CONFIRMED: Diebold "allowed access to vulnerable op-scan machines" throughout election day.

Election Officials Confrim that Employees from LHS Associates, Diebold's Sole Programmer, Vendor, and Service Provider in NH, Were Allowed to Access Vulnerable Optical-Scan Systems Throughout Election Day.

Special to The BRAD BLOG by Dori Smith of Talk Nation Radio
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5553



Early research into New Hampshire wards and towns which used Diebold's AccuVote Optical-Scan voting machines during last week's Primary reveals that chronic problems continue with the company's infamous paper-ballot voting machines.

As well, the preliminary investigation reveals a great deal of confusion and conflicting information from local election clerks and a high-ranking official in the state Attorney General's office regarding protocols and security procedures for voting systems and memory cards, and how they are to be handled during Election Day failures.

All four counties I contacted on January 10th that had used Diebold's electronic machines last week reported problems during the election with the machines. Two other calls that same day turned out to have been to areas where electronic voting is not in use, where hand counts are done instead. If the small sampling is any indication, a statewide study would likely reveal that voting machines failed many times during the 2008 Presidential Primary across the entire state.

Problems with the systems were quickly revealed during all of my calls to officials who had used the optical-scan systems in Hanover, Exeter, Nashua, and Manchester.

Little reporting or inquiry into such problems has been done so far by the mainstream media. Reports of machine failures in Stratham, leading to hand counting of votes after a "glitch" was discovered in the optical-scan systems used there, were buried in a local article on Primary results in SeaCrestOnline on Thursday. The bulk of media reporting on the anomalous results from the election has focused, instead, on speculation as to what might have gone wrong with pre-election polls. Little if any coverage has been given to whether the results themselves were correct as reported, or whether voting machine errors or tampering may have occurred.

To read rest of article, see:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5553

to older woman who called and said Bill Clinton got on phone to his CRONIES and had them throw election.. NEED INVESTIGATION NOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!

Don't be such crybabies

There is NO ACCOUNTABILTIY in our election systems.
I repeat NO ACCOUNTABILITY!

Did you hear me?

NO FUCKING ACCOUNTABILITY.

You honestly just trust what they tell you?


NO GOD DAMNED FUCKING ACCOUNTABILTIY!! NONE ZERO NADA!!!

What the hell else needs to be said you brainwashed simpletons.

If there is a question, start looking at the most questionable precincts and count them by hand. New Hampshire is one of the few states that actually has a paper trail. The Diebold machines simply did the counting.

I heard the director of a new movie on vote suppression talk about Diebold (which has since renamed their voting division). He said they specialize in ATM machines, but it was amazing that they couldn't find a way to provide paper receipts on their voting machines like they have done for decades on their ATM machines.

I speak with first-hand experience, having observed Diebold's voting machines and paper-trail printers in action as a poll watcher for the Democratic Party.

Their VVPT printers are basically thermal printers that print on cash register tape that goes in a locked and sealed plastic cannister.

Those printers jammed right in front of me, mangling live votes.

Even if they don't jam, we're talking about thermal printing on cash register tape, which might as well be printing on toilet paper. Thermal printouts degrade in a few short years, and in just five years, much of the record will be unreadable. Compare that to an optical scan ballot, which is printed on heavy card stock, which will last for decades, maybe even centuries.

Maybe that's the point - when someone challenges the electronic vote count in court, and demand it be compared with the paper record, the cheaters can turn around and say "See, the printers jam and the paper record is degraded! The electronic record is more accurate!" Make a few arguments in court, and the VVPR could be declared to be unusable by the judge.

cr@p from Target.

after the election and so, subject to tampering.

This should get get interesting.

We TRIED very very hard to find about 18,000 plus votes back in 2006! Still... NOTHING!!

We got scammed then, AND in 2000 AND in 2004!! It's a RIGGED System and I have seen NOTHING that has fixed it yet. It's been reported locally that we STILL have machines that don't work properly!

What can ANYONE DO???

very, very ,very LONG TIME!! One of the reasons I have decided that NO MATTER WHAT, my vote goes to JOHN EDWARDS on Election Day!

Hey, if Hillary won fair and square, more power to her.

But if she didn't then this will only be a fleeting victory for you.

Because if those voting machines were cheating on Primary Day, they will be cheating in November, and when they cheat, they will be cheating for the other guys.

It means that we will have to suffer yet another stolen election this fall, and it will be the Republicans who again will be saying "Quit whining, you lost, suck it up, crybabies!"

We must force those machines out of service, NOW, while we still can.

I think we should do a recount so that we can feel more comfortable about the election results down the road. We'll never be sure if the Diebold machines are counting accurately in this primary unless we do at least one recount.

Those machines have a documented history of miscounting votes. They claim they have fixed the problems...are we just going to take their word for it?

Will it change the outcome? Who knows? Maybe Clinton won more votes. Maybe Gravel won. Only one way to know for sure.

Who cares about election integrity when you can cover stupid spats.

I've been waiting for something to happen to fix our totally corrupted election system since 2000 and the only thing that's happened is it's gotten worse.

If voting could change things - they'd make it illegal.

More evidence that the exit polls cannot be trusted?



:sarcasm:

Post in GD: P, get 10 recs before it's moved to ER. I had thought of doing this but figured it was unethical.

K&R

;)

Various topics over into the dungeon, but has moved many of us onto other BBS.

I spend one third as much time here at DU now.

Like another friend confided, <I am paraphrasing> "it would be one thing if the mods would judge the election issue news by whether it is opinion, or fact. And then ban the OPINION reports to the dungeon. But simply to ban ALL election issue news to (election reform) dungeon is rather thoughtless."

This is the kind of "hard evidence" that Skinner was asking for. The recount has been asked for, the evidence is piling up. These posts belong in GD:P according to Skinner's own criteria.

I guess maybe it's OK to try to expose the rest of DU to the info :shrug:

Too busy pissing ppl off in GD:P

someone posted yesterday that in his book he states he thinks concerns about e-voting are unwarrented "conspiracy" theories.

If Obama did request a recount, it would force NH to pay for it (which they should since it's their fucked up election system
that created the need for one in the first place) .. but since it's Kucinich and that other guy (a republican i think) submitted
the request, they have to pay for it because of some 3% rule, the details of which I'm sketchy on.

That was a huge missed opportunity for her to demonstrate an interest in fair and transparent elections. Of course, she would have to develop a sense of personal integrity first...

in the wake of his recent controversial and narrowly defeated referendum ... he knew the results were pretty much accurate, and
could have demanded a recount, and because the results were SO close, could have easily engineered a "recount reversal" of the
outcome, but he didn't request a recount out of respect for the closeness and saying that even if he had "won" it would be too
narrow a margin for him to feel ok about pushing forward with his reforms over the resistance of 50% of his population.

That was a telling moment, a stellar ethical statesmanship moment to remember. It's how real leaders act and behave, leaders who
care more about their constitutions, their people, what's really best for the nation overall, rather than covering their own asses
and grabbing power whenever they can, by whatever means available.

Yes, had Hillary requested a recount, it would have been just such a moment for her.. an ethical and principled stance clearly
showing her true colors as an authentic patriot dedicated to what's best for America, but maybe not her campaign necessarily...
depending on results of an honest recount.

Thanks for your response.. it made me think and see another angle on this.

Uh, look up the laws or rules about elections and recounts. NH laws have been posted. Obama's campaign did not request a recount because only real dummies would suspect machine tabulator dickering with paper ballots available for manual recounts.

Woulda been money spent by the campaign for nothing.

Obama qualified for a full recount due to having come in second within 3%, but since Kucinich didn't qualify under that rule
he and his supporters are having to pony up the cash for it.

..on such a worthy cause. He's the only politician I've EVER given money to and is now showing the reason why.

What I do have a problem with is them making him pay for it.
With the suspiciously inconsistent outcome and the fact that they broke the rules by "repairing" the machines during an election it should be Diebold footing the bill, not one of their potential victims.

I hope this helps Maryland before 2/12 when we SURRENDER our votes to their touch screens. :banghead:

the recount (other than 3% exception) but if the recount comes out different than the original count, the candidate does not have to pay.

that in Ohio to JAIL.

herself the winner every where and take over.

is that ok with you?

two chief suspects....

GOP, who wants, desires and wishes for a Hillary Candidacy... the one they are sure they can beat

The Media, close race... more eyeballs on screen

Geez, there are days I wonder about the ostriches round these parts!

By the way, secret ballots processed on PRIVATE software with no accountabilty are fine by you?

Corporatocracy.

Of the three candidates, which would the Military Industrial Complex prefer...what about the Insurance Industry or The Mass Media Industry? Put yourself in their place for a minute: If these three industries who have made such incredible profits, who have risen to hold so much influence within our government, knew that power was about to switch from republican to Democrat, do you suppose you would just stand by and watch? Do you suppose you would pour your resources into a republican nominee in the unrealistic hope that he would win? What would you do in their place?* *(Assuming your bottom line was profit as opposed to Democracy, something you btw. champion well here in the DU)

I can not know if there were any shenanigans in the NH Primary...but if there were, I find myself in agreement with you, I'll not lay those shenanigans at the feet of the candidates! I suggest that this may be placed instead at the feet of those who would gain a measure of influence over a candidate.

I look not for debate here nadinbrzezinski...I am well aware that I am hopelessly outmatched... I am just pushing forward a third option. (Not to mention I have yet to read anything that you write to be unworthy of reading...you ma'am are a GREAT teacher.)

But the corporatocracy, outside of lobbying and tossing tons of money at a candidate, mostly resembles a machine; most of its sins being symptoms of the process. Deliberate control is processed only inasmuch as it offends or strokes the bottom line. That said the machinery of consumer capitalism is more enamored and supportive of both Republicans and DLC democrats. Individual executives make decisions of who should be supported based both on their own belief system and on who they suspect will be most helpful to them. It goes without saying that this machinery is destructive to democracy.

The media outlets seem to be the most obviously bias in this fashion, as they choose who will be discussed in the public sphere and choose pundits who are less likely to be advesarial to corporate interests.

Diebold is not truely an exception but their decisions to corrupt the process were originally made on an individual level and now that they have a stated allegiance they have a stake in defending their position and market position. Their aparatus because of the circumstances under which they were brought in, by republicans, has a process all its own. Since it maintains many of the executives and select mid level workers, they can continue to corrupt the process based both on the rationale of maintaining itself and on the right wing ideology of the adherantts.

"Deliberate control is processed only inasmuch as it offends or strokes the bottom line." That basically should support my theory. IF we consider Diebold as a corporation not under direct control itself, it would seek it's own bottom line: Profits. If you were Diebold and you COULD influence election results wouldn't you seek to maximize your own profits by marketing yourself out to those who would/could pay the most?

In this hypothetical, they could for instance suggest to members of the Military Industrial Complex, that a boost in a sympathetic candidates' votes could cost them FAR less than overt/covert campaign contributions. Those members of the Military Industrial Complex would be foolish to ignore this because it easily "strokes their bottom line"...if the price were right of course and if the outcome of an election could be guaranteed and NO connections could be traced back to the recipient of this service OR the unknowing candidate.

If the candidate were already "pre-invested in" this service could be a way to save ones investment should it appear that the candidate was about to fail.

I would further suggest that Diebold could "hedge" it's bets by offering up a "Plan B" candidate...perhaps in this case a Republican. This way should the Dem fail in the Presidential Election, that failure would be to THE Republican who most favored the Military Industrial Complex... which in this hypothetical case would be someone STRONGLY pushing for a continence of the war...perhaps McCain.

btw: A great deal of tinfoil was used to..um...think up this hypothetical...and presumes that Democracy in America is long gone... We the People, (well our Profit Potential), would be the minor victory spoils being carved up by the Insurance Industries, The Pharmaceutical Industries and the Energy Industries, the very Industries who see the writing on the walls. The major spoils would go to...well whoever or whatever it is that is in actual control over the emerging new Military after America's own Military is further weakened to the point of being tactically ineffectual. Again, this is damn near science fiction speculation on my part and drifts far from the topic at hand.

