DU needs Dems who don’t believe in Fraud

[flintdem]

Let me argue why DU needs Democrats like myself and others who aren’t convinced of fraud (at least stolen electronic votes- and that is what I am referring to in this post) in the 2004 election (I do buy that registrations were destroyed, long lines existed. needlessly, and that both sides tried their best to stretch the law to gain an advantage but not enough to change the outcome -more on this later). We need electoral reform and a system that doesn’t have 1-2% error of wasted votes built into it. But Fraudsters (not meant derogatorily- just need a shorter term that “Duers who believe in fraud”) need us to keep them honest.

Unlike the bush administration we should be avoiding “groupthink” on these pages. Here are the symptoms of groupthink and why you need us:


1. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

You cry with righteous indignation, “The election was stolen”. But what if it wasn’t (I know that is beyond the scope of what you can imagine, but humor me). What are we doing to our electoral system by crying electronic fraud when there is none (and please don’t repost the same old tired statistical analysis in response to this- I agree the data shows a Kerry skew. We disagree about how it got there and disagree about what we can actually measure with this data)? If we are wrong about fraud, we are delegitimizing our own electoral system and form of government (and adding to what the Supreme Court started in 2000). We are increasing people’s cynicism, and possibly decreasing participation in the future. We are needlessly increasing the rancor and bitterness in the political process- if we are wrong.

2. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy”.

Anyone who doesn’t hold the fraud opinion is a “freeper”. We have gone from demonizing republicans (which isn’t helpful in the long run) to shooting our own. If you want to take back Congress in 2006 you need me, and you have to let me express my opinion without slamming me (or Green or Libertarian or sitting on my hands on my couch- here I come). The same of course goes to those who don’t believe in fraud. Answer me this- can a Democrat believe that fraud didn’t happen, have rational arguments for that belief and not be an agent of the evil empire???

3. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

I want to work with you on electoral reform. I want every vote to count. I still want to be able to engage you about 2004 in a civil manner.

4. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

I joined DU right after the election after 2 months of lurking, because this election issue interested me. I immediately got slammed and so I shut up for a few weeks. I thought, “the hell with this- who needs the aggravation”. But I think this is important enough of a discussion that I decided to come back. How many other Democrats have been shut-up?

5. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

You know who you are. Lets just discuss the facts. Both sides search for reasons to discredit reports that don’t fit their worldview. Report A was produced by group B that receives funding from multinational group C that contains members that once had a conservative thought- reject the report!!!

Everyone is biased!!! All the authors are biased. Anyone who says that they are an unbiased researcher is lying. Whew that’s out of the way- now lets look at the data, and the arguments of everyone and see if they stand scrutiny or not.

6. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

Do you really think that John Kerry after a lifetime of seeking the presidency would get this close and then drop the ball if we had credible evidence? Yet we so believe our own circle of views that we picket his house!!! Have some respect for the man and his judgement!!!


7. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

What kind of assumptions…

Only republicans steal election. Bullshit! I fully expect that Democratic and republican elites and identifiers each have some subset, who not only bend the law but break it. We’re talking about power and the establishment of our values and rejection of theirs- both sides cheat. Don’t like it, but it happens.

Any expert, news report, etc., who questions the infallibility of exit polls is wrong, biased and a republican agent (while of course anyone who holds the other view is unbiased and pure as driven snow).

Any news report that doesn’t support our view in any aspect of the election is wrong (see above).

I could go on…

Fraudsters challenge those of us who don’t buy machine/electronic fraud to re-examine our views and assumptions (hopefully!). We think we do a service to you when we do the same. If you don’t want us to -fine. Oh- and good luck in 2006. You’ll need it.

(Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.)

-edited for date errors

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. Sorry

It was stolen...I have found the fraud, seen it with my own eyes.
If you don't think fraud occured...the MSM has done their job and you have been fully deluded.

[flintdem]

3. I'd take your answer as satire...

but I think you're for real.

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. Google this

"Andy Stephenson" voting or diebold


then ask any questions you want to ask.

[papau]

13. I join Andy in the fact of fraud - but I join you in your concerns

By the way - there is an excellent book out on the fact that group think gets to the right answer more often than individual educated guesses! (this is re your "Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin" :-) )


Can one have a Belief in inherent morality – and still say the leaders of the GOP leaders - certainly not even a large minority - just the leaders- do not mind stealing an election because they buy the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions - as in have you met Grover Norquist?

delegitimizing our own electoral system and form of government and increasing people’s cynicism is a problem best solved by paper ballots, perhaps optical scanned - but with all software in an eprom that was burned by the Feds and is open to public inspection.


Of course a Democrat believe that fraud didn’t happen, have rational arguments for that belief, and not be an agent of the evil empire. So what are the arguements? Ignore peer group pressure - please do not Self-censorship.

Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ are not part of the DU I know - discussions with multiple opinions do not mean folks are protecting the group from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions - however DU does demand links to source since the GOP approach is assertion with no facts and is impossible to "defeat" - for example Condi today.

I agree "Everyone is biased!!!" :-)

"Do I really think that John Kerry after a lifetime of seeking the presidency would get this close and then drop the ball if we had credible evidence?" NO Yet we so believe our own circle of views that we picket his house!!! TRUE Have some respect for the man and his judgement!!! NO - the picket is to get him to reconsider his position - why is that wrong?

I agree that not Only republicans steal election - I just find the Dems without the ability to do it well because of lack of corporate control and central office procedures/setups.

News reports are indeed on a conservative bias of late - I do not see why seeing that fact makes saying a news report is wrong something you should not say.

[liberalnurse]

14. Looks like the poster

really does not wish to engage in discussion. Posting flame lines and runs away.

[flintdem]

17. Thank you

Someone who actually replied to my arguments instead of proving my point. I would go into laying out why I have problems with the fraud argument but then that would make this entire post arguments back and forth about fraud and not an introspective examination of how DU works.

I gues I have a low view of human nature- no group is more moral than anyother.

I totally agree with you about changing the ballots!!! One can not bellieve computer farud and still want a better system.

I guess I've seen alot of assertions from both sides without links and lots of discounting arguments because of sources rather than the merits of the argument or the data.

Sorry, I thought the John Kerry thing looked loonie to world around us and I did think it was disrespectful of someone of his stature.

I would be willing to agree that MSM is biased by commericalism (they report to get an audience not to aim for some altruistic public service of good reporting), but by and large (with the exception of Fox) I think they try to be impartial.

At the same time, I'm not willing to buy the perspective of some (not necessarily you) that corporate American is the evil empire either. Corporations tend to have members of both parties in their structures (even Diebold :) ).

[papau]

19. Thanks for the reply - to be continued I am sure :-)

:-)

[Roger_Otip]

23. both sides have to admit to doubt

you can't be 100% certain of anything. if you are then that's faith. i reckon there's about an 80% probability that electronic fraud occurred in the election, but that leaves 20% of doubt - still a reasonable doubt. if you don't believe electronic fraud occurred how certain are you?

[Hawkowl]

29. Dangerous naivete

If you want to quibble, whine, and wring your hands that "no evidence" exists of computer voter fraud because it disturbs your world view that most Americans are "nice" people, that is your prerogative of personal introspection.

However, I urge you to view the computer fraud allegations in a broader context of traditional voter fraud that was massively expanded in this past s'election. And even if you still disallow the possibility of computer fraud, can't you at least acknowledge, if not embrace, the evidence of other more traditional types of massive voter fraud? You must see that the Republican Party leadership is gripped by a fascist mentality of maintaining power at all costs.

Overwhelming evidence IS present on massive disenfranchisement of minority, and heavily democratic precincts, counties, and states (i.e; OH & NM). Through caging lists, withholding voting machines, lack of auditing procedures, distribution of disinformation of polling places and correct election dates, and refusing to allow the public to view vote counting, and polling books, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it's leadership, and by acquiescence it's membership IS GUILTY OF VOTER FRAUD.

