Massive GOP Voting Fraud Discovered: Ron Paul Likely Won Many Elections

[Jon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM&feature=player_embedded

[1714064414]

1714064414

[1714064414]

1714064414

[1714064414]

1714064414

[Hawker]

Again no transcript or factual source?

[Jon]

Again no transcript or factual source?

I'll happily write a transcript for a fee. The video includes direct, primary sources.

[Hawker]

Thing is, if it was factual, it would already be in writing.  Its not so I'll wait for someone with facts to come along.

Thanks anyway.

[ineededausername]

Does this guy understand what a representative sample is?  Does he understand statistics at all?

He thinks exit polls don't work because they're "0.3% of the total."  LOL

[Jon]

Does this guy understand what a representative sample is?  Does he understand statistics at all?

He thinks exit polls don't work because they're "0.3% of the total."  LOL

Fair enough but what doesn't make sense is that the same exit polls are used by everybody, and that the exit poll results end up being the final results for the election by every news source.

That is what's fishy. Then there's the fact that the results are verified and sent out to all media outlets by a single private, media company.

[Jon]

Thing is, if it was factual, it would already be in writing.  Its not so I'll wait for someone with facts to come along.

Thanks anyway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-just-won-a-caucus-even-though-the-media-is-telling-you-mitt-romney-did-2012-3

Here's a verified incident.

[Hawker]

Thing is, if it was factual, it would already be in writing.  Its not so I'll wait for someone with facts to come along.

Thanks anyway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-just-won-a-caucus-even-though-the-media-is-telling-you-mitt-romney-did-2012-3

Here's a verified incident.

But that isn't fraud.  Admittedly I don't understand how Americans select delegates but on the rules, Ron Paul got more votes and less delegates.  It wasn't hidden - it is just your funny system.

[FlipPro]

Ron Paul couldn't even win Iowa...

[Jon]

Ron Paul couldn't even win Iowa...

Due to his 8 main districts being exempt from the caucus results.

[lakeluke]

I'm not familiar with this story, however, I am totally against any Electronic Voting systems; people should outright refuse to use this "scam machines"; I am so surprised (well i should not be) that ppl are quite and do not see the inherent risks and outright thievery of elections that these machines allow.

Good old paper systems; nothing can beat them, especially if you have candidate representatives at each polling station during the vote counting stage;

[JoelKatz]

I'm not familiar with this story, however, I am totally against any Electronic Voting systems; people should outright refuse to use this "scam machines"; I am so surprised (well i should not be) that ppl are quite and do not see the inherent risks and outright thievery of elections that these machines allow.

Good old paper systems; nothing can beat them, especially if you have candidate representatives at each polling station during the vote counting stage;

Quite the opposite, with electronic systems it's not particularly difficult to make fraud almost mathematically impossible. That the electronic systems in actual use don't do that speaks volumes about the priorities of the people who deploy them.

It is possible to devise electronic voting systems that:

1) Make it possible for a person to prove that a vote wasn't counted if a vote was not counted.

2) Make it all but impossible to determine how any particular person voted.

3) Make it all but impossible to coerce a person to vote a particular way.

4) Make it all but impossible for any votes to be altered after they are cast.

5) Make it all but impossible for unauthorized votes to be slipped into the system.

[lakeluke]

I know you "could" make a machine that is anti-fraud; but as experience has showed over the last 10-20 years, no government is advocating such well designed machines; that is why i personally believe that we should not accept any voting machines, and continue to use the paper based method for elections.

I am not saying that paper based methods are perfect, however with "physical" voting, it is easier to detect and reduce fraud, especially in less developed societies.

[compro01]

Quite the opposite, with electronic systems it's not particularly difficult to make fraud almost mathematically impossible. That the electronic systems in actual use don't do that speaks volumes about the priorities of the people who deploy them.

It is possible to devise electronic voting systems that:

1) Make it possible for a person to prove that a vote wasn't counted if a vote was not counted.

2) Make it all but impossible to determine how any particular person voted.

3) Make it all but impossible to coerce a person to vote a particular way.

4) Make it all but impossible for any votes to be altered after they are cast.

5) Make it all but impossible for unauthorized votes to be slipped into the system.

A system fulfilling those criteria would need to eliminate most of the reasons why an electronic voting system would be considered beneficial.  it adds cost, complexity, and multiple known and unknown points of failure for no effective gain over a well-implemented paper system.

[lakeluke]

I have participated in numerous Australian elections (being a delegate for candidates during the counting phase) and i must say it gives me the greatest feeling of pride and comfort that we have such a well run process from start to finish (paper based) which has such simple mechanisms and protocols in place to minimise possible fraud to the minimum.

Now you can't really do that with electronic voting machines; because most components are not "visible" and it would be easy on so many levels to hack such devices, all the way from the chip stage to the final product and software, a dedicated fraudster can infiltrate and rig such elections.

[benjamindees]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQXeGtfqCOw

Ran across this.  Seems interesting.  No idea whether it's real or not.

[lakeluke]

that link is b.s ; it's obvious that it is a cut and paste job.

[JoelKatz]

Quite the opposite, with electronic systems it's not particularly difficult to make fraud almost mathematically impossible. That the electronic systems in actual use don't do that speaks volumes about the priorities of the people who deploy them.

It is possible to devise electronic voting systems that:

1) Make it possible for a person to prove that a vote wasn't counted if a vote was not counted.

2) Make it all but impossible to determine how any particular person voted.

3) Make it all but impossible to coerce a person to vote a particular way.

4) Make it all but impossible for any votes to be altered after they are cast.

5) Make it all but impossible for unauthorized votes to be slipped into the system.

A system fulfilling those criteria would need to eliminate most of the reasons why an electronic voting system would be considered beneficial.  it adds cost, complexity, and multiple known and unknown points of failure for no effective gain over a well-implemented paper system.

The major gain is 1, 4, and 5. Even well-implemented paper systems do nothing about 1 and 5. As for points of failure, paper systems have points of failure too. It's hard to handle paper in a redundant way like you can with data.

[Explodicle]

Once they make an open-source open-design voting machine that is certified by multiple personally accountable technicians and has visible holographic tamper stickers everywhere that I can verify, THEN I might consider supporting electronic voting. Until then, I think the risks from paper ballots are way smaller. Joel's idea is better - but so far just in theory.

[grue]

oh boy, not this again. Wasn't this debunked on reddit?