quote:Originally posted by bond006: At what time is the government allowed to be in our lives and for what reason.
The issue of abortion is the concern of a woman her doctor and religious leader of whatever faith. and the advise of her family.
In this great republic that we have the right of seperation of religion and the civil state is just that it is a right that applies to all issues weather they are liked or not the line is drawn in the sand as far as I am concerned now with this issue,obortion.
You can be pro life as I am just don't make it a law that shoves it down the throats of everybody like a dictator would do. Or find youself another country that lives under theocratic law like the mideast be happy stone people to death, cut off limbs for crime,bury little baby girls in the sand because you cannot afford them. And be one happy s.o.b that you are controling peoples life. Just please ge the hell out of my country
I'm glad I don't take things personally, Bond. Because if that had been directed at me, I'd have to remind you that your stated opinion is exactly the same one that I've given before on these boards.
as for Roe V Wade? don't hold yer breath... Alito and Roberts are less prone to overturn prior precedent than any of their colleagues on the Court.
Don't read anything into my use of that case. I only listed it by name because it is one that is still hotly contested and debated and thus open to revisitation like the capital punishment issues and segregation were. While I'm personally against abortion save in cases of incest, rape, or where the health of the mother is in jepordy, I do feel that it isn't my place to force others to hold that same view.Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
my analysis is that McCain has most definitely been as ambiguous as possible, and none of the candidates are likely to address this issue head on because they are hoping that people will just not vote based on it...
Obama has assured people that he will not try to overturn Roe VWade... McCain is winking at the "far right" and hoping they see him winking.
-------------------- Of the People, by the People and For the People. Posts: 27933 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't read anything into my use of that case. I only listed it by name because it is one that is still hotly contested and debated and thus open to revisitation like the capital punishment issues and segregation were.
OK, but you did bring it up, right?
-------------------- Of the People, by the People and For the People. Posts: 27933 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Don't read anything into my use of that case. I only listed it by name because it is one that is still hotly contested and debated and thus open to revisitation like the capital punishment issues and segregation were.
OK, but you did bring it up right?
On that thread? Yes.
On this one? No.
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
So, reading through that link, I understand it to show (as I stated above) that people are widely divided on the issue.
Both the Quinnipiac University Poll and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey have it at about 60\40 as to legal vs illegal. Even the surveys that are more lopsided show that there is differences in opinion as to how 'legal' it should be and under what circumstances it should be ok.
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yes you did. and i pointed out where, i didn't misread..
I'm not even sure if this is worth arguing about. My links were to lists of voting records. No more. No less. As to the quotes, if I had copied\pasted them in a different order would that have been better?
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the page I got three out of the four quotes from....go down the list, Glass...that's the order they appear in (among the one's I didn't quote).
Whether you 'misread' or not is up to you to decide...the fact that you read into my posts more than I intended...that I can say (as I am in the unique position to know what I intended).
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: it seems to me that you are trying to do th esame thing as McCain, bringing it up, but not really answering the question...
As for not answering the question, do I really need to link my previously stated opinion on the issue a second time in the same thread?
as for Roe V Wade? don't hold yer breath... Alito and Roberts are less prone to overturn prior precedent than any of their colleagues on the Court.
Don't read anything into my use of that case. I only listed it by name because it is one that is still hotly contested and debated and thus open to revisitation like the capital punishment issues and segregation were. While I'm personally against abortion save in cases of incest, rape, or where the health of the mother is in jepordy, I do feel that it isn't my place to force others to hold that same view.
In what way do you find that lacking in specificity or content in regards to the subject matter?
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe you are just being a little sloppy in your presentation then?
you may not have realised that abortion was at the top of your lists, but it was....
(mumble)rorschach test(mumble)
But moving on...
this topic is so touchy, that Romney changes his mind depending on who's votes he needs....
and Mccain is for human rights at conception AND for embryonic stem cell research...
I agree with you on it's volatility, which is why I understand that any 'political bravery' type test would have it at or near the top of the questions. It's not neccessarily because the 'test' is biased, it's because it's a hotbutton issue. As I posted above, whichever side of the issue you commit to (pro-life or pro-choice) you gain friends AND enemies simply based on that position.
In the end, by playing the middle ground, both parties get to 'please heaven without pissing off the devil.'
Politics as usual.
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
if you read back? that's my main gripe. it's more about people not taking a rational position than anything else...
if you don't WANT to be lumped in with "the left" or "the right" then you just have to make your case on each point...
i still consider myself a GOP even tho quite few other GOP's have told me to my face, and even right here in off-topics that i couldn't possibly be a GOP if i believed that _________________ (you can fill in the blank with half a dozen positions)...
the worst part in all of that is that these issues become political footballs and neither side wants to rationally solve the problems cuz then they'd have to find a NEW football to play with
-------------------- Of the People, by the People and For the People. Posts: 27933 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
if you don't WANT to be lumped in with "the left" or "the right" then you just have to make your case on each point...
And therein lies the challenge, Glass. How does one makes one's case when the stereotyping goes on from both sides. As my recent exchanges with Bdgee have shown (I hope), with nothing to support his baseless accusations and insults he goes merrily on his way spouting his 'the right is a bunch of hypocritical fascists' rhetoric and not one person(other than myself) challenges it.
Not one.
Now, the right is no more innocent of this than the left. As we talked about the other day, Ann Coulter is nothing more than a 'shock jock' of the 'right.' She intentionally generalizes and stereotypes in order to marginalize the 'left' by making them out to be tree hugging hipie socialists. And noone on the right criticizes her.
Noone.
I agree with you that you have to think for yourself and be open to dialogue between parties that don't agree. But part of that dialogue has to come from not making assumptions and simply taking some things at face value until proven otherwise. I know it sounds naive, but distrust is what has gotten us where we are in the first place.
the worst part in all of that is that these issues become political footballs and neither side wants to rationally solve the problems cuz then they'd have to find a NEW football to play with
I'd argue that another problem with 'rationally' solving some issues is based on philosophical differences. On some issues, compromise means simply giving a little ground so everyone is happy. Other times, it means giving in on one's closely held beliefs.
For instance the now belabored abortion issue.
How does one vote on it (if it actually came to a popular vote) when one firmly believes in the sanctity of ALL life yet feels that choice is an important part of this life? By voting for choice, does that make one complicit in the taking of said lives? By voting pro-life, is one any better than the tyrants of other nations that proscribe strict forms of compliance to set codes?
How does one act in such cases?
This is the challenge faced by those that honestly hold personal beliefs and not simply appearing as such for political gain.
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For instance the now belabored abortion issue.
How does one vote on it (if it actually came to a popular vote) when one firmly believes in the sanctity of ALL life yet feels that choice is an important part of this life? By voting for choice, does that make one complicit in the taking of said lives? By voting pro-life, is one any better than the tyrants of other nations that proscribe strict forms of compliance to set codes?
How does one act in such cases?"
I guees that this point is the one I find hardest to accept from the Pro-lifer's.
If indeed it is the sanctity of life than how can one decide that a life conceived of Rape or incest is not worthy? Yes, those are unwanted pregnacies and are unwanted acts but the fact remains that life is conceived. I believe that the individual is the one that needs to make the choice in all cases. Even in a religious or moral sense, it is not upto the masses to force their will upon the unbelieving or sinner. religously it goes against the very fabric of free will. One can be appraised of the potential moral risks but in the end it is an individual's decision.
Also there are many other polarizing issues, not just abortion.
Such as, one not supporting the war being a sign that they are traitors. This has been banty about for years. Being against Capital punishment being likened to being soft on crime.
IMO, the problem with both politics and religion is that fact that people are taught to look for differences instead of looking for common ground. I believe that most people if they really took a look at all religions and looked at the common ground instead of the differences there would be much less conflict. The same can be said for politics. The reason we taught more about the difference than the common ground is to keep the status quo and power in the hands of those who have the power.
As an example. We all know we have an energy problem. Why can't both sides work to create short and long term solutions? Because if they did, the issue would die. Isn't it a bit ironic how Illegal immigration was the hot topic during the primaries but has been placed on the back burner? By the time the general election comes, if they difference between the two candidates on the economy isn't great enough then a new polarizating issue will come to the forefront.
I mean look at the recent news, McCain not knowing how many houses he owns and Biden's comments about Obama when he was running against him get more play than any issue. I would like to see both candidates put forth a comprehensive plan for the economy, foreign policy(including Iraq and Afganistan), Social Security, the budget deficit, rebuilding of the infrastructure, Healthcare(including Medicare/Medicaid), Taxes and rebuilding the American Dream. The American Dream being in part that all people could one day own their own home.
What I'm saying is that I would like to spend more time figuring out solutions than debating differences.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3095 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [qb] if you don't WANT to be lumped in with "the left" or "the right" then you just have to make your case on each point...
