Stopping The Fraud In It's Tracks
Diebold is in fact in charge of 81% of the machines in NH. They took off the Diebold labels on some of the machines and replaced them with the Accuvote moniker. Premier Elections Systems is the name the company is using, but the company is still Diebold through and through.
I just returned from New Hampshire where I was campaigning with a great group of people. One of us just so happened to be a young IT guy who was allowed to inspect the machines at a NYC conference in 2005. When we arrived at a polling place in Keane, NH our friend went inside to see if they were using the same machines. Once they realized he was not a voter in that ward they kicked him out rather abruptly, but not before he was able to confirm that indeed yes they were using the identical machines.
There is plenty of information on the net that detail the simplicity of rigging the Diebold machines so I won't go into too much detail. If you want more info I will point you in the right direction. Just drop me an e-mail.
They can easily rig these machines as has been proven with substantial evidence, but this is not the only problem with the entire system put in place. For starters I offer a small example of a problem that exists. If you wanted to vote for a republican you had to pick the reddish pink paper. If you wanted to vote democrat you had to take the blue paper. The Ron Paul Rider was working at one polling place checking off names when he noticed a confirmed Ron Paul voter taking the blue paper. Because of the rules put in place he could not notify them of their error. If there was a recount there is a very good chance that all of these human error mistakes would be excluded.
Another problem, and it is a biggie, is that the voters name does not go on the voting sheet. This leaves an opportunity for legitimate votes to be switched with illegitimate votes in any type of recount. All they have to do is take the actual pile and replace them with a predetermined pile thus putting a kabosh on the whole recount. Who is handling our votes? Chain of custody is a huge issue and needs to be examined.
Some interesting tidbits regarding the primary found in an excerpt from an article by Paul Joseph Watson I just finished reading:
Obama had a 13 to 15 point lead over Hillary Clinton heading into the primary. Nothing occurred that boosted Hillary's numbers immediately before the election, in fact immediately after the staged crying incident, many pundits argued it could only have harmed her chances. And yet Hillary somehow managed to instigate a near 20 point swing to defeat Obama by three per cent. If not for her 7% swing as a result of Diebold voting machines, Hillary would have lost to Obama. If Obama was struggling he would probably contest this bizarre outcome, but he is likely to accept the results simply to save face.
- The New Hampshire town of Sutton admits that it voided every vote Ron Paul received. The Congressman got 31 votes and yet due to a "human error," Sutton reported zero votes for Ron Paul. How "human error" can explain not counting 31 votes in succession for one single candidate is beyond the pale.
- As soon as people went public with the fact that their votes in Sutton had not been counted, other districts where Paul had supposedly received zero votes, such as Greenville , suddenly changed their final tallies and attributed votes to the Congressman.
- Two days after the primary it was revealed that a high ranking executive at the company that was contracted to program all of New Hampshire's Diebold voting machines has a criminal record, is a narcotics trafficker, and has previously defended the illegal act of "swapping out" memory cards for the machines during live elections.
- Going into New Hampshire Ron Paul was polling in the early teens and was a strong bet to take third place behind McCain and Romney. Four days before the vote, Rasmussen had Paul at 14% - a significant lead over Huckabee on 11% and Giuliani on 8% - and yet Ron Paul finished with just 8%. Proof of clear vote fraud, allied with the fact that Paul's numbers show a 6% swing from normally accurate pre-polling forecasts, clearly indicate chicanery was at hand, especially considering the fact that Paul lost those crucial few percentage points to Giuliani as a result of electronic Diebold voting machines which are known to be wide open to tampering and fraud.
- Going purely on hand-counts , which as we saw in Sutton were by no means angelic but at least harder to cheat on than Diebold voting machines without getting caught, Ron Paul would have won 15% of the vote and finished third. This figure would have more accurately correlated to the pre-primary polls rather than the ridiculous 8% he was eventually given.
- Numerous districts reported totals of anything up to 22% for "other candidates". What on earth does this black hole of "other candidates" mean? How can one vote for a candidate that is not on the ballot without spoiling the ballot paper? The district of Lisbon reported 22.5% votes for this mysterious "other" candidate, while in the large district of Londonderry, the "other" candidate received 1 0%. Many are now alleging that these "other" votes were merely siphoned from Ron Paul to keep his final number low.
There are no guarantees of anything when the results of Kucinich's and Howard's recount come through because the people that rig these things have so many ways to manipulate the vote except for one.
Now, there is not enough time for Michigan, SC and Nevada, but we can put an affidavit system in place to make sure that we have a legal record of all Ron Paul votes for Super Tuesday. Please go to www.ronpaulvotecount.com to read all about the plan. This idea will take a modicum of effort and will protect us from any manipulation. I believe if we get this system in place for Super Tuesday we can take the biggest swing at voter fraud this country has ever seen. I hope you feel the same way.
If they have a total that is different than ours we will catch them red handed. They probably will wiggle out of the chicanery using all the apparatus at their finger tips, but in the process we will wake up so many more to what is really going on behind closed doors. Afterall, this is a revolution of ideas to capture the minds and hearts of our sleeping countrymen.
If Dr. Paul decides to move the revolution's train down the tracks towards a third party run, which he's never unequivocally said no to, we will have many more on board steaming towards constitutional government and true freedom.
Now, I know a lot of you have shed a tear and lost hope in the light of this past week events, but I ask you, " Did Washington and his troops give up after losing so many battles, did Dr. King give up after being tossed in jail, did the Bonus Army not return to D.C. after being ousted by the U.S. Army, did the men, women and children striking for workers rights lay down in the face of their opposition?" No, they did not and they and their supporters had much more awful things done to them.
I finish with another excerpt from the same article by P. J. Watson:
We fully accept the Congress man's position and in hindsight it seems to be the right decision. Ron Paul supporters who view the campaign's decision to move on as a rejection of their wishes and a kick in the teeth should put themselves in Ron Paul's position and look at it from his perspective.
With just two primaries down and dozens to go, the Congressman's schedule is only going to get more grueling. He needs to pour every ounce of his energy into obtaining a very achievable fourth place in Michigan and building the momentum from there. It is up to the rest of us to hold people accountable and watch for vote fraud while supporting other public figures like Kucinich and Howard who are pushing for a recount in New Hampshire.
Now is the time for the Ron Paul Revolution to get past the smear attacks, resolve the disputes and express more maturity in accepting the difficulties the campaign has to overcome amidst the rocky political terrain of fighting this corrupt establishment.
Now is the time to reunite, re-commit, and redouble our efforts to educate America about the only genuine and growing movement for real change, and what could be our last chance to rescue freedom and hope - the Ron Paul Revolution.
This is going to be a long
This is going to be a long one, but it not only brings up valid concerns from an IT professional's viewpoint - it provides viable solutions to those concerns.
An 'affidavit' system is possible. Using the same technology the diebold machines use to 'rob' a vote, systems can be put into place to 'protect' those votes.
I've worked in healthcare IT for years as part of my profession. The rules, regulations and laws in place to protect patients are numerous, and quite often extremely complicated.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), often purposely misprounced by IT professionals as 'Health Information Privacy and Accountability Act', computer systems have to meet or exceed extreme amounts of security, privacy and interoperability (the ability for one program to read the data from another program).
To those who have written programs for the healthcare industry, a program to take, monitor, secure and tally an election is childsplay.
Here's a quick summary of how it works - without a bunch of computer lingo to confuse anyone:
Everyone who is eligible to vote is on record at their voters registration office.
That office assigns a number or 'id' to each voter.
The voter is presented with a voters registration card that has that number on it.
When a vote is placed, the voter goes to the voting booth and types in the number on their card.
The system then verifies the number as being valid, and proceeds to let the voter cast their ballot.
The interesting part happens after the vote is taken.
At any time after the voting process begins, any person can go to an online system and enter their voters registration id number.
The system can check to see what the activity on that id number is, in relation to the election at hand.
It can only bring up 3 potential results:
1. No vote has been cast by this voter
2. A vote has been cast by this voter
3. The voter id does not exist in the system
If someone has voted, and they see either 1 or 3 (above) as the result - they immediately know there is a problem.
If someone has not voted, and they see number 2 (above) as the result - they know there is a problem.
But the system can go even further.
Not only can the system report whether someone has voted, it can report on what candidate recieved the vote.
If someone who voted for Ron Paul checked the system, it should say 'Vote cast - Ron Paul' (or something similar to that).
If it said anything else, they know there is a problem.
If you haven't noticed yet, nowhere in this post have I brought up any mention of the voters name, address, or any other identifying data.
That is because it is not needed for the system to function up to this point.
So where does personal information come into play?
Personal data is only required if a problem is identified. The voter could immediately report to their election office that an error was identified, and would have to provide proof of identity for the registrars office to validate the claim.
Once a claim was validated, the vote could be modified to reflect the true decision of the voter.
A couple questions that have probably come up by now are, "How do you keep the system from being inflitrated by fake voters?" and "How do you keep the results from being modified after the votes are registered?".
To the second question, it would be the duty of the individual voter to make sure their vote is recorded correctly. They would have to check the system 'personally' to verify their vote. This could even be done in 'group' fashion - such as; a group of Ron Paul voters all give their numbers to a single 'group representative', and that representative checks each voters vote for accuracy on the system. If a problem arises, the group representative contacts the individual voter and lets them know they need to head down to the county election office and fix the problem.
To the first question, many opportunities to infiltrate the system are available - but they can be stopped.
Tampering with this system by injecting a multitude of 'fake' voters (made up voters registrations) can be stopped by having a checks-and-balances system before, during and after the election.
The system would cross reference every vote taken with the records in the county clerks office, to make sure a cast vote is not granted to anyone not in the system. The voting booth itself should take care of this, but having this as a secondary line of security is desirable.
The system can also verify that the vote is not being cast by someone who is deceased.
Here is where I'm going to explain why any IT person with half a brain can see that the current system of 'electronic voting' is a failure, has potential fraud capablities, and should have never been put in place to begin with:
The voting machines (diebold) use memory cards to store election data.
Has anyone publically bothered to ask 'why?'. Yes, people have said 'the cards are unsafe, hackable and can be used to tamper with an election'.
I've seen a lot of posts about making those cards less accessible, but not a whole lot on the 'why they are there to begin with' question.
Memory cards are not only subject to tampering - they are not required at all.
When you go to an ATM machine to withdraw funds, is there a memory card slot for you (or anyone) to gain access to?
When you swipe your credit card at the store, is there a memory card anywhere in that store that holds all the purchasing data?
When you are typing a message in this forum, is there a memory card in your computer that stores all of this forum data?
No, there is not. The reason there is not is because the data for all of these 'transactions' is not stored on your computer, the ATM machine or the store. The programs that holds all of the vital information (purchase information, credit card data, forum post text, etc) are on a different machine - a server.
The system that I am describing in this post would use the same thing. A central server (with backups, failsafes, firewalls and mirror systems) could be used to house the entire voting program.
You dont have the actual 'code' for the DailyPaul forums on your computer - you just access it remotely using your browser.
I could go into the details of 'why' someone would want to have memory cards in voting machines when they are not needed and much more secure technology has been available for decades, but I think it is pretty obvious 'why'.
In the system I'm suggesting here, the entire 'program', including the voting interface (what the voter actually 'sees' on the voting machine screen), the vote tally, the registration validation system and the programs to locate, identify and back-track potential fraud would be housed in a main server.
There would be no need to spend umpty-thousand dollars per machine at the actual voting locations, any computer with internet access could be used.
The machines could be put together with no external 'entry points', such as floppy disk drives, USB ports, serial ports, wireless ports, etc.
Special keyboards could be made that do not have any other keys on them except for letters, numbers, backspace, up/down/left/right arrows and the Enter key. (this is to deny access to a would-be hacker, who needs keys like ctrl and alt to force a system restart).
This special keyboard isn't really 'needed', because without the ability to inject malicious/damaging code or a virus into the system through external ports, there's not much a hacker can do in a short time anyway.
The individual computer, sitting in the voting booth, would practically be a solid metal box on the outside, save a few holes for power, network, keyboard, monitor and mouse wires to come out of it.
The 'worst' thing that could happen would be someone unplugs one of these wires. If that happened, the voting computer would be useless until someone plugged it back in, and there would still be no way to 'hack' into it.
Please notice that nowhere in the description of how these machines would be built, or what they would contain, did 'memory card' even come up.
So lets assume that I'm wrong, and someone does figure out a way to hack into the individual voting computer in the voting booth. What then?
What if they do manage to alter the code in the machine? (pretty much impossible, but lets just assume they can do it)
That machine still has to connect to the main server. The only information coming from the voting machine to the main server is going to come from that voting machine's browser. The server (main system where all the real code is held) can be provided with safeguards that verify a multitude of information coming from that voting machine in the voting booth to make sure that nothing 'fishy' is going on.
The slightest anomoly can trigger an automatic shutdown of that machine - notify authorities - and the effected machine is taken out of the loop.
In the end, what I'm discussing here is very complex - but far less complex and dangerous than the current electronic voting system.
It is cheaper to impliment and more secure than what they've got going now.
It has always puzzled me why the powers-that-be would approve any computerized voting system that had such an obvious flaw as a memory card requirement. But now we've seen the end result of that flaw, and it's time to do something about it.
I've said in prior posts that technology is not 'up to speed' enough for electronic voting. However, it appears that the voting public are comfortable with using computerized voting systems - and for the most part just give a casual 'yeah right' to the numerous reports about the current systems in place being so vulnerable.
So if they demand computerized voting, I say we give it to them - but give them something that is not only easy to use, it is far more secure than the garbage they've been fed thus far.
IMHO,
CF
www.realpatriotacts.com
www.realpatriotacts.com
Are you ready for an
Are you ready for an affidavit system yet?
Even higher risk of fraud, manipulation, intimidation
We have a secret ballot system for a pretty good reason. If we rely on affidavits then it's VERY easy for a Huckabee supporter to say "if you vote for Ron Paul, I'll kill you" since the Huckatroll can just look at the affadavit to see who you voted for. If you have a secret ballot you can tell the Hucktard "of course I voted for the Huckster" and actually vote for Paul.
Are you kidding?
This is a real reason you are giving for no affidavit? Fear of death threats?
Slapshot, you are one strange cat.
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION
NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE NANCY TOBI IS CORRECT:
"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."
As Tobi says, "A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited."
I'll go further than that. The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit.
TOBI:
"This is high stakes.
"You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness.
"And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I have come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours.
"In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight.
"We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged...don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B for a rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH?
No. It is time to take control. "
BLACK BOX VOTING:
The following is excerpted from our New Hampshire election protection information published in November 2007:
quote:
Knowing that the greatest opportunities for election fraud are with insiders, this tells us something about what to examine first. If you are a person with inside access in New Hampshire, because any candidate can ask to recount any location, if you plan to manipulate the election you'll want to make sure you can achieve ballot substitution, ballot removal, or ballot stuffing. You need a strategy just in case someone asks for a hand count.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF A RECOUNT IF THE CANDIDATE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW...
1) The name of all companies that print ballots for New Hampshire elections.
2) The ballot ordering history for each location, especially those using computerized voting systems and the inventory records for the current contest.
3) The ballot chain of custody plan for each location and for the state of New Hampshire.
IMMEDIATE CONCERNS
- We don't have information on ballot inventory records.
- With ballots and recounts, it's all about blocking ballot substitution. To achieve substitution, you need extra ballots. If you get more ballots, someone might follow the money trail and ask you why you're sitting on 10,000 or so blank ballots. So you need some workarounds.
BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAR STORIES
Patriot Richard Hayes Phillips, while writing his brilliant upcoming book "Witness to a Crime," uncovered evidence that an Ohio County took delivery on 10,000 off-the-books ballots in 2004.
Employees for the Diebold ballot printing plant slipped us financials showing that Diebold was printing 25% more ballots than ordered. This could be handy: If a governmental entity doesn't take official delivery on ballots, Plan B can sit at a print house somewhere, on private property and absent from either government bookkeeping or public records.
CONVICTED FELONS
The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages, was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire's voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he's now an elections consultant.
We have so far been unable to learn whether New Hampshire has convicted felons printing their ballots; we've got a records request in on this. New Hampshire officials like to say "The state prints the ballots" but they sure aren't printed in Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office.
Frank S., one of the new breed of citizens jumping in to take back control of our elections, took the initiative on his own to help today by spending several hours trying to find the ballot printer in NH. It may be that convicted felons print the ballots: Frank turned up evidence that one state-paid printing vendor is NHCI - New Hampshire Correctional Industries, a prison-based printing outfit.
New Hampshire Correctional Industries is a job training program for inmates. After they get out of prison they have a skill! I'm not sure we want a bunch of ex-convicts running around in New Hampshire with ballot printing expertise, so I hope a different ballot printing vendor will show up.
Any candidate seeking a recount needs to know this stuff.
IDENTIFY NARROW SPOTS IN THE PIPELINE
What is the smallest number of people with access, and at what points does centralization of access occur?
WHERE HAVE THE BALLOTS BEEN DURING THE LAST 48 HOURS
If there's going to be a recount of this magnitude, we need to know whether checks and balances have been followed. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In San Mateo County, California, citizen Brent Turner asked for ballot chain of custody records for 2007; a six-week gap in the access logs was revealed in the documents.
