How to Hack the Vote: the short version
November 18, 2004 10:41 AM Subscribe
Hack the Vote: the short version by Chuck Herrin. Hasn't this made the rounds here yet?
This post was deleted for the following reason: old news
Evidence of Electoral Fraud : A reading list ( a superb, nearly encyclopedic list - cover a hundred carefully chosen links )
Thursday November 18, 1:23 am ET Research Team Calls for Immediate Investigation
"BERKELEY, Calif., Nov. 18 PRNewswire --
When: Thursday, November 18, 2004, 10:00 a.m. PST
Where: UC Berkeley campus, Survey Research Center Conference Room -- 2538 Channing Way (intersection of Channing/Bowditch). Parking on Durant near Telegraph.
What: A research team at UC Berkeley will report that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods. Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Professor Michael Hout, will formally disclose results of the study at the press conference."
posted by troutfishing at 11:00 AM on November 18, 2004
Thursday November 18, 1:23 am ET Research Team Calls for Immediate Investigation
"BERKELEY, Calif., Nov. 18 PRNewswire --
When: Thursday, November 18, 2004, 10:00 a.m. PST
Where: UC Berkeley campus, Survey Research Center Conference Room -- 2538 Channing Way (intersection of Channing/Bowditch). Parking on Durant near Telegraph.
What: A research team at UC Berkeley will report that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods. Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Professor Michael Hout, will formally disclose results of the study at the press conference."
posted by troutfishing at 11:00 AM on November 18, 2004
« Older HELLO N00BS | The Return of Hobbes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But i dunno, something about certifying someone's ethical standards is a bit odd.
Back to the article, This has been covered in detail, and while an interesting technical article on the nuts and bolts of election fraud, I fear those who liked the election results will say "but there is no proof of fraud!!!!" and those who didn't like the election results will say "This is about Democracy!!!!" and no one will get anywhere.
As for me, either voting is transparent and as fraudproof as possible, or we have a monkey trained by the highest bidder pull names out of a hat. Your choice America.
posted by Freen at 10:54 AM on November 18, 2004