Is it just a conspiracy theory or is it actually possible?

[storm1977 0]

But the argument is, if there are irregualrities across all machines, they would affect both parties in a reletive percentage equal to the relative votes cast for each member.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. To answer Paul's question - it IS "possible." Much like it was "possible" that a group of homosexuals from New Orleans conspired and killed JFK (as Jim Garrison claimed). It is "possible" that it is not lawrocket making this post. It is "possible" that tunaplanet is paul quade's estranged twin, for all I know.

Is it "reasonably possible?" SHouldn't that be the inquiry?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[storm1977 0]

So the answer is, it IS possible but NOT plausible.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[ScottishJohn 25]

That is a possible answer. But without actually knowing the extent of the problem then we will never (100 %) know the error involved.

Is the same software used used on different machines , i think I read earlier that differnt states used differnt machines.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[storm1977 0]

There are many machine which give a paper reciept.... two copies are made and yours, and one for the machine.

When looking at just yours, it looks like a bunch of black dots.... when paired with its other half the two combined would read what your cast vote was.... Actually, I am not sure if those were used in this election or if they are still being "developed"

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

There are many machine which give a paper reciept.... two copies are made and yours, and one for the machine.

When looking at just yours, it looks like a bunch of black dots.... when paired with its other half the two combined would read what your cast vote was.... Actually, I am not sure if those were used in this election or if they are still being "developed"

Those weren't used. The ones that were used did not leave behind any paper trail. No paper to count and verify. No re-count possible.

Do you understand now, that there might be a problem with this?

[billvon 2,450]

>hiding between TLAs doesn't chang anything, Bill. A systemic bug
> across the entire population of voting machines would show up.

That's the point - it wouldn't BE a bug. The system would work fine, except that on one day (assuming the RTC hadn't been changed recently, which it would know about) it would occasionally double-increment one vote count. It would be working exactly as designed.

>A lot of attention from the academic world is being paid to examining
>these machines for bias, be it intentional or accidental.

And, on any day other than Nov 2nd, no bias would be found.

[Jimbo 0]

Bruce Schneier wrote a few essays on the subject of electronic voting machines and the security (or lack of) that surrounds them.

Why is it so hard to run an honest election?

and

The problem with Electronic Voting Machines

Interesting and definitely worth a read, no matter if you're a conspiracy theorist or not.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[wmw999 2,163]

Quote

It is "possible" that tunaplanet is paul quade's estranged twin

You got me right there I guess pigs can fly

Folks, voting is really really important, both to the winner and to the loser. The integrity of the voting process is also important, and just about any questioning deserves to be addressed, because the legitimacy of succession, and the people's acceptance of it, is entirely dependent on the perception of the vote.

Yes, any idiot can point fingers. With a good process, good documentation, and audit trails, most issues can be resolved very quickly. When there is even a perception of a coverup, then people begin to wonder about the legitimacy of the whole process.

Something that has made the US stable over the years is faith in the legitimacy of its succession, not the individual strength with which various candidates won.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Something that has made the US stable over the years is faith in the legitimacy of its succession, not the individual strength with which various candidates won.

How true. PK wrote a small bit about the election and the peacful transfer of power a few weeks ago. I think that faith in the process is large part, if not the largest part of why we've had a peaceful transfer.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[mikkey 0]

I just can’t understand why the US is unable to perform efficient elections. The voting system seems to be different from state to state, you vote on a week-day with long queues as a result, there are doubt about the “machines” you use, and talking to American friends down here the absentee voting is a shambles (the process is slow and difficult), etc. etc.

When I was young I lived in Germany and observed how they hold elections. They are a large country with many voters and a federal system. No problems what so ever. Elections are held on a week-end, no major queues, the voting system is the same in ALL States, it is simple system where you place X besides the candidate / party you vote for, they have participation rate of around 80% for federal elections (or it was when I lived there) and they have reliable predictions about 1 hour after voting closes, and a final result by midnight. Germany has about 80 million people, so I assume up to about 50 million vote and they have no issues. Same goes for other countries I lived in including Australia which has compulsory voting and a “preference” system that makes the act of voting much more complex. And I never have seen problems and issues like in the US.

Why not:

- Have a uniform voting system across the US decided by federal law.
- Vote on week-ends which will diminish queues.
- Use paper and pen to vote - KISS

In all other countries I know of, the local polling station counts the votes manually and then reports them in. Then the ballots are locked away if a recounts are needed. What is so difficult about that? No machines, no hanging chads, no problems. I don’t buy the argument about time spent counting, all countries I have seen counting manually have the results at least as fast as the US. And I also don’t buy the argument that it is the individual States that decide which system to use. Your constitution is federal, the right to vote is federal, why not a federal system of how to vote. I am just stunned about the “mighty” US of A can not find a way to get the voting system right.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>A lot of attention from the academic world is being paid to examining
>these machines for bias, be it intentional or accidental.

And, on any day other than Nov 2nd, no bias would be found.

What other data do you think they're examining? Sheesh. Precinct by precinct results are a matter of record.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

if you're a conspiracy theorist maybe...

BTW - Who killed JFK in your opinion?

No, he's quite right. These machines have the potential to be much more accurate than paper ballots (which might have an error rate of 2%), but with no paper trail, the possibility of fraud.

It's pretty clear that voters should be given a receipt with a stamp that clearly indicates the source machine. Perhaps a second copy kept within the machine.

[PhreeZone 15]

Here in Ohio we have at least 2 elections every year for any bond issues and they can call for a special election at any date if the issue is that important.

