seattle.politics

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> dangerman wrote:
>
> [..]
>> I'm talking about your claim that The People wouldn't be able to remove
>> the government because the voting machines would give the election to the
>> incumbents, even if the exit polls showed the challengers won by large
>> margins. How would Diebold and the government explain that?
>
> The question isn't how *would* they try to explain that. The question is
> how they *did* try to explain that, because it's pretty clear that's
> what happened in 2004.

Yes, but the claim I was refuting was *US* claim that once electronic
cheating is established, the people can't vote the corruption out. "They
can't do that with electronic election subversion systems." But they
can, and they would, and the exit polls would show 90% voting the
opposite of the actual tally. The 2004 election wasn't so unbalanced.

Has it been established how the cheating with the Diebold machines was
done? I've only seen lots of indignation about the sorry design and
implementation of the Diebold software. The possibility of cheating
isn't proof of cheating.

I know that people were illegally prevented from voting. I know that
polling locations were mixed up. I know that all the usual dirty tricks
were used, but all I've seen proof of is these dirty tricks that have
nothing to do with the actual voting machines. Has anyone shown that the
machines were actually used for cheating by using one or more of the
security holes in the Diebold system? I've not seen that.

It is obvious the Diebold machines should never have been approved, but
it is really silly to focus all this attention on how bad the design
was, when it isn't the real problem with the election system. I mean, it
looks more likely, IMO, that some dirty tricks unit behind Bush just
pushed these Diebold machines as a way of distracting everybody from the
methods they were really using to steal the election.

They stole the elections, and I doubt it had anything to do with Diebold
machines.