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

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.):


    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:



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

  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


    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


    (LOL Sorry SOS.)
  7. Oct 9, 2005 #6
    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
    Agreed, a criminal is a criminal.
  11. Oct 10, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Yeah, sure.
    And Diebold is both a fervent Republican and fanatical Democrat.
  12. Oct 10, 2005 #11
    And I've missed your point entirely. :confused:
  13. Oct 10, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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


    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


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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.



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


    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


    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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar Discussions: Vote Fraud in the news again
  1. To vote or not to vote (Replies: 6)

  2. U.S. Fraud In Iraq (Replies: 13)

  3. Fox News: Whoops Again (Replies: 64)