NationStates Jolt Archive

MSNBC Vote Tampering Blog (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/)
Stories of possible hacking into the vote-counting machines/PC's whatever, are now circulating in the blogosphere, and now MSNBC is making rumblings of going mainstream with it. Anyone want to hazard a guess at the credibility of these claims, and whether it could affect the legitimacy of the election?

I wondered if a concession was legally binding.

I don't expect much. About the only thing they can do is a random sampling of the machines.

If a significant majority have errors then an investigation is warrented.

However, if there are only a few errors, then the conspiracy people have to let it go.

I wondered if a concession was legally binding.

I don't expect much. About the only thing they can do is a random sampling of the machines.

If a significant majority have errors then an investigation is warrented.

However, if there are only a few errors, then the conspiracy people have to let it go.
Check out the link. It states that a concession is not legally binding. Only when the vote is certified in every state does it become final.

Could be either, but I think we should err on the side of caution and check it out.

I think it's a fringe-group consipracy with little chance of success that we nonetheless desperately, desperately want to be true.

Still, it highlights a problem that does exist... I called the office of my county clerk asking them to reassure me that my vote had indeed been counted... they couldn't... we need to get a better sort of voting system in place... with some kind of proof/confirmation of voting, definite paper trails, and never, ever in the hands of any kind of partisan group.

I think it's a fringe-group consipracy with little chance of success that we nonetheless desperately, desperately want to be true.

Still, it highlights a problem that does exist... I called the office of my county clerk asking them to reassure me that my vote had indeed been counted... they couldn't... we need to get a better sort of voting system in place... with some kind of proof/confirmation of voting, definite paper trails, and never, ever in the hands of any kind of partisan group.
Well, to be honest, I am happy with the results of the election, but I want to be sure they are real results. As a computer programmer, I am not comfortable with the idea of having no paper trail of my vote. Although, from what I've read, most of the poll workers are senior citizens who are not comfortable with computers anyway, so would have difficulty hacking.

most of the poll workers are senior citizens who are not comfortable with computers anyway, so would have difficulty hacking.Maybe, but to have the credibility of our election rely on a generalization like that? I may be rather biased, but I'm highly uncomfortable with how our elections have been going. I can't believe 2000 went so very, very badly, and no one was even able to do a thing about it.

Check out the link. It states that a concession is not legally binding. Only when the vote is certified in every state does it become final.

Oh I did read it; I was just saying I had wondered....

Personally, I think the machines should be checked as it is a new way of doing things. You can test all you want but things usually break when you go live on a large scale.

People would "trust" the machines more if they people would say " we check the machines accuracy and found little or no errors....."

Maybe, but to have the credibility of our election rely on a generalization like that? I may be rather biased, but I'm highly uncomfortable with how our elections have been going. I can't believe 2000 went so very, very badly, and no one was even able to do a thing about it.
One of the reasons we didn't need to worry about Ohio as much, even though most of their counties use the punchcard ballots so vilified in 2000, is that Ohio law has a unified standard for counting their votes across the state. Florida's dilemma was that there was no law or single standard, so using one standard in one county might do better for one candidate than in another county.

First of all, everyone knows the media is trying to create a million reasons as to why George Bush won.

First it was because the bible-beaters voted for him in force. They liked his Christian beliefs and voted against their true wishes (end war, economy, etc) just because they didn't like John Kerry.

Second was gay marriage. I don't see how the media can make this argument considering at the debates John Kerry stated firmly that he was pro civil-union and anti gay-marriage.

Third was how they trumped up Gore's loss due to disenfranchised black voters. Find one area where black people were disenfranchised. Al Sharpton couldn't even find one! Then the media in the last couple of weeks were screaming from the rooftops that black people were kept away from the polls.

And now we have possible hackers. I'm tired of all this garbage.

Hello Mr Liberal Media! Hold still! :sniper:

And just to note, My voting area had paper ballots here in California.

Adobe Reader required to view source.

Briefly, three representatives, two of whom hold memberships on the House Judiciary Committee, have written the General Accountability Office asking for "an investigation of the efficacy of voting vachines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to the difficulties they encountered and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration."

While they are unwilling to use the f-word (fraud), they cite several reported voting irregularities, including voters who attempted to vote for Kerry touchscreen voting machines reporting that their votes were tallied as votes for Bush on the screen, right before their eyes.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/correspondence/letters.html

Click on the link that says "Text of Letter from Reps. Conyers, Nadler and Wexler to GAO Comptroller Walker Requesting Investigation of Voting Machines and Technologies Used in 2004 Election (11/5/04)" to view the full request for an investigation.

First of all, everyone knows the media is trying to create a million reasons as to why George Bush won.

Actually the media likes selling ads. Conspiracies and trash sell.


First it was because the bible-beaters voted for him in force. They liked his Christian beliefs and voted against their true wishes (end war, economy, etc) just because they didn't like John Kerry.

