Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama IS Going to Win, but.....

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
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 10:54 AM
Original message
Obama IS Going to Win, but.....
...the congress will be stolen. StolectionTM 2008 is what we shall call this election.

There's no way they can steal enough votes to get away with keeping Obama from being elected. So plan B is to make sure congress has enough republicans to keep Obama from getting anything done.

Our job is to begin establishing a database of pre-election polls and other facts showing how votes in each of the fifty states are manipulated, denied and otherwise stolen.

A huge task, for sure, but I think we are up to it.

Idea: divide the country in regions with sub threads of states, and keep those threads alive and available for posterity, so that after the election we can go back and see just how they did it.



Refresh | +4 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. No chance -- we are taking both. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. But of course we win honestly
But to say there is "no chance" is akin to having one's head in the sand. They can, they will, they already have stolen millions of votes, and since they pretty much got away with it, we can expect that they'll do it again.

Thanks for playing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You're consciously putting your head in the sand -- you're pre-determining losing
Star athletes NEVER visualize losing ... they always carry the image of a win. We WILL win because we have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Hmmmm
I see I am not getting thru to you.

Because I don't have my head in the sand I can see that the election can be easily stolen. We will win an honest count, only a dumbass would think otherwise. But those who do have their heads' in the sand just imagine away the fact that maybe 95% of the vote will be counted by electronics. And some voters will be denied their vote by one of many means.

As to: "We WILL win because we have to", of course we will win if we fight to win. Like "star athletes", so are you, melody, a star athlete or just an ankle biter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. BeFree, if you're going to launch into personal attacks, I see you've embraced your viewpoint
You don't want to even consider another because it threatens you. I don't pay attention to people who launch personal abuse, as such,
welcome to my ignore list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
47. melody
Maybe you don't quite understand the frustration level which rises every time a person out-of-hand dismisses the possibility of widespread election theft via the machines.

Maybe I went to far with you and apologize for pushing you over the edge. We need the uninformed folks like you to help us win this battle by becoming informed and aware. I hope my words didn't turn you away from learning about what most of us here see as a fight against a democracy killing venture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. But Since All Republicans Always Vote in Lockstep, We Need 60 to Avoid Endless Filibusters
That never works for us, because of the "blue dogs" and the blackmailed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Andy, what will you do when we win? Will you start talking about how we'll surely lose in 2012?
Don't you ever have an optimistic moment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I have to ask
Can you give one optimistic statement about the electronic vote count?

There are about two million pessimistic statements to be found right here in ER.

Our only optimistic finding is that we know who they are and how they will do it. The question is: will we be able to beat them this time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yes!
I think the evidence from 2004 suggests that electronic vote fraud was not a major factor in Bush's win.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that voter suppression was.

GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!!!!

And you'll get the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House!

And when that happens BeFree, I'll buy you a beer.

Cheers

Lizzie :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You, again?
Well, there are a few of you around who discount the impact of the voting machines. I don't know how you can cling to such outdated ideas, but you do.

I guess some folks just can't get it that the machines: owned, operated and programmed by the republicans, are used as their tool to steal votes. Well, we've convinced 99% of DU. So, have a beer and relax. Yall lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Well, if you win
all three houses, will you grant the possibility that we were right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Nope. You are wrong.
Could be that they let the true vote stand. Then folks like you would be all over us putting us down, saying we were wrong. Then, two years later, in 2010, they go all out making congress solid republican. And are able to do so because we "were proven wrong".

It is a possibility that they will lay off this time, but not possible that we are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. about what?
There wouldn't be a teensy-weensy outside chance that you're misrepresenting her position, would there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
56. Maybe a teensy-weensy
She has stated that she can find nothing to convince her that millions of votes were stolen. Well, she must not have been reading in this forum for the past 6 years. But she has posted here for some time. She has her own record to stand on and she's wrong. So are you.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. link?
Edited on Tue Oct-21-08 06:26 PM by OnTheOtherHand
Here's what I found:
We also both consider that the complete lack of a correlation between swing and shift at nationwide level presents serious problems for his (Freeman's) case that many millions of votes were stolen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

That stands unrefuted. Actually, it's taking Freeman a heck of a lot more seriously than the vast majority of social scientists bother to do. It would have saved us a lot of time (and spared us many cheap shots) to ignore him.

