"It's hard to tell whether they are covering up incompetence or fraud," says Jones, who has studied the District 20 situation extensively. "And it's hard to come up with a hypothesis that doesn't include, to some degree, one of these things or the other."
Potential scandals aside, is there any data in the state that the people moving from CA to AZ are actually Democrats? It could be that Republicans fed up with living in a liberal state are the ones moving to AZ. You can't just assume that because they're moving from a Democrat-dominated state that they are going to be mostly Democrats.SOS2008 said:More recently, we’ve had an ongoing population explosion, largely from California. Even Republicans have said the state would become more and more “blue.”
Wow, was it really necessary to twist Russ' words to mean something completely different from what he stated? Would the appearance of nearly 500 new ballots have been any less noticeable had electronic equipment been used? Would tampering have even been possible? And, just because obvious errors are spotted, do you ever really know when someone is being more clever? Using machines is not inherently bad. I did object to the ones Ohio was going to use for 2004 that had no back-up system and the source code was being kept proprietary. I can understand as an election security measure not making the source code open to just anyone, but perhaps a few programmers selected by each party, with appropriate security clearance, could be given the opportunity to inspect and certify that the code is not written fraudulently.pattylou said:We've always agreed that humans introduce error, Russ. Particularly error that is trivially easy to spot. * Thank you for acknowledging that this case represents likely fraud!
The election officials or the sheriff's office (who was supposed to provide the security) are either grossly incompetent or covering up for a known source of fraud. Clearly they left open an opportunity for fraud to be committed, whether intentionally or not, and either way, should be held responsible.Turns out, elections officials' handling of the situation is even more suspect. The department not only appears to have left the ballots unattended, it currently has no idea who had access to them between the primary and the recount.
Assistant county attorney Colleen Conner admitted in an October 14 letter to me that the elections department "does not have records related to individuals or personnel specifically involved in the collection, sorting or preparation of the District 20 ballots and recount."
I agree that we should go completely electronic.russ_watters said:Forgive me for pointing out the obvoius, but these were optical-scan ballots: supposedly the most accurate type of ballot. The problem: human error and human physical security.
Obvious conclusion: removing humans from the equation would improve the accuracy and security in this case.
What you are suggesting as a possibility has been my assumption--it is, as I posted, the Republicans who have been claiming this, and I heard this stated again by a Republican family member just the other day.Moonbear said:Potential scandals aside, is there any data in the state that the people moving from CA to AZ are actually Democrats? It could be that Republicans fed up with living in a liberal state are the ones moving to AZ. You can't just assume that because they're moving from a Democrat-dominated state that they are going to be mostly Democrats.
Fair enough - I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to improve electronic voting machines. What I object to is suggestions (from previous arguments, not necessarily from you) that we should remain in the dark ages, with paper ballots, when, despite some current problems, electronic really is inherrently better.Skyhunter said:I agree that we should go completely electronic.
The machines and procedures should be uniform. Companies can open bid to provide the machines and software, but they should not be able to keep it secret from oversight and regulatory agencies.
Once again, you imply that you would prefer to have more error with more visibility (paper) rather than less error with less visibility (electronic). I think eliminating error, in and of itself, should be the goal. And since strictly paper has inherrent error that cannot be eliminated, we need to switch to electronic balloting.pattylou said:We've always agreed that humans introduce error, Russ. Particularly error that is trivially easy to spot.
This case may or may not be, but really - was there a need to point that out? Don't you remember that I said in a poll that I know fraud does happen? Such a thing is simply a matter of fact. What I object to is the crackpottery of BBV's 'fraud overturned the election' schtick.* Thank you for acknowledging that this case represents likely fraud!
I would start with a uniform standard, since that is the reasoning the SC used to interfere with the State of Florida's constitutionally spelled out right to conduct it's own election. It is not a foregone conclusion, in fact it is likely Al Gore would have been President had the SC not gone against the constitution and interfered with Florida's process for selecting its delegates. The fact that Bush's brother was Governor and Kathleen Harris, the head of his campaign in Florida was also in charge of the election. To much coincidence for me to accept the outcome.russ_watters said:Fair enoughh - I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to improve electronic voting machines. What I object to is suggestions (from previous arguments, not necessarily from you) that we should remain in the dark ages, with paper ballots, when, despite some current problems, electronic really is inherrently better.
Visibility does not necessarily mean access. Access to the source code and auditability of the process to insure accuracy does not mean that those overseeing the process have the ability to manipulate the data.russ_watters said:Once again, you imply that you would prefer to have more error with more visibility (paper) rather than less error with less visibility (electronic). I think eliminating error, in and of itself, should be the goal. And since strictly paper has inherrent error that cannot be eliminated, we need to switch to electronic balloting.
edit: [response to expected response] Of course you would like to eliminate error while maintaining visibility, but the two goals are fundamentally mutually exclusive because, as you noted, human intervention introduces error.
Perhaps "access" is a better word then -with paper balloting, specifically, though, access and visibility are the same thing. If you can see the ballots themselves, you can access and manipulate them. And while I am concerned with fraud (paper ballots disappearing, or fake paper ballots materializing), error is a much, much bigger concern to me. Fraud (by my estimation) claims hundreds or thousands of votes in a Presidential election, whereas error (known fact) claims upwards of a million.Skyhunter said:Visibility does not necessarily mean access. Access to the source code and auditability of the process to insure accuracy does not mean that those overseeing the process have the ability to manipulate the data.
Excel spreadsheets can - and are, in this case (actually, I think it's Access databases, but same diff) - encrypted with securtity that would take weeks for a supercomputer to crack. They are as secure as secure gets. Far beyond what a paper ballot can be.storing the results in an excel spreadsheet gives not only visibility, but also easy access to manipulate the results on an unprecedented scale!
No. When a site flat-out lies about it's primary issue, there is no other word that can be used to describe it. I had felt it before, but pattylou was nice enough to provide references to fabrications of BBV, to prove it. Now I use the term without worrying about it being considered rhetoric.To simply call BBV's allegations crack pottery is ignoring a glaringly obvious weakness in the current system. Whether or not the results of the last election, or the 2000 election were correct is a moot point.
Everyone already knew there are vulnerabilities. BBV added crackpottery to the issue, and that is not helpful.BBV has demonstrated that the system is vulnerable. If someone can demonstrate a vulnerability in a security system, it behooves us to fix the problem.
When was the last time you used an ATM? Did you notice the nameplate on it?Trusting our elections to corporations with using proprietary systems that are not audit-able is insanity. Maybe I am paranoid, but I don't trust Diebold to have my better interests at heart! Call me old-fashioned but, I want verification.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/Black_Box_Testing.htmlBlack Box
A. A device or theoretical construct with known or specified performance characteristics but unknown or unspecified constituents and means of operation.
B. Something that is mysterious, especially as to function.
They may as well have titled their website "Fear of the Unknown".Black Box Testing - Also known as functional testing. Asoftware testing technique whereby the internal workings of the item being tested are not known by the tester.
Auditability.russ_watters said:When was the last time you used an ATM? Did you notice the nameplate on it?
Local election fraud in Arizona refers to any illegal or unethical actions that are taken to manipulate the outcome of local elections in the state. This can include actions such as voter intimidation, ballot tampering, or miscounts of votes.
The frequency of local election fraud in Arizona is difficult to determine, as it can be difficult to detect and prove. However, there have been documented cases of election fraud in the state in the past, suggesting that it does occur to some extent.
There are several measures in place to prevent and detect local election fraud in Arizona. These include strict voter registration processes, ID requirements, and ballot security measures. Additionally, poll workers are trained to identify and report any suspicious activities.
The consequences for committing local election fraud in Arizona can vary depending on the severity of the offense. In some cases, it may result in fines or imprisonment. It can also lead to disqualification of the fraudulent candidate or invalidation of the election results.
If an individual suspects a case of local election fraud in Arizona, they should report it to the Arizona Secretary of State's office or the county recorder's office in the county where the fraud is suspected to have occurred. They can also contact the FBI or their local law enforcement agency.