# Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election fi



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Among other things, the GAO confirms that: 



> 1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.
> 
> 2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.
> 
> ...


 
The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example: 



> The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.
> A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County
> Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.
> A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.
> ...


 
2006 can't come soon enough.  If the Dems take one of the houses, perhaps they can force an investigation through.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

GAO Report


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529
> 
> Among other things, the GAO confirms that:
> 
> ...


 

Nice try North.  I like how you flow from "Problems with voting systems" that were listed in the GAO report to the idiotic, unfounded and quite frankly moronic accusations you got from "other crucial" sources.  Please, this old propaganda line is getting old.  Nowhere in the GAO report does it say that either political party engaged in a concerted effort to manipulate the election.  Your "other sources" are the "tin-foil hat" websites that specialize in this kind of garabage.  Listing the two as if they were one continuous piece is a bit dishonest in my opinion.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 17, 2005)

http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1522938.html

Both sides probably cheated, just like in every election ever.  It's just that Democrats are screaming about it louder to make it look like they did it less, and nobody's really doing anything about it.  The problem isn't that one particular side cheated; it's that anyone was able to cheat at all.  I can't believe that with today's technology, it's still possible to rig an election.  I just hope that the cheaters from one side balance out the cheaters from the other side at the right proportion, which I'm sure is almost impossible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

With the current system we have in place, all it takes is a few people to turn the tide in a national election.  The GAO report does not place blame because that wasn't its purpose.  It's purpose was to examine the plausability of the allegations given _under oath_ before congress.  The report confirms that the allegations were plausable and it will take a new investigation to discover the "whodunnit" in this case.  That investigation won't happen until the republicans are thrown out of one of the houses though.  

And Xequat, sure there was cheating on both sides.  The problem is that during 2004, the allegations overwhelmingly show that one side cheated more then the other.  There were so many allegations that it ended up before congress...which is what got this ball with the GAO rolling.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The problem is that during 2004, the allegations overwhelmingly show that one side cheated more then the other. There were so many allegations that it ended up before congress...which is what got this ball with the GAO rolling.


 
If you win an election and you think someone else cheated, how much noise do you make? If you lose an election and you think the winner cheated, how much noise do you make?

Making the most amount of noise does not validate the claim. its non-sequitar. Look at the data, and investigate if you must. I suggest exploring -both- sides explotation of the vote. I also suggest if you do this, lets look at past elections too.

the democrats have seemed to be the loudest whiners. The 2000 election and the Florida fiasco was just embarassing. 2004 was a bit less, thank God.... hope it remains so.

MrH


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1522938.html
> 
> Both sides probably cheated, just like in every election ever.  It's just that Democrats are screaming about it louder to make it look like they did it less, and nobody's really doing anything about it.  The problem isn't that one particular side cheated; it's that anyone was able to cheat at all.  I can't believe that with today's technology, it's still possible to rig an election.  I just hope that the cheaters from one side balance out the cheaters from the other side at the right proportion, which I'm sure is almost impossible.


It's easy to cheat when the equipment allows it.  In these cases, we're looking at a lack of accountability, combined with a lack of checkability, and a lack of security.  Systems could be hacked and the data manipulated. No going back and recounting. Combine that with software and hardware failures, as well as performance issues and you have a system that is easily compromised.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

Blind to the eyes of the party's brainwashing.....

What was the great increase in amount of people voting attributed to when many people did not vote on election day because they didn't want either canidates.

It should be looked into.....maybe by a foriegner who is not aware of our party system...if it was found to be true would the Dems still be wining....

Most politics no matter what party it involves, is scamming cheating and prying their way into winning. I admit Dems could cheat...but if you can't admit that Reps do...then they are winning their brainwashing battle.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

Machines aren't perfect.

Also all those people that claim they saw something wrong...are they all lying?

I'm not saying they cheated or they didn't cheat...just don't blind yourself to the politcal ways...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

We can talk about what might have occurred and might not have forever.  What matters is what is allegations actually on the public record under oath and not what some synchphant reporter reports third and forth hand.  

The GAO was investigating whether or not some of these allegations could have actually occured and they found that everything was in place for these reported events to happen.  The system is easily hacked and manipulated and the allegations on record, under oath, indicate that it was hacked and manipulated...possibly changing the outcome of the election.  

The next phase of this investigation is the "whodunnit" phase.  Who are our suspects?  Who has a motive?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

So let me get this straight.....your argument is "It's theoretically possible to cheat the system (even though there's no credible evidence that anyone led a concerted effort to do so), THEREFORE, 'IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED' (because we didn't win)."  I guess it's theoretically possible aliens from Flebnube have been manipulating our voting systems with their "vastly superior technology" too.  Not one shred of evidence it happened, just a theory about how it "could have happened".  That's your proof?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac, there certainly is statistical evidence that something was peculiar, to say the least.  For example, one county in Ohio has a registration that is 5:1 Democratic:Republican.  But the vote was about 50:50.  Statistically, Democrats would have had to vote 2:1 for Bush in order for that to have occurred.  Now I can believe that a lot of Dems voted for Bush...but 2:1?  Well, sure, it's possible...

But what about the county in Ohio that registered more votes for Bush than there were registered voters?  Is that not...irregular?

And why were there long lines in districts with predominately minority voters, when surburban whites simply walked right in?  Did they somehow underestimate the number of voters?

Bottom line?  The voting process has to be more accurate, transparent, and verifiable.  There has to be a PAPER ballot, for example, optical scanners with a paper ballot, so that there can be recounts.  And anyone who is responsible for electoral procedure should not be part of any party's campaign organization.  Otherwise, no one will have faith in the electoral system.  

Winner or loser, can anyone really LEGITIMATELY claim that accuracy, transparency, and verifiability are NOT desirable?  Because I have to believe that anyone who is against those priniciples is up to no good.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

And then there are people like Bev Harris who video taped election officials changing votes in Bush's favor...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> sgtmac, there certainly is statistical evidence that something was peculiar, to say the least. For example, one county in Ohio has a registration that is 5:1 Democratic:Republican. But the vote was about 50:50. Statistically, Democrats would have had to vote 2:1 for Bush in order for that to have occurred. Now I can believe that a lot of Dems voted for Bush...but 2:1? Well, sure, it's possible...
> 
> But what about the county in Ohio that registered more votes for Bush than there were registered voters? Is that not...irregular?
> 
> ...


 Again, all of the above listed "facts" come from websites who have distorted, manipulated and outright made up those "facts".  I always find it interesting whenever someone lists a series of alleged "facts", which are alleged to prove "something".  Upon close examination, they are a sleight of hand trick, a mere smoke and mirrors trick.  I have found that to be the case with those alleged "facts".

There are a few REAL cases of voter fraud, however, such as the attempt by some representatives of the NAACP to trade crack cocaine for voter registration.  We know those happened, because people were arrested.  We can also assume they were not representative of the official NAACP party line, or indicative of a vast conspiracy, but merely the work of a few criminals.

The above listed "facts" exist only in the fantasies of a few bloggers with too much free time and an overactive imagination.

http://ohiogop.blogs.com/state_of_the_union/2005/06/democrat_myths_.html
http://www.notblog.com/naginata/archives/002534.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The above listed "facts" exist only in the fantasies of a few bloggers with too much free time and an overactive imagination.


 
You must be talking about the thousands of people who testified for the congressional report and the hundreds of experts that gave expert testimony under oath before the entire senate.  Have you even bothered to look at the congressional report?  GAO wouldn't have gotten involved if this was nothing but BS.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You must be talking about the thousands of people who testified for the congressional report and the hundreds of experts that gave expert testimony under oath before the entire senate. Have you even bothered to look at the congressional report? GAO wouldn't have gotten involved if this was nothing but BS.


 First of all, the GAO didn't say what you allege they said...if they had, you wouldn't have tried to cut and paste the GAO findings with the rantings found on other websites so they looked as if they were part of the same report.

Secondly, those so-called "experts" were doing nothing but engaging in the same kind of political opportunism that you are engaging in now.  "Statistics"? Hardly.  I've been around enough self-proclaimed experts in courts to know that everyone isn't the expert they claim, and much of what comes out of their mouths is tailor made to fit an agenda.  Sell it somewhere else.


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Among other things, the GAO confirms that:
> 
> "The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility"


We republicans work long hours, after work we voted.  Not an impossibility.


----------



## qizmoduis (Nov 18, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> We republicans work long hours, after work we voted.  Not an impossibility.



Oh please!  That's just insulting.  Typical, though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> First of all, the GAO didn't say what you allege they said...if they had, you wouldn't have tried to cut and paste the GAO findings with the rantings found on other websites so they looked as if they were part of the same report.


 
It confirmed that the allegations were possible.



> Secondly, those so-called "experts" were doing nothing but engaging in the same kind of political opportunism that you are engaging in now. "Statistics"? Hardly. I've been around enough self-proclaimed experts in courts to know that everyone isn't the expert they claim, and much of what comes out of their mouths is tailor made to fit an agenda. Sell it somewhere else.


 
So thousands of people purjured themselves in some grand scheme to cast down Bush?  Now that is a conspiracy!  Sounds like someone needs tin hat...  :asian:

And I love this quote from President Bush, it applies here...

"I don't care about the numbers, I know the facts..."

The bottom line is that people made these allegations under oath before congress.  We have to assume they are true unless we are given some concrete reason to believe that they are false and that they committed a crime...purjury.  The GAO report confirms that it was entirely possible for the alleged incidents to have occured.  We need to investigate further in order to ascertain if someone actually tampered with the election results.  Statistically, this is the only viable explanation for the discrepincies and I believe that there is concrete evidence that shows that crimes were committed...Bev Harris' video tape and comments actions from certain individuals.


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2005)

The original post has a link to the report.  I think that if anyone is seriously worried then they should read the 107 pages.  The "results in brief" portion mentions that "it is important to note that many of the reported concerns were drawn from specific system makes and models or from a specific jurisdiction's election, and that there is a lack of consensus among election officals and other experts on the pervasiveness of the concerns.  Nevertheless, some of these concerns were reported to have caused local problems in federal elections - resulting in the loss of miscount of votes - and therefore merit attention."

Concerns? Yes.  Alarm? No.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Concerns? Yes. Alarm? No.


 
Enough to investigate when the findings are compared to the allegations?  Yes.

I know for a while about this report, but it took me a while to read it.  Also, if you have time, you should read Conyer's Congressional Report...the one that was presented during the Jan 5th 2005 challenge of the election results.  Comparing the two is very important for our democracy IMHO.


----------



## modarnis (Nov 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And then there are people like Bev Harris who video taped election officials changing votes in Bush's favor...



And these tapes are available for viewing where?  CNN; MSNBC; REUTERs?  or maybe the impartial Blackboxvoting.org?


----------



## modarnis (Nov 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> First of all, the GAO didn't say what you allege they said...if they had, you wouldn't have tried to cut and paste the GAO findings with the rantings found on other websites so they looked as if they were part of the same report.
> 
> Secondly, those so-called "experts" were doing nothing but engaging in the same kind of political opportunism that you are engaging in now.  "Statistics"? Hardly.  I've been around enough self-proclaimed experts in courts to know that everyone isn't the expert they claim, and much of what comes out of their mouths is tailor made to fit an agenda.  Sell it somewhere else.



Try page 58 of the GAO report for their actual conclusions


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 18, 2005)

> Again, all of the above listed "facts" come from websites who have distorted, manipulated and outright made up those "facts". I always find it interesting whenever someone lists a series of alleged "facts", which are alleged to prove "something". Upon close examination, they are a sleight of hand trick, a mere smoke and mirrors trick. I have found that to be the case with those alleged "facts".


 
*WRONG.*

Frankly, I got tired of listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio say, "Look for yourself.  If you look hard enough, you'll see it!"

So I did.  *And you can do it too*.  I went to the raw data.  The electoral results.  The party registration.  Population and demographics.  It took hours, but lo and behold, I DID see it.

The Dem:Repub voting pattern was clearly "flipped" in Belmont County OH, and Baker County FL.  In precincts all over Cuyahoga County OH, there WERE more ballots counted than registered voters.

So I'd suggest that, instead of just dismissing the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you as "distorted, manipulated and outright made up," you do the math yourself.  It's a lot more objective than displaying a long list of websites.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 18, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> *WRONG.*
> 
> Frankly, I got tired of listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio say, "Look for yourself. If you look hard enough, you'll see it!"
> 
> ...


 And you found this "facts" on what bogus website recommended by Air America? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Those folks operate on the principle "If you say a lie enough times, it must be true".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It confirmed that the allegations were possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That's funny, because your claim is that thousands of Republicans, with careers and families and freedom and much more to lose engaged in a vast conspiracy to "steal" the election, all of which is far more serious than simply charging them with perjury.  

Yet, you think it's "implausable" that "thousands" of nut jobs (The idea that it was "thousands" appearing before congress is an asinine assertion anyway.....signing a petition is not "appearing") and fruit cakes (with nothing else to do) crawled out of the sewer spouting conspiracy theories for the purposes of rigging an election themselves? pffft.

As for your "numbers"themselves, they are cooked numbers, not facts, but rather the fevered imaginings of self-described "experts" off their medication.  The work of cheap magicians who feel they've accomplished credibility by sheer volume of crap.

I'll direct everyone's attention to another kook conspiracy theory sweeping the internet...That is the theory that 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives, not by the planes.  These sites quote VAST data by (self-proclaimed) scientists and experts "proving" this allegation.  It just goes to show what someone can invent given free time and computer access...they can make any asinine claim "look" real (that is if someone is stupid enough to buy the premise).  What's more, "legitimate" sources researching the topic can't avoid being influenced by the sheer volume of "evidence" on the internet that was simply invented.  

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=89

You'll note the "mountain" of "scientific" evidence presented to prove THIS kook theory.  They even quote "anonymous" government agents and former government agents....lol

Again, some folks spend so much time on the internet, that they start to think all of it's real.  They believe because they find a volume of websites quoting alleged "facts" to support their position, that they aren't simply made up or distortions of reality.  They never question why ALL those websites refer to back to a small set of "sources".  What's furthermore, they never question the obviously biased and radical nature of some of the site operator's, who sit in their basement, and crank out one (left and right wing) conspiracy theory after another.  Then, they use EACH OTHER's conspiracy fanatasy as MORE evidence of their own nutty theories.  I love the internet, it's so much more interesting than reality.  That's why folks have to be cautious with the internet....it is very difficult to varify or debunk even the most ludicrous assertions. 

The bottom line is, however, that the left in this country doesn't care if the elections were rigged or not...they will SAY they were rigged as long as they keep losing.  Reality doesn't matter, it's all perception.  Convince people they are being disinfranchised, whether it's true or not.  It's never been about the truth with the left.  It's always been about arousing passion.

"There is no objective truth, but that which serves the party".
"A lie told often enough, becomes the truth"
"We need the real, nation wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory"
"The way to crush the bourgeoise is to grind them between the millstone of taxation and inflation"
"There are no morals in politics; there is only experience.  A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel"
"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but a collective organizer of the masses"
                                                                                                                                                 Vladimir Lenin


And just for good measure...

"The collapse of the global marketplace would be a traumatic event with unimaginable consequences. Yet I find it easier to imagine than the continuation of the present regime." 
George Soros, (financial speculator and profiteer) on Capitalism


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2005)

The GAO report shows that a very small amount of people could have influenced a national election with the system that we have in place.  Not, thousands, a handful.  Also, *Phoenix44* has the right idea.  You can get the numbers yourself and do the math.  It's all part of the public record.  Again, compare this GAO report with the congressional challenge and you'll see that they dovetail...it merits further investigation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The GAO report shows that a very small amount of people could have influenced a national election with the system that we have in place. Not, thousands, a handful. Also, *Phoenix44* has the right idea. You can get the numbers yourself and do the math. It's all part of the public record. Again, compare this GAO report with the congressional challenge and you'll see that they dovetail...it merits further investigation.


 Where are you getting those "numbers" from again?

Also, why does it seem that, everywhere a democrat doesn't win, the election is "rigged"?  I knew kids like that in school, too.  I once knew a kid who swore that a video game was rigged and out to get him if he lost at it.  Sometimes, folks, a loss is a loss.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Sometimes, folks, a loss is a loss.


 
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

I would agree, but these things happened...and these things change everything about what I think.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 19, 2005)

No offense, sgtmac, but I don't have to do your homework for you.  No, I did not go to a website recommended by Air America Radio, and Air America Radio didn't recommend any website.  As upnorthkyosa pointed out, this information is public record.  You can get demographics from the US Dept of Labor or the US Census.   You can get party registration information from the state or local boards of election, or from the party.  You can get electoral results from the same places, or from CNN or AP Newswire or Google or from your local newspaper.  For all I care, you can get the election results from Fox News.  Unless you're saying that there's such a conspiracy, that every single website, newpaper, library, government, and media outlet, including Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, is the product of liberal bias.

The raw data is there for anyone who wants to look at it, but it takes more time and thought than simply hurling epithets.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2005)

Looks like Diebold is attempting to evade election transparency laws...

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20051117_Diebold_v_NC_Motion.pdf


----------



## JAMJTX (Nov 19, 2005)

"I can't believe that with today's technology, it's still possible to rig an election"

The technology makes it easier to rig an election.  
it is hard to rig a national election at the voting booth.  You need a lof of cooperation in multiple states to make sure you win electoral votes.

Most of the election fraud is done at local levels and is usually done through absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are easy to manipulate, and it's real simple to "find a misplaced box of ballots" during the recount.  This one happens all the time.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's funny, because your claim is that thousands of Republicans, with careers and families and freedom and much more to lose engaged in a vast conspiracy to "steal" the election, all of which is far more serious than simply charging them with perjury.
> 
> Yet, you think it's "implausable" that "thousands" of nut jobs (The idea that it was "thousands" appearing before congress is an asinine assertion anyway.....signing a petition is not "appearing") and fruit cakes (with nothing else to do) crawled out of the sewer spouting conspiracy theories for the purposes of rigging an election themselves? pffft.


 
I haven't seen the GAO report, and consider any discussion of the 2004 elections a moot issue at this point, so I won't comment either way on that. I just want to ask why on one side you refer to careers and families and freedom, while the other side you refer to as nut jobs and fruit cakes crawling out of sewers. You assume anyone alleging fraud is a gutter-crawling fruitcake, while anyone who supported Bush was a values-laden family man. Or woman. Please attempt respect and not to rely entirely on polemic. Thank you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the GAO report, and consider any discussion of the 2004 elections a moot issue at this point, so I won't comment either way on that.


 
Why?  If it happened in 2004, why couldn't the same happen in 2008?  If you look at the court briefing I posted, it would seem as if Diebold is still trying to evade electrion transparency laws...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No offense, sgtmac, but I don't have to do your homework for you. No, I did not go to a website recommended by Air America Radio, and Air America Radio didn't recommend any website. As upnorthkyosa pointed out, this information is public record. You can get demographics from the US Dept of Labor or the US Census. You can get party registration information from the state or local boards of election, or from the party. You can get electoral results from the same places, or from CNN or AP Newswire or Google or from your local newspaper. For all I care, you can get the election results from Fox News. Unless you're saying that there's such a conspiracy, that every single website, newpaper, library, government, and media outlet, including Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, is the product of liberal bias.
> The raw data is there for anyone who wants to look at it, but it takes more time and thought than simply hurling epithets.


 Oh, so the Census bureau and bureau of Labor has the numbers that prove the election was rigged?  Why didn't you SAY so? 

It's the ole' "I could prove it, but that's not MY job, 'look it up'" argument.  Works every time.  It's based on the dubious assumption that 1) You're right and 2) Evidence exists, but you have no interest, intention (or ability) to provide and 3) It's there for the finding, if only someone will only look.   

Sounds like you're pulling that one out of the air.  What's furthermore, I find it humorous the assertion that Census statistics + Election results = EVIDENCE OF A RIGGED ELECTION....Unless, of course, someone forgot to take their Seroquel that day.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why? If it happened in 2004, why couldn't the same happen in 2008? If you look at the court briefing I posted, it would seem as if Diebold is still trying to evade electrion transparency laws...


 We'll just go to back to "Hanging Chads" so you can complain that THAT is rigged too...I've got a prediction...You'll claim any election that doesn't go your way...is rigged.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the GAO report, and consider any discussion of the 2004 elections a moot issue at this point, so I won't comment either way on that. I just want to ask why on one side you refer to careers and families and freedom, while the other side you refer to as nut jobs and fruit cakes crawling out of sewers. You assume anyone alleging fraud is a gutter-crawling fruitcake, while anyone who supported Bush was a values-laden family man. Or woman. Please attempt respect and not to rely entirely on polemic. Thank you.


 I'm glad you asked.  The first group of people, those that work at election sites, are people who DO have families and careers, and volunteer to do a civic service (i.e. aid in elections, election monitoring, setting up voting booths).  They're, for the most part, honest folks, doing this because they feel it is an important role in a democracy.

The second group, on the other hand, are people who believe that the illuminati are taking over the world with the help of the anti-christ (George Bush) and his minion.  They are also the same people ALWAYS claiming the system is rigged anytime they don't get their way, and they were predicting, BEFORE the election, that the only way they WOULDN'T WIN is if the election was rigged (and preparing to contest any election they disagreed with).  

Now, I guess you might be willing to give each of those groups EQUAL credibility, but i've been around both enough to know that, just because the second group CLAIMS something, certainly doesn't mean it's true.

I'll end with a question...If a guy walked up to you on the street, and told you that he has PROOF that aliens are running the government.  He says "all you have to do is 'look it up', man" and he even quoted some (vague, generalized) 'facts and statistics' that allegedly supported this, are you going to believe him without any evidence whatsoever, just because he said it?  I'm certainly not.  

By built in BS detector is pretty sensitive (much to many people's annoyance, i'm sure). On who's side does the burden of proof rest.  I believe the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and they have far from met that burden.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2005)

Tell me what YOU think of the GAO report...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Tell me what YOU think of the GAO report...


 The purpose and goal of the report was to determine if current voting practices need to be improved to avoid, not only the possibility of voter fraud, but even the appearance and allegation of voter fraud.  The GAO does what it's designed to do, examine a system and determine what could go wrong with it and determine how to improve it so it is more efficient and less susceptable to fraud and error.   

It is a mistake of logic to believe that because the GAO outlines scenarios where a thing "Could happen" in the future, that it is evidence that it HAS happened.  That's a logical fallacy in the same sense as assuming that because the GAO examined another government departments SOP and determined that it needs to be improved to prevent possible fraud that THAT report is evidence that fraud must have occurred.  The GAO audits government entities and looks for problems, both real and theoretical. 

Voter fraud is always a possibility.  But just because fraud is possible in every election, does not MEAN that a large scale fraud OCCURRED that resulted in you losing the election.  Don't believe me about the vague nature of the allegations.  Here's what the GAO said:

"In conclusion, lack of specifics about allegations and actions limits
DOJ's ability to have accurate and clear information to share with the
public or Congress about the types of allegations received and actions
taken."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...e=d041041r.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

What's more, in reference to your "thousands" of people complaining about irregularities, it's no surprise in view of the special interest group money (i.e. MoveOn.org, as just one example, and a cast of many others) who fish around for ANYONE who is willing to claim, not matter how dubious the claim, that some sort of fraud or disinfranchisment happened.  They will take anyone, and I mean ANYONE's claim seriously and use them as "evidence" that it occurred.  They will then use the sure number of allegations that they were able to generate as evidence of it's veracity (And allow them to avoid having to bring specific allegations and incidents which would, in turn, be easy to refute as the bogus charges they are).  That's why all these allegations remain so "Vague".  

Not, as in "Republican Agent <insert name here> committed voter fraud by doing <blank>"  But, "Wide spread (vague) allegations of voter fraud abound (despite not one single verifiable incidence)"  BS is still BS, I don't care how big the pile gets.

In short, what the GOA found was, instead of a large scale concerted effort to "defraud the American people" was a lot of small scale localized problems that were not caused by an particular political offiliation, but rather, the typical logalized budget and bureaucracy problems.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In short, what the GOA found was, instead of a large scale concerted effort to "defraud the American people" was a lot of small scale localized problems that were not caused by an particular political offiliation, but rather, the typical logalized budget and bureaucracy problems.


 
Ok.  Then why did every single reported e-vote machine error in every state across the nation favor our current president Bush?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ok. Then why did every single reported e-vote machine error in every state across the nation favor our current president Bush?


 Lets discuss them in detail.  Name one and only one e-vote made, where it was made and what makes you think it was "fraudulent".  Just one, not "Every single one" lets examine them one at a time.  The truth is in the details, not vague, broad generalizations.  


As an example of this, I have a friend who is a detective...When he goes in to an interrogation, he brings a HUGE thick folder full of, what appears to be, photographs, statements, finger prints.  He puts the name of the person he is interrogating on the cover, along with the case name.  This HUGE pile of "evidence" appears to be massive.  If you looked at it closely, you'd see it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the case at all.  It's a prop.  But to the suspect, it looks as if the evidence is overwhelmingly damning.  It's the "illusion" of evidence, by shear volume of material.  

Now, knowing that trick, I don't fall for the "mountain of evidence" gag.  I demand proof, in detail.  Nobody fools me by pointing to a "mountain of evidence" and expecting me to take their word that "it's ALL in there".


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

Name a single vote?  40% of the machines leave absolutely no paper trail.  How would one "check" anything about those votes?  A single vote among millions?  I don't see how that could be a more powerful tool then the statistics.  

Anyway, the information you want to discuss in located in the Congressional report.  Specific individuals who saw there vote change from Kerry to Bush on an e-voting machine testified under oath about it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Name a single vote? 40% of the machines leave absolutely no paper trail. How would one "check" anything about those votes? A single vote among millions? I don't see how that could be a more powerful tool then the statistics.
> 
> Anyway, the information you want to discuss in located in the Congressional report. Specific individuals who saw there vote change from Kerry to Bush on an e-voting machine testified under oath about it.


 But your "statistics" don't show anything. They certainly don't show that anyone attempted to defraud the election.  It is not evidence of anything, and it's been distorted and manipulated.  It's all insinuation, hyperbole and innuendo.  

In the end, you don't have one single shred of direct evidence of ANYTHING. Not ONE shred of evidence to support your claim, other than nebulous and unvarifiable anecdotal stories by biased sources?  You've claimed that person(s) have engaged in a concerted effort to defraud and disinfanchise and ENTIRE country, and yet you don't have one single shred of evidence to support even ONE single incident where this took place, other than "The numbers just don't make sense to me"....Interesting.  

Allegations that are vague, over-generalized, and unsupportable....are usually bogus.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> But your "statistics" don't show anything. It's all insinuation and innuendo. So you're admitting you don't have ONE shred of evidence to support your claim, other than nebulous and unvarifiable anecdotal stories by biased sources?


 
I don't admit that at all and I pointed you in the direction of some verifiable data.  The sampling of things that ended up in the congressional report are only the tip of the iceberg.  You know what, we've been around this tree before.

Think about this...imagine, for one moment, that you are wrong.  Think for a moment, what if these people actually experienced what they are claiming to have experienced?  Think about what the GAO report does for those allegations?  What if you are wrong?  If I'm wrong, its no big deal, but if you are...

It needs to be investigated further.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't admit that at all and I pointed you in the direction of some verifiable data. The sampling of things that ended up in the congressional report are only the tip of the iceberg. You know what, we've been around this tree before.
> 
> Think about this...imagine, for one moment, that you are wrong. Think for a moment, what if these people actually experienced what they are claiming to have experienced? Think about what the GAO report does for those allegations? What if you are wrong? If I'm wrong, its no big deal, but if you are...
> 
> It needs to be investigated further.


 No, what you DID was make a vague allegation and then refuse to provide even ONE shred of evidence that this happened ANYWHERE.  

Now, your argument is "Well, if it were true...."  Is that supposed to be a supporting argument.   Imagine that argument in court "Well, if he WAS guilty, then all this fabricated evidence would support it."

And, by the way, the idea that if i'm wrong, it's a big deal, but if you're wrong it's not, is silly.  If you're wrong, you've spent all this time trying to overturn a legitimate election with bogus allegations.  How is that different than defrauding one to begin with?  The righteousness of your politics?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If you're wrong, you've spent all this time trying to overturn a legitimate election with bogus allegations. How is that different than defrauding one to begin with? The righteousness of your politics?


 
How is anything that I say on this internet forum going to make any difference in the real world?  This is just a discussion...and not even a serious one in the sense that if will have any affect on reality.  

However, if you are wrong, that will have FAR more meaning then my little rantings...

Again, the evidence you seek is in the congressional report.  One of the problems here is that I have done a lot of work and so far, you've done zilch to my knowledge.  I've read the congressional report.  I've read the GAO report.  I've read ANOVA statistical analysis done by caltech, havard and MIT that analyze the data from this election.  

Here is an example of the type of question that I'm prepared to ask and answer, but of which you have no idea..."please tell me why you reject the results of the independent ANOVA analysis done by Caltech, Harvard, and MIT?"

These studies were cited in in the report and in several court cases.  You could read these and attempt to find out where I'm coming from if you are actually curious and sincere about paticipating in this discussion.  

Thus far your wit has been amusing, but we aren't going anywhere and we won't go anywhere until you take a step.

The bottom line, just to set the record straight, is that I suspect that the election results were tampered with.  I do not know for sure.  There is plenty of evidence that shows that the results we obtained are impossible coincidences.  We need more information, we need to investigate.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How is anything that I say on this internet forum going to make any difference in the real world? This is just a discussion...and not even a serious one in the sense that if will have any affect on reality.
> 
> However, if you are wrong, that will have FAR more meaning then my little rantings...
> 
> ...


 
And what were the results of those court cases?  Was anyone indicted (Election tampering is a crime) or did the courts ask the same hard questions as I am, and come to the same conclusions...There is no evidence to support the claim?  If all those "MIT, Caltech and Harvard" statistical studies are so persuasive and unbiased, why have they not stood up to the standards of evidence necessary in court?  Why are they only given serious merit in the kooky realm of internet conspiracy talk and the minds of those who "suspect" that (since they didn't win) they "was robbed"?  

Again, you "suspect" but you have not provided one shred of evidence.  Am I merely to assume that your suspicions are a reliable source, and simply put faith in them?

Again, as per your request that we need "investigations", what has the left been doing for the last (nearly) two years?  They've spent MILLIONS 'investigating'...and haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that stands up to the test of reason.  With the sheer number of bloggers and interest groups investing time, money and man power, you'd assume that we would have something by now.  Are we to assume that massive voter fraud resulted in a coup on the highest levels of government, but the left can't find ONE shred of evidence to PROVE it?  

Surely you give too much credit to Bush and Co.  They can't even out a CIA agent without getting caught.  They've got to be the worst liars in the history of the Republic, and yet, you claim that they pulled off a massive COUP?! I find the whole idea absurd.  

It's easy to make unsubstantiated allegations, anyone can do it.  It's hard to answer the tough questions and support those allegations, in detail.  In the details is the truth.  Vague, broad, nebulous claims NEVER stand up to the light of close examination...That's why they prefer to remain vague, broad and nebulous.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thus far your wit has been amusing, but we aren't going anywhere and we won't go anywhere until you take a step.



So you are the bearer of "truth" and we all just fail to see the light? This statement seems pretty pompous to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

Have either one of you read the congressional report or the GAO report?  I thought not.  Perhaps that will answer some of your questions as to the evidence.  If this wasn't serious, it wouldn't have made it into congress and it wouldn't have drawn the attention of the GAO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So you are the bearer of "truth" and we all just fail to see the light? This statement seems pretty pompous to me.


 
That's not what I'm saying.  You have to take this statement in context with the rest.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2005)

Guys, take a step back for a moment and do some calming breathing k?

I think UpNorth is pointing at documents that will back up what he's saying about there having been something verified as fishy in the last presidential election.
I think SgtMac is saying that a large scale compromise is unikely, and that there is evidence to support his position.

Am I right so far?

I think you've both made some excellent points, and to a certain extent are both right.

Now, UpN is pointing towards various documents that he indicates validate his point. Are there documents at the same level that would refute them?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And what were the results of those court cases? Was anyone indicted (Election tampering is a crime) or did the courts ask the same hard questions as I am, and come to the same conclusions...There is no evidence to support the claim?


 
No.  Overall, the cases were about counting votes and interpreting the laws.  There has yet to be an actual criminal case and multiple FIOAs have been filed.  However, certain Republican officials, Ohio Secratary of State Blackwell for one, have been very efficient at stonewalling, and "losing" pertinant peices of information.  Blackwell may very well find himself up for obstruction of justice charges soon.



> If all those "MIT, Caltech and Harvard" statistical studies are so persuasive and unbiased, why have they not stood up to the standards of evidence necessary in court? Why are they only given serious merit in the kooky realm of internet conspiracy talk and the minds of those who "suspect" that (since they didn't win) they "was robbed"?


 
They are cited in the congressional report and in two cases to the Ohio Supreme Court.  These numbers have also been cited by the GAO.  These studies do not point the finger at a particular person.  However, they do illustrate the improbability of certain events.  They strongly suggest that the only explanation for the anomolous findings is election rigging.



> Again, you "suspect" but you have not provided one shred of evidence. Am I merely to assume that your suspicions are a reliable source, and simply put faith in them?


 
No.  However, you could attempt to read some of the posted material and double check things cited in it for yourself.



> Again, as per your request that we need "investigations", what has the left been doing for the last (nearly) two years?


 
Working.



> They've spent MILLIONS 'investigating'


 
Oh really, and you know this because...



> ...and haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that stands up to the test of reason.


 
Except for the stuff that led to the congressional report, the GAO report, and that led to the endorsement of major DNC leaders including Harry Ried.



> Are we to assume that massive voter fraud resulted in a coup on the highest levels of government, but the left can't find ONE shred of evidence to PROVE it?


 
It will take serious action by the Justice Dept and the Attorney General of the United States before anyone is actually accused of a crime in this case.  Serious action.  Until then, we are left dovetailing these two government reports and waiting for stonewalling officials to fill our FIOAs.  This won't happen until the dems take back one of the houses and force it to happen.



> Surely you give too much credit to Bush and Co. They can't even out a CIA agent without getting caught. They've got to be the worst liars in the history of the Republic, and yet, you claim that they pulled off a massive COUP?! I find the whole idea absurd.


 
As absurd as it sounds, it just might be true and if you look at both of these reports and study the numbers there is a good chance that it is true.  What will you do then?



> It's easy to make unsubstantiated allegations, anyone can do it. It's hard to answer the tough questions and support those allegations, in detail. In the details is the truth. Vague, broad, nebulous claims NEVER stand up to the light of close examination...That's why they prefer to remain vague, broad and nebulous.


 
There is nothing vague, broad or nebulous about people witnessing the vote they just tallied for Kerry on an e-voting maching, suddenly switch to Bush.  

So, does anyone want to attempt to explain why every county in the country that had e-voting had anomolous vote totals that differed wildly from the exit polls, demographics, and party registration totals?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Have either one of you read the congressional report or the GAO report? I thought not. Perhaps that will answer some of your questions as to the evidence. If this wasn't serious, it wouldn't have made it into congress and it wouldn't have drawn the attention of the GAO.


 HAHA.  Wouldn't have made it congress if it wasn't serious?  Those clowns use the congressional floor all the time to make any inane point they want.  Democrats in the Congress asked the GAO to "investigate".  They didn't have any evidence, they just wanted to see if the GAO could find anything.  Now, you're pointing at the fact that the GAO investigated in the first place as evidence that this conspiracy happened?  The Democrats are fishing, and now their using the fact that their are fishing as evidence that it's all true?  That's some distorted logic.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No. Overall, the cases were about counting votes and interpreting the laws. There has yet to be an actual criminal case and multiple FIOAs have been filed. However, certain Republican officials, Ohio Secratary of State Blackwell for one, have been very efficient at stonewalling, and "losing" pertinant peices of information. Blackwell may very well find himself up for obstruction of justice charges soon.


 
Counting votes and interpreting the law?  I thought you stated there was a vast illegal conspiracy to rig the election?  Now we've whittled down the charges to local disagreements on vote counting and legal intepretations?  lol.  Actually, there are a couple criminal cases.  A representative of the NAACP was charged with trading crack cocaine for voter registration.  So, if you want to use that as evidence that a wide-spread effort to defraud the American voter was conducted, go ahead. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> They are cited in the congressional report and in two cases to the Ohio Supreme Court. These numbers have also been cited by the GAO. These studies do not point the finger at a particular person. However, they do illustrate the improbability of certain events. They strongly suggest that the only explanation for the anomolous findings is election rigging.


 Name one of those events?  You keep using the nebulous "certain events".  Specifics, please.  Conspiracy theorists ALWAYS point to "improbability of certain events".  Are we to assume that you are using the "magic bullet" argument? lol.  By the way, how did those court cases turn out again?  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No. However, you could attempt to read some of the posted material and double check things cited in it for yourself.


 Actually, north, the fact that I posted a direct link to GAO research findings WOULD suggest i've read the material.  I prefer direct evidence (GAO articles themselves) to biased and misleading "interepretations" of souces such as several you provided.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It will take serious action by the Justice Dept and the Attorney General of the United States before anyone is actually accused of a crime in this case. Serious action. Until then, we are left dovetailing these two government reports and waiting for stonewalling officials to fill our FIOAs. This won't happen until the dems take back one of the houses and force it to happen.


  Really.  The Democrats had ZERO problem calling a special prosecutor for the outing of a CIA agent (An act that has still, by itself, not been determined to have been a crime), along with indictments for perjury.  Yet, you don't have enough evidence to get a special prosecutor on a VAST conspiracy to attack the democratic process in America?  They've also had no problem investigating campaign finance irregularities that no one is sure are illegal either.  Yet they can't investigate an obvious attempt to take over the government?  Curiouser and curiouser.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As absurd as it sounds, it just might be true and if you look at both of these reports and study the numbers there is a good chance that it is true. What will you do then?


  Might be true?  Now that's a real argument.  It also might be true that the left is trying to overthrow the government through bogus charges.  Also, the secret martian government might be pulling all the strings.  The best you have is "Well, it might be true"?  Study the numbers?  The most accurate thing in this paragraph was "As absurd as it sounds".  It sounds absurd because it is absurd. If you hand-pick only the statistics that seem to support your position, and take them out of context, you can pretty much make them say what you want.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is nothing vague, broad or nebulous about people witnessing the vote they just tallied for Kerry on an e-voting maching, suddenly switch to Bush.


 And you know this happened how?  Because they said so?  Is it possible they are lying?  Is it possible they feel their political cause is so righteous, that they are embellishing a bit?  Could they simply be thinking "I know Bush really did cheat, so i'm not really lying"?  Has that thought ever occurred to you?  That's the problem with "anecdotal evidence"....It's often flawed and distorted, especially on an extremely hot and divisive issue.  What's more, it's never hard to find disgruntled citizens willing to "embellish" for the cause.  

I've had criminal cases where family members and friends showed up to testify about what the suspect did or didn't do that weren't even PRESENT at the time of the incident (we call that 'perjury', but they think it's for a good cause). 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, does anyone want to attempt to explain why every county in the country that had e-voting had anomolous vote totals that differed wildly from the exit polls, demographics, and party registration totals?


 Really, and your evidence that this occurred, other than "anecdotal evidence" proposed on your biased websites?  Just saying it, doesn't make it so.  In 2000 it was hanging chads that were "anomolous"...Now it's the e-voting machines that are the problem?  

Isn't the real problem that you lost? Go on, admit it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2005)

But issues and problems with the electronic systems have in fact been found. Found, argued over, and new rules and laws implimented to safeguard and error check things. This while companies building these systems continue to ignore documented problems.

===== 		 * 					Diebold Insider Comments on Voting System Flaw*

*Posted by 	ScuttleMonkey 	on Mon Sep 19, '05 03:01 PM*
*from the how-many-chances-will-they-get dept.*    
Call Me Black Cloud writes _"A Diebold insider is blowing the whistle on the company's continued lack of concern about security holes in its voting software. The insider wrote to Brad Friedman, a somewhat shrill political blogger, claiming the company is instructing technicians to keep quiet about the security flaws. This is despite the vulnerability being listed on the US-CERT website for the last year. A Diebold company rep admits the software can be remotely accessed via modem, but states, "it's up to a jurisdiction whether they wish to use it or not...I don't know of any jurisdiction that does that." The insider disputes that, claiming several counties in Maryland made use of the feature in 2004."_ This in addition to the fact that Blackboxvoting already hacked the system using a chimp last year. 		

 ==========
* 					WI Bill Would Require E-Voting Paper Trail, Source*

*Posted by 	timothy 	on Mon Aug 01, '05 02:27 PM*
*from the small-step-for-cheeseheads dept.*http://yro.slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=126   
AdamBLang writes _"Three Wisconsin legislators announced today that they began circulating a memo for cosponsors to a bill that would require electronic voting machines to produce a paper ballot. Additionally, the new bill includes a provision that the source code must be publicly accessible. After the November 2004 elections, there were numerous reports of problems with the new paperless touch voting screens. Problems include machines subtracting or adding votes, freezing up, shutting down and skipping past races."

========
_ 

* 					NYT Says Paperless Voting A Serious Problem*

*Posted by 	Zonk 	on Fri Jun 10, '05 03:53 PM*
*from the no-see-ums dept.*   
joshdick writes _"In an editorial today, the NYTimes comes out strongly in favor of a paper trail for all elections, supporting a recent lobbying effort by Common Cause and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to pass H.R. 550. 'Electronic voting has been rolled out nationwide without necessary safeguards. The machines' computers can be programmed to steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. There are also many ways hackers can break in to tamper with the count. Polls show that many Americans do not trust electronic voting in its current form; such doubts are a serious problem in a democracy.'"

========

_ * 					WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail*
* 			WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail 			 		*
*Posted by 	Zonk 	on Friday November 11, @11:41PM*
*from the best-city-in-the-world dept.* 
AdamBLang writes _"Madison Wisconsin's Capitol Times reports 'With only four dissenting votes, the state Assembly easily passed a bill that would require that electronic voting machines create a paper record. The goal of the legislation is to make sure that Wisconsin's soon-to-be-purchased touch screen machines create a paper ballot that can be audited to verify election results.' Slashdot has previously reported on this bill."_ More from the article: _"Wisconsin cannot go down the path of states like Florida and Ohio in having elections that the public simply doesn't trust ... By requiring a paper record on every electronic voting machine, we will ensure that not only does your vote matter in Wisconsin, but it also counts."_


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> But issues and problems with the electronic systems have in fact been found. Found, argued over, and new rules and laws implimented to safeguard and error check things. This while companies building these systems continue to ignore documented problems.


 Implementing new laws to cover problems in new technologies (are there ever any new technologies without flaws) is FAR different than claiming a "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY".  It's apples and bowling balls.  You guys keep trying to prove that "it's theoretically possible to do it", that's a far cry from "It happened".  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> =====          *                    Diebold Insider Comments on Voting System Flaw*
> 
> *Posted by     ScuttleMonkey     on Mon Sep 19, '05 03:01 PM*
> *from the how-many-chances-will-they-get dept.*
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nothing, guys, not one single thing.


 
This is incorrect.  I've pointed to thousands of people's testimony, however, you think they all simultaneously purjured themselves...and that what they claim is false.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 21, 2005)

I like an interesting discussion involving opinion and fact as much as the next guy, but I've found that there is a certain type of person for whom fact and science has absolutely no meaning, because they're not interested in fact or science.

Look at President Bush.  No matter how bad the war is going, no matter how many Americans die, no matter how deep into chaos Iraq falls, no matter how many Americans at home protest, and no matter how much the rest of the world disgrees with him, as far as he's concerned, everything is going great.  Freedom is on the march.  And he freely admits he doesn't even read the paper.  So he must be REALLY shocked when he travels around the world and finds protesters everywhere.

Additionally, there is a certain type of Bush supporter for whom fact has no meaning either.  Every statistic is "manipulated," every report is "fraud," every media article is "liberal bias."  They never address fact or science...they simply attack the messenger.  In fact, they'd really rather cover their ears and yell "Blablablablabla...I'M NOT LISTENING!!!"

Fortunately, they only represent about 37% of the American public.  (And falling...)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

We all have our biases and suspicions.  My particular suspicion is that a small group of right wing activists rigged the 2004 election.  I don't think this suspicion is unfounded.  I've read a lot of things that have a high degree of veracity that point me in this direction.

sgtmac46 and other are suspicious of the motives of people who testified under oath when they put forward their allegations.  He has gone so far to say that they are "probably" lying.  I'm not sure why he thinks this.  The thing is that when a person makes a statement under oath, unless some specific information comes out that indicates that this person has lied (ie committed a crime purjury) its assumed that the statement is true.  

So I guess we both may be a little guilty of letting our assumptions cloud our judgment...

It's not always easy to cast these suspicions aside, but for the sake of discussion, at least, I think it is neccessary.  I can accept the fact that I may be wrong.  Heck, I've lived with results for three years.  If I'm wrong, life continues and I find something else to complain about...

Similarly, can you accept the fact that these people just may be telling the truth about what they experienced, what they saw.  Even if we just take it as a thought experiment and assume that the allegations are true...for a little while.  If you put those allegations up against the report given by the GAO, it raises some very disturbing questions.

For one, did somebody take advantage of the very loopholes that the GAO identified?  This is the question that I feel needs to be investigated.  It's like finding an open door and then discovering that your wallet is missing.  It could just be misplaced, or someone very well could have stolen it.  

A poll was taken after shortly after the January 5th 2005 report was released to congress.  The poll stated that 1 in 5 americans believe that the election of 2004 was rigged.  That is a lot of people, myself included, that have very disturbed by the events of 2004.  A lot of people who are questioning the democratic values in which our country stands.  An investigation could go a long way in settling this matter.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2005)

There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. Just enough people acting independantly to cause a problem. 

We have verified problems with the election (machine malfunctions, miscommunications, disinformation, etc) ccombined with various inquiries and studies, as well as Diebold bragging they will be proud to ddeliver the vote to Bush, to cause a concern.

Was it rigged? Who knows.
But, we should all care.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

I like Thomas Sowell too, *sgtmac_46*, but could you turn down the volume on that .sig?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. Just enough people acting independantly to cause a problem.


 
Yup. It's amazing what can emerge from these individual actions, even if they aren't coordinated.

I agree that we should all care. However, the technology is in a state of flux right now. Surely it won't be long before we're voting by the Internet from our own homes (with all the problems _that_ will bring)?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. Just enough people acting independantly to cause a problem.
> 
> We have verified problems with the election (machine malfunctions, miscommunications, disinformation, etc) ccombined with various inquiries and studies, as well as Diebold bragging they will be proud to ddeliver the vote to Bush, to cause a concern.
> 
> ...


 
He is the thing... there is always going to be some kind of cause for people being disgruntled. There will be butterfly ballots, "rigged" machines, hacked data, ignorant people... there will always be one side that will cry, demand recounts, claim it was stolen, ect...

Get machines that are as secure as possible. Have both sides check them. Make it as secure is humanly and technologically possible. Thats the best we can do. Errors are going to happen, and its going to be on both sides. I'd be just as happy to remove dead people from the polls and effectively stop double voting.

what I -don't- want to see going on is another debaucle like the Bush-Gore election, with years of court cases and people up on stands, crying that they -think- their vote was counted wrong. At this point, its a moot point. Bush is in. He is not going to be removed. If you want to find problems and potential fixes, thats fine. Lets find potential problem areas. Fix them. Going forward, point to your -positions- rather than at the court systems in an attempt to win elections. Lets hope -both- sides have a good election system to back them up.

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> He is the thing... there is always going to be some kind of cause for people being disgruntled. There will be butterfly ballots, "rigged" machines, hacked data, ignorant people... there will always be one side that will cry, demand recounts, claim it was stolen, ect...


 
Absolutely. There will always be a way to suggest that things weren't fair.

We _do_ need to consider how to limit (not eliminate) challenges. The country must be able to move forward.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I like Thomas Sowell too, *sgtmac_46*, but could you turn down the volume on that .sig?


 A little LOUD for you there, arnisador?  Is that better?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

Ah, that's better! I see the "where/were" typo is fixed too. It's also a great point--the story of poorer-than-dirt Abraham Lincoln should be an inspiration to be people.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. Just enough people acting independantly to cause a problem.


Yes, we republicans have vastly improved our election stealing techniques since the bozo job at the Watergate Hotel.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 21, 2005)

The actual result of the election is moot...we have the president we have, and he's done what he's done.  What I find puzzling is that anyone would argue against an investigation in the face of widespread suspicion, and then to dispute any findings suggesting there was a problem.  That's NOT moot.  That's important because it speaks to the future, what is needed to fix problems, and to guard against future problems.  And if you WON the election, and there wasn't tampering, don't you want this issue put to bed once and for all?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2005)

Ah, you all took proper Ninja training huh?


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And if you WON the election, and there wasn't tampering, don't you want this issue put to bed once and for all?


They never will be put to bed.  More than one election has had it's problems, like the Nixon-Kennedy election.  If my candidate doesn't win, then I do my best to support the new president.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> They never will be put to bed. More than one election has had it's problems, like the Nixon-Kennedy election. If my candidate doesn't win, then I do my best to support the new president.


 
Have you taken a look at some of the allegations made?  Have you looked at the findings of the GAO report?  Doesn't that shake your faith in ANY future election?  Sure, there have been problems with elections in the past, but these problems are TOTALLY new and are (potentially) worse then anything our country has dealt with before.  The potential for fraud is limitless and that fraud does not have to be limited to being perpetrated by republicans.  At the very least, I think that we, as Americans, need to be very cognizant of the limitations of this new voting technology.  We need to investigate.  If people broke the law, they need to be held accountable.  People should not be elected via fraudulent elections in America.  We can do better.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2005)

There are enough alegations that they need to be investigated, problems fixed, and violators punished. I'm still waiting to see what happens in 2008. I honestly don't care, Bush, Gore, Kerry, all to me are losing options, but, what other choices did we have? If only more people would run. It sucks only having to choices.  /sarcasm


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

Loosers always cry FOUL the loudest. There was no conspiracy. ANY election can be tampered with...and they probably all have been by ALL sides.

http://rantworld.blogs.com/rantworld/2004/11/a_brief_history.html



> In their 1996 book "Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics", Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson offer a detailed history of vote fraud in the U.S. Their conclusion is that vote fraud has been with us ever since we've had elections, and that it was experiencing a resurgence in the 1990's, when the book was written. Sabato is a well-respected political science professor fom the University of Virgina who has consulted for both Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> On the subject of voting fraud, Sabato and Simpson say:
> 
> ...



My only problem with voting machines is that they should generate some sort of hard copy report for record keeping.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

*If it's too bad to be true, it may not be voter fraud 
Most statistical enigmas in recent election have logical explanations, despite Web rants*


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> *If it's too bad to be true, it may not be voter fraud *
> *Most statistical enigmas in recent election have logical explanations, despite Web rants*


 
Voter fraud is a logical explanation.  Attempting to explain away discrepincies with "shy republican" theories are unfounded.  If the conservatives on MT are any measure, I would say they are anything but shy.  The discrepincies go deep.  How can every single voting machine error in one state add votes to Bush?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Loosers always cry FOUL the loudest.


 
Someday, if nothing is done about this, you may be the one crying FOUL.  Why couldn't the left take advantages of these very same loopholes in security?  



> There was no conspiracy.


 
I don't see how you can make that determination without some sort of investigation.  Your belief that there was no conspiracy is just as valid as mine UNTIL there is an official investigation.



> ANY election can be tampered with...and they probably all have been by ALL sides.


 
This is true, however you need read the GAO report and realize how easily and how secretly e-voting can be tampered with.  This new technology has brought us new problems and from the sheer amount of allegations that have been verified independently, it certainly looks as if someone took advantage of the loopholes in security.

http://rantworld.blogs.com/rantworld/2004/11/a_brief_history.html



> My only problem with voting machines is that they should generate some sort of hard copy report for record keeping.


 
I totally agree with this.  I have a question for you though...why would voting machines resist measures to enact transparency on all levels?  Nationwide, the two companies that build e-voting machines, Diebold and ES&E are doing everything they can to avoid ANY transparency at all.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

I did read the report..I believe that a similar report could be written about any ballot system. They all have their flaws. The manufacturers are probably more concerned with lawsuits and manufacturing expenses to redesign their products than any "master plan" conspiracy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I did read the report..I believe that a similar report could be written about any ballot system. They all have their flaws.


 
One person.  One person with a computer.  One person could easily hack into collection point and alter the records...and there would be very little to track.  The type of voter fraud that these machines allow is unprecidented.  All systems have their flaws, but NONE have EVER made it this easy to influence a national election with so few people.



> The manufacturers are probably more concerned with lawsuits and manufacturing expenses to redesign their products than any "master plan" conspiracy.


 
Probably?  You should take a look at what some of the people who run these companies have said and who they are connected to.  The story behind this software is pretty amazing.  Amazing in the sense that it looks like it was designed with these security holes in place.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Have you taken a look at some of the allegations made? Have you looked at the findings of the GAO report? Doesn't that shake your faith in ANY future election?...At the very least, I think that we, as Americans, need to be very cognizant of the limitations of this new voting technology. We need to investigate....We can do better.


You know, you're absolutely right!  I do need to do something!  I'm going to post something on a website--that'll have an impact!  What are you going to do?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> You know, you're absolutely right! I do need to do something! I'm going to post something on a website--that'll have an impact! What are you going to do?


 
I've written letters to my representatives.  I've given a few dollars to organizations that are investigating.  I've read as much as time allows.  However, I'm not posting here to advance any agenda, though.  I'm getting a read on what other people think...to see if this is just a waste of time.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2005)

Here is some background information that I think is important.



> 1.  80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
> 
> http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
> ...


----------



## Bester (Nov 21, 2005)

In all honesty, does it really matter? Would Gore or Kerry have truely been much different? The systems broke, been broke, and isn't repairable except by blood. A price that most Americans are no longer willing to pay. We live in a nation where our rulers vote themselves pay raises, at the same time that we are facing continued downsizing, pay cuts and continued rape by the American Oil Cartel, a group that backs both sides of this disgusting farse.

So what if it was rigged? It's not like the other side would have somehow done the impossible and made any sweeping changes in the system.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 22, 2005)

Yes, I think things would have been different if Gore or Kerry had been elected.  And if you think things would have been no different, you haven't been paying attention.

And yes, I believe our elections procedures should and can be different.  We need paper ballots.  I can go to my ATM and get a receipt.  I will not be convinced that a voting machine can't accomplish the same.  Members of the candidates' campaign organization should not be running the elections, period, and I don't care what party they come from.  And companies whose CEOs and trustees are major contributors to a campaign have a conflict of interest, and should not be granted vote counting contracts.


----------



## Ray (Nov 22, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Yes, I think things would have been different if Gore or Kerry had been elected. And if you think things would have been no different, you haven't been paying attention.


Kerry, I remember that name...He's that guy that wanted to raise taxes---I'm sure that people can pay extra tax if they so desire, so do Kerry, Gore and Clinton contribute extra money to the gov't?  They have spoken about how they are under taxed.  I'll bet they dont.  I'll bet they spend just as much as Republicans do to limit their personal tax liability.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And yes, I believe our elections procedures should and can be different. We need paper ballots.


Yes, so we can have hanging chads.  After the bush-gore election the news was filled with how bad and unfair paper ballots were.  Part of what I remember being said was:  Dems couldn't read or follow instructions to properly choose their candidates; ballots were put together deceptively so that people were being tricked into selecting the wrong candidate.

I remember that computerized ballots were going to solve all the problems.  But now, after the bush-kerry election computerized elections are just terribly unfair.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And companies whose CEOs and trustees are major contributors to a campaign have a conflict of interest, and should not be granted vote counting contracts.


Reconsider that.  If I owned a software company, felt strongly about my civic duty and contributed to the candidate of my choice then I shouldn't have the opportunity to bid on a gov't job?  That hardly seems fair.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2005)

Things would surely have been different under Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry. Iraq would be a problem for any presdeint, but that problem could have been handled in one of many ways. Even if we went in--we could have gone in for reasons other than alleged WMDs or inflated links to terrorism. Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people. I have no ethical problem with taking him out, though I doubt an invasion is worth the benefit of doing so. But let's be clear about what we're doing and why, I say.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I remember that computerized ballots were going to solve all the problems. But now, after the bush-kerry election computerized elections are just terribly unfair.


 
They certainly were touted as a cure-all by the major media, however, there were people who foresaw the difficulties, potential for abuse and actual abuse that (may) have presented itself.  I think the biggest thing we can do to deal with these difficulties is be open to all possabilities and reactive to change as it comes.  If wrong doing occured, then it needs to be dealt with.  If loopholes in security exist, then they need to be fixed.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 22, 2005)

> I remember that computerized ballots were going to solve all the problems. But now, after the bush-kerry election computerized elections are just terribly unfair.


 
So what's your point, Ray, that touch-screen voting without a paper receipt with unverifiable results are a good idea? You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree.

And correct, I don't think a company CEO who makes a major contribution to a particular campaign should be permitted to bid on the contract to count the votes for the election involving that campaign. If he wants to do his "civic duty," he can donate his money to the American Red Cross, or tutor deaf kids. Or, bid on a contract for a town election board in a town where he doesn't live. Or, he can go ahead and contribute to the campaign, and bid on a contract for snow removal instead of vote counting.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One person. One person with a computer. One person could easily hack into collection point and alter the records...and there would be very little to track. The type of voter fraud that these machines allow is unprecidented. All systems have their flaws, but NONE have EVER made it this easy to influence a national election with so few people.


 Which makes your argument all the sillier.  If Diebold was going to rig the election, they wouldn't use a system ANYONE could hack in to, they would use a system only THEY could hack in to... Come one man, use your brain.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Probably? You should take a look at what some of the people who run these companies have said and who they are connected to. The story behind this software is pretty amazing. Amazing in the sense that it looks like it was designed with these security holes in place.


 Like I said, why design a system to defraud the American people that ANYONE could hack in to.  They built it, it's not hard to build a backdoor only they can control.  

You should remember Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

You've still never answered the KEY question....Where's your proof that this occurred?  You're still playing the "It could have happened, so it MUST have happened" game.  Now you're shoring it up with "You should see these people, they're bad PEOPLE, so they MUST have done this."

As for needing an investigation, apparently a large number of people have BEEN conducting investigations....and not uncovered one single thread of evidence to support the assertion that this DID happen.  

It's starting to look like the Locheness Monster.  For the people that believe it's true, no amount of evidence will refute it, and the fact that it ISN'T seen, is considered evidence of it's existence.  :erg:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 22, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> So what's your point, Ray, that touch-screen voting without a paper receipt with unverifiable results are a good idea? You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree.


  I'll field this for Ray.  He most certainly didn't not call it a "good idea".

His point is, that NO system is beyond scrutiny and NO system is ever introduced working perfectly.  This is why you NEVER buy a new technology on the first production run.  So ANY election that is the first to use a new technology will one where the bugs are worked out.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And correct, I don't think a company CEO who makes a major contribution to a particular campaign should be permitted to bid on the contract to count the votes for the election involving that campaign. If he wants to do his "civic duty," he can donate his money to the American Red Cross, or tutor deaf kids. Or, bid on a contract for a town election board in a town where he doesn't live. Or, he can go ahead and contribute to the campaign, and bid on a contract for snow removal instead of vote counting.


 Keep in mind that lots of people we believe the word of are politically motivated.  The head of a company is a private citizen.  

It would seem unreasonable to think that a private citizen suddenly loses his right to support a political candidate simply by taking a government contract.  Or is this rule only for those who support candidates we dislike?

Keep also in mind that the much lauded CIA agent who was allegedly outted by the Bush administration was making large campaign contributions to the DNC from the CIA front company she was running when she was outted.  

Are we to assume that merely making campaign contributions to a given party is to be considered suspicious behavior and make them uncredible?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2005)

But, the truth is, is that any backdoor, is usable by anyone who knows about it's existance. I've dealt with enough systems to know that, often the hard way.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> They certainly were touted as a cure-all by the major media, however, there were people who foresaw the difficulties, potential for abuse and actual abuse that (may) have presented itself. I think the biggest thing we can do to deal with these difficulties is be open to all possabilities and reactive to change as it comes. If wrong doing occured, then it needs to be dealt with. If loopholes in security exist, then they need to be fixed.


 Well, I was one of those who predicted possible problems.  That having been said, you've FAR from met the burden of proof of a VAST conspiracy.  The best you've done is pointed out what I said several years ago when we started discussing electronic voting....Electronic equipment is flawed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If Diebold was going to rig the election, they wouldn't use a system ANYONE could hack in to, they would use a system only THEY could hack in to...


 
I think we may have a bingo!



> Like I said, why design a system to defraud the American people that ANYONE could hack in to. They built it, it's not hard to build a backdoor only they can control.


 
Think of it more like a secret entrance.  Speak "friend" and enter.



> You should remember Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


 
Here are the facts as we know them.

1.  Diebold made strong claims the machines were safe.
2.  Diebold sued anyone who wanted to open one up and check for themselves.
3.  The GAO got involved, legally seized a couple, and popped them open.
4.  The GAO's report shows that there are numerous loopholes in security that could compromise the integrity of the results.
5.  Diebold sues to avoid election transparency.

What is the simplest explanation for this?  (oh, I can't wait to see this spin!)



> You've still never answered the KEY question....Where's your proof that this occurred?


 
The allegations in the congressional report were double checked and verified.  The GAO report's conclusions have also been independently verified.  An official investigation must occur before we can move on.



> You're still playing the "It could have happened, so it MUST have happened" game. Now you're shoring it up with "You should see these people, *they're bad PEOPLE*, so they MUST have done this."


 
The "bad people" is your little insertion/invention.  When I said, "you should see what some of these people are saying," I meant, you should take a look at what the CEO of Diebold and the Secratary of State for Ohio have been saying.  They both have said directly that they would hand the election to President Bush.



> As for needing an investigation, apparently a large number of people have BEEN conducting investigations....and not uncovered one single thread of evidence to support the assertion that this DID happen.


 
This is absolutely FALSE!  NO "official" investigation has ever occured into HOW the alleged incidents occured.  The ONLY "official" investigations that occured were ones that verified that these incidents occured and the investigations done by the GAO.



> It's starting to look like the Locheness Monster. For the people that believe it's true, no amount of evidence will refute it, and the fact that it ISN'T seen, is considered evidence of it's existence. :erg:


 
You walk into your house through a door that's been forced open.  All of the stuff easily pawned is missing.  What happened?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, I was one of those who predicted possible problems. That having been said, you've FAR from met the burden of proof of a VAST conspiracy. The best you've done is pointed out what I said several years ago when we started discussing electronic voting....Electronic equipment is flawed.


 
Well, at least we agree on this.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2005)

> You walk into your house through a door that's been forced open. All of the stuff easily pawned is missing. What happened?



Um, Hillary was in town again and needed props?


----------



## Icewater (Nov 23, 2005)

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think we may have a bingo!


 No, I don't think we have a 'bingo', as you entirely missed the point.  If diebold wanted to rig the election, it wouldn't be a "backdoor" able to be entered by modem, it would be inherent in the system....something "just anybody" could access, and you wouldn't know about it.  The fact that there are flaws that people can hack, is certainly not evidence of anything....unless you're suggesting ALL computers are purposely programmed to be hacked.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Think of it more like a secret entrance. Speak "friend" and enter.


 Again, upnorth, you're confusing what you want to be true, with what is.  A fantasy is just that.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here are the facts as we know them.
> 
> 1. Diebold made strong claims the machines were safe.


 uhm...ok.  I think every maker of electronic equipment in HISTORY has sold their product with....strong claims the machines are safe....That's part of the sales gimmick, man.  What, you expect them to go "Yeah, uhm, we, uhm, think it's safe".  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Diebold sued anyone who wanted to open one up and check for themselves.


 They sued anyone who wanted to examine how they worked.  Any company with a prioprietary product will do the same thing.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. The GAO got involved, legally seized a couple, and popped them open.


 That's what they should have done.  So?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. The GAO's report shows that there are numerous loopholes in security that could compromise the integrity of the results.


  See, when we start examining the evidence in depth, your conspiracy theory ALWAYS falls apart.  The GAO concluded "numerous loopholes" in security "COULD compromise the integrity of the results", that's a far cry from DID.  What's further, name ONE piece of electronic equipment, such as an ATM, a database, anything, that deals with information that needs to be protected.....that COULDN'T be compromised.  You name one piece of equipment that's compromise free, and i'll conceed the whole point.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 5. Diebold sues to avoid election transparency.


 Diebold does what all companies do when they sue...They try to maintain their profit margin.  Again, far cry from "Vast right wing conspiracy".



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What is the simplest explanation for this? (oh, I can't wait to see this spin!)


  Oh, obviously the simplest explaination is that it's a HUGE vast right wing conspiracy against you, upnorth, and all freedom loving people of the world....."They've" done it to you again.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The allegations in the congressional report were double checked and verified. The GAO report's conclusions have also been independently verified. An official investigation must occur before we can move on.


  What were those conclusions again? lol......And what WAS the GAO report.....IF NOT AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION?!  

What exactly do you define as an 'investigation'?  The GAO found not one single piece of evidence suggesting that fraud OCCURRED.....They found problems with the technology that, in the future, could lead to fraud.  Again, my friend, sounds like you've failed the test of reason....AGAIN.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "bad people" is your little insertion/invention. When I said, "you should see what some of these people are saying," I meant, you should take a look at what the CEO of Diebold and the Secratary of State for Ohio have been saying. They both have said directly that they would hand the election to President Bush.


 Really?  They've been 'quoted' by who?  Secret broadcasts being received in someone bloggers fillings?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is absolutely FALSE! NO "official" investigation has ever occured into HOW the alleged incidents occured. The ONLY "official" investigations that occured were ones that verified that these incidents occured and the investigations done by the GAO.


  If not official investigation has occurred, what do you call the GAO investigation...Unofficial?  Please.  We've spent several years investigating who said what to who about a CIA agent, yet, you claim there is a VAST rightwing conspiracy to defraud the American voter, and yet, you can't find enough evidence to call a special PROSECUTOR?! This is getting rich.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You walk into your house through a door that's been forced open. All of the stuff easily pawned is missing. What happened?


  Actually, this is more like walking in to your home and finding your alarm clock not where you left it.  You swear someone broke in to move your stuff, because the alarm clock, AGAIN, is not where you left it.  Also, your toothbrush has been turned counter-clockwise 20 degrees.  You just KNOW someone is doing it, you keep finding evidence all over the house that someone has been in your house.  Not only that, this is the third time THIS WEEK!  

Someone is breaking in to your house to drive you crazy.  The proof is there.  You call the police, they don't believe you, they think you're going crazy, but you're not....It's THEM that's crazy.  Why won't they BELIEVE you, the proof is all around you.  You show the police the moved alarm clock..."I didn't leave it there" you tell the police, but they only smile at you patronizingly.  "Look at my toothbrush" you say, but again, they merely nod.  After the ninth call, they ask you to stop calling unless it's an emergency. 



Hey, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean 'they're' not out to get you you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2005)

When you compare the allegations in the congressional report to the findings of GAO that is more then enough cause to investigate whether or not fraud occured.  The GAO was an official investigation, but it DID NOT investigate whether fraud occured.  You need to READ the report to actually see what it said.  Other then that, you post is pretty much summed up as "it was _probably _this or _probably _that and not some 'vast right wing conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!'"  Probably.  You suspect that it isn't, but you don't know any more then I do what happened.  Yet, there is a conncection between the congressional report and the GAO.  Any idiot could see it.  The "computer errors" that happened, and the people who were caught red handed installing unlisenced software, and the reported firsthand accounts of actual vote switching ALL point to the very real possibility that the loopholes the GAO uncovered were used.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 26, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When you compare the allegations in the congressional report to the findings of GAO that is more then enough cause to investigate whether or not fraud occured. The GAO was an official investigation, but it DID NOT investigate whether fraud occured. You need to READ the report to actually see what it said. Other then that, you post is pretty much summed up as "it was _probably _this or _probably _that and not some 'vast right wing conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!'" Probably. You suspect that it isn't, but you don't know any more then I do what happened. Yet, there is a conncection between the congressional report and the GAO. Any idiot could see it. The "computer errors" that happened, and the people who were caught red handed installing unlisenced software, and the reported firsthand accounts of actual vote switching ALL point to the very real possibility that the loopholes the GAO uncovered were used.


 

Actually, what I said is you failed to even come CLOSE to meeting the burden of proving your wild allegation.  THere isn't "Probably" anything.  Also, the GAO never said there were computer "errors", that's a distortion you added.  They said there were problems in the equipment that should be fixed.  As for "probablies" they certainly are better than "Maybe's" and "possibilies" and "It could have happens" that I hear from you.

I still haven't A) Heard you give one credible piece of evidence of ANY voter fraud ACTUALLY having occurred and B) Have yet to hear you name a technological piece of information technology not prone to error (since your SOLE piece of evidence of voter fraud is that the voting machines were 'imperfect', comparing to similar equipment might make your point better....or not.)  

As the Bard would have said, it's a tale "full of sound and fury, signifying.....nothing!" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Or, more to the point, "HOGWASH!"


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, what I said is you failed to even come CLOSE to meeting the burden of proving your wild allegation.


 
We don't yet have all of the information.



> THere isn't "Probably" anything.


 
Oh really?  How about when you said...



> I think every maker of electronic equipment in HISTORY has sold their product with....strong claims the machines are safe....That's part of the sales gimmick, man. What, you expect them to go "Yeah, uhm, we, uhm, think it's safe".


 
Translation, they are _probably_ just trying to sell their stuff.



> They sued anyone who wanted to examine how they worked. Any company with a prioprietary product will do the same thing.


 
Translation, they are _probably_ just trying to protect their product.



> Diebold does what all companies do when they sue...They try to maintain their profit margin.


 
Translation, they are _probably_ trying to protect their profit margin.  

You missed the point with this.  By chopping it up and attempting to refute each of them singly, you are deleting/ignoring the fact that their is a chronology to these events.  This chronology ties all of these events together so that when they are taken together, they paint an altogether different picture.



> Also, the GAO never said there were computer "errors", that's a distortion you added. They said there were problems in the equipment that should be fixed.


 
It's not a distortion.  I was referring to the congressional report.  You are confusing the two.



> As for "probablies" they certainly are better than "Maybe's" and "possibilies" and "It could have happens" that I hear from you.


 
THAT is because your bias flows in the opposite direction.  AND actually, my "probablies" are FAR superior to yours because I've got the statistics on my side.  Unexplained demographic shifts, exit poll errors, machines actually switching votes, machines adding votes, etc, almost every single instance favored President Bush.  The weight of this evidence does not support the idea that it was _probably_ an error. 



> I still haven't A) Heard you give one credible piece of evidence of ANY voter fraud ACTUALLY having occurred


 
An investigation would clear this up.  



> and B) Have yet to hear you name a technological piece of information technology not prone to error (since your SOLE piece of evidence of voter fraud is that the voting machines were 'imperfect', comparing to similar equipment might make your point better....or not.)


 
It's not that they are imperfect.  Its the fact that their imperfections favored President Bush nearly 100% of the time.  Errors should have no bias.  Statistically, if there were an error, then all choices should have an equal chance of being affected.  How many candidates were their for presdent?  And nearly all of the "errors" still favored Bush.  

The thing about this that really grinds my gears is that IF there was a conspiracy to rig the election, part of it depends on a general level of stupidity among Americans.  If one had the slightest clue about statistics, then seeing information like this would immediately raise questions...

The allegations in the congressional report were double checked and given under oath.  The GAO uncovered numerous security problems with the equipment.  These reports, taken together, demand an investigation, an independent investigation.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2005)

Apparently it does not....


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Apparently it does not....


 
Why?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2005)

See anybody calling for one?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2005)

Yet amazingly, not one of the thousands of lawyers hired by the DNC to monitor elections in Florida noted any irregularities. Nor did any Democratic volunteers working at the polls. Indeed, they do not appear to have noticed any problems at all with the optical scans which they and their Republican partners counted together.

The most one can advocate from this is that electronic voting should produce paper receipts that can be used in a recount.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> See anybody calling for one?


 
Raises hand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yet amazingly, not one of the thousands of lawyers hired by the DNC to monitor elections in Florida noted any irregularities.  Nor did any Democratic volunteers working at the polls.


 
Then why did the democrats challenge the election results on the floor of the senate?  That information had to come from somewhere?  Who took all of the depositions?  Who verified the election irregularities?  Who do you think has been double checking all of this stuff?  Whose filing the FIOAs?



> Indeed, they do not appear to have noticed any problems at all with the optical scans which they and their Republican partners counted together.


 
The optical scans are a different issue.  The poll tapes were altered after they were counted and the originals thrown away.  FIOAs have been issued for bags of trash.



> The most one can advocate from this is that electronic voting should produce paper receipts that can be used in a recount.


 
Well, that is one thing and I would like to note that the two voting machine companies are suing so they don't have to do this.  However, there is much much more that can be drawn from this.  Compare the two reports.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yet amazingly, not one of the thousands of lawyers hired by the DNC to monitor elections in Florida noted any irregularities. Nor did any Democratic volunteers working at the polls. Indeed, they do not appear to have noticed any problems at all with the optical scans which they and their Republican partners counted together.
> 
> The most one can advocate from this is that electronic voting should produce paper receipts that can be used in a recount.


 
That would be messy still... having an electronic recount would be efficient though... if someone doubts a specific machines validity, attach your SS/DL number. If you are really concerned, validate those. I'd be in favor of something like that. you have a tally of all the votes kept, if someones vote was changed, you should be able to find a few real examples. The paper trail might help, but still going to be very messy, especially for large precincts...

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2005)

http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/BerkeleyElection04_WP.pdf



> "...researchers examined numerous variables that might have affected the vote outcome. These included the number of voters, their median income, racial and age makeup and the change in voter turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Using this information, they examined election results for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the state in 1996, 2000 and 2004 to see how support for those candidates and parties measured over eight years in Florida's 67 counties."
> 
> They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush far exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties. The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic. "
> 
> ...



Because many factors impact voting results, statistical tools are necessary to see the effect of touch-screen voting. Multiple regression analysis is a statistical technique widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of many variables. This multiple-regression analysis takes account of the following variables by county: (1) number of voters, (2) median income, (3) Hispanic population, (4) change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004, (5) support for President Bush in 2000 election, (6) support for Dole in 1996 election... 

When one controls for these factors, the association between electronic voting and increased support for President Bush is impossible to overlook. The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county&#8217;s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. 

(note - confidence levels are formally tested for significance at a predetermined level, typically 95% or 99%. So 99% would be quoted as the result of confidence testing, as a minimum. That said, the actual confidence figure can be calculated backwards, and when this is done turns out to be closer to 99.9%. Hence the two figures of 99.0% and 99.9% cited in the summary) 

Key findings:

Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W. Bush in Florida. 

Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population. 

In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes. 

We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2005)

http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/BerkeleyElection04_WP.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Hmmmm. And who (cooked) figured these "statistics" again?  Were they paid for by George Soros, the DNC or the World Workers Party?  

"There are lies, damn lies, and 'statistics'" (attributed to Disraeli's)

We can be 99.9% sure that these 'statistics' are nothing but smoke and mirrors.  Especially, coming as they do, from Sociology Professor, Michael Hout, of the People's Republic of Berkley.  It's most likely this 'information' came to him as a drug-induced epiphany.  Hout, considering himself, as a does, first and foremost and "activist", poisons his research from the very beginning with the forgone conclusion that "Bush stole the election".  We might as well as Castro what he thinks happened.  

"A study by Berkeley grad students and a professor showing anomalies with electronic-voting machines in Florida has been debunked by numerous academics who say the students used a faulty equation to reach their results and should never have released the study before getting it peer-reviewed. " 

"What they did with their model is wrong, and their results are flawed," McCullough said. "They claim those results have some meaning, but I don't know how they can do that." 

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65896,00.html

What I find amazing is, that this 'research' has been debunked for quite some time, yet you're still using it as if it is irrefutable (likely because it still plays a predominent role in the 'conspiracy websites' argument for "fraud", despite failing the most basic tests of peer-review).  

I guess, as Lenin said, "There is no such thing as objective truth, except that which serves the party".   Any lie is forgiveable, even faking research, so long as it is for a good political cause. 

Sounds like these mathmaticians said basically what i've been saying....that these numbers are, in effect, a meaningless set of smoke and mirrors. 

In other words, UpNorth, for all your wasted internet space on this topic, and all the 'statistic' (see made up numbers for a left wing loony website), you and those who's information you are representing, have FAILED to meet the reasonable doctrine required in court.....That of the burden of proof.  

Do you know why no serious investigation has been conducted?  Because not everyone is as gullible as those who perview those websites and are impressed by the shear multitude of (meaningless) statistics.  When it comes time to PROVE their findings, they can't back them up with anything approaching supportable and verifiable accuracy.  So, you can waste as much cyberspace as you want, and the fact remains....it's all STILL "HOGWASH"!  

It's no more "proven" than the JFK conspiracy, the "faked" moon landing, and the theory that WE blew up the WTC, all of which purports HUGE amounts of "irrefutable" evidence as well.....which ALL evaperates under the eye of scrutiny.

Again, you've failed to meet the burden of proof.  Looks like this whole conspiracy theory is going to be relegated to the junkyard loony land of cyberspace paranoia.......where it belongs.




"A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged, and the less it is understood the more tenaciously it is held."  George Contor's Law of Conservation of Ignorance


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2005)

Not everyone agrees with McCullough's analysis.  His main objection is the margins used for modelling.  I seriously doubt that you could tell me exactly _what_ they did wrong or why their conclusion that there is a correlation between voting machines and anomolies that favor Bush is right on.

Here's another couple of studies.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/ohiovoting.pdf

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/USCV_exit_poll_analysis.pdf

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/NM/NMAnalysis_EL_JM.pdf

http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf

I supposed all of these have "cooked the books" too.  Here is a more plausible theory as to why there has been no real investigation.  The Republicans control both houses and they won't allow it for whatever reason.

Here is a history of the academic debate surrounding the election results.

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf


 
This is really good resource regarding the academic debate on the election numbers.  Questions regarding the numbers, statistics, and veracity of certain studies have been brought up and addressed.  Take a look at the give and take expressed above, very informative.  I think that in the end, the number still raise serious questions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not everyone agrees with McCullough's analysis. His main objection is the margins used for modelling. I seriously doubt that you could tell me exactly _what_ they did wrong or why their conclusion that there is a correlation between voting machines and anomolies that favor Bush is right on.
> 
> Here's another couple of studies.
> 
> ...


  Well, North, since a large NUMBER of mathmaticians said that the study was absurd and never should have been published without peer review, let me see.....One fruitcake sociology professor from The People's Republic of Berkley with an ax to grind, versus several noted experts in the field of statistics and probability.....hmmmmmm. Those experts didn't say they disagreed with his conclusions, they said that they feel he pulled the numbers out of thin air, as they don't even make sense.  I guess you'll just fall back on what supports your theory...Reality be damned.

Also, as far as congress "allowing it", it's ironic that we've seen a long term investigation on who told what about who, involving a CIA agent, when the special prosecutor can't even tell us the original event was a crime or not.    Election fraud seems like a no brainer.  We don't need congress to allow the investigation of a federal crime.  Something's fishy alright, but what's fishy is the fact that you don't even have enough evidence to remotely interest a special prosecutor, who's interests are peaked on some pretty nebulous grounds.  Sorry, no sale.

As for the illusion that all those sources "cooked the books", it seems that you keep using the same couple of sources.  This isn't a case of "all" of anything, as you keep playing a shell game to give the illusion that more research is involved here.  All these sites keep using the same, already debunked, studies.  Recycling may work for aluminum, but it isn't working here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2005)

Who is this large number?  From all accounts that I've read, the dissenters numbered two...two out of the seven who read the paper.  

I posted that peice on purpose.  Sen o sen.  The two dissenters may have had some valid critiques, but one needs to understand what they were really driving at.

There may or may not have been mistakes in the paper, but what this discussion illustrates is that the numbers are working their way through the system.  Thus far, the statistics do not support the results of the election.  

I'm curious, do you have any specific objections to elements of the studies I posted above.  If not, how can you be so critical?  If not, why not accept the results?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> All these sites keep using the same, already debunked, studies.


 
Debunked by whom?  Care to elaborate?  I would like to see something specific regarding each of the studies presented.  Of course, this has already been done.  Check the history of this debate that I posted earlier.

The CIA leak investigation is how many years old?  The 2004 election debacle just turned a year old this month.  BTW - congress has been plenty active on this issue.  You just have to pay attention and let the system work.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Debunked by whom? Care to elaborate? I would like to see something specific regarding each of the studies presented. Of course, this has already been done. Check the history of this debate that I posted earlier.


 The 'history' of this debate you posted earlier, is a handful political hack websites with MORE falsified information.  How many times are you going to use the work of fringe nuts as 'evidence'?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The CIA leak investigation is how many years old? The 2004 election debacle just turned a year old this month. BTW - congress has been plenty active on this issue. You just have to pay attention and let the system work.


 Smoke and mirrors, north, smoke and mirrors.  Not one two-bit would-be special prosecutor with delusions of grandeur and visions of a high-place in a future democratic administration, has shown an interest in this 'conspiracy theory'.  Why?  Because they know there is nothing there.  You folks have more to gain by running around crying 'conspiracy, conspiracy', because it doesn't require a burden of proof.   This, despite the fact that they are focusing on other nebulous accusations, such as violations of vague finance laws and, the as yet not even declared illegal, outing of a CIA agent.  

If there was ANYTHING to these accusations of voter fraud, those ambitious hacks would be all over it like flies on a dead buffalo in the frican sun.  It's apparent, however, that they've looked in to it, and discovered it's a non-issue...or they'd have MADE it an issue.

That's why there's been no serious investigation, because the democrats KNOW it would simply be an exercise in futility, because they KNOW there is nothing there, and they can get much further simply claiming conspiracy all over the internet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The 'history' of this debate you posted earlier, is a handful political hack websites with MORE falsified information.


 
Falsified by whom?  The numbers are a matter of public record.  People testified under oath and their allegations were verified independently for the congressional report.  Now, the GAO confirms that there were numerous security problems.

One of the problems is that no one was caught red handed.  

I know for a fact that there has been no real investigation on this...only data gathering.  The only thing the Republicans would agree to was the investigation that the GAO performed...and that was strictly controlled.  The GOP has shut this debate down a total of three times in the past year with absolutely no justification.  However, I think now, especially with this new information, people will begin to connect the dots.  It can't be shut down forever.  I predict that if the Dems take one of the houses in 2006, we'll see an investigation.

Again, do you have any specific criticisms of the statistical studies that would cause someone to not take them seriously?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "Falsified by whom? The numbers are a matter of public record. People testified under oath and their allegations were verified independently for the congressional report. Now, the GAO confirms that there were numerous security problems."



Please, upnorth, don't be so obtuse.  Falsified by the alleged 'researchers'.  Sure, their falsified data is public record, but it's a public record of a con-game.  The hokey numbers aren't the voting numbers, but the sham being perpetrated by UC Berkley political hacks and their ilk.  Serious researchers have all but laughed at their 'numbers'.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the problems is that no one was caught red handed.


 Or, the problem is that there is no crime.  You've failed to establish one very important fact....Corpus Delicti.  You can't even prove a crime has been committed...that's the first step.  The fact that nobody has been 'caught redhanded' is a secondary consideration, if a crime has been committed.  You can't even prove a CRIME has been committed.



			
				upnorthkysoa said:
			
		

> I know for a fact that there has been no real investigation on this...only data gathering. The only thing the Republicans would agree to was the investigation that the GAO performed...and that was strictly controlled. The GOP has shut this debate down a total of three times in the past year with absolutely no justification. However, I think now, especially with this new information, people will begin to connect the dots. It can't be shut down forever. I predict that if the Dems take one of the houses in 2006, we'll see an investigation.


 The GOP doesn't control criminal investigations, as evidenced by numerous investigations currently being conducted by special prosecutors.  

The reason there is no criminal investigation being conducted is very simple...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

As for 'the new information', it might be taken more seriously, except for one minor inconvenience....IT'S BOGUS!



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, do you have any specific criticisms of the statistical studies that would cause someone to not take them seriously?


 Yeah, I have a specific criticism....A LARGE NUMBER OF EXPERTS, with far more expertise than a 'political hack sociology professor' (with a history of half-baked assertions) SAY it's all JIBBERISH, absolutely meaningless, based on false assumptions and faulty models.  That's a good start.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 28, 2005)

Here is my take on the situation... The democrats have made a policy of emotional appeal to solve situations. We have this "horrrible" proceedure of butterfly ballots, because they can't honestly believe they lost the election in Florida (with ballots designed by democrats and approved by both sides). So, they suggest better voting machines. They get them. They lose again, and again can't believe it. So they dig up some people who know a little bit of statistics and parade them around, telling everyone that we again have bad machines. How unfair. We should have won again... If we -ever- lose an election, it MUST be because of voting fraud, and NOT because of our political standings, since they so obviously reflect the majority of Americans.

If you wanted to beat Bush, stick him up against someone who could actually win. someone not afraid to have an opinion and not just critisize. For that fact alone I'd not vote for Kerry. Present Lieberman, he is far more mainstream than Kerry and much more representative of the bulk of the US. Present someone strong on defense who I'd not be afraid/ashamed to have as commander in chief. Present someone competent enough to state what his plan is, not just claim he has one. Present someone who does not have one of the most left-wing voting records in the Senate. Think most of America thinks that way? All of the US is not located in NY, Mass. and CA.

Election fraud is not something new I'm afraid. It's been played by both sides probably as long as voting has occured. Proclaiming the Dem's to be pristine pictures of virtue is hardly the truth in this situation. However they are the ones that lost (in general), and love making emotion appeal about the "possibility" of fraud taking place. Think it was legitimate that recounts only took place in highly democratic regions of Florida? No problem with that? They were fishing for more votes. If you recount, lets look at Republican areas too. Think it was fine to have recount after recount? Waiting for the one statistical anamoly that favored you? Think its fine to try and ignore overseas military ballots that generally favor the GOP about 3-1? I was really insulted that the dems saught to have the people defending the country refused the right to have their vote counted. Suprised that only the Dems were asking for state recounts, and not the Reps in states narrowly Democratic in votes? A few states (Arizona if I recall) were marginally Democratic. Now, thats probably because the Reps won overall, but think Florida would have happened if the shoe were on the other foot? Certain states had automatic recounts, thats fine, but what happened in Florida was absolutely ridiculous. A case of do -anything- to win the election. What Gore did was -bad- for the US in my opinion, and internationally embarassing. Set a bad precedent that still had repurcussions today.

What we have here in the Diebold situation is even better... you don't have a paper trail, so you claim systematic vote rigging. You can't prove, so you have the opportunity for continuous whining. Do you understand how many people are probably involved in checking these machines? How many people probably had to test them? Its not an easy or short process. If one, just ONE of them were a democrat, flags would quickly be sent up. If I were an employee, and I noticed only right wing extremist were getting chosen for a particular job, I'd take note and start asking questions. So, you think the entire workforce of Diebold was in cahoots? You just don't sneak in, flip a little "republican" switch, and change the overall vote.

With regard to the specifics, I've made suggestions previously in this thread. Lets discuss those. Rather than whining and pointing to your handful of statisticians, lets see what we can do to fix the situation, if indeed there was one. Lets look at the election and see what the problems were and fix them. I don't think any Republicans are against that. Not sure if any recourse -can- be done if there were a problem, but finding out how to help future elections is the best route, and perhaps some form of financial punishment if indeed elections were tampered with. Thats still to be explored.

While we are at it, lets explore some other things. Lets explore Democratic pushes to put known felons on the voting roster. Lets invoke a procedure of correlating deaths and removal from voting polls. Lets invoke procedures for disallowing people who vote twice from having their second votes counted. Lets invoke photo ID's along with their vote taking. I think this would also help clear up the voting process. Sadly, I think this would not favor democrats, so they are not crying out for it. Not heard a word from the press or democrats on these topics. I find them still compelling.

On the totally sarcastic side, are they embarrased they did not think of this vote rigging proceedure first? LOL *waits for negative pings for that one* 

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Serious researchers have all but laughed at their 'numbers'.


 
Who?  And where are there counter studies?  What numbers did they use?



> Or, the problem is that there is no crime. You've failed to establish one very important fact....Corpus Delicti. You can't even prove a crime has been committed...that's the first step. The fact that nobody has been 'caught redhanded' is a secondary consideration, if a crime has been committed. You can't even prove a CRIME has been committed.


 
How do you know that no crime has been committed?  If we look at the evidence in the form of verified allegations and discrepincies in the vote and then we compare it to areas that had e-voting and we take into account the security problems the GAO highlighted, it sure as hell looks as if something fishy happened.  Finding who put vote switching software in place and who hacked the system will be the only way to prove that a crime was committed in this situation.  THAT will require an investigation.



> The GOP doesn't control criminal investigations, as evidenced by numerous investigations currently being conducted by special prosecutors.


 
Who authorized these special prosecutors?  Who runs the Justice Dept?

The reason there is no criminal investigation being conducted is very simple...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.



> As for 'the new information', it might be taken more seriously, except for one minor inconvenience....IT'S BOGUS!


 
Exactly how is the information bogus?



> Yeah, I have a specific criticism....A LARGE NUMBER OF EXPERTS, with far more expertise than a 'political hack sociology professor' (with a history of half-baked assertions) SAY it's all JIBBERISH, absolutely meaningless, based on false assumptions and faulty models. That's a good start.


 
Who?  And what exactly did they say?  Where are the counter studies?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> How unfair. We should have won again... If we -ever- lose an election, it MUST be because of voting fraud, and NOT because of our political standings, since they so obviously reflect the majority of Americans.


 
One thing I try to keep in mind is that if vote rigging occured, it only swung the vote between 1-5% in areas were it occured.  All of the rest of the votes, the GOP won legitimately.  



> If you wanted to beat Bush, stick him up against someone who could actually win.


 
I would have to agree with you here.  I didn't like Kerry either, but I liked President Bush even less.



> Election fraud is not something new I'm afraid. It's been played by both sides probably as long as voting has occured.


 
The problem is that the technology that makes E-voting possible also makes massive vote rigging possible with very little effort or manpower and with very little evidence other then the software.  This has no precendent.

People were witnessed installing unlisenced software in five different states.  These "cards" disappeared says the companies.  



> Proclaiming the Dem's to be pristine pictures of virtue is hardly the truth in this situation. However they are the ones that lost (in general), and love making emotion appeal about the "possibility" of fraud taking place.


 
It's not an emotional appeal.  It's legal.  It's mathematical.  The numbers say it all.  The likelihood that fraud may have occured is being supported more and more each day.  An investigation will issue the legal documents neccessary to track down items and people who have _disappeared_.



> Think it was legitimate that recounts only took place in highly democratic regions of Florida?


 
I don't want to get into the legal specifics of what happened in Florida in 2000.  Needless to say, though, the Dems wanted to recount every single vote including absentee ballots and the GOP blocked it.



> What Gore did was -bad- for the US in my opinion, and internationally embarassing. Set a bad precedent that still had repurcussions today.


 
Internationally, no one really believes that President Bush won the 2000 election legitimately.  They focus on the fact that the GOP stopped all efforts at recounting.  



> What we have here in the Diebold situation is even better... you don't have a paper trail, so you claim systematic vote rigging. You can't prove, so you have the opportunity for continuous whining.


 
No one was caught red handed.  One has to backtrack through the records that were left.  We need access to every machine and every computer to see every line of code.  One of the problems is that this type of fraud is so easy to hide.  The GAO highlighted that.  



> Do you understand how many people are probably involved in checking these machines? How many people probably had to test them? Its not an easy or short process.


 
Yes, and the answer is very few company insiders.  The Carter-Baker commission on the election reform and the GAO verifed this.



> So, you think the entire workforce of Diebold was in cahoots? You just don't sneak in, flip a little "republican" switch, and change the overall vote.


 
Very few.  



> With regard to the specifics, I've made suggestions previously in this thread. Lets discuss those. Rather than whining and pointing to your handful of statisticians, lets see what we can do to fix the situation, if indeed there was one. Lets look at the election and see what the problems were and fix them. I don't think any Republicans are against that. Not sure if any recourse -can- be done if there were a problem, but finding out how to help future elections is the best route, and perhaps some form of financial punishment if indeed elections were tampered with. Thats still to be explored.


 
I think that is a good idea and I think it may be a good compromise in the end.



> While we are at it, lets explore some other things. Lets explore Democratic pushes to put known felons on the voting roster. Lets invoke a procedure of correlating deaths and removal from voting polls. Lets invoke procedures for disallowing people who vote twice from having their second votes counted. Lets invoke photo ID's along with their vote taking. I think this would also help clear up the voting process. Sadly, I think this would not favor democrats, so they are not crying out for it. Not heard a word from the press or democrats on these topics. I find them still compelling.


 
HAVA legislation dealing with those very issues was passed with bi-partisan support.  I think there are some problems because it makes it hard for low income folks to vote, but these can be worked through.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 28, 2005)

there has been alot of talk about the statistics. The more I study statistics, the more I've seen that you can really make them say whatever you want... work with the right groups, word your questions appropriately, look at the right data or with the right angle, you get dramatically different results... It bothers me when I see certain polls online. For instance, you see an online poll asking something like "Do you approve of Bush's policy on so and so?". They request a simple yes or no. No varience. So, you answer No. You don't approve. Do you think he is too far right? Too far left? There is no difference. There are alot of polls on CNN that do this (I tend to frequent that web site). I'd rather a poll have more options.

Consider another poll... you go to DC and ask what they think of some kind of policy (lets say gun control). Depending on the policy or question, you get dramatically differing results than if you asked in Texas or Kansas.

So, point is... lets see where these statistics are coming from. Is it good science just because a few statisticians have problems? are there more reasonable explanations for some of the anamolies? Would you call it good statistics if you get your results from a narrow group? *scratches head* you -might-, and of course, the results will not be presented in such a fashion... so, in order to make decisions regarding the validity, I'd like to see sample groups.

For instance, this was mentioned before, and laughed off, but it actually has a degree of merit. Alot of people that are on welfare are likely not working, and would possibly vote earlier. Alot of retired people would vote in the morning, and the fear tactics of Social Security might possibly push them democratic. Is it that impossible that Republicans vote late? There are alot of polls going on, informal of course, but exit polls that give an idea of how the election is going. they are not the FINAL vote, but a predictor. If I saw my candidate was winning by 20 points, would I be quite as likely to go vote? If I saw it was a close vote, would I be as likely to vote? What -would- be compelling is if this never happened before. I've not read all the web pages presented (not had time, trying to graduate soon!), so if I missed this, please forgive and point out.

Anyways, I've always had a beef with certain statistics... this discussion is not necessarily relevant, just a beef I have with the presented "facts" I often see...

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

You bring up a lot of good points and I think that you have illustrated why it is good to actually look at the studies that were done.  The original data is there, the models they used, and the results.  The bottom line is that I've run regressions on the original exit poll data and the results.  I can replicate the results.  Am I an expert with statistics?  No.  Does it take an expert to see this?  No.  The results are always "significantly" different and they shouldn't be.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who? And where are there counter studies? What numbers did they use?