And therein lies the challenge, Glass. How does one makes one's case when the stereotyping goes on from both sides. As my recent exchanges with Bdgee have shown (I hope), with nothing to support his baseless accusations and insults he goes merrily on his way spouting his 'the right is a bunch of hypocritical fascists' rhetoric and not one person(other than myself) challenges it.
Not one.
Not true SF...I along with a few others here have challenged his rhetoric MANY times...I myself have also learned that it is a complete waste of time to attempt to debate with a full blown narcissist.
-------------------- ------------------------- It's all in the timing.... Posts: 3161 | From: The Motor City | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
if you look for info on this? you get dozens of "conspiracy sites" (like 9-11) but the mainstream media has mostly ignored this story because it really does bring into question when the last legitimately elected govt was sworn in:
States throw out costly electronic voting machines
By DEBORAH HASTINGS – 5 days ago
The demise of touch-screen voting has produced a graveyard of expensive corpses: Warehouses stacked with thousands of carefully wrapped voting machines that have been shelved because of doubts about vanishing votes and vulnerability to hackers.
What to do with this high-tech junkyard is a multimillion-dollar question. One manufacturer offered $1 a piece to take back its ATM-like machines. Some states are offering the devices for sale on eBay and craigslist. Others hope to sell their inventories to Third-World countries or salvage them for scrap.
Beginning last year, states including California, Ohio and Florida abruptly ordered election officials to mothball their electronic machines. Over the last two years, the percentage of registered voters relying on touch-screen technology dropped from 44 percent to 36 percent.
In November, when the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain ends, an estimated 57 percent of voters will rely on paper ballots.
Ohio can't do anything about selling its $138 system until lawsuits filed by the manufacturer and the secretary of state get sorted out.
The legal battle follows a string of problems dating to 2004, when malfunctioning machines led to hours-long lines at the polls. Days passed before votes were tallied.
posted
Potential Flaws In Electronic Voting Systems, Review Finds ScienceDaily (July 31, 2007) — Flaws that leave electronic voting machines vulnerable to security attacks were discovered by University of California researchers as part of an unprecedented "Top-to-Bottom Review" of the systems commissioned by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See also: Matter & Energy Technology Construction Electronics Computers & Math Hacking Encryption Information Technology Reference Security engineering Cyber security standards Computer security Computer insecurity ---------------------------------------------- The review, begun May 31, was designed to restore the public's confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and to ensure that California voters are being asked to cast their ballots on machines that are secure, accurate, reliable and accessible. Bowen released key findings of the "Red Team" part of the review on July 27. Other sections of the review dealing with source code, voting system documentation and accessibility are to be made public later.
The red teams were able to compromise the physical and software security of all three systems tested. The researchers noted, however, that protecting the security of the voting process entails more than ensuring the security of the voting machines.
"Our task was to analyze the machines, but those machines are just one piece of what makes an election secure," said Matt Bishop, professor of computer science at UC Davis, who led the Red Team review. "In my 30 years in this field, I've never seen a system that was perfectly secure, but proper policies and procedures can substantially improve the security of systems. Paper ballots aren't perfect, either, but we've been working with them longer so we know more about how to control the weaknesses in a paper-based system."
Bishop will testify today, Monday, July 30, at a public hearing on the review at the Secretary of State's office in Sacramento.
The three electronic voting systems examined were made by Diebold Elections Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic, respectively. The voting systems are used in 43 of the 58 counties in California by 9 million of the state's 15.7 million registered voters.
The researchers said that many of the security problems they encountered were fairly similar across the three systems.
"The problem with the systems should have been detected early in their development," said Bishop. "There are ways to develop and implement systems that resist compromise much better than the systems we examined. Many of these safeguards are taught in undergraduate and graduate computer security courses, but it was clear they were not used effectively in the electronic voting systems we evaluated."
The Red Team testers were able to bypass the machines' tamper-resistant seals and locks, physically gaining access to the memory cards that store the votes. Such a vulnerability could potentially be exploited on Election Day, the researchers said.
"In many cases, this could be done in less than a minute, and in a way that would not necessarily be noticed by poll workers, particularly if there are privacy shields and curtains blocking their view of the voter," said Bishop.
Once inside the machine, the researchers noted that an individual could then switch out the memory cards. Such a breach might be detected if procedures are in place to compare the memory cards with the votes stored in the machine's internal memory and with the paper trail that is required in California, the researchers said.
