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.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:03 AM

Originally posted by kukla

Fraud, pure and simple.

...I didn't read the whole thread, but discussion seems to center on hacked voter machines. There is more to the story...

Kerry Won

" I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But
I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called
American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the
deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

... So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters
ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial,
question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

... Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

... Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry
to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new. "


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:50 PM
If the folks who are concentrating PURELY on electronic voting, are prepared to take it a step further and analyze ALL forms of Voting, Motor-voter registraion,, multiple voting, in ALL states. I'm ok with this..

OHIO was the Holy Grail this year, so thats where we are looking.
Democrats LOST this year, in many ways, I can see why they are upset..

But if you REALLY want an in-depth study, go for it...

You might not be happy with the results..

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:35 PM
Wow sounds a little too remenisant from the last election. Bush wasnt suppose to win pure and simple. Of course it was rigged. Just like the last election. So now that these "errors" have been proven they should have a redo because someone is in office that shouldnt be there. Last time I checked we the people are the choosers of our president. Not Microsoft.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by porschedrifter]

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:01 PM
All I can think of to say is if this system isn't working, someone PLEASE tell us what you want.

Paper ballots? Infallible paper ballots? That is too funny. You have groups of people that can't figure out which hole to punch, or better yet, can't fully punch a hole before giving it in. You have groups of people that still don't understand how to draw a straight line for their candidate. But better yet... you have PAPER. Paper which can be so easily manipulated, altered and sabotaged by someone with malicious intentions.

Computerized voting? You'll hear cries of hacker attacks, of computer glitches, of miscounted votes. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I remember in 2001 I went to an event called the "Big Apple Straw Poll" in which each participant was given a plastic apple and was told to put it into the barrel of the Mayoral primary candidate that he/she liked. The barrels couldn't be opened until the end of the night.

Maybe that's what we need on a national scale. Apples.

Because as far as I can tell regardless of what system we use there are going to be strange inconsistencies, and as of yet I have not seen a serious answer to solve those problems. In 2000, poorly punched holes, in 2004 wacky computer results. What now?

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by moxyone
Computer glitches are just that.

They happen. Now, if every glitch nenefits Bush, that would be very suspicious.

No they don't have to happen. I am a computer science major at Virginia Tech, and I think its about time I put in my 2 cents. In my experience, writing voting software should be a fairly trivial process if you start with a good design. It really only involves a simple incrementing of numbers which are associated with a canidates votes. However, from what I have gathered from the limited information released about these diebold and other machines is that the design is, for some reason or other, poorly designed and overly complex. And because of the under the carpet way in which all these machines were put into place and the obvious design deficiencies, I have come to believe that the design was created to be intentionaly flawed and complex. Now to get back to more of the technical reasons pertaining to the matter, from my standpoint there is absolutly no possible justification for transmitting the vote counts over the internet or phone lines. This is ludicrous.

Lets be hypothetical here for a second. Suppose the republican-related company that created these machines did want to be able change votes. What would you have to do to pull it off? Well first, you would have your programmers leave a back door in the voting machine's code. This back door would simply listen for a connection from the computer that is being used to control the election and when contacted over the internet, allow full access to all data. Now if you didn't want people finding out about this, what would you do? Firstly pay your programmers a damned lot of money, but secondly not allow public viewing of your source code ( for security reasons
). Also you would not want a paper receipt to be printed.

Well to me this sounds a lot like our current situation. I fully believe that diebold has intentionally flawed and opened these machines to hackers, but only while realizing that the creators are the best hackers.

re-reading my above post makes me one sad panda

ok all you right-wingers and others with expertise in this area, please tell me that im delusional and this isn't really happening... just please tell me in a rational way

[edit on 10-11-2004 by ColonelForbin]

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
Well, we better start looking at all the counties that Kerry won, to make sure he didn't get any votes that Bush was supposed to, or does it not work both ways???

Plus, I find it funny that Ohio is the vicitim this year for vote fraud jsutas Florida was last year, meaning it was the last decisive state.

Maybe the real "error" in Gahanna was that the "machine" did not redistribute the votes across the county like it was suppossed to. 4000 extra votes in 1 precinct = shady. 4000 votes dispersed throughout 1200 precincts would be much harder, if not impossible, to trace.

88 counties in ohio. 4000 X 88. 352,000 EXTRA VOTES. Thats 200K above Bush's "margin of victory." We have some precincts in Ohio with over 100% voter turnout. Many of the "border" counties (suburban) had 85-90% turnout. These numbers are not just VERY high, they are VERY unlikely.

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:14 PM
More than unlikely....impossible is the word I'd use...

Well, we better start looking at all the counties that Kerry won, to make sure he didn't get any votes that Bush was supposed to, or does it not work both ways???


The matter of who won, and who didn't is TRIVIAL, compared to the matter of our votes not being counted! Or votes suddenly "appearing".

Either way we were getting a Bonesman...I can live with that. But the idea that we no longer have a say in our government? Well, that's a whole other kettle of fish....

Regardless, we have the simple fact that where paper ballots were used, they matched the exit polls. Where they WEREN'T used, the votes favored Bush by about a +5% increase compared to exit polls. That's just plain creepy. Had it happened with Kerry, I'd have the same questions as to whether or not we'd lost control....and smell something fishy....

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 11:01 AM
Has anyone seen the simpsons episode where sideshow bob tries to become mayor? To make sure he won, he registered dead people as voting for him. This may be an explanation to GWB's victory.

Also, they are both republican and so could be connected.

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 04:52 PM

Secretary of State Cathy Cox today released newly compiled data from Georgias November 2nd General Election showing that the accuracy of the vote count increased dramatically compared to the presidential election four years ago. diebold in the news

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Quite frankly, this contradicts everything on this whole board.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by Elija Black]

[edit on 20-11-2004 by Elija Black]

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:34 PM
Aint it something else?

How could this happen in America?
Its laughable

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:16 AM
Where else would it be?

Where else are the people that incompetent?

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:04 PM
I can't believe all these "computer glitches happen" comments about the reports of electronic voting problems.

Computer glitches like that DO NOT HAPPEN, except if they are ment to happen.

There are company's on this planet that have systems that pull more transaction data across the globe every damn day then it takes to do a votecount for the US election. If it was so normal for glitches like these miscounts and phantom votes to happen, then those company's wouldn't use computer systems for their finances, order systems, stock systems and so on anymore.

Glitches they have are system crashes and application errors, that all can be corrected with safety features in both software, hardware and infrastructure.

The miscounts on the votes I've seen up to now are all in the lines of
"extra votes comming out of nowhere"
"missing votes that can't be restored"
"the screen jumped to another page and caused me to vote for someone I didn't want to vote for"

Thats 3 things that are absolutely unacceptible for any and every company that uses computer systems, they are the 3 basic things that every system builder has to prevent, security so external datainput isn't posible and redundancy checking to be sure no bad data is inputted, backup and buffer systems in case of system errors, so no data gets lost and solid and simple user interfaces that have confirmation of actions so no unintended input is made.

The errors talked about with the electronic voting are just plain bull and can't be errors or glitches, if they are, then the only explination is that the company's installing the voting systems delivered utter crap and should be bankrupted and the election should be done over on paper ballots.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:09 AM
Finally, someone with some sense!

you don't see ATM's that have "glitches" and cause you to withdraw 200 when you ment to withdraw fifty quid.

Diebold seems to be under the influence of GWB, because I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that "coincidence" is not just that, and is, in fact, intended.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Elija Black
Finally, someone with some sense!

you don't see ATM's that have "glitches" and cause you to withdraw 200 when you ment to withdraw fifty quid.

Diebold seems to be under the influence of GWB, because I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that "coincidence" is not just that, and is, in fact, intended.

BS...there are votes that have favored Kerry also and by large amounts from 8,000+ to 22,000 votes which as result of "glitches" favored Kerry.

There were reports of seals in the machines being broken into among other things... Just because they are using e-voting machines now it doesn't mean people are not trying to make voter fraud... Before these machines we were also having a lot of problems with voter fraud....

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:17 PM
And the evidence of that is...where? Excuse me if I am mistaken, but it looks like George Bush is in the White house, and not Kerry. This kinda shows who got more "votes".

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in