Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If dems win both house and senate in November, will we still blame BBV

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:35 PM
Original message
If dems win both house and senate in November, will we still blame BBV
Especially if we win by a small margin, can we still
claim the repugs can manipulate the votes via electronic
voting? And you betcha there will be zillions of electronic
machines counting votes this November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. still get rid of them! - ANY party with the right connections can cheat
so maybe it will go against us or maybe not. but why keep a corrup system for any reason?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. We will have election poll workers out there n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, we still can.
Because the Republican base decides NOT to enable BushCo does not diminish the possibility or the likelihood. These machines were designed to deceive and conceal. They are the antipathy of the necessary process for a free society. For a society that is no longer free, however, they'll do fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. "antipathy"="antithesis?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. YES! Thank you!
I knew it was wrong, but couldn't figure out how. Very sad when the brain just goes. Very very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. If we win BOTH House and Senate....
...We'll do away with "privatized" elections. They will be controlled by the U.S. Government, not private corporations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. rigged voting boxes are just one part of stealing elections
and you can't steal elections that aren't close. if the other parts of the elections don't fall in place for the disgraced republicans, they can't steal the elections. so in all likelihood, at this point, they have to concede the house. but that doesn't mean they have to concede every seat. they can and will steal whatever they can get away with.

fortunately, the current polling is such that they can't get away with stealing everything.

yet, think about it. the disgraced republicans have screwed up EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING!

and we're STILL predicting that they'll win 48% of the house and 49-51% of the senate. if the democrats had their record of incompetence and worse, the disgraced republicans would be looking at veto-proof majorities in both houses. the fact that we can barely, maybe, muster a simple majority against this still suggests that something is amiss....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. Right..the neoCONS have already
been at work suppressing votes. There was an article on it around here some place. It's really nice that someone doesn't believe the repukes are capable of hacking voting machines to make it come out like the bushits have won but it has already been proven that it can happen.

If the Dems win it will be because it's by a wide margin or even a small margin if there's a paper trail.

There has to be paper trails to verify.

Maybe like Mark Crispin Miller says in my words..We have to make enough noise about it because they aren't going to let us win without cheating to the last drop of blood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. you can blame and claim ...
all you want...I'd prefer to see some legislation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. if they win it will be despite the bbv. it still needs to be cleaned up.
how many elections do they need to steal before some people believe it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes!
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:53 PM by FredStembottom
All that is needed to invalidate a voting system is for it to contain inherently doubt-producing features. Like the doubt-producing features inherent to computers. Ones we all have known about for decades.

1) Computers can be hacked.

2)They are chock-full of secretive and exquisitely complex mumbo-jumbo (programming) that does...well...who knows what?

This makes voting using computers an inherently doubt plagued activity. That disqualifies the idea right there!

We now live in an era in which real-life voting machines (computers) are here. And they have been shown to be EASILY hackable and their manufacturers have made the mumbo-jumbo inside (that does ?????????) TOTALLY secretive.

This makes these machines doubly or triply doubtful and thoroughly unsuitable for use.

What causes the least doubt for voters?

Paper ballots counted by little old ladies from your own neighborhood; out in the open where you can even watch!

No mumbo. No jumbo. Visible. Confidence inspiring. Suitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keopeli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. Electoral Vote manipulation is like a virus
The problem is not that the whole system is corrupt. The problem is that the system is corruptible. Actually manipulating the information requires a high degree of planning and serious risk.

I do not believe all the holes in the election technology are under the control of a single individual or entity. It is more likely to be in the control of an elite group, but not a small one. Election manipulation can wax and wane, depending on the motives of the culprits who commit this crime.


Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. Reasons I don't believe BBV is fraudulent...
Claims of BBV fraud go back to the 2000 election and beyond.
Since then we have had 2002 and 2004 elections. That is a LOT
of elections. To successfully change election results you need
cooperation of county supervisors, technicians, programmers,
machine manufacturing executives and poll watchers.

I am having a hard time believing that with all these people
involved in a giant conspiracy over several major elections,
NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS COME FORWARD and spilled the beans.
Can you imagine how many books will sell by an author who comes
forward on how the voting was rigged? Therefore I will not be
wearing the tin foil hat.

However, legislation needs to be passed which guarantees checks,
and audits available to any person demanding the veracity of
vote counting machines.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. This is a problem with a lot of conspiracy theories.
The more complicated they become, the more people have to be involved. If it's just one person with a secret, there's a good chance it will stay secret. But if there are 10, 20, or 100 people, the chances increase that that secret's getting out somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdaBriggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
14. Won't happen. Nothing personal, but "they" can't afford to LET it happen.
There will be ANOTHER miraculous turnout of Republican value voters, and then the pundits will spin like crazy about how much the country must really love the way Junior is handling something.

If TWO AND A HALF MILLION VOTES aren't counted in 2004, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTE FLIPS FROM KERRY TO JUNIOR IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS aren't reported in any of the mainstream media, and hundreds of "glitches" that WERE CAUGHT aren't considered that big of a deal, what on earth makes you think that ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION is going to make that big of a deal?

But, a lot of people are working really hard, and both sides are pouring their money into trying to make a difference, and people who believe in democracy are doing everything they can to save our country. I wish them all the best, but the reality is, the stolen elections aren't PERSONAL -- its just BUSINESS.

