"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com... UNUSUAL RESULTS: In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them, some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example. In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans. The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush. Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered Democrats voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at the link at the bottom of this article.

This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats countys in
Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered primarily
democratic and always have been but more often than not they always go
republican. It;s just another bull**** claim that's been explained many
times because somebody doesn't do their homework before writing yet another
article on how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere
useful idiot in peddling doubt.

James wrote: "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com... UNUSUAL RESULTS: In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them, some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example. In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans. The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush. Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered Democrats voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at the link at the bottom of this article. This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered primarily democratic and always have been but more often than not they always go republican. It;s just another bull**** claim that's been explained many times because somebody doesn't do their homework before writing yet another article on how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere useful idiot in peddling doubt.

No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of accountability
and the fact that the exit polls do not match the offiical election results.
A situation that the Ukraine is in and which has led them to question the
accuracy of their voting system. The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of
democracy than an ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a
'tradition' for the U.S.

The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like. I do not
say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be proven to have
been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance to fair and auditable
voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these deficiencies or even the hope of
real Democracy in the U.S will die.

The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message
news:gVUod.36164$Le1.859874@news20.bellglobal.com. .. James wrote: "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com... UNUSUAL RESULTS: In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them, some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example. In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans. The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush. Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered Democrats voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at the link at the bottom of this article. This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered primarily democratic and always have been but more often than not they always go republican. It;s just another bull**** claim that's been explained many times because somebody doesn't do their homework before writing yet another article on how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere useful idiot in peddling doubt. No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the offiical election
results. A situation that the Ukraine is in and which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system. The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost
a 'tradition' for the U.S.

Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other shenanigans go on
all the time from both sides. I will agree with that
The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like. I do
not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will die.

There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually on a
local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is concerned, get real.

As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from the
electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in urging some
electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the last election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

.....said old Joe the dictator.

James wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:gVUod.36164$Le1.859874@news20.bellglobal.com. .. James wrote: "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com...>> UNUSUAL RESULTS:> In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them,> some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example.> In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters,> 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans.> The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush.>> Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered> Democrats> voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida> counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at> the link at the bottom of this article.> This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered primarily democratic and always have been but more often than not they always go republican. It;s just another bull**** claim that's been explained many times because somebody doesn't do their homework before writing yet another article on how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere useful idiot in peddling doubt. No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the offiical election results. A situation that the Ukraine is in and which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system. The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a 'tradition' for the U.S. Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with that The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like. I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will die. There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is concerned, get real. As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the last election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ....said old Joe the dictator.

As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind
closed doors and without any oversight.

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message
news:SOapd.52613$Le1.1056854@news20.bellglobal.com ... James wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:gVUod.36164$Le1.859874@news20.bellglobal.com. .. James wrote:> "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message> news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com... The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ....said old Joe the dictator. As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind closed doors and without any oversight.

yeah, right. get over it.

Duane Phinney ICQ#:246507783 Current ICQ status: SMS: (Send an SMS message
to my ICQ): +2783142246507783 More ways to contact me:
http://wwp.icq.com/246507783 _________________________________________
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message
news:SOapd.52613$Le1.1056854@news20.bellglobal.com ... James wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:gVUod.36164$Le1.859874@news20.bellglobal.com. .. James wrote:> "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message> news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com...>>>> UNUSUAL RESULTS:>> In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them,>> some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one example.>> In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered voters,>> 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans.>> The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush.>>>> Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven registered>> Democrats>> voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida>> counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county at>> the link at the bottom of this article.>>>> This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats> countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are registered> primarily democratic and always have been but more often than not> they always go republican. It;s just another bull**** claim that's> been explained many times because somebody doesn't do their homework> before writing yet another article on how the election was stolen.> Susan Sarandon is truly a mere useful idiot in peddling doubt. No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the offiical election results. A situation that the Ukraine is in and which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system. The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a 'tradition' for the U.S. Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with that The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like. I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will die. There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is concerned, get real. As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the last election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ....said old Joe the dictator. As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind closed doors and without any oversight.
Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in
districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.

Genomega wrote: Duane Phinney ICQ#:246507783 Current ICQ status: SMS: (Send an SMS message to my ICQ): +2783142246507783 More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/246507783 _________________________________________ "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:SOapd.52613$Le1.1056854@news20.bellglobal.com ... James wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:gVUod.36164$Le1.859874@news20.bellglobal.com. ..> James wrote:>> "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message>> news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com...>>>>>> UNUSUAL RESULTS:>>> In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally>>> them, some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one>>> example. In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered>>> voters,>>> 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans.>>> The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush.>>>>>> Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven>>> registered Democrats>>> voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida>>> counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county>>> at the link at the bottom of this article.>>>>>>> This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats>> countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are>> registered primarily democratic and always have been but more>> often than not they always go republican. It;s just another>> bull**** claim that's been explained many times because somebody>> doesn't do their homework before writing yet another article on>> how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere>> useful idiot in peddling doubt.>> No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of> accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the> offiical election results. A situation that the Ukraine is in and> which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system.> The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an> ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a> 'tradition' for the U.S. Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with that>> The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like.> I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be> proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance> to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these> deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will> die. There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is concerned, get real. As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the last election.>> The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count> the votes decide everything. ....said old Joe the dictator. As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind closed doors and without any oversight. Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.

So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...

An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all
official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in
democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem.
Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs
'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes?

>>>>> No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of>> accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the>> offiical election results.

What accuracy does the organization conducting the exit polls claim
for the exit polls? My understanding is that they claim no accuracy
whatever, since it's not a scientific poll.
>> A situation that the Ukraine is in and>> which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system.>> The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an>> ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a>> 'tradition' for the U.S.>> Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other> shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with> that>>>>> The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like.>> I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be>> proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance>> to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these>> deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will>> die.>> There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually> on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is> concerned, get real.>> As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from> the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in> urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the> last election.>>>>> The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count>> the votes decide everything.>> ....said old Joe the dictator. As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind closed doors and without any oversight. Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of allofficial parties independently and compared. That is how it is done indemocracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem.Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes?

These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems
to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think
the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten
apples in all of them):

1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL.
None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox
for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is
always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed
accidentally or on purpose.
2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little
risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS
I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You
complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen.
Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount,
it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I
think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems,
and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are
not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses.
3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by
either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot,
who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what
election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates
A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in
different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify
the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It
also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs.
Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots
must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least
4 digits.
4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people
of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person
to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.)
If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import people
from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election
inspectors.
5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and
keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point
to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the
count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for disagreement
might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you
mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole is
almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates,
and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used
for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7
picometers.
6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the
IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay
inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by
any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to
be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level
clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see
the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusable anywhere
in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status.

Gordon L. Burditt

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.zy1on@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:co6fsi$1r5@library2.airnews.net...>>> No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of>>> accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the>>> offiical election results. What accuracy does the organization conducting the exit polls claim for the exit polls? My understanding is that they claim no accuracy whatever, since it's not a scientific poll.>>> A situation that the Ukraine is in and>>> which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system.>>> The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an>>> ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a>>> 'tradition' for the U.S.>>>> Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other>> shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with>> that>>>>>>>> The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like.>>> I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be>>> proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance>>> to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these>>> deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will>>> die.>>>> There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually>> on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is>> concerned, get real.>>>> As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from>> the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in>> urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the>> last election.>>>>>>>> The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count>>> the votes decide everything.>>>> ....said old Joe the dictator.>> As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes> behind closed doors and without any oversight.> Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting.So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see...An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of allofficial parties independently and compared. That is how it is done indemocracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the
problem.Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes? These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten apples in all of them): 1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL. None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed accidentally or on purpose. 2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen. Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount, it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems, and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses. 3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot, who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs. Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least 4 digits. 4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.) If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import people from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election inspectors. 5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for disagreement might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole is almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates, and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7 picometers. 6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusable
anywhere in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status. Gordon L. Burditt

The best system I have seen is one I used several years ago. It worked well
and quickly and was purely mechanical. I was surprised when they changed it
because it did work so well.

This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates and
a slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket. All those party's
candidates were under it so you could split the ticket by pulling each
individual lever if you wanted. Any proposals had their levers as well. If
you screwed up by using conflicting levers the 2nd lever wouldn't go down so
you could see what you did wrong and correct it. If they needed help, the
precinct official could help them with a member of the opposing party of the
offical looking on. When done a large lever opened the curtain and
registered the vote on their individual counters.

When polls closed the official would open the machine and check the numbers,
again with a member of the opposing party or parties looking on and
verifying the count. The numbers were phoned in to the courthouse, the booth
was locked, leaving the counters intact. The entire machine was taken and
put with other machines under lock and key until the election was deemed
official. No paper trail needed and they kept voting even with a power
failure.

I assume the punched card ballot that other states adopted was mechanical as
well . Any problems from that system seemed to come from ballot design, a
dull stylus or a full box of chads that no one bothered to empty from
election to election. (probably all three)

Any electronic voting device will do basically the same thing as I
understand it unless it's an online system which would be subject to
hacking.

Any vote system should be relatively simple and any hanky panky fiddling
with the numbers would have to be some sort of elaborate plan that escapes
the procedure. But I see it as a local thing and not a vast conspiracy. If
the procedure is prone to cheating it should be obvious and changed. That's
human error on whoever wrote the procedure and further error because no one
questioned it.

>> These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten apples in all of them): 1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL. None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed accidentally or on purpose. 2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen. Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount, it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems, and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses. 3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot, who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs. Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least 4 digits. 4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.) If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import people from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election inspectors. 5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for disagreement might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole is almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates, and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7 picometers. 6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusableanywhere in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status. Gordon L. BurdittThe best system I have seen is one I used several years ago. It worked welland quickly and was purely mechanical. I was surprised when they changed itbecause it did work so well.This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates anda slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket. All those party'scandidates were under it so you could split the ticket by pulling eachindividual lever if you wanted.

It sounds like you are describing the old mechanical voting machines
I used 35 years ago in student council elections, and adults used
the same machines for real government elections. I always did wonder
about that: it seemed like they let students set up the machines,
the same machines later used for real elections.
Any proposals had their levers as well. Ifyou screwed up by using conflicting levers the 2nd lever wouldn't go down soyou could see what you did wrong and correct it. If they needed help, theprecinct official could help them with a member of the opposing party of theoffical looking on. When done a large lever opened the curtain andregistered the vote on their individual counters.

Problem: if someone changes the labels on the levers, there's no
way to detect this or figure out which ballots were meant for who later.
Especially if they get changed back before the election ends.

Problem: there's no good way to do a recount if you suspect the
numbers were not reset to zero before the election, say, because
in a town with 50,000 registered voters there are 500,000 votes cast.
When polls closed the official would open the machine and check the numbers,again with a member of the opposing party or parties looking on andverifying the count.

Problem: this leaves open issues of mismatched labels between the
levers and the counters, or reading the counters in an incorrect
order. Other systems, including the optical scan one I mentioned,
have the same issues. However, with the optical scan setup, you
CAN go back to the ballots and see what people really voted for.
The numbers were phoned in to the courthouse, the boothwas locked, leaving the counters intact. The entire machine was taken andput with other machines under lock and key until the election was deemedofficial. No paper trail needed and they kept voting even with a powerfailure.

If no paper trail is needed, then you can vote by a show of hands.
Otherwise, if it's worth voting (as opposed to flipping a coin),
it's worth conducting the voting properly. That, to me, means a paper
trail. I don't know how else to make reliable recounts possible.

The optical scan setup (which is not by any means perfect, but it
seems to have fewer faults than most of the alternatives) COULD be
used during a power failure, but you'd lose the checking it did for
overvoting (e.g. voting for Bush AND Gore). I suspect if it happened,
though, voters were told to wait. I never witnessed this problem.
It did not attempt to flag undervoting (not voting at all for a
particular race), as this is legal and apparently fairly common,
especially for single-candidate races. You could feed in the ballots
after the power comes back. Granted, this is not as good as the
all-mechanical setup (However, could you READ the labels on the
levers during a power failure? Seems to me those curtains made the
inside of a voting booth pretty dark, and you really needed lights
overhead to be able to see much.)
I assume the punched card ballot that other states adopted was mechanical aswell . Any problems from that system seemed to come from ballot design, adull stylus or a full box of chads that no one bothered to empty fromelection to election. (probably all three)

Punchcards seem to add the problem that the votes recorded may
change from handling the ballots (the hanging chad problem). You
may be right that the chads are mostly avoidable by emptying the
chad box and sharpening the stylus. The Texas punchcard system
(uses metal cards and a handgun to mark it :-) ) suffers from people
with poor aim, and voter and poll-watcher fatality rates.
Any electronic voting device will do basically the same thing as Iunderstand it unless it's an online system which would be subject tohacking.

"Online" doesn't HAVE to mean "on the Internet". But even then,
there is higher risk of insiders manipulating the vote remotely.
Any vote system should be relatively simple and any hanky panky fiddlingwith the numbers would have to be some sort of elaborate plan that escapesthe procedure.

Things like printing up two different sets of labels for the machines,
one with Bush on the left, one with Gore on the left, and distributing
them to appropriate precincts are something that one or a few people
could do without a vast conspiracy, and a recount might well not
catch it. So are simple things like voting multiple times with fake IDs.
But I see it as a local thing and not a vast conspiracy. If

It may well be lots of little conspiracies or little acts of
individuals, acting independently and without knowledge of
what any of the others are doing. That's why I think there is
plenty of vote fraud favoring each party. And except for the
very local races, the fraudsters likely cancel each other out
for the most part - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't design
voting to be as cheat-proof as possible.
the procedure is prone to cheating it should be obvious and changed. That'shuman error on whoever wrote the procedure and further error because no onequestioned it.

Gordon L. Burditt

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:00:07 -0500, "James" <jrapier@dcr.net>
This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates anda slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket.

The "straight ticket" lever should be wired directly to a wall socket.


--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message
news:hBxpd.67573$Le1.1361830@news20.bellglobal.com ... Genomega wrote: Duane Phinney ICQ#:246507783 Current ICQ status: SMS: (Send an SMS message to my ICQ): +2783142246507783 More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/246507783 _________________________________________ "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:SOapd.52613$Le1.1056854@news20.bellglobal.com ... James wrote:> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message> news:gVUod.36164$Le1.859874@news20.bellglobal.com. ..>> James wrote:>>> "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message>>> news:61v6q0taqpa0qqmge8518kcqu3u95jh796@4ax.com...>>>>>>>> UNUSUAL RESULTS:>>>> In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally>>>> them, some very strange results have surfaced. Here is just one>>>> example. In Baker County, Florida, there are 12,887 registered>>>> voters,>>>> 69.3% of them registered Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans.>>>> The vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush.>>>>>>>> Are we supposed to believe that five out of every seven>>>> registered Democrats>>>> voted for Bush??? This pattern repeats itself in many Florida>>>> counties. You can view all the raw data for every Florida county>>>> at the link at the bottom of this article.>>>>>>>>>> This one has already been explained. There are many dixiecrats>>> countys in Florida. Especially in the panhandle. They are>>> registered primarily democratic and always have been but more>>> often than not they always go republican. It;s just another>>> bull**** claim that's been explained many times because somebody>>> doesn't do their homework before writing yet another article on>>> how the election was stolen. Susan Sarandon is truly a mere>>> useful idiot in peddling doubt.>>>> No. James. There are actual questions posed by the lack of>> accountability and the fact that the exit polls do not match the>> offiical election results. A situation that the Ukraine is in and>> which has led them to question the accuracy of their voting system.>> The U.S. SHOULD have a higher standard of democracy than an>> ex-communist country but then election rigging is almost a>> 'tradition' for the U.S.>> Yes. There are dead people still votong I'm sure and other> shenanigans go on all the time from both sides. I will agree with> that>>>>> The fact is that there is a precedent here, that you will not like.>> I do not say that the vote was stolen. I only say that it cannot be>> proven to have been fair or rigged due to the republican resistance>> to fair and auditable voting. The NEXT vote MUST correct these>> deficiencies or even the hope of real Democracy in the U.S will>> die.>> There is no precedent. It's been going on for a long time. Usually> on a local basis. As far as a vast right wing conspiracy is> concerned, get real.>> As far as rigging a presdiential election, it could be bought from> the electors I would think. Democrats tried without success in> urging some electors to vote for Gore instead of Bush during the> last election.>>>>> The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count>> the votes decide everything.>> ....said old Joe the dictator. As adopted by the Republican party who gets to 'count' the votes behind closed doors and without any oversight. Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting. So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see... An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes?
I did not say democrats were the problem, was just pointing out that the
problems are always in districts where the democrats are in charge. They
count the votes not republicans.

Genomega wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:hBxpd.67573$Le1.1361830@news20.bellglobal.com ...
<snip> Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the counting. So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see... An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes? I did not say democrats were the problem,

Yes. You did.
was just pointing out that the problems are always in districts where the democrats are in charge.

False. The 'problem' was noted in all districts by the independent media. It
was most critical in 'swing states' which were, by definiition, made up of
both parties. Stop trying to lie. Or maybe you are saying where the crooks
are not in charge, the victims may be able to speak? In which case, the fact
that there is such a partisan split on the 'problems' may indicate who is
doing the 'cheating'. However, this is a 'partisan' viewpoint by definition
and I am trying not to play your game. The real issue is democracy and
specifically vote accountability.

http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html
They count the votes not republicans.

The vote has not been seriously questioned. Reason? Lack of evidence in a
voting system that allows for 'black box voting fraud'. Lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack, but it makes it hard to seriously challenge the
results.

If you believe in democracy ( and apparently you don't) the vote maybe
SHOULD be questioned as in the Ukraine. That is the point. And the lack of
auditability definitely needs to be corrected before the NEXT vote so that
elections are free, fair, and auditable by all parties.

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:<cdsqd.2692$kI6.184706@news20.bellglobal.com>... Genomega wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:hBxpd.67573$Le1.1361830@news20.bellglobal.com ... <snip>> Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are> in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the> counting. So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see... An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes? I did not say democrats were the problem, Yes. You did. was just pointing out that the problems are always in districts where the democrats are in charge. False. The 'problem' was noted in all districts by the independent media. It was most critical in 'swing states' which were, by definiition, made up of both parties. Stop trying to lie. Or maybe you are saying where the crooks are not in charge, the victims may be able to speak? In which case, the fact that there is such a partisan split on the 'problems' may indicate who is doing the 'cheating'. However, this is a 'partisan' viewpoint by definition and I am trying not to play your game. The real issue is democracy and specifically vote accountability. http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html They count the votes not republicans. The vote has not been seriously questioned. Reason? Lack of evidence in a voting system that allows for 'black box voting fraud'. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but it makes it hard to seriously challenge the results. If you believe in democracy ( and apparently you don't) the vote maybe SHOULD be questioned as in the Ukraine. That is the point. And the lack of auditability definitely needs to be corrected before the NEXT vote so that elections are free, fair, and auditable by all parties.

Only 5 of 7 dems voted for Bush, in Baker County, FL. Must have been
rigged. Everybody knows it should have been at least 6 out of 7 in
North Florida. Ilena clearly is unfamiliar with the politics of N.
Florida. Up here in N. FL. if you told someone you voted for Kerry,
they'd spit and mutter something like "Damned Yankee Lover" IF they
wanted to be polite.

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message
news:cdsqd.2692$kI6.184706@news20.bellglobal.com.. . Genomega wrote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message news:hBxpd.67573$Le1.1361830@news20.bellglobal.com ... <snip>> Well, the only problem you have here is the votes being counted are> in districts controlled 100% by democrats who are doing the> counting. So you consider 'Democrats' the problem? I see... An honest vote would have the ballots counted by representatives of all official parties independently and compared. That is how it is done in democracies. But you keep telling yourself that Democrats are the problem. Why have a second party anyway, eh? I gather that you will vote for Bushs 'permanent presidency' aka dictatorship when the time comes? I did not say democrats were the problem, Yes. You did. was just pointing out that the problems are always in districts where the democrats are in charge. False. The 'problem' was noted in all districts by the independent media.
It was most critical in 'swing states' which were, by definiition, made up of both parties. Stop trying to lie. Or maybe you are saying where the crooks are not in charge, the victims may be able to speak? In which case, the
fact that there is such a partisan split on the 'problems' may indicate who is doing the 'cheating'. However, this is a 'partisan' viewpoint by
definition and I am trying not to play your game. The real issue is democracy and specifically vote accountability. http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html They count the votes not republicans. The vote has not been seriously questioned. Reason? Lack of evidence in a voting system that allows for 'black box voting fraud'. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack, but it makes it hard to seriously challenge the results. If you believe in democracy ( and apparently you don't) the vote maybe SHOULD be questioned as in the Ukraine. That is the point. And the lack of auditability definitely needs to be corrected before the NEXT vote so that elections are free, fair, and auditable by all parties.
I do believe in democracy just find it kind of funny that the voter fraud
committed by democrats for years has been ignored and treated as a joke, the
dead voters in Illinois who vote year after year, snow birds from the north
that who vote in fl and their home states, rampant voter fraud in California
year after year, etc.
If the republicans call attention to the facts they are labeled racists by
the press.

So don't talk to me about 'fair' elections.

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.1xngw@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:co8e8v$e9e@library1.airnews.net... These rules ought to be enforced for any election, but the ball seems to have been dropped somewhere along the way (and no, I don't think the blame goes to any particular party: there are lots of rotten apples in all of them): 1. It shall be possible to do a recount: PAPER TRAIL. None of this electronic touch-screen crap where the checkbox for Gore dodges your finger while the checkbox for Bush is always under it, or the labels on the screen can be reversed accidentally or on purpose. 2. Ballots shall be designed so that they can be handled with little risk of altering the votes on them: NO CHADS I happen to like the optical-scanning system used in my area. You complete an arrow next to the candidate's name with a felt-tip pen. Votes can be counted fast, but if you need a full manual recount, it's possible. True, there might be issues of stray marks. I think most people can mark a ballot using a pen without problems, and most people are familiar with pens, whereas many people are not familiar with touch screens, scroll wheels, and mouses. 3. It shall be possible to determine from looking at the ballot (by either your average voter or poll watcher), and *ONLY* the ballot, who was voted for out of what candidates for what race on what election date. This means no punchcards with votes for candidates A, B, and C, where separate ballot instructions (made different in different precincts by election-riggers of all parties) identify the race and which of A, B, and C goes with which candidate. It also means no re-using Bush vs. Gore votes in the Bush III vs. Hillary Clinton election coming in the next decade. All ballots must contain the date of the election, including a year of at least 4 digits. 4. At no time shall ballots (marked or not) be left alone with people of only one party. (The only exception allowed is for each person to be left alone with their own ballot while marking it.) If necessary, in precincts which are solidly one-party, import
people from outside the precinct (or even state). Or call in UN election inspectors. 5. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let each party do their own count, and keep re-doing it until they either agree or can specifically point to the reason for disagreement. As an incentive for completing the count quickly, NO BATHROOM BREAKS. A specific reason for
disagreement might be that on the Texas punchcard ballot (made of metal and you mark it by firing a handgun) ballot #83641 the center of the hole
is almost exactly halfway between the boxes for the two candidates, and the law does not state which side of the ballot should be used for the measurement, and in this case which side matters by 3.7 picometers. 6. It shall be illegal to use in any voting system software where the IP status of the software has ever been used to block or delay inspection of the software by independent auditors commissioned by any jurisdiction using it. This doesn't require voting software to be open-source, but it does mean that if some Diebold low-level clerk tells the auditors from Hell Hole County, "No, you can't see the source code, it's proprietary" even once, it's now unusableanywhere in the USA, and there's no way for Diebold to fix that status. Gordon L. BurdittThe best system I have seen is one I used several years ago. It worked
welland quickly and was purely mechanical. I was surprised when they changed
itbecause it did work so well.This was a booth with small levers under the name of all the candidates
anda slightly larger lever for voting the straight ticket. All those party'scandidates were under it so you could split the ticket by pulling eachindividual lever if you wanted. It sounds like you are describing the old mechanical voting machines I used 35 years ago in student council elections, and adults used the same machines for real government elections. I always did wonder about that: it seemed like they let students set up the machines, the same machines later used for real elections.

These machines were never used except for an election.
Any proposals had their levers as well. Ifyou screwed up by using conflicting levers the 2nd lever wouldn't go down
soyou could see what you did wrong and correct it. If they needed help, theprecinct official could help them with a member of the opposing party of
theoffical looking on. When done a large lever opened the curtain andregistered the vote on their individual counters. Problem: if someone changes the labels on the levers, there's no way to detect this or figure out which ballots were meant for who later. Especially if they get changed back before the election ends.

This would be easily verifiable with a decent procedure that was followed.
Problem: there's no good way to do a recount if you suspect the numbers were not reset to zero before the election, say, because in a town with 50,000 registered voters there are 500,000 votes cast.

This too is correctable by a decent procedure. I would think each precinct
has a roll that is followed. How can more people vote than is on the rolls
except for a few exceptions of a clerical nature.
When polls closed the official would open the machine and check the
numbers,again with a member of the opposing party or parties looking on andverifying the count. Problem: this leaves open issues of mismatched labels between the levers and the counters, or reading the counters in an incorrect order. Other systems, including the optical scan one I mentioned, have the same issues. However, with the optical scan setup, you CAN go back to the ballots and see what people really voted for.

Again a good procedure is necessary but most places have never had problems
of a major nature so a new procedure wasn't considered even though they
recognized possibilities of minor cheating. That should be reviewed and
changed where necessary no matter which system is being used.
The numbers were phoned in to the courthouse, the boothwas locked, leaving the counters intact. The entire machine was taken andput with other machines under lock and key until the election was deemedofficial. No paper trail needed and they kept voting even with a powerfailure. If no paper trail is needed, then you can vote by a show of hands.

No you can't because it's a secret ballot.
Otherwise, if it's worth voting (as opposed to flipping a coin), it's worth conducting the voting properly. That, to me, means a paper trail. I don't know how else to make reliable recounts possible.

Not sure what kind of paper trail we're talking about there. If by that one
means that each individual vote can be verified as authentic, then the
secret ballot process is no longer secret and some people could be subject
to retribution of some kind.
The optical scan setup (which is not by any means perfect, but it seems to have fewer faults than most of the alternatives) COULD be used during a power failure, but you'd lose the checking it did for overvoting (e.g. voting for Bush AND Gore). I suspect if it happened, though, voters were told to wait. I never witnessed this problem. It did not attempt to flag undervoting (not voting at all for a particular race), as this is legal and apparently fairly common, especially for single-candidate races. You could feed in the ballots after the power comes back. Granted, this is not as good as the all-mechanical setup (However, could you READ the labels on the levers during a power failure? Seems to me those curtains made the inside of a voting booth pretty dark, and you really needed lights overhead to be able to see much.)

I don't know if there was a built in battery light but natural daylight
would probably be ok unless after dark. I seem to remember blue curtains.
I assume the punched card ballot that other states adopted was mechanical
aswell . Any problems from that system seemed to come from ballot design, adull stylus or a full box of chads that no one bothered to empty fromelection to election. (probably all three) Punchcards seem to add the problem that the votes recorded may change from handling the ballots (the hanging chad problem). You may be right that the chads are mostly avoidable by emptying the chad box and sharpening the stylus. The Texas punchcard system (uses metal cards and a handgun to mark it :-) ) suffers from people with poor aim, and voter and poll-watcher fatality rates.Any electronic voting device will do basically the same thing as Iunderstand it unless it's an online system which would be subject tohacking. "Online" doesn't HAVE to mean "on the Internet". But even then, there is higher risk of insiders manipulating the vote remotely.

True, but any networked system may be manipulated to some degree.
Any vote system should be relatively simple and any hanky panky fiddlingwith the numbers would have to be some sort of elaborate plan that
escapesthe procedure. Things like printing up two different sets of labels for the machines, one with Bush on the left, one with Gore on the left, and distributing them to appropriate precincts are something that one or a few people could do without a vast conspiracy, and a recount might well not catch it. So are simple things like voting multiple times with fake IDs.But I see it as a local thing and not a vast conspiracy. If It may well be lots of little conspiracies or little acts of individuals, acting independently and without knowledge of what any of the others are doing. That's why I think there is plenty of vote fraud favoring each party. And except for the very local races, the fraudsters likely cancel each other out for the most part - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't design voting to be as cheat-proof as possible.

Probably. Some local elections get damned rough for things like Sheriff and
such so I tend to think it's done mostly for those kinds of things since
these people are courthouse junkies who knows who does what and who might be
considered allies and enemies. Still, we are talking about idiot proof
procedures.
the procedure is prone to cheating it should be obvious and changed.
That'shuman error on whoever wrote the procedure and further error because no
onequestioned it.