|
|
Vertaal:
              `Stelend Amerika': De Documentaire van de stemmen-fraude
Donderdag, 4 September, 2008 De aantallen kloppen niet. Door Michael Ordoña | $3.8 miljard: De aanvankelijke toewijzing van het Akte van de Stem van Amerika van de Hulp die de Staatssecretaris Deborah Bowen van Californië „zei duwde vele provincies in het kopen van elektronische systemen geen die… behoorlijk.“ werden herzien of testte 18,000: Stemmen die niet in een Provincie Sarasota, Fla. registreerden, lokale verkiezing van 2006 gebruikend touch-screen machines, in een Democratisch bolwerk dat de Republikeinse uitdager die door 368 stemmen wordt gewonnen. Negatieve 16.022: De stemmen telden voor Al Gore op een tabulator Diebold in Volusia Provincie, Fla., in 2000. Nul: Het aantal bewezen instanties die van verkiezingsfraude elektronische stemmingsmachines, volgens de industrie impliceren spokespeople. John McCain, Barack Obama, Parijs Hilton; het is wie niet van belang één kiest als de stemmen niet behoorlijk worden geteld. Dorothy Fadiman's nieuwe documentair, „Stelend Amerika: De stem door Stem,“ is recentst in een lijn van recente films die de capaciteit van ons kiessysteem - of tendens - te doen enkel dat vragen (onder anderen: De verkiezing-ramp van Florida van HBO drama „Hertelling“ met Kevin Spacey; en kernachtige documentaire „Uncounted van David Earnhardt's: Nieuwe Math van Amerikaanse Verkiezingen,“ op Starz deze maand en beschikbaar op DVD). „Ik werkte bij de opiniepeilingen als vrijwilliger in 2004, en terwijl wij werden georiënteerd, werden wij verteld dat de mensen rapporteerden dat wanneer zij voor Kerry stemmen, zij Bush krijgen. Het was ongebreideld in Zuid-Florida. En wij werden verteld, vertelt `niet mensen, omdat wij hen van stemming kunnen afraden,'“ bovengenoemde Fadiman, de waarvan vroegere documentaires op abortusrechten haar een benoeming opslaen van Oscar en een Emmy wint. Appalled door het gebrek aan media dekking van het stem-schakelend fenomeen en andere blijkbaar wijdverspreide verkiezingsonregelmatigheden, bracht zij de volgende vier jaar die door „Stelend Amerika.“ maken De de geen-franjesdocumentaire van Fadiman heeft op kiezers betrekking die van broodjes in Florida in 2000 (zij gelooft het zuiveren om de enige grootste bedreiging voor de verkiezing van 2008 te zijn) worden gezuiverd en suspiciously ontoereikende distributie van het stemmen van over machines in Ohio in 2004. Maar zijn het vervloeken van segmenten betreft resultaten die uitgangsopiniepeiling en de kwetsbaarheid van elektronische stemmingsmachines tartten. “What we have here is an extraordinarily compelling case that our electoral system has gone terribly wrong,” said Brad Friedman of BradBlog and the Huffington Post, who appears in both “Stealing America” and “Uncounted.” “We’ve got one election after another that makes no sense whatsoever. They may have been rigged, they may have failed due to error - (but because they can’t be audited) it’s 100 percent faith-based voting.” Friedman said he personally experienced vote switching on a Diebold disabled-accessible machine in Los Angeles in 2006, as four of his 12 votes flipped: “The Kerry-Bush error has occurred all over the country. And they seem to constantly benefit the Republican over the Democrat. If this is a random error that occurs because the machines are crappy, it should be 50-50.” Chris Riggall is a spokesperson for Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold), one of the leaders in the voting-machine industry. When asked by e-mail if the machines’ security vulnerabilities discussed in various scholarly studies had been addressed, he responded that “sometimes the criticisms are not factual because they are based on incorrect assumptions (such as networking or the presence of wireless ports on machines). On other occasions, the studies have recommended valuable improvements. … There’s no question that the emphasis on system security by voters, election officials and the industry is much greater now than it was, say, five years ago.” “I think the key issue right now is voter confidence,” said Peter Lichtenheld of Hart InterCivic, another industry leader with a number of contracts with California counties. Lichtenheld blamed the controversial elections in 2000 and 2004 and the perceived misconduct of certain officials such as Katherine Harris in Florida, not faulty electronic voting systems, for generating what he called “a sense of distrust.” While pointing out that his company’s systems were the only ones for which California Secretary of State Bowen did not require changes for use in 2007, he added, “Watchdogs are appreciated, for people to say, ‘Hey, we need to pay attention to this.’ That’s a great thing. (But) the naysayer community is marketing fear and intimidation.” Riggall and Lichtenheld roundly criticized former Diebold Chief Executive Officer Walden O’Dell for his infamous 2003 letter to Republican donors that stated, in part, “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,” agreeing that it contributed to the atmosphere of distrust. “It was a serious error in judgment that never should have occurred,” Riggall wrote. “In the aftermath of that mistake, we instituted new prohibitions against any political contributions or support by the management and staff of our company.” Riggall also said only one Ohio county used Diebold equipment in that election, and that Kerry collected 59 percent of the votes in that county. As to industry assertions that there are no documented incidents of election crimes involving their machines, Hart InterCivic recently issued a report that dismissed most problems with electronic voting as “technical glitches … not indicative of election fraud.” Friedman pointed out that the industry has spent a great deal on legal efforts to prevent independent examination of suspect machines. The report, “Election Fraud: Fact or Urban Legend?,” states that voter error, or more specifically, “ballot layout was determined to be the most likely explanation for the (18,000 non-votes) in the 2006 Sarasota County election.” It also points out that taking issue with election results is natural for “supporters of the losing side.” But Fadiman rejects the notion that such concerns are partisan. “It turns out between 1996 and 2006, when you see these discrepancies between exit polls and vote tallies, they go in one direction. So that’s like saying a film about slavery is partisan because you don’t give equal credence to the position of slave owners,” she says, then relates the story in her film of a Democratic Ohio state senator who personally experienced vote flipping and said he was told by his own party not to talk about it. “If the Republicans stole this election, the Democrats were willing accomplices.” Fadiman’s film includes testimonials by people who saw their own votes switch. “There were lots of tears in the interviews, anger, sadness, frustration,” Fadiman said. “There’s only one tear in the film: Kim Akins, an African American attorney doing election protection. What she saw was there were very long lines and not enough machines, and what she said was, ‘I hope these people come back and vote again.’ “ Have Your Say: ‘Stealing America’: Voting-Fraud Documentary Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
 Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
