Reply #37: Unfortunately I can't argue this point very well

[Time for change]

My impression was that the hand counting of paper ballots would be the most difficult to perpetrate election fraud on. If that is true, then the fact that paper ballots are associated with the least negative WPE would support the possibility of fraud. Of course we would need more detailed data in order to refute or confirm that with statistical tests.

You say that "mechanical equipment" would be the most difficult to hack. If that is true, then the table that I presented in item # 6 of my original post would, as you say, argue against the fraud hypothesis.

I don't know enough about voting equipment to argue this point. In fact, I don't know what is meant by "mechanical equipment" if it's not optical scan machines, touch screens, or punch card machines. I do know that in the case of those three types of voting machines, the votes are counted by machine. Isn't that the case with mechanical equpiment as well? And isn't the paper ballot category the only one where the votes are not counted by machines?

Anyhow, I certainly agree that those of us who strongly believe that this election was fraudulent and that Kerry actually won are nevertheless at a loss to explain precisely how it happened, other than that the machines that counted or registered the votes were programmed to make Bush win.

As long as these machines use secret software to register and count the votes, and as long as the public doesn't have the right to inspect these machines we'll never know for sure.