MovieChat Forums > Hacking Democracy (2006) Discussion > Sounds Like Liberal Sour Grapes

Sounds Like Liberal Sour Grapes

posted 17 years ago by thomas2727
48 replies | jump to latest

Inferior product or voter fraud?
The people in this film seem more concerned with proving Bush stole an election rather then proving problems with voting machines.

Is the Political process in this country broken? Yes.

Which corporation do you want to vote for, the Democrats or Republicans? Many people in this country don't trust either party.

Maybe just maybe the software was crap like a large percentage of the software out there these days.

I see a lot of talking but where is the smoking gun of vote fraud?

Incompetent Government/Poll Workers/Voting Machines do not equal fraud.

Who has not had trouble with Government services and employees?
And nobody that has spent more than 5 minutes in their life on a computer can say they have not had a software related problem.

The Government in this country has always been an inefficient operating entity.

I would like to see the results of a Republican led audit.

This documentary was so one sided to the Liberal side that I kept waiting to see Michael Moore come walking in.

Lots of allegations which cannot be proven. Anytime a person gave an answer they did not like they claim either information was hand picked to give the people what they think they wanted or they said it was outright fraud.

In my opinion voting machines are garbage and the machines and software should be open to inspection to any American this wishes to see them.

This is an important worthwhile topic but the main participants were on an obvious anti Bush Republican witch hunt.

This would have been much better if it would not have been portrayed as a Republican witch hunt.

I think all this really does is prove what we already know. Relying too much on computers to run the world is a dangerous thing. Just ask Dave from 2001 A Space Odyssey.

[–] KatBar 17 years ago

Call it a witch hunt if you will, but whether it be inferior product or fraud, it is complete BS that there isn't a trustworthy method in place and that is what this documentary reveals. The people in this film may be Democrats, but what's more important is that they are patriots working to uncover the flaws in the system. If Republicans had made this documentary and revealed the same flaws, it would be just as disturbing. It isn't a matter of Republican vs. Democrat. You could mute out all mention of the candidates, and blur any text that shows their names, it's still an embarrassment to any American who votes.
Your post is totally correct in that software and computers cannot be relied upon, which is why there should be a paper trail and random audits to verify accuracy for every election. It's that simple.

People...they're the WORST!!

[–] v1cious 17 years ago

let's put it this way... hardcore hackers wouldn't vote republican.

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

This documentary quite clearly shows that you don't need to be a programmer to steal an election.

[–] bbagnall 17 years ago

Let's put it this way... prisoners, rapists, murderers wouldn't vote Republican.

[–] jonathanmarklund 16 years ago

No, they are already part of the senate, representing the republican party :D:P

[–] cheekymonkey67 16 years ago

What a pathetic and ignorant thing to say!!!! There are plenty of Republicans in prison. Some of them are even elected officials. Regardless of your affiliation this documentary is pointing out a MAJOR flaw in our electoral process. Hopefully something is done to improve the process but there will always be people that accomplish their goals through underhanded methods and their underhanded methods will evolve with the technology. In the case of electronic voting it is PARAMOUNT not only that they are backed up by paper but that the paper results are held as equally, if not more, important as the electronic. THAT is what this documentary is stating.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] suvamatt 15 years ago

The hacker could'nt vote anyway....he was Finnish hehe

[–] bluezgirl5 15 years ago

I just watched this movie last night and I was appalled. No matter what political side the people were on, it affects everyone. To think that one person could manipulate a memory card and tamper with thousands upon thousands of votes is not right. It scared me, honestly.

A word to the wise isn't necessary; it's the stupid ones that need the advice.

[–] Max-Ray 17 years ago

If you take anything to heart from this documentary, its that the voting system that Diebold is providing has some serious flaws. As KatBar stated, its not a Republican or Democratic issue, its a voting issue.

In my opinion, hackers are out for attention and creating chaos. They are not going to sque an election to one person/party or another, they just want to create chaos. Add a few votes here, take some away over here.... Get people argueing and fighting over what count is the correct count is what they want to see.

I was also disturbed to find out that the one precinct (was it Florida?) had thrown away some of their paper tapes. That's also neither Repbulican or Democratic party related. That's a breakdown in process and/or training of personel.

Any form of voting has its flaws. And we are a people that wants results NOW. So paper votes and taking a couple of weeks to tally them is not what anyone wants. Someone should create a competition to create a simple, hacker-proof voting machine. Then let the likes of MIT and others create something new and potentially groundbreaking.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

Why are you shooting the messenger? You've already admitted your election system is flawed, so why bother?

