I can direct you to a video of computer programmer Clint Curtis who testified before congress that he created software that will do just that...and be virtually undetectable. Is anyone else worried about this?
2007-12-13 06:17:03 · 16 answers · asked by feelixcat 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
He testified under oath that Rep.Tom Feeney directed him to create the program, and to make it undetectable. In his testimony he states the only proof would be in the source code, which the manufacturers refuse to reveal to investigators, citing "proprietary information", so it is not a "conspiracy theory" it is a matter of congressional record and as such can safely be called a fact.
2007-12-13 07:24:30 · update #1
Complaints of these voting machines in Chicago in 2004 revealed overwhelmingly that democratic votes were being changed to republican votes on a 10 to 1 basis, that is to say 9 out of 10 democrats had their votes erroneously changed to the opposing party. But I'm sure you could easily rig it to go any way you wanted.
2007-12-13 07:28:45 · update #2
Sorry, 9 to 1 basis. Typo.
2007-12-13 07:30:58 · update #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
here's the link to the video
2007-12-15 06:29:57 · update #4
Funny how conspiracy theories like this never arise after the Democrats win an election...
2007-12-13 06:21:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
As you say, Congress was having a hearing on it, so yes people are worried about it. I recommend optically scanned paper ballots to anyone who listens. Maybe there should be mandatory purple finger ink when you are done to prevent voting twice. There are also absentee ballot problems and voter intimidation problems.
On a personal sub local politics level, I once ran in election with seven voters and 3 candidates. The other two candidates said they didn't want the job, so two other people nominated me (maybe because it was coming down to me or THEM, and they didn't want it.) I said I'd run (even though I didn't want the job much) and voted for myself. The vote counter (who didn't like me) got a really disgusted look on her face, and declared it a tie between the other 2 candidates. Small honor being chosen, not a fun or paying job, but I always kind of wonder if it was really 3-3-1 and my "supporters" changed their mind, or if it really was 3-2-2 and the counter rigged the vote against me.
2007-12-13 06:56:04 · answer #2 · answered by Eric 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a reasonable Democrat, i does no longer think of the election is rigged if McCain wins. it extremely is obvious examining the solutions that the extremes are out of their minds... Republican numskull remark like "Gorr tried to thieve the election." Lol... She do no longer even understand what she's speaking approximately. although, it extremely is obvious the Republicans in this board are all approximately blaming individuals for their occasion's follies. with any luck, McCain has extra experience than the common Republicans in this board. in certainty, maximum Republicans knock McCain for being too reasonable and not conservative sufficient. I see that as a physically powerful ingredient if the conservative Repubs are complaining... a minimum of, with any luck, McCain won't parrot the occasion line.
2016-10-11 05:24:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ballot box stuffing, and the electronic equivalents, are really the lesser issue. Not unimportant, but not as important as an election manipulation problem which is far greater.
The greater problem is the Jewish control of the mass media. The Jews *do* control all of the major media organs in the United States, from TV networks to wire services to newspaper chains to nationally distributed magazines. They use their ownership and operational control of the media to predetermine which candidates, to our high public offices, will be visible to us, and what we will hear about them.
Now and then, a little ballot box stuffing might allow someone to be elected who, although a rascal, at least isn't a Zionist rascal.
2007-12-13 06:26:54 · answer #4 · answered by elohimself 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Did Clint Curtis write any of the software currently being used in these machines? Or did he write a program illustrating how easy it is to make one, because I could do that.
2007-12-13 06:22:15 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no. So he created some software. Bid deal. It isn't being used. Virtually undetectable means it will be found. Just like steroids are virtually undetectable.
2007-12-13 06:50:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just you and me apparently.
Electronic voting machines have failed every test. That's why Canada and some States have pulled them.
Edit: It still amazes me how people think this is a partisan issue. The Supreme court said that election machine software is proprietary, meaning the corporations own the results. They have no obligation to tell us how they got the results, just to report them.
And the sheep graze happily on...
2007-12-13 06:21:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I'm with you on that one!!! They think were all idiots. We should vote for a regular person, a person not even in politics. i bet things would get WAY better in four years than they have with all the idiots running around lying to us.Great Q!
2007-12-13 07:22:19 · answer #8 · answered by icey27 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All election can be rigged with or without computer voting. Stuffed ballot boxes , dead people voting , voting more then once , etc. etc.....
So no I am no more worried then any previous year
2007-12-13 06:21:19 · answer #9 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No I don't
Who pray tell will win the elections? The Democrats won big last time so it must be the Democrats that are doing the rigging.
Correct?
2007-12-13 06:22:58 · answer #10 · answered by Sean 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes, as another answerer said, "You better not let the Clinton camp know that or you will be killed"
2007-12-13 06:52:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