(edited for spell check)

actually the GOP and the Media are arms of the corpocracy, as you well know. You just expanded it to the Military Industrial Complex Ike warned us about, and I will add the prison complex and the mercenary units that will replace the Regular Army if they can get away with it. All of them NEED war now and war later. Never mind in my view the American Empire is about to crash and burn.

Clinton would be a win win situation for the corporatocracy AND the neo-cons.
Either she loses to the repug, or wins and continues the agenda.

are total crap. Go to Bradblog.com and you can watch a short video of voting machine representative demonstrating the machine to a small group at a local polling place.

He runs 8 ballots through one at a time with two choices on each ballot -- YES or NO. Of the 8 ballots, 6 are NO votes and two are YES votes. He carefully shows how the little screen shows how many votes are counted and then how to run a form through that tells the machine all votes are now in. Then he opens up the machine (there's a cover with a little key over the printed tape) and everyone watches the final tally print out. Final tally? 7 YES votes, 1 NO vote. Gasps all around.

So, do we trust these machines?

:kick: :kick:

:kick: :kick: :kick:

Gladly!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

do it again, we had no serious probs, let's keep it that way...

That we were deprived of a real majority by vote shaving in 2006. I haven't read it yet but heard Mark Crispin Miller talking about it on CSPAN.

Landslide Denied: Exit Polls vs. Vote Count 2006


Demographic Validity of the National Exit Poll
and the Corruption of the Official Vote Count

Jonathan Simon, JD, and Bruce O’Dell1
Election Defense Alliance

Introduction: Pre-Election Concern, Election Day Relief, Alarming Reality

There was an unprecedented level of concern approaching the 2006 Election (“E2006”) about the vulnerability of the vote counting process to manipulation. With questions about the integrity of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections remaining unresolved, with e-voting having proliferated nationwide, and with incidents occurring with regularity through 2005 and 2006, the alarm spread from computer experts to the media and the public at large. It would be fair to say that America approached E2006 with held breath.

For many observers, the results on Election Day permitted a great sigh of relief—not because control of Congress shifted from Republicans to Democrats, but because it appeared that the public will had been translated more or less accurately into electoral results, not thwarted as some had feared. There was a relieved rush to conclude that the vote counting process had been fair and the concerns of election integrity proponents overblown.

Unfortunately the evidence forces us to a very different and disturbing conclusion: there was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been, accurately tabulated, a landslide of epic proportions. Because much of this manipulation appears to have been computer-based, and therefore invisible to the legions of at-the-poll observers, the public was informed of the usual “isolated incidents and glitches” but remains unaware of the far greater story: The electoral machinery and vote counting systems of the United States did not honestly and accurately translate the public will and certainly can not be counted on to do so in the future.

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006

Condemned to Repetition

I have Febble looking over a longer critique of the second version, so that it doesn't come out too sour. Jonathan Simon got pretty nasty when I tried to explain the problems to him directly.

If you look at pre-election polls in individual House races, there's no sign of a consistent shift. I know Jonathan has come up with all sorts of reasons not to believe pre-election polls (selectively), but it's really hard to figure out why the data would look like they do if Jonathan and Bruce were right -- especially if the miscount was concentrated in competitive races, as they also seem to believe.

Also, the way Jonathan and Bruce set up their argument, either the 2004 exit poll or the 2006 exit poll has to be wrong. (Or something else in the argument has to be wrong.) I thought I was supposed to be the exit poll skeptic.

are talking about. lol

Exit polls are swamps.

I think every serious analyst who has looked at FL-13 agrees that Jennings should have won. I've seen no evidence that the undervotes were due to deliberate hackery, but there's no inherent reason why they couldn't have been. So, that's solid.

The Landslide Denied stuff is so very not solid. I'm afraid this will sound sarcastic, but I think Mark Crispin Miller is a gifted storyteller and likes good stories -- and there's something irresistible about the story that the 2006 exit polls contain evidence of massive fraud that the mainstream won't touch. The price of this kind of story is that it leaves a bunch of potential allies just burying our heads in our hands. Framing the right questions helps us to be both honest and helpful when reporters and others ask questions.

Some people see a line like that and think, "oooooooh!".

Others, " :eyes: ".

Maybe they're spot on. Or maybe they need to use phrases of "epic proportion".

the first five times.

Next time you go to vote take a baseball bat with you and start by destroying every damn e-voting machine in sight.

I'm serious as a heart attack - the time has come for massive civil disobedience. The time of being polite is over. They look upon polite as weakness. Our government is infested with thugs. They steal our money and our votes and laugh at us. We need to risk arrest, jail and physical harm to regain what has been stolen from us. Anyone that thinks we're going to save this country without shedding some blood is a fool.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.

Dick Cheney, W, Rove, and Rice for starters. No, I don't mean a roast like Dean Martin used to have either, but more like the native Indians did back in the 1700s.

:kick:

Just because your home didn't get robbed one day, I'm pretty sure you don't leave it unlocked the next day do you? Or are you saying that because Nader didn't find any problems there in '04 there couldn't be any problem in '08?

In the meantime, those paper BALLOTS you speak of, 80% of them haven't been counted or examined or verified by anyone. Don't you think they should be?

Or are you just fine with "trust me" democracy? Particularly in an election as anomalous as this one?

according to a NH paper


Interesting I thought. So many say the odd machine and hand count division of Hillary/Barack is simply that small towns like the alternative kind of candidate, unlike rural areas elsewhere, and bigger areas like the conservative type. They even go red. Same pattern with primaries and election of Gore and Kerry. (Of course dividing town size and machine or hand count still shows the same pattern. And Diebold is not new there)

While it wouldn't prove anything I thought great, I might be reassured by seeing that Stratham county voted the same pattern for Kerry/Dean as Clinton Obama
Stratham 2004 results
This didn't give percentage and I rounded off plus put minor candidates together in "other". In order of votes we have:

Kerry 491 37%
Dean 301 23%
Edwards 188 14%
lieberman 144 11%
Clark 135 10%
others 34 2%
1294 total

They had more candidates that drew real votes so I'm not saying this is science...but they did in all the districts and the pattern held true of the Kerry/Dean votes in machine/hand count districts.. At least we know Clinton should have a decent win.

Stratham 2008 results

This page says machine count for Stratham county because that is what they have, just couldn't use it this year. The listings are at the bottom of the page. The part above it breaks down vote by town size and way they are counted, interesting too, but evidently fits last 2 primaries.
So how much did Clinton win by?

Obama = 802 votes = 43.28%
Clinton = 674 votes = 36.37%
Edwards = 282 votes = 15.22%
Richardson = 74 votes = 3.99%
Kucinich = 16 votes = 0.86%
Gravel = 2 votes = 0.11%
Other = 3 votes = 0.16%
1853

The good news is a lot more people voted as they did all over the state.

I don't pretend this is definite of anything but I would have felt a lot better if this area hand counted only by glitch had followed the pattern.

I keep looking for something that makes me feel better so I go look...and I don't feel better.

It could all be coincidence and raw data that showed Obama with a big win really might be irrelevant.

I just wish something made me feel better about trusting machines with our elections.

Thanks for posting your analysis here. ;-)

invaluable. Very telling.

Kick and recommend

jbnow said:



I'm glad it *doesn't*! Nobody should be trusting these machines with our elections. There is nothing to trust. The machines don't work, and they're dangerous, and worse, nobody bothers to make sure they worked correctly at all in NH, where there are no audits or spot-checks of ANY kind.

If you don't "trust", then you are good checks and balances American. Well done!

will vote electronic touchscreen with NO paper trail. I hope I am wrong and someone corrects me.

:freak:

who really may have won the primaries before the 2004 general election. I'm not implying that Kerry was involved in any shenanigans, but I'm wondering if that whole election may have been manipulated, beginning in the primaries.

to wonder. I don't think any of the winning Dem candidates would have done anything but if we consider it we are left with a sinking feeling that we the people may not be the ones in control of who is nominated or elected.

All those that want a fair electorial process, need to learn more about voter fraud & take action to help prevent it.

Thank you Brad Blog for doing your part.

It's ELECTION fraud! :hi:

Tricky, innit? The only time the media touches this, they call it voter fraud. Just one little word, "voter", subliminally makes you think it's the little guy, the voter, who is to blame.

As long as Diebold is allowed to participate in our election process, our democracy is a sham.

If we cannot be certain that our votes will be counted correctly, that kind of eliminates the biggest advantage of living in a democracy, doesn't it?

Which means, we must set the red lights flashing on this from coast to coast, because we can no longer say that we live in the land of a representative government.

Furthermore, if our "elected representatives" fail to uncover and repair this thievery of numero uno importance, then we may as well admit to ourselves that there is actually only one "party" of the elite, with two branches which either serve two sets of dueling corporate interests, or are merely continued as a display to sham the masses of gullible citizens.

Let's call them on it.

I know in 2004, Kerry was winning the exit polls. That's why we were all shocked.

But in NH who was winning the exit polls?

From what I've heard, Obama was clearing leading the exit polls, until the late, "adjusted" exit polls replaced them. I don't have the numbers. Anyone? If I find them I'll post 'em here for you.

Regarding the earlier poster who said something about they keep looking for a way to feel better about this, and the more they look, the more they don't feel better, that was great, these were my sentiments, exactly, regarding the 2004 POTUS election. I've been astounded ever since how a set of circumstances as suspect as those were, and as unable to realistically be explained any other way than massive fraud (check the exit poll/official result disparities in state after state, nearly all in favor of Bush) could be slid under the rug, never to be considered by sane or reasonable people (none of those here I hope).

I've been over this issue again and again, assuming there was a probably a good explanation for it all once I opened my mind and overcame the paranoia so I could just see it the boring old way it really is. Hasn't worked, I truly believe they skimmed some percentage of votes, or mis-cast Kerry ones for Bush, in state after freakin' state, giving us and the poor world that has to deal with us 4 more golden years of good ol' George.

I dunno about machine fraud in this case of HRC vs Obama, it's a little far-fetched for me intuitively, but it's quite possible (could be done by any number of interests), and the surprise of the outcome, given the pre-election polls (I've heard some ok explanations of this, though it's amazing how creative the MSM can be when they're trying to explain away a conspiracy theory)) and the unadjusted exit polls (I haven't heard any ok explanations of this) says that it needs to looked at closely.

I'm another Kucinich donor who is happy to see their money, or part of it anyway, serve this purpose.

The expert political science/survey research community doesn't trust the exit polls. It simply isn't true that massive fraud is the only realistic explanation of the exit poll discrepancies. Survey research goes wrong all the time. The history of survey research is a history of learning from mistakes.

I don't know who told you that you could trust exit polls. Maybe you think you know something about exit polls that my entire profession missed. It's even possible that you do. But you sure haven't convinced me yet. I don't believe that Kerry won New Hampshire by 15 points, or New York by 31. If you do, please tell me why.

The exit poll argument is a problem, because it basically signals a bunch of experts that they can safely tune out. I try to wade through all the supposed anomalies finding the ones that are actually anomalous (New Mexico had maybe the skankiest results in the country in 2004, although its exit poll discrepancy is nowhere near the top), but it would be easier if people learned more about this subject.

Do you have examples *prior to* paperless machine vote counting in which exit polls were significantly off?

It may be hard to answer your question if I'm not sure what it is. Every New Hampshire voter voted on paper.

The exit polls were almost as far off in 1992 as in 2004; in 1992, most people voted on punch cards (paper) and lever machines (paperless, except for the ones that print the results, but need to be hacked individually). In 2004, the biggest exit poll discrepancies were in lever machine precincts. In New York, which almost exclusively used lever machines, the exit poll results were far out of line not only with the official results, but with pre-election polls and (dare I say) common sense.

pretend I asked the same question but in reference to when humans stopped and machines started counting votes.

That's when the first lever machine was used in an election (or so I'm told).

They were very clunky. They were ancient in 1980 when I first voted! :D

Well, most of us, anyway. We know they aren't foolproof, but then, neither is the Justice Department that is trying to lower the hammer on us for still having them.

I actually like the optiscan machines. Paper record in the box that has to match the memory card in the same machine. They are all isolated from one another just like the lever machines. Custody issues aside, the 0.01% accuracy and paper trail are in many ways better than hand counted voting which would be utter chaos in large cities. I just wish they did random audits and that the chain-of-custody was more "we the people". Lots of work to do still!

HCPB purism escapes me. I just don't get it. But chain of custody and audits, those I get.

"The expert political science/survey research community doesn't trust the exit polls."

I attended the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) convention in San Francisco last February (2007). They had more than one panel discussing the voting discrepancies in the 2006 election (the one where Dems took the house & senate). EVERY scientist on the panels, without exception, mentioned the historical accuracy of the exit polls and the historically small margin of error in exit polls.

And EVERY scientist on the panels (made up of statisticians, mathemeticians, computer scientists, and political scientists) declared that there was SCIENTIFICALLY NO WAY that the 2006 elections were accurate when counted on machines with proprietary secret programming. They had information from each state showing the difference (mathematically) between the secretly programmed machine count and the hand count.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together, or any belief in scientific methodology, cannot but conclude that the 2006 elections were SEVERELY tampered with where proprietary software was used on machines.

AAAS is a general science-and-technology group. It's sort of interesting to hear physicists explain why they think the 2004 election was stolen, but it has no bearing on the opinion of political scientists or survey researchers.

ETA: The historical accuracy of exit polls isn't a matter of opinion: it's a matter of record that the exit polls were way off in 1992. While there has been some post hoc speculation that maybe there was massive fraud in that election too, I have yet to see anyone make the argument in detail. I really have to question whether anyone believes it.

I will concede that I don't know what you're talking about, but that's a different issue. What, you think Steve Freeman is a political scientist?

If you believe that exit polls are historically accurate, don't tell us that you heard some "scientists" say so in San Francisco last year. Marshal some evidence.

ETA: Now I see that AAAS did host a whole panel's worth of political scientists after Singer's panel -- but none of them was talking about the 2006 exit polls, and at least three of them had signed the SSRC working report that said that exit polls didn't offer prima facie proof of fraud in 2004. Got anything else?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ah, light dawns. So you heard Freeman two or three times, so it was two or three times as true?

Look, fish or cut bait:

(1) Can you name any political scientists who claimed that exit polls were historically accurate?

(2) What evidence did political scientists -- or anyone else -- offer to bolster this claim?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/07/DI2008010702131.html?nav=hcmodule

You're going to tell me that the exit polls were already adjusted by 8PM. I'm going to say "prove it".

I have no clue what Kaiser was looking at. However, the initial tabs are weighted to a composite estimate that includes pre-election polls as well as exit poll interviews. So, it's possible that the interviews actually showed Clinton ahead, and the tables split the difference.

It's also possible that the tabs were already updated.

Given how poor NH exit polls have been in the past (including the 2004 NH general election, in which the 50,000-vote recount supported the initial results), I have a hard time caring. But hey.

He says in the earlier text that he was looking at the "final" exit poll (i.e., no more updates now that polls were closed - but perhaps later data than Matthews presented at 5:30PM). Then he gets an "updated" exit poll (above quote) that shows Clinton slightly ahead. I'm still giving this "live at the time" blogging some weight.

at least that's when I saw it posted on cnn.com.

