Poll: Was the 2004 election rigged?

[BobG]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

In any case, though, you misunderstand my intent:

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

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

 

[SOS2008]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition:

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

What is so difficult about this concept?

Two words: "hanging chads".

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

What is so difficult about this concept?

 

[Smurf]

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

 

[Anttech]

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

But there is a big possibility of data manipulation

 

[faust9]

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

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

What is so difficult about this concept?

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

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

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

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

 

[pattylou]

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

Diebold is marketing successfully in the UK. Be warned.

Oh, ooops. No idea about Canada.

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

And then there was this quote:

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

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

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

So, my clarification:

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

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

 

[pattylou]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

But there is a big possibility of data manipulation

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

 

[SOS2008]

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

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

 

[pattylou]

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

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

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

Then there was this quote:

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Not everyone, only people who were worried about the "black box" nature of the electonic ballot. People's "feel"ing, in this case, is quite simply an inaccurate perception. As loseyourname noted, more votes were counted in Florida in 2004 than in 2000.

A correctly counted electronic ballot will produce no error. A correctly counted manual ballot will still produce error. There is no way to get around that, SOS.

 

[pattylou]

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

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

You lost me. If he had OH he would have won.

Also, intense scrutiny in 2004 was fueld *directly by* the 2000 shenanigans (and you can bet 2008 will be scrutinized as well); it was also fueled by... the war. It always comes back to Iraq. (Not sure which is most appropriate.)

 

[pattylou]

Not everyone, only people who were worried about the "black box" nature of the electonic ballot. People's "feel"ing, in this case, is quite simply an inaccurate perception. As loseyourname noted, more votes were counted in Florida in 2004 than in 2000.

Are you suggesting thatr someone *loses* under SOS's suggestion?

She's saying it's a win:win.

At this point even a win:tie is a win:win. Are you saying her suggestions are a win:lose?

(SOS- obviously I agree with you!)

 

[pattylou]

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

?

How do you suggest removing the human component?

Someone has to *write* the thing.

which people here, inexplicably, don't want to do

You show me a way to remove the human component, and I'll consider it. It sounds like a great possibility!

 

[russ_watters]

You lost me. If he had OH he would have won.

Oops... miscalculated there, sorry. You're right.

Also, intense scrutiny in 2004 was fueld *directly by* the 2000 shenanigans (and you can bet 2008 will be scrutinized as well)

Yes, that's true - but had this election been a landslide, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[russ_watters]

?

How do you suggest removing the human component?

Someone has to *write* the thing.

You remove the human component from the election. Votors go into booths, punch buttons, and at the end of the day, a computer in Washington spits out the winner. No human intervention whatsoever.

Making a simple counting program is childs play compared to co-ordinating a national election with a hundred thousand (guess) polling places.

 

[faust9]

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

I disagree with this too. Ballot control is usually pretty tight. Dems get in a tizzy if the ballots are touched w/o a dem representative. The GOP is the EXACT same way. Ballots are usually counted by an independent w/ a dem and a GOP rep standing over the shoulder so tampering here is a little tough. Electronic manipulation OTOH would be a simple matter of a few lines of code. The above code I posted should shift about 0.5% of the vote from kerry to Bush resulting in a total swing of 1%. 1% is significant seeing as states are won/lost by less than that amount from time to time. Would we need a nationwide conspiracy to do this? No, only an Ohio/Florida shift would be needed to hand the results to the nefarious candidate. As long as the source stays closed and the raw data--i.e. vote tallies not so much who voted for whom---stay secret then we will run the risk of data manipulation. More importantly, without thurough review of the code we also run the risk of human error being injected into the voting process unintentionally because of coding errors. No code is perfect especially when one starts working with large projects.

 

[faust9]

You remove the human component from the election. Votors go into booths, punch buttons, and at the end of the day, a computer in Washington spits out the winner. No human intervention whatsoever.

Making a simple counting program is childs play compared to co-ordinating a national election with a hundred thousand (guess) polling places.

Here again though Russ no code is safe. Windows XP, 2000, longhorn, etc code has all been found in piece and part on the net. Code servers have been hacked and malicious code injected into projects. You are assuming no nefarious hackers exist in the world---well, if you build a secure system for national vote coordination then you are daring people to break in. Virii don't write themselves BTW. It's that simple. If we use e-voting then the safest way to tally the results is not by tying the machines to a grid or even passing information from polling position A to a central agency via telecom, no the safest way to transmit the data is using some form of traveling collection like the CF cards. But then again your left with wondering what information was on the card to begin with or how the e-machine 'actually' tallied each vote cast. Securing electronic data is very, very difficult.

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree with this too. Ballot control is usually pretty tight.

I'm not just talking about ballot control (if computers are not on a network connected to the internet, they can't be hacked), I'm talking about ballot interpretation and ballot casting. Ie, a group of people sitting in a room decideing if a chad is hanging or just pregnant, punched by a person who didn't push hard enough on an applicator causes errors - this type of error is completely eliminated by electronic balloting.

The above code I posted should shift about 0.5% of the vote from kerry to Bush resulting in a total swing of 1% Electronic manipulation OTOH would be a simple matter of a few lines of code.

Sure - if you have access to the machine and can break the encryption. That kind of example (ie, the infamous Access database demonstration) look great on tv but do not accurately reflect the reality of the security on such things. Its interesting speculation and entertaining tv, but it isn't evidence of fraud.

 

[russ_watters]

Here again though Russ no code is safe. Windows XP, 2000, longhorn, etc code has all been found in piece and part on the net. Code servers have been hacked and malicious code injected into projects.

Whether something is open source or not has nothing to do with how secure it is. As a matter of fact, these machines must be open source in order to ensure that the bugs in the code are worked out and everyone who is paranoid can see that there aren't any little easter eggs of the type you gave in the previous post. I want every programmer in the world to be looking for bugs and vulnerabilities. But at the end of the day, if the voting machine isn't connected to the internet, it can't be hacked. If the data (say, on a CF card, as you suggested) is encrypted, it can't be manipulated after-the-fact in the time allowed (commercially available encryption requires a supercomputer to break in any reasonable amount of time).

I'd prefer removing people from the equation altogether, but let's say there is no feasible way to have voting machines talking directly to a computer in each state capital. Maintaining control of Compact Flash cards would have some of the problems of maintaining control of paper ballots, but not all. They would still be more secure.

You are assuming no nefarious hackers exist in the world---well, if you build a secure system for national vote coordination then you are daring people to break in.

Hardly. Avoiding hacking is a simple as not being connected to other computers. Oops - but you already know this...

If we use e-voting then the safest way to tally the results is not by tying the machines to a grid or even passing information from polling position A to a central agency via telecom, no the safest way to transmit the data is using some form of traveling collection like the CF cards.

Well, I'd argue that you should use a phoneline or a dedicated network (not connected to the internet - there are special phone line/data connections for that). But this is something else most people don't understand about how a modem works: you can't "tap" a modem connection like you can tap a phone voice line. A point-to-point modem connection is completely secure.

Securing electronic data is very, very difficult.

No. It really isn't. Your car has a computer on it and the data on it is not encrypted and easily accessible with software. Why aren't you worried about someone hacking into your car? Simple: your car isn't connected to the internet!

The problem with Windows is simple: data security and data usefulness are inversely proportional to each other: the more useful you make data, the less secure it will be. This country's economy is just a big pile of 1s and 0s and it is extremely secure. Banks don't use Windows on ATMs or bank servers: the Vote wouldn't either.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you suggesting thatr someone *loses* under SOS's suggestion?

She's saying it's a win:win.

At this point even a win:tie is a win:win. Are you saying her suggestions are a win:lose?

(SOS- obviously I agree with you!)

I'm not following you. Win/win? What are the choices?

My point simply was that if If people are involved in the recording process (the votors themselves) and the counting process (election officials counting ballots), then error is introduced into the vote. Increasing the number of people arguing over chads does not reduce the error inherrent in having chads.

Or are you and SOS just talking about "feelings"? It is probably true that with a human component, more people would "feel" like the vote was more secure/accurate. But I'm not interested in feelings, I'm in interested in the actual accuracy of the vote. I sincerely hope that's what's more important to you as well.

A lot of people are afraid of flying. It "feels" unnatural and as a result people are afraid of it and make irrational decisions about it (my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together, then get on separate planes to go to the same destination). But the fact of the matter is that airplanes are safer than cars. "Feelings" lead people to do irrational things and should not be a part of this discussion.

 

[Smurf]

I'm with russ on this one. E-Voting (if done properly) can be totally safe. I too would rather have a completely open source system that anyone can go into and have a look at.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, assuming they interpreted the poll correctly, 18 people here believe Bush rigged the election. Yet no one has produced the details of the crime. Ie, Bush is not a very good programmer, so someone would have had to program the voting machines for him. What is that person's name? What communication occurred between them? The triggerman is a biggie, guys - you can't even open a grand jury without finding a gun and a triggerman.

Now, people have even asked me what I'm looking for in the way of evidence. The above is a good example, but it takes far more than that to even get a trial started - and here we have 18 people who believe that Bush is guilty! So to illustrate what we're missing here, I'm going to construct a crime for you guys. Since there isn't much to go on, there will be almost no facts in this story, but I will cite every UnWarranted Assumption (UWA), UnSubstantiated Allegation (USA), and thing I just plain Pulled out of Thin Air (PTA) so people can fill in the holes if such facts actually exist. I will do my best to include things that were discussed in this thread, though. So, here we go...

A statistician examines the election results and finds a discrepancy between the results and exit polls that leads him to conclude fraud (UWA1,2). An investigation is opened. It finds that: Bush meet with the CEO of Diebold, instructed him to "fix" the election and handed him a government contract and a big 'ol bag of money (PTA1), a meeting which is verified by the apointment records of both Bush and the CEO of Diebold (PTA2). The CEO of Diebold (aka The Dubmest Criminal in the History of the World) made a speech at a political rally the next day where he says "I am going to steal the election for Bush" (UWA1). The next day, he ordered programmer Bob Smith (PTA3) to insert a line of code into the votong software that multiplies his vote total by 1.1 (PTA4). After the election, his guilty-conscience and desire to sell his story compel him to confess his involvement (PTA5). Subsequent examination of the machines verifies the counting discrepancy (PTA6).

UWA1 - The study's results cannot conclusively show that the wrong person won the election: the magnitude of the error is too small and the margin for error in the study is too wide.
UWA2 - A discrepancy does not automatically indicate fraud.
PTA1 - No such meeting has been shown to have happened.
PTA2 - No such records have been cited.
UWA1 - This re-writing of the Diebold quote reflects the popular perception shown in this thread. Since he would have to be The Dumbest Criminal in the History of the World to say this, it is an unwarranted assumption that that is what he meant.
PTA3/5 - No such programmer exists/has come forward.
PTA4/6 - No such line of code has been found.

That is what votor fraud looks like, guys. If anyone can provide a story with some facts, by all means, do so. Until then, I'm forced to continue to believe that 18 people in this thread have chosen to believe something for which they have no positive evidence (a "did", not a "could"). On a science forum, no less!

 

[Skyhunter]

I think that we would all agree that if we could vote with the same confidence we have when we get cash from an ATM that we wouldn't be having this discussion. I know it is possible, but obviously by the poll results a significant percentage of people do not have that confidence.

Arguing that we should trust the machines and their creators is not going to instill that trust. What we need is a secure, verifiable, fail-safe system. And if there is any question as to the outcome of an election, voters can voluntarily produce the paper receipt they received along with their 'I Voted' sticker.

I have strong feeling about the rights of sufferage. I believe it is the essential to the evolution of a capitalist society. We must strengthen and promote trust in the system and participation by an educated electorate.

How do we educate and motivate the electorate

 

[pattylou]

There are too many internal inconsistencies in your argument, Russ. I think your perspective is somewhat simplistic, and that makes discussing it more of a challenge than seems worth it. Here's an example. Please, listen to what I'm saying. Don't just jump in and say ... why I'm saying "something wrong" (no offense, but that has been your general approach.):

The average age of the PF users here is older than you may think. I'm 29 and that puts me at above the maximum typical age for someone who "grew up with" computers - the first one reached my family when I was in 8th grade.

From this, it looks like you are saying that it is (roughly) your age and older that will have some distrust of machines.

But the type of people I'm talking about are people like my parents, who were far into adulthood when the computer became widely accepted. They are better than average when it comes to acceptance, but they still do irrational things out of fear of computers.

Now you're coming back to your original argument from earlier on the thread - that older people ( "people I'm talking about are people like my parents, who were far into adulthood when the computer became widely accepted.") don't trust machines. This was the group I envisionsed when you made your first comment.

Are you saying that PF is mostly populated by people of your parent's age level?

Of course it isn't. This forum is obviously not a fifty+ hangout.

Despite that (the average age being much younger, and you're a super mentor so I assume you're at the *older* end --- and probably voted "no tampering"- !), 60% of respondents here chose the "tampered with" option. 60%!

So, to *square* this with your hypothesis, (that people of your parents age distrust the machines most, ) we'd have to assume that in *that* age group the level of distrust is *even higher* than 60%.

I seriously *doubt* this is the case. That you stick to your guns on this, is why I say you're being inconsistent. You can prove me wrong, or right, by answering the following question:

What percentage of older folks (your parents age etc) do you think distrust electronic voting?

~~~~
Your ongoing defense seems to be "When there is incontrovertible proof I'll believe it, and since there isn't, we shouldn't spend any time on it." This begs the question ---- How do we *get* that incontrovertible proof?
You want to dismiss this issue out of hand. Can you recognize that it is the people who are distrustful who will provide the impetus to find the rot, if it's there? If we dismiss it, My God. Think about it!

(Your hypothetical "landslide election" comment was another example of bneing internally inconsistent, and there was one other example from today that is escaping me at the moment. These "debates" take too much of my family time to have to go back every few posts and ask for clarification on inconsistencies like this. I've spent about twenty minutes on this post alone. Apologies for parts that are probably still garbled.)

 

[pattylou]

Ok, assuming they interpreted the poll correctly, 18 people here believe Bush rigged the election. Yet no one has produced the details of the crime. Ie, Bush is not a very good programmer, so someone would have had to program the voting machines for him. What is that person's name? What communication occurred between them? The triggerman is a biggie, guys - you can't even open a grand jury without finding a gun and a triggerman.

Now, people have even asked me what I'm looking for in the way of evidence. The above is a good example, but it takes far more than that to even get a trial started - and here we have 18 people who believe that Bush is guilty! So to illustrate what we're missing here, I'm going to construct a crime for you guys. Since there isn't much to go on, there will be almost no facts in this story, but I will cite every UnWarranted Assumption (UWA), UnSubstantiated Allegation (USA), and thing I just plain Pulled out of Thin Air (PTA) so people can fill in the holes if such facts actually exist. I will do my best to include things that were discussed in this thread, though. So, here we go...

A statistician examines the election results and finds a discrepancy between the results and exit polls that leads him to conclude fraud (UWA1,2). An investigation is opened. It finds that: Bush meet with the CEO of Diebold, instructed him to "fix" the election and handed him a government contract and a big 'ol bag of money (PTA1), a meeting which is verified by the apointment records of both Bush and the CEO of Diebold (PTA2). The CEO of Diebold (aka The Dubmest Criminal in the History of the World) made a speech at a political rally the next day where he says "I am going to steal the election for Bush" (UWA1). The next day, he ordered programmer Bob Smith (PTA3) to insert a line of code into the votong software that multiplies his vote total by 1.1 (PTA4). After the election, his guilty-conscience and desire to sell his story compel him to confess his involvement (PTA5). Subsequent examination of the machines verifies the counting discrepancy (PTA6).

UWA1 - The study's results cannot conclusively show that the wrong person won the election: the magnitude of the error is too small and the margin for error in the study is too wide.
UWA2 - A discrepancy does not automatically indicate fraud.
PTA1 - No such meeting has been shown to have happened.
PTA2 - No such records have been cited.
UWA1 - This re-writing of the Diebold quote reflects the popular perception shown in this thread. Since he would have to be The Dumbest Criminal in the History of the World to say this, it is an unwarranted assumption that that is what he meant.
PTA3/5 - No such programmer exists/has come forward.
PTA4/6 - No such line of code has been found.

That is what votor fraud looks like, guys. If anyone can provide a story with some facts, by all means, do so. Until then, I'm forced to continue to believe that 18 people in this thread have chosen to believe something for which they have no positive evidence (a "did", not a "could"). On a science forum, no less!

No one said Bush had anything to do with it.

You're sensationalising the issue. It sounds like you are having trouble remaining dispassionate about this.

God. Like Bush is the only person who wanted to see another Bush presidency. Expand your thinking. I know you can do it. You must be bright enough, you're a super mentor. Think creatively for a few minutes. You've done it before.

The previous post wrote that your analysis was "too simplistic." Whoever wrote that was brilliant. (You're also still demonstrating the pointless approach of "you're wrong and I'm right" without listening to the arguments. If you had listened, you would realize that no one ever said Bush did it.)

AND! You can't make that conclusion from the poll. ALL you can say is that 21 people think there was electronic tampering, period. SURELY you see this?

 

[Smurf]

you would realize that no one ever said Bush did it.)

AND! You can't make that conclusion from the poll. ALL you can say is that 21 people think there was electronic tampering, period. SURELY you see this?

That's what I was just thinking. I'm surprised anyone here honestly thinks that there was no tampering what-so-ever. I thought it was pretty obvious, I mean the news was covering these things 24/7 for weeks after the election.

edit: nvm, the poll specifies electronic voting, which I'm not entirely convinced on.

 

[SOS2008]

More information from Wikipedia:

1 Controversial or irregular aspects of the 2004 election
o 1.1 Voting machines and vendor issues
o 1.2 Exit polls
o 1.3 Vote suppression
o 1.4 Racial discrimination and other bias
o 1.5 International election monitoring
o 1.6 Allegations of a media 'lockdown'
o 1.7 Other controversies

Let’s begin with Voting machines and vendor issues (there's a lot more to it than open source):

Specific issues related to voting machine companies

Control, ownership and political ties

A very comprehensive and fully sourced summary of "Who's involved with Who" includes ownership, history, donations and connections of voting machine companies and those connected with them, including SEC criminal records and cross-investments.

Bob Urosevich is currently president of Diebold and was the person who original produced Diebold's software. Todd Urosevich (his brother) is vice president of ES&S. In 1999, American Information Systems (AIS), purchased Business Records Corporation (BRC) to become ES&S. AIS (1980) was formerly Data Mark (1979). Both AIS and Data Mark were founded by the Urosevich brothers. In 2002 Diebold acquired Global Election Systems. Global was founded 1991, which itself acquired the AccuVote system the same year. Bob Urosevich is a past president of Global.

AIS was initially funded by Howard Ahmanson, Jr. Ahmanson is a member of the Council for National Policy, a “steering group” linked to the Bush administration and has holdings in ES&S. Ahmanson donates substantially to CalTech/MIT, and helps finance the Chalcedon Institute and the Discovery Institute which pushes Creationist science and education in California….

ES&S (40-50%) and Diebold (30-35%) are responsible for the integrity and processing of around 80% of United States election voting. Between them, these two companies alone provide voter registration, printing of ballots, the programming of the voting machines, the counting and tabulation of the votes, and the final reporting of the results for over 150 million Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U...ic_issues_related_to_voting_machine_companies
So in other words, elections basically are run by a private-sector monopoly. No problem with this, huh? Let's take a look at each:

Specific issues relating to Diebold machines and practices
· Unreported faults and problems known to manufacturer
· Poor security against cracking and other electronic fraud
…In at least one case it appears a voting machine was cracked during a primary election in King County Washington and a warning was issued to disconnect all voting machines from the internet.
…Critics of Diebold point out that virtually every other machine the company makes provides a paper trail to verify the machine's calculations. Oddly, only the voting machines lack this essential function."
· Recent historical voting anomalies
· "Libel Chill” in this case is highly strategic since there is only a short time window - from November 2, 2004 to December 13, 2004 - to contest the results."
...the internal memos reveal that Jones Day lawyers were exploring strategies to fend off legal challenges ... Legal machinations were eventually cited as a strike against Diebold. The company "raised frivolous legal objections to providing many [requested] documents and provided other documents in an untimely manner," according to a Secretary of State’s Office report on Diebold.
· Knowingly misrepresenting voting machines as certified and tested
· Diebold management past criminal history

Specific issues relating to ES&S machines and political links

...Senator Chuck Hagel had, before stepping down and running for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, been the head of the voting machine company (now ES&S) that had just computerized Nebraska's vote. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election."

...According to Bev Harris, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state."

Bev Harris also traces significant control of ES&S back to Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc, a company with strong political interests and ties to big industry, and a track record of bid-rigging and bans from State or Federal contracts…

Specific issues relating to Sequoia machines and practices

Sequoia Pacific has a "long connection" with criminal activity, including connections to the Gambino Family

Official action - Allegations of voting irregularities by Republican Jenkins led to a year-long investigation. The probe quickly came across evidence of massive bribery, which became the focus of the investigation that followed, leading to charges that an election officer (Fowler) had spent $8.6 million in state money on "worthless" election equipment, and taken kickbacks from voting machine contractors working for Sequoia Pacific, in a scheme engineered by that company's executives. Fowler sentenced to five years in prison. Media did not mention the name of the company on whose behalf he was being bribed, Sequoia Pacific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U...ic_issues_related_to_voting_machine_companies

Lovely, ain't it? The point is made in this excerpt about Arcata City, Calif. Adopts Voter Confidence Resolution:

California City Says U.S. Privatized Election Methods Reap Inconclusive Outcomes

…The Resolution also states that the Consent of the Governed, defined in the Declaration of Independence as the self-evident truth from which Government derives ‘just Power,’ is no longer being sought through elections in America. Unverifiable votes, privatized source code, and secret vote counting ensure inconclusive outcomes. Since the results are inherently uncertain, the Resolution states, there is no basis for confidence.

”This is where the faith-based and reality-based communities intersect,” Berman said. “Ronald Reagan said ‘Trust, but verify.’ If only we could. Thirty percent of the votes cast last November could not be recounted. All votes must be verifiable or there is no basis for confidence in the results reported.”

Around the U.S., election reform advocates are actively organizing and lobbying their City Councils to pass the Voter Confidence Resolution as well…

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/8/9521.html

Who is comfortable with corporate control of our election system? The elections in Iraq were far better than our own, and many other countries with less wealth/technology at their disposal. For example, after electronic voting takes place, a ticket is printed that the voter can place in a secure box his/herself, and I'm all for more reliable ID, inked fingers, what ever it takes.

 

[Skyhunter]

More information from Wikipedia:
Let’s begin with Voting machines and vendor issues (there's a lot more to it than open source):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U...ic_issues_related_to_voting_machine_companies
So in other words, elections basically are run by a private-sector monopoly. No problem with this, huh? Let's take a look at each:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U...ic_issues_related_to_voting_machine_companies

Lovely, ain't it? The point is made in this excerpt about Arcata City, Calif. Adopts Voter Confidence Resolution:

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/8/9521.html

Who is comfortable with corporate control of our election system? The elections in Iraq were far better than our own, and many other countries with less wealth/technology at their disposal. For example, after electronic voting takes place, a ticket is printed that the voter can place in a secure box his/herself, and I'm all for more reliable ID, inked fingers, what ever it takes.

I feel I set the nail but you drove it home with one shot SOS.

The reason we don't trust the system is... It is not deserving of trust. Whether it was or wasn't tampered with is irrelevant. If the people have no confidence that democracy is not being undermined, they will begin to question more and more the legitimacy of their government.

Already there is speculation that the latest election in Ohio had some irregularities.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1398

 

[loseyourname]

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

It wasn't clear. Now it is.

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

You have to understand that this discussion was going on long before you registered here. I'm sure you have taken part in it elsewhere. Yes, it gets tedious when people continue to put forth discredited conspiracy theories. Obviously, you are not, so my qualm is not with you. I apologize if I offended you.

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

The only thing that I think I (or rather the sheer mountains of non-partisan evidence to the contrary) put to rest is the notion that either candidate, or any partisan working in the interest of either candidate, used e-machines to influence the outcome of the presidential election, at any level.

If all you guys are saying is "Look, the issue isn't whether or not anything foul took place. The issue is simply that we don't trust the technology." Fine, but I don't know what to tell you in that case. We will continue to do what we are already doing. When irregularities come up, they will be addressed. When machines don't work, they will fail to be certified. Close elections will continue to be hotly contested because every method of voting we currently have leaves room for error.

But let's face it. Perhaps that is all you are saying, but that is not all that is being said. There are people ignoring all of the statistical evidence suggesting that states with voting machines showed no greater errors than states without them, or that many of their boogeymen were not even present in the precinct that were contested. They are putting forth arguments like this:

Diebold makes good ATM machines.
Therefore, if a Diebold voting machines shows bugs, they must be placed there on purpose as part of a Republican conspiracy to steal votes.

Michael Behe's logic is far stronger than that.