Poll: Was the 2004 election rigged?

[The Smoking Man]

Election problems are just a conspiracy? Can we get a direct answer to this one question--Why, with all the technology available in this country (including Diebold's), is there no paper trail for these voting machines?

Er? ... Plausible deniability!?

 

[Manchot]

The first thing that came to mind was the possability of technical problems with printers. What happens when they run out of ink, run out of paper, paper jams, ect... I'm sure that you have had experience with printer problems before.

Running out of ink and paper is certainly not a problem, because that can be prevented by ordering lots of it. Paper jams are easy to fix. In general, laser printers are very reliable, and to suggest that so many would be failing that it wouldn't be prudent to use them is absurd. (Punch cards are much less reliable, as we discovered in 2000). I really don't understand why people don't want transparency in an election. IMO, several things need to happen:

1. All voting machine code needs to be open source, and reviewed heavily by partisan and non-partisan programmers (so that third party candidates are not disenfranchised). Furthermore, the specific architecture of any machine needs to be heavily reviewed (to prevent a party from benefiting from a hardware "glitch"). All code should be well-documented and not arcane, with every line having a precise explanation of what it does. If there are disputes, they should be discussed in a public forum.
2. The code needs to be compiled and downloaded to the machines in the sight of many people, and the compiled code should be matched with every party's idea of what the "correct" code should be. The port used to download the program then needs to be permanently sealed up inside the machine.
3. None of the voting machines should be connected to a network of any kind. Period. In fact, the only external port should be an LPT1 printer port. To transmit the data at the end of the election, it should be printed out on several pieces of paper, each transmitted to the election authority by many different people. Also, a paper tally of each vote should be kept.
4. Finally, each voting machine needs to be destroyed.

 

[pattylou]

4. Finally, each voting machine needs to be destroyed.

Why? WHat if they need to audit the machine for a bug?

 

[russ_watters]

Important point before I continue: pattylou, I need to know your interpretation of your poll. Ie, what is the difference between "rigging" and "tampering"?

edit: used the wrong word...

 

[russ_watters]

Manchot, I was with you until #4. Other than that, your plan seems pretty good.

 

[pattylou]

Important point before I continue: pattylou, I need to know your interpretation of your poll. Ie, what is the difference between "rigging" and "tampering"?

edit: used the wrong word...

In my opinion the two words are interchangeable. From the Patty's Brain Dictionary (which has not sold many copies):

Rigging: modifying intentionally to effect a particular result.

(in this case, the particular result was "more votes" of unspecified number, but hopefully subtle enough to go unnoticed)

Tampering: Mucking around with, due to dissatisfaction that things may not come out the way you like, otherwise.


(So, the two words in my mind are interchangeable - but if this has led to problems with responses, I apologize!)

"Stealing" would be a different word in this dictionary yet.

 

[Manchot]

Sorry, I should've been more clear on point #4. I meant that the machines should be destroyed sometime before the next election, so that they aren't reused. I didn't actually mean that they should be destroyed immediately.

 

[pattylou]

Sorry, I should've been more clear on point #4. I meant that the machines should be destroyed sometime before the next election, so that they aren't reused. I didn't actually mean that they should be destroyed immediately.

Why? If they are good, agreed on by both parties, etc - why destroy them?

 

[rachmaninoff]

Why? If they are good, agreed on by both parties, etc - why destroy them?

Actually it's not that bad of an idea. If identical machines are mass-produced, they could be dirt cheap, so it would be feasible to replace them every four (two?) years. Maybe with different, better models - since when were eight-year old PCs not obsolete? (eh, not a good comparison...) Bottom line, there's a legitimate fear that if such machines were left alone somewhere in a closet for four years, some enterprising villans might switch them out for identical-looking machines with some kind of ingenious backdoors... or, the public could think they might possibly have been replaced with identical-looking machines with ingenious backdoors, causing distrust in the system... You can have the construction, compilation, deployment, and use of the machines thoroughly supervised over a short time period, but with long-term storage... is it really feasible to lock up three democrats and three republicans with every voting machine stored in a closet somewhere, for four years?

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion the two words are interchangeable. From the Patty's Brain Dictionary (which has not sold many copies):

Rigging: modifying intentionally to effect a particular result.

(in this case, the particular result was "more votes" of unspecified number, but hopefully subtle enough to go unnoticed)

Tampering: Mucking around with, due to dissatisfaction that things may not come out the way you like, otherwise.


(So, the two words in my mind are interchangeable - but if this has led to problems with responses, I apologize!)

"Stealing" would be a different word in this dictionary yet.

In the google definition of "rig" it gives this (one of many definitions): "arrange the outcome of by means of deceit; "rig an election"". Regardless, you are alleging criminal fraud (fraud: "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain"). Whether there was an attempt to steal by an individual or lot of individuals, whether it was successful or not, its still stealing or attempted stealing, isn't it?

Could you please explain to me how that is different from stealing. I don't see a difference.

 

[russ_watters]

A quick google of "bush rig election 2004" shows 9 of the 10 hits using "rig" and "stole" interchangeably - and in the tenth, I can't find the refence to the election.

If that wasn't your intent, pattylou, fine, but the poll is very misleading. Read back over the early responses with that in mind...

 

[rachmaninoff]

Could you please explain to me how that is different from stealing. I don't see a difference.

In your own words, it's the difference between "stealing" and "attempted stealing". You said it yourself. Semantically it may not look like much of a difference, but with a national election you can imagine it would take a heck of a lot of attempting to get a single rig. I mean, a successful rig.

It boils down to the fact that there are thousands of voting precincts, and manipulation at anyone of them is extremely unlikely to change the national result. "Stealing" is three or four order-of-magnitudes above "attempted stealing".

 

[pattylou]

Actually it's not that bad of an idea. If identical machines are mass-produced, they could be dirt cheap, so it would be feasible to replace them every four (two?) years. Maybe with different, better models - since when were eight-year old PCs not obsolete? (eh, not a good comparison...) Bottom line, there's a legitimate fear that if such machines were left alone somewhere in a closet for four years, some enterprising villans might switch them out for identical-looking machines with some kind of ingenious backdoors... or, the public could think they might possibly have been replaced with identical-looking machines with ingenious backdoors, causing distrust in the system... You can have the construction, compilation, deployment, and use of the machines thoroughly supervised over a short time period, but with long-term storage... is it really feasible to lock up three democrats and three republicans with every voting machine stored in a closet somewhere, for four years?

You need to check the machines before each election whether they are old ones or new ones.

New ones could be tampered with during production.

I don't see that you are more secure with new machines; in either case you need to check them thoroughly before the election.

 

[pattylou]

In the google definition of "rig" it gives this (one of many definitions): "arrange the outcome of by means of deceit; "rig an election"". Regardless, you are alleging criminal fraud (fraud: "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain"). Whether there was an attempt to steal by an individual or lot of individuals, whether it was successful or not, its still stealing or attempted stealing, isn't it?

Could you please explain to me how that is different from stealing. I don't see a difference.

Let's say Kerry did some rigging of his own.

Obviously he didn't steal the election.

That's the difference between rigging and stealing. Bush "won." We have no idea if some of his votes were legitimate or not. (The same is true for Kerry's votes. )

I don't know with much precision what the actual voter wishes were in the election. I believe the country is fairly "evenly divided" but beyond that I don't know that the election accurately reflects the will of the people. This is not the same thing as stating that Bush stole the election. I am making a ststement of uncertainty.

The fact that I am an American, saying this, about my country - is amazing.

 

[pattylou]

A quick google of "bush rig election 2004" shows 9 of the 10 hits using "rig" and "stole" interchangeably - and in the tenth, I can't find the refence to the election.

If that wasn't your intent, pattylou, fine, but the poll is very misleading. Read back over the early responses with that in mind...

I tried that google. With no quotes I got 87 thousand hits. With quotes, I got 0.

I'd like to try a few variations on this google, but I need to replicate yours first. How precisely did you word the search?

 

[russ_watters]

In your own words, it's the difference between "stealing" and "attempted stealing". You said it yourself. Semantically it may not look like much of a difference, but with a national election you can imagine it would take a heck of a lot of attempting to get a single rig. I mean, a successful rig.

It boils down to the fact that there are thousands of voting precincts, and manipulation at anyone of them is extremely unlikely to change the national result. "Stealing" is three or four order-of-magnitudes above "attempted stealing".

But that doesn't fit with how this thread has gone (edit: its also gramattically incorrect: "attempted to rig" and "rigged" mean two different things and this thread says "rigged"). Pattylou herself was the first to bring up the Deibold CEO's quote about "delivering the election". That implies a successful fraud! One of the first pieces of evidence brought up was The Study. Again, The Study alleges succesful fraud.

Further, if you simplify the poll question to be: 'Did anyone, anywhere attempt to manipulate the 2004 election', it becomes a yes or no question with a right answer: the answer is that all elections involve some tampering. That makes for a pretty useless poll though, doesn't it? Some of the early responses imply to me that people saw that and wondered what the point of the poll was, based on that.

It doesn't make any sense to me that this was meant to be a discussion of the hundreds of votor irregularities that were reported. If it was, right from the start, it didn't go that way. That is why I'm focusing on a successful fraud, guys.

 

[pattylou]

You've been trying to nail down successful/unsuccessful fraud; I've been trying to repeatedly emphasize voter distrust.

I started the poll because I have no idea what the general sentiment is on electronic machines among the population. It's not in the news, you don't ever talk about it with you neighbor (for fear of being labelled a whacko), I've scanned Zogby etc repeatedly, no luck. (I'll try again in a minute.)

So, *my* purpose in this poll was to get a rough feel - is the distrust insignificant (~5%) and I'm really a weirdo? Is it significant (maybe 20%) and only among democrats? Is it overwhelming and among both parties?

In that sense I think the poll was informative, but the problems with bias and sample size on a forum like this, diminish the "information" gleaned, considerably, possibly to the point of worthlessness.

 

[russ_watters]

In that sense I think the poll was informative.

I think the poll gave you misleading results because you worded it badly. I'm going to start a new one...

 

[pattylou]

I think the poll gave you misleading results because you worded it badly. I'm going to start a new one...

Shouldn't we work together on wording before you start it? you seem hell bent on promoting your view. No offense.

 

[pattylou]

I emailed Pew to ask them if such a poll (voter confidence elctronic machines) has been done. They will respond within five business days.

 

[rachmaninoff]

It doesn't make any sense to me that this was meant to be a discussion of the hundreds of votor irregularities that were reported. If it was, right from the start, it didn't go that way. That is why I'm focusing on a successful fraud, guys.

If Joe Schmoe votes for Kerry, and Joe Schmoe's deceased grandmother also votes for Kerry, that's a "voting irregularity". It's also a fraud, and a felony. If poll worker Bob doesn't notice Ma Schmoe is actually a 23-year old male, it becomes a 'succesful fraud'.

Let's clear up the ambiguities once and for all. I propose the following conventions for classification of the magnitude of a voting fraud:

Level I: Order-of-magnitude of ten fradulent votes.
Level II: Order-of-magnitude of one thousand fro-voes.
Level III: Order of magnitude of one hundred thousand votes, or minimum required to swing one medium-rare state.
Level IV: Order of magnitude of ten million votes, or minimum required to swing one big, gullible democratic republic.

All frauds are assumed succesful.


So, by "stealing an election" we mean a Level III or IV. I'd say both were statistically impossible in 2004 - exit polls, observers, margins of victory, etc., etc., we've discussed this before.

By 'rigging an election', we mean any concerted effort that could possibly (not probably) swing a state like Florida or New Mex in a very close race. Looking at '00, something like 400 votes from a single precinct could have done it. Order-of-magnitude, it's a 'Level II'.

My assumption is, anything that involves concerted activity between poll-workers from multiple precincts is extremely unlikely to be successful.

An easy axiom is, it is impossible to edit votes once they leave a precint - because precinct results are reported by the media. Hence, any national-scale rigging involves something done in hundreds of individual precincts, and involves hundreds of coordinated Level-IIs. Again, hundreds of people are involved, this can't work (edit: except maybe, in a really close race, using electronic machines, a single programmed backdoor...)

 

[SOS2008]

If Joe Schmoe votes for Kerry, and Joe Schmoe's deceased grandmother also votes for Kerry, that's a "voting irregularity". It's also a fraud, and a felony. If poll worker Bob doesn't notice Ma Schmoe is actually a 23-year old male, it becomes a 'succesful fraud'.

Let's clear up the ambiguities once and for all. I propose the following conventions for classification of the magnitude of a voting fraud:

Level I: Order-of-magnitude of ten fradulent votes.
Level II: Order-of-magnitude of one thousand fro-voes.
Level III: Order of magnitude of one hundred thousand votes, or minimum required to swing one medium-rare state.
Level IV: Order of magnitude of ten million votes, or minimum required to swing one big, gullible democratic republic.

All frauds are assumed succesful.


So, by "stealing an election" we mean a Level III or IV. I'd say both were statistically impossible in 2004 - exit polls, observers, margins of victory, etc., etc., we've discussed this before.

By 'rigging an election', we mean any concerted effort that could possibly (not probably) swing a state like Florida or New Mex in a very close race. Looking at '00, something like 400 votes from a single precinct could have done it. Order-of-magnitude, it's a 'Level II'.

My assumption is, anything that involves concerted activity between poll-workers from multiple precincts is extremely unlikely to be successful.

An easy axiom is, it is impossible to edit votes once they leave a precint - because precinct results are reported by the media. Hence, any national-scale rigging involves something done in hundreds of individual precincts, and involves hundreds of coordinated Level-IIs. Again, hundreds of people are involved, this can't work.

Agreed. And per my post #53 in the thread on culture war and civil war, use of a word such as "stolen" is contrary to the scientific method of controlling for bias in survey methodology.

I had brought this up in a thread long ago on separation of church and state. The reason for the exit poll anomaly was that many people were block voting. If you knew you were doing something wrong, would you participate in an exit interview? No, so people voting for Kerry participated at a higher level, throwing off the results. But this then gives more serious cause for concern about how block voting affected the election outcome.

As for suspicions of rigging, if you look at my quotes from Wikipedia, you may note the affiliations are all with Republicans candidates. I don't see any reliable evidence posted here indicating possible fraud in favor of Kerry. And since we still can't get an answer to why the U.S. is unable to produce a paper trail when other less-advanced countries are doing it just fine...

 

[rachmaninoff]

The reason for the exit poll anomaly was that many people were block voting. If you knew you were doing something wrong, would you participate in an exit interview?

Could you clarify? I googled 'block voting', and it looks like a legitmate system of election, one that isn't used in the US. What meaning are you considering?

 

[pattylou]

Russ: You may have missed this:

A quick google of "bush rig election 2004" shows 9 of the 10 hits using "rig" and "stole" interchangeably - and in the tenth, I can't find the refence to the election.

If that wasn't your intent, pattylou, fine, but the poll is very misleading. Read back over the early responses with that in mind...

I tried that google. With no quotes I got 87 thousand hits. With quotes, I got 0.

I'd like to try a few variations on this google, but I need to replicate yours first. How precisely did you word the search?

 

[SOS2008]

Could you clarify? I googled 'block voting', and it looks like a legitmate system of election, one that isn't used in the US. What meaning are you considering?

I'm referring to politics and the pulpit. This has always existed to some degree, but not to the extent that it reached in 2004, of course because of Bush and his flagrant appeals to the fundamentalist voters. After the election there were a few news stories on the matter. Immediately following the 2004 election there were at least 60 religious organizations that were under investigation by the IRS. There have been more since, most recently this:

"Political North Carolina pastor resigns
Pastor was accused of ousting members who voted against Bush"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7769149/

Here is a site you can link to if you'd like to learn more about this issue: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_politicsandpulpit

The real extent of this will never be known, because it ranges from subtle reinforcements (which I've witnessed myself, such as email distributions) to the more blatant behavior of the pastor in North Carolina.

Aside from this we have had intense debate here on many factors, such as media suppression and/or bias, etc. It would be interesting if one could quantify each variable, for example:

Props to ban gay marriage = % fundamentalist votes for Bush
Swift Boat Veteran smear campaign = % general votes for Bush
Pro illegal immigration = % Hispanic votes for Bush
Fear mongering on terrorism = % general votes for Bush
Illegal invasion of Iraq = % neocon votes for Bush

And so forth. You add to that possible tampering with election results, even a small percent, and you have yourself an imposter for president--Many nasty things all added up.

 

[pattylou]

Equating Kerry to dead babies = % tender hearted christian votes for Bush

(remember the girl in tears at the town hall debate? The one that voiced the question about Kerry's stand on abortion? This coupled with Bush's "culture of life.")

 

[2CentsWorth]

Equating Kerry to dead babies = % tender hearted christian votes for Bush

(remember the girl in tears at the town hall debate? The one that voiced the question about Kerry's stand on abortion? This coupled with Bush's "culture of life.")

Wasn't that the same chick that was crying about removal of Terri's feeding tube? Seriously, there is an organization that backs this kind of stuff, and I'm sure she's a member.

Here's another one: Gerrymandering = % votes for Bush

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Running out of ink and paper is certainly not a problem, because that can be prevented by ordering lots of it. Paper jams are easy to fix. In general, laser printers are very reliable, and to suggest that so many would be failing that it wouldn't be prudent to use them is absurd.

I personally believe that there would be problems to overcome with printing out so much hard copy at once. I also believe that resolving such issues wouldn't be that difficult. I only bring them up because I believe it's very possible the reason my the particular model lacked a paper trail was lazy engineering.

 

[SOS2008]

More than half of all states now require Voter-Verified Paper Ballot (VVPB) for touch-screen machines so that voters can verify their vote is recorded correctly, and the paper ballots are the vote of record in a recount. Apparently Diebold is getting nervous—they just hired a former DNC chair to lobby Democrats to allow unverifiable paperless systems. Hmm...

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2958901

 

[champ2823]

How does a county in Ohio with 600 residents record 6,000 votes for Bush? Greg Palast has a great BBC documentary on this on his website along with the 2000 election and the documents showing the felonies list of innocent people...mostly African Americans who were turned away at the polls. I was in the minority on this one...Right leaning and believe there was fraud,