digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Programmer Blows Whistle on Voter Machine Fraud

video.google.com — A programmer who has worked for NASA admits he was asked by the Speaker of the Florida House to write a hidden program to "control the vote in south Florida." Video.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mctnguy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+225Why isn't this all over the news???
    • surfit, on 10/12/2007, -72/+14Maybe this amateur video was the only visual record of it... ?
    • mrtibbs309, on 10/12/2007, -13/+116I second that. This should be a huge deal.
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -18/+75He's probably now in guantanamo, for being an enemy of the state. Either that or nobody cares because the judge and the media just don't understand.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -54/+16WHAT is so hard about making a secure voting machine? Just put the computer in a locked box, DO NOT CONNECT IT TO THE INTERNET, WHAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND CONNECTING VOTING MACHINES TO THE INTERNET OR A NETWORK???, and then have a touch-screen program where you touch your candidates' buttons, and at the end, there's a "Save and Print" button, and it adds your count to a text file, or something (it shouldn't matter if it's not connected to the internet, and it'll be pretty obvious if someone's trying to hack the computer), and then it will print a record of that vote. Then the next person in line comes and does the same thing.

      SIMPLE. PROCESS.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -18/+93"Why isn't this all over the news???"

      Because like all other corporations, the news is only interested in a functional democracy as far as it aids its own objectives?
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -39/+10Note to self -- avoid run-on sentences.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52Did you forget the whole Colbert at the dinner thing? Where was the media on that one?

      I'd rather compile my vote than use a program like this.

      By the way, who is the guy giving the testimony?
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19How does this jibe with the manual vote counts (the whole "hanging chad" thing) that went on? The votes were counted, recounted, and recounted again by the MSM.

      I would also like to see some corroborating evidence on this before I actually believe it.
    • plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -49/+44This just doesn't seem right at all... This man is far too confident and talks about computer programs like they do in movies. He is not talking like a programmer who is interested in fighting this potential problem, but instead, he talks like someone who is convinced there was fraud and wants to undermined the whole process.

      There ARE ways to detect tampering with the machine. You don't have to decompile the binaries to determine if they were tampered with. You can simply recompile from what should be production source code, then compare hashes of the untainted source with the production binaries to determine if they are different. If they are different, that is proof that someone tampered with the machines, and I will bet it wasn't the person who lost the election who did it.

      Also, fixing a vote the way he describes, by waiting until the end and flipping the vote to read 51-49 in favor of whomever, is not the best way to rig a vote. You would be much better off finding a way to modify votes when they are entered to predetermined values. That way if there are back up systems (such as a one-time-write memory card or optical media inside of the machine) that cannot be tampered with later, then you could cover those.

      In fact, that is another piece of misinformation in his testimony. He said (under oath) that there is no way to protect against his form of attack other than printed paper slips. I beg to differ. You could have the machine continuously write the votes to an optical disk that can be referred to later in the case of a recount. Since an optical disk can only be written to once, it protects against his kind of "retrospective vote fraud".

      I think either this guy is doing a very poor job of "talking down" to these politicians or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    • keybsnbits, on 10/12/2007, -29/+61This isn't all over the news because this guy isn't a credible source. He is the most basic of software programmers. Seriously, listen to his testimony. He says, and I quote, that "you'd have to take those machines, decompile them, which I couldn't do, but possibly a Microsoft or MIT" researcher could do this. To me he seems pretty uneducated in his suggestion about who should look at the decompiled code. He also asserts that it is only "100 lines of source code". If he knew anything, he'd know that the actual counting part of the code may only be 100 lines, but the entire program for a vote counter would entail many more lines of code. The modifications to change the voting outcome could be anywhere.

      On a side note, did anybody see the huge grin on his face when he came off of the stand to many people clapping and cheering for him? It's all very fishy.
    • Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@gospelofthomas

      Thanks for the link. A couple of items that weren't in the video:

      - He claims that, in 2003, during his employment at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Raymond Lemme, the FDOT Inspector General stated he had tracked corruption "all the way to the top" involving the above allegations, and other YEI criminal activity in their contracts with FDOT.
      - He claims that he was fired from FDOT shortly after discussing the above matters with Raymond Lemme.
      - He describes how Lemme was found dead in Valdosta, Georgia, on July 1, 2003, with his arm slashed. (Wayne Madsen gives additional information about Lemme's death, which was reported as an apparent suicide; Madsen's clear implication is that Lemme was murdered)
    • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -30/+31"Why isn't this all over the news???"

      Because this guy doesn't have a shred of evidence? He gives almost zero specific information on the machine types and exactly how the code did its job? He talks about flipping a single machine, then a central tabulation machine? What, does this guy think it can just be cut and pasted in there with the rest of the software? He acts like it could rig an election when in reality states use dozens of different voting machines, not all electronic and I can guarantee certainly not all compatible with one another.

      If someone was asking someone to make something so unbelievably illegal, they're not going to say "no you don't understand it needs to be hidden. We need to control the vote in South Florida." No, they're going to at least be somewhat deceitful about it.

      I call ***** on this guy on so many different levels
    • Ansible, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Sure there may be ways of detecting fraud in these devices. But do you think those ways are going to be used? Who do you expect to compare the executable binaries, the voting machine company? Since when have those sources been made public? This is the guy that wrote (some of? ) the software, if he is not confident in finding a problem, then who do you think is going to find it, the typical retiree election workers? Puh-leeze.

      Our voting process has to be designed to survive the worst sorts of fraud and incompetence. For pete's sake, we're talking about government workers using these systems! Digital systems are just too vulnerable, and its obvious that the process of vetting these machines has been managed by incompetents, know nothings, and the corrupt.
    • super_spyder, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4This will probably be on the news in a few days, if ever. I have noticed that it seems like reporters are getting their storries from digg, but a few days after it was on the front page.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20To answer my own question... Curtis is alledging that the electronic voting machines were SUPPOSED to be used in West Palm Beach, but WPB went with the punchcards, instead. So, if I understand this correctly, the reason this was never followed up on is that a) it was never actually used, and b) there's no evidence of any wrongdoing, aside from this testimony.

      The panel then goes on to ask Curtis about his opinion of whether differences in exit polling and actual vote counts indicates electronic voter fraud. Considering that Curtis is a programmer and not a pollster, he doesn't have any more insight into the answer than the average tv viewer who hears the same story.
    • TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27"Why isn't this all over the news???"

      Because of the god damn LIBERAL media!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!

      End Sarcasm...
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9You'd think CBS would atleast cover this...oh wait...they're just accusations...no proof.
    • tjlsmith, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2Maybe because the people who own the media are very interested in keeping the current American regime in power?

