Sworn testimony about hacking elections

[Zguy28]

You listen to too much Rush. . . did you even read the link I posted?

I can't stand Rush, he's a bloviating windbag, just like Moore. I did look at the link. And the other stuff on that site. :laugh:

I mentioned Moore because he was actually on TV in 2004 saying that he was going to have people in Ohio watching the elections very closely and he said he would expose any wrongdoing by the GOP. Never heard a peep from the troll. I was wondering if you had?

[portisizzle]

Type in "democrat election rigging" in Google and you get 794,000 hits.

When the GOP has another successful election campaign Democrats are already preconditioned to automatically believe the election was rigged.

Froth on the dogs mouth.

[Beaudry]

I have a couple of questions.

Why did we switch to the machines in the first place? Was it the Florida election?

Why is no other news source reporting this? This sounds suspiciously like a newsmax article to me.

[Redskins Diehard]

Of course this is nothing to do with "Bush policies" which has been thrown out there. Or Republican policies, which has also been thrown out there. In fact it really isn't about "hacking elections", it is about some guy that says he was approached about whether or not it was possible to happen.

Document all the elections. Make sure only registered, eligible voters vote. And they vote where they are supposed to vote. Make sure absentee ballots are counted in full, and make sure people know how to cast a vote for the person they think they want to be elected.

[Redskins Diehard]

I have a couple of questions.

Why did we switch to the machines in the first place? Was it the Florida election?

Why is no other news source reporting this? This sounds suspiciously like a newsmax article to me.

Here is another news source.

http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/16/41c2fdb042ea1

Of course it dates back to 2004. I wonder if Chomerics posted it then also.

[alexey]

:laugh:

Yeah, rigged machines. THAT must be why dems are losing elections

Couldn't possibly have anythigng to do with the fact that most Dems sound like loons to joe average American

and of course it cannot be both, right?

and there are no close elections, if I understand your point correctly?

Point says "B". First you overgeneralize it to "AB". Then you narrow it down to "A". Then you refute "A"... It's the oldest trick in the book, and it appears your brain has been Republicanized to the point where it does that automatically. :laugh:

[Larry]

I have a couple of questions.

Why did we switch to the machines in the first place? Was it the Florida election?

Oh, I don't doubt that "The Florida Election" didn't hurt sales. Although the machines existed before then.

I can see how it would have an appeal: eliminate long, drawn-out recounts by making recounts impossible. (Although they could accomplish the same thing by simply attaching a paper shreader to an optical-scan ballot reader. The ballot goes through the machine, gets read once, and gets shreaded. Poof! No recounts.)

Why is no other news source reporting this? This sounds suspiciously like a newsmax article to me.

Stories about the (lack of) security of electronic voting appear regularly, in lots of places. (I'd bet they appear more frequently in election years.)

And everybody who tries to say that having a reliable election system is A Good Idea is immediatly labled as a comspiracy-theory liberal whackjob. (By the conspiracy-theory conservative whackjobs.)

And the story continues.

[chomerics]

I can't stand Rush, he's a bloviating windbag, just like Moore. I did look at the link. And the other stuff on that site. :laugh:

I mentioned Moore because he was actually on TV in 2004 saying that he was going to have people in Ohio watching the elections very closely and he said he would expose any wrongdoing by the GOP. Never heard a peep from the troll. I was wondering if you had?

Really, you read the Conyers paper? you read the problems in Ohio and you STILL think the way you do? . . . interesting. . .

[chomerics]

Here is another news source.

http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/16/41c2fdb042ea1

Of course it dates back to 2004. I wonder if Chomerics posted it then also.

Well, you can ignore all the issues you want, but what i posted was SWORN testimony in a court of law about hacking election machines.

So here are the questions. . .

1. If it can be done (hacking the machines) why are they still there and why is ther no paper trail?

2. If you can't answer question #1, go back and re-read it again. . .

[Redskins Diehard]

Well, you can ignore all the issues you want, but what i posted was SWORN testimony in a court of law about hacking election machines.

So here are the questions. . .

1. If it can be done (hacking the machines) why are they still there and why is ther no paper trail?

2. If you can't answer question #1, go back and re-read it again. . .

Was it sworn testimony in a court of law?

Has anything changed since 2000 when he was approached? Or 2004 and when he testified?(to the Democrats only mind you, on the Judiciary committee)

And is #2 a question?

[Thiebear]

So your saying theres no way to fix the voting machines: we have to go back to paper.

Is that like saying theres no way to fix computers / we have to go back to legal pads and pens?

