GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims, time for the rabid Right to bash the GAO!!

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=printstory&id=11529&cat=2

GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims

By Joe Baker, Senior Editor

As if the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby wasn’t enough to give the White House some heavy concerns, a report from the Government Accounting Office takes a big bite out of the Bush clique’s pretense of legitimacy.

This powerful and probing report takes a hard look at the election of 2004 and supports the contention that the election was stolen. The report has received almost no coverage in the national media.

The GAO is the government’s lead investigative agency, and is known for rock-solid integrity and its penetrating and thorough analysis. The agency’s agreement with what have been brushed aside as “conspiracy theories” adds even more weight to the conclusion that the Bush regime has no business in the White House whatever.

Almost a year ago, Rep. John Conyers, senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the GAO to investigate the use of electronic voting machines in the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election. That request was made as a flood of protests from Ohio and elsewhere deluged Washington with claims that shocking irregularities were common in that vote and were linked to the machines.

CNN said the Judiciary Committee got more than 57,000 complaints after Bush’s claimed re-election. Many were made under oath in a series of statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations carried out in Ohio by the Free Press and other groups seeking to maintain transparent elections.

Online Journal.com reported that the GAO report stated that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

This is the only democratic nation that permits private partisan companies to count and tabulate the vote in secret, using privately-held software. The public is excluded from the process. Rev. Jesse Jackson and others have declared that “public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines.” The makers of nearly all electronic voting machines are owned by conservative Republicans.

The chief executive of Diebold, one of the major suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren “Wally” O’Dell, went on record in the 2004 campaign vowing to deliver Ohio and the presidency to George W. Bush.

In Ohio, Bush won by only 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Honest election advocates contend that O’Dell’s statement to hand Ohio’s vote to Bush still stands as a clear indictment of an apparently successful effort to steal the White House.

Some of the GAO’s findings are: 1. Some electronic voting machines “did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected.” In short, the machines; provided a way to manipulate the outcome of the election. In Ohio, more than 800,000 votes were cast on electronic voting machines, some registered seven times Bush’s official margin of victory.

2: the report further stated that: “it was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works, so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate.” Very many sworn statements and affidavits claim that did happen in Ohio in 2004.

Next, the report says, “Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level.” The GAO found that falsifying election results without leaving evidence of doing so by using altered memory cards could easily be done.

The GAO additionally found that access to the voting network was very easy to compromise because not all electronic voting systems had supervisory functions protected by password. That meant access to one machine gave access to the whole network. That critical finding showed that rigging the election did not take a “widespread conspiracy” but simply the cooperation of a small number of operators with the power to tap into the networked machines. They could thus alter the vote totals at will. It therefore was no big task for a single programmer to flip vote numbers to give Bush the 118,775 votes.

Another factor in the Ohio election was that access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user ID, coupled with easy-to-guess passwords. Even amateur hackers could have gotten into the network and changed the vote.

System locks were easily picked, and keys were easy to copy, so gaining access to the system was a snap.

One digital machine model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary manner that if one machine experienced a power failure, the entire network would go down. That is too fragile a system to decide the presidency of the United States.

Problems obviously exist with security protocols and screening methods for vendor personnel.

The GAO study clearly shows that no responsible business would operate with a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one used in the 2004 election.

These findings are even more damning when we understand the election in Ohio was run by a secretary of state who also was co-chairman of Bush’s Ohio campaign. Far from the conclusion of anti-fraud skeptics, the GAO’s findings confirm that the network, which handled 800,000 Ohio votes, was vulnerable enough to permit a handful of purposeful operatives to turn the entire election by means of personal computers using comparatively simple software.

One Ohio campaign operative, Tom Noe, a coin dealer, was indicted Oct. 27 for illegally funneling $45,400 to Bush by writing checks to others, who then wrote checks to Bush’s re-election campaign, allegedly dodging the $2,000 limit on contributions by an individual.

“It’s one of the most blatant and excessive finance schemes we have encountered,” said Noel Hillman, section chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s public integrity section, as quoted in the Kansas City Star.

In the 2000 election, Florida was the key; in the 2004 election, Ohio was the key.
 
The GAO says that there are still lots of problems with electronic voting. I agree and think electronic voting is a very, very bad idea. But exactly where does it say that there is proof that vote tallies were altered in one way or another?
 
Gringao said:
The GAO says that there are still lots of problems with electronic voting. I agree and think electronic voting is a very, very bad idea. But exactly where does it say that there is proof that vote tallies were altered in one way or another?
Online Journal.com reported that the GAO report stated that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

Miscount is another way of saying tampered. Read between the lines, dude.
 
LovingTongue said:
Online Journal.com reported that the GAO report stated that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

Miscount is another way of saying tampered. Read between the lines, dude.

