Skip to main content

View Diary: Harpers Magazine cover story: "How to Rig an Election" (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Paranoia is way, way too much fun. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HudsonValleyMark, Febble, XenuLives

    Well, yeah.  Paranoia is ridiculously fun.  The GOP is obsessed over tens of thousands of undocumented illegals (and maybe even more) voting in our elections.

    Plus it makes something that you can't understand (a republican winning an election) something you can understand (cheating).

    •  I think a lot of it is just that simple: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul Rogers
      Plus it makes something that you can't understand (a republican winning an election) something you can understand (cheating).
      I think that because some people pretty much say so. The first chapter of Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again could pretty much be paraphrased: "I can't understand how Bush could have won that election!" I saw at least two Wisconsin recall diaries in the same genre.

      At the same time, there are real problems with the voting systems, and I wish that in 20-effing-12, we were getting better at talking about those.

      Election protection: there's an app for that!
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:18:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A lot of states really could use a better system. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark, Dbug

        I don't understand why the whole country doesn't have a vote-by-mail ballot thingy like my state (Oregon) does.

        It's simple, you register at an address, they check to make sure you're a citizen, and update the voting rolls to show that you're at whatever address you're at (and not at any previous address).

        One ballot is sent to your mailing address come election time, along with a voter's guide pamphlet, and you have anywhere from one to two weeks to ensure that the thing gets dropped off at a drop site or sent in normally via the mail.

        You fill out your ballot, stuff it in a sealed 'security envelope', you put that in another envelope with your name on it.  Sign it.

        When they receive the envelope, they check your name on a list of voters, mark it off, and take it out, placing the 'security envelope' in a pile.  When that's done, the security envelope is opened and the resulting votes are counted (this step is done to ensure anonymity).

        It's really quite simple, gets everyone who wants to vote, and doesn't have the problems associated with mobilizing many, many tens of thousands of people to the appropriate polling places in a short period of time.

        Really, this sort of idea could probably be done to nullify the voter suppression efforts of the GOP.  Perhaps that's something the rest of the country out to look into?

        •  there are concerns about Vote By Mail (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul Rogers, Febble

          If you've followed any of the stories of absentee vote fraud in Florida, that is one line of concern.

          I know some voting security experts who very much look askance at the problems of securing Vote By Mail. It's a somewhat subtle policy issue: it isn't that VBM is utterly awful and some alternative is bulletproof.

          Also, there is something to be said for having an election day on which people (if they are able) go out and vote. Voting is a quintessential public act; maybe it matters whether we can see each other doing it.

          This morning I don't know my bottom line on that issue, and I can't do it justice. I do see good arguments on both sides.

          Election protection: there's an app for that!
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:09:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  RE: Verifier (0+ / 0-)

        Glad to see VerifiedVoting.org is still alive.  I also hadn't thought about them in years.  That phone app looks cool, too.

      •  Wow, it's like listening to Mitt Romney lie (0+ / 0-)

        Obviously from all your posts here, Mark, you have your agenda, pushing e-voting. And it's good of you not to hide it. But bashing someone like Mark Crispin Miller, who did an amazing job collecting years worth of evidence on GOP election fraud, shows that your agenda is worth a lot more to you than truth.

        Luckily people who actually read Mark's books know better.

        And guess what? Election protection isn't an "app." It's allowing voters to know how their votes were counted by holding publicly observable elections.

        Or do you consider programmers an elite class who have the right to rule over elections while the rest of the public is told to trust them?

        •  umm, welcome to Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

          That's... quite a first comment. Any chance that we can "evolve" faster?

          Obviously from all your posts here, Mark, you have your agenda, pushing e-voting. And it's good of you not to hide it.
          It's utter nonsense, so there is nothing to hide. Maybe, in your universe, the mission of Verified Voting is to "push e-voting," but I will have to trust that anyone still reading this thread can sort that out.

          It's a verifiable fact that Mark Crispin Miller repeatedly refers to Bush's victory as a "miracle." It's also a verifiable fact -- completely disregarded by Miller -- that Bush led in most of the polls, nationally and in Ohio. Of course that doesn't prove that Bush won, but it sure makes the "miracle" shtick look silly. Miller has a real knack for disregarding inconvenient facts.

          I really do get that Miller tells an enthralling story. I also know that a lot of smart people, who would love to agree with Miller if they could find their way clear to do it, have found that the evidence just doesn't add up.

          Luckily people who actually read Mark's books know better.
          I know a professor who used to assign Fooled Again as a case study in how not to do election forensics. (He has moved on to Loser Take All, which I don't think he likes any better.) If you think that everyone who reads Miller's books agrees with them, you are seriously misleading yourself.

          But if there is anything in Miller's writing that you want to lift up as evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, by all means let's discuss it.

          Election protection: there's an app for that!
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:04:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? So you do not personally support e-voting? (0+ / 0-)

            Please, clarify what system you do support?

            And though I'm painfully impressed that you know a professor (I know some, too, weird, huh?) the fact that he also wants to bash Mark Crispin Miller's work actually does nothing to affect my own opinion of his books. Funny how the word "professor" just doesn't send me cowering in sudden apprehension that I might be completely wrong in my assessments.

            Anyway, Mark, I'm very aware of who you are, what your positions are, and what you do in forums like these, so I have no interest in wasting my time with you in something akin to "debate" or "dialog" but in actuality just an exercise in unpleasant futility.

            I don't usually bother posting in Daily Kos and rarely bother reading anything here, but someone made me aware that you were once again giddily bashing Mark, who I've met personally a few times, and because I respect him and his work (and the work of the many investigators who are featured in his books) -- and I abhor your stupid attacks on him -- I wanted to say it here, for posterity. Now its said. Catch ya later.

            •  Hmm . . maybe you're not who I think you are (0+ / 0-)

              I might be actually mixing you up with another poster named Mark also, who constantly argues for the continued use of computers in elections, and also bashes Mark Crispin Miller, Bev Harris, and others.

              Unless you are that same person but you've changed your position on electronic voting?

              •  Not to confuse you with Mark the Anarchist! (0+ / 0-)

                There's another Mark who shows up on all these threads - or used to - telling everyone NOT to vote at all.

                But that's clearly not you.

              •  umm, huh? (0+ / 0-)

                Another poster named Mark also?

                I do post in other places, and my name is always Mark (although my username varies), but it really does sound as if you are confusing me with someone else.

                I don't expect HCPB to sweep the country -- the trend is the other way -- but it works great for some jurisdictions. I think optical scan with good ballot security and auditing provisions is probably the most practical approach for larger jurisdictions; I'm not militant about it.

                I'm critical of Mark Crispin Miller's work because I don't think it's good work. There's no great mystery about that; it has nothing to do with an e-voting agenda either overt or covert. It doesn't take an e-voting agenda to think that Bush's victory in Ohio was less than miraculous.

                Election protection: there's an app for that!
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (126)
  • Community (53)
  • Republicans (35)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Elections (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Media (24)
  • Spam (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Law (17)
  • Economy (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site