Final edition of my Caltech/Mit VTP story up and linked to dailykos

[GettysbergII]

• There's a widespread skepticism about the final vote counts in many states, especially because of the vast difference between those results & the exit polls.
• The single academic argument in favor of the voting-results-as-is harkens from the Cal-Tech/MIT Electronic Voting Project.
• The leaders of both schools' efforts in this consortium are men with strong ties to the radical-right movement.
• The arguments they make in this unsigned paper run counter to the core positions they've taken before on electronic voting.

For a full explanation, read the story at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/14/03617/399

[aquart]

1. "Unsigned?"

[GettysbergII]

6. Yup, aquart. Link to where I misplaced my reply to you.

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

[Catt03]

2. What a great article!

And research....thanks

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. There is skepticism, really you don't say

Tongue in cheek....'

This was not a normal election and sooner or later people will finally realize this

[Bozos for Bush]

4. Hey Getty, great posting at DailyKos!

An excellent summation of various reasons why the MIT study (barf) is a crock of dog-poopie.

John

[GettysbergII]

7. Thanks Catt03 and Bozos for Bush@

The CNP has a long reach

[GettysbergII]

5. Last 2 Caltech/MIT studies have no individual names on them

...unlike all the other reports by Caltech/MIT VTP I've seen.

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/vtp_wp17.pdf

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/georgiastewart.pdf

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/vtp_wp18.pdf

On last page
http://www.vote.caltech.edu/auditing_elections_final.pd...

(Wow. Really amusing. I tried to Google to find the 95 page July 2001 Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project Voting: What It Is, What It Could Be which I cited extensively to as it contradicted there latest report but they are all dead links. It looks like Caltech/MIT has closed down most links to it but the one in my paper, probably because their own words contadict their latest reports )

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/VTP_report_all.pd...

....these two have no names on them.

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/VotingMachines3.pdf

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/Florida_discrepancy...

There's a discussion of this at dailykos.com
http://dennisv.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/14/03617/3...

Hey Big Jack,

Thanks for your feedback. It got me thinking about how incredibly sloppy the Cal-Tech MIT paper "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" was for a panel of such esteemed scientists so I went to the Caltech website to look over the report again.

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Election2004.html

The funny thing here is that unlike all the other Caltech/MIT VTP reports I've seen, there are no names cited as authors for either of the two reports there. Isn't that peculiar, particularly as the author of the report on Page 4 writes "Therefore, for the remainder of this paper, I treat voters who use punch cards, hand-counted paper ballots, and optically scanned ballots as all voting on "paper."?"

http://www.vote.caltech.edu /

You're absolutely right, the Pg. 3 is a solid piece of information nicely presented. If fact there was much dicussion at DU about the difficulty of either/or labeling of states as paper or electronic. And it does diminish some of the power of Blue Lemur's chart. But the rest of the report is garbage that doesn't belong posted by a group of highschool science students much less a panel of such esteemed scientists as composes Caltech/MIT VTP group. Looks to me like no one in the group wanted their name emblazoned on a report that they know belongs on a peg in the outhouse. Do you think it was actually written by or signed off on by one of them?