Actually, I think you inadvertently hit on part of the answer. You acknowledged that, although it is possible to detect this kind of fraud "by comparing precinct counts to the central count in GEMS," not all jurisdictions may do this. The failure of some counties to corroborate election results by tallying the votes on voter data cards from the individual precincts and comparing those totals with those in the summary reports produced by GEMS can occur for a number of reasons. Some poorly trained or computer-challenged elections supervisors may not comprehend the importance of such checks and balances, believing that computers do not lie and that the totals in the summary reports are therefore practically "fool proof." Others may simply be too lazy to double-check in counties with large numbers of precincts. Still others may have ulterior motives for not checking the results (or ignoring them).
I believe the latter scenario is what is happening in large numbers of heavily Republican counties in swing states. When you rely on human "checks and balances" and "procedures" in areas that are overwhelmingly partisan, the temptation to cheat is apparently irrestible to some. The portion of the uscountvotes.org report <
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf> debunking the so-called "Reluctant Bush Voter" explanation given by Edison-Mitofsky for the discrepancies between exit polls and election results in swing states reveals what is actually going on. I have quoted extensively from it (pp. 10-11) to put this matter in perspective:
"It has been suggested that the Bush supporters participated at high rates in precincts where they were surrounded by other Bush supporters, while Bush supporters in predominantly-Kerry precincts were more reticent than their counterpart Kerry supporters voting in predominantly Bush precincts. This 'reluctant Bush exit poll participant in predominantly Kerry precincts' hypothesis is also inconsistent with the E/M data.
"If the polls were faulty because Bush voters were shy in the presence of Kerry voters and less likely to cooperate with pollsters, then the polls should be most accurate in those precincts where Bush voters were in the overwhelming majority and where exit poll participation was also at its maximum.
"What we find is just the opposite: in fact, the mean exit poll discrepancy was dramatically higher in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds (-10.0 versus 0.3). In precincts with 80-100% Bush voters, where exit poll participation reached its highest level (56%), there was a full 10% mean difference between official vote tallies and the exit poll results.
"Alternate hypothesis: “Bush Strongholds have more Vote-Count Corruption” (Bsvcc) An alternative hypothesis that is more consistent with the data is that corruption of the official vote count occurred most freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds.
"If Edison/Mitofsky would release the detailed results of their poll to the public then much more could be said about this hypothesis, and the suspicious precincts could be identified. If E/M does not release its list of sampled precincts, US Count Votes believes it will still be possible to rigorously test the hypothesis that the vote counts were corrupted by assembling and analyzing a precinct-level nationwide database containing detailed election results, voting equipment information and demographic data. Higher exit poll response rates and higher exit poll discrepancies occurred in Bush strongholds.
"E/M’s own data contradict both the rBr and the rBrmpc hypotheses and support the Bsvcc hypothesis."
So, what is the bottom line? Well, I believe it can all be boiled down to these two sentences:
"[T]he mean exit poll discrepancy was dramatically higher in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds (-10.0 versus 0.3). In precincts with 80-100% Bush voters, where exit poll participation reached its highest level (56%), there was a full 10% mean difference between official vote tallies and the exit poll results."In other words, there is little or no cheating going on in heavily Democratic districts and a ton of it in heavily Republican ones, or, to put in uscountvotes.org terms, "Bush Strongholds have more Vote-Count Corruption (Bsvcc)." When you are dealing with (i) determined partisans without scruples, (ii) people who have been paid off and/or (iii) practically non-existent opposition parties, cheating is easy, especially when you have machines that do most of the cheating for you. All you have to do is look the other way.
O.K., the preliminary results are in and, contrary to what you say, the "Within Precinct Errors" dovetail nicely with this theory. I am confident that uscountvotes.com is going to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt when they assemble their election database and crunch the numbers. The reason Edison-Mitofsky is not cooperating is that they know their "Reluctant Bush Voter" explanation is a lie.
There are lots of ways that voting machine fraud can be committed. I am only trying to demonstrate that a talented programmer doesn't have to do it on an individual machine-by-machine basis. Instead, the process can be automated through the use of Visual Basic. This makes it possible to commit fraud on a grand scale, it is true. As for a "Grand Unified Fraud Theory," that sounds sort of like something Albert Einstein would have pursued. Oh, right, that was the "Unified Field Theory," wasn't it? I'm not interested in that.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(177 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
