MASS: history of unlikely results with no audits on e-voting machines

[garybeck]

This report is from Super Tuesday 2008 but not much has changed. On that election, Massachusettes showed the largest gap between the exit polls and the "official" results. And they have no checks whatsoever to verify the accuracy of the computer counts.



For the full report see:
http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/SuperTuesday2008DemPrimary.pdf

[Xipe Totec]

1. So, your theory is that the election was rigged?

That the bluest of the blue states rigged the election so that a truck driving pretty boy would take Ted Kennedy's seat?

That's it? That's your theory?

[garybeck]

3. No.

I don't have a theory. I am just sharing data. Draw your own conclusions.

Theory is theory.

Fact is fact. It is a fact that there are no audits in MA and if there was a glitch, error, computer bug, or fraud, we would not know about it. That's a fact. You can make up your own theory from that.

but before you draw your own conclusions, consider that if there was rigging or fraud going, it would not be done by the state itself. the votes are counted in secret by a private company. the state would have no knowledge of any funny business, nor participation in it.

[BeFree]

7. That is my theory

It is the only thing that makes sense.
Brown got 64,000 more votes than McCain did just a year ago, and Coakley got 800,000 less than Obama. Crazy.

[Bill Bored]

10. They also had a Republican Governor not too long ago.

The problem is they have outsourced control of their elections to LHS and Diebold. Unless they count some ballots by hand to check that, all bets are off.

Compare the way CT handles this to the way Mass. does. CT isn't perfect, but it's a lot harder to commit election fraud there.

[clear eye]

2. The state group working on the issue, link=>>

www.handcountedpaperballots.org/

It seems unlikely that Coakley was robbed, but the issue is that there's no way of knowing w/o either exit polls, audits or hand-counting. ES&S's new Diebold division has the maintenance contract for the machines, including "updates" to its proprietary software. There will inevitably be contests that are closer or more crucial to the social conservatives who run the division. Why are people hostile to the idea that this is an urgent issue?

[cayanne]

4. Democrats can get rid of electronic voting

if they wanted to. They are all aware, as we are, that they can be rigged. They have the reports and the evidence. They also had the votes so I ask why don't they?

[garybeck]

5. because it's a taboo subject and they don't want to be seen as conspiracy nuts

most people just aren't aware of how the election system works and how vulnerable it is and they figure if it really was that bad, it would be all over the news.

[BeFree]

6. because

If the way votes were counted was displayed on M$M, the core of this sham democracy would be exposed.

[garybeck]

9. egg-zacterly! n/t

[Bill Bored]

11. Good question. Two theories:

1. Dems want to be able to rig elections too, esp. their own primaries. In many heavily partisan jurisdictions, whoever wins the dominant party's primary also wins the general election. This is true for Dems as well as Repubs. Dems need to suppress there own insurgent candidates who might interfere with their DLC Republican-Lite corporate agenda, or otherwise move the party too far to the populist left. So they need to ensure victory for certain candidates and defeat for others. In places like Georgia this can also be done by allowing Republicans to vote in Dem primaries, but in states without open primaries, it has to be done with vote switching.

2. Many Dems support paper ballots, but usually only if counted by computers. There may be some truth to the charge that Dems are looking after the interests of trial lawyers who happen to specialize in elections. They want to litigate over paper ballots -- not count them. If election results were too clear cut, there would be no opportunity for such litigation, and hence no money to be made off it. This may also be why Dems don't support or even acknowledge the need for proper audits of elections. If there were strong evidence of who really won and lost elections, it could weaken the case for litigation. The problem is, this is a deal with the devil. Courts may not see things the Dems' way, and recounts may not be allowed without evidence of miscounted votes. But the lawyers would probably get paid either way, so what do they care?

Ever notice how many laws are written by lawyers? ;)

That said, I also agree with Gary's point that elections are like a sausage factory to most folks, including even the candidates. They haven't got a clue how their votes are being counted (or miscounted) and their attitude is it's someone else's problem. This applies to so-called "good government" groups as well as folks who are less politically engaged.

[Stevepol]

8. K&R!! Thx Gary for the post and the appropriate header.