Did e-voting fraud help Bush steal the election? - Salon.com

[Khaotic]

Mentions DU.

I can't help but see that so many of these articles slamming the desent of the election results, the writers refer to the LAST exit poll results.

From what I've seen, the LAST exit poll results are what are in question because they show significant "tweeking" from earlier exit polls; i.e. how can an exit poll go from 1,9** to 2,0** and have the percentage change by 3 or more percent?

Can you say TWEAK?!!!



I'm I wrong on that?

The original article is located at: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/04/touch_screen/index.html

Subscription required.

Time for Americans to start waving the flag and quit wearing it over their heads. Time to question the results if they don't hold up to the only way we have to know if they were skewed; in this case EARLY exit polls.


============================
Did e-voting fraud help Bush steal the election?
The Internets are abuzz with rumors that Bush won with the help of rigged electronic voting machines.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

Nov. 4, 2004 | Lefty Web sites are buzzing with a supposed "statistical analysis" that they say proves that Republicans stole the election by rigging paperless touch screen machines. According to the analysis performed by a Democratic Underground regular who goes by the handle SoCalDemocrat, states that use electronic machines were all showing strong Kerry support in exit polls, but when the results came in, the states went to Bush. The polls (which are based on interviews with voters as they leave the polls) indicate that voters in the state really voted for Kerry, the lefties say; the machines distorted or changed their votes. "Maybe Dubayah believes God will see him through this, but it's going to take more than blind faith to pull the wool over the data and the facts," SoCalDemocrat writes.

But as we see it, SoCalDemocrat's evidence is quite thin. For one thing, he appears to be wrong on the facts. While he's correct that exit polls showed a Kerry victory in many states that actually went to Bush, this didn't only happen in states that use paperless touch screen machines.

The most obvious example is Nevada, the only state in the nation to use what many computer scientists consider to be the safest touch-screen machines -- machines that print a paper ballot that is reviewed by the voter as each vote is cast, a so-called voter-verified paper trail. In Nevada, the last exit polls showed Kerry leading Bush by 49 to 48 percent, with 1 percent for Ralph Nader. The actual result was a win for Bush by 51 to 48 percent.

And even in states that did use paperless touch-screen machines, it's not clear that Bush made his gains in the areas of the states that used them, rather than regions that use other machines. For instance, in Florida, it's the state's large South Florida counties that use paperless touch screens. But Bush did worse in these regions in 2004 than in 2000. In the 2000 race in Miami-Dade, Bush got about 47 percent of the two-party share of the vote, while Al Gore received 53 percent; this year, Bush only got 46 percent of the two-party vote there, while Kerry got 54 percent. What this means is that in the move from punch-card machines (which, as everyone remembers, Miami-Dade used in 2000) to paperless touch-screens, Bush actually did worse, not better. At the same time, the president gained in Orange County, Florida. In 2000, Gore beat Bush in Orange County, whose largest city is Orlando; this year, Kerry lost to Bush there. And Bush didn't need rigged machines to do it: Orlando uses paper-based optical-scan voting machines -- which computer scientists consider more reliable than the touch screen systems.

Even if unfounded, the Democratic Underground set's suspicion is understandable. The exit polls were odd. And who can forget the infamous pledge of Wally O'Dell, CEO of touch-screen machine vendor Diebold, to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush this year? (Ohio, however, used few paperless touch-screens.) It's certainly worthwhile to scrutinize how the technology functioned in this year's election, but to date there simply isn't the evidence to conclude that the election was "stolen" using it. One way to make sure future presidential races are above such suspicion would be to add paper trails to all the paperless machines.

[AP]

1. Maybe the exit polling firms lied to discourage Dems.

[aquart]

3. Ockham, baby. Ockham.

The exit polls were correct. They have been since their inception. Until FOUR years ago. And even then they were only considered incorrect in Florida.

Now they turn up incorrect in places without a paper trail. Correct everywhere else. What is the easiest, simplest assumption?

[ZR2]

23. Correct everywhere else ?

"The most obvious example is Nevada, the only state in the nation to use what many computer scientists consider to be the safest touch-screen machines -- machines that print a paper ballot that is reviewed by the voter as each vote is cast, a so-called voter-verified paper trail. In Nevada, the last exit polls showed Kerry leading Bush by 49 to 48 percent, with 1 percent for Ralph Nader. The actual result was a win for Bush by 51 to 48 percent. "

[johnfunk]

4. Right, maybe all the rumors of a Kerry win quashed the vote in California

[AP]

8. the first exit poll info came out before east coasters finished work.

Ie, the FL good news came out before the evening voters got time to vote in Iowa, NM, and Ohio.

[SmokingJacket]

13. Like being wrong is a goal for them???? n/t

[Born Free]

21. the idea is to make it all so confusing people will believe anything

the bush cowards team believes he is a gift from GOD so if there is any questions he wins by default because these people use their faith in God to accept the bush coward could never lie. If these ignorant people ever realize that he is using Gods name in vain, he is only pretending to be a man of God for political purposes, they will turn on him. Unfortunately, many demcorats just ignore these true bleievers as nut cases rather than try to work with them to get them away from the cults they belong to. These people need extreme help, they are trapped in a cult through daily brainwashing.

[Selatius]

2. Wait and see

Until all the smoke clears and the evidence comes to the surface, the thing I'd suggest is to accept the results until something comes up that would justify going back and questioning it.

[aquart]

6. Uh, there is no evidence without a paper trail.

That's the point of insisting that there BE no paper trail.

[psychopomp]

5. This graphic I grabbed from DU'er robbedvoter makes the difference clear

[rinsd]

9. Those seem to be the early exit poll numbers.

Are we now saying those are the only ones to be trusted because that seems a bit foolish.

[psychopomp]

11. Could you say more?

Are the exit poll numbers used above very different from the data gathered late in the day? Thanks.

[rinsd]

22. I knwo the afternoon numbers were different....

Here's an explanation on mid-day numbers that I found.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_polls_what.html

"So if this poll is so sophisticated, why can't we rely on the leaked mid-day “numbers” that will soon spread like wildfire across the web?



1) It is still just a survey – Even when complete, an exit poll still has the same random variation as any other survey. NEP says typical state exit polls will have a sampling error when complete of +/- 4% at a 95% confidence level, and +/- 3% for the national exit poll. Even if comparable to the final numbers – which they are decidedly not – the mid-day leaked numbers would have much greater error, perhaps +/- 7% or more.

2) The mid-day numbers do not reflect weighting by actual turnout – the end-of-day exit poll used to assist the networks in determining winners will be weighted by the actual turnout of voters at each selected precinct. The weighting will then be continuously updated to reflect turnout at comparable precincts. In the past, mid-day numbers have reflected a weighting based on past turnout, so the leaked mid-day numbers may tell us nothing about the impact of new registrants or the unique level of turnout this time.

One point needs emphasis here: even in past elections, networks never called an election based on raw exit poll numbers alone. They were first weighted by a tally of the full day's turnout at each sampled precinct. This end-of-day data is (obviously) not available at 12 noon.

3) Voting patterns may be different early in the day - People who work full time jobs typically vote more heavily before or after work. Even a perfect mid-day exit poll – and there is no such animal – may not be any better at picking a winner than the half-time scores in any given football game on Sunday. Also, despite what you may have heard on the West Wing, I know of no serious study showing a consistent Democratic or Republican tilt to the morning or evening hours (if anyone does, please email me).

4) Early or absentee voting - As of last night, the ABC News survey estimated that 15% of all registered voters nationally had already cast absentee or early ballots. Obviously, these voters will not be available to interviewers standing outside polling places. To incorporate early voting, the National Election Pool is doing telephone interviewing in 13 states to sample the votes of those who voted early. Will these early votes be included in the mid-day leaked numbers? Who knows? I wouldn't count on it. (Good question, Andrew).

5) They could be fictional - Both sides have huge armies of field workers sweating it out in the streets right now. Field workers have been known to find creative ways to boost the morale of their own troops or demoralize the other side. Might someone start a rumor by sending made up numbers to a blog? Ya think? After all, the guy most web surfers turn to for leaked exits likes to say that the information he provides is only 80% accurate. What are the chances he could be, excuse the technical term, making shit up?

6) The people who do exit polls would rather you ignored them - OK, admittedly, that is a pretty wimpy reason, but they have a point. Exit polls provide a valuable resource for all of us. The will help us better understand who the voters are, why they vote the way they do and what the answers are to some of the debates that have raged for months that will not be resolved by vote returns alone. When someone leaks or broadcasts results of an exit poll (or telegraphs it by winking the way certain news networks tend to do about about 4 or 5 o'clock), calls are made to ban exit pollsters from polling places. That would be a very bad thing"

[NV Whino]

10. Thanks for reposting this

I missed it earlier.

[blue agave]

15. Nice job, psycopomp

[psychopomp]

16. Thanks but it was another DU'er who posted it first

The question remains, are these early exit poll numbers as the above poster stated?

Though the Salon article raises good points, the overall question of the discrepancy remains.

[Kenergy]

20. Looks clear to me n/t

[leQ]

7. anyone with a brain could see that the problem isn't being "paperless"

which, in the writer's piece, meant producing a paper receipt of the ballot for the voter.

but think now. if a machine was going to be hacked in the first place, don't you think that they would be made to produce a paper ballot true to form when all that had to be done was change the totals at the end of the day.

the only way using BBV in a secure election would be to have the code be made open source.

[alittlelark]

14. If they produced 1 paper reciept for each voter

they could easily be made to procuce 2 copies of the vote

1 copy stays with the voter
1 copy goes into a sealed 'recount box' or 'scrolls', and the voter initials it.

and 1 vote stays in the computer.



That is why they will not produce a paper trail, It would be too easy to do a recount if there was ANY paper production.

[ZR2]

25. Of what possible benefit

is it to have the code open source ?

[govegan]

28. That would be the only just way to do it.

The major benefit: no surprises, if anyone can see the code. With access to source code, test scripts can be written to run through the code in a very rigorous fashion. This is one aspect of insuring the integrity of the code. There are many other benefits, including public ownership of their own franchise. A true representative democracy is based upon the informed will of the people, as expressed through the franchise of their votes. Private ownership and control of this franchise is fundamentally undemocratic.

Neofascism abhors the light of day. Secrecy, lies, closed systems, deception, propaganda, these are the lifeblood of this form of tyranny.

Honest and fair minded individuals with nothing to hide do not spend their nights and days devising more and more ways to obfuscate and obscure.

[ZR2]

32. Sure everyone can see what the code is supposed to be

But how will anyone know what software is actually loaded into the machine. Very easy to change one line of code and make a very big difference.

[thecrow]

12. WTF?

"this year, Bush only got 46 percent of the two-party vote there, while Kerry got 54 percent" (Florida)

:wtf:

[republicansareevil]

26. Miami-Dade, not all of FL (nt)

[RememberTheCoup]

17. related thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x82290

And there was also another thread somewhere.

EDIT:
Here's the other related thread... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x17139

[RememberTheCoup]

18. Salon is wrong on several points:

fallacy #1

"The most obvious example here is Nevada, the only state in the nation to use what many computer scientists consider to be the safest touch screen machines -- machines that print a paper ballot that is reviewed by the voter as each vote is cast, a so-called voter-verified paper trail. In Nevada, the last exit polls showed Kerry leading Bush by 49 to 48 percent, with 1 percent for Ralph Nader. The actual result was a win for Bush by 51 to 48 percent."

Touch screen machines with a paper trail are not any more trustworthy in their initial count that those without paper trails. They are only more trustworthy if those paper receipts are counted. Everyone knew NV would not be counted.

To clarify, these are not true paper BALLOTS that are used to count the votes. They are RECEIPTS that are only used in recounts. And it was a safe bet that Nevada would never be recounted -- but maybe it should be.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2003/d ...


fallacy #2

"And even in states that do use paperless touch-screen machines, it's not clear that Bush made his gains in touch-screen areas of the states, rather than regions that use other machines. For instance, in Florida, it's the state's large South Florida counties that use paperless touch screens. But Bush did worse in these regions in 2004 than in 2000. In the 2000 race in Miami-Dade, Bush got about 47 percent of the two-party share of the vote, while Al Gore received 53 percent; this year, Bush only got 46 percent of the two-party vote there, while Kerry got 54 percent. What this means is that in the move from punch-card machines (which, as everyone remembers, Miami-Dade used in 2000) to paperless touch screens, Bush actually did worse, not better."

His basic argument is this:
1. In Miami-Dade, they use paperless touch screens.
2. Bush did very slightly better in Miami-Dade in 2000 than in 2004.
3. Therefore, there was no cheating in Miami-Dade or in any other place that uses touch screens.

First, there is the logical fallacy that if Miami-Dade is honest, all touch screen counties must be honest. But he hasn't even shown that Miami-Dade is honest. Just because Bush got a certain percentage in 2000 doesn't mean he should expect to get that exact same percentage in 2004. (Even here he fudges his numbers by going with something he calls the "two-party vote" instead of the real vote. Bush got 46% in Miami-Dade in BOTH 2000 and 2004. Gore got 53% in 2000 and third-party candidates -- mainly Nader -- got 1%. Kerry got 54%.) So despite the massive outrage over the last election, Miami-Dade did almost exactly the same as last time -- except Nader votes went to the Democrat this time. I think that is suspicious in and of itself. Isn't it possible that the machines WERE rigged and that's why Kerry didn't take the county by an even larger margin?

Here are the 2000 FL results by county:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/flcbcnov7.htm


fallacy #3

"At the same time, the president gained in Orange County, Florida. In 2000, Gore beat Bush in Orange County, whose largest city is Orlando; this year, Kerry lost to Bush there. And Bush didn't need rigged machines to do it -- Orlando uses paper-based optical scan voting machines, which computer scientists consider more reliable than the touch screen systems."

But the votes still are counted by computer. I think this guy is confusing "reliable" with "verifiable". Any system that produces a paper trail is more VERIFIABLE because the papers can be counted. But it is not necessarily any more reliable. The votes can still be changed within the computer.

But it brings up another interesting point. Why did Orange County have a 40% increase in votes while Miami-Dade had less than a 14% increase? As one of the counties at the center of the 2000 controversy, you'd think turnout in Miami-Dade would be very high.


fallacy #4
"(Ohio, though, used no paperless touch screens.)"

This is wrong on the facts. Six counties in Ohio use paperless touch screens. One is Franklin County. Overall, about 16% of the state is touch screen, mostly blue areas.

[William Seger]

19. "One way to make sure..."

"...future presidential races are above such suspicion would be to add paper trails to all the paperless machines."

A much better way is to just get rid of the damn touch-screen things. They are stupid and totally unnecessary. Thankfully, my county still uses the paper ballots where you just color in a little circle, and I'm convinced they are far superior to any known alternative. They're simple to understand and easy to use, easy for voters to double-check (and you can just get another ballot if you made a mistake), they're very quick and accurate to count electronically, easy to recount electronically, and even a manual recount can be done fairly accurately and efficiently since you can separate them into two piles about as fast as you can look at each one.

[hang a left]

24. Please please post this in GD

and the respective state forums. Thanks

[madmax]

27. Who wrote the program for the voting machines in

battleground states. I've read that it was someone from The Christian Constructionist group. Whoever the hell they are.

Since there is no one type of electronic voting machine, they all use different software?

This is a great way to handle Democracy and Vote - confuse the shit out of the voters and hope they'll just give up. :mad:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

29. Easy now... we're trying to spread democracy here.... not. n/t

[Amigust]

30. Look to the central tabulators for the data manipulation.

"Two companies (ES&S and Diebold) started by two brothers (Bob & Todd Urosevich) with close connections to the Republican Party, will count over 80% of all votes in America using both touchscreens and ballot scanners."

[skip fox]

31. Did George Soros offer a $10 million reward for information/proof of this

type of voter fraud?

If so, we might help publicize it. $10 million might "jar" loose a Diebold programmer, even if sworn to secrecy.