What a mess! Feeney - voted one of the 20 most corrupt Congressmen, go Tom- was the sleaze from Florida. Clint Curtis was the programmer. He didn't make the claims in "court" he made them to the House Judiciary Commission. He said he wrote a prototype not that it was actually used. No one's seen it let alone confirm that it might work or get past hashing or how it could run on BOTH precinct and central counters. There's a $200,000 yippee prize he hasn't applied for. Total bullshit.
The easiest ballot to "hack" is the paper ballot. Counting paper ballots - the Bradblog horseshit about it aside - is WILDLY labor intensive, easily shown inaccurate and slow. With the armies of counters required, physical security and monitoring - which is what all voting systems ACTUALLY require - is nearly impossible. See your candidate on the ballot? Make a votemark. If the other guy was already voted, it's an overvote. If not, then it's a vote. Counters hide pencil leads. Yawn.
The easiest ballot to "hack" is the paper ballot. Counting paper ballots - the Bradblog horseshit about it aside - is WILDLY labor intensive, easily shown inaccurate and slow. With the armies of counters required, physical security and monitoring - which is what all voting systems ACTUALLY require - is nearly impossible. See your candidate on the ballot? Make a votemark. If the other guy was already voted, it's an overvote. If not, then it's a vote. Counters hide pencil leads. Yawn.
@favoom1 Yet there is no court hearings of people testifying to the rigging of election results like there is in computer voting machines. Search for Computer Programmer " Tom Feeney " and see for yourself. He testifies that he helped rig an American election.
I accidentally deleted punxsutawneybarney's comment. It was:
It's just plain science v. 100% faith-based voting. And now that ES&S has bought Diebold 80% of the voting machine market is controlled by one company!
And then I tried to reply to barney (before I accidentally deleted him!) with:
Good news and bad news, Barney. Good news: The DoJ forced ES&S to sell the Diebold election division due to the anti-trust issues you mention. The bad news is that a Canadian firm bought both them and Sequoi in one fell swoop. Search "Dominion Sequoia" at BRAD BLOG dot com and you can read all about it.
@TheBRADBLOG Thanks, Brad, for keeping me up to date. Unfortunately Debra Bowen's vigilance on the voting machine issue in California has made citizens of her state complacent and taken much of the wind out of the sails of the electoral integrity movement.
What a mess! Feeney - voted one of the 20 most corrupt Congressmen, go Tom- was the sleaze from Florida. Clint Curtis was the programmer. He didn't make the claims in "court" he made them to the House Judiciary Commission. He said he wrote a prototype not that it was actually used. No one's seen it let alone confirm that it might work or get past hashing or how it could run on BOTH precinct and central counters. There's a $200,000 yippee prize he hasn't applied for. Total bullshit.
favoom1 4 months ago
Conspiracy = A cooperating with B to take advantage of C. Anyone who believes people do anything like this to each other is obviously a nut ¬¬
MyBrotherMan 1 year ago
god what fucking horse shit...
Nincumpoopie 1 year ago
@Nincumpoopie "god what fucking horse shit..." Really? Why do you say that?
TheBRADBLOG 1 year ago 3
The easiest ballot to "hack" is the paper ballot. Counting paper ballots - the Bradblog horseshit about it aside - is WILDLY labor intensive, easily shown inaccurate and slow. With the armies of counters required, physical security and monitoring - which is what all voting systems ACTUALLY require - is nearly impossible. See your candidate on the ballot? Make a votemark. If the other guy was already voted, it's an overvote. If not, then it's a vote. Counters hide pencil leads. Yawn.
favoom1 5 months ago
The easiest ballot to "hack" is the paper ballot. Counting paper ballots - the Bradblog horseshit about it aside - is WILDLY labor intensive, easily shown inaccurate and slow. With the armies of counters required, physical security and monitoring - which is what all voting systems ACTUALLY require - is nearly impossible. See your candidate on the ballot? Make a votemark. If the other guy was already voted, it's an overvote. If not, then it's a vote. Counters hide pencil leads. Yawn.
favoom1 5 months ago
@favoom1 Yet there is no court hearings of people testifying to the rigging of election results like there is in computer voting machines. Search for Computer Programmer " Tom Feeney " and see for yourself. He testifies that he helped rig an American election.
wyrwich 4 months ago
Like it. Good effort!!
0ranutan 1 year ago
I accidentally deleted punxsutawneybarney's comment. It was:
It's just plain science v. 100% faith-based voting. And now that ES&S has bought Diebold 80% of the voting machine market is controlled by one company!
TheBRADBLOG 1 year ago 2
And then I tried to reply to barney (before I accidentally deleted him!) with:
Good news and bad news, Barney. Good news: The DoJ forced ES&S to sell the Diebold election division due to the anti-trust issues you mention. The bad news is that a Canadian firm bought both them and Sequoi in one fell swoop. Search "Dominion Sequoia" at BRAD BLOG dot com and you can read all about it.
TheBRADBLOG 1 year ago
@TheBRADBLOG Thanks, Brad, for keeping me up to date. Unfortunately Debra Bowen's vigilance on the voting machine issue in California has made citizens of her state complacent and taken much of the wind out of the sails of the electoral integrity movement.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago