Our voting system, if not broken, is really bent...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ceetee

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
1,998
Ann Coulter voting case could go to prosecutor

What I really want to know is: who is the poll worker that allowed Ann to vote in the wrong place to begin with?

My home town. Ain't it great?


WEST PALM BEACH -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has refused to cooperate in an investigation about whether she voted in the wrong precinct, so the case will likely be turned over to state prosecutors, Palm Beach County's elections chief said Wednesday.

Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson said his office has been looking into the matter for nearly nine months, and he would turn over the case to the state attorney's office by Friday.

Coulter's attorney did not immediately return a telephone message Wednesday and her telephone number in Palm Beach is unpublished. A message left for Tara Gilbride, a publicist for Coulter's publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, owned by Random House Inc., was also not immediately returned.

Anderson's office received a complaint in February that Coulter allegedly voted in the wrong precinct during a Feb. 7 Palm Beach town council election. Since then, Anderson said he has made repeated attempts to resolve the matter with Coulter and her attorney but has been rebuffed.

Anderson said an initial letter was sent to Coulter on March 27 requesting that she clarify her address for the voting records ``or face the possibility of her voter registration being rescinded.''

Three more letters were sent to Coulter and her attorney over the next several months, but she has yet to respond with the information requested, Anderson said.

In July, Anderson said, he received a letter from Coulter's attorney, Marcos Daniel Jimenez D'Clouet. The letter said the attorney would only discuss the matter in person or by telephone because he complained Anderson had given details to the media. Anderson said the matter had to be discussed in writing.

Knowingly voting in a wrong precinct is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney's office in West Palm Beach.

Edmondson said his office generally reviews such cases, then turns them over to local authorities for a full investigation that could result in an arrest if intent is proven.

Original story
 
Last edited:
Making mountains out of a mole hill of someone voting in the wrong place, and at the same time Ignoring Massive Outright Voting Fraud that is frequently pepetrated....

Oh, & all that at the same time as they are Pushing E-Voting in a form that is So Ridiculously Easy to Rig that it's not funny.
(Note on e-voting: See Posts by Jim March)

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
Making mountains out of a mole hill of someone voting in the wrong place, and at the same time Ignoring Massive Outright Voting Fraud that is frequently pepetrated....
Of course if we were talking about Molly Ivans or some other obnoxious liberal there would be a great hue and cry about how horrible it would be to charge an American with a Felony over voting in the wrong place, but since we're talking about an obnoxious conservative that *gasp* votes for Republicans *gasp* we have to throw the book at her.


Oh, & all that at the same time as they are Pushing E-Voting in a form that is So Ridiculously Easy to Rig that it's not funny.
Any voting machine running Microsoft Windows is designed for tampering with votes.
 
Not to mention the many groups during the 04 elections going around in bus's and voting in places as far away as nighboring states.

Did they even get a warning for that???:scrutiny:

Nope, But if a non-socalist votes out of thier District they are all to eager to lock them away & throw away the Key.:fire:
 
How do you vote in the wrong precinct? If your name ain't on the list, you ain't votin'.

I smell a rat.
 
The Coulter situation doesn't strike me as earth-shattering.

For that, check out HBO's documentary tomorrow: "Hacking Democracy".
 
check out HBO's documentary tomorrow: "Hacking Democracy".

Hard about that, wish I Had HBO, if someone here Records it please try to put it online somehow....
 
These people are more worried about getting a loud mouthed conservative for voting in the wrong precinct (which isn't possible where I live due to roles) than about the ILLEGALS who are voting? :cuss:
 
The law on this matter appears to be reasonable, moral, and constitutional. If Ms. Coulter broke this law, she should be tried, convicted and punished. End of story.
 
What I think happened is that she moved, and didn't bother to update her voter's registration. Probably happens all the time. So, she wanted to go vote, but had to go to the district where she used to live. Not a big deal, IMO. (And I'm not a real big Ann Coulter fan.)

I think her biggest mistake was stonewalling the investigation. Property deeds are public records... It's easy enough to check where she lives, and compare it to where she's registered to vote. Hew lawyer could probably have ended it way back when, if he had just fessed up for her. I don't know if she thinks she's above the law, or what...
 
I live in a northern state where we have a very large retiree population
known as "snow birds" who migrate south every year when it starts to get
cold. It's not a big secret that many vote in person both in their warm sunny
part time residence and by absentee ballot in their colder precinct in their
summer state. Both their zip codes are often "red" by the time the elections
are done.....
 
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_4588048

Days before the election, state officials have learned that California's most widely used electronic voting machines feature a button in back that can allow someone to vote multiple times.
Several computer scientists said Wednesday that the vulnerability found in all touch-screen machines sold by Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems was not especially great because using the yellow button for vote fraud would require reaching far behind the voting machine twice and triggering two beeps.

"If the machine beeps loudly and someone has their arms wrapped around the machine, the poll workers are going to become suspicious," said David Wagner, a computer security and voting system expert at the University of California, Berkeley.

