Reply #16: Part of the problem is that TIA's work is offered up as some absolute proof.

[Wilms]

Proof? I can't make sense of that claim. And I think the 2000/2004 elections had serious problems. But why bother at this point? There's plenty of proven truths around to help start the discussion. And as OTOH has pointed out, they don't get a lot of airtime.

One would be the Florida count done long after the 2000 election. It showed, had ALL the ballots had been counted, that Bush lost. In Ohio in 2004, people went to jail for screwing with a canvass that might have led to a recount. Then there's piles of scientists demonstrating that these computer systems are hackable. And I think half the reason we don't hear more about that is because of all the noise created by the TIAs and their respective cheerleaders.

Plus, too many who hang out in the election reform world are there because of partisan interest. You can be a partisan, and be logical and truthful. But it doesn't always work out that well. And the partisanship is a road block to a discussion with a wider audience.

Finally, it seems that many who complain about elections have little idea of all that's involved. They think voting on a paper ballot solves the problem. Or that "getting rid of Diebold" somehow puts you in a better position. They'll argue right past the notion of an honest mistake or malfunction insisting that it's fraud. TIA posts EIRS complaints claiming that a lever machine malfunctioned by not punching the ballot through and leaving chads. The most considered affirming comments to such nonsense is "K&R". And there are many more examples of that kind.

More reasonable folk walk away.