and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
It's typical of many viewpoints. Why hold a viewpoint unless you think it's the best viewpoint to hold? I'm sure you think conservatives are smarter than liberals, or, if "smarter" isn't the word you'd use, that conservatives possess some quality or another to a superior degree superior than liberals.
Certainly there are smart conservatives and stupid liberals. In defense of my own conceit in this regard, however (and yes, I'm sure you can blame it the "liberate elite" that's "taken over" the educational system if you'd like), I think it's safe to say that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to have more liberal viewpoints.
When it comes to personal values, I find liberals (in general, far from universally so on all issues) to be more compassionate, less stingy, and less in love with figures of power and authority than conservatives. I find more stridency in conservatives, more of a desire to enforce conformity (not that some liberal PC nuts don't do a good job of this), an emphasis on personal responsibility that, while a good in moderation, goes way too far into a tough-luck, sink-or-swim, get-with-the-program-or-else attitude.
For all of the flag waving and rapt expressions of patriotic joy I see when conservatives talk about Freedom, in practice, I see much more concern that businesses are free from regulation than people are free in their personal lives and in their political expression.
In the current situation, regardless of whether or not being conservative is smarter or dumber, more or less compassionate, or more or less concerned with freedom, I think the Republican propaganda machine is better designed for going after the votes of the less intelligent voter. The Democrats don't have as many clever and Machiavellian manipulators as the Republican party of Karl Rove has.
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
A smart-ass follow-up: Considering that apparently around 18% of the people who voted for Bush Junior the first time around thought they were voting for Bush Senior... Well, what does that say for the intelligence of those voters?
I wonder how many will vote in the 2004 election and still not know the difference? \
This is my caucus. Courtesy of the AP reporter (who spent the whole night in the kitchen with a cell phone to his ear and a pen on his notebook) my little corner of Iowa City is famous! Woo!
Not only Democrats, but a lot of Independents and Republicans packed the All Nations Baptist Church for a... lively evening. Democracy is messy business, but it's still fun.
Actually, I completely accept that people have differing views. What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one?
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
A smart-ass follow-up: Considering that apparently around 18% of the people who voted for Bush Junior the first time around thought they were voting for Bush Senior... Well, what does that say for the intelligence of those voters?
I wonder how many will vote in the 2004 election and still not know the difference? \
LMAO....do you have any links?? This is wayyy too funny. Wait, I voted for Bush in 2000 ( I know I know, again I apologize) thinking I was actually voting for Barbara Bush. \
Actually, I completely accept that people have differing views. What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one?
here's where we agree sdw2001. i too belive the election is bush's to loose. the fact that the last one was even CLOSE tells me the republican pr machine and the slow conditioning of the american mind is working.
however anything can happen between now and november.
When it comes to personal values, I find liberals (in general, far from universally so on all issues) to be more compassionate, less stingy, and less in love with figures of power and authority than conservatives. I find more stridency in conservatives, more of a desire to enforce conformity (not that some liberal PC nuts don't do a good job of this), an emphasis on personal responsibility that, while a good in moderation, goes way too far into a tough-luck, sink-or-swim, get-with-the-program-or-else attitude.
For all of the flag waving and rapt expressions of patriotic joy I see when conservatives talk about Freedom, in practice, I see much more concern that businesses are free from regulation than people are free in their personal lives and in their political expression.
