Election Fraud in 2008 or 2012

[SOS2008]

LYN, if you read about the companies that provide the machines, what computer scientists have to say about the machines, and certain states like California that therefore refused to use the machines, it is not just a mechanical issue, but one of ethics too.

In any event, back to my reply to pattylou... Throughout the election process Kerry said he did not want to further divide the country with election disputes--including Ohio. He gracefully conceded victory to Bush (who I doubt could be capable of the same behavior).

Though we will have to deal with the repercussions such as record deficits and record spending (highway bill just passed), etc., etc. for the rest of Bush's second term (hopefully no new wars) I feel the evaluation of the elections conducted by others was a better path. And it is leading to election reform, which would be a good thing for everyone.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is obvious to me that when the people in charge of the election are partisan and act in a partisan manner in discharging their duty, that we do not have fair elections.

I offer as evidence Kathleen Harris and her felons list.

The Florida Secretary of State’s Office hired a private firm known as Database Technologies, Inc. (now ChoicePoint Corporation) to identify convicted felons and remove them from Florida’s voting rolls. Prior to the election, 94,000 voters were removed (Kelly, 2002). This is legal if someone has been convicted of a felony, but as it turns out, 97 percent were innocent and should not have been removed. "the list was full of mistakes mainly because of the criteria [the database company] used. it compared its list of felons with the florida voting rolls by looking for a rough match between the names and dates of birth. thus a christine smith could have been disqualified if there had been a christopher smith of the same age with a felony record somewhere in the us. [the database company] also used race as a matching criterion, skewing the impact of the errors even more against black voters" (Borger & Palast, 2001). As The Nation magazine reported, "immediately after the november, 7, 2000 election, minority voters who had never committed crimes complained of having had their names removed from voting rolls in a purge of ‘ex-felons,’ of being denied translation services required by law, … and of harassment by poll workers and law-enforcement officials." The list of voters denied the right to vote was overwhelmingly Democratic and half were minorities (Kelly, 2002). Al Gore neither protested the disenfranchisement nor supported these voters’ lawsuit to regain their vote.

Why can't we have free elections?

 

[Skyhunter]

Though we will have to deal with the repercussions such as record deficits and record spending (highway bill just passed), etc., etc. for the rest of Bush's second term (hopefully no new wars) I feel the evaluation of the elections conducted by others was a better path. And it is leading to election reform, which would be a good thing for everyone.

Don't hold your breath, with the recess appointment of Bolton to the UN I expect to hear a lot of rhetoric about Iran soon. Iran is the next target.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the tangential things I am recalling is that towards the end of election day - the numbers in ohio that were being reported, suddenly and abruptly switched to indicate Bush. this was after he had been told that Kerry had Ohio. I was speaking to someone who was watching the returns come in; I was teaching that evening and didn't see it myself. Perhaps someone here remembers that.

People need to be careful when watching election night coverage. After they screwed up in 2000 it got better, but it can still be highly misleading. Generally, the results are shown in percentages (Kerry 57%, Bush 43%), but if you read the fine print, it'll say "with 2% of precincts reporting". That should make an alarm go off in your head that hey, these results are utterly meaningless. I vividly remember the 2000 election, when Florida was awarded to Gore by the media, with only a tiny fraction of the votes actually counted. There were some states that were awarded to the person who was actually losing, based on the speculation of the media!

 

[2CentsWorth]

In all the threads regarding election fraud, conservative members STILL have not addressed the simple need for a paper trail. But of course, because if there is concession, even on this one matter, you would be admitting to a problem and the possibility that Bush was not fairly elected. Bush supporters can't go there, so instead continue to make other arguments in an attempt to show that our election process is fine and dandy. You don't really believe this do you?

 

[Skyhunter]

Fair enough - I just wanted to make the distinctions(my distinctions) clear.

From my link: I'll have to disagree with him. There really isn't any possibility other than fraud: Clearly, dead people can't vote. So that means someone had to vote for them. The only reason I can think of why someone would vote on behalf of someone who was dead is to affect the outcome of the election. All of those differences are in the political climate, not the election process itself. Ie, the fact that Reagan won in 1980 with a massive landslide has nothing to do with whether or not there was any fraud involved. You're falling into a trap: if a fraud of 1% existed in 2000, it could have turned the election, while if a fraud of 1% existed in 1980, it could not have. People cared more about fraud in 2000 because the election was close, not because there was any evidence of more prevalent fraud than in 1980.

Reagon's landslide victory was 1984.

 

[Skyhunter]

People need to be careful when watching election night coverage. After they screwed up in 2000 it got better, but it can still be highly misleading. Generally, the results are shown in percentages (Kerry 57%, Bush 43%), but if you read the fine print, it'll say "with 2% of precincts reporting". That should make an alarm go off in your head that hey, these results are utterly meaningless. I vividly remember the 2000 election, when Florida was awarded to Gore by the media, with only a tiny fraction of the votes actually counted. There were some states that were awarded to the person who was actually losing, based on the speculation of the media!

What I remember in 2000 was this.

Al Gore won the popular vote and was the de facto incumbent.

Florida was a statistical tie.

I had just read that the Bush team had filed a lawsuit to prevent a recount in Florida.

Jim Baker, long time friend and lawyer to the Bush family came on my TV and said "Al Gore wants to tie this election up in the courts."

When the media allowed him to get away with this lie I knew that the institution I had always believed would keep America free was taking part in a takeover of the US government.

So Russ just remember that we were not always as divided as we are now. It took an illiterate moron by the name of George W. Bush, with the aid of the corporatist and their control of the mainstream media to bring the country to the sad state it is in today.

And you wonder why we are so ready to believe that they would steal an election?

 

[loseyourname]

In all the threads regarding election fraud, conservative members STILL have not addressed the simple need for a paper trail.

Either you don't consider me conservative or you weren't paying attention (I don't blame you; the thread got very long very quickly). I'll just quote my entire post, #82 in the original thread on this topic (the relevant part is in the bottom in bold):

Well, I found us some more stuff about voting machines and Diebold, though I guess this deviates from the main topic. (Nonetheless, I'm sure anyone who is interested will find it to be useful information, and none of it comes from a partisan source.)

First off, the CalTech/MIT report I was looking for earlier:

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/d...ngMachines3.pdf

You'll notice, in particular, that the two most hotly contested states, Pennsylvania and Ohio, only had electronic voting machines in 26% and 15% of precints, respectively. Florida had 53%, and they also had no punch card machines this time, which were all the rage in 2000.

Also:

If we look at the 51 separate exit state polls, we see that 30 predicted more votes for Kerry than he actually got, while 21 predicted more votes for Bush than he actually got. Therefore, at the state level, the polls favored Kerry less than the sum of all the polls aggregated up to the national level. Furthermore, if we do a statistical test to see whether the differences between the exit polls and the official returns are significant, only three out of 51 are.

In the footnotes you will see that three states that showed a statistically significant difference between predicted results and actual results were Rhode Island, New York, and Oklahoma. None of these were 'battleground' states. Rhode Island and New York were won easily by Kerry; Oklahoma was won easily by Bush.

The addendum to this report:

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/d...s_Bush_Vote.pdf

Here is an article from the San Diego Tribune discussing another report by the CalTech/MIT project (I cannot find the original report) regarding residual, or 'lost' votes:

It was one of the fundamental problems of the 2000 voting stalemate and a focus of subsequent reforms.
. . .
In 2000, the national residual vote was 1.9 percent of ballots cast for president. The report found a significant improvement this year, with the residual vote falling to 1.1 percent. The analysis examined 37 states and the District of Columbia; figures were unavailable elsewhere.
. . .
Florida, the scene of the 2000 postelection stalemate, and Georgia had the biggest drop in residual votes. Florida went from 2.9 percent to 0.4 percent; Georgia went from 3.5 percent to 0.4 percent. Both underwent comprehensive reform, with Georgia putting in electronic voting machines statewide, Florida scrapping punch cards and both launching ambitious voter education campaigns.

Remember what they were saying in 2000 about wanting every vote counted? Well, they certainly got a lot more of them counted this time.

Regarding the evil diebold, that company that is so blatantly part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, look here:

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/...county=Cuyahoga

If you remember, Cuyahoga County in Ohio was the site of most of the accusation this time around about election-stealing. The voting machines that were used in Cuyahoga County were not made by Diebold. [Note: Actually, none of the machines anywhere in Ohio were Diebold.]

And about the paper trails:

http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?list=type&type=13

You'll note that on 05/07/2004, six months before the election, the state of Ohio passed H.B.262, mandating a paper trail for all voting machines.

I guess we can't blame either of those boogeymen.

Other states, from that same page, that passed VVPR (voter-verified paper record) legislation prior to the 2004 presidential election:

Alaska, Arkanasas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, , Washington, West Virginia.

Many other states have either passed or introduced similar legislation since the election.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Either you don't consider me conservative or you weren't paying attention (I don't blame you; the thread got very long very quickly). I'll just quote my entire post, #82 in the original thread on this topic (the relevant part is in the bottom in bold):



Other states, from that same page, that passed VVPR (voter-verified paper record) legislation prior to the 2004 presidential election:

Alaska, Arkanasas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, , Washington, West Virginia.

Many other states have either passed or introduced similar legislation since the election.

Thanks for the re-post. You're right. I for one missed it and it is valuable info.

Ta.

 

[loseyourname]

Verified Voting is a great site that everyone should check. Tons of resources and no partisanship.

 

[russ_watters]

In all the threads regarding election fraud, conservative members STILL have not addressed the simple need for a paper trail.

The term "paper trail" is vague and beyond that, what is so great about paper that makes it better than silicon?

 

[SOS2008]

The term "paper trail" is vague and beyond that, what is so great about paper that makes it better than silicon?

I don't know why you think something like a printed receipt is so vague. And perhaps you can tell us all why it isn't better than silicon?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know why you think something like a printed receipt is so vague.

I meant the term "paper trail" itself isn't very specific. A printed reciept is one of many examples of what could be considered a "paper trail". Some people are talking about an entire second set of ballots. That is an extremely bad idea because it only adds error, it doesn't reduce it.

And perhaps you can tell us all why it isn't better than silicon?

Paper is less durable, less secure, and more difficult to count than, say, an encrypted flash disk.

edit: if all we're talking about here is a printed receipt that the votor can look at, then discard, I don't see that it would hurt much (depending on the procedure for remediation), but I don't see that it would help much either.

 

[russ_watters]

What I remember in 2000 was this.

Al Gore won the popular vote and was the de facto incumbent.

That's meaningless word salad. Our election just plain doesn't work that way and "incumbent" means the one currently holding the office. Had Gore won, he still wouldn't have been the incumbent for another 2 months.

Florida was a statistical tie.

True.

So what does that mean for the paper vs silicon debate? In a paper election, there is always a margin for error and a chance for a statistical tie. In a silicon election, there is the potential for zero error.

So my question is: why are people who are looking for a fair and accurate vote not looking to make electronic balloting work instead of clinging to something that is known to be inherrently flawed?

I had just read that the Bush team had filed a lawsuit to prevent a recount in Florida.

There were many lawsuits filed by both sides, but yes, Bush (or people on his behalf) attempted to block some recounts. But then - so did Gore (or his people). Gore's "make every vote count" was just a soundbyte - he didn't want every vote to count any more than Bush did - he only wanted votes for him to count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

Reagon's landslide victory was 1984.

Reagan won 91% of the electoral vote in 1980 - a landslide... but you're right in that I was thinking of 1984, when he won almost 98%.

 

[2CentsWorth]

I meant the term "paper trail" itself isn't very specific. A printed reciept is one of many examples of what could be considered a "paper trail". Some people are talking about an entire second set of ballots. That is an extremely bad idea because it only adds error, it doesn't reduce it. Paper is less durable, less secure, and more difficult to count than, say, an encrypted flash disk.

edit: if all we're talking about here is a printed receipt that the votor can look at, then discard, I don't see that it would hurt much (depending on the procedure for remediation), but I don't see that it would help much either.

In other countries the printed receipt allows the voter to verify how the machine registered their selections. Then they place the receipt in a ballot box as back up for a possible recount. If an encrypted flash disk only stores information, such as the totals the machine has calculated, it would be useless electronic redundancy. The 'paper trail' that provides verification to the voter, and that is then available for all parties to monitor makes much more sense.

Of course before voters even get to this point there should be better verification of citizenship. Also, as posted elsewhere, inking of fingers to ensure only one vote per voter is a good idea too. To use the earlier analogy about going to moon, if we can do that why can't we find ways to ensure fair elections?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Either you don't consider me conservative or you weren't paying attention (I don't blame you; the thread got very long very quickly). I'll just quote my entire post, #82 in the original thread on this topic (the relevant part is in the bottom in bold):



Other states, from that same page, that passed VVPR (voter-verified paper record) legislation prior to the 2004 presidential election:

Alaska, Arkanasas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, , Washington, West Virginia.

Many other states have either passed or introduced similar legislation since the election.

Just saw this... No, my earlier post was general and not directed to you. Other members have provided responses to this already, in that partisan affiliations, questionable history, standards, etc. of these companies, etc. erode confidence in our election process. It appears a significant percent of Americans hold this view as a result, and whether one agrees with their view or not, we should want to address voter confidence.

To others I can only say that to defend defective aspects of our election process in defence of Bush/GOP victories is a bias that does not help anything. You can deny this as being your motive, but my suspicions remain and I find this a discouraging attitude in regard to future elections.