Oct 082015

YES!   to new voters and others,  ELECTRONIC VOTING  would be perfectly logical.

Please help inform fellow citizens:  it is NOT a good idea!

E-voting is a sure way to watch democracy disappear into the sewer because of the KNOWN CORRUPTION in e-voting.

There are LINKS at bottom to support this and other statements made below:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The combination of

  • inherent insecurity in computer systems
  • absence of ethical behavior in the power structures
  • the inability to bring perpetrators of fraud in electronic systems to account
strongly recommend against the adoption of electronic voting.


Public awareness of the amount of fraud already associated with electronic voting is needed. We also need to understand the cross-border pollination between Canada and the U.S.

We should not succumb to what are mere utilitarian arguments in favor of electronic voting.

  • Election fraud in Florida included corrupted electronic voting, and enabled George Bush to became president of the U.S.. for a second term
  • Stephen Harper has relationships with political operatives in the U.S. that go back to the 1990s. Arthur Finkelstein comes to mind. These people do not play by the same rules as you and I play by. Their tactics are very destructive of democracy.   They dislike democracy.
  • The lack of morality in political leadership in Canada enabled Robocalls.
  • The Justice system and Elections Canada were unable to bring the brains behind the corrupt electronic schemes to account.

WHICH companies supply electronic voting systems to the Canadian municipalities that have adopted electronic voting?   . . . Not everyone knows the story of Diebold Election Systems which morphed into Global Election Systems and is now called Premier Election Solutions.   The answer to the question is Premier Election Solutions supplies election software to Canadian municipalities.   And I see a new entity,   Intelivote Internet and telephone voting systems.

BUT WHY do corporations change their names? . .  to avoid linkage to bad deeds.   Diebold (Premier Election Solutions)  is at the heart of election fraud through electronic voting in the U.S.   Who knows?  It may be a response to citizen input to Elections Canada warning against partnering with Diebold or its pseudonyms that has opened the door to another entity, Intelivote.   And who is that?   I leave it to your listeners to find out.

In 2011,  an email from Elections Canada,

Attached, please find a letter from Mr. Mario Lavoie, Assistant Director (Partnerships) of Alternative Voting Methods, in response to your e-mail, dated September 3, 2011, regarding the status of the Internet voting pilot project.

caused me to inquire:   which companies are the “partners” of Elections Canada in the internet voting project?    I did not receive a reply and did not pursue the question, although it is an important one.

It is not electronic voting that is the problem.    All of us are aware of the insecurity of computer systems.  It is a problem that cannot be overcome.  It is the “nature of the beast” coupled with the deteriorating nature of the human beast (lack of morals among those who seek power) that is the problem.

/Sandra Finley


2011-09-03  Election fraud in the U.S., “Murder, Spies & Voting Lies”.   E-voting in Canada.

(With thanks to Allison,  ADDED):    2012-03-27   Cyber attack on NDP leadership vote involved more than 10,000 computers

2012-03-24   Letter to Chief Electoral Officer, Follow-up on Project on Electronic Voting in Canada

Electronic voting, “Hacking Democracy” documentary. Plus Michael Geist.

2012-11   How to rig an election, Harper’s Magazine, Victoria Collier

2012-11-05   Electronic voting, U.S. Election, use of software patches in key swing state

2011-09-07   E-voting: Letter to Elections Canada and reply

E-voting in Canada:  Online Voting and Hostile Deployment Environments by Christopher Parsons

E-voting in Canada: Material from Michael Geist’s blog

2003-10-24   Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud

2013-04-30  Irregularities widespread in Canadian elections, report finds


  3 Responses to “2015-10-08 Calls for Electronic Voting. Election fraud. Canadians beware. Response to CBC.”

  1. E-voting is such a bad idea.it would only take one vulnerability and one hacker to vote in the next Prime minister.

  2. Wednesday, November 04, 2015

    Common Dreams, Excerpt re “electronic voting machines usually “break down” somewhere in the state during a major election”:

    Official vote counts in Ohio indicate a major defeat for the nation’s first corporate-sponsored marijuana legalization referendum.

    But it’s complicated.

    And the ultimate issue is far from settled, as cannabis supporters are looking to 2016 to finally make pot legal here.

