Did the Democrats Use Voting Machine Fraud?

[Theophilus]

Most counties have now moved to electronic voting machines. Democrats win. Now I don't buy into any conspiracy theory, but I am curious, why when Republicans win their is widespread suspicion of fraud but when Democrats win...well, I haven't heard any outcry. And let me reiterate, I don't think the Democrats won through fraud.

[rick]

Most counties have now moved to electronic voting machines. Democrats win. Now I don't buy into any conspiracy theory, but I am curious, why when Republicans win their is widespread suspicion of fraud but when Democrats win...well, I haven't heard any outcry. And let me reiterate, I don't think the Democrats won through fraud.


I would suspect that this was mostly because of the questionable way the vote in Florida was handled by Republicans in power back in 2000, as well as the questionable way that Ohio was handled by Republicans in power in 2004.

On top of that for reasons that I could never quite figure out, there were also many high level Republicans in power who seemed to have a problem with the idea of a paper reciept for an electronic ballot.

And finally, since the Democrtats were not in power, they would not have had the ability to control the actual vote count in most cases.

All of that might just add up to paranoia and mean nothing at all, but it is why Republicans have a hard time getting the benifit of the doubt.

[StoneGold]

Most counties have now moved to electronic voting machines. Democrats win. Now I don't buy into any conspiracy theory, but I am curious, why when Republicans win their is widespread suspicion of fraud but when Democrats win...well, I haven't heard any outcry. And let me reiterate, I don't think the Democrats won through fraud.
I think mostly because the Democrats weren't really in positions to create voter fraud. You didn't have the owners of the companies that make the voting machines promise a win for the Democrats. You didn't have Democratic governors or secretaries of state activating programs that result in certain demographics of people not voting. That, and the overwhelming nature of the thing. With the last two presidential elections, you're talking about the fate of the country literally coming down to one state. Now, that kind of happened with Virginia, but given the crappy campaign Allen ran, and given the overwhelming shift to the Democrats that night, it's less of a "one state" type situation.

[cactusmaac]

There were huge problems this year but since it was a pretty convincing Dem win, nobody's crying foul.

[Theophilus]

Democrats not actually being in power makes sense. But the problem with voting machines, at least as I understand it, also extended to "hackers" who could infect them with an "upload" that would recalibrate votes. That would put the ball in anybody's court. Now I don't buy into claims that the Republicans manipulated votes in 2000 or 2004.

I still think that a lot of the problem has to do with ideas that the prevailing party must be corrupt, and it should be interesting to see how that plays out in 2008. Could work in reverse, who knows? But if there really are problems with the machines and people take them seriously, I find it disingenous that a Democratic victory has largely silenced those concerns. But we are early in the victory, so that could change.

[Magneto_X]

Diebold simply knew the public would know something is fishy if they let the Pubs win so they didn't do anything this time. Or did little enough not to arouse suspicion.

[Theophilus]

Diebold simply knew the public would know something is fishy if they let the Pubs win so they didn't do anything this time. Or did little enough not to arouse suspicion.

But a single Senate seat would have changed the outcome, and some of those races were tight enough that it would not have taken many votes to sway the balance, eh?

[Nick Soapdish]

I dunno.

Did somebody else take over Diebold? That's the main company that's had issues, from its president bragging that his machines would deliver the election to Bush (which isn't an admission of fraud by any means, but looks kinda bad especially with other issues) to the technicians that have been stating that security issues were brought up and outright ignored by management to the numerous demonstrations that it can be frauded and pretty easily as well as simply recording votes wrong. And it's mainly been third parties as well as a subset of the Democratic Party that's been howling about that to what seems to be deaf ears of those in power.

Sequoia has also had some issues with not recording votes correctly and possibly with ownership, but they have also asked for an investigation into the latter issue.

The second question is whether there have been complaints about fraud. Last election, there were a number of complaints by both parties. I haven't heard as many by either party this time. I suppose that it could be that the affected parties don't care this time. (I know there were some claims about apparent screen miscalibration in some Florida counties.) Or maybe they've gotten more technically savvy and the problems aren't just mistakes anymore, but outright fraud.

And I suppose that my third question is why are you asking? If you don't have any evidence or suspicions, why bring it up? It's not like Republicans or conservatives have quietly gone along with what they believe to be voter fraud in past elections, so why would you assume they would this election?

[rick]

Now I don't buy into claims that the Republicans manipulated votes in 2000 or 2004.