      No names though! 'Cough'Israel'Cough'

    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -25/+19@mctnguy
      Why isn't this all over the news???

      Because:
      1. It is nearly two years old
      2. It is pure unsubstantiated innuendo
      3. The Democrats failed to bring up a single sustainable accusation
      4. The guy in the video is a Democrat who running against the guy he claims asked him to write the software that was never delivered or used.

      Moonbats, do some research - Google is your friend. Don't limit you research to Moonbat blogs. Don't fear the truth. Don't let your Moonbat handlers tell you want to think - think for yourself.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3cause the guy looks like a crack addict pasing back and forth hoping he doesnt get caught
    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@plamoni - the point is that we have a system that isn't open and the company who makes the machines is decidedly partisan. The software in question could simply change the way each vote is registered. His code isn't just changing the final outcomes... my understanding is that he's changing individual votes to fix the outcome. Any programmer worth their weight could make this look valid.

      The point of the paper printout is that voters could SEE that their votes were tallied correctly before they submit their ballot.

      Personally, I don't get why we need a computer to tally the vote. Paper, markers, and scantrons work great and are verifiable.

    • Daedalus2067, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Because it is simply hearsay without specific evidence to support the claim. Sensationalism is easy - proof is more difficult. Anyone can make a claim like this and it will be broadcast everywhere if it will make good headlines. Blogging and Google video are excellent ways to create panic and widespread dissent - wait to decide on this until a reputable source presents hard evidence.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@scotticus
      the point is that we have a system that isn't open and the company who makes the machines is decidedly partisan.

      I hate to rain on your Moonbat parade but here are some facts:

      1. The voting machines are not made by one company
      2. I guess you are trying to imply Diebold is partisan - that is an accusation (and pretty much an unsubstantiated accusation) and not a fact. Diebold does not support any party but its chairman is a Republican supporter. Diebold no longer allows its executives to contribute to any party.
      3. Florida's largest counties, controlled mostly by Democrats, use machines made by Election Systems & Software of Omaha
    • calidrunky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Because the cable companies wouldn't allow this to be on TV. The voter machine fraud can be directly linked to net neutrality. Al Gore invented the internet and has a thorough understanding of how the tubes work. If he were in office he would have squashed that debate a long time ago.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Election Systems & Software
      is chaired by diebolds owners brother.
      Diebold and ess accounted for 80% of teh vote.
      there arent as many different voting compnaies as you think.
      Plus constantly calling people names is no way to have an arguement.
      I dont really belive clint curtis claims and do wonder why it isnt even on the non main stream media.. but calling people moonbats just increases the partisanship of the country. And is does nothing to further the debate or prove your point.
      I do want acurate voting machines with a paper trail, that are open sourse. We shouldnt let something so valuable go into effect without stong oversight.

      Notice the dems dont have a unified name for republicans.. perhaps they should lower themselves to that level.(see how that feels and by slyly cutting you down i did nothing to support my arguemnt and did nothing but increase the striff)
    • ToddPM, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4More Moonbat craziness for leehodge, who said:
      "1. The voting machines are not made by one company
      2. ...Diebold...
      3. ...Election Systems & Software..."

      http://www.ecotalk.org/UrosevichBrothers.htm :
      "Voters can run, but they can't hide from these guys. Meet the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Todd. Their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count (using BOTH computerized ballot scanners and touchscreen machines) about 80% of all votes cast in the upcoming U.S. presidential election."
    • gusatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3check this out... http://digg.com/politics/Security_Risk_Seen_in_Electronic_Voting_Machines
    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If its on the Internet it must be true.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@PowerCow
      Election Systems & Software
      is chaired by diebolds owners brother.

      Get your facts straight: The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ESS are brothers.

      So? More innuendo. Hey, if there are real problem - present them. Innuendo because your guy lost the election is pointless. There are issues with electronic voting but it is no any more inherently bad then ATM's. The problem here is partisan nonsense.

      Note: Moonbat is NOT a partisan term:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat

    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ToddPM
      More Moonbat craziness for leehodge, who said:
      "1. The voting machines are not made by one company
      2. ...Diebold...
      3. ...Election Systems & Software..."

      Do you have a point (other than the top of your head)? Diebold and ESS are not the same company - even if the VP of one is related to the president of the other.
  • canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -44/+11This programmer sounds fishy too....how could he not realize what he was doing?
    • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39He says he thought he was doing it as sort of a preventative measure. Watch to the end and you'll see things changed for him when he was asked to conceal it in the source code for a purpose.
  • effektz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45U should all check out
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Video_evidence_of_the_2004_vote_fraud
    It's got this video plus many more that show the full extent of the fraud
    • crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -13/+75Why is it not on CNN?

      Seriously... USA wake up.. you are ALL being taken. You and your freedoms.
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -17/+25Because the media is just a puppet of the government, namely FoxNews. Not so sure on where CNN stands.
    • crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -31/+7I believe CNN is part of Fox, and I know they are puppets. My question was supposed to point that out, but I suppose I was too obscure. Not sure why I was dugg down though.
    • treleung, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26CNN is owned by Time Warner, Fox News is owned by "News Corporation" who's Chief Exec is Rupert Murdoch. Different ideologies, different companies.
    • wadelindsey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14You got modded down because CNN is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, owned by Time Warner. FoxNews is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, and is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

      CNN is viewed as having a liberal bias, where FoxNews is seen as having a [blatant, ed.] conservative slant.

      So.... if this is about contesting the presidency, you be more likely to see it on CNN than FoxNews, though I doubt you'd see it on either.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31You mean CNN _HAD_ a liberal bias. That was... ten years ago.
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I liked the videos on that page, lots of nice info.... but it needs a few more links to back up the info. Who are these guys? Are they really telling the truth? It's difficult to take it all at face value.
    • centinall, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4See this rubber chicken... see it? huh, see it?

      [throws rubber chicken]

      Now go get it boy!!!
    • blugu64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's why it's good to diversity!
      Seriously. You can get rid of the idiosyncratic risk of each network by simply watching two networks, and you can get rid of that bias risk even more by watching a third, etc. Granted there are limits as you can't diversify all risk of biased reporting away. (i.e. some remote story where only one network is reporting). In the end exposing yourself to as many news outlets you can *should* bring you closer to the truth. (Note: Should != will)
    • star, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5FauxNews - CNN, same ***** different names.

      They are there to make the people believe that they are "free" and have a choice.


      "The best way to make a man a slave is to make him believe that he is free."
      --unknown
  • Rollleft, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I'm thinking these elected types are going to take a far greater and sincere interest in election neutrality than they have displayed so far for net neutrality. Sounds like they have a lot of learning to do.
  • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+71I'm constantly amazed that restaurants are forced to give receipts, yet the same is not true for votes. Last I checked nobody died so you would have the right to get a receipt for your Big Mac.
    • mogus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32I think it's because it's supposed to be a secret ballot. I was in Venezuela during some of their elections, where the voter record is public and it created all kinds of problems. One man I spoke with said that if he didn't vote the way his company wanted (which they could find out), that they'd be fired. Don't think it couldn't happen here as well.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34You cant give receipts for votes. Otherwise unscrupulous people will pay poor people for each receipt proving they voted for a certain candidate. Most poor people don't care which guy gets into office, but they do care about getting $20.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"Don't think it couldn't happen here as well."

      Certainly true, but it could just be a receipt in so far as it prints out a "YOU HAVE VOTED FOR ABRAHAM LINCOLN" slip that you then drop into a ballot box next to the machine. Then you know what your vote was recorded as, and so does anyone else who needs to check does too, without compromising your anonymity.
    • rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Just for the record, Venezuela does still officially have a secret ballot. In the last two elections it has used electronic voting machines, though, and the opposition claims that these machines are secretly storing identity information, or they are storing sequence information which can later be reconciled against the precinct voter log to determine how an individual voted. I believe these allegations have not been proven (although the opposition claims to have evidence that people have been punished for voting wrongly), so it is not exactly correct to say Venezuela does not have a secret ballot.
    • rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7A 'receipt' which you take with you would be worthless, and is not really what is being discussed. Taking a piece of paper home with you is no proof that the voting machine has the same information stored, and obviously there is no way to recount receipts that are given to voters.

      What they're talking about is a -paper trail-: a piece of paper on which your secret vote is written, which you put in a secure voting box and which can then be counted as a vote. Kind of like the non-electronic elections which have been held for several thousand years. In fact, exactly like those.
    • mstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It is possible to have a paper recipt (and a paper record) and maintain a secret ballot at the same time.
    • pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bioshocker:

      I know I would vote for a zombie Abe Lincoln.
    • Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A receipt is not a bad idea. Not in the form of "you voted for X, Y, and Z", but a unique ballot ID, a checksum value, and a short key that can be used to regenerate the filled out ballot.

      You can go online after the vote and download the official record of the vote, search for your ballot ID, and check your ballot of record. If your vote is missing, or your ballot is improper, notify the election board/media.

      That's a terse description, but you get the idea. It is certainly possible. However, it will only catch certain types of election fraud. It won't handle the various other methods of skewing the vote like we saw in 2004 (Ohio's secretary of state was particularly adept, but even in our neck of the woods several GOP campaigners got jailed for taking steps to prevent the disabled and elderly from voting).

      I don't know if the 2004 election was swayed to the point that it changed the outcome, but there's quite a bit of evidence (and a handful of actual convictions) that indicate that it wasn't against either dominant political party to at least try and disenfranchise their opponents supporters. Hopefully we can come up with a way of preventing the DNC and GOP from becoming so influential in the process that their acumen for corruption completely moots the real vote.
  • sugardaddy4242, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Why did this guy wait until now to blow the whistle?
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -49/+11i call BS. the guy has an agenda. either he wants to write a book or he's got a political axe to grind. the digg community will eat it up though.

      just check out kevin45 below for an example...
    • brandonking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Maybe he feared for his job, and he finally has moved on. Put yourself in his shoes. Even if you were right, you gotta be scared ***** to go public.
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -27/+7i call bs too. Look at the clapping crowd.
    • JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@iceperson

      Because having all the major News Media Outlets (except Digg) ignore your testimony is a REAL great way to get famous enough to write a best selling book.

      Whatever his motives are, THANK GOD that he is speaking out. Would you honestly rather go on not knowing that this ***** is happening?

      Please, we need more people to start revealing the truth.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I agree it's possible it's BS. He seems very eager to walk back and forth to the podium, I found that a little odd. Really what needs to happen is more programmers step forward - then again for florida all it really needed is one programmer, and another guy knowledgable enough to spread it to key voting machines
    • seaqueue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22He didn't wait until now. That hearing is from December 13, 2004, a week after he detailed his claims in a sworn affidavit. Brad Friedman, of BradBlog.com, broke the story with a copy of the affidavit on Dec. 6, 2004. A summary up through Feb 2006 can be found here:

      http://www.bradblog.com/ClintCurtis.htm

      For more recent Clint Curtis entries, scroll down to the Categories on the far left of the page and you'll see a "Clint Curtis" category that should contain all related entries. The most recent one is from this past July 11 when the story was actually covered on Court TV (video available).
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4i call bs too feed the one party a bone and get famous by making acusations
    • rblinne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4He didn't wait until now. The video is from December 2004 concerning something allegedly done in Florida for the 2000 election (when they had punch card ballots!). Just because it shows up on YouTube and Digg doesn't make it current. Hey Kevin Rose add a new bury button, ancient history.
  • ttntyler, on 10/12/2007, -37/+2lol
  • JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -14/+37How is this honestly happening?

    People don't even seem to care... At this rate Georgey Bush will be in office forever, and there's not going to be anything we can do to stop him (not that anyone would want to if there was).

    ***** America for letting it get this bad!
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39Bush *will* be in office forever. Read the PATRIOT act. He can call a state of emergency, and sit on his throne forever.
    • knyghtryda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11There better be some major civil disobedience if Bush is to be back for another term.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5idiotic statements by ignorant people....simple as that.
  • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26I knew America would never willfully vote for an idiot like Bush. In how many other states could this have occurred?
    • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I know in Philadelphia had an open poll before the vote saying that 75% of the people would vote for Kerry. At least the original capital knows whats up
    • JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11We might not have willfilly voted for him, but we stood aside and did nothing while these corrupt machines were installed. In a way, that is much worse.
    • loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The discrepancy between exit polls and the results got an incumbent ousted in the Ukraine. Apparently a brand new democracy like Ukraine is better at this than the USofA.
    • mattlong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0democrat?
  • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -15/+43Can we storm the white house now?
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22I'm just saying this for your own good: do not use a public forum to threaten the security of the White House or the President of the United States. The law says that you will be investigated AUTOMATICALLY in such circumstances. Just a little FYI there.

