Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘vote fraud’ Category

Less than six months before its 2008 presidential primary, election officials in one of the country’s most important swing states admit electronic voting machines are seriously flawed and can be easily tampered with.A 35-page report released by Florida’s Secretary of State says that hackers can easily change votes without a trace in Diebold optical-scan machines used in 25 of the state’s 67 counties.

Conducted by Florida State University, the thorough study found that an adversary could easily use a pre-programmed computer card to swap one candidate’s votes for another or create a “ballot-stuffing attack” that multiplies votes for a candidate or issue.

The statewide investigation was ordered shortly after an election supervisor in Tallahassee’s Leon County conducted a test that exposed serious security problems with the expensive machines because they could easily be hacked.

In fact, a renowned nonpartisan election watchdog called the revelation the most serious hack demonstration to date because the Diebold machines succumbed so quickly to alteration of votes.

Florida officials spent millions to purchase the unreliable high-tech voting machines after its punch-card voting system attracted national attention in the 2000 presidential election. The controversial dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads held up a final count in the election and the U.S. Supreme Court had to actually step in.

Incredibly, the controversy continues in the Sunshine State as the 2008 presidential election approaches. Florida is a key state with an early presidential primary (January 29) that could dramatically alter both parties’ presidential nominating campaigns. Yet, even after spending millions of taxpayer dollars for new equipment, officials can’t guarantee that every vote will be accurately counted.

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life. To view the Judicial Watch Internet site click here (www.judicialwatch.org).

Read Full Post »

Yes, I know, I already had this up in the comments section, but more people probably read this than that, so I thought I’d put it up on the wall too…

Read Full Post »

From Seattle Times:

Jane Balogh had a pretty good idea who was calling when the phone rang and the caller asked for Duncan M. MacDonald.

Duncan is the dog Balogh registered as a voter seven months before the November 2006 election.

Duncan’s absentee-ballot envelope was signed with a picture of a paw print.

“You can’t sign with a paw print,” the election worker told Balogh on Nov. 9.

“I said, ‘he can if he’s a dog,’ ” answered Balogh, a 66-year-old grandmother and Army veteran who lives in Federal Way.

The election worker told her a supervisor would call, but she never heard from anyone.

After making her point — how easy it is for a voter to register illegally — Balogh will be arraigned in King County Superior Court on Tuesday on a misdemeanor charge of making a false statement to a public official.

If she declines to plead guilty, prosecutors told her in a letter this week, they will file a felony charge of providing false information on a voter-registration application. She doesn’t plan to contest the misdemeanor: “I’m not going to claim to be innocent when I know I’m guilty.”

Balogh’s crime was signing Duncan’s name on a registration card under a declaration that he meets all the requirements to vote. She submitted ballots in his name in the September and November 2006 and May 2007 elections. She wrote “VOID” on the ballots, and didn’t cast any votes.

Balogh, who lives with Duncan, an Australian shepherd-terrier mix, and four other dogs and four cats, registered her dog as a protest of a 2005 state voter-registration statute that she says makes it too easy for noncitizens to vote. She put her phone bill in Duncan’s name, then used the phone bill as identification to register him as a voter.

advertising

“I wasn’t trying to do anything fraudulent. I was trying to prove that our system is flawed. So I got myself in trouble,” she says.

If she accepts the plea deal offered by prosecutors, they won’t ask for jail time but will recommend she be sentenced to 10 hours of community service, pay a $250 fine and commit no other crimes for a year.

Acting Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg says his office “can’t simply look the other way. They say you should let sleeping dogs lie, but you can’t let voting dogs vote.”

I can’t help but wonder how many other people have done something like that. After all, if she had put a signature on it, instead of a paw print, no one would have noticed.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: