomes too blatant, like Saddam Hussein winning elections with 90% of the vote.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. I agree that the analyst proves how it could be done

I don't necessarily agree that he proves it was done.

He used a model to show that the largest precincts were the ones with the biggest swings, but that doesn't prove that the swings were due to fraud.

Unless I'm completely missing a piece of the puzzle.

[postulater]

4. Crap. What can be done about it? nt

[crazylikafox]

11. k&r

[GitRDun]

14. I am not ready for these conspiracy theories

Obama won Carolina by 10k votes in 2008, many states were close. Let's just see....

[EOTE]

26. Conspiracy theories?

Either you're fully ignorant on this subject or you're just daft. It's not a conspiracy theory if it is proven to have occurred numerous times in the past. Just because some elections truly do reflect the will of the people does not mean that all elections are kosher.

Are you really comfortable knowing that in many districts throughout this country votes are being tallied by machines and software that NO ONE is allowed to inspect? Are you really comfortable knowing that in many places throughout this country black box voting is implemented by corporations with massive political ties? Really? That's pretty sad.

[GitRDun]

100. I love it when people who don't even know you call you ignorant or daft.

You don't know me from Adam. I might disagree with you but I would not call you some childish name.

Show me an article that describes a court case or study where there is definitive proof that this kind of fraud exists on a scale that could change a Presidential election. If you can do that I might change my mind. If you cannot do that then keep your childish name calling to yourself.

It is my opinion that these kinds of things are a lot harder to pull off than most would think. There are a lot of data collection points, who knows what the data flow is to the state level, how many servers involved, etc. Because of the disparity of locations, it would be hard to pull off a wide ranging fraud in multiple states without involving a TON of people. Not likely in my mind.

I AM NOT comfortable that our voting process is fraud proof. I said let's see...I am not ready to accept these conspiracy theories. IF these things were allegedly in place in 2004, then surely if 15 guys were plotting Obama's demise on election night 2008, they would have prevented his election in the first place.

There's a difference between fact and opinion. What's sad is WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FACTS OF YOUR OWN, you attack someone you don't even know who happens to have a different opinion. I thought this site was supposed to be democratic.

[randome]

104. Whoa.

[EOTE]

187. Accepting criticism of privately owned and proprietary voting machines as "conspiracy theories" is

well beyond daft, it's mind-numbing stupidity. Apparently you were sleeping from 2000 to 2004.

And your "logic" is a few steps short of lacking. You apparently think that if one election is close enough to steal, that ALL elections must be close enough to steal. Most 1st graders are bright enough to see the idiocy of that kind of thinking.

Also, why the fuck are you so certain that anyone would have been plotting Obama's demise? Obama has been a dream come true for the corporatocracy. Wall Street and the 1% in general have done unbelievably well under Obama, why the hell would they have worked so hard to make sure he wasn't elected? Thinking helps in these kinds of things.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/16/1100628/-It-s-the-Voting-Machines-Not-the-Voters

Here's a tiny bit to educate you. I'm sure you'll dive right into this.

[GitRDun]

190. Again with the abusive language, you must be one awful person to be around

I am long past the age where I can be intimidated by a bad person who thinks they can bully people to their way of thinking by abusing them verbally. Quite frankly, your approach to my skepticism with abuse and dismissiveness is quite like the Republicans you claim to abhore. If you want to people to be open to your arguments, perhaps you should review how some of the leading Democrats deal with people that disagree with them; argument, discussion, persuasion, RESPECT.

I have said repeatedly, that it is POSSIBLE to manipulate voting machines. However, I am also saying the published information does not provide enough data to make me concerned that a national presidential election can be manipulated.

I did read your Daily Kos article and some of the links. All they point to is that it is possible that voting machines can be manipulated and that Republicans do commit voter fraud. I agree with both of those statements. What they do not prove is that a wide scale voter fraud that would change a national presidential election can be easily accomplished.

A quote from the Utah article "But whether the Diebold op-scanners tallied the ballots inaccurately on Election Day or during the so-called "recount" remains unknown at the moment."

Another quote from the same article, &quot Following years of failure of Diebold's voting systems, the company changed their name to Premier, only to see the assets of the failing company finally purchased last year by Dominion Voting, a Canadian firm which now services the machines.)"

Here your "facts" provide nothing other than evidence that Republicans commit voting fraud and that electronic voting machines can be manipulated..these are things we already know.

A Canadian firm maintaining optical scanners that don't work properly does not approach the emergency you are creating. My guess is that this abuse you keep projecting on me is more a reflection of your frustration that more evidence is NOT present to confirm your fears of Republican election theft.

While I sympathize with your concerns, I don't think you are adding anything to the discussion.

[EOTE]

192. Once again, you must have been sleeping from 2000 to 2004.

So you seem to know that the machines can be manipulated. You seem to have perhaps a smidgen of an idea that many of these machines are entirely unverifiable, yet you think it's a CONSPIRACY THEORY to talk about this awfulness and how it is utterly antithetical to a functional democracy. Sorry, that's utterly asinine. Have you read anything regarding Ohio in 2004? Do you know how utterly counter to exit polls the result was? Lemme guess, The Bradley Effect? And you provide a quote regarding Diebold and how it can't be determined whether fraud was involved or not, well no fuck, do you have any idea as to what "100% unverifiable" means? Numbers certainly aren't your strong point. It's a rarity that I see a screen name so accurately reflect someone.

[GitRDun]

197. More suppositions

I have read the stories about Ohio in 2004.

While there is reason for suspicion, there was no case, otherwise someone would have made that case or even a single other, ANYWHERE since then. Post it if you're so right. I'll be the first to admit I am wrong.

I have no problem with your suspicions, you are entitled to them.

I would suggest rather than project your anger at me, you get busy building an empirical case that can be brought to the public at large.

In the end, you are a classic bully...really just the same as those Republicans you purport to hate so much. Sure some machines are "100% unverifiable" as you say. That does not translate into a nationwide capability to fix a Presidential election.

Go build a case EOTE. Your abusive language and insults are wasted here.

[EOTE]

198. I've built a case, you dismiss it as "conspiracy theories".

You ignore anything that doesn't jive with your limited knowledge of the issue. You still don't know what "100% unverifiable" means. It means that even recounts do not offer any assurance that the election was legitimate. That, without a doubt, does translate into a nationwide ability to fix a presidential election. You do know that we use an electoral college, right? You do understand that that means that stealing just a few states can mean the difference in an election? Of course you don't.

[GitRDun]

199. Lol

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[theinquisitivechad]

228. Would it delight you to know

That "GitRDun" replies with statements like "Are these guys credible pollsters" to a post about Obama being up 3 in NC polling? A poll stated/referenced by Gifford?

Don't think this person is really on our side. I mean, his handle is a Redneck battle cry. Just sayin'. Not worth your time or effort to even reply.

[EOTE]

249. No, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I'm guessing the "credible" pollsters are the ones which reaffirm Larry the Cable Guy's opinions.

[Festivito]

39. Which ones are you ready for? /nt

[GitRDun]

109. Lol

I'm an occam's razor kind of guy. Speculation of this magnitude would take some convincing, although I can be swayed with facts. You can see my response to EOTE above.

IMO, Obama is too far ahead in too many places. Any fraud would have to be far reaching to make a difference in this election.

[Berlum]

19. This Republican attack on America must be stopped

nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

21. 18181 votes

Google it.

[frylock]

30. ^this^

[elehhhhna]

54. yep. THAT.

[nc4bo]

110. What an amazing coincidence that.

What are the odds I wonder?

[lonestarnot]

275. That was the number I was trying to remember.

[Unknown Beatle]

27. Holy shit on a stick!

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

When are people going to believe that this is actually happening here in the US? I should know because when I voted for the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election, it flipped my vote from White to Perry. I saw this with my own eyes. I wrote about this yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=4440

This is no conspiracy theory, it's fucking happening and it's all to real.

Edited: I meant conspiracy theory and not just conspiracy. But in my haste and desperation trying to inform people about the wholesale theft of our nation, I got carried away in the moment.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

29. Same happened to my Mom in NV a few years ago...

....she had to get help because the damn machine kept flipping her vote.

[frylock]

31. a lot of people have reported that happening going back to 2004

[FiveGoodMen]

50. "it's fucking happening and it's all too real" -- AND it's a conspiracy

con·spir·a·cy

noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

[Unknown Beatle]

60. OK,

conspiracy theories then.

[FiveGoodMen]

65. Every allegation that two or more people have planned to do something wrong is a conspiracy theory

The way that people treat that word is utterly insane.

Imagine:

"Your honor, the defendant is changed with conspiracy to commit check fraud."

"Dismissed! This court doesn't abide by conspiracy theories. Are you nuts?"

[Unknown Beatle]

77. I know where you're coming from,

but this explanation from a Google search:

Less illustrious uses refer to folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws or biases. Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational. A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.

Overall, I agree with you, but the term has changed.

[FiveGoodMen]

84. And that change in the term has derailed countless important discussions

You can say we use the word differently now, but not really:

If anyone says anything that means, "I think they're up to something" ... that's an allegation of conspiracy (original, proper use of the word).

Because the word fits, the label is applied.

Because of the insane way that people react to the label, the discussion is over.

And "proven conspiracy theory" is no help...

"Your honor, the defendant is accused of conspiracy to...."

"Has it been proven?"

"No that's what we're here to..."

"Dismissed!"

Moral: We absolutely fucking have to use words the way they're defined.

[RomneyLies]

55. I'll believe it when it actually happens

To date, not a single case of "black box voting" bullshit has happened.

[FiveGoodMen]

96. You'd have to be god to make the statement 'not a single case of "black box voting" has happened'

No one else would be in a position to know something that absolutely.

So let's get down to the real question: Do you think you're god?

[RomneyLies]

103. Trot out the case.

I cannot prove a negative. You must prove a positive.

[FiveGoodMen]

107. Many here are trying to 'trot out the case'

Your purpose is to shame them into silence.

I don't have to prove what happened -- in computers I've never examined, in cities I've never been in -- in order to argue that the discussion is reasonable and should not be shut down by nonsense like yours.

[RomneyLies]

112. And I don't have to beleive half baked conspiracy theory nonsense just because you do.

Be my guest. Waste your time. Look for the guy from the grassy gnoll and find the super secret Burbank sound stage where the moon landings were filmed.

Knock yourself out.

Meanwhile, I'll go make some calls for Obama to swing state voters.

I'll effect the outcome substantially more than you will with my actions while you chase non-existent ghosts.

[fascisthunter]

142. sure you will

crawl

[theinquisitivechad]

235. "affect" the outcome.

[Selatius]

136. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no bona fide case of election fraud does not also follow that electronic fraud is not technically possible.

[Selatius]

139. Have a nice day then. I can see we're not really making any progress holding a civil discussion. nt

[LeftInTX]

35. K&R

[WillyT]

37. K & R !!! - Damned Government Workers !!!

[Festivito]

40. Detroit local news tells me Romney is 1% ahead of Obama, every broadcast.

Channel 7, WXYZ, ABC affiliate

Morning and noon yesterday.

As though if in my Republican governored and Attorneyed-General Michigan has a sudden upset, I should just accept it.

[Mc Mike]

273. Doubtless attempt at election theft. nt.

[Sophiegirl]

41. Just brainstorming here...

If electronic voting machines are used, they should print out two copies of the individual's vote. One to keep and one to turn in for a paper trail. If other fraud is claimed and it is suspected that the computers flipped votes, the paper votes can be counted manually. The only question is, where is the paper copy collected and by whom? Maybe the voter puts it into a safeguarded lockbox that is only opened in the presence of reps from both parties.

I really don't know what a truly safe solution/method is, but this is my initial thought.

[RomneyLies]

58. I watched my vote recorded on paper inside the voting machine I used

Not a single case of election fraud through computerized machines has ever occurred.

Not one.

The same shit was spewed about the little lever machines ages ago, then the IBM punch cards.

It's neo-luddite bullshit.

[abelenkpe]

78. I like that you've responded to all these posts

With the same assertions. If you had done it just once your opinion would carry more weight but now I just think you're mental.

[RomneyLies]

81. You're free to beleive what you will

I think anybody who believes that a cabal of some shady "powers that be" has their finger on a button that can instantaneously alter the outcome of an election is an idiot on par with moon landing deniers.

[FiveGoodMen]

98. "Not a single case of election fraud through computerized machines has ever occurred."

Whether that was actually true or not, you are completely insane to believe you can make that statement.

[siligut]

173. The poster is just a little too focused

And is attempting to shame people who are concerned about a very real problem. 300+ posts in five days, though aside from this, the poster seems to be aware of liberal issues. However, that might just be window-dressing to make seeding doubt more successful.

[FiveGoodMen]

181. I think you may be right.

That's kind of how it seemed to me, too.

[robinlynne]

269. oh really? That is the GOP argument, and the same argument used by the private, right wing corporate

corporations who are counting our votes. PROVE there is fraud. When we do prove there is fraud, you guys say that isn't enough fraud.

Imagine, the GOp operative we caught in LA county switching voter registrations so Dems could not vote. but we only found a few. So the government did not investigate the thousands the same man was i charge of. Imagine if these guys commit fraud only a few times?

Do any criminals only commit a few crimes?

[AverageJoe90]

53. IMHO, I've never doubted for a second that they'll try this shit again.

But given the enormous wave of Democratic enthusiasm and early voting this year, and given that we have states that we CAN win without needing Ohio, it'll be a lot harder to pull off a steal this year than it was in '04 when the election really was super-close.

[hughee99]

67. According to this, it goes back to '08, not '04 or '00.

That was the one where the repukes got their asses handed to them, IIRC.

[rso]

57. fraud

OK, assuming the fraud issue is real, what can we do at this late stage ? Does voting early mitigate the problem ?

[DirtyDawg]

64. I was hoping...

...that this guy would have looked into the '02 Georgia (the State) vote for Senate and Governor. This was the first time that an entire state had converted to electronic voting (Diebold-built touch screens), supposedly to prevent the kinds of problems encountered in Floride in '00. In both races, Max Cleland and Roy Barnes, both Democrats and incumbents. Their leads according to polls going into the last few days ranged from 6 to 10 percentage points. They both lost and the state has been solidly Republican ever since. Questions were raised almost immediately. The SOS in Georgia was a (real) Blue Dog Dem (and a protege of Zell Miller if that tells you anything), and had directed the conversion but had Diebold reps serve as her field staff to implement the system (and, by the way, one of her real staffers ended up with a job at Diebold when it was all over). Somewhere in the aftermath, a whistleblower witness 'testified' that a late 'patch' to the system software was installed by a home-office Diebold representative (supposedly without the knowledge of the SOS's office). That 'whistleblower' further claimed that this patch was labeled 'Rob Georgia'. All was denied by the SOS and the decision was made by certain people not to pursue the issue further as it would be too devastating to too many people. In other words, and to borrow a line from Col Nathan Jesup, 'We couldn't handle the truth.' What we really can't handle is more 'rat-fu$&ing' by Republicans and frankly think its time some people were made to pay a price that would get the attention of all the others. Let's make it a capital offense and execute some SOB.

[tritsofme]

68. Uh-oh...it's vote fraud conspiracy theory season at DU!

I always wonder something about this little fantasy world so many live in, where an election with a Republican victor is evidence enough for "vote fraud"

Since the voter fraud is oh-so "obvious" I can only see two conclusions one can draw about the silence of the Obama campaign and national Democrats, either they are complicit in "stealing" elections for Republicans, or they are so incompetent they don't even know it happens.

Large scale massive confirmable cheating by the other side might just be something of a big political deal if it was real and not a fantasy.

[tandem5]

83. Vote or voter fraud is different from election fraud and they are not interchangable terms.

As a programmer, I know it takes only a couple of lines of code to manipulate a system in a big way. When you have a small number of private companies building DREs that are completely black box and "proprietary" it does not take much of a conspiracy to pull off an event. Besides what is supposed to make our system unimpeachable and the model for the world is that there is vigilance in the presence of perceived conflicts of interests. The threshold for action is not after corruption occurs.

Now as a person with common sense, to expose such actions would be "a big political deal." In fact it would strike at the heart of who we think we are as a country. The reaction to such news would be instant incredulity and condemnation (of the messenger).

Hell, I mean it took five years for America to acknowledge Lance Armstrong cheated in the face of insurmountable evidence and even now that acknowledgement is tepid at best.

I'm not making these comments to affirm the validity of the source referenced in the OP, but rather to emphasize that the subject of election fraud or perceived election fraud is not a trivial subject.

[tritsofme]

240. Right, so in order for this theory of yours to work. Obama must be complicit in the conspiracy.

If the Obama campaign and Democratic leaders know and say nothing, they are complicit. You can make excuses as to why, but that is the only option.

Or it is just a silly conspiracy theory for sore losers...I believe it is the latter.

