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.

 

Ohio seizes voting machines in criminal investigation

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Perhaps so, but more than one source got the story wrong then.

See my previous post...




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This is prob. one reason why Ron Paul didn't get as much votes as he should have. Who wouldn't vote for an HONEST candidate, there is only ONE of them up there, or was!



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 

The incident in the March primary was a different problem with a paper ballot. That doesn't have anything to do with the touchscreen machines. I don't know why different sources are not getting the story right.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Choronzon
 


Ohio was in the center of the controversy last election. What the hell have they been doing the last four years?!?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg
The accuracy with which this story is being reported leaves much to be desired.

Maybe that's a part of the problem as well.


Actually, if you read closely, there doesn't seem to be an inaccuracy in the reporting, insofar as when the elections happened.

From the Free Press...


The touch-screen machines were locked up after Ohio's new Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, tried to vote last fall. On November 6, she spotted a gray bar with the words "candidate withdrawn" in a slot where the name of Democrat Jay Perez should have appeared...

Ironically, Brunner requested a paper ballot in the March 4, 2008, primary, but a poorly trained poll worker gave her a provisional ballot instead.


As you can see, the provisional ballot and the electronic ballot are two seperate incidents.

I think a huge problem here is that Brunner hasn't said what the problem is. Should Perez's name been on the ballot or not? Can anyone tell me from a reading of the article?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Two of the three sources I listed in this post were apparently inaccurate.

The Register listed the wrong year (2006) and the OP's reference article from ARS Technica declared that Brunner discovered the discrepancy upon using the electronic voting machine "during the recent primaries," which were actually held on March 4th, 2008, and conducted using paper ballots "upon request," according to the Frees Press.

Aside from all that, since both parties have benefited from fraudulent voting practices, I can say that I do agree with the statement you made earlier:


There is an agenda behind this, and it isn't necessarily to get one party elected over another.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I think a huge problem here is that Brunner hasn't said what the problem is. Should Perez's name been on the ballot or not? Can anyone tell me from a reading of the article?

What's so hard to figure out? She is saying the problem is that on one machine Perez's name was withdrawn, but on another it wasn't. It wasn't that his name should be there or not, the problem is the machines were inconsistent.

Perez withdrew on Oct. 1 a day after the ballot was finalized, so his name should have been on the ballot, even though the touchscreen machines can easily be updated before the election on Nov. 6th. It appears that some machines were changed and others were not.

From your previous post, you seem to question whether she saw it or not, but in one of the articles, other people also reported seeing the same thing.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Glad they still archive some stuff!


ATS Search: "Bout Time" & "Ohio"

First page, mostly



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I hope your enthusiasm is well placed. Sure a few of us here are railing, but does that mean we can pull people out of their Mainstream Media haze in large numbers?

Well, I hope so.



I hope so too. I'm tired of feeling alone in giving a crap about a country I wasn't even born in to begin with. But that I have given a brother to(My brother serves in Iraq..I don't mean he died). I just want people to care as much as I do, I'm not even a citizen, and I come across so many citizens that care far less than I do about the issues at hand...It has been pretty surreal to me. Sometimes, when I'm in a crowd of my own friends born here, I feel like I'm the only patriot. That is scary to me.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
What's so hard to figure out...

Perez withdrew on Oct. 1 a day after the ballot was finalized, so his name should have been on the ballot...


Technically, by law in most states, if a candidate withdraws after the ballots are finalized, he is supposed to remain on the ballot. I suspect the same holds true for Ohio. Though these laws may be archaic, the law is still the law.

From my reading of the article, it seems that Brunner is not concerned that the machines were inconsistent, but that Perez' name on the ballot helped tip the election to the victor.


Originally posted by Hal9000
From your previous post, you seem to question whether she saw it or not, but in one of the articles, other people also reported seeing the same thing.


If I seem to question it, I apologize. Let me make it very clear: I DO question it. The report from the election board director in Franklin County does not back up what she reported. And even he says he is uncomfortable with her essentially investigating her own claim. And the reports of there being other inconsistences come from Brunner herself.

