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 #24: : Motive, Means, and Opportunity [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
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-17-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. : Motive, Means, and Opportunity

You assume that I have a dog in this hunt because I have presented voting data and analysis that you never considered (statewide and county).

Lets set the record straight: I speak for no one. Can you say the same?

Based on the analysis of NY recorded and total votes cast, EIRS reports, late votes, exit poll discrepancies and the history of mechanical voting machine fraud (levers and punch cards), I have concluded that the confidence placed in NY vote counts is unwarranted.

Over the past several years, I have read much of TIAs analysis and that of others and have become quite familiar with the subject of election fraud analytics. I have noticed a heavy emphasis on the NY lever machines in this forum. The recurring theme is that Levers are essentially fraud-proof and therefore should never be replaced by another voting system, including hand-counted paper ballots. The emotional attachment to levers is understandable; after all, they have been around for 100 years. And it is common knowledge that DREs are unverifiable and easily hacked a lethal combination.

Claims that the Levers are fraud-free must be tempered by substantial statistical evidence that strongly suggests NY votes are miscounted in every election. The fact that NY is highly Democratic and that Gore, Kerry and Obama each won the state by landslide margins serves to mask the fraud since there was no incentive to recount the votes. Yet the evidence strongly suggests that each won by a much bigger margin than the official count.

I would think you would want to know the true vote in any case whether a presidential landslide, hard-fought primary or a state/local election.

New York is not alone; many blue states had landslides denied. Everyone expected Kerry to win them; all eyes were on the battleground states.

Rove could not afford a repeat of 2000: stealing electoral votes only to lose the popular vote. He saw the Blue states as a risk-free opportunity to reduce Kerrys margin; he knew no one would question a landslide. He was right. It was a no-brainer.

He had the motive (to pad the votes); he had the means (a corrupt Justice Department and state election officials) and the opportunity (unverifiable electronic and mechanical voting machines, a surplus placed in Republican precincts and a deficit of faulty machines placed in Democratic ones).

Rove was right. No one cared. It was a slam-dunk.

The effort on the part of Lever machine advocates to promote the superiority of levers over programmable voting machines is an obvious reaction to HAVA. It is universally accepted that DREs can be easily hacked to switch votes. They should never be allowed anywhere.

But mechanical Levers are also vulnerable to fraud, even if not by computer programs. Any system is vulnerable if there are no paper ballots. Levers have been around for 100 years. It is nave to think that in all this time they have not been hacked in low-tech ways by humans, directly or indirectly.

Oregon is the only state that is 100% paper. It is also the only state among the battleground and strongly Democratic states in which the unadjusted exit poll margin of error was not exceeded in 2004. Is it just a coincidence? Why isnt Oregon a model for consideration in NY? It would seem to be worthy of at least some interest. No machines, no computers. Just humans. With vote counts verified by other humans. Maybe the reason mail-in ballots are not considered is because there is no money in it. Maybe its because an entrenched special interest likes those levers just where they are. There is no money in just recycling the hardware.

Its human nature to stake out a position and stay with it - even if it means rejecting the consideration of information that tends to refute the initial position. But that is a rejection of the scientific method; all relevant data must be tested to see if it confirms the original hypothesis. If it doesnt, the hypothesis is weakened at best, discarded at worst. In any case, the new data must be further tested. Since the media wont allow the raw precinct exit poll data to be released, analysts must work with the data that is available. And they are justified in coming to certain conclusions based on the preponderance of the data .

The hypothesis appears to be that since they are mechanical devices, NY levers are impervious to vote miscounts. But if relevant data (historical late votes, exit polls, recorded vote changes, uncounted votes, non-transparency, etc.) are at variance with the original hypothesis of a fraud-free vote, the data should not be rejected out of hand. Rather, all anomalies should be considered as a basis for further investigation. Advocates of the hypothesis must weigh the conflicting evidence fairly and completely, and not just try to dismiss the data/analysis with faith-based hyperbole and straw man arguments.

By dismissing the full extent of NY voting data analysis out of hand, you appear to be determined to maintain your original position. You are heavily invested in your campaign to keep the Lever machines. You fail to consider alternative voting systems that would provide the full transparency that is lacking with the levers. It is possible to have full transparency, although you seem to believe otherwise. Another problem, however, is that politicians and the media dont want to change things, either.

These are two bottom-line methods to cut Kerrys vote share and skin the NY lever cat:
1) Faulty levers in Democratic precincts (uncounted votes)
2) Corrupt officials counting votes in Democratic and Republican precincts (stuffed votes).

Remember that according to the 2004 NY vote census, there were 300,000 NET uncounted votes.

The 300,000 could be the net of 400,000 uncounted and 100,000 stuffedor 600,000 uncounted and 300,000 stuffed.

The simple equation is: Net uncounted vote = Gross uncounted vote stuffed ballots
Can we determine the components?, because there arent any Election Day paper ballots to recount!

But the LATE 500,000 paper ballots WERE counted. They showed that Kerrys LATE vote share was much higher than his LEVER machine share on Election Day. And over the last three elections, the average Democratic late vote share was 10% higher than the Election Day share.

The data shows that Bush lost recorded share in only one county - Columbia. Let me repeat that for emphasis: recorded share. We do not know what his True share was in each county.

Were Kerry votes uncounted and Bush votes stuffed - or was it a combination of both?



Correlation of county recorded vote to...

Change in Bush margin: 0.57 (strong)

Bush percentage vote gain: 0.61 (strong)
Kerry percentage vote gain: .07 (none)
Nader percentage vote loss: -0.23 (small)

Bush vote gain: 0.92 (almost perfect)
Kerry vote gain: 0.69 (strong)
Nader vote loss: -0.94 (almost perfect negative)


No, we have EVERYTHING, because there is no other way to account for the exit poll discrepancy. Have you come up with the number of machines that would account for it yet? What are you waiting for? Go ahead MAKE MY DAY! Tell me how many lever machines would have to be hacked!

You have EVERYTHING? You constantly raise the machine hacking straw man as if that is the only way to miscount votes. Come on. Can you think out of the (Lever) box? Remember, there are no verifiable paper ballots to recount. There are many ways to skin a cat. You are the one who needs come up with an explanation for all the exit poll discrepancies and recorded vote anomalies. To just dismiss them out of hand by claiming that exit polls SUCK even though they indicate fraud, or that the Urban Legend myth SUCKS because it also indicates fraud, or that 500,000 late PAPER BALLOT votes SUCK because they indicate fraud wait, sorry, you never said that; in fact, you have completely avoided discussing why over the last three elections, democratic presidential candidates average vote share was 10% HIGHER on the post-election PAPER BALLOTS than on Election Day LEVER votes.

No other way to account for the exit poll discrepancy? What about the 180,000 net uncounted votes in 2000 and 300,000 in 2004? What about the nearly one million newly registered voters? The great majority were Democrats who came to vote for Kerry, not Bush. And what about the zero Obama votes in 80 districts?

No, the ONUS is on YOU to prove the vote count was accurate. Can you do it?

Really? How many machines would that have to be to account for the exit poll discrepancy? And what would the UNDERVOTE RATE have to be on those machines to account for the exit poll discrepancy? And statewide, or in NYC?

That is a straw man argument. Remember the ZERO votes cast for Obama in 80 districts? Were there also ZERO votes for Kerry in an unknown number of districts that we never heard about? How can anyone quantify it? Its an unknown quantity. Can you?

It seems you may have admitted above that votes can't be switched on the lever machines, so that leaves undervotes and overvotes. Maybe all the Dems tried to vote for Bush AND Kerry and the overvote interlocks on the lever machines didn't work! Maybe the lever machines had Butterfly Ballots! Maybe there were prepunched CHADS! Or maybe the lever machines were connected to the Internets and there was a Man-in-the-Middle Attack!

Instead of hyperbole, why dont you address the NY 2004 FACTS instead? Like the 500,000 late votes; the 300,000 net uncounted votes; the 300,000 returning Nader/other voters breaking 3-1 for Kerry; the near 1,000,000 first-time NY voters breaking to Kerry by more than his National 57-60% share; the fact that Gore won the recorded NY vote by 60-35% (not including the 180k net uncounted votes which could only have raised his 25% margin).

As to the raw data, it showed that Bush didn't do better than he did in 2000 in the precincts with the largest WPEs, remember? So how can the exit polls be used to infer fraud? You don't believe that because you don't think they're using the real data. But even if they released it as you would like, in violation of confidentiality, you wouldn't believe that's the real data either, unless it agreed with your theory. After all, anyone can make up data!

Is this your version of the swing vs. red-shift canard? Be specific. Show us the raw NY precinct data you are using. You are wrong about NY. The statewide WPE was 11% Bush did better in 2004 (40.2%) than he did in 2000 (35%).

Are you calculating swing using the recorded vote in 2000 and 2004? Try using total votes cast. There were 5.4 million net uncounted votes nationwide in 2000 (180,000 in New York). There were 3.4 million net uncounted in 2004 (300,000 in NY).

As long as the data don't confirm YOUR theory, you will say it's not the real data. That's why this is all a waste of time. It doesn't matter if they release the data or not. You just have a need to perpetuate your theory. What is unknown is why -- and who you are working for.

What data are you referring to? Do you consider the recorded vote to be the real data? In other words do you believe that the recorded vote is in fact the True vote?

Is considering the 10% late vote discrepancy to the Election Day share a waste of time?
Is considering the 0.61 correlation between Bush vote share gain from 2000 to 2004 and county population a waste of time?
Is considering the 0.56 correlation between voting machine incident rate and Bush vote share gain a waste of time?
Is considering that 19 levers were stuck on Bush and none on Kerry a waste of time?
Is considering the massive 11% NY exit poll discrepancy a waste of time?
Is considering the 10.6% Lever machine WPE a waste of time?
Is considering the 300,000 net uncounted NY 2004 votes a waste of time?
Is considering that Bush needed to pad his popular vote a waste of time?
Is confirming that the Urban Legend is a myth a waste of time?
Is confirming that Levers are anything but transparent a waste of time?
Is confirming that NY vote counts are questionable by citing Obamas zero votes in 80 (mostly minority) districts a waste of time?
Is considering that the preponderance (actually ALL) of the evidence accumulated over the past 4.5 years indicates that Bush stole the 2004 election a waste of time?
Is considering that Rove could not allow a repeat of the 2000 fiasco in which Bush lost the popular vote a waste of time?

After you answer the question about how many levers would have to have been hacked to account for the NY discrepancy, maybe you can explain why the CONFIRMED vote switching observed in Cuyahoga County, OH (done with punch cards), the alleged Internet man-in-the-middle attacks, and the paperless touchscreen DREs in some OH counties, didn't lead to an even LARGER exit poll discrepancy than NY's, where such vote switching and attacks were impossible and the touchscreens were nonexistent. But I doubt you will explain any of this because you CAN'T.

How many would it take to miscount the votes in NY? As previously mentioned, without a verified vote count, you have nothing. At least in Ohio, Richard Hayes Phillips was able to count the ballots and proved fraud. How would he do it in NY? There are no ballots to verify. But lets consider a possible scenario using a historical time line of 500,000 late and 300,000 NET uncounted votes (500,000 uncounted, 200,000 stuffed).

This is just a scenario. Obviously, as you keep pointing out, Levers cant switch votes
But faulty machines placed in Democratic Urban areas caused spoiled votes. There were surely uncounted provisional ballots. Absentee ballots as well. I dont know how many; neither do you. I DO know that of 500,000 late votes, 66% were for Kerry

And lets not forget the 2008 NY primary:
We know that 80 precincts recorded ZERO votes for Obama in Harlem. We DONT know what happened to Kerrys votes in minority precincts. Thats because no one had the incentive to do a recount. So ask yourself: Did corrupt officials neglect to count the votes in Democratic precincts?

You cant prove it either way, can you?

Late Dem Share Initial Dem Share Votes Share
2000 0.552 0.36 67.8% 6.27 3.75 59.8% 6.82 60.2%
2004 0.499 0.33 66.0 6.89 3.99 57.9 7.39 58.5
2008 0.584 0.41 70.7 7.16 4.36 62.0 7.72 62.8

Total 1.64 1.1 67.2% 20.3 12.1 59.5% 22.0 60.1%

2004 Scenario:
NY Timeline Votes Kerry Share
Initial Lever vote 6.9m 4.0m 57.9%
Late Paper vote 0.5 0.33 58.5%
Uncounted 0.5 0.4 60.9%
Stuffed for Bush (0.2) -

Total Cast 7.70 4.73 61.4%

The great unknown is how many votes were stuffed for Bush?
There were 300,000 net uncounted votes.

The equation is Net Uncounted = Uncounted - stuffed
It could be: 300,000 = 300,000 0 (unlikely)

In the above scenario: 300,000 = 500,000 200,000

In this scenario: 500,000 = 700,000 uncounted 400,000 stuffed
We assume Kerry had 550,000 uncounted and Bush 150,000.
And 300,000 were stuffed for Bush; 100,000 for Kerry.

The Net Kerry Gain = 500,000 = 300,000 uncounted + 200,000 stuffed
Kerry would have 62.1%. Do the math.

Note that the discrepancy is due to a combination of uncounted votes (spoiled, absentee, provisional) and corrupt transcribing (stuffing) of phantom Bush votes.

So the question is not: how many machines need to be rigged?
The faulty ones are already in place for the next election.

The question is not: how can you switch the votes on levers (no electronic bytes).
You cant in the computer sense but you can preset them to be stuck on Bush and generally have bad machines breakdown in strategic locations.

And we must not forget the unknown number of impatient, would-be Kerry voters who went home disgusted without voting. Their votes never got counted, either.

Do you have any idea how many left without voting? How would anyone know?

Ay, theres the rub.
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