Obama Fans Crying Diebold Fix.

tuff bob · 01-09-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrapperGus

except for the optic scanning systems (not touch screen) that there is no paper that the voters mark nor do they have a paper backup in most cases.

the site quoted from says the votes were counted by Diebold optical scanners.

The BRAD BLOG : NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama

Enrico Palazzo · 01-10-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

are you saying the government was unable implement a solution. thats a shocker.

Nope. This government did implement a solution.....a solution that would benefit them. Come on boob, you cannot be that dense (or can you???).

tuff bob · 01-10-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enrico Palazzo

Come on boob, you cannot be that dense (or can you???).

then its up to you (the voter that gives the politician the job) to let them know that you demand an open, fair and verifiable voting system (assuming that's what you want). There are plenty of ways to have a verifiable electronic voting system - open source software - crypto signatures of electronic votes, etc - you just need to demand it.

Lochgelly · 01-10-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

then its up to you (the voter that gives the politician the job) to let them know that you demand an open, fair and verifiable voting system (assuming that's what you want). There are plenty of ways to have a verifiable electronic voting system - open source software - crypto signatures of electronic votes, etc - you just need to demand it.

But I like most voters don't want electronic verfication...I saw a poll where it was like 92 percent of the public wanted a paper ballot that could be used for a recount....where each persons vote could be checked...

If we can get the paper ballots....and we can get enough booths so people who live in inner cities like Cinncinati, Columbus and Cleveland do not hvae to stand in line for over 7 hours...then maybe we can call the election fair..

what happened in Ohio last time was outrageous....

tuff bob · 01-10-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

But I like most voters don't want electronic verfication...I saw a poll where it was like 92 percent of the public wanted a paper ballot that could be used for a recount....where each persons vote could be checked...

There is no reason that an electronic system can printout a copy of a vote with an crypto signature which proves the vote - and keeps it anonymous! The Demms have successfully "scared" people into not trusting electronic voting, but a verifiable electronic system will give a much more secure voting system than a straight up paper ballot which has many issues that I've enumerated.

Lochgelly · 01-10-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

There is no reason that an electronic system can printout a copy of a vote with an crypto signature which proves the vote - and keeps it anonymous! The Demms have successfully "scared" people into not trusting electronic voting, but a verifiable electronic system will give a much more secure voting system than a straight up paper ballot which has many issues that I've enumerated.

Any electronic ballot can be manipulated....if later needed an electronic ballot can be produced....however, if the votes are not correct there is a question about whether the mistake was caused by someone pushing the wrong button...there is no way to prove if votes were altered or if someone just pushed the wrong button...

In a paper ballot...that issue is removed...it can be later checked....

sure..someone could physically erase a vote and check another mark...but usually you can tell if someone has done that...

Paper ballots are the safest and have the least chance of being manipulated

chachi · 01-10-2008, 11:23 AM

I should be able to print a receipt of my ballot. Everyone should... barcode and all.

tuff bob · 01-10-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

Any electronic ballot can be manipulated....if later needed an electronic ballot can be produced....

that's why you use the crypto to verify the contents of the ballot. That will give you the evidence of the vote tampering.

Digital signature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

In a paper ballot...that issue is removed...it can be later checked....

And is subject to the checkers interpretation of the vote. Also paper votes degrade over time and each checking. Electronic votes do not have those issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

Paper ballots are the safest and have the least chance of being manipulated

not a chance if an electronic voting system is implemented correctly. paper votes are interpreted subjectively and degrade and are easily tampered with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chachi

I should be able to print a receipt of my ballot. Everyone should... barcode and all.

agree.

Dr. Strangelove · 01-10-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

But I like most voters don't want electronic verfication...I saw a poll where it was like 92 percent of the public wanted a paper ballot that could be used for a recount....where each persons vote could be checked...

If we can get the paper ballots....and we can get enough booths so people who live in inner cities like Cinncinati, Columbus and Cleveland do not hvae to stand in line for over 7 hours...then maybe we can call the election fair..

what happened in Ohio last time was outrageous....

Please do tell "what happened in Ohio" - do you have any facts or just more mumbo jumbo?

Did the Dems vote total go down?
Was Bush's vote % in 2004 wildly different than his % in 2000?
Was the Black vote turnout down?

You say Ohio and I say Pennsylvania.

It was a tight election and the Dems REFUSED to give Bush credit for running an exceptional campaign so they have to invent stories of fraud to make themselves feel better.

Why not pick on Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire or Iowa? They were all tighter than Ohio. Maybe because they wouldn't have swung the election to Kerry?

Michigan and Pennsylvania were almost as tight as Ohio - why not bring them up? Maybe because Kerry won them they don't get brought up - even though the Philly area voting was a fraud?

Lochgelly · 01-10-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Please do tell "what happened in Ohio" - do you have any facts or just more mumbo jumbo?

Did the Dems vote total go down?
Was Bush's vote % in 2004 wildly different than his % in 2000?
Was the Black vote turnout down?

You say Ohio and I say Pennsylvania.

It was a tight election and the Dems REFUSED to give Bush credit for running an exceptional campaign so they have to invent stories of fraud to make themselves feel better.

Why not pick on Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire or Iowa? They were all tighter than Ohio. Maybe because they wouldn't have swung the election to Kerry?

Michigan and Pennsylvania were almost as tight as Ohio - why not bring them up? Maybe because Kerry won them they don't get brought up - even though the Philly area voting was a fraud?

Here is a good overall start.... Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

Excessive long lines at inner city polling places...anywhere from 4 hours to 71/2 hours to get to vote... EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTION RESOURCES

Voting machines in Franklin Co. held back.. VotersUnite!

chachi · 01-10-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

Here is a good overall start.... Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

Excessive long lines at inner city polling places...anywhere from 4 hours to 71/2 hours to get to vote... EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTION RESOURCES

Voting machines in Franklin Co. held back.. VotersUnite!

The CEO od diebold sums it all up in a simple sentence:

Well.. we all know what happened in OH in 2004... Here is a special quote for the Obama fans:

In a fall 2003 fund raising letter sent to Republicans, from Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell:

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

E-voting machine maker Diebold is based in North Canton, Ohio. Via earlier news items published mid-2004 by CNN, CBS, Mother Jones, and others.

Dr. Strangelove · 01-10-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

Here is a good overall start.... Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

Excessive long lines at inner city polling places...anywhere from 4 hours to 71/2 hours to get to vote... EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTION RESOURCES

Voting machines in Franklin Co. held back.. VotersUnite!

How about the preloaded voting machines in Philly? The at least 10,000 "unknown" voters? The "unusual" voting precincts?

Why didn't the Dems challenge Ohio? A couple of reasons probably - 1. they knew they would lose in court. 2. There wasn't that much fraud. 3. The GOP threatened to challenge Pennsylvania if they challenged Ohio and they didn't want that.

Sour grapes. W is one of the greatest US politicians since 1900 and the Dems couldn't stand it or give him credit. Florida, Ohio, He's Dumb, He's Evil - they just plain didn't respect him and had to create boogeymen to validate their failures.

tuff bob · 01-10-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chachi

I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

How good a programmer is he

chachi · 01-10-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

How good a programmer is he

Doesn't matter... It is the total conflict of interest that rattles me. If you produce electronic voting machines you do not make comments like that. We both know that the DB stored on the cards is what matters... not the actual source code. Simply substituting cards is all you need to do. Where is the need for more than one programmer?

tuff bob · 01-10-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chachi

Doesn't matter...

what - because it ruins the whole conspiracy theory?

Lochgelly · 01-10-2008, 01:05 PM

The Dems did investigate the situation...and while I can't say for certain...I think it was decided that in the long run it wasn't worth the risk of alienating voters in the future...I guess that's kind of a Demm..thing...The Repubs do something wrong and the Demms blame themselves for not being more vigilant.