Fix the problem and moveon.org...

If someone is caught (dont give me, I cant be caught statement: AHAHAHAHA) everyone gets caught... They go away for 20 years minimum.

Ie the 2000 votes in PA that were in the machine before starting...

[chomerics]

Was it sworn testimony in a court of law?

Has anything changed since 2000 when he was approached? Or 2004 and when he testified?(to the Democrats only mind you, on the Judiciary committee)

Here is the problem, the democrats have TRIED to get legislation outlawing the machines and the republicans won't allow it to pass, they won't even allow it to come to the floor for a vote and keep it stalled in committee . . .wonder why:doh:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN02437:@@@L&summ2=m&

[alexey]

So your saying theres no way to fix the voting machines: we have to go back to paper.

Is that like saying theres no way to fix computers / we have to go back to legal pads and pens?

The problem is, we do not have lawmakers who are a) computer-savy enough and motivated enough to make sure procedures are not easily compromised.

The system, at the least, should have multiple parallel black-box systems in place. These systems should be designed and created by separate entities. These systems should cross-check results. There should also be paper reciepts given out to people. Another reciept should be printed and stored for recount purposes. An automated counting machine should be developed to easily count these reciepts.

The idea is to have a system with independent components that can easily cross-verify each other while making sure no single person or a group of people is in position to compromise results. There would be a way to detect errors, and a way to retreat to a previos fail-safe method (all the way down to counting recpeits by hand, if necessary).

EDIT: one more thing - there should be no software handling inputs. Let's say you send candidate's name to several independent counting systems right after a voter selects candidate, and have those systems cross-verify results for validation. There is still ability to compromise results by software interpreting user input. A touchscreen, for example, can display one name on the button and submit another when the button is pressed. There has to be no software interpreting and submitting the value. That part has to be implemented directly in hardware.

[Sarge]

Well, you can ignore all the issues you want, but what i posted was SWORN testimony in a court of law about hacking election machines.

"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

That was SWORN testimony too wasn't it?

I think that ended in impeachment didn't it?

[Sarge]

Here is the problem, the democrats have TRIED to get legislation outlawing the machines and the republicans won't allow it to pass, they won't even allow it to come to the floor for a vote and keep it stalled in committee . . .wonder why:doh:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN02437:@@@L&summ2=m&

MAybe they don't want to see anymore "hanging chad" idiots on TV

[Redskins Diehard]

Here is the problem, the democrats have TRIED to get legislation outlawing the machines and the republicans won't allow it to pass, they won't even allow it to come to the floor for a vote and keep it stalled in committee . . .wonder why:doh:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN02437:@@@L&summ2=m&

I take it you won't "recall" your statement about it being a court of law but a meeting of Democrat, and only Democrat lawmakers.

You don't acknowledge that the website you cited was discussin a 2 year old case which was adressing a 4 4year old incident(at the time...6 year old now).

That the allegations were investigated by Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Bill Nelson, the FBI, and CREW and still nothing ever came of it.

I wonder why also, but I think they could offer a reason beyond "Well we want to use the program that Clint Curtis made for us to alter the results of the elections"

[NoCalMike]

The sad thing is, the corruption goes beyond the Electronic Voting Machines. How about the fact that perfectly legal registered voters showed up to vote in 2000 and 2004, and told they were ineligible? Was this an accident? No. Basically it was a a concentrated effort to purge people from the eligible voters list by Kathleen Harris. She purged people with the same last names and/or birthdates of convicted felons, and of course these people were never informed, so by the time they show up to vote, it is absolutely too late to do anything about it.

[Larry]

EDIT: one more thing - there should be no software handling inputs. Let's say you send candidate's name to several independent counting systems right after a voter selects candidate, and have those systems cross-verify results for validation. There is still ability to compromise results by software interpreting user input. A touchscreen, for example, can display one name on the button and submit another when the button is pressed. There has to be no software interpreting and submitting the value. That part has to be implemented directly in hardware.

Your paper receipt idea (that I've been pushing since 2000) prevents the problem you're describing.

If the machine switches someone's vote before the receipt prints, then the voter (who voted for chom) says "Hey! This receipt says I voted for remlik!"

If the machine switches the vote after the receipt (and carbon) prints, then it gets caught when they audit the paper.

Larry's electronic voting proposal is:

• When you push the "submit" button, it prints a receipt that shows who you voted for. It also prints a carbon (a mechanical carbon, not a second piece of paper), which is retained by the printer. (The "journal tape".)
  
• At the end of the day, the machine is electronically read, and the results are sent to the county.
  
• The next morning, the county publishes the totals, and the machine-by-machine votes, too. Put it in a spreadsheet, and post it on the internet.
  
• Two weeks later, hire a randomly-selected CPA firm. The CPAs will pick one machine out of 20, pull out the peper record, and verify that the paper matches the electronic total.
  
• After the audit, the paper records pecome public records. If Joe the Conspiracy Nut wants to go down to the courthouse, he can verify that yes, the vote he cast on machine 123,456 at 11:07AM really did get recorded. If the local newspaper wants, they can send reporters down and audit every single vote cast in the whole county. (At their own expense.)
  

They've been doing it for credit cards for 50 years. Not that hard.

[Popeman38]

Are you seriously comparing people handing out pamphlets and saying stupid things to physically manipulating the voting machinery to come out with a prescribed outcome?

I was stating that INTIMIDATION happens on both sides. If you READ my post, I said I had no problem not using electronic balloting...

[Zguy28]

I can't stand Rush, he's a bloviating windbag, just like Moore. I did look at the link. And the other stuff on that site. :laugh:

I mentioned Moore because he was actually on TV in 2004 saying that he was going to have people in Ohio watching the elections very closely and he said he would expose any wrongdoing by the GOP. Never heard a peep from the troll. I was wondering if you had?

Really, you read the Conyers paper? you read the problems in Ohio and you STILL think the way you do? . . . interesting. . .

I didn't mention Conyers or his paper. I totally believe what that guy says about writing the program. And I'm for paper ballots. I asked a specific question about Moore, and you threw up a strawman.

And for the last time Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. Please don't mention him again in my presence, never did and never will like him.

[Havefun]

Hey they're conisistant. They don't want checks in wiretapping. They don't want checks in voting. They don't want checks via judiciary. They don't want checks going to the sick or the poor. They just hate checks. You got to respect their consistency, don't you?

This is a silly statement. Of course the right wants secret reviews of wiretapping by the intelligence committee in Congress and we want voting machines that show we have been winning elections. Remember the hanging chads were in democratic districts and they new of the problem for years but it was in the poor areas. They also have these machines in California, and I never had a hanging chad because I can follow directions.

[PokerPacker]

Hell, I'm against most of Bush's policies.

Unfortunately for Dems, when people look and listen at Dems, they hear people like you and either don't vote or vote Repub out of common sense

And for the record, I could care less if we go back to paper ballots, if we can avoid the fiasco of Florida in 2000.

that is actually a very good point. the democrats' platform for the past few years is "i'm not bush, therefore you should vote for me."

[chomerics]

I take it you won't "recall" your statement about it being a court of law but a meeting of Democrat, and only Democrat lawmakers.

You don't acknowledge that the website you cited was discussin a 2 year old case which was adressing a 4 4year old incident(at the time...6 year old now).

That the allegations were investigated by Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Bill Nelson, the FBI, and CREW and still nothing ever came of it.

I wonder why also, but I think they could offer a reason beyond "Well we want to use the program that Clint Curtis made for us to alter the results of the elections"

How can you get this to sink into your skull. . .

The democrats are not in power, therefor can not bring anything up on the floor without the republicans approval, they (the republicans in power) can essentially kill it (any bill) in committee. This is what the republicans did, and you did not comment about it, only stated it is old news, it is not. I posted the bill which was put forth by a bipartisan group, only to be snubbed out and not given the chance to vote on. What ever happened to an up or down vote?

I gave a link for an election reform bill put forth by both democrats AND moderate republicans yet bill was NOT allowed to come to a vote, WHY???

The reason "nothing came of it" is because you CAN'T do anything without any power, why is that so hard to understand? Do you not know how the constitution and DC works? Do you not understand that you can not bring about a change in law without the approval of the select few who run the show?

The problem is that the MAJORITY of people WOULD vote for this, which is why a FEW SELECT PEOPLE chose to KILL THE BILL IN COMMITTEE!!!

Again, do you not see an issue with this? Are you going to stick your head in the sand and scream lalalalalalala I can't hear you? When do you finnally say "I've had enough of this crap?" Ever?

[chomerics]

that is actually a very good point. the democrats' platform for the past few years is "i'm not bush, therefore you should vote for me."

Sorry, that is what the republicans have stated, and it is not correct. The democrats have had PLENTY of plans, they don't get the debate because republicans won't LET THEM!

[Thiebear]

In 6 years there have been no updates to the voting machine software?

Are they not treated like Top Secret computers:

i.e. hard drives checked in and out, not connected to a network?