I keep seeing/hearing the same handful of goofy "logic" points over and over again, so I thought I'd list them for others it enjoy.

• The larger the margin, the less likely there was significant fraud.
  
  To see how goofy this is, just extend it to its logical conclusion. If winning by a million votes is less likely the result of fraud than winning by a thousand, winning by a billion votes should be even more unquestionable. And winning by a trillion votes should be enough to convince anyone that the election was fair.
  
  Right?
  
  
• Statistics don't prove anything; it's just "playing with numbers".
  
  Sure, it's just playing with numbers. So is counting ballots. What I think people are really trying to say is that statistical arguments often rest on unstated assumptions, and unless you can call out and challenge those assumptions the argument is meaningless. That is of course also the case with regular ballot counting. So let's look at the sort of assumptions involved in both cases:
  
  Statistical arguments typically assume things like (but do not prove):

  • People do not base their choice of candidates on the type of voting equipment they use.
    
  • Republicans are not more likely to lie about who they voted for, or their race or gender than Democrats.
    
  • People are more likely to vote for nationally known candidates than people they have never heard of.
    

  
  Ballot counting assumes (but does not prove):

  • No ballots were added except by voters
    
  • No ballots were thrown out
    
  • No ballots were tampered with
    
  • No voters were prevented from voting
    
  • No non-voters were allowed to vote
    
  • No one tampered with the vote counting equipment
    

  
  
  So the real question is, which set of assumptions is more reasonable?
  
  
• There's no point talking about problems unless it will change the outcome.
  
  This is the sort of "logic" that says rape is OK as long as the girl doesn't get pregnant. More to the point, it makes the all to common assumption that the victim of election fraud is the candidate who lost because of it--and therefore, if the results wouldn't change, there was no victim. The truth is, however, that the victims are the voters--not just the ones who were denyed their right to vote and have their vote fairly counted, but even those whose vote was "counted" but who were nonetheless denyed their right to an open and honest election.
  
  
• There's no point investigating fraud after the race has been decided.
  
  Since when? If a crime took place, it should be prosecuted. Do we stop looking for snipers when their victims die? This point adds the element of time to the mislogic of the point above. In essence they are saying "well yeah, maybe a crime was commited. And maybe it would have changed the outcome. But the candidate won't get into office now, so why make a fuss?"
  
  In my book, the statute of limitations on election rigging (which I consider akin to treason) should be longer than two months.
  
  A lot longer.
  
  
• Because only the losers care about election fraud, it must not be a "real" issue.
  
  While the behaviour at least is logical from the point of view of the politicians it is far from the case for the voters. Why? Because while "my team" may be given victory this time, I (as a voter) have no assurance that the "other team" won't be given victory next time--or even (once you admit the possibility of fraud) that the people "on my team" really are.
  
  But even if the premise were always true, the conclusion does not follow from it--you can not logically argue "if the sky is blue then I must be right". Otherwise, you could reason that "because only the victims report muggings, mugging must not be a 'real' crime." or even "because only apple trees produce apples, they must not be a real fruit."
  

All of which is nuts, and seems crafted to get people off the real issue. Election rigging is a crime.

If you embezzle money from a bank, it doesn't matter what party you belong to, and they don't stop trying to nail you just because you spent all the money or because or there's another embezzler scheduled to start in a few years. They don't say "well it probably wasn't really embezzlement" just because the amount of money that is missing is large, or accuse the bank of "just playing with numbers" when they use their records to calculate how much you took. They don't refuse to investigate because it didn't make the evening news.

Embezzling is a crime, and they treat it as such.

Why should stealing an election be any different?

--MarkusQ

...was the one from the Wizard of Oz.

At least he realized that he had no brain!

--MarkusQ

That was said yesterday on the floor by "Democratic Senators" and Mr. Kerry before that.

the logic of throwing Bush out was undeniable, and even though he really did not get a majority of the votes, we all agree he must have receieved a popular vote in the high 40's.

So our problem is how to make your logic accepted by those who do not think logically.

A real logical paradox!

STEALING IS CRIME.

And that's why you're my favorite Martian, uh, I mean Republican! (Did you notice I changed my avatar from the elephant with a line through it, to the W with a line through it? After yesterday's performance, I'm thinking of changing it back though.)

Anyway, it's important that some or all of these points be raised when writing to our "elected" officials. They won't act unless they think that we think the system's broken.

And tell them we need random audits, not just the paper trail!

BTW, you've proposed hand counting ALL the paper ballots. That's a random audit too. It just happens to be a 100% audit!

I'm afraid 100% is the only way that will work. Otherwise, you wind up with the sort of "random 3%" that we had in Ohio.

At this point, what I'd like to see is some way that 1) every person could check that their ballot was counted correctly, 2) anyone could see (and count) all of the ballots, 3) everyone could see that no ballots were added or removed.

Then I'd like to see them counted a zillion times, and cross checked.

There are ways to do this, but they have problems. I am not convinced that the problems are worse than what we have now.

--MarkusQ

suppose that 1000 people voted this way:

510 for Kerry
470 for Bush
9 for Nader
5 for Cobb
6 for Peroutka

suppose the tabulator says:
510 for Bush
470 for Kerry
9 for Nader
5 for Cobb
6 for Peroutka

How would we ever know that the tabulator switched the votes without inspection of the tabulator code? If I voted for Kerry and you voted for Kerry, we'd never know.

for this to work. Only a few votes each of course but this could be done. However, if the audit is TRULY random, the votes won't match and you'll have to count them all by hand. Remember Blackwell broke the law by not recounting the 3% randomly. The lawyers in OH should try to prosecute him. This isn't a counting issue, it's a legal one. It's as if the law said recount 100% and he only did 95%. More should be made of this.

As far as what we're discussing, it's a matter for the statisticians, but there are already corporate models in use to detect accounting fraud. I think 5% is probably enough, and of course, if it doesn't match, you can recount 100%. In this way, the hack could only be done on 95% of precincts but you'd have to know in advance WHICH 95%, so as not to be detected. Maybe TIA could come with the odds of getting caught with a truly random 2, 3 or 5% recount?

Is there an accountant in the house???

what is so hard to understand about that? They don't have to be networked to be using the same code.

...just how much of the behavior of a machine is controlled by the software. Yes, of course, they see it "in the rough" as it were, but until you've spent a few years (or decades) programming you don't believe how easy it is to mess with stuff. For example, it would be trivial to modify a word processor so that documents looked fine on the screen, saved fine, but when printed contained the word "Floop" wherever the word "Bush" was used. Or make it save anything the user types that looks like a credit-card number to a hidden file, for later retrieval by a black hat. Or make it distribute an error in a measurement by fudging a bunch of other measurements so nothing changes much but the error magically goes away. Or make it "count" votes however you want.

--MarkusQ

I thought it was a crime to discriminate and suppress civil rights of people of color.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I think anyone who profits from the bush administration and accepts/approves it, then I think they are complicit in racism, too. I don't care how many "black friends" they have or what they say, or if they go to church and hold hands with people of color and sing Kumbaya. AFAIC, to hell with them, they are racist.

After yesterday, it's going to take me a long time to stop despising this schizoid country because of what it's reverting to. All those people who died, who were beaten, hosed, who put their lives and livelihoods on the line for equal rights, what a bunch of fools, eh? Just because the racism is disguised, it doesn't change it. Just a wolf in sheep's clothing, saying "too baaaaaad we threw your vote away, too baaaaaaad we kept you from voting."

Good post as usual, MQ. Sorry I got off topic in my response.

And I don't think you were off topic at all. I'm amazed more people aren't shouting that one point from the roof tops:

American election officials
actively suppressed the vote of
ethnic minorities

If it happened in a third world country, we'd be all over it.

--MarkusQ

Assume that there was fraud, and that it could be proven undeniably.

Assume, further, that it was also proven that the results, popular AND electoral, wouldn't be changed.

Who should be President based on these assumptions?

Would your answer change if it could also be shown that there had been Democratic fraud, but the results hadn't changed?

...than with who should be in jail.

--MarkusQ

Thank you for beginning this thread, MarkusQ.
:thumbsup:

we must keep reminding everyone of the truth, over and over.

I will put these in my thank you letters to the Senators later today.

...and others don't. Your first one is childish and your second is embarrassing for reasons stated over and over, and ignored over and over in previous posts.

If a fraudulent election can be proven before inauguration, I don't think Bush could be crowned.

The prize should go to the contender. People who commit fraud aren't allowed to keep their ill gotten gains.

Please... Tell me more!

Childish how? I am merely addressing a point of logic. If someone cheats (and we exclude the somewhat irrational possibility that they cheat in order to reduce their margin, e.g. to lose) we should expect them to have a larger margin than if they had not cheated. Therefore we should expect cheaters, as a class, to get more votes than non-cheaters. Consequently, the observation that someone got more votes does not in any way support the conclusion that they did not cheat.

As for your comments on my second point, I do not know what embarrassing reasons you have posted over and over, and thus can not speculate on why they have been ignored.


--MarkusQ

"If you embezzle money from a bank, it doesn't matter what party you belong to, and they don't stop trying to nail you just because you spent all the money or because or there's another embezzler scheduled to start in a few years. They don't say "well it probably wasn't really embezzlement" just because the amount of money that is missing is large, or accuse the bank of "just playing with numbers" when they use their records to calculate how much you took. They don't refuse to investigate because it didn't make the evening news."

The movie Office Space. I can't remember the exact phrase as it was said, if anybody knows let me know. Where the geeks were going to shave off 1 tenth of on cent from every account that had to be rounded off, over a period of time. The guys girlfriend found out and he told her that it doesn't matter nobody would miss it. Then she said "Oh you are stealing?" He said no no you don't understand the money is rounded off and we are taking the remainder. She says "oh so you are stealing"

...and although it didn't influence me consciously, I heartily agree with the comparison. The "move on, it's not going to change anything" attitude is a very thin rationalization to spread over complicity (if not outright guilt).

"No, you don't understand, the voters are black and we're just keeping them away from the polls and throwing out their ballots" / "Oh, so you are rigging the election" is a very close match.

--MarkusQ