READER COMMENTS ON
"My Op-Ed at AOL News: 'Cast Your Ballot Against Electronic Voting'"
(8 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 11/1/2010 @ 3:42 pm PT...
It's a PR campaign.
The fix is in for this election too - including NC and all the rest they are bitching about.
if they've suddenly found religion in regard to the dangers of electronic voting, as they seem to be asserting in North Carolina, in Nevada and in Texas, then it'll soon be their turn to take legislative action to once and for all ban the horrific, anti-democratic (small "d"), 100% unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems plaguing our nation
Remember Scott Brown who replaced Teddy Kennedy? Like so many other Rethugs his verified votes projected him as the loser before those Diebold-counted-only precincts came in.
He/they won by Diebold and will never die by Diebold.
But we will.
Love your blog!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 11/1/2010 @ 4:30 pm PT...
gop phone games yet again in NH?
over at dkos is a report that phone lines at 11 Dem offices are not responding... again...
(for those who don't know:
phone jamming is a favored rethug election pastime in NH... complete with convictions and prison sentences for same... not that this seems to slow the jammers down much...)
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 11/1/2010 @ 8:58 pm PT...
I tried to make calls for a CA Dem house candidate tonight and the system didn't work. A friend reported the same thing. The guy's race is tight - against an incumbent who was friend of Jack Abramoff's in SO CA. So. yeah. Trying to leave a comment on AOl.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 11/2/2010 @ 11:58 am PT...
Is there a one-to punch to election fraud this year? Not only are the touch screen voting machines unverifiable, but there is increasing reason for suspicion that the polling results BEFORE the election have been skewed in favor of Republicans so as to discourage Democrats from voting. Why, for example, do almost all the major pollsters and pundits confidently assert that Republicans will take back the House? (77% chance of a Republican takeover, according to Nate Silver). This is an assertion that cannot be based on solid fact, given the closeness of many House contests and the extreme difficulty of calling 435 winners in races where local (not necessarily partisan) issues, such as closing of local businesses, are often the most important.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 11/2/2010 @ 12:00 pm PT...
Correction: One-two punch.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 11/3/2010 @ 3:15 pm PT...
I'll try again. Two Republican candidates for Senate, Buck in Colorado and Angle in Nevada, led in the polls by 3-4 points. Both lost, Angle by more than the margin of error. Instead of bleating about imaginary Republican vote fraud, tell us how you'd react to a Democrat being on the receiving end of such a turnaround.
A loon wants to rave that Scott Brown won in Massachusetts because of magic Diebold machines (Massaschusetts, for chrissakes) and that's perfectly okay. Tell us how Dirty Harry and Bennett foiled the pollsters.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 11/3/2010 @ 6:05 pm PT...
Ronald Wieck -
I responded (and so did Des) very specifically to your comment above back on the previous thread where you asked virtually the same question previously. That response is back here.
If you have any other questions, of course, just let me know.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 11/3/2010 @ 6:35 pm PT...
Ronald, please see my reply to you on the other thread, as it explains the foundation of the issues inherent in electronic voting machines. No fraud, Republican or otherwise, is required.
That said, by your use of the term of "vote fraud", and other assumptions you make in your comment, I would guess you are one of the many who are under-informed about elections systems and the issues that come with each of them.
There is a wealth of data and evidence here, and a lot more to this than meets the typical partisan eye. Read up a bit.