Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cheating in the Election...Before the Election?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
For there to be an added total of all the votes from all the electronic voting systems they would need to be networked together, and for them to be network together, thered need to be routers, which can be remotely accessed. Hmmm...

I agree that to take advantage of the speed of computers, the individual results would need to be sent over the net at some point. Not the entire database. The tally received at the destination could be checksummed against the resident tally to determine if any hacking took place. This is a speed consideration only. Today, we live with the delays of hand counting; if necessary we could count totals locally.



And what I meant by a paper trail is that they can just change the number of votes for 1 candidate within the machine, instead of having to change EVERY paper ballot, its SO much easier to change it with the electronic systems than paper.

No, in fact it makes it much more difficult to cheat inside the machine. If there were 1,000 voters, there would be 1,000 votes logged in. It can be designed to make it nearly impossible. You would need to have modify access to the end result. Sorry, nobody has that access at your precinct level. Also, the database will reflect the vote of each ID; you would have to modify that also. Hash the ID's. Once again, no access.

You could bring your paper receipt down to have it verified against your actual vote, after the counting is done. With proper ID, of course. If the machine says you voted for Candidate A, and your receipt says you voted for Candidate B, then your ballot could be discarded. Immediate verification.


Today it is very simple, and very common, to cheat a candidate out of votes with paper ballots. Here's how:

Ballot counter favors Candidate A. He receives a ballot that has voted for Candidate B. He marks the ballot with a vote for Candidate A. The ballot now has a mark for both candidates; it is discarded as a bad ballot. One of the oldest tricks in the book.




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Even if we were to challenge the results in court, we wouldn't be able to get a good idea of what really happened because of a little term the courts call proprietary trade secrecy, in other words, the source codes
are simply not available for examination. In other words, they don't have to tell you jack doodley about their voting machines, even with a sopena. Ah but I digress lets examine a few points of interest here....
I am pulling alot of this information from my own research files which I have not saved in html format but text files, but I have cited my sources and found all this stuff on www.google.com... through the last two years...


www.thepeoplesvoice.org...
September 2, 2003
By Schuyler Ebbets
Two Republican dominated corporations, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Diebold Voting Systems, now control 80% of the vote count in the United States.

Reading this creeped me out so I started looking into it...


Ready or Not, Electronic Voting Goes National
By TOM ZELLER Jr., The New York Times
Sept. 19
The leader in the electronic voting machine market, Diebold, and its executives have given more than $400,000 to Republican interests since 2001....in the view of Michael Wertheimer, a computer security consultant with RABA Technologies, who was hired by the state of Maryland last year to conduct a mock hacking attack against the Diebold machines. A number of security holes were found, including one in the Microsoft operating system that runs the election software, which did not have up-to-date security patches. The flaws, Mr. Wertheimer said, could allow tampering and skewed election results. He also noted that in the presidential primary election last March, Maryland used software on its machines that had not been certified by independent testing authorities, and thus violated state law.

Is there a conflict of interest from the manufacturers of this technology? You bet your butt there is!
Don't believe me, let's see what Diebold themselves have to say about their political contributions by their own board and officers.... (FYI this information is almost extinct on the net now so get it while you can)


