News Poll: Was the 2004 election rigged?

[russ_watters]

Me too.



Not me.

I honestly don't get how you can hold both of those opinions at the same time, pattylou - they are mutually exlusive. Ie:

A very important aspect of voting has been lost with these machines.

With hand counted ballots, you have members of both parties involved with the counting process. I don't know specifics, but I recall the Ohio recount had three people from each party present.

But didn't you just agree with me above that manual counting is a bad thing, not a good thing!??

Any time you have people using their judgement, there exists the potential for error. That was the whole issue with the Florida "pregnant chad" fun in 2000: error cannot be completely removed from manual balloting. It doesn't matter if 3 people from each party were present (were there 3 people from the Green party?) or if 50 people from each party were present - its still humans making a judgment call instead of the unequivocal, unbaised recording of a machine.

With machine counted ballots, you have a Secretary of State (partisan appointment) certify a vote counting method. If this method is a machine, then the method is partisan as well in our present situation.

That simply doesn't follow. A counting method cannot be partisan. Again, there is the example of the "chads" from the 2000 election. Whether you count only a "pregnant chad" a "hanging chad" or a "partially detatched chad" does not make the counting process biased in one way or another.

The reason there was debate in 2000 was the accuracy of these counting methods: ie, a more accurate count in a pro-Gore district provides additional votes to Gore. Such an issue would not exist, however, if every district had the same voting method.

With electronic balloting, it would work a lot like an ATM. Hit the button for your candidate and the vote is recorded. Such a machine either works or it doesn't - there cannot possibly be any bias in it.

I'd be far more comfortable if members of each party could acces the code and memory cards of the machines at any point to make sure the count was going as it should. This would be far more analogous to hand counted ballots than what is presently used, in terms of safeguards, and would still allow the superiority of machine counting to ---- reduce costs, time, and errors, etc.

Good God, no! The entire point of using automatic/electronic ballots is to remove humans from the process. The more people who have access, the more potential there is for error and fraud! The machines should be thoroughly checked both before and after the election to ensure they are/were working correctly, but during the election, there should be no human intervention whatsoever.

For those who are wondering why electronic voting machines have issues, there it is: government bueracracy causes these errors. What you end up with is an electronic copy of paper balloting where you get all the problems of both paper and electronic balloting.

Your quote sounds like an opinion. If you have a reputable source ("evidence?") showing that the motives are to spread a conspiracy theory -- ("evidence" might be something like an admission by one of the authors, or some such) I'd appreciate it.

It is an opinion. It is based on the tone of the report (which doesn't seem to be available online anymore) and the disposition of the authors. The quick jump to the conclusion of fruad without really considering the possibility of error is indicative of the desire to see fraud.

Further, the results of the study were, 130,000-260,000 ("or more" ) extra votes for Bush. I'm not sure if those were "swing" votes or just extra votes. Bush won the election by 381,000 votes. If those votes were "swing" votes, that's a difference of 160,000 to 510,000. So wait - that data does not allow for the positive conclusion that the election went the wrong way! It isn't accurate enough! Saying that this data shows that the election went the wrong way is exactly the same as what crackpots are doing when they say the Michelson-Morley experiment succeeded in measuring an ether drift!

And if these votes were not swing votes, just "extra" votes, then they support the positive conclusion that Bush was the rightful winner of the election.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm still waiting for someone to post the details of the crime. If I have time tonight and no one has provided any details, I'll invent a story of my own. Right now I'm considering several separate story-lines:

-Diebold programmers under the direction of Bush pre-program the machines to multiply every Bush vote by 1.1, thus giving him 10% more votes than he should have gotten.

-Several thousand members of a vast conspiracy tamper with machines in polling places in Florida.

-Several dozen election officials in offices somewhere go into the Access databases of polling results and change the results before they are submitted to the state.

If anyone has any preference on which story I should fabricate, I'll take requests. Better yet, if I got lucky and hit on what actually happened, please feel free to provide the evidence to support the appropriate story. Or if it happened another way, please feel free to explain exactly how it happened (preferrably with evidence...)

 

[pattylou]

LYN: You asked if all the things you said put the matter to rest. You seemed to want to indicate that through the sheer *number* of items that you mentioned, that the whole issue should be put to rest. I was trying only to point out that several items on your list are entirely beside the point. Thus, the "sheer number of items" shrunk, considerably. The only item that I thought was pertinent was the MIT study, and I appreciate your lead on that.

I am not saying there was electronic tampering. I thought that was clear. When a dsicsussion reaches the point that the same people are saying the same things again and again, it gets a bit frustrating. I may take a break from this!

I didn't understand everything you said. I am sorry you seem to think I am a "sore loser." You seem to want to "shut me up" or rather "shut up" the discussion in general. You may find it tedious, and you may wish to withdraw from the conversation (I do)...

But are you really trying to imply that 59% of the PF participants in this poll are card-carrying members of the tin foil hat brigade? (That's how it sounds when one side starts calling names like "sore loser.") Isn't it *more* likely that the very significant distrust (59%) of the electronic systems, among PF members that participated in the poll, represents discomfort with electronic voting which should be addressed in a level headed manner and not "shut up?"

Whether Bush or Kerry or both cheated, and who should have won, is also beside the point. I would hope if Kerry had won, and I saw the irregularities that were reported, that I would still be as invested in voicing my concern for fair elections.

 

[cronxeh]

if the CEO is a Republican then the engineer who made the machines is a Democrat - it balances out, you know

 

[pattylou]

I'm still waiting for someone to post the details of the crime. If I have time tonight and no one has provided any details, I'll invent a story of my own. Right now I'm considering several separate story-lines:

-Diebold programmers under the direction of Bush pre-program the machines to multiply every Bush vote by 1.1, thus giving him 10% more votes than he should have gotten.

-Several thousand members of a vast conspiracy tamper with machines in polling places in Florida.

-Several dozen election officials in offices somewhere go into the Access databases of polling results and change the results before they are submitted to the state.

If anyone has any preference on which story I should fabricate, I'll take requests. Better yet, if I got lucky and hit on what actually happened, please feel free to provide the evidence to support the appropriate story. Or if it happened another way, please feel free to explain exactly how it happened (preferrably with evidence...)

John Conyers (D-MI) and Gore Vidal have both outlined scenarios containing "details of the crime." I suggest you start with their bare bone stories. A google on 'vote fraud' and their names might get you started.

 

[russ_watters]

But are you really trying to imply that 59% of the PF participants in this poll are card-carrying members of the tin foil hat brigade? (That's how it sounds when one side starts calling names like "sore loser.") Isn't it *more* likely that the very significant distrust (59%) of the electronic systems, among PF members that participated in the poll, represents discomfort with electronic voting which should be addressed in a level headed manner and not "shut up?"

Whether Bush or Kerry or both cheated, and who should have won, is also beside the point. I would hope if Kerry had won, and I saw the irregularities that were reported, that I would still be as invested in voicing my concern for fair elections.

Just to clarify my position, I think people who believe there was electronic tampering that led to the "wrong" guy winning the election are buying into conspiracy theory. But the poll doesn't ask that.

 

[pattylou]

I honestly don't get how you can hold both of those opinions at the same time, pattylou - they are mutually exlusive. Ie: But didn't you just agree with me above that manual counting is a bad thing, not a good thing!??

Any time you have people using their judgement, there exists the potential for error. That was the whole issue with the Florida "pregnant chad" fun in 2000: error cannot be completely removed from manual balloting. It doesn't matter if 3 people from each party were present (were there 3 people from the Green party?) or if 50 people from each party were present - its still humans making a judgment call instead of the unequivocal, unbaised recording of a machine. That simply doesn't follow. A counting method cannot be partisan. Again, there is the example of the "chads" from the 2000 election. Whether you count only a "pregnant chad" a "hanging chad" or a "partially detatched chad" does not make the counting process biased in one way or another.

The reason there was debate in 2000 was the accuracy of these counting methods: ie, a more accurate count in a pro-Gore district provides additional votes to Gore. Such an issue would not exist, however, if every district had the same voting method.

With electronic balloting, it would work a lot like an ATM. Hit the button for your candidate and the vote is recorded. Such a machine either works or it doesn't - there cannot possibly be any bias in it. Good God, no! The entire point of using automatic/electronic ballots is to remove humans from the process. The more people who have access, the more potential there is for error and fraud! The machines should be thoroughly checked both before and after the election to ensure they are/were working correctly, but during the election, there should be no human intervention whatsoever.

For those who are wondering why electronic voting machines have issues, there it is: government bueracracy causes these errors. What you end up with is an electronic copy of paper balloting where you get all the problems of both paper and electronic balloting. It is an opinion. It is based on the tone of the report (which doesn't seem to be available online anymore) and the disposition of the authors. The quick jump to the conclusion of fruad without really considering the possibility of error is indicative of the desire to see fraud.

Further, the results of the study were, 130,000-260,000 ("or more" ) extra votes for Bush. I'm not sure if those were "swing" votes or just extra votes. Bush won the election by 381,000 votes. If those votes were "swing" votes, that's a difference of 160,000 to 510,000. So wait - that data does not allow for the positive conclusion that the election went the wrong way! It isn't accurate enough! Saying that this data shows that the election went the wrong way is exactly the same as what crackpots are doing when they say the Michelson-Morley experiment succeeded in measuring an ether drift!

And if these votes were not swing votes, just "extra" votes, then they support the positive conclusion that Bush was the rightful winner of the election.

If I ever thought you were female posting under a male name, you have removed all doubt with this post!

I'm happy to go through this if you want - but you sound considerably aggravated. I don't see any reason to go back and forth under these conditions...? It's pretty clear we're not connecting here.

I would repeat what I said to LYN. If something is suspected by such a large percentage of a group as is indicated in this (very biased, very small - sample) poll, berating the majority may not be the best course of action. If you feel you're right, and you aren't getting through, you might want to spend more time on details of why specific scenarios (e.g. the 4,000 extra votes that went to Bush in some county or other) are above-board.

If nothing else, I hope that you have a greater appreciation for how much potential distrust *may* be present in the general population. Even if it is only 20%, and if that distrust splits 3:1 to democrats (or republicans), that means that the *distrust alone* could influence voter turnout and election results. We should address this, no?

Also, you argued earlier that distrust of machines will go away as people who have grown up with them, become a larger percentage of the population. How old would you guess the average respondent is, in this poll? I would bet that many of those who distrust the machines, "grew up with them!"

-Patty

p.s. It has nothing to do with who won. This is not sour grapes. Sour grapes may have gotten me into it (I don't know - I think it was more *shock* that got me into it, as Kerry had been told during the election that he won Ohio...and I believe Bush was told he lost... Only to have the prediction swing late in the day by several points. That was shocking.) Anyway, it isn't sour grapes, it's a recognition of this issue being widely of concern, and a desire to understand the details and facts and machines used, in more detail. This is good, yes?

 

[Burnsys]

You're digging is what you're doing. Name me a major manufacturer of anything and I'd guess there's a 90% the CEO is a Republican. That doesn't mean he's part of a conspiracy.

Noo. no conspiracy. is just they found that if they get a place in the congress they can pass laws who help their corporations to make more profits...

 

[pattylou]

Noo. no conspiracy. is just they found that if they get a place in the congress they can pass laws who help their corporations to make more profits...

Not only that, but now that I am back on this issue for the moment...

My point *wasn't* that the CEO was republican...

My point was that the CEO of the company that counted the votes... was the candidate for the senatorial race!

LoseYourName: Can you see why this is a little bit different, than what you responded with?

 

[russ_watters]

John Conyers (D-MI) and Gore Vidal have both outlined scenarios containing "details of the crime." I suggest you start with their bare bone stories. A google on 'vote fraud' and their names might get you started.

All I could find on John Conyers was a letter detailing several (about a dozen) specific "irregularities" (his word, not mine). He does not assert that there was any fraud (in fact, he says explicitly that he doesn't know) and none of those "irregularities" were anywhere big enough to cause the election to have turned the wrong direction. Sorry, there isn't even the framework from which to build a good fictional story there.

I haven't been able to find anything specific by Gore Vidal - just a bunch of talk-show transcripts where he makes vague offhand allegations, such as "All of the plots that were in line during the 2000 election are still there, from the purge list of supposed felons to computer touch screen voting and so on." -- Gore Vidal" But that doesn't help me any - how, specifically, was touch-screen voting used for fraud? Sorry, nothing to go on there either.

 

[russ_watters]

If I ever thought you were female posting under a male name, you have removed all doubt with this post!

? Huh?

I'm happy to go through this if you want - but you sound considerably aggravated.

No aggrivation, just incredulity. Trust me on this: I don't get aggravated. My friends make fun of me for it all the time.

 

[pattylou]

If you want specifics on how touch-screen voting used for fraud... re-read the Black Box report that was put out at the end of May. (You said you had discussed this (?) several times already?)

In my understanding, the machines are checked before the election. Also in my understanding, a memory card can be swapped into the machine (before or during? I'm not sure.) that tells the machine how to count. For example, it may say: "Start Bush at negative 100 votes, and Kerry at plus 100 votes. Count from there."

So say you get 800 votes on that machine, and they would have split 400:400. Because of the card - they will instead split 300:500. You check the final tally, it adds up to 800, if you re-run the same data you get the same result, and this hack was demonstrated as "doable" by two people. Not a conspiracy of thousands. Two. This is my limited understanding of the BlackBoxVoting report in May.

Put aside for the moment that BBV may be wacko. If this demonstration is right, we need to change the machines! So - there should be some interest in finding out if this is right.

There should also be some interest from Diebold in having their memory cards audited, but I believe they resist this.

And the claim is that you will only see the hack, if you look at the memory card. It leaves no trace anywhere else. (This is why I think the paper trail may not always be viewable --- BBV was clear that you don't see the hack except on the card.)

I am not a programmer and the code they posted is unreadable to me. Do you want a direct link?

~~~~

If you want feedback straight from the horse's moputh on your story, you can post it also on the BBV forums. I visit there only rarely, and I am sure that they would be able to point out any misconceptions that might arise in your fabrication.

 

[pattylou]

? Huh?

Your manner of communication is very "masculine." i.e. in this case, you seem more interested in expounding your views than dialog.

Check some of the female contributors. This style is not common.

This is not an insult, and I realize I am calling myself sexist, after a fashion. I am glad you don't get aggravated. You might find yourself less incredulous if you spent more time trying to understand what I am saying (dialog), than telling me that I am inconsistent. But it's no biggie.

 

[pattylou]

Russ: Do you have any societal/policy based comments on the fact that 60% of respondents in this poll think there was electronic tampering?

Do you think this is a cause for concern?

Do you think a fabrication (I assume you will try to ridicule through it) will ease concerns about voting?

Ediot: Nevermind. I see your response above.

 

[Anttech]

One of the problems with using electronic polling (touch screen method) is that its impossible to have a 'recount'... Only thing you can have is a 'reprint'

Therefore if you have any error in the vote data its just going to be replicated

 

[BobG]

I have to admit I'm a little perplexed over what method would bring voters the most satisfaction.

In 2000, the main complaint was a system that allowed so many ambiguities. Was that a vote cast for Bush or Kerry? Or was that just damage done by the numerous times the ballot was run through the machine and handled by counters? By time the ordeal was over, I think most of America was painfully aware of the shortcomings of trying to count ballots by hand.

A computerized counter that can count millions of votes as easily as 10 votes has to be superior to paper ballots, or punch ballots. Recounts are a 'remedy' for known short comings in trying to count paper ballots by hand - not something folks should be trying to achieve. If the voting technology were sophisticated enough, recounts wouldn't even be a requirement.

Yes, you want to know that the electronic voting machines aren't rigged, the same as you want to know the mayor of the town isn't stuffing the paper ballot boxes with votes for himself and his favorite candidates. Unless the designer has developed some kind of self-modifying code that will rig the election, then rewrite its own software to look like it recorded every vote fairly, then there's more security with the electronic voting machines than the old paper ballots.

I can buy the idea that any party in control of an election tilts the ground rules as much in their favor as they can get away with, but I just find it hard to believe the voting machines were rigged.

 

[russ_watters]

Your manner of communication is very "masculine." i.e. in this case, you seem more interested in expounding your views than dialog.

Check some of the female contributors. This style is not common.

This is not an insult, and I realize I am calling myself sexist, after a fashion. I am glad you don't get aggravated.

I should introduce you to some of my female friends...

In any case, though, you misunderstand my intent:

You might find yourself less incredulous if you spent more time trying to understand what I am saying (dialog), than telling me that I am inconsistent. But it's no biggie.

When I say I'm incredulous, that's a cue for you to explain the part that I don't understand. No, I didn't phrase it in the form of a question ('Please explain _____ to me'), but then, this isn't just a question/answer session, its a debate.

 

[SOS2008]

If I recall, ballots in Florida (2000) created confusion because binding resulted in information that was not aligned, something that was simply silly.

Unless electronic voting can be monitored by all parties equally, I will always prefer to fill out a form that I place into a box myself. And then, once again I want to know that the counting is monitored by all parties equally. What is so difficult about this concept?

 

[russ_watters]

If you want specifics on how touch-screen voting [insert critical word here] used for fraud... re-read the Black Box report that was put out at the end of May. (You said you had discussed this (?) several times already?)

You left a really, really important word out of that sentence. I'm looking for 'specifics on how touch-screen voting was used for fraud'. BBV gave 'specifics on how touch-screen voting could be used for fraud'. See the difference? In the absence of actual facts, everything else is just idle speculation.

Also, you argued earlier that distrust of machines will go away as people who have grown up with them, become a larger percentage of the population. How old would you guess the average respondent is, in this poll? I would bet that many of those who distrust the machines, "grew up with them!"

The average age of the PF users here is older than you may think. I'm 29 and that puts me at above the maximum typical age for someone who "grew up with" computers - the first one reached my family when I was in 8th grade. I can also remember (barely) life before ATM machines. But the type of people I'm talking about are people like my parents, who were far into adulthood when the computer became widely accepted. They are better than average when it comes to acceptance, but they still do irrational things out of fear of computers.

p.s. It has nothing to do with who won. This is not sour grapes. Sour grapes may have gotten me into it (I don't know - I think it was more *shock* that got me into it, as Kerry had been told during the election that he won Ohio...and I believe Bush was told he lost... Only to have the prediction swing late in the day by several points. That was shocking.) Anyway, it isn't sour grapes, it's a recognition of this issue being widely of concern, and a desire to understand the details and facts and machines used, in more detail. This is good, yes?

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, pattylou. When was the last time you saw a group protesting for something? In general, people only complain when they don't like the outcome. If Kerry had won the election, there would be less Democrats and more Republicans complaining.

BTW, ever wonder why the "Pro-Life" crowd is making progress despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans are Pro-Choice?

In addition:

If nothing else, I hope that you have a greater appreciation for how much potential distrust *may* be present in the general population. Even if it is only 20%, and if that distrust splits 3:1 to democrats (or republicans), that means that the *distrust alone* could influence voter turnout and election results. We should address this, no?

The reason the distrust exists at all is because the past two elections were close. Someone who saw Reagan's victory in 1980 probably never even considered the possibility of fraud influencing the election. Does that mean the system worked better then than it does now? Certainly not - the difference is that the closeness of the election forced people to consider the issue. And those who are unhappy about the outcome are, of course, more likely to examine the possibility.

 

[russ_watters]

Unless electronic voting can be monitored by all parities equally, I will always prefer to fill out a form that I place into a box myself. And then, once again I want to know that the counting is monitored by all parties equally.

I don't want another human even seeing my vote, much less attempting to interpret it.

What is so difficult about this concept?

Two words: "hanging chads".

Once again, manually cast/counted ballots do not even have the theoretical potential to be 100% accurate. There will always be error because humans make errors. Machines, on the other hand, do not make errors: They do exactly what they are programmed to do. With an electronic ballot, there is no possibility of an "undervote" or "overvote", no possibility of a chad or partially-filled circle for some human to interpret.

What is so difficult about this concept?

 

[Smurf]

I don't get you Americans "Sure, there might have been Fraud, no one's really sure though, it doens't matter anyways" last spring there was a huge fuss over just a few thousand ballets that may or may not have been discarded for no reason. There was a big investigation and everything. The Liberals lost so much support for that. We consider any attempt to undermine the democratic system a big offence.

 

[Anttech]

They do exactly what they are programmed to do. With an electronic ballot, there is no possibility of an "undervote" or "overvote", no possibility of a chad or partially-filled circle for some human to interpret.

But there is a big possibility of data manipulation

 

[faust9]

I don't want another human even seeing my vote, much less attempting to interpret it. Two words: "hanging chads".

Once again, manually cast/counted ballots do not even have the theoretical potential to be 100% accurate. There will always be error because humans make errors. Machines, on the other hand, do not make errors: They do exactly what they are programmed to do. With an electronic ballot, there is no possibility of an "undervote" or "overvote", no possibility of a chad or partially-filled circle for some human to interpret.

What is so difficult about this concept?

In this regard you are speaking from a position of ignorance. An overflow will cause an error. While the overflow is initially a programming error the end result is that the machine doing the tallying will yield inaccurate results. For instance, depending on the compiler and uC an int may overflow while an unsigned int may not(64K votes on one machine is a lot). An accidental 'short' in the wrong location or the incorrect use of a coding idiom may result in error. A purposful

if(!(kerry%199)) 
Bush ++;

could have been rewritten in requiring an easter egg to activate, but we would never know because the code is closed.

Unless the OS and code used for the EVM's is opened we will never know what is hidden. Moreover, poorly designed hardware can---AND WILL!---result in unexpected results. How the unexpected results manifest it's hard to say but your assertion that machines are infalible is wrong.

 

[pattylou]

I don't get you Americans "Sure, there might have been Fraud, no one's really sure though, it doens't matter anyways" last spring there was a huge fuss over just a few thousand ballets that may or may not have been discarded for no reason. There was a big investigation and everything. The Liberals lost so much support for that. We consider any attempt to undermine the democratic system a big offence.

Diebold is marketing successfully in the UK. Be warned.

Oh, ooops. No idea about Canada.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd like to offer a further clarification of my position and more on why I see this thread as "bellyaching":

The poll/op of this thread has a definite tone to it. The poll question in the poll section is vague enough that it could be taken to mean any form of electronic tampering, and by either side, while the OP says specifically to purposely rig the election in favor of Bush. The words "tampering" and "rigged" have different (but overlapping) meanings as well. How one chooses to read the poll will have a definite impact on what they vote for.

And then there was this quote:

