It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

VOTE: 3,893 Extra Votes For Bush In Suburban Columbus, Ohio County (only 638 voted)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
based on your posts skeptic, you are presenting only one side of the allegations. you are being partisan so dont accuse others of it. there have been quite a few allegations of dems doing bogus registrations which also merits discussions yet you accuse people who raise that of partisanship?




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

51% is hardly a majority.



LOL...I missed this one! SO...it is by ALL MEANS a majority. You probably meant to say it was just BARELY a majority. It's a majority though!

Main Entry: majority

3 a : a number greater than half of a total



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I know this question maybe *off topic*, but can anyone tell me what OS, Platform whatever
the electronic voting system uses?

Sanc'.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Just to get a feel for what would be required to "undo" the difference between the two candidates on the general popular vote, here are some numbers:

Current totals as reflected by CNN:

Bush 59,459,765 - 51%
Kerry 55,949,407 - 48%

difference 3,510,358 votes

total U.S. counties - 3142

Average dropped vote of Bush per county to get to a dead tie: 1117 votes

Average switched vote (i.e. vote counted for Bush that should be for Kerry) per county to get to a dead tie: 559 votes

EDIT: Of course that's EVERY county, including the blue ones. So if you try to achieve a dead tie just on the red counties, the required number of "bad vote counts" go up per county.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
When the head of Diebold, tells Republicans, at a fundraiser, he "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." there are going to be questions. Why did the Bush administration push so hard for voting machines? Why didn't each state vote on whether they wanted them? Paper worked for 200 years, why the quick change?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by curmePaper worked for 200 years, why the quick change?


Great point curme. Why is that? To create inconsistencies(sp) that the RNC know will not hold up
in court.

Personally, i wouldn't trust electronic voting...full stop!

Sanc'.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanctum
I know this question maybe *off topic*, but can anyone tell me what OS, Platform whatever
the electronic voting system uses?

Sanc'.


I think you can find this info on www.dubya.org......

according to the site it appears that the program was called......

Diebolicbeancounter ver 1.0..... :sarcasm:

Seriously, I expected some news like this to slowly leak out and am very interested to see what the "truth" is once the smoke clears....

Forecast: continued attacks from both sides, both sides feeding the fire to continue the smoke screen, a presidential E-Voting commision appointed to "get to the bottom of this", results of said commission prior to the 2006 elections, further nasty & negative campaigns to look forward to....



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I think you can find this info on www.dubya.org......

according to the site it appears that the program was called......

Diebolicbeancounter ver 1.0..... :sarcasm:


JKM


So it's in Beta? Or will they provide a D/L for patches...


Sanc'.
edit:quote format

[edit on 6-11-2004 by sanctum]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Just to get a feel for what would be required to "undo" the difference between the two candidates on the general popular vote, here are some numbers:
[edit on 11-6-2004 by Valhall]


That is largely irrelevant. The result of the election hinged on a handful of counties in two key states.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Thanks people! Now that the political junk is amost over it is good too see that some people still care. I say we kick the dog hard and see where he runs .



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I agree that the irregularities must be researched. This is far too important a process to allow bugs to enter the equation. The idea of a fair election is that the process allows for an accurate count of all votes, regardless of the outcome. Don't bother tainting the investigation with partisanship.

If this election isn't questioned and the irregularities investigated, it may green-light the same system being installed in every voting district in the US. Any errors, regardless of which candidate benefited from them, must be eliminated so a truly accurate count can be given. With the stories of problems with the touch-screens and the rumors of inaccurate counts, the perception exists that the election may have been fixed. As I always say, the perception is what matters to most people. Eliminate the problem AND the perception of a problem, and then you have something good.

I can accept the election results if the counts are indeed accurate, but with the stories growing of difficulties with the electronic systems installed for this election, I question the validity of all the electronic results, whether they favored President Bush or Senator Kerry.

I don't care if an investigation reveals that votes for Beppo the Super-Monkey weren't counted properly -- figure out the glitch and take care of all the issues it presents. If we're going to use this system, even only regionally, we need to make sure it actually works properly. The simple fact that we're discussing this points to a lack of faith in the accuracy. That lack of accuracy is a perception that we as Americans should not accept.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Paper voting.
It worked for 200 years. Are you sure?

There was no fraud involved? Maybe just a little huh?

Whoops, I just dumped a whole box of ballots in the river..

Oooops, I just voted without showing ID.

Uh, oh..The Republican votes go in "THIS box" teehee..

oh, your're a Democrat? You Vote in THIS booth..

AH! you've been had by the hanging Chad..The Scotus, must pick your Potus.

C'mon EVERYBODY! Get on the Magic Votin' Bus...We're going on a 6 state tour!



[edit on 6-11-2004 by spacedoubt]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
spacedoubt,

only EXACTLY!!! I voted in Indian Territory this year, first time since 1996...so I had to re-register up here. When I got to the polling center I was worried because I have never gotten my Texas driver's license replaced with an Oklahoma driver license. So I actually took my electric bill with me to establish that I was a resident. So I walk in (to the completely paper voting center with 90 year old workers) and I stand in line for the "checker". When it is my turn I hand her my voter's registration on and driver's license at the same time. My voter card is completely covering up my driver's license. She looks me up in the book and it says "ID required" (not all names said that and I'm assuming that was because I was a new registrant, not because I was a member of ATS...pfffft) and when she finds my name she says "You have your ID so sign right here." I SWEAR TO GOD SHE HAD NEVER UNCOVERED MY ID!!! She had never looked at it, it was still covered completely by my voter registration card!

paper, e-vote...I don't think the potential changes much....but the e-vote is a bit more hidden.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
VAL,
Nobody asked for mine either. I am a new registrant, in my new location.
I can understand maybe this General election..But a few weeks ago, NV, had
a primary, to narrow down the local candidate list.
I did the same thing...Brought my ballot, my Voter ID, my Driver license.
I pushed it toward the Pollworker, He looked at me like I was insane. ( although, I am used to that somewhat)..I just signed in, and voted..didn't need any of it..



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I dig what you are sying Val, but can't you go back and count that paper vote? If it's missing, it's physically missing. On a computer.....

Would you rather count the money you have in a bank by hand, or trust the ATM?

You trust the bank, so you don't mind trusting the ATM.

Do you trust your government with this? It's be nice to physically hold votes in your hand.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall ou probably meant to say it was just BARELY a majority.
Nope. From a statistical analysis point of view (especially chaid analysis of large statistical data sets) 51% is certainly considered half as it's well within even tight margins of error. And... to be even more precise.. the republic came within 140,000 votes of selecting someone else. We're not a democracy, and while the popular vote is a nice thing to use for reference, it doesn't matter at all. But for the concepts discussed in this thread, we should move beyond partisan bickering over who-what-when as far as who got which votes, and focus on the possibility that electronic voting has the potential for serious problems that very well may effect the outcome of an election. I don't care who it favors, if the outcome is not a reflection of the actual votes, we have a serious problem.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
From what I read on blackboxvoting.org, most of the electronic voting machines are running windows, and storing the votes in a Microsoft Access database. This is not at all secure. They have propietary software running the voting machine. Basically, they can rig the whole damn thing however they want, and there is basically no way to find out.

Rigging the vote is nothing new, and there are lots of ways to do it. It has been done for a long time. The difference with electronic voting machines is that it makes it harder to tell when the votes are rigged. In other countries, the CIA has also done a pretty good job of rigging lots of elections.

Although the issue has been around for a long time, it never got much publicity before the vote problems in 2000. If we work for fair voting machines, we might actually be able to get a system which will guarentee a fair elections in the future.

However, America also has a tradition of the loser conceeding. Despite all the dirty tricks and even voter fraud, someone is supposed to suceed. Otherwise, you can run into problems where a disputed election can turn into a civil war, which we really don't want. I didn't support Bush, and I think he probably cheated, although I don't know by how much. However, he was able to win, and Kerry conceded, so unless some Bush operative comes forward and admits to rigging the vote, I say Bush won.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Thank goodness for the edit feature. Anyway, here's my thoughts on the fact that there's fraud with the election machine. I honestly think that this is absurd, first of all the government created these machines; did they not? I don't see how it is possible that the votes can be that obscure although they wouldn't make a difference; it still gets people under the suspicion that Bush could've cheated.
[edit on 7-11-2004 by NWObringer]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by NWObringer]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:30 AM
link   
wow the list of machines problems.dont forget the ballots that were not counted.if there were more votes in a machine then there are people at the machine whats wrong here?voting tampering maybe.oh i like the machines that had more votes than they could handle lol.i guess some peoples votes did not matter because they were threw out. computer not being programed right.if there going to be an investigation make sure you get eveyones name who worked and had access to the machines.it might cost you alot more time but hey you get the truth.i guess micheal moore gets his next movie.i get my popcorn out for this one flukemol....

voters problems



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I would encourage everyone to download the results and turnout numbers from Florida. With so many anomalies, I don't know where to begin. Needless to say, Kerry was flat-out robbed in Florida.

Best evidence yet...

Bush had 366,000 more votes than registered Republicans.
Kerry had about 344,000 undervotes.


Fraud, pure and simple.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join