Surely the irony is not lost on the American people that the United States continues to exhibit all the characteristics of the classic tin-pot dictatorship. Despite all the attention given to the ridiculous Diebold machines, despite all the obvious recent problems and protest by respectable people, what has improved? Absolutely nothing. The case in New Hampshire is a case in point. One individual dork still controls access to the all-important "memory cards" of the hopeless Diebold machines (that shouldn't even have memory cards if logic were any guide), and it has been repeated  and clearly demonstrated that any run-of-the-mill hacker wannabe can manipulate these cards to determine vote reporting with absolute power.

Basically, it is all so insane that it boggles the mind. How can a country such as the USA allow this pattern to keep going on? And then, there is the audacity of sending  Americans abroad to observe and critique elections in foreign countries. I reckon American elections are the most corrupt among all nations above a modest level of development. I bet elections in China are even more fair. It is as plain as day. It is flat out ridiculous.

Will anything improve between now and the next electoral insult to the public's intelligence in four year's time? 

by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:36:23 AM

  (0+)

You are 100& spot on. This is no longer a viable democracy. The machines have won and their masters are our masters. Look at the revealing testimony of whistleblower Sybil Edmonds. It is carried in the London Times but in no major US media. It shows the sickness that pervades this country. That weasel Henry Waxman ran from his commitment to have hearings into her testimony - a promise he made but now cannot recall (Gonzalez disease is the name I give it, a cognitive disorder wherein the patient only fails to remember the truth!). This country is rather damningly ----ed up and I hold out little hope that it will change...at least until Britney Spears' life is back in order and the lemmings can turn their attention to something of value...which won't matter with our servile media anyway, will it?

by Hank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:53:01 PM

  (0+)

Let's look at this rationally.

 IF there has been election fraud with the Diebold machines, who did it? It is almost certainly not the Clinton campaign, becuase they hardly own the New Hampshire Democratic Party, much less the Secretary of State's office, much much less the Diebold company.

 So it would have to be Diebold and the Republicans.

Now they could have a motive for messing with the vote, if, as Rove wrote in the WSJ today, they think Hillary is the more desireable candidate to be running against in the fall (I think they're right about that).

But when it comes to a recount, does the Secretary of State's office have a motive for covering up a problem? Only if you believe they'd be willing to risk getting caught helping Diebold just to avoid having to get rid of those machines.

There are two things that need to be done here, it seems to me. Dennis Kucinich should insist on a total hand recount of the optical scan ballots, which have been sequestered. That should give an honest count of the vote, especially since the voters often used pen to fill in the bubbles.

 Alternatively, there should be an insistence on an absolutely random selection of towns for the hand count. That's easy too. 

 I think to simply say, "Calling for a recount is a trap" is to fall into the trap of making the questioning of the machine votes appear to be the work of paranoid people, which it isn't.

We deserve to have voting systems that we can trust, and the way to do that is to demand either handcounts of all the ballots, or a credible random selection of towns to hand count.

 Dave Lindorff

www.thiscantbehappening.net

www.counterpunch.org

And by the way--it IS possible that there is a demographic explanation for this result. Most of the towns with no voting machines are very rural and in Northern Vermont, and the truth is, those conservative voters might have an easier time voting for a black guy than for a woman. What we have here is the suggestion of the possibility of fraud, not solid proof of fraud, and people should avoid hyperventilating.

 We just don't know. The only way to find out is a fair recount, and we should all insist that that be what we get from the NH Secretary of State.

by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 4:41:50 PM

  (0+)

"Dennis Kucinich should insist on a total hand recount of the optical scan ballots, which have been sequestered."

Nancy Tobi and Bev Harris are saying there's no chain of custody after the election.  

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 12:00:34 AM

  (0+)

Bev Harris and Brad Friedman are right, without being able to document the chain of custody, any recount of NH is pointless. Ms. Harris is correct on all these points of concern, and if it can't be verified there's no possibility of tampering, recount results can't be trusted. This is unacceptable concerning elections, the foundation of our Republic and the source of government's legitimacy. Everything needs to be above suspicion, instead with evoting machines there is the consistent appearance of reasons for concern, even to suspect fraud. 

The corporate media are covering the Kucinich recount press release- Ms. Harris and Brad Friedman are correct, he needs to investigate the chain of custody before pursuing the recount.  

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 3:06:13 AM

  (0+)

about the Kucinch recount. Then read this!

The only suggestion I have would be to make DK aware of these valid concerns and make them part of the recount.

Does anyone have an inside track?

(One of my very few complaints about DK is that I don't know how to reach him. Links to email him are bogus, near as I can tell, and I have much reason to believe that people in his campaign don't pass things along.) 

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 5:07:19 AM

  (0+)

I put up a message on his Action Center and through the Yahoo! Group for Kucinich Leadership I am a part of.

I suggested he keep in contact with Brad who knows this stuff well.

I cited the article about this being a "trap."

I have yet to get responses from people in the higher ups but I have faith.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 7:57:58 AM

  (0+)

anything in the Action Center? I have to be honest that I have never been able to get answers to anything by posting in it other than random comments from other members. I don't really have any warm and fuzzy feeling that DK ever see's anything from the forum on that site.

Eric 

by Eric (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:42:10 AM

  (0+)

Have you tried his congressional office? He has to be checking in with them periodically. It would have a better chance of success if you are a constituent, however.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:52:37 AM

  (0+)

and was informed that his congressional office is limited to contact by constituents only....which is understandable. Being a NC resident I didn't quite qualify.

by Eric (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 9:16:13 AM

  (0+)

No---I don't know if Dennis ever sees any suggestions made by his supporters.

His staff do. And I am counting on them to step up.

Somebody has to.  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 9:17:32 AM

  (0+)

Bev Harris makes some great points, Dennis Kucinich is not idiot, I watched him during GAO investigations, he is very smart and is very aware of Bev Harris's  arguments.  This recount will polarize  the  fatal flaws in this election process, and force the mainstreat media to report this to the sheep. At this point, IOWA should be also be recounted

by gerard styles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 7:26:00 AM

  (0+)

of the media "sour grapes" campaign that will surely be on the MSM. I must thank Dennis for stepping up when Ron Paul wilted from the fight. If you are not seething about all this crap you have no brain or no social conscience. I have given up on the Paul campaign to take a stand against this subversion of our election process.  Unless I see RP announce today that he is condemning the fraud in NH I will be voting Kucinich. This is a war to save our nation and anything but a fierce declaration of war against this establishment chicanery is to be a part of it. I am so POed right now I cant see straight. RP has shrunken away from the controversy and that is why I am POed. No impeachment, no recount, no plan to send bushco to the hague for war crimes, no plan to prosecute the traitors responsible for 911 equals one lame-ass candidate.  This was the last straw for me, can I get my contributions refunded ?

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:02:26 AM

  (0+)

Kucinich and Paul have an agreement since they are friends and Paul is polling much higher than Kucinich.  Better that the candidate with the smallest numbers do the challenging, keeping the other candidate from looking as if he is smeared with sour grapes.  No one can accuse Kucinich of challenging the results because his actual vote might have been significant.  But had Paul twice beaten America's Mayor, and maybe come close to third, then he would not be a marginal candidate.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM

  (0+)

Can someone who's been following this story please tell me who supposedly would have rigged the NH primary in Hillary's favor?

If it was someone in the Hillary camp, this would mean that people at the highest levels of the Democratic Party are perfectly well aware of the potential for stealing elections. Yet the Dem Party has scarcely made a peep about this issue, despite the obvious hanky-panky in the last 2 presidential elections. If some Dem-connected group really stole this primary, the very first political consequence should be a mass defection from the party as a whole.

The theory that "only" the Hillary camp would know how to rig elections, while the rest of the Dem leadership would be totally innocent of such knowledge, is very implausible, to put it mildly.

On the other hand, if the election was supposedly stolen by some Republican-connected group (Diebold, etc), why would they have rigged it for Hillary? Obama is probably the easier candidate for them to beat next year, simply because it is very unlikely that any red states will really vote for a black guy, when the Republicans run someone like McCain.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM

  (0+)

Well, clearly, control of any electoral fraud aparatus is in the hands of the Rethuglicans, and has been so for the last 8 years.

Clinton is DEFINITELY the opponent that the Rethuglicans would like to run against, as it will mobilize their base much more than running against Obama who might bring in new and young and active blood into the Democratic Party.

Also, the Rethuglicans would have wanted Clinton to win to keep "the race going" as long as possible.  The longer the Democrats go without a decided candidate, the more money they have to spend and the less they can begin to build their cohesive message for November.  The Rethuglicans would absolutely have wanted a Clinton upset in New Hampshire.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM

  (0+)

Obama. The candidate that could most likely beat McCain is Edwards. (And I say this as someone who despises the Democratic Party, would like to see it destroyed forever, & who doesn't really support Edwards -- though I might consider voting for him, to defeat a Republican. Whereas I would not even consider voting for Obama or HRC.)

But Re: the possibility of election fraud -- it seems unlikely to me that Republicans would care enough to take the risk of rigging an election between two candidates they'll have little trouble with. // Just my 2 cents, of course.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM

  (0+)

... "they 'think' that HRC would be 'easier to beat', or 'more palatable'" are both not convincing arguments for the 'Why' of going through the trouble let alone risk of rigging an election.

If the GOP are going to rig an election it will be the general, once they have annointed their candidate. Why would you bother rigging the Democratic primary if you can rig it so that your candidate will win the general? It doesnt make sense. It is a lot of wasted time and effort. This fails the logic test for a number of reasons.

I'm certainly going to continue reading the theories because this is an area of interest to me and I have a lot of respect for Bev and Brad and I think they know that, but unless I see a convincing reason 'WHY' I am not going to spend any serious time on this.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:57:50 PM

  (0+)

Try it straight from the horse's mouth with the WSJ op-ed that Rob linked to: Barack or Hillary? The key point is that Clinton's support nationally has a known ceiling. Playing with Obama is playing with fire from the point of view of those who control the voting machines.

 Plus, they probably want to warm the public up to the idea of voting machine irregularities being a normal feature of American elections. It'll almost surely work in my opinion. Americans have a deep need to believe in their own system. This is even true of the Ron Paul camp, only their version of the system dates back much further.

I think it is bizarre that people accept the idea that voting machines run on proprietary software, and even more bizarre that in some cases (New Hampshire anyway) the company that provides the machines (Why a company anyway and not the government itself - weird.) also takes the ballot forms after they have been put through the machine. Where is the logic in that? It invites vote fraud for God's sake. Powerful people could put forth any number of threats or bribes to the personnel of that company. 

Given the system, I would almost be shocked if there was no fraud whatsoever.  This is all really a shame too, because I see nothing inherently wrong with voting machines in principle, and they could be used to implement far more democratic forms of voting such as instant runoff and range voting.

Here is a video from Black Box Voting regarding the immense potential for vote fraud in N.H. It features a David Copperfieldesque uncut demonstration of a "secured" Diebold machine flipping a vote from 6N,2Y to 1N,7Y. 

And some more interesting tidbits:

 Exec at NH's Diebold Vote Counting Firm Convicted of Narcotics Trafficking

 Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine (academic study)

Abstract   This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.

by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM

  (0+)

WHO HAS THE MOST TO GAIN, AND WHO IS IN COTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT, ITS THE NEOCON GLOBALIST, AND THIS ELECTION, I MEAN" CONTEST" IS JUST A WAY FOR THESE GLOBALIST TO SEE WHO IS MOST APEALING TO THE SHEEP. THEIR ALL IN THE SAME CLUB, BOTH PARTY'S, SO WHICH EVER THE GLOBALIST PICK FOR OUR NEXT PRESIDENT, IS GOING TO FOLLOW THEIR AGENDA. EITHER WAY WE THE PEOPLE ARE LEFT OUT OF THE PICK. WHAT SAY YOU.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 3:50:00 AM

  (0+)

My opinion is that they intend to let a Dem win this time and take the heat for the mess the economy is going to be in for the next four years (with the added bonus of saying "see, the machines aren't rigged!"), but with Hillary, they have a candidate who is not going to push for any major changes in the current state of affairs- corporate domination, endless war, trade agreements, etc.

by sjm30741 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 4:10:38 PM

  (0+)

Consider that whoever rigged the election might WANT the people to distrust the election process.  It's a way of destroying faith in democracy.  Who might want that?  Well, lots of corporate capitalists might want that ... including Diebold.   It might also be a group which wants Americans to stay DIS-engaged from politics so that their mind control propaganda can be more effective.  Gee, that sounds like Republicans to me.   I think the Republicans WANT Hillary to be the candidate.  Afterall, she's a "closet Republican."

by Steve Moyer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:37:15 PM

  (0+)

not often vouchsafed us readers, to read an article by someone who really knows whereof she or he speaks. Thanks are due Bev Harris for writing - and Rob for publishing - this article !...

Henri

by mhenriday (0 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 157 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM

  (0+)

More interesting than the Stupid Bowl, maybe... but of equal importance.  Hmmm.  "Elections" are out.  Insurrection is out of the question.  Now what? 

by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:56:53 AM

  (0+)

Ron Corvus -- I am trying, without much success, to see a ray of hope here.  Your post at least lays out a (only a possible) course of action; a progression of theoretically effective steps to take. 

 So -- who, or what group or organization -- is qualified to proceed in this way?  And if a qualified party would be identified, who might that be, realistically speaking? 

For example, can a group of incensed, loosely-affiliated, united by a common outrage, voters act thus?  Does one have to be a lawyer?  A high official in a political party (presumably, that would be a Democrat)?

I really am in despair about all this.  I had had naive expectations that this monstrous beast would not raise its poisonous head again, this time round. How dumb!  Here we are again, and -- incredibly enough -- no one except DK is even NOTICING (well, I mean also here, on this and a handful of other, forums), let alone bringing this issue to the public eye.

Personally, I believe the Diebold person is in league with the Rethuglikans; they think Obama is far too charismatic and popular ("uppity; doesn't know his place"?), and they will let Hillary play out as winner just so far -- and then crush her, too.

Cataclysmically ugly business; belongs as a chronicle of the demise of the Weimar Republic. 

by Jami (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM

  (0+)

I attended the 2004 Nader recount in New Hampshire.  I remember my shock when they brought in the ballots, half of which were transported not in locked election boxes but in cardboard boxes secured with duct tape!

Michael Richardson

by Michael Richardson (107 articles, 22 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM

  (0+)

Have nearly $13K for the recount, and they are funding Albert Howard (R) a New Hampshire candidate, who is going for the recount.  Dennis is safe.  You can contribute to Grannie Warriors if you really do care about the recount now that Dennis is safe, or continue to look for reasons why you shouldn't join the rEVOLution and actually work to make the change instead of waiting for them to not actually make the change they are promising (Not that a woman or black male would not indeed be a change of race or color, but not of the Bush-Clinton Dynasty, and Kerry just prooved that).

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM

  (0+)

Grannie Warriors???  I love it!

Tell me more.......

by Jami (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:08:21 PM

  (0+)

www. grannywarrior. chipin.com/ recount

Linking the words above will connect you their their web page which is right up to date on the recount.  This campaign is giving activists the opportunity to prove themselves.  There's so much to love about this rEVOLution I can completely understand why MSM hates RP and supporters,,,we're gonna get 'em.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 4:48:28 PM

  (0+)

What better vehicle for the republicans than to create an issue of voter fraud, an issue that began with a republican, Ron Paul and an issue republicans have proved to be expert at in the last two presidential elections?

Now "everyone" is saying Bill and Hillary fixed the elections, elections controlled in a red state no less. I think there is fraud all right and that fraud is playing all of this like a puppet on a string. I also agree with Harris. If it looks like a trap and smells like a trap then in all likelihood, it is a trap.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:58:13 AM

  (0+)

As I have said before on OpEdNews, "he who controls the source code controls the election"....using computers in elections almost guarantees fraud, they CANNOT be made safe. When UN and other outside observers run or supervise elections in trouble spots they require voters to dip a finger in ink that will not wash off for several days, paper ballots, and public counting at each voting place with totals posted at each voting place. Anything else is open to fraud. The sad truth is that democracy in many places, including America, is like a theater: the voters are the audience, the candidates are really puppets, it is the hidden puppet masters who own the puppets, and the theater. It is their game and we, the rest of humanity, are the losers.

Stirling

by Lord Stirling (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 151 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 1:02:25 PM

  (0+)

 AGREE THIS NOT AND ELECTION ITS A(" CONTEST)"

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 6:38:18 AM

  (0+)

Why does anyone in the supposedly progressive world care or use to attack the fact that previously convicted drug war felons have actually been allowed to work. If this is the state of our progress, as measured against America's past, her Presidents and Governors, and Western European social policy, we are in pitiful shape. At least our last two presidents used illegal drugs, and countless politicians across the country have admitted to the same, but as soon as a person's drug conviction can be used against them or their organization, some progressive is right there using it!  Do you not realize that the drug laws are how many American's who think "out of the box" are marginalized at an early age, not to mention a significant percentage of minorities? And with your very accusation, you harm every person who carries the legacy of the war on drugs branded into their record by reinforcing the idea that being a victim of the drug war makes one dishonest or an employment risk. With such progressives, who needs Republicans to scam us?

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 1:03:56 PM

  (0+)

The reason the Repugs are frantic to install Hitlery is to continue the cover-up and absolute media blackout of the massive offshore money-laundering operation of the Clinton-Bush crime syndicate. If a CFR stooge is not elected president many politicians will go to prison when the facts are exposed. This all started when Vince Foster was to resign and the Clintons had him whacked to cover up the scam.  The begginings of this may be read about here   www.skolnicksreport.com/mrich.htm  To read more and see the multi-billion dollar wire transfers of YOUR tax money off-shore  go to

www.apfn.org/apfn/wanta.htm   to find more just google Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta and read all the different links (except Chris Story)

Why would all creation forget Whitewater ? The establishment media has its orders to install Hitlery and to ignore Wantagate.  Why would Bush be preparing Hitlery for the transition ? Clinton freindly criminals are being installed in the Bush cabinet when one jumps ship.  Why do the Demo Clintons vacation with the Repug Bush's ??????

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 1:05:32 PM

  (0+)

he said he would pass on the concerns about no chain of custody 

The recount is meaningless, but there should be an investigation and if there was fraud, the perps showed be prosecuted and the delegates given to the real winner.

The big issue here is that anywhere in the nation that these evoting machines are used in the 2008 elections, there is no reason to believe the results. We need to switch to paper ballots, counted by hand in the local precincts, and the whole process needs to be open to public view. Citizens cannot be expected to "trust" anyone, when the stakes are so high. Elections belong to all of us, but here in the US elections are currently controlled by secretive private parties with a history of corruption. 

Polls have shown that Clinton will be easier for the Republican to beat than Obama, plus she's the biggest corporate whore on the Dem side. Prime reasons for Diebold/LHS scumbags and their backers among the corrupt elite to switch the vote here and keep Clinton in the race. None of their MSM talking heads are saying a word about the fraud questions. I looked at the comments at ABCNews.com and CNN.com- the fraud allegations apparently being scrubbed, although ABCNews.com is permitting the ones that allege Clinton stole it or bussed in loads of people from out of state. Rawstory has removed all stories having to do with this from their front page, although, like the corporate media, they're now reporting on Kucinich's call for a recount. He would do well to investigate first, before what happened to Nader in 04 happens to him.

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:28:47 PM

  (0+)

The Bush's want Hitlery elected, cant you see that. Why the visits to the whitehouse by Clinton cohorts ? These two families have been looting the hell out of the US for how long now ? I forget its been so freeking long. To even insinuate that the repugs dont want a continuation of the Clinton-Bush dynasty is INSANE. If Hitlery gets in,Niel Bush is next with Rick Perry as VP, then Marvin Bush then Jeb Then freekin Chelsea !!! OPEN YOUR EYES and BEHOLD BEELZEBUB in BUSHCO !!

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 3:58:47 PM

  (0+)

So there are a group of people in BOTH the GOP and Democratic party who are corrupt, and numerous enough and powerful enough to rig elections, but among them, the only people who are willing to carry their torch are people named Bush and Clinton? They are the only people for whom they can rig votes?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 3:01:16 PM

  (0+)

 BUSHS AND CLINTONS HAVE BEEN AT THIS DECEPTION FOR 24 YEARS AN THE GLOBALIST TRUST THEM , THEY ARE TEAM PLAYER, AND WILL FOLLOW THE CFR TC GLOBALIST AGENDA.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Jan 13, 2008 at 2:50:36 AM

  (0+)

Now RichM is a friend and all y'all may have some wispy dreams for an America that never was but it sure is interesting to watch great minds quibble and squibble over machinations and possible chicanery regarding that American Idol- THE VOTE.

Complaining about rigged voting presumes that otherwise the system works & the bourgeoisie is just electorally thwarting the working class over & over again 

Here comes the tired refrain:

"If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome."

The opposite is true. By playing the game, voters agree to the rules. Only those who don’t play and withhold their consent have a right to complain about the outcome, especially since the winner will have his hand in the non-voter’s pocket.

Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: "You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you."

Non-voting has a rich and long history through which the dissenting electorate has expressed everything from religious convictions to political cynicism.

Who makes the decisions in our society?

Who writes public policy?

Years of social engineering has caused people to be deluded on this matter.

The White House and Congress don’t really make the decisions, Wall Street and the Pentagon do. Who wins the election makes no difference because all politicians must do what the elite want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they control and/or have a say in matters of the state.
 

by coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments [25 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 9:43:04 PM

  (0+)

all the other responsibilities of citizenship in your view?

Do you think that as a US citizen (assuming that you are) that you will not be partly responsible to other humans in the world if President Bush is not impeached for breaking America's word to the word on treaties?

Citizenship is about more than voting. The laws and the system need to have life breathed into them to work. To not vote is one thing. But how far can a person opt out. Would you derive benefits from being an American  but accept no responsibilities? Would you not serve on a jury?

American libertarians worry me - not saying you are one, but they can look  a heck of a lot like lazy freeloaders on other peoples efforts to maintain the commons, when the commons may be little more than the rule of law and the basic confidence that candidates taking oaths don't get to lie through their teeth with impunity.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:33:09 PM

  (0+)

Where are all the people who say that electronic voting can't be trusted?

How about the more traditional ways of corrupting an election like what is postulated here? Do you see the fallacy of the argument against electronic voting? It's all about the technology you use ... if it's trustworthy technology then you can trust it. If it isn't, then you can't trust it.

But when humans get in the process you have to trust the humans (all of them in the custody chain.)

Think about electronic voting as a "secure communication" challenge and you will see that we already have trustworthy technology for a voting machine to communicate with a central computer which records the vote. We use it every day with ATM's and on the Internet.

Do you think all these commercial transactions on the Internet are being hacked? Do you think the National Security Agency is worried that their communications are being hacked? Do you think the President and military generals are worried that their communications are being hacked?

Use the same secure communications technology to communicate votes.

And by the way, let people vote on the Internet and get a "confirmation code" so they can look up their vote to SEE if it was accurately recorded.

You can have openness and anonymity at the same time.

Steve Moyer

by Steve Moyer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM

  (0+)

That way affidavits signed  and notarized by voters stating for whom they voted are in our hands

 Ron Paul Vote Count.com any one in MD or in any other state who feels that a stolen vote is a stolen vote NO MATTER WHO'S IT WAS should help

by tiffane (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 1:10:04 PM

  (0+)