The kicker is that the numbers Kaiser had at 8* could have been derived from (1) a composite based on pre-election plus interviews, or (2) a new estimate based on interviews plus vote counts that arrived after most polls closed at 7.

In scenario (1), the interviews could have been very close to the outcome. In (2), the interviews could have put Obama substantially ahead. (2) could be more consistent with what Matthews was handed at 5:30, but it's hard to tell.

* These are probably the same numbers posted on CNN.com, which I estimated as Obama +1.5. Kaiser presumably would have been looking at a tab very similar to CNN.com or MSNBC.com's but with an estimate for each candidate to the nearest percentage point at the top.

Why are these fucking machines still being used?

And it a common practice.

Your optically scanned ballots have their data stored on the same type of card that touchscreens use-these cards are then used to provide the offical count. Watch "Hacking Democracy" to see how easily they can be used to rig an election.

why the voting reformers keep advocating optical scanners as the 'magic bullet' to fix election fraud when the optical scanners have memory chips that are easily switched. The latest report of the Diebold optical scanners used in the NH primary sounds to me like this switching of memory chips was what had occurred in the malfunctioning Diebold optical scanners.

One, they hate TSDs so much that they haven't looked at the entire optical-scan scenario yet: or Two, they figure the private companies that control our elections cannot easily be dislodged from the catbird seat, and are willing to settle for voter-marked paper ballots as they are at least recountable.

And you are correct, but it's not just cards: entire machines were swapped out.

in the process is beyond me.

It is frustrating as hell being an Election Integrity activist.

ITS WORKING...
---- OUR ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE PARTY OF DEMOCRATS INTO SPITEFUL HATE-FILLED PEOPLE IS WORKING...

---- WE WILL AGAIN BE ABLE TO CLAIM...

THE REPUBLICANS UNITE FOR THE ELECTION... AND DIVIDE THE SPOILS
THE DEMOCRATS DIVIDE FOR THE ELECTION... AND DIVIDE NOTHING

REMEMBER MY REPUBLICAN BROTHERS... DUE TO THE EXPECTED HIGH TURNOUT... IN 2008

THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE VOTING ON NOVEMBER 4
WE REPUBLICANS WILL BE VOTING ON NOVEMBER 5

the theft of our vote.

I had never heard about the comment made above - about something Obama wrote in his book denying voting machine fraud? What has Clinton ever done? Where is Edwards - other than in 2004 when he said they would fight for the truth about voting only to have Kerry/DLC stop the entire project within hours of Edwards giving his speech - and referring to 'we'. Once again, Kucinich stands out and up.

Can someone quote from the Obama book if they have it?

who was the guest not only knew nothing about it but dismissed it out of hand.

Guess it's just a pipe dream I have:-(

for the optical scanners in NH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

& for the cherry on top, LHS Asscociates V.P. of marketing & sales is a convicted felon for cocaine distribution... Solid.

the People are screwed out of their votes x(

that the only Democrat speaking publicly about our questionable elections is Kucinich? Seems to me if the Democratic Party has no desire to discuss the subject in the public venue, then they must be part of the problem?? Kucinich has my vote. I want REAL change, not campaign rhetoric.

I just don't expect them to do anything any more.

He hasn't been very vocal about it publicly, which I wish he would, but he knows what a scam it is. That's part of why he's speaking out about corporations ruining the country.

only Kucinich has spoken out as far as I have been able to tell by searching on the web. Can you provide a link to a direct statement from Edwards about it? I'd be interested in hearing what his take is.

For me the proof is in the pudding. I've listened to Edwards repeatedly, tried googling it after reading your previous comment, and have been unable to verify that he's ever touched on the subject at all. Kucinich seems to be the only candidate carrying the ball on this one from what I can ascertain. If you do find something that you can point me to, by all means post it.

That's all I have heard, but it's better'n any other candidate besides Kooch.

same shit different election

If we can't get a hearing on this, no election can ever again be trusted.