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 #27: The HNYVA of 1892 [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 Tue Aug-18-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. The HNYVA of 1892
Who said levers were "fraud proof"? Other than you claiming someone did, that is?
Is that the best you can do? Claim that I am making stuff up?

First of all, you should read what I wrote.Note the word "essentially".

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.

Lever proponents constantly claim that the machines can't be hacked.
That is equivalent to saying that they are essentially fraud-proof.
In fact, that's the rationale for your intense attachment to the levers.

You keep repeating the mantra:

They can't be hacked; they're byte-free; they're mechanical devices;
votes can't be switched like they can be on DRE's.
And the biggest canard of all: they are more reliable than HCPB.

Did you ever consider the possibility that back around 1900, a few corrupt NY politicians got together to come up with a better system than hand-counted paper ballots to steal the votes. So they created their own little HNYVA - the Help New York Vote Act.

They decided to install levers which left no paper trail. Sound familiar?
It's only because we now have personal computers, the Internet, Google, spreadsheets, recorded and exit poll data, and dedicated election activists and analysts, that we would have a clue to the fraud.

None are so blind as those who will not crunch.

Sure would be tough to flip any but the extremely closest races...and leave evidence of that.
So we are making progress; you agree there could be some fraud, but are self-assured that it would be minimal. Please define Lever fraud. Is it
Machines malfunctioning at the precinct
Presetting the levers so they are stuck on Bush
Placing the worst machines in Democratic (i.e. minority precincts)
Humans mistabulating the Lever counts

You speak of recounts like you've no idea about re-canvass. Do you?

Why was there a need to re-canvass the 80 districts in which Obama had zero votes in the NY primary if the Levers are essentially foolproof and cannot be hacked. Wouldnt you like to know why there were zero votes?

Oh, and just how do they do the re-canvassing?
Please explain.
Is it a standard operating procedure to re-canvass?
Did they re-canvass the Obama presidential vote?

Maybe if they did they would find that he did much better than the official vote?
But why bother?
Did they re-canvass the Kerry vote in 2004?
And if not, why not?

Was it the Lever machine (which has no brains) or the counters (who do)?

What you fail to realize in your crusade is that this is not just about byte-less lever machine failure. Its about humans who fail to correctly tabulate the votes.
Its about the lack of transparency.

And what do you infer is an "indirect" means of hacking a lever? Voodoo?
Directly would be to shave the gears or pre-set the levers.
Indirectly would be to miscount or not count the votes.

While it seems you don't know much about lever machines, you are well acquainted with your opinion.
No, but I am well acquainted with the difference between the scientific method and faith-based opinions.

Do you know the difference?
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