www.diebold.com...
Board of Directors
Louis V. Bockius III (2,4,5)
6/28/00 $15,000.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
11/3/00 $10,000.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
10/9/97 $1,000.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
10/9/97 $1,000.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
Christopher M. Connor Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The
Sherwin-Williams Company
5/22/00 $1,000.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
3/30/00 $1,000.00 — DEWINE FOR US SENATE
Gale S. Fitzgerald (2, 6)
President and Chief Executive Officer , QP Group, Inc.
7/12/00 $500.00 — NEW YORK REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM.
10/12/98 $200.00 — FRIENDS OF JOHN LAFALCE
10/18/99 $1,000.00 — BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC
Donald R. Gant (1,3,5) Senior Director, The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P.
L. Lindsey Halstead (2,3,6) Retired Chairman of the Board, Ford of Europe
12/22/98 $500.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
1/23/97 $500.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
5/27/97 $200.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
10/31/97 $500.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
12/28/99 $500.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
3/7/01 $300.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
6/12/01 $200.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
11/27/01 $200.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
1/24/02 $500.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Phillip B. Lassiter (1,3,6) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
4/16/98 $250.00 — NAT'L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMM.
9/21/98 $250.00 — NAT'L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMM.
John N. Lauer (1,4,5) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
Oglebay Norton Co.
10/10/00 $1,000.00 — DEWINE FOR US SENATE
8/23/00 $250.00 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
3/17/97 $1,000.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
Walden W. O'Dell Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Diebold
2/14/01 $2,015.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
12/17/97 $1,000.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
1/30/01 $3,950.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
8/16/01 $500.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
12/17/97 $1,000.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
6/30/00 $1,000.00 — DEWINE FOR US SENATE
Eric J. RoordaFormer Chairman, Procomp Amazonia Industria Eletronica, S.A.
W.R. Timken Jr. (2,3,4) Chairman , The Timken Company
6/23/00 $50,000.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
6/8/01 $100,000.00 — 2001 PRESIDENT'S DINNER - NON-FEDERAL TRUST
3/14/01 $10,000.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
8/19/99 $15,000.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
11/3/00 $15,000.00 — RNC REPUBLICAN NAT'L STATE ELECTIONS COMM.
2/22/02 $1,000.00 — RELY ON YOUR BELIEFS FUND
6/12/02 $1,000.00 — OHIO'S REPUBLICAN SALUTE
Corporate Officers
Walden W. O'DellChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Diebold
Wesley B. Vance Chief Operating Officer
8/16/01 $500.00 — VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
Michael J. HillockPresident, Diebold International
11/18/97 $500.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
David Bucci Senior Vice President, Customer Solutions Group
11/18/97 $500.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
James L.M. Chen Vice President and Managing Director, Asia-Pacific
Warren W. Dettinger Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant
Secretary
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
1/30/97 $250.00 — DEWINE FOR U S SENATE (2000)
Donald E. Eagon, Jr. Vice President, Global Communications & Investor
Relations
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
Charee Francis-Vogelsang Vice President and Secretary
Larry D. Ingram Vice President, Procurement and Services
1/30/97 $250.00 — DEWINE FOR U S SENATE (2000)
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
Dennis M. Moriarty Vice President, Customer Business Solutions
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
Anthony J. Rusciano Vice President, National Accounts
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
Charles B. Scheurer Vice President, Corporate Human Resources
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
Ernesto R. Unanue Vice President and Managing Director, Latin America
Robert J. Warren Vice President and Treasurer
11/18/97 $300.00 — FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998




OpEdNews.Com
by Amanda Lang
Guess Who's Going to Dinner with Diebold, Sequoia, and Electronic ES&S? The Groups Responsible for Insuring Electronic Votes Are Secure.by Amanda LangOpEdNews.ComWhen speakers from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) attend the August 24-28, 2004, Election Center's conference for federal and state election employees in Washington, DC, they will be participating in a huge conflict of interest as they eat, drink, and make-merry at the Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S (voting machine vendors) sponsored events....

Remember the cancellation of elections fears that were brought up Well here's where that fiasco came from... The article continues stating...


OpEdNews.Com
by Amanda Lang
The EAC, supposedly an independent bipartisan agency, was appointed by President George W. Bush following the Election Fiasco of 2000, and is authorized by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to serve as "...a national clearinghouse and resource for the comparison of information" on various matters involving the administration of Federal elections. The EAC wants to be more than a clearinghouse apparently -- EAC Chairman, DeForest Soaries**, recently authored a letter to Homeland Security czar, Tom Ridge, requesting his agency be "the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election" if a terrorist attack is launched in the U.S. As a result, Ridge's office has requested that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. **Soaries, a Bush appointee, two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress.


Oh yeah, they also publically announced their affiliations...


THE INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE
October 20, 2003
From The Wilderness Publications
In an outrageous conflict with the public interest, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell told Ohio Republicans this August that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Even the BBC on October 8th, noted that Diebold and other systems used in California and elsewhere left the door wide open for tampering:news.bbc.co.uk... The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia reported on October 8th what Americans, and especially Californians were never told: that the electronic systems were "as flawed as chads."Excellent background research on what appears to be rampant and overtly criminal behavior by Diebold can be found at the following web sites:www.blackboxvoting.org...://www.rense.com/general42/dieboldmachinesyield.htmwww.equalccw.com... is only one of many firms making voting software, and all of it seems have problems. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska ought to know. He used to chair a company, American Information Systems, which owns the largest company putting machines into US use, Election Systems and Software. But it's doubtful he's going to complain. Nebraska used his software in the 2002 election and he garnered 83% of the vote.


Are they secure? Have they been tested?


CA Sues Diebold For E-Vote
Machine False Claims
9-8-4
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters)California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said on Tuesday he would sue electronic voting machine maker Diebold Inc on charges it defrauded the state with false claims about its products. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has said Diebold deceived California with aggressive marketing that led to the installation of touch-screen voting systems that were not tested or approved nationally or in California.


Why can't we just make a make a machine that will print a paper record of the votes? Good question, here let's ask Diebold...


Diebold email: ‘Make vote printouts too costly’
by Eric A. Smith and Free Press staffin J
ournal issue January-February 2004
January 8, 2004
An internal memo has just surfaced suggesting e-vote manufacturer Diebold planned to overcharge the state of Maryland and make voter printouts “prohibitively expensive.” An employee named “Ken” wrote the Jan. 3 letter suggesting the company charge Maryland “out the yin” if legislators insisted on printouts... He goes on to say “...any after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive.”

Note he didn't say would be, or could be, but Should be?
But our vote still counts right? No, sadly they become "circumstantial" evidence of voter intent... The machine produces the only 'hard evidence'. Yes, that is in violation of US law, but hey who cares about the law, we have an election to rig... A great article here on the 'legality' of voting machines...


Faking Democracy - Americans Don't Vote, Machines Do, & Ballot Printers Can't Fix That
by Lynn Landes
April 7, 2004
The Free Press -- Independent News Media - National Issues
Fri Sep 17, 2004
In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that a "legal vote" is one in which there is a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." Voting machines (lever, optical scan, touchscreen, the Internet, etc.) produce circumstantial evidence of the voter's intent, at best....
When voting machines are used, critical parts of the Voting Rights Act can't be enforced. Under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.Code §1973f, Federal Observers are authorized to observe "... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated..."
Under "Prohibited acts" in §1973i, the "Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote"...can result in civil and criminal penalties. "No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote...(and) Whoever...knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five year, or both."
Voting machines violate those provisions. Vote casting and tabulation take place inside of a box. Federal Observers can't observe "... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast ...are being properly tabulated.." Voting machines by their very design "conceals a material fact."

But they wouldn't do that would they? That would be fraud...


Insurance for Electronic Votes
New York Times Editorial
Friday 23 July 2004
These inherent flaws are made worse by the reckless, and possibly illegal, actions of voting machine companies. This spring, California banned 14,000 Diebold voting machines because of allegations of "fraudulent actions" by the manufacturer.

Get real folks, you get a reciept for a six pack of beer at the grocery store, but to decide the next leader of the 'free' world? Not a chance.
DEMAND A PAPER BALLOT, if they don't give you one, stand there and raise hell to they do or until the media shows up, otherwise, watch the soverignty of the american people go down the electronic toliet.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I am asking for a paper ballot. Is that a requirement in all States?

Anyone?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I have already stated that the manufacturers of the current systems should be fired immediately. As far as O'Dell being a big Republican supporter, remember that the head of the Texas plant that manufactures the machines is a registered Democrat. Even so, so what? Are we to award contracts to the opposing parties only? If so, then O'Dell would have a vested interest in getting Kerry elected.

Forget the email regarding making the paper receipt too costly. They are already fired, in my scenario.

Use the current model as an example of what to avoid, not as a base to begin building again. Sort of like the Constitution.

Making foolproof electronic voting machines can be done. I can understand skepticism, but I say, give it a chance. The biggest proportion of fraud is because of human intervention, not a rigged machine. I've already pointed out one easy way to nullify your vote. It's easy to see that those who benefit most from the current paper ballot system would be the biggest opponents of an electronic system.






new topics

 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join