While the Red Team benefited from the work by the source code team, led by David Wagner, associate professor of computer science at UC Berkeley, the researchers emphasized that knowledge of a voting system's source code, while helpful, is not critical to breaking down its security barriers.
"Keeping the source code and other system information secret provides a false sense of security for the systems," said Bishop. "We really only had five weeks to try to penetrate the machines' defenses, but people intent on breaking through the security would spend as much time as necessary to find holes to exploit."
The review also notes that all systems are vulnerable to tampering by people who have access to the machines when votes are tabulated. However, this requires a high level of access, and most counties have careful controls over the people who have access to voting equipment.
Another problem is the potential for the sabotage of machines before an election. Technical glitches in electronic voting machines can take hours to fix, leading to long lines and potentially disenfranchised voters who might be unable to wait, the researchers said.
The 42 members of the UC Davis and UC Berkeley research teams included internationally recognized experts in computer science, computer security, electronic voting, law and public policy. Team members included faculty, post-doctoral scholars, graduate students, and other experts from UC Santa Barbara, Princeton University and other universities, as well as experts from industry, including Consilium, LLC. A full list of the team members is available online at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm.
Other components of the project include a review of electronic voting system documentation to determine whether those materials are complete and consistent, and an evaluation of system accessibility for voters with disabilities and with special language requirements. The entire report is available online at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm
posted
Electronic Voting Machines Media Report Major Problems
Below are links to a powerful documentary and revealing articles in major media exposing serious problems with electronic voting machines. This is followed by excerpts from an excellent article which explains core problems within the elections system. Though one party may benefit more than others, this is not a partisan issue. We invite all who care about democracy to join in working towards fair elections which truly reflect the will of the people.
New York Times - An article titled "Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud," presents the troubling results of a detailed study by Johns Hopkins University. "We found some stunning, stunning flaws. The systems....could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment. Ballots could be altered by anyone with access to a machine, so that a voter might think he is casting a ballot for one candidate while the vote is recorded for an opponent."
New York Times, 7/24/2003 (article became pay for view just after 2004 election, free copy available at link)
Fox News/Associated Press - "Voters nationwide reported some 1,100 problems with electronic voting machines on Tuesday, including trouble choosing their intended candidates. Several dozen voters in six states said the wrong candidates appeared on their touch-screen machine's checkout screen.”
Washington Post - "In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost because officials misjudged the amount of data that could be stored electronically by a computer."
Miami Herald - An article titled "Defective Software Lost Votes" states, "Attorneys scrutinizing the close vote on Amendment Four noticed that vote totals changed in an unexpected way after 13,000 final ballots were counted. Election officials quickly determined the problem was caused by the Unity Software. Because no precinct has more than 32,000 voters, the software caps the total votes at that number. From there, it begins to count backward." "The glitch was discovered two years ago, and should have been corrected by software manufacturer ES&S."
CNN/Associated Press - "An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus. Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. "
CNN, 11/5/2004 (this article appears to have been removed from the CNN website not long after the election. At this link, we provide a copy we downloaded before its removal)
USA Today - "Nearly one in three voters, including about half of those in Florida, were expected to cast ballots using ATM-style voting machines that computer scientists have criticized for their potential for software glitches, hacking and malfunctioning." "Most of the machines, including all of Florida's, lack paper records that could be used to verify the electronic results in a recount". "Over 20 percent of the machines tested by observers around the country failed to record votes properly."
These are only a few of the many problems that we know about. How many more votes were changed or disappeared that we don't know about? We will never know. For more powerful information on this, the excellent documentary Votergate takes us on a fact-finding mission across the US revealing stunning evidence of defects and outright fraud in electronic voting. Engaging interviews with whistleblowers and courageous Americans, including members of Congress and top elections officials, reveal critical information which the mass media has given very little coverage. Watch this powerful 30-minute documentary available free on Google Video.
The Problem Goes Deeper. Below are excerpts from a riveting article which goes to the very core of the problem. The author's father and uncle uncovered serious elections fraud years ago and suffered severely for trying to reveal the truth. In 1992, they published the book Votescam which exposed major elections fraud, only to have it effectively banned. They both died young in the 1990s. Please pass on this powerful information which is so vital to the future of democracy. Invite all of your friends and colleagues to forward this message, and to join together in calling for election reform.
A Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America (Excerpts) By Victoria Collier
Squadrons of shiny new touch screen Trojan horses are being rolled into precincts across America. Not, as we are told, to make voting easier or more accurate. The real reason America is being flooded with billions of dollars worth of paperless computerized voting machines is so that no one will be able to prove vote fraud. These machines are not just unverifiable, they are secretly programmed. Their software is not open to scrutiny by election officials or computer experts. They are also equipped with modems accessible by computer, telephone, and satellite.
We the People are responsible for taking back the control of our democratic process. No one else will do it for us. We cannot afford to be naive, or uneducated at this time in history. In order to fully understand the extent of the corruption we are dealing with, and to avoid making dangerous mistakes based on ignorance, we must understand the history, and the power structure, behind vote fraud in America.
I grew up with two men who spent twenty-five years investigating vote fraud in America: James and Kenneth Collier, my father and uncle. Their book, Votescam: The Stealing of America was published in 1992 and immediately banned by the major book chains, which listed the book as "out of print" and actively worked to prevent its sale. Votescam chronicles the Collier brother's groundbreaking investigation into America's multi-billion dollar election rigging industry, and the corporate government and media officials who control it. [First five chapters available free online]
The Votescam investigation began in 1970, in -- surprise! -- Dade County, Florida, where Ken ran for Congress (with Jim as his campaign manager). Ken was rigged out of the election through a vote scam, which the Colliers later discovered was used throughout the country for decades. It went like this: The local newscaster would announce during the broadcast of election returns that the election "computer has broken down." Instead of giving official returns from the county courthouse, the networks would be running vote "projections" for the rest of the night.
Jim and Ken, who had garnered 30 percent of the vote, noticed that when the vote totals came back on the screen after the announcement, they had mysteriously lost 15 percentage points. They didn't get another vote for the rest of the night. When they examined the "official" election results from for the September primary, October run-off and November final election in Dade County, the record listed a total of 141,000 votes cast for the governors race in each election. The exact same number of total votes were cast for three elections with a different number of candidates running each time. The same identical figures were listed for the Senate race in the primary, run-off and final election. This, of course, is a statistical impossibility.
When they compared the "official" vote results with a print-out of the vote "projections" broadcast by the TV networks on the final election night, they found that channel 4 had "projected" with near perfect accuracy the results of 40 races with 250 candidates only 4 minutes after the polls closed. Channel 7 came even closer; at 9:31 pm, they "projected" the final vote total for a race at 96,499 votes. When the Colliers checked the "official" number . . . it was also 96,499.
The networks then made the astonishing claim that the results from a single voting machine somewhere in Dade County were run through a computer program in order to get these vote projections. Elton Davis was the computer programmer responsible for the magic formula that could convert one machine's vote results into near perfect projected vote totals for 40 races and 250 candidates. When Jim and Ken confronted Davis in his office at the University of Miami, he responded: "You'll never prove it, now get out."
Finally the networks claimed that members of the League of Women Voters were out in the field on election night, calling in vote totals to channels 4 and 7. When the Colliers confronted the head of the League, Joyce Deiffenderfer, she admitted that there were no LWV members out in the field that night. She broke down crying, saying "I don't want to get caught up in this thing.
When the TV networks claimed that the courthouse computer had broken down, and they would no longer be reporting actual vote totals, they were lying. They had never been reporting actual vote totals. The final shoe dropped months later when an official press release appeared from Dade data processing chief, Leonard White, which stated emphatically: The county computer at the courthouse was never down, and it was never slow.
This was the beginning. The Collier brothers had slammed their boat into the tip of a giant iceberg. As they continued to investigate, they were horrified to discover vote fraud collusion among key individuals in every branch and on every level of the American political system. Those who were not benefiting from the fraud were too afraid to fight it. Their search for justice led to dead-ends. Their lives were threatened. They were vilified as conspiracy theorists by the mainstream press . . . and yet they persevered.
The next quarter century was spent compiling a wealth of FBI documented evidence proving that elections in the United States have come under the tight control of a handful of powerful and corrupt people. Jim and Ken both died young during the 90's, as heroes to many thousands who heard them speak on the radio and at political meetings across the country. They helped to guide individuals and groups working for clean elections in their communities. The Collier's last hope was that Votescam would be used as evidence in a serious Congressional investigation into election fraud.
Many people still in power have yet to be held accountable for their role in aiding and abetting vote fraud. I'll give you two important examples. Famous Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin brought the original Votescam evidence to the Florida assistant State Attorney at the time, Janet Reno. The evidence included the shaved wheels of lever voting machines, forged canvass sheets, and pre-printed vote tally sheets. Reno refused to prosecute, claiming falsely that the statue of limitations had run out on the crime. Years later, Rubin would tell my father that behind closed doors Reno had stated that she could not prosecute. Why? Because she would bring down many of the most powerful people in the state.