    Amidst the usual “glitches” in vote counting, the state election apparatus says Issue 3 was defeated by about 2:1. Ohio’s electronic voting machines usually “break down” somewhere in the state during a major election, and the reporting of this year’s results were subjected to the expected delays.

  3. Nov 6 UPDATE, e-voting in OHIO:

    Was Ohio’s Marijuana Vote Stolen? TV Screen Shots Show Massive Number of Votes Flipping
    The secretary of state’s live returns don’t make sense.

    By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman / Columbus Free Press/AlterNet
    November 6, 2015

    Televised screen shots taken Tuesday night of live election returns in Ohio provided by the Secretary of State’s office showed hundreds of thousands of votes flipping from the “yes” to “no” column of Issue 3, the ballot measure to legalize marijuana.

    When seen against the backdrop of Ohio’s longstanding history of Republicans manipulating the vote count to obtain the outcome they seek, such as in the 2004 presidential election when Ohio returns selected George W. Bush to a second term, there are compelling reasons to question the official result where the pot measure went down to defeat. . . .

    Husted was not a neutral election administrator. He vehemently opposed the measure, threatened its proponents with legal action, and live TV results showed hundreds of thousands of votes moving from the yes to no column in a matter of minutes.

    Take a look at the two screen shots below, where hundreds of thousands of votes flipped from the ‘yes’ to the ‘no’ column in 11 minutes, even though the number of precincts that reported only increased by 6 percent. These figures are provided by Husted’s office to the media and public. In the first screenshot, with 39 percent of precincts reporting, the measure is winning 65-to-35 percent.

    Click to enlarge.
    In the second screenshot, taken 11 minutes later, those percentages are flipped from the yes and no columns, even though the number of precincts reporting has only increased by 6 percent. Look at the number of votes in each column and you will see that 100s of 1,000s have been jumped from supporting to opposing the measure.

    Click to enlarge.
    The promoters of the pot measure, Issue 3, should demand a recount, though the system is rigged and they would certainly be stonewalled. As in 2004’s presidential election that came down to Ohio’s close vote, critical election records are likely to not materialize even though they are legally required to be maintained. . . .

    Here are other factors that cast doubts on the official defeat of the Issue 3:

    1. Pre-election polling showed far more support. Three major polls prior to the election showed public support for Issue 3 in the range of 51 percent- to 53 percent and Responsible Ohio, the coalition behind Issue 3, confirmed to the Free Press that its internal tracking polls were consistent with these numbers.

    2. Results showed outsized swing from polling. The official vote total of 65 percent to 35 percent against the marijuana measure involves a shift of more than 15 percent away from the tracking poll numbers. The same thing happened in 2005 with the Reform Ohio Now measures on the ballot that would have created a nonpartisan state election administration system, removing the secretary of state’s oversight of elections. The results, compared to pre-election polling, appeared to be flipped by up to 40 percentage points.

    3. Paperless electronic voting problems cascaded. Early on Election Day, media reported “glitches” in the electronic poll books in Cincinnati. Such breakdowns are common occurences in Ohio, which give the state’s operatives time and cover to manipulate the reported vote count. So extensive was the meltdown of the iPad tablets used as poll books in Hamilton County, Ohio (home of Cincinnati) that the state judge ordered the polls open an hour and a half longer. Voters were told to come back later.

    4. Live televised returns shows 350,000 votes flip. The screen shots taken in real-time from WHIO’s website, a Dayton TV station, show radical and inexplicable shifts in vote totals for Issues 1 and 3. One screen shot taken at 9:39 PM shows Issue 3 passing with 65 percet of the vote. Eleven minutes later, the percentages for Issue 3 flipped. The screen shot shows Issue 3 inexplicably losing 354,796 votes in the 11-minute span, even though the number of precincts reporting only went up from 39 percent to 45 percent.

    What Next?

    There are enough irregularities in Ohio’s statewide November election to merit a thorough investigation of the Buckeye State’s plans for the 2016 presidential election. The state does not need a repeat of the 2004 voting debacle.

    Voters who experienced or witnessed election irregularities should contact the Free Press . . .

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>