Second was gay marriage. I don't see how the media can make this argument considering at the debates John Kerry stated firmly that he was pro civil-union and anti gay-marriage.

Nope! Sorry! The battle cry was Gay Marriage. Saw several references in the news. I posted a link and quotes from conservative groups that said so.....


Third was how they trumped up Gore's loss due to disenfranchised black voters. Find one area where black people were disenfranchised. Al Sharpton couldn't even find one! Then the media in the last couple of weeks were screaming from the rooftops that black people were kept away from the polls.


Wow all those "accidental" deletions due to supposed criminal records was all a lie?

And just to note, My voting area had paper ballots here in California.

Hmpf? Mine had the electronic machines.....

I read somewhere that by magnetically destroying your election voting card for the machines, that it created a blank card that gives you administrative access and you can do all sorts of things. Not sure if that's true or not, I only heard it once.

Does the U.S. Constitution even say anything about voting methods? i just think it's strange how when talk turns to things like sampling in the census as opposed to a head-count, there's a furore over how unconstitutional it might be.... but dodgy voting machines? No problem, we'll just use them and to hell with the constitutional problems it might raise. Crazy stuff.

Well, to be honest, I am happy with the results of the election, but I want to be sure they are real results. As a computer programmer, I am not comfortable with the idea of having no paper trail of my vote. Although, from what I've read, most of the poll workers are senior citizens who are not comfortable with computers anyway, so would have difficulty hacking.

Likewise they would be less likely to be aware that someone in the area was indeed hacking.

There simply isn't enough information, but surely no one can fairly state that this doesn't warrant further investigation? It will be helpful to all concerned to determine if this is just an umerited conspiracy theory or if it is legitimate. Certainty is a good thing and quiets (but does not dispell,) grumblings.

Likewise they would be less likely to be aware that someone in the area was indeed hacking.

There simply isn't enough information, but surely no one can fairly state that this doesn't warrant further investigation? It will be helpful to all concerned to determine if this is just an umerited conspiracy theory or if it is legitimate. Certainty is a good thing and quiets (but does not dispell,) grumblings.

Hacking a machine would get noticed as I would think there would be comparisons. For exampe, 10 machines. 9 have 2000 or so votes for Repubs. Machine 10 has 100000 votes.....

The so called hacking would be on a grand scale. The program is released with "bugs" where every machine has errors.......

Hacking a machine would get noticed as I would think there would be comparisons. For exampe, 10 machines. 9 have 2000 or so votes for Repubs. Machine 10 has 100000 votes.....

The so called hacking would be on a grand scale. The program is released with "bugs" where every machine has errors.......

Actually, accoprding to a few articles I read, the hacking wouldn't occur at a single machine. What would be hacked is the computer in charge of tallying up the votes from many machines. Said computer, apparently, was oftentimes a PC running on windows, a device that has security measures about as porous as a sea sponge with osteoporosis.

Again, I have no way to assure myself of the accuracy of said reports. I will have to wait and see.

Actually, accoprding to a few articles I read, the hacking wouldn't occur at a single machine. What would be hacked is the computer in charge of tallying up the votes from many machines. Said computer, apparently, was oftentimes a PC running on windows, a device that has security measures about as porous as a sea sponge with osteoporosis.

Again, I have no way to assure myself of the accuracy of said reports. I will have to wait and see.

If you find it, do post a link. Old security guy.

Windows does have it's problems but I would hope there was a good firewall and an IDS in place.

Still this is an old scenerio. This was open to when it was only punch cards.....

My big question is why are these hackers automatically assumed to be republican? If they were indeed hacked (which is a mighty big if), isn't it just as likely that democrats or even independents might have hacked the system?

The media insinuation that this is obviously because of republicans is what irks me.

Meh, here in WV we used good ole' paper and pencil to fill out our ballots. No voting booths or anything, just open tables to fill them out. Wouldn't really work on a large scale though. :D

the reason it is assumed to be republicans who were hackers, and this is all assumptions and hypothetically speaking, is because bush won, and the exit polls predicted kerry a sure win. now it is possible that exit polls have some error, but on such a large scale (over 100 mil voters, right?) with a certian % being polled, you can assume a pretty good accuracy. if the exit polls showed bush to be winning all along there wouldnt be much of a reason to assume he shouldnt have won.

My big question is why are these hackers automatically assumed to be republican? If they were indeed hacked (which is a mighty big if), isn't it just as likely that democrats or even independents might have hacked the system?

The media insinuation that this is obviously because of republicans is what irks me.



Well, let's see. I'm not saying the election was dodgy, mind you, though I've seen some interesting articles that could spin it that way.

However, when there are any suspicions of cheating or voting fraud, don't you always suspect the winner?

There are two real cases of election fraud in US history, that are proven or all but proven.

First, Rutherford B. Hayes bought the votes of a few Southern congressman after a tied election by promising to pull troops out of the South and end Reconstruction. The Southern congressman backed northern Republicans in deciding the election wasn't tied after all, that Hayes had one more electoral vote than his opponent, Samuel Tilden. A lie.

Second, John F. Kennedy carried Texas and Illinois because of dishonest Democratic political machines in both cities. Mayor Richard Daley Sr. had personal political operatives break umpteen election laws in Chicago, while JFK's running mate (Lyndon Johnsons) was the virtual boss of the Texas machine and was able to guarantee votes in key Texas counties... regardless of what the voters actually did. There is a famous picture, from one of Johnson's senatorial campaigns, with several county sherriff's deputies from one of these key counties in possession a ballot box that had allegedly been stolen. None of those votes were counted. The cops had them all the time. These kinds of dirty tricks gave Texas to JFK.

Now, it has not yet been proved that either the 2000 or the 2004 election were in any way rigged or dishonest. I will say, however, that it was suspicious that the only voting irregularities popped in a state governed by the brother of the candidate who was finally awarded ALL of the disputed votes. It's also suspicious that, after this issue, the voting system in Florida was rearranged so that it was under the control of Jeb Bush's Republican appointees.

The only proven political corruption in 'this election' actually happened in Texas after the midterm election. The Texas state legislature's Republican majority voted to redistrict Texas's voting precincts in such a manner that all the new districts were overwhelmingly Republican. They redistricted out of office Democratic congressmen that the Republicans had never been able to beat in elections. The reason that people throw dirt at the Republican party is that the Republican party behaves in a manner designed to invite dirt.

And just to note, My voting area had paper ballots here in California.

I had dots, and I knew this ahead of time thanks to those wonderfully cheesy and horrid commercials :p

First of all, everyone knows the media is trying to create a million reasons as to why George Bush won.

First it was because the bible-beaters voted for him in force. They liked his Christian beliefs and voted against their true wishes (end war, economy, etc) just because they didn't like John Kerry.

Second was gay marriage. I don't see how the media can make this argument considering at the debates John Kerry stated firmly that he was pro civil-union and anti gay-marriage.

Third was how they trumped up Gore's loss due to disenfranchised black voters. Find one area where black people were disenfranchised. Al Sharpton couldn't even find one! Then the media in the last couple of weeks were screaming from the rooftops that black people were kept away from the polls.

And now we have possible hackers. I'm tired of all this garbage.

Hello Mr Liberal Media! Hold still! :sniper:

Yeah that House Judiciary report just reeks of this liberal media you speak of... what's the matter? You don't have enough bigoted hate announcers on the radio and TV yet?

The reason that people throw dirt at the Republican party is that the Republican party behaves in a manner designed to invite dirt.

And the reason Kerry conceded is that there is no way the democratic party can spin this election. I mean, if the Democratic party can't let go of the fact that they lost, and they try to scrounge for whatever they can get, whether by lying or cheating, then they start to look bad. They realized that, and thus gave up a lost fight. ALl this talk of voting machine sabotage/manipulation is just a way to extend the supposed "illegitimacy" of Bush's presidency. It is very easy to end every argument with him by saying, "But you're not the real president". Unfortunately, this mindset lasted throughout the four years of Bush's presidency, and worked. Now the democrats/liberals are trying to continue that trend, although Bush won by a substantial number of voters.

Well... I can't help but notice that the statistical analyses (http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html) are supporting distinct biases by county in Florida by voting machine type, and there are clearly some rather unusual results in certain counties.

Whether or not this was truly the deciding factor of the election is in no way yet determined, but between the curious lack of correlation with exit polls, which matched closely previous analyses on the topic, I'd say with high confidence that full investigation and audit of (at the minimum) optical scanning machine votes in Florida is required.

I am going to stay out of the political side of the argument this once …

But

Hacking a closed system with an unknown os specially written for this special purpose using only god knows what for an encryption scheme with no access to the internet …

Not only would you have to be local but to get that sort of info … I consider myself a fairly good white hat but seriously yikes

Not saying it couldn’t be done but the number of checks and balances they could install (everything from simple check summing to you name it)


Lets just say I would be proud of the man that could do it in a month or two … with full access to the info… to get it done on that day.

I am quite happy with the election and what tampering might be going on I don't know, but this shows we need an investigation, and also that we need to crack down on the cyber terrorist until they look like this at thier houses :headbang:

:mp5: Ragen Paranoia :sniper:

a few points to highlight:

The media or clear channel corps, is Republican owned. So not sure where the notion of the media spinning the possibility of fraud is coming from.

Secondly, someone mentioned that the votes were recounted in Ohio and it proved Bush still won. OK, but it also inflated the popular vote which hasn't been recounted and which would raise more of an eyebrow than a close electoral vote. If you recall, that county where the votes were recounted, had inflated the votes for GW by 3,000. - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that of that happened with even just half of all new electronic voting machines nationwide, there would be a huge inflation of the apparent 'populous' favoring Bush. And if the Populous didn't vote for Bush, how the hell did the states get decided for him? Electoral votes are awarded after counties have been decided for a candidate and who has the majority in the end - so if it appears as though the populous wnats one candidate then the state will be awarded to that candidate. And WHaLA! that's how you win without the popular vote.

The Media Is Nothing But Democrate Owned You Fucktard Do Some Research Before You Post! Fox News Is The Only Balanced News Out There And Guess What You Democrate Fucktards Allways Tell Everyone That It Is Conservative Talk! Guess What It's The Closest Thing To Real New! So Before You Post Any Shit Like That Ever Again Make Sure To Do Your Research See The Majority 3/4 Or More Of The People Who Own Most Of The Media Stations Are Democrates!

Does anyone watch C-SPAN on Sunday morning? (about 8-10 or so)? I tune in every week to hear from the wingnuts from both sides call in. The host basically reads the headlines from the major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun, etc) and takes caller's opinions.

It's not only entertaining, but it's also AMAZING the range of opinions out there on any given topic. I also give the host props for being very centrist; he only cuts off the most rabid callers, but does so from either side equally.

But the main reason I like it? The host does not voice any opinion of his own.

Ahhhh, someone who can only spew the filth they have inside. So, wolves - how does it feel to lack the ability to intelligently (let alone civilly) convey your idea/statement? I understand, it's hard work living in them Red states and having to listen to non-evangical fantasy from certain media sources. Must really stink to hear liberal ideas from your own parties properties - bu then again it's easy enough to write it off because it's not evangical babble.

Wait, i think the church bells are ringing - time to go - can't be cussing like that this near to service time - say hello to Mr, Baker eh?

where's the report this post option?

Hacking a closed system with an unknown os specially written for this special purpose using only god knows what for an encryption scheme with no access to the internet …
Last time I heard, no small number of the electronic voting machines and counting machines were running on unpatched windows boxes (http://blackboxvoting.org/) and open phone lines. I would've expected a closed system with an unknown OS, but apparently this has not been the case.

And some have been checked and tested... and found "easy to hack." In fact, there's some concern that certain of the 2002 primaries and elections may have been hacked, along with a special election held earlier this year.

Well, let's see. I'm not saying the election was dodgy, mind you, though I've seen some interesting articles that could spin it that way.

However, when there are any suspicions of cheating or voting fraud, don't you always suspect the winner?

There are two real cases of election fraud in US history, that are proven or all but proven.

First, Rutherford B. Hayes bought the votes of a few Southern congressman after a tied election by promising to pull troops out of the South and end Reconstruction. The Southern congressman backed northern Republicans in deciding the election wasn't tied after all, that Hayes had one more electoral vote than his opponent, Samuel Tilden. A lie.

Second, John F. Kennedy carried Texas and Illinois because of dishonest Democratic political machines in both cities. Mayor Richard Daley Sr. had personal political operatives break umpteen election laws in Chicago, while JFK's running mate (Lyndon Johnsons) was the virtual boss of the Texas machine and was able to guarantee votes in key Texas counties... regardless of what the voters actually did. There is a famous picture, from one of Johnson's senatorial campaigns, with several county sherriff's deputies from one of these key counties in possession a ballot box that had allegedly been stolen. None of those votes were counted. The cops had them all the time. These kinds of dirty tricks gave Texas to JFK.

Now, it has not yet been proved that either the 2000 or the 2004 election were in any way rigged or dishonest. I will say, however, that it was suspicious that the only voting irregularities popped in a state governed by the brother of the candidate who was finally awarded ALL of the disputed votes. It's also suspicious that, after this issue, the voting system in Florida was rearranged so that it was under the control of Jeb Bush's Republican appointees.

The only proven political corruption in 'this election' actually happened in Texas after the midterm election. The Texas state legislature's Republican majority voted to redistrict Texas's voting precincts in such a manner that all the new districts were overwhelmingly Republican. They redistricted out of office Democratic congressmen that the Republicans had never been able to beat in elections. The reason that people throw dirt at the Republican party is that the Republican party behaves in a manner designed to invite dirt.
How is it corruption to legally draw district lines to one party's favor or the other? The Democrats were hailed in Texas in 1990 for drawing the most effective districts to get Democrats elected in the entire country. This resulted in a Democrat majority in the US House, from a state that goes at least 60% Republican in every election.

I think people love conspiracy theories....

I think people love conspiracy theories....
Gotta love 'em, but also gotta love precincts in Ohio with higher vote-counts than registered voter-counts. Even 150% turnout is impressive, and that was by no means the lowest.