blaen99

iTrader: (6)

This post is intended for those who have a bit of basic programming knowledge and have an interest to know how votes were tabulated. The source code has been subpoena'd and released publicly now for numerous voting machines in some seriously questionable areas.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...659/82111.html

This is very interesting, considering the party that is screaming about vote fraud seems to be receiving an awful lot of benefit from vote fraud.

P.S. If possible, could we keep this thread (somewhat) derp-free please? If you doubt anything that has been said, you can test it yourself and prove it wrong (And, incidentally, likely make national news in the process if you can prove these guys wrong, so there is substantial benefit to yourself if you can). Ideology means ---- when you have testable, proveable source code in front of you.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJA...yQQ/edit?pli=1

This is in addition to the above.

WARNING: Very dense topic. But something is not right - not when you reach 99%+ confidence numbers.

To sum up the above link: An interesting phenomenon has occurred in every state of this year's Republican primaries. Votes appear to be flipped away from other candidates in favor of Romney, with a 99% correlation to precinct size. Although votes are "canvassed" (checked) after each primary, the methods used are primarily designed to detect vote stuffing, rather than vote flipping.

This phenomenon has recently been shown to be absent if you can get your hands on poll tapes from individual machines, rather than from voting tabulators (machines that count the totals from the various voting machines).

Voting machines are just scary stuff. More so since poll tapes are not always made readily available. Thankfully, a bill was recently introduced that would require poll tapes from individual machines (not just tabulators) to be made available by the next day following an election.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Predominately Democrat districts in Wisconsin had 112% voter turnout by voting machine tabulation and went overtly Democrat. Strange things indeed...


Somebody's chad is hanging out.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Check my second link's detail on Paul if you really want an eyeful.

There's a very high probability that, if what is being alleged is true, Iowa had votes taken from Paul and given to Romney - votes that may have put Paul in first place by votes in Iowa. Further, this behavior is repeated across numerous states in which votes are taken from Paul and given to Romney. This behavior is inexplicable, and utterly unprecedented in the entire history of U.S. elections.

Secondly, for any precincts that had paper voting and/or a paper trail, this behavior did not exist. Let me reiterate. This behavior did not exist in any precinct that had a paper trail. This behavior only happened in precincts that had pure electronic voting tabulator with no ability to properly audit the chain of votes like the old paper votes, which is the majority of these places now.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Related to the thread:

Do people remember the big deal being made about the votes for Bush in the...2004 election not matching the exit polls?

This is directly tied to that. The more data that is acquired and ran through, the more it appears something is wrong - perhaps accidental, perhaps malicious - but at this point, there is upwards of a 99%+ confidence that something is wrong on a national level with the electronic voting machines. Related to Sixshooter's post, in Ohio there were numerous counties that turned out and voted for Bush - but these had in excess of 120% of the population turn out to vote, with the highest counting in at 126% of the population. It defies belief that in excess of a quarter additional of the population of a county turned out to vote for a candidate - I mean, is someone busing people in by the busload? When you are talking numbers this large, that's an entire convoy miles long of busses for ***** sake. Especially when that particular state can have an entire political election hinge on it and determine the winner.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I have a little bit of time today, so time for one more update on this topic.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82018.html

So, where are you guys on this sort of thing? I mean, one would logically assume that evidence of this sort would have people up in arms. The core of any form of democracy is voting - to injure the ability to vote is to injure the democracy itself. Especially considering how paranoid some people here have been about vote fraud.

And, oh dear...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1340036703

The same guys are actively engaging in behavior that is at best raw and pure incompetence. Obviously, it can't be focused along party lines! Or...can it?

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1338303024

But, wait!

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1340546604

Now parties involved are trying to silence people from analyzing the vote fraud. Remember, at this point, there is no longer any question vote fraud has happened on behalf of the Republicans. There's no doubt. It's just a question of if it was via accident, a bug in the code, or if it was truly malicious. But every effort is being thrown at stopping them in trying to find out the truth.

But I suppose I should have saved the juiciest tidbit for last - and I did.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1329444262

Yeah, granted this is from a few months ago. But cripes, this is unbelievable.

So, with all the stances people have taken on this topic with the most vague allegations when it benefited one party, does it all apply when it does not benefit that same party? We'll see! More to come depending on how much time I get.

JasonC SBB

I'm not surprised by all this.

Do you have a link to a page that summarizes all this?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Pretty disheartening. Hopefully it gets more exposure. I would be curious to know if they looked over the 2008 Democrat primary voting or if that information was not available?

Obviously, there will be no shenanigans for the Democrats at this point in the election cycle.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I've got a few minutes for a quick response before I have to GTFO.

A great deal of analysis on Democrat voting histories is in the process of being undertaken (Full disclosure: I'm contributing towards that as well as a large chunk of the links that have been posted on this page), but it's not as blatant as the Republicans. I'll go into much greater detail here on a later post when I have more time, but I'll leave it as the supposed dead people voting/illegal immigrants voting/etc. myths that the Republicans love to thump on are pure myths, have been for decades for what is being claimed, and what is really going on is something else. Unfortunately, this "something else" both parties actively engage in too...

Scrappy, if the Democrats manage to do shenanigans at the current point in the election cycle, I'd have to tip my hat to them 'cause that would be serious dedication. That's the fortunate (Or unfortunate) thing about having an incumbent politician.

It's extremely difficult to summarize beyond what has been posted, as they are summaries of summaries already. As an example, one document I linked to originally is a 10 page summation of over 200 pages of information on just that one topic.

Hunting down vote fraud is hard (And gets harder very day), and proving it is even harder. When they called for phd-level mathematicians to verify, they weren't kidding. This isn't like back in the 1800s when people would stuff ballots, as methods are refined to find vote fraud, methods are also refined to evade detection of vote fraud. In some cases, as with certain parts of the 2004 elections, we're only now finding out about potential vote fraud 8 years later, and this is exactly why it's so important to try to force politicians to make elections as transparent as physically possible. Related, this is also why it is so goddamn important to force disclosure of any and all political funding, and why there is a large uproar from numerous large entities against the FCC trying to force disclosure for certain types of political funding. It's very important to hide these, as they are critical secondary sources to help hunt down this sort of thing.