ACORN

[Jester]

Further, I understand all your points. However, most things can also be done when using paper ballots. If there is this whole plot of people to rig elections they will be able to print some ballots as well, and have some people helping them during counting. Or just pay off the people that are counting votes, or pay off the people that call in the votes to the next person.

Sure, if Boss Tweed was still running the show at Tammany Hall. This kind of election rigging is so difficult these days the whole idea sounds somewhat quaint.

-Jester

[Zenda]

I just think that there is no known voter fraud when computers are used.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. It may be inconceivable for the Netherlands, but it's a real danger in the US. We have multiple candidates to choose from, which makes election fraud a lot more complicated. The amount of tampering needed to make a difference would not go unnoticed. In the US however, the stakes are much higher and a few % more votes for one of the two candidates can turn a state from red to blue, or the other way around. Besides that, using computers will not make things safer, but it will make things more difficult to oversee.

Anyway, it's good to know that most, if not all Americans would not fall for a possible trick with multiple voter registrations, that could hypotheticallly have been orchestrated by organisations like ACORN :)

[--Pete]

x

[eppie]

x

Pete I will still reply your post. (men you are strict with me:))
The article you linked to actually voices my ideas pretty well. (i didn't get to reading all the comments..that list is just too long).
A few comments: The author also is positive about a good computerized voting system.
He also states that other problems (problems with voter registration, untrained poll workers, ballot design, and procedures for handling problems) gave far more problems than the technology problems. (which was actually the remark I made when we got into this discussion)

The anonymity remark is also a bit vague. Paper ballots could be non anonymous if you would check fingerprints, plus in the US a person would not be trialed for voting democrat or republican and most people don't make a secret about who they are going to vote for. When the electronic process works, no-one will try to find out who voted what. Further are the errors mentioned with systems seem very far fetched to me.He says that these were not due to fraud but just software errors. I am not a computer wizz, but making a program that just counts votes seems not so difficult as making diablo2 run on your laptop is.

As I said in Holland we didn't have any problems other than at a certain point people saying it was possible to fraud with the machine.

Just to explain the design. It is a large panel with a very small LCD screen. The panel consists of small buttons on top of with a thin foil with all the names and different parties is pressed. So every election you need a new foil. After pressing your candidate you see the name on the screen and you press OK (big green button (or red if you want to change). We miss the printed evidence, which might indeed make thing better. Of course fraud would be possible but the trouble of getting to know all the candidates, and how the foil (sticker) is put on the machine and then how to change the votes internally seems not worth the effort.
But of course maybe it is in the US when you have to choose between just a few candidates.

[kandrathe]

In my precinct we still fill in the box on a form with a #2 pencil. Then we trust that the vote reading machine tabulates the ballot form correctly, but there is at least a paper trail that can be audited.

[Nastie_Bowie]

I guess you weren't aware how close John Kerry came to beating Mr. Bush. If he won Florida, he would have won the vote, yet look: LINK
Just Google "Florida Vote Bush" and you will find a ton of information on it. Other states lost THOUSANDS of ballots, while in other states, THOUSANDS of dead people voted. 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? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Perhaps ACORN didn't orchestrate this level of voter fraud that lead to Bush winning Florida, however someone was surly aware of it.

The fact that the statistical analysis was done by UC Berkely, makes is suspicious in itself, to me. UC Berkely is a bastion of the left.

[Jester]

The fact that the statistical analysis was done by UC Berkely, makes is suspicious in itself, to me. UC Berkely is a bastion of the left.

If it was a correctly executed statistical analysis, the core of its analysis (not necessarily the interpretation) would be mathematically true, and thus beyond the issue of whether the statisticians were biased or not.

-Jester

Afterthought: Of course, that's a mighty big if. Some statistical commentary on the study from a UCLA grad student. http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~jasonl/vote_note.html

Careful, though. UCLA is famous as a bastion of the right. ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

The fact that the statistical analysis was done by UC Berkely, makes is suspicious in itself, to me. UC Berkely is a bastion of the left.

So, in effect, you say that since you are to ignorant to understand the message, you'll discount it because you don't like the messenger. Thank you for pointing out, once again, the failure of the educational system.

--Pete

[Nastie_Bowie]

Hi,
So, in effect, you say that since you are to ignorant to understand the message, you'll discount it because you don't like the messenger. Thank you for pointing out, once again, the failure of the educational system.

--Pete

I am suspect of something trashing the right from a bastion of the left. This has what to do with the education system?

To, too, two. Check your own education, chum.

:w00t:

[--Pete]

Hi,

I am suspect of something trashing the right from a bastion of the left. This has what to do with the education system?

To, too, two. Check your own education, chum.

:w00t:

Oh, wow, what a genius. You fond a typo. That must be the crowning achievement of your life.

--Pete

[Thenryb]

Hi,
Oh, wow, what a genius. You fond a typo. That must be the crowning achievement of your life.

--Pete

Whee, I "fond" a typo too! Will this thread ever end?

[Nastie_Bowie]

Whee, I "fond" a typo too! Will this thread ever end?

Getting better by the minute.

:whistling:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Whee, I "fond" a typo too! Will this thread ever end?

Think first Tuesday in November. But you do have the choice of ignoring it.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

In my precinct we still fill in the box on a form with a #2 pencil. Then we trust that the vote reading machine tabulates the ballot form correctly, but there is at least a paper trail that can be audited.

That was true for my precinct until the 2006 election, and I am still pissed that they changed from that system.

Occhi

[Thenryb]

Hi,
Think first Tuesday in November. But you do have the choice of ignoring it.

--Pete

True enough. I think most of my problem was attempting to view this or any other endless thread in outline form.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I am suspect of something trashing the right from a bastion of the left. This has what to do with the education system?

Let me give you a more reasoned reply:

The subject you are suspicious of is a statistical analysis. You are suspicious of it because it was done by an organization that you think supports the left. Now, this either means that you think that mathematics is different when done by those on the left than it is when done by those on the right (reminiscent of Hitler disliking quantum mechanics because it was 'Jew physics') or you think that the analysis was somehow tainted by those who did it.

I suspect that you understand that mathematics is apolitical and that any two people using the same methods on the same data would get the same numerical results. Thus, giving you the benefit of the doubt, your point is that the study was tainted. So, either you think the analysis itself was flawed, but you don't know enough to see why or how it is flawed, or you think the interpretation is flawed, but again you don't know how. Either of these conditions are ignorance (i.e., lack of knowledge) (and to take 'ignorance' to be an offensive term is ignorant).

Now, if the results of the study are invalid, then either the analysis or the conclusions were wrong. The analysis could be easily reproduced by anyone who reads the report, and if there is a discrepancy, then accusations of fraud would be appropriate. Only in the interpretation of the results is there room for opinion. One side could claim that a certain level is statistically significant, the other could claim not. But, again, to evaluate the reasonableness of these claims requires understanding of statistical processes.

So, the failure of the educational system is twofold. First, it failed to develop your reasoning process to the point that you would recognize that doubting these results because of their source is illogical. Second, it failed to require that you learn enough about statistics to evaluate for yourself the credibility of these results.

A much more valid point is that the link to the report cited in the article does not lead to the report, and that I (at least) could not find that report after searching that site. And that, indeed, is a major problem with the argument.

As an aside: if you want to get me a new keyboard for this old laptop, I'm sure that the number of typos caused by keystrokes not registering would decrease dramatically. However, I've learned to live with it, so deal.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I hate 'me, too' posts.

I am still pissed that they changed from that system.

Me, too.:)

I suspect the population is willing to wait a reasonable time for the results. It's the media morons that need to know now.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

I suspect the population is willing to wait a reasonable time for the results. It's the media morons that need to know now.

--Pete

I was amused to see, as I watched the election results here, that they were reporting riding results when there were one or two polls of 200+ with confirmed totals. :blink:

On the other hand, there I was, twitching until the appointed time when the media was allowed to show election results... :whistling:

[--Pete]

Hi,

I was amused to see, as I watched the election results here, that they were reporting riding results when there were one or two polls of 200+ with confirmed totals. :blink:

On the other hand, there I was, twitching until the appointed time when the media was allowed to show election results... :whistling:

Yep. Me, too.

Is the fault ours for not resisting the allure or theirs for pushing it on us? I once could wait for the papers but in the past four years have become a CNN junky (although these last few months I've turned it off -- the non-discussion of the non-issues by the non-candidates just got to be too much).

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Yep. Me, too.

Is the fault ours for not resisting the allure or theirs for pushing it on us? I once could wait for the papers but in the past four years have become a CNN junky (although these last few months I've turned it off -- the non-discussion of the non-issues by the non-candidates just got to be too much).

--Pete

CNN = Certainly Not News.

In a somewhat "me too" mode, what candidates? I see nobody on the stage other than the Three Senatorial Stooges and Eskimo Nell.

Our last Senator as President was LBJ. (The last know BJ on a President ended up on a blue dress, but I digress. Hmm, amost made a haiku out of that . . . )


Let us pray:

Save us, or Lord, from the foolery of the Senators.

{I need to parse out the Latin for that one, a nod to the old "Save us, Oh Lord, from the fury of the Norsemen."}

Occhi