|
...report on electronic voting, or chuckherrin.com?
It's as easy as pie to hack these machines (one hacker, a couple of minutes). Further, the votes are all sent to centralized electronic vote tabulators run by SECRET proprietary source code, controlled by companies with CEO's committed to Bush Inc. Chuck Herrin debunks the myth that hacking an election, given these conditions, requires a vast conspiracy. It does not.
These companies insisted on secret source code and paperless voting. Why would they insist so (and get Tom DeLay to prevent a paper trail provision from getting out of committee)? Their ATMs have a paper receipt. Why not voting machines?
Also, have you read the studies, for instance, by ignatzmouse, on the NC election, absentee ballot (30% of the vote) vs. electronic voting? A 6% margin for Bush in absentee ballots. A 12% margin for Bush in the electronic voting. The UC Berkeley study also confirms that electronic voting greatly favors Bush, at near impossible odds.
The UC Berkeley study further establishes that they manufactured votes for Bush, or stole votes from Kerry, in FLA's three biggest Democratic counties. If Dem counties, why not Dem states? (--rather good places to hide the theft of a few %'s here and there--who would look closely at it, with all the difficulties of auditing electronic voting, if Kerry won by a comfortable margin?)
Also, how better to hide it than spreading it around--a bit here, a bit there--rather than big noticeable chunks? (--although they seem to have messed up in FLA; Berkeley estimated they took 130,000 to 260,000 votes in those 3 Dem counties).
The fraud didn't have to occur in all 51 states. I would think 10 to 20 states would be sufficient. With a "back door" pre-written into these highly insecure electronic machines--a line or two of code--someone could easily get in, even remotely. (Johns Hopkins mentions election workers, or the building's janitor, when discussing how quick and easy the fraud could be.)
If you think imaginatively, like a Fraudster designing the 2004 election to favor Bush, you realize that they needed at least two things: 1) the Electoral Vote (to win); and 2) the popular vote, to avoid the taint of '00.
These are two different calculations, needing different fraud strategies. Some of their stolen Electoral Votes would likely be found in "red" states that were threatening to turn "blue" at the time of the election (New Mexico, for instance)--just a small tweak needed. And the multiple kinds of election crime that occurred in OH and FLA served several purposes, one of them being Electoral Votes.
They also needed to make it look like it all came down to a relatively few provisional ballots in one state (OH or FLA). This was taken care of by the severe vote suppression activities of Ohio's Republican Sec'y of State, and Jeb & Co. in FLA.
A fourth requirement was public perception--taken care of by the TV networks, by feeding the official electronic tally results into the Exit Poll data, late in the day, hiding Kerry's big numbers in the Exit Polls, and making it appear that Bush had taken a late lead in the Exit Polls, when all that was really reflected was the Republican-controlled electronic vote tally.
I don't know who exactly is responsible for the latter (AP and the networks? --probably not the Exit Poll company). But it was one of the greater acts of malfeasance I've seen in US journalism. (In the Ukraine, people got to see both numbers--the Exit Polls and the official tally--separately, as they should be seen.) All this would have taken was a phone call from the White House.
It's a fairly simple plan, altogether--useful as a working hypothesis of what they had to do. TruthIsAll's current stats seem to indicate we should be looking mostly at the east coast. I've been helping a bit with the California project. I don't know if there is such a project in New York. There certainly should be!
|