SHOULDA COULDA WOULDA; Why Election Fraud Naysayers R W-r-o-n-g---------

[Land Shark]

Time and Again, We come up against counterarguments and counterfactuals concerning election fraud. Some better than others.

For example (and without endorsement or critique):

1. Kerry SHOULDA not conceded if there was any problem here.

2. The exit poll discrepancies COULDA been due to reluctant Bush responders.

3. The New Hampshire recounts WOULDA indicated fraud, if there was any.

4. There are oh, so many more. Almost every debate in this forum could fit the list in some aspect.

Pardon the Slight Detour: It reminds me of playing high school football. (Imagine here the Land Shark with helmet on). We won the large school state championship. Was cool to have all the little kids collecting the autographs of everyone on our team. Our coaches knew that when someone didn't do the job on the field, they could always come back and talk about the slippery grass, or the sun in your eyes, or whatever.

All such talk would be immediately cut off by saying "SHOULDA COULDA WOULDA".

I don't know if the coaches realized it or not, but excuses are always possible. AND, THEY DID REPRESENT REAL CONDITIONS ON THE FIELD, USUALLY, AND REAL OBSTACLES TO OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE.

"Shoulda coulda woulda" is always there, and always at least slightly valid. Just check in with criminal defense attorneys after their clients are convicted (seems like they had good excuses, the jury rejected them....). The reason there are always at least lame excuses available is because there are always contrary inferences available. Everything, ultimately, is arguable, though not always well.

IN ANY EVENT, the contrary inferences are always there. For any talented thinker, there are always contrary inferences available. It follows that any process, no matter how meritorious, can be either slowed down or stopped by arguing those contrary inferences at every step of the way. This process of arguing against can be both helpful as well as a deliberate attempt to halt the process (the criminal defense attorney is obligated to so defend his client).

Ultimately, where we need to go can be understood by showing the difference between a prosecutor and a defense attorney. Both have inferences and argument available to them each step of the way. But the prosecutor (most ESPECIALLY when attempting to prove a criminal conspiracy claim) is always pointing to the TOTALITY of the evidence as being conclusive of guilt.

Whereas, in contrast to prosecutors looking at the totality of the evidence, the defense attorneys always focus point by point on a given piece of evidence, dramatically pointing to their own contrary inferences, and then asking the rhetorical question "What is it about this particular piece of evidence that PROVES conspiracy???"

The answer is always the same: Nothing. No single piece of evidence proves the case or proves the conspiracy.

The prosecutor then shifts focus back to the totality of the evidence, seeking to argue that his theory is the only thing that explains ALL of the evidence. The prosecutor points to the "shifting excuses" of the defendant, since arguing contrary inferences can often lead to at least some internal tension in the arguments being made.

I think the election fraud proponents are in the position of prosecutors, and the critics in the position of defense attorneys for the system of elections. The defense attorneys say "our clients are not perfect, but they stand accused of crimes that they either didn't commit, or the state can't prove that they committed".

I could go on, but these burden of proof issues, and proving either the totality of the case or defending by focusing in on details and pronouncing those details always flawed or ambiguous is the order of the day in criminal court.

Ultimately in elections however, it is our government that has to prove TO US, the people, that the elections were correct.

But governments usually succeed in making things a lot more difficult both by concealing evidence, and also by explicitly or implicitly saying with the help of independent media voices that the public needs to have some kind of "smoking gun" before undermining "voter confidence".

Without the smoking gun, it's claimed that there is no proof, and further the reality becomes (appallingly) that there will also be no investigation to speak of, if there is no proof from the OUTSET.

This presents a problem, does it not? i.e. No cause for investigation unless there's no plausible inference the other way. But the inferences always exist!

Add to that the reality that the media, whether intentionally or not, is the mere medium for transmitting the views of our movers and shakers and decidedly NOT for investigating the community and reporting truth from whatever source, and we realize that the total over-representation of the voices of the powerful in the media (even when the powerful are Democratic big wigs) means that it's virtually impossible to play Joe Citizen, investigate, send out a press release and cause a stir. At least not any more. Maybe there were more golden days in the past. LIke when Nader was successful and before he got frozen out of the halls of Congress, which was long before he decided to run for President. Anyway, the true crusader is pretty much pushing water uphill to a large extent.

----If I wanted to design a system to resist any and all change that is how I would do it: even a barely plausible inference would be enough to kill and/or throw cold water on even an investigation, much less a prosecution. ----- THis is what we have today.

In the end, specific facts of a case never themselves prove nor disprove, on the absolute level. The myth of the smoking gun is just that: usually a myth, rarely present. It's the totality of the facts. HOW DO WE WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS?

The problem for democracy is that the pace of life is so fast and some people's level of education about election systems so relatively poor that the chances of causing an investigation or charge is fairly low unless there is something as plain as videotape or clearly rogue source code.

Yet, if and when you put it all together something really smells in Ohio. Even Hertsgaard seems to agree on that point.

But how many citizens have the time to reach that level of education, together with the intellectual capacity to hold up to hundreds of facts in mind all at the same time, which is necessary to render a sound JUDGMENT on the TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, the only thing that will prove either a case or probable cause for charges or an investigation?

In the end, the micro debates we have here are not productive. Each side accuses the other of ignoring evidence, bad faith, glossing over or failing to care about democracy. But the only picture that matters is the big picture, such as a prosecutor might give in a 2 hour closing argument, but that data doesn't fit through the time-hole of a post in Election Forum.

So, some very caring people stand alone in their knowledge/belief that the totality of the facts show a stolen election. It's a maddening situation that the "system" has no mechanism to treat this seriously, preferring instead to question the sanity or ethics of those who care so much. Please rest assured that this indictment is personal to no one, and the problem of arguing only one's own inferences instead of the totality of the facts is shared by all sides (despite my marketing-influenced title to blame the "naysayers")

Whether or not you have the totality of the facts yourself or believe you do, and whether or not you agree or disagree with the judgment of those who are saying or claiming they do, I indict the system as follows:

I indict our system for claiming to be a system that serves the public, but not being able to engage with, incorporate, respond to, or even just to CO-OPT those citizens and members of the public who care enough to give their very best to investigating elections, the most sacred part of our secular system.

I indict the system for failing, for whatever reason, to take a totality of the facts approach because therein lays the only source of truth, so we can not truly seek the truth without seeking to understand the totality of the facts. Therefore, NO ATTENTION SPAN = NO TRUTH.

This no attention span=no truth phenomenon bears looking at. In this vein a foreign friend may unfortunately have hit upon a problem we americans must solve soon: Our system (in his opinion) may be "the most sophisticated bullshitting system ever developed by mankind".

This media need for speed and with bleed in the lead prevents us from doing deeds, planting seeds, and serving needs. (Run, Jesse, Run!!)

The failure to engage the energy of activists despite their high intentions sucks, no matter what the truth is on stolen elections.

We Need a twist on BE THE MEDIA. We need to BE THE FOCUS.

I wish I could stop you all right here, and ask for a minute or ten of silence, on how we can all BE THE FOCUS, so we can GET TO TOTALITY of the facts.

[msongs]

1. correct each small item that contributes to "totality" by

open source code on all voting machines

no "phoning in or out" to/from electronic voting systems

paper ballot as the ballot of record for counting purposes

count all the ballots of record at the precinct level in public view

I am sure our amigos at DU can add lots more small items to correct.

problem is how to get the state and national level dems to take this seriously and DO SOMETHING about it.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/chinamart.htm

[Land Shark]

2. Good, each point would be helpful but as you say this list's not complete

and we'd still, in the end, have to examine the totality of the system and how it all interacts with each part.

We could use classes in "elections systems design" at conferences. Ultimately, this is the level at which we can make our best critiques of the totality of the evidence: by understanding the totality of the election systems.

[The Doctor.]

13. I see what LS means...

Trying to address the problem of the vulnerability of each particle through a 'particular' tact is, in fact, the problem as well.

I believe there is a way to distill these minutiae into one cohesive and comprehensive message which the non-political mind can easily digest.

I believe therein lies the solution.

Lemme think about it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. It is difficult to conceive of a case with more overwhelming

circumstantial evidence. The number of phoned complaints, alone, is staggering. Then, perhaps, the most damning of all, the secrecy, the cover-ups.

When one considers that some of the neo-nazi "low lifes" have the temerity to deny the "Holocaust" (What next? WWII?), I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that they tell everyone to move along, now Nothing to see her.

But it cannot go away, precisely because of it's surreal scale; and the denouement will be cataclysmic for the culprits at every level.

[Land Shark]

4. I'll bet the Holocaust deniers focus on individual bits of evidence....

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. I bet you're right. I think you've performed an invaluable service

bringing out into the open, what most of us probably were aware of on an unconscious level, but hadn't consciously joined up the dots. It is compellingly succinct and makes for a much clearer picture, for those who don't normally grasp how compelling circumstantial evidence can be.

Personally, I think there is a superabundance of "smoking guns", but you and presumably the courts take that metaphor to apply only to empirical evidence.

[Land Shark]

6. Well I'm glad you liked it, and I respect anyone with five names/suffixes

the essay above's a bit long. People do intuitively realize that sound bites don't lead us to truth and can be misleading. But perhaps they are incapable of leading us to truth, period, except by indirection and merest suggestion.

A law school professor friend of mine wrote a book called the Death of Discourse, about media's effects on discourse and debate. Certainly had an influence on me I guess, though he never presented as far as i remember the "totality of facts' argument above.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Yes, it's a bit long, but you make the point clearly and, if

anything, reinforce it. It's something that needs to be kept front and centre, I think they say.

I'm glad you're impressed by my distinguished name and suffix! Actually, I want to ask the administrators if they'll remove the suffix for me, as I dare say there are decent souls with a set of digits after their name, and it's easy to scoff at features of other cultures, if we are unaware of arguably more risible aspects of our own.

As regards my names, though, I can't help hankering after having Oscar, Mao, Fidel and maybe McCarthy among my names. But enough's enough, I suppose.

[emlev]

21. I like the "totality of facts" argument

Your identifying those who cry foul as the prosecution and the naysayers as the defense (defenders of the current system) is a useful way to think about it.

Thanks for sharing your thinking once again.

[emlev]

20. Some change history by

creating it, some by rewriting it.

Proud we're all part of the first group.

[Time for change]

7. I indict our main stream media

for striving to maintain the status quo and enhance their power and profits at all costs, under the guise of proving us with news; and for strangling the voices of real journalists who would otherwise provide us with news that our country needs.

In my opinion that is where the main problem lies. We have no free and independent press in our country any more. It's not just that they interpret the news differently than we do. It's that they actively strive to prevent us from getting the news that a democracy needs in order to stay a democracy.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellipsis]

10. It's the Pastafarians verses the Contrarians...

...the proactive verses the reactive, the eager freshman verses the tenured complacent professor.

Go team!

It's foot-drag foot-drag, foot-drag, and muddy the water defense. Expect nothing less. Congratulate yourself. obviously your work is effective or you wouldn't have so many many flies... I say we put them on a global ignore.

I salute you and though I can't speak for anybody else here...feel most do applaud your efforts and the efforts of the relentless posters like yourself who ARE making a difference.

I leave you with some incite and then a quote from my old football coach...

We fight this fight, this battle, this war and think the law and the authorities are not on our side... I think they are. They are just patient, careful and fearfully cautious... more so then you or I... or the many here who just "get it". The "snowball" is startin' ... "Wormtongue" is about to be thrown out da castle.

"Don't let them get your dobbers down"
Coach Hobson.

Peace LS.

[kster]

11. K&R..nt

[glitch]

12. Well done. This is putting it in language Kerry (&other prosecutors) could

relate to. I say we spread it around. :)

[foo_bar]

14. what would Kerry say?

"This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition," Kerry said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13145632.htm

So he's a confirmed naysayer. Ni! And "wrong place, wrong time, wrong war". Land Shark's evil twin would protest: "couldn't Kerry say something nice about the war, from time to time? Just to rally the troops?"

[Land Shark]

15. Land Shark's evil twin is satisfied with meek Democrats; in fact

is very satisfied with Kerry's position during the campaign (Iraq a distraction from the real tough war on terror) meaning we gotta be smart about our warmaking but peace is not an option.

[foo_bar]

18. ever won a criminal case?

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Edgerly
(Middlesex Co. Superior Ct., MA, 1977) Kerry successfully prosecuted the "number two" organized crime figure in New England on charges of rape against a prostitute...Guilty verdict

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.kerry.html#cases

I understand the secret is overcoming "reasonable doubt", not chanting "Colonel Mustard with a Candlestick!" (unless you're bagging small fry, or your jury of peers lives on the web). I like the lawsuit on your behalf (although I'd sue the meter maids directly), but Kerry probably knows what he's doing.

[Land Shark]

19. Bait too rancid, even for a shark.

There've been precious few criminal cases. But no one's done a day in jail except for the death penalty case I was a minor part in, but there the jury voted against the death penalty.

[foo_bar]

27. sorry, Charlie

Your internet case is strictly catch-and-release, until you produce an expert witness who isn't belly-up after cross-exam.

There's a large pool to choose from, but the school of experts appears to disperse when the shark comes 'round with an exit poll bell on its neck. Maybe it's time for Jabberjaw to adapt to "terra firma", or cut bait.

[Land Shark]

40. Only good tuna get to be Starkist? U sound like corporate shill

Exit polls have no substantial part in the lawsuit, and expert witnesses are not needed in the case either. You've got a high level of sarcasm, some decent writing ability, all for what purpose? To defend Kerry against one comment of "meekness" by attempted destruction of a voters' rights transparency lawsuit? What objection do you have to transparency?

[foo_bar]

45. I was referring to your internet case against empiricism

The Sequoia suit is great, nary a mention of exit polls or how science should conform to realpolitik.

But this Manichean "marketing-influenced" headline doesn't square with the Buddhist call for reflection ("Just be the ball, be the ball, be the ball. You're not being the ball, Danny!"). Perhaps it's an occupational hazard, further muddled by the analogy between skepticism and defense counsel (to which I pointed out that prosecutors make the best naysayers, at least in Kerry's case).

As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials.
...
After the war, when critics started questioning whether the White House relied on faulty information to justify war, Cheney and Libby were central to the effort to defend the intelligence and discredit the naysayers in Congress and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/17/AR2005101701888.html

So this skepticism bit works both ways. Bad for team spirit, good for figuring out if the Emperor has no clothes.

[Melissa G]

16. Totality. Exactly...pretty clear picture there for those who care to look

Pickin' nits does tend to obscure the forest view for some folks.. K-n-R! with floaty hearts !:kick: :loveya: :toast:

[In Truth We Trust]

17. Paper ballots NOW!!! Hand counts NOW!!! n/t

[Febble]

22. As one who has certainly been called a NAYSAYER

frequently on DU, here is a response:

What I see as the flaw in your "totality of the evidence" argument is that the pieces of evidence that make up a Totality are not necessarily independent. Some depend on each other, and when this is the case, if one of those parts is brought into question, so are the others. When it is not the case, the Totality argument is valid.

For example:

1. Each piece of voter suppression evidence stands alone - it also adds up to a Big Picture of and unfair election in which Democrats were systematically disenfranchised, particularly in Ohio, but elsewhere as well. If any one piece of this evidence is falsified or cast in doubt, it does not seriously erode the Totality of the voter suppression case.

2. Many of the pieces of evidence for corruptible and malfunctioning software stand alone, and also add up to a Big Picture of an electoral system that needs radical reform and transparency.

3. The evidence for massive vote-switching theft of the popular vote (or even for the theft of Ohio by this means) depends rather heavily on the evidence of the exit poll discrepancy. And before we knew more, this, combined with 2 above, contributed to a Totality of evidence for theft of the entire election, popular vote and all. It was why, far from being a NAYSAYER, I hunted round the internet for data I could check out (being a data nerd) to see whether this could be uncovered. I found some interesting stuff. I found a complex and contradictory picture in Florida. I found evidence of large scale and systematic Democratic disenfranchisment in Franklin County; and I found evidence that DREs were associated with undervotes in predominantly Hispanic and African American precincts in New Mexico. But I found that the exit poll evidence, far from supporting the hypothesis that the discrepancy was due to massive fraud, tended much more strongly to support the hypothesis that it was due to bias in the poll - and indeed, my current view is that when the Totality of the exit poll evidence is considered, it is difficult to reconcile with massive vote-switching fraud (note the adjectives carefully).

And point 3 has a knock-on effect on point 2. It does not undermine the electronic vote-switching evidence - but it puts fairly severe constraints on the likely magnitude of its effect on the popular vote, and even, I would argue, on the magnitude of its effect on the vote in Ohio.

So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:

1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this insupportable.



And a final point about "naysayers"

Three have been mentioned over the past few days: me, OTOH and Hertsgaard. All three of us have stated, in some form of other that at the very least the election was unfair. We have also stated, in some form or other, that Ohio stinks, and as Ohio was the key state in handing Bush the presidency, it would appear that all three of us have grave doubts about whether the truly elected candidate was sworn into office. Whether those doubts are justified or not, the fact that we can actually have those doubts is in itself the greatest scandal of the election. The choice of a democracy should not be in doubt.

So enough of the circular firing squad. Let each of us concentrate on what we do best, whether it be polemic, finding data, assembling telling arguments for the prosecution, or sifting the bad arguments from the good. All of these activities can contribute to the cause of electoral reform, and are perfectly compatible as long as their purpose is not misunderstood.

And it's worth noting that if some typewriter nerd had been a NAYSAYER around the time of Rathergate, Kerry might be president now. The Totality argument doesn't work when one piece of evidence appears to undermine the rest.

[Land Shark]

23. I see you're constructive, but I think you're still not getting it 100%

Legal charges are broken down into elements or parts. If there is a COMPLETE FAILURE of proof on any one element, that could control the whole. But that is hard to achieve. It usually goes to the jury to weigh conflicting inferences.

You correctly point out that sometimes a detail can control the whole. Problem is, you greatly exaggerate (as do almost all people with their own arguments) the strength of your own objections, as well as their effect on the whole. A more extreme example is Hertsgaard claiming the NH recount controls the exit poll argument. I can't read his mind, but I guess he's proud of his own argument (aren't we all) or impressed by another's argument if it is not his, that his critical faculties fail him. His once sharp mind for possible problems becomes a lazy "NH recount means dead exit poll debate".

I appreciate your work in New Mexico Febble, and other. and you have interesting things to say, like the list of conclusions below to which i've added clauses. but the universal tendency to be overly proud of our own contributions can cause us to be MORE DISRUPTIVE THAN TRUTH WOULD HAVE US BE, when we are at the micro level.

In addition to over-objecting, there are also political problems I've noted, whereby the "battle of experts" on every minute point leads to the false impression that there's nothing learnable. In fact, many trials are just battles of experts, and ultimately the different scope and focus of those experts explains things.

STEP ONE: SOMEONE ELSE SET UP THE DATA SECRECY
STEP TWO: ACTIVISTS MAKE EDUCATED GUESSES, WHILE GOVT REFUSES DISCLOSURE

Is STEP THREE REALLY TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON (and perhaps overobject to) the perceived intellectual shortcomings of the activists?

If I need to stop posting so you Febble can work on another paper like your New Mexico paper let me know. I'll consider it. : )


FEBBLE ADMIRABLY WROTE (with my additions in asterisks):

So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:

1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote *though it's possible he won*.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this *is* insupportable. *?*
6. **There is no basis for confidence in the election results, as reported, given the nondisclosure of data and methods of counting**.

[Land Shark]

24. One final, but important, note to keep in mind, an assumption I have

My working assumption is this: IF WE GET TO THE MERITS OF THE DEBATE, i.e. if we metaphorically get "to trial" with the american public, WE WIN. FOR SURE.

By "win" I mean we will get an improved electoral system and increased transparency. Not necessarily prove that harm occurred AT THE LEVEL OF A CHANGED RESULT. Though Conyers I'm told believes the result was changed, he (perhaps like kerry) has publicly suggested otherwise.

So, in trying to get this thing "to trial" based on "the totality of the facts" and that complicated cases of intentional wrongdoing are always proved by circumstantial evidence primarily, the reason is that when we get to the merits of the reported result of secret vote counting, we have powerful arguments to make that undermine every factual claim of the other side. i.e. their data is useless.

[Febble]

25. With all due respect

I don't think you are getting it 100% either.

If I am right in interpreting the Totality exit poll evidence as indicating that it is unlikely that massive vote-switching occurred and that if it did, it must have been small-scale and targetted in precincts where Bush was expected to do badly, then that is useful information. It tells us that the much postulated massive vote-switching scam that many (including myself) suspected, probably did not occur.

It could have occurred (because of security glitches and evidence of malice); it might yet have occurred; but it probably didn't.

Of course I may be wrong - in which case you would be right to suppress my argument. But if I am right you have a choice:

you either suppress the view that massive vote-switching theft is unlikely (by discouraging people like me from being so "proud" of my own "conclusion" that I post it on DU) - and people continue to scurry round trying to find elusive evidence of massive electronic vote-switching fraud - elusive because it won't be there.

Or you welcome the information, even though it infirms a rather sexy part of your case, because it may lead to a more productive search for the likely locus of the smoking guns - in provisional ballot scams; in spoilage; in the systematic disenfranchisement of ethnic minority voters.

Now, it may happen that you don't particularly care how good the case for each type of fraud is; and it may be that the possibility (however remote) that the popular vote was massively stolen is such a headline-grabbing motivator that it is worth publicising anyway. Or it may be that you consider the crime so grave (however unlikely) that it is worth assembling every piece of evidence for it, regardless of the quality of that evidence and the quality of the counter-evidence. In which case we will simply have to agree to differ.

I do not post my conclusions on DU because I am particularly "proud" of them (despite what has been alleged about my motivations). I post because it is a forum where serious investigation is going on into the electoral crimes of 2004, and I happen to think that investigators are helped, not hindered, by data and analyses of data that points them in the right direction.

And as for Hertsgaard - I don't know if he said what you wrote, but he certainly didn't write it. NH does not kill the argument that fraud contributed to the exit poll discrepancy, but it certainly lends support to the argument that polling bias did. And it is not the only piece of evidence that tends that way.

I am sorry if you find my posts disruptive. They are not intended to be so. Where I find myself in agreement with other posters, I try to express that agreement. I have on more than one occasion agreed with you. But where I see an argument made that I think is in conflict with the evidence, I try to point it out the nature of the conflict. Perhaps I am motivated by pride. I hope not. I hope I am motivated by the search for truth. It is certainly what it feels like from inside.

[Land Shark]

28. Here's why Pollyanna makes such a poor investigator

Let's say some person or persons stole the election. If so, they've certainly "crossed the Rubicon", have they not? Entered the land of criminal freedom they find exhilirating and addictive?

Unless you are of the belief that criminals never try to hide their own tracks/evidence, a person purely taking the approach that you do is guaranteed (with an evidence-altering criminal) to be certainly slowed down and possibly stopped dead in your tracks because some data Points the other way.

I accept that in what feels like the pursuit of truth to you, you can be entirely fooled. In fact, it's child's play to fool such a person because as long as I can give them some reason to believe that an event is "unlikely", there's a certain personality type with strong intellectual credentials who will unwittingly be enlisted into service of making the trail cold.

And of course, the evidence could suggest that something is unlikely BECAUSE IT IS UNLIKELY. Duh.

Left to this investigatory approach (we'll call it the febble approach) let's say that the American hockey teams exploits in the Lake Placid Winter Olympics took place under conditions of secrecy. (Those who care to: I"m sure there are far better examples to illustrate this point). No one saw the game, at least that we have access to. We set about to forensically investigate who won that hockey game. Given all of the odds stacked against the american team, ONLY AN OVERLY OPTIMISTIC, NAIVE AND CHAIN-OF-EVENTS CONSPIRACIST would ever believe that Eruzioni and company had the ultimate chemistry to defeat the Soviet team. It was so damn unlikely. (Anyone remember the shivers when the announcer said in an incredible yell "....an Impossible dream, come TRRRUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!"

You see, dearest Febble, if you always credit the more likely inferences, the library book is always lost or misplaced, and never stolen. One walks around in naivete.

Febble, I do not think for a minute that you are, on a personal level, naive. What I am saying, however, is that the process of reasoning that credits the more likely inference and discredits or even scoffs at the less likely inference results in a person COMMITTED TO A NAIVE WORLDVIEW in situations where less likely inferences come into play. Such as elections, I submit.

Taken to extremes not necessarily seen a lot here, some are ready at the drop of a hat to scoff at any "conspiracy" theory no matter how high the payoff for the conspiracy, and thus the incentive to enter into it.

BOTTOM LINE: If as an investigator, one is not willing to go out on several limbs, perhaps simultaneously, to explore them, then one is committed to such a "safe" view of the world that one will never catch the bad guys, who on a lark may attempt the uncanny, the immoral, perhaps even the unthinkable. Pollyanna is a very poor investigator, indeed.

Again, I don't think of you personally as Pollyanna. But query whether the tendency (in the name of truth) to hammer away that something is UNLIKELY, UNLIKELY and even BLOODY UNLIKELY doesn't in fact commit you to forever concluding that the library has such an unfortunate problem of "misplaced" books and magazines.

[Land Shark]

30. Added thoughts after the Pollyanna approach to investigation

1. in reference to overprotecting against grave dangers, this is in fact what humans we consider rational do: We take extra special precautions with regard to infants for example. These may approach or even touch on the irrational, like the efforts to prevent stranger abduction when abduction is usually by someone known and rarely by strangers, and quite rare by strangers as an overall risk. It seems to me that the US is "protected" as it were by thousands of nuclear weapons. now there may be elements of irrationality involved, but it does show that people care about infants and about protection of country. HOW AbOUt CARING ABOUT DEMOCRACY? Seems a fair question.

2. Ran out of time. Or thought. Or both.

[Febble]

34. Not so

and I think you are still missing my point.

I am NOT saying "massive vote-switching fraud is unlikely, so move along there, nothing to see"

I am saying that we have an election with plenty of evidence of corruption - indeed, massive evidence of corruption, some probably deliberate, some structural (but no less illegal, probably), and some due to a culture of laxity on behalf of BoEs that needs to be eradicated.

And we have plenty of evidence of specific types of fraud: DREs defaulting to Bush; overvotes; undervotes; rejected provisional ballots. And we have other evidence that could point to malpractice: oddities in the the pattern of votes in other races; odd turnout patterns; odd patterns of votes for third parties.

And we have the exit poll evidence.

Which, at first, looked of-a-piece with the other stuff. And more importantly, what it did to the other stuff was to say - look, not only did this stuff happen, the vote-switching hack was huge.

Except that, when examined more closely, it doesn't. In fact it suggests that unless EXTREMELY unlike scenarios are proposed, that electronic vote-switching (EIRS reports notwithstanding) was probably the least of the problems in 2004, particularly in Ohio, where the main problem with DREs was their short supply and inequitable distribution.

So far from Pollyanna being a poor investigator, Inspector P.Anna is an extremely efficient investigator, directing the investigation where it is most likely to deliver the biggest bang for its buck. Actually - better than that - Inspector P. Anna is advising: Ohio stinks - something is being hidden - it probably isn't electronic vote-switching - find out what it is - and especially look for odd patterns of vote spoilage, 3rd party voting, provisional ballot issues and rejections and voter suppression.

And PollyAnna, aka Chief Public Relations Officer Anna, is also saying - if you want to convince people that electoral reform is needed (which it is) play your best suit, not your worst.

[Land Shark]

39. My point about Pollyanna investigation, or P. Anna (Private eye) is

quite independent of any facts on the ground. It is this: if you are committed to not entertaining any "unlikely" scenarios, one is forever stuck in the prosaic and mundane, and quite outside the twisted world of chance-taking criminality.

I' hope P. Anna is on the job, gumshoe. But if so she will keep all inferences open until they are ruled out, and won't let preliminary evidence "speak" too strongly to her.

Certainly, the exit pollsters being open and obvious and not escorted away by police, it is quite knowable for a party with resources on the ground to know where the exit pollsters are polling, and to avoid those locations, or make them obfuscated or even pro-Kerry occasionally. Unlikely, but quite possible. If someone doesn't want to 'go there' even provisionally, that's poor investigatory technique.

[Febble]

41. Well of course

and I think my record bears me out. I have certainly never ruled out an inference. I deal in probabilities, and as a good Bayesian, revise my estimates with each new posterior.

[On the Road]

26. A Lot of What Happenned Was inPlain Sight

For example, the allocation of voting machines, voter roll purges, etc. It's not clear to what extent those were illegal.

This argument should NOT be made to the general circumstances. "Woulda shoulda coulda" is exactly how the case for fraud is made. Those words can be thrown right back in your face. You cannot put the burden of proof on the status quo without being laughed out of the room.

I agree that the Repblicans have obstructed at every turn and have abused their policial offices. But to prove fraud, you actually have to prove it. The smoking guns are difficult to get at, but if they're there they have to be found.

[Land Shark]

29. I think I have put the burden on them, and they are not laughing

they are asking about settlement possibilities, instead.

There don't have to be "smoking guns" there is instead the boring routine of evidence and the overall weight of the evidence, in the end.

But i'm all ears if you want to define for me what the smoking gun is, so I can look for it. Some people (not saying ribofunk, cause I don't know) don't have the slightest idea what would constitute a smoking gun, and so it is not terribly surprising when they fail to find a smoking gun.

But it is disappointing and aggravating when they proclaim none has been found, but the search consists of somethings they knoweth not what. x(

[understandinglife]

31. "There don't have to be "smoking guns" there is instead the boring routine

... of evidence and the overall weight of the evidence, in the end."

In_deed -- just as Mr. Fitzgerald is demonstrating to Mr. Libby and many others.


Peace.

[autorank]

32. In the matter of Land Share versus the Election Thieves

Land Shark is carrying the day. Here's a contribution that is vital to the debate. I offer it for your consideration and as an unsolicited brief in support of Land Shark's overwhelming case against the naysayers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
edited and reprinted with the permission of the author, TruthIsAll

THE 2004 ELECTION WAS STOLEN. JUST LIKE IN 2000 AND 2002 AND 2005 IN OHIO.

In the Land Shark thread, a critics says:
"So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:
1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this insupportable (sic.)"

.....................................................................
Note: this was written BEFORE Land Shark's post.

The naysayers continue the process of masking the overwhelming evidence provided by the confirmation of
1) pre-election state polls. Total sample =50 polls*600 = 30,000,
2) pre-election national polls. Total sample = 18 polls *1500 = 27,000,
3) pre-election Bush approval 48.5%. Total = 11 polls*1000 = 11,000
4) post election state exit polls. At 12:22am, Nov.3 (73,600 respondents).
5) post-election national exit polls. At 12:22am Nov.3 (13,047 respondents)
6) massive documented evidence of fraud in OH, FL, NV, NM, NC, MN, NY, etc..

Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?
They ALL confirm that Bush lost.
What is it about these polls that is so difficult to understand?

The critics confirms the corruption in points 1,2,3. And yet she keeps pushing points 4 and 5.

No, Bush did NOT win the popular vote. The evidence clearly shows that Kerry did - in a near landslide.

Where is the evidence that the exit polls were biased?
Was it shy Bush voters (rBr)?
Debunked in NEP by Mitofksky 43%Bush/37% Gore?

Was it early Kerry voters?
Debunked. View the time line Kerry led at 4pm, 7:33pm, 12:22am

Was it early women voters?
Debunked. 4pm:58%, 7:33pm:54%, 12:22am:54%, 1:25pm:54%

Was it False Gore voter recall?
Ridiculous on its face.
Bush voters recall but Gore voters suffer Alzhemer's?

Was it Bad weather early in the day keeping Bush voters home?
Right.

Was it inexperienced pollsters?
Mitofsky trained them.

Was it the exit poll "cluster effect"?
Ok, go ahead. Play what-if. Do I hear 20%? 30%? 50%
Enter your own "effect" into the Interactive Election Model.
See how many states still fall beyond the MoE for Bush.
The model will calculate the probabilities for you.
Maybe not 1 in 19 trillion (16 exceeding MoE), but still astronomical.

And how does one explain the 30% poll deviations in the latest Ohio election referenda election reform referenda? Do they tell you anything about Ohio? Were these pre-election polls biased, as well? No exit polls were allowed. Critics agree that there was massive fraud in Ohio, but what about all the other states? NM, NV, FL, NC, NY, MN, etc...

Why the allegiance to Mitofsky, come hell or high.

The critics have always agreed with my math, but not my assumptions.

Which assumptions?

Pre-election polls favoring Kerry?
I can prove it. Go to polling report.com

Undecided voters to Kerry by almost 2-1?
New voters to Kerry by 3-2?
Nader voters for Kerry by 4-1?
See all the National Exit Poll time lines.

43/37 Bush/Gore 2000 voter share of the 2004 vote?
We proved that's impossible. Critics agree.

The Final Exit Poll is corrupted, because it was matched to a corrupt vote count. And therefore, all the other Final Exit Poll demographics must be wrong, as well. How can anyone not agree?

The Kerry Gender vote?
From 54% at 12:22am to 51% at 1:25pm. Really?

Party ID?
From 38 Dem/35 Rep to 37/37?

The Census 2004 Vote Survey?
125.7 million voted, or 3.4mm over the recorded vote of 122.3.
The MoE is 0.30%.

Kerry/Bush response alpha ratios?
They decline from 1.50 in High Bush precincts to 1.0 in High Kerry.
USCV proved rBr was garbage using simulation.
I confirmed USCV with the Exit Poll response optimizer.

Bush's 48.50% job approval on election day 2004?
That's the average of 11 INDEPENDENT national polls with a COMBINED 1.0% MoE.
How did Bush overcome this negative view?
Only by cheating.

Ohio Exit poll?
Of 49 precincts, 36 deviated from Kerry to Bush, 10 from Bush to Kerry, 3 unchanged.

State Exit Polls?
Forty-two of 50 deviated to Bush
See the above Ohio Exit Poll. Notice the similarity?
1 in 2 million odds.

Florida voting methods?
Optiscans were obviously rigged for Bush based on voter registration statistics. How come Dem/Rep Restoration was essentially equal in Opti-Scan and DRE counties, and yet there was a 9% divergence in the vote shares?

Sixteen of 50 states deviating beyond the MoE for Bush, none for Kerry?
1 in 19 trillion odds.

All 22 Esteem Time Zone states deviating from Kerry to Bush?
1 in 4 million odds.

Eighty-six of 88 touchscreen incidents of Kerry votes switched to Bush?
Flip a coin 88 times to get 86 heads.
Do the math.

THOSE ARE FACTS, NOT ASSUMPTIONS.

Take a look at the graph below. It clearly evidence shows the Final Exit Poll fraud which was perpetrated on the public - and critics have never been able to explain over the last 6 months.

At least the critics now says that Kerry "probably" lost the popular vote. A few months ago, she said that her "evidence" convinced her that Bush won.
That's progress.

Once again, I ask the obvious question:
If Kerry did win the popular vote (which critics agrees is possible) doesn't that mean that the exit polls (state and national) were therefore close to the truth? That eliminates, of course, the Final Exit Poll, which we know HAS to be wrong, based on that IMPOSSIBLE 43%/37% Bush/Gore 2000 voter share of the total 2004 vote.

Once again, I challenge the critics (and others) to a real-time debate using the Interactive Election model. Let's have a rematch of the "Game".

Can anyone come up with one plausible Bush win scenario?
And if they think they have one, will they defend their assumptions?
I doubt it.

Note to Land Shark:
The TOTALITY of the polling data is some of the BEST EVIDENCE for the prosecution. The NUMBERS have been silently screaming for a year.

The TOTALITY of the data provides conclusive circumstantial evidence. It is sufficient and overwhelming "proof" necessary to convince an unbiased court of public opinion.
DO YOU HAVE EXCEL? IF SO, TRY...
THE INTERACTIVE ELECTION MODEL
http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/Intera...

Downloads in a minute
Easy to use (3 inputs)
Press F9 to run 200 simulations of pre-election/exit polls
(51 State & 18 National)

Here's a challenge:
Using the National Exit Poll "How Voted in 2000" demographic, try to come up with just ONE plausible scenario of a Bush win.
It's on the "NationalExit" sheet (row 54)
If you think you have one, let us know on PI.
The naysayers will love you for it.
Lots of luck trying.

[autorank]

37. Correction: "In the matter of LAND SHARK" -- sorry!

[robbedvoter]

33. Concession KILLED investigation (it's how you get proof)

You can call it fraud all you want, it was THEFT. In spite of Kerry's accomodating the cover-up of this fact, more and more people are aware of it now. Too late though.

[autorank]

36. Theft is the correct word! Too late to stop it, not to late for justice.

The truth is coming out. The public will believe this, does probably. They're just to chicken shit to poll on it.

Wait until Zogby decides it's payback time for the thieves making him look stupid.

[bleever]

35. Excellent analysis of the "burden of proof" question. In the end,

given the reductionist tendencies, sincere and otherwise, of "naysayers", the only thing that will see this investigation through is a dogged and committed group of people determined to both sift through all the minutiae, AND to assemble a big-picture story of what happened.

It's what Fitzgerald is doing, it's what we're doing.

:thumbsup:

[Old and In the Way]

38. The Election Fraud System seems to be guarded by those that

do the defrauding. They are the gatekeepers that keep their Sysytem from being frontally attacked.

So.....why not do an end around? If you can't prove it directly, because we can't access the proprietary source code, why not do a real grassroots, class action? Pick a few of the places where the case for fraud is strongest and canvass the votes, get signed affidavits that attest to the voter's vote, and compare that result with the reported result? I know that secret ballots is a hallmark of our democracy, but if secrecy is being used against our democratic institutions, what better way to validate the results?

Either we're wrong...and we have more work to do; OK, I can live with that...at least it proves the integrity of the process. If it shows the opposite, what more proof do we need that a case for systematic election fraud exists?

[Amaryllis]

42. Land Shark strikes again with the astounding brilliance we have all come

to expect from him...

[Chi]

43. Well said Land Shark!!

BTW...did you buy that shirt with a target on it, or is it something you earned ;-)

:thumbsup:

[Land Shark]

44. The target shirt I inherited: probably from someone who got tombstoned

it's too late. Food for the fish.

[Febble]

46. Ahem.....

Look at your title.

I don't think it you are the target of this piece, and those who are the target of sharks are entitled to shoot back, T shirt or not.

[Chi]

47. The target comment was mine, not his.

Wanna take someone to task for it, take me.
But then again I guess that supports my observation. 8)

[Febble]

48. Not really

He laid claim to the T shirt.

But I'll fire at you too, if you like: I think that if someone fires at a group of posters in an OP title then those posters are likely to fire back.

But I'd much rather we didn't think in terms of firing metaphors at all (I'm a pacificist by upbringing, and largely by conviction). I wasn't firing at Land Shark at all - just disputing his interpretation of the positions held by me, and other "naysayers" - a description I am happy to own if it refers to people who look skeptically at all evidence no matter which way it appears to point. .

[Chi]

49. Go ahead...let's see what ya got

"But I'll fire at you too, if you like"

:popcorn:

[Febble]

50. That was it, I'm afraid

just that if a poster posts a thread challenging naysayers (something I am frequently accused of being) I will tend to respond.

But I don't think of LS having a target on his T shirt, any more than I think of having a target on mine. It's called a discussion forum, isn't it?

[Land Shark]

51. How have your opinions changed? Good topic for discussion.

[Febble]

52. You won't like it

I'm not convinced by my work on Florida. As you will be aware, originally Kathy Dopp noticed that OpScan counties in Florida had more registered Democrats voting for Bush than DRE counties (I paraphrase loosely). There was a confound, however, as OpScan counties tended to be more rural. So we excluded first the very small and very large counties (so as to compare only counties of a size in which either machine type was used), and then we also excluded Panhandle counties (to allow for the alleged Dixiecrat effect) - but the difference remained. Then Hout et al found the opposite - that the discrepancy was greater in DRE counties. I don't think their analysis was valid (I don't think they modelled county size correctly) - but I don't think ours was either (there were still large Demographic differences between the two groups of counties).

My conclusion is that there was simply too much Demographic confound to make any firm conclusions, coupled with the fact that when you allowed for voting patterns in previous years, the crossover vote didn't look so odd. This is not to say that Florida was clean, just that there wasn't a clear effect of machine (and there was never any a priori reason to suppose that DREs would be cleaner than OpScans anyway - the reverse in fact). If there was fraud in Florida it could well have been opportunistic,regardless of technology. My analysis is still up on the USCV website, FWIW. I just don't think it shows anything much. I'd stand by my work on NM and Ohio, though. And I do think NM probably voted for Kerry.

[Chi]

53. When you first came here I objected to YOU being targeted...

Now look how things have gone.

"SHOULDA COULDA WOULDA; Why Election Fraud Naysayers R W-r-o-n-g"

What is it that gives you license to target him (since you obviously think I was referring to you)?
Is it the term 'election fraud naysayer'?
Or is it that he disagrees with you?

It's called a discussion forum, isn't it?

[Febble]

54. Well thanks

I appreciate it.

I don't think it gives me a licence to "target" him, and I didn't think I did. But two posters on the thread were disputing with LS, and I was one of them, so I did assume I was included in your reference.

And yes, I do tend to assume that if people refer to "Election Fraud Naysayers" that I am probably one of those referred to. Perhaps LS would like to confirm.

But the post didn't make me feel I had a target on my chest - I am sorry of LS felt that my response made him feel as though he did.

It did make me feel a response from me was required - and I responded.

[Chi]

55. 'those who are the target of sharks are entitled to shoot back'

You admitted you targeted him.

"Look at your title.

I don't think it you are the target of this piece, and those who are the target of sharks are entitled to shoot back, T shirt or not."

You obviously took offense from his title.
So which is it, the term 'election fraud naysayer', or the fact he disagreed with you?

[Febble]

56. It was a joke (sigh)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=401123&mesg_id=401422

Now I know what smileys are for.

Peace :)

[Land Shark]

57. Alas, uncontrollable stray inferences fly off Febble's rhetoric, igniting

fires.