VOTE: New Data Shows Widespread Vote Manipulations in 2004

Dr. Dennis Loo, Assistant Professor of the Sociology/Behavioral Sciences Dept at the the University of Cal Poly Pomona, states that extensive manipulation of non-paper-trail voting machines occurred in several states during the 2004 election.




Note: The ProjectCensored.org link carries the actual report by Dr. Dennis Loo

I'm sure this has been covered many times here on ATS, but I wanted to share this new information.

Personally, I don't think this will change things, but I think it will prove that we should be VERY CAREFUL when allowing electronic machines to be used to count votes. They can be hacked, the companies that make them can be persuaded to add votes, you name it.



Related News Links:
www.projectcensored.org
www.bradblog.com
www.globalresearch.ca

[edit on 23-8-2005 by elderban]

they CAN be hacked...

now, we have ONLINE voting, which is so stupid!!!

There is now strong statistical evidence of widespread voting machine manipulation occurring in US elections since 2000. Coverage of the fraud has been reported in independent media and various websites. The information is not secret. But it certainly seems to be a taboo subject for the US corporate media.

I am not going to question the data but wish to point out that to a statician numbers can be massaged to reflect what the observer is aiming for. I do also have questions on just how valid a sociology professor can prove something like this since it seems that they are basising a lot of there conculsions on non-traceble ballots.

When so much depends on the true will of the public in a democracy
it is inexcusable that the methods used can be called into question.

I despise one line responses, so I'll add the 'feeling' that such questions are becoming more and more prevelant in our societies.

Printers ink and fingerprints ala Iraq could be just around the corner

FYI :

There is a great group of people working on verifiable electronic voting, and related issues at www.verifiedvoting.org.




[edit on 2005/8/23 by McGrude]

I do also have questions on just how valid a sociology professor can prove something like this...

Actually, doing a little further looking into him, yes, he is a Sociology professor, but the classes he teaches are more grounded in political and criminal sociology. The guy appears legit, if not a little biased towards one side of the matter.

It should also be noted, that with an extensive google and news site search, I was not able to find this article (or anything regarding this story) posted anywhere within the more well-known news sources (no coverage on CNN, Fox, BBC, Reuters, AP, etc).

Ultimately, I did vote yes for the article, because it does meet the requirements for ATSNN, and from a little resarch, the article seems legit.

It would not surprise me to actually find this to be the truth, nor would it surprise me to find out that the mainstream media has been stifling the story. I am still going to try and find the Berkeley study paper online, though - preferably on the Berkeley site.

Edit -
I have found a couple of additional sources that are a little more reliable, who are also carrying this story:
Wired.com - from Nov. 18, 2004
News.com

Also from Wired, this report of fraud has also apparently been debunked:
Wired.com

Oddly enough, there's also no trace of this paper on the Berkeley site. All links to the paper come up with the UC Berkeley Research site, and of all the papers listed, this specific one does not appear on the site.

And finally, The National Research Commission on Elections and Voting (a sub-organization under the Social Science Research Council) has a website full of articles discussing both sides of the issue. The NRCEV and SSRC are nonpartisan organizations that anaylizes and assesses voting practices in the US, among other things. Their website can be found here. They also have a multitude of papers available here.

The main SSRC site is here.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by obsidian468]

Personally I believe that the votes were always able to be manipulated, and always have been. The only difference now it that there is a newer and perhaps easier to facilitate method. (By the same token, perhaps easier to detect?)

I also firmly believe that both sides are guilty of this and they know each other is doing it. Neither side will call the other to the mat because exposing this on either side removes the ability for the other to continue. I almost see it as an enjoyable battle of the wits between them (and don't kid yourselves, a lot of them enjoy this game more than the cause at every level of politics).

Wake up people, there is nothing new here.

Personally I believe that the votes were always able to be manipulated, and always have been. The only difference now it that there is a newer and perhaps easier to facilitate method. (By the same token, perhaps easier to detect?)

You are correct in that it would be easier to detect if there are network security personel (who know what they are doing) and the proper safeguards have been put into place. I can speak from experience on that as I have monitored the recent elections in Puerto Rico as well as a few other countries. I am in the internet / network security buisness and there are many good hardware and software solutions to monitor and provide a secure environment that would be able to track down who ever tries to manipulate data.

You are coorrect, in that vote manipulation has always been an issue; ever hear of "Chicago-style voting". I've heard a lot from the left about "EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT", but actually, only every LEGAL vote should count. This, of course, brings up issues of national databases, vote cards, etc.

It will never happen, but it's time to return to the paper ballot, and no absentee ballots unless you're military and not in the U.S. Major voting takes place every four years; if it's important to you, then you have four years to prepare to be there, no matter what it takes.

There is way too much apathy here in the U.S. when it comes to things political, and voting in particular. In Iraq and Afganistan, voters turned out in the face of the threat of being shot or blown up; people here complain if they have to be in line for hours, or if it's raining... disgusting.

Nothing in the article mentioned numerous accounts, from more than one state, of 100% of Democratic voters showing up at the polls, or more voters voting than there were registered in the county.

Nice to see this in ATSNN!



Here is a link to a related ATS Thread:

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 STOLEN election findings

Whats even MORE Interestng: More then 5000 Views!!!

And only Few Replays!



[edit on 21/11/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Souljah
Nice to see this in ATSNN!

Here is a link to a related ATS Thread:

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 STOLEN election findings

Whats even MORE Interestng: More then 5000 Views!!!

And only Few Replays!

[edit on 21/11/05 by Souljah]

The GAO un-corruptable? HAHAHAHAHA They've been wrong on so mnay things over the past 30 years... especially the economy, that it's rediculous.

If the "article" you mentioned were true, every paper in the country would have it above the fold, on page one.

While there are a few pages with "evidence" that Algore won, here's some independent links about the 2001 election (yes, I know you mentioned the 2004 election, but I'm working on it):
www.freecongress.org...

www.usatoday.com...

www.newsmax.com...

This last one shows how paper ballots have problems of their own (but I like I ndianas idea of only cleanly punched ballots counting; this idea of guessing what a voters "intent" is, is just absurd).

justoneminute.typepad.com...


Whatever you might believe, we've got to get the voting issue corrected.