• New Registration

    To become a member of JackpineRadicals please see post https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/new-members/

Home Main Forums General Discussion Black Box Voting – Take what we know now 15 years later

  • Entrepreneur (2629 posts)
    Profile photo of Entrepreneur Donor

    Black Box Voting – Take what we know now 15 years later

    and transport yourself back in time to when we were asking with stupefied expressions on our faces “why the hell isn’t the Dem leadership raising a shit storm over the rigged electronic voting machines?”.

    Then consider that question in light of the more recent indicators that :

    1. Many powerful lobbies from Wall Street, AIPAC, NRA, big banks, big oil , and big pharma own both major parties.
    2. Neither major party cares what the voters want. They only care what their big donors want.
    3. The priority of Dem leadership is not winning, it is to make sure no left leaning candidate wins.
    4. The Dem leadership would prefer any  neoliberal or neocon politician in the WH (Dem or Repug) than any true liberal such as Bernie.

    Even after making these observations I still don’t have a concrete definitive answer to the above question. But I am no longer surprised that establishment Dems feel that they are better served by a riggable, unverifiable voting system than one that accurately tracks and reports the will of the voters.

    WillyT, twenty, Cleita and 43 othersPDiddie, donDonE, sorechasm, ThinkingANew, Salemcourt, Half Century Man, Grateful Curd, ctsnowman, Pastiche, Tuesday, Betty Karlson, caliny, Baba OhReally, HeartoftheMidwest, Eggar, slay, Ferd Berfel, h-32, 12-Bar Blues, HIP56948, MrMickeysMom, 7wo7rees, eridani, snot, xynthee, mrdmk, Iwalani88, DesertRat2015, broiles, Enthusiast, hypergrove, HomerRamone, Scott Crowder, retired liberal, jwirr, Utopian Leftist, aspirant, nevereVereven, NV Wino, iggy, Marym625, Peace Patriot, ThouArtThat like this
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness" - J.K. Galbraith

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
32 replies
  • 5 months ago #21
    • ThouArtThat (6762 posts)
      Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

      1. Connecting The Dots – Well Done

      eom

      "In America Today, Power Corrupts and Money Corrupts Absolutely" - Anonymous  
    • Marym625 (29647 posts)
      Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

      2. Excellent. On The Daily Radical!

      It is Unfuckingbelievable that we’re STILL using this shit. And the only reason is their control of the machines, therefore, the vote

      Take Action #StopFCC https://www.battleforthenet.com/breaktheinternet/ "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
    • Peace Patriot (3592 posts)
      Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

      3. Yup. I began to grok this circa 2004…..

      …when CA Dem Sec of State Kevin Shelley, who was preparing to sue Diebold, got drummed out of office by the CA Dems. Not the Pukes. The Dems! His suit would have alerted the nation to the about-to-be-stolen ‘04 s/election. I was already suspicious of the Dems who supported these private, corporate, ‘TRADE SECRET’ vote counting machines. But when they went after Shelley, I knew we had a problem that is MUCH bigger than a few corrupt Dems.

      • ThouArtThat (6762 posts)
        Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

        4. Sad But True – We Are Fast Approaching A Political Dystopia

        From which recovery will be impossible.

        "In America Today, Power Corrupts and Money Corrupts Absolutely" - Anonymous  
        • Scott Crowder (796 posts)
          Profile photo of Scott Crowder

          5. approaching?

          I think even the Woke are always decades behind reality.

          Think of all the “moderates” who, throughout history, have failed to oppose state-sanctioned aggression, oppression, and abuse, from slavery to child labor, while maligning those who call for change as dangerous and misguided, violent radicals. And yet, in retrospect, when a renewed social contract is established as the new normal, the unlawful actions that brought about these societal shifts are turned into mythical tales of nationalistic heroism and dates for kids to memorize at school.
          https://limitedhangoutblog.com/2017/02/08/lets-talk-about-violence/
          • ThouArtThat (6762 posts)
            Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

            6. Yes – Understand – The Human Psyche Rests Better With Hope Than Reality

            eom

            "In America Today, Power Corrupts and Money Corrupts Absolutely" - Anonymous  
            • Scott Crowder (796 posts)
              Profile photo of Scott Crowder

              7. which is probably going to allow climate change

              To make us extinct.  Real hope as opposed to false hope is only possible when you face reality and steel yourself to fight to change it.

              I Woke when I was 7 yrs old.  Too little for reality to smudge my hope.  All the adults I knew hated Nixon.  The neighbors hated Nixon.  Everyone hated Nixon.  Despised him.  Yet our little town went 4000 Nixon 2000 Humphrey.

              I asked “I thought everybody hated him?”  I got different responses but basically I was informed that lots of people were stupid and easily fooled.

              So in my childish innocence Idecided to always ask when I met an adult if they voted Nixon or Humphrey so I would know if they were stupid or foolish.

              Startled to be asked up front by a child every adult I met said Humphrey.  This confused me as nobody voted for Nixon.  NOBODY.  Not one person.  So I began even asking strangers.

              And so I Woke.

              At the age of 18 I left my hometown which supposedly had voted 4000 to 2000 in favor of Nixon.  I would still ask out of curiousity if anyone had voted for Nixon.  Might as well have been seeking the holy grail.  NOT ONE PERSON ever said they voted for Nixon.

              Now look at the 50,000 people filling a stadium for Bernie that the media refused to show and the handful of people Hillary drew.

              Think of all the “moderates” who, throughout history, have failed to oppose state-sanctioned aggression, oppression, and abuse, from slavery to child labor, while maligning those who call for change as dangerous and misguided, violent radicals. And yet, in retrospect, when a renewed social contract is established as the new normal, the unlawful actions that brought about these societal shifts are turned into mythical tales of nationalistic heroism and dates for kids to memorize at school.
              https://limitedhangoutblog.com/2017/02/08/lets-talk-about-violence/
              • ThouArtThat (6762 posts)
                Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

                8. Here Is A Website That Underscores Your Thoughts And Observations – Enjoy

                https://un-denial.com/welcome/

                Background

                I belong to a small tribe of people interested in human overshoot.

                We try to integrate evolution, behavior, thermodynamics, ecology, history, and economics into an understanding of what is going on and what might be ahead.

                Unlike other larger tribes that focus on one aspect of overshoot such as climate change, species extinction, fisheries collapse, deforestation, tree die-off, nitrogen imbalance, pollution, soil loss, aquifer depletion, resource depletion, peak oil, or unsafe debt to GDP, my tribe focuses on the system of problems, their underlying causes, and possible paths forward.

                After studying and (I think) understanding our predicament, I became fascinated with the fact that society does not acknowledge or discuss, let alone plan or act, in an honest and meaningful way, on any of our larger problems, despite some threats being imminent.

                After observing many intelligent people and organizations come to wrong conclusions, and after attempting to educate friends and family, I concluded that the absence of useful discussion and action is not caused by a lack of knowledge or intelligence. Most people actively and aggressively deny the existence and causes of the problems. They do not want a deeper understanding.

                Snip …

                "In America Today, Power Corrupts and Money Corrupts Absolutely" - Anonymous  
                • Utopian Leftist (605 posts)
                  Profile photo of Utopian Leftist Donor

                  14. Very interesting.

                  Noam Chomsky adds, in his film “Manufacturing Consent,” that the powers that be keep us running on our treadmills because that makes the average Joe and Jill too tired and stressed about their personal lives to even be capable of contemplating the larger, societal problems in a responsible manner.

                  Also, the average person in this country possesses an IQ of only 100. I am not exaggerating, that is a fact. Most people are dumber than dirt.

                  The beatdown Hillary was handed had nothing to do with Bernie Bros, Russia, a VRWC, Comey, the FBI, the media, sexism, racism or any other ism you can think of. It was a referendum on neoliberalism. It is your legacy, Obama. It’s Clinton fatigue born of endless scandals. It’s war and prison for profit. It’s criminality that dresses itself up like saintliness and looks down its nose at its victims. ~ farleftlib
                  • Dragonfli (1349 posts)
                    Profile photo of Dragonfli Donor

                    17. That sounds low, are you sure?

                    100 seems to me to be barely functional in a modern society, considering that moist people I know had scored much higher, what frightens me more is those that must be far below that to balance out such a low average.

                    “We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” Thurgood Marshall

                      

                    • Coldmountaintrail (5594 posts)
                      Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

                      28. 100 isn't low, it's median score. IQ test results are designed to

                      (standardized) to bring that result, with other scores falling in a bell curve on both sides of the median.  And actual test content is changed too.

                      so testing keeps getting that median score and median spread, even as raw scores show people getting ‘smarter’.

                       

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

                      IQ tests are updated periodically. For example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), originally developed in 1949, was updated in 1974, in 1991, 2003 and again in 2014. The revised versions are standardized based on the performance of test-takers in standardization samples.  A standard score of IQ 100 is defined as the median performance of the standardization sample. Thus one way to see changes in norms over time is to conduct a study in which the same test-takers take both an old and new version of the same test. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time.

                      Some IQ tests, for example tests used for military draftees in NATO countries in Europe, report raw scores, and those also confirm a trend of rising scores over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the United States, as scaled by the Wechsler tests. The increasing test performance over time appears on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country, although not necessarily at the same rate as in the United States. The increase was continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the late 1990s…. Though the effect is most associated with IQ increases, a similar effect has been found with increases in attention and of semantic and episodic memory….

                      Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution. Teasdale and Owen (1989), for example, found the effect primarily reduced the number of low-end scores, resulting in an increased number of moderately high scores, with no increase in very high scores.[9] In another study, two large samples of Spanish children were assessed with a 30-year gap. Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that the mean IQ-scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points (the Flynn effect), the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased.[10] Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ.

                      Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997 the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that “Hardly any of them would have scored ‘very superior’, but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be ‘deficient.'” He also wrote that “Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial.”[7]

                       

                       

                       

                      • Dragonfli (1349 posts)
                        Profile photo of Dragonfli Donor

                        29. I suppose I meant low in a relative sense, rather than by median score

                        I just never considered myself that far above average, my wife’s was 50% higher than that score, and she had scored about a dozen points higher than me. I fully believe(d) I was slightly above average, while she was more definitively above average.

                        We did retake the test on a dare far later than the HS tests we took that had councilors tell our parents we should be pursuing college aggressively, but they were a joke that scored me even 12 points higher and her yet 15 more than previous, so we’d assumed the test was made easier.

                        I just never thought people could score that much lower than me and be able to function in a modernized society, I suppose anything above 100 isn’t very substantial (unless like 180 or something).

                        What still frightens me is that to achieve that as an average, then for everyone like my wife, there must be at least one that scored 50% lower (that surely can’t be functional in any good way for our society)

                        “We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” Thurgood Marshall

                          

                      • Coldmountaintrail (5594 posts)
                        Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

                        30. it's not an average, it's a median; the middle score on a bell curve.

                        it happens that on a bell curve they’re basically synonymous, but an average per se can also be gotten from a random distribution, e.g. as in the case of my and yours and bill gates wealth averaging in the billions.  median is about the distribution of scores, not the number you get when you ‘average’ scores.

                        personally, i am skeptical of iq, for many reasons, and not too worried about the supposedly unintelligent.  the world has been run for quite a while by the supposedly intelligent, yet here we are.  and yes, class position is a good predictor of IQ.  and IQ is a creation of that same class.

                         

                  • Coldmountaintrail (5594 posts)
                    Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

                    27. iq tests are designed (and regularly recalibrated) to give precisely that

                    result, that most people should score in that range.  why do you consider that evidence that ‘most people are dumber than dirt’?

                    using the evidence of iq tests we could also conclude that ‘people are getting more intelligent every year’ (flynn effect).

                    we might also conclude that the correlations of iq with income/wealth demonstrates the justice of present social arrangements.

                    or we might conclude something else from that data.

                     

    • sadoldgirl (2391 posts)
      Profile photo of sadoldgirl Donor

      9. I watched part of the Senate hearing about this, with B.Boxer in charge.

      The IT people testified clearly that programming the machines to

      cheat was easy peasy. Once that hearing was over nothing changed.

      From their point of view that makes sense. The biggest fight both

      parties fear is a 3rd one winning. Other than that they will just take

      turns. By getting rid of the neutral group handling the debates , by

      every state making it hard for a third party to register, and by setting

      the 15% support for such a one for debates they succeeded.

      • Entrepreneur (2629 posts)
        Profile photo of Entrepreneur Donor

        11. Yep. Better to plan to lose 50% of the time than let an actual representative

        of the people get into office and maybe get your ass 100% kicked out.  Plus, both “sides” work for the same owners anyway.

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness" - J.K. Galbraith
    • Enthusiast (12612 posts)
      Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

      10. Correct. The Democratic Party wants a riggable, unverifiable voting system.

      That is a simple fact. That is why we have a riggable, unverifiable voting system.

      "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson
      • Peace Patriot (3592 posts)
        Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

        22. Yup.

      • Salemcourt (804 posts)
        Profile photo of Salemcourt Donor

        26. Yes, it does

    • eridani (4080 posts)
      Profile photo of eridani Donor

      12. Another issue is control of the voting process strictly by states

      Dates back to affirmative action for slaveholders in the Constitution

      You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
      • Peace Patriot (3592 posts)
        Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

        23. Be careful of this one, eridani. Local control may be our only hope of…

        …reversing the extreme rig-ability of our vote counting systems.  This may be why “Homeland Security” is trying to get control of these ‘TRADE SECRET’ code machines – to prevent us from throwing them out!

        I am fully aware of how “states rights” has been misused for vile purposes in the past.  I was a civil rights activist working on voter registration issues in Alabama in 1965, and welcomed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which subjected the white segregationists in the South to federal regulation for denying voting rights to black citizens.  Federal regulation was badly needed to correct that gross injustice.

        “States rights” was also used to defend all manner of segregation and injustice.  However, that was then.  This is now.  In 2002, we had the Anthrax Congress fund the conversion of our paper ballot or lever machine systems into private, corporate electronic vote counting systems run on ‘TRADE SECRET’ code – code that the public is forbidden to review! – often with no audit at all (mostly in the southern states) or with miserably inadequate audits elsewhere. This horrible transformation was accomplished by corruption – state voting officials seeking that money, or getting wined and dined by the corporate vendors – NOT by federal law.  We still have the power, locally, to throw these machines out and restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE.  This a constitutional right of the states and thus of local jurisdictions.  The person who makes the decisions about voting systems is your local registrar of voters – someone who may live down the street from you; someone who can be pressured by public opinion.

        This is probably our only hope of restoring vote counting that we can see.  The Feds will NEVER restore it.  And, as I said, it appears that they are moving to protect these extremely riggable machines on “national security” grounds, i.e., if we restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE, the public will nix their wars, their corruption, their secrecy, their lies and their contempt for the common good.

        • Entrepreneur (2629 posts)
          Profile photo of Entrepreneur Donor

          31. Totally agree. That was also my first thought when the notion of "protecting"

          our voting system under a federal agency was floated.  They now have it rigged just they way they want it.  What better  to lock it into it’s current state than to require any changes to be approved by a federal gatekeeper under control of fascist government elements?

          “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness" - J.K. Galbraith
    • MrMickeysMom (1941 posts)
      Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

      13. You know, I still have that little book on my shelf…

      Black Box Voting that is… It seems that Beverly was a poster on SV and for some reason SV had some pretty bad things to say about her methods, though I’ve never understood the reason (which is only part of the stupidity on that message board, Hilbot ridden clusterfuck of posters).

      Maybe someone can shed light on why the BBV book fell out of graces. I mean, besides the typos that might have been in the book, it basically was correct in pointing out voter flipping on iVotronics, in addition to the origins of who owned that enterprise before “winning” the U.S. Senate race.

      Votes have not been accurately counted locally where I am since a few years after black box voting replaced the lever pull in SW PA.

      Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
      • Entrepreneur (2629 posts)
        Profile photo of Entrepreneur Donor

        15. I noticed the hostility toward her over there also and I was puzzled by it. But

        once you realize that they are Borg drones who have no independent thoughts, it makes sense that they would be upset about exposing the Dem leadership’s complicity in the rigged election system.  Otherwise, if it were only Republicans doing it, SV would be heaping praise on her for boosting the prospects of the Dem establishment.

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness" - J.K. Galbraith
      • MistaP (8051 posts)
        Profile photo of MistaP Donor

        18. Harris did get into a lot of online fights and seemed a bit monomaniacal

        but that’s par for the course for any internet activist; it was the hive mentality that got the whole issue quashed in the party even though it would’ve been of partisan benefit

        remember when Carville asked Kerry to not do a recount in Ohio? and I mean that wasn’t even to benefit Her or to seek revenge for Kerry digging into 80s cocaine trafficking, but to show that the Dems Played the Game and wouldn’t seek vengeance for stealing 2000–that they blast each other in the news and then go out for drinks afterwards

        http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
        • MrMickeysMom (1941 posts)
          Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

          19. I remember Carville's influence, thanks for the clarification of that, MistaP!

          I’d say Carville was right up there will the game players during 2000.

          NOTHING will ever be the same in the election process after THAT election. May this be the year that exposes ALL of them. Let it roll…

          Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
      • Peace Patriot (3592 posts)
        Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

        24. I joined SV just at the end of that controversy. It was exceedingly toxic and…

        …I did not participate in it, on either side.  My strong suspicion now is that Bev was slandered and shitcanned by the powers behind SV, which included a CIA-invaded Democratic Party and the same sort of DINOs who ruined Kevin Shelley (the CA Sec of State who was going to sue Diebold in 2003).

    • bobthedrummer (3863 posts)
      Profile photo of bobthedrummer

      16. We know that Andy Stephenson died. n/t

      All power to the People.
      • Pastiche (551 posts)
        Profile photo of Pastiche Donor

        20. I suppose some the commenters on this thread are unaware of what Harris did to

        Andy.

        I am totally aware of what that bitch did to a dying man.

        She wasn’t advocating for voters. She wanted fame and money, like when she sold cigars online during Bill Clinton’s trial.

        Don’t believe me? Just ask Agent Mike.

        • eridani (4080 posts)
          Profile photo of eridani Donor

          25. She hired him, but did not pay for the health insurance he thought he had

          After publishing Black Box Voting, she totally dropped out of the election integrity movement.  She has played zero role in trying to get King County Elections to do more rigorous auditing.

          You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
          • phillybob (7 posts)
            Profile photo of phillybob

            32. This fits with my recollection.

            I met Andy at the Nashville election integrity conference. Nice, level-headed guy.

    • ctsnowman (817 posts)
      Profile photo of ctsnowman Donor

      21. Excellent

      Army and Navy veteran and a proud liberal.