Call me cynical, but don't call me stupid. Anybody in power being held accountable for the treason against our constitution? Now, that is a JOKE! :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I agree if repubs win congress in 2006, but if we win, it throws all the
Electronic vote rigging conspiracy theories out of the window.
So we shall soon see. I am confident that dems will capture
both house and senate in November and then my hope is that we
will take credit for winning on issues. By the same token, our
previous losses in 2002 & 2004 were our own fault. The BBV was
a red herring all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Do you think Democrats will win the Senate races in..
..Missouri AND Ohio AND Tennessee?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. This Foley business is just RUINING their Plausible Electability!!
I imagine the Diebold republicans huddling in back rooms with their computers and their electronic "patches", whispering, "Dammit! This Foley thing is making the polls not even CLOSE! How in the HELL are we gonna explain our landslide wins, or even our squeak-by wins, THIS time??"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
16. former Diebold consultant testifies on hacking
from "Will the Next Election be Hacked" by RFK, Jr. as seen in Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11717105/rob...

excerpt:

Chris Hood remembers the day in July 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia - almost double the national average - and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.

Hood had been present in May 2002, when officials with Cox's office signed a contract with Diebold - paying the company a record $54 million to install 19,000 electronic voting machines across the state. At a restaurant inside Atlanta's Marriott Hotel, he noticed the firm's CEO, Walden O'Dell, checking Diebold's stock price on a laptop computer every five minutes, waiting for a bounce from the announcement.

Hood wondered why Diebold, the world's third-largest seller of ATMs, had been awarded the contract. The company had barely completed its acquisition of Global Election Systems, a voting-machine firm that owned the technology Diebold was promising to sell Georgia. And its bid was the highest among nine competing vendors. Whispers within the company hinted that a fix was in.

"The Diebold executives had a news conference planned on the day of the award," Hood recalls, "and we were instructed to stay in our hotel rooms until just hours before the announcement. They didn't want the competitors to know and possibly file a protest" about the lack of a fair bidding process. It certainly didn't hurt that Diebold had political clout: Cox's predecessor as secretary of state, Lewis Massey, was now a lobbyist for the company.

The problem was, Diebold had only five months to install the new machines - a "very narrow window of time to do such a big deployment," Hood notes. The old systems stored in warehouses had to be replaced with new equipment; dozens of state officials and poll workers had to be trained in how to use the touch-screen machines. "It was pretty much an impossible task," Hood recalls. There was only one way, he adds, that the job could be done in time - if "the vendor had control over the entire environment." That is precisely what happened. In late July, to speed deployment of the new machines, Cox quietly signed an agreement with Diebold that effectively privatized Georgia's entire electoral system. The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision. "We ran the election," says Hood. "We had 356 people that Diebold brought into the state. Diebold opened and closed the polls and tabulated the votes. Diebold convinced Cox that it would be best if the company ran everything due to the time constraints, and in the interest of a trouble-free election, she let us do it."

Then, one day in July, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."

Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."

According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds. To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. "We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11," Hood says. "There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The state gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way." Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.

The patch comes on a memory card that is inserted into a machine. Eventually, all the memory cards end up on a server that tabulates the votes - where the patch can be programmed to alter the outcome of an election. "There could be a hidden program on a memory card that adjusts everything to the preferred election results," Hood says. "Your program says, 'I want my candidate to stay ahead by three or four percent or whatever.' Those programs can include a built-in delete that erases itself after it's done."

It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible. But the tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.

Diebold insists that the patch was installed "with the approval and oversight of the state." But after the election, the Georgia secretary of state's office submitted a "punch list" to Bob Urosevich of "issues and concerns related to the statewide voting system that we would like Diebold to address." One of the items referenced was" Application/Implication of '0808' Patch." The state was seeking confirmation that the patch did not require that the system "be recertified at national and state level" as well as "verifiable analysis of overall impact of patch to the voting system." In a separate letter, Secretary Cox asked Urosevich about Diebold's use of substitute memory cards and defective equipment as well as widespread problems that caused machines to freeze up and improperly record votes. The state threatened to delay further payments to Diebold until "these punch list items will be corrected and completed."

Diebold's response has not been made public - but its machines remain in place for Georgia's election this fall. Hood says it was "common knowledge" within the company that Diebold also illegally installed uncertified software in machines used in the 2004 presidential primaries - a charge the company denies. Disturbed to see the promise of electronic machines subverted by private companies, Hood left the election consulting business and became a whistle-blower. "What I saw," he says, "was basically a corporate takeover of our voting system."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. My response is....
<<It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible.>>

Does that sound like definite proof of anything? Any judge/jury will laugh if you
take Diebold to court based on the testimony you have posted.

Since I have extensive experience in developing software for complex manufacturing
systems, I can tell you that vote counting software is not at all difficult. I see
no reason why Diebold or anybody should claim that it is proprietory property.
It is not the software that has value, since any programmer can create it. It is
the hardware of the vote counting machine that has value.

Therefore laws must be passed which make the software and its testing totally
available to any citizen. And there must be a paper record of each machine's
results before the data is transmitted to a central computer.

I still am having hard time believing that the machines were rigged in 3 major
elections nationwide and not a single programmer/techie from Diebold has come
forward with a copy of the rigged software patch. My guess is hundreds if
not thousands were involved in developing software for the thousands of counties
nationwide. Surely one of these people is not a die-hard repub and has not
succumbed to the big bucks waiting for him/her to write a book or make a movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. please watch this Princeton Diebold study video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. Yes...
... just because they can rig a state or two with BBV it will not be easy to rig 50.

Election fraud has happened, but it won't happen when there is a 10 point spread (too risky) and it can't happen everywhere, BBs aren't everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC