News Who Do You Believe Stole the 2004 Election?

[russ_watters]

In the other thread, it appears I made the errorneous assumption that people who think the 2004 election was stolen think it was Bush who stole the election. So this poll is targeted at the 18 people (and anyone else who thinks the election was "rigged") who voted that "do you think the machines could be and were tampered with, in order to skew a result in favor of Bush" to specify who they believe stole the election. I don't intend for any discussion here, just gathering beliefs.

 

[Burnsys]

I would vote for the two first options, but i only can vote for one.
IMO Ceo of diebold and Bush are friends and they both steal the election...

 

[russ_watters]

I would vote for the two first options, but i only can vote for one.
IMO Ceo of diebold and Bush are friends and they both steal the election...

That deserves a clarification: since Bush isn't much of a programmer and the CEO of Diebold likely is not either, neither could have done it without a "triggerman" to do the programming. Likewise, the way your post reads, one or the other would still be calling the shots. Bush is in the higher position of authority, so if both were involved, it would probably still be Bush in charge of the conspiracy. So your vote probably should have been for Bush - Bush asking/ordering/paying (or whatever) the CEO of Diebold to steal the election for him.

The poll is looking for the guy at the top of the conspiracy - saying "acting alone" is probably a little misleading, sorry. It probably should have read "The CEO of Diebold, not acting on behalf of (on order from) Bush, stole the election for Bush."

 

[pattylou]

THere were 21 people who think there was electronic tampering, (not 18) and you don't know whether one group (left leaners) or the other (right leaners) thought that the tampering favored Bush, Kerry, or other.

Your assumptions are too simplistic.

I can't answer your poll because none of the choices match my thoughts on the matter.

I can say that I think that anyone who had (1) the means, and (2) lack of scruples, to throw in whever small weight they could towards their man, did so.

THis does not require organisation (no formal "conspiracy"), and it does not lend itself to finger pointing at a single individual, as your poll suggests.

The problem is that the machines appear to be built to allow tampering. Anyone that wants to help a candidate, now has a tool that can allow them to do so.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Why the choice of words "steal the election"? All of your options include this condition. That implies that fraud changed the outcome of the election. If you look at the primary definition of "rigged"*, what we've been discussing in the other thread was "manipulation of the vote" (specifically electronic), without consideration of scale or effectiveness. For instance, whether perhaps 400 votes where delivered on a precinct level to a candiate (either one) in a single precinct in Mexico, by individuals without higher organization, who hoped to potentially swing a very close vote. Or maybe 40,000 votes coordinated across several precincts in N.M. Maybe to the losing candiate in N.M. So that, there are thousands of [stastically independent] opportunities for such fraud to have been attempted.
edit: These are the far more likely situations, and thus in my opinion the situations actually worthy of discussion.

*

Main Entry: (3) rig
...
1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>

I think you can appreciate the non-subtle difference between a discussion about the vulnerability of an election to fraud in general, and discussion about a massive succesful election-steal involving millions of votes added/removed on a nationwide scale.

I think your extremely narrow restriction of this poll to whether the election was outright "stolen", disqualifies it from any useful purpose, or intellegent discussion. Maybe you biased it this way intentionally, to discredit the existence of electoral fraud by using hyperbolic rhetoric. I refuse to vote in it.

(edited for emphases)

 

[loseyourname]

Guys, this is why he started a separate thread. If you don't think the election was stolen, stick to the other thread. Don't refuse to participate and then post saying you've refused to participate.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Guys, this is why he started a separate thread. If you don't think the election was stolen, stick to the other thread. Don't refuse to participate and then post saying you've refused to participate.

I'm not just refusing to participate, I'm criticizing the poll itself, and what it intends to accomplish.

 

[pattylou]

I am concerned that lack of participation with no explanation will lead Russ to conclude that either (1) People are shooting their mouths off ("sore losers"/tinfoil hat wearers) or (2) feel somehow justified that he has made a valid point of some sort, which I would strongly disagree with..

Would it be more appropriate to pm Russ with my concerns, or to post them on the other thread, or what?

Besides, he specifically said this was in response to the other thread, and he solicited my feedback directly - (I'm one of the "18" group.) Shouldn't I acknowledge this somehow?

 

[russ_watters]

In the OP of the other thread, guys, it says quite explicitly: "do you think the machines could be and were tampered with, in order to skew a result in favor of Bush". Then further down, "thinks the election was (at least partially) electronically rigged" Ie, that someone stole the election for Bush.

I am aware that the poll in the other thread is misleading - ie, it uses the words "rigged" and "tampering" interchangeably - "rigged" implies the wrong person won, "tampering" does not [necessarily] imply it. I'll deal with that in the other thread - several people have brought that up since last night and I haven't gotten back to them on it yet. But I will.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not just refusing to participate, I'm criticizing the poll itself, and what it intends to accomplish.

If you do not think someone stole the election for Bush, then don't participate: I am not participating in my own poll!

 

[russ_watters]

Besides, he specifically said this was in response to the other thread, and he solicited my feedback directly - (I'm one of the "18" group.) Shouldn't I acknowledge this somehow?

I guess my question, then, is that how can you be part of the 18 if you don't think Bush (or someone acting for him) stole the election? If you do think the election was stolen, answer the poll. If you don't, we can discuss the problems with your poll in the in your thread. Ie:

The problem is that the machines appear to be built to allow tampering. Anyone that wants to help a candidate, now has a tool that can allow them to do so.

"Rigging" implies a single conspiracy that caused the wrong person to win the election. "Tampering" does not.
[edit: the word was "rigged", not "fixed"]

The possibility of widespread tampering by hundreds (thousands?) of unconnected individuals does not seem all that realistic to me. Its tough enough that we don't have any evidence of one crime, you're suggesting hundreds with no evidence of any of them.

 

[pattylou]

I can't answer the question for the reasons stated above.

We're both talking about elections, but you're thinking about apples and I'm thinking about oranges.

The title of my other thread uses the word "rigged" which I do not believe equates to "stolen." But this is a minor point. That you seem stuck on it - seems to indicate that you are looking for reasons to *discount* the poll results. Don't you think that such a response is a red flag? I.e. ignoring something you don't want to acknowledge.

I then say in the body of the original post:

Specifically, do you think the machines could be and were tampered with, in order to skew a result in favor of Bush.

This is quite easy to distinguish from your spin on it above:

I guess my question, then, is that how can you be part of the 18 if you don't think Bush (or someone acting for him) stole the election?

The former has nothing to do with "stealing" anmd everything to do with dishonesty. The latter has to do with stealing. *If there was any "skewing" - then we dont't *know* what the election results should have been! We can't say Bush stole the election, we don't know what would have happened with "no skewing."

Bottom line: I am surprised how many people distrust the electronic vote, and whether Bush stole the election or not - is a separate issue that I have no confidence in one way or the other - and one that I think should wait further investigations (ongoing.).

I'll try to stay out of this thread from now on, if you want me to delete my posts here just say the word!

 

[rachmaninoff]

I guess my question, then, is that how can you be part of the 18 if you don't think Bush (or someone acting for him) stole the election? If you do think the election was stolen, answer the poll. If you don't, we can discuss the problems with your poll in the in your thread.

I think given the vulberabilites in the polling system, it's large scale, and the high stakes, it's statistically almost certain that some people, working for themselves or otherwise, found a way to significantly alter election results on a local scale, and got away with it. Probably for both canditates; there are dishonest people of all colors.

Naturally, I think it is impossible for the '04 election to have been outright stolen, considering the statistics involved (margins of error, margins of victory, etc.)

The lack of this extremely reasonable middle option in this poll concerns me. As it is it's unbelivably polar - I even doubt if the two people who voted so far that the election was stolen, meant that Diebold was responsible for the election result - that's not a rational view at all, given the statistics.

I am aware that the poll in the other thread is misleading - ie, it uses the words "rigged" and "tampering" interchangeably - "rigged" implies the wrong person won, "tampering" does not [necessarily] imply it.

I think your poll is misleading (no offence), because

1) You do not clarify that "stolen" does in fact mean "outright stolen",
2) The options are all-or-nothing, with no middle ground. As it is, it effectively asks whether the responder is an extremely irrational, paranoid liberal who thinks millions of votes are being tampered with by right-wing conspiracies (you can see why I find this amsuing...)

 

[russ_watters]

I think your poll is misleading (no offence), because

1) You do not clarify that "stolen" does in fact mean "outright stolen",
2) The options are all-or-nothing, with no middle ground. As it is, it effectively asks whether the responder is an extremely irrational, paranoid liberal who thinks millions of votes are being tampered with by right-wing conspiracies (you can see why I find this amsuing...)

Actually, it seems you understand the poll just fine...

Yes, the poll has a narrow target audience. If you're not part of it, its ok if you don't respond. I'm not trying to pigeonhole anyone here - I honestly want to know who'se door people think the FBI should be knocking on.

As it is it's unbelivably polar - I even doubt if the two people who voted so far that the election was stolen, meant that Diebold was responsible for the election result - that's not a rational view at all, given the statistics.

Burnsys's posts says quite explicitly that he thinks Diebold/Bush were responsible for the election result. No, I don't consider that a rational view either. Nevertheless, it is a view that appears to have some prevalence.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Actually, it seems you understand the poll just fine...

Yes, the poll has a narrow target audience. If you're not part of it, its ok if you don't respond. I'm not trying to pigeonhole anyone here - I honestly want to know who'se door people think the FBI should be knocking on. Burnsys's posts says quite explicitly that he thinks Diebold/Bush were responsible for the election result. No, I don't consider that a rational view either. Nevertheless, it is a view that appears to have some prevalence.

Okay, that clears everything up.

Well, then could you clarify exactly what you meant in the OP, that is, the "responsible for the election result" part? As you can see there is clear ambiguity, as demonstrated by me writing several posts under the impression you might have meant something else. So naturally I expect other people will be voting for things other than what they think...

Hehe.. "clear ambiguity"...

 

[rachmaninoff]

I noticed all your options involve "Bush stole the election unfairly". Wow, what a poll - you only distinguish between the opinions held by those who thought the election was in fact outright stolen... Heh - 100% of your respondents will hold that view - anyone who disagrees can't vote. So, what are the margins of error like?

 

[rachmaninoff]

I unearth even further obfusciation:

In the other thread, it appears I made the errorneous assumption that people who think the 2004 election was stolen think it was Bush who stole the election. So this poll is targeted at the 18 people (and anyone else who thinks the election was "rigged") who voted that "do you think the machines could be and were tampered with, in order to skew a result in favor of Bush" to specify who they believe stole the election. I don't intend for any discussion here, just gathering beliefs.

It cannot possibly be targeted for people who thought the election was "tampered" with, in favor of Bush or otherwise; most of them can't even vote in your poll!

 

[russ_watters]

The title of my other thread uses the word "rigged" which I do not believe equates to "stolen." But this is a minor point. That you seem stuck on it - seems to indicate that you are looking for reasons to *discount* the poll results. Don't you think that such a response is a red flag? I.e. ignoring something you don't want to acknowledge.

Actually, I think that's a critical difference, and I think the new poll I started will show it.

But beyond what my poll shows, do you now see why in your thread I've been focusing almost exclusively on fraud that turned the election?

 

[russ_watters]

I unearth even further obfusciation:

It cannot possibly be targeted for people who thought the election was "tampered" with, in favor of Bush or otherwise; most of them can't even vote in your poll!

You are certainly correct that at the very least pattylou wouldn't vote in my poll, but I still think that most of the other 17 believed, as I did, that 'XXX rigged the election' means that he successfully stole it. That is what that phrase means. Pattylou apparently unintentionally obfuscated that point - she misused the word.

 

[russ_watters]

I noticed all your options involve "Bush stole the election unfairly". Wow, what a poll - you only distinguish between the opinions held by those who thought the election was in fact outright stolen... Heh - 100% of your respondents will hold that view - anyone who disagrees can't vote.

I was quite specific about that. You seem to be insulted that the poll does not apply to you. There is no reason for that. If it doesn't apply to you, don't vote in it. This is exactly the same as a poll in GD targeted at women or a poll in the engineering forum targeted at mechanical engineers.

Well, then could you clarify exactly what you meant in the OP, that is, the "responsible for the election result" part? As you can see there is clear ambiguity, as demonstrated by me writing several posts under the impression you might have meant something else.

I don't understand the problem you are having with that phrase. It appears from the other posts that you understand my meaning just fine. "Responsible for the election result" mean that without 'it' (the tampering, rigging, fraud, etc.), Bush would not have won the election.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Since you now have a new and improved poll, I won't dwell on this too much... I just want to point out that:

You are certainly correct that at the very least pattylou wouldn't vote in my poll, but I still think that most of the other 17 believed, as I did, that 'XXX rigged the election' means that he successfully stole it. That is what that phrase means.

Main Entry: (3) rig...
(1): to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>

The first meaning for the transitive "to rig <an election>" is to "manipulate or control" the result by "dishonest means", not to succesfully steal it, as you claimed. The result of a polling is how many votes go which way. Looking up "manipulate" and "control" (same page )

2b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means

2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over

(emphasis mine)
Looks cut-and-dried.

 

[pattylou]

You are certainly correct that at the very least pattylou wouldn't vote in my poll, but I still think that most of the other 17 believed, as I did, that 'XXX rigged the election' means that he successfully stole it. That is what that phrase means. Pattylou apparently unintentionally obfuscated that point - she misused the word.

In other words, the numbers who distrust electronic voting could be *even higher* than 60%?


(it would include both those who believe the elction was stolen, and others who think there was merely tampering.)

 

[russ_watters]

In other words, the numbers who distrust electronic voting could be *even higher* than 60%?


(it would include both those who believe the elction was stolen, and others who think there was merely tampering.)

Yes! When it comes to trusting that which one cannot see/control, a disturbingly significant fraction of people will not (that's the main reason people are afraid of flying: someone else is in control and they don't understand how). Be careful reading too much into your own poll there, though: believing there is tampering is not the same as mistrusting electronic voting. There are, in fact, four separate (but overlapping) cases to consider, given that the course of that other thread covered both allegations of actual tampering and hypothetical flaws:

Believe there is tampering, mistrust electronic voting.
Believe there is tampering, do not mistrust electronic voting.
Believe there could be tampering (flaws exist), mistrust electronic voting.
Believe there could be tampering, do not mistrust electronic voting.

I, for one, believe there could be electronic tampering, know for sure that there is manual tampering, but do not mistrust either. How? Because such tampering is so minimal/unlikely, it does not affect the results.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I, for one, believe there could be electronic tampering, know for sure that there is manual tampering, but do not mistrust either. How? Because such tampering is so minimal/unlikely, it does not affect the results.

Good point. But what about the super-close elections, the margins of 200... how much trust in anything would you have when recounts differ by hundreds of votes, and give different victors? For some reason that's been happening a lot recently. Must be global warming.

 

[Smurf]

I'd just like to point out that I voted that it was tampered with in the other poll, but I didn't realize at the time that it specified electronic tampering, which I'm unsure about.

 

[2CentsWorth]

I'd just like to point out that I voted that it was tampered with in the other poll, but I didn't realize at the time that it specified electronic tampering, which I'm unsure about.

And you don't even live in Florida!? (Just kiddin')