SHOULD CANDIDATES RECOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE?
In concept I love the idea, but as it currently stands, it makes me queasy. They're walking into this blind about the details that make or break the integrity of the process.
WHAT TO DO INSTEAD
Tobi calls for doing a real investigation in order to take corrective action by November. I'm not sure about that. New Hampshire had hearings on the hackable Diebold optical scan machines, and didn't take any action to mitigate the risks.
New Hampshire knew it was running elections on machines that can't be trusted. And today, thanks to the efforts of two more citizen volunteers, I learned that the New Hampshire Secretary of State knew about the narcotics trafficking conviction of Ken Hajjar, yet still authorized LHS to code every memory card in New Hampshire.
Harri Hursti himself testified in New Hampshire in Sept. 2007, urging them to disconnect the wiring allowing reprogramming of the memory card through the modem port. New Hampshire took no action.
New Hampshire didn't take even the half-step actions other states used to beef up voting machine security.
Maybe there are better ways to skin this cat.
THE IDEA OF A RECOUNT STILL INTRIGUES ME BUT...
At this moment I can't think of a way to offset the chain of custody unknowns. The last thing we want is a recount that doesn't answer our questions, or raises new suspicions that aren't answered.
There must be a way. It's been a long day. Let me think on that
What kind of voting system do
they use in MI?
Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
diebold has a hand in it.
diebold has a hand in it.
Slapshot just watch this video
This is a video of a demo on electronic voting machine.
In this demo it makes errors on yes and no votes. Just watch.
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com/2008/01/deminstration-on...
It would be real easy to have voting fraud with these machines.
Davy C Rockett
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://cystic-fibrosis-symptom.com
http://medical-definitions.com
Excellent Video!
Excellent Video!
No doubt that fraud is a risk, but some things make it WORSE
Sure thing. My only point is that a proposal like the one to vote out in the open (everyone stands in a room and yells out their votes) would vastly INCREASE the risk of manipulation. Imagine a Guiliani thug saying "you vote for Ron Paul and I'll kill you." If we have secret ballots then it's easy--just vote for Paul and tell the thug you voted for Guiliani. If we have open voting then *bang* you're dead.
Paper trails are good. Paper trails with names are risky. Maybe it's a risk we have to take, but let's at least be open and honest about it.
you don´t need a open vote.
you don´t need a open vote. you need an open vote count made in public.
/Mike
Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
You should look into the
You should look into the proposed affidavit response. We can get this idea into place for Super Tuesday. We will have our own paper trail.
A News Article For You
European press: It wasn't a miracle - Hillary won via a rigged vote
by Michael Carmichael
Global Research, January 14, 2008
The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines.
In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners.
According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire.
Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards.
The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000.
In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed out that the United States of America does not meet international criteria for electoral security.
Michael Carmichael is a frequent contributor to Global Research
OMG
what a bunch of nonsense. Apparently "Global Research" is too lazy to actually do any.
h-daddy
List all of the state officials involved in the vote count
and all of the Diebold officals and all of the media people handling the calls from the voting offices, with their addresses on a website with a list of each state's vote fraud statutes and punishments. If you get a NH situation they all get an email and they all get hung out to dry on the website.
The cheating is being done BY HUMAN BEINGS. Shine the light on them.
The Sutton clerk lady needs to be hung out to dry, like a dead crow in a corn field. All the vote clerks who got sinning on their mind can think of all the people we are putting into the local papers. Some kid sees some other kids mom who is a vote office clerk pasted up on a website with FRAUD written on the top is gonna think about it now ain't she? "Hey? Your Mom was on the vote fraud website..."
If this system was in place do you think "Sutton" would have happened last week? Bullsh%$ they would have rechecked the count three times.
Affadavits are fine but Hillary will be on her second term by the time they bite.
Keep in mind that she is the candidate that "they" want. All will be tilted towards her. Including this...who she runs against....duh. The cheater is safe as long as they are anonymous. Taking care of the anonymity of a public official is easy...they are PUBLIC officials.
Hang them voting officials high and hang'em often. The conscience can be awakened by shame too.
T
Unify
Your post makes
me sick. You don't know what you're talking about. Couldn't you spend even 10 minutes doing a bit of research on what happened in Sutton? THERE WAS NO FRAUD! NO CONSPIRACY!
The count in Sutton was CORRECT. Dr. Paul was put down for 31 votes (out of 920). However, when they went to put them down on the official tally sheet they messed up. IT WAS AN ERROR. When the error was pointed out they corrected it immediately. They didn't have to recount because their official sheet showed the 31 votes.
Have YOU ever made an error?
Dead crow, indeed.
h-daddy
www.blackboxvoting.org
www.blackboxvoting.org
I keep seeing the quote "he who COUNTS the votes..
has all of the power". Im just having a hard time accepting that we give all that power to some (as Ms Call put it) "unknown person" who cant discern between a handwritten"0" and a "31" ...or that that SAME "error" was made in several precincts- handwritten...not "3" or "113" or "311" or "13" nothing even CLOSE- a "0" is a pretty gross error when written by hand.
The tallies
were being read to her and she messed up. She never even heard the 31 but heard a zero and thought it was for that column; Ron Paul.
Based on this a $60,000 recount is being done.
h-daddy
www.ronpaulvotecount.com
www.ronpaulvotecount.com
I'm sick of all the voting
I'm sick of all the voting farces. Why can't we be in a room full of 200 others and we go down the row, person by person, you state your name, and say who you vote for. Lots of witnesses. Video tape it. No room for error.
What's with all the cloak and dagger and secrecy?
Oh right - because we may be killed if we vote for the "wrong" candidate...
_______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
check out
check out www.ronpaulvotecount.com
we can do this for Super Tuesday
Seriously?
Think about non-secret voting for a little bit.
You don't think there's any chance for buying votes, for intimidation, for improper pressure?
The secret ballot is the backstop of our democracy.
Umm...why can't buying
Umm...why can't buying votes, intimidation and improper pressure take place with a secret ballot?
The secret ballot is the backstop of our democracy? Where did you get this one from? The Constitution is the whole damn ballpark of our Republic.
Don't listen to slapshot or h-daddy. They are dis-info.
Anyway Ron Paul has the MOST TO LOSE with open voting
If the whole game is that the rich, powerful elites won't let RP get ahead, wouldn't they die for a chance to bribe or threaten individual voters into not voting for RP?
The ballot room is where each American gets to express his own desires for the future of our government, no matter how mainstream or fringe those desires may be. He is free from outside influence and pressure. It is truly the bedrock of our democracy.
RP has the most to lose from elections that are vulnerable to bribery and coercion. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's a lot harder to buy a secret ballot
Let's say somebody offers me $100 to vote for their candidate. In a secret ballot system, I can pocket the $100, vote for whomever I want, and then tell the vote-buyer that I voted for the candidate. They'd have NO way to prove that I voted for their candidate.
Or if somebody said "I'll kill you if you vote for Ron Paul." In a secret ballot world I can go, cast my ballot for Ron Paul, and then say "Oh, of course I voted for Guilaini." They'd have NO way to know that I voted for Ron Paul.
In a world without secret ballots it'd be pretty easy to commit either crime. There's a reason why we've used secret ballots since the dawn of our republic.
You spend an awful lot of
You spend an awful lot of time confusing the issue. I have never called for an open vote. I simply pointed out the fact that voter's names do not go on the ballot. The reason I stated this was to prove the point that a recount won't work because the powers that be can easily switch piles of legitimate ballots with pile of illegitimate ballots.
You spend an awful lot of time trying to dissuade real Dr. Paul supporters in their efforts to protect their votes.
Do you offer any viable alternatives as to what can be done? No. You just try to sidetrack any critical thinking into what went on in NH. You are not fooling anyone because we all know that something wasn't kosher in the tally. The evidence is insurmountable.
Affidavits will work. Slapshot and H-daddy have been exerting themselves with an exorbitant amount of effort to prove otherwise. They are dis-info.
What happened to big-tent?
Since when do you get to decide who is the approved message and who is dis-info? Seems awfully anti-libertarian to me.
Somebody -- maybe not you -- said that everyone should vote in public. Not just names on the ballot (which would still allow the government to persecute people who voted contrary to "official" policy) but actually standing where everyone could see you and stating your vote out loud.
Critical thinking about THAT idea is a good thing. This forum is a debate, not a propaganda mouthpiece. Or at least I thought it was, until you started declaring which ideas were "approved" or "not approved."
Don't become your enemy.
You are my enemy sir. You
You are my enemy sir. You are the propagandist. You are being paid to suppress our movement. How do you sleep at night? Is money really worth that much to you?