Skip to main content

"The fact that, in the 2004 election, all voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party certainly warrants further inquiry."
(from summary of US Count Votes' exit poll analysis - March 31, 2005)

On March 31, 2005 US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project released a report entitled  "Analysis of 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies," on the discrepancies between 2004 National Exit Polls conducted by the Edison/Mitofsky Consortium and the official tabulated election results. The report found "the hypothesis that the voters' intent was not accurately recorded cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation."   The 27-page report bears the imprimatur of an impressive array of academics including nine Ph.D's associated with  major U.S. universities including The University of Pennsylvania, Temple, Wisconsin, Utah, Notre Dame, Cornell, Southern Methodist, Illinois at Chicago, and Case Western Reserve.*  

CONTEXT:

As election 2004 approached most of the national polls suggested a razor-close Presidential election.  On the eve of the election,  polls by Marist,  Democracy Corps and FOX all had  John Kerry with a narrow 1 to 2% lead in  the popular vote,  while polls by NBC/Wall Street Journal; Zogby; ABC News; The Washington Post, Harris, CBS News and  CNN/USA Today (Gallup) showed George W. Bush with a similar 1 to 2% lead. Gallop's final projection including assignment of undecided voters actually projected a tie at 49% for both candidates.

Most of the polls were showing a general erosion in support for George W. Bush as the election approached.  Kerry also began to surge in many of the  "battleground" states and, according to several polls, appeared headed for a victory in Ohio and Florida.  The poll trends also suggested that the majority of "undecided" voters were breaking for Kerry.

On the eve of the election,  the Zogby Poll called the election for John Kerry, giving him 311 electoral votes to 213 for George W. Bush.  Zogby showed Bush with a slight popular vote edge of 1%, but called several  "battleground" states for Kerry including Florida, Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio (all went to Bush in the "official" count).  Zogby found Nevada and Colorado "too close to call" (both "officially" went to Bush).

Considerable controversy had arisen over electronic voting technology which would tally approximately 30% of the votes.  The technology, including codes and software was owned  by companies with strong Republican ties.  Several studies revealed problems with the technology -- including susceptibility to hacking.   Many of these electronic voting machines left no paper record, rendering a recount of their tallies  impossible.  Bills in both houses of Congress designed to mandate a voter-verified paper record were denied a floor vote by the Republican Leadership.

Beginning about midday and continuing into the early evening on Election Day Edison/Mitofsky Exit Polls, intended for release after the polls closed,  began to leak.  They showed John Kerry ahead in Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio with Florida a virtual tie.  Zogby had also called all of these states except Nevada ("too close to call") for Kerry.  Early exit polls also showed Kerry with a 9-point lead in Pennsylvania which he eventually won by a much slimmer 2-point margin.

          "No matter how one calculates it, the discrepancy cannot be
attributed to chance."

US Count Votes notes in its abstract that the "exit pollster of record for 2004 election was the Edison/Mitofsky Consortium.  Their national exit poll results projected a Kerry victory by 3.0 % whereas Bush won the official count by 2.5 %." (a 5.5 percentage point variance representing more than four times the 1.3% margin of error).  The report notes that several previous analyses had determined that the odds of such a large variance occurring by random chance ranged from 1 in 959,000 to 1 in 1,240.  "No matter how one calculates it, the discrepancy cannot be attributed to chance."

"Edison/Mitofsky disavowed the results of their own poll, saying they cannot be construed as evidence that the official vote count was corrupted."  They hypothesized  that "Kerry voters were more amenable to completing the poll questionnaire than Bush voters."  US Count Votes notes, however, that "Edison/Mitofsky's own exit poll data does not support their theory."  

Shortly after midnight on election night, Edison/Mitofsky "adjusted" its exit polls to mirror the official tabulated election results.  "These adjusted results remain posted, as of this writing," notes US Count Votes.  Their report rejects a sinister motive, but notes nevertheless that "the effect of the process was at the very least confusing and served to blunt public awareness of the dramatic exit poll-vote count discrepancies during the critical period immediately following the election.  The US Count Votes report notes that "slight" adjusting of poll results is legitimate, but that "the justification for doing so rests entirely on the assumption that the reported election results are in fact accurate, as reflected by a small and undramatic discrepancy between exit poll results and vote counts."  Instead Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll results "had to be substantially, in fact dramatically, adjusted.  Such substantial discrepancies and need for such dramatic adjustment raised a bright red flag.  Edison/Mitofsky ignored this red flag and simply substituted the adjusted data set, which has been generally employed without acknowledgement."  

Edison/Mitofsky has to this day refused all requests for the release of its raw data, including a request from Congressman John Conyers, senior-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who requested the data in conjunction with his investigation of 2004 election irregularities.

US Count Votes notes that there are "three primary explanations for the discrepancies" between the exit polls and the official vote tally:

1.    Chance.  Both US Count Votes and Edison/Mitofsky agree that "random statistical sampling error can be ruled out."  The discrepancy is simply too large.
2.    Innacurate Exit Polls.  This is the theory advanced by Edison/Mitofsky, based on their hypothesis that Bush voters were more reluctant than Kerry voters to respond to exit polls.  According to US Count Votes the data that Edison/Mitofsky offered in their report show how implausible this theory is."
3.    Inaccurate Election Results.  "Edison/Mitofsky did not even consider this hypothesis, and thus made no effort to contradict it" despite the fact that some of their exit poll data "may be construed as affirmative evidence for inaccurate election results.  We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters' intent was not accurately recorded or counted cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation."

US Count Votes notes that "after last November's elections there were thousands of reports of irregularities" including: voting machine shortages; ballots counted and recounted in secret; lost, discarded and improperly rejected registration forms and absentee ballots; touch screen machines that registered "Bush" when voters pressed "Kerry;" precincts in which there were more votes recorded than registered voters; precincts in which reported participation rate was less than 10%; high rates of "spoiled" ballots and under-votes in which no vote for president was recorded; etc.

"These problems arose in the context of vote recording and counting systems developed, provided, and maintained primarily by a handful of private vendors with partisan ties, and where nonauditable voting equipment which cannot provide assurance that the votes are counted as cast, tallied about 30% of the national vote."

The US Count Votes report asserts that, in the absence of  auditablilty or transparency in our election system, exit polls are of paramount importance as a check of the overall  integrity of official election results.

The report explains that Edison/Mitofsky conducted the 2004 exit polls on behalf of the National Election Pool representing major national press and TV news services.  The polls were conducted in every state plus a nationwide exit poll (with a substantial sample size of 13,047).  Confidential exit poll data showing John Kerry ahead of George Bush in several key "battleground states" were leaked on the afternoon of November 2nd and, as previously noted, projected a 3.0 % Kerry victory which was to materialize into a 2.5 % Bush victory in the official vote count.

While Edison/Mitofsky has refused to make its raw data available, analyses are still possible because of "screen captures" of the raw data published to the internet on election night.  The report cites earlier studies of these data revealing statistically significant discrepancies of exit poll results concentrated in five states, including the critical battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Two independent studies by Ph.D's in statistics had concluded that the probability of these discrepancies being concentrated in these particular three critical states (rather than in any randomly selected group of three states) is less than 1 in 330,000.

On January 19, 2005 Edison/Mitofsky released a 77-page report  that acknowledged widespread discrepancies between their exit polls and official counts, admitted that the differences were far greater than can be explained by sampling error, and asserted that the disparity was "most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters."   US Count Votes' analysis disagreed:

I. Random Chance:  Without getting into complicated statistical analyses here, both US Count Votes and Edison/Mitofsky concluded that "random chance as a possible explanation for discrepancies between exit polls and official election results can be dismissed."

II. Exit Poll Error:   US Counts Votes notes that "Exit Polling is a well-developed science, informed by half a century of experience and continually improving methodology."  US Count Votes notes further that the sample precincts selected by Edison/Mitofsky "accurately predicted the results in their respective states with only a small observed bias (0.3%)."  This data reflects positively on the Edison/Mitofsky sample.  Edison/Mitofsky hypothesized a significant bias in the sample based on the "reluctant Bush responder" theory, however they provided no evidence to support this hypothesis, and it is contradicted by historical trends and by exit polls from 2004 state primaries.  Edison/Mitofsky claimed it could not "measure the response rate by Kerry and Bush voters," but hypothesized a 56% response rate for Kerry voters and a 50% response rate for Bush voters, apparently because these percentages "would account for the entire... error that we observed..."  US Count Votes observes that  "no data in the E/M report supports the hypothesis that Kerry voters were more likely than Bush voters to cooperate with pollsters and, in fact, the data provided by E/M suggests that the opposite may have been true."

US Count Votes evaluated Edison/Mitofsky data in precincts where 80 % or more of the vote went to either Bush or Kerry.  "The reluctant Bush responder hypothesis would lead one to expect a higher non-response rate where there are many Bush voters," yet the E/M data reveals that the response rate was actually higher in the stronger Bush precincts than it was in the stronger Kerry precincts.  "This data bears directly on the plausibility of the report's central hypothesis, and it goes in the wrong direction," notes US Count Votes.  "This fact undermines the report's central premise that Kerry supporters were more likely than Bush supporters to participate in the exit polls.  US  Count Votes also notes the fascinating detail that the discrepancy between the exit polls and the recorded vote was dramatically higher in precincts where Bush received 80-100% of the votes ... An alternate theory that is more consistent with the data is that "corruption of the official vote count occurred most freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds." {districts where audits would also be least likely to occur}.

US Count Votes reports that for the Edison/Mitofsky "reluctant Bush responder" theory to be true, Kerry voters would have had to be significantly more cooperative in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds, contradicting previous experience and observations in the 2004 election that voters in a small minority tend to be less willing to respond to exit poll interviewers, not more as the Edison/Mitofsky theory requires.  "The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the E/M exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario," concludes US Count Votes.

32 states had both Senate and presidential races on a single exit poll survey.  If Bush supporters were refusing to fill out the survey the exit poll should have been just as poor in the senate race as in the presidential race.  Yet "the senate polls were significantly more accurate."

The evidence, quite simply, does not support the Edison/Mitofsky hypothesis that Kerry voters were more cooperative with exit pollsters than were Bush voters, an hypothesis that is crucial to Edison/Mitofsky's disavowal of the accuracy of its own 2004 exit polls.

III. Inaccurate Election Results.   If the discrepancies between exit poll and election results cannot be explained by random sampling error and the "Reluctant Bush Responder" hypothesis is inconsistent with the data, "then the only remaining explanation - that the official vote was corrupted - must be seriously considered" concluded US Count Votes.  Edison/Mitofsky never considered this possibility, "always assuming the correctness of the election results without providing supporting evidence for that assumption."

Data provided by Edison/Mitofsky in its report reveal significant differences between exit polls and the reported vote inconsistent with chance where Optical Scanners, Punch cards, Touch screens, and Mechanical voting machines were in use.  Only precincts using paper ballots showed results consistent with chance.  Edison/Mitofsky concluded that vote machine type was unrelated to the margin of error, but failed to explain how they arrived at that conclusion or whether they drew a distinction between votes tallied in the precinct or at a central location.  In the absence of this data US Count Votes points to a limited study in New Mexico that showed that touch screen voting machines "produced significantly higher rates of under-votes in the presidential race than did New Mexico's optical scan machines."   "Similar audits of other states' election results are needed" suggests US Count Votes.

US Count Votes concludes that "the many anecdotal reports of voting irregularities create a context in which the possibility that the overall vote was substantially corrupted must be taken seriously.  The hypothesis that the discrepancy between exit polls and election results is due to errors in the official election tally remains a coherent theory."

IV. Misleading Use of Adjusted Exit Poll Data.  US Count Votes notes that there is a considerable difference between "weighted" data, designed to adjust the data to conform to the demographic composition of the electorate, and for which there is general agreement, and "adjusted" data where the already demographically weighted results are further "weighted" and forced to conform with the election results.  As noted earlier, Edison/Mitofsky posted election "adjusted" exit polls to its web site on election night 2004 where they remain to this day.  Again as noted earlier, this data is highly questionable because of the extensive weighting required to align the two very different results.  Edison/Mitofsky substituted the adjusted data for the weighted data early on "without acknowledgment," thus "perpetuating the confusion and misleading  impressions" this substitution created.  "We see no constructive reason for E/M's practice in this regard" concludes US Count Votes.

In summarizing its findings, US Count Votes contests the notion advanced by critics that firmer proof is required before a thorough investigation is launched into irregularities in the 2004 election.  "We feel strongly that this is the wrong standard. One cannot have proof before an investigation."  "In fact, the burden of proof should be to show that the election process is accurate and fair.  The integrity of the American electoral system can and should be beyond reproach."

"The fact that, in the 2004 election, all voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party certainly warrants further inquiry."

The report concludes:  "The absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that demands a thorough and unblinking investigation."

One wonders how any one could argue with that conclusion!
___________________________
* Authors and Endorsers of the US Count Votes Analysis:

Josh Mittendorf, Ph.D. Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Operational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, Ph.D. Professor of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, Ph.D. Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathon Simon, J.D. Alliance for Democracy
Ron Baiman, Ph.D. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago

Originally posted to jpol on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:37 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  questions re: Exit polls (4.00)
    pre-election polling data can be found at pollingreport.com.  I will supply the Zogby forecast to any one who requests it since there is no longer an active url for it.
    •  Great work ... (none)
      I know some people who will want to see this!

      Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

      by SusanHu on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:40:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know some people (none)
        who don't want to see this. My right-wing brother loves to wallow in blissful ignorance of the truth, as do most of Bush's supporters. He say's that he's "very particular" as to where he gets his news from (Fox and Rush). It's sad and frustrating. This will never be reported. But we must not surrender. Perhaps Kerry will make good on his promise to get this looked into.

        They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program - George W. Bush

        by kitebro on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:49:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'd like a copy (none)
      Jerry - I'd love to see that. Thanks!
      •  Zogby election forecast (4.00)
        Our Call
        Zogby International's 2004 Predictions
        (as of Nov. 2, 2004 5:00pm)

        2004 Presidential Election

         Electoral Votes:

        Bush
         213

        Kerry
         311

        Too Close To Call
         Nevada (5)

        Too Close To Call
         Colorado (9

    •  pre-election polling (none)
      I did a study on all the state-level pre-election polls - using "registered voter" numbers, and it showed that Bush had a clear, unmistakeable advantage for almost the entire two months preceding the election day.  Kerry got close just before the third debate, but dipped again immediately afterward, probably because of the Mary Cheney stuff.

      That shows it in Electoral Votes - the raw electoral votes each candidate had wrapped up.  The jump at the end is the rest of it falling into place on election day.

      This exit poll stuff is worthwhile, but Kerry's basic strategy was akin to needing to flip "heads" seven out of ten times.  Zogby and the polls on election day might have shown that he actually was close to doing so, and heck, vote fraud might still have kept Kerry from winning, but if he had won, it would have been quite an achievement.  Given Kerry's strategy (getting the vast majority of the 50/50 states), the odds were against it.

      Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

      by tunesmith on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:21:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  more detail (none)
        Initial exploration is here, further details are here.  It's on my old blog - my new blog, which has a greater emphasis on using technology to explore politics in new ways is at Politology.

        What do I mean by flipping "heads"?  Kerry's whole strategy hinged on needing to get most of the swing states.  When a state gets close to 50/50, it is pretty much random - the result can hinge on long lines, weather, stuttering "Osama" on tv, whatever.  They can go either way.  If the only way you can win is for you to get more than half of the closest states, then the odds are simply against you winning.

        Kerry got six out of the ten closest states.  He needed seven.

        Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

        by tunesmith on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:40:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i agree (none)
          except about the 'something about Mary'. It was more fundamental, but the Mary flap, like Schiavo and SBVT, was a cable event that didn't move people despite all the blathering.

          "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:39:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah... (none)
            that's the part where I don't have any data to back it up.  It might have just been that it was the nation exhaling from the debates being over, which were universally seen as kerry's strengths.  "well, good try, but it didn't look like enough, I'll vote for bush after all..."

            Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

            by tunesmith on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:47:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Interpereting the Polls (none)
        I tool a look at your sites but I don't understand what raw data you used.  I followed electoral-vote.com pretty closely during the campaign, and unless you only used only the most Republican biased polls you had some fluctuation and changing of who was in the lead.

        The only international crime is losing a war

        by Luam on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:02:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I used every poll (none)
          I actually used every poll from e-v.com's data set.

          I grouped polls (per state) by the day the questions were being asked.  I averaged multiple polls together if necessary.

          e-v.com only grouped by the release date of the polls.  Which is pretty odd if you think about it.  You could have a poll released that was asked three days ago, and then the next day another poll would be released that was asked a week ago, and that one would replace the other.  This makes e-v.com's graph screwy.

          Finally, e-v.com awards EVs the same way the EC does - winner take all (for 48 of the states).  This fine for calculating the winner, but it's not an accurate way of actually judging underlying support.  My graph counts proportional EVs, which is better that way.

          e-v.com's graph is different because it reflects Kerry's strategy of focusing on the swing states - polls would come out when Kerry and Bush would pay attention to the swing states, which advantaged Kerry.  But when less attention would be paid to them, they'd fall back to Bush's underlying support advantage.

          So there were a lot of flaws with e-v.com's approach.  They did an amazing service in collecting the data though.

          The main flaw with my method is that it didn't weigh the averages (for multiple polls asked in a state on the same day) by sample size.  But, since I'm awarding the ev's proportionally, that error affects the result barely at all.

          Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

          by tunesmith on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:42:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Also see the other exit poll (none)
      For at least the 20th time - and I have never had any sort of response when I post this: There was a second exit poll - done by the LA Times.  It predicted Bush 51, Kerry 48.  It is concentrated in California, but sampled throughout the country.

      Here is the link.

      This exit poll is never addressed by the fraudsters - it doesn't fit their story.

      http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Exit

      •  Also see the other exit poll (none)
        Sorry, but I don't buy it.  60% of that poll was in California which went heavily for Kerry.  How did they weight this?  Where were their sample precincts?  The E/M sample was over 13,000.  This had about 1500 outside California.  Furthermore, Zogby had Bush winning the popular vote as well, but called the election for Kerry by a significant margin because of the vote distribution.  
  •  see also (4.00)

    "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 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:43:55 PM PDT

    •  Breaking & New Expert Proof (4.00)
      Thanks.  We need to keep hammering this home.  The media wants every one to think that only conspiracy-minded nut cases question the election results.  I'd back any one from US Count Votes up against any one from Edison/Mitofsky in a debate any day of the week.
      •  heh (none)
        read my comments on those threads. You miss my point.

        See Febble and Brady and my (old) summary here. USCV has some good points, but mostly the reinvent the wheel and show the exit polls don't match the result, and that E-M haven't supplied the data. The rest is speculative, and challengeable.

        However, those recent posts, like yours, hold some good points and excellent discussion.

        "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:47:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to see also one of these diaries (none)
    front and center! This issue is not going away and a little help from a front page post or two might cause the msm to take a little notice.
    What the hell are we doing if we can't trust the election results? Wasting our time and money?
    •  I will not donate money (4.00)
      or time to any candidate or party that does not have a clear position on election fraud. I want to know that they know it happened & have a plan to fix it.  
    •  I'd settle for (none)
      a simple front page expose on the history of one billionaire right-wing financier named Howard Ahmanson Jr.

      What right-wing think tanks is he financing and what is his open agenda (hint: Theocracy)? When did he add ES&S and Sequoia to his holdings? How does the ascendancy of those companies track with the breakdown in reliability of exit polls? Have exit polls gotten worse as ES&S and Sequoia tallied more elections (hint: yes)?

      There is no way we can prove or disprove what did or didn't happen with our votes on machines that cannot be audited. But still we keep getting sucked into this no-win argument over fraud that generates a disproportionate amount of heat to light. It's time to shift tactics. It's way past time that some light was focused on the man behind the curtain and then let the public argue whether it's a good idea to allow this person to control our votes from behind a veil of "proprietary" computer code.

      Just keep asking ourselves these questions:

      What would the Rightwingers be doing if George Soros owned ES&S and Sequoia, and would they be effective in convincing the public that they cannot trust results tabulated by an activist billionaire?

      The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, they tell us how the media is doing. And Diebold tells us who won.

      by Thumb on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:24:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Voting Fraud (none)
    Isn't the GAO investigating the Ohio Vote?  Are they investigating voter suppression or vote counting?  Or both?
    •  Much bigger than OH (4.00)
      The significance of the US Count Votes report is that the discrepancies were not limited to OH. This goes to the heart of the argument that Bush won the popular vote. It's very possible, even likely, from the evidence, that Bush not only lost OH, he lost the country. This report DEMANDS serious, thorough investigation by a body with enforcement power over the presidency, i.e., the Congress and/or the Supreme Court. My bet's on Congress since the court showed their partisan colors back in 2000.
      •  Dem awful facts.. (none)
        Won't make a difference with the faith-based, anti-science crowd. The question will arise: Who are you going to believe: Your anti-terror President, along with your favorite fundamentalist supporters, or some pointy-headed science professors in an ivory tower? The answer is easy to discern. The FoxNews people have no interest in "being disillusioned" by the facts.
        •  pro-science sceptic here (none)
          While I think the UScountsVotes team have fingered some interesting anomalies, particularly in about 20 high Bush precincts where the WPE was extraordinarily high, I do not agree with their conclusion that the pattern of exit poll discrepancy is consistent with widespread fraud, as much as I'd like to.  Or rather, the pattern is very odd, if widespread fraud occurred. On the other hand nothing in the exit polls precludes the possibility of carefully targetted hacking in key states.

          But I think one particular confound may have been overlooked by everyone (possibly including EM)

          Check my sig for more.

          See my new Exit Poll diary here

          by Febble on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:27:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  pro-science sceptic here (none)
            Keep in mind that US Count Votes did not charge fraud.  What they said was that the variance between the exit polls and the actual count was too great to be a function of random chance.  Even E/M conceded that.  You are presenting a different hypothesis than US Count Votes arrived at, but youy also agree that random chance can be ruled out as an explanation for the discrepance.  You have only underscored the thesis of the US Count Votes analysis.  Something is very wrong, and an investigation needs to be conducted and the raw data released for study.  All US Count Votes did was to take issue with the January E/M analysis and say that fraud cannot be ruled out as an explanation (although they never actually used the "f" word.  They actually were very careful never to offer a preferred alternate explanation.  They did point outr, accurately I think, that E/M never even considered the possibility that the count was wrong.  Since they, like US Votes Counts, agreed that random error had to be ruled out, that left only WPE as an acceptable hypothesis.  Let's stop quibbling about what went wrong and demand that someone investigate to determine exactly what went wrong.  Failing that, let's see to it that legislation is passed that assures that the voting process is honest and secure from tampering.
            •  I agree (none)
              that an investigation needs to be done.  I hope my own analyses can form part of the investigation.  I have been part of the US Counts Votes team, though I declined (for non-serious reasons0 to be a signatory on the paper.  It does reflect a couple of my contributions nonetheless.  

              I just emailed the team the URLs for your diary and mine, though I think they are in touch with you anyway.

              I absolutely agree with the conclusion that the Exit Poll discrepancy was not due to chance.  Ironically my p values are even more astronomical than their most generous ones.

              It is the pattern of the bias that undermines the fraud hypothesis, and the pattern was what my analysis was about, having devised a way of stripping the WPE of its contamination with state partisanship.

              But I am prepared to entertain a fraud hypothesis to account for my findings if it is presented.  I just can't think of one, whereas I can think of one that is related to sampling bias (over-eager Democrats in Democratic states).

              See my new Exit Poll diary here

              by Febble on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:42:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Investigation ain't gonna happen (none)
        It is time to act as if the election was stolen.

        Democrats in power should be noting the discrepancies and pushing for verifiable voting systems.

        Democratic challengers should be challenging incumbents to join them in demanding a verifiable system for their upcoming election.

        I, like others, am not going to donate money to the Democratic Party or its candidates at any level until they start making enough noise about vote security that some progress starts to become apparent.

        A month or so ago I emailed Mark Warner, govenor of Virginia (my state of residence), my suggestion that in his current office he was well placed to lead a call for vote security in Virginia. In response, I got a form letter from one of his assistants that if I want to lobby for legislation I should contact my local assemblyman. My local assemblyman is Republican. Needless to say, hell will freeze over (or at least the VA Democratic Party will change their position) before Mark Warner or the Virginia Democratic Party gets another dime from me, and I encourage other Democratic activists to look for a 2008 candidate who has taken concrete action to secure our voting systems for the next election.

        Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

        by TrainWreck on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't the GAO investigating (4.00)
      I know
      conyers had made the request, and I think they have agreed to look at it.  The question is how thoroughly, and will the media pay any attention.  The March 31st release of the US Count Votes analysis generated exactly one news article in the mainstream media (in the Akron, Ohio paper).
    •  Yes (none)
      It's all been taken care of. Please look at the light.
  •  Very good diary (4.00)
    Thanks.  This is very good information.  It won't be front paged, they don't like to encourage us "tin-foil" hat people as they like call us.  

    Recommended

    "Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

    by shirlstars on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:57 PM PDT

    •  In this respect (4.00)
      dailykos is no different than the traditional democratic party. They essentially act as though it's a non issue. in street parlance they are hua.

      Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

      by moon in the house of moe on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:37:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well some of the dems are on it (4.00)
        clinton and boxer introduced the count every vote act with a slew of cosponsors. it got zero play in the msm, and will likely go nowhere in frist's senate. Rush holt has had a great bill that would require paper trails languishing in the house for 3 years now. That is why it is disturbing that kos wont give it any play, not even when conyers held hearings and boxer contested the electors. kos would rather talk about anything else. some ruling about bloggers in sf and its all over the fron page. unverifiable voting ever since 2000? move along, nothing to see here.
        that is the main reason i backed dean for dnc chair. i felt like he would tackle this issue. so far, nada from the dr. and now we're stumbling towards 06 and the touchscreens are moving into more states...
        •  well said (4.00)
          dailykos editorial postion on this is even less in touch than our better democrats. It's a similar take to the mydd guys, billman and atrios - indifference to outright hostility to the issue. If it wasn't the crucial issue, who'd care? But their very public position is practically a refutation of the value of blogs. Sounds like they're asserting 'See? We can be just as blind as the msm on this issue.' They enjoy bitching about how bad things are, but not dealing with how and why the people who are making them bad got into power illegally. The world is changed guys. The most important thing to do now is publicize what happened as the above diary does, and then try and get back a level election playing field.

          Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

          by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:10:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  see Febble's diary (none)
            for a more rational approach from someone who believes something was up. Gee, is it you or everyone else in the world? Hint: it's you. here's the money quote:

            I therefore conclude that we have a choice between the following hypotheses:

               1. There was legitimate over-sampling of Democratic voters that was greatest in the most Democratic states, that this is a pattern that has been observed before, but for some reason was greater than usual this year.

               2. There was widespread, state-level fraud targeted somewhat inefficiently at the bluest states, not at the swing states.

               3. The first effect, plus targeted small scale fraud in swing states that is lost in the variance due to polling bias.  After all, it remains true that a relative small degree of ballot stuffing in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida could have swung the election for Kerry and would not appear in the exit polls.

            But of course this would also mean that the magnitude of the exit poll discrepancy is not evidence of fraud.

            If you'd reevaluate this dead end exit poll thingie and concentrate on voter suppression and real irregularities, maybe you'd get more support from all them establishment bloggers who have sold out to reality. Put it this way: let's assume you're correct and fraud took place. Exit polls don't add a thing to that equation.

            In the meantime the current approach of fixating on USCV and exit polls has to be labeled as spectacularly unsuccessful. Railing against the bloggers doesn't change that.

            "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:32:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i wasn't just talking about the exit polls (none)
              but about the fact that news events like the challenge of the electors and the hearings into suppression and fraud in Ohio were not deemed worthy of headline attention here.
              i recommended feebles diary, though i couldn't follow it but it looked like a lot of work.
              the point is we will never get paper trails if some attention isn't paid to the issue and there will still be this controversy because the vote is becoming less verifiable every day. All im asking is that kos and the other lefty bloggers support the dems who are fighting for the right to vote, and help publicize thier efforts. peace.
              •  the Boxer rebellion was very well covered here (none)
                and I'm not going to fight the ohio battle again. Suffice to say that complaints about the issue being ignored are extraordinarily exaggerated and not supported by the record, as they were high on the recommended list each and every day , and were on occasion on the front page (I know, because I put them there). If they had less effect than we wished, it is because all of our issues did... and that's what happens when you don't have the votes in Congress or the WH megaphone. See Ron Brownstein.

                But the points about the bigger picture are appreciated.

                "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:13:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  A more rational approach (4.00)
              might start with A does not equal B.

              (A) The 27-page report bears the imprimatur of an impressive array of academics including nine Ph.D's associated with  major U.S. universities including The University of Pennsylvania, Temple, Wisconsin, Utah, Notre Dame, Cornell, Southern Methodist, Illinois at Chicago, and Case Western Reserve.

              vs

              (B) Febbie: First of all, my credentials:  I do not have a PhD, though I am working on it, and if it wasn't for DKos I might have it by now.  But in any case it is not in statistics, although it is a very statistical field, and I use statistics daily.  It is in science, though, so I have a scientific training: in other words I am trained to make and test hypothesis.

              Is it you or everyone else in the world? Hint: Count the PHDs.

              Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

              by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:54:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, that's the wrong answer (none)
                actually Febble was a pre-evaluator of the USCV paper at their request. Having a PhD in some other field than political science or statistics means little if you have no polling experience whereas experienced pollsters without a PhD would hasve much to offer. And Kathy Dopp at USCV has dismissed any criticism of the paper from non-PhDs including some very talented PhD candidates.

                The paper has some very good points but should sink or swim on its own merit, hence the peer review. Any other approach is intellectually dishonest.

                "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:12:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Febbie dissents from the (none)
                  paper's conclusion. I go with the majority. Once again in the real world credentials mean something.

                  Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

                  by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:29:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  heh (none)
                    that IS how it works in the real world. However, the important thing is that the peer review process is taking place.

                    "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:45:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Fascinating (4.00)
    that the report shows the discrepancies between exit polls and vote count were largest in Bush strongholds.  How convenient!  I personally had not thought of that, but apparently Rove did!
    •  Bush strongholds (3.83)
      Rather clever.  They figured no one would ask for audits in the districts where the vote was overwhelming for Bush.  That also elevated the statewide totals to produce enough of a margin where no automatic recounts or audits would be triggered.  They learned the Florida lesson well.
    •  Even Kos has to smell the coffee eventually! (4.00)
      Hey - I've been forwarding him this information by email as well. People can bury their heads in the stand, or do their homework and realize geez, there's really something to this.

      I just posted a summary on my blog at http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com - I'll have to crosspost to here.

      •  Or (none)
        Do the homework and conclude there isn't anything to this, which is my position.

        Thought I will agree that there are questions which could still be asked, so I think jpol did a good job in at least framing the issue as "demand an investigation" instead of "FRAUD!"

        I'm still a skeptic, and I think Kos is doing the right thing by playing it cool.

        Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness.

        by JimTXDem on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:44:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, you can conclude that, but... (4.00)

          are you willing to forget all those who haven't reached the same conclusion?

          Sometime in December 2004, I read that over 20% of Americans had lost faith in the voting process. Normally I'm not a betting woman, but I'd be willing to wager that a goodly portion of that 20% were Kerry voters. I'm guessing that Bush voters were happy with the outcome.

          Whether the exit polls or the voting booths more closely paralleled the wishes of the American public, losing that 20% is going to hurt whoever is running in '06 or '08. You're not going to GOTV with these people. You're not going to get campaign donations.

          You're happy with the homework you've done, and you feel that the will of the people was carried out in 2004. Maybe you're right. But don't we deserve to know for sure? Isn't this worthy of investigation, just to put the matter to rest? Shouldn't we be able to say, John Kerry ran a losing campaign, that's why he lost? Or that he could never get fair coverage in the press to save his soul no matter what he did? All this post-mortem analysis of the election sounds hollow when we simply can't know for sure what happened.

          And even if you've done all the homework, and you're happy, even you don't know for sure. Because right now it's set up so that you can't know. Even if you're happy with the way things have turned out, it's only fair to future voters to be allowed to have the same kind of confidence when they go to the polls.

          •  that's why moving forward is so important (none)
            and exit poll dissection won't get us there. The issue is voter reform, voter suppression, paper trails and verifiable audit ability.

            exit polls, alas, have nothing to do with that.

            "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:49:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what you say (none)
              but I think I'll pay attention to these guys:

              Authors and Endorsers of the US Count Votes Analysis:

              Josh Mittendorf, Ph.D. Temple University Statistics Department
              Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Operational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
              Brian Joiner, Ph.D. Professor of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
              Frank Stenger, Ph.D. Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah
              Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
              Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
              Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
              Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
              Jonathon Simon, J.D. Alliance for Democracy
              Ron Baiman, Ph.D. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago

              I agree with your main point - that the issue is voter reform. But reform generally starts with realization you've been FUCKED, that you're going to get fucked again, and getting angry about it. History will tell you that anger is the spark plug of reform from the Amercian revolution to the people in the streets yesterday protesting the fucking Ahnold is trying to give the teachers and nurses of California. And when all those PHDs are telling me I was fucked, I listen. It's just a reality based thing.

              Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

              by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:23:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We can't move forward until (none)
              we know what really happened on Nov. 2nd.   The legitimacy of our current President and his administration rests on our knowing what happened in this election.  

              Exit poll dissection will help to tell us.   And we cannot have effective voter reform without understanding the events of Nov. 2nd 2004.

              As we do not have a uniform voting system for our general elections, or verifiable paper ballots, or open and thorough recounts - we have to start from the exit poll data.

              DemFromCT, I gather you believe that exit polls have always shown a Democratic bias.   But I just don't understand  (and I've read your comments on previous diaries as well)  why you think the expert analysis and discussion of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official count as in the US Count Votes report should be dismissed.  

              These experts 1) observe and document the discrepancies and 2) examine the possible reasons for the discrepancies.  

              What exactly is wrong with their reasoned, informed, academically disciplined and scientific form of study and inquiry?      And why are you against it?  

               It almost feels as though you are aiming to undermine the whole idea of exit polls, which would leave us without this one important and still somewhat independent check on the validity of US elections.    Why would you want to do that?

              •  I want to put them in perspective, not (none)
                undermine them. Too much wrong info is slung as if it were fact. Too much sloppy work. I hope you're looking at Febble's diary today, same topic, btw.

                From November 2 onward I have objected to things that make our work harder, not easier, to do. See comment here by RonK as well as his other comments in the diary. we have missed our opportunity regarding the stronger case for voter supporession by concentrating on the weaker and esoteric exit polls. But talking sense to the fully committed is like pissing in the wind.

                As to the exit polls, I'm hopeful that there will be some real academic discussion and back-and-forth in the coming months by those who do this for a living and by those of us here who care. This kind of excellent discussion (including this diary) helps us to accomplish transparency... and hardwired performance improvement. See party ID.

                All of this despite anyone who gets their nose bent out of joint if you don't agree with them.

                "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:36:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  If nothing is fishy, (4.00)
            why won't Edison-Mitofsky release the original exit poll data? Why do the Republicans fight and try to bury any Democratic move to try to require a paper trail in future elections? Obviously, if they had something to lose in rigged elections, they should be just as concerned as the Democrats, unless they are the ones doing the rigging.  And finally, why has the MSM completely blacked out any mention of this story from day one?

            I'm a 60 year old college professor.  I consider myself fairly rational.  And, in fact, it is logic based upon experience that leads me to believe this election was stolen.

            First of all I remember clearly many many elections being called on the basis of exit poll data practically after the polls closed on the East Coast.  Because of complaints from West Coast people whose voters were still voting when the elections were called, the major media quit calling the elections so early, but nevertheless, you could tell they knew who won and were just waiting for the clock to announce it.  Statisticians and pollsters have over the years gotten this exit poll data down to such a science that it is ridiculous to even argue that it isn't valid. If it isn't valid for us, why is it valid for the Ukrainians and everyone else in the world?

            We also know that the Bush administration and their allies are capable of anything. We know they stole the 2000 election. So, my question is:  why do people, including those like Kos who should be leading the fight on this, get so completely hysterical and defensive and use every means to discredit those who believe this election was fraudulent. The most obvious theory is often the one that is correct.  We might not want to believe that we no longer have a democracy, but the evidence is all around us to see, if we simply open our eyes. If we don't, we probably will never see another fair election in this country again. It may already be too late.

            We have been taken over by fascists. Our media is no longer responsive to the populace or to concepts of fairness.  Power politics are used to shut out opposition of any kind.  Our judges are being threatened by Congressmen. If we do not speak out, we deserve whatever we get.  

            A few years ago, I read Victor Klemperer's diaries entitled, I Will Bear Witness .  He was a German Jew who miraculously lived through the holocaust in Germany without being sent to a concentration camp but he suffered many hardships and only escaped at the last  minute when the Allies bombed Dresden.   In these diaries, which read like a novel -because you are in the same situation he is of not knowing what comes next, he describes the gradual and daily events that overtook people in Germany.  The persecution of the Jews and minorities and the taking over of all the powers of government by the Nazis was so gradual and so insidious that people who could at first have protested or left the country eventually became trapped in a spider's web of horror and could not escape.

            This is what is happening to us.  If we don't protest this election fraud issue, the noose is just going to tighten. Those who are in denial about this, need to wake up.

            •  You got it (none)
              and when historians write about the role of the internet in the great vote thefts in the early 21st century they will record that the intenet blogs failed as dismally as the msm to raise their voice against the blatant power grab.

              Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

              by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure there are plenty of us (none)
                who are able to write about it, but we are the outliers and because of us, the editorial dispute is visible in the blogs whereas in the msm it generally is not.

                Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

                by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:44:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  A very timely diary (4.00)
    Local governments around the country are currently puzzling over how to spend their HAVA funds.  Right now.  This week, probably.  I believe that the cutoff to spend the funds in 1-1-06.

    This is a great time to educate citizens (and local governments) about the threat to our republic that current voting technology represents.  

    Diebold is presenting to my county board, who's coming to your town? Do your local representatives have any idea how dire the situation is?

  •  Repetition. (2.70)
    This report was first mentioned in this diary. The diary didn't get much attention.

    Then, it was fully focused on in this diary. A long discussion followed, and it stayed #1 on the recommended list for a long time.

    Now, today, we first have this diary, which references an article that talks about the report, and adds a few little tidbits. It was on the recommended list for a while, and still is while I am typing this.

    Now there's this one, which is a recap of the same report in the diarists own words.

    Ok, I think I've seen this report now.

    •  Repitition (3.92)
      I do not think my diary is repititious of the others.  I read the US Count Votes analysis and thought it was very important.  When it got so little media coverage I decided to see if I could write a much shorter, easier to understand summary and add some context by summarizing what Zogby and other pollsters were reporting just before the election.  Clearly there are some things in the other posts and mine that are repititious, but I think they are all distinct and different.  Besides, if it takes a little repetition to wake up this country to what is happening to our electoral system, so be it!
    •  Can you have too much information? (3.55)
      Are you complaining that people are giving this topic visibility?

      I'm celebrating the fact that so many people care. Jerry's summary is different than the report, and adds data not in the report as well.

      Until we see this in our local papers, the fight has not even been waged.

      I love activists. I have no patience for whiners.

    •  Ohhh, a 1! (3.00)
      Shame on you, you bastard!

      I will not, I repeat NOT, marry you now.

      No fucking way, asshole. ;-)

    •  Ah.... (4.00)
      The possible theft of American Democracy is "old news" !

      OK, I get it.

      I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

      by Troutfishing on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:33:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bad luck (none)
      I'm working on a diary about this report as well.
    •  WTF? (none)
      Just realised you mean my diary:

      Now, today, we first have this diary, which references an article that talks about the report, and adds a few little tidbits. It was on the recommended list for a while, and still is while I am typing this.

      Gee thanks.  I did a whole load of alternative analyses, came to a different conclusion from the report, and you call it adding a few "little tidbits?"  And BTW I did not "reference an article that talks about the report" - it was mine, all mine.

      And, sorry  Frank, that was only for starters.  More "tidbits" coming up.  Don't feel you have to read them.

      •  Oops. (none)
        I actually didn't mean your diary, I meant the one that was on the recommended list yesterday, this diary.

        Copy/paste error.

        You diary was good. You'll note that I commented on it positively, and actually recommended it. It was good because it contained your own detailed statistical analysis, which is cool.

    •  I'd like to know what kind of report (4.00)
      it will take for you to take this subject seriously -- an admission from the owners of the electronic voting machines that they purposely participated in fraud?  Would that do it?  Why do you not think this is worth an investigation?  Are you comfortable voting in an non-transparent election basically controlled and counted by Republicans?  I just don't understand.  Really, I don't.
    •  You want repetition? (none)
      Then just imagine if the partisan rolls were reversed. Imagine it was Dem activists that controled the vote counting and it was Kerry that overcame the exit polls by 5.5% to squeak out a victory.

      Multiple diaries on the 2004 vote isn't repetition; every paper, every columnist, every radio talk show, and every cable news chatfest would be running their variations of GEORGE SOROS STOLE YOUR VOTE 24/7 until president Kerry was crippled and Soros was forced to issue paper ballots and open source codes. Now THAT would be repetition.

      The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, they tell us how the media is doing. And Diebold tells us who won.

      by Thumb on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:41:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On the list of Clzwld top 100 (4.00)
    There can be no forward movement with out this issue being addressed and resolved.
  •  Put the endorsers/authors in bold at the top!!!! (none)
    A bunch of people won't read this.  "Same old same old... get over it" types.  If you want to catch their attention, but the author/endorser list at the top, in bold.

    Otherwise many readers might think that "US vote count", which they've never heard of, is just some random bullshit quacks / tin-foil crew.

    •  Put the endorsers/authors in bold at the top!!!! (none)
      Just shows how different people are.  In my original draft that is exactly what I had:  the list just below the first paragraph in a box with the names in bold.  I encouraged feedback from a few people, and the consensus was that the list was a distraction and needed to be put at the end as a footnote.  I did mention in the beginning that this was a distinguished panel of Ph.D's from  major universities, and I named the universities.  I must say that after I moved the list to the end it did seem to me to flow better.
      •  Compromise (none)
        Yes, people are different.  I'm glad you thought this way at the outset :)

        How about putting something like this at the top:

        Note: this is not by a bunch of quacks or tinfoilers.  It's by a collection of NNN PhD academics at institutions accross the U.S.

        Then get into the beef.

