You know… instead of looking backwards and arguing about Bush and the 2004 election, howabout looking forward and making sure that the election process itself is not something that could be manipulated.
Whether or not it was is probably unprovable, but the fact that it could have been, based on the ease of controlling the equipment and the criminal nature of some of those responsible for developing it, you should be concerned.
Wake up!
[quote]vroom wrote:
You know… instead of looking backwards and arguing about Bush and the 2004 election, howabout looking forward and making sure that the election process itself is not something that could be manipulated.
Whether or not it was is probably unprovable, but the fact that it could have been, based on the ease of controlling the equipment and the criminal nature of some of those responsible for developing it, you should be concerned.
Wake up![/quote]
Yep.
Election Worker Refuses to Lie for Voting Software Company
April 22, 2004
I-Team 8 has more information on a woman who disobeyed her company by telling the truth.
Wendy Orange works for Election Systems and Software, known as ES&S, which sold Marion County its voting system.
Marion County Clerk Doris Anne Sadler revealed Tuesday that the company installed illegal software before last November’s election.
The I-Team first met Wendy Orange last January, when we conducted a test on Marion County’s new optical-scan voting machines. Orange is the ES&S project manager for Marion County. She’s the one who blew the whistle on ES&S for installing illegal software, the same software used to tabulate November’s election results.
“The company with which the Marion County election board has contracted to provide its voting machines and software has willfully and purposely deceived me and the Marion County election board by installing uncertified election software and then ordering their employee to withhold that information from me,” said Sadler at a Tuesday press conference.
But Wendy Orange didn’t withhold that information. Her husband, Doug Orange, used to work for ES&S as Johnson County’s project manager. He was fired after refusing a superior’s order to zero the counters on voting machines at the courthouse instead of the polls. “I felt those procedures were illegal,” said Orange.
Johnson County Clerk Jill Jackson believes Doug Orange did the right thing. “There’s a lot of integrity there, that he put his job on the line because he was not willing to do something that he felt was illegal,” said Jackson.
Doris Anne Sadler believes Wendy Orange did the right thing too. "The software in question is called data acquisition manager and is used to compile the votes," said Sadler.
The illegal software could still be seen in the computer when the I-Team tested the system in January. Wendy Orange showed us how she takes the individual results from each card and accumulate them into one place to give overall totals for each race.
“We run that test several times prior to the election so that we’re assured everything would accumulate correctly,” said Orange.
“We believed that all of that software was certified,” said Sadler.
The illegal software was surreptitiously replaced March 30. Wendy Orange discovered the truth on Friday and informed Sadler immediately.
Will Your Vote Count? - Read I-Team 8’s investigation into problems with ES&S.
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1806520
US Cert Cyber Security Bulletin SB04-252
Diebold
GEMS Central Tabulator 1.17.7, 1.18
A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could a local or remote authenticated malicious user modify votes.
No workaround or patch available at time of publishing.
Risk: Medium - A medium-risk vulnerability is defined as one that will allow an intruder immediate access to a system with less than privileged access. Such vulnerability will allow the intruder the opportunity to continue the attempt to gain privileged access. An example of medium-risk vulnerability is a server configuration error that allows an intruder to capture the password file.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You know… instead of looking backwards and arguing about Bush and the 2004 election, howabout looking forward and making sure that the election process itself is not something that could be manipulated.
Whether or not it was is probably unprovable, but the fact that it could have been, based on the ease of controlling the equipment and the criminal nature of some of those responsible for developing it, you should be concerned.
Wake up![/quote]
Precisely the point. The problem is the “liberal” MSM refuses to utter a peep about any voting problems other than to call them nothing more than conspiracy theories.
Nope - nothing suspicious happened during the 2004 election that couldn’t be filed under “sour grapes”…
Warren’s vote tally walled off
November 5, 2004
By Erica Solvig
Enquirer staff writer
LEBANON - Citing concerns about potential terrorism, Warren County officials locked down the county administration building on election night and blocked anyone from observing the vote count as the nation awaited Ohio’s returns.
County officials say they took the action Tuesday night for homeland security, although state elections officials said they didn’t know of any other Ohio county that closed off its elections board. Media organizations protested, saying it violated the law and the public’s rights.
The Warren results, delayed for hours because of long lines that extended voting past the scheduled close of polls, were part of the last tallies that helped clinch President Bush’s re-election.
You do realize you’ve sunk to citing the Enquirer for these paranoid fantasies, don’t you? [Thought I should clarify the sarcastic humor - it’s the Cincinatti Enquirer - still paranoid fantasies though…].
BTW, if there’s so much new evidence, why are most of these links to 2004 stories…
Half the stuff I linked to was at least 2005.
I do appreciate your problem though - hard to find new sources when all the non-conspiracy nuts have moved on.
[quote]msuchancey wrote:
I think the only proof there is about a conspiracy is that the Democratic Party has conspired to fuck itself for the last 8 years by running Al Gore and John Kerry…
Why don’t they try to give the American public a reason not to vote for Bush instead of whining and bitching at losing a close race?[/quote]
Exactly. Give us a real option!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s amazing how all the dots seem to magically connect in conspiracy cloud koo-koo land…[/quote]
YOUR dots also connect seem to connect. What’s to say that you’re not the conspiracy monger here?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And yet somehow, some way, all these relatively mainstream newspapers, magazines, and TV stations like the NYT, Time, CBS, CNN, etc., that are slobbering over themselves on the NSA issue and speculating about a possible impeachment of the President just simply can’t find the time to cover this amazing story? I’m shocked that such a wonderful story with no logical holes whatsoever would be so ignored. Something just doesn’t add up… Hmm…[/quote]
So the fact that this issue hasn’t recieved a good amount of coverage in the MSM is reason enough for you to circumvent all of the evidence cited by JTF and dismiss it? That, to me, doesn’t add up. Also, how do you know that the MSM has been slobbering over the NSA issue, as opposed to say, drooling? I’d like to see what scientific criteria you used to obtain that conclusion (seeing as it is crucial to your dismissal of JTF’s argument) .
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hope I have helped!!!
[/quote]
You know, I don’t believe you did. I’m pretty sure you just avoided the issue entirely and created a strawman instead.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You do realize you’ve sunk to citing the Enquirer for these paranoid fantasies, don’t you? [Thought I should clarify the sarcastic humor - it’s the Cincinatti Enquirer - still paranoid fantasies though…].[/quote]
So it’s not really the Enquirer Enquirer, but you still award yourself points for making the connection? And what’s wrong with the real Enquirer, anyways? Isn’t the MSM supposed to be “slobbering over themselves on the NSA issue and speculating about a possible impeachment of the President”? If so, wouldn’t that make the Enquirer more reputable than the MSM “rags”? Or perhaps you would allege that the Enquirer is in on the slobber-fest.
Maybe you were just hoping to create a verbal lose-lose situation for JTF. Sounds plausible enough to me. Must be a conspiracy theory.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…
So the fact that this issue hasn’t recieved a good amount of coverage in the MSM is reason enough for you to circumvent all of the evidence cited by JTF and dismiss it? …[/quote]
JTF has countless posts and they are ALL bullshit.
Perhaps he finally got this one right but I doubt it.
what is really sad, is that all the lefties and dems do not realize all this shit is setting themselves up in 2008. more than likely, a dem will “win” the presidential race, prob. hillary, and because of the precedent set here the right will never acknowledge the dems victory, and drag the election results into the depths of endless conspiracy theories for years and years.
just wait.
JFK won his election by getting untold numbers of dead people to the polls.
It is common knowledge in Texas that LBJ would simply call up ‘his guys’ in South Texas and let them know how many dead people needed to make it to the polls for him to win.
Where is the outcry over those crooked victories? Is there difference between 4 years and 40 when it comes to election injustice?
Or is it because the left lost, and rather than face the truth about losing, you have to blame something besides yourselves?
The left was crying about butterfly ballots in 2000, so the problem was addressed and the solution seemed to be electroninc voting booths. Now they are little more than opportunities for the right-wing conspiracy to exact their will on the newly-duped public.
Maybe we should adopt Chicago’s election process. They never have problems with their elections.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
what is really sad, is that all the lefties and dems do not realize all this shit is setting themselves up in 2008. more than likely, a dem will “win” the presidential race, prob. hillary, and because of the precedent set here the right will never acknowledge the dems victory, and drag the election results into the depths of endless conspiracy theories for years and years.
just wait. [/quote]
Exactly. With the countless media outlets it will only get worse.
I am amazed so many people fall for it.
Okay guys, I don’t know about anyone else, but I think it is important for the populace to have some measure of confidence in the electoral system.
If, in the past, people could just scare up dead voters and so on, then it needs to be fixed, doesn’t it?
How the hell can you have democracy and not even bother the try to capture the will of the people when votes are held?
I think we do our best.
Election fraud will occur and it should be investigated and prevented as best as possible.
I believe this is being done.
This is just political attack.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s amazing how all the dots seem to magically connect in conspiracy cloud koo-koo land…
Nominal Prospect wrote:
YOUR dots also connect seem to connect. What’s to say that you’re not the conspiracy monger here? [/quote]
Really? What are some of my ridiculously broad assumptions concerning unidentified forces of darkness working together across jurisdictional boundaries to effectuate a broad, coordinated effort?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And yet somehow, some way, all these relatively mainstream newspapers, magazines, and TV stations like the NYT, Time, CBS, CNN, etc., that are slobbering over themselves on the NSA issue and speculating about a possible impeachment of the President just simply can’t find the time to cover this amazing story? I’m shocked that such a wonderful story with no logical holes whatsoever would be so ignored. Something just doesn’t add up… Hmm…
Nominal Prospect wrote:
So the fact that this issue hasn’t recieved a good amount of coverage in the MSM is reason enough for you to circumvent all of the evidence cited by JTF and dismiss it? That, to me, doesn’t add up. Also, how do you know that the MSM has been slobbering over the NSA issue, as opposed to say, drooling? I’d like to see what scientific criteria you used to obtain that conclusion (seeing as it is crucial to your dismissal of JTF’s argument) .[/quote]
Ah, I see you skipped over all the articles and links I posted above actually addressing the ridiculous conspiracy stuff, and focused on the common-sense thoughts.
Fair enough – why not offer some equally common-sensical reasoning as to why the MSM would want to skip over such a story if it were in fact newsworthy?
Really, why would news organizations dismiss something that, were it true, would be the biggest news story of the year – of the decade even? And one that would benefit the candidate endorsed by the editorial boards of many big-time MSM newspapers and magazines? And “they must be part of the conspiracy” doesn’t count, nor does “they are controlled by corporations,” which doesn’t even rise to the level of a conspiracy theory, as you wouldn’t even have the semblance of a theory until you had some sort of reason for competing corporations to collude to deny themselves a huge, moneymaking story.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
You do realize you’ve sunk to citing the Enquirer for these paranoid fantasies, don’t you? [Thought I should clarify the sarcastic humor - it’s the Cincinatti Enquirer - still paranoid fantasies though…].
Nominal Prospect wrote:
So it’s not really the Enquirer Enquirer, but you still award yourself points for making the connection? And what’s wrong with the real Enquirer, anyways? Isn’t the MSM supposed to be “slobbering over themselves on the NSA issue and speculating about a possible impeachment of the President”? If so, wouldn’t that make the Enquirer more reputable than the MSM “rags”? Or perhaps you would allege that the Enquirer is in on the slobber-fest.
Maybe you were just hoping to create a verbal lose-lose situation for JTF. Sounds plausible enough to me. Must be a conspiracy theory.[/quote]
Ah, I see my problem here. I was attempting to use humor, and, silly me, I forgot that one needs to have at least a small grip on reality in order to be able to see how absurd contrasts and wordplays are amusing – it’s usually a juxtaposition with reality, an exaggeration of reality, etc. on which humor is hinged.
I suggest finding at least a small foothold in reality, learning to distinguish between jokes and arguments, and then taking a little course in logic – perhaps then your prospects would rise above the nominal stage…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay guys, I don’t know about anyone else, but I think it is important for the populace to have some measure of confidence in the electoral system.
If, in the past, people could just scare up dead voters and so on, then it needs to be fixed, doesn’t it?
How the hell can you have democracy and not even bother the try to capture the will of the people when votes are held?[/quote]
Of course our democratic republic tries to capture the will of the people – whatever gave you the idea it did not?
The FEC is constantly investigating claims of fraud and/or intimidation of voters – the system takes them quite seriously. We should always shoot for perfection in this regard, though it’s probably not realistic to expect it - at least not without a de facto police state declared nationwide around elections, with armed officials guarding each and every polling place, and watching all the voters and poll workers. [And even then you wouldn’t eliminate all the claims – people would probably claim all the police presence at the polls amounted to voter intimidation].
We do pretty well, all things considered - of course, in a close election like 2000 or 1964, even little mistakes and claims over small numbers of votes can take on a large importance - which is probably one of the reasons for all these wacky conspiracy theories surrounding 2004 (people were still focused on 2000 and were looking for a similarly close election in 04).
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay guys, I don’t know about anyone else, but I think it is important for the populace to have some measure of confidence in the electoral system.
If, in the past, people could just scare up dead voters and so on, then it needs to be fixed, doesn’t it?
How the hell can you have democracy and not even bother the try to capture the will of the people when votes are held?[/quote]
My point was that it happens. There are how many tens of millions of voters in the U.S.? Let’s just say that there are 100 million voters.
100% accuracy would be really nice, but it’s not going to happen. EVER. The closer the election, the more magnified the voting problems are going to seem. But even if there are 100,000 screwed up ballots - that’s still a 99.9% accuracy. I don’t really think you can hope for much better than what we have now. The beast is just too big to be perfect.
Y’know, I’m neither democrat nor republican, but my .02 is that when neither side has a candidate that’s smart enough to win a REAL percentage of the vote, the rest is nitpicking.
The Repubs ran the idiot puppet incumbent. and the Dems ran a book smart but not street smart waffler.
Is it no longer possible for the USA to produce a real statesman? If not, we need serious educational reform. It seems our only options are not REAL options at all.
When this is the case, I expect all this bickering and conspiracies to occur. Let it go. Bush is on his way out. You don’t like it? Find someone worthwhile, or find a way to get us the hell out of this 2-party system that is STRANGLING this country.
[quote]aikigreg wrote:
Y’know, I’m neither democrat nor republican, but my .02 is that when neither side has a candidate that’s smart enough to win a REAL percentage of the vote, the rest is nitpicking.
The Repubs ran the idiot puppet incumbent. and the Dems ran a book smart but not street smart waffler.
Is it no longer possible for the USA to produce a real statesman? If not, we need serious educational reform. It seems our only options are not REAL options at all.
When this is the case, I expect all this bickering and conspiracies to occur. Let it go. Bush is on his way out. You don’t like it? Find someone worthwhile, or find a way to get us the hell out of this 2-party system that is STRANGLING this country.[/quote]
The two-party system insures that both the major political parties will stay close to what the average voter wants – sort of an insurance of some level of populism, and general insurance against actual extremism.
It also insures that most people will be unhappy with their choices unless they are actually middling centrists. Oh well.
It also insures that a viable candidate not of either party never gets a fair shot.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It also insures that most people will be unhappy with their choices unless they are actually middling centrists. Oh well.
[/quote]
C’mon you liberals and GET OVER IT ALREADY!
The problem is not the “big bad conspiracy” to steal elections by the Republicans, the problem is that the Democrats and the Liberals HAVE NO IDEAS OF HOW TO SOLVE ANYTHING!
You had control of everything for around 40 years or so and basically messed it all up. Big government, judges who legislate from the bench because you cannot advance your agenda through the normal process, etc. Now you cry about elections…
Wah, wah, wah…
Get over it!