Errors confirmed in vote counting in New Hamsphire

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I told you Hillary has diebold connections

I think you should reconsider motives.

 

[manowar821]

Along with everything else that's been said, I have to think that a company should be able to produce a near flawless vote counting machine. It isn't hard. It's easy, in fact.

There shouldn't be a reason for such a large discrepancy, so therefor, someone could possibly be doing it on purpose.

I don't like this.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Democrats started a dangerous precedent by questioning the accuracy of every election they lose. ANY large scale vote is going to have inaccuracies. While efforts should constantly be made to reduce them, eliminating them entirely is a pipe dream. Diebold has just become another straw man for pissed off dems. The democrats created this situation by trying to completely revamp the voting process before their next election cycle, all because they didnt like the Florida results. Diebold, as a major manufacturer of ATM terminals, was best suited to fulfull this contract in the time allotted.

So you're saying the only logical thing to do would be place unquestioning faith in a company with strong republican ties, that makes machines that are proven easily hackable, and with programming and counting performed by a company that employs criminals?

And just where did I say that? Diebold was apparently the only company that could fulfill the governments demands as quickly as they wanted. It was the governments responsibility to stipulate backup printers if they wanted backup printers. ANY computer based voting system is going to be vulnerable to hacking, which is why we shouldnt be recording votes on computer terminals.

My point remains though, democrats undermined public confidence in the voting process when trying to reverse the results in Florida, and again in Ohio in 2004, and therefore there was a mad rush for ANYTHING different from what we already had, which left us with something worse. Dumbass politicians thought moving the voting to touch screens was better, probably only because it was seemingly more advanced, and now we are left with this mess. We should go back to paper ballots with electronic counters, and if a dumbass voter fucked it up by doing something stupid, toss the ballot out rather than trying to use voodoo magic to determine what the voters intention was. Stupid works both ways, so it shouldnt favor any party.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Democrats started a dangerous precedent by questioning the accuracy of every election they lose. ANY large scale vote is going to have inaccuracies. While efforts should constantly be made to reduce them, eliminating them entirely is a pipe dream. Diebold has just become another straw man for pissed off dems. The democrats created this situation by trying to completely revamp the voting process before their next election cycle, all because they didnt like the Florida results. Diebold, as a major manufacturer of ATM terminals, was best suited to fulfull this contract in the time allotted.

That's ridiculous. NUMEROUS totally independent analysis of Diebold's voting machines have placed their accuracy somewhere between the Ouija Board and throwing darts blindfolded. It's true, the Democrats complain about election results...but in this case, they are serving as a straw man for your argument. Forget politics for a second, something doesn't have to be wrong just because a Democrat said it. And in this case, a huge number of experts outside of the Democratic party have said Diebold voting machines (and electronic voting machines in general) are complete shit. In fact, virtually ALL independent experts have said that...you'd be hard pressed to find anyone praising them who doesn't work for Diebold.

And your "there will always be errors" argument is pretty silly. Of course there will be errors, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to reduce them. It's impossible to eliminate the risk of a car accident, that doesn't mean it's a good idea for me to speed down the highway wearing a blindfold. The fact is that Diebold could do a LOT to improve their machines, it's not difficult or a "pipe dream"...they're just the typical "get it out the door" company that wouldn't know how to properly secure a system if they were handed an instruction manual for doing so.

 

[dualsmp]

Kucinich has stepped up to the plate. :thumbsup:

http://www.businesswire.com/po...0110006236&newsLang=en

Kucinich Asks for New Hampshire Recount in the Interest of Election Integrity

DETROIT--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday?s election because of ?unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.?

?I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,? Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, ?Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days?It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery ? not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.?

He added, ?Ever since the 2000 election ? and even before ? the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn?t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It?s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.?

Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, ?This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.? No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.

?New Hampshire is in the unique position to address ? and, if so determined, rectify ? these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,? Kucinich wrote in his letter.

?Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,? said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday?s Presidential primary in that state.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Democrats started a dangerous precedent by questioning the accuracy of every election they lose. ANY large scale vote is going to have inaccuracies. While efforts should constantly be made to reduce them, eliminating them entirely is a pipe dream. Diebold has just become another straw man for pissed off dems. The democrats created this situation by trying to completely revamp the voting process before their next election cycle, all because they didnt like the Florida results. Diebold, as a major manufacturer of ATM terminals, was best suited to fulfull this contract in the time allotted.

So you're saying the only logical thing to do would be place unquestioning faith in a company with strong republican ties, that makes machines that are proven easily hackable, and with programming and counting performed by a company that employs criminals?

And is owned by a man who promised that Ohio would deliver it's votes to Bush if the state went with his voting equipment?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:tinfoil;

:roll:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Democrats started a dangerous precedent by questioning the accuracy of every election they lose. ANY large scale vote is going to have inaccuracies. While efforts should constantly be made to reduce them, eliminating them entirely is a pipe dream. Diebold has just become another straw man for pissed off dems. The democrats created this situation by trying to completely revamp the voting process before their next election cycle, all because they didnt like the Florida results. Diebold, as a major manufacturer of ATM terminals, was best suited to fulfull this contract in the time allotted.

So you're saying the only logical thing to do would be place unquestioning faith in a company with strong republican ties, that makes machines that are proven easily hackable, and with programming and counting performed by a company that employs criminals?

And is owned by a man who promised that Ohio would deliver it's votes to Bush if the state went with his voting equipment?

Christ, some libs look for conspiracy everywhere. Just how do you think the CEO of a major company like diebold would be able to rig the voting machines without the programmers taking notice, considering they would be the ones doing it? Some of you watch too much TV.

 

[OrByte]

crying "conspiracy" doesn't make the issue go away.

 

[Jinru]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Democrats started a dangerous precedent by questioning the accuracy of every election they lose. ANY large scale vote is going to have inaccuracies. While efforts should constantly be made to reduce them, eliminating them entirely is a pipe dream. Diebold has just become another straw man for pissed off dems. The democrats created this situation by trying to completely revamp the voting process before their next election cycle, all because they didnt like the Florida results. Diebold, as a major manufacturer of ATM terminals, was best suited to fulfull this contract in the time allotted.

So you're saying the only logical thing to do would be place unquestioning faith in a company with strong republican ties, that makes machines that are proven easily hackable, and with programming and counting performed by a company that employs criminals?

And is owned by a man who promised that Ohio would deliver it's votes to Bush if the state went with his voting equipment?

Christ, some libs look for conspiracy everywhere. Just how do you think the CEO of a major company like diebold would be able to rig the voting machines without the programmers taking notice, considering they would be the ones doing it? Some of you watch too much TV.

Heres a programmer taking notice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

And Princeton University giving a full analysis of Diebold voting flaws
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

 

[StageLeft]

I have wondered since the dawn of man how these machines can continue to screw up. Money is thrown at the company to make this software and all it fvcking well does is add up numbers. I work in software development and frankly for the life of me have no clue at all why we continue to see problems from this company for something so simple. We look at massive connected networks like banks and ATMs and hear about problems with them how often? Every year? Every 5? Basically never, and yet diebold cannot deploy a a confident voting system.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:tinfoil;

:roll:

You do that. Nobody gives a crap.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have wondered since the dawn of man how these machines can continue to screw up. Money is thrown at the company to make this software and all it fvcking well does is add up numbers. I work in software development and frankly for the life of me have no clue at all why we continue to see problems from this company for something so simple. We look at massive connected networks like banks and ATMs and hear about problems with them how often? Every year? Every 5? Basically never, and yet diebold cannot deploy a a confident voting system.

I am a programmer as well. How many applications have you ever deployed that worked flawlessly in your little ideal testing environment, and then encounter unforseen issues after delivery once it's subjected to real world tests, and real world users? ATM's are used millions of times a day, so it's easy to identify and fix issues. How often are voting machines put through real world tests? Every 2 years? With voting machines however, any software issue or glitch has some political nutjob screaming consipracy.

 

[SSSnail]

Mxylplyx, let me know what company you work for so I'll never buy software or anything from you as you obviously don't have a QA department. After users complained and pointed out your flaws (after real world usage, no less) and years after you still haven't fixed it, it screams either incompetent, conspiracy, or both.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Mxylplyx, let me know what company you work for so I'll never buy software or anything from you as you obviously don't have a QA department. After users complained and pointed out your flaws (after real world usage, no less) and years after you still haven't fixed it, it screams either incompetent, conspiracy, or both.

Are you serious? You only buy perfect software? How are you getting on the internet? Smoke signals?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Mxylplyx, let me know what company you work for so I'll never buy software or anything from you as you obviously don't have a QA department. After users complained and pointed out your flaws (after real world usage, no less) and years after you still haven't fixed it, it screams either incompetent, conspiracy, or both.

Are you serious? You only buy perfect software? How are you getting on the internet? Smoke signals?

I never said that software should be perfect, that's why we have patches. Read into my post again and then reply.

What I'm saying is that after Diebold were warn of their security holes and such, no efforts were made to fix it, and it has been YEARS!!!!!!

I too work for a software company, and if we were to do business as Diebold, we'd be out of business a long time ago. Unless our business were into defrauding the American people.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have wondered since the dawn of man how these machines can continue to screw up. Money is thrown at the company to make this software and all it fvcking well does is add up numbers. I work in software development and frankly for the life of me have no clue at all why we continue to see problems from this company for something so simple. We look at massive connected networks like banks and ATMs and hear about problems with them how often? Every year? Every 5? Basically never, and yet diebold cannot deploy a a confident voting system.

I am a programmer as well. How many applications have you ever deployed that worked flawlessly in your little ideal testing environment, and then encounter unforseen issues after delivery once it's subjected to real world tests, and real world users? ATM's are used millions of times a day, so it's easy to identify and fix issues. How often are voting machines put through real world tests? Every 2 years? With voting machines however, any software issue or glitch has some political nutjob screaming consipracy.

Oh please.

I have done some programming in my day as well. What these voting machines are doing should NOT be complicated, at all. Just basic adding of numbers. They should be carrying out a very basic and simple program.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have wondered since the dawn of man how these machines can continue to screw up. Money is thrown at the company to make this software and all it fvcking well does is add up numbers. I work in software development and frankly for the life of me have no clue at all why we continue to see problems from this company for something so simple. We look at massive connected networks like banks and ATMs and hear about problems with them how often? Every year? Every 5? Basically never, and yet diebold cannot deploy a a confident voting system.

I am a programmer as well. How many applications have you ever deployed that worked flawlessly in your little ideal testing environment, and then encounter unforseen issues after delivery once it's subjected to real world tests, and real world users? ATM's are used millions of times a day, so it's easy to identify and fix issues. How often are voting machines put through real world tests? Every 2 years? With voting machines however, any software issue or glitch has some political nutjob screaming consipracy.

Oh please.

I have done some programming in my day as well. What these voting machines are doing should NOT be complicated, at all. Just basic adding of numbers. They should be carrying out a very basic and simple program.

Well I haven't done any programming since some Basic back in 1986 or so (i made the screen flash different colors or something) but can't they very simply create a terminal with no input/output ports and a touch screen that only allows you to select a candidate and then confirm your choice? How hard is this?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have wondered since the dawn of man how these machines can continue to screw up. Money is thrown at the company to make this software and all it fvcking well does is add up numbers. I work in software development and frankly for the life of me have no clue at all why we continue to see problems from this company for something so simple. We look at massive connected networks like banks and ATMs and hear about problems with them how often? Every year? Every 5? Basically never, and yet diebold cannot deploy a a confident voting system.

I am a programmer as well. How many applications have you ever deployed that worked flawlessly in your little ideal testing environment, and then encounter unforseen issues after delivery once it's subjected to real world tests, and real world users? ATM's are used millions of times a day, so it's easy to identify and fix issues. How often are voting machines put through real world tests? Every 2 years? With voting machines however, any software issue or glitch has some political nutjob screaming consipracy.

Oh please.

I have done some programming in my day as well. What these voting machines are doing should NOT be complicated, at all. Just basic adding of numbers. They should be carrying out a very basic and simple program.

Well I haven't done any programming since some Basic back in 1986 or so (i made the screen flash different colors or something) but can't they very simply create a terminal with no input/output ports and a touch screen that only allows you to select a candidate and then confirm your choice? How hard is this?

If you listen to Diebold, CaD, Boberfett and a few others on here....it's virtually impossible.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Well I haven't done any programming since some Basic back in 1986 or so (i made the screen flash different colors or something) but can't they very simply create a terminal with no input/output ports and a touch screen that only allows you to select a candidate and then confirm your choice? How hard is this?

If you listen to Diebold, CaD, Boberfett and a few others on here....it's virtually impossible.

Man on the moon? Check.
Nuclear energy/weapons? Check.
Cloning various life forms? Check.
White Castle hamburgers? Check.
Accurate non-hackable voting terminal? Fool! It cannot be done!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Democrats started a dangerous precedent by questioning the accuracy of every election they lose. ANY large scale vote is going to have inaccuracies. While efforts should constantly be made to reduce them, eliminating them entirely is a pipe dream. Diebold has just become another straw man for pissed off dems. The democrats created this situation by trying to completely revamp the voting process before their next election cycle, all because they didnt like the Florida results. Diebold, as a major manufacturer of ATM terminals, was best suited to fulfull this contract in the time allotted.

So you're saying the only logical thing to do would be place unquestioning faith in a company with strong republican ties, that makes machines that are proven easily hackable, and with programming and counting performed by a company that employs criminals?

And is owned by a man who promised that Ohio would deliver it's votes to Bush if the state went with his voting equipment?

Christ, some libs look for conspiracy everywhere. Just how do you think the CEO of a major company like diebold would be able to rig the voting machines without the programmers taking notice, considering they would be the ones doing it? Some of you watch too much TV.

A moderately talented computer geeks can hack diebold machines in only a few minute with equipment thats is fairly easy to get.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

If you listen to Diebold, CaD, Boberfett and a few others on here....it's virtually impossible.

Who said anything about impossible, douchebag?

Do you think Diebold cares if the system is secure? As long as election committees keep buying, why fix problems?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have wondered since the dawn of man how these machines can continue to screw up. Money is thrown at the company to make this software and all it fvcking well does is add up numbers. I work in software development and frankly for the life of me have no clue at all why we continue to see problems from this company for something so simple. We look at massive connected networks like banks and ATMs and hear about problems with them how often? Every year? Every 5? Basically never, and yet diebold cannot deploy a a confident voting system.

I am a programmer as well. How many applications have you ever deployed that worked flawlessly in your little ideal testing environment, and then encounter unforseen issues after delivery once it's subjected to real world tests, and real world users? ATM's are used millions of times a day, so it's easy to identify and fix issues. How often are voting machines put through real world tests? Every 2 years? With voting machines however, any software issue or glitch has some political nutjob screaming consipracy.

Oh please.

I have done some programming in my day as well. What these voting machines are doing should NOT be complicated, at all. Just basic adding of numbers. They should be carrying out a very basic and simple program.

Well I haven't done any programming since some Basic back in 1986 or so (i made the screen flash different colors or something) but can't they very simply create a terminal with no input/output ports and a touch screen that only allows you to select a candidate and then confirm your choice? How hard is this?

If you listen to Diebold, CaD, Boberfett and a few others on here....it's virtually impossible.

Wrong. Way back when - when the libbies were wailing and moaning about it - I stated that I could easily do just that. Create a terminal with no ports except for printing/programming(have to have both of those regardless) with confirmation and summary screens. I do it day in and day out as an Automation engineer. Programming an HMI panel with secure and field proven software/hardware(ie Rockwell) is not hard at all.
What I object to is this conspiracy BS and all the whining associated with vote counts based on pre-polls and exit polls. People can and do say whatever they want pre and post ballot casting but it may not accurately reflect their actual vote. Also the paper vs machine percentage shifts are likely explained by demographics. Sheesh.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

If you listen to Diebold, CaD, Boberfett and a few others on here....it's virtually impossible.

Who said anything about impossible, douchebag?

Do you think Diebold cares if the system is secure? As long as election committees keep buying, why fix problems?

If it is not secure, and not adding correctly, then it is due to intentions, not lack of need for a fix.

Other than security, the programming of actually recording votes is much less complicated than the programming the questionnaires that interviewers use to collect polling data.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

If you listen to Diebold, CaD, Boberfett and a few others on here....it's virtually impossible.

Who said anything about impossible, douchebag?

Do you think Diebold cares if the system is secure? As long as election committees keep buying, why fix problems?

I would agree with that. The precincts purchase the machines. They picked poorly and/or cheaped out and didn't get the paper trail version.