- #36
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 10,123
- 137
Skyhunter, I hate to say this, but ducks don't quake, they quack..
Skyhunter said:A friend of mine recently within the last couple of years got his doctorate in computer science. He has a friend who was involved in the CALTech/MIT study. He told me that his friend told him that the results of the 2004 study were predetermined.
And you are correct, I didn't look into it in depth, I started to and I asked my friend for help in interpreting it. He told me not to bother because it was a bogus study. There was just to much that happened in 2000 and 2004 for me to believe otherwise, at this point my mind is made up and I am moving on, it is water under the bridge, I am more interested in assuring fair elections and defeating The governators proposals in this expensive and ridiculous debacle of a special election.
This is surreal. I'm throwing these words around hoping one will stick because you won't even state what your opinion is! You are forcing me to guess!pattylou said:We seemed to get hung up on words last time.
I don't have any particular desire to bang my head on the nuances of "fraud" and "rigged" and "fixed" that you seem to think exonerate politicians. Your main paragraoph *above* gives me a headache: "directly stolen" --- ? As if this is grounds for dismissal of the discussion?
Yes, I did. It is an interesting article that shows relatively clearly that flaws exist, but it does not even ask the question of whether or not fraud actually occurred, much less attempt to prove it. In that previous assumption I was under the impression that you believed fraud occurred. Then you said you didn't and the discussion ended (I dropped out of it). Now you are implying you do. I would like a clarification of what you actually believe.I also recall that you never answered my following question directly: Did you read the May 2005 Hursti report from Black box voting? Not how can you diss it, but did you read it? Did you read it for comprehension?
Although ducks are not without faults.Skyhunter, I hate to say this, but ducks don't quake, they quack.
And because of that, they quake with fear of discovery occasionally.Loren Booda said:Although ducks are not without faults.
It is standard procedure in any other Western democracy that such flaws are thoroughly investigated.russ_watters said:It is an interesting article that shows relatively clearly that flaws exist, but it does not even ask the question of whether or not fraud actually occurred, much less attempt to prove it.
Sorry! I don't keep track of all the replies on these threads...loseyourname said:Yes, and I'm pretty sure I've told you that I agree with you that the fact that our systems are vulnerable means they should be changed. I've also continually parroted the Verified Voting effort to pass legislation that requires paper trails (legislation which has been enacted in about 50% of states at this point and has more pending).
Hey Russ. I'm a scientist. I have a hard time with the word "believe." Why are you asking me what I "believe?"russ_watters said:This is surreal. I'm throwing these words around hoping one will stick because you won't even state what your opinion is! You are forcing me to guess!
Listen, please: I promise I will not discuss the issue in this thread. I really just want to know what you believe. Could you please tell me? Yes, I did. It is an interesting article that shows relatively clearly that flaws exist, but it does not even ask the question of whether or not fraud actually occurred, much less attempt to prove it. In that previous assumption I was under the impression that you believed fraud occurred. Then you said you didn't and the discussion ended (I dropped out of it). Now you are implying you do. I would like a clarification of what you actually believe.
Now can you please at least tell me what your actual opinion is? Again, I promise I won't discuss it in this thread, but it is very disingenuous of you to not even be willing to state your opinion while arguing it.
There are days when I feel that the probability that it was stolen is very close to 100%. There are days when I feel it is more like 60%. I never feel like it is less than 50%. My feelings on the matter vary over time, and depend on things like anecdotes (like the memo Edward posted earlier, a friend who worked at the polls and saw her precincts numbers reported off by the thousands,) black box voting reports, and so on. These claims of fraud are offset by the pre-election Rasmussen poll (which predicted very close to the official result), and by reports such as LYN posted.Anyway, could you quantify that probability/level of certainty for me? Do you think, based on the evidence currently available, that there is, say, a 50% probability the election was stolen? 75%? 90%?
"Exonerate" means "to free from blame" (www.dictionary.com)[/URL]. Since you haven't made (you steadfastly refuse to make) an accusation against anyone, there is nothing to exonerate. So should I take that statement to mean that you think Bush comitted "vote fraud"? (your word - if you'd prefer to use another, that's why I gave suggestions). Ie, is that statement an accusation?pattylou said:I don't have any particular desire to bang my head on the nuances of "fraud" and "rigged" and "fixed" that you seem to think exonerate politicians. Your main paragraoph *above* gives me a headache: "directly stolen" --- ? As if this is grounds for dismissal of the discussion? [emphasis added]
Though not a declarative statement, this is a pretty clear accusation of vote fraud by Diebold. It reduces to: 'Diebold committed and got away with vote fraud.'arildno said:I was unaware of that there exists a similar massive "Democratic" vote manipulation as that which Diebold&et al. has gotten away with.
I hate to use the 'he did it, too' argument, especially when Lieberman is the only one I still had much respect for by time the 2000 election controversy was done.pattylou said:There are several components to my views on the matter.
(1)At a strictly personal level, it is unfathomable to me that people actually 'like' Bush. Yet, people do. He lost any respect I might have held for him, in November of 2000, when he refused to acknowledge that there was *any* question about the election. Remember that? Gore was saying things like "we need to determine the outcome of the election" and Bush was saying there was no question what the outcome was, he didn't acknowledge the possibility (shown to be true) that the majority of voters *didn't* want him, he simply said "screw it" to the whole controversy and began assembling his cabinet --- in November, while Gore was proclaiming that every vote needed to be counted. In the end, we learned, that Gore won.
Bush pissed on Democracy in November of 2000.
His behavior was crass and utterly lacking in diplomacy and completely opposed to the qualities I expect in a president. I've seen little but that sort attitude ever since (with the possible exception of him recently acknowledging failures in response to Katrina) and that this approach actually *appeals* to people is unbelievable to me. These are personal feelings, and have no bearing on whether the machines are tampered with or whether Bush stole the election.
I was referring to what you yourself write, which is usually your own opinion editorial, and not quotes for sources with a few of your own comments in regard to the quote. That's fine, but please don't criticize me for providing sources, which I do on a regular basis -- and this is the second time you've made a derogatory remark about using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is considered reliable, but nonetheless it is by no means the only source I've referenced.loseyourname said:When have I ever posted a link to an op-ed of any kind? About the only links I ever post are to the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Every now and then I'll use the CIA factbook.
I am in the SF bay area. They quake here.:rofl:arildno said:Skyhunter, I hate to say this, but ducks don't quake, they quack..
Which is why I only mention it as my reason for not spending the time to read and understand the study.loseyourname said:Well, that's your choice, but I'm sure you'll understand that the insistence of a friend of your friend isn't too convincing to me. In fact, I'm pretty sure it fits the definition of "hearsay" pretty much word for word.
You don't frustrate me at all, I find your arguments to be well thought out and accuratly sourced. I don't always agree with you, but one of the reasons I enjoy this forum so much is that I can have intelligent dialogue, and be exposed to different ideas, opinion, and arguments.Look, I understand that my legal debate tactics probably are frustrating to people, but there is a reason that I am as exacting as I am. Doing so is meant to ensure that posts in this forum do meet a certain quality, which is important to me. I realize it isn't important to everybody, but I take some of these discussions very seriously, and the standards that I'm used to from my history with formal debate are the standards that I use.
Actually, I have no problem with that. I'm glad that you're willing to admit as much. I wish the rest of the forum would be more forthcoming with the reasons why they believe certain things and can't seem to be swayed by any amount of reason.
I'm glad you are up-front about this and I'm glad you put it at the top of the list, but I'm sure you understand that a strictly personal opinion has no place in a scientific discussion.pattylou said:There are several components to my views on the matter.
(1)At a strictly personal level, it is unfathomable to me that people actually 'like' Bush...
These are personal feelings, and have no bearing on whether the machines are tampered with or whether Bush stole the election.
You do provide evidence. I'm certainly not saying otherwise. But a scientific investigation does not start with the proof, it starts with an hypothesis. I've spent the last two pages (and indeed, too much time in too many other threads) trying to get you to state a clear hypothesis against which we can weigh evidence.(2) I believe I *do* present evidence. I believe I *do* approach this scientifically.
Yes, from what I can see, that is the only clear hypothesis you have actually stated. Put in declarative form: 'The elections could have been hacked.' As I've said numerous times in this thread and others, I agree.The problem is we're asking entirely different questions. I'm asking what is the evidence that the elections could have been hacked?
The tone of these threads strongly imply otherwise.The question *you* are asking, is whether Bush stole the election. The two questions are related but are not the same. The evidence I try to raise awareness about, has less to do with your question than with mine.
That's a start, anyway. Would it then be fair to say you haven't been specific in making allegations because your feelings (your word) on the likelihood that crimes were committed change?(3) I like the way you rephrased one question: There are days when I feel that the probability that it was stolen is very close to 100%. There are days when I feel it is more like 60%. I never feel like it is less than 50%.
Again, I appreciate your being upfront about that, but as a scientist, you know that anecdotal evidence is worse than useless.My feelings on the matter vary over time, and depend on things like anecdotes...
Thank you for being explicit about that.(4) I don't think there is "evidence" to say explicitly that "Bush stole the election."
No, actually it doesn't require him to do that - if he, for example, gave an order for someone else to break into a system, that's "conspiracy to commit fraud" and would just mean that though he wasn't the triggerman, he was an important part of the team.The very phrase implies him breaking into a system somewhere and manipulating the tallies himself.
Ok...That italics part is quite an allegation. I said I won't argue specific points, but just one quick point: have you read what loseyourname said about that? Liberal blog sites and news sites looking to find controversy just report newsworthy problems. Its what they do and there is nothing wrong with that. They won't report on minor problems and they won't dwell on the long lines and not enough voting machines problem (which was huge and affected both sides), so you cannot get an accurate representation of the overall types, frequency, and swing potential of problems by reading the news or a blog. The cherry-picking nature of anecdotal evidence is the entire problem with anecdotal evidence. you know that.I think there is evidence to say that some level of fraud occured, and it includes things like the memo, and the fact that virtually every reported anomaly on election night favored Bush.
We've discussed the problems with that before and I don't want to rehash them here, but I'd just like to point out again that evidence of an anomaly is not necessarily evidence of fraud. Again, with the aether theory: aether theorists say that since their theory is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity, that all evidence for special relativity is evidence for an aether. That's wrong - aether theory is an extra step (hypothesizing on the existence of an ether) that SR doesn't require. Likewise, the fraud hypothesis is an extra step beyond mere polling error - error which you of course know does exist. Evidence showing error existed (if indeed the conclusion is actually valid) does not imply those errors were caused by fraud.Such as this report from Berkely regarding the Florida vote in 2004: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-18-2004/0002464301&EDATE= <-- That's evidential of fraud, to me.)
Evidence showing error existed (if indeed the conclusion is actually valid) does not imply those errors were caused by fraud.
And hence, it would have wrong to investigate it..russ_watters said:. Evidence showing error existed (if indeed the conclusion is actually valid) does not imply those errors were caused by fraud.
That depends on the drakearildno said:Skyhunter, I hate to say this, but ducks don't quake, they quack..
russ_watters said:Something I missed before: "Exonerate" means "to free from blame" (www.dictionary.com)[/URL]. Since you haven't made (you steadfastly refuse to make) an accusation against anyone, there is nothing to exonerate. So should I take that statement to mean that you think Bush comitted "vote fraud"? (your word - if you'd prefer to use another, that's why I gave suggestions). Ie, is that statement an accusation?
As should be clear from these questions, I am not trying to [b]dismiss[/b] the discussion, I am trying to [b]start[/b] a discussion. A discussion must start with the person who intended to start it (you, presumabaly, since you started this thread) [b]actually making a point[/b]. If you did not intend to make a point but rather just wanted to provide futher fodder for foregone conclusions, just say so and I'll stop trying to discuss the issue.[/QUOTE]
I try to put the point in the title of the post. The point of the initial post here, is that vote fraud is in the news again. That's why the title reads: "Vote fraud in the news again." I went on to mention that the president of Diebold has quit and the stock has slumped.
Can you see why this information is arguably worth a thread?
As far as exonerate: You appear to hold the politicians blameless, and I am unsure of their bnlame. it is this distinction between our positions that prompted me to say "You exonerate them" (or or words to that effect.)
Edit: I have now also read your lengthy response to me. Russ, you are trying to "fit me into your mold." (No jokes, please.) Your tone has reverted back to something like condescending and patronising.
You harrassed me repeatedly to know what I "believe" or "think" or "feel" and I respond that I don't wish to go that route. You continue to harass me and I finally say "Fine. You want to know what I think/believe/feel. Here it is"
And what do you? You zing me on it with [quote]I'm sure you understand that a strictly personal opinion has no place in a scientific discussion. [/quote]We need a punching smiley. Are you *at all* aware of your flip-flop inconsistencies?
And, I include a citation from Berkely's statistics department, a scientific source of evidence (something you insultingly said earlier I never provide and that you would look forward to seeing from me someday) ... and how do you respond? Of the [b]551[/b] words in your response, exactly [b]34 [/b](7%) were directed at the evidence I provided. These 34 words? That you don't wish to discuss the evidence!
Good Lord. *You* may see a productive conversation coming out of this if I write what you want me to write and accept the criticism of me that you want to dish out, but God is that arrogant.
I suggest communication is a two way street. Like you, I'd *also* be delighted if you changed your style, accepted my criticisms of you with grace, and generally saw things my way. We could even have a feel-good discussion about it. Now wouldn't that be nice? So go on then. Change yourself. Because *my* opinion of you should be far more important than your own integrity.
(Another edit: I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing, but rather because the alternative is to remain quiet or otherwise indicate that you are being reasonable, and I don't think that's the case. It's nothing particularly personal, it's just me being vocal that I think you are (perhaps unknowingly) distorting things, and I would prefer to point that out.)
arildno said:And hence, it would have wrong to investigate it..
What are you guys talking about? THERE WERE investigations done. The Democratic Party itself did one that concluded there is "strong evidence [based on statistical analysis] against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush." http://www.johnkerry.com/features/count/Section.pdfedward said:Evidence is seldom found until a suspicion is strong enough to bring about action by the responsible parties. The suspicion of voting fraud was strong enough to be disclosed in the national news, yet the Karl Rovian spin prevented any real investigation.
While there is no reliable evidence of actual fraud in the use of these machines in Ohio in 2004, our expert advises that DRE (touchscreen) machines are not sufficiently safeguarded against fraud and are less usable for the broad population of voters than earlier simpler technologies; and that existing standards and practices for certification are insufficient to ensure th security requirements of DRE (touchscreen) systems.
The tendency to vote for Kerry in 2004 was the same as the tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002. That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the opinion of the team's political science experts, strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.
My tone is just not letting you wiggle out of making a point by playing word games. It is disingenuous to argue against word-choice. What you should be doing is correcting my word choice if it doesn't fit what you really think (edit: after much pressure, you have now, mostly, done that). I want to know what the correct characterization is. And once you give it, I phrase my responses using your words to try to avoid future non-responses. If you say (for example) that you wish to approach this issue scientifically, I will hold you to that and you should expect to have it pointed out when you fail to do so.pattylou said:Your tone has reverted back to something like condescending and patronising.
I do not have time right now to read the entire document, but it appears that study was conducted only in regard to Ohio and in regard to whether "every eligible voter can vote and every vote is counted." I would need to read it fully to know if it was determined that votes were counted for the correct candidate, which would seem difficult if not impossible without a printed ticket for e-votes.russ_watters said:What are you guys talking about? THERE WERE investigations done. The Democratic Party itself did one that concluded there is "strong evidence [based on statistical analysis] against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush." http://www.johnkerry.com/features/count/Section.pdf
Guys, the fact that no one on the national level has been charged with fraud is not because no one is investigating, it is because public entities doing the investigations - even those with partisan biases toward the Democratic party - have positively concluded that systematic fraud did not occur.
Not even the democrats in Congress have pressed for opening criminal investigations (one exception: the Conyers report - but he got very little support from his Democratic peers and because of that, the issue died). Is it because they are wusses? Maybe, but more likely they just plain don't think they'd find anything.
It is a brief summary (12 pages) and the parts relating to possible electronic vote fraud are even briefer (2 paragraphs) and are essentially entirely stated here:Informal Logic said:I do not have time right now to read the entire document, but it appears that study was conducted only in regard to Ohio and in regard to whether "every eligible voter can vote and every vote is counted." I would need to read it fully to know if it was determined that votes were counted for the correct candidate, which would seem difficult if not impossible without a printed ticket for e-votes.
Quote:
While there is no reliable evidence of actual fraud in the use of these machines in Ohio in 2004, our expert advises that DRE (touchscreen) machines are not sufficiently safeguarded against fraud and are less usable for the broad population of voters than earlier simpler technologies; and that existing standards and practices for certification are insufficient to ensure th security requirements of DRE (touchscreen) systems.
IOW, according to the summary that Russ linked, political scientists hold the opinion that the patterns of votes for Kerry in 2004 are similar enough to the patterns for democratic votes in the governor's race 2002, that they consider misallocation of votes from kerry to bush unlikely.The tendency to vote for Kerry in 2004 was the same as the tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002. That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the opinion of the team's political science experts, strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.
SOS2008 said:I was referring to what you yourself write, which is usually your own opinion editorial, and not quotes for sources with a few of your own comments in regard to the quote. That's fine, but please don't criticize me for providing sources, which I do on a regular basis -- and this is the second time you've made a derogatory remark about using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is considered reliable, but nonetheless it is by no means the only source I've referenced.