Voting Problems Already Reported in PA: Here We Go Again

[kpete]

Voting Problems Already Reported in PA: Here We Go Again!
by epic
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:07:51 AM PDT
I just got word from a good friend that there are some serious voting issues in the Bloomfield and Lawrenceville sections of Pittsburgh. And now I'm also seeing that KDKA and the Post-Gazette are reporting some different (more minor) problems here and here:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08113/875481-100.stm
http://kdka.com/local/Poll.Green.Tree.2.705572.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/22/105716/688/664/500727
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_camp_charging_voting_problems_in_0422.html

UPDATE 1: According to papundit, this happened to him too. Hmm.. what is this all about?

I am one of those voters who recently changed my affiliation from Independent to Democrat. My wife did the same.

Having voted for years in Lancaster we knew exactly where our polling place was but the new voter registration card sent to each of us directed us to the community park which, of course, was not the correct location.

Fortunately for us we went directly to our usual polling place and they had our names in the roll book waiting for our signatures. The turnout was unusually low so...

Out of curiousity I took a ride over to the community park to see if there were confused voters to be found. Well, there were cars driving around aimlessly and people, mostly younger in age, walking around confused.

Of course I directed them all to the little church a couple miles away where I knew that if they were not registered to vote there, someone would certainly help them find the correct polling location.

Because there was never even the slightest intention of setting our park up as a polling location I certainly have to wonder what went into the decision to include it on our new voter registration cards.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/22/105716/688/664/500727


UPDATE II

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Machines malfunctioning
Sam Wood reports:

10:20 a.m.

Readers and Inquirer reporters attempting to cast ballots this morning found long lines across the region created by broken machines.

One of two machines was down at a busy Delaware County polling site. About 50 people already had voted by 9:15 a.m. at the Temple Israel on Spruce and Bywood Avenue in Upper Darby, which is heavily populated by immigrant and first time voters. Many of those freshly-minted voters had difficulties using the one machine that still functioned. "Hell of a day for one of the machines to be down," said one poll worker.

In South Philadelphia, both voting machines were broken at 4th and Ritner, smack dab in the middle of a John Dougherty strong hold. "The dirty tricks have begun," said Frank Keel, spokesman for the Dougherty campaign, who sees a conspiracy. "Democratic State Rep. candidate Christian DiCicco is the poll watcher," Keel said. "Coincidence? We don't think so."

One reader wrote: I got to my polling place before 7 a.m.; 2nd ward, 27th division: as the polls were opening, one of two machines for my division was malfunctioning: electrical problem. Hmmmm....isn't Dougherty an electrician?

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/politics/18002279.html

[samdogmom]

1. I'm NOT surprised!

I posted this on an earlier thread but it bears repeating:

Go figure! Who would have thought? What a joke! Me? I was suspicious all along that this election is going to be "stolen"! (Fast Eddie????? Give me a break! He's very slimy.)

HMMMMM. Are my suspicious confirmed this early into things?

[samdogmom]

24. Well...Go figure! Fast Eddie came through! He stole this one for his "girl"!

You guys in PA have my condolences--how can you respect a slimy governor like this guy????

[papau]

2. I knew the Obama supporters would try to cheat

[hobbit709]

3. WTF??

[sonias]

13. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

He's convinced of his view, and there is no basis to support it.

Sonia

[movonne]

4. What is the matter with you people..can't you read..

[EFerrari]

9. Those officials who control the infrastructure are HIllary's pals.

:shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. Philly: Machines down in predominantly African-American precincts

Philly Voting Trouble?

April 22, 2008

Barack Obama's campaign is hearing that there are problems with voting machines in Philly --
that machines are breaking down, and only one or two machines are working in some predominantly African-American precincts,
reports NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. Why only 4 recommends????

this needs to go to front page, folks. Its THE news.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. Lehgih County - 3 machines down, votes not recorded

Above-average voter turnout reported in Lehigh County

The Morning Call April 22, 2008

...When judge of elections Craig Hynes swung open the doors, 15 people rushed in, including some that had been their since 6:40 a.m.

"It's normally a busy poll, but this already feels like a general ," Hynes said. "This is going to be a long day."

Moments later he realized how long it could be when one of his three voting machines malfunctioned. After four people had voted, he realized that it had only registered one voter. He had to reset machine.

"We lost three voters and there's no getting them back," explained Hynes, "and at this point we don't even know who they were."

After monitoring it, it functioned properly.

...more at the link

[Triana]

8. K & Effing R

:mad:

[autorank]

10. Hmmm... k*r

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00288.htm

and you spotted it early

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x500840

[Usrename]

11. WTF?

We need more exit polling come November. There is no other way to monitor this bullshit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. how about suggesting something that might actually work?

Dammitall, are we really incapable of learning anything??

Even if you believe that the 2004 (and/or 2006 and/or 2008) exit polls provide strong evidence of fraud, how has that worked out so far?

:banghead:

[DCKit]

14. Maybe enough of us will wake up now...

and demand that our votes be counted properly, and with a paper trail.

It may be too much to ask after the last eight years, but I'm an optimist.

[Usrename]

16. Is there any better method for ensuring election integrity?

I have never heard of anything more effective.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. how about actually ensuring election integrity?

At best, exit polls give us a controversial metric for assessing election integrity. Maybe worse than 'controversial,' because the exit poll discourse has basically trained my colleagues to associate "election fraud" with "overrated."

I've been gentle about citizen exit polls in the past, but I'm beginning to think of them as a way of diverting people from any election-related activity that could conceivably matter. No, let me qualify that: I think that some voter-experience exit polls could be pretty helpful.

[Usrename]

20. I'd like to see universities and high schools get involved.

Most folks don't know how exit polls are accomplished, what their limitations are, or how they can be used to detect election fraud.

Getting kids involved before they are eligible to vote could be a positive lesson for them, as well as learning practical science.

I still don't know of any better method to use. You don't seem to have too many other ideas either. I mean, it should go without saying that if you were to have clean and fair elections in the first place, then this would alleviate any need for having a method of monitoring them for fraud.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. identify the problems and address those

If you're saying that our best response to unverifiable voting is exit polls, well, that isn't a response.

Your last s. spun out of control, didn't it? Monitoring for fraud is a means of achieving clean and fair elections, not a second-best fall-back. The question is how to do it effectively.

[Usrename]

26. The system in Pennsylvania would be fine with proper exit polling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5626008

The problem, at least as I see it, is that folks like you and Febble are trying to destroy exit polling as the proper check.

It's the only tool that has ever been an effective check on election fraud, isn't it?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. do you mean "never"?

What election result has ever been reversed due to exit polls alone?

Frankly, you're being silly. And now you're shooting the messengers.

[Usrename]

28. The Voting Rights Act came about as a result of exit polling.

Didn't it?

What is your problem with using exit polling to verify clean elections?

What is that you think you know that nobody else knows?

Your position seems to lack any real sophistication. What's the difference between what you are saying and making an argument that we can solve all our election woes just by lining up all the criminals engaging in election fraud and shooting them? How does making a statement like that change anything?

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. huh?

Which VRA are you thinking of? How did it come about "as a result of exit polling"? (And how does that not count as conceding my point?)

My problem is that I don't think it will work. Doh. I think we actually need to clean up elections, not hope against hope that we will be able to do perfect survey research, and then elections will somehow get cleaner.

Look, remove your head from the bubble (or whatever that is) and observe that hundreds of millions of people don't think that exit polling showed that Kerry won, or that Democrats were robbed of dozens of seats in 2006. It's not something I think I know that nobody else knows. It's a consensus position, one that its detractors invent elaborate psychological (and/or financial) theories to explain away.

If it's sophisticated to turn away from the problems we actually need to solve, and pretend that exit polls can solve them instead, or make someone else solve them instead, then I am happy to renounce "real sophistication."

But if you can find a way to do what you want to do without detracting from other work, that's fine with me.

[Usrename]

31. You seem to be making the Scalia argument over this.

The one where you argue that once the elections have been stolen, it's better not to know about it because you cannot change it.

That does seem to be an argument that lacks any sophistication.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. bullshit

You seem to be ignoring the substance of my posts and fixating on supposed attitudes. It won't help.

So far you haven't offered the ghost of a coherent rationale for your faith in exit polls -- either their accuracy or their power to save democracy.

[Usrename]

33. Is there some substance to your posts? Did I miss something?

I've asked if you know of any better tool to detect election fraud and you haven't responded with any substance. Have you?

Do you believe the results in Pennsylvania today reflect the actual vote? If so, how do you know this?

Why do you keep making the argument that exit polling cannot be used to validate the results, like in today's election?

If there is some other substance that I'm missing, it must be well hidden in your response to a simple question.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. wow

Absolutely there is substance that you haven't responded to. You made a vague sally in response to the point that no exit poll has ever reversed an election outcome, but then you seemed to give up on relevance altogether. Relevance is the one thing that we can't afford to give up on.

Having dropped your own point about "the Voting Rights Act," here's something else you missed:

...hundreds of millions of people don't think that exit polling showed that Kerry won, or that Democrats were robbed of dozens of seats in 2006.

This goes directly to relevance. A future exit poll might give you a sense of confidence that an election was rightly or wrongly decided, but who else will you be able to convince? Does this have a damn thing to do with election integrity, or do you just like feeling that you would Know?

Or, in summary:

So far you haven't offered the ghost of a coherent rationale for your faith in exit polls -- either their accuracy or their power to save democracy.

You didn't in this post, either. You have no argument whatsoever.

You haven't actually stated your objection(s) to the current election system in this thread. But if one of them is paperless voting, then we need to implement voting with a voter-verified, auditable paper trail (probably hand-marked, possibly via BMD) and then actually audit it. (Even places with hand counts should audit.) If it's registration rolls, then we need to implement policies that secure legitimate voters' right to vote. And so on. No gimmicks, no shortcuts.

I'm sad to let you off the hook by answering your questions while you ignore mine, but maybe it will help you to see how far off you are.

Do you believe the results in Pennsylvania today reflect the actual vote? If so, how do you know this?

I don't know. That's why I support verifiable elections. That's why I'm amazed that you either don't actually care that much, or can't see any useful distinction between your own faith in exit polls and their actual relevance.

Why do you keep making the argument that exit polling cannot be used to validate the results, like in today's election?

Because it can't. There is no way to field an exit poll that is assuredly unbiased -- no way to ensure that all candidates' supporters will be equally willing to respond. Even if you convinced yourself that you and your trusted associates could do it, you've offered no reason to believe that you could convince the public at large.

I mean, I could keep going, although I don't expect any of it to sink in. If you think that the 2004 exit polls show that Kerry won, then you have an excellent example of exit polls supposedly proving fraud, yet failing to convince most people. You think it'll work better if the colleges and universities get involved? Well, maybe -- but I would rather have my students work on actually securing people's right to vote and to have their votes counted. I'm sorry if that perplexes you.

[Usrename]

35. Is there any better method for ensuring election integrity?

I don't see how you have answered that question.

Uhhhhh... let me see.... what are you saying... we should just ensure that the elections aren't rigged in the first place?

Do you really think that's an answer?

You cannot be serious with this, are you?

Do you really think this is a honest answer to my question?

It's as if you are arguing that if we make the vault impregnable then we don't have to ever know how much money is in there because no one can steal it. And I guess the side benefit you are also advocating is that even if someone were to manage to steal it somehow, it really wouldn't matter since no one ever knew how much was in there in the first place. That is your argument, isn't it?

Oh yeah, and you've also added another dimension to the argument, by saying that if we took a snapshot of what was in the vault that it wouldn't be useful at all, assumingly because it wouldn't be the same thing as actually counting the money. You argue that it wouldn't be useful at all in proving that a theft occurred. You even say that I must have some unusual faith in exit polls to even believe that they could ever be useful for anything, except for selling soap.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. exit polls don't ensure election integrity

It's so simple, so basic, and you keep ignoring it. Amazing.

You even say that I must have some unusual faith in exit polls to even believe that they could ever be useful for anything, except for selling soap.

Like hell I do. Go back and read my posts again, slowly. Or don't. It doesn't seem to matter much.

[DemReadingDU]

37. This was a strange primary

The talking heads said Clinton needed a win by 10% to stay in the race. And she wins by 10%. How did that happen? Did that many more people actually vote for Hillary? Something doesn't add up.

[Usrename]

39. Who knows how the people actually voted.

It was a closed primary, though, open only to registered Democrats, and independent voters were turned away. That had to help her.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. and your point is?

When all the returns are in, we will know how much Hillary won by, and we can scrutinize the returns and see if any of them are palpably fishy. Maybe we will be able to tell, maybe not.

If you are assuming that my points about exit polls are arguments in favor of the infallibility of the voting machines, you are barking up the wrong tree.

ETA: Lest anyone be confused, I'm expressing no opinion about the result. It's not shocking that Clinton would win PA by 10, but I have no basis for saying more than that.

