Nader attempts to challenge results

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Nader/Camejo Challenge Electronic Voting Results in New Hampshire

Washington, DC:The Nader/Camejo campaign has filed a challenge to the voting results in New Hampshire after receiving numerous complaints from voting rights activits. Below is Nader's letter to New Hampshire requesting a recount. Also, below is Nader's view on electronic voting without a paper trial. In addition, the Nader/Camejo campaign offered our campaign to poll watchers who wanted to be credentialed to be inside to monitor electronic voting. Hundreds of democracy activists in Maryland working with TrueVoteMD.org were credentialed to monitor polling through the Populist Party which was created by Nader-Camejo supporters in Maryland.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

November 5, 2004

 

Via fax: 603-271-6316

To The Secretary of State of New Hampshire:

 

The Nader/Camejo campaign requests a hand recount of the ballots in the presidential election in New Hampshire. Numerous voting rights activists have requested that we seek a recount of this vote.

 

We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire. These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.

 

We are requesting that the state undertake this recount or a statistically significant sample audit of these vote counts.

 

We would like to make sure every vote counts and is counted accurately.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ralph Nader

 

Paperless Electronic Voting

A bedrock of democracy is making sure that every vote counts. The counting of votes needs to be transparent so people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded no analysis could discover it. Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This Primary Day six million voters will be voting on paperless electronic voting machines. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud.

 

On July 23, 2003 the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security “far below even the most minimal security standards . . . .” Johns Hopkins computer security experts concluded: “If we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate.”

 

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions. Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

 

The seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. This does not pass the smell test. Voters should report immediately any suspected malfunctions and deficiencies at voting precincts around the country to their Board of Elections. And voters should urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts.

 

 

source: http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=400

[Guest BDC]

Ralph, seriously, shut up.

 

As for the CEOs being contributors... so? They may even contribute to the Dems.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ralph, seriously, shut up.

 

Yeah, who gives a fuck about election fraud?

 

As for the CEOs being contributors... so? They may even contribute to the Dems.

 

Yeah, except the CEO of Diebold said that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president" in an August 2003 fund-raising letter.

 

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2334

[teke184 0]

Ralph missed the boat... I think the operative words in his argument are that the exit polls didn't reflect the actual results, which is what everyone's been saying.

 

If it was connected to one or two states, it could have been voter fraud. However, the fact that exit polls put Kerry 50-50 with Bush in Mississippi should be a good example of how skewed they were and that they were not reliable.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Does he think he'll win with the recount?

[2GOLD 0]

Does he think he'll win with the recount?

 

Apparently Ralph thinks his last name is Kerry.

[Vern Gagne 0]

But Kerry won New Hampshire.

[NoCalMike 0]

I find it hilarious that just about every on-air personality on Air America was telling their viewers to send Nader letters urging him to challenge the votes in some states, after Air America staged one of the most ANTI-Nader stances over the past year.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Does he think he'll win with the recount?

Maybe he thought he got 0.0000002 percent of the vote.

 

*shrugs...*

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So lame. Even if it was found that Republicans were stuffing the proverbial ballot boxes with giant golden ~W~ its not gonna make a lick of difference. They have the power now and thats how its gonna be.

 

 

And yes, I threw away my vote on Nader. I guess that makes me a terrorist. Officially.

 

 

 

 

Allah Akbar.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You were a terrorist long before voting Green...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You were a terrorist long before voting Green...

Somebody call my momma!

[Guest Loss]

If Nader had 4% of the vote in this election, I could understand him challenging votes in almost every state where he was on the ballot, but there's simply no reason to do it here.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I know. I voted for the guy IN New Hampshire and even I'm like "Yanno, Ralph. I just want the fucking thing to be over!" Now just go get a job at Crossfire and beat up Novak daily.

[Guest Cerebus]

Oh Nader, you delightful little bastard. You already set the American third party back 16 years, do you really want to drag this on?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If Nader had 4% of the vote in this election, I could understand him challenging votes in almost every state where he was on the ballot, but there's simply no reason to do it here.

 

I disagree. I think if he exposes fraud that its worthwhile. Just like he crusaded for safe cars back in the day, perhaps now he is going to work for a more transparent vote.

 

And (theoretically) how sweet would it be if he used the money given to him by Republicans to expose fraud perpetrated by them?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ralph, seriously, shut up.

 

Yeah, who gives a fuck about election fraud?

 

As for the CEOs being contributors... so? They may even contribute to the Dems.

 

Yeah, except the CEO of Diebold said that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president" in an August 2003 fund-raising letter.

 

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2334

Except, ironically, the only problems with machines were in OH --- and they weren't Diebold machines. Nobody has actually pointed to a problem with the Diebold machines.

 

If Nader wants to complain based on the quite-debunked exit polls, I hope the judge has the decency to laugh at him and slap his lawyer.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

If Nader had 4% of the vote in this election, I could understand him challenging votes in almost every state where he was on the ballot, but there's simply no reason to do it here.

 

I disagree. I think if he exposes fraud that its worthwhile. Just like he crusaded for safe cars back in the day, perhaps now he is going to work for a more transparent vote.

 

And (theoretically) how sweet would it be if he used the money given to him by Republicans to expose fraud perpetrated by them?

I'd actually think it'd be better if the money he was given by Republicans was used to completely annihilate what little legitimacy he had. A better use of money could not exist.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

quite-debunked exit polls

 

Tell me more. Cite, my man, cite.

[Guest MikeSC]

quite-debunked exit polls

 

Tell me more. Cite, my man, cite.

The polls had Kerry winning the Carolinas. What more do you want?

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Except, ironically, the only problems with machines were in OH

 

E-voting irregularities raise eyebrows, blood pressure

 

Thu Nov 4, 6:58 AM ET

 

 

Concern over electronic voting technology was not assuaged Tuesday as glitches, confusion and human error raised a welter of problems across the country, even while e-vote watchdogs prepared to file suits challenging the results derived from the controversial machines.

 

 

New rules, new voters and a tight presidential contest combined to create "a recipe for problems," said Sean Greene, who was watching Cleveland polls for the Election Reform Information Project, a nonpartisan research group on election reform.

 

 

Nearly one in three voters, including about half of those in Florida, were expected to cast ballots using ATM-style voting machines that computer scientists have criticized for their potential for software glitches, hacking and malfunctioning.

 

 

In South Carolina, problems were reported in a handful of precincts in two counties using electronic machines. Officials said voters were forced to switch to paper ballots while technicians got the iVotronic touch screens from Electronic Systems & Software up and running within about 90 minutes.

 

 

And in Volusia County, Florida, a memory card in an optical-scan voting machine failed Monday at an early voting site and didn't count 13,000 ballots. Officials planned to feed the ballots, in which voters fill in a bubble, and count them Tuesday.

 

 

Many of the problems with electronic voting - whether accidental or intentional - may not be known until well after Tuesday, if at all. Most of the ATM-style machines, including all of Florida's, lack paper records that could be used to verify the electronic results in a recount.

 

 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's VerifiedVoting.org, which has been monitoring the implementation of e-voting machines in the U.S., warned on Monday that over 20 percent of the machines tested by observers around the country failed to record votes properly. The organization recommended that voters choosing to use touchscreen voting methods be sure to double-check the summary screen to confirm that their votes had been properly registered.

 

 

BlackBoxVoting.org, the site organized by e-voting activist Bev Harris, announced early Wednesday that it plans to conduct what the site describes as the largest Freedom of Information Act request in history, requesting internal computer logs and other documents from 3,000 individual counties and townships using electronic voting machines.

 

 

According to a release posted on the site, "Such a request filed in King County, Washington on Sept. 15, following the primary election six weeks ago, uncovered an internal audit log containing a three-hour deletion on election night; 'trouble slips' revealing suspicious modem activity; and profound problems with security, including accidental disclosure of critically sensitive remote access information to poll workers, office personnel, and even, in a shocking blunder, to Black Box Voting activists."

 

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...wsbloodpressure

[Guest Vitamin X]

I was unaware that Nader was running with Peter Camejo (if that's who the Camejo on Nader's ticket would be). I actually found Camejo to be an extremely intelligent guy, and in my opinion won the California gubernatorial debates last year, but of course got nearly none of the recognition Arnold did.

 

Anyways, this is really quite pointless. Ralph Nader isn't trying to challenge the recount as much as he is trying to challenge the fact that he's fast becoming (if not already) the most inconsequential figure in mainstream politics.

[Guest MikeSC]

I was unaware that Nader was running with Peter Camejo (if that's who the Camejo on Nader's ticket would be). I actually found Camejo to be an extremely intelligent guy, and in my opinion won the California gubernatorial debates last year, but of course got nearly none of the recognition Arnold did.

 

Anyways, this is really quite pointless. Ralph Nader isn't trying to challenge the recount as much as he is trying to challenge the fact that he's fast becoming (if not already) the most inconsequential figure in mainstream politics.

What I'd like to know is what standing Nader has to file, since he's not even on the radar screen.

 

And thanks for the info, smitty.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I was unaware that Nader was running with Peter Camejo (if that's who the Camejo on Nader's ticket would be). I actually found Camejo to be an extremely intelligent guy, and in my opinion won the California gubernatorial debates last year, but of course got nearly none of the recognition Arnold did.

 

Anyways, this is really quite pointless. Ralph Nader isn't trying to challenge the recount as much as he is trying to challenge the fact that he's fast becoming (if not already) the most inconsequential figure in mainstream politics.

Again, I disagree.

 

He is pushing for a more transparent election. This should not even have to be done in the longest-running democracy in the world, but it is necessary. I don't see how either side of the political spectrum could possibly argue against less transparency in the electoral process. If you think the other side is EVIL~!, then why not take the steps to ensure that they don't commit fraud?

 

It's a win-win dealy, yo.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I was unaware that Nader was running with Peter Camejo (if that's who the Camejo on Nader's ticket would be). I actually found Camejo to be an extremely intelligent guy, and in my opinion won the California gubernatorial debates last year, but of course got nearly none of the recognition Arnold did.

 

Anyways, this is really quite pointless. Ralph Nader isn't trying to challenge the recount as much as he is trying to challenge the fact that he's fast becoming (if not already) the most inconsequential figure in mainstream politics.

What I'd like to know is what standing Nader has to file, since he's not even on the radar screen.

 

And thanks for the info, smitty.

-=Mike

Sure thing.

 

I'm not sure, but I think you just have to be a candidate to challenge. He obviously doesn't think he's going to win. Badnarik and Cobb are supposedly considering involvement in this stuff as well. I think the third parties are doing this because it would look bad in the public eye if either of the major parties did it.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Well then why not challenge the votes in a more important state like Florida or Ohio, both of which were very close?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

quite-debunked exit polls

 

Tell me more. Cite, my man, cite.

The polls had Kerry winning the Carolinas. What more do you want?

-=Mike

Deez polls?

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

 

I'm asking seriously, by the way. Are these the "debunked" polls or the earlier ones?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well then why not challenge the votes in a more important state like Florida or Ohio, both of which were very close?

Nader wasn't on the ballot in Ohio. I don't know about Florida. And he's not really trying to change the election results (remember, he loathes both sides), just expose fraud.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I remember him being on the ballot here, as well as all the other 3rd party candidates.

[2GOLD 0]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that a man who was on the ballot in PA briefly thanks to the help of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble is trying to expose voter fraud?

 

Ralph Nadar trying to prove voter fraud is like Ted Kennedy giving a speech about not drinking alcohol to high school students.