[tandem5]

244. false dilemma mixed with a little thought terminating cliche

neither of which really apply to my comments. Why is it so hard to have an open and reasonable discussions on this board? Endless threads of terminating one-liners and blanket support abbreviations.

[tritsofme]

245. How is it a false dilemma?

If it is widely known that elections will consistently be stolen from you, and you choose to do nothing. What does that make you, but complicit?

If you assume that Obama actually wants to win, how is this rational behavior?

[marions ghost]

255. well said thanks

it is a big deal, but some just don't want things to change for the better, to tackle the massive problems in our more than stupid voting "system"--I wonder why...

[fascisthunter]

144. yes, your political party, the GOP

has already stolen two elections for Bush, so push lease turn that condescending wannabe nose down.

[tritsofme]

238. lol, thanks. You're a gem.

[D23MIURG23]

79. Bullshit. Obama did not win every 2008 blue state by 10%.

Romney is "confident" because he has to look that way to impress voters.

[Nay]

80. To me, the most compelling evidence that these machines are rigged is the fact that exit polling,

in 2000 IIRC, all of a sudden started to diverge strikingly from the actual tallies from the machines. Up until then, exit polls were very on-the-money in predicting the outcomes. For decades, exit polls tracked with actual vote counts extremely well.

What happened? Some people say that voters all of a sudden started to lie to exit pollers in bigger numbers. HUH? For decades it ran along fine, then ppl started lying for some reason? That's harder to believe than any conspiracy theory.

The nail in the coffin was when the decision was made to ELIMINATE EXIT POLLING, BECAUSE IT WAS "INACCURATE"! I'm sure many statisticians said, "what the fuck?" to themselves, because the fact that exit polls were diverging from final exit results was a big red flag for them - and not because they thought exit polling suddenly became unreliable. It was because this is gold-plated evidence that the voting machines had been tampered with, and the elimination of exit polls made sure that no one could use those polls to check up on/demand anything of the assholes who now own the system completely.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

150. Yes I find the whole exit polling issue very suspicious as well

I remember 2000 when the polls were different than the actual vote counts by very significant number. That never happened before or very rarely.

And now, they're eliminating exit polling altogether.

Incredibly suspicious, IMO. I've no "proof" but it smacks of a systematic cover-up. It simply makes no sense, otherwise and I also do not buy the "people are lying to exit pollsters" bullshit.

[randome]

152. Who is 'they' who are eliminating exit polling?

I would assume there are many, many groups involved in that. Are they all part of a conspiracy?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

172. AFAIK various mainstream media outlets. n/t

[robinlynne]

267. They are one consortium. There is ONE group. not many. not two even. It is a group

comprised of the largest tv networks together. You really don't know anything about American elections, do you? You seem to just like o throw wrong information out there in writing as fast as you can.

[brooklynite]

154. So, you trust exit polling...

...which is paid for by a consortium of "the Media", who'm I'm reliably informed here is "in the tank" for Mitt Romney.

[rightsideout]

90. If you look at the graphs with Central Tabulature it's interesting

Romney's line starts out lower than Santorum's but then his line rises as the precincts get larger. Precinct size is based on population not registered voters. I agree that it would appear that larger precincts will have more voters.

But Santorum's line dives down as Romney's line rises up. It seems likes votes for Santorum are flipping to Romney. The lines are flipped mirror images of each other. The other candidate's lines aren't doing this. It's suspect when you have linear relationships that mirror each other. You would think there would be some variable lows and highs but not a mirror image of two lines. That's friggen weird.

But what's interesting is. This line behavior doesn't happen when there is no Central Tabulature and the votes are hand counted. The precinct size in that case doesn't appear to make any difference and the lines are pretty much the same.

I think it's strange and at least deserves some further analysis. At least more oversight should be done where votes are put into the Central Tabulature since that is where this appears to be occuring.

I couldn't understand what the guy who found this was saying until I saw the graphs.

If you read the PDF article and the links it is eye opening.

Looks like a good case for the NUMB3RS TV show.

[PufPuf23]

135. GWB won in 2000 because of the USSC and FLA (where bro was Guv)

USSC curtailed process in a specifically non-precident decision.

A later analysis showed Gore should have one but was buried in the 9-11 event.

Should the USSC looked again bcause of facts? Evidently no.

The USA is able to have statistically significant exit polls that switch results repeatedly without fixing the system and institutions..

The difference between GOP and Democratic party exit polls almost always favor GOP.

That said, POTUS Obama was meant to win in 2008.

We are in deep shit if Romney wins this Fall.

[brooklynite]

159. And because of Al Gore...

...who ran a crappy, unfocused campaign that managed to lose his home State, a dozen States Clinton won, and managed to make a close vote in Florida an opportunity for Court mischief.

[Dan]

148. But how does he plan to govern?

...and for how long, given the potential of his policies - before the masses express their concerns...

[NYC Liberal]

165. I hate to break this to people, but there are a lot of idiots and dumbasses in this country.

No conspiracy is needed to explain guys like Mitt Romney winning. Conservatives, right-wingers, teabaggers, and "low-information" voters unfortunately make up a substantial portion of the electorate.

It seems some people here believe that, if not for some huge conspiracy, liberal Democrats would be winning every race and Obama would be winning all 538 electoral votes. This country is not that liberal. Again, unfortunately.

[toby jo]

175. Can't we make the code transparent?

I'm not IT, but it looks like we need to make it something election officials can oversee. This seems to be a learning curve situation.

No problem here believing that votes get flipped. I worked for years to get out to the public what was going on with radio frequency weapons and their affect/control over people. Got Kucinich to work up a bill, but of course the righties squashed it at every turn.

They flip votes alot of different ways. tptb. They will until we get felony convictions on them. This has been going on since people began to vote. If electronic voting is more secure, as some seem to think, then at least we are moving forward.

Make the code available by law to bi-partisan election officials.

[ieoeja]

191. Not if it is compiled (something open source proponents seem to ignore).

Some programming languages are interpreted at run time which means it runs the code. In those instances, yes, you could make the code transparent.

More complex programming is usually done in programing languages where you compile the code into an executable. After that you could restore a backup copy of the code without re-compiling. Then the code would no longer match the program you are actually running.

I believe there are ways of de-compiling an executable. But with 27 years experience in programming, I have never seen it even attempted. If code is lost, we re-write.

I have certainly reversed engineered code. But that is totally different and not germane to this conversation.


And the guy above who claims this would be difficult is either the worst IT man in history or lying. I have no problem with his disbelief that it is happening. But any programmer would tell you that doing it would be a no-brainer.


I originally wrote change the code. But in most systems the code and executable are date and time stamped. You wouldn't know what changed, but you would know that something did. By restoring a backup without the offending code, you would see code date/time stamped before the executable was created making it appear to be the correct code.

[fujiyama]

179. While vote fraud through computers is definitely possible

there is no concrete evidence to back it up.

Is it possible? Of course, especially considering the blatant conflict of interests involved.

But I'd be interested in reading documented proof. Besides, all the screaming and worrying on the site means nothing unless Congress mandates that all voting should have a verifiable paper trail.

[Nine]

222. circular logic

What concrete evidence could there be? That's the whole problem! There is plenty of statistical evidence however.

Have you ever used a coin counting machine, pumped gas, or played a slots machine? Officials regularly test these machines to make sure they are accurate. With black box voting, we're just supposed to trust the companies that make them. That's insanity!

[marions ghost]

242. Paper trail and random hand counts as well

hand counts check scanners, scanners check hand counts.

But the NSA guy says the central tabulators is where the flipping is occurring, & only at some precincts. An algorithm is applied that produces distinctive patterns.

The central tabulators are not counted transparently. So even if your hand counts and scanner counts tally, you don't catch it.

[ReasonableToo]

184. Kick

[Shining Jack]

185. Kick n/t

[Progressive dog]

189. A conspiracy as large as necessary would be statistically impossible

While I believe that it is likely that election fraud could take place by hacking electronic voting machines, there is no way that a fraud on the scale claimed would not have been uncovered by now. It defies the imagination to think that the large number of people involved in this fraud would have no one who would have squealed, that no one who suspected would have investigated and found evidence.
You would have to assume that the whole of the government and press were involved. UN black helicopters are much more probable than the alleged statistical proof.
Is this supposed to convince the gullible that their vote doesn't count?

[FiveGoodMen]

196. If you're happy with your argument from incredulity, fine

But if you're going to claim it's "statistically impossible" then you should show your work.

Numbers.

Math.

That kind of stuff.

[Progressive dog]

247. I have a bridge for sale in NYC

[FiveGoodMen]

251. And a bad attitude and a total lack of concern for your country.

[marions ghost]

243. Yawn

Here come those tired Early Booshcheney Era talking points again....

1. Big conspiracy is necessary
2. You can't talk about it because people won't vote

All you have to do is consider ONE main thing--the lies and corruption and of the Rethuglicon Party, where cheating is rewarded and those who don't do it are stupid. Look at what the party stands for. It's not rocket science.

I rest my case.

(And here's a Joe Biden laugh for ya )

[kooljerk666]

200. John COnyers 2004 Ohio election Fraud report......

http://www.iwantmyvote.com/lib/downloads/references/house_judiciary/final_status_report.pdf

I have not read this all yet but from what I read about it, it is comprehensive & I found nothing & no one talking bad about it in any way.

[JohnyCanuck]

237. Robert Kennedy Jr. In Rolling Stone: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

I. The Exit Polls

Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent. [17] "Exit polls are almost never wrong," Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are "so reliable," he added, "that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries." [18] In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down. [19] And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine - paid for by the Bush administration - exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency. [20]

But that same month, when exit polls revealed disturbing disparities in the U.S. election, the six media organizations that had commissioned the survey treated its very existence as an embarrassment. Instead of treating the discrepancies as a story meriting investigation, the networks scrubbed the offending results from their Web sites and substituted them with "corrected" numbers that had been weighted, retroactively, to match the official vote count. Rather than finding fault with the election results, the mainstream media preferred to dismiss the polls as flawed. [21]

snip


In fact, the exit poll created for the 2004 election was designed to be the most reliable voter survey in history. The six news organizations - running the ideological gamut from CBS to Fox News - retained Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, [22] whose principal, Warren Mitofsky, pioneered the exit poll for CBS in 1967 [23] and is widely credited with assuring the credibility of Mexico's elections in 1994. [24] For its nationwide poll, Edison/Mitofsky selected a random subsample of 12,219 voters [25] - approximately six times larger than those normally used in national polls [26] - driving the margin of error down to approximately plus or minus one percent. [27]

snip

According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. "As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible," he says, "it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error." (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

http://archive.truthout.org/article/robert-f-kennedy-jr-was-2004-election-stolen

[Hannahcares]

234. DU can help publicize recent studies on GOP computer fraud

DU members please take the time to familiarize yourselves with the two newest studies showing GOP vote flipping in large precincts. One was done by a retired NSA analyst as described in this thread. The link has been blocked for some time, so I have included the entire text of the article at the end of this post. The second study was done by researchers evaluating anomalies in recent Republican primary data. A pdf link to the entire study is attached.

Folks - no matter how hard we work to VOTE and GOTV, we must bring these new studies to the attention of everyone BEFORE THE ELECTION! If they know we are watching, and know the mechanism by which Dem votes are flipped to GOP in larger precincts, we may have a chance of stopping this. The NEW info to get out to social media, MSNBC commentators, etc. is that this vote-flipping process appears to have recently been implemented to Romney's benefit in the primaries. They know how to do it; it worked, and there's nothing to stop them from stealing the 2012 elections with this scheme, (effecting down ticket races as well and sealing our fate re: SC, soc sec and medicare, etc. for a very long time!)
Other entities to contact include The Brennan Center -Lawrence Norden who has done much work in this area; Sheila Parks - While We Still Have Time, a tireless advocate for hand-counted ballots; Verified Voting and Common Cause; they have produced an excellent report on what states need to do to protect the ballots and audit them if needed. Will send additional info on how to contact these voting integrity groups. Someone said earlier, 150,000 of us can make a difference. This might be the most important thing we do in this election cycle. Thanks for listening!

BREAKING: Retired NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections
By Denis Campbell
GOP is Stealing Elections ?
Why is Mitt Romney so confident?
In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a math problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.
This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

The bigger the precinct (x axis) the higher the number of votes for Romney and corresponding decrease for Santorum and Paul when all lines should look
like the Gingrich line. (Source: MA Duniho)
A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

“Easy to Cheat”
Retired NSA analyst Michael Duniho has worked for nearly seven years trying to understand voting anomalies in his home state of Arizona and Pima County. This publication has written extensively about apparent vote machine manipulation in a 2006 RTA Bond issue election that is still being fought in the courts. Said Duniho, “It is really easy to cheat using computers to count votes, because you can’t see what is going on in the machine.”
When Duniho applied a mathematical model to actual voting results in the largest voting precincts, he saw that only the large precincts suddenly trended towards Mitt Romney in the Arizona primary – and indeed all Republicans in every election since 2008 – by a factor of 8%-10%. The Republican candidate in every race saw an 8-10%. gain in his totals whilst the Democrat lost 8-10%. This is a swing of up to 20 point, enough to win an election unless a candidate was losing very badly.
Since sifting through and decoding massive amounts of data was his work for decades on behalf of the National Security Agency, he wanted to understand why this was ONLY happening in large precincts.
Nose Counting
The idea of examining large precinct results came via a link to a report written by Francois Choquette and James Johnson. Choquette became curious about South Carolina primary results in the February Republican contest. There a poll observer noted an unusually big gain of votes for Mitt Romney in larger precincts than in smaller ones. Choquette wanted to know why?
He examined and applied all of the normal statistical markers to see where a variance might occur: income level, population density, race, urban vs. rural, even party registration numbers. He found no correlation to explain why Romney votes trended upward while Paul and Santorum votes trended downward -yet only in large precincts.
Choquette then looked at all 50 states and found roughly a 10% switch in votes from GOP to Democrat everywhere except Utah, where the presumption was, as it was Mitt’s religious home state and very conservative, there was no chance of Romney losing.
Choquette even saw in Maricopa County, which is Phoenix and its suburbs, that in 2008 Romney used this technique against John McCain. But McCain beat him by too much for a 10% fraud gain to matter. McCain tried to do the same thing in the general election to President Obama but 9 million votes nationally were too many to make up.
Examining every county across America was too massive an undertaking for any one person so he included a simple set of instructions and encouraged others to do the same with raw vote totals in their county/state.
• Download the text files of all raw actual vote results by precinct from the Secretary of State’s Office.
• Arrange them in precinct order.
• Put in all of the candidate totals for each precinct.
• Sort the data by total vote smallest on the top.
Now here it gets a bit dense: He needed to add columns that show cumulative totals by candidate then compare them by candidate to establish trend lines.
That reveals trends should remain statistically constant throughout an election.
Stealing Votes
But as the spreadsheet shows, the larger the precinct, the numbers start to change dramatically.
“If percentages did not change from one precinct to the next, we would see a flat line, but what we are seeing is sloped lines downward for Democrats and upward for Republicans (or, in the case of the Presidential primary, upward for Romney and downward for his opponents), said Duniho.”
In every election contest, the trend lines dramatically crossed for no apparent reason. It was revealed that votes were being systemically bled off for Rick Santorum and Ron Paul and then being credited to Mitt Romney.

Chart showing Barber v Kelly special election to replace Gabby Giffords result in Pima County
where the margin of victory was too large even with the supposed ‘fix’ in to overcome.
Once Duniho completed the spreadsheet, he pumped in actual vote totals from other Arizona election contests.
He looked at every 2010 race in Arizona from Governor Brewer to Senator McCain and Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The trends lines all did the exact same thing. Someone had manipulated the election outcome, most likely one person inserting a programme inside the system’s central computer… that flipped votes.
The results were astounding.
They showed that Governor Brewer actually lost her election and Gabby Gifford’s razor thin less than 1% point re-election victory over Tea Party Conservative Jesse Kelly was closer to a 20 point victory for her.
Duniho added, “We need to have strong hand count audits to confirm the integrity of these elections. This means comparing hand counts with official reports of the election.”
Ohio Precedent
This isn’t the first time Republicans have been charged with vote theft. It happened in the 2004 presidential election, in Ohio and Florida.
In Ohio, GOP consultant Michael Connell claimed that the vote count computer program he had created for the state had a trap door that shifted Democratic votes to the GOP.
He was subpoenaed as a witness in a lawsuit against then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and lawyers for the plaintiff asked the Dept. of Justice to provide him with security because there were two threats made against Connell’s life by people associated with Karl Rove. But in Dec. 2008, before the trial began, Connell was killed in a plane crash outside Akron Ohio.
There were problems in Florida, as well.
A study by the Quantitative Methods Research Team at the University of California at Berkeley found that anomalies between Florida counties using touch-screen voting and those using other methods could not be explained statistically. Noting the higher-than-expected votes for Bush in three large Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, Michael Hout, a Berkeley professor who did the study said there were strong suspicions of vote-rigging.
“No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained,” Hout said. “The study shows that a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero—less than once in a thousand chances.”
Don’t Trust, Verify
Indeed the only way to 100% verify this election fraud would be through handcounts of ballots by precinct, matching those results to the reported totals. But as was mentioned earlier, a group in Pima County has been trying unsuccessfully to get access to ballots to conduct such a count for almost five years since anomalies first surfaced in voting machines in 2006.
Is there a judge in Arizona likely to suddenly reverse past trends and allow access to conduct such a handcount of ballots 12 days before a national election? And if not, why not? Maybe someone needs to commission the Anonymous hacker group to re-level the playing field because the courts are not going to do it.
The results of Duniho’s analysis can only happen if votes are being stolen, and the only way that’s possible is if the computerised machines are programmed to steal them. Welcome to Zimbabwe.
More than 100 million Americans will cast their ballots thinking their vote will be fairly counted. It should be. Yet the crooks know they can safely flip up to 10% of votes without consequence. Anything more than that is statistically suspect.
President Obama won by such a huge margin in 2008 that even with this anomaly built into the system, he cruised to victory. This year the election is much closer. Can American democracy afford yet another election crisis placing three of the four last national Presidential election results in question or worse: The outcome was stolen, the outcome a victim of election theft?
Don’t Take Our Word
Use the spreadsheet above to do the maths in your own state, county or precinct. The results are compelling. Then demand that the Justice Department stop this insane view that results need to be reported by 11 pm for the television networks. Demand hand ballot counts!
We use paper ballots in the UK and results do not even begin to trickle in until 3 am. The final outcome can take up to three days to finalise. But voters in Britain know the count is accurate because every ballot is transparently hand-counted. When I read this article that Serbia, Belarus and Kazakhstan were sending election monitors to watch the US Election?, I knew we’d jumped the shark.
We are already being victimized by vote fraud on a scale that, in another country, would lead to calls for international election monitors. It is time for Americans to stop being victims of ghosts in the machine.
Denis Campbell and Charley James
Denis G. Campbell is the author of 6 books including ‘Billionaire Boys Election Freak Show,’ ‘The Vagina Wars’ & ‘Egypt Unsh@ckled.’ He is the editor of UK Progressive Magazine and provides commentary to the BBC, itv Al Jazeera English, CNN, MSNBC and others. His weekly ‘World View with Denis Campbell’ segment can be heard every Thursday on the globally syndicated The David Pakman Show. You can follow him on Twitter via @UKProgressive and on Facebook.
Charley James is a long-time independent journalist who covers social justice, politics and economic issues. He’s worked in print and broadcast media for national magazines, large newspapers and major market radio and television outlets. Follow Charley on Twitter @SuddenlyHomeles.
Republished with permission from UK Progressive.
- See more at: http://www.laprogressive.com/gop-is-stealing-elections/#sthash.x9XCo0Ob.dpuf

[marions ghost]

246. "Voters in Britain know the count is accurate because every ballot is transparently hand-counted. "

...and that is all we are asking for--vote counting accuracy & transparency.

If they can do that in GB, why not here?

[upi402]

253. I'm damn glad the Dems went to war for clean voting when we gave them the majority

..oh... nevermind

[marions ghost]

254. There have been improvements in some states, but not enough

Electronic Voting Machines Still Widely Used Despite Security Concerns | Huffington Post
Oct 24 2012

For years, researchers have been aware of numerous security flaws in electronic voting machines. They’ve found ways to hack the machines to swap votes between candidates, reject ballots or accept 50,000 votes from a precinct with just 100 voters. Yet on Nov. 6, millions of voters — including many in hotly contested swing states — will cast ballots on e-voting machines that researchers have found are vulnerable to hackers. What is more troubling, say some critics, is that election officials have no way to verify that votes are counted accurately because some states do not use e-voting machines that produce paper ballots.After the “hanging chad” controversy of the 2000 election, Congress passed a federal law that gave states funding to replace their punch card and lever voting systems with electronic voting machines. But computer scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that a variety of electronic voting machines can be hacked — often quite easily. ”Every time they are studied, we find further problems,” said J. Alex Halderman, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan who researches voting machine security.

“It’s simply a matter of reprogramming these machines to be dishonest,” Halderman added. “That’s what we found six years ago and it’s still true today, and many of these machines are still in use.” In 2008, researchers at Princeton University found that it took seven minutes, using simple tools, to install a different computer program in a voting machine “that steals votes from one party’s candidates, and gives them to another.” That machine, the Sequoia Avantage, is still used in at least six states by 9 million voters, according to Roger Johnston, who heads the vulnerability assessment team at Argonne National Laboratory.

Last fall, Johnston and his team of researchers found that Diebold’s AccuVote voting machines could be hacked to change voting results by inserting a piece of electronics into the machines. Diebold’s AccuVote voting machines are used in at least 20 states by 21 million voters, according to Johnston.

“I’ve seen high school science fair projects that are more sophisticated than what is needed to hijack a voting machine,” Johnston said in an interview.

Full Article: Electronic Voting Machines Still Widely Used Despite Security Concerns.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/search/#q/Electronic%20Voting%20Machines%202012%20Huffington

[G_j]

263. K&R

[marions ghost]

265. K & R

[Mc Mike]

272. I turned this 271 post thread into 51 posts,

by putting 5 post-ers on ignore. I didn't get rid of single or double post nay-sayers, because we're in a discussion forum, after all.

But that's > 80% of the posts overall, that were against the proposition, by 5 people. Ignoring them cleaned the thread right up, for the side that knows P.L. is right, including me. I don't recommend a permanent ignore, because I saw one of these people use being ignored to natter away at a good DUer who had them on ignore, but a temporary ignore makes this thread a lot more succinct and easy to read.

I'm off to BKKYosemite's parallel thread on election protection to see the results.

BTW, kick.

[marions ghost]

274. K & R

[Mc Mike]

278. Hi , m g. Thanks for the good posts and work! NT.

[marions ghost]

279. Backatcha

No prob Mc Mike. I do what I can...

And thanks for your work too.

We who dare to speak out about this most controversial third rail topic in American politics will be vindicated in the end. Gotta just keep on chipping away at the massive denial. To those who say "shhhhhhh" I say


I saw Mark C. Miller speak--inspiring.

[Mc Mike]

281. I never saw him live, but have his books

Dyslexicon, Fooled Again, Loser Take All. Read and re-read. Dog-eared and annotated. I check his site frequently for good info. (I'm glad they kept NYU from eating the Village, though I don't get to visit there, much.)

His 'projection' observation, regarding the repugs' thought and propaganda, is key.

Anyone who bothers to look into it themselves is on our side, about the fact (and ease) of electronic voting machine manipulation. The very vocal small minority just keeps ordering us to 'prove it' to them, beyond a 'reasonable' doubt.

[marions ghost]

283. Right

Most people choose denial unless they actually read & research it themselves. It's just too distressing, and of course many people have a vested interest in not rocking the boat, for one reason or another.

Mostly it's fear. There is clear evidence of the cancerous rot at the base of our country. The implications scare the average citizen--ie. that our democracy is a sham and we are vulnerable to the whims of billionaire thugs and thieves who would consciously manipulate elections.

I so admire Miller, Palast, Fitrakis, Brad, Hartmann--All those who are doggedly refusing to let this get submerged. It is an unlovely thankless task to be doing what they're doing--uncovering the rot and putting a spotlight on it.

They are

[Mc Mike]

285. I remembered this 'ancient history' video

from way back (16 months ago). Posted at DU. Barb With -- Pesky Poll Tape. 9 minutes, worth the view:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x593145

[marions ghost]

289. Amazing

I finally watched it.

THIS is what we are up against!

[Mc Mike]

290. When Ms. With talked, she just came across as so honest.

They thought they'd throw her with a question of which precincts the tapes came from, but unfortunately for them, she had photographed them during her recount observation.

PA outlawed filming in the polls for '08, so we couldn't legally participate in 'video the vote' that year, but with the expansion of phone cams, I think that restriction will be tough to enforce, if it's still in effect. (I haven't worked inside the polls as majority inspector since '10, so I haven't gotten any training from our county elections people for 2 years. I don't know what changes they've made to protocols, if any.)

I volunteered to observe in at risk precincts with AFL and Common Cause this year. I will inform all the media and activists from this post and bkkyosemite's, if I see any hijinks. With big turnout, and us all watching, we can make sure they can't steal it.

That's really the point of the 20% max on the vote flip. If 70% hate Romney, and the repugs tell us he won, the American public will keel-haul their sorry 1% asses.

[marions ghost]

291. Watch and report (and photograph)

--must do next week, you guys. And you know who you are. Keep us posted on election watch at ground level.

Yeah, I think they can't flip it for Rmoney. Just not believable. But they can for some other races.

Ms. With and Mc Mike

Those rightwing haters don't know the meaning of the word patriot.

[Mc Mike]

292. Freepress has a new one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=200335

[marions ghost]

293. thank you

Re the recent installation of so-called "experimental patches"--


--stated purpose is to "aid in the reporting of results"

--"to transmit the custom election night reports to the Sec of State's office from the county Board of Elections, bypassing the
normal reporting methods."



-----------------------

IF they have nothing to hide then WHY did they work hard to get around the requirement for certification and testing by the Board of Voting Machine Examiners?

So did the BVME request a meeting within 15 days of their approval date? What happened there?

[Mc Mike]

294. I can't speak for Mr. Bello and FreePress,

so the question should be put to them. But since the patches were installed, I guess the meeting wasn't requested. You should ask Columbus Free Press on their O.P., m g.

[Mc Mike]

288. Forgot to add 'Cruel and Unusual'

I was just looking up the l'il bush Funeralgate scandal and Service Corp of America in that book today, in response to a query about the final death toll in Katrina.

[randome]

276. With the added advantage that you don't need to consider opinions that differ from your own.

Putting anyone on Ignore, IMO, is a cop-out. It shows you're not willing to enter into a debate.

[Mc Mike]

277. Har Har! It was only temporary, but

you have to admit, to lose 220 out of 270 posts, with 5 temporary ignores, is an interesting phenomenom, from nearly any point of view.

[Texas-Limerick]

280. Just good old boys

 

Dukes Of Hazard Theme Song -


Just the good ol' boys,
Never meanin' no harm,
Beats all you've never saw, 
They've been changin' the law
Since the day they was born

Push pullin' the polls
Cagin' the votes
Demandin' copies of their bills
The Dems take notes
But the law never will

Gettin'' their way, 
The only way they know how,
In Florida they got a stay 
And made the recount go away
Because the  Supreme Court allowed

They got them votin' machines
And they figured out how
They could reverse em,
Without any rehearsin'
They flipped one  just now

Just the good ol' boys,
With the Star Spangled Banner ablarin'
Killin' the system like a modern day Robber Baron 

[Shankapotomus]

282. It makes total sense that the Repugs

are guilty of what they are constantly accusing democrats of...it throws people off the scent of illegality.

[wildbilln864]

286. k & r! nt

[reusrename]

287. News articles on "vote flipping" have been purged from the internet.

How do they do that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021664507#post22

In any event, to me this is further proof that they are flipping votes in order to steal races in this election.