Poll: Was the 2004 election rigged?

[pattylou]

And PattyLou thinks I'm the one who's being "touchy" because I suggested a liberal step out of the past, accept reality and move along.

You might want to reread some of the early exchanges between Townsend and me on this thread. You're not quite on target in your perceptions.

General comment - Thanks to everyone who voted!

 

[Antiphon]

Pattylou,

you need to re-do the poll like this:

1) No significant tampering took place
2) I'm a leftie, there was more net tampering for bush
3) I'm a leftie, there was more net tampering for kerry
4) I'm a rightie, there was more net tampering for kerry
5) I'm a rightie, there was more net tampering for bush

 

[loseyourname]

Nothing. I have been curious what the actual sentiment is among the populace and have yet to see Pew or Zogby ask about this.

Question: Why shouldn't the general populace's opinion be ascertained?

The Physics Forums membership is not the general populace, nor are they even remotely representative of it.

 

[Townsend]

The Physics Forums membership is not the general populace, nor are they even remotely representative of it.

So true...

 

[BobG]

Count Every Vote Act 2005 -
...People For the American Way and the Election Protection coalition advised the bill's authors after spending weeks and months poring over the incident reports and voter testimonials which EP volunteers helped gather.

Here is a summary of the reforms proposed in the Count Every Vote Act:
More Accountable and Accessible Voting Systems
More Opportunities for Citizens to Register to Vote and Cast Their Ballots
Discourage Partisan Manipulation and Deceptive Practices in Elections
Expand the Right to Vote
Ensure That All Votes Are Counted

I especially agree with the third proposed reform. The party controling the election process has a distinct advantage - maybe not a big advantage, but in a close election... Since it was already known that Ohio would be close, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a Republican Blackwell would do everything legally possible to tilt the table just a bit to the Republican side. During the Florida recount, having a Bush friendly Katherine Harris control the process gave Bush an advantage. Conversely, having Democratic control of the election gave Gore an advantage in New Mexico, another close state in 2000 (New Mexico just didn't have as much impact as Florida). Historically, there have been other elections where just a slight advantage has had a huge impact (Illinois in the 1960 election, for example).

Whether the actions are legal or a scandal is kind of beside the point. The elections ought to be fair - both legally and in perception - with neither side having a built in advantage before the election even starts.

The election process should be outside the normal political process. Election officials shouldn't be elected or appointed by any elected official (they have to be completely outside the normal election process). That makes it hard to figure out just how election officials should come to office.

Maybe the closest you could come would be for the judicial branch to select election officials (only judges appointed for life, since, regardless of their past, they are effectively removed from the election process once appointed).

Alternatively, you could just accept that it's impossible to form a truly politically objective election board and just ensure equal representation and control for both parties regardless of which one normally dominates the elections in the area (I'm sure this would be immensely popular with third parties ).

One way or the other, the election process shouldn't be dependent on which party control's the local government at the time.

 

[pattylou]

The Physics Forums membership is not the general populace, nor are they even remotely representative of it.

Yes, I understand that.

With that caveat in mind, have the results surprised you at all?

 

[pattylou]

I especially agree with the third proposed reform. (etc).

I hadn't heard of the count every vote act. Thanks, Bob!

 

[russ_watters]

I read most of the thread, but not all, so I apologize if I missed anyone pointing this out:

Evidence that the election could be tampered with is not the same as evidence that the election was tampered with.

Yes, it is true - it is possible to hack and electronic voting machine. It is possible to change results after-the-fact as well. None of that can be construed as evidence that these things were done.

In fact, every voting system has vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Does this fact imply that every election in history was rigged? Of course not.

Along the same lines, Ivan, statistical discrepancies are not evidence of fraud. In fact, I do believe that voting irregularities in Florida may have swung the 2000 election. Whether they did or not is impossible to know for sure, but regardless, that doesn't even imply fraud, much less actually provide evidence for it.

 

[ray b]

there are many ways to rig a vote

first and simplest to to prevent voters from voting
stoping registration
poll taxes
literacy tests
fellons prohibition used on nonconvicted similar named people
trick ballots as used in palm beach
voter not on roll/list wrong precinct # ect

then there is rejection of votes

lost votes
spoilt votes
hanging chads
just uncounted

and the age old way STUFF the ballot box
or
multi voters
dead voters


now the modern age allows ballots to be stuffed by computer

and as all the above HAVE BEEN USED and well documented in past elections
why is it so hard to believe we were HACKED in the last election
esp as the very people in control HAD KNOW BIAS
ability + oppertunity makes the result a forgone FACT

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Along the same lines, Ivan, statistical discrepancies are not evidence of fraud. In fact, I do believe that voting irregularities in Florida may have swung the 2000 election. Whether they did or not is impossible to know for sure, but regardless, that doesn't even imply fraud, much less actually provide evidence for it.

No, but if there was fraud there would have to be irregularities. So the most important indication of fraud - irregularities that resulted in an election bias - is clearly present. Do we have motive? Of course. Do we have opportunity, Yes. Are we talking about people of such character that they would lie, cheat, steal, trash the constitution, or even start a war on false pretenses...

 

[russ_watters]

So the most important indication of fraud - irregularities that resulted in an election bias - is clearly present.

Again, while that is true (sorta), the logical leap you make from that to 'it probably was fraud' is based on the assumption that fraud is the most likely cause of irregularities. That's a big assumption put in place of evidence. Sorry, Ivan, you need actual evidence.

The poll results here are disconcerting: they show that people want to believe there was fraud and choose to believe it despite the lack of direct evidence of it.

Do we have motive? Of course. Do we have opportunity, Yes. Are we talking about people of such character that they would lie, cheat, steal, trash the constitution, or even start a war on false pretenses...

indeed.

 

[pattylou]

Pattylou,

you need to re-do the poll like this:

1) No significant tampering took place
2) I'm a leftie, there was more net tampering for bush
3) I'm a leftie, there was more net tampering for kerry
4) I'm a rightie, there was more net tampering for kerry
5) I'm a rightie, there was more net tampering for bush

Why? My question is more directed at how much *confidence* voters have in the system, and whether this is correlated with party --- *not* whether Kerry or Bush cheated.

(Incidentally, I've seen disturbing evidence that *both* cheated electronically.)

In fact, I'd be more inclined to make a new poll, first showing the evidence that Kerry cheated electronically, and then asking the same questions I asked here ----

And see if the same pattern of responses from Right/Left hold up, or if they flip. (Lefties standing by their man, righties accusing foul play.) I would bet that if I put my argument together for how Kerry cheated electronically, the right - leaners would be far more willing to vote that tampering took place.

I don't believe we live in a democracy at all anymore.

I believ paper ballots, hand counted, precinct level - Would be labor intensive but might help restore some small bit of democracy.

And there seem to be cheats with any system.

 

[russ_watters]

BTW, you guys do remember what the margin of victory was in Florida, right? 381,000 votes. That is not that close of an election (52-47%). Bush won Florida relatively easily. Besides there being no evidence of fraud, none was necessary for Bush to win!

 

[russ_watters]

In fact, I'd be more inclined to make a new poll, first showing the evidence that Kerry cheated electronically, and then asking the same questions I asked here ----

And see if the same pattern of responses from Right/Left hold up, or if they flip. (Lefties standing by their man, righties accusing foul play.) I would bet that if I put my argument together for how Kerry cheated electronically, the right - leaners would be far more willing to vote that tampering took place.

I bet you wouldn't. You can cast my vote for not thinking Kerry cheated electronically (I lean to the right). Heck, throw the 2000 election in there too - for all his "make every vote count" bs, Gore's team tried to get military absentee votes thrown out. But that's just legal wrangling. Actual tampering/fraud? No.

No, right no the left is very bitter about their waning popularity and this is a manifestation of it. They simply don't want to accept that the country is moving in a different direction from what they want.

 

[pattylou]

Again, while that is true (sorta), the logical leap you make from that to 'it probably was fraud' is based on the assumption that fraud is the most likely cause of irregularities. That's a big assumption put in place of evidence. Sorry, Ivan, you need actual evidence.

The poll results here are disconcerting: they show that people want to believe there was fraud and choose to believe it despite the lack of direct evidence of it.

The evidence (direct and indirect) includes:

1) analysis of the source code and demonstration that the removable memory cards (a)are unecessary and cumbersome to the code and (b) can tell the machine how to count the votes without leaving a trail (did you read the report?)

2) Correlations between the types of machines used, and how the final reported tally differed from the exit polls (in other words, in precincts that use one type of machine, exit polls match final tallies; in precincts that use another type of machine - the optiscan which has the memory card issue mentioned above - final tallies were significantly different from exit polls)

3) Testimony from Curtis, etc, under polygraph conditions, that he was asked to write a code that would give extra votes to one candidate unfairly

4) A letter from the CEO of Diebold saying that Ohio would be delivered to Bush

... for starters. What sort of evidence would you like?

The final smoking gun that *I'd* like, is a memory card that shows fraud. But the above is already damn damning evidence.

We all share common ground in wanting an accurate vote. That's worth mentioning.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

Left leaning right leaning is a stupid question, I believe in a lot of the moral stands that the right takes, and therefore tend to side with a very very mild right standpoint, but I am not stupid enough to vote for Bush or any other right wing party i have seen, the bad definitely out ways the good, and I am not a one topic voter.

 

[pattylou]

I bet you wouldn't. You can cast my vote for not thinking Kerry cheated electronically (I lean to the right). No, right no the left is very bitter about their waning popularity and this is a manifestation of it. They simply don't want to accept that the country is moving in a different direction from what they want.

Well, my perception is that these things go in waves. I'm not too disturbed about the current situation, I'm just vocal because that's part of the process of balance.

Parties re-invent themselves every decade or so. The "right" is much different than it was under Reagan. So I don't personally think "waning popularity" is so much on the money, as the idea that the democrats are in a very creative spell of re-finding their base in America. The right had to do this not too long ago. I'd bet most meetings of the democratic party have some element of how to re-define themselves - you see it manifest in the news when you see comments and whatnot floated out for public response.

Actually, the right is doing it now too - in the wake of Bush's Schiavo and ID meddlings. Some previously tight members are distancing themselves now.

Your post sounds like you'd like a one party country. Have you really given much thought to what could happen in that scenario? And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

The evidence (direct and indirect) includes:

It is a stretch to even call the evidence "indirect".

1) analysis of the source code and demonstration that the removable memory cards (a)are unecessary and cumbersome to the code and (b) can tell the machine how to count the votes without leaving a trail

That is not evidence of fraud. All it says is that there is a vulnerability.

2) Correlations between the types of machines used, and how the final reported tally differed from the exit polls (in other words, in precincts that use one type of machine, exit polls match final tallies; in precincts that use another type of machine - the optiscan which has the memory card issue mentioned above - final tallies were significantly different from exit polls)

That would be indirect evidence. And thin at that - the people who conduct the exit polls said themselves that the exit polls were misused by the people who wrote that report. But setting that aside, again, evidence of a discrepancy is not evidence of fraud.

3) Testimony from Curtis, etc, under polygraph conditions, that he was asked to write a code that would give extra votes to one candidate unfairly

I'm not sure if you realize this, but most of the security holes found in Windows are found by security companies and freelance hackers who take it upon themselves to find such holes. That someone found a vulnerability is not evidence that that vulnerability was ever exploited by anyone.

4) A letter from the CEO of Diebold saying that Ohio would be delivered to Bush

Again, not evidence of anything. It was a poor choice of words, but it was meant literally - that Diebold machines would be used to cast and report the votes.

And c'mon, people use that quote all the time, but how can you actually believe it means that he intended to steal the election for Bush? That Diebold CEO would have to have been The Dubmest Criminal in the History of the World if he had meant what the conspiracy theorists thought. Apply some critical thinking, for crying out loud!

... for starters. What sort of evidence would you like?

The final smoking gun that *I'd* like, is a memory card that shows fraud.

Well, it seems you already know the answer to the question. I want direct evidence. A witness who saw someone tamper with a machine. A confession from someone who tampered with a machine. A line of code that tampered with the election found in a machine after the election. Etc, etc. C'mon, haven't you guys ever watched a crime drama? You know what evidence looks like (edit: and heck, this is a science site, isn't it?). What you have here is nothing.

 

[pattylou]

Left leaning right leaning is a stupid question, I believe in a lot of the moral stands that the right takes, and therefore tend to side with a very very mild right standpoint, but I am not stupid enough to vote for Bush or any other right wing party i have seen, the bad definitely out ways the good, and I am not a one topic voter.

Sorry about that.

:) I didn't want to phrase it in terms of "I voted for Kerry and I think there was fraud" etc. That's too ... invasive of a person's privacy.

But I *did* want some feel for how the general opinion might divide along general ideologies. If there were only two groups, those who thought there was tampering and those who didn't, the split would be about 50/50 and you'd have no good way to know whether there was *anything else* one side had in common.

 

[pattylou]

It is a stretch to even call the evidence "indirect". That is not evidence of fraud. All it says is that there is a vulnerability. That would be indirect evidence. And thin at that - the people who conduct the exit polls said themselves that the exit polls were misused by the people who wrote that report. But setting that aside, again, evidence of a discrepancy is not evidence of fraud. I'm not sure if you realize this, but most of the security holes found in Windows are found by security companies and freelance hackers who take it upon themselves to find such holes. That someone found a vulnerability is not evidence that that vulnerability was ever exploited by anyone. Again, not evidence of anything. It was a poor choice of words, but it was meant literally - that Diebold machines would be used to cast and report the votes. Well, it seems you already know the answer to the question. I want direct evidence. A witness who saw someone tamper with a machine. A confession from someone who tampered with a machine. A line of code that tampered with the election found in a machine after the election. Etc, etc. C'mon, haven't you guys ever watched a crime drama? You know what evidence looks like. What you have here is nothing.

Your response seems to indicate that you didn't follow what I said. Shall I go over it again? Also, did you read the black box report detailing the optiscan program, as I asked earlier?

 

[russ_watters]

Your response seems to indicate that you didn't follow what I said. Shall I go over it again?

Huh? What are you talking about? I gave a point-by-point explanation of why what you are calling "evidence", isn't.

Also, did you read the black box report detailing the optiscan program, as I asked earlier?

Yes, I have. We've had this discussion several times before.

 

[pattylou]

Huh? What are you talking about? I gave a point-by-point explanation of why what you are calling "evidence", isn't.