Isn't it *more* likely that the very significant distrust (59%) of the electronic systems, among PF members that participated in the poll, represents discomfort with electronic voting which should be addressed in a level headed manner and not "shut up?"

Whether Bush or Kerry or both cheated, and who should have won, is also beside the point. I would hope if Kerry had won, and I saw the irregularities that were reported, that I would still be as invested in voicing my concern for fair elections.

Which has a very different meaning/tone from the poll and OP. People are expanding this issue beyond what the poll/op askes. That's fine, but please, please remember that we're no longer talking about the poll in the OP when we start talking about sources of error and "irregularities". A vote for "no fraud" in the opening poll is not a vote for "no irregularities".

So, my clarification:

-I am not saying the election process (paper or electronic ballots) are perfect.
-I am not saying there weren't "irregularities" that should be corrected.
-I'm not even saying there wasn't any local, isolated manipulation (it wouldn't be an election if someone, somewhere didn't try to manipulate it).

My point here is that there is no real evidence that the election was stolen by Bush. And since no one can give a factual account of exactly how they the election was stolen (only how they think it could have been stolen), the only possible conclusion here is that people are choosing to believe something for which they have no evidence because they want it to be true. Another word for that is religion.

 

[pattylou]

The 'evidence' is that the election *could have been* stolen by Bush. (Or Kerry.)

When a person moves into it *was* stolen by Bush, then I agree that this is akin to Religion.

 

[russ_watters]

But there is a big possibility of data manipulation

Since fewer people have access to the data, there is less of a chance of manipulation than with manual balloting. And removing the possibility of data manipulation is as simple as removing the human component - which people here, inexplicably, don't want to do.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get you Americans "Sure, there might have been Fraud, no one's really sure though, it doens't matter anyways" last spring there was a huge fuss over just a few thousand ballets that may or may not have been discarded for no reason. There was a big investigation and everything. The Liberals lost so much support for that. We consider any attempt to undermine the democratic system a big offence.

Squeaky-wheel theory part 2: American Apathy. An American's propensity for complaining is directly proportional to how much they think that complaint could change things. Hence, Americans never complain over "a few thousand ballots" if the margin of victory is a few million ballots.

Case in point: we're talking about Florida, when there were more problems with the election in Ohio (due to unusually high votor turnout becuase it was a pivotal state) and the election was closer (118,000 votes vs 560,000 votes). Why? Because even if Ohio had turned the other way, Kerry still would have lost. We're talking about Florida because turning it would turn the election.

 

[SOS2008]

Since fewer people have access to the data, there is less of a chance of manipulation than with manual balloting. And removing the possibility of data manipulation is as simple as removing the human component - which people here, inexplicably, don't want to do.

So, back to the main point of my post, wouldn't everyone be more likely to feel their votes are being counted IF the system/counting was monitored by all parties equally? This is really the issue, not so much what system is being used.

 

[pattylou]

I'd like to offer a further clarification of my position and more on why I see this thread as "bellyaching":

The poll/op of this thread has a definite tone to it. The poll question in the poll section is vague enough that it could be taken to mean any form of electronic tampering, and by either side, while the OP says specifically to purposely rig the election in favor of Bush. The words "tampering" and "rigged" have different (but overlapping) meanings as well. How one chooses to read the poll will have a definite impact on what they vote for.

Sorry about that - If I had caught it early on I would have changed to OP to reflect that if you thought Kerry had manipulated for his benefit you could also vote yes. I make the partisan mistake when I go on autopilot, but try to catch it as the important issue is really non-partisan. I obviously missed the one in the first post!

Then there was this quote:

Isn't it *more* likely that the very significant distrust (59%) of the electronic systems, among PF members that participated in the poll, represents discomfort with electronic voting which should be addressed in a level headed manner and not "shut up?"

Whether Bush or Kerry or both cheated, and who should have won, is also beside the point. I would hope if Kerry had won, and I saw the irregularities that were reported, that I would still be as invested in voicing my concern for fair elections.

Which has a very different meaning/tone from the poll and OP.

I don't understand how my quote above, is inconsistent with the poll? Also, that quote was in response to an earlier comment you had made - specifically (IIRC) something about how the issue shouldn't be discussed at any length - because there wasn't evidence (in your opinion) that fraud had occured. My response was based on that - in an effort to ask "Isn't a lengthy discussion warranted anyway?"

People are expanding this issue beyond what the poll/op askes. That's fine, but please, please remember that we're no longer talking about the poll in the OP when we start talking about sources of error and "irregularities". A vote for "no fraud" in the opening poll is not a vote for "no irregularities".

I agree.