News The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy

[polyb]

The election has come and gone, but I find that in retrospect we now have two elections in a row where the exit polling has been completely discredited by the pundits and the spinsters. Has it been completely been overlooked that the polling serves a purpose other than giving the news services a lead,i.e. it provides a check against voting fraud and other hijinks? Have a look at this publication and tell me if you think it has credibility:

http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf

As Dr. Freeman states:
"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

He goes on to place the odds of this occurence at 250 million to one.

Remember this has now happened twice with the exit polling and this "anomaly" cannot be dismissed. Given the history of voter fraud and shenanigans in this country are we witnessing the new voter fraud of the 21st century?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if fraud, like everything else, most Bush supporters won't believe it or care.

 

[franznietzsche]

Or maybe the exit polls were fradulent themselves? The exit polls are no more reliable than pre-election polls. People do lie as well. I heard somewhere, though i don't remember where, that certain democratic party officials knew what locations would be exit polled and sent democrats there to skew them. Again i just recall hearing that, but that would not surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if local republican party told people to lie to exit pollers to discourage democrats from coming out to vote thinking kerry would win without them. Either way itsmore likely that the exit polls are just not accurate, the samples are too small to be effective.

The democrats need to stop trying to invent reasons why they lost and just accept it.

 

[russ_watters]

I have never seen a poll with a margin for error better than 3%. Exit polls are useless for calling close elections. The last election was so close that the conspiracy theories were to be expected. This election was still close, but nowhere near as close as the last one. I'm dismayed that some Democrats refuse to accept the reality that they lost.

edit:
Here's some http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002081763_exitpolls04.html

Most of the exit poll questions asked Tuesday had an error margin of 3 percent to 4 percent.

In many states, the actual results were much closer than that.

"Because of the sampling error, exit poll data is only useful as a sole source of predicting elections if there is a landslide," he [the founder of the company that does exit polls] said.

 

[kat]

I know that freerepublic, which has a very large following, had threads encouraging voters to either refuse to answer exit poll questions or to lie.

 

[polyb]

Still discrediting the polls?

Partisanship aside: There is a concerted effort to discredit the exit polling, Why? This is not about partisan lines but about the integrity of the voting system and the accounting problems posed by the electronic systems that are now in place. Exit polls are a means to check against the tabulated results in the case where questions arise and there is plenty of historical precidence for this as well as the validity of such. Now considering that the polls in some precincts exceeded the standard deviation, as noted in that report which I doubt anyone has read, it comes as a foregone conclusion that either the polls were invalidated or that there has been some fraud in the voting. Now are you willing to place the integrity of the voting system above partisanship?

Let's get statistical! In this case where the vast majority of the voting was to go for either the democratic or republican canidate and that since it has been such a close race, we could in some small way liken this to a random brownian walk, i.e. flipping a coin and the stats that follow.
Given a sufficient test group and a random sample, we can expect that even with such specious ideas that poll workers skewed the data, republicans lying to polsters, and the such, it stands to resaon that these would not significantly alter the data for large sample sets, i.e. it would stil fall within acceptable standard deviations. Now what the author has claimed is that within some precincts the data has been grossly outside that SD and this calls the process into question. His argument seems sound to me givien that if, using the coin flipping notion, this is true then this would be much like flipping a coin 2^20 times and getting heads each time,i.e 1:2.5*10^8.


It is another irony that the polls being discredted as they have, a lot of people seem to have no problem supporting the notion that most people voted the "morals" issue. Sorry but I have to raise a flag on that, you can't have it both ways.

So are we to apply scientfic integrity here or are we to succumb to political bias?

FYI: My voter registration identifies me as an "other" and I did vote for Kerry because I saw him as the lesser of the two evils.

 

[russ_watters]

Partisanship aside: There is a concerted effort to discredit the exit polling...

WRONG! My position is directly supported by the founder of the company that carried out the exit polls. The problem is that people are misusing and misinterpreting them.

Exit polls are a means to check against the tabulated results in the case where questions arise and there is plenty of historical precidence for this as well as the validity of such.

WRONG! They were not designed for that purpose and to use them for that purpose is to misuse them.

Now considering that the polls in some precincts exceeded the standard deviation, as noted in that report which I doubt anyone has read...

WRONG! (on both counts - did you read my article?). I read the article and there is a serious and obvious error in the analysis: the data used is not calibrated. The author of the article (again) wants it both ways: he wants to use the data but he doesn't want to use it as the people who collected it intended.

Now are you willing to place the integrity of the voting system above partisanship?

Certainly. Are you?

So are we to apply scientfic integrity here or are we to succumb to political bias?

The article you presented is political bias cloaked in scientific integrity. I'm going to stick with scientific integrity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

UC Berkeley Research Team Sounds 'Smoke Alarm' for Florida E-Vote Count
Research Team Calls for Investigation
By: UC Berkeley
Published: Nov 18, 2004

Today the University of California's Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team released a statistical study - the sole method available to monitor the accuracy of e- voting - reporting irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods - what the team says can be deemed a "smoke alarm." Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance - the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team formally disclosed results of the study at a press conference today at the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center, where they called on Florida voting officials to investigate.[continued]

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_15415.shtml

 

[Ivan Seeking]

E-fraud or e-vote?
Ongoing investigations turn up questionable Republican tactics that could swing election [continued]

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/19/419e4360d9ab9
[The Portland State University paper; local news for us]

 

[GENIERE]

"…By setting Electronic Voting equal to zero, we created a predicted percentage change in support for Bush without the effect of electronic voting. We added the predicted percentage change in support for Bush to the percentage of votes he received in 2000. This gave us a predicted percentage of votes for Bush in 2004, which we multiplied by the number of votes in each county to get a predicted number of votes without the effect of electronic voting. We then subtracted this number from the number of votes Bush received, as estimated by the full regression model, including the Electronic Voting effect. Summing these effects for the fifteen counties with electronic voting yields the total estimated excess votes in favor of Bush associated with Electronic…"

Of course voters always respond in a predictive manner. Henceforth we need no longer vote.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Various people have been massaging these numbers today. Some of them, not Republicans, think the study has correlated variable problems. One guy said the only real discrepancy in the data was in Broward and Miami counties. Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, Ohio is still industriously working over its disputed ballots. They find the huge majority of them are legitimate. There's probably only one chance in 1000 that an Ohio recount would reverse the election, but boy, would I ever laugh. After all the recriminations and breast beating and attempts to cozy up to the red states by the Democrats, then to have the White House handed to their shunned and derided candidate! High comedy! May it be so!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I love the smell of a Constitutional crisis. At this point nothing less will do.

God save the mathematicians!

 

[loseyourname]

From what I remember, the exit polls were skewed 60% toward women and were conducted more heavily in urban areas. If this is true, it would explain the obvious democratic bias. In fact, a couple of investigations have been launched to determine whether or not the polls themselves were rigged in an attempt to influence the election. But if you all want to trust an exit poll over the actual election counts, go ahead, make yourselves look that much more desperate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gee, I don't suppose we might actually listen to the statisticians.

Absolutely nothing about this administration can be trusted. Any true American would be concerned about this until the question is resolved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...Still another breeding ground of suspicion is Diebold Inc., a Green, Ohio, firm that is one of the country's largest manufacturers of electronic voting equipment. Its chairman and CEO, Walden O'Dell, faced a storm of controversy last year after a fund-raising letter he had written for Bush was disclosed, in which he said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president."

After facing intense criticism, O'Dell filed a new ethics policy with the Securities and Exchange Commission for his publicly trade company, banning campaign contributions and prohibiting all political activity except voting for its executives. Months later, the original stories about O'Dell's fund-raising letter still circulate widely on the Internet to support claims of a Diebold-led conspiracy, without accounts of his subsequent steps to address the problem. [continued]

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/1840889p-9743710c.html

 

[russ_watters]

Gee, I don't suppose we might actually listen to the statisticians.

Sure - how about listening to the one who started the company that collected the data?

I was generous in my characterization of the first article because I expected this thread would simply die. I'll be more explicit now: If the writer of the first study is qualified to be writing such a study, then the study is academic fraud. He knowingly and purposefully used data he knew was flawed.

The basic problem with all these statistical analyises is the same - and its related to the reason the Democrats lost the election: when expectations conflict with reality, Democrats discard reality. Sorry, Ivan - you think you're posting evidence of fraud, when actually you're posting (further) evidence that Democrats refuse to accept reality if its a reality they didn't expect (or want). Instead of using the fact that less people voted for Kerry than expected to hint at crimes that there is no evidence for, use the data to fix your party. Use it to figure out what those voters want and figure out how to get them to vote Democratic.

In other threads where people tried to explain why they voted for Bush, some were accused of lying(!) about who they were and why they voted. I'll repeat what I said in another thread: if you won't even accept that we exist, you have no hope of ever getting us to vote democratic.

And in case there is any doubt about where I stand: I'm the guy the Democrats should be going after. I'm a liberal Republican who voted for 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats this time around. The reason for that is that on a state or local level, the candidates are less bound by the flaws in their party.

edit: and one thing about the conspiracy theory in your last post: while the rest of this just looks like desperation, appeal to conspiracy theory is a real problem. Ivan, for your own sanity, take a step back and consider the path you're going down.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll stick with Berkeley. Thanks for your typically inspired insights Russ.

You do realize that its because of people like you that we're leaving.

 

[loseyourname]

Would you believe Cal Tech and MIT?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0411/S00140.htm

You know, they're a little less biased than Cal Berkeley.

 

[ray b]

the fix was in

we were hacked!

that is the answer

they cheated better

in addition to lieing better

morals,? what morals?

 

[russ_watters]

I'll stick with Berkeley.

Of course you will - the most liberal institution in the country is a place of comfort for you when reality conflicts with your desires.

You do realize that its because of people like you that we're leaving.

Yeah, we moderates are just evil. Being so far to the left makes the center look pretty far to the right.

There is another irony here I hadn't mentioned before: some Democrats are leaving the US because they lost a close election. All this desperation over a 3% loss. That's backwards logic. The fact that the election (and the last) was close means that while the Democrats' ideas don't have the support of the majority, they aren't that far off. I could see it as reasonable for you to consider yourself an outcast after Reagan's landslide victory, but not over a close loss.

But maybe its like in sports - the close losses hurt more than the big ones. But that's an emotional response to something that should be analyzed logically. Remember what your mother told you about sportsmanship and get over it.

 

[Tsu]

Wrong, russ. We're not leaving because of the election or a president that sucks. We are leaving because of people like you and the fundamentalist christians who just don't 'get it'. We don't want your beliefs and morals shoved down our throats. We're a bit more open-minded and believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices - not have them made for us according to beliefs and religions that we do not wish to be goverened by. This country used to allow that. I'm just hoping we make it out before Bush slams the exit door on us and doesn't ALLOW us to leave - as I suspect he might try to do when he goes to Canada later this month.

 

[loseyourname]

Wrong, russ. We're not leaving because of the election or a president that sucks. We are leaving because of people like you and the fundamentalist christians who just don't 'get it'.

You're comparing Russ to a fundamentalist? Do you see why he thinks you and your husband are reacting a little outrageously? You called me one of those people who doesn't "get it" in another thread and I'm as anti-religious as any person I've ever known.

We don't want your beliefs and morals shoved down our throats. We're a bit more open-minded and believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices - not have them made for us according to beliefs and religions that we do not wish to be goverened by.

Yes, you say this, and then you object to a bill that would allow doctors the right to choose whether or not they want to perform an abortion.

 

[russ_watters]

We are leaving because of people like you and the fundamentalist christians who just don't 'get it'. We don't want your beliefs and morals shoved down our throats. We're a bit more open-minded and believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices - not have them made for us according to beliefs and religions that we do not wish to be goverened by. This country used to allow that.

How is a 3% victory shoving it down your throats? How is me voting for Bush in any way telling you what you can and can't do? I don't give a rats ass what you believe, so believe whatever you want! Sorry, but your opinion just plain isn't important enough to me to bother trying to suppress it - even if I did consider it bad. Perhaps that's the problem - people just aren't listening to you and you can't accept it.

Let me say this one more time for clarity: I'm a moderate - a liberal Republican. loseyourname is right: my main objection to your and Ivan's opinion is your violent and emotional reaction to the current situation. It just isn't rational.

And you say you aren't leaving because of the election - yet you and the others who are considering leaving all said: 'we'll leave if Bush wins the election!'

 

[Smurf]

Russ, its not the election in itself the reason they're leaving, its the fact that the country has stooped so low that this kind of thing could happen is the reason they're leaving. The Election is the trigger not the problem.

 

[Tsu]

loseyourname, I wasn't comparing russ to fundamentalist christians - that's your (and russ') problem. You are always reading things into statements that are not there.

russ - a VIOLENT and emotional reaction? You are SO clueless... All I can ever do is laugh at what you write.

 

[russ_watters]

loseyourname, I wasn't comparing russ to fundamentalist christians - that's your (and russ') problem. You are always reading things into statements that are not there.

Could you clarify what you mean by "people like you" then? What is it, specifically, about me that scares you? You honestly think I'm trying to force my opinion on you (unless you consider the democratic process to be the problem...)?

russ - a VIOLENT and emotional reaction? You are SO clueless... All I can ever do is laugh at what you write.

Do yourself a favor and look the word up in the dictionary. Apparently it doesn't mean what you think it means. (hint: definitions 2, 3, and 5 in dictionary.com).

 

[polyb]

OK everybody, calm down! My main concern is is wether or not the vote has been corrupted vis-a-vie the electronic voting machines. Without a papertrail there is no way an audit can be done reliably and while these machines are in the hands of private corporations that are not being regulated I see no accountability happening.

Now russ, if you feel that the author of the papers in question were politically motivated then I say take it up with them and tell us their response, otherwise you are just "spinning" things. Oh yeah, please do your homework first because you are dealing with some heavy weights. Another thing, you have no problem supporting the notion that people voted "values" which were based on the same polls that you discredit. I find that a little odd, don't you? If you remember the article from the Seattle Times you cited, the "pollsters" stated they got it wrong twice. Now that does raise a flag for me and it leads me to conclude that there is more than likely something wrong counting the votes as wells as the polls. Either way I give the whole process a vote of no confidence. This is my overarching concern, not partisan BS. Why should any of us trust the politicians in this country whether they be democratic, republican, or other. It does take a special breed of con to be a politician!

Finally, if I were to rig the election using e-voting machines I would do it in such a way as it to be:
1) Not easily detectable on the surface
2) To make sure in order to figure it out that it was rigged you would have to spend a lot of money, thus eliminating a lot of challengers.
3) To discredit any challeger by using the "partisan politics" label.
4) I would also spread the fraudulents votes across enough areas to make it look less suspicious.

These are just a few ideas to bat around.

We have a long history of vote fraudulence in this country and I for one think this whole set up needs to be re-examined for the sake of our democratic-republic, otherwise we risk letting the scoundrals of either party win, which if I can remind you is perilous to us all!

 

[GENIERE]

Historically dead people, by a factor of 10 to 1, tend to vote for Democrat candidates. This is contrary to law except (I think) in Chicago.

 

[BobG]

Historically dead people, by a factor of 10 to 1, tend to vote for Democrat candidates. This is contrary to law except (I think) in Chicago.

I admit, Kerry did have kind of a stiff demeanor, but 10 to 1? I would think a candidate of the religous right would have a little more appeal to folks concerned with spiritual values and the afterlife.

 

[polyb]

Divide and conquer is just as valid in politics as it is in war!

Both sides are dirty!

Point being is this: given the fact that we do have all this technology, etc.; why are there still questions regarding the voting process?

 

[franznietzsche]

Wrong, russ. We're not leaving because of the election or a president that sucks. We are leaving because of people like you and the fundamentalist christians who just don't 'get it'. We don't want your beliefs and morals shoved down our throats. We're a bit more open-minded and believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices - not have them made for us according to beliefs and religions that we do not wish to be goverened by. This country used to allow that. I'm just hoping we make it out before Bush slams the exit door on us and doesn't ALLOW us to leave - as I suspect he might try to do when he goes to Canada later this month.

Yeah, B***S***.

I will say the only words that i ever agreed with that came out of Kerry's mouth were when he said he didn't feel he could legislate his beliefs to other people.

You spout that now, but i don't buy it.

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to givean abortion or birth control to unmarried women? Absolutely.

Should she be able to get them from a willing doctor? Absolutley.

Should people be allowed to chooseto end their own lives when terminally ill? Absolutely.

Should doctors be allowed to refuse to aid patients in this basedon personal beliefs? Absolutely.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Absolutely.

Should a given priest/reverend/pastor/justice of the peace be allowed to refuse to marry a homosexual couple for personal reasons? Absolutely.

Do you agree with every one of those statements?I don't think you do, though i might be wrong. If you don't, you're full of it.

I would ahve voted for bush. I'm the most vehement atheist I've ever known. I was raised catholic, rejected it. I see reiligion as an a priori belief based on fear and ignorance without basis in reality. Hence why i am an atheist. I still would have voted for bush. Why?

Because Kerry talks about a war on poverty. Because he talks about government handouts to people who don't deserve them. It is not the governments job to make up for people's failures in life. I don't care what your reasons are.

I'm firmly against affirmative action.

I'm firmly against higher taxes, drivers license's for illegal immigrants, soda taxes for programs to teach not to drink soda, and minimum wages of $12 an hour for work that an untrained baboon could perform(and in the People's Republic of Santa Monica, that's what you see, untrained baboons making $12/hour at cash registers on the promenade).

Now your claims about bush closing emigration is just off the wall and irrational.

You want to run to Canada, because you're sore over having lost when you picked the wrong candidate from the get-go? Then go, but you'll only help gaurantee that liberal agenda is shut down politically. And for that, I must say:

Thank you.

 

[polyb]

franznietzsche,

What is wrong with being liberal? Or conservative?

As far as I can tell both camps have valid points, unfortunately we only here from the extremists as well as the bad news that corruption on both sides have been party to. Perhaps you should consider that divide and conquer works just as well in politics as it does in war. My question is does that serve we the people or the vested interests of a few?

 

[franznietzsche]

franznietzsche,

What is wrong with being liberal? Or conservative?

As far as I can tell both camps have valid points, unfortunately we only here from the extremists as well as the bad news that corruption on both sides have been party to. Perhaps you should consider that divide and conquer works just as well in politics as it does in war. My question is does that serve we the people or the vested interests of a few?

The vested interests of a few, without a doubt. Politicians will never serve the people. Not that they ever have.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess this probably deserves a [belated] reply:

Now russ, if you feel that the author of the papers in question were politically motivated then I say take it up with them and tell us their response, otherwise you are just "spinning" things.

I don't see how taking it up with him will accomplish anything. We already know his position and the position of the person who started the company that conducts the polls:

-Study writer: uncalibrated data is 'real' and calibrated data is purposefully altered to appear correct (an allegation of fraud).
-Exit poller: exit polls are not meant to be used this way and calibrated data has known polling errors filtered out (this is standard practice in all polls).

The judgement, to me, seems a simple one. I'm not trying to convince him: just you.

Oh yeah, please do your homework first because you are dealing with some heavy weights.

Could you be more specific? I was quite specific as to what I objected to and why.

Another thing, you have no problem supporting the notion that people voted "values" which were based on the same polls that you discredit. I find that a little odd, don't you?

There is a contradiction there, but you're looking at it backwards. The difference there is simple and obvious: I'm using (1) calibrated data (2) for the purpose it is intended to be used. The writer of the study is doing neither. But that isn't even where the contradiction comes in - the contradiction is that he all-but accuses the people who he got the data from of fraud! He is the one trying to have it both ways, not me.

The main reason I resurrected this thread though, is no one (should have been me) ever presented the real exit poll data, and I think its important to see what the exit polls really say about this election. I'll do Ohio and Florida (all the data can be found HERE).

In the study, there is a screenshot of the Ohio page from CNN, showing the uncalibrated data. It has:
-Male: 49%-51% (all are Bush - Kerry)
-Female: 47%-53%

But the calibrated data is:
-Male: 52%-47%
-Female: 50%-50%

The actual election results were:
-Bush 51%, Kerry 47%

For Florida, the article has:
-Bush 49.8%, Kerry 49.7%

But the exit polls actually showed:
-Male: 53%-46%
-Female: 50%-49%
(and significantly more women than men voted)

And the actual election results were:
Bush 52%, Kerry 47%

It should be obvious from the data that the entire study depends on whether or not it is right to use the uncalibrated data: the calibrated exit poll data closely matches the election results.

 

[GENIERE]

And from the same poll – College graduates… 52% (the idiots) voted for Bush vs. 46% voting for Kerry.

Jay Leno displayed a local ballot listing a GOP candidate... Rich White Republican.

I hope Richard won!

 

[polyb]

russ,

it looks like Dr. Freeman has addressed the issues you brought up, here is the link:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1.pdf

As far as the data from Harris goes, do you have it? I certainly do not have the raw data to analyze nor do have the time nor understanding to so as well.

Personally the whole thing stinks to me and I was in FloriDUH for the last fiasco and I was very disappointed with how it worked out, a three ring circus affair with no clarity. Now that it has happened twice I really have lost "faith" in our election system and I wonder if I have any say so without a whopping load of cash. Face it, the game has been rigged and there is not much any of us can do about it short of disposing of the current system and starting from scratch. Corruption is an American tradition and now institution, I guess.

 

[russ_watters]

He's making the same allegation: that the calibration process actually matches the exit poll data to the election results. I'd like to see that substantiated - otherwise, this is just conspiracy theory. And even if the exit polls are calibrated by matching them with the election results (in order to use them for their intended purpose...), he still hasn't dealt with the issue of sampling errors in the raw data.

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001125.php that echoes my objection to the study.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I read all the articles, and I know a little bit about statistics, so I'd like to respond. Russ is right on account of the margin of error of exit polls, but what Freeman does is add up the cumulative probabilities from several sources (see bell curve on fig 2). What this does is diminishes the margin of error significantly. Even though Freeman puts the odds of a legitimate election at 250 million to one, there's no conclusive proof that Bush wasn't elected legitimately. However, there's not one shred of physical evidence that he was elected legitimately either, as about 30% of the country used un-auditable vote counting. No conspiracy theory needed. By the way, it would take less than a kilobyte of code to do the job.

 

[russ_watters]

However, there's not one shred of physical evidence that he was elected legitimately either, as about 30% of the country used un-auditable vote counting.

Data on a hard drive is physical evidence - in fact, its evidence of the highest quality.

 

[polyb]

And that is why I originally posted this write up. I have concerns that since there is no paper trail by which to audit the elections then that is just one more tool by which elections can be rigged. Freeman's inferences "seemed" to be correct, but that was only on a superficial reading. As far as all the vote tallies "red-shifting" with respect to the polls, that does raise legitimate concerns as to what is really going on. Then again we are talking politics and seldem does reason lend itself useful to politicians. And why any of them should be trusted is beyond me!

I know a little stats too, but as to the specifics of stats in polling and elections I really have no experience. You don't have those kind of stats in UG physics curriculum, only the thermo and QM kind.

 

[plover]

Data on a hard drive is physical evidence - in fact, its evidence of the highest quality.

It's a very good record of some input, there's just no way to know if it was the voter's input...

 

[loseyourname]

You know, people were asking for electronic voting last time because of the issues with paper voting. Now they're asking for paper voting because they distrust electronic voting. You can't have it both ways. At some point you have to have a little faith that either the programmers or the people counting the paper votes are not evil and out to manipulate results.

 

[loseyourname]

Or at least believe that both sides are equally evil and neither gains a clear advantage over the other through their cheating.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Data on a hard drive is physical evidence - in fact, its evidence of the highest quality.

Right. The quality is high, there's just no way to prove one way or the other that it reflects the data that was input. But yes, you're right-- those votes, if they can be called that, may possibly last for thousands of months.

 

[polyb]

What russ is also failing to mention is that those hard drives, which are privately owned, are apparently not open for public scrutiny. I find this to be profoundly disturbing and a definitive breach of public trust, if true! Question: will they be open for scrutiny? I do know that every bit registered on any hard disk can recovered regardless of overwriting. There is room to review them, but that is a tall order considering the costs involved. So will this happen and be publicly disclosed?

Another question also seems to be those odd unknown user log-ins that have popped up at some of the servers where votes were being tallied. Does anyone know anything about that?

Originally Posted by loseyourname

You know, people were asking for electronic voting last time because of the issues with paper voting. Now they're asking for paper voting because they distrust electronic voting. You can't have it both ways. At some point you have to have a little faith that either the programmers or the people counting the paper votes are not evil and out to manipulate results.

A few years ago I thought that electronic voting was a neat and efficient idea even at the dismay of some friends who thought otherwise. Well that was only because I was a technophile at the time and I let that blind me to the problems of voter fraud that has plagued this country for quite some time. Now I consider the best way to go about counting our votes is to do it the old fashioned way: only on paper and completely open to impartial and all partial observers. I guess you could say I flipped-flopped on that one but it was only in light of new understanding. Oh well, live and learn but that tripe about having it both ways is trivial considering the importance of having confidence in the elections process.

Originally Posted by loseyourname

Or at least believe that both sides are equally evil and neither gains a clear advantage over the other through their cheating.

Now that I have always held to be true! It seems our democratic-republic has been reduced to the likes of a football game where we choose one side or the other. That is why I go by the "lesser of two evils" approach. Seems more like divide and conquer to me though!

 

[russ_watters]

A few years ago I thought that electronic voting was a neat and efficient idea even at the dismay of some friends who thought otherwise. Well that was only because I was a technophile at the time and I let that blind me to the problems of voter fraud that has plagued this country for quite some time. Now I consider the best way to go about counting our votes is to do it the old fashioned way: only on paper and completely open to impartial and all partial observers. I guess you could say I flipped-flopped on that one but it was only in light of new understanding. Oh well, live and learn but that tripe about having it both ways is trivial considering the importance of having confidence in the elections process.

Choice A: Pros: people who are afraid of/don't understand technology trust it. Cons: Poor reliability, poor security, inaccurate, hard to use, maintenance intensive, slow, relies on fallible/biased human judgement.

Choice B: Pros: secure, reliable, easy to use, fast, accurate, unbiased. Cons: Unfounded allegations of security problems scare people who are afraid of/don't understand technology.

People are choosinig to revert to the dark ages.

edit: another thing. People say they don't like electronic ballots because there is no backup. Well paper ballots don't have a backup either!

I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a more sinister motive here: Boiled down, the main difference between paper and electronic ballots is precision: paper ballots have a margin for error (up to a full percent) and electronic ballots don't. You don't recount them because there is no chance of the kinds of counting errors you find in paper ballots (under/over votes, hanging chads, etc). It seems like democrats want paper ballots because they want ambiguity. Again, this goes back to democrats wanting to cloud a reality that they don't like.

 

[plover]

You know, people were asking for electronic voting last time because of the issues with paper voting. Now they're asking for paper voting because they distrust electronic voting. You can't have it both ways. At some point you have to have a little faith that either the programmers or the people counting the paper votes are not evil and out to manipulate results.

Both times people have been asking for vote reform because they were presented with a broken system. Also the dichotomy here doesn't work. In 2000, the complaint wasn't that the ballots were on paper, it was that they were punch cards, and that the equipment for reading them was often old, and the standards for hand counting them inconsistent. Plus, there was the problem of ballot design. And this year we had broken electronic system with no way to check accountability. The issue is not paper vs. electronic, it is security, consistency, transparency, and accountability.

Electronic balloting is helpful for ballot design issues and accessibility issues. But lack of a human readable physical ballot makes the integrity of the data impossible to monitor. Making the balloting software secret just compounds the problem. The issue is a lot like the one that leads to chain of custody rules for criminal evidence—the point is to prevent any possibility of tampering.

The current choice for best practice by those most familiar with computer security issues is electronic ballots that produce paper printouts.

Or at least believe that both sides are equally evil and neither gains a clear advantage over the other through their cheating.

Any balloting system which does not assume every party involved is possibly corrupt is rubbish. That's why there should maximum openness and redundant integrity checks. It is also why people are suspicious and incredulous when Republicans support systems that lack such openness and integrity checks (any Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or "Rights for Sea Slugs Now!" party members who support similar systems should be equally suspect).

 

[plover]

Choice A: Pros: people who are afraid of/don't understand technology trust it. Cons: Poor reliability, poor security, inaccurate, hard to use, maintenance intensive, slow, relies on fallible/biased human judgement.

Choice B: Pros: secure, reliable, easy to use, fast, accurate, unbiased. Cons: Unfounded allegations of security problems scare people who are afraid of/don't understand technology.

People are choosinig to revert to the dark ages: choosing rumor, myth, conspiracy theory over reality and progress.

This is flat out false. The people most concerned over the current electronic balloting systems are computer security experts (who are hardly afraid of technology). All the testing that's been done shows that the security of these systems is problematic at best. The problem is not electronic voting systems per se, it's the ones we have, the standards they were assessed with, and the people administrating them.


Computer security professionals concerns about electronic voting:

• Douglas W. Jones (University of Iowa)
• Bruce Schneier
• Rebecca Mercuri
• David Dill (Stanford)

Jones has struck me as providing especially even-handed assessments. He's worked on these issues for many years and has been on the board that certifies Iowa's electronic voting machines for a decade.

Pieces that provide good summaries of the issues involved are the Schneier article and Jones' March 2003 letter to Kevin Shelley (California Secretary of State).

 

[polyb]

People are choosinig to revert to the dark ages: choosing rumor, myth, conspiracy theory over reality and progress. For example: Those hard drives are not privately owned, they are owned by the government (local government, iirc). You're buying into myth and conspiracy theory.

OUCH! Got me there russ! Hey what does iirc mean? So answer these questions:
Who owns the code?
Who owns the data?
Who actually owns the machine? Local, state, federal?
Where do we find the sources for these answers because I for one want clarity. Proof!

Now obviously you don't seem to think that there is any vulnerabilities to the electronic voting process hence why you have insistantly deferred to the myth/conspiracy angle. I for one do not trust them because I DO UNDERSTAND technology well enough to also know that they are vulnerable to manipulation without a vast majority of people being able to understand how it would even happen! This is why I have posted this thread, unfortunately you just make assertions that they work and dismiss anyone by saying they do not understand. Your bias is showing!

So here is a real quest: How can you assure a tech savvy person that these systems are not vulnerable as well as the "common joe" out there who does not have the slightest clue!

As far as your hypothetical choices go and your dismissive attitude: GROW UP! Vote rigging has a long history and this is the newest version of it. Politicians have manipulated the votes for a long time and truthfully this is nothing new. Ever heard about dead people voting? How about good o'l boys violently threatening colored people? How about calls telling democrats that they have to vote on Wednesday because there are so many people voting(that is a testimonial from Ohio, apparently)?

If you think about russ, if Kerry had not concede on Wednesday and insisted on doing a recount just because, what do you suppose would have happened? I suspect 2000 would have looked like a field day compared to the civil unrest that could have been seen. I doubt you considered that.

One more thing, tell me why the polls were right on the "morals" issue but wrong on the candidate?

 

[russ_watters]

Both times people have been asking for vote reform because they were presented with a broken system.

No, we have people wishing there was a broken system. There is no evidence that there is anything wrong with electronic voting machines other than minor glitches.

And this year we had broken electronic system with no way to check accountability. The issue is not paper vs. electronic, it is security, consistency, transparency, and accountability.

Again, there is no evidence there is anything wrong with the electronic voting system. And like I said before, "accountability" isn't an issue. By "accountability," I assume you mean the ability to do a recount: since the ballots are electronic, recounts are irrelevant. Recounts exist to fix human problems. Security is better with electronic ballots than paper: they are harder to tamper with. Transparency? Since when is transparency even desirable? Its a secret ballot. Accountability? Accountability of what? There is no possibility for things like over/under votes or hanging chads in a digital system.

But lack of a human readable physical ballot makes the integrity of the data impossible to monitor. Making the balloting software secret just compounds the problem. The issue is a lot like the one that leads to chain of custody rules for criminal evidence—the point is to prevent any possibility of tampering.

What you see as a potential flaw is, in fact, the primary benefit of electronic voting: they are less subject to human error/tampering/flaws. How do you eliminate bias in counting? Don't have people count the ballots. How do you eliminate chain of custody issues? Don't have a chain of custody. How do you ensure the data is safe? Encrypt it and make it secret. Human readable physical ballots are a bad thing because they add human bias/flaws/errors/corruption to the equation. The whole point of electronic balloting is to remove these things.

The current choice for best practice by those most familiar with computer security issues is electronic ballots that produce paper printouts.

WHY? What purpose would that serve?

Any balloting system which does not assume every party involved is possibly corrupt is rubbish.

Again, that's the entire point of electronic ballots: less people involved means less chance for corruption.

That's why there should maximum openness and redundant integrity checks.

There are reduntant integrity checks! Jeez, you guys are acting like these machines come fresh from the manufacturer, get dropped off at the polling place (or worse, operated by the manufacturer) with no testing. That isn't how it works. These machines are owned, operated, serviced, and yes, tested by the government.

It is also why people are suspicious and incredulous when Republicans support systems that lack such openness and integrity checks (any Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or "Rights for Sea Slugs Now!" party members who support similar systems should be equally suspect).

I'm suspicious of people who want to discard an improved system in favor of one with severe and obvious flaws.

This is flat out false. The people most concerned over the current electronic balloting systems are computer security experts

Do you have a poll of computer security experts that supports that? In any case, what that first guy advocates (paper ballots that can be checked by the voter and re-counted by hand later) is not only irrelevant, unreasonable, and Unconstitutional, but its also more of a cross-check than paper ballots have! Why would you have two copies of your vote with electronic voting when there aren't two copies of your vote with other forms of voting? What's worse, this would add the possibility of two different counts and two different outcomes to an election.