BTW, Bev Harris clearly stated that this is a bipartisan issue, and that in her own state and others, Democrat incumbents are also in on the theft.

Lots of allegations which cannot be proven.

Did you watch the documentary? Many times Diebold and election officials were caught lying and BREAKING THE LAW, yet officials did nothing, which is FAILING TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

Anytime a person gave an answer they did not like they claim either information was hand picked to give the people what they think they wanted or they said it was outright fraud.

Do you have an example?

It never fails to amaze me how some people can see their form of government being destroyed right in front of their face, and do nothing but point fingers elsewhere, as though that will make the problem go away. Don't you understand that the system itself is the problem? Don't you realize that there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans? Your system is corrupt to the core, and since your country likes to interfere in so many other country's affairs, it becomes a global problem too...

[–] dracco_el_diablo 17 years ago

No country's election system is totally secure. If this movie exposes a flaw they should fix it. It no more proves Bush stole an election than any democrat did. If there is a flaw, are they saying that republican's are responsible for the type of machine's being used? No, they aren't, so it is just as likely that a democrat could hack the election. If they are insenuating that Bush stole the election, then it is most likely a Leftist propaganda film. I take anything, from Dems or Reps, with a grain of salt. Don't presume anything until it is proven with hard facts. Billy Boy Clinton gettin' is peter puffed by a fat ugly woman and then lying to the country was proven with hard evidence.

[–] gumppy3 17 years ago

It amazes me that anyone on either side of the political debate would get so incensed about a Brithsh "expose'" about American politics. Consider the source, wipe the source with Charmin and flush the toilet.

Now, let's get on with what's important.

[–] bluelightning 16 years ago

This is *not about politics* - it's about the ability for people to vote for their choice of candidate and have those votes counted accurately. Everyone should want that, no matter what party they vote for.

Among many things this film shows clearly that there were several areas where the vote counts could be altered; and it showed potential evidence of election irregularities being deliberately ignored by election officials. If you still wish to live in a democracy then this *is* important.

[–] CalloftheWild619 17 years ago

Shouldn't something so important like this be for free? Why charge people money for death-or-life information that is critical to their own lives? I'm sure they could make a living off somewhere else. Wait --- whether elections are rigged or not it doesn't change my world or your world. we still have to work, pay taxes, ,etc.

[–] sonictripdotnet 17 years ago

Why is Bush still in power?

It's nothing to do with dodgy voting machines... these families are all related to the same bloodlines which go back to central europe. They can find any way they like to have their own kind stay in power. This electronic voting scam is just another one of their weapons. They have money and power, so much so that they will never leave power and thats very scary.

This voting problem is the tip of the iceberg. I suggest you all research Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion and a few others which have a lot of interesting things to say about the American situation.

The new world order is a continuation of Adolf Hitlers new world order and who do you hear mention new world order all the time? Reagan, Bush, nazi bastids!

Why dont the terroists of the world do something contructive for the world and blow up those idiots in government in america and leave the american people alone! Thats the only solution i can see to this problem and im a peaceful person.

[–] denny-47 17 years ago

The problem with these conspiracy type movies, is that for a conspiracy to work, it could not have more than one person involved, because if another person knows the truth, he could become a millionaire by selling his story. Hiding large secrets, with a lot of people involved is very difficult these days. But on the flip side, it has always made me curious as to why we can have almost bullet proof ATM machines with a paper trail, but we can't do the same with a voting machine. From the day they started talking about making electronic voting machines, there were many discussions about the paper trail, and to date, no one has ever said why the machines ended up without the paper output. It makes me think that it could be intentional so that they can alter the outcome with no one knowing.

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

The problem with these conspiracy type movies, is that for a conspiracy to work, it could not have more than one person involved,

The very definition of a conspiracy is that more than one person is involved. If only one person is invloved, it is not a conspiracy.

...because if another person knows the truth, he could become a millionaire by selling his story.

Or he could be suicided, with his family disgraced, ostracised, bankrupted, or worse. Are you denying that the mafia exists? Are you denying that people rob banks in groups? Are you denying that people commit ANY crime in groups?

What if nobody wants to buy his story? What if they want to buy it, but are afraid to, because of the consequences?

Hiding large secrets, with a lot of people involved is very difficult these days.

It's getting harder because of the internet. But it's pretty easy if everybody involved is doing it because it benefits them to keep quiet, and harms them if they admit their wrongdoing.

[–] CalloftheWild619 17 years ago

Another problem with these conspiracy type movies is that those people are part of a larger conspiracy movement, which thinks the Holocaust was a hoax.

[–] Tarkaan 17 years ago

"I see a lot of talking but where is the smoking gun of vote fraud?...I would like to see the results of a Republican led audit."

The point, the punchline, the key to the whole thing was that we never saw any audit, republican or democrat. There was no smoking gun because the supreme court stopped the florida recount. The smoking gun, this film says, is the ability after five years of use to still hack the bejesus out of a machine that controls policy in the US. If you were a computer geek, you would understand that this film had barely anything to do with politics at all.

[–] TheShape 17 years ago

Nice points Thomas. Bottom line? Nothing is 100%. Even if we used a pen to check a box and dropped our ballots into a black box, it wouldn't be 100%. So what's the margin of error? +/- 5%? It goes both ways. Let's say, for example, in the 2004 US Presidential election that Bush got -1600 votes in some county in Texas. He still won the state. There was an error, but he still won. Let's say in some other county (a county that wasn't scrutinized) in Florida, Kerry got +1600 votes and Bush got -1600 because of error. I didn't see any of that in this documentary. They went after the counties they knew already had problems and tried to capitalize. So just accept that everything has a margin of error and MOVE ON!

[–] traptc 17 years ago

Nice points Thomas. Bottom line? Nothing is 100%. Even if we used a pen to check a box and dropped our ballots into a black box, it wouldn't be 100%. So what's the margin of error? +/- 5%?

Are you insane? Do you honestly think the margin of error is that high? Hint: It's nowhere even close.

[–] TheShape 17 years ago

I was being generous with the number. So, the margin of error is less. Point is - there's always a margin of error.

[–] xobniu1 17 years ago

Very true, I too think that there were most likely equally bad miscounts and negative vote counts for Bush, just as there were for Kerry. But democrats tend to get whiney when they keep losing elections, and delve into why their guy isn't winning, and overlooking all discrepancies that dont make said guy look like a victim. Its all VERY biased. What I found interesting is that the security guy they hired to hack the system, was able to do it better than the people who created the system. He seemed to have a good general knowledge of equipment, and was able to force the machine to not only hack the counts on the PAPER tapes, but also the computer system, with no evidence of hacking. But the investigations that led them to that point, showed obvious differences between the paper tape counts and the computer counts. And the fact he was able to install a program onto a card to change votes, but was unable to identift what the "living thing" on the other card, may or may not be capable of doing, what it was or anything. It was just takin as an assumption it changed votes.
BUT it was something major to consider, and does deserve attention considering votes COULD be changed. But it does not mean this should be touted as an endeaver by Patriots to protect ALL people. It was more or less a Liberal investigation to make Bush and his party look like monsters compared to the couragous Democrats.

[–] traptc 17 years ago

Very true, I too think that there were most likely equally bad miscounts and negative vote counts for Bush, just as there were for Kerry.

Really? When did the CEO of Diebold promise to deliver Ohio over to Kerry?

[–] xobniu1 17 years ago

Your insinuating that the CEO of Diebold and a direct hand in manipulating the vote to Bushs' favor. I said it was most likely a real system error, and not a manufactured result. Being that Diebold made the system you would think he would have made it untraceable, like that security guru in the movie, with no discrepancies between poll tape and the system. The fact that it was detectable through dumpster diving, with huge variances in counts from the system and the tape, I think most likely meant a system error. Which is still cause for concern, and should be fully evaluated. Until theres evidence showing the variances were completely lopsided to one party, and not just a "general" counting problem, there was probably no tampering. Even the evidence in the movie did not conclusivley say, "All vote errors found increased Bush's vote count." The one sided investigating showed them counting votes, saying basically things dont add up, never declaring which way or the other.

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

The fact that it was detectable through dumpster diving, with huge variances in counts from the system and the tape, I think most likely meant a system error.

Then why were the election officials caught throwing out the original poll tapes? Doing so is a felony. If it was just a system error, they would have either caught the error and fixed it before giving the tape copies to Bev, or not caught the error and therefore not cared if Bev had the original tapes.

Why would they risk jail time over a system error?

[–] TheShape 17 years ago

It was a figure of speech. Or maybe it wasn't. We don't know what he meant by the statement. Let's not speculate. Stick with facts, please.

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"Even if we used a pen to check a box and dropped our ballots into a black box, it wouldn't be 100%. So what's the margin of error? +/- 5%?"

In Canada, the margin of error is 0%, simply because at least 2 people count the ballots, and if they come up with different counts, they count again until they match. The chances that 2 people come up with the same incorrect count of a ballot box that contains ~ 300 votes are less than a fraction of a fraction of a per cent. The only statistically significant way they could do that is if all the counters colluded to lie about the count.

BTW, if a voter's intention is unclear, it's a spoiled ballot and is discarded. If the voter's intention is clear, it is counted.

"So just accept that everything has a margin of error and MOVE ON!"

I'm not going to accept that purging over 60,000 innocent people from the voter rolls in Florida because their names loosely matched felons' names is error. Are you?

I'm not going to accept that deliberately moving voter machines from black counties to white counties despite registration numbers showing the opposite should have happened is error. Are you?

I'm not going to accept that Republican campaign workers sent out thousands of harassing robo-calls crafted to make them sound like they came from Democratic candidates is error. Are you?

These people need to go to jail! Anything less is allowing your form of government to be decided by criminals.

Using the argument that no method is totally secure, it doesn't follow that people shouldn't try to make things as secure as possible. Paperless voting machines are as insecure as it gets.

BTW, are you aware that Diebold makes ATM machines? Would you be comfortable using them if they didn't give you a paper record of your transaction? Diebold says it would be impractical to have a paper trail on their voting machines, yet they can make an ATM that has one. Why is that?

[–] evan514 17 years ago

"In Canada, the margin of error is 0%, simply because at least 2 people count the ballots"

are you on crack? of course they have a margin of error it would be impossible to not.

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"In Canada, the margin of error is 0%, simply because at least 2 people count the ballots"

"are you on crack? of course they have a margin of error it would be impossible to not."

Read what I wrote. A fraction of a fraction of a per cent is the error rate, therefore it is effectively 0%. Read the reasons why. I live in Canada and have worked as a volunteer in several Federal elections. What are your qualifications?

[–] eeax2 17 years ago

Yes, they did it.

[–] ben-549 17 years ago

I'd suggest you either didn't watch the Documentary or that you watched it very *very* red tinted spectacles Thomas. You're incorrect on most of your points.

States several times during the movie was that in some states Democrats are pushing Diebold and Republican adversaries were concerned about it. Also stated several times was that they believe in some states Democrats have been the beneficiaries of dodgy votes. They concentrated on one area in Florida for good reason: in 2000 Gore registered -16000 votes there.

"Lots of allegations which cannot be proven. Anytime a person gave an answer they did not like they claim either information was hand picked to give the people what they think they wanted or they said it was outright fraud."

I can think of one thing that went unquestioned and that was the assertion by one former Kerry lawyer that Kerry knew there was vote rigging going on in New Mexico. There presented, from what I remember, no evidence of that. In a court of law it'd be hearsay but it's a documentary not a court of law. I can however think of 2 very good sections where what you stated is completely untrue. Firstly the 3% recount in Ohio that was needed to be a random survey. As pointed out, and later proved in a court of law, the election officials picked votes deliberately, not randomly. They even admitted as much on camera! The recount was later ruled illegal by a court of law because of it.

Secondly, the information asked for in Florida to do with Poll tapes was not given to them correctly (they were given ones that tallied that had the wrong date on them). They suspected something funny was going on because of the incorrect date and went to the depot to find them in the process of throwing out the originals. Now how is that not supplying evidence?

I'll agree this documentary is biased towards the Democrats and while some of that may be down to the documentary makers themselves, I'd suggest it's more likely down to Republicans being less concerned about the voting process because they are/were in power.

[–] mogweezer101 17 years ago

Politics aside, this film highlights the urgent need to make the voting system transparent and open for all to see...

[–] ramsrule2000 17 years ago

Interesting how the Democrats won in 2006, that there hasn't been any news or allegations of vote fraud, hacked machines, software problems etc...

Only when the Republicans win, then there are problems that need to be investigated, votes need to be recounted, the whole system needs to be overhauled, etc...

Partisan sour grapes indeed.

[–] GethinVanH 17 years ago

I wouldn't trust the Democrats or the Republicans. There were stories in 2006 of voting fraud (I hate that meme "voting irregularity") but the Democrats ended up winning anyway. Maybe there wasn't as much fraud as there should have been in order for the Republicans to win.

