Ping: Democratic conspiracy nuts

[GrantDawg]

This stuff is not helping your side. End the denial and try to find a new direction please.


Conspiracy theories about presidential election flood Internet


By Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating
The Washington Post





MIAMI — The e-mail subject lines couldn't be any bigger and bolder: "Another Stolen Election," "Presidential election was hacked," "Ohio Fraud."

Even as Sen. John Kerry's campaign is steadfastly refusing to challenge the results of the presidential election, the bloggers and the mortally wounded party loyalists and the spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists are filling the Internet with head-turning allegations.

There is the one about more ballots cast than registered voters in the big Ohio county anchored by Cleveland. There are claims that a suspicious number of Florida counties ended up with Bush vote totals that were far larger than the number of registered Republican voters. And then there is the one that might be the most popular of all: The exit polls that showed Kerry winning big weren't wrong — they were right.

Each of the claims is buoyed by enough statistics and analysis to sound plausible. In some instances, the theories are coming from respected sources: college engineering professors fascinated by voting technology, Internet journalists, election-reform activists.

Ultimately, none of the most popular theories holds up to scrutiny. And the people who most stand to benefit from the conspiracy theories — the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee — are not biting.

"At this point the number of irregularities brought to our attention is not going to change the outcome of the election," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera. "The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans received more votes than Democrats, and we're not contesting this election."

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

The disparities were spotted, and urgent mass mailings began: "Ohio precincts report up to 1,586% turnout ... 30 Precincts in Ohio's Cuyahoga County report 'over' 100% turnout!" Later, the county added a disclaimer to its Web site in an attempt to explain the numbers.

"It takes me about three times to explain" why the fraud allegation is untrue, said Kimberly Bartlett, community outreach specialist for the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. "You have to ask them why no top Democrat is making these charges."

There also have been reports of more votes counted than voters in some counties in Florida and North Carolina. Steve Ansolabehere of the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project said the preliminary results do not add up. "We'll see if there's anything dramatic or widespread once we see the full certifications come in," he said.

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

The article's main numbers are correct. But the central premise — that there is something suspicious about Bush getting more votes than the number of registered Republicans in rural counties, which use paper ballots — may not be suspicious at all. It does not account for thousands of independents or for voters who do not list party affiliation. It is also common for Florida Democrats, particularly the "Dixiecrats" in the northern reaches of the state and the Panhandle, to vote for Republicans, a pattern repeated in much of the Deep South.

Despite its apparent flaws, the Florida theory raises some interesting questions. For instance, a further look at Florida voting patterns shows that the number of counties with more Bush votes than registered Republicans jumped from 32 in 2000 to 47 in 2004. Bush's improved performance might be explained by Al Gore, a Southern moderate, having had more appeal to Dixiecrats four years ago than Kerry, who is from Massachusetts.

The theories on exit polls are even more slippery. Because the early exit polls that were leaked and caused so much excitement among Democrats are not publicly distributed, the criticisms have not been based on statistics. Instead there are comments such as those from Zvi Drezner, a professor at the California State University at Fullerton business and economics school, who wrote that "the exit polls did not 'lie' " and described "a gut feeling that the machines did not report the correct count."

Many voting experts say the theory that the exit polls were correct is deeply flawed because the polls oversampled women. MIT political scientist Charles Stewart III also has said focusing solely on the early polls favoring Kerry in Ohio and Florida is the wrong approach because exit polls in some Democratic-leaning states tilted toward Bush, evening out the national picture.

The U.S. Justice Department, which handles complaints fielded by a bipartisan commission formed after the 2000 election chaos, said the allegations of vote buying and voter-registration fraud were no different from the pattern of previous elections.

But other sources are documenting huge numbers of complaints. Verified Voting, a group formed by a Stanford University professor to assess electronic voting, has collected 31,000 reports of election fraud and other problems, but nothing that would overturn the Nov. 2 outcome.

Still, messages posted on the aptly named Quixotegroup discussion cluster — which takes its name from the literary figure Don Quixote, who used his lance to tilt against windmills — urged members to send evidence of fraud to the law firm of Kerry's brother, Cameron Kerry, to persuade the Democratic candidate to "unconcede."

A high-ranking Democrat, mindful of balancing respect for the complainers and a desire to move on, summed up the conspiracy theorists with a line from Alexander Pope: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."

Washington Post staff writers Paul Farhi and Susan Schmidt contributed to this report.

[MrBug708]

Anything for attention I guess

[John Galt]

While I'm no fan of the conspiracy theories, I at least hope the resulting confusion from them will cause all the states to shift to electronic voting machines WITH receipts.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by John Galt

While I'm no fan of the conspiracy theories, I at least hope the resulting confusion from them will cause all the states to shift to electronic voting machines WITH receipts.

I do agree with that. The reason all of this is so stupid is that many of the places they are complaining about *did* have paper ballots. Several examples that Randi Rhodes constantly uses on her radio show as "proof" were problems corrected long before certification (ie. non-issues).

BTW, Rhodes tack in saying that the election had to have been stolen because there is no way that Americans would be "stupid enough" to re-elect Bush, is in and of itself stupid.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

While I'm no fan of the conspiracy theories, I at least hope the resulting confusion from them will cause all the states to shift to electronic voting machines WITH receipts.

Not trying to be contensious here, but why not optical scantron style ballots. To me they are by a good measure the best ballot type available. The voter even gets the immediate feedback of a problem if the ballot isn't read properly by the machine.

I think the electronic ballots are a poor option, because most lack the paper receipts required for an audit trail. There are other reasons as well though. The fact that they are not intuitive to a large segment of the population, this will change over time. They add more than a slight degree of difficulty to setting up, configuring, and opening polling places. Also right now, the biggest problem I have with the electronic voting machines, is the cost. It seems like after 2000, the cry of reform went out, and a number of states/counties went hog wild to abandon their 1950 state of the art ballots with technology that probably shouldn't be widely used until 2050. I just think it is silly to bypass other perfectly valid options to go electronic.

[cwilloughby]

I think that the the receipts are a good idea.

I think they should take it a step further to prevent tampering by allowing you to sign up for a permanent record of your vote to be mailed to you after all votes have been tallied. This would ensure that your vote was cast the way you chose.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by cwilloughby

I think that the the receipts are a good idea.

I think they should take it a step further to prevent tampering by allowing you to sign up for a permanent record of your vote to be mailed to you after all votes have been tallied. This would ensure that your vote was cast the way you chose.

the mother of all mail days

[sachmo71]

Just let it go, peeps.

We've got Bush for four more years. Nothing is going to change that. Hopefully, all will be well. Especially for us Texans! Send more pork, George!!

[cwilloughby]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

the mother of all mail days

I agree. I still think it's worth it, however.

In a day and age where we are given receipts and confirmation for everything (including small online orders), we have no confirmation of our vote.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by cwilloughby

I agree. I still think it's worth it, however.

In a day and age where we are given receipts and confirmation for everything (including small online orders), we have no confirmation of our vote.

How about a swift kick in the nuts. 1 for republicans, 2 for democrats, and a bj for independants? Of course, the bj would be given by a member of the media, but we already knew that.

[rkmsuf]

I don't see how it matters if you get a receipt or not. What exactly are you going to do with your receipt and how do you know the receipt reflects the actual count your vote went to?

If evil cheating is afoot it gets done with or without your receipt.

[Ksyrup]

There are claims that a suspicious number of Florida counties ended up with Bush vote totals that were far larger than the number of registered Republican voters.



Yes, those "extras" are called Democrats and Independents. That's typically how one wins an election, by drawing independents or on-the-fence members of the opposing party. Keep up the good investigative work, though - you're doing your party proud...

[PghSteelerFan]

You guys don't get a stub or something when you vote???

Here is Pennsylvania we get a receipt/stub with a number on it representing what number voter you were that day. This past election I was 1,248 and my wife was 1,249. During the primary your receipt/stub is the color of the party you belong to, red or blue.

[Ksyrup]

I've never gotten any kind of receipt. Unless you count the I Voted sticker.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by PghSteelerFan

You guys don't get a stub or something when you vote???

Here is Pennsylvania we get a receipt/stub with a number on it representing what number voter you were that day. This past election I was 1,248 and my wife was 1,249. During the primary your receipt/stub is the color of the party you belong to, red or blue.

Hey, another Steelers fan! Welcome, brethern!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I don't see how it matters if you get a receipt or not. What exactly are you going to do with your receipt and how do you know the receipt reflects the actual count your vote went to?

If evil cheating is afoot it gets done with or without your receipt.

The receipt allows a manual recount of the results to make sure there was no tampering. Some of the new electronic machines have no receipt so they can't be recounted. Although some places let you have a copy of the receipt, I'll just be happy when there is a matching paper record for every vote so that the credibility of the electronic voting machines won't be such an open question. Given the various problems that occurred, could you imagine what would have happened if the election was as close as 2000? The electronic machine problems would have made things so much worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The receipt allows a manual recount of the results to make sure there was no tampering. Some of the new electronic machines have no receipt so they can't be recounted. Although some places let you have a copy of the receipt, I'll just be happy when there is a matching paper record for every vote so that the credibility of the electronic voting machines won't be such an open question. Given the various problems that occurred, could you imagine what would have happened if the election was as close as 2000? The electronic machine problems would have made things so much worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle.

There is no real application of this. Say everyone got receipts for their vote and a recall was called by whoever. Are you suggesting people will bring in their receipt for a count?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

There is no real application of this. Say everyone got receipts for their vote and a recall was called by whoever. Are you suggesting people will bring in their receipt for a count?

No. That's why I said some places give you a copy of the receipt. Precints should not be giving you the original.

[rkmsuf]

I don't see what the difference is. Electronic or paper records can both be tampered with. Either way we'll never know.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I don't see what the difference is. Electronic or paper records can both be tampered with. Either way we'll never know.

It is much easier to do mass tampering with electronic sources (at several points in the process) with no record. It is much harder to break into a physical location and change hundreds of thousands of paper ballors.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is much easier to do mass tampering with electronic sources (at several points in the process) with no record. It is much harder to break into a physical location and change hundreds of thousands of paper ballors.

could be but a printed receipt from an electronic voting machine is not going to prevent much of anything should a concerted effort be made in tampering with election results.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is much easier to do mass tampering with electronic sources (at several points in the process) with no record. It is much harder to break into a physical location and change hundreds of thousands of paper ballors.

Yeah, but it's not very hard to just, oops, lose a box or two of ballots from a county that leans strongly one way or another.

Anyways, we have scantrons here. Seems to work.

SI

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Anyways, we have scantrons here. Seems to work.

This is basically the logic of the on-screen + receipt crowd, though.

You have the tabulated results, but if there's some question, you still have the forms people filled out to verify against. If you print out receipts that stay at the polling place, you at least have something to check against if there's a worry. That iss exactly the argument for adding some kind of receipt to the on-screen voting systems.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cwilloughby

I think they should take it a step further to prevent tampering by allowing you to sign up for a permanent record of your vote to be mailed to you after all votes have been tallied. This would ensure that your vote was cast the way you chose.

I would hope that the flaw in this proposal is apparent after thinking about it for just a minute or two. (And it's got nothing to do with the trouble of a big mailing)

[rkmsuf]

but even that check will not be enough to satisfy conspirists.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

but even that check will not be enough to satisfy conspirists.

The point isn't to satisfy the conspiracy theory types. The point is that in a close election, there needs to be more credibility than the current system provides. The US doesn't even meet all of the international standards for elections that it tries to enforce in other countries.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The point isn't to satisfy the conspiracy theory types. The point is that in a close election, there needs to be more credibility than the current system provides. The US doesn't even meet all of the international standards for elections that it tries to enforce in other countries.

I'm not versed on those standards so I'll defer to you in that matter.

It's not hard to print receipts out of a machine so if that makes people feel better we should do it. My only point was that receipt process in and of itself really doesn't prevent tampering much more than what is done now.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, but it's not very hard to just, oops, lose a box or two of ballots from a county that leans strongly one way or another.

It's easy not to notice someone fudging electronic results so that instead of 5000 Kerry, 5000 Bush they instead read 3000 Kerry, 7000 Bush -- about the only way to stop it after the vote is placed is careful use of checksums, and then there would still be no verification that the vote recorded is the vote cast.

It's not so easy to miss a missing box of 10,000 ballots.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

There is no real application of this. Say everyone got receipts for their vote and a recall was called by whoever. Are you suggesting people will bring in their receipt for a count?

The "receipt" JG is talking about is not for the voter. It is a paper audit trail that the election staff retain. Some people may get copies or duplicates of them, but the receipt isn't a reminder of who you voted for.

[Mr. Wednesday]

It's useful for the voter to be able to visually verify the paper copy, so that they can confirm that the vote recorded is the vote they entered.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The "receipt" JG is talking about is not for the voter. It is a paper audit trail that the election staff retain. Some people may get copies or duplicates of them, but the receipt isn't a reminder of who you voted for.

Do you really want the government tracking and keeping records of who you voted for.

The anonymous ballot is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Do you really want the government tracking and keeping records of who you voted for.

The anonymous ballot is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.

Yes, I do.

That way the fucker will send me a Christmas card.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The "receipt" JG is talking about is not for the voter. It is a paper audit trail that the election staff retain. Some people may get copies or duplicates of them, but the receipt isn't a reminder of who you voted for.

It's that very election staff that is in question. Them having some sort of paper receipt doesn't seem to provide much further security.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It's that very election staff that is in question. Them having some sort of paper receipt doesn't seem to provide much further security.

Well yeah, but the polling personel are split up evenly at each polling site amongst Democrats and Republicans. I don't know what they do to independents that volunteer. I am fairly confident that that is enough to keep the process from being too significantly tampered with. You could possibly succeed with vote tampering at a very local level, but the numbers of people in both parties that would have to participate in any large scale operation preclude any large scale tampering,

The receipts I have seen in news stories are card stock about the size of a 4x5 card. I imagine that those people are told/trained to treat both the printed and unprinted receipts with great care. I still think the scantron system is superior. You have these great big ballots, that no one is going to walk around without someone else noticing.