Quote:I'm sorry, but just how do people who have to be rounded up and herded like cows "become a part of the voting populace"? Oh, they can cast a vote, alright, but shouldn't a voter be a little more? Like at least aware of the issues? Like motivated enough to take five minutes to register when renewing a driver's license? Do we really want large numbers of apathetic and ignorant people voting the way they are paid to vote, or the way that their demagogue of choice tells them to vote?

Now, if even a sizable minority of the people ACORN recruits are concerned, knowledgeable, citizens who couldn't or didn't register because of external restrictions, then ACORN is doing some good (the amount of good, in my opinion, is measured by the ratio of "good" voters to "bad" voters registered, where by 'good' and 'bad' I mean degree of civic responsibility accepted by the individuals). But if nearly all the ACORN recruits are civically apathetic sheep, then I fail to see how ACORN is aiding the democratic part of the republican process of our government. In signal terms, they are adding noise to the channel, causing the little signal that exists to be further drowned.

Quote:Bad analogy. Voting is a civic right which each individual has the right to participate in or abstain from. Going to trial is usually not an option (plea bargains, etc,. aside). As an aside to this aside, do you believe that there can be a perfect system? Because, if not, then there *will* be innocent people going to jail and guilty people being turned loose. So, it is not the simple 'either-or' choice you present. How many guilty people are you willing to set free for each innocent convicted? And how many of the future victims of these criminals are you willing to console for their loss of property, dignity, or life because of your philosophy. Many in this country feel as do you, and one of the highest crime rates in the world is the price we pay.

Quote:I agree, but this is a non sequitor. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see where ACORN was addressing this. What I've seen is ACORN registering people who couldn't be troubled to register themselves. Not fighting for people who are being denied their rights, but simply people who didn't care to exercise them. I'm not even sure how ACORN would go about doing this, since then it becomes a matter of law. The organization I do see addressing this problem is the ACLU, and in this case, I cheer them (about two thirds of the time, I cheer the ACLU and in the other third I curse them -- but that's what makes them a good watch dog.)

--Pete

Quote:For the reason I already gave, no such evidence will appear. There will be cases of discovered voter fraud as there is bound to be anytime a nation of 300 plus million votes. But there will never be evidence leading back to ACORN or any such organization. That proves nothing, either way.

Quote:Maybe we should have a test which can decern who is a "good" voter or a "bad" voter that way we can weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy. <_<

Quote:Well get used to it. A people that reelected George Bush, doesn't really have a lot of credit in that sense.

Quote:For example, if you are against bureaucracy, you are expected to be Republican because those stand for less interference from a centralized government.

Quote:So a congress member had to learn the meaning of your Constitution from someone working in the fields, who used words like 'legitimate purposes'? Isn't it more likely that the man was just envious about the money used for the people in Georgetown?

Quote:He was right in one thing, though. It's not about the amount, but about the choices that must be made. When there are many needs, who is going to decide where the money is spent?

Quote:It would be nice if the Constitution provided a useful list of priorities, but this is not the case. And even then, such a list would be probably be out-dated by now. Then again, I never read the Constitution.

Quote: Does it mention freeing the people of Iraq from dictators?

Quote:That's where politicians get in. Someone has to do the ungrateful job of taking decisions that will never make everyone happy, like figuring out what to do with tax money. You can blame them for making 'bad' choices, but at least they have the courage to make them.

Quote:Again, not speaking for ACORN but for myself and my impressions, but ACORN's place should be to address the ignorance of the populace through information.

Quote:The goal of ACORN and Project Vote's voter registration drives is to empower low-income and minority communities by giving them a voice in the political process. ACORN hopes that expanding the electorate will result in more candidates who appeal to historically underrepresented voting populations.

Quote:The first step in the information process should be letting people know how they can involve themselves and how easy it is.

Quote:I don't know ACORN's policies

Quote:And hell, if you want to follow the argument to the theoretical conclusion the reason that voter fraud is perpetrated with the ease it is can partially be attributed to the fact that we have a relatively low turn out creating a large gap in which fraud can thrive.

Quote:I haven't totally written off the chance that mickey mouse actually shows up to vote. who knows?

Quote:Maybe we should have a test which can decern who is a "good" voter or a "bad" voter that way we can weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy. <_<

Quote:I was talking about the fact that so many people apparantly want to believe such groundless accusations. It can't be that hard to find a better motivation for your political choice, I hope? Do you really want the government that wins a mud slinging contest?

Quote:Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy
Kim Zetter Email 11.18.04

Electronic voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to statistical analysis conducted by University of California, Berkeley graduate students and a professor, who released a study on Thursday.

The researchers likened their report to a beeping smoke alarm and called on Florida officials to examine the data and the voting systems in counties that used touch-screen voting machines to provide an explanation for the anomalies. The researchers examined the same numbers and variables in Ohio, but found no discrepancies there.

Their aim in releasing the report, the researchers said, was not to attack the results of the 2004 election in Florida, where Bush won by 350,000 votes, but to prompt election officials and the public to examine the e-voting systems and address the fact that there is no way to conduct a meaningful recount on the paperless machines.

The analysis -- which hasn't been formally peer-reviewed, but was examined by seven professors -- showed a discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used the touch-screen machines and counties that used other types of voting equipment.

The researchers examined numerous variables that might have affected the vote outcome. These included the number of voters, their median income, racial and age makeup and the change in voter turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Using this information, they examined election results for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the state in 1996, 2000 and 2004 to see how support for those candidates and parties measured over eight years in Florida's 67 counties.

They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties.

The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic.

Sociology professor Michael Hout, who chairs the university's graduate Sociology and Demography group, said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000.

"No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," he said in a statement. "There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero -- less than once in a thousand chances."

The three counties where anomalies were most prevalent were Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. In Broward, statistical analysis showed Bush should have received 13,000 fewer votes this year than in 2000. In fact, he received 59,000 more votes than expected, for a net gain of 72,000 votes.

In Palm Beach county, analysis showed that Bush should have gained only 17,000 votes. But instead he gained 57,000. In Miami-Dade county he was expected to gain votes, but by much less than he actually did. According to the researchers he should have received only 29,000 more votes, but he actually gained 44,000 votes.

Both Broward and Miami-Dade counties use machines made by Election Systems & Software, while Palm Beach county uses machines made by Sequoia Voting Systems. No Florida counties used touch-screen machines made by Diebold Election Systems, the company whose machines have received the most scrutiny over the last year.

A representative for Election Systems & Software called the study "hypothetical."

"If you consider real-world experience, we know that ES&S' touch-screen voting system has been proven in thousands of elections throughout the country," said Jill Friedman-Wilson in an e-mail. "Based on this solid track record -- as well as the extensive testing process that is required before equipment may be used in an election -- we are confident in the security, reliability and accuracy of all of our voting systems."

Susan Van Houten, cofounder of Palm Beach Coalition for Election Reform, was not surprised by the Berkeley report.

"I've believed the same thing for a while that the numbers are screwy and it looks like they proved it," Van Houten said.

Van Houten said her group had received a number of reports from voters who said that when they voted for Kerry on the Sequoia machines, the review screen showed that the vote had been cast for Bush. The review screen lets voters review their choices before casting their ballot. Van Houten said she was concerned that the same thing may have happened to many other voters who didn't carefully check the review screen before casting their ballot.

"From the computer experts I spoke to, it’s relatively easy to program something into the system so that only every 50th vote would automatically go to Bush," Van Houten said. If this were the case, election officials would be less likely to think there was a problem with the machine if only a few voters noticed it.

But Walter Medane, a professor of government at Cornell University, said the study showed no indication of fraud or that something was out of place with the election results.

"All their study truly demonstrates is what was already well known, which is that the counties that used electronic touch-screen machines differ from the counties that used optical scan ballots in many respects," Mebane wrote in an e-mail. "Whether those differences include fraud specifically involving the electronic machines cannot be determined from regression models such as the UC Berkeley study uses."

Jenny Nash, press secretary for the Florida Department of State, said she would not comment on a report that she had not yet read. She said Florida had been using its current voting systems since 2002 and had "delivered hundreds of successful elections using the systems."

"Florida has one of the most rigorous certification processes in the nation," Nash said. "After a system is certified for use ... then every single voting systems is tested prior to the election, sealed, and then that seal is not broken until Election Day. We have never had any reports from supervisors of machines malfunctioning or of votes being lost."

"I think that's a joke," Van Houten said. "As a poll worker in the primary (election), I personally witnessed three machines go down."

Van Houten's group, which monitored polling places on Nov. 2, found that at least 40 of 798 machines they monitored were unable to print out a final tally tape at the end of the night. In Florida, poll workers are supposed to print out two tallies from each machine -- one for county officials and another for posting at the polls so that voters can see what the tallies were.

"In around 40 cases that didn't occur," Van Houten said. "I personally observed that during the primary as well. A machine just went down and flashed a message that it needed service repair. It didn't print out a tally."

Graduate students from Berkeley's Quantitative Methods Research Team launched the research project after following debates in the blogosphere about possible fraud in the election. After examining and discounting many other theories, such as ones involving optical-scan machines in Florida, they decided to look at counties that used touch-screen voting machines.

Touch-screen machines became the focus of much debate last year when computer scientists who examined the systems released several reports showing that the machines were vulnerable to hacking and vote manipulation. The testing and certification process for approving voting systems has also been roundly criticized by computer experts and voting activists as being inadequate.

The researchers would not speculate on possible causes for the vote discrepancies in Florida; they said they would leave it to officials to figure that out.

Quote:Are you honestly going to sit back and tell me this won't affect who wins an election when it comes down to the wire?

Quote:That's not fair, Eppie. Someones previous choices might not reflect his or her current opinion. People do learn from mistakes. Besides, iirc only one poster on this forum has ever acknowledged to have voted for Bush. Most people here might be Democrats, for all we know :whistling:

Quote:Also, many voters (American or not) will simply choose the candidate of their favorite political party. There is nothing wrong with that. And we Europeans must not forget that Democratic and Republic do *not* stand for Left and Right, as we know it. Those parties mostly differ in opinion on how to organize their government, not on political views. For example, if you are against Bureaucracy, you are expected to be Republican because those stand for less interference from a centralized government.

Quote:Zenda, I know, and I know he for sure didn't vote for Bush. However, I got really annoyed by Kandrathe's remark about not caring. I am really wondering why he is not going to an American-only forum if his is true.

Quote: As to the logic lesson, start with Jester's "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." Since he says that in rebuttal to kandrathe's claims that, "registration fraud leads to voting fraud.", the conclusion is that Jester is, in effect implying that registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud. Voter fraud exists, even you grant that. For a fraudulent vote to be cast, the voter must obtain a ballot. To obtain that ballot, the voter must be on a list (under the fraudulent alias) either to vote in person or to receive an absentee ballot, or there needs to be collusion between the voter and the workers at the polling place. There are observers at the polling places to ensure that such collusions do not take place. So, if there are fraudulent votes (as you admit there are) then they must be the result of fraudulent registration, contrary to Jester's implication. To make his implied statement false does not take all fraudulent registrations causing fraudulent votes. If even a single case occurred, then that is sufficient.

Quote:Now, if the FBI investigation that Kandrathe claims is going on kicks down the right doors, and reveals actual fraudulent votes, or something pointing in that direction, either through the intentions of ACORN, or simply using them as a vehicle, then I'll change my position. That would be evidence. Right now, we haven't got the evidence, so suggestions and innuendoes about ACORN as a corrupt organization are unwarranted.

Quote:Well, it is more that the Associated Press are claiming... FBI investigates ACORN for Voter Fraud

Quote:I did not mean to cast doubt on your statement, which is apparently true. I merely meant to indicate that I had not independently checked it, and was going on your word.

It does bear mentioning that an investigation is a response to allegations, and not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing.

Quote:"Some of my farmer relatives are among the wealthiest people in the state."

What's your point? That the man in the fields who lectured a congress member about the Constitution could have been a wealthy farmer? Seeing how he also kept up to date with financial and political papers, you might well be right on that (assuming all of this happened as described). Then again, that seems to go against the spirit of the story, doesn't it? Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned :whistling:

Quote:"Is it courage that diverts more debt money for home state pork projects?"

Maybe they didn't even want to make the decision, but knew there had to be made one? Governments are often confronted with choices they'd rather avoid, you know. But the point is that you seem to be ok with appointing others to make decisions that you don't like, and cursing them if they don't do what's best for you. Do you think you would be less hated if you were up there?

Quote:"I think courage would be a person who stepped in and challenged the concept that governments have the right to become involved in any activities unrelated to the protection of individual rights."

In other words, you'd want a government that never interferes with you, and protects your interests. While that may sound like Utopia, it's also what organized crime offers. Full protection for those who can pay for it, and the 'right' to mind you own business for anyone else

Quote:You take as an implication ("in effect implying") from "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." that "registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud." Correct?

Quote:Then, clarifying the issue as to what you are taking me to mean, you say that a single case would be sufficient to disprove my implication (actually, your implication from my statement) that registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud.

Quote:That would be fine, except that it's not what I said. I made an epistemological claim about what we know about the situation, not an ontological claim about what is or is not factually true about voter fraud.

Quote:We do not have reason to suspect that, in these cases, voter registration issues led to voter fraud, NOT that voter registration issues are never connected to voter fraud. The first is a very basic statement about the state of our knowledge. The second is an obvious absurdity.

Quote:Propositions for which I have no evidence, I believe in like I believe in Russell' Teapot. I have no evidence or argument that they are definitely not true. That's all I can say about them.

Quote:But, were I to translate that into a pragmatic, actionable belief, it would not yield "maybe, maybe not, 50%-50%", it would yield "show me first, I'll believe second." To not reason in this way seems to condemn oneself to near-solipsistic uncertainty about the most ridiculous propositions.

Quote:Now, if the FBI investigation that Kandrathe claims is going on kicks down the right doors, and reveals actual fraudulent votes, or something pointing in that direction, either through the intentions of ACORN, or simply using them as a vehicle, then I'll change my position. That would be evidence.

Quote:Right now, we haven't got the evidence, so suggestions and innuendoes about ACORN as a corrupt organization are unwarranted.

Quote:Other states lost THOUSANDS of ballots, while in other states, THOUSANDS of dead people voted.

Quote:Almost correct. In itself, your quoted statement simply states a fact and based only on that statement my inference would not be valid. However, taken in the context of the discussion and especially as a reply to kandrathe's claim, I felt that that inference was justified. Since these discussions are not as formal as a mathematical proof, at least some of the meaning can come from the context. Indeed, must come from the context, otherwise the verbosity required for rigor would lead to rigor mortis.:)

Quote:However, the remainder of the argument, that registration fraud is a necessary prerequisite to voter fraud, still stands, even if not applicable as a rebuttal to your statement.

Quote:However, consider the following:
1) ACORN personnel have been involved in registration fraud (acknowledged even by ACORN).
2) Voter fraud exists (pretty much common knowledge)
3) Most (non-computer based) voter fraud requires registration fraud to exist (my, perhaps not applicable to you, but still un-rebutted argument).

Quote:To conclude, from these facts, that "We do not have reason to suspect . . ." causes me to wonder just when your suspicion is aroused. Let's say we were speaking of a sinking boat. Would you be suspicious of the integrity of the hull when there was water in the bilges? When the gunwales were awash? Or not till you were sinking for the last time?

Quote:I think I just heard Bayes turn over in his grave ;) Russell's outlook is all very good for mathematical discussions, but in real life it is seldom (Kant would say 'never') that we have complete information. We must draw conclusions from incomplete information and not become paralyzed by partial ignorance. We gather what information we can, we adjust our assessment as well as we can based on this information, and at some point, for practical purposes, we determine that something is 'true' or 'false' even if the mental probability we've arrived at isn't the perfect 1 or 0 we would like.

Quote:Because, of course, the FBI is an organization that is completely unbiased and has never railroaded any group in its history? You see, your requirement for absolute proof is a never ending regression.

Quote:Now, if an organization is tied to behavior that is repeated, is it wrong to suspect that that behavior is endemic to the organization? And if it is endemic, is it further wrong to suspect that that behavior is condoned, even encouraged by that organization?

Quote:The second count you are wrong on is a bit more subtle. This discussion is relative to the statement "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." The question of the corruption of ACORN is a separate issue. ACORN could be as pure as the driven snow (right, ever read what is found in snow in industrial areas?), and all the registration fraud the work of evil underlings who've taken advantage of this pure and naive organization. That still does not save this final statement from being completely out of place in this post. It is a total non sequitor and an emotional red herring.