It's not about conspiracy, or the candidates, it's about voters--there needs to be a way to verify

[rudy23]

I'm not saying that there's no possible way that Clinton made up 15% in one night. But wouldn't it be nice to be able to verify it, and shut people like me up once and for all?

I'll get called a conspiracy theorist if it helps bring us closer to paper ballots, checked and audited by people who don't work for an ultra-right wing private company (since it's a PUBLIC election).

What's said is that though our last 4 elections brought about convictions for rigging and tampering, people are still floating around the "conspiracy theory" meme, like it's 2000---Hillary supporters or otherwise. Stop using the same talking points the Repukes have used in '00, '02, '04, and '06. Fool me once, shame on them, fool us four times---shame on ALL of us.

[Fresh_Start]

1. Get more concerned citizens to become volunteers for elections

the more ppl that are involved the less ability to cook the numbers.

They are always looking for volunteers for elections.
Right now election volunteers where I live are predominantly retired women.

If you participate in the process, you can help assure its integrity.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. What if the volunteers support Candidate X?"

:scared:

:tinfoilhat:

:think:

:wow:

:cry:

x(

[Kucinich4America]

32. In a primary, it shouldn't be too difficult to find supporters of Candidates X, Y, AND Z.

Maybe even candidates V and W, if you look. Though the corporatist X supporters would no doubt try to lock those V/W supporting hippies out of the process.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. What can a volunteer do?

"Okay, I watched 'em put the ballots in the scanner gizmo, and although preliminary polling reflected what I observed with the ballots I saw go into the machine - that most picked Superman - the black box says differently... so I guess General Zod must be the actual winner."

[Toots]

2. I believe there are paper ballots and an optical scan machine for reading the ballot

I may be wrong but that is what I was told. Also Exit Polls match quite well the outcome unlike the 2000 Florida election or the 2004 Ohio election. If there was such a descrepency with the Exit Polling then I would have to agree that this might be suspect and a recount in order but no one seems a bit upset within the Edwards or Obama camps.

[EFerrari]

12. Problems: while there are ballots to count, nobody will do it.

No one. So, even a modest audit will never be done. We have the illusion of integrity without the actual integrity.

And, exit polls can be manipulated. They were off in 2004 in NH, fyi, and they don't seem to have been released this time until AFTER the polls were closed this time out.

And, can Edwards or Obama afford to raise a question when most of DU, (the far leftist fringe, lol) doesn't understand that if this primary can be rigged, so can November?

[rudy23]

16. I would like to see a candidate challenge this, someone who doesn't have a shot anyway

they can really make a statement about electoral accountability just by showing that we'll challenge suspicious results.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Anyone remember "short attention span theater"?

About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas.

Where was I going with this... I forgot. Oh look! The black box says my candidate won! Yay!

[LakeSamish706]

3. I agree with your post, and these machines need to be gone... Back to paper...

ballots and elections with outside observers.... Since 2000 it's no wonder that people don't trust any election that employees touch screens with not paper trail.

[kath]

5. yep - Paper Ballots, hand-counted AT THE PRECINCT, with plenty of observers from all parties.

Works in Canada...

[LakeSamish706]

6. Your right, it does work in Canada and I don't know of anyone that would want...

to go to touch screens in Canada either....

[LakeSamish706]

7. Dupe....

[Xipe Totec]

4. I agree with the shut people up once and for all part

Skinner already covered the matching between exit polls and official results; quite elegantly, I might add.

Anyone who is still unconvinced, will not be swayed by facts.

[rudy23]

9. So, no dissent on this? Sounds familiar.

The system is obviously broken, if we have this much distrust surrounding our elections. Get used to relying on pollsters, Diebold, and the media to verify our election results. Hope this doesn't happen again in November--it's gonna suck getting these same statements read back to you by Romney voters.

[Xipe Totec]

11. I'm losing your transmission

My tinfoil hat is at the cleaners today.

[rudy23]

14. Namecalling, great argument. That's what they did in '00, and they'll do it to us in '08

Nevermind that the last 4 elections run by this company were fraught with conspiracy. It's not just a theory anymore, you know.

[Xipe Totec]

18. Are you saying Democrats are stealing elections

think carefully, I expect a considered response.

[rudy23]

21. Nope. I never said that once. I think the Republicans who own the company that gives the unaudited

count should be put under scrutiny so they can't manipulate our primaries. Not saying that's what happened, but I'm saying this underscores the need to do EVERYTHING WE CAN to protect our votes in '08.

[Xipe Totec]

30. Is Obama challenging the results?

How about Edwards?

If they are satisfied with the results, and you're not, why should I trust your opinion and not theirs?

[rudy23]

35. They have a political consequence to challenging a primary--they could get called Sore Loserman

or conspiracy theorists. Better for them to avoid that trap, and focus on the next race.

The voters are not running for office. It doesn't matter who it helped, the system stunk in New Hampshire, and it let down the voters who demand tranparency in elections.

It can't stay in place, or go unchallenged. If it isn't at least challenged, we could see the same inexplicably large leads vanish, left to be explained away by the media.

[Xipe Totec]

37. Let me see if I understand your theory

Diebold rigged the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Obama and Edwards are too chicken to challenge the results, for fear of being called Sore Losermen

Being called Sore Losermen would cause them to lose the election for real, instead of losing it through cheating.

The people of New Hampshire are too dumb to realize they are being had.

The election officials are either corrupt, and in cahoots with Diebold, or too dumb to realize the Primary was rigged.

The Democratic Party is corrupt and will let Diebold manipulate the primaries so that Clinton wins, because... Uh...

:think:

Oh, yea, because she's the easiest Democrat to beat in the general election.

Hillary is too dumb to realize she's being played for a sucker.

Your brilliant intellect allows you to see through this veil of deception, but, like Cassandra, nobody believes you until it's too late.




Did I miss anything?

[rudy23]

43. Getting stuffy with all those strawmen in here. Did you miss anything? Only the part where I never

said those things!

[EFerrari]

13. Did you read Laura's responses in that thread?

Simply stating that exit polls match results leaves a host of problems.

I wish I could be as sanguine as Skinner seems to be.

[rudy23]

15. Do you have a link to that? I could use it.

I'm trying to succinctly explain this to someone.

[EFerrari]

20. Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218#2639704

[Xipe Totec]

17. You can't prove a negative

That's the fundamental basis of the scientific method.


I read Laura's reply and remain unconvinced. She uses tracking polls which are more unreliable, subject to bias, and staler, to question exit polls which track actual voters showing up at the booths, and is more current information. The tracking polls did not anticipate the surge of voters that occurred at the last moment. The lines were horrendous. I know because many of my coworkers live in New Hampshire and were two to four hours late to work because they were waiting in line to vote.


Questioning the vote outcome based on the tracking polls is like flipping a coin twice, seeing two heads in a row, and claiming that's impossible because statistically speaking, we should see one head and one tail.

It is up to Laura now to show a mathematical model wherein the vote can be manipulated to favor Clinton over Obama, while simultaneously keeping the exit polls and the official results matching each other.

[EFerrari]

19. I respectfully disagree. It is not up to us to prove fraud.

It is up to the administrators of our elections to demonstrate transparency.

[Xipe Totec]

27. Respectfully, how do you demonstrate that?

And keep in mind that the candidates, the people most affected by the outcome, are not questioning the results.

Are we smarter than the candidates, such that we can tell that fraud has accurred but they can't?

Who would you trust to make sure the process is transparent?

Evidently, not the polling officials.

Would you have to personally verify every ballot in order to be convinced they are legitimate?

Where is the problem here?

[rudy23]

36. I think the voters are the ones most affected by the outcome. Too bad they can't challenge.

It has to be a candidate, and as seen on DU today, that would be politically unpopular. Especially in a primary.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

33. Yep. Shut the people up. Brilliant. Did you even read the OP?

There is no democracy without valid mechanisms to tally the people's votes and relay them accurately. Your consummate faith in Diebold is rather odd.

[Xipe Totec]

34. Yes, in fact I quoted it back to him

Funny we're having this argument AFTER the election.

I have no faith in Diebold, but I have faith in the candidates and in their campaign staff.

If the candidates are satisfied with the results and accept them, why shouldn't I accept them as well?

I'm tired of all the aluminum haberdashery.

[OHdem10]

8. It has happened in the past and pollsters report fibs.

I think there is more reason to believe the polls all along
have been skewed to favor Obama.

[Bitwit1234]

10. I think people who are constantly slurring a candidate because

they won are the ones has a great big case of sour grapes... who needs to shut them up...let em rave...they are ones showing stupidity.

[althecat]

22. "Fool me once, shame on them, fool us four times---shame on ALL of us. "

:bounce:

[Imagevision]

24. There must be a reason Obama isn't touching this subject, how do you get change when

the election is unverifiable?!?

[SIMPLYB1980]

25. It's about people being sore losers.

Nothing fishy bout the numbers. Crying wolf doesn't make it easier to to stop vote tampering. It makes it harder.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

[rudy23]

26. Sore Loserman II? Right from the Rove playbook.

It's not about who won and lost, it's about the process.

[SIMPLYB1980]

28. Yep to bad the Obama and Edward people used it every day last week.

[rudy23]

38. If they did, that sucks, too.

No question about it.

[Imagevision]

29. Sore losers? - ok. having elections transparent is your view of a good idea?

[SIMPLYB1980]

31. Tell Obama to pay for a recount then.

[Kurovski]

41. K&r. (nt)

[rudy23]

42. Also, it's not wise to solidify a "vote challengers are paranoid, tinfoil hat wearing, whiners" meme

when we're going to have to challenge SO many elections this fall at the state and local level.

[OneGrassRoot]

44. I agree. I've been posting the same thing for the past hour.

It's not about Hillary or Obama or NH. This is something that should have been addressed by the candidates as an issue - a voter concern - before now. That said, it DEFINITELY needs to be addressed before the GE.

We need to feel as secure as possible with the PROCESS. It all starts with this very PROCESS.