Skip to main content

Which makes me petrified....I"ve had a couple of diaries about voting machine problems and maybe even fraud....they have been met with a few like-minded Kossacks who are as concerned as I am, but a number of reactions have been to caution me about a conspiracy theory which is banned here in kossland...I try to remain calm, but then I keep running into stories like this.........

florida official scared      

Now that the polls are close these kind of stories make me nervous....There are too many powerful companies and people who want Obama out and Romney in.  It has been pointed out to me, that if an election could be rigged by voting machines, the Repubs wouldn't be so concerned about voting supression...  I get the point, but I think it is just a part of it.     I get called paranoid, and a CT, but please answer one question for me and then I'll calm down :  Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans....Patiently awaiting answers.......

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

  •  according to the link it's not CT any more... (15+ / 0-)

    at least people are starting to notice there's a problem

    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." *Ansel Adams* ."Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."*Will Rogers*

    by Statusquomustgo on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:12:16 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it's CT. I think the gop have made (18+ / 0-)

    it abundantly clear that they will lie, cheat and steal the election any way they can.
    I think Dems and anyone who cares about living in a Democracy should be fighting it with everything they have.
    Thanks for the diary .

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:23:41 PM PDT

    •  Count me in (9+ / 0-)

      The GOP wants absolute control permanently.  The means justify the ends.  Lying for Jesus.  All of those things we find abhorrent.  If there is a way to rig it, cheat, change the outcome, they are for it.  Of course not everyone that counts themselves as one of the GOP, but the power guys at the top.  Whatever it takes to win, they are up with it.

      And why all their nonsense about voter fraud if they plan to cheat?  Rule number one, always accuse your opponent of what you do.  Every court case research in the country into voter fraud can only find such a miniscule number over decades that it just isn't a problem.

      Their real purpose is to disenfranchise voters, scare minority voters (who in their eyes are always afraid of being arrested) and anything they can think of to keep potential Dem voters away from the polls.

      If anyone has been paying attention since the election in 2000 and again in 2004, you have to know that both of those elections stink to high heaven.  

      I don't like to lose, but if we lose fair and square that's one thing.  Theft of an election we didn't really lose is something else entirely.

      The truth is, if they can they will.

      JMO

      *the blogger formerly known as shirlstars

      by Shirl In Idaho on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:30:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The right, on election fraud, is the same place (6+ / 0-)

    that Pres. Obama is on energy. "All of the above".

    Personally, I prefer renewables and extreme vigilance.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:32:56 PM PDT

  •  Huge turnout, big margin, is the only protection (7+ / 0-)

    But, we need exit polls too. That also worries me.

    Was this story covered in any Florida press?

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:23:54 PM PDT

    •  Julie, I don't think this is accurate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catskill Julie

      The protection, in Florida and also in New York, is that almost every vote is recorded on a paper ballot. If the scanners malfunction or "malfunction," the need is to protect and to count the paper. That's how the error in Palm Beach was corrected.

      The basic problem with exit polls is two-fold: they aren't trustworthy (John Kerry did not win New York by 31 points), and people know that they aren't trustworthy.

      There's no doubt that big margins take the edge off a lot of worries!

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

      by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:49:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I sure hope we have our own "mobs" ready (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark, kainah, redlum jak

        to protect those ballots and assure they are all counted this time. Mark, I didn't look it up, but I thought in fact the exit polls were right(er) in 2000. ? Isn't that where a lot of the distrust arose?

        Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

        by Catskill Julie on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:40:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's true that the exit polls were righter in 2000 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catskill Julie, redlum jak

          I think the distrust arose because some smart-sounding people insisted, immediately after the 2004 elections, that exit polls had always (or almost always) been phenomenally accurate in the past, so accurate that they were used around the world to detect election fraud.

          It was a compelling story -- especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular -- but it wasn't true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don't embrace the practice.

          That aside, if I had a do-over, instead of responding to all the claims point by point, I would probably point to a few of the most ridiculous exit poll results and say, "Really?!" Not that that always works.

          Of course, saying that the exit polls were wrong doesn't say much about what happened, or what could happen.