DNC to Investigate Ohio Voting Irregularities (washingtonpost.com)

-asx- · 01-10-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

Jason Smith is amused: “The news really isn’t that the nutroots are again blaming electoral defeat on conspiracy theories… but that they’re highlighting the fact that Democrats are out there trying to commit election fraud today. Quite the admission.”

Quite the nice piece of jujitsu there. First he calls it a crazy conspiracy theory ("nutroots," "conspiracy theories"), and then he immediately switches gears and claims there are "admissions" of election fraud.

"Admissions."

So, according to your source, it is both a crazy conspiracy theory, and an admission. Neat how that works.

-asx- · 01-10-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ming

Yeah, because the CEO of Diebold was the sole programmer working on the voting machines and secretly coded in a back door

You tone suggests you believe the machines are tamper proof.

Is that the position you are taking?

-asx- · 01-10-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

The Demms have successfully "scared" people into not trusting electronic voting

Were they wrong to do so? Do you trust the machines as they have been implemented to date?

-asx- · 01-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuff bob

what - because it ruins the whole conspiracy theory?

Oh, I get it. You don't actually know anything about it.

-asx- · 01-10-2008, 01:27 PM

If you want to see how easily Diebold machines can be hacked, this short video will remove any doubt.

Princeton University, Department of Engineering and Applied Science » Voting Study

Scroll down the page a bit to watch the video. Or read the technical paper. Or both.

Of course, while this is obviously possible, it goes without saying that no one would ever actually steal votes in an election. The very idea is crazy, and frankly I'm amazed anyone would suggest it.

ming · 01-10-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -asx-

If you want to see how easily Diebold machines can be hacked, this short video will remove any doubt.

Princeton University, Department of Engineering and Applied Science » Voting Study

Scroll down the page a bit to watch the video. Or read the technical paper. Or both.

Of course, while this is obviously possible, it goes without saying that no one would ever actually steal votes in an election. The very idea is crazy, and frankly I'm amazed anyone would suggest it.

I've saw this years ago. I love how it glosses over pretty important stuff. "When you get alone with the machine use your key to access the memory card, or simply pick the lock!" "Then insert your prepared duplicate memory card with the malicious software derived from the source code that you obtained somehow" "Success, you have infected 1 machine!" "Repeat 10's of thousands of times with an army of lock picking experts around the country and the election is yours".

I think the video explains that it is not impossible to hack a voting machine, but it's a tad bit dishonest regarding how easy/likely it would be to do so (less than 1 minute

).

1. Need exclusive access to voting machine
2. Need source code to voting software. Or binary hack the data on the card (oops it's encrypted they forgot to mention that)
3. Need to be a lock picking expert.
4. Need to duplicate feat tens of thousands of times to have even slight chance of swinging an election.

I wonder how much voter fraud was conducted in a given election year when paper ballots were used? I wonder how much fraud was conducted in a given election year using electronic voting? Hmm... would be an interesting study.

Bottom line, electronic voting should happen, but the machines need more work obviously. I can't believe one quote taken out of context by the CEO of Diebold is all the proof some people need that he rigged an election. There is much more obvious voter fraud and disenfranchisement out there.

chachi · 01-10-2008, 02:30 PM

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...

Or, you just switch the memory cards in transit...

It is a hell of a lot easier than the BS outlined above.

chachi · 01-10-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ming

I can't believe one quote taken out of context by the CEO of Diebold ...

Please explain how it was taken out of context.

The CEO of the voting machines used in Ohio is committed to delivering the Ohio vote to the President...

Can you at least admit his statement shows a HUGE conflict of interest?

lars · 01-10-2008, 02:35 PM

Out of state voters coming to an open primary is likely the reason Hillary won..not fixing the the machines.

Quote:

NBC Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, also appeared on the show and offered more confirming details.
Russert said he was attending a Clinton rally at Nashua High School this weekend and was tipped off by the school’s maintenance man to check out the license plates in the parking lot. Russert said he was stunned to find the school’s lot filled with cars bearing Massachusetts plates.
Word from New Hampshire is that Hillary is simply not drawing strong grass-roots supports and has to rely on union activists from outside New Hampshire to fill out the crowds at her events.