Holy crap, campaign attack ads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

The voting machines were not "owned by Republicans" as someone humorously put it. A lobbyist for the company made a legal contribution to a Republican campaign. It was a guy who made decisions that approved Diebolds contract to install the machines. He had some stock in the company that he said was a mistake. He could be full of it. If so, the crime would not be election fraud.

---

Contributions from a lobbyist, eh?

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on President Bush to return more than $100,000 donated to his campaign by a major manufacturer of voting machines, saying the relationship could damage confidence in elections.

Edwards, a senator from North Carolina, criticized the contributions by Walden O'Dell, head of Diebold Election Systems in a speech prepared for delivery Saturday to Florida Democrats at their annual meeting in Lake Buena Vista...

...According to the New York Times, O'Dell wrote a letter to Republican contributors in August that said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

---

Emphasis mine.

Contributions that were so obviously in a conflict of interest with public trust that Diebold actually had to pass a rule saying that their top brass couldn't do it anymore.

But I'm sure that's what you meant - I mean, saying that a lobbyist gave money is the same thing, right? Isn't that just one of those things that everyone knows? Like Dems. like to talk about who they voted for to pollsters and the media is out to get Republicans?

He certainly doesn't sound like a Republican, either - I hear plenty of Democrats and Independants pledge votes to Republican candidates; especially when they run the company that counts them.

It seems like you're suggesting a point beyond what I said. But, I'm not sure what it is.

Quote:

---

A lobbyist for the company made a legal contribution to a Republican campaign.

---

I wasn't aware of the one made to Bush. But, as far as I know, it was legal. As you know, companies make contributions all the time. So do special interest groups, supporting candidates that they believe are good for their causes. Like it or not, our system is designed to accomodate that. Capital, as a representation of effort, is supposed to have some influence. That isn't to say that there haven't been abuses, insider trading, etc. But, until there is evidence of a crime, it's just being constituents. If you're looking for scandals on this subject, look at the practice of collecting union dues and using them for political contributions and then also racketeering.

I'm just not sure why anyone would find it shocking that an old (founded in 1859) security company (2.4% of their business coming from the election machines) makes contributions to an election. Would you find it shocking if it turned out that a large paper company both contributed to the Democrats AND supplied paper for ballots? Would it be scandalous if it turned out that Diebold made contributions to a party in 1917? Is there a law cutting them off as soon as election machines are made? Is it unreasonable that they were hired to make the machines? Should it have been mom and pop companies instead?

It's another hype-fest really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

It's another hype-fest really.

---

Oh yeah - we should be less concerned with the guys making our paperless, untraceable voting machines giving money to one political party and promising them votes than we should about how the reporters on the evening news vote.

Great sense of priorities there.

Here's what's reasonable: there should be a nationalized system for elections. The machines used should produce a verifiable paper trail. The people responsible for developing and deploying this system should not be partisan operatives (as they were in OH).

What's not reasonable: using voting machines that don't produce verifiable print outs and have a demonstrated habit of flipping votes only toward one party. Using chairmen of (re)election campaigns as election officials.

And I think the fact that Diebold had to go the extra step of making it a rule that this can't happen anymore should tell you if it really is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Oh yeah - we should be less concerned with the guys making our paperless, untraceable voting machines giving money to one political party and promising them votes than we should about how the reporters on the evening news vote.

---

I agree, but why haven't the dems that approved these machines and awarded the contracts been concerned? where are those dems priorities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

I agree, but why haven't the dems that approved these machines and awarded the contracts been concerned? where are those dems priorities?

---

Hell, I couldn't tell you. I think they're supposed to be somewhere around health care and minimum wage, but I keep hearing that they're cut n' runners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Hell, I couldn't tell you. I think they're supposed to be somewhere around health care and minimum wage, but I keep hearing that they're cut n' runners.

---

har har your party sucks as much as mine.


oh wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

har har your party sucks as much as mine.


oh wait...

---

And I'll cry if I want to, damn it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Oh yeah - we should be less concerned with the guys making our paperless, untraceable voting machines giving money to one political party and promising them votes than we should about how the reporters on the evening news vote.

Great sense of priorities there.

Here's what's reasonable: there should be a nationalized system for elections. The machines used should produce a verifiable paper trail. The people responsible for developing and deploying this system should not be partisan operatives (as they were in OH).

What's not reasonable: using voting machines that don't produce verifiable print outs and have a demonstrated habit of flipping votes only toward one party. Using chairmen of (re)election campaigns as election officials.

And I think the fact that Diebold had to go the extra step of making it a rule that this can't happen anymore should tell you if it really is a bad idea.

---

hah! who said anything about level of concern or priorities? i dont think journalists being liberal is something to be "concerned" about. its just something a person should know if discussing the media. i also think that we should always look to improve our election system and there ought to be a reliable trail of some kind (not necessarily paper after 2006). However, problems with an election system does not qualify as evidence toward a scandal that should lead to a federal investigation, cost tax-payers and throw needless doubt onto the public at an unknown expense. As such, it's a frivolous charge.

good luck finding that non-partisan work-force. people that work at voting centers shouldnt be partisan either. but, they are.

Diebold making rules about contributions that were publicly scorned tells me that they have an active public relations department. As a company they have the right to and probably have been contributing to Republicans for years. that they even bothered to make this rule lends to point made earlier that if theres any avenue that could be taken to tarnish the election results, there are forces frothing at the mouth to do so. any business would be wise to avoid even the appearance of such a problem.

The information leaked tells me that they did some shoddy things in regard to delivering the product California bought. they are, in fact, being sued for that. I believe that is warranted based on the info I have. but, again, it doesnt follow that some voting scandal was occurring.