News Is Diebold's Voting Machines One of the Greatest Threats to Democracy?

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter, I hate to say this, but ducks don't quake, they quack..

I am in the SF bay area. They quake here.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

Which is why I only mention it as my reason for not spending the time to read and understand the study.

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.

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.
If I wanted everyone agreed with me I would appoint loyal followers to my administration.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

(2) I believe I *do* present evidence. I believe I *do* approach this scientifically.

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.

The problem is we're asking entirely different questions. I'm asking what is the evidence that the elections could have been hacked?

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 that you make other statements that seem to imply that you think the election were hacked. And that is an entirely different hypothesis that though you have never stated explicitly (though others have), you seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to prove. All I'm asking is whether you support the hypothesis: 'the elections were hacked'.

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.

The tone of these threads strongly imply otherwise.

(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%.

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?

My feelings on the matter vary over time, and depend on things like anecdotes...

Again, I appreciate your being upfront about that, but as a scientist, you know that anecdotal evidence is worse than useless.

(4) I don't think there is "evidence" to say explicitly that "Bush stole the election."

Thank you for being explicit about that.

The very phrase implies him breaking into a system somewhere and manipulating the tallies himself.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

 

[edward]

Evidence showing error existed (if indeed the conclusion is actually valid) does not imply those errors were caused by fraud.

Isn't that what Enron claimed? 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. At this point nothing ,except possibly history, will ever show that fraud happened. Ironically nothing can prove that it did not happen.

If the alleged voter fraud was treated as a true criminal act, authorities would first look for a motive, then a means. Both were present.

For me the troubling thing is that five years have passed and many states still do not have secure voting systems.

 

[arildno]

. 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..

 

[Art]

Skyhunter, I hate to say this, but ducks don't quake, they quack..

That depends on the drake

 

[pattylou]

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.)

 

[pattylou]

Apparently Diebold now admits (and perhaps this is "old news") that a glitch on their end lost 16,000 votes in Florida, which should have gone to Gore, in Volusia county.

16,000 votes. All for Gore. Lost. Bush took Florida by a few hundred votes.

You can see tabulated documented Diebold failures here:

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

and I saw the original mention here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_dan_meri_051013_indiana_republicans_.htm

(an op ed, which is why I tried to find something less partisan and more thorough - hence the first link posted.)

 

[edward]

The site below contains everything from conspiracy theories to some solid facts.

http://www.votermarch.org/

 

[russ_watters]

And hence, it would have wrong to investigate it..

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

The entire list of complaints regarding the 2004 election can be found https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&tab=ALL". In Ohio, there were 4,166 irregularities reported. Among them:

-1192 Registration related incidents
-548 Long line reports
-500 Polling place inquiry incidents
-340 Absentee ballot related incidents
-280 Machine problems
-263 Votor intimidation incidents
[etc]

 

[pattylou]

Thank you for the link (2 posts up), Russ. There is regular blame being directed at the various election officials, in this report - blame that indicates non-machine-hack type problems favored Bush. That is a separate topic, but it is useful for establishing the take home message of the investigation.

It is also clear that some machines are considered, as a result of this investigation, to be unsuitable for elections:

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.

It bears pointing out that (1) this report was published before the Hursti demonstration and thus no specific questions about the memory card hack (etc) were asked and (2) the hypothetical hack would have only needed to swing the vote by about 2% (they knew it was a close race). A swing this small may not be evident in an analysis that shows merely:

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.

In other words, I am not sure if the "pattern" they are describing would clearly show a 2% alteration. I assume they know what they are talking about (them being mathematicians and all!)(EDIT! They're not mathematicians, they're political scientists - they are giving their "best opinion." Oy vey!) but I want to see the analysis in more detail, and I'll appreciate your feedback when I look at the data. If their positive conclusion (as you stated it, that no fraud occured) rests solely on this 'pattern' that they describe, and if there is scatter in the data such that the similarity of the pattern in voting in 2002 vs 2004 has some error in it, then it seems that the conclusion (positively concluded no fraud) may not be as cut and dried as it sounds in the two paragraphs on page 11 of the summary you linked.

I have found the full report (thanks again for the summary). Your point that people in both parties are interested in getting to the bottom of this, is well made. (I would, however, suggest that Howard Dean and others would be unwilling to be too vocal about machine hacks (either to avoid being labelled a conpiracy nut or to avoid revealing corruption in their party as well). )

As I have said previously in this thread, there is corruption in both parties. I am glad to see the democratic party investigating this, but it is not enough to convince me that Diebold did not fix a few votes.

off to look at the full report. It's 204 pages long. Don't wait up.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/fullreport.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

Your tone has reverted back to something like condescending and patronising.

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.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

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.

 

[pattylou]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

They are not statisticians (they are political science experts), and the "conclusion" is explicitly stated to be an opinion.

Quick perusal of the full report http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/fullreport.pdf shows "best fit" lines among points with such incredible scatter (see pages 147, 148, 149, for example) that any discussion of "pattern" of voting leading to any "conclusion" of certainty one way or the other ----

Well it seems a bit extreme to *this* non-mathematician.

Please take a minute to look at the lines (best fit I presume) made on those pages, and tell me what your impression is, particularly if you have some good education in statistics.

-Patty

(I'm not trying to diss the party, this just looks like a red flag for bad data analysis to me. I don't even see error bars. Perhaps they're included in the captions, and as I said I've only perused it so far.)

 

[loseyourname]

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.

I didn't criticize you for using wikipedia as a source this time. I said that I was glad you chose an article that was not red-flagged. Granted, I was being sarcastic, and reiterating my previous criticism for when you did use the flagged article. Wikipedia might generally be considered a good source, but even you must admit that using an article that says right at the top of it that it has inaccurate content is not a good idea. Townsend was ripped to pieces when he linked to an article with inaccurate content on Fidel Castro.