I agree all Rethugs are not bad, but the ones that have seized power ARE all bad. I'm sure people thought there were some "good" Nazi's in 1930, yet eventually it became apparent that all Nazi's are evil. Am I comparing republicans with Nazi's you say? Yes. All republicans? No, not at this point---But if you extrapolate the past two "elections" one can easily, (more easily than not I argue) see the next step being a "postponed" election, or a state of emergency declared a la banana republic.

I find your Pollyanna view dangerous. You remind me of many of my friends who I constantly remind that there is EVIL in the world. This amoral, let's just all get along, and "I know there is good in everybody" is horseshite.

In regards to your comments about corporate america, may I remind you that fascism makes no distinction between the government and the corporate state. If you doubt the nascent beginnings of this movement in the U.S. look no further than the recent scandal regarding "journalist" Armstrong and read RFK Jr.'s book "Crimes Against Nature" detailing the indistinguishability between former corporate lobbyists turned bureaucrats.

[Angelique]

98. Someone better suggest more than allegations....

... because we are losing what little credibility we have left.. This discussion is fine on these forums but this pipe-dream is getting into the mainstream, and except for a small core of true believers who refuse to accept the obvious injustice of the stupidity of our fellow citizens..

I for one, am getting sick and tired of the emotional whiplash over this vote count, exit polls, machine corruption, disenfranchisement, media blackout, one note samba that saturates this place.. If there is any hard evidence of organized, massive corruption, for heaven sake.. BRING IT OUT.. FAST!

If you can prove the Bu** campaign had systematically arraigned to stuff ballot boxes, added votes on computers, and made up dummy voters, in sufficient numbers to deprive the Kerry election, I swear, I will leave home and carry it to the New York Times myself.. No one can say that the NYT is a Bu** organism, they would wet their pants to stuff the chimp up the GOP ass@S!! FLAME AWAY, I know I am not alone on these boards.

[pbartch]

101. You HAVE NOT BOTHERED to read those links that were posted huh??

You said: "I guess I've seen alot of assertions from both sides without links and lots of discounting arguments because of sources rather than the merits of the argument or the data."

My God......there has been SO MUCH evidence posted here! If you haven't read the evidence that has been posted, IT'S YOUR FAULT.

[liberalnurse]

15. No, you are seriously

way, way off base.

[Amaryllis]

102. Read this and tell me no fraud:

http://www.chuckherrin.com/ConservativeEmpathy.htm

[Hugin]

2. If I'm anything like most of the "fraudsters" around here...

I'm not saying there was more "electronic fraud" in this election
than in others.

But, what I *am* saying is... If you don't like what
you saw in this election. Just you hang on, baby.

Because you ain't seen nothin' till you've seen electronic
fraud.

[Hugin]

12. System lag?

From the bottom of your post flint:

"Oh- and good luck in 2002."

Little behind the times there. Maybe "it got caught up
in the wire"... eh?

Darn computers... ;)

[flintdem]

18. More like fat fingers!!!

Actually I've been looking at exit poll datasets on and off from 1988-2000 and feel like I am in a time warp.

[DELUSIONAL]

4. nice feature on DU -- the ignore list.

[Farah]

61. Amen to that!

[denese]

6. actually, no

we don't need people like that around here.
I say we need less people who don't believe in fraud, not more.
Good-bye.

[anamandujano]

7. You're a victim of groupthink,

possibly just the media but maybe even the repukes.

Good luck getting rid of spoilage, the repukes thrive on it and use it to cover their fraud tracks.

[Bronco69]

8. Take another sip of Kool Aid.

It looks like the corporate media has done it's job.

[DenverDem]

9. So, MASSIVE EVIDENCE of fraud is not enough for you.

Your post smells of fraud itself.

[understandinglife]

10. alert;snooze;puke;bye (n/t)

[New Earth]

20. lmao!!!

[liberalnurse]

11. Thanks Andy.......

Folks want to get over it or feel safe in denial. The real long term detriment of such denial is it renders change impotent. Election reform or restructuring is probably the only option to deal with this actual election fraud and abuse.

Dilution of the evidence, facts and denial of the facts will not inspire change. Only outrage and adamant refusal to let the crimes abate will we ever have a chance at having "We the People" actually elect our officials.

[proud_Kucitizen]

16. The question should not be

whether you believe fraud was actually comitted which I do. The question is that with Republican corporations controlling the machines that count our votes with no one to keep them honest what are the odds this election was stolen. The odds are monumental to say the least.

For your question number 6 I say yes it is very probable that Kerry could drop out even with evidence. However, he dropped out too soon to know what the evidence was don't you think.

For statement 7 I agree both sides do cheat but the problem is the cards are stacked so heavily against the democrats right now with voter suppression being the norm these days. On electronic machines there were documented cases where people voted for Kerry and asked to confirm there vote for Bush but not one documented case of the reverse having happened and machines that gave thousands of extra votes to Bush but none that gave extra votes to Kerry. So what you are asking us to believe is that the democrats who are so unorganized right now are so good at cheating that they made no mistakes. Come on.

As far as the media goes they don't have any problem of running some stupid story in the ground but hardly even mentioned this which would be a ratings grabber because of it's controversial nature. Guess they just felt our democracy is not an important issue.

[flintdem]

25. Well...

I have a difficulty with the portrayal of corporations as havens for gop. They aren't monolistic internally (in terms of party id).

I think most cheating happens on a smaller scale. A quick pencil push though the chads of 20 ballots in a heavily democratic precint to misallocation of polling machines in minority areas, I think is the normal range of activies. Taking the risk of recoding machines or servers sounds too X-file to me and to assume that it has been going on for several elections without someone leaking or finding proof (stand up in court & go to jail kind of proof- please, please don't post exit polls) seems unlikely at best.

[we can do it]

39. please....

open your eyes, corporations are havens for sheep who don't want to think for themselves. If you don't follow the crowd and think like the rest do in a big corp, you are seen as a problem.


:think:

[Peace Patriot]

59. Power not evidence is why Kerry dropped out, in my opinion...

"For your question number 6 I say yes it is very probable that Kerry could drop out even with evidence. However, he dropped out too soon to know what the evidence was don't you think." --proud_Kucitizen

I also agree with this--that he dropped out too early. But I do think Bush had him boxed in--with the assault on Fallujah timed for the week after the election.

I'm coming to the conclusion (for whatever it's worth--and in so far as anyone can know) that Kerry dropped out because of his evaluation of the power situation, not because of any evidence. The evidence for election fraud is overwhelming, and he must have known this even on election night, from his own internal polling--not to mention the results of the unpolluted exit poll data which played on TV all afternoon. Certainly two or so weeks later he knew--when analysis of the exit polls began to be published.

Also, I really can't believe that Kerry and the Dem leadership were not aware of the potential for fraud--Wally O'Dell, etc. (--although their silence about this potential is one of the more mind-boggling puzzles of the last several years.)

So, what were his options? He was facing a BushCon Congress that would never in a million years oust Bush, no matter if you showed them a hundred "smoking guns." The courts? Uh-huh. (Hint: Bush v. Gore.) Journalists, newspapers, the New York Times, CBS? Right. Think about it.

His options were (or what I imagine his options were, from his point of view) leading a revolution, which could well have turned bloody (and not having the power to win it), or shutting up.

He chose to shut up.

I think there might have been a middle way--one that would have been more heartening to the rest of us than his almost total retreat and silence. But then I wasn't the person on the BushCons' target range that day. It might be a bit hard to see your options with those jackals circling round you.