Paper reciepts are the key to a good voting machine. Its how easy to get a reciept for a movie stub if you buy it from one of those electronic booths, but they can't figure out how to hook a printer up to a voting machine?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Ron 7]

Quote

Half of this population is fed up and has very little trust in Bush as a leader.

Less than half

Quote

Many of us feel, with good reasons, that he is a cheat, liar and dangerous to this country.

And more felt Kerry was worse.

Quote

Also, we do feel that he did manipulate both of his elections.

But you have no proof.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Also, we do feel that he did manipulate both of his elections.

WOW... he gets 3,000,000+ votes more than Kerry,
and you really think he stole the election. Damn. It
is sorta sad to see that you can't even recognize you
are in the minority. The majority of the country differs
in opinion with you. Does that mean I am right and
you are wrong? No, but it does imply that the majority
of the people in this country are a lot more comfortable
having a man of conviction like Bush in the WH, and
were not comfortable with a person like Kerry, whose
stance of hot topics waivered through time.

Chasing... I am not trying to be disrespectful, but I
think you need to come to grips with the fact that the
election is over, it wasn't that close, and with every passing day you will be closer to an administration
with out GWB.
That may make you happier

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I'm going to use the line Repubs used in 2000: But the popular vote doesn't count! Kerry was one state away (Ohio) from winning the White House. Without the provisional or military votes counted, Bush had a lead of 136,483 in that state. When you think about it that way, it was very close.

I realize the election is over, and I realize it was that close.

Thankfully we cannot have GW in office for a third term. I'm thinking of turning one of my old Y2K countdown clocks into a countdown to the end of GWs political career.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[storm1977 0]

Quote

I'm going to use the line Repubs used in 2000: But the popular vote doesn't count! Kerry was one state away (Ohio) from winning the White House. Without the provisional or military votes counted, Bush had a lead of 136,483 in that state. When you think about it that way, it was very close.

I realize the election is over, and I realize it was that close.

Thankfully we cannot have GW in office for a third term. I'm thinking of turning one of my old Y2K countdown clocks into a countdown to the end of GWs political career.

Yes, looking at the 2000 elect the Popular vote was very close, and hence the courts and the appeals ect....

However, with a margin of 3 million this time, a much larger spread, I don't think the courts would have heard the appeal.

What was the difference in FLA??? 700 votes?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,450]

>What other data do you think they're examining? Sheesh. Precinct
> by precinct results are a matter of record.


OK. A traditionally democratic precinct reports that 36880 people voted for Bush and 35223 people voted for Kerry, out of 75100 people who voted. Is the machine working properly or not?

[storm1977 0]

It could be.... there are disqualifying conditions to the ballots right?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,450]

>> Is the machine working properly or not?

>It could be....

That's exactly right. Now, in that machine I put my hack to increment the number of votes for Bush (1 for every 6 votes for Kerry in my example) but afterwards you just can't tell.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>What other data do you think they're examining? Sheesh. Precinct
> by precinct results are a matter of record.


OK. A traditionally democratic precinct reports that 36880 people voted for Bush and 35223 people voted for Kerry, out of 75100 people who voted. Is the machine working properly or not?

You can't answer such a question in absence of additional data.

In short, you can't pose the question here in a useful method.

Shifting 10% of the vote illicitly (1 in 6) would show up as a major skew off polling both before and in the exits.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

>> Is the machine working properly or not?

>It could be....

That's exactly right. Now, in that machine I put my hack to increment the number of votes for Bush (1 for every 6 votes for Kerry in my example) but afterwards you just can't tell.

Again, these things are tested Thoroughly, by many people (independant ones too) They did just come off of a shelf somewhere. You know how code works bill.
It will be tested and scrutinized for every possible outcome in order to debug and test the system.

That would make the conspiracy too large and too difficult to maintane IMO.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[quade 3]

Quote

You know how code works bill.
It will be tested and scrutinized for every possible outcome in order to debug and test the system.

You've never used a computer -- have you?

EVERY computer system and program ever made with more than just a few lines of code has flaws in it.

The computer that controlled the descent of the Apollo lunar lander was far less complex than most computers today. It didn't have all that much code in it and was programmed by the brightest minds of the time. Each line of code was gone over many, many times.

Apollo 11 almost ended in disaster because the computer hicupped all the way to the surface.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

You know how code works bill.
It will be tested and scrutinized for every possible outcome in order to debug and test the system.

You've never used a computer -- have you?

EVERY computer system and program ever made has flaws in it.

The computer that controlled the descent of the Apollo lunar lander was far less complex than most computers today. It didn't have all that much code in it and was programmed by the brightest minds of the time. Each line of code was gone over many, many times.

Apollo 11 almost ended in disaster because the computer hicupped all the way to the surface.

Damn... you caught me. I actually have a scribe that I verbally talk with and they put this stuff on the screen for me..

Yes, computers are not perfect, and no code writen by a human is perfect, and even if it were, there is no garuntee that the system won't crash, but to suggest that the computerized voting systems were all rigged in GWB favor borders on the insane. THere are just too many factors, and too many people involved for that to be true.

So, let's use an example.
Let's take a big county.... it had 1,000,000 votes cast.
ALL of the machines in that county were rigged. The Bush consirators knew that county in let's say OH would be close and important.
So, the votes would favor Kerry 550,000 to 450,000. A relatively close one. But the Machines were rigged so every 6th kerry vote goes to Bush:
so instead of 550,000 votes kerry gets 458,333 and bush 543,666.
Bush wins OH by over 136K votes..... 91K were fake votes from this bogus county where ALL the machines were rigged and NO ONE knows about it.

Not Probable

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty