Ohio seizes voting machines in criminal investigation

i like australias voting system much better, its quite simple and ingenious really.

on polling day *everyone* aged 18 or above attends a polling booth at your local church, school, govt building etc.
they log your name on arrival and give you a voting paper about the size of your average fold out road map.

mark "1" above the line to vote for a party (liberal, labour, greens, marijuana party, one nation)

OR

mark every candidates box below the line.

but heres the best bit:

then, all the trucks pick up these huge bits of paper and truck them to parliament house, canberra where they are dumped into parliaments basement.

for the next 3 years a guy stands in the basement shovelling your ballot's into a huge furnace to generate power.
it then powers a 25 watt lightbulb............. situated in the gents lavatory.

ok, seriously though: my wife had a job once counting the paper ballots, so i know up to that point its all legit

Ah! It warms my heart to see the first signs of the campaign season are here: setting the stage to accuse the other side of cheating if you lose.

reply to post by Obliv_au


And whats most important is to keep day for elections in Sundays or keep another state holiday for that purpose, in that time when people suppose to go to vote, they have time to do that.

US elections are maybe tuesday, thursday, or days when people are heading to work... No time to vote.

Every where in Europe and world elections are made in sundays or holidays, but not in US.

Why?

You know why...

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Glad to see you here doing your job defending the status quo. Nothing to see here. Move along "citizen." Debunk, debunk, debunk... I hope you don't think this will buy you a place at the table because it won't.

reply to post by Choronzon


The only reason why this occurred at all is that Ohio's Secretary of State (and the person overseeing the election process for the state) went to vote and didn't find her candidate on the ballot.

She got pissed, and she can do something about it.

Joe Blow or monitoring organizations that make these complaints are just brushed off and the vote scamming goes uninvestigated.

Well, here you have the rule of law today in a nutshell.

reply to post by JanusFIN


I've often wondered why we don't make the Presidential election day a national holiday. It seems strange that one of our legislators won't introduce this bill when the results are so important.

In Florida, they've just introduced a bill (I don't know...maybe they passed it into law!) which would make it a crime to wear your pants so low that your underwear shows (think hip-hop fashion) Of course, plumbers and mechanics are exempt, as this is a sign of achievment in their fields.

I guess it isn't comparable, because it is state legislation as opposed to federal. Still...it isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by Choronzon


The election fraud conspiracy just keeps going and going. The chances of getting a fair election only come when those in power disagree with the results.

arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I am not sure what you meant by, "only when those in power disagree with the results". Ted Strickland, the Ohio Governor is a friend of mine (well really of my Father's) and he is a Hillary backer all the way. Hillary won in Ohio so at least the Governor absolutely does not disagree with the results.

Originally posted by flashback
Glad to see you here doing your job defending the status quo. Nothing to see here. Move along "citizen." Debunk, debunk, debunk... I hope you don't think this will buy you a place at the table because it won't.

Let's talk about the status quo for a moment.

Ever wonder why those with the most to gain from revealing this "conspiracy" don't pursue it? Has it ever occured to you why that may be? Or why they are just content to sit back, make some rumblings about it, but never take any action?

Originally posted by gottago

The only reason why this occurred at all is that Ohio's Secretary of State (and the person overseeing the election process for the state) went to vote and didn't find her candidate on the ballot.

She got pissed, and she can do something about it.

Actually, her candidate was on the ballot. The candidate who's name was withdrawn was supposed to be withdrawn. It was when her husband mentioned the candidate's name was on his ballot that she noticed a problem.

The candidate in question, Jay Perez, running for county municipal judge, withdrew his name before the election. Before hand it was a three-way race, two Democrats and one Republican. He did not want to potentially split the Democrat vote. However, apparently on some machines, his name was left on the ballot.

The quoted text from the original post does not make this clear.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by JanusFIN
US elections are maybe tuesday, thursday, or days when people are heading to work... No time to vote.

Every where in Europe and world elections are made in sundays or holidays, but not in US.

Why?

You know why...

Yup, I do. Because that is how it was written into law by Congress all the way back in 1845; probably by Neo-Con Republicans via time-machine, just because they knew in the later half of the 20th century and 21st century people would use it as an excuse for not voting.

Election Day is a state holiday in about a dozen states, and most of the others make provisions in state law requiring employers to allow their employees time off to vote without penalty. In Oregon and Washington, voting is or can be conducted by mail. Also, polls are typically open from 6 am to 6 pm, and allow voting to continue as long as there are people in line. And there are absentee ballot provisions.

But you are right, it's just a conspiracy to make people not vote.

Well that makes more sense and seems to be more inline with the election activities we have seen here in Ohio in the last 8 years. Areas that had a large Democratic majority never had enough voting machines or had technical troubles, etc. The Secretary of State back then was actually the campaign directory for W and was overseeing the elections. It just reeked of dirty pool.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


What it is you've referenced, according to the following, took place in the 2006 election.

When Brunner voted in 2006, she noticed that the voting machine displayed " candidate withdrawn" where the name of Jay Perez, a candidate for Franklin County Municipal Judge, might have appeared. Her husband, voting nearby, told her that Perez's name did appear on the voting machine that he had used.

Perez had withdrawn because he didn't want to become a spoiler for a fellow Democratic candidate, but the fact that his name did appear on some voting machines might have helped the Republican David Tyack prevail. Some of the touch-screen voting machines manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) apparently left Perez's name in the race while other machines did not.

The Inquirer | Ohio voting machines declared an official crime scene

I have yet to find a source that identifies the particular candidate that was "withdrawn" from the current ballot.

Edit to add:

Okay found a reference:

Published Tuesday 18th March 2008 23:31 GMT - Officials from Ohio's Franklin County Board of Elections asked for a forensic analysis of the touch screen machines after Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner reported seeing something she regarded as odd while voting during last November's election: A gray bar and the words "candidate withdrawn" appeared where candidate Jay Perez's name should have been. Brunner's husband, who was using a nearby machine at the same time, said Perez was on his ballot.

"This is a huge problem," Brunner told The Columbus Dispatch. "There is great concern that not every voter has the same ballot."

The Register | Ohio voting machines confiscated in criminal investigation

Which raises the question: In what year did this actually take place?

One source mentions 2006, another cites November of 2007.

Surely it hasn't happened twice with the same candidate?



[edit on 19-3-2008 by goosdawg]

wanna know how we can fix this..... Get a receipt of your votes......

then if there is a prob then you can photocopy an fax in your receipt then joe shmo gets their voice heard proper...

Make this system accountable....

Originally posted by damwel
The Secretary of State back then was actually the campaign directory for W and was overseeing the elections. It just reeked of dirty pool.

And it doesn't stink now? The Secretary of State (D) has a problem with an election where an (R) won.

In fact, I did some further investigating, and found some very interesting facts that the links posted in the OP just happened to leave out (because it didn't fit the meme, perhaps?)

For instance, the Inquirer article says this...

Perez had withdrawn because he didn't want to become a spoiler for a fellow Democratic candidate, but the fact that his name did appear on some voting machines might have helped the Republican David Tyack prevail.

HOWEVER, the Columbus Dispatch gives us a bit more insight:

Perez withdrew one day after Franklin County had finalized its ballots. He had hoped to avoid playing spoiler in fellow Democrat Patsy Thomas' race to retain her appointment to the Franklin County Municipal Court.

Furthermore...

White said Brunner phoned him a few days after the election and they immediately pulled every suspect machine and checked the ballots. Perez's name was listed each time, he said.

They also checked computerized copies of ballots and paper tapes. In each case, White said, no evidence supported what Brunner saw.

The White in this case is Dennis L. White, the Franklin County Board of Elections director. Oh, and he happens to be a Democrat.

From reading the Columbus Dispatch article, Brunner can't seem to decide whether Perez should have been on the ballot or not, and seems to want it both ways -- which ever best will support her cause.

For his part, White seems as every bit as skeptical as me.

White said it would be awkward for Brunner to investigate her own claim, and he doesn't believe it's valid.

Originally posted by NWOmaskedman

the us army will shoot it owns citezens ina heartbeat the military is not our friend.

there will be a war in america soon and it wont be a foriegn country it will be our own army.

it is comming,

This would be foolish and stupid. The only people that profit in war are the cartel selling the guns, and ammo to the the little people.

The longer the war the higher the profit, then when all the idiots are done fighting they profit from the people that want loans to rebuild.

People just don't see the repeat cycle.

No win situation for the grunts, unless they wise up.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Which raises the question: In what year did this actually take place?

One source mentions 2006, another cites November of 2007.

It was in 2007...

The Columbus Dispatch : Tyack unseats Thomas in Municipal Court race

Divide and conquer.

Framing this debate as a Dem vs Repub issue only serves to further the interests of the perpetrators of election fraud.

Anyone who attempts to define this as such, is a part of the problem, IMHO, raising the question as to the extent of their complicity with possible, and likely, voter fraud.

This issue should be of vital interest to all Americans, regardless of their ideological leanings.

It's not so much a matter of which side benefits, because in the end, we all lose if our votes don't count.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Divide and conquer.

Framing this debate as a Dem vs Repub issue only serves to further the interests of the perpetrators of election fraud.

Exactly, though maybe not in the way you are thinking.

There is an agenda behind this, and it isn't necessarily to get one party elected over another. I see this agenda as being two-fold:

First, I think it is being done to undermine voter confidence and faith in the election process. If one side can convince the populace that the other cannot win unless it cheats, it fosters doubt in the legitimacy of the other side, and helps increase the power of the first.

Second, I think it is an effort, slowly and surely, to move away from a secret ballot process. We'll soon hear a meme telling us, "the only way to prevent fraud is by making every vote public!" And it will be far more easy to manipulate the vote if you take away a person's right and ability to vote their conscience.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Three different news sources list three different versions of events:

When Brunner voted in 2006, she noticed that the voting machine displayed " candidate withdrawn" where the name of Jay Perez, a candidate for Franklin County Municipal Judge, might have appeared. Her husband, voting nearby, told her that Perez's name did appear on the voting machine that he had used.

The Register | Ohio voting machines declared an official crime scene

The touch-screen machines were locked up after Ohio's new Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, tried to vote last fall. On November 6, she spotted a gray bar with the words "candidate withdrawn" in a slot where the name of Democrat Jay Perez should have appeared. Her husband, voting nearby, told her Perez's name did appear, as it was supposed to, on his machine.

The Free Press | Ohio's voting machines are now an official crime scene

The investigation was launched after Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State and chief election official, found that a candidate's name was marked as withdrawn on the electronic voting machine that she used during the recent primaries, an irregularity that was also reported by voters in other precincts. The state attorney general is now working with a team of computer forensic consultants to determine if there was any tampering.

ARS Technica | Ohio seizes voting machines in criminal investigation

Note: The recent primaries were conducted on March 04, 2008 according to the The Free Press:

Ironically, Brunner requested a paper ballot in the March 4, 2008, primary, but a poorly trained poll worker gave her a provisional ballot instead. Two other staffers from her office were also given the wrong ballots. Brunner has since pledged to upgrade the training for Buckeye State poll workers.

The Free Press | Ohio's voting machines are now an official crime scene

The accuracy with which this story is being reported leaves much to be desired.

Maybe that's a part of the problem as well.

Originally posted by goosdawg

Which raises the question: In what year did this actually take place?

One source mentions 2006, another cites November of 2007.

I believe the first article was a misprint. She saw the withdrawn name problem when voting in the November 2007 election. When she investigated further, she found other vulnerabilities in the touchscreen machines and in December 2007 declared they were to be replaced with paper ballots by the March 08 Primary, which they were. The touchscreen machines were also used in the prior 2006 midterm and 2004 presidential elections, which is why she wants them checked.

I doubt they will be able to find anything that will be evidence of fraud, but at least she is doing her job.