2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders Camp Suspicious of Microsoft's Influence in Caucus
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucusPete DAlessandro, who is running the Iowa portion of Sanders campaign, questioned the motives of the major multinational corporation in an interview with MSNBC: Youd have to ask yourself why theyd want to give something like that away for free.
Other Sanders aides noted that Microsoft employees have donated several hundred thousand dollars to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton over her career, and questioned why the Iowa Democratic Party didnt partner with a software company based in Iowa.
Anything here? Not sure. But worth a read.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ever stop being floated? Now, the skies, like under the bus, is getting way too crowded.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Is the Clinton campaign also paranoid?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)for vote tampering... I don't assume fraud will occur, but I recognize Bernie is considered a serious threat to the status quo, therefore I don't reject the possibility either.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Who is auditing this software platform?
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)but i hope the campaign creates a hard copy reporting sheet also for it's own use
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Makes me think they are preparing all constituencies.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)monmouth4
(9,708 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)We have monitored elections in other countries to make sure they are fair. And yet we mostly use easily hackable machines all or almost all made by republican led companies.
Bush-Kerry 2004.... Most of the polls showed Kerry up a few points, results showed he lost by that amount. In the recent Governors race in Kentucky most polls showed the democrat winning by 5 or so percent, he "lost" by 19. There are more, always moving in the favor of the republican. The recent Ohio pot vote is highly suspect too.
Paper ballots with strict custody procedures, witnessed and recorded counting with at least one impartial witness. That is a system we should move to, our current hodgepodge system is a joke and ripe for the picking.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)It's about that time...
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I am confident that Bernie will fight to the end.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)it's going to be that thing where we blame the machines if we don't like the results of the election? Already?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)To bus oligarchs in to pose as Iowa caucus goers.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Keep the anger and outrage fired up.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)just in case he ran out of room under the ones he already has
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Even though I don't live in Iowa. I'm an oligarch secretly....
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Why not again?
Have you ever seen this testimony to congressional members from a whistleblower regarding voting software??? Really, we have a daily hack here in the country. Las Vegas machines are more secure! Now they have perfected how to mess up a bodily counted caucus!
History lesson here:
Pick any video you like here, this is a tragedy here in the U.S. Do you think it stopped after this? I'll debate anyone here, on what is going on with our optiscan machines we had replace the touchscreens. Dare anyone to listen to this!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=clint+curtis+testifies+to+congress+on+voting+machine+softward
And how they make Las Vegas machine gambling more secure:
http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=275
and finally:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/opinion/gambling-on-voting.html?_r=0
Gambling on Voting
JUNE 13, 2004
If election officials want to convince voters that electronic voting can be trusted, they should be willing to make it at least as secure as slot machines. To appreciate how poor the oversight on voting systems is, it's useful to look at the way Nevada systematically ensures that electronic gambling machines in Las Vegas operate honestly and accurately. Electronic voting, by comparison, is rife with lax procedures, security risks and conflicts of interest.
On a trip last week to the Nevada Gaming Control Board laboratory, in a state office building off the Las Vegas Strip, we found testing and enforcement mechanisms that go far beyond what is required for electronic voting. Among the ways gamblers are more protected than voters:
1. The state has access to all gambling software. The Gaming Control Board has copies on file of every piece of gambling device software currently being used, and an archive going back years. It is illegal for casinos to use software not on file. Electronic voting machine makers, by contrast, say their software is a trade secret, and have resisted sharing it with the states that buy their machines.
2. The software on gambling machines is constantly being spot-checked. Board inspectors show up unannounced at casinos with devices that let them compare the computer chip in a slot machine to the one on file. If there is a discrepancy, the machine is shut down, and investigated. This sort of spot-checking is not required for electronic voting. A surreptitious software change on a voting machine would be far less likely to be detected.
3. There are meticulous, constantly updated standards for gambling machines. When we arrived at the Gaming Control Board lab, a man was firing a stun gun at a slot machine. The machine must work when subjected to a 20,000-volt shock, one of an array of rules intended to cover anything that can possibly go wrong. Nevada adopted new standards in May 2003, but to keep pace with fast-changing technology, it is adding new ones this month.
Voting machine standards are out of date and inadequate. Machines are still tested with standards from 2002 that have gaping security holes. Nevertheless, election officials have rushed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy them.
4. Manufacturers are intensively scrutinized before they are licensed to sell gambling software or hardware. A company that wants to make slot machines must submit to a background check of six months or more, similar to the kind done on casino operators. It must register its employees with the Gaming Control Board, which investigates their backgrounds and criminal records.
When it comes to voting machine manufacturers, all a company needs to do to enter the field is persuade an election official to buy its equipment. There is no way for voters to know that the software on their machines was not written by programmers with fraud convictions, or close ties to political parties or candidates.
5. The lab that certifies gambling equipment has an arms-length relationship with the manufacturers it polices, and is open to inquiries from the public. The Nevada Gaming Control Board lab is a state agency, whose employees are paid by the taxpayers. The fees the lab takes in go to the state's general fund. It invites members of the public who have questions about its work to call or e-mail.
The federal labs that certify voting equipment are profit-making companies. They are chosen and paid by voting machine companies, a glaring conflict of interest. The voters and their elected representatives have no way of knowing how the testing is done, or that the manufacturers are not applying undue pressure to have flawed equipment approved. Wyle Laboratories, one of the largest testers of voting machines, does not answer questions about its voting machine work.
6. When there is a dispute about a machine, a gambler has a right to an immediate investigation. When a gambler believes a slot machine has cheated him, the casino is required to contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators on call around the clock. Investigators can open up machines to inspect their internal workings, and their records of recent gambling outcomes. If voters believe a voting machine has manipulated their votes, in most cases their only recourse is to call a board of elections number, which may well be busy, to lodge a complaint that may or may not be investigated.
Election officials say their electronic voting systems are the very best. But the truth is, gamblers are getting the best technology, and voters are being given systems that are cheap and untrustworthy by comparison. There are many questions yet to be resolved about electronic voting, but one thing is clear: a vote for president should be at least as secure as a 25-cent bet in Las Vegas.
Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/makingvotescount.
**************************
nothing has been fixed...only more secure for the corporations and the vendor software is proprietary information, as law they wanted. We the people are not allowed to 'check the software"
this is not about winers.....this is courage. Nobody own Bernie, so HE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)not to cheat in our own favor, you are a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
I have news for all of you Hillbots. Expecting political and business entities to act in their own favor wherever and whenever possible is just plain common sense.
Since when do political and business entities act fairly when they can get away with acting in their own favor?