Richard Charnin (DU's TruthIsAll) to speak on election fraud, May 26 in Florida:

[bleever]

Via Mark Crispin Miller on Twitter:

http://richardcharnin.com/PDAMAY26INVITE.pdf

Sponsored by Progressive Democrats for America, in Lake Worth, Florida.

:patriot:

We have not forgotten. The price paid by the nation, and the world, for the theft of the 2004 election is almost beyond the scope of human comprehension.

[Pab Sungenis]

1. I hope he has better stuff to work with

than "I flipped a coin a million times, and that proves Kerry should have won" like he usually does.

[Bill Bored]

2. I think you're misquoting him. It's more like "...that proves Kerry won."

And usually, he's only referring to the popular vote -- not the electoral college.

I do hope we get some feedback on his performance though. That should be good for a few laughs and a diversion from actually working on election integrity. We could all use a break from that shit!

[emcguffie]

4. Do you honestly think your attitude helps anything?

I like Richard Charnin, and he has the respect of a lot of activists, and at least some of them know a thing or two about numbers.:think: I think he deserves a hand instead of whatever it is you're dishing out. Numbers can prove that something is wrong in an election. But you have to have the attention span to follow it. I admit, that can be challenging. That's one of the reasons, apparently, election fraud is so easy to get away with. You can do it right in front of everyone, without bothering to really have to make the numbers and match up, and pretty much nobody notices. But experts -- experts with numbers -- who do look hard do notice.

I guess that's why we hire chemical engineers to do things with chemicals, and nuclear engineers to do things with atomic reactors, instead of listening to the guy who is saying, no, prove it to me, prove it to me, that can't be true! Show me that there's all that energy in that little tiny thing that I can't even see that you say is there!

Those guys prove all kinds of things with numbers. The fact that I may not be able to understand it doesn't make it any less so. And sometimes I do understand it. I do understand Richard Charnin's point with the exit polls. And back in 2004 I could see by the numbers that something was seriously wrong. But since I'm not really a numbers person, I can't remember what it was that was so obvious to me then.

My daughter, who loves science but has a problem with math, was just telling me that Einstein didn't like math either, but recognized it was a tool he would have to rely on. So he made his peace with it.

You know, I think they're using Charnin's daily recount spreadsheet in the Wisconsin recount. Gee, I'm going to have to look up a smilie for that! :toast:

And here's a link for the Facebook election integrity group: https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_197815633590513&ap=1

Done any recounts lately?

You know, all that negativity is probably not good for your health.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. scary: "these guys prove all kinds of things with numbers"

Those guys prove all kinds of things with numbers. The fact that I may not be able to understand it doesn't make it any less so.

Well, it kind of does, because if you went out to look for the top ten experts about political numbers, I would guess eight of them have never heard of Charnin and the other two would snort. Go out and look in the poli sci journals for the articles that argue that Kerry won. So you ought to have some basis for trusting Charnin.

For just about any topic -- age of the earth, evolution, whether HIV causes AIDS, whether vaccines cause autism, climate change, whether human beings have landed on the moon -- you can find someone who can pound the table making a smart-sounding contrarian argument that might be a little hard to follow. The fact that it is hard to follow shouldn't be a point in its favor. For that matter, being easy to follow isn't necessarily a point in its favor, either.

[emcguffie]

8. So if I don't believe some physicist's proof about mesons or --

quarks or atomic power, then I shouldn't believe those things exist?

Anything I don't understand or can't see on my own, can't figure out on my own, I shouldn't believe? I must be pretty smart, and multi-talented. You must be, too. Tell me, did you know ahead of time who was right in that famous argument about black holes?

[Bill Bored]

15. "Anything I don't understand or can't see on my own...I shouldn't believe?"

Well not ANYTHING. But you raise a good point here, so see if you agree with this:

When it comes to elections, "anything I don't understand or can't see on my own, can't figure out on my own, I shouldn't believe."

If that makes sense to you, I think it should apply to knowing the election was unfair as well as knowing it was fair. We should NOT have to take anyone's word in either case. Elections are NOT supposed to be battles of experts. They are supposed to be true at face value. Transparent. Observable.

I would no more trust Charmin's exit polls than I would an electronic voting system. And neither should you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. Bertrand Russell had a pretty good start

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

"On the Value of Scepticism"

It really has nothing to do with whether you believe atomic power exists. It has to do with your basis, if any, for believing that Charnin is right and his critics are wrong.

Anything I don't understand or can't see on my own, can't figure out on my own, I shouldn't believe?

It might depend on what you mean by "believe" or "not believe." I'm not sure what to say about this, except that I don't think I have to choose between accepting Charnin's arguments and rejecting whatever parts of modern physics I can't work out on my own.

I'm not sure what black hole argument you mean, but I'm sure I didn't know ahead of time who was right. So it would have been pretty silly of me to take a side based on some semi-readable, smart-sounding article I read on the intertubes. I might say to myself, "That made enough sense that I think it might be right," but I hope I wouldn't say, "Well, it's been proven, even though I don't understand the 'proof' and I've seen no sign that people who know the field find it persuasive."

[Bill Bored]

7. You bet! Here's why:

Numbers can prove that something is wrong in an election.

They sure as heck can -- but not his numbers! He needs to count some actual ballots. All he seems to be doing is reading polls. He advocates for absentee vote-by-mail, which is one of the most risky and insecure voting methods (second only to Internet Voting perhaps) because they took a poll in Oregon in 2004 that happened to match their reported vote counts. Would he advocate Internet Voting if it matched some poll too? My attention span tells me he might.

But you have to have the attention span to follow it. I admit, that can be challenging. That's one of the reasons, apparently, election fraud is so easy to get away with. You can do it right in front of everyone, without bothering to really have to make the numbers and match up, and pretty much nobody notices. But experts -- experts with numbers -- who do look hard do notice.

What you say is true, but it's because the ballots are not counted in front of anyone and the machine counts don't have to match up with the actual vote counts -- not the polls. So tell me, what's Charmin's plan for verifying electronic vote counts? Does he have one?

I guess that's why we hire chemical engineers to do things with chemicals, and nuclear engineers to do things with atomic reactors,

And how's that been working out lately?:nuke: (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) But tell me, would you hire someone to read a poll, or to count some actual ballots? Or figure out how many actual ballots to count to know who won?

instead of listening to the guy who is saying, no, prove it to me, prove it to me, that can't be true! Show me that there's all that energy in that little tiny thing that I can't even see that you say is there!

Well, I think it makes more sense to demand proof that the machines counted correctly, rather than claiming to prove that they didn't by reading a poll.

Those guys prove all kinds of things with numbers. The fact that I may not be able to understand it doesn't make it any less so. And sometimes I do understand it. I do understand Richard Charnin's point with the exit polls.

Attention span kicking in again! In Oregon, where the vote count matched the poll, it was NOT an exit poll -- a minor detail!

And back in 2004 I could see by the numbers that something was seriously wrong. But since I'm not really a numbers person, I can't remember what it was that was so obvious to me then.

Maybe it was just obvious that there was no way to see how everyone voted?

My daughter, who loves science but has a problem with math, was just telling me that Einstein didn't like math either, but recognized it was a tool he would have to rely on. So he made his peace with it.

You know, I think they're using Charnin's daily recount spreadsheet in the Wisconsin recount.

If it's not a poll, that sounds interesting.

You know, all that negativity is probably not good for your health.

It helps to vent once in a while!

[emcguffie]

9. Hmm, I think people do use his numbers.

They are using his numbers in Wisconsin. Maybe your numbers are better?

Where's your book? Do you have a book?

I think you're pretty silly. What are you all riled up about with Richard Charnin? What did he ever do to you? OF course I would hire people to count ballots, yes, in front of the public. It would help to be able to demonstrate that fraud has taken place. It can be done with numbers. I'm sorry if you can't see that. That doesn't stop the rest of the world from seeing it.

And every time I see your name, you're venting, criticizing, name-calling, insulting, all that stuff. Certainly not anything constructive. Pardon me if I'm wrong, and you do make a constructive contribution, but if you do, it isn't one I happen to run into, because every time I run into you, you're screaming about Richard Charnin. He must be doing something right.

[Bill Bored]

12. Well, the reason we have an annonymous forum is so we don't have to reveal our contributions

Some of us are already targets of those who are trying to derail our efforts. Charmin may be one such disruptor by discrediting the movement with his poll talk. Powers that be don't take this, or anything else we have to say, very seriously. They just want to trust their voting machines. That's why the problem isn't going to be fixed any time soon.

So, are you suggesting that they're using exit poll data in WI, or what?

I thought it was a recount. And BTW, they are only recounting about 1/3 of the ballots by hand, IIRC.

But suppose there's a poll result that differs substantially from the machine counts? What then?

Is there a lawyer willing to go to court and claim there is fraud and fight for a 100% hand count, while simultaneously making sure the paper ballots have been preserved inviolate since the election?

Unfortunately that ship seems to have sailed and I don't know of any attorneys willing to take election officials and their voting system to court based on the results of a poll. Why do you suppose that is? If it's true, then why spend so much time reading polls? It didn't work for Harry Truman, did it? (I believe he won, despite what the polls were saying.)

[emcguffie]

13. What are you trying to say?

I don't understand you.

They are using his tables. Charnin doesn't just use exit polls. Where on earth did you come up with that? Have you looked at any of this?

And an exit poll is hardly the same thing as an opinion poll, is it?

Aren't we all really on the same side? Do we have so many really great tools that we can afford to throw some of them away? I admit I must have missed a lot of this argument, but I truly do not get it. Richard Charnin makes a very valuable, useful contribution. What's wrong with that? Do you have some personal problem with him?

And apparently the judge in this recount is just tossing all the ballots together. Is there some way you can blame that on Charnin, I wonder?

What are you so upset about? Really? Stolen elections, or Richard Charnin?

[Bill Bored]

14. The OP was about Charmin's work with exit polls, wasn't it?

If he's doing something more constructive now, that would be great.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. "They are using his numbers in Wisconsin"

If Charnin put together a spreadsheet to track the recount, and "they" find it useful, more power to him and them. "His numbers" shouldn't be different than anyone else's.

If the Kloppenburg campaign goes to court saying that they disbelieve the recount results because Richard Charnin's True Vote Model reveals different results, I will be... shocked and impressed, although not favorably.

If Election Defense Alliance goes to court saying the same thing, I would not be so surprised.

[Bill Bored]

3. kick

[emcguffie]

10. Richard Charnin's reply.

Richard Charnin asked me to post this for him. And, oh, he says he'll buy your book if you'll buy his. :7 http://search2.barnesandnoble.com/BookViewer/?ean=9781449085278

From: Richard Charnin

Bill should use that Charmin toilet paper and get rid of all the toxins in his body.

He has misdirected DUers for years by failing to mention that NY votes cast on Levers were tabulated on computers.
Inexcusable since he rants against DRE's and Optical scanners but shilled incessantly to keep the levers.
But he cannot explain why NY and CT (both100% levers in 2004) had the highest exit poll discrepancies in the nation.
He misdirects AWAY from the corrupt NY election officials who wanted to keep the Levers - and who now refuse to count the Optical scan paper ballots.

I call Bill Bored out here.
http://richardcharnin.com/NYLeverShills.htm

He misdirects on what I said about Oregon.
Let DUers see for themselves:
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

I compare the OR voting system to the corrupt NY system here:
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVsNYVoting.htm

I refute his buddy Stanislevic here:
http://richardcharnin.com/StanislevicInnocenceReply.htm

I am working with Wisconsin progressives who are uncovering fraud in the Supreme Court recount.
http://richardcharnin.com/WIVoteCounts

What has he ever done except blow off the exit polls?
When were the exit polls wrong, Bill?. In 2004?
Oh, so you believe they were wrong when they showed that Kerry won?
Then write a new post:
"BILL BORED: THIS IS MY PROOF THAT THE EXIT POLLS WERE WRONG IN 2004 AND THAT BUSH REALLY DID WIN".

Or, Bill, if you believe that Kerry won:
"BILL BORED: PROOF THAT THE NY EXIT POLLS WERE OFF BY 12% IN 2004 BUT CORRECT EVERYWHERE ELSE. KERRY WON".

What has Bill ever done other than snipe.
When has he ever refuted my work?

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. beware of people who try to use you as a sock puppet

A few years ago, a user was banned for that. I'm sure you can work out some acceptable arrangements with the mods. I don't want anyone else to pay for Charnin's efforts to sell his books, however sincere they may be.

He (Bill Bored) has misdirected DUers for years by failing to mention that NY votes cast on Levers were tabulated on computers.

Reality check: vote totals -- even hand-counted vote totals -- generally end up being "tabulated on computers." Charnin's spreadsheets are "tabulated on computers" too. The question is whether and how one can check the tabulation.

It's a pretty subtle question: New York's canvass procedure isn't foolproof. But it's selectively gullible to conclude that it was off by double digits in 2004 -- and that Kerry won the state by over 30 points -- based solely on Charnin's interpretation of the exit poll data plus a hand-waving invocation of "computers."

What has Bill ever done other than snipe.
When has he ever refuted my work?

When has TIA ever done other than snipe? When has he ever refuted BB or any of his other critics?

TIA, from beyond the grave, is still trying to drag this board to a place where substantive discussion is impossible, and all we can do is parse subjective conjugations: "I refute, you quibble, they snipe." Yes, this bothers me. Why shouldn't it?

[Wilms]

19. TIA bashing levers, as usual. ES&S applauds.

TIA's the guy who trashes levers by re-posting EIRS complaints claiming that a lever machine didn't punch through the ballot and left a chad. :eyes:

If TIA is such a numbers guy, why doesn't he get his hands on county-level, or even machine-level tallies for New York? I agree that the use of computers to tally individual machine totals is a bad idea...just like it is everywhere else in the country. But throw the levers out because of the central tabulation? How does that remotely make sense? You could hand-count at the precinct and have the SAME problem.

I'm assuming he's good with numbers, but his really bad logic calls it all into question.

[Bill Bored]

20. These details are someone else's problem -- NOT TIA's.

Like many who claim to be advocating election integrity, Charmin is only concerned with one aspect of the problem. In his case, it's exit poll discrepancies and other survey results such as EIRS, which as you've said, may not even make sense given the voting technology involved, and are themselves unverifiable.

The best way to verify elections, other than building a machine like the levers that can be visibly demonstrated to be physically incapable of switching votes (which was done over 100 years ago), is to hand-count the original voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs), check the central tabulation of precincts at the county level, and check the tabulation of county-wide results at the state level. Not rocket science. For a long time, most of the folks in this movement were on board with this, and 100% hand counts are not even necessary in most cases.

But even this method, which has yet to be employed in most of our elections, is now in the process of being undermined by those planning to recount "ballot images," "cast-vote records," and other vapor products which, like the counting processes themselves, exist only in software -- instead of hand-recounting paper. And most of these folks claim they are in favor of "verified voting." (Really?)

Almost no one's paying attention to this stuff anymore now that Bush is out of office -- least of all, Democrats. It's going on under the radar and some Dems have been aiding and abetting it.

Neither Charmin, nor most DUers are aware of these plans, because they are the brainchildren of computer scientists and programmers who have their own ideas about what constitutes transparency and integrity, which may not be shared by the rest of the electorate. (And of course, no one bothers to ASK!)

It's more of the "just trust us" philosophy of election administration -- not unlike Charmin and the other exit-poll true believers' memes.

And make no mistake -- there is money involved. No one's going to get rich promoting hand counts (even partial ones) or mechanical voting devices that can be shown not to switch votes, are they? Heck, you can't even get a gig with a 501(c)(3) doing that! :)

[bleever]

6. Fun to watch the sniping.

Of course, everybody punches "down" at Charnin, instead of "up" at people like Mark Crispin Miller, Josh Mitteldorf, or Steve Freeman. Not to mention RFK Jr.


The "concern" for the purity of the anti-fraud efforts is quite moving. Funny how much more effort from such people is spent on railing against an honest actor who supports the same cause but doesn't do it their way than on actual constructive efforts.


It is a puzzlement.

[emcguffie]

11. Here is some interesting reading about Wisconsin.

Whoops! It's using Richard Charnin's numbers!

http://myplayfulself.com/wordpress/archives/5311

It makes a lot of sense to me. Must be something wrong with my brain?

FRAUD – 4 – Spread Sheets & Vote Bags
May 13th, 2011 | Author: Dennis Kern

Richard Charnin is a member of the Election Integrity Group on face book, who has compiled a spreadsheet which leads to a question. If Kloppenburg did better than Obama in 24 of the 72 counties, why did she do so much worse in the largest counties?

I am not a spreadsheet guy, but Richard lays it out so even I can see the anomaly he is talking about. He is looking at the percentage of vote Obama received and comparing that percentage with that of Kloppenburg in the Supreme Court Election. The assumption is that the percentage of vote that went to Obama in the presidential election should be close to the percentage of vote that went to Kloppenburg, and it works out….ALMOST. Here is the suspicious anomaly:

Below is the anomaly as described by Richard

This is a comparison of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the 2008 presidential elections.
Prosser leads by 7,000 out of nearly 1.5 million votes.

In 2008, Obama had 56.2% of the recorded vote, a 415,000 vote margin out of nearly 3 million votes. Considering the heavy union turnout, how did Kloppenburg’s vote share decline by 6.5% from Obama’s?

Kloppenburg did better than Obama in 10 small counties (total 50,000 votes) but worse in 10 large counties (550,000 votes).

In Milwaukee County, Obama had 67.3%, Kloppenburg 56.4% of 229,000 votes. Why the 10.9% decline?

In Waukesha County, Obama had 36.6%, Kloppenburg 26.2% of 125,000 votes. Why the 10.4% decline?

In Waukesha, McCain defeated Obama by 59,813 votes out of 233,435 recorded.

Prosser defeated Kloppenburg by a nearly identical 59,505 votes out of just 125,070.

Quite a gain.

YES. Quite a gain…indeed.
You can look at the documentation of this anomaly on the spread sheet on Richard’s web site

One anomaly leads to another VOTE BAGS

There's a lot more. http://myplayfulself.com/wordpress/archives/5311