        W stands for WEAK

        by Winger on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:49:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not likely to help (none)
          since many of the PhDs are stats whizzes and polling neophytes. That's brady's contention, though he also allows that anyone can do the work, just don't hype yourself as an expert if this is your first product.

          "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:17:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (4.00)
    I really appreciate all the recommendations and nice comments.  I've posted comments before, but this is my first diary. I was a bit unsure of how to post one, but necessity is the mother of invention.  I felt this information was too important not to post.
  •  Here's my question... (action alert?) (4.00)
    We know that the electronic voting machines had unprecedented error rates in this election.
    We know that the voting companies refused to produce machines with a paper trail.
    We know that the companies have the capability of remedying both problems- Diebold primarily makes ATMs! Imagine if those failed 5-15% of the time. Imagine if they never printed a receipt, leaving users with merely good faith in the honesty of their banking conglomerate.

    These facts, taken together, point either to fraud or to gross incompetence. Yet both explanations beg the same question:

    What can we do (besides diligently proving and reproving that we DO have problem on our hands)?

    Here's what I propose:
    Australia votes using open-source code machines:
    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/article/0,20967,714509,00.html

    In fact, using only Google, I was able to find the code used in Australia's 2004 election:
    http://www.elections.act.gov.au/Elecvote.html

    Now, I can't make any sense of the code, but there are probably thousands who can, and who have scanned the code for errors or holes and fixed them. Linux was created through the combined efforts of programmers worldwide using open source, and is now the most secure and reliable operating system in existence (to the best of my minimal computer knowledge).

    The code used by Australia has an owner. However, we should follow their example, and produce our own open-source-code voting technology.

    There are probably hundreds or thousands of brilliant programmers who would be willing to donate their time and talent to safeguard our democracy, to create secure and reliable voting machines.

    We should start a program to produce such technology openly and freely. If others have already thought of this, we should find them and throw our collective energy and support behind them. If no one has, then one of you with more experience than I have should begin such a project. I will do everything I can to help.

    Think of what we could collectively accomplish before 2006. Before 2008.

    We all know that Diebold is corrupt.
    We must provide an alternative.
    We can't begin too soon.

    p.s. i'm fairly new with this site, but would someone with some credibility on this site be interested in turning my comment into it's own post to gain some visibility for this idea?

    •  Here's my question... (action alert?) (4.00)
      Open source coding is important, but it is not enough.  Corrupt codes that are nearly impossible to detect can still be embedded in the software.  We need voter-verified paper trails, vote tabulation at the local precinct rather than at a central source where they are gathered  by computer, mandatory random audits, and of course equal access to the voting booth without fear of intimidation or excessive lines.
      •  absolutely (none)
        I agree completely. What better way to start than to take the reigns of the future of electronic voting away from blatantly corrupt corporations?
        Open source would be a beginning, not an end to fixing the problems with our democracy.
    •  http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ (4.00)
      The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of open voting systems for use in public elections.

      Major newspapers from coast-to-coast have endorsed the concept of public software and paper ballots that the Open Voting Consortium is promoting. The San Jose Mercury news called the OVC system the "Holy Grail."

      •  But only if you still count the paper (4.00)
        Any good programmer can hide something in open source code. Code is long and involved - you'd have to have the patience to read the dictionary to find a hidden routine. So that by itself is not a solution. The key is to have a paper verification, period. Nothing short of that will validate our vote. I'd like paper and exit poll correlation, myself!
        •  Open Source (none)
          You obviously have spent no time in the Linux neighborhood, and know very little about open source (or software, period, most likely). The Linux kernel and system libraries are rock-solid, and they are that way specifically because programmers have read - and understood - every single line of code. And fixed the bugs.

          Open-source software is our ONLY HOPE for returning free-and-fair elections to the States.

          - cdn

          "It's not that I hate my country; it's that I love my country so much I can't stand to watch what it's doing to itself." --Walt Whitman

          by grndrush on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 03:40:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whoops (none)
            I was attempting to reply to Lisa in LosAngeles with my comments. They weren't directed at the dairy!

            "It's not that I hate my country; it's that I love my country so much I can't stand to watch what it's doing to itself." --Walt Whitman

            by grndrush on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 03:42:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Open Source (none)
            That's right, I know good programmers who can find the wholes in very complex programs once they know the code in a relatively short amount of time.  Mostly because even though there are lines and lines of data they know where and how to look.  If this weren't true computer technology would be pretty uselss because there is always (technical corruption).  Open source then seems to be a damned good avenue for the Kos community to pursue.  Can we get some articles on this on the front page and really start agitating.  Something we can all get together on.
      •  Thank you for the link (none)
        Let's continue to give them the publicity they need and deserve.
  •  This diary belongs on the front page (4.00)

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:32:03 PM PDT

  •  WoW (none)
    This is extremely persuasive, and I am very far from being a "tin-foil" person.
  •  WHY New England States (none)
    Anyone a suggestion why especially the New England states were lacking accuracy in election results? Also the few BLUE shifts - zie sorted info below.

     
    State         RED shift
    Vermont           5,20
    New Hampshire     4,90
    Delaware          4,80
    South Carolina    4,40
    Alabama           4,20
    Alaska            4,00
    Massachusetts     3,70
    Connecticut(1)    3,40
    Pennsylvania      3,40
    Rhode Island      3,40
    Mississippi       3,30
    Nebraska          3,30
    Ohio(1)           3,10
    Minnesota         3,00
    Wyoming           2,70
    National Vote     2,70

    Tennessee        -1,70
    South Dakota     -1,80
    Texas            -2,00
    North Dakota     -2,40
    Kansas           -2,70
    State        BLUE shift

    In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

  •  Twenty eight hundred words to say... (none)
    ...WE.WAS.ROBBED

    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" - Joseph Stalin

    by Blue Shark on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:16:04 AM PDT

  •  Diary preliminary - CONGRUENCY (4.00)
    Due to CONCEPT status of a new diary, Part 9 was an analysis comparing the Exit Polls result in a report by Prof. Simon Freeman. For today's diary it may be useful when discussing the Exit Poll Analysis.

    [Been derailed since then by PropaG GOPWEBTX  investigation and diaries - who knows where they may meet]

    [9] CONGRUENCY

    Freeman Analysis Exit Polls Discrepancies & Democratic blue shift and congruency to MATRIX application by States and/or ACCENTURE voter contracts in certain states.
     
    Prof. Freeman  MATRIX -- ACCENTURE
    New Hampshire      ArizonaA  
    Ohio               ColoradoA  
    Pennsylvania       ConnecticutM  
    Minnesota          DelawareA  
    Florida            FloridaM  
    Nevada             HawaiiA  
    New Mexico         MichiganM    
    Colorado           OhioM  
    Iowa               PennsylvaniaM  
    Michigan           TennesseeA  
                 A RISS Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange
    ...          M MATRIX Multistate Anti-Terrorism Info Exchange

     
    Battleground         Bush        Bush & Kerry
                       vs Kerry        vs_poll    Bush_gain

    New Hampshire    49,0%   50,3%   4,9%  -4,6%    9,5%
    Ohio             51,0%   48,5%   3,1%  -3,6%    6,7%
    Pennsylvania     48,6%   50,8%   3,2%  -3,3%    6,5%
    Minnesota        47,6%   51,1%   3,1%  -2,4%    5,5%
    Florida          52,1%   47,1%   2,3%  -2,6%    4,9%
    Nevada           50,5%   47,9%   2,6%  -1,3%    3,9%
    Colorado         52,0%   46,8%   2,1%  -1,3%    3,4%
    Iowa             50,1%   49,2%   1,7%  -0,5%    2,2%
    Michigan         47,8%   51,2%   1,3%  -0,3%    1,6%
    Wisconsin        49,4%   49,8%   0,6%  +0,6%    0,0%

    Source Simon Freeman - January report.
    See his full analysis on Exit Poll Discrepancy

    The near clean sweep by Republicans for the Congressional Senate seats of power, also defies the mathematical probability at a moment the presidents poll number was below 50%.  Never in history has such a phenomenon been witnessed.

    Additional facts, the elections in the recent past of Chuck Hagel, defeat of Leland in North Carolina, the glitches of Georgia. Democrats should not just pursue the HAVA reforms and demand paper trail, but also urge an inquiry by Congress or a Independent Foundation to get answers to the open questions that have been raised.

    MATRIX & Jeb Bush in Florida:
    Diary with some details and references for further reading.
    Accenture | Cheney | Halliburton | Ghost of Enron | SAIC & US Elections
    by creve coeur  Sat Jan 29th, 2005

    Comments on Election Fraud For Next Diary
    by creve coeur  Thu Jan 27th, 2005

    In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

  •  Hmm... (none)
    "Early exit polls also showed Kerry with a 9-point lead in Pennsylvania which he eventually won by a much slimmer 2-point margin."

    One curious thing about this: the Republicans were making "Ooooh, you better watch yourself Kerry! Some states that people think of as safe Kerry states might go for Bush! States like... Pennsylvania..."

    And then it essentially does?

    I hope you'll forgive me if i'm suspicious of the idea that this was "yet another coincidence"...

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:44:42 AM PDT

    •  Hmm... (none)
      I live in Pennsylvania, and the polls were trending more and more toward Kerry here  (with a few exceptions like Survey USA, a Right-Wing Republican PR outfit which also now presents itself as a legitimate pollster and which consistently published battleground state polls that showed Bush with a much higher approval rating than others were finding, and which also found states like Pennsylvania to be closer than other pollsters were finding.  The CEO of Survey USA wrote a piece viciously attacking Howard Dean and distorting virtually all of his positions when Dean was elected head of the DNC).  Given those tracking polls and the exit polls, I too find that slim Kerry victory here suspicious.  Consider that Joe Hoeffel -- a relative unknown with almost no money, and who ran a very weak campaign and was hugely outspent -- came within 6-points of defeating Arlen Specter (who was ahead by double-digits in the polls), even though Spectre always attracts a lot of cross-over Democratic votes.  If Hoeffel came that close Kerry should have won the state by a landslide (as the exit polls suggest) rather than by 2-points.
  •  Wow (4.00)
    Not a single troll post of the usual "I just can't believe they would go so far".

    I suspect blinders over persuasion.

    Oh well, at least they've shut the fuck up finally.

    •  Yeah, (4.00)
      I always thought they (and we know who they are) seemed a bit TOO irritated at the diaries about election fraud, almost like they were covering their eyes and ears saying "No, please don't show me this again, I don't want to hear it, delete this diary, please don't make me believe there actually could have been fraud!"
  •  You all have seen this giant diary, right? (none)
    Which I quote in full here:

    NEW REPORT says PRES 04 vote outcome 1 in a million
    by threecents
    [Subscribe]  518 comments

    Thu Mar 31st, 2005 at 11:31:43 PDT

    A new report just released confirms what many of us here have believed for a long time. The likelyhood of bush winning by 2.5% when exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3% just doesn't add up.

    The full report can be found here
    http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

    "...And bunnies would dance in the streets, and we would find life on Mars." -Peter Singer, Brookings Institution

    by zentiger on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:39:08 AM PDT

  •  Please see my new diary (none)
    here for a different view (if you can bear it)
  •  Lots of reverence out there for Mitofsky (none)
    I sent an email link about this stuff to a friend of mine, whose political inclinations I do not know, but whom I know to be a very able polling and market research professional.

    He gave me a quick response, and did not really examine the core issues, but his quick response reflects the level of respect those in the field have for Mitofsky.  My friend said in his email:

    "I had not come across this, but I took a quick look.  Warren Mitofsky is one of my heroes.  I have met him several times, and heard him speak on several occasions.  I suspect it would be a mistake to challenge Warren's conclusions.  The real issues in the article relate to ballot box stuffing and non-response bias of exit polling.  Those are issues which are terribly unlikely to be reconciled - and certainly not by statistical analysis."

    Now, we can argue that my friend misses the point:  that the extremely unusual deviation from the exit polling data in the official results should trigger further investigation to determine whether vote fraud actually occurred, but I share his comment as an anecdotal sample of what we are no doubt running into in scientifically oriented, statistically knowledgeable circles.

    Just an FYI.

    We are not "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

    by Pachacutec on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:22:27 AM PDT

    •  no doubt and matches my own experience (none)
      btw, linked above is Febble's new diary on the stats and the stats alone.

      "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:35:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lot of reverence for these guys too (4.00)
      in the many circles. Also, the computer experts are really starting to sit up and take notice regardless of party affiliation. I know it's already been linked to before, but articles like this are starting to make even the most die hard repug programmers at my work question the "official" results.

      "I hate war."-Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by InternetsRoomer on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:51:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that out to be the ticket (none)
        for non-partisan reform and auditable paper trails. That's a 'moving forward' issue we should spend more time on.

        "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 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:05:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Lots of reverence out there for Mitofsky (none / 1 (4.00)
      Reverence should be tempered by judgment.

      Consider this:  Either Mitofsky conducted a really horrible exit poll or he trashed his own results to remain in favor so he could win future contracts.  The evidence suggests the latter.

      Mitofsky posted election outcome "adjusted" exit poll data to his web site without acknowledging that they were adjusted, leading the media and the public to believe they were the real thing.

      Mitofsky refuses to release his raw dato for scrutiny or analysis, even to a senior and respected member of Congress.  Does he have something to hide?

      Your friend needs a new hero.

    •  That's A Non-Responsive Answer... (none)
      While your friend's answer may sound good, it's non-responsive to the issues raised.  It may make him feel better to just trust Mitofsky, but Mitofsky has a HUGE franchise to lose if he gets embroiled here in this issue, rather than in say, the Ukraine.  I would gather at this point that Warren Mitofsky is compromised and no longer truly the master of his own art.
  •  Talking Point: Investigate it's not too late! (4.00)
    A money quote:

    "The fact that, in the 2004 election, all voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party certainly warrants further inquiry."

    Calling for an investigation is a strong way to approach this, it puts the defenders of  the 2004 elections' integrity on the defensive, where they belong.

    One hears the line about tampering with election results requiring an implausibly "massive conspiracy", remind them that it might take a single well-connected, minimally-skilled hacker just a few minutes per county to adjust the tabulation results.
     Of course such schemes could be detected by simple audit procedures, even for the paperless terminals, whose memory cards record the votes on the machine and should be preserved as official election records somehow (though they tend to be unreliable). If those values were independently tabulated, or the optical ballots were rescanned, then at least simple consistency checks could be applied. This has not been done.

      As it stands, the exit polls have been audited with far more scrutiny than the actual results.  This is most obvious in states like NM, FL, and OH, where election audits, even when required by law were actively thwarted. It is less obvious in areas where the results were not close enough to warrant audits at all.  Simple steps to verify reported election results exist, but are not taken. Would we trust a company that refused to submit to audits?

    If, for the sake of argument, we entertain the quaint hypothesis that some poll-addicted dark wizard managed to change the GEMS database in selected counties around the country, padding Bush turnout in strong Bush regions, but swapping votes in for Bush in tight or Dem regions. The election results will now show Bush gains in turnout and percentage. The exit polls will not match. The poll data is weighted based on turnout from reported tabulation, so adding Bush vote in Bushy counties will add more weight to Bush-precinct samples, and pull the exit poll more strongly. Thus the weighting of exit polls by reported turnout naturally supresses discrepancies arising from tabulator-level vote padding.

    This hypothetical tabulation tamper strategy would  also create the ultimate reluctant Bush voter, the Virtual Bush Voter. Of course these vBvs would be concentrated in larger, GOP counties.
    I seem to recall that the EM data showed just this unintuitive feature.

    Anyone care to look at the data and shoot down (or further support) the hypothesis above?

  •  "The Exit Polls were Dead Wrong" (4.00)
    Sound Familiar?

    The Mitofsky/Edison (M/E)organization that did the exit-polling seems to be now getting the George Tenet "scapegoat" treatment now by the Bushco post-election PR machine, in much the same way the Bushco post-war PR machine hid their manipulation and lies about wmd and preemptive war by blaming it on "bad/incompetant intel".

    This is trademark Bush behavior.

    And some of the Election Fraud Deniers/doubters/dissuaders here are propagating the "The Exit Polls were Dead Wrong"  and "Mitofsky in incompetant" memes.

    Facts:

    • M/E is an extremely experienced and well respected/qualified organization for conducting election day exit polling.

    • M/E is/was under contract by a consortium of corporate media (yes, THAT corporate media)instruments, to conduct exit polls.

    • The terms of the contract betweeen M/E and the employer have never been revealed. Such a contract would normally specify who "owns" the data (likely corporate media), and if, and under what conditions the contractor (M/E) would be permitted to disseminate results, the scope and rights to prior review and approval by the employer (Bushco Media) of any drafts of any publication of Data that was the subject of the contract.

    • The full raw data is not being released.

    • M/E (like Tenet) has been curiously silent since the election.

    Election Fraud Deniers/doubters/dissuaders will say this most likely means nothing at all, or failing that, we should appoint a 911 style committee to look into the matter further.

    Yeah Right.

    If the Employers don't come up with the actual  full raw data sets that would either support, or call the official US vote tally into question (as in Ukraine), it is grounds to legitimately assume they have something to hide, and furthermore, grounds for bring legal action to get the data released.

