US Presidential Elections 2008 (3 Viewers)

[Mormon Nailer]

There is only one way that electronic voting can begin to be reasonable.
You have a piece of paper that accompanies each vote cast electronically, and as you cast your vote via the computer, a machine marks your paper vote for you, in a clear case so you can see it marking the ballot, which then gets dropped into a ballot box as normal.
Every one of these votes will have a uniq serial number, and that number must tally with the number of voters logged in the polling booth.

When a recount is needed, they ignore the electronic vote tally, and count the paper votes.
They also spot check machines randomly to make sure the machine agrees with the paper votes.

All other ways are vulnerable to attack and cracking, and can never be trusted. (Thats not to say that the above method is not vulnerable though.)

No paper trail == fraud.

You need 2 till rolls. One hidden from the voter and one visible under a glass screen. The hidden one records cumulative data and the individual one records each persons vote so the person can see what the computer has logged.

At the end of the day you pull out the cumulative printout and cross check this against what the computers memory has recorded - you check the cuml. number of voters against the personating officers logs and against the total number of votes cast on the visible till roll.

You can then keep the visible till roll and if necessary redo the count from that.

 

[flashback]

So this all comes from (a) a website of Ron Paul supporters and (b) an "anti-electronic" voting website ..... at the risk of stating the obvious, these are hardly unbiased sources are they?

C'mon, does anyone seriously believe the Clinton camp are engaging in Election/voting fraud in order to get Obama out of the picture?

If people are not looking very hard at these people, and asking questions, and suggesting everything might not be exactly as we are being told, then there is a problem.


There were a group of guys (in MIT I think) cracking those Diebold boxes, and rigging the vote count a short while back. The demonstrated more that one way to do it I think.
Its so easy its not funny.
But everyone was told repeatedly that this was fundamentally impossible.



As I see it, we dont understand what is going on behind certain closed doors. We cant even see their game of cards.
The best we can do is look at the shadows on the walls made by the players and try and figure out what's going on.

Having said that one answer to the question is yes, absolutely. It may be in one cooperation's or group's best interest that Hilary wins, or at least that Obama doesn't.
Neither Hilary nor Barack might know about this group. No one might know about the group, other than the group itself.

If that sounds really paranoid, have a look at the way that the Commission on Presidential Debates works. There is this completely closed group of people, who decide which candidate can participate in presidential debates. How they decide this is not clear. If you are not in the debates, realistically no matter how many votes, you get you cannot be president.

You sort of have to assume guilty until proven innocent on this. Its up to them to prove that the election is at least very hard to rig.
Because, if its as easy as it was previously, then its not unreasonable to look at exit poll data, and make accusations.


edit :
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4052162


note^^ : " Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists. "


edit :

You need 2 till rolls.

right. I forgot about that.
either way, there must be bits of paper, per vote, that can physically be held before the election is valid.

 

[hugh]

As I see it, we don't understand what is going on behind certain closed doors. We cant even see their game of cards.
The best we can do is look at the shadows on the walls made by the players and try and figure out what's going on.

Well that's true and I take your other points as well. I think electronic voting is deeply questionable and there are certainly all sorts of shadowy carry-on in the entire electoral process that may seek to take advantage of its weaknesses. But .... Hilary Clinton winning New Hampshire is not some bizarre freak result that can only be explained by recourse to conspiracy theories about rigged voting systems. It seems outlandish and weird to me that people would assume that this is what happened rather than assuming that she won because more people voted for her than the other guy. Is that so hard to believe?

 

[flashback]

The Republican debates according to a 9-year old

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/6/25723/26527

Wrinkles is making fun of Bunny Ears again.
Wrinkles and Oily fighting about man dates.
Oily says man dates are ok sometimes.
Wrinkles doesn't like dating men.
Fight.Fight.

 

[billygannon]

I can't see why they didn't just set up a Thumped poll?
Easyodemocratic

 

[pete]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

 

[Raudi Raus Schinkel]

Peter, will you start a thumped caucus/primary/poll please?

 

[magicbastarder]

There is only one way that electronic voting can begin to be reasonable.
You have a piece of paper that accompanies each vote cast electronically, and as you cast your vote via the computer, a machine marks your paper vote for you, in a clear case so you can see it marking the ballot, which then gets dropped into a ballot box as normal.
Every one of these votes will have a uniq serial number, and that number must tally with the number of voters logged in the polling booth.

When a recount is needed, they ignore the electronic vote tally, and count the paper votes.
They also spot check machines randomly to make sure the machine agrees with the paper votes.

what determines whether a recount is necessary?

 

[flashback]

what determines whether a recount is necessary?

Same thing as always I suppose, I think a candidate can just ask for one.

 

[xrockridgex]

I aint a computer nerd but from what I hear Estonias evaoting system seems fairly uncrackable

Here is a link to a good powerpoint presentation about it
http://www.vvk.ee/english/tarvi0303.ppt

 

[pete]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000UB0004/?tag=thumpedcom-20

 

[jane]

Remember that thing I said about how I was rather pleasantly surprised that there wasn't *more* shit about Hillary not having a penis?

Can I take that back now? Or will I just spend the next few months regretting it and backtracking and cleverly trying to re-quote myself with a different spin?

Glad to see some misogyny at long last.

I'm going to be really self-serving here and repost something I wrote on my now-defunct LJ about a year ago:

"George paced in his office, little laps, adjusted the painting of Lincoln, then stood still, facing the window, following a speck of dust that floated around in a beam of late autumn afternoon light.

Knock knock knock.

"Mister President?"

"Just a minute!" George gave the office a last once over. Still a disaster, but it would have to do. He took the blue box from his desk, then went to open the door. "Nancy," he stuttered, "These are for you." He thrust the box into her chest.

"Thanks, 'Super'," she read aloud, "'for heavy flow'. That's...great. I'll use these."

The two sat down, "Condi helped me pick them out," he said. They faced each other in armchairs. Nancy crossed her legs, then uncrossed them. George tugged at his collar."

 

[Pantone247]

anyone any good links for some good entertaining coverage of the clusterfuck to the whitehouse '08?

also when does the betting start round here?

 

[flashback]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22760986/
Oliver Stone to make ‘fair’ movie about Bush


Not really anything to do with this election, or not, but interesting.

One Man, One Country, Two enormous fuck ups : Bush II, this time he's sober. </ deep voice>

 

[jane]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22760986/
Oliver Stone to make ‘fair’ movie about Bush


Not really anything to do with this election, or not, but interesting.

One Man, One Country, Two enormous fuck ups : Bush II, this time he's sober. </ deep voice>

I like the bit that's basically a cagey way of saying, "Stone, who drinks an awful lot and eats and smokes drugs, thinks this is a very good idea, sort of like that time in college when you were really baked and you thought it was a good idea to put ice cream on your pizza. Only in a movie."

 

[Vinnie]

Remember that thing I said about how I was rather pleasantly surprised that there wasn't *more* shit about Hillary not having a penis?

Can I take that back now? Or will I just spend the next few months regretting it and backtracking and cleverly trying to re-quote myself with a different spin?

Dick Morris on Fox News: Hilary Clinton has "cool, angry, 'I'll, you know, slit your throat in the middle of the night' temper"

Chris Matthews on MSNBC:
"the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit"

 

[jane]

Dick Morris on Fox News: Hilary Clinton has "cool, angry, 'I'll, you know, slit your throat in the middle of the night' temper"

Chris Matthews on MSNBC:
"the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit"

That's really fucking cool.

So if Mr Jane cheats on me, I get a seat in the Senate? Man, I should have picked a sleazebag to marry. Now I'll never get further than the State Legislature.

Has anyone talked about her being in her flowers yet?

Oh, and thanks to that doll, my ladyparts are now known as my "internal stainless steel components and spring". And you thought it was bad when it was just teeth! Fucking bear trap, wha?

 

[Vinnie]

Someone needs to say something like "in order to avoid another cold war never ever tell Hilary that her bum looks big in this - lets not make the Whitehouse the new doghouse". That's the sort of political dialogue that gets me interested in politics.

 

[Unicron]

Is Matthews the one who sounds vaguely slow/like Fred Willard in "A Mighty Wind"?

 

[Vinnie]

That's the one

Is Matthews the one who sounds vaguely slow/like Fred Willard in "A Mighty Wind"?