what about the voting machines...

What about...protesting the voting machines? I just saw a music video about the Diebold voting machines on FSTV which was pretty funny(and extremely well made) but it was kinda scary. The systems are all electric, meaning they could already be preset to certain percentages that adapt to the number of voters.....giving Bush the certain victory. And at the end of the video it said something about the Diebold CEO already promising Ohio to Bush. And I found a copy of the entire report online. Its almost a year old!! Why isnt stuff like this more followed by the mainstream news?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

"The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." That was said by CEO Walden O'Dell

rigging elections..sounds like Iraq's old elections where Saddam gets over 90% of the votes.

 

Because it isn't credible!

 

what isnt credible?

 

This crazy Right Wing Cospiracy to steal the election by buying voting machines from a specific company. Just because its a .org doesn't make the news story credible. Those websites are bought and paid for by the left, and say exactly what the left wants them to say. If these sites were credible then you would be hearing this story on the nightly news.

Just so you know: Ohio gets to buy Ohios voting machines, Bush has nothing to do with the process. Bush is not omnipresent, he cannot possibly do all the bad things you people accuse him of. Regardless of what some music video told you there are still Democrats in Ohio and they will check any system the state buys.

Yes, liken Bush to Saddam! They are similar in sooooooo many ways aren't they?! Let me just tell you; doing stuff like that makes the swing voters run from you. Why? Because they see how desperate you are to smear the name of the President. It also eats away at your crediblilty, so next time you make some crazy claim like "Bush is Hitler"; they get angry (on the defensive) and vote for Bush.

 

fuck the electronic voting machines....not because they ARE succeptable to manipulation....but because of the security issues around them...when they network these machines, don't think that every hacker who is a hacker wil lbe trying to hack in to these computers and fuck up the polls....and don't think that it wont happen because studies on these machines show they ARE vulnerable....and when this run of events occurs whats going to happen....well lets see, the democratic process has been disrupted, so now we got to disrupt the democratic process in order to fix the democratic process, and ensure that democracy runs the world....wtf....if you wanna put you liberties in the care of an unsecure machine go ahead....i'm doin it the old fashioned way....

 

is this credible enough for you, ya dumbass warmonger?? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
CBfuckingSNews, a .com

Here's some shit i pulled from there...

"There was a wholesale breakdown in the election last March in one of our major counties that most Americans are familiar with, San Diego," says Shelley. "And untold thousands of individuals were turned away and denied their right to vote because the voting equipment couldn't start."

So many of the machines malfunctioned or ran unapproved software that Shelley took the extraordinary step of decertifying them.

"We found all kinds of problems in the code," he said. "A computer scientist can look at program and immediately tell you if it was written by professional programmers who know how to do software engineering or if it was just put together by a bunch of hacks. And, upon looking at the source code for Diebold, it was pretty clear that this was a real amateur job."

"The concern I have is that those machines will be programmed from the start to favor one candidate over another and not to actually record and count the votes,"

I like this one the best, gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside
A Diebold plot to rig the elections? Where did that idea come from? The rumors began with this letter from Diebold's CEO, Wally Odell, who was moonlighting as a Republican fundraiser. In his invitation to a benefit for Bush last August, he wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

 

Mr Warhawk, I did not once compare Bush to Saddam. I compared the elections to each other. One time that I know of Saddam won over 90% of the voters, and there might be more I havent read into it. BUt winning 90 something percent of votes doesnt happen ever if they are free elections, they had to be rigged. Read these last 2 posts fully before you reply please.

I also not once said a thing about having Moore in office. The mere thought of that is scary as hell. Once again, read these last 2 posts fully before you reply please.

 

I wouldn't call names if I were you! You have no right, as soon as you hit puberty you can call me names!

Warmonger....warhawk? you just proved how absolutely dumb you are!

You actually did compare Bush to Saddam! Look => Bush rigs voting machines wins by huge margine. Saddam wins election by huge margine.

What you're saying is that Bush would try to "rig" the elections just like Saddam would.

Your source says nothing to reinforce your story! Your source is completely worthless! It says nothing about "promising Bush the election!", and you will never find a credible source on that. I couldn't care less about "delivering the electorial blah blah blah to the President", they can't back up their story just like you can't.

You should really put some effort toward keeping your emotions in check when you write replies, when you don't it makes you sound stupid.

 

I've hit puberty, dumbass.

You support Bush, meaning that you support the war = Warhawk.

I compared the rigging of the elctions to Saddam's rigging. I did not compare them as people, learn to read man.

Yep, thats what Im saying.

He promised Bush the state, if his company is the only company that is allowed to supply voting machines, I don't see how he can't promise Bush the election.

Being quiet gets you nowhere.

besides, you said that because its a .org makes it not credible. I got a .com for ya buddy, nice job debating.

 

Don't act like your winning; you're simply too stupid to see that you aren't. Just because you like to call names doesn't mean you're winning! In fact it would mean that your argument looks childish (read below) and unbelievable.​

PHP:

You support Bush, meaning that you support the war = Warhawk

You keep calling me a warmong because its the only response your little Nazi mind can come up with! Did I ever say I supported Bush, or the War? NO! I simply made the observation that you cannot compare Bush to Saddam and that it isn't as simple as you think to rig a whole election.​

PHP:

I've hit puberty, dumbass.

You obviously haven't hit puberty, judging by your responses, or else I wouldn't say it. If you had you'd try to debate an issue opposed to puking out a knee-jerk response to every comment. You made wild claims that you can't back up, even with your sources. Boy, some day you'll learn to act like an adult, then I will indulge your taste for debate.​

PHP:

 He promised Bush the state, if his company is the only [/left]
[left]company that is allowed to supply voting machines,[/left]
[left]I don't see how he can't promise Bush the election.

You're telling me that the state is going to take these things out of the boxes, never test them, and allow people to vote. These systems all have to subject to testing, obviously not by the supplying company. It would be dirt simple to test. 1.) Set up machine 2.) Vote for same candidate 100 times 3.) repeat but vote for opposite candidate.

Not to mention that the state will hire independent programers to analyze the code. So how exactly is it that this company is "promising" anything to Bush.​

Does Wally Odell not have the right to a political opinion? He didn't say that he was going to rig the election, he said he was commited to winning the state! Fund raiser + Supporters = Votes = Electorial Votes. If he had said myself and my company were bla blah blah... Then you'd have something to gripe about.​

You proved my point, YOU COMPARED BUSH TO SADDAM! ​

PHP:

you said that because its a .org makes it not credible. [/left]
[left]I got a .com for ya buddy, nice job debating

I didn't say that all .org's weren't credible, and I definately didn't say that .com's were credible either. I said that .org isn't credible because it's an outlet for lefty propaghada. Your point isn't proven because you cited a .com, that does nothing for your agrument. Just a testament to your inexperience.

 

edit: fuck you hicky hunter, go back to your bush rally

 

The machines and the entire process are completely corrupt. There have been SO many examples of this.... here's a few dozen examples, just on one website: http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_vote_fraud.html

 

Don't let the neo-cons bash you into giving up your point. Educate yourself and show them the error of their argument.

 

hmm yeah i did give in too easily. thanks for the link man

 

HAHAHA!!

Please, Bacchus, make him demostrate his ignorance a little longer! I would really enjoy that.

I love this forum, I get to laugh at stupid hippies allllll day!

You should go back and read the entire topic, I covered websites that are not credible. This is one of those websites!

that is sad, right when I thought you had grown up a little you turn around and do that. You also need to re-read this post:

I have never been to a Bush rally and probably will never attend one. I've had my opportunity, Cheney gave a speech down the street from my house, Bush has given speeches here, and the First Lady was just South of me a week ago!

You two should really start a new form of the Ghestopo! You could go around suppressing beliefs that don't coincide with yours. You could go to Bush rallies and whip the GOP members until they agreed with your feebleminded beliefs. I believe I have found a calling for you two!!!

BTW: I'm not registered with the GOP, and I don't vote for them!

 

There is a real controversy over the security of these voting machines.

"Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts," said the researchers in a paper published on Wednesday on the Internet, concluding that "as a society, we must carefully consider the risks inherent in electronic voting, as it places our very democracy at risk."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/management/0,39020654,2138179,00.htm


Here is Slashdot qouting the New York Times:
"Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We highlight several issues including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. For example, common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal. "
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/24/153258.shtml?tid=103


Here is an exerpt from the CBS link posted here previously:

"Avi Rubin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent two weeks analyzing the software from the world's biggest voting-machine company, Diebold Election Systems, which has over 50 percent of the market.

'We found all kinds of problems in the code," he said. "A computer scientist can look at program and immediately tell you if it was written by professional programmers who know how to do software engineering or if it was just put together by a bunch of hacks. And, upon looking at the source code for Diebold, it was pretty clear that this was a real amateur job."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml



Here is another analysis and report of the electronic voting system:
"Our analysis shows that this voting system is far beloweven the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problemsincluding unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to networkthreats, and poor software development processes. We show that voters, without any insider privileges,can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software.Furthermore, we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discoveredand executed without access to the source code. In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate thatthe insider threat is also quite considerable, showing that not only can an insider, such as a poll worker,modify the votes, but that insiders can also violate voter privacy and match votes with the voters whocast them. We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election."
http://www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf


Now before Hippy Hunter wants to start up his attitude, I am not saying that there is some consipracy that the Bush administration is going to rig these machines. I am just trying to point out that there is still heavy debate over the security of these machines, and that we shouldn't use them if they aren't ready. We shouldn't use them if there is a smidge of a risk of insecurity.
Point is, we shouldn't be using something that is still so insecure.




Even CNN covered the issue...Today, I might add.
"Despite concerns over whether the so-called touchscreen machines can be trusted, the testing companies won't say publicly if they have encountered shoddy workmanship."


"Suppose you had a situation where ballots were handed to a private company that counted them behind a closed door and burned the results," said Dill, founder of VerifiedVoting.org. "Nobody but an idiot would accept a system like that. We've got something that is almost as bad with electronic voting."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/08/23/evoting.labs.ap/index.html

It is a good article too...

 

Now that was a response!!!

I agree with you that there may still be security problems, but I feel that the benefits out weight the drawbacks. Not only could they keep a paper trail, but they could hire independent inspectors before and after the election to see if machines had been tampered with. There will me no votes thrown out because it wasn't clear which candidate was selected. Blind people and the disabled can vote with no assistance, which would eliminate only the slightest amount of vote tampering; but it's still something. In the end I believe we will end up with a more credible and easier to account for election.

One of the articles I've read said that these machines will never be hooked up directly to the internet, nor do they have networking capabilities. Therefore: no hackers screwing with the machines from the next room.

 

The benefits definitely COULD outweigh the drawbacks...but I really think that there are still much too many drawbacks at this point to use these. We are rushing them out, i think we should wait....get them in practice in smaller, state-level elections and see how they do there before using them in such an important election.

Anyone know if their are any states that have been using these type of machines for voting?

 

Well, first, I'm no hippy.

Secondly, you said it wasn't credible!?! AND it disagrees with you opinion. Gee, what are the fucking odds!?!


If you'd take the time to look, you'd see that the page I linked was only a collection of news articles, from a TRUE VARIETY of some VERY CREDIBLE sources.

 

Bacchus: I'd read your source, except the link doesn't work.