Posted on 11/16/2006 11:40:41 AM PST by freemarket_kenshepherd
Like claims the U.S. was responsible for 9/11 and Republicans were fixing gas prices, the media promoted the left-wing electronic vote-rigging conspiracy.
Now that the votes have been cast and counted, Republicans lost, and the silence of the national media has been deafening.
The idea was that somehow the company Diebold had programmed the machines to let Republicans win. The theory, perpetuated by left-wingers posting on Daily Kos and The Huffington Post and Bev Harris’ book, “Black Box Voting,” was embraced by all three broadcast networks, as well as CNN and MSNBC.
Following Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) defeat in 2004, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ignored statements by the candidate’s own Ohio attorney about the lack of evidence of “confirmed fraud.” Instead, Olbermann ranted for days about fraud causing the Kerry defeat during his show “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”
Leading up to the 2006 election. Lou Dobbs and Kitty Pilgrim waged a five-month long, two-person war against electronic voting in regular “Democracy at Risk” segments during CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”
Dobbs fostered mistrust of electronic voting throughout his broadcasts. “When it comes to the federal government, don’t expect much assurance that your electronic vote will be counted accurately. New standards for electronic voting machines may not be ready in fact, for years,” he warned on Oct. 29, 2006.
And on election day 2006, NBC’s Brian Williams said there were complaints of “plain old trickery at the polls.” As Williams tossed the story to reporter Chip Reid, the response came, “Well, most of it, Brian, is electronic voting.”
Ironically, electronic voting went national because of a bipartisan push for election reform after the disastrous 2000 Florida recount. But that bipartisan support for such voting machines turned into allegations and conspiracy theories after the 2004 elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
If the Democrats win, the election has been conducted with unimpeachable integrity.
Carolyn
If someone did doubt the outcome of an election, how do you do a recount with a Diebold machine?
How do you do a recount with the old-fashioned lever style machines with curtains?
That about sums it up... Expect Gore style elections every time a Republican wins and perfectly run elections every time a DumocRAT is elected.
The MSM media must be pretty happy with themselves. They managed to convince several lunatic left-wing DumocRATs who would normally spend election night doing something else other than voting, to go vote.
Hopefully, after a couple of years of the Nancy and Dirty Harry show the Republicans who didn't bother voting (i.e. the 60+ million who voted for Bush), will wake up and go to the polls again.
GOP data mining. Any in question are GOP. Simple.
You dump the touchscreen data.
Despite what a lot of ignorant left-wingers (and the linked article) are claiming, the problem is not that "Diebold programmed their machines to let Democrats win." That's foolish. The problem is that both Diebold's software and hardware are so insecure, a single malicious voter (or small group of such voters) regardless of their party affiliation could have a huge effect on the outcome of the election.
We should *all* be concerned about this.
It's only cheating when the Left loses.
Very easily and more accurately than you could have with punch cards.
The diebold machines we use here allow you to vote on the touch screen. When you have finished making your selections, you press the button to print the paper copy. The paper copy is printed on a roll that remains in the machine. You get to view it through a window and verify a page at a time that what is recorded matches how you voted. You can reject the ballot if you find a mistake and go back and make changes.
Once you have confirmed the entire ballot, the paper advances to a empty portion so that the next voter cannot see how you voted.
Between the paper ballots, the electronic counts, and the sign-in book, they are able to do through canvasing to detect attempts at fraud.
Despite all the empty claims otherwise, it's a far more reliable and secure system than was used in the past.
Thank you. If there is a hard copy that the voter can verify, then I'm not worried.
This is easy to figure out - Pelosi said it herself, "We win or they cheated".
Without the printer, they can still verify that the votes on the individual machines total up to match the totals in the database, and that no one somehow messed with the database.
They can also verify the count of the number of people who signed in and match that to the counts of the voters who voted on the machines.
In my opinion that's just as reliable as the punch cards, which could easily be modified or invalidated even by unintentional mishandling.
However, I think the touch screen system we have now with the paper ballot is considerably better system than we had in the past, despite all they hype we have heard.
If can and still should be made better, but it's better than what we had in the past already.
Here's some links about the diebold machines we have here. We've had these where I vote since the primary election this spring. Other precincts that purchased machines earlier may not have the printers yet but it's my understanding that they can be added on to those machines as well.
http://www6.diebold.com/whatsnews/pr/photo/accuview.htm
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/News/Read.aspx?ID=118
The single malicious voter would have to do it precinct by precinct, otherwise the impact would not be significant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.