Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Filing On How 2004 Ohio Election Hacked

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the still-not-over-this-yet-eh dept.

Security 504

chimpo13 writes "A new filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004 presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This just proves (-1, Troll)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882188)

hhat we need a bigger more anti-Republican government to control the election process.

Re:This just proves (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882222)

or a nonpartisan transparent one that works and is sized in proportion to the population, area governed, world role, and gdp

Re:This just proves (2)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882290)

Sadly, I fear that the DNC response is probably "We need to figure out how to do that too."

Re:This just proves (4, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882384)

Sadder still, the electorate will continue to care more about American Idol, instead of rising up in utter outrage about what has been done to their nation.

Re:This just proves (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882650)

But while we're at it, why not replace the old fashion voting with an American Idol style one? I mean, it's not like money didn't already rule the whole deal, let's at least be honest about it. And while we're at it, we could use that lot of 1-900 money to balance the budget.

It's not like it matters what sock puppet sits on the throne.

Re:This just proves (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882840)

That would be closer to the truth if the sock puppet wasn't able to start wars (whether he calls them wars or not) at a whim and with no oversight.

Re:This just proves (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882408)

They already do. It's called "ACORN." How do you think Obama won in 2008?

That said, didn't a recent commission investigate the Ohio election in 2004 and found something like four instances of fraud, total? I could have sworn that was in the news recently.

Re:This just proves (0, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882594)

Minorities came out to vote in larger numbers than the rich old whites did.

Honestly, you Repubs should be very afraid. If someone finally motivates the Poor and Minorities to get out and vote, all of your GOP candidates in every election will lose in a landslide as the poor outnumber you 100 to1.

The problem is that most poor and minorities do not trust anyone in government as all they do is screw them. If someone get's past that you are utterly doomed.

Honestly, the best thing Obama could do is have press conferences publicly smearing the GOP. "The republicans want to protect the rich while screwing the poor, I am fighting for the poor! remember this in the next election!"

If he pulled that on TV in every speech and was able to motivate the masses.... it would be game over.

Re:This just proves (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882752)

"Just remember, this is the United States of America. We write 80 million checks a month. There are millions and millions of Americans that depend on those checks coming on time," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

Well, THERE's your problem.

And of course, it seems the more he talks, the less people like him. [washingtonpost.com]

Re:This just proves (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882412)

They're working on how to export the Chicago model to the rest of the country instead.

Re:This just proves (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882500)

I'm not sure they haven't. I have been following this story for years, since I learned there were shenanigans going on with the electronic voting. Back before the 2008 election, Hillary pulled a surprise victory in the New Hampshire primary, defying exit polling. After what went on in 2000 and 2004, it caught my notice. If you accept the theory that there is a power elite that stands behind the government, these rigged voting machines could be used to swing elections in any number of ways.

Re:This just proves (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882608)

I'm not crazy about monolithic elite-class conspiracies, but I could buy into competing elite-class conspiracies. I don't think the same interests would be served by both GWB and HRC administrations.

Re:This just proves (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882540)

Actually, what you need is a political culture in your state that values integrity and good ideas over party loyalty. A great example of this is New Hampshire: Their Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, has been in office since 1976, throughout both Democratic and Republican governorships and legislatures, mostly because he's very good at his job and widely seen as valuing clean elections expressing the will of the voters.

Compare that to Ohio, where Secretary of State is often a very politicized position and where Ken Blackwell (the defendant) was doing everything he could to ensure that his party would win. These kinds of things were widely reported in newspapers:
- Rejecting voter registrations from heavily Democratic areas because they were on the wrong paper stock.
- Rejecting voter registrations from liberal political groups because they had, in order to comply with applicable laws, submitted all the registration forms they got, including ones from Mickey Mouse and the like.
- Refusing to do anything at all about churches explicitly endorsing Republican candidates (if a religious body endorses a candidate, they are supposed to lose their tax-exempt status).
- Putting fewer voting machines in precincts likely to vote Democrat than in precincts likely to vote Republican, so that Democratic voters had to wait for hours to vote while Republican voters took about 15-30 minutes.

Re:This just proves (1)

JediOSU (650051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882764)

(if a religious body endorses a candidate, they are supposed to lose their tax-exempt status) - only if its a 501(c)(3) a church doesn't have to be 501(c)(3) to be tax exempt

Re:This just proves (1)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882842)

Or, take a look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401441.html [washingtonpost.com] where you have the evidence of election staff being -convicted- of tampering with the election! Ohio law requires that 3% of votes be manually counted as selected at random, and if there's a discrepancy, to have a full recount to weed out potential tampering; this is a case where workers were convicted of picking ballots they knew would not force a recount.

We need to actually have a system for revotes rather then recounts in our elections. We've had multiple tainted elections now. Wish to god people cared enough to have fair elections in America.

Re:This just proves (3, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882844)

Actually it just proves that we should trust neither slashdot nor truth-out.org for headlines. If you read TFA it essentially says that a case is made that the architecture made it *possible* for fraud to have occurred; and TFA is apparently trying to slant that as proof that it *did* occur. It is less clear whether or not those pursuing the case are trying to make the same point; or if their point is only to prove that the architecture allowed the possibility of fraud.

Unexpected? (2, Insightful)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882212)

Unexpected? Really? When the CEO of Diebold was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president"?

Funny how (-1, Offtopic)

lemonhead_bastard (1867038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882216)

when something positive happens for a Republican or something negative happens for a Democrat it is considered "unexpected". Unemployment goes above 8% and stays there, it's "Unexpected" even though there were plenty of people saying that a trillion dollar slush fund wouldn't do squat for the economy. Bush won, and won twice. Get over it.

Re:Funny how (4, Interesting)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882230)

The thing is, he didn't win, he stole the election. The same thing happened in Florida.
That ass should be in jail for so many reasons.

Re:Funny how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882276)

RRR...RRRRAAAAGEEEEEE!!!!! (this ad brought to you by moveon.org)

Re:Funny how (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882284)

Check your facts. News orgs. did check in FL after the 2K election and found that Bush would have won. He did not steal the election. However, I disagreed with the Supremes when they wrote that it was too late and gave Bush the win.

Re:Funny how (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882442)

Check your facts. News orgs. did check in FL after the 2K election and found that Bush would have won. He did not steal the election. However, I disagreed with the Supremes when they wrote that it was too late and gave Bush the win.

Except for that whole removing thousands of democratic voters from the roles even though they were qualified to vote thing, right? I'm sure that had no possible impact on an election that hinged on a few hundred votes, right?

Re:Funny how (2)

Kagato (116051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882586)

That depends on how you recount. If you recount the entire state gore wins. If you only do the contested areas then bush wins.

Re:Funny how (2)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882744)

That depends on how you recount. If you recount the entire state gore wins. If you only do the contested areas then bush wins.

If you change the rules and recount the whole state, then Gore may have won. However, as I remember it, James Baker, the representative for the Republicans in FL 2000 wanted a full state recount but the Gore people rejected it, opting to only recount the heavily Democratic areas trying to squeeze every vote out of the areas where he was likely to get more votes and leave the Republican areas as they were.

If what you say is true, and I have heard nothing to back that up, then it sounds like the Democrats screwed themselves. So Bush didn't steal the election. Democrats gave it to him.

Re:Funny how (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882816)

Democrats made a stupid mistake prosecuting the court case, and it cost them. Shows you the problem with an adverserial justice system.

Re:Funny how (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882690)

Check your facts. News orgs. did check in FL after the 2K election and found that Bush would have won. He did not steal the election. However, I disagreed with the Supremes when they wrote that it was too late and gave Bush the win.

I'd like to see where you saw this. Everything I've read says that if the entire state was recounted, Gore would have won. The problem was that Gore only asked for a few counties to be recounted and that's where the U.S. Supreme Court stopped him. The U.S. Supreme Court should not have intervened because voting is a matter for the states (in Republican speak, "states rights"). The Florida Supreme Court was about to rule in Gore's favor, that is, he would have gotten his recount.

As for Ohio, it's like someone said, he stole it the old fashioned way.

Fortunately, as we sow so shall we reap. George W. Bush will likely go down in history as the worst U.S. President. I'm sure Jimmy Carter's thankful for W.

Re:Funny how (-1, Flamebait)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882822)

Barrack Obama is going to take "Worst President," Bush did pretty good until he started a war. War is a necessary thing, but expensive and economically crippling; warfare must be precise, effective, efficient, and carefully considered. This was not a war we needed to fight--at least not so viciously. It should have been easier to pull off our global political goals without bumbling around like retards..

Still, I'm looking at these asses running our country and what do we get? Republicans raving about crazy vicious communist liberals, democrats trying to look more professional while lobbing a constant stream of low-brow attacks at conservatives. All of you shut the fuck up and get some work done.

Re:Funny how (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882288)

He stole the election and therefore did in fact win. But there is no need for the CT stuff, Ohio was stole the old fashioned way... by making sure that the people that aren't going to vote for your guy have a harder time voting. In this case by manipulating the allocation of voting machines.

Re:Funny how (2)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882552)

RTFA:

Spoonamore also swore that "...the architecture further confirms how this election was stolen. The computer system and SmarTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmarTech computers."

The 2004 election was stolen the new fashioned way. If people haven't they should really Google Stephen Spoonamore. He has this shit down.

Re:Funny how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882570)

No, the fact is that he won. Whether you win by pure methods or win by cheating you still win. I understand he won by Hanging Chad. I'm not sure why Chad needed to die, or why they didn't use lethal injection, but apparently it was a move that allows for a win. Some strange rules on the US side of the pond for sure...

Re:Funny how (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882430)

Most of those people are the same ones that said if you leave the financial instruments market unregulated, all hell will break loose.

8% - that's quite revisionist. I believe they were talking "north of 10%, and possibly 15%" before the stimulus. But hey, believe whatever Rush tells you today.

Re:Funny how (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882694)

I believe they were talking "north of 10%, and possibly 15%" before the stimulus.

Hmm, a quick Google, and I find that unemployment rates under Bush peaked at about 7% when he left office (average over his terms looks to be between 5% and 5.25%, based on a quick eyeballing of the graph).

Since then, it's been higher, though it looks like it may have peaked at about where it is now.

Note that these numbers are the official numbers, and thus don't include people who are no longer collecting unemployment.

Note further that the unemployment extensions voted into place over the last few years would tend to result in an apparently higher unemployment rate, IF people tend to be unemployed for longer than the "standard" unemployment period, but not so long as the "revised" unemployment period. Otherwise, it would tend to hide the long-term unemployed from counting as unemployed.

Re:Funny how (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882696)

No, they weren't. The projected unemployment rate was 8.8% without stimulus [3cdn.net] and just under 8% with stimulus, with a footnote that some private forecasters said it would get as high as 11%. There are numerous other sources for that report, that was the administrations take on it, and their model was clearly crap one way or another since the actual unemployement rate with stimulus was higher than their models allowed for without it. There is no actual evidence that the stimulus decreased unemployement (it may have provably saved a few specific jobs, but those could have come at the expense of others). Politifact continues to use numbers from the CBO, which are useless [theatlantic.com] for actually proving that jobs are saved, if for no other reason than they use the same model that was proven wrong by reality already.

Re:Funny how (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882462)

Umm... The unemployment numbers have always been garbage. The length of time that unemployment could be collected has been increased, so the numbers went up.

The Republicans would drop it to a month, and the numbers would be down to a couple of percent, and they'd say "Look how we improved things! Low unemployment!" while people are jobless, starving in the streets.

Re:Funny how (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882620)

You are correct. Unemployment is closer to 25%.

oh please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882250)

Liberals claim that every election that Republicans win was stolen. It won't be long until the 2010 Congressional election is claimed to have been stolen. Computerized election security is atrocious, and has always been atrocious. This whole argument is "it could have happened, therefore it happened." Exit polls don't mean squat.

Re:oh please (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882366)

This whole argument is "it could have happened, therefore it happened."

If you care at all about the integrity of our electoral system that's the position you have to take, no matter who benefits from the error. We won't send a man to jail when there's reasonable doubt, why should we elect a president on less?

Re:oh please (1)

neonKow (1239288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882748)

Uh. You're completely reversing the analogy.

You are supposed presume innocence, but you still do your best to investigate something suspicious.
You presume Bush got elected correctly because that's what the results show, but you still investigate if the elections were hacked.

Please don't apply "reasonable doubt" willy-nilly to support whatever side of the argument you're on if you don't want debates to devolve into stupid "uh huh"/"nuh-uh" arguments.

Re:oh please (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882498)

And the republicans do the same thing.

The sad thing is. Both parties do it, and it is an injustice to the American people. It's nothing more than two groups of greedy bastards trying to get money and power at the expense of the sheeple who won't do anything about it.

Re:oh please (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882512)

Oh, there is way more to this one than mere liberal whining and "it could have happened, therefore it happened." I fully concede that the whining over the 2000 election was unwarranted (and frankly made the Dem's look like sore losers, which was embarrassing). But in the particular case of Ohio in 2004, there was some REALLY FISHY stuff going on there. The CEO [wikipedia.org] of the company making the e-voting machines was a major Bush fundraiser (which is highly unethical and a serious conflict of interest in and of itself), promising to help deliver Ohio for Bush in fundraising letters. Combine that with the discrepancy between the results and the exit polling, and you have a situation where serious questions have to be raised about the whole situation there. And O'Dell later resigning from Diebold amid charges of insider trading a year later didn't exactly bolster a reputation for honesty on his part. The whole thing cast a real cloud over the legitimacy of the results in Ohio.

Does all that NECESSARILY point to corruption? Of course not. But it sure as hell raises the question of it.

Re:oh please (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882636)

Does all that NECESSARILY point to corruption?

Yes, pretty much, it does.

And the court document described in the article certainly does.

Re:oh please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882662)

I got yer hanging chad right here.

Re:oh please (5, Insightful)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882684)

Not only that, but the Secretary of State in Ohio - they guy charged with making sure the voting process was fair and uncorruptable, and that all precincts had enough resources - was the leader of the Bush campaign for Ohio. The systems engineer was a Rove operative. Everything's done in secret and no one can audit the system. And when the votes are cast, there's a deviation from the poll results that make statisticians suspicious.

What? The? Fuck? How does that pass ANY sniff test, ever? Especially Blackwell's conflict of interest?

You know, you can have one orange finger and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Two orange fingers, and you'll still get the 'innocent until proven guilty' treatment. But when your whole hand is orange and there's cheese powder on your lips and teeth? Dude, I didn't have to see you do it to know that you stole the fucking cheetos.

Re:oh please (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882642)

Computerized election security is atrocious, and has always been atrocious. This whole argument is "it could have happened, therefore it happened." Exit polls don't mean squat.

Except that, until recently, the exit polls pretty much matched up with the election results. When they began to diverge, the reaction was, "Gosh, why are the exit polls so far off?" Hint: It wasn't the exit polls that were off.

RTFA, this issue goes way beyond "It could have happened, therefore it did". It has been shown to have happened. Additionally, this is a non-partisan issue. Stephen Spoonamore, one of the most outspoken and credible critics of electronic voting, is a Republican.

Working People (-1, Troll)

cgfsd (1238866) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882278)

Hmm, could that sudden shift have been caused by people getting off of work and then voting?

All it takes is looking at your paycheck and seeing how much is taken out by the government and most people think twice about electing someone who promises to raise taxes.

Mod parent FUNNY (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882314)

Hmm, could that sudden shift have been caused by people getting off of work and then voting?

That's a good one, there. We heard about the massive lines in the largest cities in Ohio, where working people had to stand in line for several hours to vote if they lived in less-than-affluent districts. Many people were unable to take enough time off of work, and simply walked away from the line, not casting a vote at all.

Re:Working People (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882318)

Hmm, could that sudden shift have been caused by people getting off of work and then voting?

All it takes is looking at your paycheck and seeing how much is taken out by the government and most people think twice about electing someone who promises to raise taxes.

Yeah, that must have been it. Douchebag.

Re:Working People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882372)

Why is he a 'douchebag'. Because he doesnt agree with you? And he's the douchebag? nice

Re:Working People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882358)

yes, because the people who conduct exit polls and political pundits in general are complete ignorant of the factors involved.

in fact i suspect this is nothing but a rouse so they can continue to call themselves experts despite having gotten the prediction so wrong.

i mean, really, who could possibly concieve of any one affiliated with the bush camp (not going to tar the whole party) performing such and amoral and illegal act. they're all so cuddly.

surprised there's not been a beanie bear range made after them.

Re:Working People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882390)

Hmm, could that sudden shift have been caused by people getting off of work and then voting?

All it takes is looking at your paycheck and seeing how much is taken out by the government and most people think twice about electing someone who promises to raise taxes.

Agreed

Re:Working People (0)

fredrated (639554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882482)

How would you like to have all of your money, no government, and have to protect it every night against people trying to steal it? That would be a great improvement!

Re:Working People (0)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882698)

How would you like to have none of your money, 100% government control, and be unable to protect yourself from the masses? That would be a great improvement! You can be a normal fucking person and realize that "too much in taxes" doesn't mean "I want no taxes or government" it just means "I think this is too much in taxes." Or you can cast people who disagree with you off in to a position that isn't theirs, but you don't have to think about and can reject on its face. That's political discourse, right?

Re:Working People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882504)

LOL. I am sure that works for you on the Glenn Beck forums.

There are several links to this on Reddit, along with the 2008 diagram showing the MITM SmarTech system. http://www.reddit.com/search?q=SmarTech [reddit.com]

Feed the trolls day at /. (0)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882506)

Yeah. That's exactly it. Most single earner families making less than $60k (yeah, that's right - 60 grand - more than half the households in the US make less than that) pay less than 2% of their gross in Federal income taxes. The big chunk on the paystub is social security and medicare. And yet I haven't heard a single Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) suggesting that we eliminate those programs to save working class people the 7.5% - almost 4X what they pay in Federal Income tax.

Re:Working People (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882532)

I'm just glad to have a job, which I wouldn't have, were it strictly a Republican rule for an extended period of time. So, yeah, I'll take the tax hit.

Then again, I'd probably be stuck on welfare/disability if it were a Democrat rule, which would also suck.

I can safely say, I'm happy to have a mix, those two groups fighting each other lets the American population have some defense against their predation.

Re:Working People (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882660)

Hmm, could that sudden shift have been caused by people getting off of work and then voting?

All it takes is looking at your paycheck and seeing how much is taken out by the government and most people think twice about electing someone who promises to raise taxes.

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. Because that was Kerry's platform after all...

Bush led in pre-election polls in Ohio (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882300)

Real Clear Politics poll aggregation showed that Bush led Kerry going into the election in Ohio, and had led nationally since the September before the election - it would have been surprising if Kerry won. Exit polling can be and has been unreliable - that's why it's only used as an indicator and not on it's own (precinct turnout is usually more indicative of who's going to win).

Really, just let it go. Kerry just lost - sometimes that's all there is to it.

Re:Bush led in pre-election polls in Ohio (5, Insightful)

rockclimber (660746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882410)

But Thats the Problem with election Machines, or E-Voting.
You can't know. You can't Recount. You don't know the source. YOU CAN NOT VERYFY.
This is why e-voting undermines the base of democracy.
What we need is a competition for voting macines, like for encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard [wikipedia.org] . To declare an open standard after the worlds brightest securtiy people tried 4-8 years to break it.
Oh, and Voting over the Internet or by text messaging? I can think of so many things that can go wrong that it should be illegal.

Re:Bush led in pre-election polls in Ohio (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882454)

Actually, the lack of verification is not intrinsic to electronic voting. You just need a paper trail. Unfortunately, there usually isn't one.

Re:Bush led in pre-election polls in Ohio (5, Insightful)

phlinn (819946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882716)

Personally, I prefer human readable paper ballots. It's simply not as easy to fudge physical ballots as elecrontic ones.

Re:Bush led in pre-election polls in Ohio (1)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882860)

You think so? Ballot stuffing has a long and glorious history in elections around the world. Since ballots have no way to track them back to the person casting the vote, there's no way to tell if someone actually cast any ballot. That kind of anonymity is a perfect breeding ground for fraud.

Wow, who could have seen a conflict of interest? (3, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882330)

Well, when the CEO of Diebold (the company making the voting machines), Walden O'Dell [wikipedia.org] is also doubling as a major Bush fundraiser and promising to "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President", is anyone really surprised that serious questions were raised about these e-voting machines--which were already controversial long before Wally O'Dell ever started fundraising?

Some things are still best done the old-fashioned way. And voting is one of them.

Re:Wow, who could have seen a conflict of interest (3, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882768)

Here's what's really annoying about that particular quote: I can't find the full text of it, least not in 15 minutes of noodling around on Google. There are tons of references to that quote, plenty of references to the responses to the quote, but nothing at all which could put that quote into context. I'm not saying it's a case of misinterpretation... but I am saying that we don't have the facts. What we have is a great soundbite.

Then we have this FTA:

Spoonamore also swore that "...the architecture further confirms how this election was stolen. The computer system and SmarTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmarTech computers."

Which sums it up nicely. The filings show how it could have been stolen - but do not prove that it was stolen. It seems to me that the same can be said of any election using this equipment and architecture.

In spite of that, I agree with your statement. The old fashioned way seems to be the one that is most foolproof. While that process can obviously be hacked as well, it typically needs to be done on a machine by machine basis and is quite a bit more traceable.

What if scenario (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882336)

I wonder what it means if this suit succeeds? Does it mean that mean that all laws Bush signed after the 2004 election are illegal along with all executive orders from the same time period? Personally I doubt that will be the case but I do wonder especially since the article didn't go into what the suit was about. For those who would like to complain about the 2000 election that one already went all the way to the supreme court so we are kind of stuck with that decision.

Re:What if scenario (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882476)

Being someone who lives on an entirely different continent, I don't really care about this whole affair, but I am nevertheless curious as to what's going to happen if this suit ends with concluding that the elections were stolen.

Maybe they will throw Bush into jail. So what? What's past is past, and having someone serve prison time won't help a bit. I mean, prison time is to punish someone for their deeds and hopefully teach them to not do it again. Bush won't do it again anyway, and punishing him could get a bit more creative.
Maybe they will throw some small fish into jail. Bah, nobody would care after a few months anyway.
So I wonder if there's indeed a goal for this trial. "Bringing the truth to the surface" is not really a goal, is a welcome addition to the goal itself. So... what's the goal?

Re:What if scenario (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882554)

Well, it's not like we have more important issues to discuss, such as the impending default, or... oh wait...

Re:What if scenario (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882714)

Maybe they will throw Bush into jail. So what? What's past is past, and having someone serve prison time won't help a bit. I mean, prison time is to punish someone for their deeds and hopefully teach them to not do it again.

Prison time also serves as a deterrent to prevent others from doing it.

Re:What if scenario (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882724)

It means all the laws stand, but we put an asterisk by his name in the history books. Other than that, we promise to try really hard not to let election fraud go unnoticed next time, and it is back to business as usual.

It was hacked? (4, Informative)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882338)

I read through the article and all I found was information that it was possible to do so - but we at Slashdot ALL know that all electronic voting systems are heavily flawed. I didn't see any evidence in the article that voter fraud actually did occur, only that it was possible.

What IS mentioned is that an intermediate vote count was transferred to another server, but that just means that early vote totals were made available, not that fraudulent votes were cast.

What is with Slashdot and the craptacular headlines lately?

Re:It was hacked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882710)

Seriously now... I didn't even RTFA and I believe you. Slashdot is utter crap. I have been a regular for years, but this is the last story I have read on this website. Bitcoin. Anonymous. Hacking. Cracking. Stealing. Maybe. Might have said. Was probably. Etc. Etc. Too much bullshit around here.

Goodbye, Slashdot, it was a bumpy ride.

Re:It was hacked? (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882772)

I think you're referring to this:

The filing also includes the revealing deposition of the late Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech. That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led to Bush's unexpected victory. Connell died a month and a half after giving this deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.

It's not clear whether Connell testified that the vote shift happened, or it was determined some other way.

Re:It was hacked? (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882832)

Well, they copied the headline verbatim from a known partisan website. It's worth noting that truthout.org made a stronger claim than the actual legal filing did, as far as I can tell. Blame chimpo13, not slashdot.

Why John Kerry lost (3, Insightful)

snsh (968808) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882348)

Kerry's biggest problem in 2004 was not the voting machines in Ohio or Pennsylvania, but his inability to coherently and succinctly answer a simple question.

In 2004, a ham sandwich would have out-polled George W, but the Democrats nominated John Friggin Kerry. Vote tampering in Ohio does not excuse the Democrats for losing that election.

Re:Why John Kerry lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882486)

The fact that the Democrats would not have won anyways does not excuse anyone from tampering with votes.

Re:Why John Kerry lost (4, Insightful)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882542)

Vote tampering in Ohio does not excuse the Democrats for losing that election.

No, but a weak candidate doesn't excuse vote tampering either. No matter which way I vote, I'd like to know that it counted. I'd like to know that it's not being tampered with for profit, malice, or mischief.

Re:Why John Kerry lost (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882760)

Hey, but the ham sandwich didn't serve in Vietnam!

Re:Why John Kerry lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882856)

In 2008, McCain/Sandwich could have won, but the republicans decided to put Palin in.

And I predict... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882350)

... that of this startling revelation absolutely nothing will come.

The people don't care, the politicians only mind when it is used against them and the people with money are working both sides anyway.

Oh, there may be a lot of hot words thrown around, endless suggestions on how to prevent a repeat of the problem (some might even work) and a even handful of fixes that don't really do anything (or may even make the problem worse).

But a real solution? Ha!

How much is incompetence (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882362)

How much of this is incompetence and how much is really malice? As much as everyone seems to like a good conspiracy I have a feeling that this is probably going to be more like the Sony PSN security breach and less like the Sony rootkit DRM fiasco

Seriously, making excuses? (2)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882370)

Exit polls are, frankly, more reliable then our actual vote tallies now. The Florida ballot was, quite clearly, confusing. Go look at it from a statistical perspective - Buchanan's results were clearly skewed, as acknowledge by everyone but Bush (Meaning, Buchanan agreed they were screwed up too!), because only Bush had soemthing to gain. Oh, and he was elected president without a plurality popular support. In Florida, back then, the Republicans clearly proved that they were in this to win the presidency, not win an election. If you want to contest this, offer more proof.

Meanwhile, in this article, the argument is not as simple 'It COULD have happened therefore it happened", which would be the grounds you would use to contest any election in any system no matter what. No, here, you have a clearly partisan system, you have an unexplained security lapse, you have an unexplained vote shift. You have strong circumstantial effort of foul play - and while it's not enough to convict someone, this bloody well should have invalidated the election results and forced a revote. You need to know that your election system is clean and reliable, and in this, Ohio's system failed - there's just too great of a chnce for the election to have been stolen to tolerate it. We're America. Run another election. We're supposed to care about that, right?

Re:Seriously, making excuses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882520)

The Florida ballot was, quite clearly, confusing.
Perhaps it was, but it was also a system that had existed for a long time and had been used across the country. If it was unsuitable, it should have been dealt with before a major election and not during because you think you can recount a few select counties and win. Personally, I still think scanned paper ballots are way to go for the foreseeable future.

Re:Seriously, making excuses? (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882692)

Perhaps it was, but it was also a system that had existed for a long time and had been used across the country. If it was unsuitable, it should have been dealt with before a major election and not during because you think you can recount a few select counties and win. Personally, I still think scanned paper ballots are way to go for the foreseeable future.

I agree that it should have been addressed earlier, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered valid when the problems it caused were significant enough, and the election close enough, that it could have caused a change in the outcome. Even more so for a presidential election.

Re:Seriously, making excuses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882550)

We're supposed to care about that, right?

Why? The American economy would have imploded in 2008 just as readily under a Kerry administration. We were already in our overseas wars deep enough that they would have persisted through his entire term. Domestically, little would have changed as well: the investment banks were playing Jenga with our entire economy well before 2004. The only major difference I can see is that the electorate would have (mistakenly) blamed Kerry and the Democrats for the collapse instead of (mistakenly) blaming Bush and the Republicans.

Nobody cares because nobody is given a reason to care.

Re:Seriously, making excuses? (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882610)

What are you talking about? Several media organizations that favored Al Gore conducted their own independent recount and concluded that by any reasonable standard George W. Bush won the Florida vote in 2000. Additionally, even though Al Gore received more total counted votes nationwide than George W. Bush this does not take into account that states stop counting absentee ballots when the number of remaining ballots is less than the current difference between the candidates. The reports I have seen indicate that nationwide there were significantly more absentee ballots not counted than the difference between the national vote count for Al Gore and George W. Bush. The absentee ballots in the 2000 election favored George W. Bush by a significant margin. What this means is that we do not know what the actual number of nationwide votes for either Al Gore or George W. Bush were in the 2000 election, because no one counted all of the votes.

Re:Seriously, making excuses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882640)

How are exit polls more reliable than the real deal? Because they favor the left by a wide margin? Because only idiots actually take the time to answer the questions? Because they only hit a few select polling locations? I've never even seen someone running an exit poll at my polling location, and considering that I'm in a evenly split district in Ohio you would think we'd be good candidates...

Re:Seriously, making excuses? (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882794)

Winning an election by the rules is not the same as winning the popular vote. The republicans proved that they were interested in winning an election, and they surely would have liked to win the popular vote too, but that wasn't as important.

So what? (2)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882432)

By the time it comes down to actually voting for one of two "viable" candidates, the statist agenda is bound to be fulfilled. There are meaningful differences between Republican and Democrat, but on the whole they will both tend to do things that increase the role of federal government in our everyday lives and insidiously undermine our rights.

Give me a third party with the size and principles to actually change the course of government and I'll care more about what happens in the final round of elections.

There is nothing here (1)

Hutz (900771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882460)

I just read the whole packet. There is nothing in it. My absolute favorite is the Rolling Stone Article. Not only for it evidential value, but for footnote 11. It's the only footnote on a particularly damning paragraph:

11) Facts mentioned in this paragraph are subsequently cited throughout the story.

Normally footnotes refer to supporting material and don't just tell you how important they are.

You can hack paper votes (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882464)

You can hack mechanical voting machines

But the problem with electronic voting is that your hack can happen in seconds, and do far more damage than an army of corrupt vote counters and ballot stuffers and truck drivers who get lost while delivering paper ballots. Plus your attack vectors are orders of magnitude more numerous, because you're dealing with a more complex systems.

Democracy is about trust. Voting should not be a black box: votes in, sausage out. We on Slashdot are all technophiles: anything can be improved with software and electronics, we believe.

But maybe, just maybe, so that the process is transparent, verifiable, and easy to understand, even to the most suspicious and hostile voter: maybe voting should be on paper, forever, in the most advanced nation and the most poor.

Re:You can hack paper votes (2)

goldspider (445116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882592)

This is America, damnit!

Why do it RIGHT when you can do it EASY.

Re:You can hack paper votes (2)

lysdexia (897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882756)

Just wondering ... are you a Perl coder by any chance?

Re:You can hack paper votes (1)

xeube (1854212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882614)

It's funny that you say that. Here in Canada, we still use the good old pen and paper technique! Sure, it might seem antiquated, but it works. We have one system through all provinces and territories as to exclude result seen in Florida where certain counties would have older voting machines that produce an unbelievable amount of discarted votes. Also, it would be nice to see, in the US, a government arm-length agency that would be responsible to oversee the election, just like Election Canada, as to prevent what happen in Florida and/or in other States.

uncle sam totally unresponsive, walking dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882480)

still showing up here there & everywhere

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/planet are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

diaperleaks group worldwide.

Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882492)

The title should be "Court filing on how the 2004 Ohio election was hacked".

Conspiracy theory much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882526)

Both parties do this after every election.

Plane crash needs more investigation (1)

arnott (789715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882528)

Mr Connell was president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications. A web designer, he had created a website for Ohio's secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were released

He had refused to testify or to hand over documents relating to the systems he had created for the 2004 and 2006 elections but was compelled to do so by subpoena in October and appeared in court in Cleveland, Ohio – the state which gave President George W Bush victory in 2004 – to give a deposition the day before Barack Obama won the presidential election.

source : George Bush aide dies in plane crash [telegraph.co.uk] .

Slashdot no longer relevant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882544)

This was on reddit 24 hours ago

Mix Feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36882588)

As someone from Ohio, I have mixed feelings about this one. Kenneth Blackburn was one of the most corrupt public officials we've had, so I wouldn't put any of this past him. He was one of those guys that wasn't just a liar, he was an unabashed poor liar.

But the 2004 election was lost solely because of the gay community. Bush riled them up with his whole 'defense of marriage' amendment and all the homosexual interest groups took the bait. Kerry actually came out against gay marriage but only in the same wishy-washy way that Obama is. So for many Ohio voters, it was a choice between the guy from Massachusetts who was wishy-washy on gay marriage and the guy from Texas* who was staunchly opposed to gay marriage.

Basically, Karl Rove calculated that just by proposing a defense of marriage amendment the gay community would freak out and many moderate democrats and independents would rather vote Republican than take the 'gay' side. If the gay community actually believed in getting a Democrat into office they wouldn't have held all those protests and written all those editorials and railed on and on about their right to marriage. It was obviously, at the time, a losing battle. In politics you have to know when to pick your battles. Rove did, Democrats didn't. Four years of Bush because of a bunch of uppity homosexuals.

*Connecticut, but the people who voted this way didn't know that

Even if they prove this (2)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882726)

Even if they prove this last time I checked George W isn't in office anymore and you can't go back in time.

Lack of transparency (2)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36882824)

Most of the accusations of voter fraud stem from one horrible shortcoming in American elections. Quite simply, it's a lack of transparency. If the election work was done out in the open for all to see, we wouldn't have so much fraud. But that's exactly why it's done in secret. Both sides WANT fraud. When things aren't going their way they want to have all sorts of leverage to shift the election to them. Ballot stuffing has a long and glorious tradition in this country. The Republicans are being accused today, though there isn't any hard evidence that would convict beyond a reasonable doubt (again, transparency). The Democratic machine in Chicago is legendary for their fraud. If elections were done out in the open where people could see what's going on, a lot of this fraud would become substantially more difficult.

But here's the kicker. It really doesn't make all that much difference who actually gets elected. We had a Republican who got us into two wars. He was replaced by a Democrat promising to get us out of war but all he did was get us involved in a third war. Every time one party takes over, they seem to outspend the party they just replaced. And it doesn't matter which party replaces which, the spending just keeps going up. For all of the talk about about the other issues, it seems to me that day to day life doesn't change. All of the bickering about the hot button topics (abortion, gay rights, gun rights, the environment, etc.) is just a way for the parties to pander to the masses, keeping them distracted from what's actually going on behind the curtain. I firmly believe that the Tea Party movement was engineered by the Republicans to distract the more radical portion of their base. They get themselves in a lather about everything, yelling slogans and rallying against big government but end up voting for the Republican candidate as a means of voting against the Democrat. Win for the Republican machine.

I've said it for a long time. The only real difference between the parties is who they take money from and who they give it to.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?