All I can tell you is that if the Campaign Manager for one of the candidates is also the person who gets to certify the election and then goes ahead and does that even though the state required recount hasn't actually been completed yet, or for that matter in some counties not even started, you really can't be surprised if quite a few people end up looking at the situation as more then a little suspicious.

[Theophilus]

All I can tell you is that if the Campaign Manager for one of the candidates is also the person who gets to certify the election and then goes ahead and does that even though the state required recount hasn't actually been completed yet, or for that matter in some counties not even started, you really can't be surprised if quite a few people end up looking at the situation as more then a little suspicious.

Which election are you referring to?

[Nick Soapdish]

2000 Presidential in Florida.

Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State who certified the election results, was also the co-chairman of Dubya's campaign in Florida.

[StoneGold]

2000 Presidential in Florida.

Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State who certified the election results, was also the co-chairman of Dubya's campaign in Florida.
Better known by her native name, She of Large Mammaries and Little Votes.

[Dan Apodaca]

Better known by her native name, She of Large Mammaries and Little Votes.

She can be spotted out on the plains by her garish face-paint and overdone plumage.

[Magneto_X]

She can be spotted out on the plains by her garish face-paint and overdone plumage.

Her HQ is also at Starbucks. :D

[Chris Nowlin]

Maybe the democrats did rig the election.

Or: maybe the republicans rigged it, but got confused in the process.

[VanEyck]

I think the reason why there's less suspicion is that there are fewer disconcerting reports from VOTERS.

In Ohio, voters were stranded in long lines and unable to vote (but only at polling places that are heavily Democrat).

In Florida, lots of democratic voters reported being denied their voting rights by those who oversee the polling place.

People in several states (but the reports always come from democratic areas) have been called over the phone and "told" that their polling place has been changed.

Since the people themselves don't seem to be making a fuss, there is less suspicion of funny business.

[Clint Barton]

I'm more concerned about Hugo Chavez and the company he has been tied to than Diebold currently.

[StoneGold]

Maybe the democrats did rig the election.

Or: maybe the republicans rigged it, but got confused in the process.
That's it. They've gotten so good at it, they overrigged.


Although, there actually is an investigation going on into a Republican win in Florida. Harris' former district, no less.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I think the reason why there's less suspicion is that there are fewer disconcerting reports from VOTERS.

In Ohio, voters were stranded in long lines and unable to vote (but only at polling places that are heavily Democrat).

In Florida, lots of democratic voters reported being denied their voting rights by those who oversee the polling place.

People in several states (but the reports always come from democratic areas) have been called over the phone and "told" that their polling place has been changed.

Since the people themselves don't seem to be making a fuss, there is less suspicion of funny business.

Anecdotally, I voted in Florida, and I encountered no problems at all. The only trouble was that 7:00 seems like an early hour for the polling places to close, so I was lucky in that I didn't have to be anywhere else that morning.

[Paul McEnery]

A more reasonable question would be: how come the Democrats didn't win even harder? I mean, for God's sake, the competition in Montana was between an indicted crook who's almost certainly going to jail and, well, someone who isn't. And the crook was still down to the wire.

So I almost think that there was rigging, but just not anywhere near enough.

But I don't. Quite. Because this was clearly a thrown election. And I reckon it was thrown by old school Republicans, including Bush Sr. Clean house 2006, build back up again 2008.

[Phrozen]

I think the reason why there's less suspicion is that there are fewer disconcerting reports from VOTERS.

In Ohio, voters were stranded in long lines and unable to vote (but only at polling places that are heavily Democrat).

In Florida, lots of democratic voters reported being denied their voting rights by those who oversee the polling place.

People in several states (but the reports always come from democratic areas) have been called over the phone and "told" that their polling place has been changed.

Since the people themselves don't seem to be making a fuss, there is less suspicion of funny business.

Trust me. There was stuff that happened in Democratic districts too.

[Nick Soapdish]

Trust me. There was stuff that happened in Democratic districts too.

I think you mean Republican. :)

That's part of why I'm disinclined to scream voter fraud. The Republicans were complaining about voting issues back in '00, '02, and '04 also. So it's not like they're pre-disposed not to complain about irregularities or problems.

[StoneGold]

Trust me. There was stuff that happened in Democratic districts too.
Not that I'm disinclined to trust you, but like the man says,
http://www.wrestlearmy.com/wrestlearmy/sc104.jpg

[TheTen-EyedMan]

The Republicans lost. Get Over It.

[Ontir]

Most counties have now moved to electronic voting machines. Democrats win. Now I don't buy into any conspiracy theory, but I am curious, why when Republicans win their is widespread suspicion of fraud but when Democrats win...well, I haven't heard any outcry. And let me reiterate, I don't think the Democrats won through fraud.


That's probably because the machines were built by companies run by Republicans. The builders probably didn't rig this election, because the Dubya Show's pissed them off too!

[Iangould]

I'm more concerned about Hugo Chavez and the company he has been tied to than Diebold currently.


As I understand it the "ties" are that the Venezuelan government is a minority shareholder in a company that has one seat on the board of Smartmatic (sp.?) and no involvement in their operations.

So while it's a worry, the links are nowhere near as extensive as those between Diebold and the Republicans.

[moebius]

Let's see, in 2006 we had:

-An Orange County House candidate sending a letter to immigrant voters, telling them it was illegal for immigrants to vote.

-Phone calls to black voters in Virginia, telling them polling places had changed.

-Reports of malfunctions of electronic voting machines, where people voted straight ticket for one party and the machine read straight-ticket for the other party.

-Not to mention dirty "Robo calls", which may or may not be investigated by the Justice Department.

What do all these things have in common? They all benefited or were carried out by Republicans.

So, quick answer: Yes there was voter fraud in 2006. It was mainly conducted by Republicans. But! they were up against unwinnable conditions, including constant corruption investigations (Cunningham, Delay, Nay, Sherwood and "I didn't choke my mistress!", Weldon) and an unwinnable war.

[Mike Smash!]

Let's see, in 2006 we had:

-An Orange County House candidate sending a letter to immigrant voters, telling them it was illegal for immigrants to vote.

-Phone calls to black voters in Virginia, telling them polling places had changed.

-Reports of malfunctions of electronic voting machines, where people voted straight ticket for one party and the machine read straight-ticket for the other party.

-Not to mention dirty "Robo calls", which may or may not be investigated by the Justice Department.

What do all these things have in common? They all benefited or were carried out by Republicans.

So, quick answer: Yes there was voter fraud in 2006. It was mainly conducted by Republicans. But! they were up against unwinnable conditions, including constant corruption investigations (Cunningham, Delay, Nay, Sherwood and "I didn't choke my mistress!", Weldon) and an unwinnable war.

Don't forget push polling, like the stuff used on McCain in South Carolina in 2000 and my house got a push poll against a Democrat state rep this year, going into the guy's divorce and trying to smear him that way.

I can guarantee that his Republican opponent was behind the "poll".

Now, Democratic hands aren't totally clean either, Bill Richardson ordered New Mexico's voting machines wiped clean when the Greens and Libertarians declared there were going to demand a recount there in 2004 after allegations of Republican-affiliated voting machine fraud. Richardson ordered the machines emptied before the recount could go forward.

[Samurai]

Let's see, in 2006 we had:

-An Orange County House candidate sending a letter to immigrant voters, telling them it was illegal for immigrants to vote.

-Phone calls to black voters in Virginia, telling them polling places had changed.

-Reports of malfunctions of electronic voting machines, where people voted straight ticket for one party and the machine read straight-ticket for the other party.

-Not to mention dirty "Robo calls", which may or may not be investigated by the Justice Department.

What do all these things have in common? They all benefited or were carried out by Republicans.

So, quick answer: Yes there was voter fraud in 2006. It was mainly conducted by Republicans. But! they were up against unwinnable conditions, including constant corruption investigations (Cunningham, Delay, Nay, Sherwood and "I didn't choke my mistress!", Weldon) and an unwinnable war.
Funny how you forgot to mention some "irregularities" on the other side, such as several heavily Republican votiting districts only receiving 10% of the ballots they were supposed to get, meaning they had to start turning away voters by lunch time, or how some other districts had a turnout of over 110% of the actual population...

While the Dems may have messed with voting machines too, I think they mostly went old school in their cheating this year...

[rick]

Funny how you forgot to mention some "irregularities" on the other side, such as several heavily Republican votiting districts only receiving 10% of the ballots they were supposed to get, meaning they had to start turning away voters by lunch time, or how some other districts had a turnout of over 110% of the actual population...

While the Dems may have messed with voting machines too, I think they mostly went old school in their cheating this year...


Would you please reference these incidents?

[Samurai]

Would you please reference these incidents?
You mean like how VanEyck, Ian, and moebius referenced their claims? Maybe I'll find the time tomorrow. Look them up on your own if you care to.

[Iangould]

You mean like how VanEyck, Ian, and moebius referenced their claims? Maybe I'll find the time tomorrow. Look them up on your own if you care to.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/10/29/29votemachines.html

Seven months before that voting contract was awarded, a Venezuelan government financing agency invested more than $200,000 into a smaller technology company, owned by some of the same people as Smartmatic, that joined with Smartmatic as a minor partner in the bid.

In return, the government agency was given a 28 percent stake in the smaller company and a seat on its board, which was occupied by a senior government official who had previously advised Chavez on elections technology. But Venezuelan officials later insisted that the money was merely a small-business loan and that it was repaid before the referendum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6098256.stm

A US supplier of voting machines has agreed to a probe into its takeover, saying it will dispel "baseless" allegations about ties to Venezuela.

Smartmatic, which bought Seqouia Voting Systems in 2005, and Caracas strongly deny media suggestions that President Hugo Chavez has any role in the firm.

In May 2006, Representative Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat, asked the federal authorities to look into the takeover.

This weekend, US press reports suggested the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) had launched a formal investigation into the acquisition.

Sequoia and Smartmatic say they voluntarily submitted to a federal review.

"No foreign government or entity - including Venezuela - has ever held an ownership stake in Smartmatic, and we have voluntarily filed with CFIUS to put to rest the baseless but persistent rumours about our ownership," the firm's chief executive, Antonio Mugica, said in a statement.

Your turn.

[moebius]

Orange County
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/20/BAG6TLT1RL1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea)

"The GOP challenger to U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez was urged to withdraw Thursday by the head of the Orange County Republican Party, who said he had evidence the candidate was involved in sending a letter warning Latino immigrants they could go to jail or be deported if they vote next month."

Robo-calls (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/11/2906_how_did_robo_ca.html)

"In the case of Jennings and other candidates, people receiving such a call at first thought the caller was the Democratic candidate because of the call's misleading opening. Several voters complained about this. If a voter listens to the entire call, only then does she discover that the call comes from the Republican Party. But the majority of people, of course, hang up. The problem is that the phone rings again...and again and again and again, until the voter listens to the entire call. Since most people do not want to listen, voters are left with the impression that they are being harrassed by Democratic candidates."

Vote Flipping (http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1967&Itemid=26)

You only have to flip 1 in every 100 Democratic votes to change close races.

[Dreadstar]

Please note:

The new electronic touch screen machines (love 'em) have a paper trail. It's just like a cash register roll recording EVERY touch of the screen you make. Fraud becomes less likely. Repeat: paper trail, keystrokes copied.

[rick]

You mean like how VanEyck, Ian, and moebius referenced their claims? Maybe I'll find the time tomorrow. Look them up on your own if you care to.


I wasn't asking Van Eyck, Ian or moebius, I was asking you.

As for looking the answer up myself, the reason I was asking for some kind of referenced source is because I was unable to find any article or story about any voting problems that the Democratic Party has been accused of being involved with.


I know I've been gone for awhile, but have we honesetly reached a point around here where someone saying "Because I said so." is considered actual proof of corruption?

Somehow I don't think so.

[rick]

Please note:

The new electronic touch screen machines (love 'em) have a paper trail. It's just like a cash register roll recording EVERY touch of the screen you make. Fraud becomes less likely. Repeat: paper trail, keystrokes copied.


Paper receipts absolutly make the idea of electronic voting much more appealing.

However, here's a side note that really doesn't mean much and I certainly wouldn't consider it scientific, but I did find interesting. As you might know, I live in Colorado Springs, which I am sure you are aware is one of the most conservative, Republicans parts of the entire nation.

In Colorado Springs voters were given the option of either a paper or electronic ballot. And in fact at my voting place there was a wall full of nice, new touch screens and another wall with the old style privacy table and a paper ballot that got run through a scantronic machine.

When I got there, there was a small line of people waitng to vote. The electronic machines were completly empty and everyone was waiting for a paper ballot instead.

I asked the election worker who got me set up if things had been like this allday, and he told me that just about nobody was using the electronic machines and that people seemed to be willing to wait for some time just to make sure that they had that paper ballot.

And like I said, this is not a scientific answer, but it really didn't surprise me that the average voter, even in conservative Colorado Springs wanted a record of their vote.

I actually have no real trouble with electronic voting on the whole, but I did really disagree with all of these models that came out that didn't provide a reciept.

Considering that I was able to get a fully printed reciept from the self service scanner at the Wal-Mart and the Library, I couldn't figure out for the life of me why it was so hard to get one from the voting booth.

Glad to see that is changing.

[macul]

I wasn't asking Van Eyck, Ian or moebius, I was asking you.

As for looking the answer up myself, the reason I was asking for some kind of referenced source is because I was unable to find any article or story about any voting problems that the Democratic Party has been accused of being involved with.


I know I've been gone for awhile, but have we honesetly reached a point around here where someone saying "Because I said so." is considered actual proof of corruption?

Somehow I don't think so.

Hey, rick. Welcome back.

I really don't want to touch the fraud thing with a ten foot pole because I think a lot of people throw around unfounded claims and half truths as 100% gospel. Heck, back in 2000 news reports were all over the place here in Florida of cars being found in swamps with trunks full of ballot boxes. Course, nothing ever came of it, but it's one of those things that people repeat because they heard it on the news, so it HAS to be true, right? It's a shady subject in which both parties have done their share of backroom dealing.

To be honest, I'm so unenthused about voting that I'm having a difficult time caring any more. It's a battle of which crook can out-crook the other.

With that said, I think it is fair for samurai to wonder why he's expected to show proof while the others aren't.

[rick]

With that said, I think it is fair for samurai to wonder why he's expected to show proof while the others aren't.


Yeah, okay, I'll admit that's a fair enough question. Although I do want to say that I wasn't being accusatory in my request for the information and even said please.

And to their credit, it does seem that a couple of the guys did go ahead and reference their sources anyway.

By the way, hello yourself.

I can really understand that voting fatigue part. I am pretty sure that it was one of the reasons I went so nuts back in 2004.

[Dreadstar]

Paper receipts absolutly make the idea of electronic voting much more appealing.

Wellll...

You don't actually GET the receipt. I don't even think you can request one. It's all internal. What you get is a voter ID #. And that's not even provided in written form. They give you a number, say 1247, and record it next to your name in the ledger you sign, and then they slap the memory cartridge into the machine primed with your number. You touch the screen, the process begins, and the printer in the machine starts printing the information on an INTERNALLY kept roll of receipt paper. HOWEVER! This paper roll rolls past a glass window on the machine, allowing you to view the information as it's entered.

In my precinct, the first thing it did was print up my ID # (1247, corresponding to the ledger) the precinct #, and the date and time stamp.

I personally matched up the number they put on my ledger (and that I COPIED onto on a piece of paper), and it matched up. Then I copied the time-stamp alongside my number myself. I had 20 - 30 choices to make and I periodically checked the roll of recorded paper to see if it matched what I wanted. And it did.

I really don't think they need to give you a full receipt on what your keystrokes were. All they'd need to do is provide you with is a MUCH smaller receipt containing the information I copied down. Et voila! Paper trail.

[macul]

I can really understand that voting fatigue part. I am pretty sure that it was one of the reasons I went so nuts back in 2004.

Actually that was me. I made a concerted effort to drive you insane. Every morning my first thought was, "OK, what can I do to rick today?" :D

[Iangould]

Wellll...

You don't actually GET the receipt. I don't even think you can request one. It's all internal. What you get is a voter ID #. And that's not even provided in written form. They give you a number, say 1247, and record it next to your name in the ledger you sign, and then they slap the memory cartridge into the machine primed with your number. You touch the screen, the process begins, and the printer in the machine starts printing the information on an INTERNALLY kept roll of receipt paper. HOWEVER! This paper roll rolls past a glass window on the machine, allowing you to view the information as it's entered.

In my precinct, the first thing it did was print up my ID # (1247, corresponding to the ledger) the precinct #, and the date and time stamp.

I personally matched up the number they put on my ledger (and that I COPIED onto on a piece of paper), and it matched up. Then I copied the time-stamp alongside my number myself. I had 20 - 30 choices to make and I periodically checked the roll of recorded paper to see if it matched what I wanted. And it did.

I really don't think they need to give you a full receipt on what your keystrokes were. All they'd need to do is provide you with is a MUCH smaller receipt containing the information I copied down. Et voila! Paper trail.

The other reason for issuing a receipt, and I think some machines do this already, is you can check it and then stick in a ballot box. So there's a separate physical tally to check against the machine count.