Reply #22: Well, no

[Febble]

actually, accusing a fellow DUer of dishonesty is against DU rules, but whatever.

And I can repeat it, and review it, and have, and do. I told you exactly what I did and what I found, in exactly the same way as I would in a scientific paper.

And who said there was "no problem with using the machines"? Not me, nor my friend OTOH. Neither of us believe that the machines count correctly, either. We have strong evidence that they do not. And not just the new machines - punchcard machines mangle votes too, especially Democratic votes. But if I'm right, then you can still "get rid of the crooks" by voting, because I don't think the evidence supports wholesale vote theft.

And there you go again: "Either one thinks the machine use helped steal the elections, or they don't.
It is that simple." No, it's not that simple. I happen to believe that by undersupplying DREs to Democratic precincts in Franklin County Ohio, more Kerry voters than Bush voters were disenfranchised. And that machines cost Kerry votes in New Mexico. And almost certainly elsewhere too, particularly on punchcards. So yes, I think that machine use helped Bush win. So if it's that simple, then I'm Us. I certainly don't think the playing field was level. I think it was distinctly tilted in favour of Bush. Except that because I think that the evidence still suggests that in 2004 Kerry probably wouldn't even have won on a level playing field, or at least not the popular vote, I'm Them again.

Because it's Not That Simple.