You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #40: Levers are the “gold standard” with an 11% WPE? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
40.  Levers are the “gold standard” with an 11% WPE?

1
Do you realize that the reason levers leave no paper trail is because NY did NOT allow recounts? Recounts were always considered to be more fraud-prone than first counts, and for good reason.
---
Is that so, like in Florida 2000? So you are opposed to recounts. Al Franken would disagree.

2
Only ballots that could not be counted on election night were counted after election night in New York.
---
Of course, and 66% were for Kerry.


3
The reason for the "paper trail" is the need for software independence -- not some need to recount what has already been CORRECTLY counted on election night.
---
No the need is for paper ballots to verify that the ALL votes were correctly counted


4
There are valid reasons for recanvassing, most of which have to do with precinct aggregation errors, tally transcription errors, etc. But recounts? What for, if the count was already proven to be correct on election night? New York Election Law required such proof -- until now.
----
You have just partially hit the nail on the head: “precinct aggregation errors, tally transcription errors” Are you missing a few others?

5
Lever machines satisfied this law, through their properties of repeatable testing, transparency and observability. It's not just about the hacking. It's about being able to SEE how the votes are counted.
---
Transparency? Observability?. By whom? Who sees how the votes are counted? A discouraged voter leaving the precinct because of malfunctioning levers never gets to see their vote registered, much less counted. And if they did vote, how will they know it will be counted correctly by either the levers or by humans behind closed doors?


6
The problem is, we can no longer prove election-night counts because election-night counts are computerized. This is a lower standard, which NY should never accept.
----

That’s why the results should be posted on the wall at the precinct and on the Inernet in full public view.

7
With software, there is now no way to prove the first count is correct without recounting by hand. This is the false logic of the paper ballot advocates in New York: They think that paper ballots are needed because they think recounts are needed. But the only reason recounts are needed is because the ballots may not have been counted right the first time -- due to computer problems.
----

Even if the Levers worked perfectly (which we know they don’t), how could you KNOW that the results were RECORDED correctly afterwards behind closed DOORS? That is the essential point that you keep missing. Paper ballots are needed to verify the votes. Apparently you don’t feel it is necessary to verify the votes. What do you have against verification?

8
NY does allow post-election-night counting of any ballots NOT counted on election night. Anything less would disenfranchise certain voters. But these are NOT recounts. Nor was the count of the ballots that weren't counted on election night in Minnesota.
-----
But they did count 500,000 late paper ballots, didn’t they? And there were 300,000 net uncounted votes, right? Net = Uncounted – stuffed. Could there have been 700,000 and 400,000 stuffed> How would you know if you don’t VERIFY?.

9
NY Election Law has never allowed recounting of all the ballots counted on election night until now due to the use of computers -- because computer counts can't be trusted.
----

But human counters behind closed doors can be trusted?

10
That said, NY, like other paper ballot states, will not count nearly enough paper ballots by hand to confirm the winners of all elections -- not to mention chain of custody concerns. NY has therefore failed to provide election integrity with paper ballots. Until they do, they are much better off with lever machines.
-----
Why not? A robust random audit sample is all that is necessary. Something like an exit poll in full view.

11
If New York Election Law does not allow recounts, having paper ballots buys us nothing, while counting them with computers opens up new attack vectors that didn't exist with lever machines. The whole thing STINKS! It's a fraud and sham and those who are still advocating it are either stupid or complicit in it. That may include you and other exit-poll true believers who don't get the fact that HCPB is off the table and compared to everything else, lever machines are the gold standard.
---

No, count them by audit - by hand in full view. Is that too much to ask?
You call advocates of TRUE transparency Stupid or complicit? You should not cast aspersions on dedicated activists. Do you have a personal stake in this? Who do you represent?

If Lever machines are the gold standard than they are a fool’s gold.

SETTING THE RECORD STARIGHT ON THE PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLLS

Despite what OTOH says, undecided voters broke heavily for Kerry. In fact, Gallup allocated 90% of the undecided vote to him.

The final national pre-election polls (adjusted for the allocation of undecided voters) projected a 51-48% Kerry win.

The 12:22am National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) indicated that Kerry won by 51-48%. The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (114,000 polled) indicated that he won by 52-47%.

The national pre-election and exit polls matched up very well, thank you.


Now let’s consider the New York pre-election polls.

On Oct. 24, Kerry led by 57-36 (61-38 after allocating undecided voters). The trend was in favor of Kerry after rebounding from his drop in Sept. after the GOP convention.

He led the final pre-election poll by 57-39 (59-40 after undecided voters were allocated). But the trend was in Kerry’s favor, so why should we believe the final poll? Especially when you consider these questions:

1) Were they Registered or Likely Voter polls? If they were LVs, which they likely were, then they both underestimated Kerry’s projected NY vote share. Why? Because there were almost one million new voters! Only an RV poll would include the all newly registered voters.

Despite what OTOH says, RV polls are superior indicators of the True Vote in elections in which there is a heavy voter turnout. In 2004, there were approximately 22 million new voters. About 1 million were in NY! That is VERY heavy turnout.

Don’t forget that in 2000, Gore won the official NY vote by 60-35%. But there were 300,000 net uncounted votes (uncounted less stuffed). Had all votes CAST been counted, Gore would have had more than his 25% recorded margin.

We know that Kerry had 57-62% of new voters nationally. His recorded 58.4% NY vote share was almost exactly 10% better than his recorded 48.3% national share. Therefore, we must assume that he had approximately 67-72% of new NY voters.

And don’t forget that he won 66% of the final 500,000 paper ballot votes.
And that he had a consistent 64-65% in the exit polls up until the ABRUPT final adjustment that FORCED a match to his recorded 58% share.

Is all this beginning to make sense to you? Do you appreciate seeing what some might call a meta-analysis? It’s really quite simple. Just plain old arithmetic combined with some common sense.

You must start to think out of the box that the OTOH disinformation campaign has put you and others in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC