READER COMMENTS ON
"Report: Group Says Exit Polls Show 'Landslide Denied' Democrats In Last Week's Election!"
(56 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 1:38 pm PT...
I'm asking this again as I think its important and pertains to this article.
I have a question about national elections… is it possible "mail in ballots" and/or "substitution of paper ballets" in some states precincts gave Democrats enough of an edge, "a lead" to overtake any Diebold, ESS or Seqouia voting machines that held a virus?
If 20%, 30% or even 40% of all votes were by mail in and/or paper ballot at local precincts... and heavily skewed towards the Democrats …. and lets say a planted "virus" gave the Republicans a 2 or 3% plus margin.... wouldn't that spread be diluted by this extremely large amount of mail in/paper ballots counted and totaled separately from e-votes. Could that be the reason for so many close elections?
Could plain old paper and pencil have saved America?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 1:45 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 1:48 pm PT...
I guess I'm stupid...why does Edison-Mitofsky ADJUST THEIR POLLS???
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 1:55 pm PT...
You're not stupid Dan. They are!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 1:56 pm PT...
Should Edison-Mitofsky be adjusting their polls?
If they shouldn't, should they be thrown in the slammer?
Aren't they the ones who explained that their 2004 exit polls were off for some ludicrous reasons such as, "more Dem voters tend to answer our polls", etc...???
This tells me that Edison-Mitofsky should be investigated...THIS IS SERIOUS!!!
HAVE THEY EVER BEEN INVESTIGATED???
Brad...you explain the difference between "hacking" and "rigging" an election...what is the explanation for Edison-Mitofsky "adjusting their exit polls"? Where does that fit in???
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 2:02 pm PT...
Then why do we even use ballot counting? Why not just exit poll? They are a much better way to count votes than having local counties do it. I quote from the OPEDNEWS article:
"These machines are completely and utterly black box. The idea that we have this enormous burden of proof that they are miscounting, and there's no burden of proof that they are counting accurately--that, first and foremost, has to change."
But when I read the article, I didn't find an enormous burden of proof. I found election results that didn't match exit polling. So, in a quick logic test, it seems exit polling and the lack of a secret ballot is a better test of the system than actually counting the ballots. I'm going to guess that this makes sense to some people. I'm still not getting it. What am I missing?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 2:03 pm PT...
"EXTRY EXTRY, DON'T READ ALL ABOUT IT IN THE CORORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWSPAPERS...ELECTIONS STILL BEING STOLEN ON E-VOTE MACHINES" Complicit AGAIN! ...in the cover-up! If Brad and EDA know this and figured it out so quickly, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & FOX know it, too. Brad Blog exists because of the job ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & FOX, and the WHOLE CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA...IS NOT DOING!!! And IT'S ON PURPOSE!!! WAKE UP!!!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 3:04 pm PT...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 3:22 pm PT...
G - There's really no way of knowing. Remember, even "good old paper and pencil" absentee ballots are counted by the same, unreliable, inaccurate optical scan systems which use secret, hackable software to count your votes, as "good old paper and pencil" ballots used in the polling place on election day (where available).
Without a credible independent audit of those ballots, to match against machine recorded counts, and without open, inspectable software on those counting machines, nobody knows nothin'.
Yes. It's that bad out there.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 4:16 pm PT...
Howdy: I'm not sure if you're kidding about using exit polls instead of actually voting, but it does bring up a point. The only way to hold a valid election is with a physical paper ballot, filled out in secret, and counted in public by local officials observed by anyone who cares to. What electornic voting machines that don't produce paper ballots do, is effectively count votes in secret and produce a log or paper trail that says "trust us, we counted correctly."
In a way, all control over how the votes are counted lay in the hands of the computer programmers who write the software, and their less-than-technical politically-tied higher ups. I'm skeptical of an over-reliance on exit polling, because it's done in much the same way. They collect raw data, and can model it to represent whatever they want, then tell us it's the absolute truth. Except when it's not. Then it's blamed on shy republicans.
An exit poll compared to a valid election, has historically been accurate to within a percentage point or two. This instills confidence because it's a private poll backing up a public election.
When exit polls show a discrepency of 5-10 points when e-voting machines are widely used, you basically have a private poll backing up a private election and that shatters voter confidence.
In summation: publically counted physical secret ballots + well coordinated exit polls = happy democracy
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 11/17/2006 @ 4:33 pm PT...
I suspected the election was actualy a landslide !
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 5:27 pm PT...
For years, exit polls were getting more accurate with each election as techniques were refined. With the widespread use of EVMs, apparently a fly was introduced into the ointment because the rising line of accuracy went to hell. This is meaningful, of course. Unfortunately, Edison-Mitofsky adjusted the results to reflect vote totals and have taken another look at techniques from a viewpoint of ignoring the possibility of fraud (or, really, of even widespread inaccuracy of electronic votes.) This is a big part of Steve Freeman's criticism. ("Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?", etc.)
IMO, there is more than meets the eye considering the polls are funded by a corporate MSM consortium (National Election Pool consisting of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, AP, and CNN) and it is unlikely that Mitosfsky et al are so dense as to not see the validity of Freeman's arguments. But maybe they are. Maybe there is something about corporatism that blinds people to anything outside the corporate cult.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 7:36 pm PT...
I KNEW IT!
Thank you number crunchers!
- - - - - -
When is an exit poll not an exit poll?
When it's a "voting" result!
- - - - - -
This ISN'T funny!
Neither is turning the odometer back on a car before selling it, Edison Scamtofsky!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 7:50 pm PT...
THE DEMOCRATIC TSUNAMI
The following analysis estimates the effects of vote switching in the 61 House GOP seats that were in play. It also determines which seats were the
most likely candidates for fraud.
KEY MODEL RESULTS
In a fraud-free election, the model projected that Democrats would win the House by a 242D-193R majority-a 49-seat margin. With the fraud assumptions factored into the model, the majority becomes 227D-208R, a 19
seat margin. The margin as of today is 34 seats (231D-197R), with 7 undecided. Four of the seven seats are GOP-held.
The Democrats needed to win 15 GOP-held seats for House control. So far, they have won 29. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the number of seats the Democrats lost due to uncounted votes and vote switching.
THE MODEL PROJECTED THE DEMOCRATS TO WIN 40 OF 61 GOP-HELD SEATS, ASSUMING NO FRAUD. IT ALSO PROJECTED THAT 16 OF THE 40 SEATS WOULD REVERT TO THE GOP THROUGH A COMBINATION OF VOTE SWITCHING AND UNCOUNTED BALLOTS.
AS OF TODAY, 16 RACES (INCLUDING 3 STILL UNDECIDED) HAVE SWITCHED.
Based on the Monte Carlo simulation, the Democrats were on track to win at least 40 of 61 GOP-held seats in play. In order to keep them from picking up the 15 GOP seats they needed, the GOP had to steal at least 26 of the 40 seats. To accomplish this, they needed to switch at least 8% of the votes.
But the GOP could not overcome the Democratic tsunami and fell at least 14 seats (29-15) short. (note: the shortfall does not include the 7 seats still undecided).
So why was the GOP unable to steal the 26 seats? The answer: political and operational constraints held the maximum feasible amount of switching to 5% of democratic votes. Anything more than that would have been highly persuasive evidence of election fraud. The 116 pre-election Generic poll trend projected a 14% Democratic margin. How do you explain beating that?
The best the GOP could hope for was to MINIMIZE the Democratic majority in the House, subject to the 5% CONSTRAINT.
MONTE CARLO SIMULATION MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
(applied to all 61 elections)
1) Uncounted ballots:
3% of total votes cast are never counted (spoiled, lost, discarded, etc.)
75% of the uncounted votes are Democratic. The evidence for this assumption is overwhelming: in EVERY election the majority of spoiled votes occur in
Democratic minority precincts.
2) Switched votes:
4% of Democratic votes were shifted to the Republicans.
3) Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA):
60% of undecided voters breaking to the Democrats is a conservative estimate, especially in this election. Voters were extremely motivated to kick the GOP incumbents out. In a historical study of 155 incumbent
elections prior to 2006, the majority of undecided voted for the challenger in 127 elections (82% of 155). They voted for the incumbent in 19. The other
9 were evenly split. Democratic incumbents won ALL House and Senate elections. This was an unprecedented landslide, much bigger than the official results indicate.
VOTE SHARES AND MARGINS: 2004 DEJA VU
The total decline in Democratic margin due to fraud was 4.9%, a combination of uncounted ballots (3%) and vote switching (4%).
In 2004, Kerry's 51.50-48.50% 2-party margin in the 12:22am National Exit poll was transformed to the recorded Bush 51.24-48.76% win in the Final 2pm
NEP, a 5.5% decline. The Final NEP was matched to the vote count.
In 2006, there was a 6.6% decrease in Democratic margin from the pre-election Generic poll trend line to the Final NEP. The difference is further confirmation of fraud. The 116 Generic Poll trend line projection 51.84D-38.60R is equivalent to 57.3D-42.7R (2-party), a 14.6% margin. In the Final National Exit Poll, updated 11/08 at 1pm on CNN, the 2-party average was 54.0D-46.0R, an 8% margin. The Final 2006 NEP was matched to the recorded vote.
In 2006, the Simulation Model pre-fraud and post-fraud forecast of 61-GOP held seats resulted in a 4.9% decrease in the average Democratic margin. It
declined from 51.25D-48.75R pre-fraud to 48.80D-51.20R post-fraud. The 4.9% decline was far below what was needed by the Republicans to win the House.
Summarizing the Democratic 2-party decrease in margin:
2004: 12:22am National Exit Poll to the recorded vote: 5.5%
2006: Pre-election Generic Poll trend line to the Final NEP: 6.6%
2006: Forecast Model of 61 GOP-held seats, pre-fraud to post-fraud: 4.9%
Model Forecast (61 GOP-held seats)
Seats Won: Dem GOP
No Fraud 40 21 (242D-193R)
Fraud 25 36 (227D-208R)
Actual 29 28 (231D-197R)
Simulation Model Input Assumptions:
Undecided Voter Allocation to Dems (UVA):60%
Expected Democratic Win: 40 seats
Probability Analysis 1:
Democrats win at least N seats for various UVA
UVA 50 55 60 67 75
38 15 57 92 100 100
40 0 8 40 92 100
42 0 0 2 27 88
Probability Analysis 2:
Democrats win at least N seats assuming 60% UVA
N 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Prob 100 98 92 72 40 11 2
Dems 238 239 240 241 242 243 244
GOP 197 196 195 194 193 192 191
The following table shows the relationship between the percentage of votes switched and the number of races stolen. The 4% vote-switching assumption
equates to 15 stolen seats. The model indicates that with 7 races still undecided, the 4% vote switching scenario is close to the actual result (see "ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS" below).
Votes% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Races 1 4 8 14 15 18 21 22 26 29 33 35
These are the 15 seats where fraud was most likely to have occurred:
IL-6, OH-15, NM-1, NY-29, CT-4
PA-6, KY-4, NC-8, OH-2, IL-10
OH-1, FL-13, CO-4, AZ-1, FL-24
61 GOP SEATS: PRE-ELECTION POLLS, PRE AND POST-FRAUD PROJECTIONS AND ACTUAL RESULTS
The detailed numbers are all here.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 8:32 pm PT...
In my post (#12), of course when I speak of decreasing accuracy, I am speaking of "accuracy" in regard to final vote totals, not intrinsic poll accuracy. Probably evident, but I want to be clear.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 8:47 pm PT...
How is it, that the vote always skews towards the GOP. Any comments? How do they do it?
Let's make it clear: ONE PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, DISENFRANCHIZED VOTERS AND HACKS/RIGS/STEALS ELECTIONS. Don't take that, as me being a Democrat or liberal, it's just a fact...don't read anything else into it.
I go back to my idea: the death penalty for anyone caught disenfranchizing ONE voter! That would mean, there'd be a lot of Republicans and/or Republican backers on death row. I don't think this is funny at all...we don't have a democracy. Do we have a democracy??? In this day and age, we can have a system that works, so it's ON PURPOSE that it doesn't work! This isn't 1850...
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2006 @ 9:27 pm PT...
There was a news blurb I saw in October: Karl Rove visited Ohio in the weeks before the November 7th elections, but reportedly didn't meet with any Republican candidates or anyone in the Ohio Republican Party machinery.
So, who did Rove see in Ohio? Aaaah, I just wonder if he dropped in at Diebold's headquarters in Ohio? To make sure that the vote-fixing was all going according to plan?
In fact, following this news story about Rove's mysterious Ohio visit, he came out and proclaimed that he was certain that the Republicans would retain control of both houses of Congress. Why? Rove said he'd seen the numbers, he'd done the math, victory was in the bag for the Republicans.
Hmmm, I just wonder if he was referring to the numbers and math he might have seen at Diebold headquarters on his visit to Ohio?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 12:13 am PT...
So now the true picture is emerging.
Does anyone know if Holt's voting security legislation now has a chance of getting through the house? Of course it will probably at least get a vote now, but Bush will never sign it, or will issue a signing statement making enforcing it a crime.
Maybe this is worth an interview with Rush Holt, eh, Brad? What do you think?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 3:01 am PT...
Our friend Ms Landes has a pretty good history on the exit polls
With quite a few links to other articles published a few years ago
I noticed she even has a link to a green and yellow one too
With that history in mind, one can almost see where the wealthy class/corporate Government is kind enough to count and tally our votes for us, because I guess, we, as peons are not smart enough to choose our elected leaders for a true middle class majority in their eyes
I think I'm going to call it "controlled chaos", in our election system, that is
Think I'm wrong ? okay but Brad and others are proving it to me more and more every day, we just have to wait for the evidence to catch up to the theory is all, IMO
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 3:38 am PT...
I'm glad this voting travesty is getting more attention. We want paper ballots and transparent voting systems. I was shocked watching the exit poll numbers on CNN. They showed for hours after the polls closed a Democratic Tsunami. Then in the middle of the night on the East Coast, the numbers suddenly switched to show close results in all the critical races. Oh no, here we go again, just like in 2004, I said out loud.
I think a lot of dems must be getting blackmailed. I can't think why else they would just shut up, bend over and take the shafting they get from the repugs at every election.
Meanwhile, the guy who made sure the 2000 election fix held up is supposed to come up with the 'realistic' plan for Iraq? The clear choice of the American people is to end the war! What right do some non-elected, iran-contra war criminals have, to overrule the people, just to insure the despicable profits of their Carlyle group? Don't trust them. Don't trust any politician who trusts them, either!
At least John Conyers won't have to hold his hearings in the House basement any more. The people will shine a big light on the war-profiteering rats --- watch them run, or be sent to the Hague.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 8:16 am PT...
HOWDY: What you are missing is that we are not counting the votes. The exit polls serve as a good check on whether or not the machinery which is claiming to count our votes is doing so correctly or not. Any sensible analysis of the exit poll data leads any rational thinking, honest person to the conclusion that the results those machines are trying to feed us are no where close to being correct! A verifiable accurate count is better than any exit poll result could be but such a count is not among the options we have available for analysis at this time. Nobody is doing such a count. All we have other than the exit polls are the output of machines, that any rational analysis of the exit poll data, tells us can not possibly be counting correctly.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 5:33 pm PT...
How can a person who can't hold a pen and paper vote unassisted? How are we going to take care of those people? Pen and paper for those that can use them and at least a 1% manual recount for all contests are just as good as putting your faith in exit polls. I have no faith whatsoever in exit polls. People lie. They do. I'm not a fan of people counting votes. I can be swayed maybe but there will be more errors which will take more time. This would push the canvass back another month. There's not going to be a stampede of people coming to count the vote. It will be done by the same people doing it right now all over the country. Just slower. That means the laws need to be changed not undue pressure on local administrators up against deadlines. The laws are what need changed. Don't be making up laws you WISH existed and tut-tutting. I'm not missing any points at all. I just disagree here in a place that doesn't care for disagreement.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 7:50 pm PT...
Howdy --- Your thinking is fuzzy. We are not "putting our faith" in exit polls. This is a reality-based site, not faith-based. Exit polls have been developed through the years on sound statistical principles and have proven to be extremely accurate. Up until the widespread introduction of EVM's, the science behind polling has been continually and empirically refined.
That being the case, it would be silly to ignore exit polls in analyzing elections. Election observers and our federal government put a very high value on them when analyzing foreign elections.
You say you "have no faith" in exit polls. We're not talking about faith. We're talking about proven useful tools in checking election results. The fact that you personally "have no faith" in them, I'm sorry to say, doesn't carry a lot a weight.
I guess if speed of getting the results is important to you, well OK. It's not a major factor in my way of thinking. I can't imagine why it is so important.
I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers to count votes. Naturally, there has to be checks and observers (as there was prior to EVM voting). It's not like we've never had fair elections in this country when they were public, before elections became a corporate business complete with lobbyists and flashy trade shows.
Regarding handicapped people, I'm sure you are not consciously relegating them to black box machines where the disposition of their votes are unknown.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2006 @ 9:20 pm PT...
Howdy: I'm not sure I understand. Why don't you want votes counted by citizens? You'd rather they be tabulated by machines prone to error, hacking, and breakdown? In private? With no physical record?
I'm not sure what your argument is regarding exit polls. They are a pretty good indicator of election irregularity. It's not a faith-based thing when you can check them against actual physical ballots. Fortunately the accuracy of exit polls does not hinge on whether you believe in them or not.
As for having the same people counting the vote all over the country, that can and will change. Get involved if you don't like how things are conducted.
If you want to talk about undue burden on local administrators, take a look at all the reports of undertrained poll workers, having to hire highschool kids to watch machines on election day, bringing in technicians from south america to fix machines.. et c.
Disagree all you want, it doesn't mean that you're not wrong.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 1:48 am PT...
The zapkitty's conspiracy theory de jour...
Howdy does sound a lot like "117ny302bxv howdy": a spokesperson for Sunncomm/Mediamax, the kind people who covertly installed and ran spyware and other nice things on your computer if you were so silly as to put a Sony BMG music CD in your PC... even after you told it not to install... repeatedly... (not the rootkit people, that was another company's product also used by Sony BMG)
That "Howdy" was one of the happy crew I mentioned in a previous post here (the one that irritated Ancient)... the crew that posted repeatedly to the tech blogs under a multitude of nyms either defending the Mediamax malware, screaming loudly about their dropping share price, or (silliest of all) trying to sound like "hackers" or "pirates" in order to make it look as if anyone involved with questioning the covert installation of corporate malware must be a "hacker" or a "pirate"...
And that "Howdy" did yammer on with a passion about Prineton... especially Princeton''s role in uncovering the malware... and last I heard he was yammering on a Sunncomm forum about how thoroughly Diebold had refuted Princeton's election machine work...
Of course this "Howdy" could be quite unrelated to that "Howdy"...
Hmmm... but if so (if)... wassamatter, "Howdy"? Yet another bad investment?... this time in e-voting machines?
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 2:49 am PT...
Are you saying there are covert people that come to this blog?
You really ARE a conspiracy theorist! (I don't know how to do emoticon's, but the one you used in #25 would work here.)
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 3:15 am PT...
Weren't exit polls a science at one time until the Dictatorship told us otherwise ?
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 10:27 am PT...
Anybody know the status of RFKJr.'s lawsuit? I think more attention should be paid to pollsters....you can't steal an election without fraudulent polls. Conn. would be a good starting point. I've read Pelosi doesn't want some senior reps. who should be chairs of committees in those positions. Hope Conyers will be chair of the judicial commitee.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 12:38 pm PT...
There's no denying Democrats lost many seats because of e-vote virus fraud and that exit poles were correct. However, I think the focus of conversations should be on 'how' Democrats won a majority in both the House and Senate. If we understand why Democrats won then voters have a "tool" to use in 2008 elections. Yes, there was a Democratic landslide at the polls and it wasn't reflect in all of the final numbers. Yes, the exit polls were right and the final vote tally was wrong. But despite all of those issues Democrats still 'won'.
Again, I think 'mail in' and 'pencil ballots' in certain precincts/counties/states played an important part in neutralizing the e-vote virus that corrupted many e-voting machines.
Example; My own county used state of the art Diebold machines at precincts and a couple of completely different, older Diebold, machines to count 'mail in' and 'pencil ballots'. Please note that 20% of the total county votes were "mail in". Had a virus been planted on the e-vote precinct machines giving Republicans a 3% plus margin and had only 60% of the "write in" votes been for a Democratic candidate he/she would have won by less then 1% over the Republican. Had 70% of the write in votes been for the same Democratic candidate the Democrat would have won with a 4% margin. I believe that is how pencil and paper saved America.
In states where the out come of the race is questionable and/or extremely close. Democrats should check the 'e-vote' verses 'mail in'/'pencil votes' to check the vote ratio and /or percentages. I'm willing to bet the fix was in on e-vote machines at the precincts and machines that counted those same e-votes in the election office but not on machines counting mail in and/or precinct pencil ballots. Therefore, the final total of both machines was separate and added for the total vote, which effectively neutralize the fraud. I believe Democrats may have won where this occurred.
You can bet money the Republicans have figured out the reasons behind the Democratic win and the outcome in 2008 will be vastly different unless we change how we vote.
In the future, when Democrats push for 'manual' and/or 'paper backed' e-voting systems they must request 'mail in ballots', 'pencil ballots' along with e-voting w/ paper trail in all states. Paper ballots must be optional at precincts in the event of broken machines, long lines and unhappy voters.
The games played on a local level will continue and minority voters will be disenfranchised. However, well publicized plans to allow 'mail in' votes weeks before an election could stop much of this, eliminate long lines on Election Day and help Democracy continue in America.
One more thing, Civics' classes should be mandatory at all high schools and colleges in America. Plant a seed and it grows.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 2:13 pm PT...
G., what evidence and/or proof exists that machines were infected with a virus to throw elections, and which races were targeted?
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 2:17 pm PT...
All election abnormalities need to be pursued.. ..strike that... pursued hell, they need to be hunted down and dissected... alive...
(Larry Bergan: smiley= a colon followed by a right parenthesis)
The real question is: how bad was the extent of the damage? Just the three million votes currently estimated?
The zapkitty will now make faces at you all...
... usenet lives
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 2:41 pm PT...
Let's see here, let me try this:
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 2:45 pm PT...
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 3:30 pm PT...
No one knows how a person who can't hold a pen and paper can vote unassisted?
Here's some other responses:
"I guess if speed of getting the results is important to you, well OK."
I could care less except for the law. 28 days in California. Not only that but right now, there's some workers being hounded for not being finished.
Media and conspiracy theorists like yourselves want the vote totals NOW. Not later. Hand counts will take more than 28 days. Maybe here in California with Bowen as Secretary of State we'll see if changes can be made. Changes in laws. If they aren't, what then?
"I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers to count votes."
Here's an instance where you've put your faith in "a thousand points of light" and I disagree. Somewhere around 3,500 counties in the country. How many "volunteers" will it take? You have faith someone will show up to do it. In every county of every state. What if they don't? How long do you want the 12 people who show up to count 120,000 votes to do the job for you? I know, or at least hope, that all you people wanting hand counts will show up or have shown up at your local registrar. But I haven't heard of "plenty" of observers or poll watchers either before or after Election Day anywhere in California. I'm not talking one or two. I'm talking the dozens in each county.
"It's not like we've never had fair elections in this country when they were public, before elections became a..."
You mean prior to 1960? When the ballot boxes in Chicago took hours to get across the city and hand the presidency to Kennedy? We don't live in turn-of-the-last-century Willoughby (thanks to Rod Serling for pointing that out in May of 1960). We live in far flung suburbs with no city centers. We don't even have the old Welcome Wagon going around making sure everyone is registered and other things like civic awareness or community obligations that went along with the small town mentality. We are going to have to have machines count the votes for election night and then have people go over and recount and check the vote totals during a more extended canvass than the law allows us now. That means paper votes for people who can use pen and paper and some form of expensive eletronic pen and paper like a DRE with a paper trail for those who can't. Every county will need the paper ballots anyway for absentee voting. Heck, in California that number is inching towards 50% of the vote. 29 days prior to Election Day it starts. Which means there IS a growing segment of the people voting paper ballots anyway.
"...votes counted by citizens... In private? With no physical record?...
I can only answer for California but the votes here are counted by citizens. Union Workers. In public. With physical record. Paper trails and rosters. Once again, I'll ask here how voting supplies can get to the polling place by 6am without the pollworkers being required to stay up for 24 hours. Please don't include the miracle of the "thousand points of light" because apparently that's not the case now and somehow more faith-based voting admin on your part. How do ballots get there? I read the reports and sympathize with the workers around the country who have to get this thing done with little or no support from the electorate. Including some people who read this here. There are always going to be problems with voting because people don't follow instructions and people want things done FOR them not WITH them. Either that or they want to do it all THEMSELVES. Do you think everyone can follow simple instructions? How many people today did you not see using their turn signal? Count the rude people you see in a day. In a week. "Can and will change" is hope. Not reality. Why use school kids? Why have under instructed pollworkers? Because no one else showed up to do the job. Once again, I'm not talking two or three people turned away from working at the polls but the 3,500 counties across the country. Where were they? At home blogging? At work? I've had an idea that anyone who works the polls gets credit for jury duty. Two years worth. If in your head you're putting on the striped shirt of a referee and wanting to make sure the vote is legit and completely fair, be a pollworker. If you are partisan in any way, just skip it and vote and then observe. That's my opinion. By the way, if a company is stretched thin because of all those dang machines being bought at the same time and technicians are needed, who cares where they come from? What's the difference where the tech came from. Unless you think technicians are united against democracy.
I'm new around here. Thought there needed to be another voice. I notice they tend to get beat down around here. I just couldn't take it any more. Just because everyone at your country club agrees with you doesn't make it logical or right. Besides, Princeton has been debunked as implausible in a secured setting and I'd like proof that any machine was hacked in the way they stated. What that study did do was wake some elections officials up. Got them to tighten their stuff down and that's what it was meant for.
Sorry if this posts twice.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 5:37 pm PT...
Howdy --- I'll try to revisit your post later as I'm short on time right now; but, honestly, on first glance, I'm not following you. It appears you fuzzed it up a bit more even. What you say doesn't appear to make sense whatever our respective views of the election process.
Media and conspiracy theorists like yourselves want the vote totals NOW. Why do you say that? I don't know why you say that. Ain't true. I wouldn't care if it took two months to count the votes. The 28 day thing is nothing. We're talking about changing the voting system. Naturally, that includes changing the voting system.
As far as being a conspiracy theorist, taking into consideration the methods and the record of exit polls seems a much more intelligent approach than just feeling in the gut that exit polls shouldn't be trusted. To say we should ignore what appear to be evidence of fraud would really be irresponsible, wouldn't it? (Feeling in your gut that nothing is wrong is not acceptable, I'm afraid.)
The rest of your post seems to be pretty far out of the realm of reality. No one says there would be zero problems with a hand count. Obviously, a procedure for counting would have to be in place before the election. That would be part of the job of election administrators and of their responsibilities as public servants. They could work on setting it up a year ahead of time, if that's what it takes.
We have far flung communities, so hand counting can't be done. That's pure speculation on your part. You don't think American ingenuity can come up with a solution? I do. I guess I haven't bought in to the corporate blueprint. It's a matter of whether or not we think it is important to hand count votes and whether or not we believe it is a public or a corporate function.
Oh, Kennedy...right. Sheeshh, you could have come up with any of numerous instances of big city vote fraud in our history. Show a little independence!
For the rest...You appear not to understand the problems with "paper trails", central tabulators, and so on. (You actually have to look at the situation in detail. Calling people "conspiracy theorists" and feeling in your gut that things are OK are not valid methods of getting to the truth.) Brad has tons of stuff here. If you can refute it, refute it.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 6:50 pm PT...
The Princeton Study, and many others, proved beyond reasonable doubt that voting machines can be hacked.
What proof do you 'BVAC' have that any of the elections were legit.... were not hacked?
Let me answer that for you... you have none.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 8:17 pm PT...
I don't know what you're talking about anymore.
You definitively stated: There's no denying Democrats lost many seats because of e-vote virus fraud
If you can't provide the slightest shred of evidence that a single, let alone 'many', seats were lost because of a virus, stick a cork in it until you can. Your speculation isn't helping any actual investigation.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 11/19/2006 @ 10:38 pm PT...
Simplify, simplify, simplify.
NOT - Oh my God it's too complex and difficult, we better give up!
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 2:25 am PT...
Larry Bergan - Smiley = colon, dash, right parenthesis (I believe. I will type that in and see. I hope a smiley follows this.)
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 2:41 am PT...
Prior to EVMs & DREs installed all over the country the bit of election fraud was miniscule compared to what these machines have produced since 2000.
Study a little --- it should blow your mind if you take time to find out what's been going on under the deafening silence of the MSM.
Hundreds of Thousands and now we see Millions of votes STOLEN or DISAPPEARED.
Check out Canada's paper ballot system. At a cost of $1.81 per vote [compared to the $30-plus cost of each of our votes with the current system] and hey --- see how they do it with Security, transparency, community volunteers & the counting on camera --- all to keep everybody honest, y'know. And all finished within about 4 hours.
It can easily be done.
It's a shame people of this country are so blind to how partisan voting machine companies have pulled the wool over their eyes while lifting their wallets & stealing their votes.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 3:28 am PT...
(something... not sure what...)
Uh... randomized free association results don't exactly make for a compeling argument.
"Besides, Princeton has been debunked as implausible in a secured setting"
Actually, no. The study has not been debunked.
Real-world eyewitness testimony by countless people has shown that the difference between the security the evoting machine companies insist is there and the security the machines actually receive is the difference between night and day. And that doesn't even consider the fantasy of 100% pure election officials... who have custody of the machines year round.
And the evoting machine companies one and all refuse to do proper studies, instead eternally yammering "We were Federally Certified"... when it has become very obvious that the federal voting certification process is so broken it sucks infected donkey gonads
And of course the endless stories of unattended voting machines sitting out in the open everywhere across the country in the days leading up to the election completely passed you by, right?
Kira said ...
I hope a smiley follows this.)
"Follows this"... is that the key?...
The zapkitty will now make faces at you all… again...
Basic smiley - colon right parathesis
Smiley w/ nose - colon dash right paranthesis:-)
Basic wink - semicolon r-paran
Wink with nose - semicolon dash r-paran
Sticking tonque out - colon small p :p
Sticking tonque w/ nose - colon capital P
… usenet lives!
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 6:56 am PT...
Leave it to The_Zapkitty to give the purrrfect examples!
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 8:41 am PT...
Aaaaaah.... your the self dubbed "web police".
Figure out which side of the fence you really stand on then let us know.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 10:41 am PT...
G & BVAC
Maybe you're both on the same side?
I think the problem was the way you [G] stated definitively that a virus was used to steal votes in our last & maybe other previous elections. There's no doubt in my mind fraud occurred on a large scale and through several avenues, however, I don't think anyone has yet been able to examine the proprietary software.
We do know it can be done and we know there has been ample opportunity and we know there is plenty of motive. We also know a huge amount of corruption is being discovered!
[A] recent report from the U.S. Dept. of Defense which, as Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) pointed out in a speech last month, "noted that a total of 1,213 public officials had been federally charged with corruption in 2004, that 1,020 of them had been convicted of corruption, and that 419 cases remained pending."
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 1:24 pm PT...
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 1:28 pm PT...
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 1:33 pm PT...
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 2:47 pm PT...
The smilely must follow text, i.e. not be at the beginning of the line, and must be separated by a space from the text it follows. Somehow all your efforts missed those two points
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 3:34 pm PT...
Zapkitty & Larry --- what has just transpired trying to get a smiley to appear onscreen --- all this difficulty --- is exactly why we don't need these Electronic Voting Machines.
At least not with the software the Diebold dolts wrote. Avi Rubin was an election judge at his Maryland precinct in September 2006. Please read his diary about what happened --- especially you, Howdy, since I think you might gain a deeper understanding about this stuff. Most of us have been intently following the problems with EVMs for 2 or more years.
Quote from Avi's blog:
[Re: Diebold AccuVote TS] "I can't imagine basing the success of an election on something so fragile as these terrible, buggy machines." The rest of his blog should set people's hair on fire!!!
2nd Quote: "I believe that fully electronic systems, such as the precinct we had today, are too fragile. The smallest thing can lead to a disaster. We had a long line of "customers" who were mostly patient, but somewhat irritated, and I felt like we were not always in a position to offer them decent customer service. When our poll books crashed, and the lines grew, I had a sense of dread that we might end up finishing the day without a completed election."
PS Larry Bergan ... I think Zapkitty's covered the last two hints for making the smiley show up onscreen. Don't give up!
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 11:22 pm PT...
All work and no play makes jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes jack a dull boy
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 11/20/2006 @ 11:27 pm PT...
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 11/21/2006 @ 12:25 am PT...
Larry # 50
All work and no play makes LARRY a dull boy...
Congrats, ya did a fine job !!
Oh, and one more thing....even when you're NOT playing, YOU'RE never dull..
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 11/21/2006 @ 1:34 am PT...
Thanks Mar. I'm just glad I didn't have to type Heerrrreee's Johnny instead of Thank GOD and chop down my bathroom door with a fire ax.
And now, we'll return to our regularly scheduled bolg thread:
"Report: Group Says Exit Polls Show 'Landslide Denied' Democrats In Last Week's Election!"
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 11/21/2006 @ 7:52 am PT...
I figured as much. My post was based on how votes are counted and elections are run. Not on speculation and hope. Good luck. You're all going to need it.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
said on 11/21/2006 @ 9:23 am PT...
What did you figure, Howdy #54?
What speculation & hope? I don't get your comment. Your comments have been more speculative than the facts we are presenting.
Funny you say "we" are going to need luck, as if you are somehow untouched by the fraud.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
said on 11/25/2006 @ 1:07 pm PT...
For years the Republicans have accused Democrats of vote fraud at the polls. "Thor" Hearne, the self appointed head of the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), requested a supposed bipartisan study to prove 'voter' fraud at the polls. It backfired and proved nothing except we may have problems with electronic voting.
The validity of my original statement about electronic vote fraud in the 2006 elections cannot be proved nor disproved. However, based upon the Princeton Study, and others, the way the self-destructing e-vote virus functions in the actual voting machine it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what could have happened in 2006, 04,and 02 elections.
KIRA aren't related to BVAC are you? Same person?