The Dems might get enough votes, but the machines are fixed

[edhopper]

Forget the polls showing a Dem resurgence. Don't we remember that the GOP has rigged the machines in half the country?
Unlimited resources without ethics or scruples and only a desire for power does not end well.
And we cannot count on the MSM or the general public to do anything about it.

[WinkyDink]

1. Hence, the pre-emptive "NC Machines Tip to Dems" planted stories.

[slackmaster]

2. Nobody has rigged all the machines in half the country

If anyone had, surely someone would have switched sides and ratted them out by now.

Machine malfunctions have been documented numerous times, but never attributed to sabotage.

[glowing]

4. Most of the machines are provided by 1 or 2 big corporations...

They are the tech support and the programers... AND yes, they can rig the votes.

[slackmaster]

11. they can rig the votes != they have rigged the votes

Every voting system is subject to sabotage.

I am opposed to the use of non-auditable systems, e.g. "paperless" ones.

[lame54]

80. paper ballots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxF4y9tSG08

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

10. There are all kinds of ways a machine can screw up, starting with the hardware

Touch screens are relatively fragile devices that can be easily damaged or made inoperable by environmental conditions.

Instructions given to voters can be misleading, confusing or flat-out wrong. See http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_its_royal_screwup_redux_as_sample_ballots_are_printed_with_wrong_instructions_el.html for an example.

If you can't fucking see that the machines actually steal votes, then one has to question how blind you are.

Machines do exactly what they are programmed to do, unless they have some kind of random failure (hardware or software).

A machine cannot steal votes. Only humans can do that, and they don't need machines in order to do it.

[BeFree]

16. What the fuck are you saying?

"....they don't need machines in order to do it."

Are you saying they will steal our votes? That they do steal our votes?

Just answer the fucking questions, if you please,

[slackmaster]

67. Why are you being so rude?

I can't engage in any kind of dialogue with someone who isn't civil.

[Bitwit1234]

13. Well explain this one..in Ohio in the last Bush election why

did the servers counting the votes go thru the servers in the white house that were set up to take care of Rove and the republicans email and electronic system. It was made CLEAR AND SHOWN and no body did any thing.

You tell me that it didn't mean something that this happened.

[slackmaster]

14. RIF

:hi:

[deaniac21]

72. Bev Harris would be the best person to answer this one. Bev?

[annabanana]

3. The new normal = We have to SWAMP the repugs for the "win". .

We will never know the real margin of '08...

[leftygolfer]

6. Here here

I know they will do all they can to steal it. Notice the victory laps? They are so low

[MineralMan]

23. There there.

[DCKit]

7. Our only defense is to outvote them by 15%...

Only then are their "wins" implausible.

[WingDinger]

8. Lets all hide. They have us. NOT. If we caught just the tip of mass vote fraud

We would build guillotines. And WE ARE WATCHING.

Get on the phone and call to insure Dems get out to vote. Walk the streets. Sitting and fretting is LAME. Now is time for work.

[stray cat]

9. Thats why they won in 2008?

[BeFree]

21. Yep

That's why we won in 2008: We got enough votes to override the machine defaults.

I notice you used the word "they" as if they (democrats) are not you?

[dems_rightnow]

24. Is there a limit

To the number of votes that they're able to steal that we surpassed?

[BeFree]

26. So far

It seems to be those elections that are within 5 percent.

They have got away with stealing some elections that were greater, but really, it was so obvious. They do have to be careful. There are some people who are aware.

[704wipes]

55. I think in Ohio in 2004 it was more like 7+% -please read

Morrow County went for Bush with 67% in 2000. In 2004 it went for Bush with 60%.
It is a VERY SMALL county & Republican, so there would have been no reason to tinker with the results there so they didn't. Because jumoing the vote total there by 7-8% would have netted very few total number of votes.

My point is that if he LOST 7% off of 2000 in 2004 in Morrow Co, then in more populous Democratic areas of the state such as Toledo and Dayton he would have lost even MORE than 7% of his total, BUT HE DIDN't. He gained over his 2000 totals. So the steal had to be bigger than 7% in those areas. And, my guess is that with each election cycle that this goes 'undetected' they increase the % of the steal.

Hey if no one in the Democratic Party hierarchy is going to call them on it, why the hell not? That's how they operate in all spheres. Rig the game and steal as much as you have to and if no one calls you, steal more.

[Fla_Democrat]

51. Paging Dr. Sheldon Cooper

Dr. Sheldon Cooper, to the courtesy phone.







:smoke:

[laughingliberal]

74. I noticed that, too. nt

[inna]

77. It often does that.

[MineralMan]

22. Never mind that. It's all rigged, doncha know? It's all rigged.

:sarcasm:

[Skidmore]

12. So don't bother to show up to vote?

Is that the message?

[MineralMan]

15. Well, then...you've sure convinced me to stay home on Nov. 2.

:sarcasm:

Unrecced for discouraging people from voting.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

18. Did you somehow miss my sarcasm smiley?

Not only will I vote, I'm actively working the GOTV efforts in my own precinct. Here in MN, we're very careful with our election results. We have an excellent system in place and it's been seriously tested by the Al Franken election. Maybe you should move here.

[BeFree]

25. Fuck that

You wrote: "Unrecced for discouraging people from voting."

You missed the whole point. You have it ass-backwards.

It only took what, 6 months to count the Franken vote? And that is "excellent"?

[MineralMan]

28. What is excellent is that the recount demonstrated that there

was not a difference between the paper ballots and the machine count. Our system is working here.

And, sorry, but I won't "fuck that."

[BeFree]

32. Six months of work?

Fuck that. Try it. You might be considered to be active, if you did.

Or, you can continue to be complacent and accept what they trickle down on you.

[MineralMan]

39. Well, I'll say this: You sure seem enamored of the word

"fuck." I'm not sure that really helps you. English is a wonderful language, full of ways to express your ideas. Try using some other words and maybe people won't just pass by your posts. Any child can use the word "fuck" in a sentence.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

45. Well, lets discuss this then

I say NO to a system that takes 6 months to sort thru ballots.

You claim it is an 'excellent system'.

Can you see where we would be at odds?

Is it really an excellent system, or isn't it true that it is FUBAR??

[MineralMan]

47. In an election as close as that one, it's not at all surprising that

it took 6 months. We have a very detailed process spelled out for recounts in our laws. We have very strict standards for absentee ballots and those standards have to be met if an absentee ballot is counted. We also have laws that describe what is meant by the "intent of the voter."

The initial recount actually went fairly quickly. But, we also have laws regarding challenges that take the process through legal steps. In that process, each disputed ballot must be examined physically, with representatives of both parties on hand.

The bottom line: Once it was all done, the system we use for our elections was shown to have produced an accurate result. That the election was so close brought the final results into question. Our law requires an automatic full recount in elections that close. That was done, and to the letter of the law.

The election was not rigged by either side. The votes of the individual voters in the state were counted accurately. It was close. Very close. So close that extraordinary efforts were needed to make sure it was properly counted. That took 6 months.

The machines worked just fine, and we had paper ballots to back it up. It is a very good system. We take elections very seriously here in Minnesota.

[BeFree]

48. Very good for Minnesota?

And so, what about states, like let's say: Florida, where elections have been proven to have been stolen?

And what about states where there is no paper trail?

Do you see our problem? And would you please quit trying to make light of it?

[MineralMan]

49. I know about my own state.

Show some evidence for the other states, like the ones with no paper trail. Demonstrate your claim.

That's your problem, you see. You haven't done that. You've only speculated that because it's possible, it's happening. I don't know that. You haven't demonstrated it.

Your work is cut out for you. Tell us about your state. How is it handled there? Are you satisfied with it? What are you doing to change it in your state? Everything is local.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

52. Evidence?

What kind of evidence do you want?

There is now a thread that lays out the case for machine vote flipping. Have you had a chance to read it? Here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4586753

Do you know what HAVA is?

Do you know about the Hursti Hack?

Do you know what the computer experts say about using computers to count the votes?

[MineralMan]

53. Tell us about the system in your state. How does it work?

I saw that thread. I know about the hacks. Now, tell me about the system of voting in your state. You needn't tell me the state. Tell me how it has been corrupted. Show me evidence in that particular state. Then, tell me what you're doing to get changes made, if they're needed.

[BeFree]

54. Are you kidding?

The voting machines have dropped/misplaced and miscounted thousands of votes. But you knew that, right?

The machines are un-auditable. And when taken to court to be audited, judges told the plaintiff to go away, they had no right to examine the machine's code or processes.

Look, in the last 3 presidential elections, there have been three different voting systems in about half the states. It's FUBAR.

[MineralMan]

56. That's just too general. Take your state and tell us about

how it handles voting, specifically. What machines does it use? How does the system operate. What are the checks and balances. How are very close elections handled.

Specifics, please. General references are useless. Many states use verifiable processes. What does your state do?

I told you about Minnesota and how the system works. I provided specifics. There's no evidence of election fraud here. You're going to have to do better than just "half the states" and that sort of general stuff.

[BeFree]

58. Oh?

2000 the state used punch cards.
2004 DRE
2008 Op scan.

None of the codes are auditable.
There is no check and balance that provides any confidence. It would take 6 months to do so, if it were ever to be done.

So, while you may have confidence in your state, and in that one election that took 6 months to conclude, don't expect anyone else to have confidence just because you say so.

[MineralMan]

59. Optical scan is good, as long as the paper ballots are retained

properly and can be checked. Does your state compare machine results with hand counts in test precincts? Minnesota does. So far, all those tests have shown an accurate count. Why do you believe your optical scanning hardware is compromised? Is there any evidence of that? Or are you just speculating because you don't like the results you've seen?

What triggers a recount in your state? Is there a threshold that causes an automatic recount? Can a candidate demand a recount? There are so many questions, and I feel like I'm having to pull the answers out of you, one by one. You have not described the process. You've just named the systems.

[BeFree]

60. You ask

"..do you believe your optical scanning hardware is compromised?"

If you knew what the Hursti hack was, you wouldn't ask.

I see you are trying to make this about me. It isn't about me, it is about what the experts say, and if you ever heard what they had to say you wouldn't be asking me.

[MineralMan]

61. Nope. I'm trying to make it about specifics.

You don't want to participate in supplying those specifics. So, I'm done.

[BeFree]

62. Specifics?

Are you aware of computer viruses and bugs and malware?

Do you think the crooks would NOT take advantage of open systems and manipulate the count in their favor?

Have you seen any of the many articles detailing vote flips right in front of people?

I have to wonder.... what is your point? Is it your belief that the systems are excellent and that there is nothing to worry about?

[MineralMan]

71. Sorry, but this thread is so.....yesterday.

Seeya.

[dflprincess]

78. It also helped that we had an honest Secretary of State overseeing the job

and that Mary Kiffmeyer was not still in that office. Had she been, I have no doubt the recount would have gone to Coleman the first time through the ballots. I'm sure Republicans would disagree but I have no doubts that our current SOS, Mark Ritchie, oversaw the whole process honestly.

The second saving grace was that we have a State Supreme Court that, even though most the appointees were put there by Republicans, also acted with integrity.

The recount showed what flaws exist with optical scanners and the way absentee ballots are handled. We are fortunate that we had paper ballots to back up the computer counts, the scanner counts were not accurate as they did not count every ballot correctly - if they had the election would have ended in November 2008.

Don't kid yourself that elections in Minnesota cannot be tampered with. It all depends on who is running the show.

[demwing]

19. What do you want?

I heard the same shit while Obama ran 4 his first term.

If he can survive, we can survive.

[Codeine]

20. Unrecced for defeatism and conspiracy-mongering.

If all the machines are fixed how did we beat their asses so badly two years ago? How did we take control of Congress before that?

[BeFree]

27. The question is:

How the fuck did they ever get power to start with?

How the fuck did GWB ever get in office?

Do you have a clue? Then post your clue. Here is your big chance. Just go for it.

[Codeine]

29. Simple. The same way they always gain power.

By appealing to the prejudices and baser instincts of a certain brand of voter, or which there are many. Even in liberal California I know a shitload of super-duper far-right folks -- conservatism and right-wingery are far more widespread and common than you seem to think.

GWB was originally installed by the Supremes, of course, but that's rather a separate discusion.

Your nastiness is neither warranted nor appreciated, by the way. Calm down a bit.

[BeFree]

30. Oh Yeah?

Just be calm as they steal the votes and our future?

Your way is what empowers them. They fucking rip you off and you tell us to be calm? FUCK THAT SHIT. Get off your ass and fight for your rights.

[Codeine]

31. Alerted.

I'm done with your nonsense this morning.

[BeFree]

34. NONSENSE?

Run away then.

I will not go quietly as they steal election after election. But that's just me.

[Codeine]

35. You don't want a discussion. You want to rant.

Go rant somewhere else.

[BeFree]

38. EH?

You telling me to SFTU? Who the fuck are you?

You should just go ahead and alert on yourself. Bwahahaha!!!

[704wipes]

57. The vote riggers ( Bu$hco) wasn't about to give McCain 8 years

Is why they stepped back. My guess is they were doing some testing in places they had never done so before just to see if they were detected, or they did take 3-4% and that was only a drop in the bucket for what they needed to steal it.

[undeterred]

33. Not in Wisconsin.

[Balbus]

36. No they're not, tool.

[4lbs]

37. These are the same machines that were used in 2006 right?

The year in which the Democratic candidates swept through Congress?

The year which this year's early voting looks a lot like?

[Raksha]

41. I'm very worried about that, and not sure if there is anything we can do about it.

John Kerry WON in Ohio in 2004, and we all know that. What is most disturbing about it is the collective refusal of the Democratic Party to do anything about it--with the exception of my Senator Barbara Boxer, who had the guts to stand up and challenge the Ohio vote.

[Upton]

42. Yeah sure

first we have those who claim the polls are wrong. Then, after the polls are proven correct, which is likely, it's time to claim election fraud. This crap is getting really old.

[Codeine]

43. And any opposition to their self-delusion is taken as

proof that we're rooting for a loss or met with childish outbursts. *sigh*

[librechik]

44. yes--no reason to celebrate unless we have an overwhelming turnout

anonymous election officials can touch a few keys and make anybody they want look like they won. Until we fix that obvious flaw, we have no democracy. Why is this being ignored? We have all the proof a reasonable person would need for at least an investigation. Dems are too scared to take on this issue; the Pukkkes have branded it as crazy talk, and that's death for any issue, apparently.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crazyjoe]

63. so, we shouldn't bother to vote? It's a waste of time?

[laughingliberal]

75. Quite the contrary. We need to turn out in large enough numbers to overcome the % that defaults...

to the Republicans.

[Karmadillo]

64. If only the Dems could gain the White House and a substantial majority in both houses of Congress!

Then they could pass legislation that would ensure we have fair elections.

[sufrommich]

65. The freepers think the machines are rigged in the

Democrats favor. Who is right? How about neither, it's conspiratorial nonsense.

[Codeine]

68. Angry reply.

Hyperbolic rant liberally using the word "fuck."

[sufrommich]

70. lol. nt

[joe black]

66. Real problem

The fact that private companies control all the voting machines should concern everyone. Gambling machines are regulated better then voting machines and that's a fact. The nay sayers hear must have forgot the demonstration on TV on how a machine could be flipped in minutes. You may also try reading black box voting by Bev Ross. It's recent history perhaps the closed minded, Obama at any cost, cheer leaders have forgot.

[BeFree]

69. Hey

It's just our votes. Nothing to worry about. They wouldn't use the voting machines to steal power. They just wouldn't. Nanananana

::sarcasm::

[laughingliberal]

76. Thank you for that. Anyone building slots that were as unsecured as the ESS product would be

...shut down and, likely, be facing charges here. The gaming commission manages to keep these things on the up and up but protecting the integrity of our elections? Meh! Too hard!

[brooklynite]

73. Unrec'd

You offer no evidence.

Alleging that "the GOP has rigged the machines in half the country" ignores how the Republicans managed to lose in 2006 and 2008, or why they'd need to spend Karl Rove's $$$ if they can just push a button.

[nemo137]

79. You know, were I the paranoid type...

I'd suggest that all this talk about rigged voting machines was disinfo to distract from the real problem of good old fashioned ratfucking and vote suppression. I mean, fucking seriously, that Arizona law was all about voter suppression, not to mention the flat out racist laws that strip the right to vote from anyone convicted of a felony. These are orders of magnitude more important, both tactically and from a "justice for all" and "equal protection under the law" standpoint.