|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST |
"We own
our equipment, we own the software, ...
How come they own their
software when we the people are mere licensees?
A: It seems ownership gives
them the freedom to use
untested, non-state certified software
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST |
In the present case it might be useful to look at demographics on where the
voting machines with the changed software would have been used. Our old friend
Solon used to be wont to ask "Who Benefits?".
The plaintiff in the case
appears to have been involved in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio over the
2004 election results, but not the 2008 election results. (He appears to have
instituted an organization for heading off voter fraud for the 2008
election).
The complaint alleges that there is a back door into the voting
machines.
You could note that in the book What Happened in Ohio? the blurb mentions both voting
machines being pulled back and ballots being tampered
with.
What Happened in Ohio? includes trucking receipts that show
voting machines were pulled back from minority districts; ballots that contain
evidence of tampering; mathematical analysis demonstrating the statistical
impossibility of voting totals; testimonials from hundreds of voters, campaign
workers, and poll workers about conditions that effectively disenfranchised
thousands of voters; copies of flyers instructing Democrats to “vote on
Wednesday”; official letters sent to tens of thousands of longtime voters
incorrectly informing them they had been deemed “inactive” and ineligible to
vote; photos taken of the original exit poll data broadcast on election night
before it was retroactively “corrected” by the networks; and much, much
more.
Blocking the use of voting machines with non certified
software appears to be a prelude to enjoining further suit should the
plaintiff's candidate not persevere.
Personally I'd think any voting
machines without an audit trail in hard copy shouldn't be used. Any appearance
of the possibility of impropriety should be eliminated.
From the book
blurb alleged problems with electioneering in Ohio appear to be much greater
than just that of voting machine firmware. As a Congressional candidate for the
Green Party in the 3rd district of Ohio and a previous candidate in the 12th
district in 1992 by the Democratic party allegations of electioneering fraud
might be seen to paint both major parties, through actual fraud or
inaction.
One can't help but wonder if the plaintiff isn't wily enough to
understand the benefits of disrupting electioneering at this late date to a
third party candidate. Were you to visit Bob Fitrakis For Congress web site
you'd find other more blatantly political statements, but that the website is
also included in the Library of Congress historic collection of Internet
materials related to the U.S. 2012 election.
The question might be why do
the two major political parties tolerate practices that might lead to
electioneering fraud? At Would
range voting reduce election fraud? we find that those promoting range
voting believe it's to perpetuate the two party system, which happens to be in
line with the plaintiff's apparent political ambitions.
The
protests of those defeated by election fraud and/or manipulation have been
incredibly faint in the USA. Why? Our theory is that both sides continually
benefit heavily from the same election-rigging techniques and any protest – and
most election reform more generally (and investigations leading toward it) such
as abolishing gerrymandering – is therefore counterproductive for both sides and
hence is not undertaken.
In the alternative actual admissible
evidence might be sparse, and heavy handed investigation serves mostly to raise
distrust on the fairness of elections, in particular when no convictions are
ensuing.
You could also note that Ohio law will eventually lead to voting
machine use requiring a voter verified paper audit trail, the matter at issue
the phased expenditure on new machines, the requirement relatively new. It
seems unlikely the particular issue might arise so easily in the next national
election. You could contemplate that this particular squeaky wheel is being
oiled.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST |
I do not trust ANY of the US voting machines. They all seem to be designed to
encourage MASSIVE fraud.
However, some are worse than others. I sort of feel OK about the ones that scan
marked paper ballots. There's an audit trail, and one that it is actually
plausible to check and validate. (I'm not sure this is ever done, however. And
it should ALWAYS be done.)
As for the software, no secret software should be allowed anywhere near a voting
machine. The problem isn't that it's software, it's that as it's secret, you
can't tell what it's doing. And there is no justification whatsoever for having
the software be secret except to enable fraud.
(It's not like counting votes is a complex program, after all.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 10:26 PM EST |
The winning side is never going to seriously investigate or
legislate with regard to election fraud, in my opinion.
So it seems we're doomed to have it in the USA.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Open source will never come to voting machines. Most folks think that having
the source code means it's _easier_ to crack the system.
Go back to 2000, and research the Diebold debacle. IIRC, someone release the
source code for their machines, and some CS professors analyzed it, and found
many holes. How about intentionally putting holes in the code? Not backdoors,
but security holes. Beautiful! No one could prove it was intentional.
Computerized voting machines need to be eliminated. We already have too much
fraud in the system.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
