Pilots For 911 Truth

Prove it. Where is the validated/benchmarked test data that proves we can trust the computer models across the board? When I used to deploy enterprise systems, after building them, our clients required benchmark testing along with a proof of concept. What makes our Presidential Election cycles any different? I could not lead the deployment of one solution in Accounting & Finance and another solution in Legal, R&D and Engineering. The solution had to work across multiple BU’s and it had work the same way across the board. So, why should one State elect the President and Vice President one way, while another State does it differently if both State’s are going to use advanced technology?

Where are the nationally standardized technology protocols and nationally standardized election protocols (functional and operational) that tell us the test data being derived is uniform across all input platforms (so-called voter machines)?

This is not a small, glib, trivial matter, here. This is our Constitution we are talking about here, or the potential shredding of the same.

Where is the strategic intent embedded in our national election process that eliminates these types of errors and programmatic/anomalistic tendencies/occurrences from corrupting our national election process?

Do you really understand the mess we've got going here from a technology standpoint?

Do you realize what would happen to a company like Federal Express, if it were to run its IT protocols and Business Model protocols that same way we run our election protocols? The company would fall apart overnight - just maybe, before 3am that next morning. Yes, that fast. Or, worse – suppose the FAA ATC upgrade program where handled in the same sloppy manner that we handle our Presidential elections. What do you think would happen over the skies of our nation? How would you like to have 300,000 lbs of commercial grade passenger aircraft raining down on your roof top one Saturday morning, simply because we just did not give much strategic thought to the software that ran our Tracon centers around the country?

Yeah, just like that. A new hole planted in your back yard for those Dendrobium Orchids you’ve always been thinking about but never got around to planting.


Whatever....

Maybe the questions on the table are already too difficult. I'd rather not add to what apparently is already too confusing a concept.

We cannot afford to run our elections this way – period.

There are too many doors into the system and thus too many ways to corrupt said system from the inside, without many people knowing about it and I've given you one very solid example of exactly how it could be done.

Now, can you post anything that counters what I've given thus far as a distinct possibility for stealing elections and potentially making our United States Constitution null and void?

Playing games with these questions gets us nowhere, in a distinct hurry. I cannot prove that Gore lost, but I can darn well prove how he could/might have lost and that it might have had absolutely nothing to do with the actual votes cast in 2000. In fact, I've already done that.

Why play these kinds of technology games with our next President?

Let's say the Gore/Bush (X/Y) theory was actually done in 2000 (just as an example). That little tech stunt would have cost us more than 4,000 American lives (and still counting), over a projected $3.0 Trillion and a national economy whose fundamentals have been blown to bits. Not to mention a projected $5 Trillion in Budget Surplus, likewise blown to bits.

So, tell me again why we should not verify that ALL source code is free from anomalistic traps? Or, why we should allow companies that are pre-dominantly Republican lead/owned, to deploy their software into 70% of the precincts reporting on November 4th, 2008?

Why run and hide from Reagan's mantra now: "doveryai, no proveryai."

__________________
Max Range: 2,500 nm (normal)
Max Speed: Mach .83 (486 kts)
Max Ceiling: 49,000 ft (certified)

Tucker Case

I live in Illinois. I already know my vote won't count.

Panther

Don't underestimate the power of controlling the electronic voting machines.

Although, IL may indeed be too much of a stretch - but just wait 'til you see what we can do in the swing states.

__________________
Anagrams: Joe Biden and Barack Obama =
A jerk and a bad, anemic boob.
- or -
Barack mad a babe joined on.

ARealConservative

I'll know it was counted because Chuck Baldwin voters can do a simple hand count to make sure the figures add up correctly

1069

It will count if you live in a swing state.
Otherwise, it won't.
That's why I was kind of like, giggling about Houstonite (Houstonian?) Danarhea threatening to vote for McCain.
It's like... God, no! Please, please don't! Your vote might be the one to finally tip the balance and turn Texas red!

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

JMak

Either you're misunderstanding me or you simply ignored my point.

Besides, your past posting experience here doesn't make up for the fact that in your original post that you alluded to some election shenanigans in 2000 and 2004 but didn't provide any more details and it doesn't make up for the fact that your questions about the integrity of the software and system certainly implied there should be cause for concern but you didn't provide any details on that, either.

I was simply asking you to provide a basis for the 2000 and 2004 reference and a basis for asking why we shouldn't trust the code. The theory that the code could be corrupted and not detected is a good one, but you don't move beyond that. Have there been no attempts to mitigate this danger? Have no local jurisdictions attempted to take action that would reduce the likelihood this happening?

Wow, this comes out of nowhere. Asking you to provide a basis for your allusions and implications makes me liek Bush and McCain? Whoa!

I know. I didn't dispute that.

