And So It Begins:-"Touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved to McCain"

reply to post by uncover_the_truth

---

This points out the need for Verified Voting. It does not matter which candidate you favor, you want your vote to count the way you intended. Verified voting means there is a physical record of how you voted. The machines in my county (Baldwin, Alabama) require you to mark your vote on a piece of paper. The machine then reads your ballot and stores it. Now there is a way for interested parties to verify the machine tallies. Push for it! It is necessary in order to insure our election method works as intended.

Americans are forever boasting about living in the best, cleverest, most democratic country in the world.

Yet we have Americans here defending the use of potentially manipulable machines to vote on, which they believe are altered by finger-grease or pressing too hard.

Give me a break. This is America, not Googoostan. This is good enough for you? You really don't think the voting process should be transparent and enable everyone to vote?

you are probably correct , but obama is not cheating. rouge democrats may be cheating.
both sides do cheat, some just do it much better. the neocons do not want to lose power. iran is not finished.


plus its their only chance.


if one need recalibrated then there are more out there with the same problem. what a convenient 'oops' for the gop.


they will do it this way and 100 other ways we would never dream of.


this would just be one grain of rice in a field of tactics to steal votes.



common sense need not apply for american politics and the government.



dont be confused. obama is kicking the crap out of mccain. you have not seen this before because it is unprecedented. what does your intuition tell you? you know, and i know obama is kicking his butt. the masses are being readied for a possible john mccain win. the neocons need their puppet.

this problem of an obama vote switching to a mccain vote reminds me of this 2000 problem in florida.
fl1.findlaw.com...
if u pay attention you wont vote on the second spot for pat buchanan you will know the third spot is for al gore. well many people , maybe elderly, voted for pat instead of al gore because they assumed the second spot was for al gore or they just completely werent paying attention.
pat buchanan did much better then expected in palm beach county.
socrates.berkeley.edu...

sorry about the long post

[edit on 21-10-2008 by elitegamer23]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by elitegamer23]

(edit to add an important and missing 'in recent history')

This is ridiculous baiting. I and others who I am sure are at least left leaning have stated on this thread that this is probably not vote fraud. Mind you I also stated that there's a reason everyone is primed to get up in arms about it. It's not because liberals "can't take a loss". It's because the only party to have participated in what certainly appears to be widespread undermining of the democratic process in recent history for it's own agenda is, sadly, the Republican party. This is not because Republicans are bad, this is because the GOP is a more profitable place for lobbyists and similar forms of vileness to concentrate their energies. Believe me, give the Democrats 28 years in which they controlled 20 years of the Executive and you'll find it tilts the other way. But not right now. Right now, the real idealists are either third party candidates or Democrats. Meanwhile there is considerable evidence which suggests that Republicans have actively tried to subvert democracy in recent history. Just the facts, buddy.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by JohnnyElohim]

On the above post: when I mentioned the only idealists, I left out one notable Republican: Ron Paul.

i dont really have the time to check every post but im watching a documentary on fraud in U.S. elections and such.

the lady demonstrated on camera how the machine changed the vote and it wasnt because it needed recalibration.
she touched the person, then it asked her was she sure, she pressed yes, and it showed the name who she voted for in huge letters and she pressed ok or somthing to the effect.(dont remember exactly what it said.

but the point is when she went through the process that the campaign worker or whoever tallies the machines, when it showed the tallies and showed that she voted for the other person.

just putting that out there.
documentary called "uncounted" by David Earnhardt.

also, another guy, Clint Curtis, he running this year supposedly. he demonstrated how a hack could be implemented into the voting machines easily to flip the votes in in the other guys favor 51% to 49%.

he ran in 2006 and he lost by a small margin, like 43% to 57% and he went around in an area to ask people personally door to door who they voted for and a majority said they voted for him and he had the affidavids to prove that he should of won but the house refused to review them.

shows that there are some seriously screwed up things in our government. by the way he was democrat.


[edit on 10/25/2008 by Bean328] Clint Curtis, fixed last name.

[edit on 10/25/2008 by Bean328]

So she voted for A, the machine accepted the vote for A, asked if she was sure she voted for A, and she confirmed the vote for A. Then the tally process changed the vote. Is that what you are saying? If so that is a completely different issue than a machine showing B as the voters choice when the voter presses A. That would be something wrong in the programming. The voters this thread was originally about did not have this problem, their votes were showing up incorrectly right in front of them before they were tallied. Thus not a programming issue but a calibration issue.



Edit to say: The programming in these machines is important, and there is no valid reason why they should tally the votes incorrectly unless someone programmed them to do so. This is my big issue with electronic voting. It is way too easy to hack into them and change how they tally votes. I believe the use of these voting machines that require programming should be discontinued due to the risks of votes being changed. Just that I would make this clear. Don't want any misunderstandings with anyone later on over it.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna

---

i was using it more in an example way. to show evidence or to bring more attention to the fraud and other things that go on in an election. and also more attention to this documentary on the subject.