ydoaPs Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 If Obama's family bought the voting machines in swing states, there wouldn't be enough court times in the next 10 years for all of the lawsuits and it would be all that is on FOX all the time. Tagg Romney is buying up polling machine companies that service swing states. Because THAT's the integrity of the Romney campaign. 2
rigney Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) Spot on! Protection of voting rights should be safeguarded, absolute and fool proof. Here are a few links to start with. Electronic voting machines http://www.politicolnews.com/tagg-romney-invested-in-ohio-electronic-voting-machines/#ixzz29lT2TX55 Ohio’s use of electronic voting machines http://www.peoplesdefender.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=83&ArticleID=122331 States that use electronic voting machines http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_by_State_Voting_Equipment Edited October 21, 2012 by rigney 4
Phi for All Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 I haven't completely read this article about it for accuracy, but Forbes was the name I trusted most in a search. And thanks for those other links, rigney, +1.
iNow Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disheartened about the state of the political process in the US... 1
rigney Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disheartened about the state of the political process in the US... Yes, it’s a little scary that we have to worry about such skullduggery, but people of ill intent can do a lot of mischief if allowed to go unfettered. I’m sure many safeguards have been built into these voting machines since they come out some years back, but caution is never wasted when seeking honesty and truth. Maybe I’m gullible but somehow I can’t imagine Mitt wanting to have a single dirty vote to be counted in his behalf. As an entrepreneur, I hope Tagg makes a bundle by buying into this company. Wish I had a few bucks to do likewise. Because? Eventually we will all be using these machines.
ydoaPs Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 Maybe I’m gullible but somehow I can’t imagine Mitt wanting to have a single dirty vote to be counted in his behalf. I'm going to call BS on you here, Mr "You didn't build that". If Obama knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy whose third cousin's friends boss was thinking about buying the machines, more than likely you'd be on here screaming fowl play. Think about it this way. It's illegal to purchase lottery tickets from a place where a person you know or to whom you are related is employed. And the lottery numbers are completely out of control of the employees. Right before the election, the son of one of the candidates starts buying up companies providing the machines for swing states, and you want us to give him the benefit of the doubt? Especially after Romney/Ryan keep setting the records for most lies in the shortest amount of time? Why on God's green Earth should we just give them the benefit of the doubt? 3
rigney Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) I'm going to call BS on you here, Mr "You didn't build that". If Obama knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy whose third cousin's friends boss was thinking about buying the machines, more than likely you'd be on here screaming fowl play. Think about it this way. It's illegal to purchase lottery tickets from a place where a person you know or to whom you are related is employed. And the lottery numbers are completely out of control of the employees. Right before the election, the son of one of the candidates starts buying up companies providing the machines for swing states, and you want us to give him the benefit of the doubt? Especially after Romney/Ryan keep setting the records for most lies in the shortest amount of time? Why on God's green Earth should we just give them the benefit of the doubt? If you are explaining this video, you're right. Edited October 22, 2012 by rigney
ecoli Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 If Obama's family bought the voting machines in swing states, there wouldn't be enough court times in the next 10 years for all of the lawsuits and it would be all that is on FOX all the time. Tagg Romney is buying up polling machine companies that service swing states. Because THAT's the integrity of the Romney campaign. I'm confused to how owning a company that makes polling machines equate with corruption with the voting process. It's odd certainly but not definitive.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 I'm confused to how owning a company that makes polling machines equate with corruption with the voting process. It's odd certainly but not definitive. Hart Intercivic makes VOTING MACHINES: http://www.hartinter...c.com/pages/154 Managing elections is a big job. Public attention has become focused on elections more than ever. Citizens want to be assured that the election process cannot be compromised and their vote is counted accurately. Consequently, election officials face the spotlight while working to train staff and poll workers, respond to changes in election law, and ensure the integrity and security of elections. Every election presents unique challenges, so what can you do to keep up? Hart has the election management software, voting systems, and support you need to ensure success. Our proven best practices and knowledge of election procedures are reflected in everything we do from programming ballots to recording and tallying votes to training election workers and staff. 2
ecoli Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Hart Intercivic makes VOTING MACHINES: http://www.hartinter...c.com/pages/154 oops typo. I meant Voting. Again,where is the evidence of foul play?
iNow Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 oops typo. I meant Voting. Again,where is the evidence of foul play? I suppose we must wait until AFTER the election to find it, but to what recourse should shenanigans be found? 1
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 oops typo. I meant Voting. Again,where is the evidence of foul play? You've got to be kidding me! This is one of the cornerstones of democracy. At some point the process should seen as above reproach. Election irregularities erode the confidence of the voters, and cause fewer people to be interested in taking part in the process as a whole. If you suspect the vote is being rigged, why bother? 1
iNow Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Screams about Bill Ayers and Acorn and "Chicago style politics," but silence on this? The right epitomizes double standards and hypocrisy... They may not have a monopoly on it, but they've certainly cornered the market. h/t John C for the clever turn of phrase 1
swansont Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 oops typo. I meant Voting. Again,where is the evidence of foul play? Some of the objections to these machines is that there will be no evidence if the machines have been rigged. At the very least the issue is the appearance of impropriety and the appearance of integrity of the process. 2
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Some of the objections to these machines is that there will be no evidence if the machines have been rigged. At the very least the issue is the appearance of impropriety and the appearance of integrity of the process. I remember the irregularities from the 2000 and 2004 elections, and how we were looking for machines that were above reproach. The best one I saw took the electronically generated ballot, printed it and held the copy behind a clear security screen for the voter to verify as accurate, then dropped it directly into a secure box. The cost was right, the paper trail gave us something to check against the electronic record, it seemed ideal. And they decided to go with Diebold, a machine they proved could be hacked through vulnerabilities in the Microsoft OS everyone knew was at risk. 1
ecoli Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 maybe the Romneys are just trying to make a buck off the political process (state government will be spending a lot of money on these machines). That would be bad enough even without allegations of trying to control the political process. I agree that it appears improper and its a poor move if the Romney's campaign has anything to do with it, but I don't just see the hysteria that's been over the internet.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Could it be a ploy to make potential Obama voters feel helpless against a rigged system and think that their votes will be useless? Interesting article here. Edited October 22, 2012 by Phi for All added link
iNow Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Maybe the United Nations can help. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-elections-will-have-un-monitors-2012-10 The United Nations-affiliated Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will deploy election monitors around the United States on Election Day in an effort to monitor conservative groups for voter suppression or intimidation at polling places. Led by Ambassador Daan Everts, the election monitors will include a total of 57 international experts and observers — 13 placed in Washington, D.C. and 44 placed at polling places on other cities. The monitors, from Europe and central Asia, will not limit their observation to noting possible violations of U.S. and state election law. They will also “assess these elections for compliance with international obligations and standards for democratic election” and “conduct comprehensive monitoring of the media,” according to a press release.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Maybe the United Nations can help. Interesting. That was one of the ideas coming from Rep. Grijalva from AZ's 7th district, widely considered to be the most liberal congresscritter in the US. 1
Moontanman Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Maybe the United Nations can help. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-elections-will-have-un-monitors-2012-10 Oh hell, I can see the conspiracy nutters coming out of the woodwork on that one... 1
Phi for All Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 Oh hell, I can see the conspiracy nutters coming out of the woodwork on that one... The same nutters who would completely support such a measure if WE were insisting it be done with some other democracy? 2
ydoaPs Posted October 23, 2012 Author Posted October 23, 2012 The same nutters who would completely support such a measure if WE were insisting it be done with some other democracy? Yes.
Moontanman Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 The same nutters who would completely support such a measure if WE were insisting it be done with some other democracy? Indeed... Those very ones... 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now