Reply #5: I don't know

[salvorhardin]

and I don't think I know enough to judge either way. I'm not a statistician and I'm not a mathematician. For me the critical thing comes down to whether exit polls are really as accurate as Freeman says they are. I've heard people I respect on both sides of this debate. MarkCC for instance says that exit polls always favor Democratic voters. Why do those two very talented people, who both think there was election fraud, disagree on that point? I don't know. In the end I don't think it matters.

Here's two comments on my site made by me (I post as 'tng' on my site) that explains my position. It's complex. Realize that I also think there was fraud. I don't think there was a widespread conspiracy though, but keep in mind that I do think there was fraud.

The comments are from this thread: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/06/05/diebold_disinfo_dealers_demasked

I don't trust it either

I just think we have to exhaust all other options before we start going down the conspiracy theory route.

But you're right… National standards would be nice and I don't trust the process. First and foremost, at the local level districts have been so gerrymandered that it becomes almost impossible to vote the incumbent party out of office. Secondly, we have a long history of corruption in this country when it comes to voting — everything from legislated disenfranchisement (literacy tests, poll taxes, etc.) to voter initimidation to vote tampering. And third, we have demonstrably faulty machines. Whether they're faulty by design for nefarious purposes (big conspiracy theory), faulty by design due to greed (little conspiracy theory), faulty by incompetence and greed (no conspiracy theory needed, most likely in my opinion) the fact of the matter remains that they are indeed flawed and these flaws could be exploited.

I don't know if the 2004 election was stolen. I don't think so. In fact, I'm highly skeptical of such claims. They don't seem to hold up. But I am skeptical of the voting process too. I just require more solid proof than anecdotal evidence, and that's all we have right now I'm afraid.

J.R., I don't think you're crazy and I don't think you're over reacting. Foisting these machines (and it's not just Diebold remember) on the American electorate through HAVA is just another example of Bush administration criminal negligence and croneyism. I just don't think we need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this is all playing out as it has.

But this is certainly an issue we can agree to disagree on and I can easily respect why you think the 2004 election was stolen. Really, I can. And in the end I don't think it matters for all the reasons I outlined in my second paragraph. The system might not yet be broken, but it's certainly not structurally sound.

Well, Steve Freeman's analysis of the stats of the exit polls

Showed highly significant anomalies, but those anomalies have been explained by arguing that exit polls over-sample Democratic voters. Both arugments are equally credible to me, and I do not understand the actual statistics involved. Here's a direct link to Steve Freeman's page. I recommend his FAQ where he states:

Have you been able to obtain the "pure" data from the polling consortium? Data has been made available, but not the data that could be used to verify the validity of the election

Has evidence come to light since the publication of these pieces which would explain this exit poll discrepancy? No such evidence has come to light. All indications are that if the primary exit poll data were made available, it would conclusively show count corruption and identify where count corruption occurred. Unless there is some great public pressure or successful legal action, none of this primary exit poll data will be released.

Frankly, I don't consider myself credible to determine whether or not the election was rigged. I do know that there were numerous reports of what I would call voter hampering in Ohio in predominantly Democratic districts (moved polling places, inadequate numbers of voting machines, etc.). Was that enough to swing Ohio to Bush? Probably not. And Ohio was always dubious.

As for the rest of the states, as with the election, I just don't know. It seems unlikely but…

However, as I said in my response to J.R. above, gerrymandering + legislated disenfranchisement (it still goes on! remember Florida voter roll purges?) + voter intimidation + vote tampering + demonstrably faulty (unverifiable too!) machines = structurally unsound elections. You don't need to show a rigged 2004 Presidential election in order to show that elections in the U.S. are not fair, transparent and accountable. And that to me is the bigger picture here and why all this talk of stolen elections when we have no real proof. All those things I talked about above should be enough for anybody, no matter what we suspect.

And as always, I don't think anyone who believes in a stolen election is insane or stupid. There's good reason! We just can't prove it. And as always… I remain skeptical.