          I doubt we need "mobs" to protect ballots, but in some cases observers can help. (Some states have much better ballot security than others, for sure.) Beyond that, one lesson of 2000 is that it can be damn hard actually to get the ballots recounted. The rules for that vary a lot from state to state.

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

          by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 06:09:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Righter in 2000? (0+ / 0-)

            HudsonValleyMark wrote:

            It was a compelling story -- especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular -- but it wasn't true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don't embrace the practice.
            What is your source for this?  How do you know that the results of exit polls in U.S. elections were more accurate in one year than another?  As far as I can tell, most observers assert such a thing because the official vote count compared to the exit polls comes up that way.  But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

            Unfortunately, many commenters on U.S. elections implicitly assume that the official tallies are always accurate, and therefore exit polls that diverge from the official count must be incorrect.  After all, if the official tallies are not correct, in some cases by a lot, that opens up a whole can of worms that many people would rather not get into.  

            Given how U.S. elections have been run the past couple of decades, with the increasing use of easily hackable electronic voting machines and tabulators, the potential for corrupting the vote has certainly been there.  One way of detecting such corruption is to look at exit polls versus the official count and see if there are any revealing patterns.  

            Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.  If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.  The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.  But, the phenomenon of "red shift" has been noted in election after election.  This cannot be accidental, or a matter of unreliable polling.  

            By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.  I remember the confidence many activists had in how well Kerry was doing, and their utter shock when the official results came in.  Even by 2004, the course Bush had been following in invading Iraq and the like was already very controversial--it was not a given that he had anywhere near majority support for what his administration was doing.

            •  I was trying to follow Julie's lead (0+ / 0-)

              Frankly, I'll be shocked if you can make a plausible case that the exit polls weren't more accurate in 2000 than in 2004. But I'm happy to restate that: the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts were generally smaller in 2000 than in 2004.

              But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.
              Actually, it isn't, because we can compare both the exit polls and the official vote counts with other information sources. By way of modest example, I again invite you to consider Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania in 2004.

              There's no reason to assume a priori that either the exit polls or the official counts are correct. It's likely that, in some sense, both are routinely wrong, although we don't know a priori how wrong. That should be the starting point of analysis.

              Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.
              I should believe this because you say so? Or you actually have some evidence?
              If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.
              You haven't presented any facts for me to "deflect attention from."
              The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.
              Malarkey.

              (1) Circular reasoning. You haven't demonstrated that any party ever has "benefit[ed]" from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.

              (2) Semantic equivocation. If by "just unreliable" you mean "unbiased but inconsistent," then your assertion is tautologically true -- but irrelevant. If the exit polls are subject to bias, it is eminently plausible that the bias tends to be in one direction.

              (3) Handwaving. You have barely addressed the facts about exit polls in one election; it's wildly premature to generalize.

              By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.
              It may not be impossible? That's nice, but if that is your standard of proof, then obviously a rational discussion cannot proceed very far.

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

              by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:56:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: Marlarkey, etc. (0+ / 0-)

                Hudson Valley Mark wrote:

                (1) Circular reasoning. You haven't demonstrated that any party ever has "benefit[ed]" from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.
                I have not demonstrated such a thing, but Richard Charnin has.  

                Oh, I forgot, you don't like Mr. Charnin, in your opinion he produces "crap".  Well, please show us where Mr. Charnin has gone wrong.  The link above references a fairly lengthy article, "1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: A 51.8-41.6% Average Democratic Margin", in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of "red shift" when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.  Charnin is clear about his data sources and about the methodology he uses to come to his conclusions.  

                Therefore, if he has messed up, you should be able to tell us why.  I am really interested in your conclusions, as this is an important issue and you have some very definite opinions about it.

                •  you're still demanding that I do all the work (0+ / 0-)

                  If you can walk me through at least one argument in Charnin's screed that you actually understand, take seriously, and are prepared to defend, then we might have some basis for discussion. Your unsupported assertion that Charnin demonstrated something has no more force than if you had linked to an article that "demonstrates" that the Twin Towers were sabotaged with thermite, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that climate change is a hoax.

