The DNC should pay to validate the votes in NH and NM

[BurtWorm]

even if the unease some Dean people (myself included) feel over the discrepancies between the hand and electronic tabulations is unwarranted. They should not try to sweep it under the rug. And I would hope that other Democrats would support the party's going to any reasonable length to insist on the integrity of the process it uses to pick its nominee. Electoral integrity should be a fundamental concern of the party.

Maybe other Dean supporters would demand a full accounting of the votes tabulated by electronic machines. I would be satisfied with a statistically valid sample. I want to be reassured that the discrepancy between hand counting districts and electronic counting districts was due to some other factor or factors than the method of counting.

Is this really unreasonable, given that until very recently, at least, DUers and many Democrats have been struggling with the issues of electoral integrity?

[JasonDeter]

1. Whats going on? Why do you bring this up?

[BurtWorm]

3. See this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=263919

[Dookus]

5. I've seen that thread

and I don't see the issue. Honestly, I don't.

One guy on a blog somewhere thought he found something suspicious, but a moment's thought shows that there's a very simple, NON-fraudulent explanation.

Different counties voted differently.

[Dookus]

2. no one has yet explained to me

why the so-called "discrepancy" is suspicious. Different counties use different voting systems. The non-conspiratorial answer is that Kerry did better in some counties, Dean did better in others. Why should we assume anything else at this point?

Kerry was leading strongly in the polls leading into NH. Why would anybody cheat to assure a win for somebody who was already going to win?

[BurtWorm]

6. Do you have a problem with double-checking to make sure the

system worked? The issue is this: polls had Dean and Kerry very close in NH throughout the day. They were in fact very close--within 2-5%--in districts that hand counted the votes. In districts that used electronic counting, however, the spread was 15% or more. This may not seem odd to you, but it seems odd to me. Isn't it reasonable to make sure the discrepancy was not due to the method of counting? Is there anyway to answer that question without doublechecking the counting where the gaps were largest? Just to be sure?

[Dookus]

7. why isn't the possibility

that different counties voted differently acceptable?

Also, can you post the exit poll data? I haven't seen it. ONE firm did exit polling in 40 precincts that day, and you must buy their data.

Let's forget all about the voting machines. Let's imagine People on the massachusetts border used blue ballots and people on the Vermont border used pink ballots. There would be a discrepancy between the blue and pink ballots - but it would have nothing to do with fraud.

[Lexingtonian]

13. that's an easy one

The hand-counted ballots are used in small population districts/precincts, electronic machines for high population ones. If you assume, fairly plausibly, that rural Democrats in NH are more conservative than 'urban' NH Democrats, and that Dean was/is a more conservative candidate than Kerry, then a differential is pretty plausible.

[Dookus]

15. sounds reasonable to me...

but it seems some people think that somebody risked going to jail by committing voter fraud in order to win an election that was ALREADY in the bag. Furthermore, it was done using checkable paper ballots.

[BurtWorm]

26. This is not about voter fraud, goddamit!

It's about restoring trust in the machines that are counting the votes. What is the harm in corroborating that the machines were accurate?! Where were you all in 2000?

[BurtWorm]

63. A reasonable hypothesis, but hypothesizing alone is no substitute

for actual vote-counting. This was the Democratic position in 2000. It ought to be its position now.

[Eloriel]

47. The differences between the towns is stark -- and the ONE thing

for certain that the two sets differ in is what kind of voting system they use.

Further, the results in NH defied the exit polls which showed a very close race and exit polls are usually VERY accurate -- accurate enough to be used in Third World countries to ensure against vote fraud. Further, the computerized voting systems have been shown to be not just error-prone, but FRAUD-prone. Or perhaps I should say fraud-capable since it's very hard to PROVE fraud on computerized machines, for a variety of reasons, which is one reason it's such a terrific way to conduct electoral fraud.

[The Magistrate]

4. A Waste Of Money, Mr. Worm

Gov. Dean lost those elections; he will lose more in future, until he gives up the contest....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Eloriel]

51. Ah, but you're missing a chance to get those Bush bastards

if you turn your back on this problem now.

Or, won't it matter until it's YOUR guy who gets the voting machine shaft?

[sandnsea]

8. NM is a caucus

I'm confused about electronic voting at a caucus. :shrug:

[Dookus]

9. it's astounding....

the lengths to which people will go to maintain their delusions.

MY guy isn't winning - but I don't blame the media, the DLC, voter fraud or Janet Jackson's tit. I accept the fact that fewer people voted for him.

[Lexingtonian]

11. it was a Caucus In Name Only :-)

I don't remember the details, but it involved the parties voting using the state's voting machines and precincts and such. But the state- the Secretary of State- didn't/doesn't get involved in refereeing primaries because they are technically internal affairs- private doings, not public ones- of the respective parties. NM has therefore decided to call the thing going on 'caucuses' rather than a 'primary election'. A bit wierd and sort of a legal fiction.

[Piltdown13]

40. According to the NM Dems website

A caucus is when the party runs the election, and a primary is when the state runs the election. In this case, the governor asked the Democratic party to hold a caucus early in the process so that NM would, for the first time ever, have a say in who gets the nomination. There was no way that the state would have been able to move the entire primary election (with all the other races) to February, so the party had to hold a caucus.

[BurtWorm]

17. Make that just NH.

I added NM as an after"thought." ;)

[Eloriel]

52. They called it a caucus because the state Dem Party had to

pay for it themselves. It wasn't anything like Iowa -- they used machines, and all of NM is either optical scan or DRE.

[BurtWorm]

61. Thanks for the info, Eloriel!

So again, these "caucusers" used the same machinery they'll be using in November. And NM, as I recall, was one of those down to the wire swing states. It's essential that Dems stay on top of these machines. In my humble opinion.

[burrowowl]

10. NM votes were on paper ballots

I was an observer at a caucus zone.
I don't know if the absentee ballots have been tallied yet.
What is your beef?

[sandnsea]

12. Tallied first I think

I read on another post that the Albuquerque paper said the first returns were the absentee ballots.

[Eloriel]

54. No, YOUR county's votes may have been on paper ballots, but

weren't they then scanned (optical scan?)? Further -- some counties in NM have DREs (touchscrens).

Here's an interactive map. Choose "Voting Systems Used" from the list (third from the bottom of options) and then click on New Mexico on the map -- you'll see all the counties and what voting systems they use.

According to this map, NM is entirely optical scan and DRE. BOTH are error-prone and fraud-capable.

The only saving grace of optical scan is that the paper ballots which are the input COULD be used in a recount to get an accurate count of the voters' true intentions. Just having a ballot that gets scanned does NOT prevent computer errors or intentional fraud.

[LandOLincoln]

74. I was the observer for the Clark campaign at the busiest

polling site in NM--Jefferson Middle School in Albuquerque--and the simple paper ballots (listing ONLY the presidential candidates) were the same as the absentee ballots except for the color of the paper used.

Because of the number of votes cast at JMS it took a couple of hours to tally all but the provisional ballots, but we agreed afterwards that this is the kind of ballot the party needs to push for in the general election. It's virtually foolproof--no problems with dimpled or hanging chads, no ambiguities. We had 2-3 overvotes and one poor slob who'd signed his name on the "write in" line, but out of approximately 1100 ballots that's a phenomenal record, IMO.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

14. I think whoever is requesting the validation should pay for it.

If the only people questioning the results are the Dean supporters then they need to convince the Dean campaign to request the validation and pay for it.

[BurtWorm]

18. I'd like the Democratic Party to be the party of electoral integrity.

I'd like it to put its money where its big fat friggin' yap is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Saw Some Questionable Calls During the Super Bowl...

Maybe the fix was in (sic)


Maybe there should be an investigation....

[G_j]

19. why?

can the refs be "hacked"? Was the last last SB stolen?

let the Democrats SET THE TONE NOW for electoral honesty. Come election time this will be crucial because I guarantee it's going to be a messy, ugly affair.
Why not attempt to set an impeccably honest standard NOW?

[BurtWorm]

21. My point exactly. It's not the candidates but the machines that need to be

kept honest. At this stage of the game anyway.

Thank you for getting it! :toast:

[G_j]

24. right, it's the machines we need to

pay attention to. It seems to me if we make the voting machines accountable to the highest standards now, it can only help later when millions of them will be in use.

[seaglass]

20. I haven't seen anything presented yet that shows the

voting method is the only reason for Dean's loss or even a contributing factor, but...

If the Dean campaign (I mean HQ) can substantiate these suspicions with a thorough analysis then I wouldn't have a problem with the DNC picking up the cost.

The Dean campaign would need to be pretty damn sure they're not just grasping though because if so, it would spell the end of the campaign.

[BurtWorm]

23. Should the Democratic Party care about the integrity of the process

for picking its nominee or shouldn't it? Should it lead us back to a system voters can trust or just mouth platitudes when their candidates lose? What really is more important: beating Bush with the allegedly most electable candidate (who may not be all that electable if he's perceived as untrustworthy, I might add) or standing up for the integrity of the system?

I know it's difficult for Kerry supporters in particular to view this as anything but an attack on their man. Personally, I'm more worried about the machines. I'd like to be reassured that they didn't screw up, whether intentionally or not. I think the DNC should establish a committee to satisfy the doubts some of us have as a result of the last two election cycles. The system did not suddenly become trustworthy because only Democrats are involved. Dems are using the same machinery they'll be using in November. Shouldn't we all want to be sure that they're true to the intent of the voters? Didn't we learn anything from 2000?

[seaglass]

31. I know it's very difficult for Dean supporters to

understand that those who do not support him see many reasons why he lost NH, the least likely reason being a discrepancy in voting machines.

I live on the Southern border of NH - I know that many MA residents have moved to Southern NH and they work in MA - then someone who knows nothing is trying to make a case that So. NH is conservative?

That's not analysis - it's guessing.

No one has proven any type of case. Prove a case by looking at all the factors and I will support the effort - it just hasn't been done.

I'm not looking at it as an attack on Kerry, I'm looking at it as another blame anyone/thing but the candidate complaint from Dean supporters. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

[BurtWorm]

34. This is not about Dean or Kerry, goddamit! It's about the integrity

of the vote! Why is this so difficult to understand? Don't you want to be assured your guy was actually elected? Isn't that what our anger over 2000 was about?

[seaglass]

37. You need to get that there has been no evidence

presented that the voting machines are the cause of Dean's loss - and this IS the context of this issue. What about SC, ND, OK, etc.?

Making charges without analysis weakens the case for voting machine problems.

[BurtWorm]

38. Read. My. Lips. This. Is. Not. About. Kerry. Or. Dean.

These are the same machines we'll be voting on in November. Do you trust them? If you do, can you explain what makes them more trustworthy than they were in Nov 2000 or 2002?

[seaglass]

39. Read mine. No evidence. More whining. n/t

[BurtWorm]

42. Reverse the situation in your imagination.

That's what we asked the Bushbots to do in 2000. Are you feeling more sympathy for their exasperation over Democrats' calls to count the votes?

[seaglass]

49. Can you not see the difference between 2000 and the NH

primary?

The race in Florida was too close to call, it generated an automatic recount under Florida law. The race in NH was not too close to call. The suggestion is that some large-scale conspiracy is going on.

If you want a recount you must present a case. Do you think ANYONE who can make a recount happen is going to support it on the flimsy evidence that has been presented to date?

[BurtWorm]

50. Get your mind off the frickin' conspiracy, would you please?

I'm not talking conspiracy. I'm talking integrity of the system. In truth, the DNC should be isnisting on the integrity of the system wherever primaries are being held. That they're not speaks volumes about how committed they are to this issue.

[Eloriel]

60. Further, it's highly likely Kerry DID win -- but it's also likely

that Dean made a stronger showing than the machines gave him credit for.

So it's not about Kerry or wanting to have him lose or anything else. As Burt is trying to point out, it's about the integrity of the system. And that is something EVERYone who wants a Dem to win in November (no matter which Dem) should be very, very concerned about.

[BurtWorm]

62. Also, what if some bug deprived Dean of delegates that should be his?

We're not talking about a first across the post horse race. We're talking about a vote for delegates.

[nancyharris]

22. There seems to be a misconception

that paper ballots are less likely to be fraudulent than electronically counted ballots. This is simply not the case. It is actually easier for precinct workers to create mass fraud by adding pre-marked ballots to the ballot box when using paper ballots.

[BurtWorm]

25. Gee, that's what team Bush was claiming in 2000.

You mean they were right?! :eyes:

[G_j]

29. if the paper ballots

(fraudulent or not) are counted and there is a discrepancy, then we know we have have a major problem.
Personally, if there is I want to know.

[loudsue]

27. I agree BurtWorm...

There is NO reason, given all the research on BBV, and all the press it's been getting lately, that there shouldn't be AT LEAST spot checks in ALL the States that had primaries.

Since there has been so much "weirdness" going on for the past 3 elections (that we've KNOWN about), it's time activists started calling for spot audits in every state....if for nothing else, than for verification.

Voting is our most basic right. There are mountains of evidence that show elections have been tampered with -- either through carelessness or fraud, or something in between. It's time that we started getting spot hand counts all across the country just as a matter of procedure. It's a good way to let our officials know we are paying attention, and we demand accuracy, not to mention that they need to know WE DON'T TRUST THEM (!) and they'd best tow the line.

When the people do nothing, Democracy doesn't work. Democracy is a hands-on, participatory form of self government. Sitting around as if we're all in a big soup of denial is NOT the way we maintain that right to participate.

It's time the citizens of this country started stepping in on every process along the way. If they're going to tax us and spend our money like a bunch of drunken sailors, we DESERVE the right to oversee their work. THEY WORK FOR US!! Let's start acting like it.

:kick:

[G_j]

30. well said

and I agree :-)

[BurtWorm]

33. You said it better than I did, loudsue!

The integrity of the vote-accounting system is vastly more important to the health of the democracy than any one Democrat's "electability." You can't elect anyone if the machines don't count the votes right!

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. I would want a prima-facie 'probable cause' case for doing so.

I have no great faith in the integrity of voting machines per se, but that simple lack of faith alone does not justify an expensive, manual recount. I would like to see a minimum of a 'probable cause' showing about possib;e fraud/error, before I could back a recount. Show me some affidavits, or some discrepancies between voters applying to vote and votes registered, e.g., before having a recount.

[BurtWorm]

32. An Edwards supporter would bring up "probable cause!"

;)

Seriously, I'm not talking about approaching this as a crime. I'm talking about approaching this as a matter of principle. And I'm not talking about a full recount. I'm talking about finding the most cost-effective way to verify that the vote was accurate to the utmost.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. That's what I mean, Burt.

I just want some sort of showing as to why it's a reasonable thing to do. From a purely neutral standpoint, I'd be interested in knowing how accurate the scanners were, but not interested enough to pay for a recount on that basis alone. :)

[BurtWorm]

46. Probable cause, if you want to put it that way: Elections 2000 and 2004

A year ago, a majority--a vast majority of people on this board would have cited the last two elections as major symptoms of the ills of Bushist America. The system has suddenly become healthy because only Democrats are involved? I kinda doubt it.

[HFishbine]

44. Evidence of Probable Cause

Where was such a standard when your candidate voted for war?

[Cuban_Liberal]

53. That's an appeal to ridicule.

But I'll answer any way. The 'probable cause' for voting for the IWR was the bad intelligence that the Bushistas presented to the Congress. I didn't support the IWR, but I'm not a single-issue voter, either.

[Cocoa]

35. why has Dean been so silent on this?

Before looking at the DNC, I think Dean should comment on this result.

[BurtWorm]

41. That's a good question. But whether or not Dean feels a need to comment

after two blatantly fishy election cycles, some voters feel a need to be reassured that the counting machines are trustworthy. It's bigger than Dean, the way 2000 was bigger than Gore.

And I feel a need to say again that I am not accusing anyone of any crimes. I am more concerned about the machines--about the integrity of the process--than I am about what any candidates' or their campaigns might have done.

Think of it this way: what should the Democratic nominee do if in Nov. 2004 he reads exit polls that have him tied or beating Bush in Florida, say, and by 8:30 CNN is calling Florida for Bush because of a solid 8% spread that isn't closing. The hand counted counties reflect the exit polls like a mirror, but in counties that count electronically, Bush has 20% to 30% leads. What might our candidate do differently from what Gore did? Accept the numbers and concede Florida, reasoning that there's no probable cause? That's what he'll have to do if he takes the same position now.

My feeling is that the Democratic Party, being the aggrieved party in the last two elections, should verify that the process accurately reflects the voters' will.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. I agree that something should be done

Even if there is another reason for the discrepancy, it should be checked out.

[Uzybone]

45. Its a good idea

hopefully Dean will bring it up. I shit is being stolen from me I sure would gripe about it. If he says nothing and you guys keep blowing up the boards with suggestions of fraud, then we know you are bullshitting.

The explanation is simple...rural areas with low population (a little less Dean support than Kerry) hand counted. Urban area, where most people live (much less support for Dean than Kerry) used the machines.

[BurtWorm]

48. The explanation is simple, but as in 2000, actually looking at the votes

would be better. Again: I'm not advocating a full manual recount of all counties in NH. Just a cost-effective sampling of machines to corroborate that the initial count was accurate--in the interest of promoting trust in the integrity of the system that we will be using again in November against Bush.

[TexasSissy]

55. I've not seen a reputable, widely known news source to support allegation

that you make. The initial link was to some unknown, private source.

So before the DNC pays for anything, there would need to be some evidence of significant election count total variance.

[tinanator]

56. a reputable widely known news source?

Wow, Id love to live in that world.

[BurtWorm]

58. How about doing it just to show that at least Dem elections are clean?

:think:

[davsand]

57. Please voice support in my GD thread about contacting candidates!

I started a thread in GD calling everyone to arms about this issue. I'd appreciate your support there in getting the message out that we must all act. This is not a Candidate A issue--or a Candidate B issue--or a Candidate C issue. THIS is a Dem issue, and if we want to stand any chance to see bush go away in November we have GOT to act now to check that the voting process is clean.

I'm urging everyone to contact whatever candidate they support and get them to ask for this recount.

Candidates may be reluctant to ask for it fearing the media slaughter that will surely descend on whoever asks for it. IF the candidates all hang together on it we can either lay the entire issue of electronic voting to bed or in the grave...

WE have to support each other now!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=266547&mesg_id=266547

Laura

Edited to remove candidate names lest I offend anyone by missing a candidate...

[BurtWorm]

59. You get it! Thank you!

But I want to stress again that the focus should not be on disproving that a wrong was committed but on proving that the count was accurate. This should be what separates Dems from Repubs. We care about accurate vote counts! We care about the integrity of the electoral system.

[foo_bar]

65. BBV is a valid issue

or rather, fraud in general is a valid issue; the folks who focus their paranoia on "black boxes" don't seem to understand that this lack of "quis custodiat" is as old as the republic, and paper ballots are far easier to corrupt, at least historically.

The problem is, you're (collectively) squandering what little credibility the BBV circuit has by disputing a legitimate election that Dean lost under every vote-counting system. For those of us wondering how "real" the threat of black boxing is over old-fashioned shenanigans, crying wolf without a shred of evidence tends to reinforce the perception of sour grapes and denial.

[BurtWorm]

66. There's no need to presume guilt. There's no need to presume criminal act.

There is good reason, however, to be concerned about the integrity of the electoral system in the US, especially since 2000 and 2002, when anomalies went uninvestigated and the voters lost their civil right (if not Constitutional right) to have their votes counted accurately.

[foo_bar]

69. agreed

But the age-old question of electoral integrity has little bearing on an election that Dean lost on both hand counted and optically scanned paper ballots. You may as well argue that Kucinich really won, or Dean actually stole votes from Kerry.

[BurtWorm]

71. I haven't once said I thought Dean won.

The fact that delegates were at stake regardless of who "won" makes this a bit more pressing. Did Dean get all the delegates his supporters voted for him to have? I hope so!

[foo_bar]

73. why presume Dean was cheated of delegates?

That's where I think the bias shows. Given the absence of evidence outside of suspected systemic corruption, it's equally likely that Dean cheated Kerry of delegates, or all the Kucinich ballots were dumped into the Merrimack. I think we should recount all elections, twice!, but making this a BBV issue just makes BBV partisans look prone to deception.

[BurtWorm]

77. Call it electoral integrity rather than BBV.

In NH there is a mandatory paper trail, so its not technically BBV we're talking about there anyway. I mischaracterized it, perhaps. But it's all part of the same tapestry.

[On the Road]

64. I Noticed Some Strange Shifts in NM

that did not seem to be caused by % of precincts reporting. Dean was within 2% of Kerry with most precincts reporting. The finals showed him being swamped.

It could have been a simple reporting error in the press. In other words, it may have had nothing to do with the machies at all. But I would like to hear an explanation.

[bigtree]

67. Exit polls are always flawed and wrong

-More voters in the rural districts voted for Dean.

-The larger towns went for Kerry.

-livejournal.com is a blog, not a credible source.

-These are spurious charges however you couch them, belied by the breathless urgency in the appeals to recount the vote.

However, outside of links to other states and other purported abuses elswhere, there has been no credible proof of anything other than some lies told to the exit pollers.

The continuation of this line of attack - and it is an attack on the integrity of John Kerry's victory - is a slap in the face and a slander to those who have come out to support John.

This is an expedition for fishermen. It stinks.

[BurtWorm]

68. Fishing expedition?

Where have I heard that one before? :eyes:

[bigtree]

70. Stinks of rotten, sour grapes

[BurtWorm]

72. It doesn't matter what it stinks of to you. The whole electoral system

has been stinking for years. The Dems can either let it continue to rot (and risk another illegitimate loss) or do something to restore voters' trust in the system.

[NNN0LHI]

75. I am sure Bush and his minions agree with you as they pull in a million...

...dollars a day to smear the eventual nominee. Spend our money chasing ghosts while Bush is getting stronger by the day? Get real here.

Don

[BurtWorm]

76. I'm afraid electoral integrity is more and more becoming just that.

A ghost.