Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Guess what??? Diebold machines to tally Mass. race

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:34 AM
Original message
Guess what??? Diebold machines to tally Mass. race
Next Tuesday's Special Election for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts looks to be coming down to the wire. Surprising pundits in what had previously been thought to be a cakewalk for State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate hoping to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Republican state Senator Scott Brown has come on strong in the final days of the campaign.

But as the election looms, tempers flare, money is poured into the contest from all sides, and Democrats sweat out what should have been a safe seat for them - a Democrat named Kennedy has held that particular seat for more than the last 50 years - questions about whether the election results can be trusted have already emerged in a race where the stakes couldn't be higher.

As the 60th "filibuster-proof" Democratic U.S. Senate seat hangs in the balance - and the party's healthcare reform bill and other key legislative hopes along with it - fears are mounting that the final vote tallies could be as questionable as they were in the recent NY-23 Special Election for the U.S. House. Perhaps even more so.



http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/st-lawrence-news/54-worl...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. There's an ES&S touchscreen sitting plugged-in and unsupervised at Caffree Towers in Brockton. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. she better be prepared to fight. And have lawyers cued up already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why do you think the poles are "All over the Place"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. Are you saying the state's dominant political organization will rig the election
or that they are unable to stop some unknown group from rigging it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Many of the swing areas are more Red than Blue.
Plymouth and Bristol Counties, and the Cape, for example. So if Republican officials are in charge of the tallies, Coakley will probably lose. They are already trying to jam phones at Coakley phonebanks and harassing attendees at her events. A lot of these 'Brown-shirts' are being bussed in from out of state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. So state election officials and law inforcement are powerless?
why do you think they can get away with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Unknown group?
Nah, very well known, just hidden.

They are called republicans and they own the computer code that operates the op-scan vote counting computers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. And Massachusetts election officials and law enforcement
is powerless to detect and stop it? Is that what you believe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Massachusetts may
California is trying. Ohio too. But it has been slow progress.

Judges have ruled that we can't look at the code, even a backwards look to see why the computers made mistakes.

Seems the code is privately owned, and not subject to wiretaps. <grin>

Believe me, we know a smoking gun will one day appear that convicts the damned private code once and for all. It may just happen this election. It very well could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. So you have nothing but suspicions? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Heh
No. Like I said, California has examined the machines and found big problems. Ohio too. In Florida the machines lost 100's of votes, and the experts wanted to examine the code to find out why and were denied a look see.

Computer experts were the first who were suspicious and so they examined the stuff and said drop using the machines.

I thought everyone knew all this. Its been on DU for years and years.
I guess only people who care have looked for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. So California and Ohio have definitively said there was widespread
organized voter manipulation? Or did they merely say that there problems with the software that makes it susceptible to abuse?


The "Bush stole the election " movement is big on taking a kernel of truth and spinning into a massive conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Kernel of truth
No, more than a kernel, more like a cornfield full of facts.

I know for some, the idea that Bushco is the biggest crooks ever is hard to accept. And further the idea that "they would steal votes" is hard to swallow.

But the facts are the facts. The facts have been on DU for years and on thousands of posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. So what did California and Ohio officially say? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Are you really ignorant?
Or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

Google is your friend if you are just ignorant.
Being obtuse? No friends anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Just like I thought - the states made no official claim of fraud. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Thought?
You are just ignorant, no thought.

If google is too hard for you, got to the DU Election Reform Forum and search for Debra Bowen.

Who is she? SoS of California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. I did it for you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Is a DU page wherein the Ca SoS Bowen officially makes a statement about how the machines make mistakes.

Any questions? Sorry I was so mean to you earlier. But my frustration level with the ignorance of this matter is still high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Where is the statement that there was deliberate election fraud
she simply says that the the system doesn't meet California standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. You asked:
""So California and Ohio have definitively said there was widespread

organized voter manipulation?""

And I showed you that the machines are known to manipulate votes.
And being that Diebold organization is widespread, I think you now have your answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. No - just some voter fraud CT nonsense
She said the machines fucked up. There is no evidence of deliberate manipulation by any group or individual
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Not yet
That's the smoking gun we are looking for, and will, one day, find.

As for evidence of manipulative intent, if a judge would let our experts examine the computer code, we feel that we would find a smoking gun. But since no judge has yet allowed any independent examination of any said code, the evidence is hidden from us, and you.

You helped pay for the machines and the coding, but you'll never get a look at the code unless a judge allows it. The most recent case in Sarasota, Fla., our experts spent thousands of dollars in court trying to get a look at the code to find out why it messed up. They were not allowed.

Look, if the code were exposed, then all the past elections would be called into question and democracy, to its core, would suffer a 7.0 quake. So there is aligned against justice being done, a great many, very powerful people who just wish we peons would go away and let them continue on.

Too bad you don't give a flying f'k, we need everybody to stand up for their votes.

The vote you save may be your own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. P.S
In fact, the very idea that so many people are questioning the computers, and looking for discrepancies has forced the manufacturers to be very careful with any manipulations of the vote.

We figure that only the closest races can be stolen because of the other measures of the vote.

And denial of there ever being votes stolen is moronic. It has happened many times in years past. But now, with computer vote tabulations, millions of votes can easily be stolen through just the coding in the counters.

Vote stealing these days really is "New and Improved."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Just like the 911 Truthers and the Birthers?
Those smoking guns seem so elusive don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Who loves ya?
The vote stealing bastards, that's who.

