READER COMMENTS ON
"Of Burgers, Ballots, and Bogus Polls"
(47 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 6/29/2010 @ 4:32 pm PT...
I'm glad to see SC LWV and also Donna Brazile pushing for transparency. I hope they will put energy into voter marked paper ballots, and not leave language open to "paper trails".
Back in 2005 in North Carolina, lobbyists persuaded our state legislature to allow paper trails on touchscreens, in spite of NCVV objections and computer scientists such as Dr. Rebecca Mercuri and Dr. Justin Moore. As a result, NCVV pushed a 100 county activist effort to promote optical scan. Our state ended up with 24 counties exclusively using ES&S iVotronics with a VVPAT. We went from 40 optical scan counties to 64 counties that use 100% optical scan, and the remainder a mix.
See Voting Machines By County
Not only doesn't the VVPAT provide original voter intent, it fails around 9-10% of the time. Read The problem with touchscreens.
Professor Mark Lindeman of Bard College NY did a study of North Carolina's 2008 Presidential election showing that optically scanned paper ballots were better at registering the intent of the voters than touch screen voting machines.
See Touch Screens Show High Rate of Unrecorded Votes for President in 2008
Paper Ballots Found More Efficient at Recording Voters' Choices
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 6/29/2010 @ 5:57 pm PT...
Joyce - One gentle correction to this:
I hope they will put energy into voter marked paper ballots, and not leave language open to "paper trails".
I'd share that hope too, but unfortunately, in a trademark Rep. Rush Holt (D-NY) Re-Definition of the English Language, his latest election reform legislation has changed the definition of "voter marked paper ballots" to mean paper ballots marked either by a voters hand or printed by a computer under the direction of a human who has made selections on the computer.
Thus, where one might think "voter marked paper ballot" is one marked by a voter by hand, it doesn't. At least not in Congressman Rush Holt's world (which is the one we are living in).
So let's please call here for hand-marked paper ballots, even if, linguistically, "voter-marked" would have once done the trick.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 6/29/2010 @ 6:26 pm PT...
Kos..better late than never.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 6/29/2010 @ 8:33 pm PT...
It's hard to comprehend the ignorance out there when it comes to such basic common sense. Kos actually fought the idea of election fraud instead of trying to wrap his head around the simple concept- or at least keep an open mind. Why was this incident the light bulb moment when there were many more obvious breaches of the election system previous?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 6/29/2010 @ 9:16 pm PT...
Michael G - To be clear, I don't know if this was "the lightbulb" for Kos or not. It was the lightbulb concerning his own polls, those which he paid for at dKos. But who knows yet if he'll take the lesson as he ought to apply it to unverifiable elections or not. Hopefully he will. Though it's unfortunate that it seems to take ones own ox getting gored before taking these threats seriously.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 6/29/2010 @ 10:12 pm PT...
Though it's unfortunate that it seems to take ones own ox getting gored before taking these threats seriously.
Or one's own country gored by a Bush. Like the unanswered questions from 9/11, to contemplate that a direct assault on our democracy is happening in secret (granted they're getting pretty sloppy about it in South Carolina) --- it's too much for some and their emotional defense mechanism kicks in. Delusion is a warm, cozy blanket, for a while anyway.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 7:04 am PT...
Let's stop beating around the bush. Markos is CIA. He has known from day one, back in the Clint-Curtis/Tom Feeny era, that the ONLY reason something as absurd as e-voting was sold to the sheeple was to steal elections.
D. Brazile also seems smart enough to be in the know.
The LofWV? Gonna hafta give them the benefit of the doubt in memory of my Mom who was a long time active member. She is the reason I've enjoyed several stints as a poll worker over the years.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 7:23 am PT...
Kos being nothing but a fascist in progressives clothing has always puzzled me as to why anyone buys anything from this rethuglican bozo? Are Americans that stupid? Why yes they are!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 8:39 am PT...
Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos is a barefaced liar. I think the primary motive behind what he does is to help deceive people about election integrity, and everything else is a cover-up for that. After all, con-artists need a front for their shyster work.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 10:23 am PT...
anyone who is still eating burgers could have a worthwhile comment on any matter only by accident.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 10:26 am PT...
The Democrats who "buy into" the electoral system and believe it is not fully corrupt and controlled are going to be in for a VERY nasty surprise in November 2010 and November 2012.
Sadly, those of us who know how manipulated, corrupted and fraud-infested the electoral system is will have to live with the consequences.
SMASH THE MACHINES!!! Take back Democracy!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 10:40 am PT...
Adam, I think Marcos' deceiving people about election integrity is among his secondary assignments.
IMO his primary motive is keeping "progressives" in the dark about who was behind the events on nine eleven. There is a tsunami of evidence pointing to an inside job. Kos the little Mockingbird bans any discussion on this topic. Any commenter intrepid enough to broach this taboo is summarily banned for life.
I wear my banning like a badge of honor. That is freedom of speech in "progressive" America.
He is a slimy little CIA weasle Left-gatekeeper.
Look it up. He freely admits working for the agency, "in his past". Yeah, right.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 10:49 am PT...
There is much to criticize about Markos and Daily Kos, but this is just stupid. Look at all the crazy CT types pouring out to support you, and be ashamed.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 11:32 am PT...
As the Democratic party has been taken over by corporate whores, so has much of the "left's" blogdom and punditocracy...look at Maddow and Schultz touting Obama, history's biggest Tom.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 11:48 am PT...
Do you suppose that Obama himself knows of the election fraud situation but chooses not to address it, as he has (in his mind) bigger fish to fry? He figures that most of the complete - no paper votes of any kind - vapor-based voting is in Pub strongholds now anyway. He must surely know he should thank the election reformers who fought for change to paper of some kind for years leading up to his election.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 1:07 pm PT...
ok cranberries on any sandwich is weird..must be a west coast thing..lol
but seriously,it is insane that we treat the normal mundane things in our lives like they are more important than counting our votes,the only method we the people have of exerting power over our representatives
what is even more insane is that some folks would want a paper ballot but it is machine marked...i mean why do u need a 6-7 thousand dollar machine to mark a ballot?
i have yet to read any explaination of what happened to the vote totals in sc race(whr rawls experts said they had more votes than voters for green in 25 precincts)
now our new shark guy posted a few links that said all that had been "debunked" but i read all those links and nothing showed the math..either why the campaign originally made that claim or why they with drew it
as we know from brad's excellant article on monroe county http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875#more-7875
votes go backwards on these sos web sites..especially with the clariton software that sc uses,it is entirely possible that early reporting had "impossible numbers" but later reports "cleaned" them up
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 1:28 pm PT...
i think obama knows,i think that is why he put so much time,effort and money in the caucus states
i think they can only move so many votes with out some kind of mathmatical tag showing,(thats why they have to occasionally suppress turnout like we saw in garland ark) the trouble is they just keep running new reports until they can show something feasible,and lot of sos dont even bother to report the correct voter turnout,for example in the recent ark runoff the sos reports 268,813 total votes but they report 256,862 dem votes and 35,389 rep votes which would total 292,251 total turn out...their explaination,if i understand it correctly is,"we just take the race with the most votes and make that our ballots cast nummber"
to do a complete audit a person would have to foia and count actually signatures,does arkansas actually have 292,251 signatures from the primary runoff? we will prob nevr know
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 2:18 pm PT...
Farles @#13, Who exactly are you calling crazy?
Is it the 1300 architects and engineers at
Or the 220 Senior Military and Intelligence folks at www.patriotsquestion911.com
Everyone should take 30 seconds out of their busy day and take a quick glance at that site. Scroll down and look at their pictures. Proud brave Americans little frightened punks like Farles wants to call crazy. When you have more time you can read what they say, but please go there now, for a real quick glance.
So Farles, who is crazy, exactly? Is it Major General Albert Stubblebine? Commander Ted Muga?
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman?
Be very careful when talking about who should feel shame. Maybe start w/ those so terrified of what they might find they cannot even visit a website.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 2:28 pm PT...
Here is what Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer has to say:
"After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government."
Would LOVE to see Farles call Lt. Col. Razer crazy to his face. Oh man, I would pay admission!
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 2:30 pm PT...
As I see it, the problem with Markos - and by extension his site and those who populate it - is that they maintain the status quo position that anything remotely controversial is a "conspiracy theory", regardless of the merits it is based on. They don't want to be perceived as "extremists", or whatever. To hell with what's really going on.
I agree that his statement you quoted is indeed ironic, because, as you point out, it doesn't jive with the track record over there. And thus I don't think it's indicative of any awakening at all.
Seems to me that he's simply trying to defend his livelihood, due to some outfit who potentially defrauded HIM, and the personal ramifications this has for HIM and his site.
I stopped viewing that site ages ago.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 3:21 pm PT...
Faarrrles, oh Faaarrrrrles! Where are you? ......................................................................crickets
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 3:26 pm PT...
Come on Farles, Cass Sunstein does not expect his minions to stay cowering under their beds.
You picked a fight, now bring it, or apologize and admit the official story is a complete fairy tale.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 3:35 pm PT...
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 3:37 pm PT...
like spraying raid on cock roaches
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 3:53 pm PT...
Brad, I'm sorry for temporarily hi-jacking the thread but those guilty of 911 are most likely the same people, (or very closely related) to those that came up with the scheme to destroy democracy with easily hackable voting machines.
We face a formidable adversary. To defeat it we must attack from all sides. Their weakest flank may in fact be when they got greedy and over reached on that fateful September morn.
We may never abolish the insidious machines just bitching about them on line. But if we all join those demanding a new investigation, the dominoes will begin to fall our way until hand counted, hand marked paper ballots is one of many natural glorious outcomes.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 5:26 pm PT...
Great read and great analogy, Brad.
This isn't a lightbulb moment for Kos. Kos is in the business to make money. Money from Democrats. If he gets on the election fraud bandwagon (i.e. THE TRUTH), he stands to lose $$. He is about selling his product/service to a certain group, and to focus on stolen elections would take away focus from the areas he makes the most money. I have read Kos' comments enough times to know that he is a good marketer. No, I GREAT one. He is also a capitalist & corporatist to the core, and that rules his actions more than anything. It also says something about the people who follow him.
Kos made himself a famous and relatively wealthy man (thanks to a lot of people) from a string of failed career pursuits in the past. He isn't about to give up on the gravy train.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 5:32 pm PT...
"look at Maddow and Schultz touting Obama, history's biggest Tom."
Yeah, but I have no empathy for all the so-called liberals and progressives that voted for him, for change, for hope, lol--when a simple examination of his statements and career revealed what he was long ago. To now piss and moan about who he is and how he is performing--when he is the same person and conducting himself like he always has (corporate and about his own ascension)shows how Americans will never create a democracy here where they acquiesce their power (and brains) at every turn. If people are that easily fooled (just like all the Dem Congress members voting for Iraq), then they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote as they are not aware enough. Our elitist forefathers did foretell of this, and nothing has changed. The right is silenced by the might of the mediocre minds.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 7:07 pm PT...
I'm sorry "Hot!", but who the hell are you. Never seen you here before.
Then after I call punkboy a CIA plant and an apologist for the perps who pulled the inside job on 911(fairly earth shaking charges if I do say so myself) you, 1) ignore the charges completely and
2) Come out with some lame-ass bullshit like....and GUESS WHAT??!! He is a CAPITALIST!!
OMG...Nooo! That's crazy talk! Where is your proof?! Wild accusations demand links, etc
And, wait, there's more, that guy oohhh, he's so tehwibble....he won't talk about hacked elections because he is a.....hold on to your seats.....................hes a great marketer.
Damn hot, you sure can slam a dude. Maybe they should call you Luke Warm.
Hey, is that you Zuniga?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 6/30/2010 @ 9:18 pm PT...
Regarding the Research 2000 Pile-on
Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Markos Moulitas of Daily Kos and Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com have each taken aim at Research 2000, which did the pre-election polling for Daily Kos.
Markos cites the Research 2000 poll that determined only 27% of Republicans supported gays in the military. He found this to be way too low. His evidence? Gallup and ABC polls had over 60% GOP support. Well, because they are MSM, that makes them right and R2000 wrong?
He gives Republicans too much credit. If 90% of Democrats support gays in the military as do 30% of Republicans and 60% of independents, then we would have about 61% supporting in total. In any case, why does Markos go after R2000, which did the 2008 pre-election presidential polling for him?
Party-ID Mix Support Total
Dem 40.0% 90.0% 36.0%
Rep 35.0% 30.0% 10.5%
Ind 25.0% 60.0% 15.0%
Total 100.0% - 61.5%
Nate Silver wrote that the R2000 data “feels way too clean for me”. Better clean than dirty, Nate. Would he rather see the kind of volatility that CNN and Gallup had in their tracking polls? For some reason, Wolf Blitzer always appeared perplexed whenever Gore jumped in the 2000 poll.
Nate points to a chart depicting age breakdowns in the Democratic vote share for the last 20 contests surveyed by R2K and PPP. He writes: ”The age breakdowns in Research 2000's numbers are almost always close to "perfect" --- in 20 out of 20 cases, for instance, the Democrat gets a lower vote share from among 30-44 year olds than among 18-29 year olds. PPP's data, on the other hand, is *much* messier --- which is what I think we should expect when comparing small subsamples, particularly subsamples of lots of different races that are subject to different demographic patterns”.
Of course, 18-29 year olds consistently vote more Democratic than the 30-44 group. Is that news? Is 20 out of 20 cases reasonable? Let’s compute the probability that the Democratic share of the 18-29 age group would exceed their share of the 30-44 group in all 20 elections.
In 2008, Obama had 66% of the 18-29 segment and 52% of the 30-44 group. In 2004, Kerry had 56% and 48%, respectively. So in the last two elections, the Democrats had an average 61% share of the 18-29 age group and 50% of the 30-44 group. Given these shares, the probability is virtually 100% that all 20 elections would show that the 18-29 age group was the best one for the Democrats. Assuming a 56% Dem share of the younger group, the probability is 98% that the Dem 18-29 share would exceed the 30-44 share in all 20 elections.
Nate also finds it strange that in the last 30 races, Democrats did better among women in all cases. Once again, I ask, is that news? I will spare you the probability analysis. He also questions the lack of volatility in R2000. It’s not “noisy” enough for his taste.
“Likewise, take a look at their Presidential tracking numbers from 2008 (http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/11/4). They published their daily results in addition to their three-day rolling average ... and the daily results were remarkably consistent from day to day. At no point, for instance, in the two months that they published daily results did Obama's vote share fluctuate by more than a net of 2 points from day to day (to reiterate, this is for the daily results (n=~360) and not the rolling average). That just seems extremely unlikely --- there should be more noise than that.
You want noise? OK, Nate, let’s take a look at the national pre-election polls from Sept. 10 and compare Obama’s 3-poll moving average to the 3-day R2000 tracking poll.The change in the R2000 poll was 0.67% compared to 0.99% in the pre-election poll moving average. The moving average standard deviation was 1.58% for R2000 compared to 1.88% for the national polls. The absolute standard deviation of the R2000 percentage change in vote share was 0.53% compared to 0.58% for all polls Finally, the average Obama R2000 share was 50.27%. It was 49.65% in all polls.
Nate and Markos have each denigrated exit polls. In fact, they won’t even talk about Election Fraud. Yet they fabricate faux outrage about an independent polling firm that is not the MSM. Nate was recently hired by the NY Times. Unfortunately, “All the News that’s Fit to Print” does not include Election Fraud. In 2004-2005, Markos locked out posters who sought to present statistical and anecdotal evidence pointing to election fraud. But the Kossacks rebelled. Those “conspiracy nuts” are now allowed to post.
Obama’s recorded share was 52.9%, a 9.5 million margin. But the True Vote model indicates he had 57.5%, a 22 million margin. Want proof that fraud cost Obama 13 million? Consider this: The National Exit Poll required that there be 12 million more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters. That is not only implausible; it is mathematically impossible. There were likely 10 million more returning Kerry voters than Bush voters.
Why don’t you write about it in the Times, Nate? Or mention it the next time you get on MSNBC? On the other hand, you better not – if you want to keep that job.
Go to http://richardcharnin.com/ to see the proof. Since the MSM will not review my book, I shall not hesitate to mention it here: “Proving Election Fraud”.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 6:01 am PT...
TiA, wow, all that superfluous verbiage, i'm drowning over here. Did you have an editor for your book? Hopefully one with sharp scissors.
We need to focus. Yes, the disappearance of exit polls is a big tell. But do you agree about inside job? Did you even visit the patriotsquestion site? Your (and anyone else posting to this thread w/o at least a side comment on this) ignoring of the larger issue makes you at best equal to Kos in integrity and credibility.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 6:35 am PT...
Your comparing my credibility to Kos? FYI, I was banned by Markos in 2005 after just two weeks. I was TOO credible in my posts on the 2004 stolen election.
Also, I happen to be a 9/11 truther. The evidence of an inside job is overwhelming and well-documented. I was asking these questions in 2002:
There are only a few books on Election Fraud. The best are from Mark Crispin Miller and Steve Freeman. I am proud to be in their company.
Did you read my book?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 8:11 am PT...
Sorry, TiA....I get a little touchy when I feel ignored. I'm working on it.
Have not read your book. No offense but if the above passage is indictitive, I may have to pass. I'm already certain of the problem and all those numbers make me a little dizzy.
Trivia question: What did Chuck Hagel do before he became a Senator?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 8:34 am PT...
CamusRebel - Hijacking the thread is bad enough, but personally attacking other commenters here is strictly against the very few posted rules that we have for commenting here, as I suspect you know. Please knock it off, as I'm too busy right now to have to start removing your inappropriate comments and tracking every single one of them.
You should also know better than to think that every one who comments here has read all of the OTHER comments before doing so. And whether they have or not, they are under NO obligation to respond to what YOU want them to. So, again, knock it off. Please? Thank you.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 8:42 am PT...
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 8:59 am PT...
The Counter has existed for several years in other locations. They have great veggie burgers!
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 10:37 am PT...
lance dehaven smith should be included in the best authors about election fraud,he proved that if all florida had been counted by hand,gore won..the following is an exert from an interview whr he sums it up very well
LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 10:42 am PT...
I've never posted here but read often. Brad, you have been my hero for many years. I have been sickened since 2000 about losing a valid voting system and get physically nauseous when I have to use a touch machine.
I write my Reps often about our fraudulent elections and marvel at reactions from people when an election outcome does not make sense. they still do not get "IT".
I read Daily Kos often to keep up on elections and progressive candidates around the country. His site does a good job reporting but I have never understood why MM and his community don't grasp the reality of election fraud. They need to take the blinders off. Polls are ridiculous when they poll a few thousand people and then conclude what the American people feel. The only polls worth a damn were the exit polls which have conveniently disappeared.
My son is a PhD in Computer Science and he told me many, many years ago "If you want fair elections, you have to get rid of the machines."
I was so glad to read your comments about Kos because it was the same conclusion I came to when I read his comments about the polling. It's not about the polls and never will be.
Besides you my heroes have been Bev Harris, Bob Fitraksis, and Mark Crispin Miller
We need to keep fighting for open, transparent elections on paper and pencil. Thanks Brad.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 12:23 pm PT...
Trivia answer: Before he won his Senate seat in '96 over popular Governor Ben Nelson in a "stunning upset", Chuck Hagel just happened to be head of a company called.........ES&S.
Nebraska just happened to be using new voting machines made by ES&S.
This is where it all began. It was also the very first time in the history of exit polling that the "results" were way off the exit poll numbers.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 1:41 pm PT...
Thank you for the exceedingly kind words, for paying close attention and, mostly, for giving a damn.
Feel free to do your best over at dKos to knock some sense into those folks. Or, at least, offer a few links where appropriate, back over here so maybe some of them will start getting the information on this that they need to.
And PLEASE don't be a stranger here in comments. Good to see from you even when you don't have too kind things to say about me!
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 7/1/2010 @ 4:50 pm PT...
Regarding Florida 2000, check out this post in which I refute John Fund, the WSJ "voter fraud" shill.
I challenged Fund to duscuss Election Fraud, not non-existent voter fraud, here:
Why don’t you inform your readers about the Miami Herald examination of ALL the ballots (the under-votes AND over-votes) months after the 2000 election?
The study indicates that Gore won Florida by a MINIMUM of 46,000 votes. Gore even won the UNDERVOTES by 662. The data was never presented in any other publication, not even the “liberal” NY Times.
This is a breakdown of undervotes and overvotes by county:
The overvotes were NOT caused by stupid Gore voters. The ballots were double and triple-punched on purpose after the polls closed to void the Gore votes.
And the thousands of Palm Beach County voters who were fooled by the Butterfly Ballot (created by the DINO Teresa Lepore) into voting for Buchanan were not stupid either.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2010 @ 12:47 pm PT...
gj richard,but you are preaching to the choir when you address me...they have changed things since 2000 tho and the math tags are harder to find now(because they give incomplete info and just "dissapear" votes)...now to catch them we have to have counts of signatures,or counts of peops in a precinct
i wish i was in a postion to follow thru on the ark thing because the number reported on the msm were 250,000 voters.....so do they have the 292,00 signatures or not?
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2010 @ 12:49 pm PT...
People, people, people.
I would never, EVER suborn a crime, but you must know that these electronic touch screen machines are FRAGILE --- VERY FRAGILE.
They don't take well to sudden electric shocks. They don't take well to accidental liquid spills. They don't take well to scratches on the screen from sharp, hardened, diamond-tip fingernails.
I really do worry about how these machines will stand up to any kind of abuse from an electorate that gets fed up with their crap. And, of course, how the badly trained, underpaid, and under-funded election workers or their (often) corrupt or (almost always) jaded and arrogant election official bosses will deal with the failure of the machines and not enough of the back-up paper options.
If something stands between you and your right to vote and have your vote counted, you should do what you need to do to overcome that problem, right?
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2010 @ 3:23 pm PT...
I guess you never wrote a computer program.
Like millions of others, you have been exposed to media misinformation. There is no such thing as a fragile computer. I know. I have programmed computers since 1965.
Computers do what they are programmed to do. Period. If they are programmed to add 2+2=5, they will do just that. There is no such thing as a computer "glitch".
You are correct to blame election officials who certify the machines knowing that they can be PROGRAMMED to SWITCH votes.
The problem is NOT machine FAILURE. The problem is the FAILURE to provide A FULLY TRANSPARENT SYSTEM. Transparency os only possible with MANDATED HAND COUNTS OF PAPER BALLOTS.
OREGON IS THE ONLY STATE WHICH VOTES STRICTLY BY MAIL-IN BALLOTS. THE BALLOTS ARE COUNTED BY COMPUTERS AND RANDOM PRECINCTS ARE SELECTED FOR HAND RECOUNTS TO DETER FRAUD - ALONG WITH OTHER SAFEGUARDS.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2010 @ 7:04 pm PT...
Research 2000: A Closer Look at Volatility
Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
In recent days, the methodology and polling results of Research 2000 have been questioned by Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos and Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com.
Silver suggests that the lack of volatility in the 2008 R2K tracking poll is indicative of a problem in methodology. He correctly notes that from Sept. 10, 2008 to Election Day, the maximum daily poll change in Obama’s share was 2%.
Silver is also correct in stating that the daily margin of error is 5% for a 360-370 daily sample. He concludes that the change in Obama’s share from one day to the next should have exceeded 2% many times – but did not do so even once.
Although R2K was a 3-day tracking poll, it was essentially no different than standard polls that sample 350 voters a day but only report the total 1000 sample with a typical 3.1% margin of error. Most tracking polls report a continuous three-day moving average, but avoid providing the daily results. R2K provided the daily numbers. Why don’t the other pollsters do likewise?
The margin of error is 1.96 times the standard deviation (a measure of volatility) at the 95% confidence level. The standard deviation of Obama’s daily poll shares was 1.83%. It was 1.59% for the reported 3-day moving average. Therefore, the equivalent MoE was 3.59% based on the daily polls and 3.12% based on the 3-day moving average (i.e., the reported tracking poll). This agrees with the MoE of standard (non-tracking) polls.
We can consider the R2K tracking poll as just another standard poll that provides intermediate daily results along with 3-day results. The volatility of the R2K poll is equivalent to other polls of 1000-1200 respondents. To its credit, R2K provides more information than other tracking polls.
Go to the link for the 2008 poll tracking numbers and volatility stats.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2010 @ 7:14 pm PT...
I think Charlie meant fragile as in, say a guy named Charlie was pissed off that he had to vote on some faith based 100% unverifiable contraption.
He goes in the booth, votes for Mckinney/Green Party, lets say, but the infernal gadget keeps showing McCain. He is getting really steamed. It keeps happening. He just happens to have a ball peen hammer in his coat.
Suffice to say he could demonstrate the fragility of the machine in short order. At least make damn sure no other American would ever be fucked with by THAT specific vote stealing device ever again.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2010 @ 11:04 pm PT...
The devil is in the details!.....You say.... "The problem is the FAILURE to provide A FULLY TRANSPARENT SYSTEM. Transparency os only possible with MANDATED HAND COUNTS OF PAPER BALLOTS.
OREGON IS THE ONLY STATE WHICH VOTES STRICTLY BY MAIL-IN BALLOTS. THE BALLOTS ARE COUNTED BY COMPUTERS AND RANDOM PRECINCTS ARE SELECTED FOR HAND RECOUNTS TO DETER FRAUD - ALONG WITH OTHER SAFEGUARDS.
Unfortunately there is no 100% reliable chain of custody procedure and documentation for mail in ballots I am aware of which will provide a totally secure method to validate that no fraud has occurred either by error or design. How do you know for certain that each voted ballot was accurately processed and counted? The "safe guards" are dependent on people and procedures which are not fail safe. The random selection and hand recounts, according to your explanation, DETER fraud. Unfortunately Vote by Mail is not a transparent process. The only way to assure that all valid voted ballots are counted accurately is to have voter's hand mark paper ballots at the precinct on election day and have citizens with opposing interests count them immediately following the close of the polls on election night. I wish you could prove me wrong.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 7/3/2010 @ 3:09 pm PT...
Are you totally familiar with the Oregon system?
They use random hand-recounts and since the system was installed in 1998 they have never been off by as much as one vote!
That is why the corrupt election officials in the other 49 states won't copy Oregon.
Consider that …
1) Oregon votes by mail and NY by lever machines.
2) In the last three elections, late NY Democratic (paper) vote shares were 7% higher than Election Day (lever) shares.
3) In 2004, the average paper ballot precinct WPD was 2% and 12% for levers.
4) Kerry’s margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s in Oregon (a battleground state), but 6.7% lower in New York (a strong Democratic state).
5) Kerry exceeded Gore’s margin by 8.9% in Oregon’s largest county (Multnomah) but Gore exceeded Kerry by 8.6% in New York’s largest (Kings).
6) Oregon’s 1.8% vote discrepancy in the telephone survey was far less than the other 14 battleground states average 7.5% WPD.
7) Oregon closely matched the 2004 aggregate exit poll after allocating returning Nader voters to Kerry and Bush.
8) Oregon paper ballots are available for hand recounts
New York votes are cast on levers, but counted on computers; there is no way to verify them.