      You can disagree with Bush, Republicans, etc. In fact, you can outright HATE them. But what you can't do is say the type of thing you just did.
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Yeah - delete your comment or change it, or you will be traced, and if you're in the UK you'll be extradited.
    • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Well, if he declares himself President for Life or Emperor, you officially have permission to off him.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15There was a band called Thelonious Monster, and during Bush Sr's regime the singer made an offhand comment about assassinating Bush during one of their shows. The Secret Service was there before the show was even over.
    • Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Actually, that's only after Rice proposes he enacts special powers during 'wartime', then Cheney's son will come up and fight Cheney and Cheney will have a change of heart and throw Bush down the bottomless well of the US economic debt(not that bottomless shaft on the DeathStar).
    • shmuu102, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10at least change it to : " surround the white house , in a non violent protest"
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Well, he did write "white house" in small caps. As such, he could be referring to any house that happens to be white...
    • elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Seems to me it wasn't a threat. Questioning an action doesn't promote it and "storm" doesn't mean kill, but I wouldn't be surprised if you felt the boots of these thugs on your back anyway.

      So here's a question:
      You can't win by protesting, because they have "free speech" zones to deal with that. You can't win by force because they have military and police to deal with that. So how can you win?
    • Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The revolution will not be televised!!!

      I wonder how long our Congressional and Executive branches of government need to trample their constituency's civil liberties before the people of this government take action? This is a nation of the people, the president and congress work for you and me, and they are doing a ***** job. In any other workplace directly disobeying your boss (the American people in this case) would get you fired.

      It's time to fire the "American Oligarchy" that have been running this country for too long, and put the power back in the hands of the people. I'm tired of seeing our economy and freedoms destroyed at home, and an image we used to be proud of destroyed around the world. We need to make changes now or history will look back on this nation and see far less than it could have been.
    • Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"You can't win by protesting, because they have "free speech" zones to deal with that. You can't win by force because they have military and police to deal with that. So how can you win?"

      Ah yes, the free speech zones. They are not only at politcal conventions or speeches. I am a student at UCF in Orlando, FL. We have a little free speech zone off next to our math building, far away from the ballroom and arena where any visiting politicians go. Once the progressive council here tried to protest the free speech zone by holding their protest outside the Student Union. It didn't take long for the campus police to show up and disperse everyone. They have military recruiters in that spot, people trying to sell you posters or jewelry can go there, even religious groups are allowed to set up booths outside the union, but not political activists...

      To get around that, sometimes the protesters will march around campus, rather than protesting in one spot. I guess if they are in transit rather than gathering in one spot, they can't tell them to stop walking around.
    • dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I can say what I want to..even if I'm not serious....so go @#$! yourself....you piece of #@$#.

      Freedom of speech anyone? I could say I'm going to storm the white house, but do I own any fire arms? Do I rally protests? Do I have a criminal record? Am I card carrying commie?

      FYI - You can say what you want to, whenever you want to, however you want to. Sure someone might investigate you (Man what a waste of tax dollars!), but they need more then a empty quote to prove to take you away (If they don't, get out of that country cuz it an't free no more)

      Cuz, if they came and took me away I'd have nothing. And no evidence. asides from an empty quote on a open forum. So, basically, one of these days I'm going to h4x0r the voting machines (even tho I don't know anything about programming, but I have elite PSI skills and I could use mind control to do it).
    • suomi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I'm just saying this for your own good: do not use a public forum to threaten the security of the White House or the President of the United States. The law says that you will be investigated AUTOMATICALLY in such circumstances. Just a little FYI there.

      You can disagree with Bush, Republicans, etc. In fact, you can outright HATE them. But what you can't do is say the type of thing you just did."

      What absolute 'Candyman' type, paranoid rubbish.
  • nudedave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13They gotta go open source like Australia
  • jrain157, on 10/12/2007, -51/+4Bury it, completely innacurate. Buckfush.com as the source for the video? come on how much more bias do you get?
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Yes because the video footage was completely faked, right?
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33In cases of truth versus untruth, any bias is IRRELEVANT.
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -41/+5that whole video was laughable.
  • jathos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16What is the background on this video? What courtroom/hearing is this from?

    Any programmer knows this stuff is VERY possible and was probably happening, so it's not a surprise...
    • jathos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Ok - Looks like it's from an Ohio State Senate hearing. Senator Miller is clearly identified when he asks the programmer to restate his credentials near the end of the video. A quick google search turned up Senator Ray Miller
      http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/bios/sd_15.html
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4a programmer knows its higly possible AND PROBABLY HAPPENING? I as a programmer can tell you that I am 100% qualified to assert conspiracy theories.
    • seaqueue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The hearing is from December 13, 2004 in Columbus, OH when he testified under oath in front of members of the House Judiciary Committee who were holding hearings on Election 2004 Voting Irregularities. See my other comment above for more info.
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Holy *****...if that is accurate....could that bring down the Bush administration since that would essentially invalidate that last 2 elections.?
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30No, because no-one will pay any attention, and the government will crush any motion to bring this to light.
    • KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17if Bush stole just one vote it is enough, in 2006 and 2008 I'll applying for an absentee ballot to get my vote on paper
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Quickly, someone give safe passage for Jack Bauer to CTU so we can retrieve the video evidence.
    • icetigaurus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"if Bush stole just one vote it is enough, in 2006 and 2008 I'll applying for an absentee ballot to get my vote on paper"

      They will just end up "losing" the paper.
    • warox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They don't even count absentee ballots unless the margin of victory necessitates that they are counted. I went to college in MI, had a friend from OH who voted absentee (for Kerry, OH's loser) and was furious that her vote was not counted, even though, technically, there was no need to count her vote.
    • Traddles, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2ummm.... liberal, haters?

      How do we even know this was associated with Bush? If we pinned every negative thing a democrat did on Kerry he'd be killed by now.
      and for crying out loud, read the whole thing, Bush didn't steal "even one vote" because the program never made it out to the actual machines, it was never even used.

      Knowledge without power is futile, but power without knowledge is fatal. Please don't end up dead.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No, because it wasn't used. He alledged that he was ordered to write such code, but West Palm Beach opted for punchcard ballots instead of electronic ballots, and thus it had no impact on the outcome of the elections.

      Also, it should be noted that Clint Curtis fingered Tom Feeney as the culprit, despite the fact that Feeney was merely an advisor to the company, and the fact that Curtis is using his testimony as the basis for a senate run against Feeney.

      http://www.clintcurtis.com
    • Hawk2007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@warox

      see, that's how all this voting fraud garbage starts. people start making bs claims that there vote wasn't counted (even though it wouldn't have made any difference) and "Bush stoled the election".
    • nedzalife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@MAdaXe42 - exactly, and the US calls itself a democracy...
  • djphatjive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Because no one ***** cares about it. Bush should not be in office. And no one cares. That is why nothing is being done about it. No one takes a stand anymore for anything. Make it a phone call voting system. ***** American idol gets like 50 million votes a show. It can be done and fast, overnight.
    • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Nice idea. I like that
    • KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'm not ready to lose hope. We can protest, blog or just shout at the top of our lungs, I will not lay down on this.
    • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8And what's to stop them doctoring the voting mechanism if it's sms'd vs. whatever the process is with diebold machines?
    • cthulhu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It really doesn't matter how you vote, where, on what kind of machine or if it's over the phone. All votes go through the diebold central tabulators anyway.

      We are beyond *****.

      It's kinda funny-- when this information first came out, way before the elections, everyone was up in arms - including and especially the republicans. Now you don't see them saying a ***** word about it, except to call it a conspiracy theory. Just imagine if the roles were reversed and the Dems owned the machines and counted the votes.
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1American Idol gets MANY repeat votes. This is part of the system though. I don't watch it anymore, but at one point you paid 15 cents or something to vote, so their thinking was, which ever singer raises them the most money on the show will raise the most money for a record label.
      They were looking for a 'type' of voter.
  • jrain157, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6The video was posted june 20th, if any of the facts checked out this would be all over broadcast media and there would be impeachment hearings going on as we type here at our keyboards.
    • JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18When was the last time you heard every major news media discuss something that was important?

      Oh, right, the 12 months they have spent talking about Natalie Holloway...

      Yeah right man! We can;t depend on these bastards to reveal the truth about ANYTHING. They are just more pawns in Bush's war on Freedom.
  • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -33/+8This is very old news. The guy is full of it - he says he wrote it in 2000 but electronic voting machines were not used in Florida until 2001. The references to Ohio are pure speculation. There is no real accusation here - it is pure innuendo from a "programmer" who was trying to sue his employer (Yang - the case failed) and sell a book
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7Of course. Most 'whistleblowers' are just angry ex employees with an ax to grind.
    • asdfff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Your logic is completely retarded. That's like saying Prey was release this year, so they couldn't have been working on it last year.
    • JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Did it ever occur to you that since he was WRITING THE CODE for these electronic voting machines in 2000 they probably weren't ready until 2001!?!?!? Why the hell would they be still writing the code for these machines in OCTOBER of 2000 if they expected to used them the same year.

      This guy simply has knowledge that fraud was written into voting machines once, so it very well could have happened again. It makes perfect sense.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@asdfff
      Your logic is completely retarded. That's like saying Prey was release this year, so they couldn't have been working on it last year.

      He was referencing (and the Democrats were implying) the 2000 election since he was nowhere near the software in 2004. His code was never delivered or used and it was never proved anybody asked him to write the code. He is a Democrat running for office against the guy he claims asked him to write the code (do the math Einstein). The hearing was about the 2004 Ohio vote (not the 2004 Florida vote, except for innuendo) -Democrat Clint Curtis had no relationship whatsoever to the voting software in Ohio or Florida is 2004 . This was a 2004 Democrat fishing expedition that uncovered nothing but unsubstantiated innuendo Democrat nonsense. No real (or supportable) accusations came from this.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@JayWright
      Did it ever occur to you that since he was WRITING THE CODE for these electronic voting machines in 2000

      Do some research - his code was never delivered or used and he could not prove anybody asked him to do it.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Wow - you can tell by the modding the Digg Moonbats can't handle the truth (to quote Jack Nicholson)

    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It's pure innuendo.. No truth behind it at all. And they were able to successfully prosecute him for lying under oath because of the mounds of evidence they had to disprove his claims.

      Oh, wait... never mind... they haven't been able to produce any evidence at all to disprove him.
  • revolution1x, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Wow.

    http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/3135/wakeupco2.jpg
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6I'm shocked to discover that there were no Jews anywhere in that picture. ;)

      (I'm a Jew)
    • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The most accurate depiction of Rice I've ever seen...
  • Bantec, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I thought the voting was handled by punch machines, those punches were placed in locked boxes, sent to a centralized counting facility and manually counted. Remember the issue over how antiquated the voting machines are throughout the nation, and that many votes are disregarded because they are not readable. When did Florida start using computerized voting? I thought computerized voting and tabulation was all still up in the air. Something sounds fishy about this.
    • rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This video is about 2004, when several counties in Florida were using touchscreen machines.

      Apparently something happened in 2000 which freed up some funding for Florida voting machines. Who knew?
    • spprs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FL switched to touchscreen voting (possibly by 2002) but definitely by 2004. I can't remember exactly when, but I definitely remember using one in the 2004 election. Most of what is referenced in this hearing refers to the Ohio votes in the 2004 election, which also used Diebold machines.
    • thisisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0there is no nation wide standard for voting machines.
  • nPlastic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Unfortunately, proving the possibility of something isn't the same as proving that it happened. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? There is far too much time for these people to have covered their tracks, but I sure would love it if someone slipped up ...

    Still, it is good that this is brought to light because it will force better systems to be developed that are harder to cheat. Let's just hope that the damage done since 2000 is not completely irreversible in the meantime.
  • uptown, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Why is this courtroom run like the Springer show?
  • alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12katherine harris has already strangled this man by now
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I heard she suffocated him by making him gag on the excess flesh they peeled off her face and neck after her plastic surgery.

      I heard this from my sister's nephew's friend's uncle's friend, so you know it's true.
  • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -23/+6Moonbats, this testimony is from 2004 - and it is pure wishful thinking innuendo from the Democrats - it went nowhere.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So what you're saying is, since the video is from 2004, it's irrelevant regardless of its truth.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@evilTak
      So what you're saying is, since the video is from 2004, it's irrelevant regardless of its truth.

      No. It is innuendo from a Democrat - who is now running for office - about election software he had no relationship to in 2004. His claim to fame in an unsubstantiated claim that he wrote software to fix an election that did no use electronic voting.

      The story here is nearly two years ago Democrats threw a bunch of innuendo and nonsense at the wall but nothing stuck. There is no active investigation currently - this is just an innuendo attack containing nothing of substance and nothing that could be substantiated even though the Democrats have tried and failed for last two years.

    • SpencerMc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@leehodge:
      Dude. I don't think innuendo means what you think it means...
    • seaqueue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ SpencerMc

      Sorry, dude, but proper use of the word "innuendo" is one of the few things that leehodge has right.
    • SpencerMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0n·nu·en·do Audio pronunciation of "innuendo" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ny-nd)
      n. pl. in·nu·en·does
      1. An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.
      2. Law.
      1. A plaintiff's interpretation in a libel suit of allegedly libelous or slanderous material.
      2. A parenthetic explanation of a word or charge in a legal document.

      Hmm. Well I'll be damned. The first of the law definitions almost works, though the phrase "innuendo attack" is still a little shaky for me.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@SpencerMc
      Dude. I don't think innuendo means what you think it means...

      Dude, ask your Mom to buy you a dictionary

      in·nu·en·do - An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.
      (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

      Innuendo is an unsubstantiated insinuation - and one can attack another with innuendo
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@seaqueue
      Sorry, dude, but proper use of the word "innuendo" is one of the few things that leehodge has right.

      And what do YOU claim I have wrong? (or is this more innuendo)

      Today's lesson: irony
    • SpencerMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There was nothing indirect about what was said, nor was there anything insinuated. Everything was stated outright. Perhaps you should look up the words contained within a definition before claiming understanding.
    • SpencerMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And furthermore, there is nothing about innuendo being unsubstantiated in that definition.

      Example of innuendo:
      "This man has been known to take campaign contributions that aren't necessarily monetary in nature."

      Example of something that is not innuendo:
      "This man accepted bribes in the form of paid vacations and other material goods in exchange for his vote on key issues."

      Never mind the fact that it is a noun and you have used it as an adjective on multiple occasions...
  • rgov, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2My question is why NASA deals with voting?
  • lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It's impossible for programmable voter machines to ever be 100% safe from election fraud. The whole idea is senseless. The only reason they've gotten this far is because less technically savvy people are the ones in charge of buying them and for some reason they're not looking critically at the marketing claims of the manufacturers. It's the duty of every programmer who cares at all about democracy to try and educate people about the danger that is posed by these machines. If we don't, who will?
    • Minniewheat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Why don't you get out your tinfoil hat too...look for more members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"
  • barthook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That is the question. If this is accurate.

    Why is it that there are a large number of television cameras (including ones facing the programmer), but the only one that shows up as "evidence" is an amateur video camera from behind?
    • RevEng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You might want to ask whoever owns the other cameras.
  • ToddPM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Yes, this is old news, but it's also ongoing news.

    To those saying this is complete fabrication, please feel free to visit
    http://www.bradblog.com/ClintCurtisSummary.htm
    http://www.bradblog.com/ClintCurtis.htm

    Poke away at the facts presented there, but be prepared to show your work! Saying it was disproved means nothing if you cannot cite references.

    And truthiness doesn't count here.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8@ToddPM
      Yes, this is old news, but it's also ongoing news.

      You say it is an "ongoing" news story then link to a blog. Whatever....

      Democrats tried to overturn the vote in Florida in 2000 - a group of newspapers including the Washington Post and Miami Herald later performed a complete recount and found Gore lost - oh well. Democrats tried to overturn the vote in Ohio is 2004 - no wrong-doing was found and after the recount they found Kerry lost - oh well. Clint "the programmer" Curtis is now running for congress as a Democrat (clearly no bias here sarcasm)
    • Traddles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1why is leehodge being dug down? Whether right or wrong he made an interesting point with no (obvious) logical errors, so why does he have many diggs down but no replies explaining why it is an invalid point?
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why is leehodge being dug down? I can't speak for everyone else, but it's difficult to take someone seriously when they manage to use the word "moonbat" 10 times on one article.
      It's okay to disagree, but at least have some respect for those you're disagreeing with. Going around insulting people is not the best way to enlighten them.
    • ToddPM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@leehodge
      I can't believe I'm even going to try, but here goes...

      leehodge: "You say it is an "ongoing" news story then link to a blog. Whatever...."
      Yes, I linked to the blog that first published the original affidavit. The one that has a pretty good timeline delineating the events. The one that is *still* following the story today. One of the main points posted several times above is that THIS ISN'T BEING COVERED BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. So there are very few "news" sites that I think you'd accept that ever covered one bit of the story. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      leehodge:"a group of newspapers including the Washington Post and Miami Herald later performed a complete recount and found Gore lost"
      http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2793 :
      "Summary: The Miami Herald Cooks the Numbers"

      leehodge: "Democrats tried to overturn the vote in Ohio is 2004 - no wrong-doing was found"
      http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf
      Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee:
      "With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and
      unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities
      were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of
      State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. "

      leehodge:"Curtis is now running for congress as a Democrat (clearly no bias here sarcasm)"
      http://www.clintcurtis.com/biography.html :
      "Growing up in Illinois, Clint identified with the Republican party."
      Thank you for helping to prove my point, leehodge.

      By the way, I asked for citations, which you didn't or can't provide.
    • mattlong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1why is leehodge being dug down? Whether right or wrong he made an interesting point with no (obvious) logical errors, so why does he have many diggs down but no replies explaining why it is an invalid point?

      because after reading through all the posts in this discussion, digg.com appears to be full of left-wing communists.
  • redeemingspirit, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4This is a really old story, apparently this guy is a bit of a crackpot (you kind of get that feeling from the vid, I think). He's running for congress now I think.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That explains it, looking for free publicity.
  • origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1What does NASA have to do with it?
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Is there any corroborating evidence?
  • Ozdachs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What is the video of? There are people with titles of "Congressman" and "Senator" on the same panel. But, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, it's not very likely that this was an official hearing, and at least one of the "Senators" was not a US Senator.

    I don't want to bury the story, but I'd like more info on the source. Who took the video? When? What happened/is scheduled to happen?
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2And why does this place look like a television studio, complete with film-quality lighting? I've never seen a court room look like this outside of a Hollywood movie or Judge Judy (if this is a court room). Something looks REALLY wrong about this video. I mean, I want to believe, but this video is so bizarre...
    • SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Not to mention, I don't seem to recall many hearings where the peanut gallery was allowed to "Hiss" and not be admonished by the officials. Maybe it was something else I heard, but it definitely sounded like a Springer audience there for a bit.
  • jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think this video is one of the many reasons computerized voting machines are not in current use in national elections. voting processes have not been changed across the board in this country, so i can see why this hasn't been a big deal yet.
  • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20I'M ***** OUTRAGED!!! Its a total disgrace to our whole system, HEADS SHOULD ROLL!!!
  • Vryz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The guy is a bit of a crackpot, but in a strictly technical sense, his analysis of how easy it is to undetectably alter an election is right on. Check out the security requirements you have to follow to manufacture slot machines: source code has to be analyzed by a neutral third party, random spot checks on phyiscal machines to make sure the machines are actually running that software, etc. These are simple measures which could be applied to voting machines as well. The way it is now, if there were fraud, you'd never be able to find out.
  • bradintheusa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23The people get the government they deserve.
    • rhamej, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I would digg that statement up all day if I could.
    • Persnickety, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is nonsense. The founding fathers wrote down that there are fundamental rights.
      A very few (given the right weapons, funding, friends, etc) can impose a government that no one deserves. In fact this happens all over the world. I don't think you really believe some tortured farmer in Darfur deserves the Sudanese government. Oppression is (nearly by definition) undeserved.

      I realize that your intent is probably more along the lines of "Much of your government is what you make of it", with which I would be more likely to agree.
  • AboveBeyond, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10**BIG EYE ROLL**

    Why am I NOT surprised? I am sooooo appalled by the state of the government that I stopped watching/reading all popular media years ago...
  • truthRises, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19The last two elections are invalid.

    The final count of the 2000 election, which was not made public till long after 9/11, showed Gore to be the winner.

    Read more about 2000 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Florida_election_results

    The 2004 election was tampered with. We used the same tests that were used in the Ukraine Yuschenko election to show that it's statistically impossible for Bush to have legitimately won in Ohio or Florida. The counties where the inconsistencies show up are all counties that store their ballots electronically, either optical scan machines or LCD voting machines.

    Read more about 2004 here: http://www.opednews.com/sabatini_111804_vote_fraud.htm
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10@truthRises j
      The final count of the 2000 election, which was not made public till long after 9/11, showed Gore to be the winner.

      http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

      That is a lie. Actually two lies. The recount from the Miami Herald and USA Today was released on April 4, 2001 (five months before 9/11) is it showed Bush won. The Miami Herald claimed that if a counting method that was not in place in 2000 were used Gore might have won by THREE VOTES (but since it was not in place - that would have been an illegal counting method). Moonbats - get a clue.
    • jamesfrmmaine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"That is a lie. Actually two lies. The recount from the Miami Herald and USA Today was released on April 4, 2001 (five months before 9/11) is it showed Bush won. The Miami Herald claimed that if a counting method that was not in place in 2000 were used Gore might have won by THREE VOTES (but since it was not in place - that would have been an illegal counting method). Moonbats - get a clue."

      leehodge - You should site your claims. Oh and using the term "Moonbats" does help you to sound like boortz but it doesn't prove your claims to be true.

      Here is an msnbc report on how the Herald got it wrong... http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0227-04.htm
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@amesfrmmaine
      leehodge - You should site your claims. Oh and using the term "Moonbats" does help you to sound like boortz but it doesn't prove your claims to be true.

      I did "site my claims", Moonbat. I presented a link to the CNN story from April 4, 2001.
      Based on comments like yours, the term Moonbat accurately applies:

      Moonbat - "someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat

      So do you think terms like neocon helps support claims?
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@jamesfrmmaine
      Here is an msnbc report on how the Herald got it wrong...
      http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0227-04.htm

      Moonbat, that is not a piece from MSNBC saying "how the Herald got it wrong" - that is an OPINION piece from leftest activist and Democrat apologist Eric Alterman
  • AnakinOU, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6What the...? This testimony is a joke. TONS of speculation and no evidence. Then, the guy starts talking about some other programmer, who was supposedly doing bad things, and he thinks he just got off with something like a slap on the wrist. He thinks.

    Terrible.

    This guy has no proof and mixes speculation in with his testimony.

    Honestly? It looks like an E! True Hollywood Story re-enactment or something.
    • Livewire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5What the...? Your comment is a joke. All you do is blurt out things that you would like to be the truth but in this case the truth isn't pretty. Then you start talking about how it looks like an E! True Hollywood Story.

      Shameful.

      You have no proof and mix speculation with your testimony.

      Honestly? You're a whack job.
    • AnakinOU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Sorry if I came off as a "whack job." I was just surprised that this guy's lawyers (and whomever was running the whole proceedings) let him wildly speculate on what could have been done, and then go on to make vague comments about an unrelated incident. That seriously diminished the credibility of his testimony. If he just stuck to the facts, exactly what he experienced, it would have been much better.

      The wild applause also seemed highly incongruous with (what should have been) the serious nature of the event.
    • Livewire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And that's exactly how your comment should have been from the start. May this be a listen for you all. carry on
  • Jadinlee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I'm going to be furious if this news item isn't picked up by a national news station. If they can run stories on how you can "lose weight by drinking coffee" they can run this story.

    Its amazing how ATMs, slot machines, credit/debit purchases, etc... can all occur in our society given our tehnology but we can't find a way to make electronic voting accurate. Its not that we "can't" its that we "won't".
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@Jadinlee
      I'm going to be furious if this news item isn't picked up by a national news station. If they can run stories on how you can "lose weight by drinking coffee" they can run this story.

      Moonbat, this testimony video is nearly two years old. It was a wishful thinking innuendo attack and attempt to steal the election by the Democrats - it went nowhere.
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Prepare to be furious.
    • Jadinlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What the heck is a moonbat??? I'm guessing it was intended an an insult but it sounds kinda cool.
  • Hawk2007, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7funny how libs "ask tough questions regarding credibility" when it comes to Bush and Rove, yet willingly accept some dimwit's claims on video.
    • thisisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10funny how cons "willingly accept" when it comes to Bush and Rove, and label anyone that conflicts with their world view as "bush haters".
    • DrNoDoze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I might not have any reason to trust this guy, but at least i don't have a ton of reason NOT to trust him. This, in case you are missing the point, is not the situation with Bush and Rove.
    • Hawk2007, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2you guys dugg me down and hurt my feelings :(
  • morrisdand, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Was anyone there counting the votes, writing the tabulation routines, speaking with the sources of this? I'm not going to claim to know the facts about these events, but I don't believe that anyone, even the most involved person, has the slightest idea of everything that has gone on in our history. As such, I take just about every political statement from anyone as heresay. So, if the current executive is so such a horrific dictator, then I would think that enough people would vote against him to make it not even close. Why would anyone want such a "monster" in power? While I am certainly no political mind, it seems to me that the general action of the United States government continues very predictably, regardless of the party in power. It won't be until we have an non-bipartisan system that there will be real power in the hands of the people, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
  • SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8"Why isn't this all over the news???"

    Two words: President Cheyney
  • taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4http://www.votersunite.org/
  • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Moonbats, Get a clue!

    The Cat in the nearly two year old video is Democrat Clint Curtis who is running against the guy he CLAIMS asked him to write the code (he was never able to prove this accusation)
    • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You guys seriously need to come up with a better word than "moonbat" to bash lefties. I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously when you use that term. I don't care if it has a Wikipedia entry, it's ridiculous and horribly lame.
    • Paladin27, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, here's his website:
      http://www.clintcurtis.com/
      If his claims are true, he should be able to win this election 51-49%. ;)
    • cthulhu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wingnut, how do you feel about e-voting & Diebold and what are your solutions on the issue?
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@cthulhu
      Wingnut, how do you feel about e-voting & Diebold and what are your solutions on the issue?

