Register to reply

Vote Fraud in the news again

by pattylou
Tags: fraud, news, vote
Share this thread:
pattylou
#1
Oct7-05, 08:36 PM
P: 1,036
Or still.... (You probably know I think Diebold "helped" bush's vote tally.)

Every month or so I google news: vote fraud diebold

... and I usually see a few articles, many several weeks old, etc.

Today when I did that search I retrieved a larger than normal number of recent documents. Here is an interesting one, although the source is very biased ("conspiracy planet;" I include the refernece anyway because the content is intriguing. Is it true? I don't know.):

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...contentid=2837

The threat that this company and its practices pose to democracy is now becoming clear to the Americans as well as Diebold shareholders.

In the last week, the company has begun imploding, their stock value has dropped some 20% in the last week, and top officials are jumping off the sinking ship, whistle-blowing all the way down.

Last week, VR co-founder, Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com, announced
that a Diebold insider, `Dieb-Throat,' was spilling the beans on many of the company's shoddy practices.

In short, that high-level whistleblower compares Diebold to Enron, and says that the Diebold voting machines are "one of the greatest threats ever to our democracy."
Diebold counts a great percentage of our votes, like tens of percentage points across the nation.

Some columnists in more respectable sources have a report on this as well:

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/article...nloguercio.txt

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/article...nloguerico.txt

Forbes shows Diebolds' stock slumping, the president quitting, etc:

http://www.forbes.com/business/busin...ap2239441.html
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA
Water leads to chemical that gunks up biofuels production
How lizards regenerate their tails: Researchers discover genetic 'recipe'
pattylou
#2
Oct7-05, 08:37 PM
P: 1,036
point of clarification: The president of the country is not quitting; the president of Diebold is.
SOS2008
#3
Oct8-05, 03:12 PM
PF Gold
SOS2008's Avatar
P: 1,554
Quote Quote by pattylou
point of clarification: The president of the country is not quitting; the president of Diebold is.
Don't toy with us like that.

Ivan Seeking
#4
Oct8-05, 06:04 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Vote Fraud in the news again

Hopefully the entire network of these anti-constitution, anti-democracy, bible-thumping hypocrites is imploding.
pattylou
#5
Oct8-05, 09:59 PM
P: 1,036
The people interviewed in the documentary are not partisan operatives, nor unreliable alarmists. They are real people, experts, PhDs, and computer programmers, who have lived these problems for years now, trying desperately to get the word out. They weave a compelling story about vote fraud and the vulnerability of our current systems. Essentially there are two problems that can occur in any election. The first is error, as people are inherently human, and prone to mistakes. The second problem is fraud and as history has shown, it is a realistic concern. To not admit these two problems can and do exist in every election is simply inane.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...ballots__c.htm
http://invisibleballots.com/

-Patty

(LOL Sorry SOS.)
deckart
#6
Oct9-05, 12:11 AM
P: 193
I have no doubt there is plenty of vote fraud taking place where it can. But I also have no doubt that it is not a "Republican" or "Democrat" thing, its a political system thing. It's the nature of the beast.
Ivan Seeking
#7
Oct9-05, 01:17 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by deckart
I have no doubt there is plenty of vote fraud taking place where it can. But I also have no doubt that it is not a "Republican" or "Democrat" thing, its a political system thing. It's the nature of the beast.
While in the long run that may be true, what matters now is this: Who threatens the constitution today? And keep in mind that Watergate was also about election related fraud and cover-ups, and it also involved, again, a bunch of Republicans, some of which are standing next to Bush right now.
pattylou
#8
Oct9-05, 09:27 AM
P: 1,036
Quote Quote by deckart
But I also have no doubt that it is not a "Republican" or "Democrat" thing.
I agree. And anyone that is guilty, should be removed from office, period.
deckart
#9
Oct10-05, 03:52 PM
P: 193
Quote Quote by pattylou
I agree. And anyone that is guilty, should be removed from office, period.
Agreed, a criminal is a criminal.
arildno
#10
Oct10-05, 03:59 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by deckart
I have no doubt there is plenty of vote fraud taking place where it can. But I also have no doubt that it is not a "Republican" or "Democrat" thing, its a political system thing. It's the nature of the beast.
Yeah, sure.
And Diebold is both a fervent Republican and fanatical Democrat.
deckart
#11
Oct10-05, 05:27 PM
P: 193
Quote Quote by arildno
Yeah, sure.
And Diebold is both a fervent Republican and fanatical Democrat.
And I've missed your point entirely.
arildno
#12
Oct10-05, 05:32 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by deckart
And I've missed your point entirely.
Well, you might try to verify your spurious claim of "equal naughtiness" by comparing the number of criminal/fraudulent, yet leading, Republicans vs. Democrats from, say, the time of Richard Nixon.
loseyourname
#13
Oct10-05, 06:30 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
loseyourname's Avatar
P: 3,634
Quote Quote by arildno
Well, you might try to verify your spurious claim of "equal naughtiness" by comparing the number of criminal/fraudulent, yet leading, Republicans vs. Democrats from, say, the time of Richard Nixon.
I'm pretty sure he's right to say that confirmed instances of voting fraud have been about equally distributed between the two parties. I don't know that there has ever been a confirmed instance of fraud in a national election by either party, however.* Overt fraud is usually limited to citywide and countywide elections.

*Well, maybe the old political machine in Chicago back in the day. I don't remember if that was republican or democrat.
arildno
#14
Oct10-05, 06:42 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Hmm..I was unaware of that there exists a similar massive "Democratic" vote manipulation as that which Diebold&et al. has gotten away with. Several staunchly Democratical counties in Ohio became mysteriously won by Bush, with a number of registered votes above that of registered voters.

Please provide a reference to that Democratic fraud.
pattylou
#15
Oct10-05, 07:41 PM
P: 1,036
Blackbox Voting.org posits that Diebold is happy to fix elections for whomever is willing to cough up the money, and that people from both parties have used this corruption to their advantage.

It would seem to be the case, that Diebold favored Bush to win the National elections (CEO memo "...deliver Ohio's votes to Bush"), and given their ability to manipulate numbers it seems likely to me that electronic tampering took place that favored Bush. But I don't think they'd be above 'helping' democratic candidates, in races that they thought were of lesser consequence.

I'll add a reference in an edit.

Edit: Kerry, for example, may have gotten some help in the New Hampshire Primary. Check the percentages that he got compared to Dean - and see how those percentages depend on the type of vote counting used.

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/.../02/279929.jpg

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279893.shtml

THis is hardly strong evidence, but it raises my eyebrows.

Googling with appropriate key words can find you additional hits.
deckart
#16
Oct10-05, 07:48 PM
P: 193
Corruption is bipartisan.
russ_watters
#17
Oct11-05, 09:34 PM
Mentor
P: 22,284
Quote Quote by arildno
Hmm..I was unaware of that there exists a similar massive "Democratic" vote manipulation as that which Diebold&et al. has gotten away with.
loseyourname's post said "confirmed instances of voting fraud". This Diebold speculation about what could happen does not qualify.

pattylou, I thought you were not arguing that the election was directly stolen? Didn't we have a long argument a few months ago, at the end of which you said it wasn't your intent to claim/show that the election was stolen, only that it could be stolen? By that last post, it seems you believe that the Diebold CEO was, in fact, saying that he intended to commit votor fraud. Is that (both parts: that he was saying it and that he did it) what you actually believe? Do you also believe that Bush directly bought the election result from Diebold?
pattylou
#18
Oct11-05, 10:00 PM
P: 1,036
We seemed to get hung up on words last time.

I don't have any particular desire to bang my head on the nuances of "fraud" and "rigged" and "fixed" that you seem to think exonerate politicians. Your main paragraoph *above* gives me a headache: "directly stolen" --- ??? As if this is grounds for dismissal of the discussion?

I don't think Bush belongs in the White house, period. I don't think discussing his level of personal involvement is as important as discussing whether Kerry won the vote.

I also don't think Kerry earned the democratic nomination.

I also think Arnold would love to get Diebold more strongly into California.


I also recall that you never answered my following question directly: Did you read the May 2005 Hursti report from Black box voting? Not how can you diss it, but did you read it? Did you read it for comprehension?

There was also a claim you had made about a related search result that you had gotten - and three times I asked you for the string so I could look at the specific hits - and three times you didn't give me the string. Perhaps this was an oversight on your part, but it certainly felt more like you simply couldn't back up your claims. At this point I don't remember the claim specifically.

I plan to continue google-newsing for vote fraud and ES&S, Diebold, etc - and I'll be sure to continue to keep you informed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Democratic Wire Fraud? Current Events 9
FBI and Mortgage Fraud Current Events 2
Is This A Joke-fraud ? General Discussion 5