Another notable Votescam criminal can now be found sitting on the bench of the highest court in the nation. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, while still a Federal Appeals Judge, single handedly destroyed what would have been an historic lawsuit filed against Justice Department lawyer Craig Donsanto, who had refused to prosecute the extensive vote fraud evidence brought to him by the Colliers. The evidence included videotape of the League of Women voters tampering with ballots in a close door vote "counting" session. The women were illegally punching holes in already cast ballots.
I'd like to offer a brief list of important lessons learned from twenty-five years of fighting vote fraud in the trenches.
Secret vote counting is illegal. Counting faster is not a justification for counting secretly. Lever machines were the first to appear, and they were riggable in a number of ways. One could rig the lever machine itself, or the electronic scanning machines that counted the ballots. (See the Votescam video for footage of ballot rigging). Computerized voting machines are the easiest to rig. Their software is not open to public scrutiny, or the scrutiny of Election Supervisors. There are nearly infinite ways to program the machines to count votes fraudulently. Since they are accessible by modem, they can be controlled from a remote, centralized location. Voting machine companies operate with no federal oversight, certification process, standards or restrictions. Just two companies -- Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems -- now control about 80% of the vote count in the U.S. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been complicit in vote rigging for decades, to their mutual benefit. Vote rigging is NOT a partisan issue. The corporate major media networks play a vital role in perpetrating and covering up vote fraud. Election Day media polls are untrustworthy at best. The gravest error of judgment these days comes from those vote reformers who honestly believe that the answer to the butterfly ballot and hanging chad problems in the 2000 election is to embrace the ballot-less computerized voting machine. With the ballot-less computer, there is no way to recount, no way to prove any discrepancy, inaccuracy or fraud. Just the fact that companies like ES&S and Diebold would even make a ballot-less machine should be cause for a Congressional investigation. (There are also many other reasons to investigate them. For a detailed examination of these sinister corporations, check out http://www.blackboxvoting.org )
A most grave error of judgment also comes from those who think that returning to a hand-counted paper ballot system is somehow impossible. An MIT/Cal Tech study done in 2001 shows that manually counted paper ballots are the most accurate system out of the 5 systems used in the last 4 presidential elections. They are totally verifiable, and first-world nations across the globe still use them, including Canada which counted their last presidential election in four hours.
The bottom line is that a computerized vote count is a secret vote count, and that's illegal. Technology cannot supercede the constitutional and mandatory provisions of election law, which require open and verifiable elections. There is no way to do a public vote count with computers. The count must be done by hand, in public, video-taped, aired live on television, and the results posted on the precinct wall -- just like they used to be. Ballots should be counted on the same day as the voting takes place, making it much more difficult to alter ballots. Hand counted paper ballots and eternal vigilance are the only hope left for us.
A long time writer and political activist, Victoria Collier continues to educate the public on the subject of vote fraud in place of her father and uncle. She is the editor of http://www.votescam.com Victoria is available for interviews and can be reached at 1-866-280-9090 and at editor*votescam.com
For reliable, verifiable information on other major cover-ups which directly affect our democracy, see www.WantToKnow.info The WantToKnow.info team is a group of dedicated researchers from around the world who are deeply committed to revealing critical information being hidden from the public, and to designing ways that we can work together to build a brighter future for us, for our children, and for our world. To subscribe to the WantToKnow.info list (one email every few days): http://www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe. Together, we can and will make a difference. Please help to spread this important news by sending this to your friends and colleagues.
posted
New York Times Now Requires Payment to View This Article Free Copy Given Below This July 2003 article was available for free viewing at the time we posted the information on electronic voting problems. It was moved to the archives just days after the November 2004 elections and now requires a $3.95 payment for viewing on New York Times website. Click the link immediately below to order. We provide a copy of the full article below for free.
NATIONAL DESK Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say By JOHN SCHWARTZ (NYT) 897 words Published: July 24, 2003
The software that runs many high-tech voting machines contains serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected, computer security researchers said yesterday.
''We found some stunning, stunning flaws,'' said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States.
The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a co-author of the paper.
''With what we found, practically anyone in the country -- from a teenager on up -- could produce these smart cards that could allow someone to vote as many times as they like,'' Mr. Stubblefield said.
The software was initially obtained by critics of electronic voting, who discovered it on a Diebold Internet site in January. This is the first review of the software b
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