                  I'm willing to discuss any of those propositions, but if you can't even provide evidence that you actually believe them, there is no point in my trying to change your mind. Charnin was banned here years ago, but if you think he is some misunderstood prophet, why don't you tell us all what we're missing?

                  a fairly lengthy article... in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of "red shift" when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.
                  Facepalm. Why would we need a "fairly lengthy article" for that? We already knew that the exit polls don't match the official counts. The claim to be supported is that any political party "benefit[ed]" from the discrepancies.

                  So, can you cite any evidence of error in the official counts? Bear in mind that your current position on exit poll accuracy is that the 2004 New York estimate "may not be impossible." If that is the strongest statement that you can muster, apparently you concede that the exit polls can't be assumed to be accurate. Now what?

                  Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn't, I'm willing to engage. But it's flat-out nuts for me to try to guess what, if anything, you actually thought made sense. Or maybe you didn't think any of it made sense, exactly, but it just sounded so darn smart. How can I know if you don't tell me?

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

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:14:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here's a walk-through (0+ / 0-)

                    HudsonValleyMark wrote:

                    Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn't, I'm willing to engage.
                    Here you go--from Charnin's blog as of April, 2012, Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy.  In the quote, he is discussing how the 2004 National Exit Poll was "adjusted" to match the official vote results by changing various weightings of voter shares in novel ways:
                    Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model.

                    So how did Kerry lose?

                    How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP.

                    Note that Charnin is basing his argument on state and national exit poll data, as reported by the pollers themselves (Edison-Mitofsky).  The 12:22am exit poll was a preliminary result that was downloaded from a web site (the WAPO site, I believe) and contained data that had not been forced to match the official vote count.  Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

                    As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy, which is why in previous comments I provided links instead of quoting everything I was referring to.  But apparently, you don't want to bother with links.  I also thought you were conversant with Charnin's basic analysis of presidential elections and exit polls, given your categorical put-down of same, but you just keep saying "you're making me do all the work."  

                    This will not do.  Richard Charnin has made a strong statistically based argument that analysis of unadjusted exit poll data indicates electoral fraud is going on in our elections. Is there something wrong with his methodology?  Is he making assumptions that are unwarranted? What is it that you object to about his work? Anything?  

                    •  thanks for showing up (0+ / 0-)

                      You haven't done much to discuss my substance (Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York), but I'm willing to discuss yours.

                      So, let's see where Charnin goes wrong.

                      Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.
                      No, he isn't.

                      We're not discussing "the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election." We can't be, because we have no way of knowing that. What we know is how many people, on their exit poll questionnaires, said they had voted for Bush.

                      (Many of Charnin's errors have this character of confusing exit polls with reality. Consider: "If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate)...." Guess what: unless we assume that the 2000 exit polls are accurate, there's nothing "conservative" about assuming that Gore won by 4 million votes. I'm skipping over a bunch of technical issues.)

                      As a matter of logic, then, Charnin's argument already has a gaping hole: He is assuming the accuracy of the "unweighted" exit poll results in order to argue for their accuracy. The argument isn't exactly circular, because at least two kinds of "accuracy" are at issue: whether the realized sample is unbiased within random sampling error, and whether the responses are factual. Charnin is in trouble if the sample is "inaccurate" in either sense. The exit poll results in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and New York -- which, among other problems, defy all pre-election expectations I've ever seen -- stand as unrebutted evidence that the sample isn't unbiased.

                      But the assumption that people accurately report past votes fails, too. In the 1989 General Social Survey, 53% of respondents reported having voted for George H. W. Bush and 45% for Mike Dukakis -- not too far from the official count, by the way. In the next three GSS administrations, Bush's reported vote share was much higher. In the 1993 GSS, Bush "won" by 70% to 29%. The most parsimonious explanation is that a lot of people misreported whom they voted for.

                      Moreover -- as Charnin has known for years -- the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.)

                      So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I'm trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin's arithmetic melts.

                      I've presented two specific examples, but if you look at GSS and ANES data, you can see for yourself that present or past incumbents' reported vote shares generally do increase over time (although usually not as much as in the 1993 GSS).

                      As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy
                      Yes, but the statistics are basically irrelevant, because Charnin's assumptions are bogus. It's logically possible that part of his argument somehow can be salvaged -- but the apparent excess of Bush 2000 voters in the weighted 2004 exit poll results is what we would expect, given the general propensity I described above. The GSS and NES data are freely available for download, and in many cases can be analyzed via UC-Berkeley's Survey Documentation and Analysis archive.

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

                      by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:53:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  That's what worries me. Turnout won't even... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catskill Julie, akze29

      ...be CLOSE to what it was in 2008 with African-Americans, Hispanics and young people. Not even CLOSE. And the enthusiasm gap is just terrifying right now. I won't make any predictions for fear of being called a "doom and gloomer", but with all of these suppression tactics coupled with things like this, especially BAIN OWNING THE VOTING MACHINES IN OHIO, a company run by ROMNEY'S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER - I just don't see a happy ending to this. Corporations have BOUGHT this election.

  •  Time to alert the international community? (7+ / 0-)

    I mean... this is ridiculous. The USA are like a banana republic. The national media won't cover this abomination. Maybe it's time we alert the international media to what's happening in the USA. The shenanigans in Florida, Ohio, and God knows where else. It's getting ridiculous and scary. The republicans are totally out of control.

    If you live outside the USA, try to send a message to the journalists of your country who are covering american politics and ask them to do some digging.

  •  Part of the plan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maverick80229, mskitty, CocoaLove

    IMO, this ties in with the flood of Republipolls, creating an appearance of Romney leading (and in FloRida, maybe he really is). When, lo and behold, Rmoney wins, it'll look more legit.

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:49:40 PM PDT

  •  no need to be scared (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC, mskitty

    if the GOP could just steal any election whenever they wanted, obama would not have won in 2008. that alone should give you heart.

    •  Actually, the difference between 2000, 2004, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kainah

      2010 and 2008 is that Karl Rove was at the heart of the former three elections and was not involved in 2008 because he and John McCain hate each other and because Rove was still out of favor at that time because of the Iraq War debacle and even more so, because of Valerie Plame.

      That is the reason that we had a normal election in 2008.

      For a summary read:

      Boss Rove by Craig Unger

      "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

      by rubyr on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 09:24:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i refuse to cower in fear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OleHippieChick

        the GOP can be beaten, even with their dirty tricks. we've done it.

        •  I am not cowering in fear nor am I suggesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kainah

          that anyone cower in fear. To the contrary, my impulse is always to fight back and to encourage others to do so.

          You said that 2008 was the reason that we don't have to worry and I told you what was different about that year.

          Why accuse me of being a coward because I was trying to impart some factual information to you? I don't get it.
          Are you just hostile in general?

          IMHO, information is power, even if it's information that we don't want to hear.  

          "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

          by rubyr on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:16:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  so, Rove has the magic wand and wouldn't share? (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, that makes no sense.

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

        by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:57:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you choose to view it as a magic wand that's (0+ / 0-)

          on you. The reality is quite a bit more chilling and dangerous. Why don't you read a few books and articles about it. For instance the book I mentioned above, written by a very respected author or any of the many books on Karl Rove that you can get from your public library, Amazon or on your Nook. Anyone who does not view Karl Rove as a clear and present danger is just not paying attention.

          "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

          by rubyr on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:13:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  stop hiding behind borrowed authority (0+ / 0-)

            I've read dozens of books and articles about it. Now what?

            The question isn't whether Karl Rove is "a clear and present danger." The question seems to be whether Karl Rove can steal any presidential election he pleases, more or less by snapping his fingers, but decided to let 2008 go because he hates John McCain.

            But if you don't like that paraphrase of the question, I'm happy to hear the question in your own words. Only, make your own argument; don't tell me to go read stuff and figure out what your argument is. You can cite sources to support your argument, but you have to make it first.

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

            by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 03:59:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  WRONG. They WANTED Obama to win so that... (0+ / 0-)

      ...they could make his first term fail by preventing a real economic recovery - the purpose of this was designed to make the biggest, most historic Democratic President into a failure, securing Republican presidents for the next decade and Plutocracy to become the name of the game. The GOP has had a long-term plan in mind for a while now.