      Well Moonbat, I think e-voting is inevitable and most of the whining about it is unsubstantiated nonsense from people that have lost an election. Diebold is a company that has been around a long time and I have seen no real evidence they are anything but a successful company. Remember, if Diebold machines are used in a Democrat victory - the Moonbats will completely shut up and Diebold will be a good company again. The Moonbat ranting has no substance other than they are pissed they keep losing elections - if the Democrat focused more on a reason to vote for them and less on nonsense they might start winning elections. My message for Moonbat ranting is from the old Wendy's commercial - Where's the beef?
    • cthulhu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Just because I might disagree with you makes me a moonbat? Lol.

      How about drinking from the flagon of STFU, wignut *****.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@cthulhu
      Just because I might disagree with you makes me a moonbat? Lol.

      No. You called me a wingnut and I returned the favor. Douche Bag.

      @cthulhu
      How about drinking from the flagon of STFU, wignut *****.

      You are irony incarnate
  • sneakypete090, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0get a life.
  • dzieger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I can't speak to the veracity / motives of this particular programmer, but there is a mountain of evidence of voter in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

    I wanted to link to Greg Palast's collection of articles on the theft of the '00 and '04 elections, but his Web site has recently been redesigned and his article archives are gone or buried. But Google his name and "voter fraud" to find links to numerous investigative pieces.

    Wikipedia's entry on the subject contains a pretty exhaustive outline of the issues raised, with many links to sources. There's way too much smoke (and mirrors) here for there not to be a fire.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@dzieger
      I can't speak to the veracity / motives of this particular programmer, but there is a mountain of evidence of voter in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

      Pure Moonbat BS. Moonbats try to taint Bush with innuendo and unsupported accusations since they can not beat him in the elections - it is pure unsubstantiated innuendo spouted by Moonbats who troll wikipedia and leftist blogs.
    • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Lee, seriously, learn another word. "Moonbat" repeated over and over is not entertaining.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@Egoist
      Lee, seriously, learn another word. "Moonbat" repeated over and over is not entertaining

      It is not meant to be entertaining - it is a description of activity. If people stop making Moonbat comments, there will be no need to use the term.
    • rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"moonbat" is a new term of art of the right wing media. Perhaps someone using the word over and over again is listening to too much official ruling party propaganda.
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@rabiddogma
      "moonbat" is a new term of art of the right wing media.

      Like "neocon" is a new term of art of the left wing media, right? (or should I say "left?")

      @rabiddogma
      Perhaps someone using the word over and over again is listening to too much official ruling party propaganda.

      Or maybe someone is using the word based on its actual meaning in relationship to actions. I know the left hate this but - words do have meaning (even the word "is")
  • chubbymidget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Appears to be old news that's never gone anywhere. Or am I incorrect.
    I do see where this guy is running for office http://www.clintcurtis.com/
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He gave that testimony under oath. Given all the digging that seems to be done on politicians, it should be trivial to find inaccuracies in his testimony and charge him with lying under oath. The republican who supposedly asked him to rig the election could easily step forward and clear his name.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3looks like he's running against Freeny, the republican he accused of asking him to commit fraud. It takes a lot of balls to a) lie under oath about Freeny then b) switch parties to run against him. Assuming he lied, he has a political suicide wish, I mean... he has to be beyond stupid to lie under oath in this situation.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I just want to know why was exit polling so accurate that news media paid strict attention to exit polling up until 2000. All of a sudden exit polling doesn't matter. Keep in mind that we use exit polling in other countries to determine election fraud. But we can't apply that to the USA of course. I have yet to hear why the USA is the exception to the rule that exit polling matters, keeping in mind that disrepencies in states like Florida were significant, not just 51 vs 49 but 70 vs 30 in some scenarios.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm certain I will be dugg down for this, but I'm going to answer your question with what I believe happened.

      Before I start, let me say that I'm not accusing the Kerry campaing of anything shady. If you want that you'll have to seek it elsewhere.

      Now, where were we? Oh yes, exit polls. More precisely why were the exit poll numbers so skewed in 2000.

      The 2000 Presidential election was an especially tough one. It was a very hotly contested race right up to, and beyond, the wire. Both sides were looking for an edge, any edge, right up until the last moment that would help them pull ahead.

      In my view what happened to the exit poll accuracy is that the MSM polls themselves were skewed, either knowingly or on accident. They visited polls in places with heavy Democratic bias and then reported the 70/30 numbers back to the general public. They also visited polls very early in the day, a time with the traditionally high Democratic turnouts.

      By later in the day when the Republicans were voting they, the MSM, were left wondering what happened to the 70/30 numbers from earlier in the day.

      WHY the MSM conducted polls like this is something I won't say. I have my suspicions but I'll keep those to myself.

      I'll also leave it to the reader to puzzle out why Democrats tend to vote earlier in the day then Republicans.

      One last thing, before anyone accuses me of bias I voted Libertarian and consider both Democrat and Republican politicans at the national level to be liars,thieves, and thugs.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem is, the man who perfected the exit poll is actually complaining quite loudly about the huge disprencies.. Namely, Ohio in 2004 was ridiculous. Statistics have been done, papers published. The fraud is proven at this point.
  • kampfy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I absolutely believe that the votes were tampered with on some level, mainly because I need to believe that we were duped into being subjected to a second term of GWB in order to maintain a complete minimum level of respect for my fellow countrymen. Buuut I doubt this wanker had any knowledge or hand in it.
  • juzzyp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Whether this happened or not, the fact is that the electronic voting system is set up to prpovide this sort of a cheat sooner or later.

    And providing the results in an open/unecrypted format wont make any difference, as the data can be manipulated before it is committed there. i.e. who cares what button you pushed, its counted as a Bush vote and the unencrypted record says so. The only way you could validate this is to see YOUR vote and compare, but voting is supposed to be anonymous for very good reason.

    Paper receipts is not a good idea either, as the "hanging chad" debacle that made a mockery of US politics worldwide showed that even when yo have proof, the pressure to decide is to great. So every close state count would end up with appeals to count the receipts, and elections woudl take 4 years to decide each.

    So the only solution here is to make the software open source, but then who can say that the software the open source community is reviewing is actually running in the machine you vote in?

    Stick with paper and pen and a ballot chain of custody.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.