- "An electronic voting system is to a mechanical
one what a nuclear bomb is to a hand grenade. If someone manages to sabotage
it, the results can be catastrophic" unknown
- Gosh, what a bummer, all the polls predicted a blowout
for Obama 49/29. Huh? Seems that only Hillary saw a sudden
surge. "Old Dems" (women) coming out to vote - her tears
- Whites deciding not to vote for a Black, etc, are just some of the
cartoon sound bites used to describe the "most stunning upset in the
history of politics."
- The Diebold optical -scan system is used across NH.
Approximately 25% of NH votes are hand counted. Only if the paper ballots
are properly audited by hand in some fashion, can the results of the op-scanners
be trusted in any way, shape or form. The machines used in NH (also Vermont,
Conneticut, Massachusetts) are the same ones seen being hacked in HBO's
documentary 'Hacking Democracy' (shown across NH in 2004). A single private
company, with a very bad record, LHS Associates, Diebold's distributor
and technical contractor in New England, runs the elections and CONTROLS
the vulnerable memory cards for the voting systems across the state. Diebold's
opti-scan (paper ballot) voting system uses a curious memory card design,
offering penetration by a lone programmer such that standard canvassing
procedures cannot detect manipulation. This method is the equivalent of
having a little man living in the ballot box, holding an eraser and a pencil.
With an executable program in the 'memory card', no Diebold opti-scan
ballot box can be considered empty at the start of an election! This company
has an horrendous record of lax security policies and has admitted to
having replaced memory cards, on a whim, on their own, in the middle of
past elections. Jan 9 -2008, Bev Harris expert in computer hacking states:
"NH is the exact opposite of Iowa. NH used one of the worst systems
in America and then handed the programming of EVERY memory card in NH over
to a PRIVATE (LSH Associates) OUTFIT run by John Silvesto." So much
for the "Live Free or Die" state- when you entrust the people's
most treasured asset to a corporation!
- Truth be told, when voting today, you'd do better putting
a quarter in a bubble gum or slot machine ! Voter fraud expert Bev Harris
has warned that NH's electronic voting machines are wide open to fraud
and that even modestly skilled programmers were able to identify key vulnerabilities.
The contract for programming all of NH's DIEBOLD voting machines, which
combined count 81% of the NH vote, is owned by LHS Associates. It's
not like NH politicians are unaware of this travesty against NH citizens:
In Sept 2007 - hearings in Concord showed (see video clip) the duplicity
and chicanery! This was not reported on our local news.
- "It's who counts the votes" that matters. Who
can forget Lieberman in Conneticut? Hell he can't make up what country
he represents let alone party? In 2000 the candidate running against Lieberman
got 448,077 votes. In 2006 the candidate (Lamont) who ran against Lieberman
got the exact same number of votes, 448,077. Huh, I wonder what the 'chances'
are for this? Looks to me like they just keep the machines programed in
CT for Lieberman? Suspicious me - why can't I just conform and mooove
with the herd?
- Yawn - the more things 'change' the more they remain
the same. "Once during the time when days were darker, I made a promise.
Thanks New Hamphire!" President -elect George Bush, Nov 8, 1988 victory
speech. Bush senior needed NH or he was out of the race. He'd come in third
in the Iowa caucus 19% to Dole's 38%. The computers that spoke in Nov 1988
held in their inner workings small boxes that contained 'secret codes'
that only the sellers of the computers could read. The programs or 'source
codes' were regarded as 'trade secrets'. The sellers of the vote-counting
software zealously guarded their programs from the public (voters) fearful
that someone would steal their 'ideas'. You may ask: What secret is needed
to count something as simple as ballots? Can they be more complex than
an ATM or grocery receipt? Only the Shadow knows!
- We know nothing about the people programming these machines
and even less about LHS Associates. People like to say 'but we can use
paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!' But they're not. They're
counted by DIEBOLD. Only a candidate can request a hand recount. Nobody
in NH (across the country) except the programmers at LHS Associates and
Diebold Election Systems knows. Why hasn't our Attorney General/ Secretary
of State and legislators put the vote in the 'live free or die' state
back into the hands of the people? That's what we'd all like to know? Checks
and balances, required by the FEC standards to catch unauthorized changes,
have not been implemented by Diebold - yet the system was certified anyway?
Never trust a machine!
- Dr. Howard Strauss, a Princeton computer science professor
stated: "The presidential election, without too much difficulty and
with little chance of the felons getting caught, could be stolen by computers
for one candidate or another. The candidate who can win by computer has
worked to rig the election by getting his 'consultants' to write the software
that runs thousands of vote -counting computers from coast to coast. There
are so many computers that use the same software now that a presidential
election can be tampered with - in fact, may already be tampered with.
Because of the trade secrecy, nobody can be the wiser". I may not
be the sharpest tool in the shed but what legtimate representative democracy
entrusts its citizen's most precious asset (their vote) into the hands
of corporate predators?
- Computers in voting machines are effectively immune from
checking and rechecking. If they are fixed, you cannot know it, and you
cannot be at all sure of an honest tally. In the 1988 Republican primary
in New Hampshire, there was no panel of computer experts who worked for
the people and throughly examined the source codes before and after the
voting. It is quite possible that the notorious collection of "Shouptronic"
computers "preordained" voting results to give George Bush his
"Hail Mary" victory in NH? Yes Virginia there are unscrupulous
people in this world - sorry.
- Nobody save a small group of computer engineers, like
Republican Governor John Sununu, (genius engineer - 3 degrees from MIT)
would be the wiser? Recall that back in 1988 your perception of who won
or lost was not based on the honest visible marks on paper ballots that
were checked and rechecked by all concerned parties or their chosen representatives.
You learned about George Bush Senior's astounding victory in NH from
TV - which learned it from a computer center into which other computers
fed information. Just like this year's NH Primary. TV is my teacher far
into the night! TV wouldn't lie?
- Was the NH Primary scenario a modern classic in computerized
vote manipulation? The Bush campaign of '88, saw George Bush standing to
lose the Republican nomination. He had suffered a terrible political wound
when Dole won by a BIG show of hands in the Iowa caucus. Every TV and
newspaper poll had Bush losing by up to eight points just before balloting.
When election day was over the following headline appeared in the Washington
Post: NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFOUNDED MOST POLLSTERS. The poll was wrong by 17
- Some believe that such a wild reversal of form would
have been subject to an immediate inquiry? Any horseplayer would have nodded
sagely, put a finger up to his eye, pulled down the lower lid, and signaled:
"Fix". In NH there was wonderment in the press, and little more.
There was no rechecking of the computerized machines, no inquiry into the
path of the vote from the voting to the central tallying place (Voter News
Service - New York) etc. No longer in business.
- Nothing was said in the press about the programmed computer
chips inside the "Shouptronic" Direct Recording Electronic voting
machines in Manchester. These 200 lb systems were so easily tampered with
that the integrity of the results they gave - will forever be in doubt.
The "Shoutronic" was purchased directly from a company whose
owner Ransom Shoup, had been twice convicted of vote fraud in Philidelphia.
It bristled with telephone lines that made it possible for instructions
from OUTSIDE to be telephoned into the machine without anyone's knowledge.
It completely lacked an AUDIT TRAIL, an independent record, that could
be checked in case the machine 'broke down' or its results challenged.
- The concept is clear, simple and it works. Computerized
voting gives the power of selection, without fear of discovery, to whomever
controls the computer.
- If you ask your friends to describe how their vote (if
they vote) is counted, they are unlikely to get much further than the polling
booth and the rudimentary requirements to operate the machine. Beyond that
they are probably ignorant. Most people expect that the Democrat and Republican
poll watchers will watch out for their interests. During a little publicized
trial in West Virginia, it was revealed that there were ways to stop the
computers during a count, while everyone watched. Simply fiddle a few switches,
turn the computer back on again, and thereby alter the entire vote, or
parts of it. If anyone asked questions, the fixer could make any number
of plausible excuses. With voting machines attached to telephone lines
it was possible to meddle with the actual vote from a telephone miles away.
Getting caught was NOT possible - not with SECRET source codes.
- A 1980 U.S. electoral study by the Air Command and Staff
College reported: "The US government has NO elections office and does
not attempt to administer congressional elections. In the case of counting
actual ballots on election night, public officials have abdicated responsibility
of vote totals to a private organization, Voter News Service" (now
- " This private organization performed without a
contract: without supervision by public officials. It made decisions
concerning its duties according to its own criteria. The question and accountability
of Voter News Service was never reported in the nation's press because
the responsibility of Voter News had in counting the nation's votes was
assumed gradually over a lengthy period without ever being evaluated as
an item on the public agenda". Britney Spears wasn't employed there!
- Your Vote: Once the vote is cast and counted by computers,
the unverifiable results were then transferred to Voter News Services.
This little- know private media conglomerate located on 34th street in
New York was one of the most powerful corporations in the world.
Comprised of all the major networks - NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, AP plus the New
York Times and the Washington Post - Voter News Service was the ONLY entity
tabulating the nation's votes and disseminating the results to the PUBLIC.
This means that the dramatic election night 'competition' among the Networks
to be first with the results in nothing but show business! They all get
their numbers from the same place. Note: Jan 14-2003, Washington Post:
"The major TV networks & AP decided to dissolve the Voter News
Service exit poll consortium. They have not yet reached an agreement on
a replacement." Though Voter News folded the networks were reported
as regrouping to form a new consortium with some of the Voter News Service
employees. Since this entity is so secretive (changed names) it's next
to impossible to track down any information of their current activities?
Reports are that it is now identified as the National Election Poll?
- This is a rare photo of the Voter News Service Exit poll
box. Perhaps these were abandoned because of the polling results being
so far out of alignment with the desired results? Couldn't tell you -
only the Shadow knows.
- Be it the defunct Voter News Service or its replacement
- these consortium's have co-opted the American vote count with NO public
knowledge, and no public bid. They remain exempt from anti-trust laws.
They have NO literature, no brochure, no fax sheet, and no Website. They
have changed their name approximately three times? They will not tell
you anything about what they do. No, you cannot watch their operation.
No, you cannot get in the doors on election night. No, you cannot work
for them. You also cannot get a straight answer from them on how the count
the vote, where they do it, and who does it! It shouldn't surprise anyone
that the vote is in the hands of the few. Who is the watchdog? There are
none. A reading of Votescam: The Stealing of America, by James and Kenneth
Collier, published in 1992, has been banned by all major book chains. You
can purchase it online (cheap).
- It's pretty safe to say that there has not been an honest
election - at least not an important one - since the late 1960s, and its
possible that there has never been an honest election at all. And Governor
Sununu? Bush the greater, appointed this man, who he didn't (until NH
primary - 1988) know from a cow pie, as his Chief of Staff. Pretty powerful
position for a nonentity. What a great thank you! Can't prove anything
(no paper trail) its just these pesky aberrations (like NH's supposed blowout
for Obama) with the polls that keep popping up, and things like computers
that go down in the middle of an election, and then come back up with different
results - entirely different - than before.
- Ohio Voting Machines readied for 2004: See http://www.freepress.org/departements/display/19/2007/2553 ;
which never made the national news. The only part I take exception to,
is that the lust for power, is not exclusionary to one party - This voting
debacle is truly a non-partisan issue. Otherwise you'd hear some outrage
(besides Edwards & Kucinich) on the part of candidates running for
- Ah but if you should question the integrity of corporate
hucksters controlling our nation's vote - you'll be named the fruit loop!
But we can have observers in Third World Countries. Huh? Today's explanation
that is being given by the 'news' for such an aberration in the NH polls?
"White people lie!" And guess what ? The majority of people will
buy this goofy clap trap. The Corporate Clowns with Hatchets are destroying
the American midway. Denis Kucnich has sent a letter to the NH Secretary
of State asking for a recount of NH's votes because of 'unexplained disparities
between hand counted votes and Diebold votes.' U.S. Congressman Kucnich
isn't interested in challenging his votes. He says " This is about
establishing whether 1005% of the votes counted are exactly as the people
cast them. None of the other candidates seem concerned that corporate voting
machines are the final authority!
- "Under a democracy one party always devotes its
chief energies in trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule
- and both commondly succeed, and are right." --Henry Mencken