Oh, I'm sure it's all just some paranoid fantasy. Go back to sleep.

Clinton Curtis:

"And [US Representative Tom Feeney] asked you to design a program to rig an election."


"While he was the speaker of the Florida House."


[...] "And [Mrs. Yang] said, 'you don't understand, we need you to hide the fraud in the source code, not reveal it. We need to control the vote in South Florida.'"

[audience hisses]

Tags: , , , ,

32 Responses:

  1. thegreatdoogie says:

    Whether it's true or not really doesn't matter, as he will have been out of office for years by the time all the red tape is cut on this one.

    • no_brakes23 says:

      I disagree. Yes, it won't give Gore the election back if that's what happened, but it will change election law and procedure.

    • jonabbey says:

      Assuming we're speaking of Bush, it wouldn't affect Bush unless it could be proven that he was in some way responsible for the fraud.

      Nixon conceded in 1960, despite good evidence of vote tampering in southern Illinois that cost him the election. At a certain point, what people choose to believe and accept becomes more important than what the original facts on the ground were.

      And the political process will have plenty of opportunity to seek vengeance, if such malfeasance can be demonstrated. Find proof that the election was stolen, publicize it far and wide, and see how many swing voters your party gets next time.

  2. jonabbey says:

    What is the provenance of this? I can't tell what sort of proceeding this is or where it is taking place.

  3. jeresig says:

    I was totally down with this until I saw that he was running for Congress against Feeney. Either this means that his really really sly and just tore the competitors campaign to shreds, or that he is of the utmost virtue and only wants to see the political system succeed.

    But it's still a great video, you can almost hear people wincing.

    • ultranurd says:

      The other weird thing is that Feeney is sponsoring the VOTE Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3910), would amend the Help America Vote Act to (a) require photo ID (not the kind of voting fraud I'm worried about), (b) further emphasize a paper trail that each individual voter can see, and (c) allow all parties in a precinct to observe the voting machine verification process. Said bill has been stuck in committee since last September.

      • omni_ferret says:

        I can get behind (b) & (c), at least, but (a) strikes me as a bad idea.

        Curtis took a polygraph that showed no attempt to deceive. I'm not sure where I read that first, but it's in his Wikipedia entry.

        • glenra says:

          Polygraphs are bunk; passing one proves essentially nothing.

          • omni_ferret says:

            I wouldn't convict based on one, but it suggests that a thorough investigation is warranted.

        • shayel says:

          I can't seem to understand why requiring a photo ID in order to vote is a bad idea?

          I'd think that you'd want to make sure that not only does all the votes are accounted for, but that also the voters are.

          • omni_ferret says:

            The U.S. doesn't require ID cards of its people. See the Amish, senior citizens who no longer drive, & people who like to live off-the-grid & far away from the government for a few people who don't see much benefit from one.

            • ctudball says:

              Where I live we are issue one-time photoless ID cards for each election. It avoids the whole ID card privacy issue, but ensure that each registered voter gets one and only one vote.

              We also have compulsory voting, which is a whole other issue entirely.

            • shayel says:

              I thought the Amish didn't vote?

              While I can't understand why Americans seem to resent photo IDs so much, that's a different question alltogether.

              What I asked how would you verify that whoever is casting the ballot is indeed who he says he is?

              • jwz says:

                They don't verify it, but they check your name off a list at the polling place in your neighborhood, so if two people show up with the same name/address, it's detected.

                The reason for this is that the cost of elections being gamed by in-person single-vote fraud is considered to be less than the cost of requiring a de facto internal passport. It used to be, anyway.

                • omni_ferret says:

                  Er, yeah, what he said.

                  (Sorry if this is boring the crap out of you, by the way.)

              • omni_ferret says:

                Whoops - I hadn't realized you weren't American.

                The pollworker might ask for proof by, say, verifying the street address. But mainly, the pollworkers don't verify identity; they take the voter's word for it. The voter's signature is verified later, against the registration form; I haven't witnessed this personally, & this may just be in case of irregularities.

                Some Amish vote, apparently.

      • moof says:

        a) poll tax. Especially good for Republicans since the poor tend to vote Dem. That's what the bill is all about. (note that the bill requires 'machine-readable elements' on the ID, too.)
        b) even better for vote rigging: the paper shows what the voter intended, but doesn't collate it with the actual vote.
        c) this is supposed to be in place anyway.

    • phoenixredux says:

      If what the man says is true, then I hope he is elected to Congress, where he immedietly opens hearings into the matter. This is too serious to be buried in YouTube or dismissed as "one of them wacky Internet conspiricies". Whether it affects Bush is secondary. We need to ensure that our voting process is honest, secure and transparent or else we may as well abdicate the voting process entirely and bequeath the office to a heriditary ruling class. (that is, assuming we haven't already.)

      What really bothers me is that 95% of America doesn't even realize that there's a problem with the voting system as it stands today that effectively usurps the democratic process.

  4. ultranurd says:

    I don't know why this makes me suspicious... I guess because a lot of the links on Wikipedia all lead back to bradblog.com. On the other hand, there are stories that don't get a lot of more widespread media coverage, particularly if none of the newswire organizations picks it up. The whole point of a conspiracy is that no one pays attention to it, after all.

    • dojothemouse says:

      Bradblog covered every conceivable and inconceivable angle on this story, so he's a handy source for wikipedians who just need a URL. I'm sure some of the stuff he's put up was of dubious provenance, but the Princeton research is damning enough. All by itself.

      The stuff from Clinton Curtis mostly depends on his word. So he could totally be lying. He could also not be lying. We can never know. We'll also never know if someone else did the same thing, for example Diebold in the 2004 Georgia senatorial campaign.

      Diebold machines do not provide us evidence as to what the vote was in those districts. Commercial pollsters do, and they've disagreed with the Diebold machines in critical races.

    • klausboy says:

      Yeah, I don't get my news from youtube either, and who likes an encyclopedia that lists blogs as sources? But, it happened, at a partisan forum on elections sure, but a swear in is a swear in.

      Transcript available from House Democratic Judiciary here. See page 94.

  5. thedimka says:

    it is hard to tell the credibility of this video, but in any case it is very important that more people see it and that will bring more attention to the issue

  6. wdr1 says:

    Soooo... he supposedly he knew/did this six years ago, but didn't think to tell anyone until now? Just before the elections? When he's running against the man he's accusing? And not in an arena where he could not be held up for perjury if found to be lying?

    Critical thinking skills, anyone?

    • peristaltor says:

      Go to Bradblog and read the story, or just the affidavit he dictated.

      He was a programmer who questioned the motives of his employers. He blew the whistle on them and got a cop to investigate. Just as things were looking okay, the cop turned up "suicided."

      He panicked and dictated an affidavit that may have saved his life. I've kept a copy of that affidavit in my work attache since a day after it was written (got a link early on from a friend).

      There are other (for me more local) irregularities that have gotten less attention, but prove far more substantial. Really, odds of 1,000 trillion to one?

      I imagine any news outlet who continues this investigation gets attacked by the Faux News-ies and an immediate downturn in advertising revenue.

      • wdr1 says:

        I'm just sayin', a shame he didn't mention it in 2000. But I guess nobody was suspecting voting irregularities then, so why bring it up?

    • hattifattener says:

      Soooo... he supposedly he knew/did this six years ago, but didn't think to tell anyone until now?

      No, the video jwz linked is from 2004, when Curtis testified before Congress. I first saw a pointer to it a couple months ago. It's not new.

      Perhaps it took him a few years (starting from the end of 2000) to realize he needed to say something, to work up the courage to say it, to figure out who to say it to, and to work his way up to Congressional testimony. (The commission was spurred by the 2004 Ohio irregularities, so he couldn't have testified before it earlier.) This is kind of slow, but perfectly consistent with honesty.

      Now, two years later, still nothing's been done about the voting machine problems, and he's running for office on the platform of doing something. After all, that's what you're supposed to do in America if you want to change how things are done: get into politics.

  7. redleaf8 says:

    I don't know if this is true or not. But if it is, Tom Feeney is a man ahead of his time. This guy says Feeney came to him in October 2000 with this conspiracy.

    It wasn't until after the 2000 election that every Florida county went out and got electronic voting systems to avoid another "hanging chad" mess. I don't know there may have a been a few counties that had them. But the counties where it mattered Dade, Broward (where I live), and West Palm Beach all used the old punchcard ballots.

    I wish everyone would just use the fill in the bubble-style voting system. Every school in country uses it for testing. If you vote absentee in Broward they even send you this type of ballot. This webpage that was actually more informative than the voting machines Wikipedia article calls it marksense (optical scan). It's simple, cheap, and inherently secure. Everything a voting machine should be. No muss, no fuss. All this computer voting stuff is expensive garbage.

    I've never used one, only heard the phrase "pull the lever" to refer to voting, and seen politicians in northern states voting in them. But the description on that About.com webpage of how the mechanical lever machines work makes voting seem very theatrical. They were the electronic voting systems of their day (ie. no receipt, could be rigged). But at least they had style.