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 #39: There can be no stuffing of votes? [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 Wed Aug-19-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. There can be no stuffing of votes?

Dude, I already told you there aren't going to be HCPBs in NY. Not even just for Federal elections; not even for a statistical audit! We've been there and NOT done that. The choice is: levers or computers.
Not so quick. Read this:

The rub is, you don't seem to know the first thing about lever machines, NY's Election Law, or procedures. ALL the lever counters have to be checked to be sure they are zeroed out before every election. There can be NO stuffing of votes for Bush or anyone else. You can't do this reliably with computers though. Harri Hursti proved that with his optical scan hack in Florida. The software-based counters are meaningless! The mechanical counters are not.

But can they be stuffed after the vote by humans?

And besides, as the EIRS indicates, no Democrat is going to vote on a machine that's "stuck on Bush" without wanting to vote for Bush. They would wait for a paper ballot. And if they leave before they get one, it would NOT show up in an exit poll!

No they wouldnt show up in the exit poll. But stuffed and uncounted votes would show up in the count.

And what if they were told they couldnt get one a paper ballot?
Like these voters:

28456 141 Machon Street JHS 258
Only one machine in polling place and its STUCK ON REPUBLICAN, they're giving out envelope that says "affidavit oath", no list of candidates

30394 PS 258 JHS - 141 Macon Street
Machines STUCK SO ONLY REPUBLICANS COULD BE VOTED FOR, told people to go back rather than hand out emergency ballot

33516 New York PS 199 270 west 70th street 2004-11-02 07:57:10 PSTLEVERS WERE BROKEN FOR CERTAIN PARTY LINE, they did not give him emergency ballot because they didn't know which one to give the voter. The voter cast vote for all other candidates. (only specific section of party line was broken).

28481 Bronx PS 50 173rd and Bryant Avenue 6:40 2004-11-02 04:02:36 PST
Tyrek said that other voters in line told him that the MACHINES WERE STUCK ON "REPUBLICAN". The line was not moving at all and he did not see whether paper ballots were being passed out to voters. He had to go to work so he left the polling place.

You still haven't come up with the number of machines it would take to account for the exit poll discrepancy. And you now admit they don't allow vote switching. So I guess that's progress.
You didnt read my last post. And you still havent come up with the number of votes CAST in each county.

But you should know that Richard Hayes Philips is a lever supporter. He thinks the levers matched the exit polls. He's wrong about that, but he's correct about everything else. Maybe you should actually read what he says about lever voting machines. See: ...
But when he wrote the article he did NOT know that the exit poll timeline from unadjusted to Best GEO to Composite ALL had Kerry at 64-65%

Oregon's voting system is one of the least verifiable ones because it's 100% vote-by-bail, which means there can be no real ballot accounting, and it's also 100% central count, which means there can be no meaningful observation either. And of course the counts are all software counts as well, so none of them can be trusted. And BTW, it's not the only state that's 100% paper ballots either. Not sure where you get that from, but you ought to check your sources. They are obviously not informed.
Name another 100% paper ballot state in 2004 or in 2008.
What do you mean by meaningful observation.
Oregonians are quite proud of their system.
At least they make an ATTEPT at transparency.
NY wont even try.

With so many strikes against Oregon's voting system, all you can say is they had an "exit poll" that matched their vote counts, and because of that, we should try to emulate them? That's way off the deep end. You need to start thinking about the voting systems -- not just the damn polls!

Strawman. The fact that Edison-Mitofsky did an Election Day phone poll that was within 1.8% of the recorded margin indicates that the vote count was most-likely correct.
The fact that the NY (11% wpe) and CT (15% wpe) exit polls had the highest discrepancies (and they were the ONLY 100% lever states) indicates that something is rotten.

If you're going to make an argument that an "exit poll" conducted in a vote-by-mail state is accurate, because exit polls in general are accurate, it's completely specious because with vote-by-mail, it's NOT even an EXIT POLL! It's a telephone survey.
Strawman. The telephone survey was taken on the DAY of the vote by professional posters with over 30 years experience. People reported HOW they just voted, not how who they were LIKELY to vote for. Big difference. Think out of the box, Bill, youre a smart guy.

None of the arguments about how exit polls are so accurate, because they ask people randomly leaving the polling places how they just voted, apply to Oregon. There ARE no POLLING PLACES in Oregon!
See #8

And in fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think all the telephone polls were closer to the vote counts than the exit polls, weren't they? (You already said absentees were closer in NY, right?) So what does that say about exit polls? Uh, maybe that not everyone wants to take them? Maybe that those who did weren't selected at random after all. Maybe that they are LESS accurate than telephone polls.
You ARE mistaken. The final pre-election 2004 polls (adjusted for the allocation of undecided voters) projected a 51-48% Kerry win. The !2:22am National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) indicated that he won by 51-48%. The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (114,000 polled) indicated that he won by 52-47%. They matched up very well, thank you.

According to you, the whole country should vote by mail so you can have a more accurate poll! I don't think so, because absentee voting is extremely fraud-prone.
That, my friend, is unintelligible hogwash

What I hear from you is that no matter how f'ed up a voting system has the potential to become, all that matters to you is how it performed vis a vis some poll. That's not how we go about designing a secure voting system. Not in the least. In fact, it's a MAJOR distraction, which is something that Rove would be interested in as well, don't you think?
Without the polls, we would not have even questioned the Bush theft in 2004. The exit polls are our first line of defense. But even more important, the Final 2004 National Exit Poll actually PROVES that the election was stolem. You must have read this many times but apparently it has never sunk in. The Final is always FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote - both the Final National and NY exit polls.

In order to match the vote, there had to be 5-6 million phantom Bush voters. The Final National Poll indicated that 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters in 2004. But he only had 50.5 million recorded votes. Approximately 2.5 million died. There were, therefore, only 48 million who COULD have returned. Only 46-47 million did. Therefore (please do the simp-le match: there were 6 million PHANTOM Bush voters.

THATS WHY, IN LIEU OF TRANSPARENCY, THE EXIT POLLS ARE PURE GOLD. WHEN WILL YOU EVER GET. You have been brainwashed by Mr. Other for way too long.

A culture of fraud never developed with the lever machines, because it would be too difficult to pull off large scale fraud with even the simplest of checks and balances. That's the bottom line. You might find a few problems here and there in places like FLORIDA (surprise, surprise!), but in a State like NY that had the Tammany Hall experience, they've known how to prevent that kind of mischief since the 1890s.
Are you saying that Tammany Hall was defanged in the 1890s?

Only computers can send us back to the 19th century now, because our election officials and lawmakers haven't a clue how to deal with the kind of fraud that they enable. Those of us who live and vote here, and have been watching the story unfold for the last 6 years or more, know this only too well.
You really are being irrational. What most fair observers have seen unfold since 2000 is endemic election fraud. To think that NY is immune is not to think.

Exit poll true believers are no friends of election integrity in New York at this time. Frankly, it raises questions about there motives overall, and who they might be working for, because NY is the only state not to computerize its voting system and subject its voters to all the inherent risks of doing so -- which can NOT be mitigated with exit polls. Most New Yorkers want to keep it that way, despite what the officials are saying and doing.
Questioning the motives of TRUE analysts, like TIA, who has PROVEN fraud using the Final National Exit Poll as shown above, is to diminish those who want TRUE transparency, demeans your case in and of itself. You are the one appears to have an agenda. You avoid the facts that undermine your case. You are being quite dishonest. You have all the markings of one who has a closed mind.

Oh, and the 80 machines with zero Obama votes? There were actually a lot fewer than that.

In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the citys 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly and unofficially on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city

Hey Bill, was a formal review of the results ever done in 2004? Or in 2006? How do we know that ALL of Kerrys votes were properly recorded? Was this just an Obama anomaly in Harlem no less?

For official results, election officials go back to the voting machines, and "a Republican and Democrat go to each machine and write official results" on a piece of paper, which is then "used to enter data into a computer system by hand, along with a hand count of paper ballots."

Election officials enter the results into a COMPUTER system by hand?
OK, but what if they didn't do a check in the 2008 presidential election, or in 2004 or in 2006?
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