CRIPES..GA is only state with electronic machines and NO paper trail

[jodymarie aimee]

easily flipped...most likely in 2016 elections....we may not "win" folks..Rs may "win" tonite.

[Lee-Lee]

1. Tell me how it is "easily" done

Don't use generalities or vague statements like "it's easy".

Describe how in the specific models of machine the flipping is done.

People keep tossing out the vague statements like that with no real idea of how it is done. And that just makes us look bad.

[Shell_Seas]

3. Russia.

[mythology]

5. Facepalm

That isn't even remotely a specific answer. It's another useless generalization.

[Lee-Lee]

10. Well that was certainly an intelligent and specific answer

[Shell_Seas]

16. Yep.

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Most of the vote flipping is done after the person votes on the machine.

Tabulating, totaling, gathering vote totals from here and there and presenting them as the official number.

All kinds of ways to cheat IF that is your goal and you are in a position to do so.

What I laugh about is the silly Americans who think that even with the absolute certainty that the KGB and Soviets and Russians have planted hundreds, probably thousands of agents here over the past 60 years but that some of them arent in positions of influence including elections?

LOL

That after waiting all these years and now they have THEIR guy running for fucking PRESIDENT, a man they OWN, that they didnt use all on the ground assets to make SURE they won this election? Too far fetched, right!

sigh

[Lee-Lee]

12. That's more vague generalizations

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. Then you add cross check, massive voter suppression, Russian meddling.

Yeah, GOP has not "won" the WH since Bush, sr.

[orangecrush]

28. Truth

[hadEnuf]

8. Why is "technical proof" demanded from people who post about vote tampering?

There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that it has happened before, and there is currently a special council investigating events that may include vote shenanigans.

It's pretty clear that there may be something to it all.

[Lee-Lee]

14. Because when you make the claim and have nothing to back it up

Your complaints ring hollow and just sound like sour grapes.

Proof wins debate. Facts win debate. I want them if I'm going to jump in on claiming it was rigged.

[Stargazer99]

22. I remember years ago on TV it was shown how votes could be tampered with

considering how many corps have had their data hacked it is no surprise vote stealing has been going on
Many major companies and hospitals, visa accounts have been hacked into-and anyone with half a brain and figure out the rest

[Lee-Lee]

25. "Anyone with half a brain can figure out the rest" but you haven't?

Because you didn't give any valid ways.

Everything else you mentioned involves machines connected to the internet. Voting machines don't.

Comparing the ease of manipulation of a standalone machine incapable of connections to the internet and servers connected 24/7 is a totally invalid argument.

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. Agenda of those demanding proof on a message board, is clear.

[jodymarie aimee]

29. what he said

this guy is genius....open eyes, please.

[Lee-Lee]

32. Is it?

My belief is that by screaming "hacking" every time we lose without proof we harm our cause.

It makes us look bad. When you make those claims and then can't back up with any proof when asked you lose credibility.

Worse, it stops us from ever taking a hard look at what we did and what we need to do better and what we got wrong. If you just write off every loss to "we got hacked" and don't change your methods or strategy then if/when it wasn't hacking but you needed to run a better race you never learn those lessons and you stay in a cycle of making mistakes, blame hacking for the loss, make mistakes, blame hacking for the loss.

I'm all for yelling it loud and hard when we have actual facts to back it. But I'm also for realistic looks at it to get there and not using it as the perpetual excuse for every loss to avoid harder looks at our real failures.

[Bonx]

36. No true Scotsman would demand proof...

[lostnfound]

52. Absolutely correct! You nailed them. Nt

[diva77]

9. How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes

here's an article for starters:

How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144

Long article, includes video showing machine flipping votes -- but usually you can't see it happening in front of you

Here is another excellent article by a long time reporter on voting machines:

Will the Georgia Special Election Get Hacked?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-georgia-special-election-get-hacked-215255
The state’s voting systems are uniquely vulnerable, security researchers say—and the state has ignored efforts to fix the problem.
By Kim Zetter
June 14, 2017

[Lee-Lee]

18. So for that "hack" to be feasible

Russian agents have to be breaking in to elections offices all over, removing machines from storage, opening them up, replacing parts, putting them back and trying away with nobody detecting the break in.

The the firmware they hacked has to know exactly what votes to flip on the ballot.

The firmware has to somehow go totally undetected when the elections people test the machines and do dry runs.

And it has to somehow be totally undetectable after during audits.

Articles like that make nice headlines and click bait. But when you look at if what it proposes could actually be pulled off in the real world they fail.

And that article doesn't even cover the machines used in this race anyway.

[diva77]

20. It takes a few weeks of reading up on election integrity, voting machines

hearings when people spoke up about the vulnerabilities, showing up at election headquarters, being acquainted with vendors,etc. to have a depth of understanding of this topic. Perhaps the link I provided wasn't specific enough for you, but the fact remains that our elections are NOT transparent with computerized voting machines and the burden of proof that these machines do what they lead the public to believe they do has NEVER been met. Just think of the volkswagon smog test scandal as an analogy.

I am done responding to you on this issue. Good luck to you.

[Lee-Lee]

23. I've been reading on it for a lot more than a few weeks

But I approach it from a standpoint of a sceptic instead of that of of someone who wants what they believe confirmed.

I've actually talked to people at my local board of elections about how it's all done as part of volunteering to be a poll watcher, looking for ways they could compromise things.

99% of what is out there about this is vague generalities, examples like that if someone doing something in a lab that isn't doable to scale in the field without detection (but makes for a convincing article for those who are not looking at it from a skeptical point of view)

I approach this by applying the same standard I do when talking to dumbasses on the right about "voter fraud"- bring me actual proof or it just sounds like sour grapes. And if I'm going to enter the debate claiming it I want to go in with solid facts on my side.

[FakeNoose]

21. Lee this is where it was first reported

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512639395

December 2016 anomalies in Wisconsin requiring a hand recount. Since then they've proven that certain voting machines were hacked and it happened in areas where nobody was looking. Like in rural counties where the blue/red voting was close enough, they've unaccountably shifted red. It happened in enough counties to make the entire state go red. (It's been proven now.)

The voting machines are programmed to favor GOP votes or flip votes in very small percentages. They machines were installed in most states and there are no longer paper ballots to check against. The flipping happened in states where it made a difference and threw the election to Trump - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and possibly Florida. In other states there were also hacks but the states weren't close enough to make a difference.

Now it's no longer conjecture, it's a certainty because Putin admits he did do this.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029149343

There are other posts on DU where it's explained more fully how the voting machines have been programmed to flip votes. It's all based on theory and statistics because nobody has actually come out and admitted that the hacked the machines, so it's based on probabilities.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028916280

This information is available on Democratic Underground, just use the Google search and find it for yourself.

[Lee-Lee]

27. None of that is close to proving anything

At best some Stien backers found broken seals.

That's troubling, but far from a smoking gun. And given the behavior of Stein and her followers using the recount to raise money I can't put much faith in them.

Another of your links is a cut and paste from the Palmer Report. That doesn't give any credibility.

[FakeNoose]

31. Putin says he did it

and it was one of the links I gave you.

But if you're a troll I won't waste my time giving you honest answers.

Bye!

[Ellipsis]

33. "0808"...

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/65866:diebold-added-secret-patch-to-georgia-evoting-systems-in-2002

Diebold Added Secret Patch to Georgia E-Voting Systems in 2002



Who's us Kimosabi?

[Lee-Lee]

37. Ok- how did machines supposedly hacked pass audits and tests

We have a patch done.

That is a way to get bad firmware in.

If it's in then that can be a problem. But if it's changing votes it would be detectable during testing before elections and after.

How did they manage that.

How did every county board of elections allow a bad patch and not detect machines that were not tabulating correctly?

You have a small kernel of fact- a patch- with a bunch of conjecture and supposition woven in around it.

It's been 15 years since that- nobody has come up with anything more or shown what was in that patch? Why not?

[Ellipsis]

38. You ask lots of questions perhaps you should try finding the answers instead of asking someone else?

It reboots, reinstalls and reboots.

[Lee-Lee]

41. I have looked. Hard.

Your reboot theory makes no sense. You realize those machines get turned on and off a bunch before Election Day, right?

[Ellipsis]

68. apparently not hard enough...

[TheFrenchRazor]

50. the "audit" process is very incomplete; any hacker worth their salt could could find ways around it;

the bottom line is this: there is absolutely no "audit" of the real, actual vote totals without a complete, state-wide hand recount, so why not just do it that way in the first place? you've made it clear that you are willing to place blind faith in computers; please don't ask anybody else to do the same.

[TheFrenchRazor]

61. seriously, if you're asking that, you are not qualified to say "it can't be done." nt

[orangecrush]

34. You may enjoy this

https://www.good.is/features/georgia-election-hack-richard-demillo

[Lee-Lee]

42. I saw it- rumors are what it centers on

Like the rest it provides no viable ways it could actually happen.

[Maine-i-acs]

39. Google "Clint Curtis Testimony"

Vote flipping code has been created.

Ohio 2004: All voting was tabulated in a single server owned by the same server farm leased by Karl Rove. Machine totals can read 100% true if the tabulators are where the flip happens.

The point of hacking machines and tabulators is allowing this level of deniability shown in this thread.

[Lee-Lee]

40. If a tabulating server was changing totals it would be very obvious

Counties read each machine and keep tabs of each machine, add those by precinct, add those for the county and send all that off to the state.

If the servers at the state were changing totals it would be super obvious. The totals wouldn't match when you compared the county totals to what the state reported.

And both parties have a lot of very smart people crunching those numbers. Do you honestly think if the county totals didn't match totals reported by the state, or precinct totals didn't match county reports that nobody from the DNC would notice. Really?

At every step people from both parties are watching and cross checking. The idea that they could change totals in a tabulating server and nobody would notice the numbers didn't match the state numbers is ludicrous unless you think the DNC at county, state and national levels is totally incompetent.

If your going to claim that absence of proof is proof then I guess it's like arguing with someone who thinks god shifted the election for Trump out of divine will, nothing will change your mind.

[Maine-i-acs]

76. late reply cause I don't monitor.

Machine vendors donate heavily to Republicans.
Republicans favor electronic voting.
Karl Rove brags that "we're the ones that count the votes".
Major machine vendor/donor promises to "deliver Ohio to the republicans".
Ken Blackwell is a complete tool.
Votes taken away in the dead of night in cars driven by one person.
Audits rigged to cover only a portion of the machines and they will always check out because the tabulators are the ones flipping votes..
Election boards stacked.
Any code can erase its tracks.
Clint Curtis was HIRED to WRITE CODE that would FLIP VOTES and he DID it.

But by all means, please keep calling the whole electronic vote system 100% clean!

This is why they want state legislatures and governorships, as a means to control the vote process.

[MFM008]

43. Ask Ken Blackwell

Ohio- 2004.
They locked away the machines before they "allowed"
The votes to be counted.
The election hung on those votes.

[TheFrenchRazor]

48. tell me how the vote count is easily verified to be accurate? oh yeah, it's impossible. YOU may be

willing to be a faith-based voter, but some of the rest of us are not. we want transparent, verifiable vote counts from the very beginning.

[Blue_true]

56. That drives me nuts. Any excuse to cover that our voters often don't

feel the urgency to turn out to vote in all elections like the right does. My motto is if you don't vote, stfu when stuff hits the fan after the election.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Handel was Scty of State there, wasnt she? She created the most god awful voter

suppression in the country at the time, didnt she?

This is getting ridiculous, when are liberals going to accept that the republican party does not believe in democracy or voting.

I mean for crap sake, look at stolen election after stolen election.

[jodymarie aimee]

4. thank you ER

Rs gerrymander, rig machines, lie cheat and steal both legally and illegally. Perfected it here in WI. DEMs got the rose colored glasses on.....we are always late to the party, eh? We lost 1000+ seats for being the upright earnest ones....

[Chasstev365]

6. Oh, but when some of us repeatedly bring this up on DU, some say

Where is your proof? You don't don't know that! This is hysteria...

I don't KNOW that Donald Trump is a sexual harrasser & I don't KNOW that OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, but common sense tells me I am right!

[Orrex]

11. You can take comfort in the fact that a paper trail is 100% meaningless

In a secret ballot election, a paper trail is no barrier to fraud. Worse, it creates a false faith in the process that simply isn't justified.

[diva77]

17. Amen to this!

We have to be able to mark a paper ballot in private (not on corporate machinery) and have it tabulated in public (not by corporate proprietary software, and not by open source software or hardware of any kind -- all are hackable)

[Stargazer99]

26. Listen to this post - makes all the sense in the world!

[FakeNoose]

24. They can't hack the machines and the paper ballots simultaneously

My point is that if the paper ballots and the machines don't match, then something is wrong.
However if there is no paper ballot then how do you verify the machine numbers?

The machines were installed by ultra-rightwing companies in almost every state. What does that tell you?

[Orrex]

35. Still meaningless

Let's say that you have a contested district with a turnout of 5,000 voters.

The electronic tally shows 2,550 Republican, 2,450 Democrat.

They roll out the internally-maintained paper record and, lo and behold! It shows 2,550 Republican votes!

Short of legally forcing all 5,000 voters to produce the paper receipts that they almost certainly discarded immediately after voting, how might we verify that those 2,550 Republican votes are illegitimate? Imagine the logistical nightmares involved in pulling off that recount, and then multiply those nightmares by 20,000.


It is impossible to guarantee the integrity of a secret ballot election.

[dawg]

45. The machine could give the voter a receipt the voter could review ...

and place in a lock box on the way out of the polling place.

[Orrex]

65. That's making people vote twice

Doubling the chance for fuckery along the way.

[dawg]

73. No it's not. It's the creation of a paper trail.

That's why the ATM gives you a receipt. In the event of a dispute, there is physical proof that the transaction occurred.

[Lee-Lee]

74. The machines we use in NC print a copy in front of your eye under glass

They not only print a complete summary after you cast your ballot, but literally document every touch of the machine. If you make a choice then change it shows it, if you flip back and forth it documents that.

All printed and scrolling right alongside the screen so you can see it.

It rolls back up and stays locked in the machine, and the printed rolls are subject to strict chain of custody.

Then after the election the state board of elections directs every county to do a 100% of certain races or precincts, selected at random after the election, to make sure paper matches electronic totals. And any really close races can be 100% counted on paper if needed.

The simultaneous paper trail with a robust auditing makes for a system that gets rapid results with safeguards to ensure counts are accurate.

[dawg]

75. Exactly!

When I vote in Georgia, I have no way of ever knowing how my vote *actually* registered in the system. And there is no way of verifying the totals in the event of a dispute.

We wait in line and cast our ballots. And then the Republican Secretary of State tells us who won.

[Lee-Lee]

49. You have two-person control of all ballots until results are certified

When you transport them, two people observe.

When they are locked up in secure storage they are locked so that it takes two people to open and have access.

Nobody is left alone with them. Two observers.

And the two people are designated observers from each party.

Constant chain of custody from the time a ballot is cast to when the vote is certified with an observer from each party having eyes on them. When locked away locked securely in a vault that can't be opened without the observers present.

It's the exact same procedures that should be used for handling machines and the memory cards from them.

[Orrex]

66. That leaves 3rd parties out of it

Also, that would require two observers per booth.

How are these observers certified?

[Lee-Lee]

70. You don't need 2 per booth

2 observers Lee polling place can see all the booths at once and have eyes on everything.

You can make it 3 and add registered independents if you want. But since the parties on a county basis should be appointing and certifying the observers show would independents be done?

[FakeNoose]

69. Yes - this could absolutely work

With the voting machines we don't have chain of custody.

I think each state uses its own procedure for counting and reporting votes. (Not sure)
This is not my field of expertise though. Other posters here on DU know a lot more than I do about it.

[Lee-Lee]

71. Actually most states have that chain of custody with electronic machines

The poll watchers will be there in the morning making sure that the machines are zeroed and the memory cards are blank and watching the election workers start them up. Then they should be escorting the memory cards from the machines along with any other results back to the county elections offices.

I am not aware of any place that lets the memory cards get handled by one person. That would be a serious weak link and place where problems could happens.

[TheFrenchRazor]

62. how exactly are you going to obtain a state-wide hand recount to prove the paper doesn't match?

you have to have already had the recount to prove there is a problem, thus justifying a recount; it's a catch-22.

[Hoyt]

47. Exactly. I grew up in an era where missing ballot boxes, uncounted ballots, etc., were common.

I do think we need to be vigilant, but if we were to believe those who believe elections are easy to steal, and the thieves all keep quite, then how did Obama win, John Lewis and every Democrat.

I do believe gerrymandering and the like occurs, but even that could be mitigated by getting everyone out to vote. It's not going away as long as GOPers win state elections.

[TheFrenchRazor]

54. well, if paper and boxes can be tampered with, it would be that much easier to hack computers; the

process is for the most part invisible to average people, poll workers included. that is a problem in and of itself, whether actual fraud takes place or not.

[Hoyt]

57. I disagree. Plus, it would take a bunch of people to hack enough locations. A bunch of folks never

remain quiet.

I think we need to accept that we have been losing elections for reasons not explainable by sounding like an athlete -- "I was robbed."

[TheFrenchRazor]

59. the voting machine companies load software into those machines periodically; a hack in the original

code could be unknowingly loaded onto multiple machines. i think that you are misinformed about the need for an army of people to literally break into every individual machine.

[Hoyt]

63. Would love to see how they predict what a ballot will look like, new internal safeguards, etc.,

that are bound to occur in checking out system. You do realize both parties have observers. I'm confident it is not just Democrats who are too stupid to stop elections from being stolen.

Heck, when I grew up, it was mostly Democrats who were stealing ballots or intentionally miscounting them -- they even did it wearing white sheets. Thankfully, that bunch left the party.

I'm sorry, I just don't accept the excuse "we wus robbed" every time we lose, and the Gods were with us when we win.

[TheFrenchRazor]

53. i've said this many times as well; we need all paper ballots, hand-counted, the first time. nt

[CottonBear]

19. GA was 1st to go all paperless Diebold in 2002 under Dem. SoS Cathy Cox.

It's been all GOP ever since.

[Moral Compass]

30. There are plenty of states in the same boat

I really haven't gone out and done any research on which states have electronic voting machines and no paper trail but I can tell you one thing… Georgia is not the only state. I vote on electronic voting machines with no paper trail every time I vote in North Texas. I live in Plano Texas. That has been the situation since at least the year 2000 and probably before then. I worked early voting in Collin county in 2001. We had (and still have) electronic voting machines and there was no paper trail that any voter could get to.

I'm sure you could have printed out things from the backend. But there was no vote receipt that anybody ever received.

Like so many things in United States you can't find a close analog in any other country.

The idea of having private, for-profit companies who keep their source code secret and won't even share it with the governing bodies that govern voting is by every standard… Simply insane.

We've had more than a couple elections where the result didn't seem to match the polling.

We know for a fact at this point that the Bush and Gore election was fraudulent. You had an unholy combination of voting machines that yielded questionable results, a ferociously partisan Secretary of State, a deliberately confusing ballot, hanging chads that confused antiquated optical scanners...

And then you had the Supreme Court essentially rule by made up legal reasoning that Bush is going to be the president.

Later on we saw two elections in Wisconsin (election and recall election) of Scott Walker that look pretty damn fishy. In each case, something happened in Waukesha County and in each case Scott Walker miraculously won.

In Ohio. due to the starkly partisan machinations of Ken Blackwell, Bush won over Kerry and we got 4 more years of Dubya. In Ohio, two tried and true methods were used--mass elimination of registered voters from the rolls AND simply not having enough polling locations or working voting machines in minority heavy urban areas.

The Republicans like it this way and will resist all attempts to change it.

Occasionally, the sheer insanity of having private companies that declare their machines and the software proprietary intellectual property overwhelms me.

The raw, unvarnished truth is that our elections and their outcomes have been suspect for decades. If we have another squeaker with Handel narrowly edging out Ossof there won't be any good way to validate the results.

It has lately become conventional wisdom that exit polls are no longer reliable so I'm not sure anyone bothers now. I've never seen any compelling reasining for why exit polls are no longer valid but our media (and most of the citizenry) have accepted this so the point is no longer argued.

[Goodheart]

44. It's really discouraging how posters here are asking "how it's easily done"

I'll answer that one in a moment, but SERIOUSLY... the onus should be on ELECTION OFFICIALS to prove that the machines are accurate, not upon concerned citizens to prove that they're not.

And now I'll tell you how a cheat could be easily done: THROUGH THE SOFTWARE, ITSELF.

The electronic machine software is proprietary, laymen are not allowed to see it, and that means that there might be code that switches votes from column A to column B.... even though the total votes are reported as correct.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW if when you punched the screen for Ossoff your vote was actually counted inside the machine for Ossoff instead of Handel? You have no way of knowing, actually.

Stop calling me a conspiracy theorist because we need paper ballots.... not paper receipts, paper BALLOTS.

[Lee-Lee]

46. How is the software getting in and remaining undetected?

Just because you feel it could be isn't an answer.

The elections people who maintain these things do tests and audits where they simulate an Election Day and make sure the machines are recording accurate totals.

So for your theory of software to be correct it would require the people who make the machines to knowingly make them with fraudulent software and nobody in the companies to speak up, and them to ship that bad software out and it never gets detected in all the tests run on the machines?

That's a helluva undertaking to pull off. Do you think every programmer atbthese companies is on board, and all elections officials that certify these machines are incompetent?

Or else an outside party is uploading the software. Since these machines don't connect to the internet that would require thousands of county elections offices to be physically broken in to, machines removed from storage, updated one by one, out back and this is not detected at any places it happens. And then it doesn't get found in audits and tests either.

Do you actually think either of those scenarios is realistic?

[TheFrenchRazor]

60. see my post #59; plus a skilled hacker could easily allow one program to run during audits and anoth

another on election day. saying something "can't be done" is like waiving a red flag in front of professional hackers; i guarantee you, at least one of them will find a way to do it.

[rgbecker]

64. I can imagine a process that would work around your safeguards.

To start, each machine has to be programed for the particular election. That is, the ballot has to be set into the machine before a screen would even show the voter his options. At that time, a simple switch could be included that moves one vote out every 10 to the desired winner in the final counting cell. The tests could be countered by not starting the movement until a certain time or until after a certain number of votes are cast or even not until the final count is reported by the machine at the end of the day. How would anyone know? All these machines, I'm sure, have clocks in them, and the shifting could easily be done only on election night.

Without a paper print out, checked by the voter as matching his vote and left with a secure bipartisan ballot box to be audited by an election auditor after the election, there is no way the vote could be validated by anyone. It is a huge Joke on the American people. That the establishment has convinced the MSM and the public that the exit polls are inaccurate and to believe the machines instead is the final coup.

[rgbecker]

72. 1 in 10 votes switched is all it took.

[TheFrenchRazor]

58. yes, many here don't think there is any need for vote counting methods to be proven secure, before

before they are even allowed to be used. they seem to think that it is up to the citizens to prove that fraud has occurred, after the fact, when we are not even allowed to examine the evidence. that seems a little backwards, IMO.

[GoCubsGo]

51. No, it isn't.

South Carolina machines have no paper trail, either. I suspect there are many other states where this is the case, as well.

[FarPoint]

55. It's a set up for more voting crimes by GOP..

No paper trail is just one clue...

[NCTraveler]

67. I thought Pennsylvania was without a paper trail. Nt