Skip to main content

View Diary: Diebold Is At It Again! (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I like Cynthia... (4+ / 0-)

    I've known her since she was a teenageer hanging out with her father at the Capitol.

    With all the talk about the problems with Diebold around here on DKos, why is anyone questioning that these machines are faulty?

    They have built-in problems, can't be verified, are easily hackable...and were brought to us in Georgia thanks to Cathy Cox, candidate in the Dem primary for Governor.

    That's only one of the many reasons why I'm supporting Mark Taylor for Governor.

    In fact, I wish Cynthia had been a bit more outspoken in these past 1-1/2 years of her current term.  And BTW...she was right about the war...remember that?

    HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

    by annrose on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:03:34 AM PDT

    •  I'm not questioning the problems in general. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      libertyisliberal

      I'm merely questioning her credibility regarding this problem in specific. She doesn't have much at this point, not to me anyway.

      Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

      by Arken on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:05:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As I've said before elsewhere, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZappoDave, anonymousredvest18

      folks have been troll-rated into oblivion here for suggesting what Kennedy and now Vilsack are saying in public.  Why?  Think of the danger for the Democratic hierarchy if they admit to the possibility of vote fraud.  We might give up and stop contributing money.  

      Of course, they could whip up the base with this issue, but most of them despise the base--they're busy playing for the "middle," actually the soft right, a segment of the population that gets its news from the MSM and would be disinclined to believe that Real Americans who aren't Chicago Aldermen would commit vote fraud.

      •  there is a difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Arken

        between saying that the voting machine are vulnerable to hacking and claiming that they have been intentionally tampered with

        # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
        http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:24:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course there is; (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          but what's your point?  That circumstantial evidence, in any quanitity, is no evidence and must be rejected out of hand?

          •  no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Arken

            but Vilsack, last time I knew, wasn't arguing that the election was stolen, just that the machines were vulnerable, so in that instance, no, no one has been troll rated for saying what Vilsack has been.

            And while circumstancial evidence can be used, it is exactly that: circumstancial, and should be taken with large grains of salt.

            # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
            http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:33:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              the whole purpose of having paperless voting is to prevent the possibility of evidence.

              And Mr. Kennedy seems to have a more extreme opinion than Mr. Vilsack.

              •  there is other way to gather evidence (0+ / 0-)

                such as testimony or convincing circumstancial evidence where fraud is the best explanation.

                # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
                http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:42:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some folks are impossible to convince, (0+ / 0-)

                  of course.  

                  •  well yes (0+ / 0-)

                    but i'm one who likes using occam's razor, especially in these situations, and so far I haven't seen a fraud claim backed by a piece of circumstancial evidence that's survived that test

                    # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
                    http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

                    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:50:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That hasn't survived *your* test, (0+ / 0-)

                      nota bene.

                      •  well the only evidence (0+ / 0-)

                        that i've seen that really tries to argue that actual votes have been changed (and not just an attempt to prevent people from voting to begin with) has been the exit poll argument, in which there has been enough evidence thrown out there that to believe that the exit polling argument by itself proves anything is almost beyond silly.

                        # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
                        http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

                        by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What would you accept (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Grand Poobah, anonymousredvest18
                          as evidence?

                          Say you pressed "McKinney" and got her opponent.  Would you then need

                          --independent bipartisan witnesses to the screen error
                          --independent bipartisan computer specialists to confirm that the vote had indeed registered for the opponent on the computer's memory chip
                          --independent bipartisan computer specialists to confirm that this particular error was traceable and counted erroneously in the final tally?

                          If so, I submit you've established an impossibly high standard of evidence.

                          Correct me if your standards are "lower."

                          •  Of course, all this is only evidence (0+ / 0-)

                            demonstrating that the machines are unreliable and untrustworthy, not that they were programmed fraudulently.

                            But I can live with that, as long as we get rid of the machines.

                        •  what about the persistent rightward skew of error (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Grand Poobah, anonymousredvest18

                          I have written a few lines of code in my time.  One could argue that if these were simply nonpartisan errors, over time they'd have a nonpartisan skew, rather than one which persistently favors whichever candidate is furthest to the right.  Lookit Mexico.  Lookit Ohio.  Lookit the last gubernatorial election in FL.  And lookit Dekalb county GA.  If this was random error, wouldn't the leftmost candidtae catch a break some time?

                          And of course that is statistical, which is not quite the same thing as circumstantial evidence.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site