1
   

Diebold

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 07:20 pm
Think Diebold doesn't have a long Republican history?

Quote:
Increasingly, investigative writers seeking an explanation have looked to Diebold's history for clues. The electronic voting industry is dominated by only a few corporations - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Sequoia. Diebold and ES&S combined count an estimated 80% of U.S. black box electronic votes.

In the early 1980s, brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded ES&S's originator, Data Mark. The brothers Urosevich obtained financing from the far-Right Ahmanson family in 1984, which purchased a 68% ownership stake, according to the Omaha World Herald. After brothers William and Robert Ahmanson infused Data Mark with new capital, the name was changed to American Information Systems (AIS). California newspapers have long documented the Ahmanson family's ties to right-wing evangelical Christian and Republican circles.

In 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported, ". . . primarily funded by evangelical Christians - particularly the wealthy Ahmanson family of Irvine - the [Discovery] institute's $1-million annual program has produced 25 books, a stream of conferences and more than 100 fellowships for doctoral and postdoctoral research." The chief philanthropists of the Discovery Institute, that pushes creationist science and education in California, are Howard and Roberta Ahmanson.

According to Group Watch, in the 1980s Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. was a member of the highly secretive far-Right Council for National Policy, an organization that included Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, Major General John K. Singlaub and other Iran-Contra scandal notables, as well as former Klan members like Richard Shoff. Ahmanson, heir to a savings and loan fortune, is little reported on in the mainstream U.S. press. But, English papers like The Independent are a bit more forthcoming on Ahmanson's politics.

"On the right, figures such as Richard Mellon Scaife and Howard Ahmanson have given hundreds of millions of dollars over several decades to political projects both high (setting up the Heritage Foundation think-tank, the driving engine of the Reagan presidency) and low (bankrolling investigations into President Clinton's sexual indiscretions and the suicide of the White House insider Vincent Foster)," wrote The Independent last November.

The Sunday Mail described an individual as, ". . . a fundamentalist Christian more in the mould of U.S. multi-millionaire Howard Ahmanson, Jr., who uses his fortune to promote so-called traditional family values . . . by waving fortunes under their noses, Ahmanson has the ability to cajole candidates into backing his right-wing Christian agenda.

Ahmanson is also a chief contributor to the Chalcedon Institute that supports the Christian reconstruction movement. The movement's philosophy advocates, among other things, "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards."

The Ahmanson family sold their shares in American Information Systems to the McCarthy Group and the World Herald Company, Inc. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel disclosed in public documents that he was the Chairman of American Information Systems and claimed between a $1 to 5 million investment in the McCarthy Group. In 1997, American Information Systems purchased Business Records Corp. (BRC), formerly Texas-based election company Cronus Industries, to become ES&S. One of the BRC owners was Carolyn Hunt of the right-wing Hunt oil family, which supplied much of the original money for the Council on National Policy.

In 1996, Hagel became the first elected Republican Nebraska senator in 24 years when he did surprisingly well in an election where the votes were verified by the company he served as chairman and maintained a financial investment. In both the 1996 and 2002 elections, Hagel's ES&S counted an estimated 80% of his winning votes. Due to the contracting out of services, confidentiality agreements between the State of Nebraska and the company kept this matter out of the public eye. Hagel's first election victory was described as a "stunning upset" by one Nebraska newspaper.

Hagel's official biography states, "Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Hagel worked in the private sector as the President of McCarthy and Company, an investment banking firm based in Omaha, Nebraska and served as Chairman of the Board of American Information Systems." During the first Bush presidency, Hagel served as Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations (G-7 Summit).

Bob Urosevich was the Programmer and CEO at AIS, before being replaced by Hagel. Bob now heads Diebold Election Systems and his brother Todd is a top executive at ES&S. Bob created Diebold's original electronic voting machine software. Thus, the brothers Urosevich, originally funded by the far Right, figure in the counting of approximately 80% of electronic voting in the United States.

