Republican Machines in Washington State

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 04:23:47 AM EST

Over on SoundPolitics, you have the Freepers talking about John Kerry doing his bit to help try to steal the election for Christine Gregoire in Washington. And this is a site that touts itself as Sound Commentary. What's so "sound" about lying? Say the freepers:Stealing means taking something that rightfully belongs to someone else. The governorship rightfully belongs to Rossi. If CG wants to go for a hand recount --- demonstrably less accurate than the machine recount --- in order to take away the governorship from the rightfully elected governor, that is stealing the election.According to their logic, machines are more trustworthy than humans, therefore, to follow the law, and have a handcount after the lawful machine recount, is theft.

What is it with the love of machines over people by Republicans:

Monika Galioto of Everett was upset with the recounts. "A hand count is only another chance for fraud. This is Florida 2000 all over again! Enough with the hanging chads and the 'we think the voter meant this.' If the machine kicked it as unreadable, so be it! Why can't the Democrats lose with dignity?"Dignity? I just hope that Gregoire pulls in front, and I would guess the odds are about 75% in favor of her at this point, so we can see the Republican Rossi bow out with dignity.

Tags: Governor 2005-6 (all tags)

Comments

16 Comments

Sort by

permalink

voting

My favorite game is PutTheShoeOnTheOtherFoot. Imagine that all the voting machines and electoral tabulation infrastructure are manufactured and maintained by firms connected to the Democratic party. Does anybody think the Republicans would be content to quietly "lose with dignity" under those circumstances?

by global yokel 2004-12-02 05:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: voting

Wouldn't Rossi and the GOP ask for a recount if Gregorie was 42 votes ahead? It's a no-brainer. I hope the DNC pays for a statewide recount in Washington. We do not want private companies with secret software and no paper ballots for auditing, counting our votes and running our elections. That is the reform needed.

by IdahoNell 2004-12-02 07:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

The Fruits of "Acting Responsibly"

Every effort the Democrats make to "act responsibly" simply empowers the Republicans to move farther and farther to the lunatic right. The rules have changed. The way to act responsibly is to challenge everything they try to do.

Which is why Kerry should not have conceded. He needed to highlight all the irregularities in Ohio. He could have done this with dignity. He could have even said, "I believe that Mr. Bush has won the election. However, it is not up to me. It is up to the voters, and there seem to be considerable problems, in addition to the outstanding votes. And so we must wait until all the votes are counted, and all the irregularities examined. This is not about me at this point. It is about ensuring the integrity of the democratic process."

But, then, if Kerry knew this much about framing, he would have won the election by 3-5 points, minimum.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-02 05:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Fruits of "Acting Responsibly"

Highly recommended! The Portland Independent Media Center had an interesting comment following the article: "Cobb: Ohio Recount Must Start Now!" The comment is entitled: "Voter Fraud-Please Read My Explanation Below" dated 27 Nov 2004 by Brad Menfil. "Menfil" worked for the RNC. He states that the exit polls were not wrong. He gives details about computer programming in both electronic and scan-tron voting systems called "KerryLite". The actual name of the program is 11-5-18-18 etc. For additional encryption, the numbers were jumbled. Sometimes the program would reduce third party votes and award them to Bush. Even where Bush legitimately won, he was still awarded the extra votes. The big Democratic counties had to go to Kerry to appear on the up and up. It was no accident that the Republican leaning counties were mostly counted after the Democratic counties in Florida and Ohio. This was no accident. Bush team had to make up the votes as the night went on. In Ohio, vote tossing was used to remove Kerry votes and some third party votes. In some areas the Bush v. Kerry votes were nine to one, eight to two...absurd. Voter suppression was implemented with the long waits in Democratic areas. The simplest way to do this was to have too few voting machines. In New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry's leads evaporated once the polls were shut down. Kerry only won New Hampshire, but barely. As it turned out, the lead was 6% for Kerry in New Hampshire and not enough fraudulent activity took place to flip the state to Bush. Menfil is foremost an American who cares about our freedoms!!! Menfil reveals "the truth about this election is Bush lost Florida and Ohio and in fact did not even win the popular vote. He lost the popular vote by at least 1,750,000. This shows the scale of the fraud. Nothing this massive can be kept a secret." Read the complete story at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303775.shtml

by IdahoNell 2004-12-02 07:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Fruits of "Acting Responsibly"

Either he's a spineles asshole or a lying sadist.

by kitebro 2004-12-04 12:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Machines

Frankly, machines ARE more accurate than humans. More accurately put - any errors in machines are equally distributed as opposed to human error - intentional or otherwise.

And ballots DO degrade when touched by hands. In Florida after the 2000 election I can tell you first hand that as the stacks of ballots were compiled, counted, re-stacked, separated, examined, and put to the side - the counting tables were literally littered with chads.

Now - in that case, neither the Democratic nor Republican observers ever touched the ballots - it was the mere handling of them that jarred all those hated little chads out. But still - clearly the ballots were in a different state after the hand count.

by mkrempasky 2004-12-02 06:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Machines

(1) See the comment about precision vs. accuracy.

(2) Re: Bias. Hand recounts are typically done with representatives of both sides siting with an election official. This is a pretty good check against human bias, since the biases cancel each other out.

(3) Re: Chads falling out due to handling. This is a bogus issue. The general rule ought to be that (a) voter intent is the standard, and (b) any clear indication of voter intent should be counted. It is very easy for chads to get jammed, for them not to fall out when punched (if there is a large accumulation of chads in the machine, for example), etc.

The GOP in Florida 2000 argued that incomplete punches indicated that voters had changed their minds. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. If someone changes their mind, they can simply ask for a new ballot. Or they could simply vote for two candidates, which would invalidate their vote. This is what voter intent not to vote for the candidate in question would look like.

On the other hand, most voters have no idea how the voting mechanism works, they simply assume that their intent has been registered. Thus, any clear indication (even a pin-hole prick or an indentation) of voter intent to punch a hole should be assumed as voter intent to vote for a candidate.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-02 07:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Machines

While it may be true that some chads fell out, what evidence is this that subsequent counting of the ballots is going to be less accurate?

By far the most plausible explanation for a chad falling out is that was ALREADY largely detached, and handling it dislodged it entirely. In all such cases, the falling out of a chad should result in a MORE, not LESS accurate count of the votes, even by a machine.

And if, in rare cases, chads just spontaneously jump out of their holes, why believe that this will differentially favor one candidate over another?

by frankly0 2004-12-02 01:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Accuracy v. Precision

In high school, a section of our science textbook dealt with the difference between accuracy and precision. Accuracy dealt with how close the measured value was to the actual value. Precision dealt with how close repeated measured values were to each other.

A machine count is more precise than a hand count. Multiple machine counts vary by a smaller amount than multiple hand counts.

However, a precise count is not necessarily an accurate count. A machine may misread the same ballot every count, rendering a precise count that is not accurate. A human, at least, won't suffer from many of the failures that machines do; they won't neglect to read a ballot because it has a stray mark, or because it's stuck to another ballot, of for other trivial reasons. Thus a hand count should be more accurate, given honest counting, if not more precise.

The upshot: simply because a machine can't read a ballot doesn't mean a human shouldn't.

Republicans know they're on thin ice. They know - well, maybe not the freepers, but the elite know - that a hand count could produce a Gregoire victory. Legitimately. If they didn't, they'd welcome a third count, because they'd be confident that the outcome would favor them; they'd say, "Bring it on." Instead, they're begging Gregoire to let them be.

by Drew 2004-12-02 06:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Accuracy v. Precision

Precisely! (And accurately, too!)

At one point in 2000, the inventor of the punchard system testified, and he said (paraphrase), "Of course hand recounts are more accurate. Machines were designed to be faster. But when an election is in doubt, hand recounts are the way to go."

There is really no two sides to this. That's why Bush himself signed a hand recount law in Texas. No one obejcted to recounts until they threatened Bush's "election." Then, suddenly, a new eternal principle was born.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-02 07:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Accuracy v. Precision

If Gregorie had won by 42 votes a recount would certainly be requested by Rossi. Private companies with secret software and no paper ballots, needed for auditing in close elections like this, prevent accuracy. Election Reform mandates transparency, no private companies, paper backup and elected officials who celebrate and honor our right to vote. It is a non-partisan issue!

by IdahoNell 2004-12-02 07:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Accuracy v. Precision

Ahhh, you have warmed a cold Math Professor's heart with your completely correct definition of precision versus accuracy. :-)

I'm interested in what people think about the principle that "the more people vote, the better Democrats will do." Do people still believe that is true?

by MadProfessah 2004-12-02 08:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Accuracy v. Precision

While the humans won't suffer from the issues that machines do, machines won't suffer from the very well known issues that humans do when performing a repeated activity. Things like fatigue, clumsiness, forgetfulness, etc. There's a reason that "Human Error" is a well-known term.

I'm all for the most accurate recount possible, but I'm unconvinced that a handcount is the best way to do this. Why aren't there studies that determine accuracy of various counting methods?

by ccarollo 2004-12-02 02:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Fruits of "Acting Responsibly"

There's nothing about the Menfil comment that suggests it's legitimate. No supporting evidence mentioned, no indication that such evidence has been annonymously given to the Kerry campaign, DNC or news media, & no plausible explantion as to how this was accomplished. It looks like a poorly done hoax.

by SLinVA 2004-12-02 08:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Different election, same bullshit

The analogy Gore used in 2000 is still on the money: bar code scanners may be extremely accurate on each vote they count, but it would be absurd to suggest that if a bar code scanner can't read an item, then that item should just be tossed out, or given away for free. It can still be perfectly determinable for most such items what the REAL price should be, beyond any serious doubt, by human reading.

Presumably, the only votes that need be counted by hand are those which can't be counted by machine. The accuracy of the machine readable votes is not therefore in any way jeopardized. What remains is to achieve the maximal accuracy on the REMAINING votes, and any number of standard counting techniques can do this (by choosing, for example, a specific minimum number of detached corners on a chad).

by frankly0 2004-12-02 01:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Different election, same bullshit

Oops, should have said,

bar code scanners may be extremely accurate on each item they read,

by frankly0 2004-12-02 01:43PM | 0 recs