 "
"What they did with their model is wrong, and their results are flawed," McCullough said. "They claim those results have some meaning, but I don't know how they can do that." 
McCullough said they focused on one statistical model to conduct their analysis while ignoring other statistical models that would have produced opposite results."

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65896,00.html



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How do you know that no crime has been committed? If we look at the evidence in the form of verified allegations and discrepincies in the vote and then we compare it to areas that had e-voting and we take into account the security problems the GAO highlighted, it sure as hell looks as if something fishy happened. Finding who put vote switching software in place and who hacked the system will be the only way to prove that a crime was committed in this situation. THAT will require an investigation.


 Because there is no evidence of it.  That's how I know no crime has been committed.  Your evidence obviously isn't attracting any special prosecutors....prosecutors, i might add, who often pursue people on some pretty shaky grounds.  If a crime was committed, provided REAL evidence of it, not a sham, wack-job 'statistical model' laughed at by REAL scientists.  

In short, you've got no crime and no evidence of a crime.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who authorized these special prosecutors? Who runs the Justice Dept?


 The same people who allowed Scooter Libby to be indicted for perjury.  

The reason there is no criminal investigation being conducted is very simple...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Exactly how is the information bogus?


  It's bogus, because the numbers are pure jibberish.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who? And what exactly did they say? Where are the counter studies?


 They don't need a counter-study to examine the 'study' you provided, and conclude it has absolutely no meaning.  But if you want a counter-study, here you go.

http://election04.ssrc.org/research/critique-of-hmcb.pdf

I think they rather clearly disassemble that biased piece of, dare I call it, 'research'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/Hypotheses-2004%20US%20Pres%20Election%20Exit%20Poll%20Discrepancy.pdf

This study takes on all of the rediculous explanations that have been proposed to explain the discrepency in the numbers.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You bring up a lot of good points and I think that you have illustrated why it is good to actually look at the studies that were done. The original data is there, the models they used, and the results. The bottom line is that I've run regressions on the original exit poll data and the results. I can replicate the results. Am I an expert with statistics? No. Does it take an expert to see this? No. The results are always "significantly" different and they shouldn't be.


 So what you're saying is, you took the numbers 'figured' by Berkley, figured them the same way, added them up, and came to the same conclusion? lol.

"An easy way to show that there is something seriously wrong with a statistical study is to use the same data and the same approach to reach the opposite conclusion.  HMCB apparently never bothered to check this aspect of their model, esle they'd have easily found it: we show that HMCB's modelling approach also supports the contention that electronic voting favored Kerry." 

"We are generally concerned about the formal method- or lack thereof- whereby HMCB settled on their models.  It appears that they just ran regressions until they got the answer they wanted."  http://election04.ssrc.org/research/critique-of-hmcb.pdf


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What they did with their model is wrong, and their results are flawed," McCullough said. "They claim those results have some meaning, but I don't know how they can do that."


 
Not everyone agrees with McCullough (only 2 of the 7 profs that reviewed the paper) and McCullough himself did not address every aspect of what the previous paper addressed.  Besides, even if they did make a mistake, its only one paper...not all of them.



> "McCullough said they focused on one statistical model to conduct their analysis while ignoring other statistical models that would have produced opposite results."


 
Yet, he gives to rationale as to why the other model is better then the one chosen.



> Because there is no evidence of it. That's how I know no crime has been committed. Your evidence obviously isn't attracting any special prosecutors....prosecutors, i might add, who often pursue people on some pretty shaky grounds. If a crime was committed, provided REAL evidence of it, not a sham, wack-job 'statistical model' laughed at by REAL scientists.


 
All you, Tom Delay and the rest of the GOP have been able to do is ridicule the oppostion.  There has not been one single peice of evidence that has refuted the allegations thus far.  The people who testified under oath are telling the truth for all anyone knows.



> In short, you've got no crime and no evidence of a crime.


 
That depends on what you think is evidence.  These statistical studies constitute a dead body.



> It's bogus, because the numbers are pure jibberish.


 
Again, absolutely no rationate behind this statement.  Show me how it is jibberish please.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, you took the numbers 'figured' by Berkley, figured them the same way, added them up, and came to the same conclusion? lol.


 
Nope, I took the numbers from the official record of votes tallied.  I took the numbers released by the networks.  I took numbers from the US census.  This is the exact place that others found them...how do I know?  I read the studies.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2005)

You dont have to "refute allegations". Allegations are not "proof" or "evidence" to be refuted. I allege that you are wearing a tin hat..refute me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You dont have to "refute allegations". Allegations are not "proof" or "evidence" to be refuted. I allege that you are wearing a tin hat..refute me.


 
If one is going to accuse someone of purjury, then one needs evidence that a crime has been committed, do they not?

btw - you just might be right...


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2005)

No..only that what was said was untrue. It does not "prove" any underlying crime.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No..only that what was said was untrue. It does not "prove" any underlying crime.


 
I agree, however, like I said above, if one takes the numbers into account, the allegations, the GAOs report, and the testimony of individuals who wrote software for the machines, then one has to at least conclude that we need an official idependent investigation into this matter.  Hopefully this will either uncover or finally put to rest allegations of criminal activity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Here is another study.  This one shows that republicans were more likely to respond to exit polls.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2005)

Than why hasnt there been an invesitgation...beyond bloggers and internet hackers..yet?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Than why hasnt there been an invesitgation...beyond bloggers and internet hackers..yet?


 
One of the sources I posted above explains how the system works and goes through all of the steps in which the GOP has stood in the way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)




----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/Hypotheses-2004%20US%20Pres%20Election%20Exit%20Poll%20Discrepancy.pdf
> 
> This study takes on all of the rediculous explanations that have been proposed to explain the discrepency in the numbers.


 
"I think they're wasting everybody's time, frankly," Mitofsky said. "I know they're very serious about believing that there was fraud, but I don't happen to share their view. I find myself in the awkward position of having to argue that the exit polls were wrong."   Warren Mitofsky, the president of Mitofsky International and a pioneer of the art and science of exit polling. 

"This is not the first election with errors -- and the simplest explanation is probably the right one. I think fraud on a massive scale that their conclusion essentially requires is totally implausible. To make it plausible it would have a lot of people working together, and you know from being in the news business how hard it is to keep something secret. I just think their whole explanation is implausible."

Polling, Mitosfky argues, is not Mitteldorf's area of expertise. He and others have taken the USCV statisticians to task for shoddy work.
"The trouble is they make their case very passionately and not very scholarly," Mitofsky says. "I don't get the impression that any of these people have conducted surveys on a large scale."
Others have questioned the methodology and conclusions of the USCV report as well -- and not just Republicans. Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal, who writes the mysterypollster.com blog, accuses USCV of blithely ignoring crucial parts of the Edison-Mitofsky report that attempted to explain the reasons for statistical error -- particularly the failure of polltakers to follow crucial directions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/24/AR2005042401545.html





It seems that with ever conspiracy theory that gets debunked, the leftists get ever more desperate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf

Here is Stephen Freeman's Original study that was included by John Conyers in his report to congress.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

So, do we actually have a criticism that deals with the numbers used?  The math is simple enough that I can do it and you've claimed the numbers that I and other are using are gibberish.  I'm still waiting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2005)

*William C. Velasquez Institute*

Dec. 3 - The William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI) announced that NBC said that it studied the discrepancy between exit poll figures for Latino votes from the WCVI and NEP (Edison/Mitofsky), and now believes WCVI's figures were more accurate and that NEP under-represented urban areas (leaning Democratic) and over-represented non-urban areas (leaning Republican). WCVI claimed that NBC has therefore adjusted its figures and believes that in fact Kerry had 58% not 53% of the popular Latino vote and Bush has 40% and not 44% as previously stated. NBC's estimate for Hispanic support in Bush's home state of Texas was also revised, turning a reported 18-point lead for Bush into a 2-point win for Kerry among Hispanics, a "remarkable" 20-point turnaround from figures reported on election night.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I agree, however, like I said above, if one takes the numbers into account, the allegations, the GAOs report, and the testimony of individuals who wrote software for the machines, then one has to at least conclude that we need an official idependent investigation into this matter. Hopefully this will either uncover or finally put to rest allegations of criminal activity.


 

It will never put to rest the allegations, as you already have no proof, and STILL believe it's true.  It's entrenched itself like any good conspiracy theory.  That is because, your beliefs are not based on any statistics, any rationale, but have entered the realm of dogma.

Further, by what do you mean 'independent investigation'?  I've heard this one before.  I assume it will be headed up by an 'impartial panel' headed by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, presided over by 'UN observers'?  What a farce.  Then, no matter what's discovered, unless it's 'BUSH CHEATED', you won't believe it.  

Again, upnorth, it's become my conclusion that apparently, some people believe that if they weave an intricate enough web of BS, that it suddenly turns in to silk by volume.  The reason no one is taking your 'evidence' seriously, is the majority of Americans, much to your dismay, have a pretty decent built in BS detector, and mines going off the scale right now.  

Like the old saying goes "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS."


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the sources I posted above explains how the system works and goes through all of the steps in which the GOP has stood in the way.



Then why are all the prominent Democratic Party windbags not screaming their lungs out on the Capitol steps?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Then why are all the prominent Democratic Party windbags not screaming their lungs out on the Capitol steps?


 They are part of the 'conspiracy' of course.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 3, 2005)

David Card and Enrico Moretti have this to add to the debate

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11309.html

"If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results. Contrary to this prediction, we find no evidence that touch-screen voting had a larger effect in swing states, or in states with a Republican Secretary of State."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 3, 2005)

I look at it this way:

While I doubt there was a top level conspiracy to use coordinated methods to hand the election over, I do believe that there was attempts, by both sides, to confuse the voters, distract them, and use various means to influence and at times bluntly change/edit their votes in various locations.

Any such attempts would of course to an extent cancel each other out with the more effective "cheat team" ending with a minor advantage.

We have proof that there were problems with the machines in many areas.
We have proof that there were attempts to mislead votors on where and when they could vote.
We have proof that there were some cases of vote counts being wrong.

That is ground for the belief, especially when the winner only wins by a small margin, whose popularity continues to drop, and whom seems increasingly removed from the "feelings" of the people.

Personally, if there is a vast conspiracy to manipulate our votes at will, I wish they would take a liking to the Libertarian or Green parties. I would love to see them gain office, especially when in many areas, they weren't even allowed on tha ballot.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2005)

Here is the entire abstract.



> Supporters of touch-screen voting claim it is a highly reliable voting technology, while a growing number of critics argue that paperless electronic voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. In this paper we use county-level data on voting technologies in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to test whether voting technology affects electoral outcomes. *We first show that there is a positive correlation between use of touch-screen voting and the level of electoral support for George Bush. This is true in models that compare the 2000-2004 changes in vote shares between adopting and non-adopting counties within a state, after controlling for income, demographic composition, and other factors. Although small, the effect could have been large enough to influence the final results in some closely contested states*. While on the surface this pattern would appear to be consistent with allegations of voting irregularities, a closer examination suggests this interpretation is incorrect. If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results. Contrary to this prediction, we find no evidence that touch-screen voting had a larger effect in swing states, or in states with a Republican Secretary of State. Touch-screen voting could also indirectly affect vote shares by influencing the relative turnout of different groups. We find that the adoption of touch-screen voting has a negative effect on estimated turnout rates, controlling for state effects and a variety of county-level controls. This effect is larger in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic residents (who tend to favor Democrats) but not in counties with more African Americans (who are overwhelmingly Democrat voters). Models for the adoption of touch-screen voting suggest it was more likely to be used in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic and Black residents, especially in swing states. Nevertheless, the impact of non-random adoption patterns on vote shares is small.


 
Note that this article is advancing an alternative explanation for the discrepencies.  I am paying 5 dollars for the paper and I'll check out how they got to those conclusions when I have the chance.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 3, 2005)

A bigger issue than the 2004 election is the 2006 and 2008 election.  Right now, counties all over the country are considering and holding hearings on what type of voting machines they will buy under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).

If you want your touchscreen machines to have a paper receipt, or if you'd prefer an optical scanner with paper ballot, I hope you're attending these hearings or expressing your opinion to your county Boards of Election.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is the entire abstract.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I'm willing to bet 5 dollars no matter how accurate their findings and how convincing their results, you'll still believe what you've already concluded.  Religious belief is not dispelled by mere 'evidence'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 4, 2005)

Keep your five dollars.  The authors have withdrawn their paper.  However, I found the paper elsewhere on the net.  Take a look.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/dre.pdf

And its at Berkeley, imagine that.  I read the study this morning and here is my analysis.

F sub m times X is the mechanical effect voting machines have on the fraction of minority voters.  In other words, this is the scare factor that the paper postulates.  When they run their regression, this is the factor that will suppress the correllation between the lines of significance.

The X factor was arbitrarily determined.  It has no research backing it up and they made no effort to control for things like long lines, voter intimidation, deliberate voter misdirection, or *anything *else that may have affected minority turnout.  Basically, they arbitrarily picked and choosed among county wide data sets to find data sets with no explanation as to why they picked particular county data set.  Then they compared certain data sets until they got a value for X.  This value was then arbitrarily applied everywhere again with no effort made to control for anything and with no explanation as to why this was even valid.

In conclusion, the model of this study is flawed.  It has no basis in reality and does little to control for the independent variables that may have affected the data in the county's they arbitrarily choose for their value of X.  Further, the artificially determined value of X is arbitrarily applied everywhere irregularities occured and their is no research or explanation as to why this was done.  There is no research backing up this so called "scare factor" and their absolutely no evidence that shows that this X factor even exists.

The only thing this study got right is to show that their is a positive correllation between the use of voting machines and votes for George W. Bush.  Their alternative explanation is far from proven.

I can see why the paper was withdrawn.  It's rediculous.

upnorthkyosa


----------