In the current situation, regardless of whether or not being conservative is smarter or dumber, more or less compassionate, or more or less concerned with freedom, I think the Republican propaganda machine is better designed for going after the votes of the less intelligent voter. The Democrats don't have as many clever and Machiavellian manipulators as the Republican party of Karl Rove has.
that so true shetline and democrats and liberals tend to want to run "clean" campaigns and try to win "fairly" without getting down and dirty. look at the dirty tricks in florida, setting up roadblocks in black and latino areas to prevent democrats from voting, listing voters as felons when they were not to lower the democrat vote count, changing polling places at the last minute, etc. etc. never mind chads, these 3 things ALONE were enough to decide the vote. what upset me were that the democratic party leaders were so surprised it was done. this type of thing should be EXPECTED of them and prepared against.
and your observation of the american voter is spot-on. i've seen voters choose a candidate "because he smiles more" or "i like his voice" "he had a better commerical" silly things like that. im like, what about the issues?
people dont want to read anymore or do any research.
i used to work at a newspaper and i saw first hand how propaganda works. remember the huge march in london against the war? over here i saw reports that "about 100,000 took part in the march" yet when i watched bbc news it was closer to a million. and it was obvious watching the video that there were a heck of a lot more than 100,000
us newspapers showed shots of the front of the crowd or a small section which made one assume it was a small crowd, while european papers showed a shot from the air of this gigantic march through london.
see?
us news media called them "antiwar protesters" while over there they were (properly) called "peace activists" reasonably smart people can see the propaganda in calling them "antiwar protesters" but many people can't be bothered to even look at alternative news outlets.
that so true shetline and democrats and liberals tend to want to run "clean" campaigns and try to win "fairly" without getting down and dirty. look at the dirty tricks in florida, setting up roadblocks in black and latino areas to prevent democrats from voting, listing voters as felons when they were not to lower the democrat vote count, changing polling places at the last minute, etc. etc. never mind chads, these 3 things ALONE were enough to decide the vote. what upset me were that the democratic party leaders were so surprised it was done. this type of thing should be EXPECTED of them and prepared against.
and your observation of the american voter is spot-on. i've seen voters choose a candidate "because he smiles more" or "i like his voice" "he had a better commerical" silly things like that. im like, what about the issues?
people dont want to read anymore or do any research.
i used to work at a newspaper and i saw first hand how propaganda works. remember the huge march in london against the war? over here i saw reports that "about 100,000 took part in the march" yet when i watched bbc news it was closer to a million. and it was obvious watching the video that there were a heck of a lot more than 100,000
us newspapers showed shots of the front of the crowd or a small section which made one assume it was a small crowd, while european papers showed a shot from the air of this gigantic march through london.
see?
us news media called them "antiwar protesters" while over there they were (properly) called "peace activists" reasonably smart people can see the propaganda in calling them "antiwar protesters" but many people can't be bothered to even look at alternative news outlets.
this is why sparing a miracle, bush will win...
many people are sheep...
The thing about this election that gives us a fighting chance is that Bush's mistakes are so blatant they're hard to miss. All the democrats need is a strong enough front runner and perhaps a debate with Bush. Like you've said it's close. In the polls right now it's close. I think dragging some of these issues further out into the light will turn the tide.
I don't think everyone is blindly buying Bush's rhetoric. I've never seen so many somber and unhappy looking faces during the SOTU address. Sure they stood and claped but a lot of them didn't look happy about it. Some ( like Ted Kennedy ) just didn't look happy at all. This gives me great hope!
Since it's close all we would need is a minior miracle at best!
The thing about this election that gives us a fighting chance is that Bush's mistakes are so blatant they're hard to miss. All the democrats need is a strong enough front runner and perhaps a debate with Bush. Like you've said it's close. In the polls right now it's close. I think dragging some of these issues further out into the light will turn the tide.
I don't think everyone is blindly buying Bush's rhetoric. I've never seen so many somber and unhappy looking faces during the SOTU address. Sure they stood and claped but a lot of them didn't look happy about it. Some ( like Ted Kennedy ) just didn't look happy at all. This gives me great hope!
Since it's close all we would need is a minior miracle at best!
Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Voting Machine Controversy
by Julie Carr Smyth
COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year.
