The Theft of American Democracy: Which Side Are You On?

[eridani]

What do you think would be the reaction of most U.S. citizens if they were told that a law had just been passed which gave the party in power the right to count the votes and determine the winner for all elections in private – without any oversight? Outrage, I would hope. And yet, today we find ourselves in a situation where votes are counted by computer software that is written in secret and made inaccessible to the public, with the rationale that the machines and software that count our votes are “proprietary”. Is that situation any different than giving one party a box of paper ballots and allowing them to count them and determine the winner in private? And yet, where is the outrage?

The corporations that make the computers and software that count our votes donate large amounts of money to the Republican Party. The CEO of one of those companies, Wally O’Dell of Diebold, said prior to the 2004 election that he would “deliver the votes” for Bush in Ohio (http://www.alternet.org/story/16874/ ). Some of Diebold’s employees have been convicted of felony computer fraud. And nobody questions the fact that it is possible to secretly program their computers to rig an election. When people ask, “Did cheating actually happen in the 2004 Presidential election?” they get labeled as paranoid “conspiracy theorists.” From any rational standpoint, however, it is to be expected that reasonable people would see these elections as a conspiracy simply because they are secret. The public is not allowed to look at the data (ballots) or the methods (tabulation programs), but we are required to accept the results anyway.

This situation can drive even the most rational people a little bit nuts. To criticize “conspiracy theorists” is to blame the victim instead of taking on the perpetrators. There is a reason why people come up with conspiracy theories, and it happens to be a normal and healthy response to the experience of being forbidden access to relevant information and being constantly lied to by people who do.

The radical therapist Claude Steiner once said that paranoia is actually a heightened state of awareness, in which the paranoid put together narratives that make sense of the only information they have available. He gave an example of a woman he treated who believed that her husband was engaged in several elaborate plots on her life. What Steiner did was to interview the husband, who was disturbed by his wife's narrative. The husband was in fact thinking of having her permanently committed to the funny farm, but he always responded to his wife's questions about what was wrong between them by saying "Nothing, honey."

That was the crux of the problem. The wife was in a heightened state of awareness and knew only that "Nothing, honey" was a pile of steaming bullshit. Not having access to real information about what was going on in her husband's head, she invented it. Steiner’s ultimately successful therapy was simply to convince the husband to stop lying and withholding information. In this case, the husband did not exactly lead the examined life, and was unaware of the harm that social "white lies" can sometimes cause. Being genuinely concerned about his wife, he agreed to try to be more introspective and commit to being honest about his feelings. The wife agreed to acknowledge this effort, and to be more persistent about asking for information instead of automatically assuming the worst. Of course corporate owners of voting machine software have no such commitment for a psychological take on their game. http://www.gardenandhearth.com/Movie-Reviews/Gaslight.htm

The bottom line here is that it is a basic requirement of sanity to be able to make sense of one’s information environment, and if those people who know what is going on behind closed doors when votes are counted constantly lie to the public and withhold information, people will naturally want to fill in the blanks. This process is analogous to the effects of sensory deprivation—float in one of those tanks long enough to deprive your brain of sensory input, and it will quickly start inventing some.

Denied access to the raw data of the election process, “theorists” proceed to fill in the huge blanks behind the secret veils of elections with combinations of those few disclosed facts that later become available, plus any educated hypotheses based on any other available facts or conclusions. For the act of engaging in reasoned speculation about such things, they may be subject to intense ridicule. The real question (since we are talking elections here and not some supposedly sensitive matter of national security) is why anyone should be forced to form theories about elections when the data and analysis ought to be available to every member of the public as a matter of course.

Attacking people who try to make sense of their information environments with limited data is highly unethical, no matter how nutty their theories may sometimes sound. It's exactly like putting a rape victim on trial for her previous sexual history instead of going after the rapist. Theories may fall anywhere on a continuum from plausible to seriously whacky, just as women's prior sexual histories may vary from none to extremely experienced. By any objective analysis, most current theories about what happened in November of 2004 are prim virgins in high-collared white lace blouses compared to some of the Kennedy assassination theories in their tight red spandex streetwalker outfits. But either way, it just should not matter—critics should focus on calling liars, secret-keepers and rapists to account rather than slandering their victims.

Scientific training helps people to cope with not having certain and final answers, but only a minority of the population has it. An important part of scientific training is learning to avoid speculating beyond the data, but this requirement of the scientific process depends critically on the assumption (which is almost always valid) that scientists will present all relevant data and methodology to their research community as accurately as they can. Since this condition is not currently met with our election process, it is outrageous to attack people who express concern about a government that insists on keeping secrets from them, especially when those secrets threaten the foundation of our democracy. The attacks should be directed instead toward the ones who are keeping what should be publicly available information from us.

The question before us all now is “Which side are you on?” Will you defend the rapists, the liars, those who conceal information that in a real democracy must be available to the public? Or will you join with those who demand honesty and transparency in the public sphere, particularly in our election process? The urge to be accepted as a real member of the elite class of reality creators, those who claim the right to lie and withhold information on the grounds that they alone are entitled to decide what the public should know, can be very tempting. Any person who gives in to this temptation fails our Republic.

Martha Koester
Dale Tavris
Paul Lehto

[countmyvote4real]

1. I guess I'll umm.... I don't know. (pause) Light?

Is that the right answer? If not, can I do it over?

(sarcasm)

[Febble]

2. Can I ask what information it is that you say is concealed?

If you are referring to transparent counting of the ballots, I completely agree. In the UK our ballots are counted under public scrutiny, and nothing is concealed except the identity of the voter, which is of course the essence of a secret ballot.

If you are referring to the secret source code for the vote-counting software, again I couldn't agree more.

If you are referring to the "raw exit poll data" - that in fact is not concealed, and you can download it, in extraordinary detail, here:

ftp://ftp.icpsr.umich.edu/pub/FastTrack/General_Election_Exit_Polls2004/

Every response is there, together with demographic details of each respondent.

However, if you are referring to precinct identifiers to go with the "raw data" then that is a problem, precisely because of the sanctity of secret ballot. With the degree of demographic data available, precinct identifiers would allow voters to be matched to their reported vote, information given in confidence.

Quite apart from violating the ethical guidelines of the professional body governing pollsters (AAPOR), it would seem to be simply wrong.

I do hope this is not what you are suggesting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. well, the post refers to ballots and tab programs, so probably not

I guess it's a criticism of people who respond to the whole debate by ridiculing one side as "conspiracy theorists" -- fair enough.

But I did find myself reading this vehement denunciation and wondering who was being denounced.

[Febble]

4. OK, I just wanted to that to be clear

In that case, I'm on board.

Edit to clarify:

I'm on board in the sense that I completely support (within the limitations of my UK citizenship) your right to a transparent electoral system.

I also agree that ridiculing those who are concerned that the man who is president may not have been the people's choice, and that there is no way of knowing whether he was, is quite wrong. The very fact that you cannot trust your electoral system, whether or not it delivered the "right" man to the White House, is quite intolerable.

However, I do not agree that all private information should be publicly available, and this includes anything that would violate the secrecy of the ballot.

And I am also concerned that "paranoia", even when justified by lack of information, can spread its tentacles to malign innocent people.

Warren Mitofsky is, I believe, one. I myself have been another.

[Land Shark]

7. Oh dear God, dear Febble

the word "exit" no where appears in the post, so it appears paranoia or a desire to educate as to Febblisms has taken a hold of our dear Febble.

the idea that not "all private information should be publicly available" is an issue nowhere raised in this essay. Who is saying here that private personal matters should not be private? This is an issue of an attempt to assert private property rights into the PUBLIC sphere via trade secrecy, and those trade secrets can be preserved if certain vendors slink back to the private sectors they came from.

Except that I shall raise the issue of full disclosure of private details as to mathematicians affiliated with islands outside north america, if you wish to have this discussion, and have it be in order at the same time.

But again, dear God and dear Febble, there should NOT be ANY data in existence anywhere to even POTENTIALLY be disclosed that would violate the secrecy of the ballot. That kind of stuff can not be collected in the first place.

please think this one through Febble. data allowing connection of ballots to voters is by definition not tracked, and in most if not all states in the US would be the smoking gun evidence of a constitutional crime.

Knowing that, what do some election officials require in order to admit that there is a smoking gun? (No joke here, this really happened) Evidence that, you guessed it, the voter's vote was not *recorded electronically as intended*. On election day, how are we ever going to get that kind of data without connecting ballots to voters illegally and asking the voters?

And, oh wait, nothing the voter says after pressing "cast vote" will be legally admissible to impeach the ballot anyway, one can't go back and do over after the ballot is cast.

those ballots (now electronic in many instances) are so immutable (not) and reliable (not) that laws on the books protect them from virtually any attempt to second guess what they tell us. this occurs both under laws of evidence as well as election laws.

mitofsky; has not come clean with all data needed to reproduce the exit poll analysis, therefore criticism is justified.

[Febble]

12. Certainly, my own paranoia seemed to kick in

although there are some medium hints, especially near the end. Which was why asked.

So I am reassured - except for your last line in this post!

From that it appears that you DO think that Mitofsky should have produced this stuff, and you criticise him for not doing so.

Moreover, when you say that "that kind of stuff can not be collected in the first place" - that is PRECISELY the kind of stuff that is collected by exit polls. If the precinct identifiers were released, there are many many voters who could also be identified - together with their reported vote, given on the understanding that it would not be revealed. (The CAPE exercise in San Diego actually asked people to sign an affadavit.)

Look, I'm with you - and it's a passionate piece of writing, that quite carried me away - until I read the small print. But if you really didn't mean to include those who defend the non-disclosure of the exit poll precint identifiers as those who are failing your Republic, then, as I said, I am on board, except that the rhetoric worries me, as any rhetoric that asks "which side are you on?" worries me.

And I think Mitofsky is innocent.

[Land Shark]

76. There's a concept called "opening the door" in court

and that is, if another gets into an impermissible area and opens the door to that debate, then the other side MUST get equal opportunity to respond.

so no, if Mitofsky collected data of that nature, he opened the door, and fairness and verifiability requires the disclosure of that data to enough researchers to satisfy citizens that the exit polls were done properly.

to exaggerate just a bit, mitofsky can not say, defame someone, then tell the court that it woudl be totally wrong and unseemly for the court to hear the evidence of the defamatory words being spoken or published because of some concern for the victim of the alleged defamation.

Mitofsky opened the door. Disclosure is required.

[Febble]

99. But surely only in a court of law?

I would agree that if a case depended on the data that is not in the public domain it could be subpoena'd - but are you suggesting that it should be disclosed BEFORE that? In violation of the ethical constraints regarding confidentiality?

[Time for change]

5. First, I can assure you

as one of the co-authors of this thread, that we did not have you or Febble in mind AT ALL.

You guys argue with us about various issues, but you have never to my knowledge denounced or dismissed those of us who believe that the 2004 election was stolen as "conspiracy theorists" or "crazy". We have had lots of good arguments, and I have learned a great deal from those arguments.

What we are talking about in this thread is those people, and especially those powerful people in the mainstream media, who refer to us as "conspiracy theorists" and all sorts of other things in order to marginalize us. We know why they do this. They want to marginalize us because they don't want any question about the 2004 election to reach public awareness. They have their own privileges to protect, and for most of them (I'm talking about those at the top) that is much more important than serving the purpose of a free and independent press. And as far as we're concerned, they do a tremendous disservice to our country by doing that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. OK, I agree (mostly)

I think there is more than one reason why the MSM marginalizes people on this issue, but that is beside the point. The attempt to 'refute' people by labeling them "conspiracy theorists" or "tin-foil hatters" or whatever else is indefensible.

[Land Shark]

9. To make it simple

(1) Somebody sets up secrecy in a system
(2) concerned citizens take whatever limited info is available and make educated guesses (i.e. "theories") about what's being concealed behing the veil of secrecy set up.
(3) citizens who've engaged in such thought crimes are denounced in the media as 'conspiracy theorists'
(4) the necessity of the secrecy or nondisclosure of information as well as the theory itself or other possibilities are never seriously discussed in the media at any time as one would expect in a profession that claims to be about "We Report, YOU Decide".

The above is what the article is responding to. People always have to make sense of their environment, concerned citizens need to make sense of their government. Making fun of those who CARE is a social evil.

[Febble]

6. Another question:

In your piece you begin by, rightly, condemning those who ridicule critics of non-transparency of the electoral system as "conspiracy theorists".

You then become rather less specific, referring to those who "attack".

Well, again, I agree, that attacking people for fearing the worst and expressing that fear is quite unjustified.

But one problem inherent in paranoia is that what may simply be intended as a rational critique is construed as "attack". And I have seen this happen all too often in this debate. In fact I have had to fight my own very real paranoia in order to continue to engage debate on this forum. And I have also seen people who I believe to be innocent construed as being part of the conspiracy of concealment you rightly protest.

In fact my own paranoia is probably evident in this very post. Because until now I had failed to read carefully your very last two sentences:

The urge to be accepted as a real member of the elite class of reality creators, those who claim the right to lie and withhold information on the grounds that they alone are entitled to decide what the public should know, can be very tempting. Any person who gives in to this temptation fails our Republic.

Now we have moved from "ridicule" to "attack" to "those who give in to the temptation" to "the urge to be accepted as a real member of the elite class of reality creator".

And I am becoming very uneasy. I hope I have never ridiculed anyone on this forum, although it is possible that I have - I have certainly been ridiculed myself. I certainly have never intended to attack anyone on this forum, although I have frequently taken issue with both data and logic that have been presented. But have I ever succumbed to the temptation "to be accepted as a real member of the elite class of reality creator?" Oh boy. I hope not. I hope as a scientist my only goal is to get as close to reality as I can. But who knows.

So now I re-read your piece and I am worried. Is this a coded message to those who would slander me that it is OK to do so?

So to my question: can we agree to differentiate between the slander and ridicule of those with legitimate - or even illegitimate - questions about the electoral process, and reality-based debate of what the data that we do have is telling us - and not telling us?

Otherwise I smell McCarthyism in the air.

[nashville_brook]

11. help me understand

why do you think you are being slandered.

[Febble]

13. I hope I am not

But the post, without mentioning exit polls, which was why I asked for clarification, implied that those who defended people who concealed information were failing the Republic.

I have frequently, on this forum, defended the non-disclosure of the precinct identifiers on the raw exit poll data released in January. I have also been accused, on this forum, of being a shill for Mitofsky, who in turn has been accused of being part of a longstanding conspiracy to steal elections for the Republicans.

I have been accused of being complicit in the theft of the election just as Germans were complicit in the holocaust. I have been accused of the death of US soldiers in Iraq.

And yet I have done nothing other than seek to find out whether or not your election was stolen. My crime has been to find evidence that it probably wasn't, despite the fact that I have also spent many hours unearthing evidence that Kerry lost votes that should have been rightly his.

So yes, I freely admit to paranoia, and I am more than happy to be reassured that those like me who have questioned the conclusion that the election was stolen are not those targetted by what is undoubtedly a very powerful piece of writing.

But paranoia breeds paranoia, and I'm not sure that this piece is best calculated to reduce it.

[nashville_brook]

16. okay, but you didn't answer my question

(btw -- sorry you are having such a difficult time here)

how are you personally being slandered in this piece?

[BeFree]

14. I'd say you are paranoid.

With good reason. You obviously haven't taken the time to carefully read the posts as written, and so lack real information; you are a prime example of what the OP was trying to express.

You seem to be thinking this thread is about you. It seems you are paranoid because you've taken this thread as an attack on you personally.

Those on this forum who attempt to contradict the unknown facts of the election process are, in my mind, nothing more than supporters of the culture of corruption which has been foisted upon us using these corruptible machines.

The corrutible machines are the problem, and the secretive nature which keeps the facts unknown to us are a part of the design in the use of those machines.

As long as the facts are kept from us, we have every right, indeed, a duty, to examine any and all possibilties so that we may know and understand just how screwed over we truly were in the last election.

IOW, some here are trying to keep us from our duty. Are you one of those?

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. now I'm lost...

Are you saying that the thread isn't about Febble, or that it is? Yikes.

Febble has gotten lit up pretty well in the past, so if you think she has a thin skin, I would say she has come by it honestly. But everyone here is calling for election transparency, so can we declare peace and move on?

(Edit to fix tag)

[BeFree]

19. Not about Febble

But in the process of continuing to obstruct us from finding the unknowns, it has attempted to make the thread be about Feeble.

I'm not surprised you are lost. I think it may have to do with the fact that some here read only what they want to read, excluding unwanted facts from their eyes. Is that you?

All we are doing is reading the signs of the election. And trying to make sense of what we see, in its totallity. Yall are free to post here; but when you obstruct, be ready to duck.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. who are "we" and "yall"??

This is precisely my concern about the "which side are you on?" business.

Febble wasn't trying to obstruct anything, she was just looking for clarification about whom was being criticized in the original post.

The original post wasn't about forum members at all, but in #14 you wrote, "Those on this forum who attempt to contradict the unknown facts of the election process are, in my mind, nothing more than supporters of the culture of corruption...." And, at the end of the post, "IOW, some here are trying to keep us from our duty. Are you (Febble) one of those?"

So, just what or who is the "it" that is attempting to make the thread be about Febble?

[nashville_brook]

23. ??? thin skin ??? paranoia ???

it seems to me that if anyone is so disturbed by the material discussed on this forum that it is making them PARANOID, then they might need to take a little break. this forum is called "2004 Election Resuls and Discussion." not "Pick on Febble, Here."

if Febble or anyone else is catching heat on this forum to the point of creating a psychological illness, they need to take leave. Get out in the sunshine for a while and come back when they are feeling stronger of spirit.

the point of the OP is a very good one. Folks asking questions about election fraud in our country have thrown down -- it's a rhetorical foul to (i) question the questioner or (ii) claim personal psychological damage as a reason to shut down or turn down the discussion.

the comparison is a good: our "sexual history" is no one's business. work with the charges as set forth or eventually the Election Fraud folks win the "point" by default.

[Febble]

17. Yes, I agree that this piece induced some paranoia in me

and actually made that point myself. It is all too easy to become paranoid. My own experience this morning is a good example.

But I certainly did not think the thread was about me. What I feared it might be about was about people who express the views that I have expressed, including me.

I am aware that the piece does not mention exit polls. Far from not reading it carefully, I posted a request for clarification - because certain formulations, especially towards the end of the piece are suggestive that they might be included though not mentioned specifically. Added to that, much of the stuff has strong similarities to stuff that has been written on this forum about the exit polls, particularly about Mitofsky's alleged non-disclosure of the "raw data" (see threads currently on the front page of this forum). So quite apart from what the authors intended, the likelihood seemed to me to be that some would read it as a licence to condemn Mitofsky - and his defenders.

Of which I am one.

But if you can ask whether I am trying to keep you from doing your duty then you have not read my posts on this thread carefully either.

But to answer you - no, I am most certainly not.

[nashville_brook]

20. i don't understand your emotional/personal reaction

please explain.

why are you this personally invested?

[Febble]

25. Well I'm not sure I really

want to go into it here. At least one of the authors has reassured me that the exit poll data was not referred to.

But you may or may not know that I have been very involved with the exit poll debate, and found myself on the other side of the argument to, among others, USCV and TruthIsAll, who longer posts here, but whose work is widely linked and cited.

I have also done consultancy work for Mitofsky..

I was widely perceived at one time as a troll. I hope that perception is fading. I'm not. I just concluded that the exit poll discrepancy was probably not due primarily to fraud.

If you want more information you can google me. My name is Elizabeth Liddle, aka Lizzie.

I post on DKos as Febble as well as here, and some of my exit poll stuff is there.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Febble

Some of my other stuff is here:

http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&id=87&Itemid=43

[nashville_brook]

26. we are truly lucky to have an insider on this board.

so, what's your general take on election fraud? is your critique exclusive to EXIT POLLS or do you generally think there is nothing here to examine?

[Febble]

31. Boy, I'm so paranoid, I don't know if this is snark or not...

but I'll assume it isn't...

I thought there was fraud when I saw the long lines in Ohio, and Kerry ahead in the polls, the long faces in the Bush camp - then, as if by magic, Bush winning.

I did work on machines in Florida, undervotes in New Mexico, and machine allocation in Franklin county. I then did work on the exit polls. This led me to revise my assessment that massive vote-switching may have occurred.

My current, considered position is:

That there is no evidence for massive vote-switching fraud, and that therefore it is likely that Bush did win the popular vote.

That the evidence for machine fraud in Florida is inconclusive.

That undervotes in New Mexico, associated with DREs, may have cost Kerry New Mexico

That voter suppression of various sorts cost Kerry a large number of votes in Ohio, and possibly the electoral vote, although on current evidence I think that's probably a stretch. I don't think much vote-switching went on in Ohio, although Blackwell's behaviour in itself is grounds for suspicion.

But I certainly agree with the main thrust of this thread that secure transparent elections are essential. Even if Bush won, the fact that no-one can be sure he did means the fundamental basis of a Democracy - the consent of the minority to be governed by the will of the majority - is undermined.

[nashville_brook]

34. are you british? you use the --"our" form of behavior.

just wondering.

[Febble]

44. Yes. n/t.

[nashville_brook]

49. so, why do you care about AMERICAN elections to the extent of causing

paranoia?

it's OUR system that is broken.
it's OUR freedom.
it's OUR country.

isn't it sort of quesionable to have people from other countries so invested in keeping our elections in the dark?

doesn't that seem, unseemly?

how can we trust your core beliefs when you aren't invested in OUR COUNTRY, and are so clearly invested in a person (Mitofsky).

this is exactly what our founders were worried about in the first place. how familiar are you with our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and our sufferage movement.

these are LIVING issues to Americans. this is our history and our gift to our children.

as i see it, you have only shown ALLEGIANCE to MITOFSKY. and you would have no reason to show ALLEGIANCE to our country since you aren't a citizen.

so, maybe your paranoia is justified.

[Febble]

54. My paranoia is certainly justified

actually, I'd rather underestimated the flak that this thread would produce.

You don't have to trust me at all.

But the reason I care about your elections is because you are responsible for electing the leader of the world's most powerful nation. Who is currently wreaking havoc in Iraq in the name of democratic principles he can't be bothered to safeguard in his own country.

It matters to the entire world whether your leader is legitimately elected or not. He might regard his vote count as his mandate within America, but his mandate on the world stage is derived from his status as the leader of a democracy.

So the rest of us have a pretty vested interest in the workings of that democracy. If we have to put up with Bush, the least we deserve is the assurance that he was democratically elected.

[nashville_brook]

58. may i suggest: step back -- let us take of this.

how do you see yourself HELPING the cause of fair elections? you pooh-pooh the charge of election fraud.

inconsistency again.

[Febble]

64. I did NOT pooh-pooh the charge of election fraud

Cite please.

[nashville_brook]

82. in your own words:

My current, considered position is:

That there is no evidence for massive vote-switching fraud, and that therefore it is likely that Bush did win the popular vote.

That the evidence for machine fraud in Florida is inconclusive.

That voter suppression of various sorts cost Kerry a large number of votes in Ohio, and possibly the electoral vote, although on current evidence I think that's probably a stretch. I don't think much vote-switching went on in Ohio, although Blackwell's behaviour in itself is grounds for suspicion.

[Febble]

88. Yes.

A current, considered position, is not the same as "pooh-pooh".

Having weighed up a fair bit of evidence, actually rather hoping to find evidence that Bush did not win, I have come to my current considered position.

If I simply "pooh pooh-ed" (what's the past tense of pooh pooh) the evidence, that would mean I dismissed it - considered it silly, of no account, not worth investigating.

In fact here's a definition I just googled:

"to express an opinion that an idea or suggestion is silly or worthless"

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM WHAT I HAVE DONE.

This entire post was a condemnation of those who "pooh poohed" those who thought the election was stolen. I agree with that condemnation. I think the possibility required to be taken EXTREMELY seriously. As in fact I have done. You can google my efforts if you want.

However, having taken the possibility EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY, my CURRENT, position is as I stated.

If any evidence comes along that suggests anything different I will not POOH POOH it, as indeed I have never done with any evidence that makes any kind of sense.

I will simply evaluate it with everything else.

[nashville_brook]

93. you have exposed yourself as biased

no thanks on reading your stuff.

[eridani]

103. There is no evidence against it, either.

That there is no evidence for massive vote-switching fraud, and that therefore it is likely that Bush did win the popular vote.

We can't know one way or another without information that is being withheld from us by proprietary software companies and election officials.

[Febble]

104. Well there is, a little

Vote fraud would cause a redshift between poll and count, right?

And also would increase the swing to Bush in precincts where fraud occurred right?

So if redshift arose from fraud, then redshift and swing should be significantly and positively correlated. And yet it was not - there was no correlation at all.

So it looks as though in Ohio, if there was fraud, it was not vote-switching fraud. And yet the Within Precinct Error was high - so in Ohio at least, there is evidence that the redshift was not due to vote-switching.

Ditto in NH where the precincts with the largest swing were recounted, and the recount supported the count rather than the poll. So again, in NH, it looks as though the redshift and swing were not related.

So there's a bit of evidence. If the main evidence for vote-switching is from the massive redshift, and in two key redshifted states the redshift doesn't seem to be due to vote-switching, then I do tend to call that evidence against massive vote-switching. It's certainly not more circumstantial than many bits of evidence I've seen FOR vote-switching.

[Time for change]

105. What are you defining as "swing to Bush"

Obviously, fraud would cause votes to swing to Bush.

We have a great deal of evidence of fraud in Ohio.

But other than the "red shift" that you speak of, which is the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official count, what do you mean by "swing to Bush", which you say is not where the fraud occurred. And how do you know this?

[Febble]

108. From the ESI study

By swing (sorry, British term) I mean the percentage change in vote for Rep and Dem candidates between 2000 and 2004.

The ESI study is supposed to be undergoing peer review at the moment but the relevant charts are here:

http://www.votewatch.us/Members/stevenhertzberg/report.2005-07-19.2452304843/report_contents_file/

Look at the last two pages.

The first of these plots Bush's vote share in 2000 against his voteshare in 2004. The correlation is very strong as you can see, but if you imagine a regression line drawn through the plot (I don't know why they didn't show it) the data points above the regression line would show a larger swing towards Bush, and data points below would represent a smaller swing (or a swing away). The have also coloured the points to show which precincts had pro-bush bias and which a pro-Kerry bias. And the point is that the colours are equally scattered either side of the regression line.

It is made more explicit in the second plot (the last). Here they have shown "swing" on the vertical axis (positive means Bush improved on 2000, negative means he did worse) and "bias" on the horizontal axis - positive means, I think, means blue shift, and negative, I think means red-shift, but it may be the other way round - they are crap plots. But the point is that there is no correlation (if there was, it would matter that it wasn't clear which way the horizontal axis works, but as there wasn't, it doesn't).

In other words, the degree of red-shift was not associated with better-than-expected performance by Bush. As I say, the red-shift could be vote spoilage in precincts where it also happened in 2004. But it can't be something new in 2004 - or if something new did happen in 2004, it doesn't look as though it affected the exit poll.

[Time for change]

111. Thanks for the explanation -- of course an even more important issue

is that massive fraud could have occurred without a red shift with regard to the within precinct error or bias index.

The addition of large numbers of votes to Republican precincts or deletion of votes from Democratic precincts, performed electronically by central tabulators, could easily have given Bush enough additional votes to Bush and/or deleted enough votes from Kerry's total to swing the election.

There is evidence that this in fact happened, but given the lack of cooperation from Black(stone)wall and his minions, it seems unlikely that we'll be able to conclusively proove this one way or the other. Which of course is the whole point of this thread.

[Febble]

112. Yes, I agree

It's a dessert topping AND a floor wax.

(I mean there could have been a red shift due to polling bias AND an election stolen by means that wouldn't affect the exit polls!)

And at the risk of sounding like a cracked record - yes, the point is we DON'T KNOW. Which is scandalous.

[Time for change]

113. Which of course is precisely one of the main points of this post:

Our election system is scandalous

And you agree with that:toast:

[Febble]

114. Yes!

:pals:

[eridani]

116. "We don't know" is of course the real problem

On the 9-11 forums, I always argue against the people who back the "no plane hit the Pentagon" hypothesis, because I think it is wrong. The REAL problem, though, is that our government is withholding information on this and other 9-11 issues, so while I criticise theories that I think are wrong, my public wrath is saved for the people who are lying to the public and withholding information.

[eridani]

115. You are relying on an unverifiable assumption here

Namely that there was not extensive pro-Bush hankypanky in Ohio in 2000.

[Febble]

118. What I said was:

But it can't be something new in 2004 - or if something new did happen in 2004, it doesn't look as though it affected the exit poll.

That's my point. Yes, it could well have been something that happened in 2000 - although that somewhat undermines the charge against Wally O'Dell. Unless the Diebold fraud took place in exactly the same precincts as something else in 2000 - and not in others.

But I am fairly persuaded, given the shenanigans over the non-recount, that the kind of vote suppression that we know went on in 2004 (the provisional vote scam) probably happened in the same precincts as the same technique or other forms of spoilage occurred in previous years. In fact I do think this needs investigating - were increased numbers of provisional ballots in 2004 issued in precincts where vote spoilage has tended to be high in previous elections?

My sole point is that NEW, vote-SWITCHING fraud is contra-indicated by the ESI finding.

[Febble]

106. Part II

I should have made it really clear that I am talking about vote-switching fraud.

What the ESI study shows is no correlation between redshift and swing to Bush relative to 2000. And there really is none -not a hint.

However another form of vote-corruption that could produce red-shift is spoilage, and we know from many studies that spoilage tends to be higher in highly Democratic precincts, especially those with a high proportion of African American voters. In fact Harvard Law School demonstrated a direct relationship between the proportion of African American voters in a precinct and the number of spoiled votes. Another form of differential "spoilage" might arise through the inequitable allocation of provisional ballots, particularly if a large number were subsequently ruled invalid. Either of these forms of vote loss would tend to produce a "red-shift", as people interviewed would report voting for Kerry - but their vote would not be counted.

But - and this is important - if this has been happening in the same precinct for past elections, particularly in 2000, then you would get red-shift (check) but no correlation between swing to Bush and red-shift (check).

This is why I say, very specifically, that there is no evidence for vote-switching as a contributor to the red-shift, and some evidence that it did not (unless we postulate that vote-shifting has also been going on for years, in which case the Diebold story falls a bit flat).

But there is certainly reason to believe that differential vote-spoilage of various sorts may have contributed to the red-shift, especially in Ohio, and thus may have cost Kerry the election. Which is why I think the evidence is stronger for voter-suppression - and vote-suppression - as a contributor to Kerry's defeat (voter suppression of course would not lead to red-shift, but "vote-suppression" would).

However, there is an additional of evidence against "massive" vote-switching, or even vote-suppression, or whatever we want to call it. Both would produce red shift, right? And not only would they produce red-shift, but the would tend to move the vote-count towards Bush, right?

This is where the argument is a little tricky (it's not mine, it was actually Josh Mitteldorf's but I think it is interesting): the precincts in the poll had a roughly bell-shaped distribution of "colour" - most precincts were purplish, fewer were strongly blue or strongly red. So, imagine a scatter plot where "bias" is on the vertical axis (positive = red-shift bias, negative = blue-shift bias) and Bush's share of the counted vote is on the horizontal axis. And imagine what is plotted is Bush's true share of the vote - uncorrupted. There will be a fair bit of scatter because the poll won't be accurate, but let's assume there is no bias in the poll. The plot will look like a cloud of blackflies with most of the blackflies in the middle of the horizontal axis. Now imagine what will happen if, say 25% of the precincts have some form of vote corruption - destruction of Kerry ballots, or switching of Kerry ballots to Bush. What will happen is that 25% of the blackflies will move upwards (more red-shift) and rightwards (more votes for Bush). In other words a sub-swarm of blackflies will move diagonally up and right. Now, if you plot a regression line through the plot you will get a positive correlation. This would be a fingerprint for fraud.

However, let's say that there is no fraud, and but instead, 25% of the polls are simply biased. In this case, 25% of the swarm will move upwards, but they will not move horizontally. A regression line drawn through the two swarms will remain horizontal, although the mean will be shifted upwards.

So there is a fairly simple test for fraud: a shifted mean with a flat regression line looks like bias in the poll; a shifted mean with a positive slope to the regression line looks like fraud. And in fact, when we do this, it looks as though the regression line is flat.

I made an interactive a model of this which you can download if you are interested. I wanted to know whether it was possible to account for all the "red-shift" by vote-switching without producing a measurable correlation between bias and Bush's share of the vote. Now it is possible that some of my parameters were wrong, but I was fairly generous - I was actually trying to demonstrate that fraud could be enough to shift the mean but yet enought to produce a significant slope. And the short answer is that I couldn't. I couldn't reproduce the data with a vote-switching hypothesis. I could reproduce it with a polling bias hypothesis.

Now there may be very complex fraud-switching hypotheses by which massive vote-switching could have occurred, and yet produce the observed patterns of the data we do have (because we do have some). But all I can say is - it's not a slam dunk. The postulates become so complex that Occam would be rolling in his grave.

Whereas polling bias and vote-suppression would seem to account for the red-shift quite parsimoniously, and we know both happened. We also know that voter-suppression happened. Add the two together, and Bush may have stolen Ohio - and probably New Mexico.

But that is why I say, very specifically, that I think the evidence does not support massive vote-switching, and that therefore that I think Bush probably won the popular vote.

And far from being a freeper, I think this is useful information for the electoral reform movement - it shows the kind of places where reform is needed (because secure software will not solve vote-spoilage problems), and the kinds of electoral injustice for the evidence from 2004 best supports - which could be useful for prosecutions. As I said on another thread - if there is evidence for a chain-saw massacre, you don't need to go looking for untraceable poison as the MO, even if the ingredients were available. (But you also need to make sure you have a reagent for the poison for future use).

[nashville_brook]

50. self-delete (double post)

[Land Shark]

73. Febble you miss the point: What EviDENCE would still be in existence

concerning 'massive vote switching'?

to logically reach your conclusion there, you'd have to identify all possible forms of evidence of that, review them thoroughly and find nothing. Then you could say 'there's no evidence' of it.

Properly stated, all you could personally say is "I, Febble, personally haven't seen anything I concluded was evidence of 'massive' vote switching, but i haven't reviewed all evidence possible, nor does vote switching necessarily leave detectable evidence, so in actuality i'm stating things a bit too strongly here in many of my posts".

when there's so many computer operations that don't leave evidence, it's deceptive (though perhaps not intentionally so) to say 'there's no evidence'

[Febble]

78. The evidence is from the ESI study of Ohio.

If there was massive vote switching it would show up as red-shift in the exit polls, right?

And if there was massive vote switching, it would increase Bush's vote, right?

So, if vote switching caused the exit poll discrepancy, you'd see a positive correlation between the amount of red-shift in the exit poll and the increase in Bush's share of the vote (called "swing" in the UK).

But there was absolutely zero correlation between red-shift and swing.

That doesn't rule out voter suppression of all sorts, or vote deletion in Dem precincts, or vote multiplication in Republican precincts, although the latter would be hard to hide. It might still have happened.

But it does tend to rule out VOTE-SWITCHING.

I also have, I believe, demonstrated that vote-switching should, nationwide, leave a tell-tale pattern in the correlation between red-shift and Bush's share of the vote, whereby red-shift should be greater where Bush's share of the vote is greater. It wasn't my hypothesis, in fact, it was Josh Mitteldorf's but he's right.

The trouble is that that correlation isn't there either. USCV thought it was, but Mitofsky's presentation at AAPOR demonstrated that it wasn't. It's not conclusive evidence against fraud (it could be masked by greater fraud in higher Kerry precincts, for example) but it's absence a fairly good indicator that any vote-switching can't have happened on a massive scale. So added to the finding that the Ohio red-shift (which was one of the larger ones) did not appear to result from vote-switching, then it is fairly strong evidence that vote-switching was unlikely to be the cause of the red-shift.

As I said, I still think Ohio may have been stolen by other means. And if you include all forms of voter suppression, then I think it becomes quite probable. But at the moment my view of the data is not simply: "I haven't seen anything I concluded was evidence" - it is stronger than that. I have seen evidence against vote-switching as a cause of the red-shift.

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. oh, c'mon, Land Shark!

Febble has articulated her views at length on ERD. We can squabble about whether that turn of phrase is an overstatement. But in the context of the thread, I'm not sure it stands out.

I'm not predisposed to fling around metaphors about rape victims....

[nashville_brook]

89. horse laugh

[nashville_brook]

85. instead, Febble cites her "CONSIDERED" position

she doesn't state what makes her position more "considered" than say, mine. i'm left to gather that her status as a Mitofsky consultant has provided the "considered" insight. that she's an expert in the field makes her more "considered" than you or I.

or maybe she has insight that we are not privy to.

seems to be an appeal to expertise. like us children need to take our outrageous claims and sulk on down to the 9-11 basement.

[Febble]

96. No. see post 95

[nashville_brook]

28. so, to answer the OP question "WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON"

which is it?

[Febble]

36. I've already answered that

But I'll answer it again.

I support transparent elections. Utterly.

I utterly condemn the ridiculing of those who distrust the electoral system as "conspiracy theorists".

But I also condemn people who assumes that any one who takes issue with the contention that the election was stolen is part of the conspiracy.

Which is why I found the rhetoric of the piece somewhat scary in the context of this forum.

[nashville_brook]

41. given that the rhetoric is "scary" what do you propose?

[Febble]

46. A rewording

of the later paragraphs to make it clear that the piece is targetted at those who seek to defend the continued secrecy of the vote-counting process.

And not those who seek to debate whether the election was stolen with those who believe it was.

And not those who support the with-holding of confidential components of the exit-poll data.

[nashville_brook]

52. sounds like you want this to be about you

[Febble]

55. There is nothing I would like better

for this not to be about me.

I didn't think it was. I just feared it would trigger a lynching. It appears that it has.

[nashville_brook]

60. questions and discussion is not lynching.

lynching is when you take some out and publically hang them from a tree for the color of their skin. it's part of our history. we KNOW lynching.

you can walk away. you are free to go about your business in whatever way you see fit.

but when you reach across the ocean and meddle in our election investigation, people are going to ASK QUESTIONS of you.

that's not a lynching.

[Febble]

63. No, it was a metaphor.

and questions are fine.

What I am getting on this thread are not questions.

It feels like a mob attack on someone who doesn't fit in. Hence the metaphor.

[nashville_brook]

70. you started the straw man -- we're just trying to find out why

why start a straw man and then claim paranoia?

[Febble]

72. I really don't know what you are talking about

I was concerned that the original post condemned people who, like me, have both argued the case against a stolen election, and who also, like me, have defended Mitofsky's handling of the exit poll data.

Having been attacked here on DU for both those positions, I confessed to a paranoid feeling that this was likely to happen.

It has.

I'm not CLAIMING paranoia. I just feared something. Does it stop being paranoia when it actually happens?

[nashville_brook]

77. you made the OP into something other/smaller/weaker than it is

= straw man

[Febble]

81. I don't know what an OP is.

You'll have to be clearer.

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. the Original Post

which nashville_brook seems to think you deliberately misread.

In my reading, you asked for a clarification, Time for change and Land Shark provided it, and I would have thought we would be done. Instead, we seem to be engaged in some weird exploration of your psychological health on the one hand and your ethics on the other.

Eventually, this may be funny.

[nashville_brook]

86. we're just worred that Febble is becoming paranoid.

that shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Febble]

92. Well, gee thanks

I was worried that I, and people who thought like me, were being censured by the OP (thanks OTOH), for supporting people like Mitofsky who have not fully disclosed the exit poll data, and for arguing the case against a stolen election. I felt a little paranoid.

Now I don't feel paranoid, because I find that indeed people DO censure me, for my support of Mitofsky and for arguing the case against a stolen election.

So that's alright then. Nothing wrong with my mental health.

:)

[nashville_brook]

94. you'll feel better when you come clean with that data you and Mitofsky

are sitting on

:)

[Time for change]

59. Let me clarify this

The OP to this thread does not take issue with anyone for having an opinion on whether or not the election was stolen, or arguing that opinion, whatever it may be, nor did any of the authors mean for anything in this thread to apply to that kind of thing.

If you are in favor of changing our system so as to give us transparent elections -- and I know that you are -- then you are on our side. So I'm sorry that this has caused you to feel paranoid.

[Febble]

66. I not seriously worried

until this thread got going.

As I said, I support the post, after clarification.

But it seems that most of the posts on this thread take a far heavier line, which was what I feared might be the response to the piece.

[nashville_brook]

74. it's actually what you fomented -- if it was what you feared, you might

have waited a few minutes to see if that's how it shook out.

that's not what you did.

that causes people to question you. and questions aren't lynchings. which makes people even more cautious. and you're not a US voter. more caution. a Mitofsky consultant? still more caution. internal inconsistencies in logic? hyperbole? straw men?

these are just a few of the data points you've revealed on this thread alone.

my question now is -- what exactly did you do for Mitofsky?

[Febble]

84. Well, I agree, in seeking reassurance

I seem to have disturbed a hornet's nest.

But in view of the attacks that have happened, not just to me, on this site, I wanted to raise the alarm. Clearly a mistake. But I did so precisely because I DIDN'T think it was all about me. I feared it hinted at thought-crime (the crime of succumbing to the urge to be part of the elite by supporting those who conspired to conceal data), and I hoped that was not the intention of the posters. I don't think it was.

Questions are fine. But there have been more than questions. No matter. People are certainly entitled to be cautious.

I do, in fact, dispute your accusation of internal inconsitencies in logic. Hyperbole? maybe. Straw men? I hoped so, but they are looking pretty solid right now.

I ran a series of analyses for Mitofsky on the exit poll data.

I published on the internet, linked from Daily Kos, a paper that identified a flaw in the measure used in the Edison-Mitofsky report to estimate withing-precinct-error - i.e. the discrepancy, at precinct level, between the poll and the count. I suggested an alternative. Mitofsky, to my amazement, contacted me with some results he'd got from using my measure instead of his.

He then engaged me to run some analyses using my measure. This work is now complete. However, the results are not yet in the public domain, and are undergoing review. I hope that they will eventually be made public.

[nashville_brook]

87. this is exactly why people don't trust you -- you have secret info that

you are using to cast dispersion on researchers who hold a different position.

you say "you hope" some key information will eventually see the light of day. WELL SO DO WE. so do we, my friend.

[Febble]

95. No, I am, in fact, very carefully

NOT using that information to make ANY arguments. I have been extremely careful to make sure that ALL my arguments are made on the basis of publicly available data. To do anything else would be quite unethical, because there would be no way of verifying what I am saying.

[BeFree]

21. -Defending Mitofsky

Whooop, there it is! You are the self appointed defender of Mitofsky!

Why do you need to defend him? Can't his 'facts' speak for themselves?

The whole damn thing is a part of the culture of corruption and any defender of that culture is corrupted.

[nashville_brook]

24. seems like anyone so personally invested in Mitofsky would want to clear

his good name by examining all the evidence in the spirit of truth.

[BeFree]

29. Are you suggesting...

...that all the data be released so that we can make a complete examination?

Why does that seem so radical? :satire:

[nashville_brook]

32. good lord! why hasn't the data been released?

[BeFree]

40. I dunno...

....maybe the paranoids can tell us?

[Febble]

27. I don't understand

you have criticised me for being paranoid - then you appear to attack?

It appears Mitofsky was not being referred to in this post. I thought he might be. I have defended him in the past (and will continue to do so).

I therefore felt that I might be one of those accused of defending those who are part of the alleged conspiracy of concealment.

Apparently this was not the case.

Except that now you appear to be saying that because I defend Mitofsky I am corrupted.

Now do you see why I am paranoid?

Or is this not what you are saying?

[nashville_brook]

30. you said you were paranoid -- your words

in this very post -- internal inconsistency.

so, tell us, when you examine MITOFSKY'S work do you employ more stingent standards or logic?

[Febble]

33. Yes, I know I did.

I am. Where's the inconsistency?

[nashville_brook]

35. read your post

[Febble]

39. Which one?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you....

[nashville_brook]

43. the post in this level: "you have criticised me for being paranoid"

... "Now do you see why I am paranoid?"

[Febble]

47. Well, it's not inconsistent.

Yes, when I read the post in detail, I became very worried that it would lead to condemnation of those of us who have

a) argued that the election was not stolen and
b) defended Mitofsky, widely believed around here to be "concealing" data.

Some posters have indeed condemned me, for the latter.

So, as I said - just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Which, ironically, was the point made by the original post. Which I largely support.

[nashville_brook]

56. you imply that the charge of paranoia comes from other people, then

you freely admit to your paranoia.

this post isn't about MITOFSKY and yet you dig in with the emotional intensity of someone personally wronged. as if you and MITOFSKY are the same person.

what does MITOFSKY mean to you. is he a relative? a lover?

[Febble]

61. No, in my first post, the one at the top of this thread

I said that I was feeling paranoid.

This conversation is getting completely out of hand. If you are that interested, re-read the threads.

And stop with insinuations please.

[nashville_brook]

65. when looking at BIAS, FULL DISCLOSURE is expected.

your emotional intensity suggests someone arguing something more than data.

[Febble]

67. check my sig n/t.

[nashville_brook]

75. actually, you do seem to claim special authority for your opinions

otherwise you wouldn't fly the Mitofsky flag so high.

[Febble]

80. Well I can do no more than state

categorically that I do not. If you want to read "do not" as "do" then I suppose I can't stop you.

But I expect my arguments to be assessed on their merits, not on any perceived authority.

The reason I include the statement about Mitofsky is precisely because I have been accused in the past of not making a full disclosure regarding my consultancy work. So I put it in my sig.

It is not there to give me authority. It is there simply to make it clear to anyone who reads my posts that they might like to consider the possibility that I am in fact a Mitofsky shill. Although I'm not.

[nashville_brook]

90. what about THIS from your post #84:

Mitofsky, to my amazement, contacted me with some results he'd got from using my measure instead of his.

He then engaged me to run some analyses using my measure. This work is now complete. However, the results are not yet in the public domain, and are undergoing review. I hope that they will eventually be made public.

wow -- your investature in this deeper than i thought! not only were an asscociate of Mitofsky, now you say he has some amazing new results using YOUR measure! that's pretty dang invested.

[Febble]

98. Actually, the results he got

ARE in the public domain, and have been so since May. He presented them at AAPOR.

Here's a link to a report:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/05/aapor_exit_poll.html

It is the results of my subsequent analyses that are not.

And there is absolutely nothing secret about my "investment" - which is why it is in my sig.

[BeFree]

37. I know you are paranoid. With good reason.

If you support the continued hiding of the data, then yes, you, in my mind, are corrupted.

Mitofsky appears to want to keep the data hidden, and any support for that stance is corrupted. Any defense of the person or persons so involved in keeping the data from us appears to support the culture of corruption surrounding the election. And you support Mitofsky.

[Febble]

42. Exactly. And it was precisely

because I feared this post would elicit this kind of comment that I was worried.

As you say, with good reason.

So let me be clear:

Mitofsky has released the data. It has been released since January. You can download it yourself. What he has not released are the precinct identifiers. This is to protect the confidentiality of the respondents, in line with the ethical regulations of his professional body, AAPOR.

To defend Mitofsky for refusing to violate those ethical guidelines is not to support the culture of corruption. It is to defend the right of confidentiality of the respondents.

Moroever, Mitofsky has not only released the raw data, but the weighted projections for "Call 3" - ie. weighted only to the demographics, not to the vote return, the predictions made by the precinct selections, and data on the "within-precinct error".

He has also released "blurred" data for Ohio, with the precinct vote totals randomly altered to prevent identification.

In my book that is integrity, not corruption.

[nashville_brook]

45. how do precint IDs corrupt the confidentiality of voters?

[Febble]

48. Because the enormous detail

with which the raw data is released means that in small precincts it woudl be perfectly possible to identify at least some of the respondents, and their vote.

The raw data is exactly that - the raw data. Every single response, together with demographic data including age, gender and ethnicity.

If that hadn't been released, there would be no problem with the precinct IDs. But it is, so there is.

[nashville_brook]

53. well, it's our precincts -- maybe "we the people" in those precincts

should decide.

[Febble]

57. Well, I expect if you could

ask everyone who responded to the exit poll for their permission to allow the data to be released, then that would be OK by the AAPOR ethics committee.

But there are easier ways. One is the release of aggregate data, which has been done. The other is the release of blurred data, which has been done for Ohio.

[nashville_brook]

62. your suggestion has been noted.

[BeFree]

51. No. The OP was not what you think it was.

OK. So Mitofsky is withholding data that you think will show how an individual voted. And is data that we think can prove the corruption, never mind that the data we have seen DOES point out the corruption.

Mitofsky, then, has the wherewithal to trace each individual respondent? Is that your claim? If so, what right does he have to secretly hold that data? What if he were to misuse it? Who would know?

Nah, it's all corruptible and it appears to have been corrupted. Anyone who appears to support that corruption is (deleted).

[Febble]

69. No, that is not what I meant

no-one could trace every respondent. I'm saying that some respondents could be identified from the demographic details, if precinct IDs were given.

And Mitofsky is bound, as are all AAPOR members, to treat data according to strict rules.

It's the same with any profession.

[Land Shark]

68. the post doesn't have any secrets, so wondering about it probably

isn't justified.

Unlike elections, we can exchange data here and, after Febble's inquiry of whether she's some kind of target, we can answer "absolutely not".

the reaction to Febble (to the extent ridiculing) could be an illustration of the phenomenon identified in the main post, except that there's no underlying secrecy to create the inference that something is being hidden. Goodness, real names are used for authors..!

[Febble]

71. Well thanks, Land Shark

I really didn't think the post was about me, just that I feared that the language it was couched in could be interpreted as condemning those who, like me, have defended Mitofsky's handling of the data.

From the posts that have accrued, I'd say my worst fears were justified.

And although most people around here know my name, here it is:

Elizabeth Liddle.

[Kailassa]

117. Poor Febble

is trying to get a perspective on this and not give way to paranoia, and you say: "you are a prime example of what the OP was trying to express." !!!

BeFRee, that's not fair. I don't know you, or febble, or the OPs, but I have noticed certain people in the last 12 hours, (none of whom have contributed to this thread,) who rudely name call and slap down any attempt to explain things. These sort don't give any arguments at all, and they don't show any sign of reading the argument or facts people set out for them. All they do is point and jeer with their tinhat tinpot conspiracy labels, and then get rude and aggressive when their target does not back down.

So Frebble, if the OPs are complaining about the sort of posters who have really been getting under peoples' skin in that manner today, rest assured it has nothing to do with you. People who can express an argument as beautifully as they did are bound to appreciate the arguments you present them with. Arguing is not attacking; arguing between friends is a fun way to share information and sharpen one's wits.

[mopinko]

10. rock on nt

[Slit Skirt]

18. conspiracy theories and tin foil hats

I agree totally...

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/10/ret.bush.un.transcript/

why would * put this in his UN speech after 9/11....because he didn't want the official story to be investigated...and it was a warning that if you do you will be called a crazy...... conspiracy theories, tinfoil hats etc. it just another way to shut people up and intimidate them not to investigate
unfortunately we see that here at DU a sometmes...and fortunately for the good people who investigate tenaciously, we uncover the truth.

[AllyCat]

22. No wonder BushCo hates science:

It encourages a free flow of information. And they don't like that.

----snip---

"An important part of scientific training is learning to avoid speculating beyond the data, but this requirement of the scientific process depends critically on the assumption (which is almost always valid) that scientists will present all relevant data and methodology to their research community as accurately as they can. "

[anaxarchos]

91. Perhaps you'll let me set the background music...

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? (FLORENCE REECE 1934)
(Pete Seeger's version of the lyrics - Starting with verse 3)


They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

Oh workers can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can?
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. a circular firing squad has no sides. n/t

[Ellipsis]

110. I like your style OTOH! n/t

:thumbsup:

[Febble]

100. I prefer:

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

[nashville_brook]

101. love that!

:loveya:

[anaxarchos]

102. Me too...

THE ALMANAC SINGERS, 1941: WOODY GUTHRIE, LEE HAYS, MILLARD LAMPELL, PETE SEEGER
(left to right)

http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/3448/whichsid.html

[Time for change]

107. I would like to clarify an important issue pertaining to this thread

Much of the discussion in this thread (not by the authors of this thread, but by others) has involved exit poll information, and concern that this thread might be referring to secret exit polls, hiding information on exit polls, what exit poll information should be released, etc.

That was not the point of this thread.

Rather, what we are mainly referring to is our secret elections. There is a HUGE difference between this and any issue having to do with exit polls.

Our Democracy is based on fair elections, without which we have no Democracy. We believe that the fact that our votes are counted in secret, by those of the opposition party, means that our Democracy is in grave danger, if not gone. We find the privatization of elections in this country outrageous -- especially when that means that we are not allowed to know how our votes are counted.


Exit polls are a very different issue. Our Democracy does not depend upon them (although many have suggested that exit polls could be one means of ensuring fair elections). If someone wants to conduct a secret exit poll and not tell us the results of it, how can we argue with that? We can conduct our own if we wish.

HOWEVER, in this particular circumstance we have exit polls conducted under the auspices of our mainstream news media. That puts a different slant on this matter. We have always expected that a major role of our mainstream news media is to inform us of important issues that affect our country and our world. Consequently we find it very disconcerting, to put it mildly, that our MSM has had so little to say about evidence of and concern about election fraud involving the 2004 elections. Therefore, the unhelpful way in which our MSM has handled the exit poll debate is just one part of a much larger problem.

[Febble]

109. Thanks, TfC

Sorry I kicked the ball out of court.

I completely support the case for secure, transparent elections.

In fact I recommend hand-counted paper ballots as in the UK!