I disagree. If this were the case then you wouldn't have put in the time and thought to create such a model. All of the supporting questions and considerations would have the reader addressing and answering those in order to see who comes out ahead.

Now, if you're saying that no matter how you apply your model that the outcome is always Obama/Biden, then your model is nothing more than an exercise for someone to simply justify their vote for Obama/Biden rather than a legit model for scrutinizing the candidates.

I merely asked you to describe your own application of your own model because you merely posted the outcome of your analysis via your own model.

I don't see the relevance of this outburst.

Well, see, that's what I am addressing. How do you conclude this from your model. My application of your model doesn't lead to result you claim is obvious.

Ok. Now here we go. Was that so hard?

Serving and Sacrificing is not "really important"? If not, then why include it as a part of yuor model?

How? For example, someone with Obama's allegedly superior intelligence, cerebral cohesiveness, judgment shouldn't be promising Democratic primary voters that he'd repeal NAFTA while also assuring the Canadians that he would do no such thing. Nor would someone of Obama's alleged superior reason and judgment continue to argue as long as he did that the surge was failing despite its obvious success.

I mean, come on. Just saying Obama is brighter does not make it so.

Interesting, because as we now know he was arguing for stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie years ago. He also proposed and got enacted campaign finance reform that imposed further regulations on cmapaign contributions.

You're talking as though McCain has only advocated deregulation but you cannot square this with the facts.

Wrong? He's in strong company including a former President, and several candidates for the Dem party nomination.

WTF does this mean?

Wrong by what set of measures? Withdrawal would have been disaster. Your guy knows that...now as he demonstrated when he "revised" his withdrawal plan.

Funny, cuz Obama said the very same thing Monday re: long-term fundamentals of the economy.

You don't know that he did think this. In fact, he opposes Bush's philosophy in that respect.

Huh? This occurred after you posted the model and your conclusion. Nonetheless, what the heck are you talking about?

The rest of yor post was simply an opinion rather than a reflection of an objective analysis based on objective measures and taking into consideration established facts.

That's all you have yet you attempted to shield it with some elaborate "model" that you didn't apply to arrive at your conlcusion. Rather, you crafted a model to justify your pick.

End of story.

Panther

Pilot goes for quantity, not quality.

DNC must pay by the word.

MrVicchio

I'd worry more about a Democrat run "butterfly Ballot" system.

__________________
Us Navy Veteran. AerographersMate 2nd Class (AW) Mr.Vicchio, At your service!

"What's so great about the Constitution anyway?"-1069

Pilots For 911 Truth

And, you claim that I'm missing or ignoring the point?

Did you not even read the original thread topic that I posted! I spent the entire first page providing your with details on exactly how it could be done and I provide you with links at the top of the page for third-parties who are now saying that in their part of the country, they too have the same concerns for a myriad of reasons.

Unbelievable - that I have to actually spell this out!

Furthermore, I find the requirement for 'proof' on a question that I'm presenting as a 'possibility', rather funny and certainly a bit odd. I'm presenting a theory of what could happen and I'm providing you with details on exactly how it could happen and I allude to the fact that it could have happened in the past - WHILE - showed you how covering the tracks for such fraud would make proving it today impossible.

Again, you've got to read, man! Read! I've answered ALL your rebuttal before you even made the rebuttal, LOL!

Do your own homework! It does not take rocket scientist to understand that using this kind of technology could open the door to vote tampering and fraud. It should be common sense! Why do I need to provide 'proof' that common sense tells us to run a full battery of tests against the technology we use to elect our next President? It should be automatic.

I then gave you an example how real enterprise technology is deployed all over the globe, and what? Did you not read that too!

Oh, come on! Go read the links that I provide for some answers to those questions and then re-read my original post that started this thread.

I'm telling you that the very nature of software development makes this approach to selecting our President, very disturbing. If you knew anything about software, then this would not be a question for you.

You cannot allow a Conservative or Liberal leaning company to write the code that tabulates the votes within the confines of their company’s four walls and then just distribute and deploy said software into 70% of our precincts. Furthermore, the links that I provided to you tell you that pre-testing has not been done in many cases! That ought to send chills up and down your spine.


Nobody is saying that, get your head in gear and learn to read. If you guys had read the links, read my scenario of what the problem could be and replied appropriately, this kind of time wasting post would not be necessary.

If this kind of technology is going to be used, then it must be co-developed, co-verified and co-tested by a bi-partisan development team paid for with public tax dollars - not by private corporations. That should be plain ole common horse sense. Look, if you think that having corporations write election tabulation code is an OK thing, without proper testing and evaluation before the election, then more power to you. I'm not going to argue something as common sense as this with you or anybody else for that matter.

Good luck at the voting booth and may genuine democracy rule on November 4th.

[unbelievable! You guys are toooooooo much….wow!]

Pilots For 911 Truth

I'm surprise that you can even spell quality, let along recognize it.