[DemReadingDU]

43. just an observation - updated

edit: I don't trust electronic voting machines that don't have verifiable paper ballots. I have lurked in this forum since 2004, don't usually post though


2nd edit: I don't doubt either that Clinton could win Pennsylvania. It's just that the talking heads said she had to win by 10%. She didn't win by 11% or 12% or 9%. She actually did win by 10%. Just a odd coincidence that Clinton won by the percentage that it was said she needed to win.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. fair enough -- I don't trust them either

I probably distrust them somewhat less than others in this forum, in that I don't think they are Republican stealer machines. From what we've seen, the security vulnerabilities are non-partisan. It's not a situation where one person could hack the entire state of PA 'in one blow,' because different counties use different machines, but as far as I know none of them is very good. (Of course part of the state does use optical scanners.)

For what it's worth, if Clinton or someone on her behalf could dial up a margin, I think 11 or 12 would be better. But all this is hand-waving, of course. It may be possible to say more from the election data.

[BeFree]

62. You don't think?

If not, the opposite must be that you don't think the republicans would use the machines to steal votes. But as the rest of us DO think, the republicans will do just about anything to keep power.

So, the difference between us is that you must think the republicans can be trusted.

Sometimes I wonder.

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. "the opposite must be"

That is your problem in a nutshell. You willfully misread me (and others) because you are looking for opposites.

Whether the machines are "Republican stealer machines" has very little to do with whether "the republicans can be trusted." Doh.

[BeFree]

67. Well

Do you trust the republicans to not use the machines to steal votes?

How much do you trust republicans? I'm sure folks here are wondering just where the Hand stands.

Just for clarification I don't trust them as far as I can throw you. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Give them one voting machine and they'll steal all the votes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

70. no, you're not sure of that at all

I figure you're just blowing smoke.

[Usrename]

41. Do you know of any better tool to use than exit polling?

I guess if there was something better then you would have mentioned it by now. Right?

[BeFree]

63. Yeah, Usernname. Good question.

Where is their plan? Where is their proposed legislation?

Why don't they start a thread about where they stand? Just a simple thread to get the point across.

Nah, never happen... has never happened.

We've had exits, and the networks trust the shit out of the exits, heck, they call races after 1% of the votes are in due to the exits. But to hear these folks talk, exits are good for nothing.

I guess if all they got is nothing, nothing is all we'll ever get from them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. so, BeFree, what did the PA exits actually say?

Bypassing the all-too-familiar personal attacks and misrepresentations, let's check the facts here.

[BeFree]

68. What did the exits say?

I take it you mean the raw numbers....

From what I have seen they say Obama by 5.

But of course you tracked around the real question: Where is your legislation? Febble here says you have been 'working hard' at this election bizz, but all I've seen is back seat driving from the likes of yall.

And just look at your replies over the days..... lots and lots of personal attacks from you all over the place, not to mention the misrepresentations.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. huh?

So, you're saying that the networks were able to call the race early because they trust the exit polls? And the exit polls pointed to Obama? And that's how they called it for Clinton?

:shrug:

You've asked me all sorts of questions, and I've answered them repeatedly, but at some point you might want to face up to the fact that your posts often don't make a lot of sense. Your call.

[BeFree]

71. You answered repaetedly?

Crock of BS.

The early raw exits said Obama by 5. By the time the networks called it returns had come in and the early raw exits were discarded. I see you don't dispute the early raw numbers.

And yes, the networks do trust the exits... hell, they paid for them.

'Course all this time you have fought against raw exit numbers, only repeating what the machine counts have dished up. You have no following here and I doubt anybody else is listening to you except for those who also like repeating what the machines say.

But then you did finally say the Sarasota machines fucked up, didn't you? Except you can't tell anyone just how, can you?

There... a simple question for you to answer, professor. I doubt we'll get a coherent answer. But you never know.

[Febble]

38. Because it isn't "the proper check"

The problem, at least as I see it, is that folks like you and Febble are trying to destroy exit polling as the proper check.

It's a crap check.

You need a proper check and exit polls ain't it.

[Usrename]

42. Ok, I'll bite, again.

One more time, what is better than exit polling?

[Febble]

50. Random audits

i.e. mandatory manual re-counts of paper ballots in a random sample of precincts.

The first reason being that randomly sampling precincts is that you have a much better chance (vastly better chance) of getting true random sample, and a great deal of statistical power to detect even small amounts of fraud.

Statistical inference is only as good as the representativeness of the sample. If the protocols are right, and you are sampling non-sentient things, you can have a very high degree of confidence that your sample is representative.

Whereas, sampling people is much more difficult, especially if you are trying to do it face-to-face in a single day, and however well conducted your survey, there remains a strong possibility (actually a probability) that your sample will be biased, and there is no good way to find out by how much.

But there is a second reason why manually counting a random sample of precincts is a much better way of detecting fraud - in any given precinct, you count ALL the ballots. So although you have sampled the precincts, you have not sampled the ballots. That means that if you find a single precinct where the manual count recount does not exactly (or at any rate, extremely closely) match the first count, you know you have a problem.

So if you manually audit randomly sampled precincts, you could actually detect quite small degrees of fraud with a very high degree of confidence.

On the other hand, if you sample voters as they leave a sample of precincts, you have have no way of distinguishing between sampling bias and fraud, and you need an extremely large number of precincts to be sure that any discrepancy is not due to chance, let alone bias.

And, as I said, you are extremely unlikely not to have ANY bias.

Take home message:

Count the ballots, not the voters.

cheers

Lizzie

[BeFree]

52. Interesting

At 8pm last night, with 3% of the vote in, ABC called the election for Clinton. With 3% of the vote!!

Howdaydodat? Exit polls? Not according to Febble, eh? Then how?

Same thing on super tuesday, Alabama. 1% of the vote they called it for Huckleberry. You should tell them exit-polls are no good for calling winners. They'd really like that. sarcasm....

[Febble]

53. You want to know?

They call the winner not the margin.

[BeFree]

61. That's all I get? A one liner?

Of course they call the winner..... DUH!

But a winner with just 3% of the vote?

They do it because they invest a lot of money in the exit-polls, and the pollers have a reputation of getting the winner called right. But to listen to you, one would think exit-polls are no good.

But we know better.

[Usrename]

54. There are a lot of problems with this approach.

I'll try and cover the main ones, but first let me try and clarify something.

On the other hand, if you sample voters as they leave a sample of precincts, you have have no way of distinguishing between sampling bias and fraud, and you need an extremely large number of precincts to be sure that any discrepancy is not due to chance, let alone bias.

I think what you are saying here is that with a properly designed exit poll, one that uses proper sampling and proper sample size, it IS possible to detect fraud with a high degree of confidence. Especially massive fraud that would be necessary to ensure changing the outcome of an election that wasn't all that close to begin with. That is true, isn't it? For example, if you've followed this subthread, you should be able to look at an exit poll to see if the outcome of the Pennsylvania primary is legitimate. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

A swing in the count large enough to change a slight win for Obama into a nine-point victory for Clinton could pretty well be exposed, couldn't it? But right now, the way things sit today (thanks largely to folks like you and OTOH) even if one of the candidates had legitimate exit survey data that would show such a discrepancy, they would be very wary of making that information public because they would put themselves at risk for all sorts of ridicule, from all kind of crazy quarters. Right? That what you two are all about, isn't it? It does appear as if your main purpose for making your arguments is that of trying to discredit a legitimate election monitoring technique.

Ok, now to the problems with the audits. There is nothing to audit in Pennsylvania. That's the first major problem. Right? How are you going to audit something that does not exist?

In other cases where there is a paper trail that can be audited, there are still some obvious problems. Your proposed audits will most likely be accomplished by the same people that counted the first time, and even worse, using same ballots that were already counted once, for performing the audit. How does this help expose ballot tampering as a means of committing election fraud? Like what happened in Duvall County in FL 2000 where one out of every five ballots in one precinct was double-punched? Would you just automatically launch a fraud investigation whenever the overvote goes above a certain amount?

In almost all cases of known election fraud, it does seem likely that if they were able to commit fraud the first time using whatever methods they used, then they would be prepared to repeat the exercise, or at least be willing to corrupt the audit process too, in order to hijack an election. Isn't that a reasonable assumption?

[Febble]

57. Well, a couple of points here:

First of all, no, I'm not saying that "with a properly designed exit poll, one that uses proper sampling and proper sample size, it IS possible to detect fraud with a high degree of confidence."

It isn't. The reason being that it isn't POSSIBLE to be sure that you have a random sample of voters, and a lot of reasons to think that you won't. Good design will help, but the extent to which good sampling frames can be applied to exit polls is limited. And even in other kinds of survey, it is very difficult to avoid a biased sample. This doesn't mean that surveys are useless, but it means that they are not good for making important judgements about a discrepancies on the scale of a handful of percentage points. You can never get that degree of confidence, no matter how large the sample size, because the limiting factor is not your sample size but your sampling frame.

Second, I am not interested in "discrediting a legitimate election monitoring technique". I'm interested in trying to get people to understand that exit polls are a crap election monitoring technique. They cannot tell you what you want to know. They are not used for this purpose (despite many unsubstantiated claims to the contrary). It's perfectly true that in a corrupt election, the exit polls are unlikely to match the count. But it is just as true that in a perfectly legitimate election, the exit polls are highly likely to be discrepant from the count. So you cannot infer fraud from an exit poll discrepancy, and you can even have significant fraud without an exit poll discrepancy.

Thirdly, yes, of course, you can't have mandatory random manual audits unless you have paper ballots. That's why everyone should support legislation for mandatory random manual audits. Sadly, some of the most vociferous opposition to mandatory random manual audit legislation came from people who continue to insist that exit polls are good evidence of massive fraud.

They aren't.

Count the votes, not the voters. Sampling the voters is unlikely to give you an informative answer. Sampling the precincts and counting the ballots will.

[Usrename]

58. Do you think the kind of fraud that happened in Duvall County is OK?

Once the ballots are spoiled, 20% of them in the real life case I'm talking about, how does the audit fix that?

I don't see how what you are proposing is good argument for abandoning exit polls. Why not do both? Neither method is fail-safe.

[Febble]

59. If you count the ballots

you can also look at spoilage rates.

That's how Walter Mebane found demonstrated conclusively that Gore should have been president. Not the exit polls, which were useless.

Exit polls aren't just a blunt instrument, they are a bent instrument. You can't tell whether they are masking fraud or revealing it.

ETA: I happen to think, on the basis of analyses of the vote counts and spoilage rates, that Kerry won NM in 2004. But the exit polls wouldn't have told me that. They might even have reassured me it was OK (results within the MoE).

ETA: I also happen to think, on the basis of analysis of turnout, that inequitable rationing of voting machines cost Kerry a large number of votes in Ohio in 2004.

That cost was completely invisible to the exit polls.

[BeFree]

64. Not true

The exits from Ohio showed that something stank.

Of course, after the numbers were cooked up, the smell for most people went away. But the recipe for the cooking has been shown to be corrupt. Fake. Etc.

[Febble]

23. You do realise, I hope

That OnTheOtherHand has been working extremely hard for the last couple of years, in collaboration with a number of Election Integrity activists, on methods of detecting election fraud? Presenting them at conferences and all?

When you say he "doesn't seem to have too many other ideas" - have you actually asked him?

[Usrename]

25. Of course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=500959&mesg_id=501003

[Bonn1997]

44. huh?

He's asked OTOH like five times to state concretely what would be a better way to judge the validity of elections than looking at exit polls. And each time OTOH gives a non-answer like "clean up the elections." An answer would give concrete ideas about what to do.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. that's not a "non-answer," that's the only answer

The way to fix unverifiable elections is to fix unverifiable elections. It's screamingly obvious.

ETA: So, if you've given up on fixing whatever you think is broken, kindly take your fatalism to a more appropriate forum.

[Bonn1997]

46. Everyone agrees that you have to fix what's broken

That's a non-answer because it's so obvious. Let's try a few equally obvious non-answers that get us nowhere.

You have to fix what's broken
You have to repair what's damaged
You have to solve the problem

These are so obvious that they're phrases every American would agree with, which gets us nowhere. You can probably come up with more of these phrases than I can. It's your specialty!

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. apparently we don't

Usrename says the best thing we can do is exit polls, which obviously won't fix anything that's broken. Why? So far he hasn't explained.

[Bonn1997]

49. You're confusing two terms:

"Usrename says the best thing we can do is exit polls"
You're confusing "best thing" with "only thing." No one is saying the exit polls are all we should focus on.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. what IS anyone saying?

I am still waiting for someone to make a decent case that exit polls are any thing with respect to election integrity, never mind the best thing. How is this not a sheer waste of time?

There may be a good answer. I haven't seen it.

(edit to fix lapse into HTML)

[Usrename]

55. So you really are making this argument. That's what I thought.

You are arguing that exit polling is not a legitimate technique for monitoring elections.

