Voting Machine Irregularities

[a_unique_person]

It makes perfect sense. Appearences are important.

 

[Chaos]

True. Elections are the fundamental mechanism of democracy. All possible care must be taken to avoid even the least appearance of manipulation.

 

[rikzilla]

All your vote are belong to us!
You have no chance for winning election, make your time.
For great justice...

You are on the way to destruction! Somebody set up us the election!
HA HA HA HA

 

[Beth]

I know it sounds flippant, but "Bush won in 2000. Bush won in 2004. Get over it."

It doesn't address the point that a great many people are concerned about. To wit, it isn't about the 2000 or 2004 election, it's about the 2006 and 2008 elections. It's about citizens having faith that the reported election results are accurate.

Whatever your feelings about the past election, clearly there were serious problems. As a result, many people do not trust the voting machines. Thus, the situation needs to be improved. It's extremely important for the citizens of a democracy to have faith in their voting system. Thus, it's important to address the problems and repair the system so that everyone can have faith that it's working properly and their votes are counted accurately.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It doesn't address the point that a great many people are concerned about. To wit, it isn't about the 2000 or 2004 election, it's about the 2006 and 2008 elections. It's about citizens having faith that the reported election results are accurate.

Except that "a great many people" are not concerned about it. Citizens do have faith that the results are accurate. Go to your local bar. Or restaurant. Or place of employment. Or athletic event. No one, I repeat, no one, is talking about this. It is not an issue.

Whatever your feelings about the past election, clearly there were serious problems. As a result, many people do not trust the voting machines. Thus, the situation needs to be improved. It's extremely important for the citizens of a democracy to have faith in their voting system. Thus, it's important to address the problems and repair the system so that everyone can have faith that it's working properly and their votes are counted accurately.

Except that, there weren't. Sure, a machine here didn't work. A machine there counted a few votes wrong. A couple machines two states over weren't delivered on time, etc... A flawless election is a nice goal, but no election in the history of the United States (and I would suspect world wide) has ever gone off without a hitch.

This is a tempest in a teapot, perpetuated by conspiracy whackos like Bev "The Liar" Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org as a way to raise money for whatever her loony cause is.

 

[Grammatron]

It makes perfect sense. Appearences are important.

Well sure, but if you say it doesn't matter if there's no fraud you seem to value appearence more than functionality.

In fact, if we take the statement "It does not matter if there is no fraud, the system is inherrently compromised." with no further requirements then you it would appear you'd rather have a system that simply appears impartial than the one that actually is.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well sure, but if you say it doesn't matter if there's no fraud you seem to value appearence more than functionality.

In fact, if we take the statement "It does not matter if there is no fraud, the system is inherrently compromised." with no further requirements then you it would appear you'd rather have a system that simply appears impartial than the one that actually is.

Making things personal, still? You are on ignore.

 

[Mycroft]

Making things personal, still? You are on ignore.

If the "appearance of fraud" is purposefully created by a conspiracy woo, what difference does it make?

Sure, it’s “appearance is important” in democratic elections, but it’s not all important so that we have to give credence to conspiracy theorists with unsubstantiated allegations.

Appearance is important in banking too, but we still have loonies going on about what a scam the Federal Reserve system is and how we screwed ourselves by taking us off the gold standard. What do we do? Mostly we ignore them, trusting that it’s educated opinions that make policy.

 

[Grammatron]

Making things personal, still? You are on ignore.

I'm sorry for making a constructive argument; I guess thinking of a response is too much for you.

 

[a_unique_person]

If you want a civilised discussion, Grammatron, stop the sig BS. Until then, you are on ignore.

 

[Grammatron]

If you want a civilised discussion, Grammatron, stop the sig BS. Until then, you are on ignore.

What sig BS?

 

[CapelDodger]

In fact, if we take the statement "It does not matter if there is no fraud, the system is inherrently compromised." with no further requirements then you it would appear you'd rather have a system that simply appears impartial than the one that actually is.

A system that both is and appears to be impartial is not impossible. "Appears" and "is" are not exclusive. Voting in the US is not a transparent process and is vulnerable to manipulation. You appear to have faith that no such manipulation has taken place. Is this simply on the grounds that no manipulation has demonstrably taken place? Not firm grounds, since the vulnerabilty lies precisely in the impossiility of demonstrating any manipulation.

 

[jj]

More to the point, there is no reason that voting machines should not leave paper trails for everything.

Until they do, and the results can be tested and verified, believing in voting machines is very woo-like, in my book.

Should they work right? Of course. Do we know that? No. Do we have any way to tell? No.

Does the fate of some of the initiatives in the midwest give pause? Yes.

 

[SlippyToad]

All links pointing to blackboxvoting.org are immediately suspect, since that site is run by well known loon and proven liar Bev Harris.

Ah, of course, since you say so it must be true.

Just keep in mind - the stealing of a US election would be the story of the century. Any reporter who broke the story would have Pulitzer Prizes stacked to the ceiling. And yet, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, LA Times, etc., none of them are even pursuing this story.

You know, quoting those sources as potential "breakers" of a story which would inherently be criticial to those in power kind of belies their behavior since 9/11, which until about six months ago was obsequious and sycophantic to the extreme.

Why? Well, keep in mind that they also don't seriously pursue the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and 9/11 conspiracies.

Of course again since you say so one must immediately equate electronic vote fraud with Bigfoot, because one is impossible and the other just never happens.

I think that until votes can be counted at their source manually, I will assume that hacking can occur and does occur. The temptation to do so is extreme, and the potential is so clearly there. Dismissing concerns about election fraud as "woo-woo" is disingenious at best, and dismissing critics of a system that clearly cannot be independently validated by equating them to psychics or quacks is moronic.

 

[Beth]

Except that "a great many people" are not concerned about it. Citizens do have faith that the results are accurate. Go to your local bar. Or restaurant. Or place of employment. Or athletic event. No one, I repeat, no one, is talking about this. It is not an issue.

If you think no one is talking about this, you are not paying attention. I hear plenty of people discuss it. Some are certain the election was stolen. Some aren't sure one way or the other. Some, like you, are sure it was fine. Not to mention that this thread has plenty of people discussing the issue. People are definitely continuing to talk about it and with good reason.

Except that, there weren't. Sure, a machine here didn't work. A machine there counted a few votes wrong. A couple machines two states over weren't delivered on time, etc... A flawless election is a nice goal, but no election in the history of the United States (and I would suspect world wide) has ever gone off without a hitch.

This is a tempest in a teapot, perpetuated by conspiracy whackos like Bev "The Liar" Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org as a way to raise money for whatever her loony cause is.

I don't know who Bev ""The Liar" Harris is nor have I ever been to BlackBoxVoting.org. However, this issue is NOT a tempest in a teapot. A number of professional statisticians have been evaluating the 2004 vote data in detail. I know 'cause I'm on the mailing list and occasionally contribute a comment.

Bottom line, there are some rather suspicious anomolies in the dataset. It doesn't mean that the election was stolen, but things are sufficiently out of kilter that I, for one, would like to see things improved before the next election. A paper trail allowing manual recounts when needed to verify the vote is, IMO, a necessity. Until we have that, or something comparable, many people in this country will not feel confident that the vote is accurate. You can count me among them.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ah, of course, since you say so it must be true.

Unfortunately for you, the facts back me up.

You know, quoting those sources as potential "breakers" of a story which would inherently be criticial to those in power kind of belies their behavior since 9/11, which until about six months ago was obsequious and sycophantic to the extreme.Of course again since you say so one must immediately equate electronic vote fraud with Bigfoot, because one is impossible and the other just never happens.

I have no idea what you just said.

I think that until votes can be counted at their source manually, I will assume that hacking can occur and does occur.

Of course you have evidence for this? May we see it? Election Fraud is a federal crime. Have you called the FBI?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you think no one is talking about this, you are not paying attention. I hear plenty of people discuss it. Some are certain the election was stolen. Some aren't sure one way or the other. Some, like you, are sure it was fine. Not to mention that this thread has plenty of people discussing the issue. People are definitely continuing to talk about it and with good reason.

Here's a challenge. Let's pick a day. We'll walk into any random bar in the country. Then a doctor's waiting room. Then a public library. Then a shipyard. We'll spend 20 minutes in each place, listen in on conversations. If at any time during those 20 minutes, someone is discussing voting irregularities. I'll pay you $10,000. However, if at the end of the day, no one has been talking about it, you pay me $10,000. Care to take that challenge? I didn't think so. I don't know what part of the country you live in, but it's no place I've ever been.

A number of professional statisticians have been evaluating the 2004 vote data in detail. I know 'cause I'm on the mailing list and occasionally contribute a comment.

A number of professional experts also claim there were multiple shooters in Dealy Plaza. Let me ask you - Who killed JFK?

Bottom line, there are some rather suspicious anomolies in the dataset. It doesn't mean that the election was stolen, but things are sufficiently out of kilter that I, for one, would like to see things improved before the next election. A paper trail allowing manual recounts when needed to verify the vote is, IMO, a necessity. Until we have that, or something comparable, many people in this country will not feel confident that the vote is accurate. You can count me among them.

See the JFK thingy above.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In an invitation to a Republican fund-raiser at his suburban Columbus mansion, O'Dell said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president next year."

The letter closely followed a visit by O'Dell to a fund-raising powwow at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch for six-figure fund-raisers known as "Pioneers and Rangers."

He said he regrets the wording in the letter.

"I'm a pretty experienced business leader, but a real novice on the political side of this. This blind-sided me," O'Dell said. "I don't have a political adviser or a screener or a letter reviewer or any of that stuff."

Someone should tell this guy the difference between an explanation and an excuse. That's like saying "Yes, I left my fingerprints all over the crime scene --- but only because no-one told me I should wear gloves!"

 

[Dr Adequate]

A number of professional experts also claim there were multiple shooters in Dealy Plaza. Let me ask you - Who killed JFK?

Yes, quite. If experts in one field (statistics) agree on some subject, then we can always discredit them by pointing out that some experts in another field (history) are wrong about something else.

After all, if biologists agree on evolution, then since some physicists research cold fusion, evolution must be rubbish.

And that's logical, so it is!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Of course you have evidence for this? May we see it? Election Fraud is a federal crime. Have you called the FBI?

If I see a guy playing "find the lady", then I assume, for want of evidence to the contrary, that he's cheating, because it's easy to cheat at "find the lady", and because he probably would rather win my money than live a life of virtuous integrity.

Now, I'm not saying that politicians have the morality of card-sharps (insert joke here). However, perhaps some of them would rather win an election than go for the "virtuous integrity" option.

Asking for a paper trail is like asking to be able to turn the other two cards over and check that one of them was indeed the Queen of Hearts. And if no cheating is going on, then why object to this?