Another Nail in the Woo Coffin

[Kevin_Lowe]

And what do you base that on? Certainly not on the many experts that have come out and said otherwise. Certainly not on the baseline of the group who did the polls since this is the first presidential election this group has polled.

Are you psychic? Do you know this is the reason they want them banned?

I wouldn't say that the numbers are nailed down beyond reproach yet, but it's shaping up at the moment as if those exit polls were right on the money in almost all states, but wrong as all get out in a handful. As Ion puts it, the exit poll has been validated by the tabulated votes. That's proof it works, and all the "experts" saying otherwise are to a large extent just muddying the waters.

Numbers trump opinions. Show me hard numbers that prove that what happened in New Hampshire et. al. were within plausible margins of error and I'll give you the argument.

Do you recall Strong Case #1, the case you refused to touch and are still refusing to touch? The voting machinery was designed for fraud. That's not speculation, that has been publicly demonstrated before TV cameras. The voting machinery is also owned by Republicans, and Republicans have blocked moves to make audit trails mandatory. None of this is speculation or guesswork, it's all hard fact.

Currently the HAVA act requires all states to present plans to go 100% electronic by 2006.

Now the same people are talking about banning exit polls, which are the single most effective check on electoral fraud.

The people in charge of your government want all future elections to be held under conditions that allow fraud. Would the JREF ever allow that kind of protocol in a challenge? No way. The government of the USA is a lot more important than a measly million dollars, and requires correspondingly greater safeguards and vigilance.

Now explain to me why the Republicans for perfectly honest reasons want all elections henceforth to be held on black boxes, bought from Republican-owned corporations, with no checks for fraud. You must believe there is a perfectly innocent explanation. What is it?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

An addendum to the last post.

"WASHINGTON — Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election. "

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1029-10.htm

You could easily mistake it for a coherent program to lock down the electoral system so that it serves the purposes of the Republican party and only the Republican party.

Again, innocent explanations welcomed.

 

[aerocontrols]

They're as good as any poll and better than most. That's why the Republicans are floating the idea of banning them.

Which Republicans are floating that idea?

 

[corplinx]

As Ion puts it, the exit poll has been validated by the tabulated votes. That's proof it works, and all the "experts" saying otherwise are to a large extent just muddying the waters.

Therein lies the problem. The exit poll number presented is the midpoint in a range of numbers. I notice that most graphs I see distort this by cherrypicking states where that midpoint matches the actual tally and others where it doesn't. The problem being that the exit poll number is a range and not a single point if the graph presenter is honest. Since you are the expert on these exits polls and not the news orgs that put together the exit polling group for their sole use, tell me what the margin of error is?

There is also some dishonesty here in assuming that exit poll workers are all clones and that results in one place will be as accurate as others.

How many experts have to tell the woos that these exit polls which have been used for the first time in a presidential race (the last group was canned after bad results in the 2000 race, imagine that) before the woos finally concede that these exit polls were not scientific and do not have a baseline?

Do you recall Strong Case #1, the case you refused to touch and are still refusing to touch? The voting machinery was designed for fraud. That's not speculation, that has been publicly demonstrated before TV cameras. The voting machinery is also owned by Republicans, and Republicans have blocked moves to make audit trails mandatory. None of this is speculation or guesswork, it's all hard fact.

Prove the machinery was designed to facilitate fraud. One scrap of evidence. The burden is on you. I don't want to see old slashdot stories about Diebold conspiracies where a flaw or low security settings in Diebold machines is turned in a sinister plot.

Ergo, your position is woo.

Diebold's CEO is a republican voter. There's what, a 50/50 chance of that these days? How sinister!

As for having paper trails, I've seen a lot of reactionaries bemoaning the lack of them but I've seen pretty good arguements for not having them. I'm still not sure what I think about the issue.

I think as electronic voting gets bets better and more secure the need for an audit trail will get less and less. Even if you issued recepits to individuals the woo would remain.

 

[Cabbage]

As for having paper trails, I've seen a lot of reactionaries bemoaning the lack of them but I've seen pretty good arguements for not having them.

Actually, just out of curiosity I'd be interested in hearing some of the good arguments for not having paper trails. The only argument that has occurred to me against having paper trails would simply be cost, but I find that unsatisfying; on one hand, I can't imagine there would be a significant cost involved (relatively speaking, anyway), and on the other hand, we would have the benefit of being able to audit the election--I think the benefits definitely outweigh the cost here. Still, I'm open to the possibility of other arguments against the paper trail.

 

[Cleon]

Prove the machinery was designed to facilitate fraud. One scrap of evidence. The burden is on you. I don't want to see old slashdot stories about Diebold conspiracies where a flaw or low security settings in Diebold machines is turned in a sinister plot.

Ergo, your position is woo.

"Show evidence. I won't accept this, that, and the other thing. Therefore, your position is woo."

Ah, yes, logical induction as its best, corplinx.

Diebold's CEO is a republican voter. There's what, a 50/50 chance of that these days? How sinister!

Active campaigner, not just voter. One would think, if your company is responsible for maintaining the voting system, you would at least out of propriety attempt to put on an impartial face.

It's a bit like refereeing a football game while wearing a "Go Steelers!" shirt.

As for having paper trails, I've seen a lot of reactionaries bemoaning the lack of them but I've seen pretty good arguements for not having them. I'm still not sure what I think about the issue.

I think as electronic voting gets bets better and more secure the need for an audit trail will get less and less. Even if you issued recepits to individuals the woo would remain.

Well, only because you define woo as "an opinion I don't like."

The fact is, corplink, without a paper trail we can't tell if there's been fraud or not. That's my only point. No computer system is 100% secure. Without auditability and accountability, believing that the system is secure and honest requires a leap of faith.

 

[corplinx]

"Show evidence. I won't accept this, that, and the other thing. Therefore, your position is woo."

That should read:
J: Show Evidence
W: I don't have any but I have inference, innuendo, implication, hunches, and accusations.
J: I won't accept this, that, and the other thing. Therefore, your position is woo.

That's more like it. I'm glad to see which side of the fence you apparently are standing on.

 

[gnome]

This is where I am with this:

I do not see evidence that the election was stolen or tampered with. I see evidence that the opportunity was there, and results that are consistent with that idea.

We've got paper ballots in some of these disputed counties, why not take advantage of that and tabulate them? It wouldn't supplant the official results, but it would lay to rest a lot of the theories if the results were consistent with the official count.

I think we should be constantly auditing the election process whether the results are in dispute or not.

 

[corplinx]

I think we should be constantly auditing the election process whether the results are in dispute or not.

No one is saying we should stop auditing them. The Kerry campaign has lawyers looking it into it as we speak as part of their "count every vote" pledge. There are other nonaffiliated efforts. I am not sure if there is an authoritative list of all efforts to ensure the integrity of the results underway.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Should'nt that be Woo De Jour ?

 

[BPSCG]

The fact is, corplink, without a paper trail we can't tell if there's been fraud or not. That's my only point.

That's true. But when the apparent discrepancy vanishes in the cold, hard light of the perfectly reasonable explanation, it becomes more and more woo-ish to insist there's evidence of fraud.

The explanation for Ohio and Florida Link:

The Ohio vote-fraud theory appears to stem from the curious ways of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. During even-numbered years the county's canvassing board posts vote totals that include the results from outside the county from congressional districts that spill over Cuyahoga's borders. The quirk made it look as if the county had 90,000 more votes than voters.

And:

The Florida case is more nuanced than the Ohio voting battle. Numerous bloggers have noted that President Bush's vote totals in 47 Florida counties were larger -- in some cases much larger -- than the number of registered Republican voters in the same counties. A widely distributed piece on Consortiumnews.com said the results "are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable."

The article's main numbers are correct. But the central premise -- that there is something suspicious about Bush getting more votes than the number of registered Republicans in rural counties, which use paper ballots -- may not be suspicious at all.

It is does not account for thousands of independents or for voters who do not list party affiliation. It is also common for Florida Democrats, particularly the "Dixiecrats" in the northern reaches of the state and the Panhandle, to vote for Republicans, a pattern that is repeated in much of the Deep South.

How common is it? Well, here's more on Florida (Link):

In Baker County, where 69 percent of registered voters identify as Democrats, 77 percent of voters went for Bush. Dixie County: 78 percent registered Democrats, 69 percent for Bush. Franklin County: 77 percent registered Dems, 59 percent for Bush. Holmes County: 73 percent registered Dems, 77 percent for Bush.

(...snip by BPSCG...)

The big problem with this theory is that this year's results match those from 2000. (And with the exception of Dixie, which used punch cards in 2000, all of these counties used optical-scan machines four years ago.) In 2000, Baker County had 83 percent registered Democrats, and 69 percent of the county's voters went for Bush. Dixie County had 86 percent registered Democrats, and 58 percent went for Bush. Franklin County: 81 percent registered Dems, 53 percent for Bush. Holmes County: 83 percent registered Dems, 68 percent for Bush.

Okay, it's fair to raise some eyebrows about these numbers when they first popped up. How can Cuyahoga County have more votes than voters? How come those Florida counties went so heavily for Bush with such predominantly Democratic registration?

But once the questions have been reasonably answered, it's time to let go.

 

[varwoche]

I don't want corplinx slapping me upside the head, so to be clear, I do not alledge fraud, other than commonplace, small-time mistakes/mayhem. (Which is anti-democratic and should be rooted out and prevented.)

That said, speaking as a software developer who distrusts software developers, that elections are now controlled by software that is not open source seems to me a huge vulnerability. I'm curious to know if the code is audited by an outside auditor.

 

[Cleon]

I don't want corplinx slapping me upside the head, so to be clear, I do not alledge fraud, other than commonplace, small-time mistakes/mayhem. (Which is anti-democratic and should be rooted out and prevented.)

That said, speaking as a software developer who distrusts software developers, that elections are now controlled by software that is not open source seems to me a huge vulnerability. I'm curious to know if the code is audited by an outside auditor.

That's pretty much where I'm at.

The Diebold code was audited, and the results were rather less than satisfactory. Link

 

[odorousrex]

This seems to me to be a case of "believers NEEDING to believe"

Some people, who are nromally good, quality skeptics, simply cannot believe that Bush legitimately won the election. (Excluding the typical irregularitys that occur constantly and the fact that Bush BARELY won. 2% isn't a lot.)

They have to believe that there is a conspiracy of some sort. They cannot accept the simplest explanation as the truth.

It's actually quite fascinating.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Which Republicans are floating that idea?

I would have sworn that I had seen quotes to that effect just in the last few days from House Majority Leader DeLay, Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell, and alleged Republican organ Tucker Carlson.

But now I'm trying to track down a link to any of those people saying that I am drawing a blank.

Pending me finding any evidence, can we place that claim as unsubstantiated? Ta.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This seems to me to be a case of "believers NEEDING to believe"

Some people, who are nromally good, quality skeptics, simply cannot believe that Bush legitimately won the election. (Excluding the typical irregularitys that occur constantly and the fact that Bush BARELY won. 2% isn't a lot.)

They have to believe that there is a conspiracy of some sort. They cannot accept the simplest explanation as the truth.

It's actually quite fascinating.

For you and corplinx, who apparently didn't read it the first time:

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-30.htm

There are really serious questions about the security and verifiability of your elections, and if you're not concerned you are either uninformed or not a skeptic. There's insufficient evidence to conclude there was fraud, but there is absolutely enough evidence to show that large-scale fraud was easily possible. That should simply not be the case in a democratic election.

On the bright side, I think that the wait for proper evidence will soon be over. Nader looks like he'll get his recount.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38000-2004Nov9.html

(registration required or visit www.bugmenot.com)

and

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=312

A NH recount would really be the ideal test for the fraud claim. NH had the single biggest discrepancy between the tabulated votes and the exit polls. A recount by hand would either agree with the machine-tabulated results, pretty much nailing down the coffin lid on accusations of fraud, or agree with the exit polls and show conclusively that the black boxes stole the NH election.

Barring the appearance of hard data showing fraud, a NH recount that agrees with the tabulated votes would certainly push the fraud theory into woo-woo land.

A NH recount that agrees with the exit polls would similarly push the "no fraud" theory into woo-woo land.

I salute Nader for giving us the test we needed. Certainty is back on the horizon.

 

[corplinx]

There are really serious questions about the security and verifiability of your elections, and if you're not concerned you are either uninformed or not a skeptic.

No true scotsman could disagree with you either.

There is a difference between the outright obsession the dissaffected have with flaws in the current generation of voting machines and genuine concern.

There is balance these companies have to find between making machine workable by computer illiterate poll workers/election officials and good security. Because this balance hasn't been found yet, people are jumping up and down. After all, we always get things correct right off the bat? Right?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No true scotsman could disagree with you either.

Get around to reading that link I keep posting some day.

If you've done that and actually have evidence to show that large-scale fraud was not possible and easy, then I'll admit that a skeptic with a functioning frontal lobe could differ on whether fraud was possible.

There is a difference between the outright obsession the dissaffected have with flaws in the current generation of voting machines and genuine concern.

So what you are saying is that I am correct, but I'm still a lefty lefty woo-woo, so ha ha ha?

There is balance these companies have to find between making machine workable by computer illiterate poll workers/election officials and good security. Because this balance hasn't been found yet, people are jumping up and down. After all, we always get things correct right off the bat? Right?

This is a straw man. Other nations have already held elections on open-source, secure voting machines that were vigorously scrutinised and not found wanting. This is not a wild frontier technology, it has already been nailed down.

In other words if these machines are insecure and unreliable it's not because it's too hard to make secure, reliable voting machines. The most generous possible position is that it's because of cluelessness and greed that rivals that seen in Dilbert cartoons. That shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[zakur]

I would have sworn that I had seen quotes to that effect just in the last few days from House Majority Leader DeLay, Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell, and alleged Republican organ Tucker Carlson.

But now I'm trying to track down a link to any of those people saying that I am drawing a blank.

Pending me finding any evidence, can we place that claim as unsubstantiated? Ta.

Blackwell banned exit polling within 100 feet of the polls in Ohio.

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/11/01/exit110104.html
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/109939164048620.xml
http://www.enquirer.com/midday/11/11022004_News_mday_newssuit02.html

 

[SezMe]

As for having paper trails, I've seen a lot of reactionaries bemoaning the lack of them but I've seen pretty good arguements for not having them. I'm still not sure what I think about the issue.

I'd be very interested in reading arguments against having a paper trail. Got any links?

On another matter, I think Kevin has done a very good job of dispassionately laying out his case. I'm not sure he's right, but he has put his facts on the table and said how he could be convinced otherwise. Conversely, corp, you seem to be unable to say much more than "woo" incessantly. Just because he sees the issue differently than you does not make him or the case "woo" but it does call for skeptical inquiry. And for us skeptics - no matter which side - to closely challenge the investigation. Repeating "woo" is not doing that.