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.


possible vote fraud in gahanna ohio

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:11 AM
Diebold was already busted installing software on those machines that had nothing to do with tabulation, that's one of the reasons they got yanked out california two years ago.

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:12 AM
Should of figured they are using microsoft. That right thier should raise some eyebrows. True lies great info, thank you for finding that. I have forworded those sites on to all the people that I know that this stuff matters too. I live in mechanicsburg ohio and we used punchcards. I think my area was split 50/50. Atleast that is what it sounded like while waiting in line talking to other voters. I do not think we had any problems. At least I holp not.

edit: I appologize, riley great links especially the last one. Very informative.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by jmilici]

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:12 AM
All these votes for bush on gahanna machines but kerry still took franklin county no really does sound like you a grasping for straws. I didnt vote in Gahanna but Im sure one of the news stations would have covered the touch screen machines if they were here...I thought that was a florida thing?

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:46 AM
I just won't buy. Ohio electoral system is bipartisan controlled. How come 4000 Democrat lawers are not storming the media right now?. Everybody knew that Ohio and Miami would be tightly supervised. I dont know how would they pull out such scam. Also de Dems tried to disenfranchise the military vote that's 2 to 1 for Bush

[edit on 5-11-2004 by Vladtepes]

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:54 PM
I would like to see a side by side map of the counties who are usually democrat in Ohio, but went to Republican this time.

I would then like to see a map of the counties that the voting machines were installed in and how their votes turned this year.

Things that make you go ....???????????

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:00 PM
On Yahoo

That's an AP story. I certainly hope more is heard on this subject and an investigation held.

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:03 PM
The lawyers aren't swarming because Kerry allready quit.

If the public knew Kerry won, they wouldn't accept Bush in the whitehouse, and Kerry knew that, so he had to quit.

If you're wondering wtf is going on, you're allready too misinformed and uneducated.

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 02:02 PM
I know that I'll be labeled as a pro-Bush, pro-Republican koolaid drinker, but I am just trying to bring an opposing point of view to this constant bashing of the winning party.

Originally posted by TrueLies
And what can be downloaded can also be uploaded. Computer experts say that signals can travel both to and from computerized voting machines through wireless technology, modems, and even simple electricity."

Theoretically true. But the technology must already exist inside the machine for it to receive wireless signals. Liken it to saying that your computer can accept signals from a telephone line. Well, yes, it can, IF you have a modem in your computer. Whoever uses modems in these machines should be FIRED immediately because of the security hole..

Landis just confirms what is already known about "sketchy" electronic voting and how it invites vote tampering. Her connection between election machinery, vote totals and the AP, however, has not previously been made.

So there was a conspiracy between conservative members of the AP, ESS, and Diebold to rig the election? Is this her point? I could make the same arguments for the Democrats rigging it. BUT IT'S OVER!

Many readers are probably wondering what happened to the "Help America Vote Act" that was passed by Congress to avoid the problems of Florida 2000? As Landis reports in an earlier article: "What Congress really did was to throw $2.65 billion at the states, so that they could lavish it on a handful of private companies that are controlled by ultra-conservative Republicans, foreigners and felons." (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia were among the big winners)

It is the states responsibility to spend the money wisely.

None of the facts related to the presidential election add up. Voter registration went up from 105 million to 120 million. In Ohio alone it went up a whopping 17%. Whenever registration has surged like this in the past, it has always favored the challenger and precipitated a change in government.

And, according to the governor of Ohio, at least 3 counties had registration counts that exceeded census counts. Since the Democrats had a big push to register new voters, especially young ones, the spotlight should be turned on them.

Also remember the cases of false registration, i.e., Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck. Michael Jordan, and others in Ohio. And the person that was paid with crack coc aine to get collect signatures.

Philly had electronic voting machines pre-loaded with votes for Kerry. What does that tell us?

Not so, this time, and Republican pollsters are eager to convince us that the reason for this is a renewed interest among the American public for "moral values". Is that it or are the results simply an indication of massive (but well calculated) voter fraud?

No, the simple fact is that the young people never got off their a$$es and voted. Kerry counted on these young people to deliver. They let him down, big time. Big 10% turnout, and how many of those were Republican? So don't blame the Republicans for voting, blame the Democrats for NOT voting.

The exit polling was equally skewed, showing a clear victory for Kerry. Exit polling has traditionally been a reliable way of determining the outcome of elections. Not so in Bush-world, where vote totals are invariably higher for Bush in the contentious areas that ultimately decide the election.

Exit polling was a total disaster in the 2000 and 2004 elections. This year, the numbers used by the exit pollsters were skewed badly, so the exit poll results were inaccurate to begin with.

The GOP was at first shocked, then puzzled, at the early exit poll results, because they could not believe the margins by which Kerry was shown to be ahead. When the raw data was examined, their suspicions were confirmed - a bad, bad model used by the exit pollsters. They had a preconceived result that they attempted to shoehorn the actual data into to attain. Didn't work, was doomed from the beginning.

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Vladtepes
... Everybody knew that Ohio and Miami would be tightly supervised. ....
[edit on 5-11-2004 by Vladtepes]

I work in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. Out of all the stories I heard on the local talk radio and at work about everyone voting, including my own experience no "security" was seen or experienced; not one person asked for an ID or questioned me or anyone I know.

Sad thing is, droves (approx. 3-20 at a time) of people were walking away after 20 minutes or 2 hours of standing in line to vote and some would see the line and turn around. There wasn't enough voting booths in most Columbus locations. (abt. 3 - 5 booths each from what I hear) My area had two.

A lot of the surrounding counties used punch cards though.

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by TrueLies
If your using diebold they can change the number by going to the program through via c: drive / program files / diebold / gems / voting numbers SPREADSHEET (which is a microsoft programs, where you can easily click on any number on the spread sheet and change it no problem... Save your work and voila...

No track.

Not to pick on you, TL, but this was true on the earliest machines, and has been fixed for quite a while now.

They shouldn't be using Windows in these machines anyway.

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:24 PM
A disabled friend and his wife voted and he needed assistance. (A recent stroke)
Everyone said it was ok to let her help him, except one lady. She would help him.
His wife finished voting, and went to check on his progress and sidestepped the lady and checked her hubby's card. He had voted for Kerry, but both he and Bush had been punched.

She asked her husband if he had made a mistake and double voted and he said no. That that lady punched Bush and when he said that wasn't who he wanted, she punched Kerry.

His wife immediately knew it was invalid, so she tried to get him another punch card and they wouldn't let him.

In Ohio.......

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:14 PM
I'm a software developer, I know several computer languages and assembler that runs the processor. It is very easy to rig these things up. I don't write software for voting, but to us developers there is not much difference in it than banking.

You could,
*Make the vote double for a candate.
*Count backwards on one candidate it the percentage of one party is higher than another.
*Activate a spectial programed function when the official key card is inserted after testing when the actual voting starts so that the test results are good, but the election is rigged. Then once the machine is reset to test again the routine stops, no one can tell.
*If it is on a network, an anonmous command could be transfered through the network hub to activate the fraud code in other machines, (Remote stuffing".
edited, fixed typo.
*A bogus machine could spoof the results of a real machine sending in bumped numbers.
*Use a statistical algorithym that determines if a preciinct is voting heavy in one candidate to skim the votes. They new the margin of victory before Tuesday.
*Print a paper reciept that shows what the voter punched, but send different results to the database.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by AlabamaCajun]

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
I'm a software developer, I know several computer languages and assembler that runs the processor. It is very easy to rig these things up. I don't write software for voting, but to us developers there is not much difference in it than banking.

You could,
*Make the vote double for a candate.
*Print a paper reciept that shows what the voter punched, but send different results to the database.
[edit on 5-11-2004 by AlabamaCajun]

That's what auditing and testing are for, to weed out these hacks.

What if I designed a piece of software that was totally blind to the candidates? A random number would determine which candidates were assigned which position when the system was first booted up. Then you would only have a 50-50 chance of cheating for your candidate. Not worth it, since it could end up backfiring on you.

And of course, you would NEVER have these machines connected to the intERnet while active. InTRAnet commuications could be one way only to eliminate that hack.

Trillions of dollars worth of transactions are sent using computers daily, over the net, without a single penny touching human hands. Would Citibank do that if they did not trust the system (and constantly monitor it)? Would the public trust their local ATM? A foolproof registration/voting system is childs play, in comparison.

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 04:51 AM
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (AP) -- Voters nationwide reported some 1,100 problems with electronic voting machines on Tuesday, including trouble choosing their intended candidates.

The e-voting glitches reported to the Election Protection Coalition, an umbrella group of volunteer poll monitors that set up a telephone hotline, included malfunctions blamed on everything from power outages to incompetent poll workers.

But there were also several dozen voters in six states -- particularly Democrats in Florida -- who said the wrong candidates appeared on their touchscreen machine's checkout screen, the coalition said.

In many cases, voters said they intended to select John Kerry but when the computer asked them to verify the choice it showed them instead opting for President Bush, the group said.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way Foundation, which helped form the coalition, called the summary screen problem "troubling but anecdotal."

He and other voting rights advocates said the disproportionate number of Democrats reporting such problems was probably due to higher awareness of voter protection coalitions.

"Overall, the problems of outright voter intimidation and suppression have not been as great as in the past," Neas said.

But the reports did highlight computer scientists' concerns about touchscreens, which they say are prone to tampering and unreliable unless they produce paper records for recounts.

Roberta Harvey, 57, of Clearwater, Florida, said she had tried at least a half dozen times to select Kerry-Edwards when she voted Tuesday at Northwood Presbyterian Church.

After 10 minutes trying to change her selection, the Pinellas County resident said she called a poll worker and got a wet-wipe napkin to clean the touch screen as well as a pencil so she could use its eraser-end instead of her finger. Harvey said it took about 10 attempts to select Kerry before and a summary screen confirmed her intended selection.

Election officials in several Florida counties where voters complained about such problems did not return calls Tuesday night.

A spokesoman for the company that makes the touchscreen machines used in Pinellas, Palm Beach and two other Florida counties, Alfie Charles of Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., said the machines' monitors may need to be recalibrated periodically.

The most likely reason the summary screen showed wrong candidates was because voters pushed the wrong part of the touch screen in the first place, Charles said.

He said poll workers are trained to perform the recalibration whenever a voter says the touchscreen isn't sensitive enough.

"Voters will vote quickly and they'll notice that they made an error when they get to the review screen. The review screen is doing exactly what it needs to do -- notifying voters what selections are about to be recorded," Charles said. "On a paper ballot, you don't get a second chance to make sure you voted for whom you intended, and it's a strong point in favor of these machines."

The Election Protection Coalition received a total of 32 reports of touch-screen voters who selected one candidate only to have another show up on the summary screen, Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a coalition member.

David Dill, a Stanford University computer scientist whose Verified Voting Foundation also belongs to the coalition, said he wouldn't "prejudge and say the election is going smoothly just because we have a small number of incident reports out of the total population.

"It's not going to be until the dust clears probably tomorrow that we have even an approximate idea of what happened," Dill added.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in