Where did you hear this?

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. we're fully through the looking glass

What does "not a legitimate technique for monitoring elections" mean? Who is to say what is "legitimate"? I'm saying that promoting exit polls (with the possible exception of voter experience exit polls) in the United States is a waste of time for the election integrity movement. If you believe otherwise, make an argument. No one is stopping you.

If you want to ask me why I don't think exit polls are reliably accurate, well, you should already know by now. I could again cite the Carter Center statements on exit polls in other elections, if that helps. ("Avoid exit polls....")

[sonias]

15. Palmer Twp. voter reports ballot confusion

PennLive.com 4/22/08
Palmer Twp. voter reports ballot confusion

Look closely at this sample ballot for Easton's 10th Ward (image below). The italicized words beneath the delegates' names indicate which candidate they support. Not all delegates beneath Barack Obama's name in in Column A will vote for him, and some of the delegates beneath Hillary Clinton's name in Column B will vote for Obama. Ritann Tosto of Palmer Township said the setup is misleading.

Palmer Township resident Ritann Tosto wants to warn voters to read the fine print beneath the delegate candidates' names. Tosto, 59, said she assumed the delegates listed beneath Sen. Barack Obama's name were his supporters, and the delegates beneath Sen. Hillary Clinton's name were hers.

That's not the case, she reports after voting at St. Andrew's Lutheran Church.

"Fortunately, I put my rather thick reading glasses on," Tosto said. "In the lightest italic, smallest print under the delegates .... It states who they are committed to. And it is the tiniest print in the whole space, and they're mixed."

She admits she has trouble with her eyes, but believes the setup is "incredibly misleading."

Incredible, how unbelievably stupid is this ballot design! The delegates listed in the column under Obama's name are Clinton delegates and the ones listed under Clinton's anme are Obama delegates. Who designed this ballot? :grr:

Sonia

[kpete]

17. update

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Machines malfunctioning
Sam Wood reports:

10:20 a.m.

Readers and Inquirer reporters attempting to cast ballots this morning found long lines across the region created by broken machines.

One of two machines was down at a busy Delaware County polling site. About 50 people already had voted by 9:15 a.m. at the Temple Israel on Spruce and Bywood Avenue in Upper Darby, which is heavily populated by immigrant and first time voters. Many of those freshly-minted voters had difficulties using the one machine that still functioned. "Hell of a day for one of the machines to be down," said one poll worker.

In South Philadelphia, both voting machines were broken at 4th and Ritner, smack dab in the middle of a John Dougherty strong hold. "The dirty tricks have begun," said Frank Keel, spokesman for the Dougherty campaign, who sees a conspiracy. "Democratic State Rep. candidate Christian DiCicco is the poll watcher," Keel said. "Coincidence? We don't think so."

One reader wrote: I got to my polling place before 7 a.m.; 2nd ward, 27th division: as the polls were opening, one of two machines for my division was malfunctioning: electrical problem. Hmmmm....isn't Dougherty an electrician?


http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/politics/18002279.html

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. Easton Ward: read fine print - delegate name under candidate not FOR that candidate

Palmer Twp. voter reports ballot confusion

Posted by Alyssa Young April 22, 2008 09:30AM

Look closely at this sample ballot for Easton's 10th Ward (double-click to enlarge).

The italicized words beneath the delegates' names indicate which candidate they support.
Not all delegates beneath Barack Obama's name in in Column A will vote for him,
and some of the delegates beneath Hillary Clinton's name in Column B will vote for Obama.
Ritann Tosto of Palmer Township said the setup is misleading.

Palmer Township resident Ritann Tosto wants to warn voters to read the fine print beneath
the delegate candidates' names.

Tosto, 59, said she assumed the delegates listed beneath Sen. Barack Obama's name
were his supporters, and the delegates beneath Sen. Hillary Clinton's name were hers.

...more at the link

[New Earth]

21. ?

:wtf:

[mod mom]

30. Latest from Josh @ TPM:

Remaining Precincts #2
04.22.08 -- 10:57PM

By Josh Marshall
As we noted in the last update, the remaining precincts are mainly in the Philly suburbs where Obama has done well tonight. And that suggests that the margin could tighten a little bit in Obama's direction. But that was the case an hour ago. And Hillary's margin has actually slightly crept up since then -- from around 8% to 10%.

[smith7745]

60. election machine menu