(ETA: Or maybe you meant post 40 here: "I don't think that millions of votes were electronically stolen in 2004, for reasons I have given many times." Again, not only a legitimate position, but a very widely held one.)

People don't need to pretend to change their minds just because their opinions make you mad. You know that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. There you go again
"I don't think that millions of votes were electronically stolen in 2004, for reasons I have given many times." Again, not only a legitimate position, but a very widely held one.)"



Once again you totally ignore the preponderence of evidence of the vote stealing capabilities that the republicans own. Have you ever published a paper concerning the possibilities? Not that I have ever read, so I guess you have willfully ignored the whole idea..... maybe its just to big to wrap your mind around?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Exactly what I am starting to worry about, 2010. Or beyond.

We may squeak by this time, if the landslide is big enough. But sooner or later....... oh man.

It would be a tragedy to have Obama's hands tied behind his back after only 2 years in office by a solid republican congress getting elected in funky elections all over the place in 2010. Especially if it happens after Democrats become complacent after this election and start believing that software-dependent voting machines are OK.

We must have verifiable elections, with audits, with transparency, and with fair practices for all. Voter-marked paper ballots. Meaningful audits. No deceptive practices. And so forth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
55. Yep
And it all sounds so simple. I mean, like, Duh!

But as I'm sure you well know, when we go talk to the officials all we get is a dumb scared look from them. Its as if we are calling into question their personal integrity. When the truth is we have valid concerns about the damned MACHINERY!

Ya know, most people are scared by the AUTHORITIES. No reason to be, but they are, and the bad ones take advantage of that situation and let it go to their heads.

That's why even just a simple audit is such a HUGE frikkin hurdle. We need more people calling for more audits, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. I know that you consider
that it is not possible that you are wrong.

It's a shame, but there it is. Fortunately, I think you are. And that Obama will win the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Ummm
If you read the OP title again, for the first time apparently, you'll see it clearly states that Obama will win.

Too, I am not wrong about the machines. It is just not possible... I have questioned the idea since day one, 6 years ago and have always come to the conclusion that the machines are vote stealers: designed, operated and maintained to steal votes.

And, 99% of DU pretty much agrees.... up from about 20% when you joined. Eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
droidamus2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-11-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
51. Something to consider
Having a degree in Computer Science I am well aware that machines with proprietary software (nobody gets to look at it) could certainly be used to manipulate elections so the possibility is there. Something to consider is that in 2000 and 2004 the public's attention was directed at Florida and Ohio respectively. What are the chances that votes were stolen in other states? Maybe not enough to effect the race but more just a test to see if they could do it. This would lead right into the idea that if they can't stop the Obama landslide they could use the machines to manipulate a few Senate races. There is a quote (I forget who said it) that goes something like 'when it comes to elections it's not who votes it's who counts the votes' in this case its the computers and by extension their programmers. On the other hand the Republicans like to misdirect the public so if they have us looking at the machines maybe we should be paying more attention to the other things they are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-11-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Welcome to the ER
For 6 years now we've been exploring the machines vulnerabilities and capabilities. At first all we had was questions, and few that believed the machines would or could steal votes by the millions.

Then computer experts weighed in and told us that, yes, the machines could steal votes. And then we tied in the could with the idea of would Bushco steal votes? We've decided, yes, they would. They would and they could.

After the 2004 election many folks poured over all the available data. Most of us came to the conclusion that indeed they did steal millions of votes from not only Kerry but other dems as well.

Many here are firmly convinced that millions of votes were stolen, and have battled long and hard against many who have tried to convince us we were wrong. Well, back 4 years ago only about 20% of all DUers were convinced... now I'd say probably 90% are convinced. Not only DUers have been convinced, but many states have changed the laws concerning the voting machines, outlawing in some places some of the very machines that counted the 2004 votes. Thereby affirming our cause.

This forum has led the fight to regain a proper counting of our votes, and we've almost won. The reality is that the big money behind keeping the machines in place has beaten us for now. All in all it has been terribly frustrating for many, many DUers to see what has transpired.

Being that what has transpired, all we can do now is get ready for the flow of numbers which will come before and after this election. I see our next step as a step where we pour over the numbers once again and begin building a case that we can use to get our votes counted properly before the next round of elections.

You say: "Republicans like to misdirect the public so if they have us looking at the machines maybe we should be paying more attention to the other things they are doing". Respectfully, I'd say the reverse: that the republicans are misdirecting the public by doing other things to keep anybody else from looking closely at the machines.







Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. No matter what happens in this election, the problem will not go away until we correct it.

These machines are just plain no damn good. Whether they are hacked or just break down because they are poorly designed and made, the danger is there. If we don't take care of this problem it will come back to bite us big time, sooner or later.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Yup.
It needs fixing. But I remain optimistic that they won't cost Obama the election, nor prevent Democrats taking control of Congress.

But making sure that people can vote is paramount!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. you know, we all agree about that
BeFree's special "gift" is to create the impression that we don't, or at very least to distract from the fact that we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Lizzie, Compare 32% vs 80% of voters using e-voting from '04 to '08:
Edited on Thu Oct-09-08 03:03 PM by mod mom
In 2004, about 32% of voters used electronic voting machines compared to about 80% in 2008.

2004 source: http://www.reformelections.org/publications.asp?pubid=4...
2008 source: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=...

HERE IS SOME PERTINENT READING MATERIAL THAT SAYS TO BE ALARMED:

August 18, 2008 in Technology-SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Planning to E-Vote? Read This First

With less than three months before the presidential election, the hotly contested state, Ohio, along with others, continue to have problems with E-voting technology

By Larry Greenemeier

ELECTRONIC VOTING: Most states have invested in some type of E-voting technology. Are they confident enough to use it on election day?
In their rush to avoid a repeat of the controversy that plagued the 2000 presidential election, and to meet the requirements of Congress's hastily mandated2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states and counties flocked to electronic voting systems they hoped would eliminate hanging chads and other flaws inherent in paper-based systems. Six years later, with another presidential election less than three months away, many e-voting systems are fraught with security glitches, and the technology has yet to prove itself as the solution voters were looking for.

Such systems could allow voters and poll workers to place multiple votes, crash the systems by loading viruses, and fake vote tallies, according to studies commissioned by the states of California and Ohio within the past year. Makers of these systems have countered that the test settings were unrealistic. But that is not helping election officials sleep better at night.

One of the reasons e-voting systems turned out to be such a failure is that the only people involved in checking these systems were the vendors, who wanted to sell their technology, and the local election officials, who were ill-equipped to understand the security issues, says David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor and founder of the Verified Voting Foundation, a nonprofit organization pushing for the implementation of voting processes that can more easily be verified and audited. "There was a certification process in place," Dill says, "but it had very little to do with security."

Dill is the author of Attackdog, threat modeling software that can examine more than 9,000 potential ways a voting system can be attacked, including computer hacking, ballot tampering and voter impersonation. Attackdog is part of a larger effort called A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections (ACCURATE) , which was launched in 2005 by the National Science Foundation with $7.5 million in funding. "Nothing we do now will affect the November election," Dill says. "We don't know how to make secure paperless voting."

This sentiment is echoed in many places throughout the U.S., most prominently in the hotly contested state of Ohio, where Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has commissioned a series of tests over the past year to determine whether e-voting systems are secure enough to be trusted. Based on these tests Brunner has concluded that they are not secure, a decision that Premier Election Solutions, Inc., in Allen, Tex., took exception to. Premier sued Brunner and one Ohio county board of elections in May in a move to get the courts to rule that the company had fulfilled its contractual obligations to the state.

-snip

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=electronic-election...



Examples of Voting System Vulnerabilities and Problems
Cast ballots, ballot definition files, and audit logs
could be modified.
Supervisor functions were protected with weak
or easily guessed passwords.
Systems had easily picked locks and power
switches that were exposed and unprotected.
Local jurisdictions misconfigured their
electronic voting systems, leading to
election day problems.
Voting systems experienced operational
failures during elections.
Vendors installed uncertified electronic
voting systems.
Source: GAO analysis of recent reports and studies.

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05956high.pdf

Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten September 13, 2006

Abstract This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.
Full research paper (Workshop version )

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting /

Study: Hackers Could Change E-Voting Machine Results

By Erika Morphy
TechNewsWorld
07/30/07 12:35 PM PT

University researchers have demonstrated multiple ways of compromising all three of the electronic voting machine systems certified for use in California. The hacks could result in hijacking machines and altering election results, they claim. Although the system vendors have issued a detailed rebuttal of the study, critics are calling for an investigation into the e-voting certification process.

