Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Armando's challenge is bull.. and not (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How about (none)
    Investigation of Potential Fraud Advocates

    or IPFA's

    Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

    by spiderleaf on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 04:48:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK by me. (none)
      Can you guarantee me I won't be compared to Hitler if I use it? Can I drop your name?
      •  can't guarantee it (none)
        but I promise I won't ;)

        drop away, although I don't think I have much pull...

        Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

        by spiderleaf on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 05:10:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I prefer not to focus (none)
        on fraud singularly, as paperless voting makes the extent to which electronic fraud was an issue unknowable: hence the frustration and desire for change.

        It's the whole ball of wax with me:  suppression, fraud, secrecy, corruption, discrimination, paperless voting.

        Also, I like to not focus on the negative but embrace the positive:  something like Fighters for Fair, Transparent, Auditable, Voting.

        Or FFTAV.

        Or maybe just FFD.  Fighters For Democracy.

        Anything but Screaming Monkeys :)

        •  You see? (none)
          You put two of, uh... no, wait, not "you people," we all know that's code... you put two of you non-screaming monkeys in a room, and you get three opinions.

          Plus you dispute the count of how many of you are in the room.

          •  Just so we're clear, (none)
            just what is your opinion of the state of our democracy - the state of our ability to hold fair, transparent, suppression-free, auditable (paper-verifiable) elections?

            I ask this because you seem to not wanna be grouped with "us" (whatever that means) at all costs.

            Are you not concerned with the fragile state of our democracy?  If not, why not?  Do you not consider it fragile at all?  Are you ok with continuing to hold elections on paperless machines?

            I don't mean to imply that you are not concerned with those things, it is just I am struggling to understand people who do not seem "worked up" over this.  If there was any issue that I think people would get worked up over, I would think that this would be one of them, or at least they would be highly concerned.

            •  It's getting late. (none)
              And I guess I'd have to refer you to my response immediately below, to a similar question.

              Our ability to hold fair, transparent, suppression-free, and auditable elections is of great concern, and not by any stretch well-enough guaranteed.

              But that says nothing conclusory about anyone's having actually corrupted anything.

              The threat of paperless voting is simple, easy to understand, and in theory, easy to correct. So much so, that people don't really need to have any proof of there actually being fraud to want to see it corrected.

              But other kinds of claims of fraud -- again, NOT suppression -- particularly those which require massive conspiracies, or even collections of large numbers of small conspiracies, are different in kind. Those are harder to guard against, and therefore require more invasive correctional procedures. Procedures for which our criminal justice system generally demands much in the way of proof.

              The only objections to paper trails are costs. That's easy to overcome rhetorically, and the fix (so far as we know) is a good bet to work correctly.

              Not so with the other allegations of fraud.

              •  this is the best little summary (none)
                of my position that I never wrote. Thanks for the succinctness.

                "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:59:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I actually think the two are separate (none)
            I am positive that Armando & DemfromCT are advocates of a paper trail, but do not necessarily believe there was fraud.

            Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

            by spiderleaf on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:16:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. I separate them, too. (none)
              And I guess I'd have to say I'm in that camp.

              I'm willing to entertain the possibility that electronic fraud is possible, which is why I would favor the paper trail idea.

              I'm even willing to entertain the possibility that there's other kinds of fraud afoot, but so far I haven't heard anything about those other kinds of fraud (not suppression) that's as convincing as the very basic and very understandable concerns with black box voting.

            •  You can probably throw DHinMI and Kos (none)
              in there too.

              That's part of the frustration - seemingly everyone of import stacked up against us, when the circumstantials and actuals (of fraud) have indeed been piling up over the last couple months.  (It should be noted that I have stated several times that I do not know what extent fraud played (due to the impossibility of accumulating electronic evidence), and whether it "turned" the election, as many have accused me and others of assuming).  As has been shown, extensive suppression is known to have occurred and it is up to the individual whether one calls that fraud.

              And of course, I still don't understand their certainty (or near certainty) given the nature of the paperless machine.  Proof of fraud with those darn machines is dang near impossible to accumulate.  Why aren't they freaking out that we are using these bloody machines, that they are indeed susceptible to fraud, that they render recounts impossible, and that we will continue to use these machines if a stink is not raised.  The extreme difficulty in detecting malfeasance with the machines or tabulators should at least be accounted for in whatever "bar" it is we're supposed to cross, in addition to the coordinated effort to deny access and information.  And why indeed must this bar require a Herculean effort to go over?  I should think that the issue is important and relevant to all, and that we all agree on the base issue that reform needs to happen, that suppression did occur, and that it is only the degree of fraud that is in question.  Thankfully, it appears Georgia10 will be doing just that shortly.

              It should also be noted that we shouldn't place complete focus on Ohio because Ohio didn't use e-voting machines, but did in fact use suspect tabulators.  It is a bit worrisome that actual e-vote machine penetration is quite large in Florida and is growing around the country.  So I hope future discussions of suppression and fraud do not focus on the 2004 election only (as the problem goes to the base of our democracy in general and future elections) or Ohio only.

              •  I posted this before (none)
                your most recent comments Kagro X which I've yet to read, so forgive if I made false assumptions.
                •  thought experiment (none)
                  What if you had to accuse a non-known but individual person by name (I didn't use Blackwell because you'd lose no sleep at all over it) over fraud, thereby suggesting such issues as trial/prison if guilty and libel on your part if not?

                  Why be less careful if there's no one to name? The caution is justified.

                  OTOH, as per Kagro X and others, yes, I'm all for paper trails (and I've said so on the front page, the back page and the billiards room with the wrench with Professor Plum). But the reson I split the issues and don't lump them is that after anyexchanges with a complex issue, it's hard to keep focused on any one topic. I've tried to stay on topic with exit polls a few times, and it's difficult.

                  Thank you for discussing the issues and not the motivations of frontpagers (it's not like it hasn't been done). But you really underestimate how much time we spend/spent thinking about this and communicating our concerns to other posters. "Ignoring' or 'silence' would be the least of the appropriate terms no matter how it felt to you at the time.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:07:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site