[Osx-nutters] Election 2004 was rigged

[Chuck Bennett]

On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Google Kreme wrote:
>
>> More evidence:
>>
>> In Ohio, Richard Hayes Phillips examined ballots from the 2004  
>> presidential election. They'd been kept locked up for 22 months,  
>> and he was under immense pressure to look at as many as he could  
>> before they were destroyed. What he found shocked him: Patterns of  
>> tampering, as evidenced by statistically impossible overvotes,  
>> strategically placed and favoring George W. Bush.  He listed his  
>> findings here: <http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/ 
>> 2197/44285.html>
>
> thanks for the PDF ...
>
> regarding the elections this November, seems like Lou Dobbs is the  
> only one in MSM who is talking about the voting machines putting  
> "democracy at risk" if we use the Diebold machines.
>
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/19/Dobbs.Sept20/index.html>
> "But there is additional uncertainty about the outcome of our  
> elections that is intolerable and inexcusable, and which could make  
> the contested 2000 presidential election look orderly by  
> comparison. As of right now, there is little assurance your vote  
> will count. As we've been reporting almost nightly on my broadcast  
> for more than a year, electronic voting machines are placing our  
> democracy at risk.
>
> Across the nation, eight out of every 10 voters will be casting  
> their ballots this November on electronic voting machines. And  
> these machines time and again have been demonstrated to be  
> extremely vulnerable to tampering and error, and many of them have  
> no voter-verified paper trail.
>
> There is simply no way in which election officials and their staffs  
> of thousands of volunteers with limited experience and often poor  
> training can possibly carry out reliable recounts."
>


I hope the lawsuit is pursued to a conclusion.

What stuns me is  the resistance to paper tape backup for the  
electronic machines.

Whatever the machine says is taken as gospel, with no real way to  
verify it.

This isn't a partisan issue.  Or at least it shouldn't be.

I want to know that the elections a fair, whether my side wins or  
looses is not the point.

I think electronic voting 'could' be less error prone, but I'd rather  
see an open-source version on standard hardware
with paper tape backup..    Oh, and a guard that protects the  
machines once they have been certified as being ready to be used..

That's also why I support some sort of ID being required for people  
to vote.

=c=