Skip to main content

View Diary: Your Vote in 2006 Won't Matter (With Poll) (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My vote will matter (3.66)
    In each election that has been alleged to be stolen by the GOP, the margins were very close.

    In short, if we ensure that these elections are not close, they can't use fraud to manipulate a few thousand votes here or there. The greater the difference between candidate vote totals, the harder it is to commit fraud.

    That's not to say these things you suggest we do aren't useful - they are. And we need voting reform, badly. But it's wrong to say our 2006 vote won't matter.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:59:49 AM PDT

    •  But to a certain extent (none)
      They already have done that. Many of the exit polls in 2004 showed Kerry winning by a fairly large margin in swing states and yet Bush "won" such states.

      We need to make sure that the election process is transparent and legitimate.

    •  The GEMS tabulators (4.00)
      among other software-related challenges, need to be addressed.  We did have a huge turnout in 2004; there are a number of studies with well-documented evidence of vote fraud both in '04 and in '00. I remember comments made by a precinct captain in FL after 2000 (sorry, I do not remember her name) indicating that she watched as some 16,500 votes were somehow subtracted from the Gore column and added to the Bush column at 2:00 am.  She complained but it went nowhere. The horror stories abound.

      I stand by my title on this one but respect your remarks.

      •  Again- (4.00)
        I did one year of research and have it all compiled on a new website entitled Who's Counting?

        The Al Gore story is in there - it was Florida, the problem with the machines counting backwards was known and not addressed so that the same situation recurred in 2004.

        Please check out this site as a source and pass it on to anyone who might be interested in it.

        Thanks

        whoscounting

        •  Bad Link (none)
          Sorry, will try again!
          If this one doesn't work the site is www.whoscouning.net

          who's counting

          •  YOU are a true Public Servant! (none)
            Will forward your link to everyone I know as well as others who I do not know.

            Thank you for the amazing work you have done and the many hours you put into this project!

            •  No, thank YOU! (none)
              Thanks to everyone and anyone who opens their eyes and then their mouths to help this get corrected before we all end up in the Gulag.

              Not one effort is too small, if you'll pardon the cliches!  

              So send it off to anyone you feel might need or read it.  The But What Can I Do? final Chapter has many links and ideas for people to involve themselves at any and every level. From the simplest local efforts to National legislative support.

              Wish us luck!

      •  That was Volusia County (none)
        Internal Diebold memos (leaked in 2003) show that the company officials knew about the 16,022 Gore votes that were subtracted, and they still don't have an explanation for why the votes were lost. Tampering may have been the cause.

            The memos show that more than a year ago, Diebold knew of a problem with the Florida 2000 election - where a memory card inexplicably subtracted 16,022 votes from a total previously recorded for Vice President Al Gore.

            Tampering was one of four possible causes Diebold couldn't rule out at the time, the memos show. A year later, Diebold's latest official position on Florida's Volusia County vote count still does not rule out tampering. Company spokesman Bear said recently only that he was not familiar with the aberrant vote count in Volusia County.

        "The problem precinct had two memory cards uploaded," wrote Diebold tech Tab Iredale in one of the memos among Diebold employees. "There is always the possibility that 'the second memory card' came from an unauthorized source."

        Allen said, "The e-mails confirmed what we suspected - Diebold upper management knew of the problem."
        link

    •  Not true anymore. (3.33)
      "In short, if we ensure that these elections are not close, they can't use fraud to manipulate a few thousand votes here or there. The greater the difference between candidate vote totals, the harder it is to commit fraud."

      This is unfortunately not true any more.  That's old-school election fraud.

      With South Carolina using the same all-electronic system across the whole state, a rogue programmer at the election machine company could easily rig the program (same program used in all the machines) to (for example) swap the vote totals for the Democratic and Republican candidates whenever the Democratic total exceeded the Republican total by more than X.  This would give the impression of a landslide, when in fact there had been a landslide in the other direction.

      I'm a programmer. I've looked at this stuff.  I know what I'm talking about.

      The whole point of voter-verified paper ballots is to eliminate this sort of vote fraud, so that we only have to worry about the sort of old-school vote fraud which you're describing.

      •  Thank you! (none)
        Thank God you said this ^ as I am blue in the face from repeating this and dispelling that old myth about the margin size somehow relating to the fraud potential.  It is so yesteryear!

        Good to see someone who gets it and is getting the word out.

        Margin size in the electronic tabulation era means N O T H I N G.  Except they need to assure it's outside the margin that would command a recount.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site