• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

McCain guarantees "squeaker" victory

Status
Not open for further replies.
nemo said:
Is there any doubt that the loser (probably McCain) will contest the results? Just my two cents.
Click to expand...


Depends on the Margin. If it's big enough, contesting will just be a waste of time and make the party look like a sore loser. If it is close, yes, there will be legal challenges.
 
Again, I ask, What do you expect him to say? "That's it, we're F@&%ed. Pack it up and go home now."
 
The dirtbag who ran Diebold in 2000 was involved in the Bush campaignm and promised to do everytthing in his power to give Bush Ohio. There is r4eason to believe he did. There is no justification for expecting that sort of person not to diddle his own product.

This may be part of why HAVA permits proprietary soft ware in voting machines. In some cases, the corporations seem to think that they should be allowed to own the official record, and that the states have to convince them that something needs to be recounted or the program examined.

The Democrtats do not diddle the machines because Republicans own them. I think that, if we can defeat the electronic monsters by turning out enough people to vote to overwhelm them, a demolition party in Ken Blackwell's jard might be a fun idea. Bury him under the shards of every one of the monsters and legislate paper ballots nation-wide, with mandatory recounts regardless the outcome.

If nobody here is bright enough to figure out how to do it, go hire a couple Canadians to show us how.
 
leftysergeant said:
The dirtbag who ran Diebold in 2000 was involved in the Bush campaignm and promised to do everytthing in his power to give Bush Ohio. There is r4eason to believe he did. There is no justification for expecting that sort of person not to diddle his own product.

This may be part of why HAVA permits proprietary soft ware in voting machines. In some cases, the corporations seem to think that they should be allowed to own the official record, and that the states have to convince them that something needs to be recounted or the program examined.

The Democrtats do not diddle the machines because Republicans own them. I think that, if we can defeat the electronic monsters by turning out enough people to vote to overwhelm them, a demolition party in Ken Blackwell's jard might be a fun idea. Bury him under the shards of every one of the monsters and legislate paper ballots nation-wide, with mandatory recounts regardless the outcome.

If nobody here is bright enough to figure out how to do it, go hire a couple Canadians to show us how.
Click to expand...

YES BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY BAD.

Seriosuly, dude.
 
Rika said:
YES BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY BAD.

Seriosuly, dude.
Click to expand...

Seriously. The best fix for any problems with electronic voting machines is eight ounces of C-4 or a five-pound sledgehammer. There is no justification for any private corporation to own our voting apparatus. That is STRICTLY a government function and everything assosciated with it must, to ensure the integrity of the democratic process, be utterly transparent and utterly safe from malicious programming. There is no reason that any company should be able to tell us that we cannot examine the programming of the machines or test them at random to guarantee that they have not been diddled.

Canada does it all on paper, they have the results that day and there is a permanent, testable record of what really happened. We have to take the work of corporate pirates that they are not covering their own sorry butts by making sure that we don't elect someone who will examine them proctoscopicly and find out that they have screwed us.

Technology has its place, but elections are not one of the places where it belongs.

Paperless, thus unproveable, voting is a bad idea.

That our idiot Secretary of State let electronic voting machines into Washington almost stuck us with four yerars of that snivelling twit Rossi as Governor.
 
leftysergeant said:
Seriously. The best fix for any problems with electronic voting machines is eight ounces of C-4 or a five-pound sledgehammer. There is no justification for any private corporation to own our voting apparatus.
Click to expand...
Hmm.

That is STRICTLY a government function and everything assosciated with it must, to ensure the integrity of the democratic process, be utterly transparent and utterly safe from malicious programming. There is no reason that any company should be able to tell us that we cannot examine the programming of the machines or test them at random to guarantee that they have not been diddled.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Canada does it all on paper, they have the results that day and there is a permanent, testable record of what really happened. We have to take the work of corporate pirates that they are not covering their own sorry butts by making sure that we don't elect someone who will examine them proctoscopicly and find out that they have screwed us.

Technology has its place, but elections are not one of the places where it belongs.

Paperless, thus unproveable, voting is a bad idea.

That our idiot Secretary of State let electronic voting machines into Washington almost stuck us with four yerars of that snivelling twit Rossi as Governor.
Click to expand...

Er. You know what? I have to say you're making wild assertions as to the quality of the programmers and their ethics. However, the problem is half code, HALF PHYSICAL SECURITY.

That's as important as proper code.

(That said, I can think up much more better code than diebold, the fact they use /antivirus software/ means they're doing it wrong.)
 
Rika said:
Er. You know what? I have to say you're making wild assertions as to the quality of the programmers and their ethics.
Click to expand...
I wish leftysargent was, but he's not. If you really wish to find out more about this problem you can get started at:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
http://verifiedvoting.org/

However, the problem is half code, HALF PHYSICAL SECURITY.
Click to expand...
The logistics involved in securing voting machines made from off the shelf components are simply beyond the abilities of most counties. (Especially ones that use a paperless system.) Most of them don't even have the manpower to verify that the software version in the machines installed at the poll site are the same as the one that was contracted for.

It was much easier for most counties to physically secure the mechanical voting machines that had visible registers that could not be manipulated by code, wireless technology, memory cards, etc. A simple chain of physical custody was enough to make it too difficult to have wide spread fraud on those type of machines. With the current paperless voting machines -- all you need is just one person for wide spread fraud.

In many counties it isn't physically possible to do a recount which makes it impossible to address fraud and that is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
No software-based system can ever be acceptable UNLESS it prints a ballot that can be recounted by hand by human eyes, and UNLESS it shows that ballot to the voter for verification and UNLESS the laws of the state allow recourse to that ballot for recounts and UNLESS spot audits are always conducted of a significant proportion of machines chosen at random to ensure compliance.
 
leftysergeant said:
It all comes down to the number of voting machines they can rig. Time is running out, and, with early voting, more people have figured out that they need to insist on paper ballots when they have the option. Machines have been observed flipping votes in WVa. That wasn't supposed to happen before the 4th.
Click to expand...

I know several people that have complained about the vote flipping machines, none of whom I'd call a fanatical Obama supporter, which cuts down the motive to lie. One is a pretty serious Republican who, despite this obvious sign of brain damage, does vote for the odd Democrat when the Republican is a complete muppet. This is all out of Putnam county, a pretty pro-GOP county as these things go. I'm pretty sure my county uses paper ballots.

That said, Obama has about the same chance as Nader to win W.Va. Didn't you know he helped Bill Ayers kill people and he's going to take my hunting rifle? No... it isn't because he's black or anything, but I'm worried that if he's president my daughter would think it is alright to marry... err... he's a liberal and will take all of my money.

If I were worried about vote rigging I'd be more concerned with a few statewide races.
 
Kaylee said:
I wish leftysargent was, but he's not. If you really wish to find out more about this problem you can get started at:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
http://verifiedvoting.org/

The logistics involved in securing voting machines made from off the shelf components are simply beyond the abilities of most counties. (Especially ones that use a paperless system.) Most of them don't even have the manpower to verify that the software version in the machines installed at the poll site are the same as the one that was contracted for.

It was much easier for most counties to physically secure the mechanical voting machines that had visible registers that could not be manipulated by code, wireless technology, memory cards, etc. A simple chain of physical custody was enough to make it too difficult to have wide spread fraud on those type of machines. With the current paperless voting machines -- all you need is just one person for wide spread fraud.

In many counties it isn't physically possible to do a recount which makes it impossible to address fraud and that is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you *()))(*ing kidding me? Mechanical voting machines suffered from just as much fraud as electronic voting machines. Only naive people think that any type of voting machine has more flaws than another.
 
Rika said:
(That said, I can think up much more better code than diebold, the fact they use /antivirus software/ means they're doing it wrong.)
Click to expand...
Get this: For a data store, Diebold uses the obsolete Microsoft Jet engine (aka Access) -- the epitome of flakiness. Jet is a world class data corruption tool. To people who know a thing or two about data management this is the biggest joke imaginable (of the bleakly amusing variety).
 
I don't think electronic voting machines would be unacceptable if they were designed with transparency and paper trails, like Ben Burch suggested. I really don't understand why the paper-trail idea was not implemented. I get receipts when I use a credit card or ATM, but not at a voting booth?
 
thaiboxerken said:
I don't think electronic voting machines would be unacceptable if they were designed with transparency and paper trails, like Ben Burch suggested. I really don't understand why the paper-trail idea was not implemented. I get receipts when I use a credit card or ATM, but not at a voting booth?
Click to expand...

We have that system here in Illinois. It shows you your ballot behind a window (they are on a continuous roll) and you do not cast the vote until you get a chance to view that ballot and accept it.
 
BenBurch said:
Which is why we need voter-verified (and re-countable) paper ballots.
Click to expand...
Arggg..... Stop it with such naivety. Please just stop it. Paper ballets suffer from their own unique problems and this is from personal experience. Paper ballots ain't worth crap if you use the wrong one which happened to my grandpa. The only reason why we caught the fact that it was the wrong paper ballot is because I had an absentee ballot and my mother was forthright enough to ask why they were different. The worst case scenario for every single piece of technology is fraud and voter disenfranchisement. It's just a matter of what way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom