Will the Next Election Be Hacked?

POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Friday, September 6, 2024 03:28
VIEWED: 10966
PAGE 4 of 9

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And, strangely, my workday is from 7 AM to 7 PM. I don't know about most other places, but in the USA the working poor often work 2 jobs and have a 2-3 hour bus commute to and from work.

---

Come on, we don't want the poor voting...

And to add to insult to injury, the closest polling station to your work place is likely not the one where you are registered. That one is closest to your home. So, good luck making it there and back during your lunch break.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And, strangely, my workday is from 7 AM to 7 PM. I don't know about most other places, but in the USA the working poor often work 2 jobs and have a 2-3 hour bus commute to and from work.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Then vote absentee. You don't even have to show an I.D. Just vote and drop it in the mail. Problem solved. Contact your pricinct or party's election committee to find out details. You can choose to be proactive and do something about your situation, or you can bitch about how unfair life is and blame everyone else. The choice is up to you.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well Auraptor, the butterfly ballots were bad. Pat Buchanon suggested that he got 1000's of votes he shouldn't have gotten in 2000 because of those ballots,

which means in a fair election where people know who they're voting for, the democrats would have won.

Do you have any evidence of large scale democratic vote tampering or do you like to just spew that crap to try to smear everybody?

And what kind of logic suggests that because we didn't like the last system we should take whatever system our gop government puts in place to replace it as something better.

- with no facts have you denied the validity of the claims - and so you go after them by just stamping democrats as complainers. I understand how sick to your stomach it must make you to read through post after post at freerepublic, but some sort of distorted fact would be appreciated when you're making your claims.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Well Auraptor, the butterfly ballots were bad. Pat Buchanon suggested that he got 1000's of votes he shouldn't have gotten in 2000 because of those ballots,

which means in a fair election where people know who they're voting for, the democrats would have won.

Do you have any evidence of large scale democratic vote tampering or do you like to just spew that crap to try to smear everybody?

And what kind of logic suggests that because we didn't like the last system we should take whatever system our gop government puts in place to replace it as something better.

- with no facts have you denied the validity of the claims - and so you go after them by just stamping democrats as complainers. I understand how sick to your stomach it must make you to read through post after post at freerepublic, but some sort of distorted fact would be appreciated when you're making your claims.

---

Q: How the hell would Pat Buchanan know ? On what basis does he make the claim that "1000's" of votes shouldn't have gone his way ? I'm so sick and tired of folks excusing the VOTER for not taking it upon themselves to either ask for help / and or a new ballot. Please. If you're too stupid to figure out a simple ballot, or even ASK for assistance, you don't deserve to vote!

I have the Chicago election of '60, where dead folks voted early and often for Kennedy. Had that election been 'fair', Nixon would have won, not Kennedy. But I'm over it. Can't say the same for the Dems and 2000. What pisses me off about that is all the lies and false allegations the Dems raised about blacks being kept from voting. Not a single case was verified. Not one. Yet the rumors and mythology continue on in the media as if they were true.

It isn't the 'gop gov't' which determines how votes are counted. That decission rests w/ each ELECTION BOARD. Don't blame the GOP, blame your local Democrats for any voter fiasco you think exists.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...What pisses me off about that is all the lies and false allegations the Dems raised about blacks being kept from voting. Not a single case was verified. Not one.

...Don't blame the GOP, blame your local Democrats for any voter fiasco you think exists...

---

Good grief, you have been misinformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

Quote:

---

At first, Florida specified only exact matches on names, birthdates and genders to identify voters as felons. However, state records reveal a memo dated March 1999 from Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell, a lawyer for the state elections office who was supervising the felon purge, asking DBT to loosen its criteria for acceptable matches. When DBT representatives warned Mitchell that this would yield a large proportion of false positives (mismatches), Mitchell's reply was that it would be up to each county elections supervisor to deal with the problem.

In February 2000, in a phone conversation with the BBC's London studios, ChoicePoint vice-president James Lee said that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon"

On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).

Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.

"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".

Florida has re-cedited its felon list five times since 1998 to correct errors.

The first list DBT Online provided to the Division of Elections in April 2000 contained the names of 181,157 persons. Approximately 65,776 of those included on the first list were identified as felons.

In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list, mostly those of former Texas prisoners who were included on a DBT list that turned out never to have been convicted of more than a misdemeanor. Later in the month, DBT provided a revised list to the Division of Elections (DOE) containing a total of 173,127 persons. Of those included on the "corrected list", 57,746 were identified as felons.

There were many specific problems with the purge list regarding the verification of felons, including over 4,000 blank conviction dates, and over 325 conviction dates dating in the future.

Nearly 3,000 out-of-state ex-felons with voting rights restored, as well as voters linked to felonies in states which do not remove felons from voting rolls or that automatically restore voting rights that were included on the list. According to a 1998 ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeals, they cannot then be ruled ineligible by another state.

DBT had decided in March of 1999 not to include felon lists from South Carolina or Texas, which automatically restore voting rights, but that was overruled by the head of the Florida Office of Executive Clemency, Janet Keels, who ordered inclusion of any felon who did not have a written order of clemency, even from these states, wrongly placing 996 voters on the felon list. Florida did not restore their voting rights until three months after the election.

Additionally, a number of persons listed as felons had been convicted of misdemeanors only, and

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME