The usual Kevin election post.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Congratulations, you found some rabid partisans. What a shock.

add: Including the state party chairman! Kevin, do you vaguely understand the role that party operatives play in the US political system? Do you realize they are unelected partisans -- the worst imaginable sources?

Unless they are also the Secretary of State for Ohio, in which case they are trustworthy souls of unimpeachable virtue.

Is it your position that they are lying about the facts of the matter, or just that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the facts of the matter and so independent confirmation is required?

 

[Ion]

I applaud you Kevin for keeping a kind interest in the issue of fair voting, with patience, civility and intelligence in deflecting and overcoming what I see in this thread as a flood of posts with wannabe abuse and spin of what you say.

My approach to the same sabotage though is to be blunt, simple and fight fire with fire.

Regarding this:

...
But meanwhile in Snohomish County, Paul R. Lehto, Attorney at Law, and Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman, Ph.D. have compiled a report showing pretty damn clear evidence that errors and repairs to voting machines correlated tightly with startling swings to the Republican party.
...
It looks pretty plausible right now that both parties have engaged in electoral fraud to a degree...
...

it is notable that the machines are proven to be biased for Republicans, including Bush on November 2nd 2004.

The machines Diebold and ES&S count for 80% of the vote on November 2nd, and they are corrupted.

I see in the post I quote above that you want to be even handed between Democrats and Republicans, however the November 2nd vote should take place a second time, in paper ballots only.

After all, we don't know the election's direction past 3 p.m. Pacific Time, past exit polls (with Kerry leading) at that time.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

After all, we don't know the election's direction past 3 p.m. Pacific Time, past exit polls (with Kerry leading) at that time.

Of course we know the direction - Bush won. It was in all the papers.

 

[varwoche]

Is it your position that they are lying about the facts of the matter

It is my position that they (collectively) always lie about the facts of the matter when it suits their partisan purposes -- it's their job.

 

[a_unique_person]

Voter roles might not be up to date or a caregiver might submit an absentee ballot for a dead person or (this boggles me) you can be registered in two (or more, I guess) towns and thus be able to vote multiple times. As far as I can tell, nothing is really centralized so that if I own property in towns A and B, there is no way of determining where I have voted already. Then again if I in fact do own property in two towns I can certainly vote on budgets and town matters and the like, legally. You would need a centralized exception reporting thing which would have to be able to churn out a composite list. Also, you can, even if you are not on a Town's Grand List, submit an affidavit at the poll that you are in fact a resident and then vote.

I doubt that this is a big factor, though it could have been big enough in WA. I wonder what an acceptable error range is for such things since error there will be. Could one expect an error of .01%? That would still be 30,000 votes.

Shouldn't there be a central register of voters, not a state based one. Seems to be a basic organisational decision to make.

 

[Ion]

Of course we know the direction - Bush won. It was in all the papers.

We know that Kerry was leading before cheating started, and Bush cheated to pretend to win afterwards.

 

[Skeptic]

That blog was a whimsical choice, because it amused me to see a Republican supporter engaging in all the bad behaviour that "loonie Democract moonbat bloggers" are regularly accused of. I admit I was also curious to see whether Skeptic, Scrut or crim would do their homework and criticise that guy with the same enthusiasm as they apply to criticising bloggers from the other side of the debate.

Well, no, they don't NEED to subject it to the same criticism because THEY DO NOT ACCEPT HIS CONCLUSIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The Republican supporters who are posting here are NOT claiming that the Democrats won the recount in Washington due to an evil premeditated all-encompassing conspiracy.

There is little point in rigorously subjecting someone to criticism when you already rejected his conclusions despite the fact that they would support your view if true, is there?

You might as well complain that the Republican supporters here are not subjecting the flat-earth theory to the same rigorous criticism they subject the left-wing blogs.

Well, of course they don't--because they DON'T CARE what the flat earthers say and DON'T AGREE with them, so there's no point of criticising it.

 

[Ed]

Shouldn't there be a central register of voters, not a state based one. Seems to be a basic organisational decision to make.

Dunno. States conduct their own elections, there might be serious resistance to the feds getting involved. I am not sure that they could legally. There is also the issue of a centralized database which would give shivvers to some. In any event, if it were centralized I suspect that it could turn out more messed up than it is now. It also would provide one point of entry for a bad guy as opposed to the thousands that we have now.

 

[crimresearch]

And Kevin's idea of doing 'homework' is to take the entire thread that I started almost 2 weeks ago, *specifically* criticizing the way the Republicans acted in the Washington election, and get caught posting yet another lie, claiming that I never posted any such criticism.

So in his reality, skepticism consists of faking things that were never posted, and ignoring things that were clearly posted....pretty much the same sort of logic that works so well for Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And Kevin's idea of doing 'homework' is to take the entire thread that I started almost 2 weeks ago, *specifically* criticizing the way the Republicans acted in the Washington election, and get caught posting yet another lie, claiming that I never posted any such criticism.

I thought you said we'd seen the last of you? I missed the post in question, but I'll try to get around to looking at it.

So in his reality, skepticism consists of faking things that were never posted, and ignoring things that were clearly posted....pretty much the same sort of logic that works so well for Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne.

Please cite specifically where I faked things that were never posted... oh, forget it. Just carry on as you were.

 

[varwoche]

And Kevin's idea of doing 'homework' is to take the entire thread that I started almost 2 weeks ago, *specifically* criticizing the way the Republicans acted in the Washington election, and get caught posting yet another lie, claiming that I never posted any such criticism.

So in his reality, skepticism consists of faking things that were never posted, and ignoring things that were clearly posted....pretty much the same sort of logic that works so well for Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne.

You might want to pause the eyerolling for a sec. Isn't that the thread where you got the facts wrong, just like Kevin's confused blogger did?

 

[a_unique_person]

Dunno. States conduct their own elections, there might be serious resistance to the feds getting involved. I am not sure that they could legally. There is also the issue of a centralized database which would give shivvers to some. In any event, if it were centralized I suspect that it could turn out more messed up than it is now. It also would provide one point of entry for a bad guy as opposed to the thousands that we have now.

You seem to argue that the cure is worse than the disease. I think it is the exact opposite. Accepting that fraud will occur, but nothing can be done about it, even via simple, practical procedural means, seems to be giving up too easily.

As I understand it, your Social Security number is a de facto ID number anyway.

 

[Ed]

You seem to argue that the cure is worse than the disease. I think it is the exact opposite. Accepting that fraud will occur, but nothing can be done about it, even via simple, practical procedural means, seems to be giving up too easily.

As I understand it, your Social Security number is a de facto ID number anyway.

No, I just don't really see how the feds can hop in. There is a lot of resistance to the idea of an integrated database of people.

The voter list that I am checked against is hard copy. The refitting would cost a fortune I suspect.

I am not against fixing it but I think that there is little appatite to do so. After 2000 you would think we would have had a wake-up call.