A test of three electronic voting systems certified for use in California has uncovered serious security flaws. Researchers at the University of California conducted the tests at the behest of Secretary of State Debra Bowen under a US$1.8 million contract.

Their mission was to try to compromise the integrity of the voting systems provided by Diebold Elections Systems, Hart Intercivic and Sequoia Voting Systems. They not only succeeded in breaching all of the systems, but also concluded there were likely more security problems that they did not have time to explore during the limited time frame of the study.


Three Vendors, Numerous Failures

What they did find was worrisome enough.

-snip

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/58572.html



Pull The Plug
Aviel Rubin 09.04.06, 12:00 AM ET



-snip

Consider one simple mode of attack that has already proved effective on a widely used DRE, the Accuvote made by Diebold (nyse: DBD - news -people ). It's called overwriting the boot loader, the software that runs first when the machine is booted up. The boot loader controls which operating system loads, so it is the most security-critical piece of the machine. In overwriting it an attacker can, for example, make the machine count every fifth Republican vote as a Democratic vote, swap the vote outcome at the end of the election or produce a completely fabricated result. To stage this attack, a night janitor at the polling place would need only a few seconds' worth of access to the computer's memory card slot.

Further, an attacker can modify what's known as the ballot definition file on the memory card. The outcome: Votes for two candidates for a particular office are swapped. This attack works by programming the software to recognize the precinct number where the machine is situated. If the attack code limits its execution to precincts that are statistically close but still favor a particular party, it goes unnoticed.

One might argue that one way to prevent this attack is to randomize the precinct numbers inside the software. But that's an argument made in hindsight. If the defense against the attack is not built into the voting system, the attack will work, and there are virtually limitless ways to attack a system. And let's not count on hiring 24-hour security guards to protect voting machines.

DREs have a transparency problem: You can't easily discover if they've been tinkered with. It's one thing to suspect that officials have miscounted hanging chads but something else entirely for people to wonder whether a corrupt programmer working behind the scenes has rigged a computer to help his side.



Aviel Rubin, professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University and author of Brave New Ballot: The Battle To Safeguard Democracy In The Age Of Electronic Voting.

-snip

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0904/040.html?partner...



Voting Technology

After the 2000 election and the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, states moved to modernize election administration by retiring antiquated lever and punch-card voting machines and implementing new electronic voting machines. Electronic voting machines have not been the panacea to vote-counting woes that many had hoped they would be. Until recently, there has been surprisingly little empirical study on electronic voting systems in the areas of security, accessibility, usability, and cost. The result is that jurisdictions are making purchasing decisions and are adopting laws and procedures that do little to promote these goals.

In 2006, the Brennan Center released two comprehensive, empirical analyses of electronic voting systems in the United States, The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World and The Machinery of Democracy: Voting System Security, Accessibility, Usability, and Cost. The Brennan Center continued its study of electronic voting security in Post-Election Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections. Since the Brennan Center initiated its study of electronic voting, it has been called upon to provide expert testimony before Congress and to assist election officials in developing procedures that promote secure and reliable voting systems.

-snip

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/v... /



The Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards & Testing report, known as EVEREST, is a comprehensive review of voting systems revealing startling findings on voting machines and systems used in Ohio and throughout the country. The Ohio study tested the systems for:
- risks to vote security,
- system performance, including load capacity,
- configuration to currently certified systems specifications, and
- operations and internal controls that could mitigate risk.

The $1.9 million study, paid for using federal funds, was structured to allow two teams of scientists, corporate and academic, to conduct parallel assessment of the security of the states three voting systems - Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Hart Intercivic and Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) - in both voting and board of elections environments. Separate research was conducted on each voting systems performance, configuration and operations and internal controls management. A bipartisan team of 12 election board directors and deputy directors advised the study and evaluated all reports, participating with the secretary in making recommendations for change.

-snip

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/voterInformati...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I'm not sure of your point
I don't think massive fraud by e-voting occurred in 2004 (I don't see how it could have, given the complete non-correlation between the exit poll discrepancies and Bush's increase in vote share) so I don't have anything to scale up in 2008.

I do think that voter suppression cost Kerry a great many votes in 2004, and I'm worried that that will scale up in 2008, given that the demographics most likely to be disenfranchised in 2004 are those demographics likely to vote most overwhelmingly for Obama. This is why I think an accurate problem analysis is important. Sure, e-voting needs to be made secure, it needs to be auditable and so on. But unfortunately the opportunity for mandatory manual random audits was missed. So there will most definitely be "glitches" and the e-vote won't accurate reflect the count. It may or may not reflect a bias in favor of McCain. But I don't think, as I said, that the effect was large enough to impact on the exit polls in 2004, and therefore cannot have been large.

That's why I say that at this stage, the overwhelming priority needs to be to make sure that EVERYONE YOU KNOW that is eligible to vote is registered, knows when and where the vote is held, and what they need to do to maximise the chance of it being counted correctly (what to expect on screen, what the races are, what the format is, etc).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Yet
One the one hand you say:"I don't think massive fraud by e-voting occurred in 2004 ( I don't see how it could have, given the complete non-correlation between the exit poll discrepancies and Bush's increase in vote share

and on the other hand have stated that exit-polls are no good for determining fraud. Well, either exit-polls can help or they can't. Of course exit-polls can!!

Besides, and this is the crux, no one but you has seen the complete set of data. Freeman, et al have requested to see the same data to no avail. So your read is one-sided, unsupportable and unrepeatable, therefore unscientific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #28
39. Well, there are two issues here
One concerns specificity and sensitivity.

A fraudulent election is unlikely to be accompanied by an exit poll that matches the count.
But a non-fraudulent election is quite likely to be accompanied by an exit poll that matches the count.

In other words, exit polls are sensitive to fraud (will give a "true positive) but are not specific to fraud (will also give a "false positive").

The second is that if you get a "positive" (a discrepant exit poll) one way of determining whether or not it is a "true or false positive" (i.e. whether it really indicates a fraudulent election, or whether it is a "false positive" - i.e. it has raised a flag when the count is not fraudulent) is to see whether the degree of discrepancy is correlated with advantage to the party that appears to be benefiting by the alleged fraud.

Which is what I did, and it wasn't.

Now "proving a negative" is impossible in statistics, so what I did was to estimate how small the effect would have to be to still have a high probability of showing up in my analysis. And the answer was: "small".

So I can't tell you that no fraud affected the exit poll discrepancy - it may have done. What I can tell you is that if it did, it was a sufficiently small effect that the discrepancy itself must have been largely caused by something else. And if it was largely caused by something else, there is no reason to trust it at all as an indicator of fraud.

It also means that electronic fraud is extremely unlikely to have been on a scale of millions, which is what it would have to be to have robbed Kerry of the popular vote.

But it tells us nothing about Ohio, because the number of precincts in Ohio was too small for the exit poll analysis to rule out large scale vote theft (it certainly didn't indicate it, though). So even if the exit poll discrepancy in Ohio WAS due to fraud, the exit poll sample was not large enough to give the statistical power to demonstrate it.

Short version: exit polls only have enough statistical power to give a positive indicator of fraud at national level; they will also give false positives; in 2004 a check on whether the positive was false yielded the result that it almost certainly was.

And that e-voting theft was not a major factor in Bush's popular vote win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. I've gone through training (Obama/Dem Party) to be an election observer. One of the
things we were told to immediate place a call to the boiler room over was VOTE FLIPPING, so they can see that the machines are taken off line immediately. We had multiple incidences of this in 2004, all which coincidently reported to have favored one party. In 2004 it even happened to a Dem State Senator in Ohio but he was told not to talk about it as we would be labeled CTs. After the studies, the Dem Party has come to realize that the voting machines do in fact "vote flip"(besides other security issues like dropping votes). The state senator has now appeared in the film "Free for All" to tell of his experience. Jennifer Brunner and other experts will all tell you the machines can be tampered with.

There were multiple reasons for the theft in 2004-suppression, disenfranchisement , dirty tricks but one aspect that will rear it's ugly head again will involve the electronic voting machines. My point is that now in 2008, a larger % of the population will utilize these machines that have been shown to have serious security flaws. In a recent interview with Brad Friedman, Ohio SOS says the results of the study make her feel sick. The threat is out there. The determination to retain power is out there. We need to be fully aware of the situation.

In Ohio we've registered over 650,000 new voters since January-overwhelming by Obama volunteers/staff. We have a SOS who is fair and vigilant, but we must still make sure the public is aware of the security risks of e-voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Excellent
Best of luck in Ohio! Obama looks as though he can win without Ohio, but with would be the icing on the cake!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Yes, I have. I read ER. I also have read the material that contradicts the dire viewpoint.
I'm not even going to continue this since there's no point in preaching to the converted. When we win on November 4th,
I'm just wondering what excuse you and the Worst Prognosticators will come up with to "explain it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. What material?
Edited on Thu Oct-09-08 06:56 PM by BeFree
I've seen nothing, except from bushco and a few others, that the machines deliver an honest count. Every computer whiz says the same thing. Even the deniers of stolections come around to stating they don't trust the machines. Do you trust the machines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. please refer to post #19 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Please butt out
You are nothing but disruptive. Have you no shame?

And to melody I suggest she read modmom's post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. you're calling out someone who put you on ignore
and you think I'm disruptive?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Oh, she'll read it.
There you go again with your one-liner posts. Why do you spend your time trying to disrupt me with your flame-baits? Have you nothing better to do, like respond to mod mom's post about the machines?

Or you could talk about how you think the exit-polls "blew the call" in Fla, 2000, when everyone else knows the exit-polls nailed the winner, as exit-polls always do.

But I do understand your predicament, you have nothing really to say, so you hang around and ankle bite those who do. Sad. You could actually help election integrity, but you don't, and I can only fathom why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. mod mom's post to Febble?
Admit it, at least to yourself: if I responded to that post, you'd call me a naysaying tag teamer. Or words to that effect. It's all about the squabble, for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Heh
So... you don't respond because I might call you names? And since you don't want to be called names you don't post a reply to a post that damns the whole idea of using the machines to count votes? Sometimes I wonder about you. Why don't you do like melody and put me on ignore? Seemed to solve her problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. BeFree, let me clarify my position
once and for all.

I DON'T think paperless voting is safe or sound.
I DO think that if people can cheat they probably will.
I DO think that the 2004 election disenfranchised far more Kerry voters than Bush voters
I DO think that some of this was deliberate, and some of it at the very least due to structural racism.
I DO think election reform is vitally necessary

HOWEVER:

I don't think that millions of votes were electronically stolen in 2004, for reasons I have given many times.

And that's it.

And because of that, I am more optimistic than most that Obama's win will actually happen. However, my WORRY is that the very real problems of 2004 ARE STILL THERE.

And so what everyone needs to do, above all, is make sure everyone who wants to vote is able to do so. Voter suppression was what cost Kerry crucial votes in 2004, and possibly lost him the presidency.

That's where the efforts need to be focussed now, IMO!

And good luck.

Afterwards, let's get rid of paperless voting and bring in mandatory, manual random audits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. wrong again
You're going to call me names regardless. I don't decide whether to respond to posts to someone else based on that.

Why don't you do like melody and put me on ignore?

What's the matter, BeFree? Do you find it a little bit scary that someone points out your errors sometimes?

Reread the OP. This thread has nothing to do with "the whole idea of using the machines to count votes." It has to do with exit polls. Simply put, I know a lot more about this subject than you do, but you keep talking about it, badly. It's an interesting use of your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Well
What do you think?

Is it worth the time to compile a list of pre-election polls here and now (as I am doing downthread) to keep a record of things so that after the election we have a body of evidence to make an argument of how the machines might have altered the elections? Ya know, real election integrity stuff. What do you think, oh wise one? I mean, hell, it seems right up your alley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Yes, I think that is a good idea
All polls can be biased, and pre-election polls have a different set of problems to exit polls, but yes, I think it is very much worthwhile making a note of the pre-election polls in each state.

Except that they are already compiled on pollster.com

But it will certainly be of interest if the final returns are wildly different from the immediately preceding pre-election polls. It may give us some kind of estimate as to the degree of voter suppression that has gone on, for instance. Or at least an indication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. as Febble noted, it's already being done
On election night, I'll have a spreadsheet with a couple of polling composites (as available) and some past returns. When the first exit-poll-based tabs come in, I'll compare them with the other sources. Then, as vote totals arrive, I'll be in a position to judge what is genuinely suspicious and what isn't.

{For instance, in 2004, Florida looked more suspicious than Ohio even though the Ohio exit poll discrepancy was more than twice as large.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Eh?
Had you read the posts, you would see that it is pre-election polling and news articles as the subject. Not exit polls. And not posted somewhere else.

Gotta love your quote: "....I'll be in a position to judge.... Says a mouthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. projection much?
If you reread my post, you will see that it refers to pre-election polling and to vote totals.

Do you actually assume that if I mention exit polls, I'm not referring to anything else?

This is not the first time I've had cause to wonder whether you actually read my posts, or just look for phrases you can misconstrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. The subject is now...
...not then. But that's all right, do your own thing. Be the judge.

The subject is not exit-polls, or waiting till the night of the election... but doing it now. Febble quite grokked it, but it is all being assembled elsewhere. I am talking about doing it on DU. Good idea or not? If yes, would you help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. depends on whom I'm trying to help
For instance, I would never say "no" to demodonkey about anything, if it were in my power to help.

I have a hard time imagining that I could help you -- and it isn't as if I haven't tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
37. That Post Was Neither Optimistic Nor Pessimistic
I was simply explaining why we need 60 Democrats in the Senate to get anything done.
I did not comment on the likelihood of gaining that many seats.

what will you do when we win?


:bounce: :toast: :smoke: :party: like everyone else here, of course!

Don't you ever have an optimistic moment?


If I said I thought we were going to win it would probably jinx us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vanboggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
54. We won in 2000 and 2004, too
Melody, we must be ever-vigilant and know what we're dealing with so we can fight election fraud. It exists and pretending that it doesn't will only bring us more years like the past 8.

It's not about being optimistic or pessimistic - it's about acknowledging it will happen unless we prevent it.
The Rethugs are using some major voter suppression tactics for this election, so it follows that they are flipping some numbers in the machines.

Knowledge is power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. Example: Vote denials in Montana
Judge blasts (Montana) GOP voter registration challenges

Source: Missoulian

HELENA - U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy issued a scathing order Wednesday lambasting the Montana Republican Party for challenging the registrations of thousands of Montana voters, but stopped short of an actual ruling in the case.

... The timing of these challenges is so transparent that it defies common sense to believe the purpose is anything but political chicanery, Molloy wrote.

... Although the state GOP has since withdrawn all of its voter challenges and vigorously denied that they were politically motivated, Art Noonan, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, told reporters Wednesday he was pressing forward with the lawsuit.


Read more: http://missoulian.com/articles/2008/10/09/news/local/ne ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Illegal Purges
States' purges of voter rolls appear illegal - New York Times

States' purges of voter rolls appear illegal
By Ian Urbina
New York Times
October 8, 2008

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

.... because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their partys supporters disproportionately. The screening and trimming of voter registration lists in the six states Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: people who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.

The six states seem to be in violation of federal law in two ways. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote. Some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters.

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and remove the names of voters who should no longer be listed; but for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, a review of the records shows.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27093919/page/2 /
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Congress
G.O.P. Facing Tougher Battle for Congress


more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09cong.ht ...

G.O.P. Facing Tougher Battle for Congress

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 8, 2008

WASHINGTON The economic upheaval is threatening to topple Republican Congressional candidates, putting more Senate and House seats within Democratic reach less than a month before the elections, lawmakers and campaign strategists say.

Top campaign officials for both parties, pollsters and independent experts say the intense focus on the economic turmoil and last weeks bailout vote have combined to rapidly expand a Democratic advantage in Congressional contests. Analysts now predict a Democratic surge on a scale that seemed unlikely just weeks ago, with even some Republicans in traditional strongholds fighting for their political careers, and Democratic leaders dreaming of ironclad majorities.

In North Carolina, Senator Elizabeth Dole, a former Republican presidential contender and cabinet member, is teetering. In Kentucky, the opponent of the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has drawn even in some polls, though Republicans say they believe he will win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. The Bradley Effect Idea...Destroyed!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. Rove
Rove says that there are still a LOT of voters who might switch at the end . . .

Uncommitteds and Persuadables in Historical Perspective

In an article in today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove asserts the following:

What about swing voters? There are probably more undecided and persuadable voters open to switching their choice than in any election since 1968.

Is it true that there are an unusually high number of swing voters this year? Not really, although it may be slightly higher than average. Let's go to the video tape ... err... the Gallup Polling archive.

What I've done here is simply to take the number of unaccounted-for voters in the Gallup survey closest to October 1st of the election year in question. By "unaccounted for" (or "unaccounted") I mean voters that Gallup had not assigned to any particular candidate. This will include your true uncommitteds, as well as refusals and don't-knows, and voters committed to minor party candidates that Gallup did not mention by name.

In the Gallup tracking poll that straddled October 1st, 8 percent of voters were unaccounted for. This figure is significantly higher than 2004, an unusually partisan election in which just 2 percent of voters were unaccounted for. But, it was no higher than 2000 or 1976, and lower than in 1988. On average, since 1936, 6.8 percent of voters were unaccounted for in the Gallup poll as of October 1st, as compared this year's 8 percent; the difference is not statistically significant. If we look only at results since 1960 -- Gallup's polling was a little sketchy in its early years -- the average number of unaccounteds is 6.4 percent. So this year's figure is probably toward the higher end of the spectrum, but well within the normal range.

The number of persuadable voters -- and this is a broader universe, since it includes not only uncommitted voters, but also those who are nominally committed but who could potentially change their minds -- is a little tougher to get a handle on. But the Pew Research Center has some useful data. Since 1992, they have included in their standard battery a question asking whether voters had decided against one or another of the major party candidates. For instance, as of Pew's most recent survey from late last month, 42 percent of voters said they had decided against Senator McCain, and 37 percent said they'd decided against Senator Obama. This leaves 21 percent of voters who are theoretically open to either major party candidate. We can compare these to the Pew numbers released in Early October 1992, Late September 1996, Early October 2000, and Early October 2004.

This year's numbers are right in line with past elections, again with the mild exception of 2004, when an unusually high fraction of the electorate had ruled out either George Bush or John Kerry. And remember, more voters have decided against McCain than Obama. The candidates to exceed the 42 percent of voters who have thus far said "no how, no way, no McCain" were George Bush, Sr. in 1992 (46 percent), Bob Dole in 1996 (44 percent), and John Kerry in 2004 (45 percent), all of whom lost their elections.

There's More...
www.fivethirtyeight.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. NC Dole vs Hagan
Hagan Still Leads Dole in North Carolina Senate Showdown


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics ...

Friday, October 10, 2008 Email to a Friend
Democrat Kay Hagan continues to hold on to a modest lead over incumbent United States Senator Elizabeth Dole according to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the Tar Heel State.

The new pollconducted Wednesday nightfinds Hagan with 49% of the vote and Dole with 44%. Thats little changed from a week ago when Hagan was on top 48% to 45%. Libertarian Christopher Cole is currently supported by 2% of North Carolina voters.

Doles favorably ratings have fallen just below the 50% mark49% have a favorable opinion of her while 49% offer an unfavorable view. The comparable numbers for Hagan are 50% favorable and 45% unfavorable.

Dole led this race for much of the year, but has fallen behind ever since Lehman Brothers collapsed to start the economic crisis on Wall Street. This is the third Rasmussen Reports poll conducted since Lehman crashed and all three show Dole trailing Hagan. Among voters who view the economy as the top issue of Election 2008, Hagan leads by a two-to-one margin.

Hagan now leads by eight points among women while the two candidates are essentially even among men. Dole leads among those over 50 while trailing among those under 40 (see full demographic crosstabs).

Doles decline follows a national trend that has hurt Republicans across the country. McCain was slightly ahead of Obama just before the financial debacle began but has fallen behind over the past few weeks in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Adding to Doles problems is the fact that John McCain finds himself in a very tight race with Barack Obama for North Carolinas Electoral College votes. That means Dole cant count on the lift from the top of the ticket usually enjoyed by the states GOP candidates.

Dole is far from the only endangered Republican Senator in Election 2008. Many Republican Senate seats are potentially in play for Democrats including seats in Alaska, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Mississippi, Minnesota and Virginia. Democrats also think they have a shot at seats in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #42
53. 12 newspapers endorse Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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