Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Vote Fraud in the news again

  1. Oct 7, 2005 #1
    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/channel.cfm?channelid=46&contentid=2837

    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/articles/2005/09/30/opinion_columnists/opinloguercio.txt [Broken]

    http://www.dailyrepublic.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion_columnists/opinloguerico.txt [Broken]

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

    http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2005/09/22/ap2239441.html [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 7, 2005 #2
    point of clarification: The president of the country is not quitting; the president of Diebold is.
     
  4. Oct 8, 2005 #3

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Don't toy with us like that. :rofl:
     
  5. Oct 8, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hopefully the entire network of these anti-constitution, anti-democracy, bible-thumping hypocrites is imploding.
     
  6. Oct 8, 2005 #5
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_by_antho_051008_invisible_ballots__c.htm
    http://invisibleballots.com/

    -Patty

    (LOL Sorry SOS.)
     
  7. Oct 9, 2005 #6

    deckart

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Oct 9, 2005 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  9. Oct 9, 2005 #8
    I agree. And anyone that is guilty, should be removed from office, period.
     
  10. Oct 10, 2005 #9

    deckart

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Agreed, a criminal is a criminal.
     
  11. Oct 10, 2005 #10

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yeah, sure.
    And Diebold is both a fervent Republican and fanatical Democrat.
     
  12. Oct 10, 2005 #11

    deckart

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And I've missed your point entirely. :confused:
     
  13. Oct 10, 2005 #12

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  14. Oct 10, 2005 #13

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Oct 10, 2005 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  16. Oct 10, 2005 #15
    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/images/2004/02/279929.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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2005
  17. Oct 10, 2005 #16

    deckart

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Corruption is bipartisan.
     
  18. Oct 11, 2005 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
  19. Oct 11, 2005 #18
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2005
  20. Oct 11, 2005 #19
    Vote fraud? It's got my vote!
     
  21. Oct 11, 2005 #20

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Did you ever read the CalTech/MIT voting project report I posted for you or the Verified Voting links? Both are enough to convince me that it would not have been possible for either candidate to steal the election using e-voting machines even if they wanted to.
     
  22. Oct 12, 2005 #21

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ain't that the truth.
    Mine too.
    That report is not the only source on the topic. Members in that thread provided various sources to the contrary.

    Aside from voting machines, there have been charges of forging vote totals, miscounting votes for one candidate as votes for the other, widespread voter intimidation and irregularities:

    1) Strategic redistricting, ignoring normal timelines for re-evaluation.
    2) Orchestrated vote suppression: Hiring "challengers" to confront voters in targeted areas; moving polling places at the last minute, "losing" the voter registration records for a percentage of targeted voters, booting up equipment late, or not having enough equipment in minority districts.
    3) Casting and counting the vote on manipulatable and insecure systems.

    There are suggestions that websites and newgroups related to fair voting groups or other interested parties may have been visibly hacked and disrupted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

    Not to mention enough percentage increase in fundamentalist votes where there were props to ban gay marriage, as well as an increase in Hispanic votes (for a multitude of reasons, including Bush's liberal stance toward illegal entry into the U.S.) to push a close election in one’s favor.

    Was Bush reelected because of his good performance as a president, particularly in regard to the economy (deficits, job rate, poverty, etc.), energy, health care, etc., etc.? No. Hmmm...I wonder why.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2005
  23. Oct 12, 2005 #22

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Hearsay, SOS. The CalTech/MIT report and the blog analysis of it and others that I've linked to carries out statistical analysis showing that state-by-state differences between exit polls and actual tallies are either within margin or error or margin of victory, meaning that even if fraud took place, it was not enough to change the results. Thus, my claim:

    Neither candidate used e-machines to win an election he would not otherwise have won. That is the allegation being made here.

    This doesn't effect national elections unless someone redrew the state borders. That said, I hate gerrymandering. It has ruined California in virtually guaranteeing that the democracts in control have no chance of losing their seats.

    And where are you finding these reports? I've waded through hundreds of the official complaints logged that are kept track of on Verified Voting, and over 95% that I can see are either complaints about long lines or inadequate staffing. Given that staff are volunteers and we had record voter turnout, neither seems to be much of an aberration.

    I don't know if you are trying to suggest that because there is hearsay of websites that monitor election results being hacked into that it is possible that actual vote machines were also hacked into, but the lack of adequate statistical aberration should prove that your inference from hearsay is not backed up by any real evidence.

    You'll note at the top of the page: 40,000 alleged instances. Again, wading through these, complaints are mostly of long lines, but let us assume that all 40,000 of these mean that 40,000 votes went in a direction they should not have. You'll then want to note that the margin of victory in the most hotly contested state - Ohio - was near 120,000 votes. So even if all 40,000 complaints came from Ohio (they did not) and all meant that these votes went somewhere other than where they should have (they did not), it would not have mattered.

    Hmmm . . . so Bush both pushed a higher turnout of conservatives and liberals and this helped him how? And since when is campaigning illegal? You'll note that Kerry also encouraged his core base to come out and vote. Lo and behold - democrats also turned out in record numbers. Should we ban this practice of candidates doing everything they can to increase voter turnout?

    And before you come back with "well, the gay marriage bans were deceitful," ask yourself several questions:

    • How many of these actually passed? (which might indicate that the super-conservatives you so desperately don't want voting actually came out like never before)
    • In what groups was the increased turnout highest?
    • Were any of these measures proposed in a state that wasn't already heavily republican?
    • Is it illegal to do this?

    This isn't an argument, this is cognitive dissonance.

    I didn't think Bush did a good enough job to get re-elected.
    I also believe that America isn't stupid enough to re-elect him.
    Nonetheless, he won.
    Therefore, he must have stolen the election.

    Are you seriously asking me to consider this as evidence?


    By the way, I'm happy to see that you posted a link to a wikipedia article that wasn't red-flagged for having incorrect content this time.
     
  24. Oct 12, 2005 #23
    No - I read the summary/abstract/take home message.

    LYN: Did *you* read the Hursti report? The thrust of it has to do with how votes *could* be stolen - and Diebold was so pissed off that they filed a lawsuit over it. It is not mutually exclusive to the MIT paper.

    Do you think they would have filed a lawsuit if the methods described by Hursti weren't a probelm for voting integrity?
     
  25. Oct 12, 2005 #24
    pattylou

    Google Diebold memos or Diebold internal memos, for some interesting results. A number of institutions published a lot of diebold internal memos on their web sites and online news. Diebold is forcing them to remove the memos. Swarthmore and Stanford are still fighting Diebold's actions.

    sample:
    http://scdc.sccs.swarthmore.edu/diebold/

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3341683/
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2005
  26. Oct 12, 2005 #25
    Some questions for you... California is a 'blue' state with a large percent of Democrats, which is the norm for all areas of the country that are highly urban. Do you really think gerrymandering in California has mattered? And if the Democrats are gerrymandering more than Republicans, can you explain why the Republicans have a significant majority of seats in congress? Do you really believe Bush was reelected because of his performance in his first term, or because of other reasons, such as fear mongering about terrorism, gay marriage or what have you? Whether there was or was not voter fraud, he was elected because of dirty politics so as far as I am concerned he stole the election.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook