I just sent this email to Harper's regarding their recent editorial.

[Stevepol]

Harpers:

I believe the statistical techniques used in the social sciences are both well-grounded in science and reliable, so I applaud Lewis Lapham <“True Blue” January 2005> for his remarks about the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people by the vendors and apologists for the electronic voting machines, primarily the big three, Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. The 2004 election is just the latest case in point. Evidently, it won’t be the last, as the same apologists and naifs who scoffed at the charges of fraud in 2000 and 2002 have risen to defend the result of this election, ignoring what could not be more obvious: that unaudited and unauditable elections have in the last four years replaced our democracy with a kind of corporate politburo based on the control of the vote counting, rule by the voting machine software writers, patchers, and hackers as it were. If politicians and pundits can’t see it, the more’s the pity. Many millions can, and that number is growing. The first and perhaps most blatant fraud occurred in 2002 in Georgia where Roy Barnes, leading in the pre-election polls by 11% in a poll taken 4 days before the election and in the exit polling on election day by a similarly wide margin, ended up losing by 5% points after the machines got through counting, a swing of 16%. God knows what a regression analysis would give for that result, something approaching a trillion to one odds that the variance between exit poll and actual result happened by chance I suppose. Max Cleland lost in the same election after a 13% point swing. Yet nobody seemed unduly upset. Using my amazing precognitive abilities I will deign to predict that the 2006 mid-term elections will see a further erosion of Democratic influence, 2 or 3 more potential Democratic Representatives or Senators biting the dust where DREs are used to count the vote. I also predict that, no matter who the Republican nominee is in 2008 (likely Chuck Hagel, the erstwhile CEO of the voting machine company that counted the votes in the election that brought him to Congress), and no matter how far behind this nominee is in the pre-election polls or in the exit polling the day of the election, he will win. But, of course, when I make that prediction, I’m cheating. You see, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories: I believe in the validity of the statistical techniques used in the social sciences.

[idiosyncratic]

1. Wow!! Great letter!! n/t

[cali]

2. I wish people could understand

how important paragraph breaks are. It's a good letter, though I don't agree with everything you wrote, but it's lack of paragraphs makes it difficult to read.

[Straight Shooter]

5. I concur

I hope this helps.

Harpers:

I believe the statistical techniques used in the social sciences are both well-grounded in science and reliable, so I applaud Lewis Lapham <“True Blue” January 2005> for his remarks about the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people by the vendors and apologists for the electronic voting machines, primarily the big three, Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. The 2004 election is just the latest case in point. Evidently, it won’t be the last, as the same apologists and naifs who scoffed at the charges of fraud in 2000 and 2002 have risen to defend the result of this election, ignoring what could not be more obvious: that unaudited and unauditable elections have in the last four years replaced our democracy with a kind of corporate politburo based on the control of the vote counting, rule by the voting machine software writers, patchers, and hackers as it were. If politicians and pundits can’t see it, the more’s the pity. Many millions can, and that number is growing.

The first and perhaps most blatant fraud occurred in 2002 in Georgia where Roy Barnes, leading in the pre-election polls by 11% in a poll taken 4 days before the election and in the exit polling on election day by a similarly wide margin, ended up losing by 5% points after the machines got through counting, a swing of 16%. God knows what a regression analysis would give for that result, something approaching a trillion to one odds that the variance between exit poll and actual result happened by chance I suppose. Max Cleland lost in the same election after a 13% point swing. Yet nobody seemed unduly upset.

Using my amazing precognitive abilities I will deign to predict that the 2006 mid-term elections will see a further erosion of Democratic influence, 2 or 3 more potential Democratic Representatives or Senators biting the dust where DREs are used to count the vote. I also predict that, no matter who the Republican nominee is in 2008 (likely Chuck Hagel, the erstwhile CEO of the voting machine company that counted the votes in the election that brought him to Congress), and no matter how far behind this nominee is in the pre-election polls or in the exit polling the day of the election, he will win.

But, of course, when I make that prediction, I’m cheating. You see, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories: I believe in the validity of the statistical techniques used in the social sciences.

[nodictators]

3. Maybe the voting machines could use the "wins" in marketing

For instance, ES&S could make a "Hagel 80-percenter" model in honor of Chuck's 80% win in his US senate race a few years ago in NB.

Then, Diebold could counter with a "Chambliss 55-percenter" model for Saxby's unexpected "win" over Sen. Cleland in GA.

After all, if major-league baseball players have bats with their signature sold to the public, why can't politicians have signature voting machines sold to other politicians so they can have a similar percentage "win" too.

[driver8]

9. How about the "Georgie Red Shifter"?? n/t

[KansDem]

4. Wonderful letter!

I have often wondered since Nov. 3 if we truly understand what we have done. By propagating election fraud on such a massive, and obvious scale, we have lost all credibility in the world, and will lose faith here at home. Faith in the common good will continue to erode into a "why give a shit" attitude as public institutions continue to ignore this dilemma and private interests continue to "game the system" election after election after election.

Since 2000 (and perhaps before?) he GOP have acted like children in an unattended chocolate factory: rush in and sample a few stolen sweets, then, realizing no one is watching and they can simply "get away with it," get caught up in the moment and gorge themselves silly, and end up bloated and sick.

I wonder if ANYONE has contemplated what this will do to the nation's sense of honor and duty as citizens. I wonder what the long-term effects will be...:(

And I wonder how attitudes will change regarding civic duty and "good citizenship:" from jury duty to paying taxes, from voting to military service.

I wonder...

[IndyOp]

8. We cannot go quietly, resistance is the only way...

I have been leaning, in the past few weeks, toward a 'Why bother voting?" attitude. To me it seems like everything go could very, very dark in the next few years and if that it so then why fight? Well...

I just talked today with a friend who is an old warrior -- he has been resisting the dominant paradigm since the 60's. If you read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United State" you read about Bill -- he is the only person to have served jail time for the Iran-Contra Affair. He served time because his hometown put up a street sign in honor of Admiral Poindexter and Bill stole it and held it for ransom. So, he went to jail. He's been fighting for a long time for many, many people in many different lands. My favorite quote of Bill's came from an email he sent when he was visiting Israel/Palestine last year. His delegation met with all kinds of people on all sides of the issues. One person accused them of just meeting 'with the lunatic fringe'. In reply Bill stated, "So long as walls, weapons, and wars are considered the path to peace by the so-called sane, I will stand with the insane."

The African American members of the House of Representatives (14 of them) are ready to stand up on Jan 6th to contest the Electoral College vote. They've been fighting for a long, long time and the fight is about to get harder.

If these folks and a million more can face the truth and resist even in times of fear -- and still maintain joy in life -- then I suppose I will just have to buck up and try to get smart about this stance of resistance -- when to push, when to let up, how to stay in touch with people who will help keep me sane...

:hippie:

[Helga Scow Stern]

6. Well said! I wonder if they will have the integrity to print it. n/t

[TexasLawyer]

7. I Just Subscribed

I let my subscription to Harper's lapse a few years ago, but based on the fact that Harper's is writing seriously on issues such as vote fraud I just re-upped for 2 years.

Their website (harpers.org) is really great and the articles posted online and/or available in the news-stand editions all look interesting--

Plus the Harper's folks need to be rewarded for their attention to this major issue of our time, an issue that every other non-internet media source seems to be ignoring.

Thanks for posting this!

[MadLinguist]

10. I just posted this paper to truemajority

and insert the link here because I don't have enough posts start a thread. Here is a state-by-state analysis that non-statisticians can understand.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997

I think it deserves some attention.

[Helga Scow Stern]

14. Just started thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x181589


Thanks!

[Fly by night]

11. Do you have a link to the Lapham article?

I visited the Harper's Online site (which is not easy to navigate) and found no reference to the Lapham article. The only relevant article I found was one by Ronnie Dugger:

http://www.harpers.org/NoAppeal.html

Can the original poster provide a link? Thanks.

[Stevepol]

12. I couldn't find a link to the January 2005 Harper's.

I have a subscription and got it in the mail. Lapham's article is on page 9. I don't think they have put the current issue on line yet. You may have to get the mag at a newstand and fork over the $5.95 for the mag. It's got some other good articles as well, tho not about the vote fraud.

[Helga Scow Stern]

13. Would you mind taking a look at this report from the OSCE 2002 Election?

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2003/01/1465_en.pdf