ThreeFireflies
02-10-2008, 03:28 PM
It’s beginning to look like Ron Paul has been blithely shoved aside by a handful of computer programmers whose employers think they can con the entire country into believing the least likely Republican candidate outpaced absolutely everyone. Why is McCain the least likely? Because we’re every bit as sick and tired of George Bush as we were intended to be, and McCain can’t wait to pick up where George left off: more wars! I don’t get it. What have Ron Paul's people been doing about ongoing revelations of multiple rigged elections? Why is he backing away? He can’t win ANY election - including the one in Texas - without a thorough expose of election fraud. If he wants to be reelected, someone has to make Texas hand count a statistically significant number (50%, as in Venezuela) of ballots. Check out www.ProjectVoteCount.com. If they exposed enough cheating, McCain would lose!! Check out the comment section of “Tally Against the Machine” on Google News. A programmer spelled it out as follows:
”I consult for banks and I can say without any hesitation that e-voting machines are certainly NOT as secure as ATMs! It is deceitful for anyone to make the claim that since we trust ATMs, we can trust touch screen voting machines!
Banks have a large corporation of hundreds of computer techs monitoring their software, data, and hardware at ALL times, 24/7. Banks have layers of custom security software installed to prevent hacking and unauthorized entry of data. Banks employ a rigorous auditing trail to catch illegal alterations of data. Tens of millions is spent on round the clock security. Some banks even have India monitoring as well. Critical banking hardware is protected from unauthorized intervention by a constant signed chain of custody as well as background investigations.
Furthermore, reject the propaganda that the voting machines are safe as long as they are not connected to the internet. That is duplicitous as well. Touch screen and optical scan voting machines are still operated by software. Software is put on a memory card, cartridge (PEB personalized electronic ballot), flash device, or ROM chip that runs the machine.
Does the state examine the software on the actual memory device used during the election? NO! THE SOFTWARE IS KEPT SECRET because it is proprietary! Counting votes is not a top secret mental programming challenge. Please.
Are the machines secured at all times, before, during, and after election day to prevent a memory device swap, which can be putting in new code instructions that run the machine? NO! Is there a secure chain of custody at all times for the memory cards holding the electronic votes, especially if being transported to a central counting location? NO!
It is useless to test a machine prior to the election. A programmer can easily work around any pre-election testing so that the machine will pass inspection, yet still be able to alter votes. How come? The software is kept secret or is easily swapped!
The programmer can give your vote to another candidate, no matter what bubble you fill in, or what you touch on the screen. Since the programmer is in charge of everything printed, your candidate's name will be on the paper trail (if there is one) to keep you clueless that your vote was stolen.
You may think, hey, if we have a paper trail we can verify the votes. WRONG! MOST STATES PROHIBIT A HAND RECOUNT UNLESS THE VOTE IS VERY CLOSE. California has such a mandate now. The Secretary of State is demanding a random ten percent hand recount if votes are close. But think about it. THE PROGRAMMER CAN GUARANTEE THAT CLOSE VOTES NEVER OCCUR. The programmer is in total control of the vote count folks.
Therefore, a hand recount that verifies any votes calculated by a machine's software, is never going to take place unless it is mandatory at all times. In addition, the hand recount must include a statistically significant number of paper ballots. One percent is not going to cut it.
It is appalling that more than 20 states do not even have a paper trail to verify the machine's software!
Corrupt votes will never be discovered with our current software voting system.
Search to read, "Florida Report Spurs Growing Distrust of E-Voting Machines", from TechNewsWorld, posted Aug 1 2007 by Erika Morphy.
Search to read, "Team 4 Is Your Vote Safe With County Voting Machines", by Jim Parsons, posted 2-7-08, by Pittsburgh Channel.
Search to read, "Papering Over OptiScam Problems", by Rady Anada, posted 1-6-08 about software voting, "missing" memory cards, and "missing" voting machines.
Read comments by a Princeton computer science teacher describing the ease of switching code instructions on a machine in, "Vulnerability in Voting Machines", written by Soterios Johnson, posted 2-4-08 by WNYC.
Visit www.blackboxvoting.org to read eyewitness accounts, view video clips, and view photos during the New Hampshire recount. Why did boxes and boxes of ballots arrive at the central counting location with slits along the side, large enough to slip a hand through? Why was the "seal" on the ballot boxes only as adhesive as a post-it? Why were some ballot boxes not locked in the vault overnight?
The only solution for an honest election is hand counted paper ballots at each precinct, with public bi-partisan oversight. Not only is this the most inexpensive solution, if this solution is implemented, it would take many, many, people being involved to rig an election.
With electronic voting, it only takes a few dishonest programmers, or a few hackers, or a few dishonest people transporting memory cards and voting machines, or a few dishonest people exploiting an opportunity of voting machines left unattended, to change tens of thousands of votes.
But hey, who is going to take what I say seriously? Probably just a few.”
”I consult for banks and I can say without any hesitation that e-voting machines are certainly NOT as secure as ATMs! It is deceitful for anyone to make the claim that since we trust ATMs, we can trust touch screen voting machines!
Banks have a large corporation of hundreds of computer techs monitoring their software, data, and hardware at ALL times, 24/7. Banks have layers of custom security software installed to prevent hacking and unauthorized entry of data. Banks employ a rigorous auditing trail to catch illegal alterations of data. Tens of millions is spent on round the clock security. Some banks even have India monitoring as well. Critical banking hardware is protected from unauthorized intervention by a constant signed chain of custody as well as background investigations.
Furthermore, reject the propaganda that the voting machines are safe as long as they are not connected to the internet. That is duplicitous as well. Touch screen and optical scan voting machines are still operated by software. Software is put on a memory card, cartridge (PEB personalized electronic ballot), flash device, or ROM chip that runs the machine.
Does the state examine the software on the actual memory device used during the election? NO! THE SOFTWARE IS KEPT SECRET because it is proprietary! Counting votes is not a top secret mental programming challenge. Please.
Are the machines secured at all times, before, during, and after election day to prevent a memory device swap, which can be putting in new code instructions that run the machine? NO! Is there a secure chain of custody at all times for the memory cards holding the electronic votes, especially if being transported to a central counting location? NO!
It is useless to test a machine prior to the election. A programmer can easily work around any pre-election testing so that the machine will pass inspection, yet still be able to alter votes. How come? The software is kept secret or is easily swapped!
The programmer can give your vote to another candidate, no matter what bubble you fill in, or what you touch on the screen. Since the programmer is in charge of everything printed, your candidate's name will be on the paper trail (if there is one) to keep you clueless that your vote was stolen.
You may think, hey, if we have a paper trail we can verify the votes. WRONG! MOST STATES PROHIBIT A HAND RECOUNT UNLESS THE VOTE IS VERY CLOSE. California has such a mandate now. The Secretary of State is demanding a random ten percent hand recount if votes are close. But think about it. THE PROGRAMMER CAN GUARANTEE THAT CLOSE VOTES NEVER OCCUR. The programmer is in total control of the vote count folks.
Therefore, a hand recount that verifies any votes calculated by a machine's software, is never going to take place unless it is mandatory at all times. In addition, the hand recount must include a statistically significant number of paper ballots. One percent is not going to cut it.
It is appalling that more than 20 states do not even have a paper trail to verify the machine's software!
Corrupt votes will never be discovered with our current software voting system.
Search to read, "Florida Report Spurs Growing Distrust of E-Voting Machines", from TechNewsWorld, posted Aug 1 2007 by Erika Morphy.
Search to read, "Team 4 Is Your Vote Safe With County Voting Machines", by Jim Parsons, posted 2-7-08, by Pittsburgh Channel.
Search to read, "Papering Over OptiScam Problems", by Rady Anada, posted 1-6-08 about software voting, "missing" memory cards, and "missing" voting machines.
Read comments by a Princeton computer science teacher describing the ease of switching code instructions on a machine in, "Vulnerability in Voting Machines", written by Soterios Johnson, posted 2-4-08 by WNYC.
Visit www.blackboxvoting.org to read eyewitness accounts, view video clips, and view photos during the New Hampshire recount. Why did boxes and boxes of ballots arrive at the central counting location with slits along the side, large enough to slip a hand through? Why was the "seal" on the ballot boxes only as adhesive as a post-it? Why were some ballot boxes not locked in the vault overnight?
The only solution for an honest election is hand counted paper ballots at each precinct, with public bi-partisan oversight. Not only is this the most inexpensive solution, if this solution is implemented, it would take many, many, people being involved to rig an election.
With electronic voting, it only takes a few dishonest programmers, or a few hackers, or a few dishonest people transporting memory cards and voting machines, or a few dishonest people exploiting an opportunity of voting machines left unattended, to change tens of thousands of votes.
But hey, who is going to take what I say seriously? Probably just a few.”