'Experts' Eye 100% Unverifiable E-Vote System in 'Win' of SC's Mystery U.S. Senate Nominee

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG



'Experts' Eye 100% Unverifiable E-Vote System in 'Win' of SC's Mystery U.S. Senate Nominee
'Staggering' disparities seen between Alvin Greene's Election Day touch-screen results and paper-based absentee vote
Will corporate MSM have courage to 'go there'?...

Nobody in the South Carolina Democratic Party had ever heard of Alvin Greene, the jobless candidate for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, before he reportedly defeated the well-known state legislator Vic Rawl last Tuesday. That, despite the jobless candidate's lack of actual campaigning, or even spending any noteworthy money on his campaign. And there remain questions at this hour, as to where he even came up with the $10,000 filing fee to get on the ballot in the first place. Greene's interview on MSNBC last night is one of the most bizarre ever seen on television (full video posted at end of article).

Unless something changes between now and November, however, Greene's inexplicable victory will pit him against the state's often-controversial, and far-Rightwing Republican incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint.

But where some have suggested Greene was a "plant" in the race, experts now examining the actual election result data from both SC's unverifiable Election Day touch-screen machines and its electronically counted paper-ballot absentee vote system are noting "curious" and even "staggering" disparities, suggesting what some Election Integrity experts describe at this hour as "clear signs of ELECTION FRAUD in South Carolina"...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890

[alstephenson]

1. Indeed - "will the MSM have courage to go there?"

Probably not.

[Celebration]

2. In this case, I don't understand the motivation

DeMind would most likely win that race anyway, right?

[Webster Green]

3. It is strange.

All they did is demonstrate that they have the machines rigged.

The absentee ballots were voted for the dem candidates in the opposite percentage from the machine "votes". That's evidence that the machine "vote" was rigged.

[no limit]

5. These machines can bug out at any time without any human intervention

that's why they should never ever be used in a election.

[KittyWampus]

25. Rawl was polling only 7 points behind.

[LaurenG]

54. Well I think DeMint will win for sure now if they don't right this

I'm feeling fairly certain the whole thing will be exposed over the next days and weeks though.

[blm]

55. Polls were closer than DeMint expected...plus...some GOP voters are getting sick of their 'leaders'

sick with embarrassment, anyway.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Probably a dry run of the new program they devised for the fall that went horribly bad

as it wasn't supposed to be noticed.

[Scout]

9. what Ruby said ... dry run ... n/t

[RagAss]

76. Yup...they need to get the code back to unit testing...LOL !

[Chicago dyke]

83. yup, Ruby.

i know Brad, he's a terrific guy and does stellar work. believe him when he says something is wrong. no one else has his track record, his dedication, or his seriousness on this issue.

i knew democracy in this country was dead in 2000. it still shocks me, tho, to realize how few americans care that anyone can fuck with their vote and do so without most people knowing. you get a receipt at an ATM, from the same company that makes voting machines, and yet they can't give you a printout of your ballot that is stored separately and counted by hand? what bullshit.

[mbperrin]

6. Too funny. What if this guy had some Army bud with some knowledge do

this for him?

(Visualize the first true sweat break out on the brows of every incumbent if only that were true.) :)

[shanti]

7. wow

this really does NOT pass the sniff test. i hope this is thoroughly investigated.

[Patsy Stone]

8. Excellent points, all.

I wasn't quite ready to accept the "plant" story, because, as it was pointed out here, just putting a guy out there doesn't guarantee anyone will vote for him. Not to mention, if anyone here ever got wind that there was a GOP plan in the works to get R voters en masse to choose Greene, there would have certainly been a thread or two about it before Tuesday night. If he's just a patsy, however, that makes much more sense. All they needed was a guy and a name to switch the votes to.

But, other than just seeing if they could do it, what's the point? DeMint was going to win in November anyhow, wasn't he? Did Rawl actually stand a chance against him? I admit I haven't been following Rawl's bid, so I don't know.

As for the MSM, I hope they do keep at it. As for their reluctance to mention that the machines are rigged, I think that went away after W. Not because they are suddenly so interested in voting integrity, but now that the POTUS was actually elected by a (mostly verifiable) majority vote, and the Democrats are in power, I'm sure the MSM will have no problem questioning the validity of any future elections -- especially if a Democrat wins. They no longer have to protect a man who was in the office through questionable means, so now they're going to be like a dog with a bone, just to prove they're "on it" all of a sudden.

Thanks, Brad!

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Yeah Demint was ahead, BUT

one poll I saw had him ahead of RAWLS by less than 10% which is NOT good for a sitting Senator this far away from the election. So yes, Demint COULD have been vulnerable. Long shot, but possible. Not now though.

Although it would be hoot if Greene beat Demint.

[KittyWampus]

26. Rawl was only 7 points behind a sitting Republican Senator in the South.

[tabasco]

35. It was a Democratic primary.

Please explain.

[KittyWampus]

36. Polling data of Rawl v. DeMintt had Rawl only behind by 7% in that match-up.

[waiting]

38. In South Carolina republicans can vote in the deomcratic priimary

Maybe that goes a ways in explaining this as well.

All I knw is Jim Demint is another one of those "Family" members, or to put it another way, some of the most corrupt, dispicable people on the planet.

[customerserviceguy]

50. I asked this question on another thread

but never got an answer. Do SC voters get to pick a Democratic candidate in the race for Senator, and a Republican one in the race for Governor? If so, your conclusion may have some validity.

I'm more familiar with primary voting systems that only allow a voter to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. If that was the case, then there were a hell of a lot of GOP'ers who were willing to ignore their red-hot gubernatorial nomination fight in order to do a tiny favor for DeMint. Also, I don't recall any evidence of a campaign to do that, such as Limpballs did with his Operation Chaos a couple of years ago.

[caraher]

78. No

You get a ballot with either the Dem races or the Repug races; you can't mix-n-match. At least that's what folks commenting on 538.org say.

Someone there also did an analysis that strongly ruled out a lot of Republican crossover voting. It looks like it's either voting machine shenanigans or the honestly bizarre result of a weird race with two almost complete unknowns

[customerserviceguy]

85. Thanks

I didn't think so. The Repukes were consumed with the gubernatorial race, it wouldn't be worth a waste of their votes to screw with the DeMint opponent.

I attibute it to identity politics in a situation where it really didn't make that much difference who won, since DeMint is essentially unstoppable in the fall.

Again, why would someone risk getting caught doing voting machine fraud for such an inconsequential election?

[JanMichael]

92. How far apart was Vic Rawl from Senator Crazy before the primary?

I've heard 7% which is losable is it not?

[customerserviceguy]

94. And that was Rawl's polling

DeMint is a Republicon hero, he would surely have dragged in campaign money from out of state, this is South Carolina, and this is a GOP-favored year. It's the perfect storm to get DeMint re-elected, and while I can see some rogue operative conning Alvin Greene to get into the race to sap votes away from Rawl, I cannot see DeMint's people working election fraud at this level, it just doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, this has become a huge problem for the Democratic Party in SC, and the South as a whole. If Alvin Greene looks like he's forced out of the fall election with zero evidence besides a general feeling of "we're not stupid enough to nominate him" then it's not going to sit well with African-American voters in that region.

[Patsy Stone]

37. Thanks for the info.

As I said, I really wasn't paying too much attention, until this weird guy showed up. :)

[walnutpie]

10. I love a good conspiracy theory

And to be brutally honest, I'd love to see this guy elected to the Senate just to give him more opportunities to interview; the guy is hilarious.

But here's the thing, if they could rig the election, why tip their hand with this buffoon? Why not wait for a close race and give a gentle bump as needed. I really don't buy it.

Now if Greene wins the actual election... well as I said before, that would be comedy gold for at least the next 6 years.

[rainy]

11. how on earth could he possibly have won?

[customerserviceguy]

16. People who don't know diddly squat about candidates

sometimes just vote for the name that appeals to them. It's irrational as hell, but it happens.

If this scenario had happened on the Rethug side, we'd all be laughing our butts off at the stupidity of GOP voters. Well, sometimes our voters are a bit less than fully informed, too.

[KittyWampus]

27. Well, districts where Rawl campaigned and was supported went for Greene. So no, it's not

just people voting for any old name for the hell of it.

[customerserviceguy]

70. And if campaigning were the only reason people won elections

then we'd have a consistent history of the person running the best campaign always winning. Experience tells us that doesn't always happen.

My theory is that the majority of Democratic voters in SC are African-American, and they simply went with identity politics in this case.

[BradBlog]

61. People who don't know diddly squat about election systems...

People who don't know diddly squat about candidates sometimes just vote for the name that appeals to them. It's irrational as hell, but it happens.

Right. And do you have any evidence that that's what happened here? I don't.

If this scenario had happened on the Rethug side, we'd all be laughing our butts off at the stupidity of GOP voters.

I wouldn't. I'd be asking the exact same questions. Cuz I give a damn about democracy. You?

[customerserviceguy]

72. Its those challenging the results

that have the burden of proof that the election was rigged. We're missing motive, means, and opportunity here. Can you come up with at least one of the above?

[awnobles]

12. Exit Polls ?

Do they match the vote count?

[BradBlog]

31. "Exit Polls"??? How 2004 of you to ask such a question!

We don't do Exit Polls in the country any more. Haven't you heard? Ever since they were proven to be so "wrong" again and again, in 2004, again in New Hampshire in 2008.

Silly you.

[bleever]

13. I'm still mad about Arkansas, too.

But I bet the Greene story is going to have more legs.

[customerserviceguy]

14. This is just wishful thinking

It ignores the basic question: Why would someone who is expected to sail to a landslide re-election victory bribe all those people to futz with the machines?

I think people here who subscribe to this conspiracy theory just can't accept the idea that occasionally there is just no reason why an unqualified candidate can win a nomination.

[totodeinhere]

15. Or it could have been an unintentional malfunction with the voting machines. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

17. I've heard all the blather year after year

about voting machine fraud and errors, and I don't believe any of it. Our society conducts billions of transactions a year with banking systems that are based on the same technology that computerized voting machines use.

Sometimes, people just vote for the wrong person for stupid reasons. I had a co-worker who told me that he usually ignored down-ballot offices when he didn't know anything about the candidates, but when he saw a man vs. a woman, he voted for the man.

Sexist, stupid, and shortsighted, but that's what happens in democracies where people aren't paying attention.

[BradBlog]

19. But you're still able to fool yourself??

CustomerServiceGuy said:

I've heard all the blather year after year about voting machine fraud and errors, and I don't believe any of it. Our society conducts billions of transactions a year with banking systems that are based on the same technology that computerized voting machines use.

Wrong. Your banking system is transparent. For example, you can contact your bank today to assure that the deposit you made last week was recorded properly. And you'll have a receipt to prove it, if there are any questions. There will also be logs identifying YOU as having made that transaction, and it's documented every which way to Sunday.

On the other hand, we have a secret ballot system in this country. So, to that end, I'll challenge you -- or anybody else who thinks the technology is the same (as I have for years) -- to show me one piece of evidence to prove that any vote, ever cast on a DRE system, in any election, for any candidate or initiative on the ballot, has ever been recorded accurately.

Just looking for ONE piece of evidence out of millions and millions of votes cast, in thousands of elections.

Got any? Any at all? (Answer: No, you don't. None exists. Zero. Nada.)

Sometimes, people just vote for the wrong person for stupid reasons.

Yup. They do. But that has nothing to do with what you incorrectly asserted at the beginning of your comment.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. Yep. When I make a withdrawal by ATM

I get a receipt SHOWING me that I made that withdrawal. Can't they do the same thing for my vote???

Sure they can, they just don't want to.

[BradBlog]

30. Another misunderstanding...

Socialist_n_TN asked:

I get a receipt SHOWING me that I made that withdrawal. Can't they do the same thing for my vote???

Actually, no they can't. Well, they can show you a "receipt" as some DREs do (those with the so-called "Voter-verifiable Paper Audit Trails"), but you can't keep that receipt, and you should not be able to, since it would lead to vote buying and selling.

The real difference with your ATM is that you are not the only one to know about the transaction, and can check it any time. If you have a question about a transaction last week, you can call and confirm that it was recorded accurately.

You cannot do that with a secret ballot, and so there is NO WAY to know -- even if you see a VVPAT printed to show how you voted -- that the machine actually recorded it correctly as you cast it.

That's why it's 100% faith-based voting. So if you have faith in ES&S and Diebold and Sequoia, etc. and the folks who program the machines for elections, great. If you, however, are a sentient being who realizes the high stakes of each and every election, and understand how large the incentive is to win them at any cost, you'd scream holy hell that we use *any* kind of concealed vote counting in our (theoretically) public elections.

[customerserviceguy]

62. There's a reason for that

It makes it possible for you to sell your vote if you have a receipt showing you voted for Candidate X. My point is that the same systems that keep bank transactions 99.9999999% accurate is incorporated into voting systems, and when it isn't even close, it's stupidity, not fraud.

[jotsy]

41. Share these with whatever customers you might be servicing then.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wgVOd8tjyw>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4692777>

A little more bite than blather, IMHO.

[customerserviceguy]

64. Spare me your silly little conspiracy theories

Exit polls are not scientific, they're just wild-ass guesses that take place on Election Day. I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial proportion of exit pollees simply lie to pollsters just to screw with them, I know I would.

[jotsy]

Thanks

I see no point in debating with an individual who proudly proclaims himself willing to be devoid of honor.

[customerserviceguy]

71. And I see no point

in debating with a person who is in love with a conspiracy theory.

[jotsy]

75. According to a 'guy' who's publicly admitted to being less than honest?

I don't have a problem with that! Ta.

[marions ghost]

57. You believe that !?

:rofl:

Voting machine fraud denial...

It's getting so it coincides with Global Warming Denial. :eyes:

[customerserviceguy]

63. It's the first thing that people say

when an election doesn't go their way. They simply have more faith in human nature than in technology, and I just don't agree with them.

Besides, in this case, there was absolutely NO reason to commit potentially detectable fraud. In close elections that actually mean something, there is.

[marions ghost]

82. You're very naive

election fraud is not prosecuted and the laws are unenforced.

Anybody can see that "technology" has failed American voters.

[customerserviceguy]

86. And you're a bit paranoid

Do you deal only in cash, and go to the doctor under different assumed names? If not, then you put your faith and trust in systems run by corporations who would love to steal you blind.

Paper trail? If they wanted to, they could convince a court that you printed up some receipt on a printer. Bernie Madoff provided a paper backup for his transactions, and they weren't worth squat.

Either the people who process electronic transactions have integrity, or they don't. If you believe they don't, then perhaps you should live the rest of your life in accordance with that feeling.

[marions ghost]

97. Electronic voting

with a "paper trail" isn't good enough--we agree on that.

Give me a break--people who have set up these diabolical unverifiable systems and process e-voting have "integrity." Quaint notion. :rofl: Work some elections--you'll find out.

OK with me if you live your life in accordance with your feeling that everything is just fine and there's nothing to see here. :eyes: I prefer to live in reality, no matter how bad it really is.

[BeFree]

22. The ignorance...

...seemingly willful, is astounding.

[KittyWampus]

28. DeMint was NOT expected to "sail".

[customerserviceguy]

65. Maybe in a poll or two for Rawl

but in every other thing I've seen, he was going to coast to victory.

[blogslut]

34. There's more to elections than handicapping winners

A proper candidate would challenge Mr. Demint on his policies and positions. A proper opposition candidate would force the incumbent to defend past actions and bring issues to the forefront that would not be mentioned if that incumbent were running unopposed. The general election/campaign period is when the voters have the most power to influence those that eventually take office.

[Tx4obama]

18. Voting should be done with paper not machines! n/t

[IDemo]

20. "100% Unverifiable E-Vote System"? Why?

Why would election officials choose to erase the compaq flash (or whatever media is used) until shortly before the following election? The only realistic explanation is that they simply don't want the evidence laying around.

:shrug:

[jp11]

33. So as to not worry about recounts and the issues such recounts can bring up

don't question the system as unreliable, if you do you might find out you are right.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

24. "Election Fraud"--

Kinda like that runoff where the 42 voting stations were illegally cut back to 2?

Go figure. :shrug:

[Scuba]

29. Just in case you weren't aware...

...Last fall, ES&S quietly purchased Diebold, giving them 80% of market for electronic voting machings. And it's not just the un-auditable vote-counting; they now also own polling place check-in software (electronic pollbooks), voter registration software and vote-by-mail authentication software.

http://www.benalexandra.com/cool_stuff/diebold_ess.htm

This link has very scary information, all with appropriate citations, regarding what could easily be a mass-manipulation of our elections.

They've already been caught registering voters who thought they were just signing petitions. Getting total registered voter numbers higher gives them more room to fudge numbers.

When you buy a pack of gum, you get a receipt. Why is there no receipt/audit trail on our votes? I can only think of one reason.

[jp11]

32. The machines will set our course, all that is left for us is to embrace the end.

[Wilms]

39. k&r n/t

[azul]

40. The only prudent thing to do, really, since there obviously are problems

with the voting system, is to have paper ballots for all. The votes can be tallied by machines, though I don't know why the results are needed so quickly, and the paper can then be hand counted by volunteers to make sure the tallying was correct.

If we ever want to do electronic voting, it has to be done with the voting public owning and overseeing the hardware and software. And still have a paper trail auditing the system.

Our present system is criminally corrupted and screams for investigation and change. Why hasn't the democratic congress and president fixed the HAVA mess-up yet? It doesn't make sense that this continues unless it is some sort of successful psy-ops project. Ignore election fraud, the heart of our democracy?

[Enthusiast]

42. Just wait until November,

you ain't seen nothing yet. And November will just be a rehearsal for November 2012. All the talk about election fraud isn't just talk. How many elections will we allow the Republicans to steal?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

43. Why does any electorate anywhere in the world accept a "100% unverifiable E-Vote"

This is what you would expect in North Korea, Not the United States.

Paper ballots. If we have to wait a couple of days for the results, big freaking deal.

[OnyxCollie]

44. K&R. nt

[Wandawilkerson]

45. What did the polls say?

What did the most recent polls prior to the elections say about who was more likely to win?

[mercuryblues]

46. Thx Brad

Why does the "plant" theory play well in SC?

From Wiki:

republicans did it in SC before.

Benjamin Hunt, Jr.
While running a campaign to elect his sister Sherry Martschink to Lieutenant Governor in 1990, Shealy, with the help of Robert Kohn, recruited unemployed black fisherman Benjamin Hunt, Jr. to run for Congress against Republican Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Shealy conspired to increase the turnout of white voters by playing to the racial fears of the South Carolina electorate.

The times have changed, they did not need Greene to run a campaign. Whoever did this only needed an alternative name on the ballot. Machine tampering would do the rest.

Even before the general campaign, deminted was about 50% and Rawl polled at 43%, Greene had a slim to none chance to beat deminted. Who would you want your candidate to face in the general election?

I would start by looking at who is involved in his prosecution. It seems to me that is where he came into contact with someone that would do this.

[earcandle]

47. Check Nebraska ballots while you are at it.

[lurky]

48. This could be a good thing.

Everything from the candidate to the outcome is so implausible, it demands an investigation. Anyone with eyes can see there's something funky going on. It will be much harder to sweep under the rug than Ohio, etc. Maybe now we can get some public attention on this?

[customerserviceguy]

49. I'm glad this happened

For a long time now, I've asserted that the electronic systems that we trust with our banking transactions, and that the Administration's new health care initiatives want to put all of our confidential medical information on are secure. I've had just enough education while going back to get my degree in computer networking a few years ago to be able to trust such systems.

I hear the lamenting of the Luddites here at DU over electronic voting, and I've been hoping for a test case that would show the security of the system, and that all the fears that people don't seem to have in other areas of their lives are completely unfounded.

Investigate the hell out of this, and find the conclusion that sometimes people are stuck on stupid when they get into a voting booth. We seem to have no trouble coming to that conclusion when the Repukes win where they really shouldn't have and the ballots are the old-fashioned lever voting machines, we need to be able to have the same confidence in electronic voting so we can move out of the 20th Century and into the future of fuller participation for voters.

[BeFree]

51. You

...don't have much more than a teeny clue.

The computer engineers have said that e-voting without paper should be banned.

[customerserviceguy]

66. Hey, let's have it out

Let this election be gone over with a fine tooth comb, and let's get this silliness over with.

Otherwise, if electronic systems are half as vulnerable as most here maintain, then by all means, let's oppose President Obama's initiatives to put all of our medical records in networked systems.

[Stevepol]

52. The danger does not come from computers. Nobody on DU is afraid of computers.

The danger comes from the owners of the software ("proprietary software" thanks to court cases and completely off-limits to the elections officials themselves, not that they'd know enough to do anything about it if they could see the program) that runs on the computer, from the people who program or provide patches or fixes for the software when it goes awry on the computer as it constantly does, from the maintenance people who service the computers, both the machines in the various precincts and the machines that make the aggregate vote count at the end.

Do a little history search about the ES&S company, where it came from, who the founders of the company were, who's been the CEO of the company thru the years (Urosevic). Do a little thinking about what happens in an election when the voting machines are used. Then get back to me as to how safe the electronic vote counting machines are.

The computer is a fine machine, and it does exactly what it is programmed or patched or rigged to do. Try to put yourself in the shoes of an insider who cd easily program the machines fraudulently to show any result desired, knowing that there is no way they can ever be caught unless somebody else knows or finds out and decides to blow the whistle. One person. One well-placed person. And even then nobody would believe them probably.

Just recently this happened in Clay County KY. In that case the insiders changed the vote after the voters left the booth. I don't think they messed with the vote-counting program but I cd be wrong.

[customerserviceguy]

67. If you're that freaking paranoid

about electronic voting systems, then why would you ever trust old-fashioned lever-style machines?

Safeguards are built in, testing is done, and all you have is suspicion about the people who made the machines.

[diva77]

80. Do you trust corporations to have all the safeguards built in? Do you trust the testing being done?

Remember how BP handles things. Our voting process is in the hands of mostly one corporation. Corporations cut corners, have their own interests and motivations... and, with software & hardware replacing transparent elections, it is possible for even just one person to alter results far and wide.

Whenever brave elections officials such as Ion Sancho or Bruce Funk have tried to question the machines and present real evidence, they have suffered attacks from the companies and government officials, alike.

http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1015&Itemid=113

http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/010640.shtml

[customerserviceguy]

84. Corporations built mechanical voting machines, too

And the most infamous cases of vote tampering in the US came long before the advent of electronic vote counters.

Like I say, let's get this out in the open and really dig into this once and for all.

[diva77]

95. I suggest you visit electiondefensealliance.org and start by reading the position papers there

[BradBlog]

58. I'm not. But I'll entertain your misinformed rant...

I hear the lamenting of the Luddites here at DU over electronic voting

Hopefully, you're not talking about me as one of those "Luddites", as I made my living for about 10 years as a computer programmer.

Clearly, however, you're ill-informed enough about the issue entirely such that you don't understand the most ardent critiques against this type of voting systems are computer scientists and computer security experts. I suggest you do some research.

I've been hoping for a test case that would show the security of the system, and that all the fears that people don't seem to have in other areas of their lives are completely unfounded.

Because there is no "other areas of lives" that can be compared in any way, shape or form. There are not "other areas of lives" where we are forced to completely trust in people we do not know for something as valuable as this. This is the equivalent of handing all of your money to someone in a parking lot, who says they work at the bank, and who promises to deposit that money into your account. Except that you will never be able to find out if they did or if they didn't.

In addition to not understanding this issue, it sounds like you haven't even bothered to read my previous reply to you in this thread. So not sure why I'm trying again, other than I hope that other folks, who may be similarly misinformed, will read this and understand how uninformed they are. It seems you are determined to stay that way, however.

Investigate the hell out of this, and find the conclusion that sometimes people are stuck on stupid when they get into a voting booth.

There is not way to determine that. And that is the problem, my friend. Even if folks were "stuck on stupid" in SC, it is unprovable, due to the type system they use (which you clearly support). That you don't understand how that alone is a grave threat to democracy, would suggest, um, someone else may be "stuck on stupid" here.

we need to be able to have the same confidence in electronic voting so we can move out of the 20th Century and into the future of fuller participation for voters.

Right. So if you can come up with an electronic voting system that appropriately offers that confidence, let me know. After some six years on this beat, I've yet to find one that offers that confidence, and democracy withers on the vine because of it (and because of folks like you who are so woefully in uninformed denial.)

[customerserviceguy]

68. All I'm asking for

is a put-up or shut-up case to be made. If those who have their deep suspicions of electronic voting can make their best case that someone committed fraud in this election through the use of software glitches or other malware, then let's see the evidence.

Frankly, I suspect the people who assert election fraud by electronic machine (while fully giving blind trust to lever machines) will be as difficult to convince as those who still think vaccines cause autism.

[BradBlog]

59. And, by the way...

...I'll welcome any evidence you have to prove that Greene actually won. Thanks. (Not sure why we are required to prove a negative to you, or anybody else. If you believe Greene won legitimately -- and I don't know whether he did or didn't which is the problem here(!) -- I'm sure you'll have no trouble making your case with good hard evidence to support it.)

[customerserviceguy]

69. All I'd offer

is the election results as reported. While I don't have the numbers to show it (I'd need to know which counties still use lever-style machines to verify it) I'd bet that Greene's percentages were roughly the same in electronic and mechanical voting precincts.

I just don't seem to have a problem with the idea that people pick candidates they don't know off of a ballot for really lousy reasons sometimes.

[KittyWampus]

73. Your education on Electronic Voting and Tabulating Equipment is so sorely lacking >

you look foolish.

[customerserviceguy]

87. What's your expertise?

I'll admit that I only have a degree in computer networking, what's your 'education'? A few videos made by people who wish we were all back on a barter system?

[csziggy]

79. Banking system (and gambling system) computers have many more safeguards

Than our voting systems. They are both able to be audited and the software is available to be reviewed. Banks and gambling establishments require that as part of their contracts for buying the machines. But for some strange reason, our election officials across the country (except in very few instances) have not required the same degree of transparency in our voting systems.

Electronic voting is not the problem - proprietary software that the electronic voting machine manufacturers do not to be investigated is the problem.

As for your assertions about lever machines - my county had a botched election due to poorly set up lever voting machines back in the 1980s. That is why our supervisor of elections is one of the leading proponents of verifiable voting in the country. The previous supervisor was unable to properly align the names of the candidates with the levers which lead to legal challenges that went to the Florida State Supreme Court. That case set the precedent in Florida that "do overs" were not allowed that was used to block a re-vote in 2000. After that elections, many voters in my county refused to use the antiquated lever machines again.

Our current supervisor of elections ran against that incompetent and immediately set up optical scan balloting for the county. In 200, it took 45 minutes for him to recount the ballots and then he was called in as a consultant for other counties to help them recount. He has since been involved in the fight to have verifiable voting methods for the entire state and pissed off the manufacturers of voting machines enough that they tried to have Jeb Bush remove him from office, then refused to sell him machines to meet the federal requirements for handicapped voters.

BradBlog will know who I am talking about.

Yes, we need to have modern voting systems, but lack of verifiable voting and proprietary software is not the way to get them. I personally will never vote on a system that does not leave a paper trail. Optical scanning systems seem the best of both worlds - paper ballots that can be electronically OR hand counted. But as our supervisor of elections found, the software can be easily changed so that the votes are not accurately counted. Watch the movie "Hacking Democracy" and you will see what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlZTWH7u8w

[customerserviceguy]

88. Ok, so do you agree or not

make this the test case? Since so very many here believe everyone who would accept a Democratic ballot is infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable about the candidates on a ballot than the stupid Repukes, and that Rawl should have won with 90% of the vote, this would be a perfect example to prove that electronic voting systems are all bogus, right?

[csziggy]

90. I think this could be used as a test case that might make the point

That as it stands now electronic voting is not to be trusted. But the Democratic Party does not seem to be willing to do that. An interview Rawls did the other day indicated that he will not challenge the results, but try to get Greene indicted for perjury for claiming to be indigent.

If Democrats had the balls, they would push this - the Republicans might stand back hoping we'd make fools of ourselves, but I doubt it. Their cronies have too much invested in the machinery to control the elections. With Diebold now owning 80% of the election machine industry, they will use their Republican contacts to stop any serious investigation the same way they have done in the past.

[customerserviceguy]

93. In that case, the old adage would apply

"It's not the crime, it's the coverup." If the software that you feel is being hidden is ever going to come out, it's going to be from a court case, not something the legislative or executive branches of government do.

Get it out there, and when it is proven to be benign, with at least as many safeguards as lever-machine voting has, then maybe it will only be the extreme paranoids who still think that elections are being routinely tampered with, including inconsequential ones.

[Hubert Flottz]

53. 20 years in federal prison for anyone caught with a hand in this

might put a stop to it.

[bobburgster]

56. Most definitely something wrong here.

I hope to hell there is still something called investigative reporting, because this whole scenario smells badly. Wonder what our chances are that this will be latched onto?

[Jakes Progress]

60. South Carolina elections would never pass UN election oversight.

[depakid]

91. A lot about the state is Banana Republic

Not just its elections.

[mdmc]

74. this is why open primaries suck

I bet every GOP voter voted for this guy..

[customerserviceguy]

89. Nope, see above

You ask for a Democratic or a Rethuglican ballot. If a GOP'er wanted to make a bit of inconsequential mischief, they would have sacrificed their chance to vote in the GOP governor primary, which was a hot race.

Frankly, I would have expected far more Democratic voters to make mischief by voting for the alleged adulterer.

[RagAss]

77. In the words of Henry Lee ...."Something wrong !"

[KharmaTrain]

81. Part Of A Bigger Picture...

I'm all for a full canvass and investigation of the vote...not simply cause of E-Voting but for general election fraud. Electronic voting isn't the only way votes are stolen (they've been doing it for ages). Bottom line is it's not the machines that are at fault (and it's easy to put the blame at a Diebold) when it could be part of wholescale tampering and goes to the people doing the tampering, not the equipment.

One element I see missing, but TPM is following it up...that's the use of Greene's name to raise campaign cash and the various companies that make big money through soliciting campaign contributions and then "charging" Greene for "services" and keep a majority of the money. It would explain where he got the $10k filing fee and maybe some of the other hijinks.

Greene was intended to water down the competition for DeMent...and to make money. I don't think they expected Greene to win and if there was tampering, then let's get specific proof, not conjecture through playing with exit polls or absentee voting. If E-voting is to be discredited, a clear case of tampering has to be shown and proven. Here's the chance.

[Imagevision]

96. Hey if Bush can steal an election no biggie...