Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election fi

[Makalakumu]

Apparently it does not....

Why?

 

[Tgace]

See anybody calling for one?

 

[Tgace]

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]

See anybody calling for one?

Raises hand.

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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. "

"Sociology professor Michael Hout, who chairs the university's graduate Sociology and Demography group, said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000. 'No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained...'"
Executive summary:

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’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]

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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



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’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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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'?

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]

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]

"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'.

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.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.