It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicago-area voting machine casts GOP candidate’s vote for... his Democrat opponent

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I'd guess the touch screen needed calibration. The candidates are likely arranged in columns and if the calibration is off, touching one column could easily register in the other (or above or below or neither). I used to see it all the time with handheld data terminals.

I know that lacks the sinister appeal of what you're insinuating but it's highly highly unlikely that it was hacked by a polling station worker. Anyone possessing the competency to pull that off would have just recorded the votes for Democrats discretely and the voter would have been none the wiser.


But you see, the "button" positions work fine with the Democrat names.

Only with the Republican names does this "malfunction" occur.

This is nothing new around here.

If the columns were off kilter, the "D" votes would register nothing.



google " chicago vote fraud "




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This is what the Dems are bragging about when they talk about their ground game.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
From 2012:


Several early voters in Guilford County, NC hoping to cast a ballot for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had an unwelcome surprise Monday when their votes showed up as a vote for President Barack Obama.

The complaints came from voters who cast their ballot at the Bur-Mil Park polling site in Guilford, MyFox8 reported Tuesday night.

While election officials say the problem is a mere glitch, a couple voters were rattled.

Sher Coromalis, who had to try three times to have her vote for Romney count, told the local Fox affiliate that the experience was upsetting.


Also from 2012:


Dear Election Officials:

I write regarding the media and citizen reports of voting machine errors taking place in your states. I understand that, in a significant number of cases, voting machines in your states have populated a vote for Barack Obama when a voter cast his or her ballot for Mitt Romney. I further understand that the causes of this problem are varied, and include miscalibration and hyper-sensitivity of the machines.


Sent to voting officials in Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri.


Morganton News Herald October 25, 2012
The Burke County Board of Elections has recalibrated all its voting machines after it received complaints Wednesday and Thursday about the machines. Three voters told the elections office when they selected Mitt Romney for president, the machine changed their votes to Barack Obama.


From The New York Times:


In the last three election cycles, touch-screen machines have become one of the most mysterious and divisive elements in modern electoral politics. Introduced after the 2000 hanging-chad debacle, the machines were originally intended to add clarity to election results. But in hundreds of instances, the result has been precisely the opposite: they fail unpredictably, and in extremely strange ways; voters report that their choices “flip” from one candidate to another before their eyes; machines crash or begin to count backward; votes simply vanish. (In the 80-person town of Waldenburg, Ark., touch-screen machines tallied zero votes for one mayoral candidate in 2006 — even though he’s pretty sure he voted for himself.) Most famously, in the November 2006 Congressional election in Sarasota, Fla., touch-screen machines recorded an 18,000-person “undervote” for a race decided by fewer than 400 votes.

The earliest critiques of digital voting booths came from the fringe — disgruntled citizens and scared-senseless computer geeks — but the fears have now risen to the highest levels of government. One by one, states are renouncing the use of touch-screen voting machines. California and Florida decided to get rid of their electronic voting machines last spring, and last month, Colorado decertified about half of its touch-screen devices. Also last month, Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio secretary of state, released a report in the wake of the Cuyahoga crashes arguing that touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” She was so worried she is now forcing Cuyahoga to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting — before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, have even sponsored a bill that would ban the use of touch-screen machines across the country by 2012.




An early voter in Ohio on Monday voted for "Mitt Romney" on an electronic touch screen voting machine and Barack Obama's name came up on her screen instead. Joan Stevens told the Marion-Star it took three attempts for the machine to correctly record her vote for Romney.
“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said. Stevens alerted an Ohio board of elections official who was present. The official declined to comment but told Smith voting machines at the precinct were having problems all day.
Stevens said she also reported the issue to Sophia Rogers, the director of the board of elections for Marion County, who implied Stevens may not have known how to properly use the touchscreen voting machine.
"I know how to do the voting," Stevens protested.


If nothing else, jurisdictions using touchscreen voting should change instantly. There's more than enough evidence that they're badly flawed.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I'm sure this will be used by some to claim that the vote is rigged, but obviously this is not the case, and a little common sense and logic suggests as much. If you were going to rig a machine like this, don't you think it would be kind of pointless to allow the voter to know that something is amiss? Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of rigging it in the first place, considering it will then be checked out? The fraud would be over before it had begun, and someone would be in a lot of trouble. So obviously that is not what is happening. So next we look at the technology, in this case, a touch-screen. Anyone who has used these screens before is probably aware of the fact that they need to be calibrated. A box will appear on the screen, and you are asked to touch it. By measuring the distance and direction from where you touched the screen, and where you were supposed to touch the screen, it can be calibrated quite accurately. So it seems much more likely that this issue which is present on most touch-screen interfaces, is to blame. But don't let common sense get in the way of a biased conspiracy theory.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

These sorts of issues are reported frequently enough that it has a name, "vote flipping" and despite what you may think, the impact is more or less equally distributed. There's nothing I read in either article that indicated that the button presses for Democrats were working fine but there's no reason they shouldn't be. Imagine that you had a screen with hit areas like this, where the label and #'s and %'s are areas that register as clicks (these would actually be boxes defined by coordinates):

Normal:

xx###DEM###xx%%%REP%%%xx

If the calibration is off, it could actually be something more like:

xxxxxDEMxx######REPxx%%%%

Where the Dem can be clicked on the right edge and a large portion of the Rep button will also register for the Dem. It could also be something like this:

xxxxxDEMxxxx%%%%REP%%xxxx

Where now only the the Democrat can be voted for and only by clicking on the Republican's name.

If you actually read up on it, you'll find that the "vote flipping" is a well discussed issue and despite a lot of people trying very hard to spin it, it's never been shown to be the result of a nefarious plot — namely because anyone who is paying any sort of attention at all IMMEDIATELY notices that their votes are not registering correctly. It's 100% obvious.

Nobody would tamper with a voting machine in a way that indicated to the voter that there was an issue. That makes absolutely no sense. As I said earlier, the way to do it would be to silently change the vote recorded to the card.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952


If nothing else, jurisdictions using touchscreen voting should change instantly. There's more than enough evidence that they're badly flawed.


The vote tallying/reporting process has never been quite perfect. Let's not forget how "hanging chad" entered the American lexicon!



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Dear theantediluvian,

You're absolutely right. But put me down for a system that creates a paper trail which can be audited. I never did understand what was wrong with putting an X on a ballot. If you screw up, just turn it in and get another one.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hmmm? Can't they be purposefully calibrated wrongly? All it takes is one crazed partisan from either side with access to change an election. To say that should not be possible on a voting machine is to state the obvious. They are designed so they can be rigged for some reason. Surely those creating them could create machines that can't be calibrated wrong or tampered with. A first year engineering student could likely design one that is idiot and tamper proof, so why don't they?

Personally I'm sick of both sides and find both Parties suspect and dishonest since they think elections are sporting events. Your probably right about the calibration, but how many machines, which way are they slanted and who is calibrating them?


Touchscreen calibration is a very very common thing so no, this isn't the result of incompetent engineering. Most of these machines are maintained by a service company and I'd imagine the techs do the calibration on the units. Anyone who could calibrate the screen could of course purposefully screw it up to achieve a desired result but I can't imagine a less effective way of tampering with the vote.

All of the voting machines have conspicuous visual feedback indicating to the user that the selection registered (highlighting, check box, radio button, etc.) so it's immediately obvious that something is amiss.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

I've given this some thought in the past. One idea I had was giving the voter a stub with a unique identifier for each vote cast that could be confirmed via a website at a later time. If we were going to be really fancy, the information could also be included in encrypted form on the stub so that the stub itself was not easily falsifiable.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Dear theantediluvian,

That's not bad at all. Nice work, you've helped in the massive project of renewing my faith in ATS.

I suppose the stub would have each of the races the voter chose in, so he could check against "vote flipping." That coupled with a paper ballot seems like it would solve a lot of problems. The local library usually provides a couple of terminals for patron's use, so anyone could check.

I like it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Machines do this, they're probably not properly calibrated yet. That said, precisely these types of errors are how you actually cheat in an election... not by voting without ID.


originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: charles1952

I've given this some thought in the past. One idea I had was giving the voter a stub with a unique identifier for each vote cast that could be confirmed via a website at a later time. If we were going to be really fancy, the information could also be included in encrypted form on the stub so that the stub itself was not easily falsifiable.


I went into more detail of such a system here in the past. It's fairly easy to build actually.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Dear Aazadan,

I'm seriously impressed. I don't quite understand it all, and I wonder about the cost for keys. I also wonder about absentee and early voting, but I'm sure you addressed those somewhere.

For a county or township election (maybe as few as 300 voters), how high up the chain would they have to go to get keys? Order them from the Feds? Could the state make them? The county?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Voter fraud is a given. Beyond low tech measures like stuffing ballot boxes in urban precincts, you have machines rigged to vote a certain way and more high tech fraud would be computer manipulating of the results. Now with the big push to get people registered you'll see people voting who never show up at the polls. This was widespread in the last 2012 election. It will be done to change the outcomes of key swing states as well as to pad overall totals to give decided upon winning candidates that key 51 to 52% winning number maybe 55% if its closer and they can swing it. But we've seen elections decided by the sudden stepping down of many elected representatives. I wonder why they suddenly decide to leave office and not run? Political animals like Barney Frank who I despise, to other guys serving quietly and have no real reason not to stay in office. Across both parties, its like they want robots or people with ties to certain organizations to replace them. They're forcing people out, like they have dirt on them( from NSA and FBI spying) and want them out. Maybe they figure scandals going public could be too costly or that they won't play ball or they made enemies.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hmmm? Can't they be purposefully calibrated wrongly? All it takes is one crazed partisan from either side with access to change an election. To say that should not be possible on a voting machine is to state the obvious. They are designed so they can be rigged for some reason. Surely those creating them could create machines that can't be calibrated wrong or tampered with. A first year engineering student could likely design one that is idiot and tamper proof, so why don't they?

Personally I'm sick of both sides and find both Parties suspect and dishonest since they think elections are sporting events. Your probably right about the calibration, but how many machines, which way are they slanted and who is calibrating them?


Never made since to me as well. It would be hard to design one that couldn't be messed with or at least harder to mes with and gave indication of tampering.

Heck they could write code and us freaken ATM's they're a linked network, can even have them set to use ID's (ya seems no one wants the whole voter ID thing, not sure what is up with that) The network that have is secure it can be tied to each machine, they're all over the place already, they setup to be some what privet, most still button over touch screens so no calibration errors.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Aazadan

Dear Aazadan,

I'm seriously impressed. I don't quite understand it all, and I wonder about the cost for keys. I also wonder about absentee and early voting, but I'm sure you addressed those somewhere.

For a county or township election (maybe as few as 300 voters), how high up the chain would they have to go to get keys? Order them from the Feds? Could the state make them? The county?

With respect,
Charles1952


The cost for keys is low, in my head they're just a piece of paper with some ink printed on them, possibly laminated but you could go as fancy as a piece of plastic that was 3d printed and then inked. Either way they are very cheap to produce.

A county or town election would require going up to probably a state level election board because you want to keep key creation centralized but I believe they have to do that already anyways as part of the election process. Making the keys is really no more complex than authorizing a range of keys to a particular area and then making sure that area has the paper/printers to create them. Everything else happens behind the scenes with the software which you could ensure is fair and secure by making it open source with ongoing government funding to maintain it.

For a slightly higher cost per object you could add in another scanning method by printing in magnetic ink and allowing the item to be scanned like a check when the QR code isn't available but if you're interested in controlling costs such a thing would probably only be desirable if the codes are too long to feasibly type in manually.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
The schmucks would do anything to keep their radical Democrat/Progressive/Marxist party in power.

oh I need a second line here



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

Barney had his hand in the cookie jar. That probably had more to do with his stepping down than anything. Even if he was smug enough to buff his nails in a nationally televised interview.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Then perhaps touchscreens are a bad idea for voting machines in the first place?

Eliminate the means to potentially rig a machine and eliminate the possibility of it happening.

I'd agree that the risk may be small, but not so small on a local level for local elections. One bad manager with the company contracted to calibrate the machines could quite easily selectively hire folks of similar political views, who are say not so honest and change the outcome of a close race.

If it is possible to create machines that guarantee they can't be rigged and I think it is, why would anyone approve the use of machines that can be messed with?

I'm sure these are fairly safe since there is feedback, but what kind of incompetent logic went into even buying into machines that leave any possibility of tampering? One more thing for people to point at to support their suspicions.

I'd like to think the companies creating these and those who choose what machines to buy and implement are competent, but I have to wonder



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

The touch screen itself isn't usually an issue, it's just an input device, no different from a keyboard, mouse, or gamepad. They need to be calibrated before they're used but many other devices need to be calibrated as well, even a keyboard and mouse have calibration issues.

As to why machines are used that can be tampered with? That's because we contract election machines out to larger companies who design the machines and the software. Diebold is one such company. We could try and make the government develop their own software in house (such as in my solution) but that generates issues of political control over the process and the government stepping in and removing a private industry.

There's a good video from a few years back called Hacking Democracy, it used to be on Youtube but it seems you can't view it in the US anymore. Though you can see the voting results using a hacked machine, the memory card for the machine is the only hacked piece. The machine itself that stays under local jurisdiction is never altered.

www.youtube.com...

The movie is worth watching if you can find it somewhere.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
The right thing to do would be to bash to bits every voting machine, not just one in particular. They are all suspect and much worse.

Just like when certain people fight against voter ID laws which is done because voter ID laws make it much harder to CHEAT.
Just voting them all out doesn't work. Which leaves only unprintable remedies.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join