They love that you don't give a shit.

Hey, I've heard the same crap from others for going on 6 years now. Every name in the book. You are just another in a long line of naysayers that vote stealers love.

Ever hear of a DRE - Direct Recording Electronic? They are now pretty much outlawed. But close to 50% of the vote in 2004 was counted using those computers. Ask yourself: Why did they outlaw those computers?
Answer: because they were messed up.

How did they outlaw those? Because people who were called every name in the book made them outlaw the damn things.

This is no CT. The computer experts are against using the machines with private code. States are double-checking the counts like they never did before, and are de-certifying and outlawing many machines.

But you just go on looking for love in all the wrong places.

We will save your vote without your help. Because the vote we save will be our own, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. They haven't been stopped yet, have they? or do you believe Obama really only won by 2 points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Not in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the vote was
Obama 1,904,097

McCain 1,108,854
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Yes I do believe that
Obama is a polarizing politician who triggers strong opposition in many parts of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Polarizing?
Why would you say that? He's more bi-partisan than Bush.

What is this strong trigger you speak of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I take it you don't live in a red state?
have hung around some conservatives? Don't you think the Birther movement and the rise in threats reported to the Secret Service indicate that many are not comfortable with him?

Ask the Republican leadership if he is bi-partisan. I suspect you wouldn't like the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Oh
Because he is a democrat, he's polarizing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. No
because he is black and liberal and "different". Are you always this obtuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Different?
Do you have a suspicion that most of Obama's opposition is race related?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Down south it is
you have been following the reports about the growth in RW extremist groups? Don't you believe that the Birthers and tea baggers are racially motivated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Growth?
Nah, they are dying. Just a loud death gasp is all we hear.

I am wondering why you think Obama is polarizing. Do you think every politician is polarizing? You think the color of Obama's skin is polarizing? Or is it his style of politics?

Has he polarized you, personally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. The red voters do not make up 48% of the US population, not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Never said they did. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. You said that "red states" are the reason Obama only won by 2 percentage points.
That means they represent 48% of the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. "60th "filibuster-proof" Democratic U.S. Senate seat"
In your dreams. It seems that the number of seats the dems hold in the Senate doesn't mean a thing.

I think they could have 90 fucking seats and still not get anything done. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. There are two huge problems. The 7 Republican networks and our own Congresspeople.
The theft of votes since 2000 could not have been pulled off if the seven networks hadn't done their part. They aided in the propaganda before the election and in reporting the results.

Particularly in 2000 and 2004. They pounded us with propaganda that Florida, then Ohio were going to be the pivot states. They set us up psychologically.

They never covered the news about road blocks, misinformation sufficiently. They never investigated anything - they never gave voice to people who learned things on their own or the computer experts who analyzed and released the findings showing that some of the stuff was impossible.

In 2000 they were involved in their own recount and when they couldn't hide the results, they obfuscated them and gave it no attention.

They were calling the votes. At NBC we had the stories of Jack Welsh's involvement.

In 2004 we had all the hype again about Ohio being the pivot point - it was getting psyched for a theft all over again.

They let the thefts happen. And they have never done any follow-up or raised doubts in anyones head about the results.

Our other problem is our Congresspeople - they were even worse. Yes, Conyers led some hearings, BUT THEY NEVER DIE A THING ABOUT THE MACHINES - EVER!!!!!!!

When Diebold and ES & S were exposed - neither the networks or Congress did anything on their own.

IT IS STILL OK WITH CONGRESS THAT THEIR ARE THEFT MACHINES.

So where to Dems stand today? Do Dems still approve of theft by ignoring it?

What's on the books to make this country legal in their vote efforts?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. K&R. //nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
12. In 2004, in Boston, I voted for Kerry by paper ballot and have voted that way since.
Lately, you have a machine fill out your paper ballot, but you get the ballot back and can check it before you hand it in. Or, you can still mark it in pencil, if you wish.

A machine counts the votes, but the paper trail is there.

Boston has had a Democratic Mayor for decades, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Exactly--I think the tabulator in my little backwater town is a Diebold machine
but we feed paper ballots into it. There's never, ever been a problem with vote counting. That's not to say there isn't one now, but the fact is that we shouldn't tear our hair out over something that probably isn't going to end up being the reason if Coakley loses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. How do you know?
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:29 PM by Stevepol
"There's never, ever been a problem with vote counting."

So how do you know there's never been a problem? How would you know?

Is an audit of the paper done routinely in your town after each vote? This is the only way it's possible to know if the vote was hacked or rigged. Even then, there could be problems having to do with the oversight of the paper ballots. Who's in charge of keeping them, storing them, trensferring them?

In the HBO special of a few years ago "Hacking America," Hari Hursti hacked the machine (the same opscan being used at most sites in MA) easily by using a "memory card" that supposedly (according to testimony by the so-called computer experts at Diebold) cannot be used to alter the results. Like almost everything else the electronic voting vendors say, this was and is a lie.

But it is true that if the paper is kept and not tampered with, it can be used to verify the vote.

In my mind, however, unless the vote can be verified, it's not possible to even have a democracy. Unless the vote is audited to verify the results, you don't have a democracy.

Maybe I'm wrong but it's hard for me to see how.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
15. ahh, I was waiting for this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
39. Not in my town
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 Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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