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

Reply #17: let's see [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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-22-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. let's see
I have to say, I sometimes get the impression that it may be your actual job to meet every assertion of election fraud (within minutes, if possible) with a 'refutation'...

Well, no, you didn't have to say that. For the record, it's completely untrue. And, umm, pleased to meet you.

WRT Miller, I don't know what "smug" has to do with it, but frankly, many of his arguments are insultingly weak, and I think it's a shame that he offers those. Probably what you're reading as smugness is anger.

So, after years of reading your posts, I am driven to ask....

Wow, that's weird. Just saying.

What would you consider legitimate evidence of electronic tampering or fraud? Does such an animal even exist in your universe? We have often heard decried the 'undetectability' of electronic tampering. Is this your belief, that it actually is undetectable, so trying to detect it is a fool's enterprise?

I don't think that electronic tampering is inherently undetectable, although some forms probably aren't directly detectable. As for indirect detection, it depends. Going back to 2004, if the exit polls were closer to the pre-election polls than to the official returns, I would (all else equal) tend to think that the exit polls were more accurate than the official returns. In reality, the exit polls tend to disagree with both pre-election polls and official returns, which is one reason among many that I believe the polls were wrong. We could talk about all sorts of other ways that electronic fraud might be indirectly detected.

I think it's rash to vote on electronic voting machines because they offer no reliable means of verification. I don't think that trying to detect electronic tampering is a fool's enterprise -- and I've spent a lot of time looking for the evidence (as I would think you would know after years of reading my posts!) -- but I certainly wouldn't count on detecting it, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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