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.

Originally posted by ANNED
I have seen this happen with touch screens on microwave ovens.
the "right mix of skin oils and dirt can mimic the Resistive or Capacitive effect of a human finger. . . .

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?

Originally posted by dragonridr

Im 100 percent positive both sides cheat.

[edit on 10/20/08 by dragonridr]

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.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
reply to post by elitegamer23

 

I hear you, however, the main reason I feel the GOP will try and steal this election, because they have done it before.

plus its their only chance.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by gormly

 

You noticed all that too? Glad it's not just me.

One machine needing to be recalibrated is hardly cause for shouts of voter fraud.

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

Originally posted by Copernicus

Why do it this way when they can just bribe the people who counts the votes?

Im pretty sure McCain will get into office one way or another. And then there will be wars...

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

Originally posted by zephyrs
Simple question; I hope it hasn't been asked already. If the Republicans wanted to cheat, why would they make it so obvious as to allow the voter to see the check mark move from Obama to McCain?

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

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am of the opinion that all code must be transparent if it is to be used for public service.

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

Originally posted by eaganthorn
reply to post by uncover_the_truth

 

Admittedly, I am a little more than confused. Obama rallies are in the 10's of thousands of attendees while McCain’s are only a fraction of the people. Yet the poles show a close race. I’m an old guy and I have not seen this before.

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]

Even when the fraud points to liberals, you all look away like it didn't happen or it was an "accident". Heck, all it tales on ATS is somene to CLAIM vote fraud, of any kind and you all jump on the bandwagon SO fast (usually without one shred of evidence) it is just not funny anymore.

Liberals cannot take a loss, if they lose it must be by cheating.
No liberal ever cheats, no liberal ever stuffs a voter roll. When was the last time a liberal lost a vote and DID NOT claim voter fraud?


Only conservatives try to buy, cheat and steal votes.
They usually do it on Sundays right after the "kick the puppies" segment of church mass.

The pople who are constantly talking about sheeple?.. yes.. sheeple.
Take a look at yourselves seriously and think about the other side of the aisle, we are not all evil puppy kicking bigots who cheat on every test.

GROW UP.

(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]

Originally posted by Bean328
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.

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.