Like Ohio, the State of Maryland was disturbed by the potential for massive electronic voter fraud. The voters of that state were reassured when the state hired SAIC to monitor Diebold's system. SAIC's former CEO is Admiral Bill Owens. Owens served as a military aide to both Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, who now works with George H.W. Bush at the controversial Carlyle Group. Robert Gates, former CIA Director and close friend of the Bush family, also served on the SAIC Board.



Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 08:12 pm
I think it is perfectly fine for a CEO of a company, even with these particular circumstances, to endorse a candidate. I even think that he can speak for his company if a majority of the employees feel the same way. After all, why wouldn't they? Capitalism is still the name of the game. Republicans still cherish the notion of free enterprise. A CEO speaks for a Republican and many of the employees agree. Makes sense to me.

As far as tampering is concerned, I'm between laughing so hard it hurts and taking it so serious it's pathetic. But, why bother myself. I'd rather laugh, not gloat mind you - I'm not into that, but laugh because it's so typical of the bumper stickers I foresee coming and all the criticism I expect to hear. "Don't blame me, I don't vote for him" and then all the blame on the president for the change in weather and the drastic twist to the migrating habits of the American Goodchoo Bee Platimoraphous. As humans, we always tend to find excuses for a loss and then harp on the leader for every fault possible. How funny it already is!
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 08:41 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
Not when he is acting as a private citizen, advocating a particular political candidate and working to get him elected.


And who runs a company that placed these machines predominantly in Democratic precincts.

Rolling Eyes


I would think Diebold "placed" the machines where the procuring customer told them to, wouldn't you?

Or do you think they just did it on there own? That would be as logical and rational as the other things imagined.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 11:02 pm
The procuring customer was the Republican legislature.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 11:09 pm
So on target.

Voting fraud caught on tape
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 11:21 pm
That was the intent it would seem...
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:11 am
There is no question fraud was commited. Just look at where the exit polls didn't match up with the actual counts. It was off by 5%!!!! This is SO FAR outside the statistical mean, it's nearly impossible. They take 2000 samples to give a three sigma response of 99.97% within some %. That's why you always fins the polls to be within plus or minus around 3% points. The fact that the difference was 5% points shows direct evedence of voter fraud, and the fact that the % difference was in Florida AND Ohio just reinforces the evidence. Just look at the CNN pages when they "changed" their exit polling data to match up with the incoming data.

So now, answer me this. The three times exit polling did NOT match up with actual votes Bush gained a large % outside of the statistical norm, how is this possible. The sad thing is that there are a lot of people who know what happened, yet they don't have the balls to talk about it.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:52 am
Dookiestix wrote:
The procuring customer was the Republican legislature.


I doubt it. The Executive Branch is the procuring agency in governments, and I think each county selects the voting devices they prefer, else why would they vary from county to county?
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:55 am
Joe Republican wrote:
There is no question fraud was commited. Just look at where the exit polls didn't match up with the actual counts. It was off by 5%!!!! This is SO FAR outside the statistical mean, it's nearly impossible. They take 2000 samples to give a three sigma response of 99.97% within some %. That's why you always fins the polls to be within plus or minus around 3% points. The fact that the difference was 5% points shows direct evedence of voter fraud, and the fact that the % difference was in Florida AND Ohio just reinforces the evidence. Just look at the CNN pages when they "changed" their exit polling data to match up with the incoming data.

So now, answer me this. The three times exit polling did NOT match up with actual votes Bush gained a large % outside of the statistical norm, how is this possible. The sad thing is that there are a lot of people who know what happened, yet they don't have the balls to talk about it.


Good rationalization of the reason for the crushing defeat suffered by the Dems Tuesday.
0 Replies
 
neue regel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 07:33 am
Joe, you make a good point but you are going down the wrong road. All the polling before the election had Bush up by various margins. Yet the 'exit polls' show Kerry up by margins uncommon to anything shown to that point. How can this be?

Were the pollsters sampling too many women?

Too much sampling in heavily Democratic districts?

The real questions is, 'was the strategy to intentionally give the impression Kerry was on his way to victory in an effort to effect Republican voter turnout?'

Or was it just a poor job? THAT.......we should find out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Diebold
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 01:29:48