Tags for this video have been changed from 'election, vote, computer, tampering, rig' to 'election, vote, computer, tampering, rig, voting machine, electronic voting' - edited by notarobot

No surprise at all. There's been 0% confidence in election results since the day we switched to 'electronic voting machines'.
Tampering with them is easy and simple. Seeing the tampering is incredibly difficult. Proving the tampering is nearly impossible. Doing anything about a stolen election is absolutely impossible after the fact.

It sure sounds like this is probably one of the methods used to help Bush steal the election from Gore.
What do you know, we finally have some evidence of voter fraud...perpetrated by the Republicans and having nothing to do with voters committing fraud. Unfortunately, the Republicans won't be worried or surprised by THIS voter fraud and won't do a thing about it, because the companies that make and certify the machines are all owned by Republicans.

I predict there will be a lot of evidence of ballot box stuffing, with exit polls not aligning themselves with vote counts. This will happen at a far higher rate in precincts with electronic voting tabulation.

I woke up this morning after a bad dream: that Romney had won. Not because more people voted for him, but because the systems that count ballots favour him and his politics.

IF they want to spend money on elections? spend it on banning punch-style ballots so we don't have another 2000 Election situation.

I also just don't see the point of electronic voting. It would become a huge target for exploitation. Besides, if you have the scantron-style voting ballots, isn't that electronic enough? take your number 2 pencil and mark your damned ballot and let the scanner read it in. It's as simple as it needs to be.

I just don't see the benefit of having some sort of all electronic system. the more complicated it is, the more easily it can be disrupted.

Or if you MUST have a completely computerized voting system, at the very least, make it a closed system, no wireless, no transmission over the internet. electronic storage of the votes is fine, but if you transmit it over an open system, it's just going to get hacked eventually, There's no reason the results can't be sneaker-netted to where they need to go.

>> ^zeoverlord:

Or you could do the economically sane option of not having these photo Id laws in the first place since they are obviously not needed.
>> ^kurtdh:
>> ^volumptuous:
Demanding that citizens pay money to vote is unconstitutional as is stated in the 24th amendment to the constitution.
>> ^kurtdh:
I never quite got this. Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?


So couldn't they put something in place that would allow people to get a free picture ID for voting purposes? Doesn't seem too difficult.

This is why you don't have electronic voting yet. We can do everything else, banking, buying and selling millions, but not voting. Precisely, because then you can't cheat properly.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What I'm talking about in general is looking at people's behaviors to see if they have shown they deserve the right to vote, as opposed to just assuming any Tom, Dick, & Harry can vote no matter how stupid they are or how badly they behave.

Others have already pointed out that this creates a very slippery slope. Me, I just want to revisit one of the first things you said in this thread:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

It's a common refrain from either side of the political divide to blame a loss on voters being ignorant. What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

The right, on the other hand, can never quite believe it when they lose elections. It's always, always "voter fraud" if liberals win. You even have kept alive the idea that Obama himself is somehow illegitimately in the White House because he's black they think there's been a massive conspiracy to hide that he was born in Africa.

The effect of every right wing anti-fraud proposal I've ever seen ends up shrinking the overall share of people voting. Literacy tests were the original (don't want those ex-slaves voting!), nowadays it's slandering organizations that try to register the poor and minorities (e.g. ACORN), driver's license requirements to scare away immigrants, and making sure that it stays as inconvenient as possible to vote (you must register months in advance, you must come to a set polling place between 7am and 7pm on a weekday, etc.).

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote. For example, allowing people to register to vote on election day, being able to vote as much as 2 months early, make election day a mandatory day off nationwide, etc.

We're also concerned about election fraud, or fraud committed by the people counting the votes. Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same.

Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Kevlar.

>> ^Vexus:

dupeof http://videosift.com/video/Electronic-Voting-Machine-Tur
n-into-a-Pacman-Arcade-Machine


Oops! Thanks, Vexus.
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Electronic-Voting-Machine-Turn-into-a-Pacman-Arcade-Machine

*dupeof http://videosift.com/video/Electronic-Voting-Machine-Turn-into-a-Pacman-Arcade-Machine

Wow QM, you've been eating WAY too many mushrooms lately.
Calling you childish seems insulting to the many reasonable children alive today. I would say infantile is closer to the truth.
You claim we all "KNOW" these opinions you have about Obama, YOUR PRESIDENT unless you aren't an American. I don't "KNOW" any such thing, and neither do you. An opinion isn't something one can "know" it's something you "feel" which is why they are meaningless and useless, especially when peppered with the vitriol yours often are, more so when offered as FACT (the M.O. of Faux "news" and the right).
I wonder, why do you continue to call his administration an "illegitimate regime"? Is it that you have it confused with the illegitimate regime that held the white house for the last 2 terms (I submit that never counting the vote or rigging it with pre-filled electronic voting machines made by your supporters makes an administration illegitimate, dumbasses ignoring evidence and making insane claims about citizenship does NOT make an administration illegitimate, only your arguement and claims to intelligence).
I find it difficult to believe, with the nonsence you continuously spout, that you have been so successful in life that you are actually paying MORE in taxes under Obama than you were under Bush. It seems more likely you can't do that kind of basic math and are regurgitating what you were told by Faux "news".
I have not heard about troops being stationed at oil rigs, but since you seem to want to believe this is sabotage, wouldn't that be the smart move? Wouldn't you be screaming that he was an idiot who was asking to be "attacked" again if he didn't protect what you claim are oil rigs at risk?
You are correct that they have an excuse to regulate oil companies more, you are wrong to insinuate they needed another reason to regulate an industry that makes more money per quarter in the U.S.A. than most states make in a year, but pays little or NO taxes here, while at the same time causing billions in permanant damage to the U.S. because they are not regulated AND asking for government handouts, subsidies, infrastructure, and military support.
I guess "God" must hate red states, "He's" destroying them with floods, wind, oil, and plagues (plagues of idiots that is). (I'm just trying to point out the ridiculousness of the "God hates "X"" arguement, I'm an athiest.)
And to rain on your parade, I'm not an Obama maniac, I voted for Ron Paul. I am an American that supports his president both at home AND abroad, even when I don't agree with the plan. What happened to the right wing claims that partizenship ends at the border? I guess that only counts if it's THEIR plan or their candidate being questioned.

>> ^joedirt:

This is not VOTER FRAUD.
This was election officials literally buying votes. Also poll workers hijacking electronic voting machines as a voter walks away and changes their vote. Also their was a buying scheme where you presented an insider card to a poll worker and that meant they would vote the pre-approved way. (ie. politicians paid this group to get them elected)
This is VOTING FRAUD and all sorts of criminal voting conspiracies.
Voter fraud is one voter illegally voting more than once which is what all the non-sense voter ID laws are about. They don't prevent anything, because it just doesn't happen. The real criminals are these insiders.


They're interchangeable, like your IQ and shoe size.

This is not VOTER FRAUD.

This was election officials literally buying votes. Also poll workers hijacking electronic voting machines as a voter walks away and changes their vote. Also their was a buying scheme where you presented an insider card to a poll worker and that meant they would vote the pre-approved way. (ie. politicians paid this group to get them elected)

This is VOTING FRAUD and all sorts of criminal voting conspiracies.

Voter fraud is one voter illegally voting more than once which is what all the non-sense voter ID laws are about. They don't prevent anything, because it just doesn't happen. The real criminals are these insiders.

The "fix" is terrible. Mixing two systems in a single district is a nightmare for recounts or accountability of any kind. This country needs a well implemented standardized electronic voting system, it should be open-source, and it should be well reviewed.

Why didn't she argue against that dumb wait in line logic? Waiting in line for a consumer good is a hell of a lot less important than waiting in line to vote, which is a constitutional right given to all citizens of this country that can, in effect, drastically change the way this country is ran, for better or worse.

So I say get off your wrinkly ass and make some changes damnit!

Why do these cities even have electronic voting machines in the first place? Everyone here in Oregon received pamphlets by mail (far as I know). Simply fill in the bubble and mail it off! Most everyone here got there votes mailed off a few days ago.

I can only see voting machines doing any good as a supplement to mail-in pamphlets in larger metropolitan areas or in places that have no mail access, in which case people would just do it the old fashioned way and vote on paper at the local school gym or city hall.