What is Digg?133 Comments
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+83Anyone else wish they'd publish the data so we could make our own statistical analysis?
- N00F, on 10/12/2007, -6/+48Here in Canada, we mark ballots with a pencil and we also count all 35,000,000 ballots before the evening is through.
Seems pretty easy to me, when the vote is done RIGHT. - iching, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38Actually, fair elections should be a concern for every citizen and not a partisan issue.
Vegas gambling machines have ten times more scrutiny and oversight than the elemental foundation of what makes a democracy which is a fair election.
The machines can be easily hacked and manipulated.
Republicans or who ever that may be disenfranchised down the road through vote rigging machines is and should be a concern to everyone. Unless, one feels that we should be living on that "Animal Farm" that Orwell wrote about. - beatstreeter, on 10/12/2007, -11/+49This is the strongest indication yet that we need paper ballots!!!
- redwire, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33"The point" would be it brings doubt to the results for current and future elections, just because you got the result you wanted doesn't mean the system worked.
- robkall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Fair elections SHOULD be a bi partisan issue, except it was republicans that pushed for the 3.5 billion dollar HAVA legislation that forced every state to buy these garbage Evoting machines and this study showed that the corruption was blowing from the repuglican side of the aisle.
- robkall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21HR6200, proposed by Kucinich, requires paper ballots. It's the best legislation so far, but doesn't go far enough. All elections should have verifiable paper ballot records that are recountable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+33@gxcdesign: I think the point is that the results were tampered. If the race had been much more close, the outcome could have been decided by the hacking.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Or maybe the system should be examined further. If it's vulnerable to tampering, then that hurts EVERYONE, and it needs to be fixed.
Let's see- if the Democrats had lost, and were claiming that the votes were artificially skewed, you'd be calling them sore losers, right? Instead, they won... and now you're calling them "sore winners" because they think there might be something wrong with the system?
Jeez, dude- did you get dropped on your head as a kid, or what? - sam1729, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@pgiessel
"Yes, exit polls of a very small sample are more accurate than a counting of the entire sample. Everyone knows this... /sarcasm"
Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that it is highly improbable that the exit polls would be as different as they are from the final vote count. We're talking needle in a haystack improbable. Regardless of who is ending up with more votes, there's no harm in giving this whole mess some careful attention. - michaelkirk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If electronic voting is here to stay, then there should be a federal mandate that the source code for the machine be open source and available for the public to scrutinize.
- Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Precisely. As much as the partisans love to feed at the teat of any issue that they can slant, this one is just too important to all Americans to allow it to be buried under their divisive vitriol.
- chemman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Not that I am putting much faith in some website that I have never heard of, but I believe you are reading the graph wrong. The opinion polls show the Dems leading by about 11.5%, the exit polls show Dems leading by 11.5%, but the adjusted exit polls the next day show the Dems lead at about 7.5% which was exactly what the actual results. Exit polls do not have a margin of error of 4%. I agree with you that the adjusted exit polls and the actual results are with in margin of error, but the point of the article was that the exit polls were adjusted the next day to be more reflective of the vote. I no longer affiliate with either party, but feel everyone can be better served by a more transparent, less vulnerable voting system. It would do away with all the wild speculation.
- mymarkx, on 10/12/2007, -15/+26Either we go to hand-counted paper ballots at the precincts in 2008, as proposed in HR6200, or we're going to have another unplanned presidency.
And you thought the anti-choice folks were just about reproduction? Wrong! They don't want you to have a choice in elections either, so that they can continue to run our economy into the ground and give multi-billion dollar defense contracts to their cronies. - thedsack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11takes more time to hack 400,000 paper votes then 400,000 E-votes.
- JoCliMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10All this technology, and yet we still wish to regress back to paper...such an amazing invention paper is
- sam1729, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So you're saying there is never an instance where we should be suspicious of these voting machines? Christ, why are so many people against having a verifiable record of how people voted?
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Yep, just liberals. All liberals are stupid, they don't know a damn thing! They're ruining the world! If only conservative people really did control everything and there WERE no liberals, surely we'd all be living in a crime-free, religious utopia under perfect liberty!!! .... right? Is that how its supposed to work?
- Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Gundabad, exit polls were dead on in every election before 2000, and the US government even used them as proof of vote fraud in other countries after 2000. I don't know where you get this 5:30 pm figure.
- tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Paper records can be recounted even a thousand years from now.
As much as i love technology, i think it should be used as a tool only and not as the primary recording method or method of information archival. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Each voter verifies the paper version before they leave. Votes can still be rigged similar to how they were pre-electronic-voting (with a bit more effort to make the computer logs match the paper ones). But given an extremely skilled organization to do vote-tampering, it takes them more effort to change hundreds of thousands of ballots, versus posting a virus on one central computer that ends up changing all votes.
- sam1729, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17@scubajim:
Yes, it's a hypothesis. However (from the TFA) the chances of such a wide discrepancy from the exit polls and the actual outcome has somewhere near a 1 in 10,000 chance of happening. So I mean, yeah, there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of this being baloney, so I guess we should just ignore it. - BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9 "The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States,"
Oh yeah you just discovered this? I guess the Election Defense Alliance missed the last few thousand blogs that have been warning us about these hacks over the past year or two. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Alot of credibility this website has. Its a totally partisan news site, poorly done as well. I guess people will believe anything if they want to.
Those exit poll differences are within the margin of error.
Here is their graph
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/uploaded/_061117_3857.gif
Honestly, those bars are nearly right next to each other. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why should we be tasked with your remedial education? Go read Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again", or RFK Jr's article in Rolling Stone.
If you don't want to deal with them big werds, have your mom turn on HBO's "Hacking Democracy" for you.
Of course, all are "librul democrat" sources. Mostly because they disagree with you. - thedsack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I just wish we knew 100% that the count was on the money!
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Why am I not surprised? Oh, right, Ohio is suing the Republican party for voter fraud in the 2004 election.
I guess this explains why Bush won by a couple hundred thousand votes or less in an election with 100,000,000 people turning out twice in a row and why the Republicans immediately instituted electronic machines, which ***** up in 2004. - barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"They see that the Dems talk a lot of great points but they don't realize that the Dems rarely actually do anything other than sit around and complain."
Doing nothing is better than ***** up the world? - sam1729, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Check your spelling again, moron. Then learn how to use punctuation correctly.
- xSPACEMANxSPIFF, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11However, i'm sure we all remember what happen in Florida, and how punching the hole in the card was oh so hard for them.
- ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I'm a Democrat, and I don't want a spoiled election, either, even if it favors my views. Don't get me wrong; it's not an easy thing to say. I'm so overjoyed and relieved that the Democrats are in power, but in a million years I wouldn't prefer sacrificing democracy to see that happen. So when ANY allegation of voter fraud surfaces with as much authority as is suggested in the article, then it needs an investigation.
- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17There evidence isn't evidence it is a hypothoses. It may or may not be true. Evidence would be that someone was caught tampering with the vote counts. I don't know if there was or wasn't tampering. I am all for accurate counts, but lets not take an unproven hypothese and claim that there was fraud. Lets look for fraud and improve the process to minimize fraud and increase accuracy.(without defranchising legal voters)
- lwoj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8My mother works for Statistics Canada, an independent branch of the Government of Canada. I had a talk with her when I was in doubt about the accuracy of small-scale polls and how they could possibly be manipulated. In fact I was very surprised to learn that even polls of 2000-3000 people (in relation to the total Canadian population of approx. 35 million) can be mind-bogglingly accurate to within a tiny error percentage when well-executed (which she is VERY confident that they are, from first-hand experience).
We all know that the voting machines CAN be tampered with very easily- that's a fact. Based on the negligence that would be required to allow such errors to pass undetected through testing, I would go so far as to say the inherent flaws in the machines are in fact design features. Either that or the companies making the machines are grossly incompetent...but are they really that stupid? I don't think so. In my opinion the only incompetence they have displayed is in the transparency of the vote-rigging "features" of the machines, in that the inconsistencies are so easily detected. In either case, democracy in the U.S. is in imminent danger. This needs to be corrected IMMEDIATELY, and I think there is reason to believe that these companies could be guilty of criminal negligence (at least) if a real investigation is ever carried out.
Assuming the polls are accurate (which it is exceedingly likely that they are), then there is serious reason for investigation here. When the margin of victory was so small to begin with, and the votes seem to have been miscounted to an extent that they just barely failed to counteract that margin, it certainly seems like there could be something fishy going on.
I don't know what more evidence the U.S. people need...it's time to do something about this. Literally ANYBODY, with an agenda of their own, could rig the vote. Are you worried about terrorism in the form of the so-called "Islamo-fascists"? To be perfectly honest, I'm not. The real terrorism is being fought against your democracy itself, and the terrorists are citizens of your very own country. I usually despise the silly label "anti-American", but in this case I think it's justified. Can you think of anything less patriotic than this? I don't know about you guys, but ***** "Islamo-fascists"...THIS scares the ***** out of me. - quisph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Maybe that's a start, but it won't accomplish anything unless you can verify that the code running on each machine is the same as the published source code. It's not such a simple matter, especially when you consider that most poll workers were born in the 1930s.
- jwigum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Hold it. You can't have it both ways.
I wish I remembered who it was, but I recall someone saying before this last election "If the republicans win this election, there will be cries of voter fraud. If the demos win, it will be hailed as a triumph of democracy."
Here we have an example of someone that wants BOTH. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This story is completely unsuprising to an outside observer. What on earth do you expect when behind the scenes the people who make the voting machines are so intimately linked to those in power? Such behaviour is irresistable to them.
What is suprising is how few people in the US support the brave souls battling this evil, and instead bark on about "tinfoil hats" and other such nonsense. I bet a few of the Jews who helped vote Hitler to power were saying similar things before being shipped off to their "internment camps" (a reference to the recent contract for such facilities in the US). - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem is that none of the numbers you mention can be verified. Anyone can make a typo reporting on exit polls or vote counts or in a hundred other places. With the current electronic machines there's NOTHING to verify. Nothing that can be used as evidence, nothing that can't be tampered or altered with absolutely no record of any changes ever happening. And just for a final slap in the face, the only people with the access to the source code, are the only people allowed to review it.
I write accounting software for a living. If I even attempted to get away with what the electronic voting machine companies are doing, I'd be in jail. Diebold themselves couldn't sell their voting system to any of their ATM customers on the same terms. None of them would risk the federal charges and lawsuits. - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If you have to use bad language, at least know how to spell it right.
- Slagged, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Good... Very Good...
The tin-foil market is skyrocketing...
Soon, I will have enough money to fund the Evil Plan (tm)...
MUahahahahah!
Did I say that out loud? Damn! - alec1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6http://electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006
http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/LandslideDenied_EDA_111606.pdf
That is a little more detailed. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oops, I should refresh the page before posting, my point had been made already.
- sam1729, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Bury me, I'll just post it again."
As if your crazy rant is some huge earth-shattering truth that all of us "fagots" just aren't ready to face up to. Please.
Just because the Republicans didn't win doesn't mean that there were no irregularities in the election. For all we know, it was rigged in favor of the Democrats. If there is a verifiable method to record votes in place by the next general election, then we will be able to empirically prove or disprove each and every conspiracy theory. - Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is duty to press these charges. It may not be necessary to make large media about it, but the proceedings will continue.
Also we should remove the Diebold guy's badge. - cranium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Sheesh, exit polls don't even agree with each other, let alone the real polls.
Not everyone answers exit polls on a uniform basis across demographics, and some people (like me) lie to the pollsters just to be a *****. - ssmith2k3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This may be a dumb question, but could someone explain how the paper trail works when the machine is rigged and rigs the paper trail. Does every voter have a number that they can verify on the paper trail?
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/LandslideDenied_EDA_111606.pdf
Check out the "Did The 2006 Exit Poll Oversample Democrats?" chapter - the concerns you raised were raised in 2004 and addressed by comparing what voters said in the exit polls regarding their choice for president in 2004. They found that those results matched the presidential votes of 2004 - giving Bush the majority of national votes. Yet the same exit polls showed a larger dem victory in congress. If it was the case that democrats were overrepresented then you would expect similar oversampling when asking about who they voted for in 2004. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Cry wolf much?
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@scubajim - it's a little unfair to expect people to take you seriously when you aren't even misspelling "hypothesis" consistently.
- goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -16/+18man its alright your a moron, your the typical american sheep thats scared of the truth, what the ***** does tin foil hats have to do with election fraud? Just like we have proof the government violates our privacy no one does *****. Your the reason america is in bad shape and crooks run our country.
And what you said isnt even funny anymore. your the millionth fag to say that *****. good job! - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Paper trails aren't enough, since current implementations of this hide the paper record behind a door where the voter can't see it. What we need are paper BALLOTS.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 