READER COMMENTS ON

"Delaware's GOP Senate Primary and Its 100% Unverifiable, Faith-Based E-Voting Results"

(17 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Albert Lewis said on 9/14/2010 @ 6:22 pm PT...





What do you say to a bothersome kitty? Shoo! So how do you spell "shoo-in"? Just sayin'

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/14/2010 @ 6:59 pm PT...





The DRE declared the Tea Bagger the winner by double digits. A Sept. 13 poll had O'Donnell leading by only 3%.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 9/14/2010 @ 7:33 pm PT...





Politico shows her winning by slightly more than 6% with 100% of precincts reporting.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... karen said on 9/14/2010 @ 9:25 pm PT...





in a race that is obviously going be very close and has big stakes, why is all the record turnout attributable to winner, nearly half of the record turnout voted for Castle, so it seems the anti-ODonnell crowd was pretty enthused also...just as record turnout for MA Senate Brown seat showed record turnout in Dem districts as well as Repubs...

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... karen said on 9/14/2010 @ 9:27 pm PT...





would love to see what the paper ballots alone said.....pretty sure ODonnell will win in Nov too

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/14/2010 @ 10:23 pm PT...





Karen - You can see those numbers right here:

http://elections.delawar...ults/html/election.shtml

...and as I suspect you're hinting, it looks like Castle did indeed win the paper-based results by what appears to be a nearly opposite percentage from the DRE results. That said, I'd caution against reading too much into that, given O'Donnell's late endorsement from Palin and subsequent surge in the polls that came likely after most absentees were cast. Moreover, the absentee numbers are much much smaller than the election day totals. And with all of that said, this is, of course, the problem with 100% unverifiable voting systems of the type used in Delaware (and in some 20% of the rest of the country). There is absolutely no way to know if any of the votes cast on them today was recorded as per the intent of any voter, as I explain in the original article above.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 9/15/2010 @ 5:49 am PT...





Any chance of contacting Castle and going over the issue with him? What could he do, though, other than come through it looking like a sore loser. Re: #1 I'm not sure what the point was, but BF is indeed the correct spelling of the term. Just sayin'.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Ghostof911 said on 9/15/2010 @ 5:57 am PT...





It is impossible to believe that a distinguished public servant like Mike Castle could be defeated by an unknown in the State of Delaware, which has a long history of retaining its statewide office-holders, regardless of party. From Wiki: Mike Castle is a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Delaware's At-large congressional district since 1993. The district, which is the oldest in the nation, incorporates the entire state of Delaware. He is the longest-serving U.S. Representative in the state's history. Prior to his election to Congress, Castle served as a member of the Delaware General Assembly, first in the State House of Representatives (1966-1967) and then in the State Senate (1968-1976). He was the 20th Lieutenant Governor of Delaware from 1981 to 1985, and the 69th Governor of Delaware from 1985 to 1992.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/15/2010 @ 8:47 am PT...





What is it going to take to awaken the corporate media, that dwindling group who fulfill the oxymoron of "honest politicians" and the American electorate? AP may have, as Brad reported, "declared" O'Donnell the "winner," but there is no way to determine who received the most votes on these DREs, and there is the very common discrepancy in which the person who received the most votes on paper ballots "lost" the election. As covered again and again here at The BRAD BLOG, a single malicious insider with less than one minute access can hack the system to insert code that will predetermine the outcome by means of a final tally by way of a percentage of votes cast going to each candidate. A 2006 Princeton University study demonstrated that the code could be inserted on one machine and then spread like a virus throughout the system. A 2006 University of UConn study revealed that optical scan (paper based) systems are as vulnerable to tampering, vote-rigging, and incorrect tabulation as touch-screen systems. Yet, in election-after-election we sit back quietly and accept as valid the unverified results spewed out by these shoddy and easily hacked virtual voting systems, rarely demanding that which a democracy requires--an authenticated count which verifies that the "winner" actually received more votes than the "loser." Unless and until we the people demand authentication by way of hand-counted ballots, ours is not a democracy. It's a farce.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... KatieB said on 9/15/2010 @ 1:57 pm PT...





The optical scan systems seem to be a lot better to me in that theoretically, if enough outrage was raised, the ballots could be hand counted. DREs seem to be by far the less verifiable system. The optical scan machines could be verified except for laziness and thriftiness. The DRE results, not.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... lmk said on 9/15/2010 @ 3:39 pm PT...





I'm beginning to get a queasy feeling about exactly WHY certain corporate predators find it so necessary to keep sponsoring the TPer's lies, propaganda and campaigns. Now I have a theory. If the election is going to be rigged this year (or 2012), the useful TP idiots serve a number of purposes. First, any close races that are flipped can be blamed on the (allegedly) "common knowledge" that Americans were in an angry, anti-incumbent mood (in fact, I believe the latter has not been borne out through the primary season, at least not in any significant way). Second, if another "Brooks Brothers" riot is needed to stymie any recounts, I'm sure a bunch of angry old overweight white people will serve in a pinch. Third, the ultimate scam becomes unassailable afterwards: America's elite corporate overlords created/bought a "movement" artfully directed it to further its own corporatist neocon interests. Trust me, all the elected teatards that hated the Wall St. bailout will suddenly spout robotic phrases about the need to "allow innovation and growth" as a reason for more deregulatory BS. We have our work cut out for us. The sane people in America need to build a firewall around the lies and ignorance of the TP neocons. Anyone spouting TP nonsense should be immediate called out. When it comes to politics many of them are as nutty as they come. We wouldn't want a crazy relative in elected office, right? Well many of these candidates and their supporters ARE someone's crazy relative. I don't think it is inappropriate at all to point this out. Over and over if necessary. And watch out for folks who just want to jump on a "winners" bandwagon. Remind them that the TPers are losers (and give them good examples of why) and that America will be the biggest loser should the GOBPbaggers get anywhere near the reins of power.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Steven Dorst said on 9/15/2010 @ 4:23 pm PT...





Brad, Not really on topic, but I couldn't quickly find a better place to let you know that I just blogged about another e-voting issue that I found thanks to a Thom Hartman tweet, which I think he tweeted well after your appearance on his show today. Here's the link directly to that post: http://bit.ly/doGNBM

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/15/2010 @ 4:45 pm PT...





@ LMK ~ Exactly right. They're seeding their November narrative, threading their election crooky-hook with a million planted fallacies. I'm so spooked by the possibilities I'm pretty sure I've been visited by the Ghost of Stolen Elections Future every night this week. (What a pill. That guy keeps me up all night yammering with long-winded explanations of how the Koch Bros. resources will seamlessly sew up the elections for the evil corporate overlords. Then he humorlessly strokes his astral-beard like a cheap, dime-store novel villain and sneers that none of it would be possible without my Aunt Sue heading up their army of Zombie-retirees.

Valium only seems to wind him up, drink just makes him piss in my hamper.) I'll add fourth bullet to your fine post re: 'why the teatards' (tho' you have already implied it, in part)- the unilateral flash-mobbing media coverage they always get will give the corporate rulers the appearance of MAJORITY...even tho they are not. By a lot. Not. (You made great radio, today, Brad!)

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/15/2010 @ 6:05 pm PT...





Steven Dorst said: I just blogged about another e-voting issue that I found thanks to a Thom Hartman tweet, which I think he tweeted well after your appearance on his show today. Was I on his show today?! I know I was tired after a long night last night, but I'd think I'd remember that! Will otherwise check out your link though...

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/15/2010 @ 9:05 pm PT...





KatieB @ 10 wrote DREs seem to be by far the less verifiable system. They're not "less" verifiable, they're completely, 100% unverifiable. It is impossible to prove that a DRE engaged in "counting," let alone that they accurately counted the vote. Think of DREs as electronic black holes where votes disappear, never to be seen again.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Matt Carmody said on 9/20/2010 @ 4:24 pm PT...





Chase and Bank of America provide their depositors with copies of their deposits from ATMs as soon as the transaction is made. Why do we have to rely on individual states making individual deals instead of having the same technology the banks use mandated for voting machines? Voting is bullshit.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/20/2010 @ 5:22 pm PT...

