"Nearby Slutty and Skanky Counties reported similar problems."

"Chastity County didn't even spread open their polls."

Horrys don't need machines, they have Johns (McCain).

/"Why did she beat you up?"
//"I called her a two-bit Horry"
///"What did she hit you with?"
////"A bag of quarters."

/facepalm at the voting machine problems.

AAHHHH. I survived Horry county. Used to be the number one county for syphilis . Good times. Good times.



Penicillin parties rock

Well, I kinda wish I'd spent all that time putting up signs and such doing something constructive.

/South Carolinian
//at least it wasn't Romney or Huckabee I guess.

Preemptive facepalm to the Diebold pics that are gonna be posted.

Clearly this is just a leftist conspiracy. Voting machines never break. The problem here was really voter fraud.

Except not really.

they didn't get around to rigging those yet

It's "ore-eee" not "whore-ee".

You think someone saw this coming? Link (new window)

paper and pencil anyone? Up here in Canada we find it works pretty darn well!

^^ likely culprit

/it's his county, after all

Preemptive facepalm to the Diebold pics that are gonna be posted.

Live Free or Diebold!

NH used all paper ballots. Yeah! Unfortunately over 80% of them were read by opti-scan units made by a company called Premier. Priemier was once called Diebold.

It's 2008 and you kidZ is still having this problem?

Are the investigative journalists of America on strike too?

In SC it's even worse. There isn't even a paper trail to begin with. It's mostly all touch screen voting sans paper trail.

It's not the people who vote that counts.
It's the people who count the votes.

~Joe Stalin.




/feel free to make the obligatory conspiracy jokes any time now.

kpottruff: paper and pencil anyone? Up here in Canada we find it works pretty darn well!

This happens in my district. They're all counted by a Diebold machine--eek, indeed!--but the paper copies are kept so if a hand recount is needed, there they are. And we use a simple way of having a paper ballot and a marker to fill in the dots which are conveniently put next to the candidate's name. Easy peasy.

/Michigan

kpottruff: paper and pencil anyone? Up here in Canada we find it works pretty darn well!

Strangely, I find the paper and pencil technology works okay in the UK too. Although the counting can delay the results by... oooh... up to five or six hours, sometimes.

So of course, the Government keeps suggesting the system is ditched in favour of something worse.

Guntram Shatterhand: kpottruff: paper and pencil anyone? Up here in Canada we find it works pretty darn well!

This happens in my district. They're all counted by a Diebold machine--eek, indeed!--but the paper copies are kept so if a hand recount is needed, there they are. And we use a simple way of having a paper ballot and a marker to fill in the dots which are conveniently put next to the candidate's name. Easy peasy.

/Michigan

Same here in South Dakota. Number 2 lead pencil, fill in oval. Simple, cheap, reliable, the same system they use for standardized tests.

For our foriegn friends, American voting authorities are elected at the county level. With 50 states and sometimes hundreds of counties per state, there are a lot of different systems in place. One always hears from state/counties which somehow manage to screw up something easy.

IMO, its pretty clear that counties which go for different systems like punched holes (hanging chads) are simply making it easy to cheat.

So does this mean Ron Paul really won?

/I keed, I keed

/wants you to vote

These folks always seem to have interesting scoops on diebold: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ (new window)

Yet another thing Republicans can't turn on.

Um, disappearing ink maybe?

/DNRTFA

Nothing to see here ... move along!

I blame George Soros and the MoveOn.org operatives.

Voting is for unpatriotic communist. Unless you're voting for more war that is.

Move along citizen.

With Ron Pauls group of basement dwellers backing him I would not be suprsied if he gets 135% of the vote. Write a little election code, play some WOW before mom calls you up for dinner.

Whenever I'm going to vote more republican than democrat, I do it on Diebold machines to fan the fumes of irrationality.

A fear of a voting machine is about as valid as your great-grandpa 100 years ago being scared of shiatting inside in the newfangled toilet instead of the two-holer.

FriarTuck: Whenever I'm going to vote more republican than democrat, I do it on Diebold machines to fan the fumes of irrationality.

A fear of a voting machine is about as valid as your great-grandpa 100 years ago being scared of shiatting inside in the newfangled toilet instead of the two-holer.

I am not afraid of the voting machine!
It's the sumbiatch that makes it and who they want to win that scares me.

If the CEO of Diebold was a flaming gay liberal, there would be no 'conspiracy' accusations. You all would laugh about the shiatty luck that the dumb RethugliKKKans were having.

Shaggy_C: If the CEO of Diebold was a flaming gay liberal, there would be no 'conspiracy' accusations. You all would laugh about the shiatty luck that the dumb RethugliKKKans were having.

This does not negate the wrongdoing of suppressing votes and undermining the electoral system that we have. And by relation, this does not mean that the Republicans are equal to Democrats in corruption. Nice try, but keep trying. You're a poor pupil at logic.

Guntram Shatterhand: Nice try, but keep trying. You're a poor pupil at logic.

That wasn't logic; it was straight-up observation. Voting machines were in use in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Yet the only complaints center around 2000 and 20004, both Republican victories. Don't you find that a bit odd?

Shaggy_C
Voting machines were in use in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Yet the only complaints center around 2000 and 20004, both Republican victories. Don't you find that a bit odd?

Don't you find that a bit moot seeing as though us "libral" farkers aren't laughing at this latest development whatsoever despite it being no skin off our backs?

And isn't your entire post meaningless given that this just showed that voting machines are prone to the worst glitches, no excuses?

So my question is, what's the point of you posting at all, unless to defend why you want to trust democracy to machines instead of people?

As far as I'm concerned, unless you're psychic, you can't tell if these machines have glitched before, and you never will. c

FriarTuck: A fear of a voting machine is about as valid as your great-grandpa 100 years ago being scared of shiatting inside in the newfangled toilet instead of the two-holer.

Wrong. The people who know the most about this issue are the ones who seem the most concerned.

Shaggy_C: If the CEO of Diebold was a flaming gay liberal, there would be no 'conspiracy' accusations.

What planet are you from?

Most news services are owned by conservatives and people still cry 'liberal media conspiracy'.

Shaggy_C: That wasn't logic; it was straight-up observation. Voting machines were in use in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Yet the only complaints center around 2000 and 20004, both Republican victories. Don't you find that a bit odd?

First off, those were not the only complaints; they were just the main ones the media paid attention to. Second off, just because a problem wasn't detected doesn't mean the machines are trustworthy. One of the main reasons for concern with electronic voting machines is that undetectable fraud might be easier to commit. Maybe we just haven't seen complaints because the machines are doing a good job of covering up fraud that is taking place. And anyway, the machines have been proven to be insecure, repeatedly. Now that isn't evidence that election fraud has actually taken place, but it's definitely evidence that election fraud could easily take place using those machines. And it indicates a problem that needs to be fixed. It's likely not technically feasible to do so in the short term, so the best, most secure, solution is to use paper ballots (possibly with machines assisting with marking or counting).

So they're blaming the personnel who tested the machines and failed to reset them properly. How many of these people have been fired, and what measures do they intend to take to prevent a recurrence? Or are the voters going to have to settle for a mere apology?

Shaggy_C: Guntram Shatterhand: Nice try, but keep trying. You're a poor pupil at logic.

That wasn't logic; it was straight-up observation. Voting machines were in use in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Yet the only complaints center around 2000 and 20004, both Republican victories. Don't you find that a bit odd?

No, since the election results were not that close. 2000 and 2004 were.

Oops. Our bad. Won't let that get noticed happen again.

From Crooks and Liars via Salon.

Link

"Diebold Election Systems" are three words synonymous with the aggressive pursuit of failure. Not only did the company badly implement a dubious concept - unverifiable electronic touch-screen voting machines - but it did so with determined flourish, letting its code and internal communication leak out onto the Web; employing as a chief executive a man who declared he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"; abusing copyright law in an attempt to quell its critics; and, among many other caught-red-handed indiscretions, deleting criticism of itself from Wikipedia.

No wonder, then, that Diebold Election Systems has decided to steal a page from the playbook of that paragon of corporate responsibility Philip Morris (aka the Altria Group): Diebold will erase its sorry history with a simple name change!

Henceforth, when reaching for an example of mind-boggling incompetence, please say "Premier" rather than "Diebold," because Diebold Election Systems is now Premier Election Systems.

Nothing to see here good people.

Back to yer homes.

Yer blocking the streets now move along./snark>

And the argument against worrying about is that folks who do so are Neo-luddites or sommat?

Reminds me of sommat Mark Twain once sed about the bible.

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand"

~Mark Twain

/Do you understand NOW. Shaggy C?

-1