    •  The right wing believed that a man with dark skin (0+ / 0-)

      could not possibly be elected. Their minds(sorry) could not comprehend Obama being elected. First on the agenda, make him a one term President. Second on the agenda, do everything possible to obstruct him. First, second, and third, demean, demonize, disrepect the President and his Presidency and everything about it.

      They are terrified President Obama will be re-elected. Anything and everything will be done to prevent his re-elction. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF ANOTHER STATE IN STOLEN?

      My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

      by CuriousBoston on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:39:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary, but... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rubyr, tacet, kainah, CuriousBoston

    I would recommend including a little of the story you linked to so your readers can get a better idea of what's involved.  

    Regarding your question:

    Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans....Patiently awaiting answers.......
    It's called "red shift" and is definitely an indication that everything is not on the up and up in our elections.  I did a diary on the subject back in June, reporting on an important article on the subject by Bob Fitrakis in The Free Press web site.  You can do worse than to check it out.
    •  Thanks for the tips... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kainah, CuriousBoston

      Bob Fritakis has been at the heart of this matter for some time...read your diary...excellent stuff!!

      " I am just a Patsy"...Lee Harvey Oswald

      by tvdude on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 09:33:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the problem with exit polls... (0+ / 0-)

      is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30. And so on. Most of the largest discrepancies weren't even in swing states.

      Conceivably you believe that those projections were correct within sampling error. You're not likely to convince neutral political observers. That's a major reason why the argument hasn't caught on: it's a bad argument, and Bob Fitrakis should have known that for years.

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

      by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:39:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your thesis (0+ / 0-)

        if I understand it correctly, is that exit polls in general are unreliable indicators of the actual vote.  But the examples you give were all taken from an election that was almost certainly corrupt, in a big way.  

        To repeat a segment of the article that inspired my diary:

        Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.

        What is the probability of this happening? “One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion,” said Charnin....132 of the elections fell outside the margin in favor of the GOP. We would expect eight.

        Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.  He not only finds the exit polls trending well outside the margin of error in a shocking number of cases, he finds a bias towards one side that is really something.  

        This cannot be explained by anything other than direct manipulation of vote totals.  If exit polls were just no good, we would expect the discrepancies to be all over the map--essentially random in a large study.  But Charnin finds anything but randomness.  Face it.  The fix is in.

        •  you talked right past my point (0+ / 0-)

          The problem with exit polls is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30.

          If the best you have to say about that is that the 2004 election was almost certainly corrupt, you are missing the point.

          Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.  
          No, there we have a guy who has done crap, at length, for years. If you care to argue otherwise, step right up. Maybe you can start by discussing the four states I've mentioned. Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

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

          by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:10:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: you talked right past my point (0+ / 0-)

            Are you saying that the exit poll results in Minnesota, NH and PA in 2004 were wrong, and therefore, exit polls cannot be relied upon?

            Do you know for a fact that the official counts in those states were correct, and therefore the exit polls were wrong?

            You say Charnin has "done crap for years".  Show me some evidence please.  Where has he been incorrect?

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, I understand, you'll ask the questions around here. That is the hallmark of crap CT: the burden of proof is always on the skeptic.

              I'll give you another chance to answer the simple question that you ducked: Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

              Welcome to Daily Kos, where extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you really believe, in any worthy sense of the word, that Charnin's work supports your weirdly smug conclusion that "the fix is in," then why not marshal an argument, instead of appealing to dubious authority?

              I've encountered many fans of Charnin, but no one who can explain and defend his analyses in detail. Not that I care whether you defend Charnin's analyses, per se: feel free to offer your own.

              But if that is too ambitious, you might start by answering my question about the exit poll results.

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

              by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:23:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: LOL (0+ / 0-)

                I do not know if the exit poll results you cite have problems or not.  But YOU make an awful lot of claims that you do not back up, while accusing other people of producing "crap".  If you are going to make that sort of charge, you need to provide some sort of evidence for it.  So far all you have done is throw charges at Mr. Charnin's work.  If you have some evidence for those charges, produce it in a comment or give us a link.

                •  umm, why? (0+ / 0-)

                  Dude, you're apparently alleging massive election fraud in which leading Democrats are more or less complicit. I'm alleging that Richard Charnin's work is bad. Which one of those is an extraordinary claim? Which of those even matters? Why do you expect me to do all the work? Are you even interested in this topic, or are you just yanking my chain?

                  Do you actually believe that massive fraud occurred in 2004? If so, for heaven's sake, aren't you going to say why?  Do you have something better than that it isn't impossible that Kerry won New York by over 30 points? Talk about weak tea....

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

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:57:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: umm, why? (0+ / 0-)

                    You are going around in circles.  You allege that Richard Charnin's work is bad.  Fine.  Tell us why.

                    Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.  The work of Richard Charnin and others informs my belief.  If you cannot explain why you think his work is no good, you cannot address the issue.  (Hint: Follow the link.)

                    •  see above, but, goalpost shift noted (0+ / 0-)
                      Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.
                      The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is "possible" that massive election fraud "may" have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen. You don't have to profess certainty -- in fact, you probably shouldn't -- but you could at least state a non-trivial opinion.

                      Pardon my impatience, but I've watched people move the goalposts in this direction many, many times.

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

                      by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 06:08:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Want more reason to worry? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CuriousBoston

    Read the new book called "Boss Rove" by Craig Ubgar which talks about the sleazy vote manipulation that has likely occurred under Rove's tutelage in the past. I think there is real cause for concern which is also why I think it's imperative that we ensure that PBO has too big a win margin the tamper with. But if, god forbid, that fails, we all have to be ready to fight like hell in the aftermath. No lying down and getting run over like in FL 2000.

    "The fools are as plentiful as ever." Albert Parsons, Haymarket martyr

    by kainah on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:45:04 AM PDT

  •  I developed software for 35 years... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CuriousBoston

    and I wrote this diary back in 2006 that details a hypothetical way of programming a touch screen monitor voting program to push the vote to one party while simultaneously minimizing the possibility of being detected. It's far more simple than most people imagine.

    I think it will probably answer your question!

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by reflectionsv37 on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:28:14 AM PDT

    •  Your 2006 diary is superb (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reflectionsv37

      A quote from it:

      Allowing private corporations, who have a vested interest in the outcome of an election, who have openly stated their preferences for one political party over another, to develop and implement a voting system using such an easily manipulated tool as a computer is a grave threat to our Democracy.
      And reflectionsv37 explains exactly why.  I urge everyone on this thread to go read it.
      •  Thanks for the compliment! (2+ / 0-)

        It didn't get much attention at the time. I haven't heard many complaints this election season about votes being switched, but if I start hearing it again, I'll rework it and try to shorten it a little and repost it so others might get a chance to see it.

        Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

        by reflectionsv37 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:09:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't agree with the premise of your question (0+ / 0-)
    I get called paranoid, and a CT, but please answer one question for me and then I'll calm down :  Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans....Patiently awaiting answers.......
    I don't agree that computer errors always favor the Republicans. Sometimes Democrats pick up votes when errors are corrected (as, apparently, in Palm Beach, although that election was nonpartisan on the ballot). Sometimes Republicans do (as in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last year). Sometimes the errors occur in primaries (Pottawattamie County, Iowa). These were various kinds of errors; there is no evidence of fraud in any of them.

    Susan Bucher is right to be concerned that her systems are unreliable and her vendor is, too. That isn't a CT. Making claims of fact without raising a finger to support them -- and telling people to Be Very Afraid, but nothing else -- is exactly what a lot of us consider CT.

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

    by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:33:33 AM PDT

  •  The fact that Bain OWNS the machines in Ohio (3+ / 0-)

    right now - Bain Capital owns the company that owns and has distributed voting machines for Ohio - the company's presdent is a FORMER FUCKING CAMPAIGN MANAGER for ROMNEY - is HORRIFYING to me. The fact that the MSM has TOTALLY ignored this and won't report on it before the election is fucking STAGGERING.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site