Does this election vindicate Diebold?

[BestCenter]

Sure, there were many problems, but doesn't this election illustrate that most of the people running Diebold don't have some sort of conspiracy to undermine the electoral process? And even so, doesn't it show that it's difficult for them to pull it off correctly?

Or did they just "give" the Democrats this election to catch us off guard in 2008?

[Lautremont]

1. Neither.

They tried, but they can only affect an election so much. We're not dealing with omnipotence here. They gave it their best shot; there were just too many voters, too many observers, too many Democrats.

[POAS]

32. Agreed, they misunderestimated the turnout

[wholetruth00]

48. Hell no! The did the job for which they were paid in 2000 and 2004.

[damntexdem]

2. No, I think they were worried about market share.

They'd been so criticized, and knew that they were being watched, so they didn't pull their tricks. But the tricks are still there, all ready for 2008.

[blondeatlast]

42. Making them fret over market share an PR is the best weapon we have against

Diebold.

Having to answer to the shareholders is a whole lot more painful than having to answer to the citizens (so very sad, but so very true); therefore, keeping the issue front and center, even if it's just on the blogs and alternative media, is our most effective weapon to combat them.

It has the added benefit of scaring any Diebold competitors who want a piece of the market.

[Codeblue]

3. I certainly don't trust them

This election does nothing for me. I still see people winning races that they surely should have lost based on the demographics of their constituency. I do not trust the elections in 2008 at all at this point.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. Or did they just not skew the election quite enough?

We may never know. But regardless of whether Diebold is altering election results in some way, the real, fundamental issue is that we are holding elections that are not open, transparent, and recountable. THAT is the main reason I don't like Diebold.

[mrgorth]

5. I'm not as worried about the machines as a whole

but Diebold = evil.

[Orangepeel]

6. who cares if it is "difficult" to pull off? is it possible?

computers contain programming errors. they crash. they can be hacked. with something as important as safeguarding democracy, there need to be paper ballots and random audits.

This would be true whether or not Diebold did anything in the past.

[begin_within]

7. It doesn't vindicate Diebold for me, even though I used a Diebold machine

with the paper trail. I looked at the paper receipt, and it agreed with everything I voted. However, I still don't trust the electronic operation. In the last poll before the election, Francine Busby was within 3 percentage points of Brian Bilbray, but in the election itself, Bilbray won by 10 percentage points. Nothing happened in the last few days that would help Bilbray that much. In fact, there was a grand jury investigation regarding where he actually lives. So that made me suspect that there was something suspicious going on in the electronic end of the tabulation. Same with California Props 86, 87 and 89. Most were close in the polls but then were not close in the actual election tally. I am still not convinced that the Diebold system is fair, reliable and transparent.

[some guy]

8. No

propriety software has no valid place in elections in an open society. Until they are willing to make the software available for inspection, and provide accurate, verifiable paper trails to allow for accurate recounts, they are suspect, and should not be used in any election.

[American Jesus]

9. I predicted this would happen last week.

I said that, should the Democrats WIN this election, the proponents of the electro-fraud machines would claim that 2002 and 2004 were much ado about nothing, and then if they stole the White House again in 2008, they could just roll their eyes and say "Oh not this shit again" :eyes:

Problem is that they DID try to steal it. Hundreds of problems were reported nationwide with the damned machines. It's just that the unexpected huge turn out was too much for the software to over ride.

Chances are we actually won by greater numbers than we thought. But with no way to verify the cursed things, it can't be proven one way or the other.

Biggest irony here is that you have FREEPERS now claiming fixed elections. Even Pricky SantWhorum was screaming about machine fraud for about 10 minutes after his resounding defeat. As far as I'm concerned, that's great. If the Repukes hate their own machines as much as we do, the sooner we can get rid of the damn things. Wouldn't it be cool if the 2008 election was conducted honestly from Coast to Coast.

[sandrakae]

10. Hell Know. Florida had issue again.

Lebanon PA and Lancaster County PA had issues.

[kitp]

11. My opinion...

67% of Americans disapprove of Bush
67% of Americans disapprove of the war
67% of Americans disapprove of the Republican Congress

Yet only 51% vote for the Democrats.

Where did the other 16% go?

[Iwasthere]

15. My feelings exactly

Where did the 16 % go???????

[Totally Committed]

26. Exactamundo!

You hit the bullseye.

TC

[sutz12]

12. No way, Jose...

We still need election reform. Unfortunately, this election might calm some people's fears, setting us up for another stolen Presidency.

This in no way let's them off of the hook. Reform, now.

[lcordero2]

13. Nope

They simply couldn't cheat enough in order to keep up.

[fuzzyball]

14. Yes we lost in 2002 & 2004 purely on our own...Diebold had no hand in it

If Diebold was that cunning, they could easily have switched
all the close races this time. I never believed such a vast
conspiracy involving programmers, technicians, election supervisors,
county officials and Diebold management could pull it off for 3 elections
without a single person snitching. Just about impossible.

[Nostradammit]

16. fuzzy indeed

Teams of computer experts declared them completely unreliable.

No one had to snitch, they were blatantly foisted as good for democracy by the companies that stood to profit enormously from their government-mandated use.

Which they weren't.

And aren't.

And never will be.

[fuzzyball]

35. If it was that easy why did'nt they repeat it in Nov 2006?

[TheBaldyMan]

18. Fuzzyball - Bush stole the 2000 & 2004 elections, Diebold just makes fraud easier.

[fuzzyball]

36. Again if they were capable of stealing it via Diebold, what changed in 2006?

Especially in Virginia (less than 1% to steal) and Montana (again
very close) and several other places in house contests which were
very close.

Sorry, no tin-foil hats for me.

[TheBaldyMan]

40. Without the ballot box stuffing the Dem majority would have been bigger

check out these links from Greg Palast:

http://www.gregpalast.com/virginia-floridated">Floridated Virginia

http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election">How the election has already been stolen

I'm just an ignorant foreigner so could you tell me which is more in keeping with a truly democratic republic. Counting every vote or disenfranchising 4.5 million voters. I'd be very interested in your view. This isn't a tin foil hat issue, this is about your definition of a representative democracy.

I think that there are a lot of Americans, Republican as well as Democratic that would prefer an open and fair system.

[BestCenter]

41. If it could have been bigger

why the heck didn't they just go ahead and steal it anyways? It was a hotly contested state, known as a battlefield. And it's not as if there would have been a chance of a probe or investigation anyways.

[TheBaldyMan]

45. An unusually large turn out for a midterm, coupled with increased awareness

of the fraud going on meant there was a support system in place and voters were advised to use cameras and reliable witnesses to record anything suspicious. This helped to suppress fraud but not completely.

The republicans did try to steal it. They have stolen certain seats anyway. There are republican members of congress who are only occupying their seats under very suspicious circumstances. The exit polls and the reported votes cast compare well in most places where they have verifiable ballots. However there are a lot of results that smell very fishy indeed. Exit polls that give a 60/40 split and then report a 51/49 result are in desperate need of investigation. Search the last weeks threads here and on the web, there are a lot of results that have been fixed in the Republican's favour.

Put it this way, the fraud couldn't be completely blatant. The plan is to shave off the top 5-10% of Democratic voters by various means. This makes it look as though Republican support is much higher than it is and Republicans look more likely to vote than Democrats.

Unfortunately for the Bush administration there was a huge turnout. There was no way they could overturn that result without being so blatant even the MSM would be reporting a stolen election.

The Republican sponsored fraud can shave a few percentage points off but it would have been necessary to round up millions of Democrats at the polling stations before they could vote and put them in internment camps to change the result last week.

[TheBaldyMan]

17. certainly not, the election was won despite voter suppression

Diebold should be kicked out on its behind and replaced with a verifiable and honest election procedure.

There were 4.5 million voters disenfranchised, widespread irregularities and very suspicious discrepancies between exit polls and declared voting.

This issue is just as important as it always has been. It is not going to go away until elections are fair and free. Didn't you hear about the elections that have been stolen on Nov 7th 2006. The Republican defeat would have been a wipeout if they hadn't been ballot-box stuffing for all they were worth. That's the only reason Republicans have many more seats than they should.

[Trajan]

19. I think the task of 'turning' so many races ...

is simply too logistically daunting .... it is fraud-overload ...

They cannot change enough cards to sneak into the open stations fast enough to deal with the onslaught, I believe ....

This was discussed before the election ... It is just too hard to alter a congressional tidal wave ...

This DOESNT mean the system is valid as it is ... This DOESNT mean you vote is safe being counted behind closed doors in the secret darkness ... They simply couldnt hit everything at once ....

Consider yourself lucky to have a natural limit in place ....

[CJCRANE]

22. Yes and easier to fudge the numbers

on a close Presidential race because there are less races and only necessary to fix/fudge the numbers in one state to flip the electoral college votes.

[Strelnikov_]

31. Seconded. Look At VA & MT. Pres And Senate, They Only Have To

concentrate on a few states (if the wave is not too high, that is).

[McCamy Taylor]

20. No. Too many problems with E-voting this election. It needs to go.

Plus, the exit polls showed wider leads for Dems in some of these key races than the final votes. I wonder if the GOP fudged the votes but just couldnt fudge enough for a win. Maybe they just didnt want to lose as badly as they knew they were going to. Notice how quick they were to concede in Va and Montana? If those were the real totals, I would have paid for a recount--unless the GOP had reason to suspect that a REAL count would actually widen the Dems margin of victory.

[AJ9000]

37. Agreed. We need simple, transparent elections that can't be hacked. No computer's!

[Hekate]

21. Hell no. I know too many techies who can tell you just how to program them dirty

The Repubs have managed to do more harm to the electoral system in 6 years than everyone else in the past 200 years combined. They have used everything from old fashioned voter-suppression techniques (threats, intimidation, fraud -- both old fashioned means and new methods) to the all-marvellous computers with no means to do an audit.

What happens with those computers is not human error and it's not "glitches" -- it's deliberate. Any competent computer programmer can create a voting system at least as accurate as your grocery bill that you put on your Visa card.

In this election they simply carried on as per usual in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere. Senator Allen was told by the Republican party bosses to ix-nay his idea of asking for a recount, which only makes me wonder what a recount would have revealed. Did the Democrats really have a tsunami of votes for our candidates -- slimmed down to something less by Republican fraud?

We still won, but the many problems that were reported in this election cycle are the same ones from 2000, 2002, and 2004. This has GOT to be addressed or our democracy is toast.

Hekate

[KayLaw]

23. Not one single chance in hell.

The machines definitely fixed the 2002 and 2004 elections but there was too much oversight this year for them to cheat more than a little. Ever driven on a road with a police cruiser? The other drivers are suddenly model citizens, using their turn signals, staying in their own lanes . . . maybe they'll go a couple of miles over the speed limit, but that's all. That's how I see this year. They could only cheat a tiny bit.

These crooks need to be watched like hawks every election year.

[Orsino]

24. Nope. Voting is still an enormous corporatized black box...

...in which actual voters are not welcome. Until we have verifiable, transparent elections using actual ballots, no one is cleared of wrongdoing.

While I'm surprised that They would "let" "us" "win," I'm convinced that funkiness is still possible and therefore inevitable. We must secure the vote.

[Blue State Blues]

25. If a professional thief sat next to you on a bench

while you were watching him, while your friend was watching him, and while you were being interviewed on camera by a reporter and the thief didn't steal your wallet (although there might be some small bills missing, but you won't be sure until you count it), does that vindicate the professional thief? Would you then decide to give him a key to your house because he has proven to be so trustworthy?

Just because overall the results were what dems wanted this time (with lots of races, huge turnout, and lots of watchers) does not vindicate an industry that uses insecure, proprietary software to tally our votes in secret. We cannot privatize the vote. No private company deserves that kind of blind trust.

[NMDemDist2]

27. i have been hoping for a chart showing the results in Diebold counties

as opposed to non Diebold/paper ballots


Paper Ballots NOW! and those Diebold's have got to go. Check out Sarasota FL for a perfect example why


edit to add link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2959117&mesg_id=2959117

[Strelnikov_]

28. Um, No. VA, MT and FL For Starters

It was simply too big a wave. They are turning up the settings as we speak.

[survivor999]

29. You cannot have paperles voting. It's basic logic.

You cannot recount in any meaningful ways.

[ChiciB1]

30. NO!!! I Actually Think They Held Off With The Hacking They

might have been planning because of the extensive coverage, but ES&S didn't seem to hold off here in my county!

Something funny went on here!

[Comadreja]

33. No, the polls were too clearly against the GOP

It would not be "close enough to steal" without a great hue and cry.

[windbreeze]

34. NO the machines are NOT trustworthy..

you said it yourself....there were many problems reported countrywide....so that tells the story about the machines...sure WE WON...does that prove a blasted thing??? nope it doesn't, so don't be swayed that using the machines is OK..it's not...numbers jumping back and forth from one candidate to another, on election night, sure is a curious phenomena....Then consider the Reps, and how they were so sure they were going to keep control, because they knew it WAS MOST IMPORTANT for them to do so....then why would they advise their candidates to concede to us w/o a fight???? because it was the proper thing to do?? LOL..LOL...NO...because they couldn't draw attention to the numbers in those races, w/o admitting knowledge and guilt...we had them right where it was short...and they knew it...sooooo, imo....we better be watching our asses in 2008, because we may need a whole new bag of tricks...IF we get that far...

Just like most people, thanks to the internets...I know people all over the states...and the general consensus among us, is....that since this election, something feels wrong..and none of us have a clue as to what it could be...when our guys take office..we all need to push the Dems to pass laws to protect our vote, and to make elections transparent...
windbreeze

[dpbrown]

38. No, it just means that Dems beat the margin of theivery....

...several of the margins were much wider pre-election than what came out of the black boxes.

They all have to go, the sooner the better.

[snowbear]

39. I heard on the radio Diebold will likely get completely OUT of the voting machine biz soon..

An expert on voting irregularities was on the show "Ring of Fire" today and said that Diebold wants completely =OUT= of the voting machine business.

Their spokesman said that all of the lawsuits and controversies are dragging down their overall profit of the Diebold business itself (which makes ATM machines, etc..)

I can't remember the guest's name... but he said that even though it's highly likely that Diebold will sell the voting section of it's corporation in the very near future and get OUT of it... that now that Democrats are in charge, we'll also see all kinds of changes to voter protection rights.

I hope he's right.. It was exciting to hear him talk about Diebold going bye bye and talk of getting voting out of the private sector and make it a government run system.

~~~~~~~

[blondeatlast]

43. The best way to fight the weasels is in the market!

Someone mentioned upthread that they thought Diebold was worried about having to answer to the shareholders about the horrible PR they've been getting.

The press about how easy it has been to hack the voting machines has got to be at the least embarrassing, if not downright humiliating, to a corporation involved in physical government and financial security.

It's the PR, DU, and if we just keep talking about it, we will win on this issue since it's all market driven.

[union_maid]

44. Not sure

I hope it, if not vindicates them, at least means we can hope for an honestish, if mismanaged vote. But it's also possible that this election was just too "all over the place" to fix. The presidential elections came down to a few, predictable battleground states and districts. This one had races become competitive very late in the game.

[jen4clark]

46. Not just Diebold

Electronic vote machines period. Because Corpress dosen't report the problems don't think it didn't happen.

http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=2&Itemid=1032

[jen4clark]

47. Anyone who's interested

in tracking all the problems, but VoteTrustUSA is too much -- check in daily with The Brad Blog.

This is the latest:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3782


Jeb Bush Admits Problems with Florida U.S. House Race Featuring 18,000 Missing Votes

After State Denials, Says It's 'Obviously Something We Need to Look Into, And Very Quickly'

The Ghost of Katherine Harris' Old Seat Continues to Haunt Florida's 13th Congressional District Race…


After the state's initial denial that there were any problems in Florida's 13th Congressional District U.S. House race, even Jeb is now admitting there may be problems "worth investigating". From AP…

Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday the unusually high number of voters who didn't choose a candidate in a congressional race in Sarasota County was worth investigating, and said the state has "the law in place to do it right."

"This is obviously something we need to look into, and very quickly," Bush said as state elections officials prepared to oversee an expected recount next week in the 13th District race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings.

Jennings was behind in the initial count by 373 votes and was pressing for answers about why more than 18,000 voters didn't register a selection in the race, but did make choices in other contests. That rate was much higher than what the district's other counties registered in the same congressional race.

State elections officials planned an audit of the Sarasota County's election system after the recount, which is expected to occur next week.