It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Diebold is cheating the world out of its votes!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 02:18 PM
Well let's see,

You didn't get nailed
,actually, you got my vote for DUDE of the month
I certainly do not have your computer experience nor your belief that the average American is not going to be manipulated by forces and powers they do not see. Merely consult any Madison Ave. advertising man, one of the best is here

And it seems to me that all of America was easily manipulated in the last Presidential election
The big question never asked or pondered to my knowledge is what forces and powers manipulated the Supreme Court
in the decesion to award the current Administration the Office of President.

In closing I do not believe in coincedence but here is a good one. Not long after that decesion the Supreme Court decided to legalize Sodomy in the Great State of Texas. I am certain they did not laugh about that one


posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 02:45 PM
So what's the solution? And even if you find a foolproof method, will that stop election fraud? Doubtful. Remember the old adage to vote early and vote often.

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:41 PM

Oh yeah, I know how easily people can be manipulated and bought. I'm sure you've heard about the old "Send $1" ad in the magazine. What I was referring to was honesty .. there is some little computer geek sitting in some cubicle somewhere (watch it!) who would smell a rat and be more than happy to drop dime. He might do it for patriotism, he might do it because he's been stepped on most of his life, but he'd do it.

The biggest problem I see is not that the fraud wouldn't be exposed, but when it would be exposed. Six months after the election? How do you handle that?


posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Bleys
So what's the solution? And even if you find a foolproof method, will that stop election fraud? Doubtful. Remember the old adage to vote early and vote often.

I'd probably start by hiring some of the best minds and paying them enough so that the money temptation wasn't there. And I'd probably scout out the prisons for the talent; believe me, there are some bright ones in there. Who better to try to break a system than a thief?

Here in the northeast a few years back, one of the funniest scandals broke out. Local computer company donates a mid-frame computer system to Mass Correctional Institute, part of the rehab and build job skills for less recidivism program. Turns out they were quick learners..they got busted for running a numbers racket on the mid-frame. LMFAO.

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
I know I'll get nailed for this, and people will say that at my age I should have learned by now, but I have more than a little faith in the American people's good intentions and honesty.

My friend, I was raised by good-natured people, and taught growing up that you should have faith in 'people's good intentions and honest'. I've come to find out that life simply isn't like that. (Without getting too religious,) The wants of the flesh have overrun people in this day and age, and nothing is kept sacred to most. Perhaps, in the area of the country, or state, that you live in, people are generally nicer or 'better' to each other, but here and today, where I come from, I know better-- and I hope you never have to meet some of the people I know.

So for the entire country to be snookered by a vast vote-rigging conspiracy is not possible, in my eyes when a properly designed system is in place. Just think of how many people would need to be involved and kept quiet. And it takes only one average Joe to bring down the house of cards.

You say that you are entirely aware of computer security, but, as I've said before, there are aspects I'm not sure you're familiar enough with. And as far as the 'average joe', there have been plenty-- so many, in fact, that even the 'conspiracy nuts' among us can't tell who's telling the truth and who's lying. You see, flooding the market, so to speak, with fake-whistle-blowers and misinformation is the easiest way to make bringing down the house of cards impossible. Even when potential evidence is produced: documents and pictures, there are 10 to 20 specialists/scientists that are quick to kick the idea to the curb.

When I hear stories about hijacking the voting process through computer fraud, I know that theoretically it could happen. I also know that preventing it from happening is much easier to do.

Preventing it from happening is not as easy as you'd think. There are malicious hackers in the world, especially those from foreign countries, who would love nothing more than to infiltrate something as sensitive as U.S. e-votes. There are many many people who would do such a thing for the simple sake of doing it. That is a fact. Bragging rights is one of the biggest motives when it comes to these things.

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance". Sometime I think people (not intended for you) interpret that to mean "Leave reason at the door" or "Anything goes". I probably don't belong in this forum, when I think about it.

Perhaps some people do interpret it wrongly. Personally, I like to explore the possibilities, in everything from the least possible to most likely. That's what we're all here for, isnt it? If we sit and look at the small simplicities that the popular media would give us, then what are we accomplishing? nothing.

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:46 PM

You and everyone else have made some very good points, and I smile when I read of your skepticism. It's healthy. I'll bet your personal motto is "Humpty Dumpty was pushed".

I did want to clear up one minor nit...I said I was very aware of computer security, not entirely aware. I'd be kind of pompous making that claim.

Good luck, and hopefully we'll never have to say "I told you so" on this one.

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 02:23 PM
A related story:

The Irish government has scrapped plans to use electronic voting for European parliamentary and local elections in June because its reliability has not yet been proven, Environment Minister Martin Cullen said Friday.

The move follows a report from an independent Electronic Voting Commission set up to examine the secrecy and accuracy of the electronic voting system involved.

Cullen said traditional paper ballots would be used for the June 11 vote because the commission was "unable to provide sufficient positive assurance" in the time available.

They are using a Nedap/Powervote electronic voting system.

Interim Report of the Commission on Electronic Voting PDF

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:00 PM
I've been following this for a few months now. There is actually a free online book that I think is needed reading:

I also heard a segment of a radio show on my way home from work which was talking about one of the people who was a major invester into one of these electronic voting companies. Now, he's running for congress.


And now, what's more, one company (don't recall which) is going to have "smart cards" (can we say irony?) to hand to polsters instead of you signing your name and who you voted for. The goal is to remove any paper trail so the companies running them can decide the winner.

