Gingrich campaign - Election Fraud?

Thom hartmann talks with Brad Friedman, founder/editor-The Brad Blog, about the state of Virginia's investigation into a Gingrich campaign staffer illegally forging more than 1,500 names on a ballot petition.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Brad Friedman
• Brad Blog
• Gingrich election fraud
• Virginia

[TruthAndMoreTruth]

They brought down ACORN over NOTHING!

An organization that actually helped people no longer exist over empty accusations that were proven baseless and without merit.

Here we have actual voter fraud in plain site, by the same side of the political spectrum that brought down acorn.

[judyleasugar97]

@DeJach: How is voting on paper susceptible to fraud? Particularly as the guy said, counted in front of the public.

[dael4]

Who owns/runs Command Central  (voting machine company) that is replacing Opti-Scans machines for free???

[420gma]

I think paper ballots being counted in public is the best. I vote absentee as most californians do .We don't trust the machines . My paper ballot has a tear off receipt I can go down have have my receipt matched with my ballot if I have any doubts.

[captcrais101]

@judyleasugar97 Paper is only susceptible to fraud if it is hand counted. If it is counted by machine then it might be susceptible to fraud.

[DeJach]

@onlywhenprovoked It's been a while since I looked at the methods, so I looked for some new methods and I discovered the simple low-tech Rivest and Smith's protocols from 2007. (Please Google.) So it looks like "complicated cryptography" isn't required, which is useful. I had a very similar idea to VAV back in 2005 (I think it's simpler from the voter's perspective) that uses (in my opinion simple) cryptographic methods.

[DeJach]

@onlywhenprovoked Look, I'm fine with having video cameras record people's votes, the counting, etc. It's an extra layer of security no matter how weak. But using encryption methods stops certain classes of fraud from even happening instead of relying on after-the-fact correction alone.

[DeJach]

@onlywhenprovoked Except you can. Regular cameras aren't fundamentally different from webcams especially if they're connected to a network. (Even if they're not they are susceptible and not just by software attacks.)

The cell phone cameras proves that 1) no one cared and 2) the presence of cameras didn't stop fraud. (The purple fingers was also a bad idea since I remember hearing that some people with purple fingers had their fingers cut off by the local extremists.)

[onlywhenprovoked]

@DeJach Obviously I didn't mean "hack into a webcam". You know that. Please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I'll try not to do the same to you.

I'm OBVIOUSLY talking about how you can't make a persons arm reaching for a ballot and sticking it in their pocket disappear from 2 independent cameras.

And how the hell does "cel phones cameras caught people with purple fingers" do anything but prove that the video was the only method that worked in that case?

[DeJach]

@onlywhenprovoked I think the fact that video cameras (mostly cell phones) recorded double-voting by purple-finger-marked individuals disproves your point. There's a second element of enforcement that you have to take into account, the joys of a proper implementation of various encryption methods (think: why can't you cash a check twice even though banks let you deposit by just taking a picture?) means a lot of choice-to-enforce problems go away.