Yes, and your responses sounded as though you hadn't understood what I said. Would you like me to rephrase them?

~~~~~~~~

Separately. Would you consider the following data showing that Kerry's performance in the New Hampshire primary depended on the type of equipment used, evidence of any sort, of fraud? (Sorry - the table wouldn't insert properly, I hope you can follow it. If the lines scroll around onto the next line, try widening your browser window. There should be four rows in the table.)

TechUsed... Kerry...K% ...Dean ...D%...Edwards...E%...Clark ...C%...Lieberman...L%
Diebold...59421 ...40.1% ...37589 ...25.4% ...18334 ...12.4% ...19119 ...12.9%... 13549... 9.2%
ES&S ...5952 ...37.6% ...4415 .. ..27.9% ...1877 ... 11.8%... 2076 ...13.1% ...1516 9.6%
Hand ...19004... 34.9% ...18148 ...33.3%... 6276 ...11.5% ...7217 ...13.2% ...3846 ...7.1%


The idea is that among hand-counted ballots, Kerry and Dean were in a very tight race. Among machine-counted ballots, kerry had an *enormous* lead (up to 15 percentage points higher.)

Incidentally, the type of hack that Black box voting.org describes for the Diebold memory cards (Described only 8 weeks ago so I am impressed that you have discussed this topic several times already? Can you confirm that it is the May 2005 report that you have read?), would allow tampering of two candidates (steal from Dean and give to Kerry) without affecting percentages of the other candidates.

Something very similar happened in the 2000 Republican primary between McCain and bush.

Thank you for your time, Russ.

 

[MaxS]

The most obvious point to make here is that exit polls showed a statistically significant difference from the actual election results.

Therefor it should be obvious the election was rigged.

 

[Astronuc]

The most obvious point to make here is that exit polls showed a statistically significant difference from the actual election results.

Therefor it should be obvious the election was rigged.

It is not necessarily obvious that the election was rigged based on a discrepancy between exit polls and the election results. Exit polls are very poorly controlled, and the sampling technique (who the pollsters ask) could easily be biased in either direction.

Besides, the popular vote was in favor of Bush by 4 million people, a much bigger margin than Gore over Bush. Had Kerry won Ohio and one or two other states (and their electoral votes), he still might have been behind Bush by several million votes. I would not feel good about such a victory.

I am bothered by the fact that both candidates ignored certain parts of the electorate. The president is supposed to represent the 'entire' country, not just the wealthy contributors or members of the affiliated political party.

And another thing that worries me, is the cozy relationship between the majority of Congress and the President (regardless of party). Congress should be impartial, and so should the president. Congress is supposed to check the president and the president is supposed to check Congress. Instead, we have the Democratic and Republican parties checking each other and the country is suffering as a result.

I want to see fairness, justice, and fiscal responsibility.

 

[pattylou]

Besides, the popular vote was in favor of Bush by 4 million people, a much bigger margin than Bush over Gore.

Not to be too pedantic, but the margin of "bush over Gore" would be in negative numbers, as Gore won the popular vote!

(And a full florida recount would have given Gore Florida's electoral votes, too!)

 

[Astronuc]

Oops - I meant Gore over Bush in 2000 in the popular vote.

 

[pattylou]

Oops - I meant Gore over Bush in 2000 in the popular vote.

I thought so, but also thought it was a typo worth pointing out!

"I would not feel good about such a victory."

Me neither. Didn't seem to bother bush.

 

[pattylou]

Here's some old news, but it was "news to me"

But Diebold is haunted by more than negative product evaluations. Last November Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) posted on his congressional Web site excerpts from the Diebold employee manual. In this manual, the company instructs employees to lie about the accuracy of its AccuVote-OS, a machine that reads paper cards on which voters have penciled in circles to designate their selections.

If ballots are not correctly counted by a malfunctioning AccuVote-OS, the Diebold manual instructs employees to tell election officials that poll workers "were not observant when using the AccuVote-OS." After delineating numerous reasons that a recount might not be accurate, including "slightly skewed sensors" on the unit and the smearing of the ballot by the voting machine, the manual reminds employees, "Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting system."

http://www.citybeat.com/2004-02-11/statehouse.shtml

I would also consider it evidence of a corporate mindset willing to lie to further their own interests. Although this has no bearing on whether elections were rigged, and notwithstanding many corporations may engage in deceitful behavior, it *does* illustrate that Diebold thinks it is fine to be dishonest, if it helps their company.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's some old news, but it was "news to me"

http://www.citybeat.com/2004-02-11/statehouse.shtml

I would also consider it evidence of a corporate mindset willing to lie to further their own interests. Although this has no bearing on whether elections were rigged, and notwithstanding many corporations may engage in deceitful behavior, it *does* illustrate that Diebold thinks it is fine to be dishonest, if it helps their company.

News to me too. In any case, I agree with you - this is an example of the do-whatever-it-takes-to-make-the-sale mentality of many corporations. But it doesn't really have anything to do with possible fraud.

 

[pattylou]

But it doesn't really have anything to do with possible fraud.

Let's say hypothetically, fraud was illustrated through some means acceptable to everyone. Would the fact that the employee manual says:

"Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting system" (even if that means lying about it).

...be a reasonable thing for the prosecuition to include in their case?

 

[The Smoking Man]

News to me too. In any case, I agree with you - this is an example of the do-whatever-it-takes-to-make-the-sale mentality of many corporations. But it doesn't really have anything to do with possible fraud.

One has to ask just where 'the line' is?

If they are able to promote lies inside their company about their products and deficiencies, how can they be trusted not to build in proactive measures in something like a voting booth?

Did the government ever do a test on these things that consisted of two votes ... one a paper ballot AND the peperless terminal?

I think everyone would have loved to have seen a test like this done on a surprise basis in one or two constituencies.

I'd like to KNOW the two votes matched before handing the decision of who will control the US arsenal and the US economy to a company who admittedly LIES about their products.

But then ... how could this happen when most of the Sr. Voting officers doing the supervision are appointees of the incumbent.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's say hypothetically, fraud was illustrated through some means acceptable to everyone. Would the fact that the employee manual says:

"Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting system" (even if that means lying about it).

...be a reasonable thing for the prosecuition to include in their case?

Only if the company was complicit in the fraud. See, that's one of the problems with all this speculation: we're casting a wide net and not really saying who was involved -- because, of course, there is no evidence that anyone was invovled since there is no evience of fraud. Tough catch-22, I know, but you're putting the cart before horse is even born.

But sure, for pure idle speculation: yeah if there was fraud, and yeah, if the company was complicit, yeah, that could be evidence of a coverup.

Hey, did you hear that NASA is covering up the existence of a second moon around the earth? Ask them and they'll deny it...

 

[russ_watters]

TSM, since paper ballots have their own error margin (half a percent or so), a paper ballot and electronic ballot would be very unlikely to match even if the electronic one was perfect. Remember, not all sources of error (for both paper and electronic ballots) are the fault of the machine doing the counting/balloting.

See, the thing I like about electronic balloting (in theory) is the potential for zero error for the balloting mechanism. No manual form of balloting even has the potential for zero error in the casting and counting of ballots.

What most people don't like about electronic balloting is the "black box" part. The name says it all - "black box": you can't see in it, so you should fear what is going on inside. That is a human failing, not a flaw inherrent to the machine. People don't trust machines. That's gradually going away as people who can remember life without computers die, but the fact that people are afraid of machines is not an indication of a flaw in the machines.

Now before people jump all over me, I am not saying the machines are perfect - they are, after all, made by people. But the potential exists for them to be vastly superior to other methods of balloting/counting. Whether they are currently is a matter of debate, but that is largely separate from the fraud debate (though part of the reason for bringing it up is to make people think they are one and the same).

 

[arildno]

There IS ample evidence of fraud, russ watters.
It is you who have the burden of proof:
YOU must bring valid reasons for why exit polls have been a perfectly reliable indicator
earlier, but suddenly was wildly inaccurate.

You are simply actively choosing not to take upon your responsibilities, because it suits your own, narrow political interest.

 

[russ_watters]

There IS ample evidence of fraud, russ watters.
It is you who have the burden of proof:

What court of law did you see that in? Burden of proof goes to the one trying to prove that a crime existed. It is you who needs to prove it to me.

YOU must bring valid reasons for why exit polls have been a perfectly reliable indicator
earlier, but suddenly was wildly inaccurate.

Not my job, as I said above, but its too easy to not: There are two, and both are killers (and I already said both):

-exit polls are not designed for that purpose.
-a discrepancy is not in and of itself evidence of fraud. Heck, other Democrats here are arguing that the machines make mistakes due to bugs (and they do). You can't have it both ways.

The study done by Berkeley (iirc) misused the exit poll data for the purpose of spreading a conspiracy theory. And bitter Democrats bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

You are simply actively choosing not to take upon your responsibilities, because it suits your own, narrow political interest.

Pot-kettle.