Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times Targets Diebold In Op-Ed (FACTS Destroy Voter Fraud Conspiracy)
December 19, 2005

Posted on 12/19/2005 9:30:10 AM PST by new yorker 77

Edited on 12/19/2005 9:39:02 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

This post is in response to the Sunday, December 18, 2005, New York Times Op-Ed piece,originally posted by freeper 'salbam' here, which calls into question electronic voting machines. This is an argument being pushed by the liberal kook fringe because of the results in Ohio and Florida which liberals can not come to terms with.

Fact: If you compare the results of Election 2004 to the results of Election 2000, President Bush had Net Gains in 39 states while his Democrat Opponent had Net Gains in only 11 states. This proves that President Bush won a national election.

The Formula for Net Gain in a State is a s follows:

(# of Bush’04 Votes - # of Bush ’00 Votes) – (# of Kerry ’04 Votes - # of Gore ’00 Votes) = Net Gain of Votes

If the Net Gain # is Positive, it is a Net Gain for Bush.

If the Net Gain # is Negative, it is a Net Gain for Kerry.

I tabulated the following results of Net Gains using data of Election 2000 and Election 2004 which I have sourced below. Feel free to correct me if need be, but I obtained these Net Gain results using a spreadsheet and double-checked the numbers inputed.

Fact: President Bush had a Net Gain of 749,296 Votes in the Northeastern states that he lost. The states include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, & Maryland. Most of these states are run at the state and local level by Democrats.

President Bush had a Net Gain of Votes in 39 States

State--------------Net Gain























New Jersey-------263,250

New Mexico--------6,354

New York---------352,610

North Carolina-----61,846

North Dakota-------6,031



Rhode Island-------28,239

South Carolina—--55,899

South Dakota------11,444





West Virginia-----56,259


John Kerry had a Net Gain of Votes in 11 States

State--------------Net Gain








New Hampshire-16,485






The following data shows the votes obtained by Bush in 2000, Bush in 2004, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 in all 50 States and D.C..

State-------------Bush 2004---Bush 2000—Kerry 2004—Gore 2000






























New Hampshire-331,237------273,559------340,511-------266,348

New Jersey-----1,670,003----1,284,173----1,911,430-----1,788,850

New Mexico-----376,930------286,417------370,942-------286,783

New York------2,962,567----2,403,374----4,314,280----4,107,697

North Carolina-1,961,166----1,631,163----1,525,849----1,257,692

North Dakota----196,651------174,852-------111,052-------95,284





Rhode Island----169,046------130,155--------259,760------249,508

South Carolina—937,974-----785,937--------661,699------565,561

South Dakota----232,584------190,700--------149,244------118,804







West Virginia----423,778------336,475--------326,541------295,497




Source of Election 2000 Data:

Source of Election 2004 Data:

TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: diebold; electronicvoting; nyt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2005 9:30:11 AM PST by new yorker 77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: salbam


2 posted on 12/19/2005 9:31:18 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

Well the Times is obviously a right wing rag.

3 posted on 12/19/2005 9:34:50 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The date of the NY Times op-ed should be December 18, 2005.

Not November.

My mistake.

4 posted on 12/19/2005 9:35:50 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The Times argues in favor of a paper trail for the controversial Diebold 'Evil' Machines.

I debunk their dishonest op-ed.

5 posted on 12/19/2005 9:42:19 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Well the Times is obviously a right wing rag.

Neil Gabler said on "Fox News Watch" that the New York Times is a shill for President Bush.
6 posted on 12/19/2005 9:44:15 AM PST by msnimje (Political Correctness -- An OFFENSIVE attempt not to offend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Neil Gabler is a shill for losers.

7 posted on 12/19/2005 9:44:56 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77
Let us not forget that if Bush had only gotten just 51,000 more votes in a combination of border-line states, he would have gotten 304 electoral votes rather than 287.
8 posted on 12/19/2005 9:45:57 AM PST by pabianice (I guess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

There is nothing controversial about Diebold machines at all. They just got hammered during the election and are looking for any moonbat, nutbar scapegoat. Furthermore, you will find these same people arguing to go back to archaic paperballots for the sole purpose that its easier to commit democrat vote fraud with them.

9 posted on 12/19/2005 9:48:07 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
True, but my post is a tool for all freepers to use against liberals.

Try getting a liberal to explain how Bush really lost but only won because he stole Ohio when you explain to them his Net Gain in 39 States and a Net Gain of 750,000 votes in liberal run states in the Northeast that he lost.

President Bush had a NET GAIN in Massachusetts.
10 posted on 12/19/2005 9:48:10 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

All voting machines should have a verifiable paper trial, period.

11 posted on 12/19/2005 9:48:21 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

I know.

I just wanted to add the '39 State Net Gain' and the '750,000 Northest Vote Net Gain' to the mix.

These facts cause mental morons on the left to have an argument meltdown.

12 posted on 12/19/2005 9:49:37 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Disagree Steve... How can you verify the source of a paper ballot when it appears out of the wood work two weeks after the election? Thats the Dems modus operandi.

I don't trust paper in Dem run districts.

13 posted on 12/19/2005 9:57:07 AM PST by Wristpin ("The Yankees have decided to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
Irrelevant. A paper trail associated with the machine can't appear from "out of the woodwork".

Trusting a machine that doesn't generate a paper trail is foolish.

14 posted on 12/19/2005 10:04:40 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

What about the paper trail? Is this a little slip of paper that the voter gets to show he voted, kind of like a receipt? What if it does not reflect the voter's wishes? Does he go to the poll worker and have his vote deleted so he can revote? Do we really want poll workers to be able to delete votes? If not, what good is it?

15 posted on 12/19/2005 10:45:31 AM PST by sportutegrl (People who say, "All I know is . . ." really mean, "All I want you to focus on is . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
I don't trust paper in Dem run districts.

Under normal circumstances that is a good rule of thumb to live by. However, in the case of voting machines, it would be trivial to make the printed copy be extremely hard to forge.

I don't trust ballot boxes without a paper audit trail because I've worked with computers long enough to know that you just don't trust the things without auditing, especially when someone had something to gain by gaming the systems.

16 posted on 12/19/2005 11:34:57 AM PST by zeugma (Warning: Self-referential object does not reference itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Trusting the Dems with Paper is foolish as we've learned time and time again.

They love the military paper ballots too. They make nice paper airplanes out of them as they go into the trash.

17 posted on 12/19/2005 11:38:15 AM PST by Wristpin ("The Yankees have decided to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Amen to that. I am also an IT professional, and the fact that there was a known flaw which would permit after-the-fact manipulation of the votes is a big deal to me.

18 posted on 03/06/2006 6:38:39 AM PST by Bill Nigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

The only reason Bush had a net loss in Ohio was because of the unpopularity of Bob Taft.

19 posted on 03/06/2006 6:40:25 AM PST by RockinRight (Attention RNC...we're the party of Reagan, not FDR...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
I don't trust paper in Dem run districts.

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you, but in the case of these electronic voting machines, It would be a trivial task to tie the paper in a verifiable way to the machine that created it. Once the voting machines have been stored and (and possibly) wiped, there would be no easy way for dems to manufacture new votes. 

The following is an excerpt from Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram


Computerized and Electronic Voting

There are dozens of stories about computerized voting machines producing erroneous results. Votes mysteriously appear or disappear. Votes cast for one person are credited to another. Here are two from the most recent election: One candidate in Virginia found that the computerized election machines failed to register votes for her, and in fact subtracted a vote for her, in about "one out of a hundred tries." And in Indiana, 5,352 voters in an district of 19,000 managed to cast 144,000 ballots on a computerized machine.

These problems were only caught because their effects were obvious--and obviously wrong. Subtle problems remain undetected, and for every problem we catch--even though their effects often can't be undone--there are probably dozens that escape our notice.

Computers are fallible and software is unreliable; election machines are no different than your home computer.

Even more frightening than software mistakes is the potential for fraud. The companies producing voting machine software use poor computer-security practices. They leave sensitive code unprotected on networks. They install patches and updates without proper security auditing. And they use the law to prohibit public scrutiny of their practices. When damning memos from Diebold became public, the company sued to suppress them. Given these shoddy security practices, what confidence do we have that someone didn't break into the company's network and modify the voting software?

And because elections happen all at once, there would be no means of recovery. Imagine if, in the next presidential election, someone hacked the vote in New York. Would we let New York vote again in a week? Would we redo the entire national election? Would we tell New York that their votes didn't count?

Any discussion of computerized voting necessarily leads to Internet voting. Why not just do away with voting machines entirely, and let everyone vote remotely?

Online voting schemes have even more potential for failure and abuse. Internet systems are extremely difficult to secure, as evidenced by the never-ending stream of computer vulnerabilities and the widespread effect of Internet worms and viruses. It might be convenient to vote from your home computer, but it would also open new opportunities for people to play Hack the Vote.

And any remote voting scheme has its own problems. The voting booth provides security against coercion. I may be bribed or threatened to vote a certain way, but when I enter the privacy of the voting booth I can vote the way I want. Remote voting, whether by mail or by Internet, removes that security. The person buying my vote can be sure that he's buying a vote by taking my blank ballot from me and completing it himself.

In the U.S., we believe that allowing absentees to vote is more important than this added security, and that it is probably a good trade-off. And people like the convenience. In California, for example, over 25% vote by mail.

Voting is particularly difficult in the United States for two reasons. One, we vote on dozens of different things at one time. And two, we demand final results before going to sleep at night.

What we need are simple voting systems--paper ballots that can be counted even in a blackout. We need technology to make voting easier, but it has to be reliable and verifiable.

My suggestion is simple, and it's one echoed by many computer security researchers. All computerized voting machines need a paper audit trail. Build any computerized machine you want. Have it work any way you want. The voter votes on it, and when he's done the machine prints out a paper receipt, much like an ATM does. The receipt is the voter's real ballot. He looks it over, and then drops it into a ballot box. The ballot box contains the official votes, which are used for any recount. The voting machine has the quick initial tally.

This system isn't perfect, and doesn't address many security issues surrounding voting. It's still possible to deny individuals the right to vote, stuff machines and ballot boxes with pre-cast votes, lose machines and ballot boxes, intimidate voters, etc. Computerized machines don't make voting completely secure, but machines with paper audit trails prevent all sorts of new avenues of error and fraud.

CRS Report on Electronic Voting:

Voting resource pages:

Bills in U.S. Congress to force auditable balloting:

Virginia story:

Indiana story:

Nevada story:

California Secretary of State statement on e-voting paper trail requirement:

Maryland story:

More opinions:

Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003

My older essays on this topic:

20 posted on 03/06/2006 11:05:27 AM PST by zeugma (Anybody who says XP is more secure than OS X or Linux has been licking toads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson