READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO - RFK Jr. on 'MSNBC Hardball' Says Hacking an Election on E-Voting Machines 'Easy', Endorses Emergency Paper Ballot Legislation, Recommends BRAD BLOG!"
(27 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 1:37 pm PT...
i will get you a link shortly thereafter IF he gets on which doesn't look good right now considering it's 24/7 Colorado school shooting.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 9/27/2006 @ 1:44 pm PT...
RFK Jr. on MSNBC . . . . . It's time to fire up the generator. . .
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 9/27/2006 @ 2:06 pm PT...
Unfortunately ya have to hear John Boner's (borhner) lies first . . .
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 2:32 pm PT...
Boehner was sweating his ass off giving non-responsive answers. These guys are toast. I wish RFKjr mentioned that people can be sworn in before the vote counting issues are resolved, and that is a big part of the November surprise.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 2:33 pm PT...
Good show. RFK, Jr. referred viewers to Rolling Stone and to Bradblog. He hit all the main points against the curent e-vote machines and the legislation that barred paper receipts from them.
However, he didn't mention a need for controls to somehow make sure that the receipt ballot is the same as what is registered in the machine. Maybe that would have been too much information.
I wonder if Princeton could use the machine they have, build a receipt system, and then put viral code that flips your vote but let's your receipt show the correct candidate...
Better yet, how about getting our paper ballots back! Good luck Brad, fingers are crossed!!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 2:34 pm PT...
i am being dead serious, not trying to talk bad or anything, but is something wrong with RFK jr? i mean with his speech, some type of disease or something?? just sounds like he struggles to speak? anyone know what i mean?? no disrespect, just wondering
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 2:49 pm PT...
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 9/27/2006 @ 2:59 pm PT...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 3:33 pm PT...
Miss Persistent-- (#5)
I share the same viewing pov of JFKjr's talk on Hardball and had the same thought as to the verification of the paper receipt system that he failed to mention, and I, too, wonder if it was because of not enough time or what.
I have thought about this before and what I think can work is to have the paper ballots be numbered that is inputted into the computer with a USB-attached device that can read the bar-code-like number before the voting is to commence. Then the computer can spit out a receipt of the voting results that matches the number on the ballot. That is one possible way with the use of computers.
But I DON'T like computers for voting--is all-too-easy to hack and alter without anyone noticing, no matter how secure the voting machines can get. I'd scrap computers for the voting act itself, not the after-the-count tabluation.
Another way, perhaps, is to have a ballot system in which there's note-pad-like ballots in which each small page (something like a 1/4-sheet of a standard 8×11) the same bar-code number is stamped on each ballot/page. One page, one voting issue or race that are being voted on. Each page would have a duplicate page that the voter would tear out and take after each vote. After the voting is done, the whole note-pad-like ballot could be deposited in a secure ballot box. The voter would take home carbon copies of the voting that one has done.
Then when it comes time to count the ballots, the ballot-counters would open up the ballot boxes, bring out the note-pad-like ballots and tear off each ballot page along the perforated ends and toss the results of whatever vote into marked boxes; then the votes in the marked boxes are counted and put into evenly-numbered stacks, with the results being duly noted. All things would be done in full view of any interested parties watching over the election(s).
This system may take more time, but it's about as simple and fool-proof as a paper-based system can get, I would think. To hell with computers. With enough people doing the counting, results can be fully tabulated right after each election. I've thought of counting as the election goes on, but that creates the problems of initial election results leaking out and contaminating the electoral process, hence the counting must commence as soon as the voting ends.
And the voting needs to happen on a weekend, both Sat and Sun, from sun-up to past sun-down. Then the counting begins and that may take several days to a week to fully count. So what if it takes several days to make a reliable, accurate count of the votes cast? Transparency and verifiability are crucial issues in any election.
Sometimes in this computer age, simple, paper-based technology can do a better job and, in the case of voting, it may be the only way to have a transparent electoral system.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 3:58 pm PT...
It would be nice if RFK, Jr. asked this question:
How many votes were switched from Kerry to Bush?
1) The Census estimate that 125.7mm (0.30%MoE) voted in 2004 is correct. The 2004 total recorded vote was 122.3mm. Assume that the 3.4mm discrepancy is due to spoiled and/or lost ballots.
2) Allocate the 3.4mm lost/spoiled votes to Kerry (2.5mm) and Bush (0.9mm). In every presidential election, the vast majority of spoiled/lost votes occur in democratic minority districts.
3) Assume 95% of 2000 Gore and Bush voters turned out to vote in 2004.
4) Adjust the 12:22am National Exit Poll "How Voted in 2000" weights. The 41% Bush/39% Gore weights are mathematically impossible. Change to 38.2% Gore/37.8% Bush.
The new weights are calculated based on:
a) total recorded 2000 vote (Gore 51.0mm-Bush 50.5mm)
b) 0.87%/year mortality rate (3.5% over 4 years)
c) 95% turnout of 2000 Bush and Gore voters.
5) Assume 12:22am NEP vote shares are correct.
1)Start with the Recorded Vote count:
2) Allocate 3.4mm spoiled/lost votes (2.5mm to Kerry; 0.9mm to Bush):
3)Calculate the Kerry/Bush total vote share (below):
Kerry 66.0mm (52.5%)
Bush 58.4mm (46.5%)
Other 1.3mm (1.0%)
4) Solve for X, the switched votes:
Kerry: X = 66.0 - 61.5
Bush: -X = 58.4 - 62.9
X = 4.5mm votes were switched from Kerry to Bush.
NEP (adj. plausible weights, 125.7mm votes)
Voted in 2000 Demographic
Voted Mix Votes Kerry Bush Other... Turnout% Kerry% Margin(mm)
No 21.77% 27.36 57% 41% 2%......90 52.76 8.25
Gore 38.24% 48.06 91% 8% 1%......95 52.52 7.59
Bush 37.83% 47.55 10% 90% 0%......98 52.38 7.20
Other 2.17% 2.72 71% 21% 8%......100 52.29 6.93
Total 100% 125.7 52.5% 46.5% 1.0%
Vote Total 125.7 66.02 58.43 1.25
Kerry margin: 7.59million
Actual NEP (impossible weights,122.3mm votes)
Voted Mix Votes Kerry Bush Other
No 17% 20.79 57% 41% 2%
Gore 39% 47.70 91% 8% 1%
Bush 41% 50.14 10% 90% 0%
Other 3% 3.67 71% 21% 8%
Total 100% 122.3 51.41% 47.62% 0.97%
Total 100% 122.3 62.87 58.24 1.19
Kerry margin: 4.64 million
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 4:05 pm PT...
Yeah, the Boner kinda lets the wind out of my sails
I must need Viagra
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 4:59 pm PT...
One reason the exit polls didn't match in some cases was not vote count fraud but VOTE SUPPRESSION using the Provisional Ballots and illegal removal from the registration rolls. Voters filled out a Provisional Ballot, knowing they were registered (when they had, in fact, been removed for the "crimes" of "voting while black" or "voting democratic" or "voting while having the same last name as a criminal in another state"), and they assumed (oops, trust the system to treat you fairly --- big mistake brother) their vote would be counted, so they told the exit poll taker their vote. But, the votes were never counted, so the count and the polls didn't match.
The paper receipt would be easy as heck to make have different information than the inside-the-system count. Beauty of that, is that the Republican would be "installed" long before any recount can be conducted.
I would be surprised if every Republican candidate doesn't already have plane tickets to Washington for November 8, 2006 at 5 a.m. We will have to physically blockade congress in numbers too large to move to prevent this little scheme of doing a CA-50 on the whole country.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 9/27/2006 @ 6:19 pm PT...
Thank you Robert Kennedy jr. and i agree with Charlie L. not to mention other Rovian surprises like the level 9 terrorist alert in OHIO in 2004 that caused a precinct to be locked down all night.. but who made the call and where did those wiley terrorists go???
Least we forget the massive humanistic fraud efforts of the Bushit administration. Check out the DVD AMERICAN BLACKOUT www.americanblackout.org about the massive humanistic campaign to eliminate the black vote and why Cynthia McKinney is a great representative of ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE>
A quick heads up to Bradbloggers on other important bills coming up so you can urge your state representative to vote against the following destructive bills from becoming LAWS.
1. The Pombo (rep CA) bill which already passed the House to be decided in the Senate to gut the Federal Endangered Species Protection Act. Habitat would no longer be protected from such things as pesticides and oil co and developers would receive big money payouts for NOT DESTROYING WILDLIFE> www.nrdcactionfund.org
Bushit administration legislation has reversed over 200 environmental laws under their his tenure.
2. Big Oil companies will not give up their plan to dig in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge which has passed the House now to be decided in the Senate. The glacier are melting twice as fast in Alaska because of HUMAN CAUSED Global Warming although not acknowledged by either parties as a major issue is the #1 World crisis (unless Bush's bombs and wars cause the world to blow up 1st). Big Oil developers want to dig here although evidence shows a repeated history of oil spills in Alaska and the FACT that drilling here will only save Americans 1 penny at the gas pumps in starting in 15 years. Many other cleaner sources of energy can be explored. Our country's legislatures run by greedy destructive sellout losers must know we are watching them. www.nrdcactionfund.org to view the Robert Redford TV spot to inform Americans.
3. The House passed a torture bill to be decided by the Senate now which would give the Bushit administration an open pass to torture terrorist SUSPECTS as they see fit. This of course is an one example of the type of criminal action which has ALREADY been occurring during Bushit regime and now they are trying to "make it legal" after the fact.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 7:55 pm PT...
RFK's speech problem is offputting at first. And then it becomes fascinating to listen to him speak, because you focus so hard on understanding what he is saying. So the problem actually works in his favor.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 8:07 pm PT...
Adam asked about RFK's speech difficulty. I have enormous gratitude & respect for Mr. Kennedy, but in all honesty I think his vocal ailment makes him an unfortunate spokesman for this crucial issue. I hate to say that, since he is putting himself on the line for all of us & deserves tremendous credit for doing so, but I fear that people will react badly. Sad but true.
I guess you could say I'm biased for Brad, but I would love to see him on tv on a regular basis talking this up, talking alot of things up, for that matter. He knows his stuff, he's articulate, doesn't stumble over his words, doesn't say "ummmmmm" constantly, as FAR TOO MANY so-called "pundits" do! Doesn't lose his temper & turn into a screaming loon, either, which also happens way too often. Although maybe tv people think that's "good tv", I dunno.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 9/27/2006 @ 8:15 pm PT...
Ed schultz, RFK Jr...who else has mentioned Brad & Bradblog on radio & tv recently? Lou Dobbs, too, I think?
Why don't we email & call these people like Chris Matthews & Lou Dobbs, Olbermann, too...asking them to have Brad on their shows? Why not? He's the one who's been ON THIS since day one. His voice needs to be out there LOUDER & MORE OFTEN, n'est ce pas??!
I mean, I've asked Lou Dobbs to have him on, maybe others have, but if we all did?
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 1:12 am PT...
I listen to RFK's show every week and his voice doesn't bother me any more then Diane Rhem, but I think he was somewhat tired or something tonight. I hope they didn't do the same thing to him they did to Keith Olberman.
Keith had an absolutely incredible show tonight with a long and comprehensive piece proving Bush did nothing to prevent 9-11 and a recounting of his 10 hour ordeal in a hospital involving some kind of anthrax attack which The (Fox) New York Post tried to make a fool out of Olberman with. Bizzare stuff indeed.
They had to melt down his keys and destroy his wallet and tried to paint him as a sissy. The "post" story seemed to be written by the guy who does the Clint is Crazy website. Olberman was prevented from telling the whole story by the FBI or something.
RFK was great to bring up the connection between Bob Ney, Abramoff, and the voting machine nonsense. That's a very important "dot" to connect in this saga! It'll be very interesting to see if Ney shows up at the "paper trail" hearing tomorrow asking for $900,000,000 again.
Brad is definitely the best live spokesman on the voting machines I've heard to date!
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 1:28 am PT...
Bobby: Thanks again! Still a great spokesman for the cause! Still one of my heroes!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 4:44 am PT...
Congradulations, Brad! An endorsement from one of the most honest men in America, RFK, Jr.!
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 7:58 am PT...
Olberman receives letter with "white substance" and death threats for speaking out against Bush administration. Hmmmmm....people who speak out against Bush seem to receive mail with white substances and death threats (Daschle)...hmmmmm....wonder who's doing this???
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 8:10 am PT...
OT --- About Grizzly's #13 - Just to remind folks regarding about the torture bill, illegal wiretaps, indefinite detentions, and a lot of other things -
Article 9 of the U.S. Constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
A Bill of Attainder is a bill that specifically takes away the rights of a individual or group - which may include imprisonment.
Ex post facto law- "formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively"
There may have been various interpretations in judicial history for various cases, but the Constitution is very clear and succinct and certainly applies in the current egregious examples of unconstitutionality.
If Congress passes what could be interpreted as a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law and it is upheld by the courts, then Congress and courts are undermining the Constitution and it's time for "we the people" who have established the Constitution to look to whatever means we can to re-establish it.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 8:32 am PT...
Bobby was great. He got the message accross despite Chris Matthews efforts to provide a phoney excuse for having no paper receipt. Chris did not get this BS past RFK Jr even though time was short.
Miss Persistant #5 sums it up nicely.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 9:32 am PT...
OK - Slapping it out again before my coffee. Of course, I mean imprisonment may be included in a Bill of Attainder.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 9/28/2006 @ 2:43 pm PT...
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 3:25 pm PT...
I have personally heard, Christine Craft (1240 Khz AM, Talk City) mention Bradblog.Com on September 27th.
And I also have made it a permanent part of the credits at the very end of my show (October 6th 11 PM. CH 18 Comcast Sacramento.)
Anyway there are a few of us out here. Some comercial some non-comercial (like myself on public access.)
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 9/28/2006 @ 11:51 pm PT...
WE COUNT 2006
Sept 29-30 2006
If ya can't be there then consider a donation.
THIS CONFERENCE WILL BE HUGE
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 10/2/2006 @ 11:33 am PT...
I was screwed up on #21. Of course, that's Article 1, Section 9. There ain't no Article 9!