(no subject)
Jan. 22nd, 2006 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingThe Washington Post finally notices that Diebold election machines are trivial to hack and provide absolutely no record of any hacking.
Their response, however, is that the machines are supposed to be used in a secure environment under secure procedures, and that OF COURSE no election supervisor would ever know how to do this or be willing to defraud the election. Nuh-uh. Not even when it takes just one person *at Diebold* to make the fraudulent change, Diebold are Republicans and have openly promised that their machines will elect Republicans, the people pushing to use Diebold machines are Republicans, and there's statistically impossible evidence of gross fraud in Republican favour in *every single instance* of Diebold's hackable, recordless machines being used, always in the Republican direction (never Democrat), and where votes are reliably counted there's no such discrepancy.
Their response, however, is that the machines are supposed to be used in a secure environment under secure procedures, and that OF COURSE no election supervisor would ever know how to do this or be willing to defraud the election. Nuh-uh. Not even when it takes just one person *at Diebold* to make the fraudulent change, Diebold are Republicans and have openly promised that their machines will elect Republicans, the people pushing to use Diebold machines are Republicans, and there's statistically impossible evidence of gross fraud in Republican favour in *every single instance* of Diebold's hackable, recordless machines being used, always in the Republican direction (never Democrat), and where votes are reliably counted there's no such discrepancy.