Despite the various claims and counterclaims circulating on the Internet, and despite the mainstream media (other than
Keith Olbermann) simply choosing to dismiss them, the reality is that we don't yet know for sure if the election was stolen or not. Why were the exit polls so off-base? How can we tell if there were flaws (intentional or otherwise) in the cote counting? In the absence of a smoking gun perhaps we should, like Sherlock Holmes, treat this situation as a
potential crime and try to establish the motive, means and opportunity to commit such a crime. Thus, by eliminating the impossible, we can deduce that whatever remains must be the truth.
The immediate problem seems to be that there is no dead body in this case, just some tantalizing hints. There's some evidence of strange goings on, but little public proof of widespread irregularities, much less actual fraud. Despite the best efforts of
Bev Harris and many others, the circumstantial evidence is, at present, far from conclusive.
Conflicting academic studies have been produced which come to opposite conclusions about the apparent difference between early exit poll numbers and the actual poll results. Let's just assume for a moment that
Professor Steven Freeman's analysis is correct, and the probability of the exit polls being so out of whack in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio is indeed 1 in 250 Million. While that doesn't constitute a smoking gun, there is enough
preliminary evidence of flaws in the voting process to indicate that certain areas require additional scrutiny -- for example a hand recount of
optical ballots in Ohio (which seems to be happening thanks to
Cobb and
Badnarik), or a detailed investigation into the
ballot irregularities in North Carolina.
Let's assume that the suspect for this crime is one or more people who really, really wanted a Bush victory. There may (or may not) also be some connection with Bush campaign operatives, but I would suggest that such a link would be much harder to prove, and highly controversial. In any case, proving that a fraud was committed would be sufficient to outrage the public and the media, and it wouldn't take a direct accusation for people to connect the dots back to the current administration. Let me emphasize: I'm not accusing anyone of having done anything illegal; I'm merely speculating on the possibilities of what might have happened and how to resolve some of the questions from the election which remain unanswered. Let's leave the accusations and indictments to the professionals.
So while the various investigations and recounts continue, it may be helpful for us to examine the three keys to any crime; motive, means and opportunity:
Motive
The motive here seems pretty clear; to win the election. Given how polarized the country has become I have little doubt that there are unscrupulous people who would do whatever they could to ensure a Bush win, and who wouldn't let a little matter like the law interfere with their plans. A tinfoil hat conspiracy perhaps, but just think for a minute; the Bush Administration and campaign haven't hesitated before to use lies, deceit, and third party proxies to advance their position (witness the character assassination of John McCain or the Swift Boat slanders). Imagine if the Bush campaign were given an opportunity to fix (or even heavily distort) the election results in a way that was completely untraceable, don't you think they might? Isn't this one group of people where such an idea is not only credible, it's actually completely in character? I know it's not a provable fact, but can we completely dismiss it as ridiculous? Motive, I think is not a big stumbling block in this case.
Means
Means in this case indicates two things: vulnerabilities in the voting systems which could potentially allow the results to be altered, and the technical expertise to exploit those vulnerabilities. That there are numerous problems in the software used by touch-screen voting systems has been amply demonstrated by others, but there are also potential flaws even in optical scan voting systems (leading to the much discussed undervotes and overvotes). In either case the process of collating and counting votes electronically from multiple precincts to the County and State level is filled with potential security hazards. That's all without assuming any corruption. As organized crime syndicates have long demonstrated, the best way around any security is often to have someone on the inside. Isn't it possible that (just as one example) a few loyal programmers were paid substantial sums of money under the table (for example by by a wealthy Republic donor) to hack the collating systems, or even to get hired by the private companies who build the voting systems in order to create untraceable ways to rig the numbers? The means are also clearly there.
Opportunity
Because of these flaws in the voting systems, there were (and are) many opportunities to rig elections. The classic methods of disinformation and intimidation were also used in this one (particularly against minorities), but that is as old as the hills. What we're talking about here is nothing less than an opportunity to perpetrate a wholesale fraud on the largest scale ever seen in US electoral history. What is astonishing to me (and many others with a background in computer software) is how easy it would be. I guarantee that with a little money and time, and enough motivation, any reasonably smart, competent and experienced computer programmer could figure out how to steal an election. Indeed, if any solid evidence comes to light, we may find out that was exactly what happened on November 2nd. However, I also know that any reasonably smart, competent and experienced programmer could also figure out how to do it without leaving any trace. Sadly, I fear that was exactly what did happen on November 2nd.
That, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, is the curious incident of the dog in barking in the night (the dog didn't bark in the night). The absence of something may be significant, but it isn't proof in itself. We can speculate about the who, how and what of voting incongruities, but without some form of real evidence, it's going to be impossible to motivate the media out of its torpor and to make this issue mainstream. This is a real-life forensic investigation in which we are looking not so much for a smoking gun, but a stray hair, a misplaced fiber, a smudge of blood which may lead us to a dead body. However, there just may be no evidence because there is no longer any to find, and the reality is that we may never know the truth of what happened.
My only comforting thought is that there is no such thing as the perfect crime - human beings always make mistakes. Let's hope that if there was a crime committed during the election that we find the evidence soon enough to make a difference.
Finally, let's all demand real accountability in our voting systems, so whether or not it has already happened, a crime like this could never happen in the future.
- Trendar