All of this should set off alarm bells. Something is not right here.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
As I predicted, there is now an effort to end secret-balloting, at least in part. This is only the beginning. And guess what? It's in Ohio, and our friend Jennifer Brunner is connected.


The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.

Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party. And at least one board member, Sandy McNair, a Democrat, wants the county prosecutor to review the findings.

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary. SOURCE


First, I doubt that the Constitutionality of such pledges would hold up in court. Second, the only way to prove that someone is being "dis-loyal" is to make their votes in November public.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Too bad this didn't get aired in 2004...

It seems, as in Florida in 2000, we close the barn doors after all of the cowboys, horses, sacred cows, and weasles have escaped....

Of course, we won't re-hash the history of a 'Presidential Election' being decided by the Judicial Branch...and we can all see what THAT got us!

Pffft! ...and ....Bushed!



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Too bad this didn't get aired in 2004...

It seems, as in Florida in 2000, we close the barn doors after all of the cowboys, horses, sacred cows, and weasles have escaped....



What in the world are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Technically, by law in most states, if a candidate withdraws after the ballots are finalized, he is supposed to remain on the ballot. I suspect the same holds true for Ohio. Though these laws may be archaic, the law is still the law.

Where is anyone saying it isn't? You are making more out of what is being said.



From my reading of the article, it seems that Brunner is not concerned that the machines were inconsistent, but that Perez' name on the ballot helped tip the election to the victor.

I don't know where you are getting that, even from the OP article it says...


The investigation was launched after Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State and chief election official, found that a candidate's name was marked as withdrawn on the electronic voting machine that she used during the recent primaries, an irregularity that was also reported by voters in other precincts. The state attorney general is now working with a team of computer forensic consultants to determine if there was any tampering.

arstechnica.com

It says that the candidates name was withdrawn which was an irregularity. It does not say she thought his name should have been withdrawn.

From another article from member goosdog...


Published Tuesday 18th March 2008 23:31 GMT - Officials from Ohio's Franklin County Board of Elections asked for a forensic analysis of the touch screen machines after Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner reported seeing something she regarded as odd while voting during last November's election: A gray bar and the words "candidate withdrawn" appeared where candidate Jay Perez's name should have been. Brunner's husband, who was using a nearby machine at the same time, said Perez was on his ballot.

The Inquirer | Ohio voting machines declared an official crime scene

She said that because his name came up withdrawn that was odd. She did not say it should have been withdrawn on all the machines.

Even from the article you posted it said...


When she voted on Nov. 6, Brunner said she was surprised to see a gray bar and the words "candidate withdrawn" where Democrat Jay Perez's name ought to have been.

Her husband, voting on a nearby machine, told her, "Perez was on my ballot."

"This is a huge problem," Brunner said. "There is great concern that not every voter has the same ballot."

Columbus Dispatch

She said the problem is that the machines are not the same, which is what she was concerned with. not that the name was still on the ballot. Comprende? If you don't even agree with your own article, please provide a statement that says she was not concerned with the inconsistent machines and concerned with Perez's name still being on the ballot.



If I seem to question it, I apologize. Let me make it very clear: I DO question it. The report from the election board director in Franklin County does not back up what she reported. And even he says he is uncomfortable with her essentially investigating her own claim. And the reports of there being other inconsistences come from Brunner herself.

Other people also reported seeing the same thing. I will post the quote from the OP for you again since you are so selective at reading.


The investigation was launched after Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State and chief election official, found that a candidate's name was marked as withdrawn on the electronic voting machine that she used during the recent primaries, an irregularity that was also reported by voters in other precincts. The state attorney general is now working with a team of computer forensic consultants to determine if there was any tampering.

arstechnica.com




All of this should set off alarm bells. Something is not right here.

The only alarm bells I hearing are the ones you are setting off.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Savior, it is simple. Florida was the hot-button of the 2000 election, that's where the 'Bush' was installed illegally...check the history of the event.

Machinations began years before, involving the paper company that actually made the 'butterfly ballots' that resulted in the 'hanging chads'. Under-handed efforts to smear people's records so they wouldn't be allowed to vote, naming them ex-felons when it wasn't true. No co-incidence that Jeb Bush was Governor? Or Katherine Harris, a devout Bushie? And, ultimately, the Supremes quashing the re-count, by 5 to 4?!?!? This resulted, ulitmately, in handing the 'Presidency' to someone who did not earn it. Where is your outrage???

Jump to 2004....we didn't have the fullness of the disaster in Iraq, yet...but Ohio was easier than Florida to twist the election, since Ohio used ELECTRONIC machines...no hanging chads, no need for the Supremes to come in and make a mess of it...just twist the results to swing the Electoral votes! Brilliant!! And, illegal....but who cares? I do.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 

Show us anything in this article of any wrong doing by J. Brunner. Of course she is involved, she is our Secretary of State in charge of voting in our state. This is an investigation of party raiding where republicans switched parties in the primary to vote for Hillary, because they thought McCain would stand a better chance against her in the national election. This was the same tactic that Rush Limbaugh told them to do.

Limbaugh urges listeners to vote for Clinton

How did Jennifer pull that off?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Where is anyone saying it isn't? You are making more out of what is being said.


Calm down. I was emphasizing your point.

And since you are not selective in your reading, I am sure you didn't miss these two paragraphs...


Perez had been a candidate in the race for Franklin County Municipal Judge. He withdrew his name after the county had finalized its ballots. But it now appears the ES&S machines left his name on some machines but not on others. Perez, a Democrat, wanted to avoid playing a spoiler in the race. But the appearance of his name on some machines may have helped Republican David Tyack win.
SOURCE


Perez had withdrawn because he didn't want to become a spoiler for a fellow Democratic candidate, but the fact that his name did appear on some voting machines might have helped the Republican David Tyack prevail. Some of the touch-screen voting machines manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) apparently left Perez's name in the race while other machines did not.
SOURCE

These two articles make it very clear the concern is that his name was still on the ballot. Even the Columbus Dispatch implies Perez's name remaining on the ballot lead to Tyack's win...


Perez withdrew one day after Franklin County had finalized its ballots. He had hoped to avoid playing spoiler in fellow Democrat Patsy Thomas' race to retain her appointment to the Franklin County Municipal Court.

Instead, Perez's name remained on the ballots -- or allegedly, most ballots -- and Republican David Tyack won.


Of course, you wouldn't miss any of that, right? Not you! And I'm sure you wouldn't have selectively quoted the article either, would you?


[edit on 20-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Show us anything in this article of any wrong doing by J. Brunner.


For someone who accuses others of selective reading, you sure do engage a lot in it. Go back and show me where I said she was engaging in any wrong-doing.

What I said was this shows my concerns that eliminating secret-balloting may be valid.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Of course, you wouldn't miss any of that, right? Not you! And I'm sure you wouldn't have selectively quoted the article either, would you?

No I did see that and don't deny it would help Tyack, but the article does not say anywhere that she wanted his name withdrawn on the ballot. You are accusing our new secretary of state of something without any evidence at all. Jennifer Brunner is going around cleaning everything up after the last SoS Kenneth Blackwell that did rig the election in 2004. If you really want to investigate something, look him up.

reply to post by SaviorComplex
 

Then why did you post the article and say she was "involved"? You are implying she is guilty of something by some kind of remote association to the republican party I guess. Hmm?

And yeah, I'll calm down, when you stop posting insinuations with no evidence just because she is a democrat.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Then why did you post the article and say she was "involved"? You are implying she is guilty of something by some kind of remote association to the republican party I guess. Hmm?


Well, because she is involved. She has the deciding vote, so she is involved in this process.


Originally posted by Hal9000
And yeah, I'll calm down, when you stop posting insinuations with no evidence just because she is a democrat.


I never made her party an issue. I don't care what her party is. The only time I mentioned party was in the context of how things continue to stink in Ohio.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join