    •  "The Exit Polls were Dead Wrong" (none)
      You are wrong about all but the last point.  E/M released a mea culpa 77-page report in January saying there exit polls were wrong, very wrong, and strained to explain how they were wrong.  Clearly it was becoming clear to those who had examined the screen captured raw data before itr was expunged that things just did not add up.  It was also clear that E/M had posted adjusted (as opposed to weighted) data on its site without drawing attention that this is what is was.  They had to say something, and it is what they said that is coming back to haunt them in peer review.  What they dared not say was that the poll was accurate and the count was not.
      •  So? George Tenet bent over and took it too. (none)
        You are aware of the specific terms of the contract betweem M/E and their employer?

        Anything M/E even says relating to the exit polls were very likely dictated by the terms of the contract(s). And if Bushco had malicious intent (as they seem to have had in 2000 election manipualtion), their agents would have written the contract to cover their tracks. These are not stupid people.

        Can you provide a link to the actual Media-M/E contract(s) [my point 3 that you said was wrong] ?

         

        •  So? George Tenet bent over and took it too (none)
          No, I said you were mistaken about E/M being silent since the election.  Their 77-page report was far from silence and garnered a lot of uncritical media attention, unlike the US Count Votes rebuttal issued last week.  I haven't a clue what the E/M contract says.  It certainly does not compel them to issue reports bashing their own poll if it conflicts with the election results.  I think E/M did that report strictly to ingratiate themselve with teir media patrons.  Quite simply, they want to stay in business.
          •  Opinions (and echoes) vs. Facts (none)
            What the vestiges of the real Democratic (and real Republican) parties, and Independents who are serious about defending the spirit and letter and rights of the US Constitution, should  do is  sue the datas' owners [probably the Media contract holders, not Mitofsky, who the contract holders probably have over a Tenet barrel] to obtain the full raw exit poll data sets.

            Either they will produce it so it can be examined, or they will continue to hide it and be evasive or dissembling.

            It seems like a pretty straightforward win-win situation for anyone wanting to find out what happened to produce the 2004 election mismatch.

            If the Data owners are honest, they should have nothing to hide.
             

  •  Clearly, (4.00)
    the election was stolen.  As it was in 2000, only this time the effort was much more sophisticated.

    But nobody, especially Dems that I know, really want to talk about it.

    I cant help but wonder why.

    "Injustice is of such a nature, that it must be destroyed by society or it will destroy society." - John Wesley Powell

    by environmentalist on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:36:18 AM PDT

    •  If the roles were reversed, (4.00)
      the rethugs would be all over this and screaming like monkeys.  I'm also miffed why some of our democrat/progressive leaders seem to want to bypass the voter fraud issue and just "move on."   What the hell will it take to make them pay attention?  More stolen elections? Swell.
    •  I so totally agree (none)
      I wonder about that a lot myself. I think people just can't get their heads around it. Also, from W's behavior, it's pretty clear he wasn't in on the fix, and honestly believes he won the election. This throws a lot of people off. After Watergate, the strategy would be to not let the president know, of course. I would be surprised if more than just a bare minimum of people (sponsored by Karl Rove) were in on the scheme. But even Karl may not know the actual details.

      I long for the day when the corruption of the American voting system is publicly understood.

      •  and thats true. (none)
        I dont think GW was in on this.  But Rove and the state organizations definately were.  I guess a diffuse conspiracy is more difficult to grasp than one big, massive national conspiracy.

        One thing is true, from what was said above, if this had happened to the Right-Wingers they would have stopped this country up with protests, court action, etc.  they would have had thier people in the street.  Knowing how the Right-Wing operates, they might have even used violence.

        But what did we do?  We sat back and took.  Took it in the ass, I might add.  Kerry saw what was going on and did nothing.  Nor did any of the other Democratic leaders.  Even some of my very close friends who are local elected officials chose to do nothing.  Most even refuse to believe the election was even stolen.

        And that is part of the problem: despite this nations grand and glorious history of stolen elections (many, many, many) we Americans still refuse to believe that is the kind of democracy we actually have.  we dont want to see it.

        I think in this case, we should have moved to the courts and streets ASAP even tho we didnt neccesarily have the evidence in hand.  By now, we have the evidence and no one gives a flying fruitcake.

        And you know, look thru history.  the left almost always tends to sit back and avoid the fight.  I think of the left and the fence-sitters in europe (esp. Germany) in the 1920s-30s.  They couldnt believe it was happening and  so they sat back and let it happen when, if they had put thier foot down, they could have stopped it.

        Damn all those Dems who voted for the bankrupcy bill and the open the Arctic Refuge.  Damn You Guys!

        "Injustice is of such a nature, that it must be destroyed by society or it will destroy society." - John Wesley Powell

        by environmentalist on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:23:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dems should push for investigation ... (none)
    ... if there is even the possibilty of fraud. What's the point of running a great campaign if they can just steal the election?

    And wouldn't pushing an investigation - not crying outright fraud - be beneficial politically to Dems? Bush's poll numbers are historically low. The DeLay stuff is finally revealing the corrupt face of the Republicans. It seems that at this moment in time the public may be open to the possibilty that there was fraud. Make it a story. Put the idea in people's heads.

    At the very least, it seems, this would force ALL of congress to seriously pursue voting/election reform, which is what we REALLY want isn't it?

    •  Dems should push for investigation ... (none)
      You'll note that my piece never used the word fraud (and neither did US Count Votes).  I simply summarized the evidence and cited US Count Votes' call for a new investigation.  That was also inherent in the title I posted.  The Scoop piece that came out the day the USCV analysis was released was over-stated and a bit shrill.  The evidence speaks for itself.  We make our best case by letting it speak for us and holding back on expletives and harsh adjectives that the other side uses against us.  I've received positive e-mails from several members of the USCV team (I had sent it to one of the members who forwarded it).  They feel it summarizes their findings without putting words in their mouths.  That is the result I was trying to achieve.
  •  Read this report in it's entirety. (none)
    It is about a great deal more than exit polls. it provides context - a picture of a stolen election and coverup from the pov of sober knowledgeable, dispassionate investigators.  It is a very well written RIP for our voting system.

    The great state motto of New Hampshire, 'Live Free Or Die!' could now be 'Vote Free Or Die!' We must fix the voting system in the this country or it will continue to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for those in power.

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

  •  Repeat the democratic mantra: (none)
    Repeat the democratic mantra: Time to ask for another election reform... Time to ask for another election reform... Time to ask for another election reform... (500 times or more) .. Time to ask for another election reform...

    How many times do you have to "reform" a house until you get convinced it's time to get a new house ?

Kimberley, Thumb, anna, libby, 007, zentiger, Alexa, jotter, Steady Eddie, moon in the house of moe, sula, yerioy, faugh a ballagh, katerina, MattBellamy, Natural Anthem, tiggers thotful spot, kimg, js7a, Mike Stark, Southern Bird, Gooserock, freedom fried, Tuffy, Winger, Maryscott OConnor, jjc4jre, bribri, Citizen Clark, Emerson, lebowski, Heimyankel, bramish, liz, byoungbl, shumard, Troutfishing, movie buff, qw3rty, Disgusted, shetquaker, figdish, osterizer, DFWmom, elial, gothmom, Chips, musicsleuth, Cache, mraker, brianxucla, yellsatTV, Lisa in Los Angeles, Lisafr, humbucker, Polarmaker, eyeswideopen, darcyh, Jon B Good, RatIV, yankeedoodler, segmentis, matthewc, Einsteinia, wonkydonkey, elveta, Baldwiny, SusanHu, biscobosco, fishwars, political, pixelthief, moiv, chimpy, EastFallowfield, MisterOwl, mauricehall, warbly, murphsurf, terribfromMA, nargel, k2winters, Kenyan, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, ctsteve, icerat, Alna Dem, bejammin075, dksbook, NSDAR gal, shirlstars, Oke, kharma, rcvanoz, nancelot, ems mom, Miss Alabama, oldjohnbrown, Stand Strong, NYC Sophia, tepster, Miss Jones, nj mom, creve coeur, Bubby, CalbraithRodgers, kenjib, Rageaholic, TXsharon, GrainofSand, JohnnyCougar, atomicBirdsong, baxxor, smarty jones, wdrath, OuijaBoy, kathika, GN1927, attydave, dnn, Calidrissp, Ascendent, graciella, tombstone, kalmoth, RebeccaG, Rambuncle, sommervr, lcrp, welshvalleymaid, InternetsRoomer, CAKE, V Botkin, cevad, horatio in il, Noisy Democrat, eleanora, merryelvis, marcom, Clzwld, Steven D, notcho, BigBite, Shapeshifter, supersoling, tami33, skippythebox, mike20169, v8, chumley, humphrey, 3goldens, BornOn911, harmonium, Steve M, BrianK

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site