"How President Bush Won the 2004 Election"

[iago]

I've read a lot about the electronic voting terminals lately (particularely DIEBOLD and other crap) on SlashDot, BugTraq, etc., and it's really an interesting debate, especially with all the evidence and such that's out there.

Anyway, I just started reading this article, and it looks interesting:
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/70542.php

[Stealth]

Purging voter lists is just the beginning: the U.S. has embraced a form of electronic voting that is unreliable, unverifiable and funded by the radical Christian right.

They sound like a good solid reasonable bunch of people.

Our system here in Madison (and much of the rest of Wisconsin) makes a lot of sense. I don't see why it's not done in more places. You are given a sort of scantron-type form, with arrows for each candidate.

--      -> George W. Bush
--      -> John Kerry
--      -> Ralph Nader

You fill in the body of the arrow of the candidate you want.

--------> George W. Bush ( )
--      -> John Kerry
--      -> Ralph Nader

Then, your scantron-type form is dropped through a machine when you're done with it, which counts it. Your ballot is saved as a paper record.

Yet, Wisconsin is home to a significant amount of voter fraud. It is not due to our method of polling, but to our lax regulations on judging voter eligibility.

We have a system of on-site voter registration where anyone can cast a vote ahead of time, then the vote is held until proper identification can be provided. Congress has not yet made clear what should be done with those provisional ballots.

Our state has had several recorded instances of voter fraud, most famously a New York millionaire heiress handing out cigarettes to homeless people in downtown Milwaukee to get them to vote for Gore. Irregularities are present across the board. Already there is evidence that numerous voting drives in our swing state have gone bad. An editorial by Mark Belling, a Milwaukee talk show host, sums it up pretty well. I have mirrored it here.

To assert that a Bush victory would be due to tampered voting machines is ridiculous. He is the incumbent, he's favored to win. The election is not a referendum on Bush so much as a referendum on Kerry as his replacement.

[hismajesty]

I was at a congressional debate last night between Congressman Bobby Scott (ew) and Virginia Delegate Winsome Sears (yay) and that was a question brought up that they debated over (verified voting).

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

This article is basically from the Slashdot perspective:

- I don't like Bush
- I don't like Diebold.
- Thus, Bush is part of the Diebold voting conspiracy.

[Hazard]

I have been trained in the system that is being used here in Florida for the voting, and I can honestly say that it isn't rigged and all your votes are 1337 h4x0r3d to reflect anything.

[quasi-modo]

We do not even use touch screens up here. We have a scan tron type of deal goin here. Excpet for people with disabilities, we have touch screens at one location for them. I am way up here in jacksonville, where are you hazard?

[Hazard]

Tampa.

[quasi-modo]

Tampa.

Do you guys have good communication? Do you know a guy named shannity in your chapter?

[Hazard]

Tampa.

Do you guys have good communication? Do you know a guy named shannity in your chapter?

Yes and Yes.

[quasi-modo]

He and I were supposed to do the fl pw website... but there is this lack of communication. Mainly between me, bean, and the host. I contacted the guy who is supposed to be hosting the thing and he never got back to me. I contacted bean and we had several emails back and forth, but I still have no idea what the deal is. Ho hum.