Miscount does not mean tampered, it means the machines counted incorrectly. And, I'll point out since you seem oblivious to the fact, that miscounts can go in either direction. It's just as likely that Kerry got/lost them as Bush.
 
Gringao said:
Miscount does not mean tampered, it means the machines counted incorrectly. And, I'll point out since you seem oblivious to the fact, that miscounts can go in either direction. It's just as likely that Kerry got/lost them as Bush.

Uhmmm . . . computers are big dumb black boxes that count very quickly.

If there was an error so that "the machines counted incorrectly" then it was in the programming.

Just a little glitch like . . . every thousandth vote for a Republican gets an extra one for luck.

Or every vote for a minor candidate just happens to find its way onto the Republican tally.

Or the very simple, "Oops! the Redneck Republicans are behind, let's just add an extra 100,000 votes to the Republican candidate from the list of dead persons". ;)

No doubt about it . . . the Bush Dynasty of Appointed family presidents will last for a thousand years . . . or long enough to give daddy Bush his fifth term behind the president for Cambridge trust . . . ;)
 
Don K Dyck said:
Uhmmm . . . computers are big dumb black boxes that count very quickly.

If there was an error so that "the machines counted incorrectly" then it was in the programming.

Just a little glitch like . . . every thousandth vote for a Republican gets an extra one for luck.

Or every vote for a minor candidate just happens to find its way onto the Republican tally.

Or the very simple, "Oops! the Redneck Republicans are behind, let's just add an extra 100,000 votes to the Republican candidate from the list of dead persons". ;)

No doubt about it . . . the Bush Dynasty of Appointed family presidents will last for a thousand years . . . or long enough to give daddy Bush his fifth term behind the president for Cambridge trust . . . ;)

And don't forget that the CIA is behind it all with their black helicopters and satellites that control your mind. They're making you look like a complete idiot right now, so it's time to slip on the tinfoil beenie again.
 
Gringao said:
And don't forget that the CIA is behind it all with their black helicopters and satellites that control your mind. They're making you look like a complete idiot right now, so it's time to slip on the tinfoil beenie again.


Poor Gringao, you just aren't in the loop , fella.
You prostrate yoursel to save the honour of the liar and cheat in the Whitehouse.
You really need to expand your reading materials. None of this is news, just validation of established problem areas.
 
woody54 said:
Poor Gringao, you just aren't in the loop , fella.
You prostrate yoursel to save the honour of the liar and cheat in the Whitehouse.
You really need to expand your reading materials. None of this is news, just validation of established problem areas.

No convergence of crackpottery is complete without the ever-loathsome Woodrow. Please, all of you, tell us more. I need a good laugh.
 
Gringao said:
Miscount does not mean tampered, it means the machines counted incorrectly. And, I'll point out since you seem oblivious to the fact, that miscounts can go in either direction. It's just as likely that Kerry got/lost them as Bush.
You keep telling yourself that fantasy.
 
LovingTongue said:
You keep telling yourself that fantasy.

Maybe you could show me something that actually says it instead of some innuendo-laden, fact-free tract hammered out by an internet southpaw.
 
woody54 said:
Poor Gringao, you just aren't in the loop , fella.
You prostrate yoursel to save the honour of the liar and cheat in the Whitehouse.
You really need to expand your reading materials. None of this is news, just validation of established problem areas.

Naughty Woody . . . you know that Gringao doesn't want his well established prejudices changed by cold hard facts . . . ;)

If you are a redneck Texas Fundamentalist Christian Fascist Republican Fascist among the working poor of The American NIghtmare , then you cannot let reality distract you from your dream of one day crawling up the dung pile and doing exactly the same thing to some other poor bastard. ;)
 
Kinda off topic but...

Do all of you people here bash and spew hate at people face to face or is it only behind a computer screen where you can hide?

I know the last few elections here in the US have divided the citizens but come on people...civility is not that hard to come by no matter what side you think you may be on.

Anyway just a thought...Oh and of course let the flames begin...

have a nice day, :)
 
LovingTongue said:
Online Journal.com reported that the GAO report stated that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

Miscount is another way of saying tampered. Read between the lines, dude.

When a machine runs a program, it does not think of republicans or democrats. Nor does errors in program code. I am sure if Kerry won, the same controversy would have remained. Why? Because programs are not perfect, and vote counters can be as simple as an if loop somewhere, and loops can miscount if not programmed correctly, the machine is not working right, etc...

I am going to see if there is any more information on how votes were counted, and how the program worked. Also, taking into account how many machines did not work correctly may be a factor as well.

Unless somebody tampers with the vote count, or the programmer purposefully adds code to count more than what it is supposed to, leads me to believe there should be a way to verify the votes were legitimate. What what steps were taken to ensure the votes were legitimate are unknown to me as well.
 
Don K Dyck said:
Naughty Woody . . . you know that Gringao doesn't want his well established prejudices changed by cold hard facts . . . ;)

If you are a redneck Texas Fundamentalist Christian Fascist Republican Fascist among the working poor of The American NIghtmare , then you cannot let reality distract you from your dream of one day crawling up the dung pile and doing exactly the same thing to some other poor bastard. ;)
The problem with Gringao is, he is the dung pile...
 
Gringao said:
The GAO says that there are still lots of problems with electronic voting. I agree and think electronic voting is a very, very bad idea. But exactly where does it say that there is proof that vote tallies were altered in one way or another?

Perhaps a checksum of somekind?

Also, because a voting device is owned by republicans or programmed by a republican programmer does not mean the programmer blatenly added extra functions or subroutines to make it tally more votes for the republican party.

I am almost certain these machines were not functioning correctly as a result of a conspiracy, but rather poor decisonmaking and proper testing before deployment. It is a well known fact when software is released, bugs are found even when declared stable. Stable software != perfect software.

It is no surprise the software used is proprietary. Making the code available to anybody (eg open source) can make it even easier for hackers to add more code, install it on a machine and nobody is the wiser. Compilers are easy to come by. Reverse engineering is also feasable, but that takes a skilled cracker to use a debugger and find an exploit to alter the counts.

Is there any way for the investigators to request a non-partisan programmer to look over the code and make sure there are no routines to trick the user?

Oh one more thing. User error. A big one. Not everybody knows how to run a machine, and can make errors in configuration. Not that it is blatent, but in my experience, user blunders are the biggest cause for failure.
 
Last edited:
LovingTongue said:
Online Journal.com reported that the GAO report stated that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

Miscount is another way of saying tampered. Read between the lines, dude.


The soon to be come infamous LT staple “read between the lines”

Read the lines “dude”.
 
Slowlane said:
If you used facts and/or common sense it’s possible that you did. lol

I am sure I did not use facts because I have not seen the machines firsthand, do not know the nature of the investigation, or what was found from a non partisan source. So yeah, I will be the first to say I could be wrong.

However, what I said was based on programming and deployment experience, and this case screams it.
 
Slowlane said:
The soon to be come infamous LT staple “read between the lines”

Read the lines “dude”.

As for reading between the lines, that can lead to a lot of speculation and room for conspiracy. I like conspiracy as much as the next guy because it is fun reading. As for the underlying facts, that is another.

I am surprised Ish has not replied to this thread. He knows a lot about these kinds of things.
 
Last edited:
Some Moron said:
I am sure I did not use facts because I have not seen the machines firsthand, do not know the nature of the investigation, or what was found from a non partisan source. So yeah, I will be the first to say I could be wrong.

However, what I said was based on programming and deployment experience, and this case screams it.

I think you were close enough to the facts. The software is new, it's probable there were some glitches of unknown cause of limited severity and with unknown consequences.
 
Slowlane said:
I think you were close enough to the facts. The software is new, it's probable there were some glitches of unknown cause of limited severity and with unknown consequences.

Yeah. Bugs are a big thing to worry about, especially if a project is rushed. I do not know a lot of factors involved in making the software:

1. How much testing was conducted when released

2. Dry runs with ordinary users. Beta testers are nice

3. What security measures were employed

4. How long did the contractor have before release

5. An independant auditer of security measures and functionality

...if any of course. When dealing with highly sensitive material such as votes, personal information and other such things, security is of utmost importance.
 
I am guessing that the count was correct. (Only a few loonies still cling to hope) That’s what computers do, they count, they have been doing that since they were invented. 1-2-3-4- how hard is that?

Security measures are problematical. It tough to tell how good they are, and there will always be someone who can penetrate them. I don’t know the machines were “stand alone” (difficult to tamper) or part of an accessible network (easier to tamper).

Again guessing, it would be tough to beta test such a product. I’m sure extensive testing was done, but not with “everyday” users.

I haven’t seen the report by the GEO only the article cited above as found on the “Brad Blog”, an obvious left wing site bent on the destruction of the current administration.
 
Slowlane said:
I am guessing that the count was correct. (Only a few loonies still cling to hope) That’s what computers do, they count, they have been doing that since they were invented. 1-2-3-4- how hard is that?

Security measures are problematical. It tough to tell how good they are, and there will always be someone who can penetrate them. I don’t know the machines were “stand alone” (difficult to tamper) or part of an accessible network (easier to tamper).

Again guessing, it would be tough to beta test such a product. I’m sure extensive testing was done, but not with “everyday” users.

I haven’t seen the report by the GEO only the article cited above as found on the “Brad Blog”, an obvious left wing site bent on the destruction of the current administration.

Yeah, I am trying to find an non partisan take on this, and so far, it has been difficult.
 
Back
Top