Skip to main content

View Diary: ELECTION FRAUD: It's the Voting Machines, Not the Voters (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  independent statisticians looked at 2004.... (12+ / 0-)

    .... and found that errors favoring Bush exceeded errors favoring Kerry at a level that was millions to one above chance.

    That's the extraordinary evidence needed to support the claim that the voting machines were hacked.  And if I'm not mistaken, that's what got "voting machine hacking" removed from the DKos list of CT no-nos.  

    Beyond that, even the appearance of impropriety is intolerable in elections.  We can't run a democracy on voting systems that are known susceptible to hacking, per the Princeton tests and other well-documented tests by independent computer experts.  

    Bottom line: Paper ballots counted by live humans.  As we say in the industry: "good, cheap, fast, choose two."  Paper ballots are good and cheap.  We can wait a day or two for results if that means the results will be rock-solid.  

    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:12:29 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, and Yes, and Yes. (4+ / 0-)

      There should be no chance of a missing 5,000 ballots discovery at 3am after the polls close.  

      Democrats - We represent America!

      by phonegery on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:56:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like you're on it. (4+ / 0-)

      [explaining the problems, that is]

      I can't believe all the arguments I had with posters on this site who insisted that there was no way, not no way, no how, that vote counts could be manipulated via the machines.

      And now we hear about how it can happen all of the time now.  I suppose that is some progress.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno about that (0+ / 0-)

        I saw a lot more people insisting without good evidence that the machines must have been hacked, than insisting that the machines couldn't have been hacked. It was pretty frustrating.

        •  Wasn't my experience (4+ / 0-)

          at all.  People who thought that there could be a problem with voting machines were labelled CT and generally dismissed.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:34:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  and this time, paranoia turned out to be right. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, blueoasis, Sandino

          That's why paranoia persists as a trait in humans: sometimes it's right.

          "See the smoke coming out of that mountain?  Something's not right, I think our tribe ought to head over to the other side of the ridge!"

          "Oh phooey, you're being paranoid."

          "Well, me & my family are going, and we've got six other families coming with us."

          "Suit yourself, I'm going to stay."

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:39:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  the 2004 election. (5+ / 0-)

              The people who asserted that voting machines were hacked, turned out to be right: all of the evidence from software analysis to independent testing by computer experts, to the statistical analysis that made it into one of the top peer-reviewed journals in statistics, all supports the conclusion that voting machines were hacked in 2004.  

              The perception by the public that an election has been or could be stolen, is poisonous to democracy.  

              And BTW, I have zero tolerance for CT.   9/11 CT, Bilderburger CT, all the rest of that stuff is easily falsified bullshit.  One of my slogans in life is "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed instead to herd behavior or mere stupidity."  I have friends who indulge in the usual varieties of left-wing CT, and routinely get into arguements with them.  Including one the other night over whether the decline effect in medication test results is due to Big Pharma somehow corrupting large numbers of independent scientists.  (Really!  If anything, Big Pharma has an interest in the decline effect not being real.  But when someone's out to prove nefarious intent, black is white and red is green.)

              Given all the evidence to date, there is NO excuse whatsoever for retaining software-controlled voting systems.  

              And there is NO excuse whatsoever for not going immediately to a full paper ballot system counted by live humans.

              The place for "technology" in that mix, is with live webcam broadcasts of everything:
              = the polling places.
              = close-ups of the ballot boxes.
              = the entire chain of custody of ballot boxes.
              = the entire process of counting ballots.
              = close-ups of each ballot-counter's worksheets.
              = the tally boards where the totals are posted.
              = close-ups of the mechanical adding machines used to get the totals.
              = close-ups of the paper print-outs produced by those adding machines.
              = overnight webcams guarding the ballot box storage rooms with lights on, with mechanical analog clocks visible to prevent injection of false signal to cover for burglars.  

              The whole thing can be done with 1940s voting & counting technology and modern webcams and internet broadcast technology.  There is no excuse to do otherwise.    

              "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:07:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what journal are you referring to? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek, War on Error

                This is my field of research. With regard to the 2004 election, this is a pretty odd conversation for me so far.

                With regard to getting rid of voting machines, I doubt we'll go that far, but I won't weep if we do.

                •  i'd have to go dig... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joe wobblie, HudsonValleyMark

                  A quick search of the logical place on my HD didn't turn it up, so it may be on an earlier machine.  (I keep my obsolete laptops as a kind of "library", yeah bad practices, I should have a terabyte backup array, oh well!)

                  This can probably also be found with a keyword search for terms such as  2004 election hacking statistical analysis.

                  "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:25:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the problem with that is (0+ / 0-)

                    I probably literally read reams of papers that were statistical analysis of 2004 election hacking. If you can't find the paper, it might help to know one of the authors' names, or the journal name, or something a bit more specific about the method used.

                    Maybe the next comment would fit better in the other branch of our conversation, but I'm puzzled because I don't know of a true national database of reports to election officials. They could have done an analysis of reports to the Election Incident Reporting System, but there is no reason to assume that EIRS reports are representative of the electorate at large. There was one paper set primarily in Snohomish County, WA -- if it was ever published, I didn't notice -- but it wasn't about 2004 and wasn't persuasive in the form I read it. Mebane and Dill(?) did an interesting study of equipment logs in FL-13, 2006, which I think was published in some form in Chance.

                    I do have a 1.5 TB hard drive on which I copy docs from my various computers from time to time. Actually finding docs on that drive isn't necessarily easy!

              •  See Harvey Wasserman Interview above PROOF (0+ / 0-)

                Ohio was a disaster in 2004

                It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:40:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  How about: That coach and those priests (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, War on Error, blueoasis

            would never touch a child!

            Or Margaret Colson is crazy!  [that's the right name, isn't it?]

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:46:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Of course these machines can be pre-programmed. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, Sandino

          In Georgia when they first started voting machines the rumor was that the Atlanta black voting districts had "patches put on the machines as tests". Any computer can be pre-programmed and manipulated.  especially if you only want to skim off every x vote and have it go to your candidate.

          it seems that in US Rep house in district 1 - the incumbent always has the same % in his wins.  If more dems vote it seems the gop votes go up the same percentage.  where do one live where for every democrat that moves in a GOP does also?  Just saying.  Look at the statistics for the last 3 or 4 US reps voting totals and percentages in Distict 1 of GA.  

        •  The fact that most of those complaining (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, War on Error

          couldn't cite the actual evidence most of the time is no surprise. Hardly anybody can do credible citations on any subject. But I knew then and know now where genuine evidence is accumulating, as at Black Box Voting.

          I'm just sorry I wasn't around to provide the data at the time.

          Busting the Dog Whistle code.

          by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:38:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I am one of those involved in the demonstrations (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, War on Error

        Not theoretical arguments, not just statistical evidence, but actual, irrefutable hacking of machines. There have been demonstrations on TV. There have been papers by respected Computer Scientists (and pseudoscientific papers by shills for the industry) about the quality of the code and the lack of physical security. Hacking was and is real.

        Also, the voting machine companies were organized by Religious Righties who hired known criminals as developers. All documented. SoS Debra Bowen of California conducted a review of all of the available machines, which concluded that all of them should be decertified, except that nothing would be left, and they were not prepared to go back to hand-marked paper everywhere.

        I also grew up on hacking of the old mechanical lever voting machines, ballot-box stuffing, losing ballots, and much more. Look up "Landslide" Lyndon Johnson, or the Mayors Daley of Chicago, among others.

        Busting the Dog Whistle code.

        by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think you're confused (0+ / 0-)
      * [new] independent statisticians looked at 2004.... (1+ / 0-)

      .... and found that errors favoring Bush exceeded errors favoring Kerry at a level that was millions to one above chance.

      That's the extraordinary evidence needed to support the claim that the voting machines were hacked.  And if I'm not mistaken, that's what got "voting machine hacking" removed from the DKos list of CT no-nos.

      I don't think so.

      "Voting machine hacking" per se isn't on any list of CT no-nos -- but some number of people have been banned as "fraudsters" for harping on supposed evidence that Kerry won in 2004. In my impression, there's a lot more tolerance on this issue than there is on 9/11 -- on both sides, really. But I don't think that the findings of "independent statisticians" have swayed kos in the manner you suggest.

      I can't be sure what or who you have in mind. Usually when people talk "millions to one" in this context, they're talking about the exit poll results. Exit poll discrepancies beyond random chance could be caused by vote miscounts, or they could just mean that the exit polls were wrong. One of several topics that were sort of done to death back in the first six months after the 2004 election.

      I haven't seen any good evidence of voting machine hacking in 2004, but there's good evidence that the voting machines in New Mexico performed abominably and may have cost Kerry victory there.

      As you say, the case against electronic voting machines doesn't depend on whether there was fraud in any particular election. I think kos's own position has been that scanners are OK as long as the results are checked, but paperless DREs have to go -- I really don't know what he thinks of DREs with "paper trails," or whether his position has changed.

      I don't expect the country to move back toward 100% hand counts, but if we were willing to invest in them, we could probably get results on election night. As you know, it's more complicated in the United States than in other countries because we often vote in many contests in one election.

      •  i have the statisticians' paper on my hard drive. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        War on Error, Sandino

        When it was published, in a peer-reviewed journal, I downloaded it.  

        At issue were the number of instances where a voter reported to the election personnel that the machine wasn't taking their input correctly.

        As for exit polls, never before have the discrepancies been so large, and that's corroborating evidence.  

        As for 9/11, the answer to that is Occam's razor.  The number of additional things that would have had to be true in order for 9/11 to have been a case of LIHOP, much less  MIHOP, is so large as to be completely untenable.   And none of those additional things has been supported by evidence in the form of facts that are measurable.  

        The number of additional things that would need to be true to conclude that electronic voting machines were tampered with in 2004, is minimal.  And a number of those additional things have been supported by facts that are measurable.  

        And yes, we could get results same-night from hand counts if we were willing to invest in having enough election workers to do that.  But the additional investment is only for the sake of gaining one or at most two additional days.  We can live with waiting one or two additional days if we have to, in order to ensure the integrity of the results.  The national addiction to speed is the problem.   As the DFHs used to say in the 1960s, "speed kills!," and nowhere is that more true than with elections.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:48:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  mmmmm (0+ / 0-)
          At issue were the number of instances where a voter reported to the election personnel that the machine wasn't taking their input correctly.
          Really questionable to infer hacking from that -- but I still don't know the paper to which you refer, so there is no point in saying more. (Are you sure you mean "election personnel"?)
          As for exit polls, never before have the discrepancies been so large, and that's corroborating evidence.
          Not really, given that many of the exit poll results were facially implausible.

          Look, if you think you have the goods on this, you really ought to be publishing in the political science journals. I'll freely admit that I doubt you do.

          Again, I'm separating that issue from the question of what we should do going forward.

        •  Volunteers with STIFF ENFORCED, JAIL TIME (0+ / 0-)

          for ANY tampering, 0 tolerance laws.

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:51:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Steven Heller, a national hero. (4+ / 0-)

        EXCLUSIVE: A 'Thank You' from Stephen Heller The Diebold Whistleblower Looks Back with Gratitude and Forward with Hope...

        Heller's felonies were reduced to misdemeanors

        Stephen Heller: Felonious Punk No More

        The 'Diebold Whistleblower' Sees His Charges Reduced to a Misdemeanor, But Unlike Republicans Who Have Committed Far More Serious Crimes, Heller Continues to Pay
        Reflections on Selective Criminal Punishment in Bush's America...
        I am no longer a felon.

        In brief, I became known to some as the "Diebold Whistleblower" when, in January of 2004, I stole and exposed legal documents [PDF] proving that Diebold Election Systems, Inc. was using and planned to continue using illegal, uncertified software in their California voting machines. (By the way, Diebold recently changed its name to Premier Election Solutions, but don't let that fool you; it's still the same bunch of idiots.) Details about my case can be found here and here [PDF].

        Uncounted - The Ballad of Steve Heller

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:59:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  India Engineer Proves Voting Machines Bogus (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          Information Technology Act

          Right to get a paper receipt, hand paper receipt to voter, and have voter submit the paper receipt into ballot box for a backup.

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:06:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Paper ballots prepared by machine (0+ / 0-)

      and then verified by the voter and counted by humans, using Free/Open Source Software and the best security we can design.

      Voting on machines prevent all overvoting and most undervoting, guarantee correct marking, and support voting for the disabled. Not letting the machines do the counting, but having them print paper ballots with mathematical security features prevents much mischief, and makes the results auditable and publicly verifiable.

      Open Voting Consortium

      The Web site is inactive, but contrary to what it says we are discussing reviving the program. I work with One Laptop Per Child, and would dearly love to give a functioning voting system to millions of schoolchildren around the world to use and learn to administer.

      Busting the Dog Whistle code.

      by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:29:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

      as much as I despise conspiracy theories.

      Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

      by dadadata on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:01:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site