Will Diebold steal Ted Kennedy's seat – and the Senate?

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2010/3690

Will Diebold steal Ted Kennedy's seat – and the Senate?
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
January 18, 2010

The same types of machines that helped put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000, and “re-elect” him 2004, may now decide who wins the all-important “60th Senate seat” in Massachusetts. The fate of health care and much much more hang in the balance.

As Bay Staters vote to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, most will be marking scantron ballots to be run through easily hackable electronic counters made by Diebold/Premier.

A paper ballot of sorts does come through these machines. But the count they generated was seriously compromised in the Florida 2000 election that put George W. Bush in the White House. Similar machines played a critical role skewing the Ohio 2004 vote count to fraudulently re-elect him.

to me it is suspect.

how will we ever know for sure. We are just suppose to believe what ever they say. We should be proving we are correct in our count not trying to avoid knowing we are wrong.

the country that uses any type machine to vote. If they don't know which machine(s) will get audited, then they can't play games.

first there has to be a hard record of every vote

the actual ballots will probably NEVER be counted. The machine counts will be excepted as the real number, and regardless of whether this particular election was stolen or not, it's simply fucking stupid to trust these fucking machines when they have been proven vulnerable time and time again, and the makers of these machines are ALWAYS tied to the hard right wing.

and I never thought that would be possible. "Choakley", great description.

Still don't understand why he conceded an hour before the polls even closed on the West Coast. :evilfrown:

The race was over. It didn't matter what happened on the West coast.

I was sitting here watching the votes come in city by city, knowing which cities/towns had reported 100%, which hadn't, what the population sizes were, and what the chances were for her to pull off a win.

It would have taken a miracle even God himself couldn't wrangle.

She knew it was over. Had she and Brown been only 1% point apart, then I could see staying in it.

But it was over. Time to concede.


I live in Mass and I don't suspect fraud or thievery. Much as I hate to say it, Brown won those votes fair and square....

Remember when we kept winning elections in '06 and '08. Deibold apparently was sleeping then.

Glad to see them back.

Don't you see, man? It's all part of the Big Plan, man. They used those last to reverse-stolen elections to shut us up, to lure us in, man, with a false sense of security. There's a bigger scheme going on--it's like wheels within wheels, man--all part of the big picture. You gotta totally cover your skull or the waves still get in through your eardrums and lull you sleep. You gotta shave off your eyebrows or you brain don't get enough oxygen...

they should be very tired today from working so hard.

(say 2.5%) before it gets too obvious. If the winning margin is outside this range then it won't change the outcome. Maybe that's what accounted for all the urban "values voters" in the '04 election.

That's why 08 went our way. No way they could have gotten away with stealing that one with the polls showing a 6% to 8% margin for Obama.

I'm agnostic on Diebolding in MA. The polls were pretty bad for Martha and seem to do a pretty accurate job of predicting the official result.

January 12, 2010

Scott Rasmussen, whose poll was the first to suggest a tight race in Massachusetts, is out with a new poll showing Democrat Martha Coakley up just 2 percentage points over Republican Scott Brown.

Rasmussen reports that Coakley has 49 percent of voters' support to Brown's 47 percent.

His results differ dramatically from polls in recent days by the Boston Globe and by a Democratic pollster, Mark Mellman, both of which showed Coakley with a double-digit lead, though they are closer to a poll from another Democratic firm that showed a tight race. The poll was taken last night.

Polls are just an extension of the corrupt media nowadays. Until they validate results with scientific methods, it's only propaganda to me. It makes stealing races barely noticeable.

everyone believes because it was predicted last week

Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to buy a scan systems that required erasable votes?! WTF, Massachusetts? :wtf:

2008:
1,104,284 McCain
1,891,083 Obama
786,799 difference

1,168,107 Brown + 64,000 more than McCain
1,058,682 Coakley - 830,000 less than Obama
_________

109,425 vote difference

Brown got a 64,000 more votes than McCain in the off year!!
Coakley a decrease of almost 40% or 800,000 less than Obama?

Wow, that's some shift. The numbers seem incredible.

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html

Too tidy.



I'm from Mass, and I still can't believe that people in this area overwhelmingly embraced what Obama was selling and then turned to embrace the same ole tired Repuke BS from Brown only a year later.

It seems no one has the balls to stand up against stolen elections.

The numbers don't lie, there was something funny going on. But look around, no one wants to even consider the idea. We're screwed.

Why bring this up when it is not true? I don't get why this is posted.

When and how was that decision made?

So no exit polling was planned. At least that's what i've read elsewhere, and seems plausible. Mitofsky gears up for regular elections, but special elections are probably not something they easily do.

This thread was once on the greatest page with 7 recs.

What assholes unrecc'ed this. What are those chickenshits afraid of?