[Amaryllis]

103. Right on. See this link: point is whether you believe it was or not, it

sure COULD have been and that should alarm anyone( even though there supposedly isn't yet anything that would constitute "proof" in the legal sense, although Arnebeck sure thinks he has it) :
http://www.chuckherrin.com/ConservativeEmpathy.htm

[New Earth]

21. give it up

that's all :)

[marions ghost]

22. hmmm...

:boring:

How many times have we heard this line. I guess it'll be once a week now. If you could get some good argument about why fraud is NOT
possible, post it. That would be a "service." But this defensive, long-winded message just to say "you're wrong and I'm right" is a :yawn:

"Fraudsters...need us to keep them honest," thou sayest (in 1st paragraph).
--That line may well be true, if you're talking about Fraudsters working this election. They are the ones who are honesty-challenged. We are not needing your help.

[flintdem]

28. "Not possible" -No not proven

I don't have the time to post all of the links for what I am about to lay out (I have to teach in a few minutes). I will try to get to laying out a more comprehensive posting on this tomorrow. In my business, proving a hypothesis means also ruling out alternative hypotheses that might explain the same phenomena. For example, lets take the exit poll explanations:

Hypothesis One. The Kerry 2% skew is evidence of electronic voter fraud.

For this to be true- on average 2 of every one hundred Kerry votes, nationally, were changed (this might be different for individual states). That means with every precinct that had an exit poll interviewer (taking an average of 50 interviews per precinct) they had a 1 in 50 chance of interviewing someone who's vote was changed. Yet for the 2% change to show up in the poll- on average there had to be one interviewed per precinct. This is the minimum percentage and minimum chance of interviewing. It could be 3% and 1 in 33 but unless those who are doing fraud are stupid, it is hard to believe that they would go much higher (3% would equal a total 6% Kerry loss and bush increase- let me be clearer: a tie would turn into a 6% bush lead).

Hypothesis Two. Bush voters were less likely to be interviewed (this one comes from Mitofsky).

To get a 2% skew on average one less bush voter and one more Kerry voter per precinct had to be interviewed. In 2000 49% of people approached to take part in the exit poll declined. I don't know the number in 2004.

There is some evidence that republicans in particular are quirky about participating in exit polls.

"In the Republican primaries in New Hampshire in 1992 and in Arizona in 1996, exit polls overestimated the vote for Pat Buchanan. The most likely reason for the mistakes, which resulted in misleading news coverage- the greater likelihood of Buchanan voters willing to participate in exit polls. In 1992, exit polls predicted a George Bush win by only a small margin over Buchanan -- Bush actually won by 16 points. In 1996, exit polls put Bob Dole a distant third after Steve Forbes and Buchanan - Dole actually came in a close second to Forbes."

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=127

Or you can believe that they are busy stealing elections from each other...

Hypothesis Three: Bush voters didn't want to admit it.

The 1992 exit poll underestimated Perot's totals (as did the pre-election polls) because Perot voters seemed unwilling to admit (lied) they voted for him or avoided exit poll interviews (I've seen both arguments).

"VNS overstated the final Democratic vote in the 1992 presidential race. Many believe that this was due to Perot voters being relatively suspicious and unwilling to cooperate with the exit polls."

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=127

From the exit poll results we have, I can't prove one of these over the other- the data isn't fine enough. I have argued in other posts that recounts would be the only way to prove this. New Hampshire's recount didn't show it. Ohio's recount was a fiasco because many of the counties didn't take it seriously including Democrats.

I'll probably regret this post because now it opens the door to other posting proofs but I'm trying to answer your question.

What would be proof? The actual coding, corroborated testimony from a software designer, an actual vote recount showing the skew like the exit poll...are a few that come to mind. Same day reports of voting machines changing votes carries some weight with me and definitely needs investigated. Some would always be a result of human error (I know I pushed Kerry...), some from partisanship (low view of human nature- there would have been more republican reports of votes changing had Kerry won :) ) but they are the closest thing to proof I have seen.

I accept that vote was suppressed (haven't seen hard evidence that it changes any state outcome). I don't know- what else is there?

[emcguffie]

41. The same-day reports were --

before they knew Kerry "lost". Nobody knew, when they were voting. And so many of them said they asked for help, and it happened repeatedly. I heard this before I went home to vote that day.

That wasn't bias. It was Kerry voters with their votes going to Bush. Not the other way.

[Don1]

92. Taking Claims to the Test

"Hypothesis Two. Bush voters were less likely to be interviewed (this one comes from Mitofsky).

To get a 2% skew on average one less bush voter and one more Kerry voter per precinct had to be interviewed. In 2000 49% of people approached to take part in the exit poll declined. I don't know the number in 2004."

Didn't you say that you read all the reports? The 2004 number appears in the latest Mitofsky report which you are referencing with your "Hypothesis Two" comment. It's on page 54. There was a 35.8% refusal rate. Again, I thought you read the report. Did you only read the Executive Summary or did you just forget that the number was there?

I think it's worth it to consider your/Mitofsky's Hypothesis Two. As you say, alternative hypotheses should be weighed against the main hypothesis here of vote fraud.

First, a general question...if more Republicans than Dems refused to take the survey, then does that mean that Dems are friendlier or does it mean that Republicans are grumpier?

Now that amenities are done, let's analyze this hypothesis. No, wait...this _assertion_ from Mitofsky.

Since we have the poll percents of Kerry voters per state (KE), poll percents of Bush voters per state (BE), 'real' Kerry percents per state (KR), 'real' Bush percents per state (BR), and refusal rates per state (RR), we should be able to estimate the refusal rates of Kerry supporters (RK) and refusal rates of Bush supporters per state (RB). We can additionally compute the difference between such rates which you are claiming should have a mean of 2 x 2% = 4%. Furthermore, such rates should show something close to an accepted statistical distribution once all 50 states (51 if you include DC) are placed into a graph.

A second method to analyze the merits of the Hypothesis Two claim would be to search for a correlation between the 'real' Republican vote percent versus the Refusal Rate on a per state basis.

Do you agree with either of these analyses of the hypothesis in question? If so, do you want to try them out? Also, if so, why does Mitofsky say that this cannot be quantified? If you disagree with these mathematical methods, then state the mathematical reason why.

Looking forward to your answers.

[Stevepol]

24. I don't accuse most Repubs of being immoral, just the DRE

manufacturers and programmers. It's impossible to know where the fraud originated and who knows about it, but it's absolutely a certainty that fraud took place. I suspect that it happened with the knowing collaboration of the big voting machine companies, ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia, and probably some more. They share software, in the case of ES&S and Diebold they even have brothers in charge, they share in many other ways as well, so it would have been very easy for them to share information. Just how they did it I don't know. I don't think the rank and file Republican knows anything about this, tho very many suspect something when they see the figures. In many cases the Republicans are more moral than Dems. We're all just people, and as has been said, "There's so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it doesn't behoove anybody to speak ill of anybody else." Yet the fact that it happened is so obvious that you have to wonder about the sanity of anybody who can see the statistics and still say it didn't happen. Beyond that, hard as it is, we should stick with principles and facts and try to avoid skewering individuals just for the satisfaction.

[Mistwell]

26. I agree and disagree

I agree that we need to have a big tent, and be accepting of all people who support progressive causes. If that includes people who believe there was no election fraud, then so be it.

I, however, believe there was election fraud. I am not sure if it was enough fraud to tip the balance of the election, though I suspect it might have been enough. I am not sure if the fraud was only one-sided. But I do feel confident that there was some fraud that happened, and we should fix the system to prevent it from happening in the future.

I also agree with you that there is MASSIVE groupthink going on these days here (particularly with the exit poll threads). But I feel confident that will pass, and the bullies will eventually get tired of goose-stepping and their followers will start to think for themselves again. Democrats always eventually question the things they see in the world, even if they briefly fall into lockstep with groupthink out of protection or comfort or grief. This too will pass.

[New Earth]

27. it's 'this too shall pass'.

:hi:

[Mistwell]

30. Smirk

Yeah, okay "shall" not "will" :)

I think you are just poking at me for my being grumpy last night here, Faye. :hangover:

[Karenca]

31. You're really funny..you know?

Don't worry, the little group will soon arrive.

(They think WE think they're Dems:silly: )

[Land Shark]

32. Haven't heard a single fact AGAINST election fraud

At the "risk" of self-promotion, I co-wrote a 29 page evidentiary report called ELection Irregularities in Snohomish County, Washington, General Election 2004 in which I examined the evidence for DREs voting Republican. Among other things, I found that machines that were shut down early because of malfunctions had 50% more votes on them for Republican Rossi than for Democrat Gregoire, even though the election was close statewide and within 5 points in Snohomish County.

THis report has been available for download at www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf for a couple weeks now.

Although I've received over a hundred emails on it, no person has written with a SINGLE FACT or even a lame ARGUMENT against it.

Imagine then this thread from my point of view. I didn't shut up, I PUT UP some evidence, and there's been no facts or argument against it.

Because it is always the TOTALITY of the facts that proves fraud (and there's always counterarguments against individual facts) the only people that made CREDIBLE arguments that there's little or no evidence are those who have the MOTIVATION, the RESOURCES, and the TIME to SCOUR all the evidence.

In other words, I find the Bush administration's admission that there are no WMD in Iraq HIGHLY CREDIBLE, since I would trust them to find it if it existed.

THose who don't think there's evidence think of themselves as being responsible and objective, but in fact they need to educate themselves a bit more before they can actually enter the arena of debate (and I am not assuming that fraud is proved per se, I am simply saying that extremely few or none of the persons dismissing fraud have reviewed much evidence).

[Land Shark]

34. On the other hand I don't think Kerry has the right incentives

Unlike Bush trying to find WMD, Kerry is not unfettered in his willingness to come forward. NOte all the congressional strategists who allegedly told kerry to get lost during the Boxer objection because it would only lead to a hundred sore loserman arguments if he were there.

Beyond that, for various reasons I'm not going to take the time to rehearse right now, a candidate will be one of the last people to ask for an investigation, and one of the last people to claim fraud because the candidate will pay a very dear price for making an unambiguous charge if it can't be "proven", and given the large size of the case and the perpetual existence of counterargument at every level, it will be much easier to leave the public with the impression that the case was not proved than with that it was.

That's one reason these things are better off in court: the captured audience of a jury can be in effect forced to focus on the totality of the evidence for a time period that exceeds the attention span of virtually anyone else.

Just because we don't have the time to prove it to every DU'er, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Apply the same standards to the DEFENSE of the exit polls:

(1) The exit polls over sampled women. (Answer: Because there ARE more women, you moron)
(2) The exit polls over sampled Kerry voters (Answer: Because there ARE more Kerry voters, you moron)
(3) The exit polls undersampled evangelicals (Answer: Because there ARE fewer evangelicals, you moron)

I'm not trying to say there's no case at all against election fraud. But I am saying is that many against election fraud do not give the issue a fair chance, and confuse the existence of a counterargument with a disproof of fraud or a "lack" of evidence when all it means is that there's evidence but the evidence is contested.

I've helped out in a minor way on a death penalty case. Our client was convicted, but not sentenced to death. Take it from me, we had GREAT arguments against every piece of evidence, but the TOTALITY of the facts was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What we should have is day-long mini-trials, after which those DUers who attend in the "jury" vote on the evidence presented. Hopefully other DUers will trust that judgment. We need to get our COLLECTIVE heads around this issue and make a considered judgment of the totality of the facts.

[flintdem]

42. A quick point...

I've only got a minute between classes...

Am I reading in your paper. (very quickly too) that touch screen and election day voting are one and the same, and absentee/provisional ballots and optically scanned are the same?

If true, touch screen is confounded with same day voting- you have one measurement meaning two separate things (you can't determine which variable is causing what effect). Same for optically scanned...

If I understanding this right, voting type can be an explanation for the differences or machine type can be the explanation. Do you have a breakdown like this of other washington counties- between machine types (it doesn't have to be touch screen versus optical)? If you saw the same pattern with two other types of machines used between the two voting types then it would be the vote type. If not then you have a case for machine type.

This repair business deserves further scrutiny. It is quite interesting but to really prove it you need to control for past precinct voting patterns. Did those precincts with repairs vote more republican or democratic in the past?

As far as carrying Snohomish- Rossi did do better statewide than more recent republican candidates and as you point out statewide races did go republican as late as 1992. While it usually goes democratic the presence of a trend is no guarantee that it will continue (or we would still hold Congress :) ).

Let me know if I got this machine voter thing right?

(To others- before you say "see he just doesn't want to believe fraud". This is the same kind of analysis I do all the time for journal articles before they are published. What is the analysis leaving out? What should it change? Does it prove its case? What as a reviewer will convince me?

[Land Shark]

48. Election day voting is not confounded with e-voting

Because on election day there were more than 27,500 paper ballots cast at the precincts/dropped off as absentees.

I know you mean well and are just asking a question, but see you are "raising questions" that don't deserve to be raised because they are answered right in the report. Sure, this is an easy question to answer, but how many times do people raise questions and there IS an answer but nobody posts it timely?

That can happen on any side of any issue, which is why I suggest mini-trials where a group of people on both sides of the issue listen to evidence and argument on both sides for at least a day, and then decide....

[Land Shark]

49. Flintdem no doubt is a smart guy

But don't ever forget that the full standards of science can not be applied when free inquiry is not allowed.

If we are not allowed access to all the evidence, in court the standard of proof is lowered because the jury is allowed to infer that the missing evidence, if produced, would be disfavorable to the party not producing it. that clearly applies here to source code and most internal records of the DREs

So I appreciate your expertise and experience reviewing journal articles and those skills are needed. But just keep in mind that if there is a seeming shortcoming of evidence, before you blame anyone for that shortcoming in evidence, ask your self what evidence might actually exist (because if it's impossible to have more evidence, it's unreasonable to require more evidence) and even if it might exist who controls that evidence (becuase a party not allowed to GET the evidence should not be blamed for not HAVING the evidence).

[Philly Buster]

51. Your positions are very well reasoned

I generally agree with you.

I believe fraud took place. It takes place in every election, some big city political machines are famous for it: Philly, St Louis, Milwaukee and of course the infamous Daley machine in Chicago.

I don't trust paperless electronic voting. I also don't trust people to manually count votes either, too much room for monkey business.

The election results are hard to accept, a big disappointment. But that does not mean there was enough fraud to throw the election to Bush. I think most of the theories expounded here (especially exit polls) are just a way of coping with the election results. People just can't accept the loss so they make their minds believe it had to be fraud.

[Laurab]

64. People just can't accept the loss?

Philly Buster :"The election results are hard to accept, a big disappointment. But that does not mean there was enough fraud to throw the election to Bush. I think most of the theories expounded here (especially exit polls) are just a way of coping with the election results. People just can't accept the loss so they make their minds believe it had to be fraud."

Sorry, but it does not mean there was NOT enough fraud to throw the election to *, either. I could easily cope with election results that I could trust. From what I've seen, and from what I know of the way this administration operates, I do NOT trust these election results. If it was an honest election, why is there absolutely no cooperation on the part of people like Kenny B to open up and SHOW us how fair the election was? It's the least they could do in a democracy. What we've seen instead, is anyone who questions being thwarted at every turn. Lack of response, trying to get out of being subpoenaed. Why act guilty is there is nothing to be guilty of? The last I knew, this was SUPPOSED to be a democracy. The great thing about democracies is that elections are open, honest and fair. So, why the stonewalling?

Sorry, Philly but I take offense to your statement - it basically calls me, and anyone else who feels election fraud likely happened a "sore loser". That, I am not. What I am is a great believer in democracy, who doesn't understand why they just don't ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS? It's THAT simple. Had they done that, and had diebold assisted with their "secret codes", there would be no issue here at all.

I ask again - why act guilty if you're not?

[Philly Buster]

65. I think since Kerry's own lawyers didn't dispute the results

Blackwell and others don't feel pressured by outside groups.

The obsession with fraud is not productive unless it is used as an impedance to work for election reform.

[Laurab]

68. Oh, I think you're mistaken

and even if you're not, WHY WON'T THEY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS? This is a democracy. People have the right to know that the election was fair. There are numerous things indicating it was not. So, once again, clear the air, answer the questions. As an elected official, that is their job.

The "obsession" with fraud IS being used to work for election reform. What possible other use could it have at this late date?

I'm not exactly sure what a dismissal of people who believe there was fraud as "sore losers" can be used for.

[eridani]

94. I trust people to manually count votes--

--provided that at least two people from two different parties count the same batch twice and agree with each other. This was done in WA state.

[moggie12]

33. Hi FlintDem

Very thought-provoking post. I got flamed big-time for my first post on DU (back around New Year's): It was entitled, "Would you stop with the vote fraud stuff, please?" (I was trying to raise important issues but didn't realize how incredibly rude I sounded...) There's been a lot of posts back and forth on the subject you raise. At one point somebody suggested a truce of sorts: The "fraudsters", as you call them, would keep working on trying to expose fraud in the 2004 contest while the non-fraudsters would focus on achieving true election reform and helping good candidates in the '06 mid-term elections and the '08 Presidential contest. If both "camps" were successful, it would be fantastic.

Hope you keep posting -- that was very interesting to read and it elicited some equally thought-provoking replies. Check out the "general discussion: politics" section if you have time. I invite you to become a full-fledged member of the "non-fraudster camp -- we're spending lots of time e-mailing the media, politicians, etc and otherwise scheming up ways to defeat those &%$#@ Republicans.

:hi:

[marions ghost]

43. I am really offended

by your and flintdems use of the term "Fraudsters" to describe those who see indicators of election fraud around here. "Fraudsters" means those who perpetrate fraud. Kindly cease and desist with that. :mad:

[flintdem]

44. My apologies

As I put in my first post, I wasn't trying to be offensive just looking for a shorter term.

[moggie12]

46. I apologize

I should have realized that -- I'm sorry.

[sepia_steel]

58. Ummmmm.

"fraudsters," first of all, is kinda condescending. Secondly, who do you think would like to see election reform more - those who don't believe fraud occured, or those who do???

Chew on that, please, before you imply we aren't as 'focused' on actual change.

Thanks.

[flintdem]

72. Thanks

"that was very interesting to read and it elicited some equally thought-provoking replies"

That was my main reason for doing it- trying to create some discussion beyond "is too", "is not".

[NationalEnquirer]

35. How about an agnostic on fraud?

I dont think we can "prove" it, Andy not withstanding.
I am really not sure what happened, but it does stink.

I think you ARE right that we need to hammer home Election reform.

Also, my Dad ( a rabid Bush hater ) says that the Democrats DID steal Chicago, he says it proudly since it got JFK elected.

For reasons like that, I think we can get a few Republicans on board with us, look at Washington state, they think we cheated there, so lets say "hey, jump aboard with us".

We'll have to go forward from here no matter what I guess. I doubt the media is going to show what happened, so we have to trudge forward. The question is, when is it time to shift our efforts? I think it is now.

[livvy]

57. That would be a fragnostic...

couldn't resist the play on words!:-)

[genieroze]

36. Electronic voting without a paper trail is screaming fraud. If the pubs

want to put and end to this debate then give us a paper trail like we begged for in this election but the Republicans refused to do. The fact that they refused a way to confirm a vote screams fraud. Some crack head registers a few voters with the names Mickey Mouse etc... and the MSM is all over it. A electronic voting machine gives Bush over four thousand more votes than voters in ONE area, screams fraud to me. A high ranking election official who campaigns for Bush and his state purposely disenfranchises black and minority voters, screams fraud to me. A electronic voting machine company promises to deliver Ohio to Bush and then does it, screams fraud to me. In Ocean County NJ ten percent more people voted for Bush in 2004 then in 2000. Not one town went to Kerry even in high minority areas like Lakewood, Manchester and South Toms River and NJ was 100 percent electronic voting this year. Kerry took NJ but the electronic voting machines did their job on padding the vote total for Bush. Look at Pennsylvania with the exit polls off by as much as fifteen percent in some areas. Kerry barely took PA even though the polls showed him ahead by a decent margin. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a freaking duck. I knew this was going to happen before it did. I told my husband no matter how much of an ass * makes out of himself he's going to win because it's rigged. I'm off my soapbox now.

[Stevepol]

38. Totally agree Genieroze.

Before the election I told everybody anytime it came up that I was hoping and praying that Kerry would win the election, but I didn't believe he would. Too many voting machines. The DREs counted 80% of the vote. That's too much for anybody to overcome. I feel certain that Kerry won the election except for the counting of the votes, and I suspect it was pretty much a landslide or close to it.

The election turned out just as I thought it would, right down to the exit polls and pre-election polling. The voting machines are rigged. It's absolutely transparent.

[demodonkey]

37. I too was "on the ground" in Ohio. I saw ALL KINDS OF CRAP w/my own eyes.

And I wasn't even there on election day, noooo! This was just during the Recount (which was, BTW, horribly flawed thanks to Blackwell!)

Yes, there was Fraud.

No it wasn't necessarily all machine Fraud, although some of that definitely occurred.

Can we prove that the amount of Fraud would have changed the outcome? At this point maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Fraud is still fraud.

IMHO, frauding somebody out of even ONE single vote is WRONG. Immoral. As I have said before on here, each vote is "sacred", bought and paid for in blood of patriots who died to keep that vote available to us. Behind each little vote is a person somewhere and that vote is their ONLY real voice in our Democracy.

I respect everybody's opinion, but see here, we already tried to ignore the election fraud in 2000 and 2002. And where did that get us? If we don't root it out, and eliminate it, and scream for improvement in our voting process, there will be no 2006 or 2008.

I'm a pollworker, for many years. I don't want to spend those 15-16 hour days in the future being a patsy of Diebold, or Triad, or ES & S (or the Rethugs, or even the Dems for that matter), working my butt off on sham so-called "elections"!

"Groupthink"? Or just trying to avoid "1984"????

[emcguffie]

40. Yes, some Dems are thieves, too.

But not nearly as many. Not nearly as many are obvious hypocrits. Not nearly as many are holier-than-thou religious folk who favor capital punishment and want to see the end of ALL ENTITLEMENTS, who say poor people deserve to be poor (what true Christian could say that? But they do.). Who won't admit they got their money off of those folks who need the entitlements.

Regarding fraud, could you explain why the paper ballot states' final results matched the exit polls beautifully, while the electronic vote or electronic count states didn't? How did the results in different states know to be so cooperative? Excuse my sarcasm. I don't get it.

I have searched my soul many times with the question, could Bush really have won? And I'm absolutely sure he didn't. And I can't help but say I think rational people must be able to see that, unless math is thoroughly alien to you.

Not that exit polls "prove" fraud. But they sure as hell do indicate it.

[Peace Patriot]

67. Exit Polls are used worldwide to verify elections and check for...

...fraud. They don't "prove" fraud. It OFTEN cannot be proved, because, like bank fraud, and many other kinds of fraud, the evidence has been shredded and discs erased. What Exit Polls do is "prove" that the election is in serious question, and probably INVALID due to 1) suspicious results, and 2) non-transparency--especially in combination with other evidence (such as BushCons owning the secret source code that counts all our votes).

Recounts or re-votes are in order. The BushCons shut all that down, and most of the Democratic leadership colluded in that (possibly, in my opinion, because many in the leadership support the war in Iraq--voted for it--and have never made a strong case against the invasion; and also likely--maybe the main reason--because they just didn't have the power to contest it).

Anyway, this thing about "proof" is just a red herring. You're talking about criminal proof--finding the perp with his wireless modem connected to the Diebold tabulator and a laptop full of wrong vote totals. This was an ELECTION. It is a POLITICAL ANIMAL. It is NOT STRICTLY or EVEN LARGELY a legal case. You think if John Kerry had been able to frog-march the perps caught red-handed with hot evidence into Congress, Congress would have behaved any differently than it did?

You would have really seen the Spin Machine at work then!

We're dealing here with fascists, not with reasonable people--not with people who believe in good government or fairness. (Look what they did in Ohio! Look! You think they would respond to ANY evidence--even frog-marched perps?)

(Note Re: bank fraud. As a matter of fact, statistical evidence IS permitted in court to make a case for fraud, where evidence has been destroyed.)

But I think it was a matter mostly of power, not of evidence. The evidence of an INVALID ELECTION is overwhelming, but John Kerry had no power to call the BushCons out on it--just as the Democrats had no power to stop this fraudulent election SYSTEM from being put into place. (Their only power might have been to WARN US about it--and they didn't do that.)

[olefty]

45. I can't stand it anymore

I've just lurked here since the election was STOLEN from Senator Kerry. It's too late now but I wish I were in DC to protest the inauguration of the commander-in-thief and his 40 thieves. Instead I'm sitting at home reading pathetic posts by flintdem the appeaser and troll. I've been in funk since November 3rd and I think the only way to get out of it is find the next president. Working for Howard Dean didn't work. Working for Kerry didn't work. How can we just sit around and watch this election get stolen. We need drastic action or the republiklans may start interning our leaders to suppress the vote in '08 and even Hillary won't be able to win. You want to see a repubiklan shit himself? Sneak up behind him and whisper "Hillary" in his ear. They know she can't be beat so what schemes do they have for someone that will beat any republiklan by thirty points? We need to get radical NOW! The enemy plays dirty we need to play dirtier! Appeasement doesn't work we need to fight, the right wing media is totally ignoring this whole story. How can they give us this whitewash of the FACTS of the exit polls? What happened, the media used to be good now it's like fox news on every channel. Sorry I'm just freaked out it finally hit me the worst president in the history of the world is going to be sworn in by his co-conspirator Rehnquist again. He did it, he stole an election with the whole world watching where are our leaders? Who will save us? Are we doomed? Why can't people see how evil bush is? How can 58 million people be so stupid? Save us Hillary! I like the plan to succeed to make the US of Canada and let all the biblethumpers live in the Jesusland waste land. Wouldn't that be sweet to watch those inbred, racist, misogynist, gay bashing, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, 65 IQ bush voters kill each other with their assault weapons? I need a smoke and a drink flntdem thanks for completely ruining my bad day it wasn't enough to wake up at noon with a hangover that would kill a mere mortal then I have to read that shit. I give up I'm going to Canada. I guess my first post here sucks, sorry it's the way I really feel.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

47. sorry. enough naive sheep already. read Animal Farm, then

get back in the truck, Boxer.

[Bill Bored]

50. But we should ALL be able to agree that the vote is NOT verifiable

and NEEDS TO BE VERIFIABLE!

So fraudsters and non-fraudsters, Republicans and Democrats, Blacks and Whites, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, Muslims and Hindus and men and women in Blue states and Red states, should all be able to write to their reps and get them to ensure that at a minimum, the vote can be verified with voter-verified paper ballots and random auditing.

It's simple: we should trust but verify.

I think we could use a little more group-think on this one! How do you feel about it?

[flintdem]

52. Would like a German Style exit poll...

Germany has a population of 82 million, one third our size but their national exit poll is twice as large as ours. To match them we need to interview 66,000 people in the exit poll just at the national level, and 5-8000 at the state level and we could settle all of these issues. How about a check off box on our 1040s for the National Exit Poll Fund!!!

[Bill Bored]

53. Excuse me?

I didn't say anything about an EXIT Poll.

READ:
<http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?list=type&type=43>

[flintdem]

54. More than one way to verify

I've posted elsewhere that these should be a paper trail for all voting- the audits sound fine too but I also would like to see an indepth exit poll that could highlight problem areas to examine with more depth.

[Bill Bored]

95. Fair enough. n/t

[Donailin]

55. You want an answer? (Very civil)

>>Answer me this- can a Democrat believe that fraud didn’t happen, have rational arguments for that belief and not be an agent of the evil empire???<<

Depends.


Would you agree that Bush planned to go to war long before 911, that he lied to the people about Iraq and is not there for WMD or to "get" Sadam Hussein, or for bringing democracy, but for the resources of that nation? For the longterm strategic interests that Iraq, an oil rich nation in the ME can provide? Be reminded that we are building bases there. Be also reminded that talk of Iran is now front page news. Be also reminded that all of this is laid out in the PNAC.

If you believe that in the case of Iraq, he lied to us to get into war('Iraq caused 911'), and subsequently stole the taxpayers money to finance his friends and war profiteers(Halliburton and other major corporations), and then killed (put in harms way)the taxpaying soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, but cannot allow yourself to think he would rig an election, than no, *I* have no reason to believe you will sound rational to me.

[Peace Patriot]

56. PLEASE get informed before doing UNINFORMED postings like this!

I don't at all mind a political discussion--and discussions of strategy and so on--but I DO expect someone posting at DU's Election Fraud Forum to be better informed than this regarding the evidence. Given what I know, from the study of these reports (below) and other information, what you are suggesting is that I and others do is LIE TO PEOPLE in order to have unity on the basis of lies!

I think that is both wrong and bad strategy. If they don't know what was done to them in this election, then they will not be able to evaluate our situation now--who and what we can rely on, and how to get back our right to vote. For instance, it's my judgment that we CANNOT rely on Congress to repair our election system. The Democrats don't have the power, and, if history is any guide, don't have the will. Without transparent elections, we have no hope of ever electing a Democratic president or Congress ever again. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS. (We need to repair our election system through the states.)

So, please, bring an INFORMED opinion to the discussion, not just an opinion. When you have reviewed the following, then I will think you are informed:

On the exit poll discrepancy:

Dr. Steven Freeman 1st study: http://www.truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf
(also at: http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1.pdf)
Dr. Steven Freeman 2nd study: http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
Dr. Ron Baiman: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997
Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm
Jonathan Simon:http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm
(also see TruthIsAll, below.)

Also of interest: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush in FLA (paper vs. electronic voting)
Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu

Johns Hopkins report on electronic voting:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00196.htm#5

Diebold hacking demonstration:
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

Ohio vote suppression: http://www.bpac.info

TruthIsAll at DU: "To believe Bush won, you have to believe…"

Part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1316010

Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1358806

Part 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x197878

[Peace Patriot]

69. Add Greg Palast's report on black voter suppression...

to that list (of what you need to have read to be minimally informed on this issue).

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

It doesn't "prove" fraud. It merely explains how 3 million black and other minority votes were prevented or disqualified--almost enough to change the popular vote outcome. Combine that with even half the incidents of malfunctioning machines (always defaulting to Bush) and weird, impossible, anomalous numbers (always favoring Bush), and it adds up to a fraudulent election and a wrong result.

Two other points, flintdem:

1) On your quoting Mitofsky on his various (unsupported by any data) excuses for why his exit poll was "wrong" (for instance, "Hypothesis Two. Bush voters were less likely to be interviewed (this one comes from Mitofsky)"), bear in mind that the man is trying to save his ass and his business right now, under godawful pressure from BushCons and collusive TV networks. It's like believing a man who is being tortured. Did you see his report today? It's absolute garbage. I've never read anything so incoherent--from a supposed expert.

2. On the 2% "skew" to Kerry in the exit polls: You have missed the point of all the expert analysis. It's not the "skew," it's WHERE the skew occurred. It was lopsided in the battleground states Bush needed to win. If there were some prejudice in the polls, it would show up evenly, no? Or more or less evenly? Not "skewed" to the most critical states. And the odds against this are astronomical.

Look, I don't at all think you are stupid, or blind, or in denial, or a freeper, or anything else. I read your post carefully, and I think it just doesn't hold up. I don't think you know enough, and I therefore can't accept your advice to "get over it." And I really don't think you've read the documents I've listed.

As Dr. Freeman says, in his second paper, it is very difficult to face these facts--that our democracy is not what it seems.

And it may be that those of us who have seen through this delusion of democracy get a little nuts about it.

What I want is an honest appraisal by everyone--all Democrats and all Kerry voters--on what our situation is now--what it really is, unvarnished, with all the facts before us--and what we do next.

I think we are in very, very big danger of losing our democracy. In my opinion, we've gone beyond Germany 1933, to Germany 1934, with the fascists now controlling all the mechanisms of government--the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the military, the intelligence apparatus, the media AND the election system.

And it is no innocent fascism--if there could ever be any such thing. It is a fascism that is slaughtering people and torturing them, and planning to invade yet another country.

We are in very great peril and we really cannot afford arguments like this about whether the fraud is "provable" or not. They control the election system. That's all we really need to know, given all else.

[flintdem]

71. I have looked at the reports you listed

You'll notice in my post I covered a 2% shift and a 3% shift while primarily dealing with the national exit poll not the states. However, since we are talking about a 1.5% change in non-critical and 2.5% in critical states the same arguments apply. All three explanations fit the data. All three have occurred before in the United States. The data alone does not give sufficient information to prove one over the other. Don't call an argument garbage- use the data to rule it out or it still stands!!!

All of the astronomical figures being given assume a perfect world. In a perfect world with no outside factors, systemic errors (like real live people) or bad polling design, the figures are accurate. The writers try to create this artificial perfect world by saying exit polls are always accurate and right. This gets them off the hook from having to consider other systemic answers for where the shifts come from. Remove the premise of exit polls always being right and the analysis are nice statistical exercises in need of a theory to explain them. They prove something but we are not sure what- ergo, my three possible hypotheses.

[BeFree]

88. Real world stuff

Election 2000. Gore won, or do you disagree? If you don't, you might as well quit reading right now.

Gore won, but the manipulators of the process ended up installing b***.

Now 2004. They had motive, opportunity and a prior record of theft.

The vast majority of vote counters, experts agree, could have been hacked, so we can surmise the crooks hacked them.

For further proof, we have exit polls. Polls that you so casually dismiss. Fine. But when conjoined with other real world facts, any thinking person simply must conclude that the election was probably stolen.

We will eventually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore: How dare anyone suggest the case is closed? There are serious cases moving through the courts, as we speak. Yet you seem all to ready to dismiss them without a fair hearing.

Ya know what? We do not need your style of justice.

[Karenca]

60. No..........

Your title: "DU needs Dems who don’t believe in Fraud" = OXYMORON

[ottozen]

62. Fraud must exist.

Otherwise, it could not be defined.

[rainman99]

63. Denial - a river in Egypt.

[justice4all]

66. A serious answer

1. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

You cry with righteous indignation, “The election was stolen”. But what if it wasn’t (I know that is beyond the scope of what you can imagine, but humor me). What are we doing to our electoral system by crying electronic fraud when there is none

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

From what I have recently read about the ease of hacking the computers that were used to tabluate the results, it will probably be very difficult to PROVE that fraud occurred. On the other hand, it is easy to demonstrate that the systems used were insecure and the vote counting process was not transparent. The people who obstructed the recount process in Ohio were Republicans.

The motive and the tools for the crime both existed. This doesn't prove that a crime occurred, but the suspects are behaving, well, rather suspiciously. I support the investigations. They might not be productive, but it seems worse to just ignore the problems.


3. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

I want to work with you on electoral reform. I want every vote to count. I still want to be able to engage you about 2004 in a civil manner.

..............
I hope you continue to do so. If the detective work doesn't inspire you, I hope that you put your energy into fixing the system.

[Chi]

70. Raise the bar...

Don't just agree on future elections must be verifiable.
Insist that this election should be investigated.
Any reasonable person should agree to that.

[RaulVB]

73. Says "who"?

Still around, "pal"?

Weren't you going somewhere?

[flintdem]

74. I thought of a smart answer...

but that is thing I dislike about this site. How about some adult conversation without the names and emotional diatribes?

[RaulVB]

75. Ask smart questions (n/t)

[flintdem]

76. Ok

Take on posts 28 and 71.

Why is my argument wrong? What invalidates my hypotheses and leave fraud as the only explanation? How do we know we are measuring fraud versus something else.

These will all be on the final.

[RaulVB]

77. #28,

Isn't true that Buchanan IS Republican?

Isn't true that conservative "churchgoers" vote EARLY, and their life habits contradict fairy tales about them "VOTING LATE AT NIGHT"?

Weren't THEY VERY PROUD ABOUT THEIR PATRIOTISM and support for "their leader"?

[RaulVB]

78. #71,

The "shifts" in OHIO and Florida are over 5 percentage points, close to 6.

[flintdem]

80. Three stolen percent equals a six point shift n/t

[RaulVB]

81. A shift like that DOES NOT TAKE PLACE in a fair election...

And almost at THE END OF ELECTION DAY.

Is all you "got"?

[flintdem]

82. Sorry...

I don't do. "Is too". "Is not".

Good night and have a good life.

End of dialogue.

[qwghlmian]

83. Ah you learn quick :)

not to respond to contentless posts.

[RaulVB]

84. "Dialogue"? (n/t)

[flintdem]

90. Dialogue

Main Entry: 1 di·a·logue
Variant(s): also di·a·log /'dI-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialoge, from Old French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak -- more at LEGEND
1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing

[Melissa G]

89. It would help if you were educated enough to be writing a final on

this issue. Your posts are amazingly condescending. If you are actually this uneducated you should probably be in the lounge not clogging the threads of this working forum. This is a forum for folks who have some interest in furthering this election reform and investigating irregularities. You are clearly a fish out of water.
Maybe you should go look for a more appropriate pond..:eyes: Your me too contingent might enjoy your company there and you could give each other good democrat lessons and quizzes.

[Catamount]

79. I'm sorry

I believe that Kerry won

[maddiejoan]

85. ahem

I don't like the term "fraudster" one bit.

I'm a "reformnick"

[Jackie97]

86. I pretty much agree.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this election was won by fraud. This election was won by 58 million people. The problem won't get any better as long as we stick our heads in the sand and pretend like it didn't happen. Machines aren't perfect, especially when they're overloaded with over a hudred million people. I'm all for making new machines that have nothing to do with the biased companies, but let's face it. If it was about fraud, they really would have cleaned our clock in Congress. We have a hell of a lot more Democrats there than the Republicans are comfortable with. They will clean our clock in two years if we act like nothing but conspiracy theorists. It's time to move on and appeal our cause to the common citizen. Don't tell people the Republicans are wrong because they're "fraud". Tell them that your policies are right for reasons X, Y, and Z.

I also hate the idea of group think and the idea of being hung like in Salem for being a so called witch. That's what this idea of all people not like the others being a "freeper" means to me. If you shoot your own, you won't have a lot left. I'm very leftist. I can't think of too many people that plays the leftist role better than I do. So don't anybody tell me that I'm conservative.

I also agree a lot about Kerry. He's not out of the game. He's still out to kick ass. He just knows when to come into a fight and when to draw back when he doesn't have enough evidence. He didn't get to the powerful position he is in today by acting a certain way. He's smart.

[RaulVB]

87. You just talk in a very "similar" way (n/t)

[Land Shark]

93. IN Washington state the Republicans are crying fraud

And they've got very little or no evidence, but you don't see any "enforcement" by the rank and file Republicans telling Rossi to just go away or telling Republican election fraud activists to give it up. Instead they embrace it because it energizes their party, right or wrong.....

I wonder why any Democrats (even if they disagreed on election fraud) would try to be enforcers and take the wind out of the sails of those who do want to work on election fraud.

If you don't want to be called a Freeper, you don't need to change your opinion but you do need to stop trying to use this forum to de-motivate those who do want to work on this issue.

[Jackie97]

97. In other words.....

all progressives who want to focus on the issues at hand and stop trying to stop what can't be stopped should keep their mouth shut while the rest of the progressives on DU self-destruct. NEVER MIND! I'll just hang around the progressives who actually will work on the problem at hand.

I've been a member of this forum for a long time now. I've argued the most leftist position on just about every damn thing imaginable. I've often argued that the Democratic Party needs to stop compromising its leftist positon. I've worked for the last few years to educate people on what's going on with our foreign policy. I've went to protests where I was met with people who hated my guts; one of which I nearly got beaten and thrown in jail. Hell, I actually went to an anti-war protest in a freakin military town! How many Democrats would have it in them to do that?

I've been a far better leftist than most Democrats I know, so I don't even want to hear it.

I don't know all the details about the Republicans crying fraud, so I can't comment on that. All I can say is that if it can be shown where the votes came from (and it doesn't look like some sudden computer glitch or something else like Bush's suddenly getting so many thousand votes in Ohio), then the votes should be counted. If it can't be verified, then screw the Republicans screaming out.

I have been on this forum for a long time now, arguing the most leftist positions on the International affairs forum, the reproductive rights forum, the separation of church and state forum, sometimes the gun forum, and just about every other forum. I better not be banned for supposedly being a freeper.

[IndyPriest]

91. Certainly. But we don't need those who think examination of

election fraud is a threat to the state. Puh-leeze. Instead of going somewhere else on DU and helping out in anyway you can, you insist on begging those who ask for an examination to stop. Why? Because in your world, WE'RE the threat to the country. And if you wonder why people might call you a Freeper? It's because that's the opinion in Freeperworld.

I'm sorry we -- should I say I? -- can't make your evenings feel more comfortable. But there is no way in hell this examination is going to stop. You'd have to get Arnebeck and his staff to stop, Conyers and the other House Jud. Com members and all their staffers to stop, Boxer to stop, Kerry to stop, VotersUnite to stop, the freepress to stop... Do I have to go on? You may think this is a DU issue or problem. Sorry. So, take some Mylanta or something and help out somewhere.

[Don1]

96. Still Waiting for a Response

flintDem, you probably did not see my questions to you because they got lost in the noise of one small sub-thread long abandoned in the chain of responses to your post. Here is a link to it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x292038#293831

Does it make sense to come to a research conclusion that Dems were over represented in the polling, but at the same time claim that such a statement is unquantifiable?

Please address this question and also the mathematical methods that I propose to test the Mitofsky claim.

Thank you.

[flintdem]

99. You're on my to do list

Thanks Don1. I did see your post this morning. I've haven't the chance to sit and think through your suggestions yet, but I think they are worth looking at. Unfortunately it will be a day or two before I can do any analysis (probably the weekend)

I've haven't had time to read the mitofsky report either. All of my references to mitofsky in my earlier posters were from other sources not the report.

This slightly parallels your second suggestion. I previous created a dummy precinct dataset to test at what size did the data show the effects of avoidance versus vote changing. I started with an N of 77 (50 respondents 22 non-respondents -34% nonresponse rate). I used an assumption of a 50-50 vote between candidates. For the avoidance test I changed on bush respondent to Kerry and changed one Kerry non-respondent to bush. I then began to increase sample sizes (2 X 77, etc) to see when the correlation between Kerry vote and refusal became significant (p<.10 one tail)and when refusal became a significant predictor in binary logit (p<.10 one tail) for the Kerry vote. Assuming a perfect world with no other factors- here were the results:

N Pearson Corr Significance
77 .06 .317
608 .06 .086


N Logit Coefficient(refused) Significance Pseudo-R2
936 .234 .094 .003

The model is not significant at p<.05

I want to think a while about the assumptions behind your first test. One a priori assumption might be two distributions, one for South and non-south states. I'll have to look a the NEP report but I wouldn't be surprised if ideological conservative and cultural conservatism resulted in southern states having higher nonresponse rates.

[Don1]

107. Cooperation is Key

Thank you flintDem for responding. Thank you also for posting your own mathematical modeling and experimenting around that you have done. I realize that it is not always easy to post one's personal work for criticism like that. Also thank you for being polite in your responses.

I am finding, however, some issues with your responses. I notice that you have evaded my question that I have now asked twice but in different ways. I am going to restate it once again here:
How can the Mitofsky report present as its conclusion that the primary cause of exit poll discrepancies with actual votes was oversampling of Kerry votes when there is no such proof contained within the report?

I know you said that some of the number crunching tests that I have presented are on your to-do list. However, the unanswered question here is really an ethical no-brainer. It does not require tons of offline work to answer.

Thank you in advance for your answer to the ethical question and for your continuing cooperation on analysis of the numbers.

[TokenWasp]

100. I salute you courageous statements, however.....

I'm afraid that DU may be too far gone for anything like reason and common sense to rule the day here. From today's version of the "I believe" thread:

"We believe that history will show that John Kerry received more votes in the election of 2004."

Such a statement is absolutely lunacy. Earlier this month, DUers were still posting that they believed Kerry would be sworn in today; again - lunacy. If I didn't know better, I would think that freepers were planting those posts just to make us look nutty.

We lost and the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to get our head out of the sand, stop the chicken-little hand-wringing, and get serious about reclaiming our country.

Does DU still have the potential to be a force in making that happen? I really don't know anymore.

And yes, this is my first post - get over it. I have been here for quite a while, but didn't want to lower myself into the fray of foolishness around here. However, I figured what better day than today to try to speak up for serious side of our party and try to end the tin-foil-hat wing of the party.

[Don1]

105. Fool Me Once

It is largely accepted as fact among both Dems and progressives that Gore was the winner of the 2000 presidential vote. That the Bush campaign committed fraud by enlisting a company to get rid of tens of thousands of legitimate voters in Florida. There is no tinfoil hat worn by these people who do their reading of what really happened in Florida 2000.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then state why.

On the other hand, if you agree that there were tens of thousands of Florida votes stolen in 2000, then what's the problem? "There's an old saying in Texas, err Tennessee..." Ok, I won't repeat the words from the one who shall not be named. Instead, I'll write the real adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

It is perfectly rational to apply that adage and state as a matter of opinion based on a previous trend that "We believe that history will show that John Kerry received more votes in the election of 2004."

[pixelthief]

104. He's right

about one thing. We need dems of all stripes here, including those who disagree with us about fraud. It's a big tent, folks. And it should be for any political party seeking broad appeal.

These people can help prevent us from falling for questionable evidence, as it is easy to do sometimes when you really want to prove something that you know happened.

Without a voice of reason, crap like those Madsen articles might have gained more traction than they did. Which could have embarassed us all and damaged our cause. Besides, who would we make our case to? Repugs aren't going to listen. We should be engaging and educating the other 30% of our party.

Once we start trying to stamp out dissent here then we've lost, because we'll have become just like them.

[kitkat65]

106. We are all individuals

I'm not!

:silly: