What makes you a troll, unlike Oak, is that you say thinks like the below that are just downright inflamatory.
I know I should not even engage, but go to factcheck.org and read about Acorn if you would like to educate yourself. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or call Obama's Acorn, and they'll help you vote dozens and dozens of > times! > > Remember the good old days when the left just yelled voter fraud even > when there was none (that's right out of the DNC hand book - I can > link it if you wish). > > Now they've graduated to performing illegal acts of voter fraud, and > the issue seems to be no big deal anymore. > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Michael W. Brim" <mwbnj@> wrote: > > > > If you feel your vote will not be counted, as outlined below. You > can make > > sure it is counted the way it should be! > > > > > > > > Take the 20 minute drive (+/-) and head over to the Monmouth County > Board of > > Elections, 300 Halls Mill Road, Freehold. > > > > > > > > You may have to stand in lines to vote by absentee ballot, but it > will be a > > paper vote vs. the "bad" machine! > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael W. Brim, Municipal Chairman > > > > Asbury Park Democratic Executive Committee > > > > 321 Sunset Avenue, Unit 5F > > > > Asbury Park NJ 07712-5550 > > > > Cell: 732-996-8160 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Gabrielle Obre > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:32 PM > > To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [AsburyPark] The Vote Grab: Voting Machines Are Unreliable and > > Inaccurate > > > > > > > > This is FREAKING me out. No intention to troll, just reach more > > people. This is ONE of MANY articles. Call in the international > > election monitors! > > > > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/29-0 > > > > Published on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 by The Independent/UK > > The Vote Grab: Voting Machines Are Unreliable and Inaccurate > > > > by Peter Tatchell > > > > As early voting in the US presidential elections gets underway, ES&S > > iVotronics touch-screen electronic voting machines have been observed > > in four separate states [1] flipping the votes - mostly from Barack > > Obama to John McCain but sometimes to third party candidates too. This > > has already occurred during early voting in the states of West > > Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. > > > > A county clerk in West Virginia invited a video crew to watch his > > demonstration of the reliability of the disputed voting machines but > > instead he saw the machine flipping the votes, as critics claimed. He > > put this down to the faulty calibration of the voting machine. > > However, even after he recalibrated the machine it continued to flip > > votes. Watch the video here: > > > > This is further evidence that the electronic voting machines that will > > be used in the 4 November election are not reliable and accurate - > > that they are prone to malfunction and may not record the actual vote > > winner. > > > > Democrats are not the only people who are worried. Stephen Spoonamore, > > a Republican security expert, explains why electronic voting is > > inherently unsafe in an eight part series of interviews. You can watch > > Part 1, and access Parts 2 to 7, here [2]. > > > > Writing in the New Statesman way back in 2004, reflecting on > > criticisms of the electronic voting systems used in the presidential > > election that year, Michael Meacher MP pointed out that statisticians, > > academics and political analysts had highlighted significant voting > > differences [3] between electoral districts that used paper ballots > > and those that used electronic systems. These cannot be explained by > > random variation. The investigators found a much larger variance than > > expected and in every case it favoured George W Bush over John Kerry. > > In Wisconsin and Ohio, the discrepancy favoured Bush by 4 per cent, in > > Pennsylvania by 5 per cent, in Florida and Minnesota by 7 per cent, in > > North Carolina by 9 per cent and in New Hampshire by a whopping 15 per > > cent. > > > > Research by the University of Berkeley, California, revealed election > > irregularities in 2004 in Florida. These irregularities, all of which > > were associated with electronic voting machines, appear to have > > awarded between 130,000 to 260,000 additional votes to Bush. > > > > The discrepancies between paper and electronic voting could be the > > result of simple technological glitches. But some experts detect > > something more sinister: outright vote fixing by interference with > > voting machine and tabulation software. > > > > Meacher [3] reported that Diebold company voting machines and optical > > scanners may not be tamper-proof from hacking, particularly via remote > > modems. Diebold machines were used in counting a substantial > > proportion of the 2004 votes and will be used again in next week's > > presidential poll. > > > > Two US computer security experts, in their book Black Box Voting [4], > > state that "by entering a two-digit code in a hidden location, a > > second set of votes is created; and this set of votes can be changed > > in a matter of seconds, so that it no longer matches the correct votes". > > > > This is entirely possible, according to Clinton Curtis, a Florida > > computer programmer. He has confirmed that in 2000 he designed an > > undetectable programme for Republican congressman Tom Feeney. It was > > created to rig elections by covertly switching votes from one > > candidate to another to ensure a predetermined ballot outcome. See a > > video of his sworn testimony here [5]. > > > > As Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of JFK, has exposed [6], the US is one > > of the few democracies that allow private, partisan companies to > > secretly count votes using their own proprietary software. > > > > Moreover, the vast majority of western democracies have independent > > Election Commissions to oversee voting methods and corroborate the > > results. The US does not. > > > > Most election ballots next week will be tallied or scanned by four > > private companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), > > Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic. > > > > According to Kennedy: > > > > Three of the four companies have close ties to the Republican > > Party. ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck > > Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. > > Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in > > which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former > > company. Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom > > Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, > > making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over. And according to > > campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their > > families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and > > party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the > > Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the > > company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral > > votes to Bush in 2004." > > > > Is it right and proper for partisan pro-Republican companies to count > > the votes? It is certainly not objective and impartial. > > > > Kennedy recounts how computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice > > universities conducted an analysis of the Diebold voting machine > > software source code in July 2003. "This voting system is far below > > even the most minimal security standards applicable in other > > contexts... (it is) unsuitable for use in a general election," the > > scientists concluded. > > > > "With electronic machines, you can commit wholesale fraud with a > > single alteration of software," Avi Rubin told Kennedy. He is a > > computer science professor at Johns Hopkins who received $US7.5 > > million from the National Science Foundation to study electronic > > voting. "There are a million little tricks when you build software > > that allow you to do whatever you want. If you know the precinct > > demographics, the machine can be programmed to recognize its precinct > > and strategically flip votes in elections that are several years in > > the future. No one will ever know it happened." > > > > Electronic voting machines not only break down frequently, their > > security and integrity is also easily compromised, says Kennedy: > > > > "In October 2005, the US Government Accountability Office issued a > > damning report on electronic voting machines. Citing widespread > > irregularities and malfunctions, the government's top watchdog agency > > concluded that a host of weaknesses with touch-screen and optical-scan > > technology 'could damage the integrity of ballots, votes and > > voting-system software by allowing unauthorized modifications'...Locks > > protecting computer hardware were easy to pick. Unsecured memory cards > > could enable individuals to 'vote multiple times, change vote totals > > and produce false election reports.' > > > > An even more comprehensive report released in June by the Brennan > > Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank at the New York > > University School of Law, echoed the GAO's findings. The report - > > conducted by a task force of computer scientists and security experts > > from the government, universities and the private sector - was > > peer-reviewed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. > > Electronic voting machines widely adopted since 2000, the report > > concluded, "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and > > local elections." While no instances of hacking have yet been > > documented, the report identified 120 security threats to three widely > > used machines - the easiest method of attack being to utilize corrupt > > software that shifts votes from one candidate to another. > > > > There is no evidence that the voting machine malfunctions, flaws and > > security risks identified in the 2004 ballot have been fully corrected > > in time for the 2008 vote. This calls into question whether the 4 > > November ballot will reflect the will of the American people. As > > Kennedy concludes: > > > > "You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to fear for the > > integrity of our electoral system: The right to vote is simply too > > important - and too hard won - to be surrendered without a fight. It > > is time for Americans to reclaim our democracy from private interests." > > > > To contact Peter Tatchell and for more information about his human > > rights campaigns visit www.petertatchell.net [7] > > C 2008 The Independent > > > > Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org > > URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/29-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
