BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 04:21 PM

Yes, ALL the votes need to be verified. It's not a question of which party the votes went for. The problem is, you simply cannot have an unverifiable way of voting (by machine, I mean) if you want to avoid fraudulent election results.

Political parties CHEAT! Whenever and wherever they can...as long as they think they can get away with it. They always have, they always will. To put votes into a machine that cannot be audited simply means this: someone somewhere will bribe someone else and arrange to have some of those machines or even all of them deliver the victory to that someone's candidate. They will do it, depend on it.

The only way you can prevent that is with paper ballots that are verifiable.

As a matter of fact, each citizen who votes in an election should be able to take away a paper copy...in effect a receipt...OF his or her written vote! This could be done with utter simplicity, by providing a pressure-sensitive second sheet on the ballot. Citizen keeps second sheet and leaves with it after voting. And those could be the final evidence for a recount, beyond anyone's ability to tamper with.

I bet that idea would give corrupt party organizers fits. I can just hear them..."Oh, no, that would be...um...too expensive!"

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:52 PM

Yes, all the votes need to be verified, even where a clear winner has been announced, but it's more important to do the CLOSE states (and counties and Congressional districts) FIRST, because once the votes are CERTIFIED -- usually about 10-14 days after the election -- it's much harder to do anything about it if you find errors.

In Ohio, BTW, it appears Blackwell doesn't plan to even count all the PAPER ballots. He first swore he would count all the "provisional" ballots, but I'm not sure if he's stuck by that commitment, now that Kerry's conceded the election. Also, I don't believe he ever promised to count all the ABSENTEE ballots. (In many states, they end up being thrown out without being counted unless it looks like some race depends on it.

Given that Kerry was only about 150,000 votes behind Bush in Ohio at last count -- with about 150,000 to 175,000 provisional ballots and who knows how many thousands of absentee ballots (including those from lower-income black soldiers) still uncounted.

The provisional ballots in Ohio are likely to be overwhelmingly Democrat votes, because the "challenges" were mainly made by Republicans and in heavily Democratic precincts. Overseas non-military votes usually favor Democrats, and the ground soldiers in Iraq may not be as solidly behind Bush as the Republicans would like us to believe. It's outrageous NOT to count ALL votes in Ohio.

Even if it didn't change the final outcome of the election, counting all the votes might yield a very different picture of how wide/narrow Bush's margin was in Ohio -- and thus in the electoral college -- and in the nationwide popular vote.

More at counteveryvote.org

and blackboxvoting.org

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:39 PM

Not running for office here, anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:32 PM

ALL the votes need to be verified, even where a clear winner has been determined

Clearly that is the case. And equally clearly it won't happen.

Any honourable candidate would refuse on principle to claim or accept victory until this had been done.   If such exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 08:55 PM

McGrath

I agree with your comments on electorial malpractice. The problem I see with the 2000 election was the FACT that the Democratic party DID NOT want a recount of the entire state- They specifically fought against a recount, or even a count of absentee ballots, in those areas that they thought they would lose votes to Bush in.

The number of disputed votes nationwide in 2000 was greater than the margin of the popular vote that the Dems claim to have gotten. Since those votes had no effect on the outcome BY STATE, they were never questioned or looked at.

IMO, ALL the votes need to be verified, even where a clear winner has been determined.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 08:24 PM

It's very easy sometimes to put a post inteh wrong thread, and I rather assume that was what bearded bruce did there, rather than seek to intentioinally lurch the thread into a completely different topic. I think it's a mistake to respond in way that prolongs the thread lurch, as Carol did there. (Thread drift is something else entirely.)

............................

"Electoral malpractices" are such a direct assault on the democratic process that I find it extraordinary that it can be a matter on which people can see it as something to argue about, and to divide according to their party preferances. Anybody who cheats in an election is guilty of a kind of treason. They are everybody's enemy.

That was what I found so hard to get my head round in the previous election - the fact that people who would claim to be patriotic Americans were clearly dividing up on that issue along neat party lines. Even on the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 07:59 PM

How about this: Palestinians keep what they were given by the UN minus what Israel took in the 1948 war, but including everything on their side of the Green Line, UN observers on the ground in Palestinian areas, Palestinians only held responsible for whether or not they (and not other countries over which they have no control) agree to Israel's existance, reasonable borders (Israel honors the Green Line unless a mutually acceptable compromise can be made), either A. All of Jerusalem is declared independent, under the control of a committee of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian clerics, or B. East Jerusalem is included in Palestine, and execution or other reasonable punishment of anyone on either side who commits any acts that are in violation of the Geneva Convention, with an international body being responsible for deciding whether or not anyone has violated the Geneva Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 07:40 PM

OK, CarolC.

Now, shall we settle the Mid-East conflict? 8-{E

How about a Palestinian State on the West bank,ALL the arab countries agree to Israel's existance, with harsh penalties for any attack or support of attacks on either side, reasonable boarders- ( Isreal removes settlements, some adjustments for Isreali security to be negotiated peacefully) with East Jeruselam being declared independent, under the control of a committee of Moslim, Jewish , and Christian clerics? And execution of those on either side that continue terrorist acts after the agreement?

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 07:34 PM

I would support an effort to verify the vote, as long as it did not single out only those areas where one side gained, or could have gained, from rigging the vote.

I agree with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 06:48 PM

Thank you, CarolC.

I would support an effort to verify the vote, as long as it did not single out only those areas where one side gained, or could have gained, from rigging the vote.

My point was that , if in the areas where one side EXPECTED to win they were able to inflate the numbers, that WOULD change the popular vote count that many here think should be used to determine the winner.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 06:39 PM

My concern is not over whether or not the candidate I voted for wins. My concern is for the legitimacy of the voting process in the US. If the election process can be demonstrated to be honest, open, verifiable and fair, I will be very happy, regardless of who wins.

I don't want Democrats cheating any more than I want Republicans cheating. beardedbruce has said he thinks the Democrats may have cheated in his county, and that if the process were to be examined carefully there, it might show a Bush win, or at least a smaller Kerry win for his county. I would support examining the system as it was practiced in his county with the same level of scrutiny as elsewhere, even if it meant that Kerry would get fewer votes in that county.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 06:28 PM

Thank you, greg.

That was my point- The Left, in it's efforts to tell the rest of us what to think, has insured that Bush will be in power for four more years. Perhaps the next election, they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again, and give us another eight years of Republican rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 04:57 PM

The Guardian readers insulting voters in Ohio will undoubtedly have given Bush a few votes. The nation-wide general level of insults offered to Bush supporters by liberals will presumably have given Bush enormous numbers of extra votes. Enough to win the election, I reckon, which is the big tragedy in my book. If people could just reign in their snobbishness a little, the liberal left might stand a bit more chance electorally.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 03:50 PM

And suppose the audit proves yet again that Bush won, Carol C: what excuse, then, will you offer for your candidate not winning?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 01:21 PM

I would imagine that within a couple of years it will be quite hard finding people who will admit to having voted for Bush, in places like Ohio.

That's what happened over here, towards the end of the Tory years - one of the questions they ask to try to get the balance right is "Whom did you vote for last time" - and by the answers they got, the Tory victory in the previous election clearly couldn't have happened.

It probably wasn't so much that people intentionally lied, but memory can be selective, and it's remarkably easy to forget mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 12:11 PM

BB,

yeah, but in a conservative area you might lie and say you had voted for Bush. Since the state was closely divided, that logic shouldn't have a big effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:42 PM

My understanding is that the exit polls were skewed by asking mostly women- BUT I do not have verification of that, so it remains possible, not certain. And in a liberal area, given the heated tempers, I might lie and say I had voted for Kerry, just to keep out of a fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:38 PM

Here's what I'm having trouble with, BB.

I'm hearing that the final totals in Ohio are so vastly different from the exit polls.

Maybe you have a reasonable explanation.

Imean, I'm thinkin' to myself that if I voted fir Bush, why would I want to say that I voted for Kerry in an exit poll? Seems to me that given the incumbancy and possible repercusssions from having admitted for voting for Kerry that quite the opposite would be true. More Kerry folks admitting to having voted for Bush.

But maybe you have a reasonable explanation? Maybe not?

And the Wes Ginny Slide Rule wants a reasonable expalnation as well since it says that somethin' smells like old dead fish in Ohio...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:33 PM

"Problem is, it seems there are precious few people in either party who are willing to do that. "

I agree, entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:32 PM

If there are an equal number of people from each party watching the votes being counted, in the case of paper ballots for instance, it's a lot more difficult for anyone to cheat. There are ways to protect the process if people genuinely want to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Problem is, it seems there are precious few people in either party who are willing to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:27 PM

ALL elections depend, ultimately, on trust of the people counting the votes. It just happens to be easier with electronic only machines to cover up the rigging.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM

Well there you go then. Invalid election results.

I'd still like to see an independent audit of the actual machines. And it looks like that might happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM

CarolC,

With the machines we used here, the results were stored on cards ( magnetic) and data sent in over the phone lines. I amd about 25 years out of date in my hacking skills, but I can think of at least three ways to modify the numbers, without touching the code, or any of the software. Just needs an inside person to let you put whatever numbers you like into the totals.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:17 PM

Well, it looks like they can, in fact, audit the code of the programs in the actual voting machines and look for any kind of vote tampering code or other software. That ought to be a good start at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:27 PM

No audit is possible, since there are no paper records...

Subject: RE: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:03 PM

I say let's audit the voting machines in Ohio and find out who really won that state.

Subject: BS: Guardian gives Bush Ohio?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 06:10 PM

No one has addressed my comment that, IMO, the letter-writing effort by the Guardian may have given the state of Ohi to Bush.

One can look at it thus:

If the letters had no effect, they were a waste of time, and an insult to the US voters.

If the letters influenced people to vote for Kerry, it looks like they were not very effective. From an evenly split state, the result was a win by Bush. Again, a waste of time.

If, on the other hand, the letters caused people who were on the fence about who to vote for, or even whether to vote at all, to vote for Bush, the campaign was a resounding success for the Republicans.


So, what would you say? Was it a waste of time and an insult, or just helping out the Republican Party?


And you non-US folks thought you could not influence the US election...