Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election fi

[Makalakumu]

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.
A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County
Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.
A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.
In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.
In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.
In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.
In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.
Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.
In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.
In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.
In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

2006 can't come soon enough. If the Dems take one of the houses, perhaps they can force an investigation through.

 

[Makalakumu]

GAO Report

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:



The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:



2006 can't come soon enough. If the Dems take one of the houses, perhaps they can force an investigation through.

Nice try North. I like how you flow from "Problems with voting systems" that were listed in the GAO report to the idiotic, unfounded and quite frankly moronic accusations you got from "other crucial" sources. Please, this old propaganda line is getting old. Nowhere in the GAO report does it say that either political party engaged in a concerted effort to manipulate the election. Your "other sources" are the "tin-foil hat" websites that specialize in this kind of garabage. Listing the two as if they were one continuous piece is a bit dishonest in my opinion.

 

[Xequat]

http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1522938.html

Both sides probably cheated, just like in every election ever. It's just that Democrats are screaming about it louder to make it look like they did it less, and nobody's really doing anything about it. The problem isn't that one particular side cheated; it's that anyone was able to cheat at all. I can't believe that with today's technology, it's still possible to rig an election. I just hope that the cheaters from one side balance out the cheaters from the other side at the right proportion, which I'm sure is almost impossible.

 

[Makalakumu]

With the current system we have in place, all it takes is a few people to turn the tide in a national election. The GAO report does not place blame because that wasn't its purpose. It's purpose was to examine the plausability of the allegations given under oath before congress. The report confirms that the allegations were plausable and it will take a new investigation to discover the "whodunnit" in this case. That investigation won't happen until the republicans are thrown out of one of the houses though.

And Xequat, sure there was cheating on both sides. The problem is that during 2004, the allegations overwhelmingly show that one side cheated more then the other. There were so many allegations that it ended up before congress...which is what got this ball with the GAO rolling.

 

[mrhnau]

The problem is that during 2004, the allegations overwhelmingly show that one side cheated more then the other. There were so many allegations that it ended up before congress...which is what got this ball with the GAO rolling.

If you win an election and you think someone else cheated, how much noise do you make? If you lose an election and you think the winner cheated, how much noise do you make?

Making the most amount of noise does not validate the claim. its non-sequitar. Look at the data, and investigate if you must. I suggest exploring -both- sides explotation of the vote. I also suggest if you do this, lets look at past elections too.

the democrats have seemed to be the loudest whiners. The 2000 election and the Florida fiasco was just embarassing. 2004 was a bit less, thank God.... hope it remains so.

MrH

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1522938.html

Both sides probably cheated, just like in every election ever. It's just that Democrats are screaming about it louder to make it look like they did it less, and nobody's really doing anything about it. The problem isn't that one particular side cheated; it's that anyone was able to cheat at all. I can't believe that with today's technology, it's still possible to rig an election. I just hope that the cheaters from one side balance out the cheaters from the other side at the right proportion, which I'm sure is almost impossible.

It's easy to cheat when the equipment allows it. In these cases, we're looking at a lack of accountability, combined with a lack of checkability, and a lack of security. Systems could be hacked and the data manipulated. No going back and recounting. Combine that with software and hardware failures, as well as performance issues and you have a system that is easily compromised.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Blind to the eyes of the party's brainwashing.....

What was the great increase in amount of people voting attributed to when many people did not vote on election day because they didn't want either canidates.

It should be looked into.....maybe by a foriegner who is not aware of our party system...if it was found to be true would the Dems still be wining....

Most politics no matter what party it involves, is scamming cheating and prying their way into winning. I admit Dems could cheat...but if you can't admit that Reps do...then they are winning their brainwashing battle.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Machines aren't perfect.

Also all those people that claim they saw something wrong...are they all lying?

I'm not saying they cheated or they didn't cheat...just don't blind yourself to the politcal ways...

 

[Makalakumu]

We can talk about what might have occurred and might not have forever. What matters is what is allegations actually on the public record under oath and not what some synchphant reporter reports third and forth hand.

The GAO was investigating whether or not some of these allegations could have actually occured and they found that everything was in place for these reported events to happen. The system is easily hacked and manipulated and the allegations on record, under oath, indicate that it was hacked and manipulated...possibly changing the outcome of the election.

The next phase of this investigation is the "whodunnit" phase. Who are our suspects? Who has a motive?

 

[sgtmac_46]

So let me get this straight.....your argument is "It's theoretically possible to cheat the system (even though there's no credible evidence that anyone led a concerted effort to do so), THEREFORE, 'IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED' (because we didn't win)." I guess it's theoretically possible aliens from Flebnube have been manipulating our voting systems with their "vastly superior technology" too. Not one shred of evidence it happened, just a theory about how it "could have happened". That's your proof?

 

[Phoenix44]

sgtmac, there certainly is statistical evidence that something was peculiar, to say the least. For example, one county in Ohio has a registration that is 5:1 Democratic:Republican. But the vote was about 50:50. Statistically, Democrats would have had to vote 2:1 for Bush in order for that to have occurred. Now I can believe that a lot of Dems voted for Bush...but 2:1? Well, sure, it's possible...

But what about the county in Ohio that registered more votes for Bush than there were registered voters? Is that not...irregular?

And why were there long lines in districts with predominately minority voters, when surburban whites simply walked right in? Did they somehow underestimate the number of voters?

Bottom line? The voting process has to be more accurate, transparent, and verifiable. There has to be a PAPER ballot, for example, optical scanners with a paper ballot, so that there can be recounts. And anyone who is responsible for electoral procedure should not be part of any party's campaign organization. Otherwise, no one will have faith in the electoral system.

Winner or loser, can anyone really LEGITIMATELY claim that accuracy, transparency, and verifiability are NOT desirable? Because I have to believe that anyone who is against those priniciples is up to no good.

 

[Makalakumu]

And then there are people like Bev Harris who video taped election officials changing votes in Bush's favor...

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac, there certainly is statistical evidence that something was peculiar, to say the least. For example, one county in Ohio has a registration that is 5:1 Democratic:Republican. But the vote was about 50:50. Statistically, Democrats would have had to vote 2:1 for Bush in order for that to have occurred. Now I can believe that a lot of Dems voted for Bush...but 2:1? Well, sure, it's possible...

But what about the county in Ohio that registered more votes for Bush than there were registered voters? Is that not...irregular?

And why were there long lines in districts with predominately minority voters, when surburban whites simply walked right in? Did they somehow underestimate the number of voters?

Bottom line? The voting process has to be more accurate, transparent, and verifiable. There has to be a PAPER ballot, for example, optical scanners with a paper ballot, so that there can be recounts. And anyone who is responsible for electoral procedure should not be part of any party's campaign organization. Otherwise, no one will have faith in the electoral system.

Winner or loser, can anyone really LEGITIMATELY claim that accuracy, transparency, and verifiability are NOT desirable? Because I have to believe that anyone who is against those priniciples is up to no good.

Again, all of the above listed "facts" come from websites who have distorted, manipulated and outright made up those "facts". I always find it interesting whenever someone lists a series of alleged "facts", which are alleged to prove "something". Upon close examination, they are a sleight of hand trick, a mere smoke and mirrors trick. I have found that to be the case with those alleged "facts".

There are a few REAL cases of voter fraud, however, such as the attempt by some representatives of the NAACP to trade crack cocaine for voter registration. We know those happened, because people were arrested. We can also assume they were not representative of the official NAACP party line, or indicative of a vast conspiracy, but merely the work of a few criminals.

The above listed "facts" exist only in the fantasies of a few bloggers with too much free time and an overactive imagination.

http://ohiogop.blogs.com/state_of_the_union/2005/06/democrat_myths_.html
http://www.notblog.com/naginata/archives/002534.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682

 

[Makalakumu]

The above listed "facts" exist only in the fantasies of a few bloggers with too much free time and an overactive imagination.

You must be talking about the thousands of people who testified for the congressional report and the hundreds of experts that gave expert testimony under oath before the entire senate. Have you even bothered to look at the congressional report? GAO wouldn't have gotten involved if this was nothing but BS.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You must be talking about the thousands of people who testified for the congressional report and the hundreds of experts that gave expert testimony under oath before the entire senate. Have you even bothered to look at the congressional report? GAO wouldn't have gotten involved if this was nothing but BS.

First of all, the GAO didn't say what you allege they said...if they had, you wouldn't have tried to cut and paste the GAO findings with the rantings found on other websites so they looked as if they were part of the same report.

Secondly, those so-called "experts" were doing nothing but engaging in the same kind of political opportunism that you are engaging in now. "Statistics"? Hardly. I've been around enough self-proclaimed experts in courts to know that everyone isn't the expert they claim, and much of what comes out of their mouths is tailor made to fit an agenda. Sell it somewhere else.

 

[Ray]

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

"The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility"

We republicans work long hours, after work we voted. Not an impossibility.

 

[qizmoduis]

We republicans work long hours, after work we voted. Not an impossibility.

Oh please! That's just insulting. Typical, though.

 

[Makalakumu]

First of all, the GAO didn't say what you allege they said...if they had, you wouldn't have tried to cut and paste the GAO findings with the rantings found on other websites so they looked as if they were part of the same report.

It confirmed that the allegations were possible.

Secondly, those so-called "experts" were doing nothing but engaging in the same kind of political opportunism that you are engaging in now. "Statistics"? Hardly. I've been around enough self-proclaimed experts in courts to know that everyone isn't the expert they claim, and much of what comes out of their mouths is tailor made to fit an agenda. Sell it somewhere else.

So thousands of people purjured themselves in some grand scheme to cast down Bush? Now that is a conspiracy! Sounds like someone needs tin hat... :asian:

And I love this quote from President Bush, it applies here...

"I don't care about the numbers, I know the facts..."

The bottom line is that people made these allegations under oath before congress. We have to assume they are true unless we are given some concrete reason to believe that they are false and that they committed a crime...purjury. The GAO report confirms that it was entirely possible for the alleged incidents to have occured. We need to investigate further in order to ascertain if someone actually tampered with the election results. Statistically, this is the only viable explanation for the discrepincies and I believe that there is concrete evidence that shows that crimes were committed...Bev Harris' video tape and comments actions from certain individuals.

 

[Ray]

The original post has a link to the report. I think that if anyone is seriously worried then they should read the 107 pages. The "results in brief" portion mentions that "it is important to note that many of the reported concerns were drawn from specific system makes and models or from a specific jurisdiction's election, and that there is a lack of consensus among election officals and other experts on the pervasiveness of the concerns. Nevertheless, some of these concerns were reported to have caused local problems in federal elections - resulting in the loss of miscount of votes - and therefore merit attention."

Concerns? Yes. Alarm? No.