Kaptur Defeats Kucinich 94% to 4% on 100% Unverifiable E-Vote Systems in Toledo, OH?

[BradBlog]

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Kaptur Defeats Kucinich 94% to 4% on 100% Unverifiable E-Vote Systems in Toledo, OH?
Is that even plausible?...

Since Tuesday night, we've been trying to get more information on the reported numbers out of the U.S. House Primary race between progressive Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich. Their Congressional Districts were combined by the recent Republican redistricting there, so they were forced to face off in last Tuesday Democratic primary.

Kaptur reportedly won the race, according to the numbers posted on the Ohio Sec. of State's website. Those results, summarizing the numbers in each of the five districts which now make up Ohio's new 9th Congressional District, include these reported results out of Lucas County (Toledo):



Now Toledo is Kaptur's current district, so it might make sense for her to win a lopsided victory there. Kucinich reportedly won handily in his own Cuyahoga County district of Cleveland by a 72.5% to 24% margin.

But really? 94% to 3.6% over Kucinich in Lucas County? 22,269 votes to just 870 votes? Those are Saddam Hussein-like numbers. Are those results -- as reported by Lucas County's 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting system -- even
plausible?...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9173

[former9thward]

2. Nothing to see here folks,just move along.

[sabrina 1]

3. Welcome to DU!

I agree with Brad, those numbers do seem odd. Not blaming Marcy Kaptur if something went wrong, but those machines are not reliable and it is utterly unbelievable that after ten years of problems with them, in this so-called Democracy, we still cannot verify the accuracy of elections.

Oh, and you might want to refrain from attacking other DUers. If you disagree, if you have something to contribute to the discussion, such as evidence that the OP is incorrect, then please present it. Otherwise your opinion is no more valuable than you find his to be.

[think]

4. Wow

[SomethingFishy]

7. Those numbers don't look the least bit fishy to you?

And you are so sure of yourself that you call it "paranoid conspiracy bullshit"?



When is the last time you saw 90% of 25,000 people agree on something?

[NYC Liberal]

12. No. Tell me: did you think it was "fishy" when Obama won 92% of the DC vote in 2008,

when Kerry won 90% in 2004, when Gore won 90% in 2000, when Clinton won 85% in 1996...etc?

And that was 90% of 200,000-250,000 people agreeing.

[think]

16. Whether the numbers are accurate or not they can't be verified.

I don't know the story behind the numbers you post nor what kind of voting machines were used so it would be hard for me to form an opinion as to those numbers.

As to the numbers involved here it would not surprise me that Kaptur would win her district but it would be nice to be able to verify such things with a paper trail.

[sabrina 1]

17. I asked you this question below but you might have missed it. Were they running against other

Democrats in Primaries, or were those numbers against Republicans?

[think]

18. Looks like it was the presidential election not primary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_the_District_of_Columbia,_2008

[NYC Liberal]

19. That's exactly what I said.

[sabrina 1]

22. Well, that's very different. These were two Democrats and I know for me, eg, it was a difficult

choice as I like both of them. But I looked up Marcy's voting record, her donors, and decided that Kucinich's record was, surprisingly as I had assumed hers was very progressive, far more consistent on issues such as war funding, eg.

[jeff47]

27. Republicans vote in a general election.

And there are Republicans in DC. Meaning it's much harder to get 90% of the vote because there are people on the other end of the spectrum voting.

[sabrina 1]

29. Well his district obviously disagrees with you. He has been reelected repeatedly as she has

until Boehner decided to get rid of a Democratic district.

As for 'bringing home the bacon', can you show post something to show what was brought home by Marcy? Not saying she hasn't, but would like to be able to compare. Congress members don't stay in office as long as Kucinich has without bringing home something.

[jeff47]

30. Sorry, I decided to change my point and edited while you were responding.

Largely because I was just repeating the conventional wisdom about the two candidates without any actual data.

[sabrina 1]

32. Okay, no problem. I know Marcy Kaptur is very popular in her district.

I like her a lot. But just wanted to point out that Kucinich probably would have won his district, possibly for the same reasons he and Marcy always have, had Boehner not made it disappear.

[KharmaTrain]

109. It Was The Voters Of Ohio That Were Responsible...

...those that showed up in 2010 that gave rushpublicans majorities in the state house and senate that drew up the redistricting...not Boner. It was fairly easy to predict that Ohio was going to lose one if not more electoral votes/congressional districts in the 2010 census...the rushpublicans got their people to the polls in 2010 and put their people in charge of the redistricting.

Maybe Democrats will learn that downticket elections have big consequences...

[jsmirman]

62. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but DC is always

somewhere between 89 to 92 percent Dem. in its voting. Always. No matter who the fuck is running. Including, and not just including - for Godsakes, the guy was front and center again for our last winning candidate for mayor - Marion Barry.

[NYC Liberal]

20. Those numbers were vs Republicans. Which would seemingly make such a margin

even more unusual.

But it's not. Lopsided victories do happen; yes, even in the 85-90% range. It was one county and her home county at that.

[sabrina 1]

25. Thanks, actually I think that it is more strange in a district that is so Democratic to have numbers

this lob-sided when you have two Democrats running. I would have expected her to win in the district, but with another Dem in the race, since it was a difficult choice for any Democrat, it would seem to me that at least some Democrats, more than 3%, would have voted for the other Democrat.

Not saying it can't happen, but it cannot be verified, and that's the major problem.

Edited to say in a 'closed Primary where only Democrats get to vote'.

[NYC Liberal]

28. I agree with you about the verification.

It's an important issue no matter who the candidates are or which party it is.

Lopsided victories like that aren't AS unusual in single counties or small areas. Now, if it had been statewide then yeah it would seem a bit odder.

[sabrina 1]

31. I agree and I am sure even if there were errors it would not change the results.

But it would be nice if it were possible to check when something like this happens and someone raises the question. It is inconceivable that machines that count the votes cannot be checked even now despite all the controversy over them.

[onenote]

113. In the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary DK only got 2.7 percent of Lucas County

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2012, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

And that's in a situation where he was running as a "native son" and was not up against a hugely popular incumbent.
In other words, that DK couldn't get more than a small percentage of the vote in Lucas County running against Kaptur is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

[hfojvt]

49. see my experience in post #45

Bottom line is that I kicked some pretty serious butt in my home county, and also got my butt handed to me in my opponent's home county (in spite of running ads for three days in the local paper). If I had been on the ball and done some GOTV I could have been in the mid 90s. Ah well, live and learn.

[JDPriestly]

87. 90% of Democrats do not agree anywhere on anything.

We just come together and vote 90% when we are voting against Republicans.

I cannot imagine any city in the world that would vote 90% for either Kucinich or Kaptur. They are both good candidates, but Kucinich has supporters all over the country. Those numbers are very odd and, while they may be true, they do not look believable.

[NYC Liberal]

92. Obviously they can, because they just did.

Kucinich having supporters "all over the country" is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is Toledo, Ohio. Kaptur winning one county, he home county, by such a large margin doesn't strike me as unusual.

[DCKit]

41. Why would they even bother trying to fix a vote in DC?

We're still >50% black, and we live with the (R)-Scumbagia every day. If I were registered (R), I wouldn't even bother leaving the house on election day.

That's the wrong comparison to make. It's not even in the same universe.

On the other hand, I know lots of black people who didn't vote Obama in the primary, only because they thought we could elect a woman President a decade or two before we'd ever vote in a person of color ("not in my lifetime&quot . Needless to say, it was a night of jubilation when he DID win.

All politics are local, especially when it comes to a special case, like DC.

[NYC Liberal]

53. That's exactly my point: Obama, Kerry, and Gore all won over 90% with no "fixing" of the vote.

Ergo, 90%+ margins are not "Saddam Hussein-like numbers," particularly when you're talking about a single county, and the candidate's home county at that.

There is nothing inherently "fishy" about a large margin of victory. It happens.

[jsmirman]

60. Thank you - having lived in DC for the last four years

my brain was about to explode. Having lived in NYC for my entire previous life, I used to think the Dem. voting percentages in every borough besides Staten Island were something. They don't compare to DC numbers election after election after election. And living very near the White House, I can tell you that the celebration that night was unreal. The chant directed at Bush was crude, but awesome.

[JDPriestly]

86. Democrats at 90% in D.C. Yes, that is very believable.

[NYC Liberal]

90. Just like this is quite believable.

[tkmorris]

8. You might be right, BUT

There is no reason, none whatsoever, for you to be so bloody rude about it.

[Junkdrawer]

9. What a powerful, convincing argument...

I know for me, as soon as something is labeled a conspiracy theory, I stop looking...

[Old and In the Way]

5. What was the total votes cast in the district?

When did Toledo report? Sure seems lopsided, but I have no idea what the reality was in Lucas Country with regards to Dennis and Marcy.

[ellie]

6. Yes, I am from Toledo

and people really like Marcy Kaptur. Ohio is a closed primary so only Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. She routinely beats her challengers by double digits.

[sabrina 1]

13. But has she ever, or has anyone ever other than Saddam Hussein, won by this kind of margin before?

It doesn't have to have been cheating, the machines are unreliable and as such by now, there should be a way to verify votes when something as unusual as this occurs. It's not just this election.

[onenote]

116. Dennis has done even worse in Lucas County in the past

When he ran in the Ohio Democratic Primary in 2004, even though he was the "native son" candidate, he only managed a measly 2.7 percent of the votes in Lucas County -- less than 1100 out of more than 40,000.

[KamaAina]

130. Of course.

Kim Jong Il regularly polled around 97%.

[onenote]

131. Don't forget Dennis with 2.7 percent in Lucas County

When he ran for president as the "native son" in the Ohio Democratic presidential primary.

Maybe, just maybe, that's pretty representative of the level of support DK has in that particular jurisdiction.

As I pointed out elsewhere, if he had gotten 25 percent of the vote against Kaptur in Lucas County it would have been much more suspicious.

[Mumble]

23. You are wrong.

Ohio is NOT a closed primary. I live in Lorain county and anyone can walk in and vote on any parties ballot they want to without be challenged. I suspect that many Repubs crossed over to vote against Dennis.

[frazzled]

52. It's a semi-closed primary

Which means:

As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day.

Marcy Kaptur is a born and bred Toledoan. Toledo is the heart of her (former) district. It's not surprising she won persuasively there, even if Independents (no Republicans) were able to vote in the Democratic primary.

[Junkdrawer]

11. Ya know, Brad, early on in the e-voting debate, I told everyone that, sooner or later, results...

would move from unverifiable, to implausible, to absurd and that the fact that we are in a Pseudo-Democracy would have to be confronted.

I didn't anticipate just HOW absurd "absurd" would have to be before reality would be confronted.

[BradBlog]

35. And, sadly...

...given the very first reply at the top of this thread, even seemingly "absurd" results -- or at least 100% unverifiable ones -- do not meet with the definition of "reality [to] be confronted" by some. Even by supposed Democrats.

Sigh...

[Junkdrawer]

38. The insiders who worked the issue hard got disabused of the Dem vs Rep nature of the problem....

early on. Especially Florida.

I was one of the first with a petition to the "Democratic Leadership".

How naive I was....

[NYC Liberal]

14. Democratic candidates have consistently won 85-90% of the vote in DC in presidential elections.

Obama - 92%
Kerry - 90%
Gore - 90%
Clinton - 85%

Are those "Saddam Hussein-like numbers" too?

[sabrina 1]

15. Are those primary numbers?

[NYC Liberal]

21. See my reply (#20)

[jsmirman]

66. This is DC. It makes Manhattan and Brooklyn look like Right Wing enclaves

see my other posts in this thread.

I'm a statistics person, so I'm very familiar with this stuff. DC is a unique place, in this respect.

[dsc]

93. East Cleveland

had at least two wards go 100 to 0 for Kerry. yes no votes at all for Bush.

[former9thward]

96. Republican registration is only 7% in D.C.

Of course a Democrat is going to get those type of numbers going against a Republican. But that is apples and oranges compared to the OP where two established Democrats are going against each other.

[LanternWaste]

118. I would wonder if those numbers were tallied via an unverifiable e-vote machine...

"Are those "Saddam Hussein-like numbers" too?"

I would wonder if those numbers you provided were all tallied via an unverifiable e-vote machine...

Seems as though both questions are relevant, and that focusing on one and only of them is a disservice to critical analysis.

[Vattel]

24. Was there an exit poll?

[jeff47]

26. Without any other evidence, all this is is "big number!!!"

Need an exit poll or other reliable polling before the election covering the same area before this looks suspicious.

For now, all there is here is a big number.

[EFerrari]

33. Since there is no way to verify the vote, there is no reason

to have confidence in the result.

[joshcryer]

34. BULLFUCKING SHIT, if you read the link it's the machines have a voter-verified paper audit trail.

The voter has to verify their ballot and the printout constitutes a ballot in and of itself.

This is very similar to how all elections are done in Venezuela. (It would be identical if individuals were to dip their pinky finger in purple unwashable ink.)

[BradBlog]

36. "Dip their pinky finger in purple unwashable ink"???

Um, coupla things.

a) You're confusing voter identification (purple ink) with verifiably counting ballots. That last point of yours is *completely* off topic.

b) Apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that even touch-screen voting machines with so-called "Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails" (or VVPATS) are also 100% unverifiable.

You do understand that those so-called paper trails are not actually counted, right?

You do understand that there is no way to know that *any* of those so-called "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" were actually verified by any voter, right?

You do understand as studies such as those from MIT/Caltech have found that some 85% of voters don't actually bother to look at those paper trails before they are cast, right?

You do understand that on the Diebold AccuVote TSX (the type of touch-screen system used in Lucas County), the so-called VVPAT is hidden behind a door that voters may or may not open to look at it, right?

You do understand that even if the VVPATS are ever actually counted (and they are not) and even if they are examined by voters (who knows if they were?) they can also be gamed in such a way that they could match up with the internal results, (see, for example, the state of California's "Top-to-Bottom" Review of electronic voting systems, specifically, the findings and video from the UC Santa Barbara Computer Security Lab), right?

And finally, you do understand, as studies such as one from Rice University showed, that of the minority of voters who do examine the summary at the end of the voting process, some two-thirds of them do not notice when the computer has flipped their vote, right?

If you have any questions about any of these issues, since it sounds like you are familiar with absolutely none of them, feel free to ask.

[sabrina 1]

37. I have one Brad. If there is a question about the result of an election

is it possible to check the machines, taking into account everything you just said, to make certain that the votes match what is recorded by the machines?

Oh, and thanks for all you do! I also have caught you on the radio when driving home from work, great show.

[joshcryer]

40. Yes, that has happened and has been done before. Ask for a public records request.

Anyone can get access to the paper ballots that were printed out.

[BradBlog]

56. Good luck with that!

"Anyone can get access to the paper ballots that were printed out."

Those are not "paper ballots", those are paper records or Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATS). They are not ballots. You may or may not be able to access to them -- eventually. By then, if you're lucky enough to get at them, the election will have been certified already and, in any case, as I just explained in the previous notes, they do not provide proof that even a single vote was recorded accurately by these particular machines.

[joshcryer]

63. 3506.18 Electronic voting machine - verified paper audit trail as official ballot in recount.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3506.18

(A) For any recount of an election in which ballots are cast using a direct recording electronic voting machine with a voter verified paper audit trail, the voter verified paper audit trail shall serve as the official ballot to be recounted.

(B) Voter verified paper audit trails shall be preserved in the same manner and for the same time period as paper ballots are preserved under section 3505.31 of the Revised Code.

(C) A voter verified paper audit trail shall be treated as are other ballots for purposes of section 149.43 of the Revised Code and shall be retained in accordance with the county records retention schedule established under section 149.38 of the Revised Code after the relevant time period prescribed for its preservation in section 3505.31 of the Revised Code, or as ordered by the secretary of state or a court of competent jurisdiction.

(D) If a voter verified paper audit trail is made available to the public, any information on that voter verified paper audit trail that identifies the particular direct recording electronic voting machine that produced it shall be redacted.

It is legally considered a ballot.

[BradBlog]

69. "in recount"

It is legally considered a ballot.

So is that what you mean by an "audit"? If so, then as I recall, in Ohio (feel free to check the law), only a candidate has standing to ask for (and pay for) a recount. Under which, a VVPAT would be considered as the official ballot. It is not, however, a ballot. It is not verified by the voter, as a paper is by it's nature (when one fills it out by hand, for example.)

As to whether it's consider to be a ballot or not for purposes of a recount, all of the same points I've made, in all of the other posts on this thread, concerning the VVPATs 100% unverifiability, remain equally true.

[joshcryer]

72. If a voter verified paper audit trail is made available to the public = FOIA

I have established again and again that they're effectively equivalent, and your argument would remain in place if it was paper ballots (because a candidate could refuse to audit paper ballots, and someone could've done ballot stuffing with paper ballots, etc). Basically this is a very incoherent and untruthful argument that is being made.

The printed ballot is verified by the voter before acknowledging the vote. They are instructed to do so, and it is hammered home repeatedly. Mistakes can be made.

[BradBlog]

55. An unsatisfying answer for ya...

"If there is a question about the result of an election is it possible to check the machines, taking into account everything you just said, to make certain that the votes match what is recorded by the machines?"

Yes, and no.

+ Presuming you have standing to do so (such as a candidate), you can ask for a recount. On these machines, you'll get the same count no matter how many times you recount. However, you may be able to get a count of the so-called paper trails. I'm not sure where OH law is on that currently. That said, see above. The machines can be hacked (or merely malfunction) and the paper trail can match the internal numbers, even though that was not the intent of the voters. For example, here's the Computer Security Group of UC Santa Barbara showing just one way that a hack can be done so that the paper trails match the internal numbers. It's from the state of CA's 207 "Top-to-Bottom" review of e-voting systems: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6369

+ None of the above would allow a proper forensic audit of the machine itself, it's audit logs and a check of the internal software and firmware and an examination of the memory cards. For that, which *might* show you either malfeasance or malfunction, you'd have to get permission from the vendor (which used to be Diebold, which then became Premier, which was then purchased by ES&S, which was then sold to Dominion). They don't give permission for that, usually, without a court order forcing them to do so. So even the county and state election officials would have a hard time doing that.

+ Even with the two possibilities mentioned above, there is still no way to know that the results reported by the machine actually reflect the intent of the voters. And thus, they are 100% unverifiable voting systems, as I originally described them.

Hope that helps! Even though it's really shitty news. Though, in fairness, it's been the same shitty news I've been trying to warn everyone about for years...to varying degrees of success

[joshcryer]

67. Voter verified paper audit trails shall be preserved in the same manner and for the same time period

...as paper ballots are preserved under section 3505.31 of the Revised Code.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3506.18

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3505.31

[sabrina 1]

70. Thanks, that's what I thought.

And it is 'shitty news'!

[joshcryer]

39. You can request an audit. Please do. But then you wouldn't get hits on your site...

...for posting false information.

The paper trial is maintained. We know this is true because Ohio did an audit which actually revealed a problem in the system: http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/spooledpaper.pdf

The old way of doing it sequentially numbered the ballots so if one was persistent enough they could reveal the identities of the voters, they fixed that, but the audit is still available. In Venezuela the rolls are all public and are destroyed within 48 hours so no one can use the rolls for a vendetta (anonymous voting is a very important aspect of democracy).

This paper trail is precisely like Venezuela.

The reason I mentioned ink is important, it prevents people from revoting because if you come in with a blue pinky people can say "dude, you voted already!" Or there would have to be a darn good explanation as to why the pinky is blue!

You don't have to count the paper ballots in theory, they exist to provide a paper trail. If you want an audit, I suggest you ask for one, and stop propagandizing.

[BradBlog]

57. What the hell is wrong with you, dude? And why are YOU posting false information??

But then you wouldn't get hits on your site...
...for posting false information.

What "false information"? Do you care to back that up? Or are you just going to drop your defamation turd in the pool here?

The paper trial is maintained. We know this is true because Ohio did an audit which actually revealed a problem in the system: http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/spooledpaper.pdf

Well, thanks, but that paper has nothing to do with either a post-election audit or Ohio election laws, as it pertains to public access to unverifiable VVPATs.

The old way of doing it sequentially numbered the ballots so if one was persistent enough they could reveal the identities of the voters, they fixed that, but the audit is still available. In Venezuela the rolls are all public and are destroyed within 48 hours so no one can use the rolls for a vendetta (anonymous voting is a very important aspect of democracy).

I appreciate that you are impressed with Venezuela's 100% unverifiable e-voting system, for some bizarre reason, but that doesn't make either their machines or ours any less unverifiable. And, if you had bothered to read any of the notes I've posted on this thread, one or two of them to you even, you'd know that a paper roll of VVPATs does not make those votes any more verifiable.

This paper trail is precisely like Venezuela.

Where it is also useless.

The reason I mentioned ink is important, it prevents people from revoting because if you come in with a blue pinky people can say "dude, you voted already!" Or there would have to be a darn good explanation as to why the pinky is blue!

Yes, I understand the point of the ink. The issue of double voting -- or voter fraud at all -- has absolutely *nothing* to do with this article. Zero. Who has implied that anybody has been "revoting", or that there was voter fraud in the slightest in this race? Do you know something we don't, chief?

You don't have to count the paper ballots in theory, they exist to provide a paper trail. If you want an audit, I suggest you ask for one, and stop propagandizing.

There are no paper ballots in Lucas County. At least not as cast on Election Day (absentee ballots are a different issue, and not discussed in the numbers above, or in my full article at The BRAD BLOG.) As to your claim that I am "propagandizing", I will ask you now to back up that libelous charge, along with your earlier one that I am "posting false information", or you will not be posting here at all for very much longer.

Thanks.

[joshcryer]

61. 100% unverifiable = FALSE, dishonest

There are no paper ballots in Lucas County. At least not as cast on Election Day

Yeah, OK. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3506.05

(i) A definition of a voter verified paper audit trail as a paper record of the voter’s choices that is verified by the voter prior to the casting of the voter’s ballot and that is securely retained by the board of elections;

(ii) Requirements that the voter verified paper audit trail shall not be retained by any voter and shall not contain individual voter information;

(iii) A prohibition against the production by any direct recording electronic voting machine of anything that legally could be removed by the voter from the polling place, such as a receipt or voter confirmation;

(iv) A requirement that paper used in producing a voter verified paper audit trail be sturdy, clean, and resistant to degradation;

(v) A requirement that the voter verified paper audit trail shall be capable of being optically scanned for the purpose of conducting a recount or other audit of the voting machine and shall be readable in a manner that makes the voter’s ballot choices obvious to the voter without the use of computer or electronic codes;

(vi) A requirement, for office-type ballots, that the voter verified paper audit trail include the name of each candidate selected by the voter;

(vii) A requirement, for questions and issues ballots, that the voter verified paper audit trail include the title of the question or issue, the name of the entity that placed the question or issue on the ballot, and the voter’s ballot selection on that question or issue, but not the entire text of the question or issue.

[BradBlog]

71. So you continue to defame? Really???

What part of my assertion that the VVPATs are "100% unverifiable" or that, as you quote, "There are no paper ballots in Lucas County. At least not as cast on Election Day" is, as you use in your subject line "FALSE, dishonest"?

I'm really getting sick of this shit, Josh. If you'd like to disagree with me on something, or correct a point you believe I made that is incorrect, have at it. Your continuing charges that I am offering "propaganda", am being "FALSE" and "dishonest" (and other such claims) are really obnoxious. Put up, or shut up, Josh. Because as of now, you appear to be little more than a blatant liar.

[joshcryer]

73. I have already established that you are posting misinformation. Call me a liar all you want.

You're the one who is misleading people by not providing valid information. You're the one making it personal. I'm providing you with Ohio election code, I provided you with information about how the voting machines work, I provided information with how those voting machines would be able to detect if a hack was made, whole nine yards. You just insist on repeating the false claim that paper trial auditing is "unverifiable" because apparently people don't actually do due diligence to find out if something is truthful or not.

It doesn't make me a liar to actually do that due diligence and then, shockingly, determine that someone is making stuff up.

[bluestate10]

42. Simple Watson. Kaptur supporters knew how to read and use computers. nt

[fascisthunter]

48. and once again the uppercrust dems are arrogant jerks

who could care less about democracy

[PeaceNikki]

43. oh, Democrats are hacking machines now?

I thought that was reserved as a GOP tactic? Why do you suspect it was used in this race in Ohio that she was bound to win anyway? I am sure there were much more pivotal races we've lost in the past years that would have had a much greater impact, no?

It just seems a very weird place to hack the vote.

[joshcryer]

44. An audit would reveal any hacks.

1) Machine does a revote, that would be found by tallying the paper ballots, ballot stuffing would be apparent. The vote on those machines or polling places would be invalidated.

2) Machine cancels your vote and then votes a different way, that would be easily seen by looking over the paper ballots and noticing that there are a lot of cancellations (a 94% win would require a massive number of canceled out votes, far more than the norm). The vote on those machines or polling places would be invalidated.

3) Machine overwrites your vote, that would easily, trivially be noticed because the paper ballots would look all messed up. The vote on those machines or polling places would be invalidated.

Now, assuming that the machine did any of those things, it would require 23k people on that day not noticing any strange behavior at all. That is preposterous. Machines printing another ballot after a person walks away, machines canceling ballots and people not noticing even though the pollsters instruct voters to verify their ballot.

This is certainly not a 100% unverifiable voting method, it's not ideal, of course, I can think of far better ways to do it, but you can get an audit done, which is a far sight better than not being able to have an audit at all!

[BradBlog]

59. No, it wouldn't. (Or, at least there is no guarantee of that)

1) Machine does a revote, that would be found by tallying the paper ballots, ballot stuffing would be apparent. The vote on those machines or polling places would be invalidated.

a) There are not "paper ballots". b) Again with the "ballot stuffing"? Are you a Republican? Or just ill-informed?? As to votes being "invalidated", I'm sorry, don't know what you're talking about.

2) Machine cancels your vote and then votes a different way, that would be easily seen by looking over the paper ballots and noticing that there are a lot of cancellations (a 94% win would require a massive number of canceled out votes, far more than the norm). The vote on those machines or polling places would be invalidated.

That, of course, is *if* you are able to get an audit that allows you to examine all of the 22,000 paper trails. Good luck. And, it also presumes that a) people noticed and canceled (remember, the VVPATs on the Diebold TSX are hidding behind an opaque plastic door) and b) that a different method, such as the one developed at Argonne Labs last year was not used, as I detailed for Salon here last September: http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/singleton/

3) Machine overwrites your vote, that would easily, trivially be noticed because the paper ballots would look all messed up. The vote on those machines or polling places would be invalidated.

Again, there are not "paper ballots". But if you mean paper trails, that's correct, the paper trails would not match the internal numbers if the hack described above were used.

Now, assuming that the machine did any of those things, it would require 23k people on that day not noticing any strange behavior at all. That is preposterous.

Um, no. There need not be anything unusual for any of the 23k people to have seen. That would suggest as much is, as you'd say, preposterous.

This is certainly not a 100% unverifiable voting method, it's not ideal, of course, I can think of far better ways to do it, but you can get an audit done, which is a far sight better than not being able to have an audit at all!

Again, since you are so well-versed in these systems. Are you able to provide proof that even one vote cast for either Kucinich or Kaptur was recorded accurately as per any voter's intent? If so, I'd love to see it! Thanks in advance!

[joshcryer]

65. The audit trial is considered paper ballots in the event of auditing.

Can you prove that one vote was not cast for the correct people?

I'm sure it happened, but it couldn't have been systematic without someone noticing.

I trust in the poll workers.

[BradBlog]

74. WRONG. AGAIN. DUDE. Jesus...

The audit trial is considered paper ballots in the event of auditing.

Wrong. As your own cite showed above, it's a paper record of the vote and is only to be consider the "official ballot" in the event of a recount. It is A PAPER RECORD, not a ballot, and a 100% unverifiable one at that.

Can you prove that one vote was not cast for the correct people?

Seriously? That's what you got? The burden of proof should not be on those who announce the results of the election to prove they are correct, but on ME to prove they are wrong?

Okay. Cool. Allow me complete and unfettered access to the voting system in Lucas County and I'll see what I can do for you (I won't be allowed that access, because the system is a proprietary trade secret of the corporation, which even the election officials do not get to examine -- thanks in no small to apologists like yourself who seem to think that's just groovy.)

But apparently you're good with 100% faith-based elections. You'll pardon me if I believe self-governance actually means we, the people, can verify our own elections. Even one vote would be nice. But apparently that's too great of a burden for a faith-based voter such as yourself.

I trust in the poll workers.

Me too. Who the fuck has said anything about poll workers?! Are you really this daft??? Do you really know that little about how elections can be stolen? It's cool, if that's the case. But you might not want to defend against failures of the system if you haven't a clue about how the system can fail.

[joshcryer]

76. You're the one contending that something fishy is going on, yet all your evidence is...

...basically misinformation.

The poll workers would've noticed systematic voter fraud if it was happening in Lucas County. Your argument might be believable if she only one by 1-2 points but by such a large margin it would've require complete negligence on behalf of the poll workers.

[eridani]

105. To quote the noted computer security expert David Dill--

"It is not enough that elections be accurate--we have to know that they are accurate, and we don't.

Brad is just pointing out that something looks fishy. The numbers may be real, but we will never know without an actual audit. That means handcounting paper ballots.

[quakerboy]

51. Why would you assume Democrats?

What better time to check out how far you go in rigging the system, what you can get away with, than in the other sides internal election?

[BradBlog]

58. Who said Democrats -- or anyone -- is hacking the machines?

For a start, all I did was pose the question about the seemingly implausible and certainly unverifiable results. They could be legitimate, they could be wrong due to malfunction and they could be wrong, as you suggest, due to malfeasance. That malfeasance could have been done, if it exists, by either Democrats or Republicans (who, as you'll recall, were not such big fans of Kucinich and worked to get him out through their gerrymandering of Ohio's districts, leading to this very election!) or even by a non-affiliated party, for some reason.

[joshcryer]

64. Your question was false, misleading, disinformation.

[BradBlog]

75. A question can be "false" and "disinformation"? Really?

What question? How was it "false"? And how was it "disinformation"?

Seriously, man. Last chance here before I just turn this offer to the Mods. This is some appalling shit you're pulling here.

[joshcryer]

78. "question about the seemingly implausible and certainly unverifiable results"

1) "seemingly implausible," contradicted by quite a few posters in tis thread, thus false.

2) "certainly unverifiable results," misleading disinformation, as proven by me in several posts in this thread.

[BradBlog]

99. You may have trouble with the definition of the word "false"

1) "seemingly implausible," contradicted by quite a few posters in tis thread, thus false.

Where their opinion disagrees with my own (even while many others agreed with my rather conservative assertion), does not make something "false".

2) "certainly unverifiable results," misleading disinformation, as proven by me in several posts in this thread.

It is not "misleading" or "disinformation" in any way, shape or form. That is 100% accurate, and your assertions about other faith-based systems, or the ability to possibly re-examine paper records which may or may not reflect the actual voter's vote, do not "prove" anything to contrary.

So you are wrong on voting technology, and you are wrong in the definition of the word "false". But your seeming pride in parading that lack of knowledge here is rather remarkable, I'll admit. It is befitting, in fact, of Fox "News". You may want to see if they have any job openings. Your ability to deny reality, with gusto, is both impressive and perfectly fitting of that "News" organization.

[joshcryer]

102. What evidence have you provided?

None. The only way the paper records couldn't reflect the voters intent is if they, overwhelmingly, ignored the instructions of the poll workers. Your theory hinges on thousands upon thousands of voters simply ignoring instructions, and being "idiots" as it were.

It's simply a conspiracy of epic proportions that cannot be believed unless one is so easily inclined by non-evidence based reasoning.

Continue insulting me, I assure you that I will not insult you beyond the factual, objective, observation that what you posted was untrue.

[snooper2]

115. so far it looks like you are losing this argument..

FYI

[sabrina 1]

125. I disagree. Can you expand on that?

'It looks like you are losing this argument'. Because I have followed this discussion and I completely disagree with you. It seems to me that one commenter has facts the other does not understand the issue very well. I could be wrong. Would appreciate you pointing out what I am missing from the discussion

[snooper2]

126. For example, notice how BradBlog hasn't responded to post #102

And joshcryer keeps showing links and external data on how it's wrong to say it's "unverifiable"


Just my outside observer opinion

[sabrina 1]

127. Actually Brad has responded to almost all of joshcryer's posts most of which

were riddled with insults. From my reading of the responses joshcryer appears to not understand the issue very well. The explanations as to why joshcryer is mistaken, were pretty clear to me

[snooper2]

128. I guess we have our own opinions :)

We shall continue to watch and see how it goes-

Want to share?

[sabrina 1]

136. True, but opinions are not worth very much, yours or mine.

This is what apparently Joshcryer doesn't understand since Lucas Co does have DREs it is very relevant to this discussion:

Even relatively inexperienced programmers could program the screen and the paper printout to say one thing, and the CPU actually recording the vote to say something entirely different. Given that the software is proprietary, real auditing is not possible even in principle. Looking at the supermarket-style scroll is NOT an audit, period.

H/t to Eridani for yet another link attempting to explain the problem as Brad tried to do.

[girl gone mad]

150. I totally disagree.

JoshCryer doesn't even seem to know the difference between a paper ballot and a paper print-out, among other things. He's talking in circles and not saying much of anything.

[sabrina 1]

77. It was not false and it was not unclear. I understood what

he posted. If you did not, then speak for yourself. There was nothing misleading in his posts, no disinformation. If you are confused by all of this, that is not anyone else's problem. Again, make sure to be clear that it is YOU who does not understand what he posted, do not speak for the rest of us. His posts were very clear.

If you disagree then do so without attacking the poster and falsely accusing them of something it is clear they did not do.

[joshcryer]

80. I have spoken for myself and I have yet to be refuted.

It was certainly misleading disinformation to tell people that the machines are 100% unverifiable when they have a paper audit trail.

Finally, I am amused that now there are two posters insulting me in this thread, and perhaps it is not worth informing people on this after all.

[sabrina 1]

82. No one insulted you.

When you initiate an attack do not expect sympathy when someone defends themselves.

I read the exchanges between you and Brad. He presented information and backed it up. You started the conversation by calling what he said 'BULLSHIT'. If you disagreed with him, that was not necessary.

If you want people to be civil to YOU, then be civil to them otherwise don't complain about it.

[joshcryer]

83. Yes you did. "make sure to be clear that it is YOU who does not understand what he posted"

Meanwhile the OP called me a liar, full stop.

misinform [ˌmɪsɪnˈfɔːm]

(tr) to give incorrect information to

The OP is not giving correct information as I repeatedly established throughout this thread.

I started the conversation by calling what he said BULLSHIT because that's what it is.

I tend to take people at their word, then I follow the links, and do my own research, and I do not like being mislead when that happens. It really is wrong for a DUer to do.

[sabrina 1]

88. It is only YOUR opinion that the 'OP is not giving correct information' and it is my

opinion that you are wrong. See I can say that without calling you dishonest and/or a liar or accusing you of ulterior motives, something you do quite frequently.

You appear to know very little about this issue. It looks like you googled and found some links and posted them. Brad otoh, has vast knowledge of this issue and has spent years working to try to get an easily verifiable system.

Starting a discussion with 'BULLSHIT', calling other posters liars, accusing them of having ulterior motives and of being dishonest and then attempting to blame everyone else for the tone of the discussion? I assume you are joking.

[joshcryer]

89. I have established that the information is wrong. It is not 100% unverifiable.

I have explained why it is not 100% unverifiable. Because of the paper trail audit that is mandated by Ohio law, the candidates can call for a recount (Kucinich already conceeded, so that won't happen) or they can file for a Freedom of Information Act request and ask for the paper trail, which under a recount is considered equivalent of a paper ballot.

I know quite enough about this issue. If it was a regular DRE voting machine I would've rec'd the OP and said nothing or maybe said "damn" but because there is a paper trail like in Venezuela, it became apparent to me that this was pure misinformation. Maybe the OP didn't actually look at the details, maybe the OP thinks paper trail voting machines are a bad idea, etc, but they're a heck of a sight better than DRE voting machines which have zero paper trail!

It was, entirely, bullshit, and it continues to be, because no evidence is provided that the overall process is not "100% unverifiable."

Note: unverifiable as far as the vote is concerned, but you can verify if the vote is accurate. All it takes is an audit, which anyone can do under FOIA. The paper trail is maintained under Ohio law, it has to be, if the pollsters destroyed the rolls, then I would be the first person to condemn it, since that is illegal under Ohio law. I champion this sort of electronic voting mechanism, because 1) it allows people to quickly make their vote and 2) doesn't result in "chads" or other processes which illegitimatize the vote (it's impossible to tell whether a "hanging chad" is a real vote or not, but it's not impossible to tell whether a voter verified vote is a vote or not).

I've voted in Colorado on these sorts of machines, I was instructed, by the poll workers, to look at the printed out vote and make sure that it was what I intended. Every single person is given those instructions. The studies about people "not reading the printout" are bogus because the people are not instructed, in those studies, to read out the printout. If instructed to do so people will read out the printout. They were just seeing if people would read the printout without instruction, and for me this is uncontroversial because people tend to not do things that they're not instructed to do, and those studies resulted in better polling place behavior. Had they been allowed to remove the printed ballot as in Venezuela and put it in a box, and were compelled to dip their fingers in ink, the systems would be identical. What got Chavez elected twice should be good enough for us, no?

I did not call any other posters liars, I called them dishonest, because the methods used in the rhetoric were certainly not honest. It would've been easy enough to admit that they were wrong, that indeed, there is verifiability in the vote (after all of the facts that I provided), but they refuse to do so. So be it. I do not retract those statements. The accuracy of the vote is verifiable. Granted, it would result in voter invalidation because at least in two cases (where votes were made but canceled, and where votes were made when no votes were really made) it is impossible to distinguish valid votes from invalid votes. That is absolutely unfortunate, but it a small price to pay for more people being able to vote in a given time period for less money.

I frankly would prefer an all-paper ballot system, but we live in the electronic age and that becomes a difficult argument, and I don't expect to do it that way. I think Venezuela represents the ideal system, in the end. The ballot is printed out, and you take it and put it in a ballot box. You count the digital votes and you count the paper votes and if they don't match things are questionable.

Ballot stuffing is possible with pure paper ballots, hacking machines is likewise possible. All I see here, however, is a conspiracy that doesn't represent the reality. I am fully open to other evidence, but frankly I do not take kindly to non-evidence based arguments, arguments that rely on innuendo and fear to be able to be pushed.

This works me up because I encounter these kinds of arguments from climate change denialists and anti-evolution people, the arguments are based on innuendo, fabrications, and outright misrepresentations of the information available.

BTW, I suspect I'll be locked out of this thread for things I've said, but I stand by them wholeheartedly, as I do not think I have said or done anything wrong. I have provided the evidence, the OP, however, has not, and in fact has fabricated and manipulated the evidence hoping people would not seek out whether or not the evidence reflected the rhetoric. It doesn't.

[BradBlog]

98. You have "established" nothing of the kind. But you HAVE defamed me with your misinformation.

My thanks to Sabrina for rebutting your nonsense while I was off the grid (and before the thread was temporarily shut down due, in part, to your offense and inappropriate allegations).

While it is your BELIEF that the votes in Lucas County are not 100% unverifiable, the computer scientists and security experts whose work I have pointed to, disagree with you.

Furthermore, even you apparently disagree with you, since you are unable to proffer a single piece of evidence to verify that even a single vote cast in that election was recorded as per any voters' intent. Neither could any election official, or even the manufacturers of the Diebold AccuVote TSX on which those votes were supposedly recorded.

It's clear you do not understand how these systems work, and choose to put your faith into the accuracy of the paper records produced by the machines which may or may not reflect the actual intent of the voter. That you believe they do, without evidence to prove such an assertion, is up to you.

For you to accuse me of "propagandizing" and offering "false information" here is appalling, offensive, wholly inaccurate, and in violation of DU's standards for posting.

If you don't believe that we should be able to verify the results of an election as accurate, that's up to you. But to charge that I am a liar, despite all of the evidence I've courteously offered to demonstrate that you are simply incorrect in your beliefs, is beyond the pale.

Shame on you. If you have any actual shame.

[joshcryer]

100. There has been no audit. Why don't you go do one?

You're the one claiming that it's unverifiable, I have given copious amounts of evidence that, indeed, it is verifiable. Go prove that it's not, as you have, factually, objectively, failed to do so. Go file an FOIA request.

Cutting people down as if they "don't understand" indicates to me that you don't have a real argument to stand on. I find that most people do understand most things, except the esoteric, and certainly Ohio's laws and the voter-verified paper trial doesn't constitute "unverifiable."

I have absolutely zero faith in the system, as it were. I think poll workers, in general, do their best to achieve good results, but that has no bearing on whether or not they're incapable of being duped. But, you have provided absolutely zero evidence that they have been "duped" as it were. Provide evidence and I will be first to champion your post, I will be first to rec your post, I will be loud, voracious, about the utter travesty that you imply is happening. As it stands now, it is merely conspiracy-level innuendo, filled with climate-change-denialist level rhetoric, if not full on creationist-style garbage. It has no evidence.

You have, again, provided no evidence that the VVAT's are unverifiable. I think that they are. As I said before, if you had not misled people, that the systems in fact were unverifiable, I would've been the first to rec. I am completely against completely unverifiable, DRE-style systems. Full stop. End. No question. I would not debate you at all. You were misleading. I think personally that you didn't actually do the research, as it was trivial to debunk your post as I have effectively done.

I have nothing to be ashamed about because I value truth, reason, and logic about innuendo, fear, and intimidation, as clearly you do. The OP was pure propaganda, based not in reality, but in a fantasy that resulted in outright misinformation. How many people, in fact, would've looked into the systems used and realized that they were VVAT? I think I was the first, and only, person to realize this. And like I said, I would have, again, rec'd the post if it was a DRE system, I would have totally defended the post, but in the end I could not, in good conscious, defend such misleading propaganda.

[hfojvt]

45. it's not implausible in my experience

Take my own primary election (please). In my home county I got 82.5% of the vote. In nearby Atchison County, I won big 65.49% to 25% to 9.4%.

Then there's the other side of the state. In my opponent's home county, she won 81.11% of the vote. In nearby Cherokee County, she won 80.34% of the vote.

Remember that we both were relative unknowns. Unlike Kaptur, who has been a Congresswoman for about a hundred years. Kaptur is very well known in her district, and also very well liked.

I think if relative unknowns can get 80%+ of the vote in their home counties, that it is not at all implausible for a many term congresswoman to get 95%+ in her home county. The mere existence of a huge landslide does not prove some sort of cheating. She has precinct people in that county, a machine to get out the vote, the vote for herself.

[fascisthunter]

47. Oh no... the centrist dems didn't push him out

oh no... they wouldn't do that. They respect democracy....

[joshcryer]

68. I personally think Venezuela's system is cleaner than our own.

What I would like is for the paper trail to be on a physical ballot rather than a roll, that way you can hold it, look at it, etc.

It'd be much harder to flip the vote on a ballot that you hold on your hand and if anyone tried it a lot of people will make noise about it.

Otherwise the paper trail is effectively the same.

Except in Venezuela by now the rolls would've been destroyed (they contain personally identifiable information).

[BradBlog]

79. Luckily, citizen oversight has nothing to do with what JoshCryer "thinks"...

...Particularly as you appear to have absolutely no clue how electoral systems work, don't work, can be gamed, can malfunctioned, and what is required for citizen oversight, as necessary for confidence by the citizenry in their elections and their democracy.

No, a "paper trail" is "effectively the same" as nothing but a paper trail. If it's not verified by the voter, and verifiably so by the rest of us, it is meaningless.

Now back to Venezuela with you. Pretty please?

[joshcryer]

81. I've yet to be convinced. See, the poll workers, in the end, are the weakest link.

If they notice a machine is acting up, if they notice that a box of paper, handwritten, ballots has been tampered with, etc.

If they don't, then the polling station is gamed.

No system is immune from that.

[ISUGRADIA]

50. Yes, Very Probable

Since Kucinich was stupid enough to run ads dissing Toldeo. Lots of city pride there.

Also looking at the numbers, even if Kucinich had got a similar percentage there as Kaputur did in Cleveland, he still would have lost by 6 points.

[FLAprogressive]

54. I like Kucinich as much as the next guy but I'm sick of all this conspiracy shit....

Him and Kaptur are very close ideologically....both are members of the progressive caucus. The GOP gerrymandered their districts together to force this outcome. Plain and simple.

[Zorra]

84. I've totally lost all faith in both the voting and political system.

Wasn't removing Dennis from Congress the whole idea behind redistricting?

Now the republicans and Centrists won't have to put up with Dennis calling out corporate lies and corruption anymore.

The system works!!!


OCCUPY

[AtomicKitten]

85. I haven't had confidence in the integrity of the vote since 2000.

These results reinforce that.

[SmellyFeet]

91. I wonder how many here that are making uninformed comments have actually been to Toledo.

I grew up in Toledo and my brother lives there now.

He lives in a neighborhood where EVERY house has a Democratic sign in the front yard.

Marcy Kaptur has been a congressperson from there for as long as I can remember. She is loved by every Democrat I know in that area.

My brother said that EVERY PERSON HE KNOWS was voting for Kaptur.

These numbers make perfect sense to someone who actually knows the area.

The responses in this thread are surprisingly ignorant and embarrassing.

[dsc]

94. It might have a little bit to do with this

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2012/02/24/Kaptur-Kucinich-ad-disrespectful-to-Toledo-politics.html

In a radio commercial from Mr. Kucinich (D., Cleveland), an announcer says that "maybe in Toledo politics, facts don't matter."

"Toledo's Marcy Kaptur voted to waste half a trillion on Bush's wars. Cleveland's Dennis Kucinich voted to bring our troops and their money home to rebuild our economy," the radio ad says.

It says, "Toledo's Kaptur took hundreds of thousands from war contractors and voted for billions more than even the Republicans wanted for military spending."

The radio spot ends with the announcer saying, "Vote for Dennis. He works for you, not for war profiteers."

Insulting those who you intend to represent isn't such a hot campaign strategy.

[tritsofme]

95. Well duh! We've all been here long enough to know that if my preferred candidate loses,

their is only one possible explanation: vote fraudz!!1! How could anyone possibly disagree with me???

God this is stupid.

[HopeHoops]

97. I agree with the alerter - conspiracy theory. Locking.

[joshcryer]

101. Whatever convinced you to unlock it is, imo, peer pressure.

I don't think it was reason, but a pressured argument from those who believed the OP actually had substance. I do not believe that it does. The OP is trying to wage an argument against a technology that by its nature is verifiable, but the OP does not actually discuss it and has provided no evidence that the technology is, as they claim, "100% unverifiable." Seriously, it's a blanket claim, no explanation, just a pure claim. In other words, a conspiracy.

[eridani]

106. It may be verifiable, but is is never verified unless you actually do an audit

That would mean auditing actual paper ballots. Touch screens that are merely interfaces produce such ballots. Direct vote recording from touch screens, is, on the other hand, not auditable or verifiable.

I went through this in WA State in 2004, so I know. The touch screen DRE results where machines were reported to be switching votes to Rossi from Gregoire merely reprinted their original totals, and those were allowed to stand. Where there was optical scanning from paper ballots, those were all recounted by hand.

[joshcryer]

122. No vote is "verified" unless the vote is handled by mutual observers.

Ballot boxes can still be stuffed. We know it's true, Iran is a perfect example. No electronic voting machines there, but pow, systematic abuses didn't allow mutual observers, the chain of possession was broken, and so on.

The key here is that an audit is available, that means it is verifiable, in direct contradiction to the contentions by the OP. I'm frankly tired of kicking this thread when so few people see that. I'm glad at least one of ya'll do.

[eridani]

132. Utter nonsense. Lucas County has touchscreen DREs, which can never be verified.

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?state=Ohio&county=Lucas&ec=allall&year=2010

Their "paper trail" consists of a printout on supermarket tape which does NOT have the status of a legal ballot. Even relatively inexperienced programmers could program the screen and the paper printout to say one thing, and the CPU actually recording the vote to say something entirely different. Given that the software is proprietary, real auditing is not possible even in principle. Looking at the supermarket-style scroll is NOT an audit, period.

Optical scanning, in contrast, is auditable, because the tabulation is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCESS from actual voting. Opscan programming can be fiddled, but that can be countered by manually handcounting the paper ballots. Voters VOTE on these paper ballots and not on machines, and tabulation is a separate operation.

[joshcryer]

133. Circles. Going in circles. VVAT = verifiable. Period.

Under Ohio law the VVAT is legally considered a ballot for the purposes of a recount (there is no recount done by simply "re-tabulating" the data, it's done by hand on a VVAT, paper).

The whole argument hinges on voters "not reading the printout" when they're instructed to do so by the poll workers. It requires a woefully insulting view of voters and poll workers based on flawed studies where the voters weren't instructed to view the printout on new technology that they had no experience with.

If you hacked "the screen and the paper printout to say one thing and the CPU actually recording the vote to say something entirely different" it would be revealed by the audit. Therefore, it is a verifiable system.

So odd that you go from "it may be verifiable, but is is never verified unless you actually do an audit" to "real auditing is not possible even in principle."

Just compare the VVAT to the results. Simple. I already explained how the audit would reveal any hacks, and I was dismissed and insulted for pointing out the truth.

I am not advocating for the VVAT, btw.

[eridani]

137. You still haven't explained why we should trust the output of any proprietary software

I still haven't gotten over the theft of Snohomish County by Dino Rossi in 2004, and I don't intend do.

[joshcryer]

138. No where did I say that.

I contested only that the output was "unverifiable."

Do the audit, find out.

[eridani]

142. Please reread post # 55

The process is definitely hackable.

[joshcryer]

144. I did not say it was unhackable.

"There is still no way to know that the results reported by the machine actually reflect the intent of the voters."

Objectively false. Every hack leaves tell-tell signs that the vote was rigged.

[eridani]

145. Not at all. Unless you are suggesting that forensic analysis of programs is routine

It isn't, at least not by elections departments. Clint Curtis, while he was still in FL, explained to everyone at DU2 how to do it. He knew how because Republicans paid him to.

[sabrina 1]

135. Thank you:

Even relatively inexperienced programmers could program the screen and the paper printout to say one thing, and the CPU actually recording the vote to say something entirely different. Given that the software is proprietary, real auditing is not possible even in principle. Looking at the supermarket-style scroll is NOT an audit, period.

It's a disgrace that this situation still exists and sad that some people still don't get it.

[HopeHoops]

108. You're entitled to your opinion, but it wasn't peer pressure - it was a careful review of the thread

[Junkdrawer]

103. To get a result like this, two things needed to happen:

1.) The rigging technology required that the ballot boxes were, as it were, pre-stuffed.

2.) Dennis did far worse than they expected. And the ad(s) that everyone alludes to may have done just that.

Here's the irony: they probably rigged when they didn't have to. Delicious, no?

[Junkdrawer]

107. Issues be damned, name recognition ALONE should have been, what, 5% to 15%....

Then add in the issues where they differed...

[onenote]

114. Why would name recognition matter

in a county where your opponent has been serving for 30 years and almost certainly has equal or greater name recognition (and more positive name recognition) than DK?

[Junkdrawer]

117. I'm told there are some people out there who actually don't follow issues....

but, instead, scan the ballot for a name they recognize and mark that - and that that is why candidates fight so hard for ballot position.

Not most, some....

What did the pre-election polls in Toledo look like?

[onenote]

119. Even if they didn't follow issues, anyone showing up to vote in a Democratic primary in Lucas County

is going to recognize Marcy Kaptur's name. So even if everyone also recognized Kucinich's name, name recognition wouldn't be a factor.

[Junkdrawer]

120. Let's say 10% of primary voters voted purely on name recognition and not issues...

then, ballot positioning aside, you would expect a 5%/5% split on name recognition alone.

[Ikonoklast]

104. It is sad that people just refuse to realize that outside of his district in Ohio,

St. Dennis is just not that well liked, and it gets reflected at the ballot box.

Accusing Democrats of election fraud with absolutely no proof to back you up just makes you look petty.

For the people outside of Ohio, Marcy Kaptur is an extremely popular congresswoman in her district, and Dennis Kucinich ran an attack ad against her, which was a really, really dumbass thing to do.

I found it strange that Kucinich got ANY votes in Kaptur's district after that little fiasco.

[Jennicut]

110. This is ridiculous.

Kucinich didn't win because he made mistakes in the campaign by going after Kaptur on everything and then by attacking Toledo directly, saying "maybe in Toledo politics, facts don't matter". Kaptur is not exactly a conservadem. It was an unfortunate race against two good Dems but Kaptur lead in the polls all the way to the primary. Now we are going to accuse liberal Dems of rigging elections?

[Nikia]

111. Part of the problem with this redistricting

Aside from the fact that one incumbent Democrat would lose is that the geography of the district did not make sense at all. Toledo and Cleveland are two entirely different cities. People from those cities consider themselves to be from entirely different parts of Ohio. They almost might as well be in different states. It makes sense that this polarization would occurr.

[onenote]

112. Actually, DK did better in Lucas County this year than in 2004

There isn't anything particularly anomalous about DK's poor showing in Lucas County. Indeed, its completely consistent with how he did in Lucas when he ran in the presidential primary in 2004. Even though he was the "native son" candidate, he only managed a measly 2.7 percent of the vote (less than 1100 out of more than 40,000 votes cast) in Lucas County.

I guess those were Saddam Hussein-like numbers too.

[joshcryer]

121. Do you have a source for that? I tried in vain to find it.

[onenote]

123. Here you go

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Research/electResultsMain/2004ElectionsResults/04-0302DemPres.aspx


Note that Lucas County's vote is split between District 5 and District 9

[Better Believe It]

124. What do you want? A perfect recording of actual votes? Now that's plain silly!

As if your vote counts. Your vote doesn't count, the touch-screen voting machines do the counting for you!

[onenote]

129. Would we be having this debate if the vote in Lucas County was 75/25 for Kaptur?

I doubt it. But the fact is that a vote of 75/25 in Lucas County would be far more suspect than a 96/4 vote. As previously noted, when DK ran for president, he performed horribly in Lucas County, getting less than 3 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, over the past 10 years, Kucinich has faced one or more primary opponents in his district 3 times and has averaged around 70 percent of the vote in those races (from a high of 86 percent to a low of 50 percent). That's pretty consistent with the Cuyahoga County results favoring him over Kaptur by around 73/24. On the other hand, Kaptur has only faced a primary opponent once (in 2010) and she corralled a bit over 90 percent of the vote in Lucas County. Given that her challenger ran against her from the right (as an unabashed opponent of health care reform) when she ran against someone to the left of her (Kucinich) she did even better in Lucas.

Thus, while we should be concerned about unverifiable voting result, this probably isn't the best case to cite in arguing that there is something fishy. And had the votes come out 75/25, I have a feeling no one would be thinking that was fishy (even though it probably would have been).

[joshcryer]

134. Of course not.

Just as we weren't concerned about Venezuela's last two elections where electronic voting machines, made in the USA, were used. Chavez and Chavismo was put in power by electronic voting machines!

As far as I'm concerned if the electronic systems have a paper trail I am OK. I do think some systems are better than others, but systems without paper are far far more dangerous, politically, democratically, and those with paper!

[WCGreen]

139. If you knew anything about Ohio politics you would know that DK is NOT beloved in any

place except his base in Parma, Cleveland and Brooklyn.

Other than that, most people think he is out there.

I know Dennis, was on the ballot with him, but outside of his strong circle of supporters, nothing there.

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, DK only got 3% of the vote in a presidential primary in Lucas County.

Another thing that has to be taken into account is Lucas county and Lorain county don't want to be represented by someone from Cleveland. If you look at Lorain, which is right next door to Cleveland, you would see a drop off in support for DK. Kaptur beat DK 50% to 46%.

[joshcryer]

141. Thanks. I was informed of that, and his attacks in Toledo.

It is really a shame that the Lucas County poll workers and voters are so maligned by people arguing that they can't or don't read the printout on their machines even after being instructed to do so.

[eridani]

151. No, unfortunately. And THAT is the real threat to election integrity.

The same problems exist with touchscreens for reasonable results as well as for questionable ones. DU was a hotbed of election integrity research in 2004. All too many lost interest in 2008, when the margin of victory was enough to overcome any hankypanky. Not Brad Friedman, and thank heavens for him and people like him.

[lonestarnot]

140. K & R!

[Ter]

143. The Shadow Government views Kucinich as a threat

When you openly speak out against the NWO, Federal Reserve, and the CIA, you lose.

[onenote]

146. are you seriously suggesting that Kucinich really defeated Kaptur?

Because that's truly ridiculous

[WCGreen]

147. Jesus, DK is no threat to anyone...

He speaks out and hardly anyone listens.

Look, I know DK, in fact I am very fond of him. But he isn't an effective threat to anyone.

What DK does best is constituent services. I always looked at DK as the best City Council person in the US Congress.

That's what got DK back into and kept him in Congress for 16 years.

He was bound to loose because the GOP was in charge of redrawng the districts for the fourth straight time here in Ohio.

If anyone is to be critizied it is the inept Ohio Democratic Party for not developing a electable slate of candidates.

[sabrina 1]

148. Well, those who worked with him in Congress, disagree with you.

When you say 'ineffective', what do you mean? The number of bills he got passed? Because if that is the case he was as effective and more so, than most members of Congress. Definitely more effective than Marcy Kaptur.

According to Barney Frank and Alan Grayson, he was very effective which is why they endorsed him. Congress isn't just about passing bills, and we would be far better off if many of the bills passed had NOT passed. Which is also the job of a member of Congress, to try to stop bad bills from passing.

Anyone who speaks out against the issues DK speaks out against, IS a threat. Telling the truth about, eg, the agreement signed with the Iraqi government got him threatened with sanctions in Congress. The truth is dangerous to those who lie constantly to the American people.

I'll take Barney Frank's and Grayson's assessment of his worth in Congress over anyone else's.

But having said that, no one thinks the election was stolen or that even if those numbers are wrong, that he would have defeated Marcy Kaptur in that area. That wasn't the point of the OP.

[WCGreen]

149. I've known DK personally since 1994 when he had his comback...

I was the treasurer of the Democratic Party here in Cuyahoga County for eight years and spent a lot of time with him.

As I said, he is the best city council person in Congress. There is no one that devoted so much time and effort to his constituents.

And Grayson was a one term congress person.

He was also my congress person for 12 years.