Sept. 23, 2003 | As if the public image of punch-card voting machines had not already been bruised and battered enough, on Sept. 15, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals went for the K.O. Punch-card voting, a three-judge panel of the court said in its ruling halting the California gubernatorial recall election, is an embarrassment to our high-tech times: "Just as the black and white fava bean voting system of revolutionary times was replaced by paper balloting, and the paper ballot replaced by mechanical lever machine, newer technologies have emerged to replace the punch-card, including optical scanning and touch screen voting."
But according to Bev Harris, a writer who has spent more than a year investigating the shadowy world of the elections equipment industry, the replacement technologies the court cited may be worse -- much worse -- than the zany punch-card systems it finds so abhorrent. Specifically, Harris' research into Diebold, one of the largest providers of the new touch-screen systems, ought to give elections officials pause about mandating an all-electronic vote.
Harris has found critical flaws in Diebold's voting software, and she's uncovered internal Diebold memos in which employees seem to suggest that the vulnerabilities are no big deal. The memos appear to be authentic -- Diebold even sent Harris a notice warning her that by posting the documents on the Web, she was infringing upon the company's intellectual property. Diebold did not return several calls for comment.
Why the Current Touch Screen Voting Fiasco Was Pretty Much Inevitable
By Robert X. Cringely
(an excerpt):
Now against this backdrop of failure, I can't help but make one technical observation that I think has been missed by most of the other people covering this story. One of the key issues in touch screen voting is the presence or absence of a so-called paper trail. There doesn't seem to be any way in these systems to verify that the numbers coming out are the numbers that went in. There is no print-out from the machine, no receipt given to the voter, no way of auditing the election at all. This is what bugs the conspiracy theorists, that we just have to trust the voting machine developers -- folks whose actions strongly suggest that they haven't been worthy of our trust.
So who decided that these voting machines wouldn't create a paper trail and so couldn't be audited? Did the U.S. Elections Commission or some other government agency specifically require that the machines NOT be auditable? Or did the vendors come up with that wrinkle all by themselves? The answer to this question is crucial, so crucial that I am eager for one of my readers to enlighten me. If you know the answer for a fact, please get in touch.
Having the voting machines not be auditable seems to have been a bad move on somebody's part, whoever that somebody is.
Now here's the really interesting part. Forgetting for a moment Diebold's voting machines, let's look at the other equipment they make. Diebold makes a lot of ATM machines. They make machines that sell tickets for trains and subways. They make store checkout scanners, including self-service scanners. They make machines that allow access to buildings for people with magnetic cards. They make machines that use magnetic cards for payment in closed systems like university dining rooms. All of these are machines that involve data input that results in a transaction, just like a voting machine. But unlike a voting machine, every one of these other kinds of Diebold machines -- EVERY ONE -- creates a paper trail and can be audited. Would Citibank have it any other way? Would Home Depot? Would the CIA? Of course not. These machines affect the livelihood of their owners. If they can't be audited they can't be trusted. If they can't be trusted they won't be used.
Now back to those voting machines. If EVERY OTHER kind of machine you make includes an auditable paper trail, wouldn't it seem logical to include such a capability in the voting machines, too? Given that what you are doing is adapting existing technology to a new purpose, wouldn't it be logical to carry over to voting machines this capability that is so important in every other kind of transaction device?
This confuses me. I'd love to know who said to leave the feature out and why?
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.
Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.
Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.
"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.
Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.
Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.
"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."
" A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday night showed Kerry in the lead with support of 36 percent of likely voters, followed by Dean at 25 percent. The third-place slot, according to the poll, was tight, with Clark at 13 percent, and both Lieberman and Edwards at 10 percent. "
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.
Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.
Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.
"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
It's typical of many viewpoints. Why hold a viewpoint unless you think it's the best viewpoint to hold? I'm sure you think conservatives are smarter than liberals, or, if "smarter" isn't the word you'd use, that conservatives possess some quality or another to a superior degree superior than liberals.
Certainly there are smart conservatives and stupid liberals. In defense of my own conceit in this regard, however (and yes, I'm sure you can blame it the "liberate elite" that's "taken over" the educational system if you'd like), I think it's safe to say that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to have more liberal viewpoints.
When it comes to personal values, I find liberals (in general, far from universally so on all issues) to be more compassionate, less stingy, and less in love with figures of power and authority than conservatives. I find more stridency in conservatives, more of a desire to enforce conformity (not that some liberal PC nuts don't do a good job of this), an emphasis on personal responsibility that, while a good in moderation, goes way too far into a tough-luck, sink-or-swim, get-with-the-program-or-else attitude.
For all of the flag waving and rapt expressions of patriotic joy I see when conservatives talk about Freedom, in practice, I see much more concern that businesses are free from regulation than people are free in their personal lives and in their political expression.
In the current situation, regardless of whether or not being conservative is smarter or dumber, more or less compassionate, or more or less concerned with freedom, I think the Republican propaganda machine is better designed for going after the votes of the less intelligent voter. The Democrats don't have as many clever and Machiavellian manipulators as the Republican party of Karl Rove has.
Originally posted by SDW2001
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
A smart-ass follow-up: Considering that apparently around 18% of the people who voted for Bush Junior the first time around thought they were voting for Bush Senior... Well, what does that say for the intelligence of those voters?
I wonder how many will vote in the 2004 election and still not know the difference?
This is my caucus.
Not only Democrats, but a lot of Independents and Republicans packed the All Nations Baptist Church for a... lively evening. Democracy is messy business, but it's still fun.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Actually, I completely accept that people have differing views. What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one?
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one? "
------------------------------------------------------------
Take your pick! Just about anybody could do a better job!
Originally posted by shetline
A smart-ass follow-up: Considering that apparently around 18% of the people who voted for Bush Junior the first time around thought they were voting for Bush Senior... Well, what does that say for the intelligence of those voters?
I wonder how many will vote in the 2004 election and still not know the difference?
LMAO....do you have any links?? This is wayyy too funny. Wait, I voted for Bush in 2000 ( I know I know, again I apologize) thinking I was actually voting for Barbara Bush.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Actually, I completely accept that people have differing views. What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one?
here's where we agree sdw2001. i too belive the election is bush's to loose. the fact that the last one was even CLOSE tells me the republican pr machine and the slow conditioning of the american mind is working.
however anything can happen between now and november.
fdr was a good president...
Originally posted by shetline
When it comes to personal values, I find liberals (in general, far from universally so on all issues) to be more compassionate, less stingy, and less in love with figures of power and authority than conservatives. I find more stridency in conservatives, more of a desire to enforce conformity (not that some liberal PC nuts don't do a good job of this), an emphasis on personal responsibility that, while a good in moderation, goes way too far into a tough-luck, sink-or-swim, get-with-the-program-or-else attitude.
For all of the flag waving and rapt expressions of patriotic joy I see when conservatives talk about Freedom, in practice, I see much more concern that businesses are free from regulation than people are free in their personal lives and in their political expression.
In the current situation, regardless of whether or not being conservative is smarter or dumber, more or less compassionate, or more or less concerned with freedom, I think the Republican propaganda machine is better designed for going after the votes of the less intelligent voter. The Democrats don't have as many clever and Machiavellian manipulators as the Republican party of Karl Rove has.
that so true shetline and democrats and liberals tend to want to run "clean" campaigns and try to win "fairly" without getting down and dirty. look at the dirty tricks in florida, setting up roadblocks in black and latino areas to prevent democrats from voting, listing voters as felons when they were not to lower the democrat vote count, changing polling places at the last minute, etc. etc. never mind chads, these 3 things ALONE were enough to decide the vote. what upset me were that the democratic party leaders were so surprised it was done. this type of thing should be EXPECTED of them and prepared against.
and your observation of the american voter is spot-on. i've seen voters choose a candidate "because he smiles more" or "i like his voice" "he had a better commerical" silly things like that. im like, what about the issues?
people dont want to read anymore or do any research.
i used to work at a newspaper and i saw first hand how propaganda works. remember the huge march in london against the war? over here i saw reports that "about 100,000 took part in the march" yet when i watched bbc news it was closer to a million. and it was obvious watching the video that there were a heck of a lot more than 100,000
us newspapers showed shots of the front of the crowd or a small section which made one assume it was a small crowd, while european papers showed a shot from the air of this gigantic march through london.
see?
us news media called them "antiwar protesters" while over there they were (properly) called "peace activists" reasonably smart people can see the propaganda in calling them "antiwar protesters" but many people can't be bothered to even look at alternative news outlets.
this is why sparing a miracle, bush will win...
many people are sheep...
Originally posted by futuremac
that so true shetline and democrats and liberals tend to want to run "clean" campaigns and try to win "fairly" without getting down and dirty. look at the dirty tricks in florida, setting up roadblocks in black and latino areas to prevent democrats from voting, listing voters as felons when they were not to lower the democrat vote count, changing polling places at the last minute, etc. etc. never mind chads, these 3 things ALONE were enough to decide the vote. what upset me were that the democratic party leaders were so surprised it was done. this type of thing should be EXPECTED of them and prepared against.
and your observation of the american voter is spot-on. i've seen voters choose a candidate "because he smiles more" or "i like his voice" "he had a better commerical" silly things like that. im like, what about the issues?
people dont want to read anymore or do any research.
i used to work at a newspaper and i saw first hand how propaganda works. remember the huge march in london against the war? over here i saw reports that "about 100,000 took part in the march" yet when i watched bbc news it was closer to a million. and it was obvious watching the video that there were a heck of a lot more than 100,000
us newspapers showed shots of the front of the crowd or a small section which made one assume it was a small crowd, while european papers showed a shot from the air of this gigantic march through london.
see?
us news media called them "antiwar protesters" while over there they were (properly) called "peace activists" reasonably smart people can see the propaganda in calling them "antiwar protesters" but many people can't be bothered to even look at alternative news outlets.
this is why sparing a miracle, bush will win...
many people are sheep...
The thing about this election that gives us a fighting chance is that Bush's mistakes are so blatant they're hard to miss. All the democrats need is a strong enough front runner and perhaps a debate with Bush. Like you've said it's close. In the polls right now it's close. I think dragging some of these issues further out into the light will turn the tide.
I don't think everyone is blindly buying Bush's rhetoric. I've never seen so many somber and unhappy looking faces during the SOTU address. Sure they stood and claped but a lot of them didn't look happy about it. Some ( like Ted Kennedy ) just didn't look happy at all. This gives me great hope!
Since it's close all we would need is a minior miracle at best!
Originally posted by jimmac
The thing about this election that gives us a fighting chance is that Bush's mistakes are so blatant they're hard to miss. All the democrats need is a strong enough front runner and perhaps a debate with Bush. Like you've said it's close. In the polls right now it's close. I think dragging some of these issues further out into the light will turn the tide.
I don't think everyone is blindly buying Bush's rhetoric. I've never seen so many somber and unhappy looking faces during the SOTU address. Sure they stood and claped but a lot of them didn't look happy about it. Some ( like Ted Kennedy ) just didn't look happy at all. This gives me great hope!
Since it's close all we would need is a minior miracle at best!
thats not the only problem:
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Voting Machine Controversy
by Julie Carr Smyth
COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
click here to read more:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm
----
An open invitation to election fraud
By Farhad Manjoo
Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year.
Sept. 23, 2003 | As if the public image of punch-card voting machines had not already been bruised and battered enough, on Sept. 15, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals went for the K.O. Punch-card voting, a three-judge panel of the court said in its ruling halting the California gubernatorial recall election, is an embarrassment to our high-tech times: "Just as the black and white fava bean voting system of revolutionary times was replaced by paper balloting, and the paper ballot replaced by mechanical lever machine, newer technologies have emerged to replace the punch-card, including optical scanning and touch screen voting."
But according to Bev Harris, a writer who has spent more than a year investigating the shadowy world of the elections equipment industry, the replacement technologies the court cited may be worse -- much worse -- than the zany punch-card systems it finds so abhorrent. Specifically, Harris' research into Diebold, one of the largest providers of the new touch-screen systems, ought to give elections officials pause about mandating an all-electronic vote.
Harris has found critical flaws in Diebold's voting software, and she's uncovered internal Diebold memos in which employees seem to suggest that the vulnerabilities are no big deal. The memos appear to be authentic -- Diebold even sent Harris a notice warning her that by posting the documents on the Web, she was infringing upon the company's intellectual property. Diebold did not return several calls for comment.
surf the link to read more
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html
DECEMBER 4, 2003
No Confidence Vote:
Why the Current Touch Screen Voting Fiasco Was Pretty Much Inevitable
By Robert X. Cringely
(an excerpt):
Now against this backdrop of failure, I can't help but make one technical observation that I think has been missed by most of the other people covering this story. One of the key issues in touch screen voting is the presence or absence of a so-called paper trail. There doesn't seem to be any way in these systems to verify that the numbers coming out are the numbers that went in. There is no print-out from the machine, no receipt given to the voter, no way of auditing the election at all. This is what bugs the conspiracy theorists, that we just have to trust the voting machine developers -- folks whose actions strongly suggest that they haven't been worthy of our trust.
So who decided that these voting machines wouldn't create a paper trail and so couldn't be audited? Did the U.S. Elections Commission or some other government agency specifically require that the machines NOT be auditable? Or did the vendors come up with that wrinkle all by themselves? The answer to this question is crucial, so crucial that I am eager for one of my readers to enlighten me. If you know the answer for a fact, please get in touch.
Having the voting machines not be auditable seems to have been a bad move on somebody's part, whoever that somebody is.
Now here's the really interesting part. Forgetting for a moment Diebold's voting machines, let's look at the other equipment they make. Diebold makes a lot of ATM machines. They make machines that sell tickets for trains and subways. They make store checkout scanners, including self-service scanners. They make machines that allow access to buildings for people with magnetic cards. They make machines that use magnetic cards for payment in closed systems like university dining rooms. All of these are machines that involve data input that results in a transaction, just like a voting machine. But unlike a voting machine, every one of these other kinds of Diebold machines -- EVERY ONE -- creates a paper trail and can be audited. Would Citibank have it any other way? Would Home Depot? Would the CIA? Of course not. These machines affect the livelihood of their owners. If they can't be audited they can't be trusted. If they can't be trusted they won't be used.
Now back to those voting machines. If EVERY OTHER kind of machine you make includes an auditable paper trail, wouldn't it seem logical to include such a capability in the voting machines, too? Given that what you are doing is adapting existing technology to a new purpose, wouldn't it be logical to carry over to voting machines this capability that is so important in every other kind of transaction device?
This confuses me. I'd love to know who said to leave the feature out and why?
click here to read more:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20031204.html
Jan 26, 7:03 AM (ET)
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.
Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.
Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.
"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."
Dean is pulling even. Comments?
Edit: Sorry...the link didn't work.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, now things really ARE in a free for all:
Jan 26, 7:03 AM (ET)
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.
Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.
Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.
"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."
Dean is pulling even. Comments?
Edit: Sorry...the link didn't work.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html
It's all in how you write the article.
Originally posted by BRussell
Dean is down by 20 points in other polls.
The trend shows Dean regaining bigtime.
" A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday night showed Kerry in the lead with support of 36 percent of likely voters, followed by Dean at 25 percent. The third-place slot, according to the poll, was tight, with Clark at 13 percent, and both Lieberman and Edwards at 10 percent. "
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html
http://reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPr...209684&index=0
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=4209684
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.
Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.
Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.
"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."