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:45 PM

If the system as currently designed were to go on-line, there would be major problems. But.. No paper trail? How hard can that be to fix? You use an ATM, you get a receipt, you buy a Powerball ticket, you get a receipt. It's not like we're sailing uncharted waters here.

Trillions of dollars pass through cyberspace every day without a paper trail; it works amazingly well.

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 11:55 PM
Yep, trillions of dollars do pass through cyberspace. Write to the FDIC and ask them for ISS protocols, and ask them for any credit processing company's code. You may not get all the code, you will get the ISS protocols, but you will get reports written by the company and the FDIC explaining exactly what is being done in their code, how it was tested, and why this is acceptable and allowable.

These voting booths don't have to provide this information, because there is no agency to monitor and audit them. As for a recipt from an ATM, your transaction is not annonymous. your name is attached to the electronic transaction and printed on the recipt.

Voting is to be annonymous so people can't verify they bought your vote. Powerball tickets are annonymous...And we saw recently that you can attempt to claim it was your ticket as long as you are in that district.

The current system of voting is not tried and true. All transactions, all critical software (medical, research, financial, etc.) is monitored by government agencies. The electronic voting does not have an agency with the finances, clout, ability, or tenacity of the FDA or the FDIC monitoring it. If that were to change, and the results of testing and their protocols were to be on public record, I would have no problem with electronic voting. I think it's the future of democracy. However, the controls are not in place yet to begin using it.

I challenge someone to ask one of these software companies who are making the software for the electronic voting booths to ask for their Risk Analysis. If you get it, please post it. Working for a company monitored by the FDA in their software development as a Quality Control Analysist, I'll have some experience in pointing out where the Risk Analysis fails.

hehe that's why, jsobecky

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 08:29 AM

If you go back through the posts in this thread you will see that I have made many proposals such as you suggested. You are in the computer business? Then you know that a well designed system can work.

I don't know how the current system ever got out the door, much less past the first stages of discussion in a staff meeting. I'm not willing to throw out the concept just because someone doesn't know how to design a system properly.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 03:05 PM
I read this today and remembered this little forgoten. Hope someone might find it interesting.

Voters can run, but they can't hide from these guys. Meet the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Todd. Their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count (using BOTH computerized ballot scanners and touchscreen machines) about 80% of all votes cast in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Both ES&S and Diebold have been allegedly caught installing uncertified software in their machines.

Although there is no known certification process that will protect against vote rigging or technical failure, it is a requirement of most, if not all, states. And, according to author Bev Harris in her book, Black Box Voting, " of the founders of the original ES&S (software) system, Bob Urosevich, also oversaw development of the original software now used by Diebold Election Systems." Talk about putting all our eggs in one very bogus, but brotherly basket

continues here FEC doesn't even have a complete list of all the companies that count votes in U.S. elections. Once again we are witness to an 'eyes closed, hands off' approach to protecting America. The 2004 election rests in the private hands of the Urosevich brothers, who are financed by the far-out right wing and top donors to the Republican Party. The Democrats are either sitting ducks or co-conspirators. I don't know which. My mantra remains - Vote Paper Ballots, Ditch the Machines.

By Lynn Landes4-27-4
Lynn Landes is one of the nation's leading journalists on voting technology and democracy issues. Readers can find her articles at

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:03 PM
Looks like they're getting rid of the paper poll books too, one less way to audit the votes:

Here is how Mickey Martin explained why Diebold switched to the new (uncertified and patched at the last minute) card encoders, which failed in California on March 2: The new device, he says, is designed to eventually get rid of the poll book.

"We had a problem with a peripheral device. It was a brand-new peripheral device. It will be one of the standard products on the market in the future. Is it there today? Obviously not, but it will be and it will save counties, such as Cuyahoga, hundreds of thousands of dollars because you can do away with your paper poll books which cost the county a lot of money to produce. A lot of time and effort will go away. It will automatically let you update your voter registration system to that everything is seamless. "

Mark Radke confirms Diebold's plans to do away with the physical poll book audit trail:

"Why did they go with the PCM-500 instead of a standard card reader, these are very progressive contracts. The PCM-500 is a touch screen unit. I know it's -- what it's going to evolve into is an electronic poll book."

Getting rid of paper records means getting rid of auditability. What are audits? Quite simply, they are the checks and balances that help to prove that votes were counted correctly. I'll say it again: Vote counting is just bookkeeping. You have to show your work. You must be able to prove how you came up with your numbers, and you must use INDEPENDENT sources of evidence to do so.

Just be careful when you go to that site, your IP may be given to the Feds.
Read the article here: Seattle Weekly

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by AceOfBase]

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:25 PM
Vote absentee. At least there will be a piece of paper somewhere with your vote on it.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 04:41 PM
D eliberately
I nitiating an
E lectronic
B allot for
O verthrowing a
L eader
D evice

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by curme
Vote absentee. At least there will be a piece of paper somewhere with your vote on it.

Yeah, too bad they'll get lost in the mail. If you're in the Armed services, and are, say, deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, all the postal absentee votes will be going through (the notoriously lacking) Newark Int'l Airport.
EDIT: It's not a guarantee they'll be lost, of course, but I've been told that there were people deployed in Germany and Korea at the time of the 2000 Election who's votes never got turned in. They were marked "Return to Sender" and they recieved them back in 2002.

The Feds recording my IP? Lemme tell you, I'm absolutely sure the NSA's got plenty of AIM transcripts, copied emails, and EVERY ATS post (except the short and plain ones) with my nick on'em...
But thx for looking out for my well-being hun.

[Edited on 2004521 by Cappa]

<< 1   >>

log in