I don't think most Americans see the big picture, which is that it doesn't matter who they vote for, "Republocrat" or "Demopublican", they're extremely similar in political ideology. Look at Western European countries, Canada, the rest of the Americas (minus Cuba) and you see that there is a wide range of political parties. The US has two. Canada has four elected parties (and used to have five).

The voting fraud is a terrible crime, but what's even a greater crime is the total indifference displayed by the Democrats when they get elections stolen from them. Al Gore didn't put up a good fight in 2000 and that election was proven to be wrong by the next year. Look at other countries when there's a close election and there's mass demonstrations in the streets and several months investigation. Look at Mexico which just had a controversial presidential election and you'll see what should have happened in the US. True, the results weren't overturned but the effort was there and the people actually cared whereas most people in the US are totally apathetic as to which party wins the presidency.

I've been a poll worker during several federal elections in Canada. The ballot we have here in Ontario is the same ballot voters get in Yukon or BC or Newfoundland. Elections aren't controlled by counties but rather Elections Canada, an independent, non-partisan agency which reports directly to the Parliament. All our ballots are paper and they all look the same minus the candidates names or party affiliations.

The system in the US has so many flaws it's ripe for the picking for anyone who wishes to steal an election. Since there's so little opposition from the Democrats I wouldn't be surprised if they were committing voting fraud of their own. That's what this documentary seemed to be saying when they said Republicans were opposed to voting machines in Democrat controlled regions.

[–] traptc 17 years ago

Interesting how the Democrats won in 2006, that there hasn't been any news or allegations of vote fraud, hacked machines, software problems etc...

Guess you weren't paying attention to Katherine Harris's last district:

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6423

The group of nearly 18,000 voters that registered no choice in Sarasota's disputed congressional election solidly backed Democratic candidates in all five of Florida's statewide races, an Orlando Sentinel analysis of ballot data shows.

Among these voters, even the weakest Democrat -- agriculture-commissioner candidate Eric Copeland -- outpaced a much-better-known Republican incumbent by 551 votes.

The trend, which continues up the ticket to the race for governor and U.S. Senate, suggests that if votes were truly cast and lost -- as Democrat Christine Jennings maintains -- they were votes that likely cost her the congressional election.

Republican Vern Buchanan's 369-vote victory was certified by state officials Monday. His camp says that, although people may have skipped the race -- intentionally or not -- there is no evidence that votes went missing.

But the results of the Sentinel analysis, two experts said, warrant additional investigation.

"Wow," University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said. "That's very suggestive -- I'd even say strongly suggestive -- that if there had been votes recorded, she [Jennings] would have won that House seat."

David Dill, an electronic-voting expert at Stanford University, put it this way: "It seems to establish with certainty that more Democrats are represented in those undervoted ballots."

The Sentinel reviewed records of 17,846 touch-screen ballots that included no vote in the tightly contested 13th District congressional race to determine whom voters selected in other major races.

The analysis of the so-called "undervotes" examined the races for U.S. Senate, governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner.

The results showed that the undervoted ballots skewed Democratic in all of those races, even in the three races in which the county as a whole went Republican.

In the governor's race, for example, Republican Charlie Crist won handily in Sarasota, easily beating Democrat Jim Davis. But on the undervoted ballots, Davis finished ahead by almost 7 percentage points.

In the agriculture commissioner's race, Republican Charles Bronson beat Copeland by a double-digit margin among all voters. But on the undervoted ballots, Copeland won by about 3 percentage points.

Some questions remain

The analysis does not -- and cannot -- reveal why no congressional choice was recorded on the ballots. It also cannot determine which candidate any single voter might have selected had he or she made a choice.

But the strong performance of other Democrats indicates Jennings would have found a sizable number of supporters within the group.

"If votes were actually lost," Dill said, "it appears those votes would have favored the Democrat."

About 15 percent of ballots cast on Sarasota's touch-screen machines registered no choice in the bitterly fought congressional race. That percentage was about six times greater than the undervote in the rest of the House district, which spreads into four other counties.

Since Election Day, dozens -- if not hundreds -- of voters have reported problems at the polls. Some say their vote for Jennings never registered after they touched her name. Others say they never saw the congressional race on the machine's screen.

The Jennings campaign argues that only a machine malfunction can account for the high number of undervotes in the congressional race.

Her experts claim that because Jennings won in Sarasota by a 52 percent-to-47 percent margin -- the only county she carried -- she would have picked up the bulk of any votes that were lost. Those votes, they say, would have been enough to defeat Buchanan.

On Monday, Jennings filed a lawsuit in Tallahassee seeking to reverse the results or hold a new election.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/another_florida.html#more

Officials in Sarasota County, the largest county in Florida's 13th congressional district, are at a loss to explain why more than 13% of the voters there — about 18,000 people — did not register a vote in the House race. Only 1.8% of county voters using paper absentee ballots didn't vote for a member of Congress. And in adjoining counties, the percentage of people not voting in the race was also in the low single digits.

[–] stmok 17 years ago

"I think all this really does is prove what we already know. Relying too much on computers to run the world is a dangerous thing. Just ask Dave from 2001 A Space Odyssey."

You clearly do NOT understand how computers and technology work.

The problem is the people who setup this system in the first place! They have their own agendas. The technology merely serves the people. That's it. The machine is following orders, it does NOT have some artificial intelligence that decides: "Hey! I think I'll adjust my votes for Democrats this year!"...It doesn't do that. Someone MUST need to write or modify the executable on that memory card to achieve that.

Put it this way, do you blame the gun for the shooting? Or do you blame the shooter behind the gun? Last time I checked, regardless of country, you put the shooter on trial, NOT the gun. (Even when the gun is faulty, you put the manufacturer on trial, NOT the gun).

What should have been done was:

(1) the source code AND the whole voting machine implementation itself should be audited by the public. That is, it should be open-source. Thereby allowing computer scientists around America (and even the world) to check and audit it...Heck, it should be the world, because such a Presidential Election will eventually affect the world as a whole!

(2) the voting machines themselves should be sent to every computer science dept of every university in the USA. As well as third party computer security companies. A complete audit of the voting machine in its full deployment configuration should be used. Simulated voting conditions must be reproduced. This is the only way to confirm and prove beyond ALL reasonable doubt. (There is NO WAY Diebold will be able to have ANY counter-arguments for it).

(3) There should be folks from the general public that must be right beside the folks who recounted the ballot. (That didn't happen).

(4) EVERY vote must be recounted. The "3% sample" policy was clearly abused by the people who were in charge of the re-count!

(5) No one with affiliation to the voting machine manufacturers, should be allowed to occupy positions where key political decisions are to be made.

This documentary clearly shows, that if technology is to be trusted, it must be open for anyone AND everyone to audit. You simply cannot trust people that are in the position of being able to abuse their responsibilities.

Put it this way...Why would you trust and use Apple and Microsoft's operating systems if the public can't even test and audit the source code? Why would you still trust them to do your banking, online transactions, and store your personal data, when you have no idea how secure or insecure they are. Can you guarantee that neither of these companies have agreed to place a backdoor for the CIA or NSA to keep an eye on people?

Why is it when every time Microsoft says "This is the most secure Windows operating system ever!", do the hackers and crackers find new security issues?

My overall point. Regardless of technology. The weak chain in all this, is the people or companies behind the technologies itself. Can you trust them? How do you know they won't sneak something in when you cannot see the source code of that technology? In this documentary, it demonstrates you can NOT trust the people who make the electronic voting machines AND the people who run the elections themselves. Computers don't lie. People do. THAT'S FACT.

This is why open-source software is getting very popular among geeks, governments, and militaries around the world. EVERYONE can see the code. ANYONE who tries to sneak hostile code in will be spotted by others around the world. People (the public), can then see how good or bad an implementation is. They also have the right to take the code and re-implement it in a better way. (Its part of such open-source licenses).

This is why I use Linux and BSDs on my systems. Both operating systems are written with the COMPLETE source code that is open to the public (whole world). The communities around the world that write these operating systems have no hidden agendas or take kickbacks from companies or political parties. They do what they love, they're honest, and willing to share their efforts with anyone. Completely FREE for you and me to use. No built-in "anti-piracy" schemes, no lock-in formats that force you into a never ending reliance of their products, and certainly no DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology.

Its not only the technology, but this documentary demonstrates that the political system in USA is itself, open to abuse by people in key positions that can affect the decisions and thus, manipulate the result to THEIR benefit. The system itself should be audited by the public. A complete overhaul is a must, if USA stands for FREEDOM both inside and outside of the country.

And I'm speaking as an outsider of the USA!