"It's kind of hard for me to see how this could be used very widely," he said. "It's retail fraud, so it's onesies and twosies and can only affect very close races."

A former poll worker in Tehama County tried alerting state elections officials to the vulnerability about a month ago and said he was told the problem did not seem significant. Ron Watt then obtained poll worker-training documents through a public records request and brought them to the attention last Friday of the state's chief voting systems tester.

On Monday, state elections officials issued a caution to the more than one-third of California counties that use Sequoia equipment, including Santa Clara County, where the touch screens are the primary voting system, and Alameda County, which relies on almost 1,000 machines as a secondary voting system intended for disabled voters. State elections officials reminded the counties to keep a close eye on the machines and post warnings that tampering with election equipment is a crime.

"All counties confirmed that they had implemented security measures, and they were aware of it," said Susan Lapsley, assistant secretary of state for elections.

Some counties were backing the machines up against walls; others were roping off the rear of the machines, state officials said.

"You can't do it surreptitiously," said Guy Ashley, spokesman for the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. "You have to know what you're doing.

"We train our poll workers to keep their eyes peeled, stay on the lookout for stuff like this. We think that will suffice."

Recognition of a potential new security problem that requires no knowledge of special passwords or access to the inner workings of a voting machine revives questions about the effectiveness of state and national evaluations of voting systems.

Twice earlier this year, computer experts and critics of electronic voting have discovered profound vulnerabilities in Diebold touch screens that allow someone with a few minutes of access to a machine to alter or replace its core software and load votes into it undetected.

Debate about the security and reliability of electronic voting has been central to the race for secretary of state, and Sequoia's yellow button became instant fodder Tuesday night in back-to-back radio interviews with Republican appointee Bruce McPherson and his Democratic challenger, state Sen. Debra Bowen, now neck-and-neck in the polls.

McPherson has said California's certification of voting systems is the nation's toughest and most stringent and he has certified several electronic voting systems for the November elections, including the Diebold and Sequoia touch screens.

Bowen has pointed to numerous findings of security problems by computer scientists and argued that electronic voting systems are not mature enough to be trusted in elections.

"And just this morning we learned that the Sequoia machine will allow a voter to vote multiple times if they do something very simple, which is to hold a button in the back down for three seconds," she said on a Los Angeles radio show Tuesday night, adding that McPherson's office "must have known" about the vulnerability for some time.

"No, that is not true," McPherson replied later in the same show. "That is not true. I think she is throwing a lot of fear and doubt out there, and it's unwarranted."

Sequoia's yellow button isn't a hack or flaw. The button has been a feature on Sequoia's mainline AVC Edge touch screens for years, designed as a backup for the typical method of voting on the machines.

In most counties, poll workers use a separate machine to activate a card that a voter inserts into the touch screen in order to retrieve the proper ballot. The yellow button is for counties that can't afford the separate machine or for cases when the card activator becomes inoperable, as happened to Diebold systems in March 2004 in Alameda and San Diego counties and last primary in Kern County.

Pressing, then holding the button for several seconds twice and answering a screen prompt sends the machine into a "manual activation" or "poll worker activation" mode. In that mode, someone can call up one ballot after another and vote them.

"You can literally vote continuously until you are physically restrained," said Watt, the former Tehama County poll worker who reported the problem to state elections officials.

Unlike the Diebold vulnerability, he said, using Sequoia's yellow button "takes no tools."

"In 18 seconds I can switch that to manual and start voting. In 30 seconds I can train you to do it," he said.

Watt and Bowen, the Democrat running for secretary of state, say the vulnerability should have been caught earlier, before the state approved the machine for use in elections.

"You shouldn't have a reset button on the outside of the machine," Bowen said. "Certainly when I'm secretary of state I'm going to want to know if there's a button that only requires physical access to the machine to vote multiple times. And unfortunately if someone does that, you're in a position where you don't know what votes to throw out."

Computer scientists say the manual mode can be rendered inoperable in the touch-screen software, but elections officials worry that it is too close to the election to attempt and may not be useful.

"It's a feature of the machine, it's one that's necessary from a couple of different perspectives but as long as people employ security measures that are already in place then it's mitigated," said Lapsley.
 
For what it's worth, in early voting yesterday (East TN) -- first time with electronic machines. We didn't have those models, but one of the staff workers hang out right by your elbow (albeit on the other side of a chest-high partition) the whole time. If you tried something like that, they'd know. The side effect was that they could only have five stations, and hence the line stretched out for an hour.

Anyhow, tampering I guess was possible, but only with the collusion of the pollwatchers. Same situation there as always I guess.

That said, I can see how folks less aquainted with tech could be a little put off by 'em. More to the point, I can see now how if the election's close, someone may be bound and determined to cry foul if they lose. That's what makes me nervous. I couldn't help but notice the flurry of "voting fraud" stories at least on CNN seemed to follow a certain trend in some polls. :scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top