I'm still confused. . .

. . . about the whole vote fraud issue. On one hand there are people I trust saying "it's been debunked."

And on the other hand I keep seeing things like this:

Electronic and paper ballots compared with exit polls in 9 states

I'm no mathematician, but this seems to me to at least raise serious doubts.  And while I admit to not having read every single debunking article out there, I have not found anything that has set my mind at ease about this.  

There is something very wrong here. . . and I don't mean the possibility of rigging. . .

Specifically, I feel that in a democracy there must be total confidence in the integrity of the process.  That means that even if all the rigging theories are totally half-baked, election officials should be bending over backwards to lay all the facts out on the table and set everyone's minds at ease.

In other words, I should not have to be a mathematician or even have to search all over the internet to get a decisive answer.  Doing that kind of reading and thinking is certainly the mark of a vigilant and virtuous citizen, but what about the average guy?  And what about those who are somewhere in between?  I know I could always be trying harder, reading more. . . but I'm sure I'm making more of an effort than 95% of the general population.  I have a lot of other responsibilities and I can't devote myself to a full time quest. . . and, frankly, I shouldn't have to.

Shouldn't there be total disclosure by all involved?  Shouldn't the BlackBox folks and the like simply be given the info they want?  Shouldn't it be possible to have total transparency?  Shouldn't the government allot enough money for a total recount and whatever else is necessary to prove the integrity of the process beyond a reasonable doubt?  

A single stealth bomber costs $1 billion, we will have spent $200 billion on Iraq by the end of the year, supposedly to defend democracy  --can't we afford to be a little generous defending the integrity of the central institution of our democracy at home?

What worries me more than even the possibility of rigging is thus two-fold:

First, I am concerned that election officials are not bending over backwards to be cooperative, that many of the electronic votes that were cast are not even in principle verifiable, and that at the rate we're going me may never know for sure one way or the other.

I know everyone has gone through the various stages of mourning already.  We've passed through disbelief, anger, sadness, and finally achieved acceptance.  Frankly, I don't really want to hear anything more about the possibility that the vote was hacked.  I just want it to be over.  I just want it to be that Bush won, fair and square.  We can deal with defeat; demographics are on our side (did anyone see the map of what the election would have looked like if only the under 30 age group's votes counted?  A LOT more blue states and a crushing Kerry victory).  Because of this I am sure we will win it next time.  

But if I thought that the election had been rigged, however, I would be pretty hard for me to not feel permanently defeated. . . for after four more years of solidifying their control, what they hell would stop them from manipulating the election again. . . and again, and again, and again.

And this brings me to my second worry: I am worried that lots of us want so badly to lay this issue to rest, to believe that Bush won fair and square --I know I do-- that we will be increasingly tempted to compromise on this issue.  In other words: When fatigue sets in, when we feel more and more reluctant to be associated with "internet conspiracy theories", when it seems from all mass media sources that the whole thing is a done deal and that it's futile to resist. . . when all these things start happening, suddenly the various articles that purport to lay the issue to rest start to seem more and more appealing. . . even if they might not be totally definitive.

Let's not let this thing be decided by epistemological fatigue, or by the hypnotic "reality-effect" of mass media.  Let's stop ridiculing those who seek answers, and start affirming the fundamental right of BlackBox et al. --whether we share their doubts or not-- to get all the information they are asking for.

•  Couldn't have said it better myself

  There are so many rumors flying around, and so much speculation, throw in all the hostility and suspicion between the parties - no wonder so many of us are confused!

  But you're right about one thing - the real issue here that we should all be able to agree on is that if you can't prove to your satisfaction that your candidate lost, and the other side can't prove that they've won, then what's the point of having an election?

  by k2winters on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:41:04 PM PDT

•  I can't answer all your doubts...

  I agree that there are at least some interesting questions being raised that should be explored completely before we close the books on this thing. But the chart you link to is at least a bit simplistic. As has been stated in other threads here, and I can attest to from my own experience, Ohio for one is not "electronic voting". It's a mix, but the majority still use punch cards. I know some counties are electronic, and perhaps the numbers shown on the graph are only relating the those counties that use electronic voting. If that's the case it should probably be labled better. As it is it's too easy to dismiss as inacurate. It doesn't help us in our argument that the issues should be looked at completely if we are using evidence that's flawed and incomplete, if not outright wrong.

  by geoschmo on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:41:26 PM PDT

  •  Ohio easy to chech

    Ohio uses electronic counting an tabulating. Machines count punch card or "sat type" ballots which can produce errors by skewing the count. These numbers were fed to central tabulating computers that can be hacked by changing numbers after they are entered. Their is a verifiable paper trail that can be checked but only through a hand count. A recount using the same equiptment could result in the same count. Only a hand recount with independent totalizing will clean up the discrepencies. BTW all the web sites still give Bush a 136,000 vote edge. I  guess those 4000 vote's from Gahenna are still there.

    by Tomtech on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:53:46 PM PDT

    •  True, but...

      I don't think that's the point of the graphic. If that's what we are calling electronic voting, then every state that uses a computer in somewhere along the process of counting, tabulating and reporting the vote has "electronic voting". And if that's what we are saying then it weakens the argument corelating the exit poll discrepancies.

      by geoschmo on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 01:03:04 PM PDT

•  Thank God

  you posted this. This is exactly how I feel. I guess I'm just trusting that if something was really there, then someone credible would be saying something.

  by Rhett on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:46:22 PM PDT

  •  I don't mean to pimp myself. . .

    . . . but could someone please recommend this?

    The comments I have received so far have been helpful, but I'm still bothered by this and I'd like to expose this to wider discussion.

    Like, for instance, I understand that a lot of election officials are partisan.  But this does not explain why they would be uncooperative.

    On the contrary, if these Republican officials are so confident that their victory is "on the level", I would expect that, rather than acting like they've got something to hide, they'd be leaping at the chance to lay all their cards on the table.

    I mean, if they could really prove that they won wouldn't doing this kind of allow them to "win" all over again?  In effect they'd be able to say "in your face!" to Bev Harris et al.

    Why they are not doing this remains a mystery to me.

    by Nate Roberts on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 02:25:52 PM PDT

•  Bottom line

  For me the bottom line is this:

  There are many suspicious things about this election. Mainly numbers that don't seem to add up, excess voters in Bush districts, discrepancies between numbers of people who waited in long lines vs. the actual numbers of votes. Suspicious, but not proof.

  In such an atmosphere, I want to see verification of the results. There is reluctance on the part of the elections boards (often repub dominated in the swing states) to do this. Sometimes there are no paper trails. Sometimes recounts have been made illegal. The election boards are dominated by Repubs, the voting machines (where used) are made by a company owned by a solid Bush-supporter and verification is discouraged rather than encouraged.

  This all is hard to explain away. Fraud or massive incompetance seem the most likely explanations. The system needs to be reformed. So some people say we shouldn't make a stink about the election now, but focus on reform. Others say we can't do reform unless we make a stink about the election. This is the third election in a row where suspicions have been aroused (including Georgia in 2002). I feel that if we have three election where we are uncertain about the validity of the results and the system has become less transparant, not more, less reliable, not more, then we no longer have a democracy. I don't necessarily expect to find that Kerry won, but I at least want to know with certainty that Bush won!

  by mole333 on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:48:39 PM PDT