If they had a problem and knew it why did they not recall the software and provide good software in its place? Why did they not provide warnings and instructions in their operator’s manual? Why did they only send an email with a two paragraph attachment that didn’t even have the company’s logo on it?

Why, indeed? If you ever get an honest answer to this, I'll eat my memory card.

From the Sec. of State's report. I'd be curious which part of this Mr. Riggall disagrees with:

No software error affecting the accuracy of
election results should ever be excused based on claims that the effects of the error could or
should be detected and corrected through adherence to sound election administration procedures.
In this particular case, a reconciliation of the Registrar’s count of vote-by-mail ballots returned
by voters with the count reported by GEMS was performed on November 1, the day Deck 0 was
tallied, and no discrepancy was found. GEMS reports generated on Election Day and on
November 23, 2008, two and a half weeks after the election, continued to accurately reflect the
197 ballots in Deck 0.
It was only later, after the GEMS Central Count Server was re-opened and new decks of vote-by-
mail ballots that had been received on Election Day were tallied for the first time, that Deck 0
was deleted, without any warning or notification to the elections official, as a result of the
software programming flaw. Because the deletion of the votes from the 197 ballots in Deck 0
occurred long after they were counted and after repeated reports showed them properly
accounted for, nothing indicated any need to recheck the earlier reconciliation for a third time.

Obamas doing a great job. LOL

How bad was it in CA 2004?
This bad.

Kerry won the CA exit poll by 2.652 million.
Kerry won the CA official vote by 1.235m.
That is a 1.417m discrepancy.

If you believe the unadjusted WPE/IMS exit poll (2% MoE) then Kerry's margin was cut by more than half (1.417m).

To put this all in perspective, Bush's total recorded vote margin was just 3.0 million.

According exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky, in 2004 the CA 2004 unadjusted exit poll indicated an 11.6% average Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPE).

Kerry's margin was reduced 11.6% from the exit poll (21.5%) to the vote (9.9%).

Kerry won CA by the 1.235m official recorded votes:
Kerry 6.745 (54.3%)
Bush 5.510 (44.4%)
Other 0.165 (1.3%)

Total 12.420 votes

Kerry won the exit poll by 2.652 million
Kerry 7.356 (60.1%)
Bush 4.704 (38.6%)
Other 0.360 (1.3%)

New York's 100% Lever machines had a similar WPE (12.2%) which cut Kerry's margin in NY by 900,000 votes.

So 2.3 million of the 3.0m Bush "mandate" was provided by the Democratic strongholds of NY and CA.

BUT SINCE CA AND NY WERE DEMOCRATIC LANDSLIDES, THE MASSIVE VOTE THEFTS WENT UNNOTICED. PUNDITS NEVER CONSIDERED THAT ELECTION FRAUD IN JUST THESE TWO STATES WOULD PROVIDE THE BULK OF BUSH'S 3.0M VOTE "MANDATE".

Electronic voting opens the door for big fraud. For me it's clear that votes should be handle by as many people as possible, not machines controlled by a few peoples.

"Electronic voting opens the door for big fraud. For me it's clear that votes should be handle by as many people as possible, not machines controlled by a few peoples."

It still won't matter a whit who anyone votes for. If I could wave a magic wand that would somehow make every election in the U.S. from county commissioner up to president utilize paper ballots that are hand counted and overseen by international election monitors, it STILL wouldn't be worth an intelligent person's effort to bother to go vote. Know why? Because the CHOICES ARE CONTROLLED. It makes absolutely no difference if someone votes for a McCain or an Obama. None whatsoever. The reason being that anybody who reaches the level of name recognition of being a major candidate for president of EITHER party is 100% a PUPPET of the bourgeois power dons who pull the strings on the masturbatory exercise known as American elections.

The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group sprinkle their magic fairy dust on the leading Democratic and Republican candidates, watch them pretend to argue against each other, then sit back and laugh as the American sheeple get all worked up over which one they think is better and chew their fingernails away worrying about whether or not "their" candidate is going to win. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. The truth is that NOBODY who has a chance of winning is a candidate representing the interests of the average working American, or else they WOULDN'T have a chance at winning. Kapeesh? That's the way it works unfortunately. A Dennis Kucinich for example gets ridiculed, marginalized and ignored by the mainstream media (who serve the interests of big corporations working hand in glove with the C.F.R.-Trilateral-Bilderberg puppetmasters) because they know that he isn't one of them. Nobody who has the intention of actually changing the status quo has a chance at getting elected in this country.

So we can all obsess over which e-voting company is in bed with whom and what kind of machine flips votes from one party to the other more often but it is all nothing but arguing about which way is best to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Ever heard the expression "You can't see the forest for (because of) the trees"?

Lev, do you really think it made no difference in anyone's life that George W. Bush was in charge for the last eight years, instead of Al Gore?

Because that's what you are saying.

I'm sympathetic to what you say about the choices being controlled. But they are still choices and, while I might prefer one not presented on the menu, I'd still like my choice to count.

Do you have a way to move things forward at least a tiny step? If you are expecting the American people to rise up in revolution against what you call "the bourgeois power dons who pull the strings," you may be waiting longer than you think.

I'm with ya on the fact that it does make a difference who gets in office, even when our choices are between candidates who just are not, by any stretch, good enough. That's why I voted for Obama and insulted anyone who'd take the chance of helping the fraudsters put McCain in by voting for, say, my beloved and respected Cynthia McKinney, but it's already ruefully apparent that Obama won't make a tenth the difference we need, the whole world needs from us.

We have this bullshit in the House Judiciary Committee right now instead of real accountability, real American congressional and legal mechanisms working properly, OBVIOUSLY not just because we're dealing with a bunch of bought-off cows, but because they get assassinated and suicided and gawdawful sudden diseases and accidents if they do the right things.

So, Mitch, dear neighbor, I hope to hell you are wrong about the people rising up in revolution. IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BEAT THE CRIMINAL FUCKS SHORT OF RUNNING CLARK KENT SO WE CAN HAVE SUPERMAN AFTER THEY'VE FALLEN FOR HIS MILD MANNERS.

We need Braveheart. We need Maximus. We need Che Guevara. We need men and women who will rise up nonviolently, but not be afraid to fight to the death for the good of all humankind, indeed the whole planet. The shit we are dealing with is THAT dire, and so, in reality, we each have but the choice between nihilism and altruism, even if it means we lose everything.

Obviously, ALL our government officials have chosen nihilism, despite the oaths they took. They don't seem to understand that oath didn't come with the caveat: "...except if you're afraid for your life," or "except if you're afraid for your position."

So, yes, what we got was better than the alternatives, but it's still shit.