Centerfield

If workers lied in order to reconcile numbers, that's malfeasance on their part, and they deserve to be fired.

What this does not prove, however, is that extra fraudulent votes were actually cast, were counted, and led to the democrats victory. Discrepancy yes, fraud in casting votes no. Sounds to me like the system is not very good and needs to be more carefully overseen. Not saying it didn't happen, just that it sounds like what they do have evidence of is that some workers engaged in at least some @ss-covering. That might have been to steal the election, and it might have been just because they were trying to get things over with and keep the workers out of trouble. Not making excuses for them, either.

IMO, ANY election in which the results are less than say one two hundredth of a percent (less than 500 in a million)should trigger an automatic do-over.

Me, I have no problem with close elections, even elections so close as to be effectively a tie. After all, when the electorate is that evenly split, either candidate is going to be equally representative of the citizenry--which is the whole point of democratic elections in the first place.

For me, the trigger is any election where the amount of malfeasance is greater than the margin of victory . That is, the closer the race, the more convincing should be the claim that the elections were fair.

A few thousand miscounted ballots and a victory margin of a few million votes is hardly cause for a do-over.

But a few thousand miscounted ballots and a victory margin of a few hundred votes? Totally different story.

Even if the number of miscounted ballots is greater than the margin of victory, how do you guarantee another election will be any different without process changes, which will take time to implement? I am not trying to be argumentative; it just seems like an extremely difficult problem that requires a system that is much better than anything we currently have in the US.

Tell y'all what;

I'll be perfectly happy to support an Governor election do over in Washington state, as long as y'all support a Presidential election do over in Ohio WITHOUT black boxes.

Don't forget all those black boxes in florida

One recent Sunday, at Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute, a dozen students meet for the second and final day of training in grass-roots youth politics. All are earnest, idealistic and as right wing as you can get. They take careful notes as instructor Paul Gourley teaches them how to rig a campus mock election.

It's nothing illegal -- no ballot stuffing necessary, even at the most liberal colleges. First you find a nonpartisan campus group to sponsor the election, so you can't be accused of cheating. Next, volunteer to organize the thing. College students are lazy, and they'll probably let you. Always keep in mind that a rigged mock election is all about location, location, location.

"Can anyone tell me," asks Gourley, a veteran mock electioneer, "why you don't want the polling place in the cafeteria?"

Stephen, a shy antiabortion activist sitting toward the rear of the class, raises his hand: "Because you want to suppress the vote?"

"Stephen has the right answer!" Gourley exclaims, tossing Stephen his prize, a copy of Robert Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."
The students, strait-laced kids from good colleges, seem unconvinced. The lesson -- that with sufficient organization, the act of voting becomes less a basic right than a tactical maneuver -- doesn't sit easy with some students at first. Gourley, a charismatic senior from South Dakota and the treasurer of the College Republican National Committee, assures them: "This is not anti-democracy. This is not shady. Just put [the polling place] somewhere where you might have to put a little bit of effort into voting." The rest, Gourley explains, is just a matter of turnout.

When the state or national candidate you're backing wins by a suitably large margin, as he or she surely will, have the nonpartisan group that sponsored the election sign off on your prewritten celebratory press release and send it statewide. Reporters will almost certainly ignore it, but after a dozen similar victories, they'll start dashing off articles about the youth phenomenon behind your candidate's campaign -- or better yet, just start plagiarizing your press releases.

continues in

salon.com
you may have to sit throuhgh an ad or two.

But it's a tough course to navigate. My congressional district in Orange County saw this in 1996 with Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez defeated him albeit by a margin that was so low it very well *could* have been affected by malfeasance. Investigators, however, decided that there was not enough evidence to suggest this and dropped the case. Dornan, though, went off the rocker, portraying himself very much like an "immature crybaby" and accusing just about everyone of "fraud" or "betraying" him.

When it came time to the 1998 re-match, he had lost all credibility and was absolutely trounced by a Sanchez incumbency that had become a media darling and a champion fund-raiser. The long-term effect has been that our district, which is still predominantly Republican even with Santa Ana, has been in Democrat Sanchez's hands for the last eight years, a woman who is out of touch enough with the community that she probably could have been defeated in her first re-election by a more responsible GOP candidate.

If Dino's not careful, he could turn off Washington in the GOP column for a long time to come.

Wow Marcus, what a news breaker... Political activists encourgaing there side to vote and the other side not to! I am blown away... They actually teach the same tactics that both sides have used for hundreds of years?

Give me a break.

Uhh... and Bobby, it hasn't been in the GOP column for a long time, and the difference with the Dornan race is that investigators were allowed to investigate and make a ruling. BTW, Dornan lost credibility way before that race.

Blue Jean,

Absolutely, if John Kerry and the Democratic Party believe there is a case than they should make it in regards to Ohio, but they didn't, because there isn't. Your beef should be with the people who supposedly are on your side.

As the old saying goes, "If it ain't close, they can't cheat." Naturally the saying's not true, but the gist of it is that if it isn't close, it's real damn tough to cheat enough to matter.

Blue Jean, I'd be happy to have a do-over in Ohio anytime, with the sole proviso being that all voters must present photo ID that veries their identity and eligibility before their vote may be counted. Both sides cheat, but frankly, in that department the Dems make the GOP look like rank amateurs.

Tully...thank you for mentioning ID's! Can someone tell me what is so racist about requesting photo ID's for all voters? Georgia recently passed legislation to that effect, stating that either a Driver's License or a State-issued ID was required to vote. Civil rights groups claimed that this was a return to Jim Crow days. I guess I just don't get that...maybe I'm nieve. In Florida, we are required to show a picture ID. I've never found that offensive. If anything, I've found it a little encouraging. At least there is some type of verification.

Like I said, either I'm very nieve or someone is just looking for something to protest.

ID's are big, and there's nothing racist about it at all. Loose ID requirements benefit those who get the most bang from illegal votes of all kinds. Y'all can connect your own dots.

Rank amateurs can't compete against the voter frauds that occurred in Ohio ranging from too few voter booths in democratic strongholds to purging voters lists in Florida (oops you aren't a felon?) darn and the election is over....too bad.

I'll see your ID and raise your call; provided we're using voting machines with Share Ware and verifiable paper trails and not Mr. "I'm willing do anything to secure Ohio for Bush!!!!" Diebold's machines.

A Open Source voting system would allow anyone to read the code and make sure that is is correct, and there is no way to exploit the system. No more talk of fraud, (even from a tin foil hat like me). It would save millions because you would not have to pay Diabold to get the software, and it would allow for recounting later on.

Speaking of Ohio, Conyers had a few problems with Ohio.
Warren County Lockdown – On election night, Warren County locked down its administration building and barred reporters from observing the counting. When that decision was questioned, County officials claimed they were responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a “10" on a scale of 1 to 10, and that this information was received from an FBI agent. Despite repeated requests, County officials have declined to name that agent, however, and the FBI has stated that they had no information about a terror threat in Warren County.

Perry County Registration Peculiarities

In Perry County, there appears to be an extraordinarily high level voter registration, 91%; yet a substantial number of these voters have never voted and have no signature on file. Of the voters that are registered in Perry County an extraordinarily large number of voters are listed as having registered in 1977, a year in which there were no federal elections. Of these an exceptional number are listed as having registered on the exact same day: in total, 3,100 voters apparently registered in Perry County on November 8, 1977.

7. Please explain why there is such a high percentage of voters in this County who have never voted and do not have signatures on file. Also, please help us understand why such a high number of voters in this County are shown as having registered on the same day in 1977.

Perry County Registration Peculiarities

In Perry County, there appears to be an extraordinarily high level voter registration, 91%; yet a substantial number of these voters have never voted and have no signature on file. Of the voters that are registered in Perry County an extraordinarily large number of voters are listed as having registered in 1977, a year in which there were no federal elections. Of these an exceptional number are listed as having registered on the exact same day: in total, 3,100 voters apparently registered in Perry County on November 8, 1977.

G. Franklin County Overvote – On election day, a computerized voting machine in ward 1B in the Gahanna precinct of Franklin County recorded a total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic challenger, John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered voters in that Gahanna precinct, and only 638 people cast votes at the New Life Church polling site. It was since discovered that a computer glitch resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President George W. Bush.

G. Franklin County Overvote – On election day, a computerized voting machine in ward 1B in the Gahanna precinct of Franklin County recorded a total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic challenger, John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered voters in that Gahanna precinct, and only 638 people cast votes at the New Life Church polling site. It was since discovered that a computer glitch resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President George W. Bush.

Marcus,

When you quote extensively from other sources, it would be proper to at the very least cite those sources, and certainly far better to provide a link.

As for substance, if the vote had been closer in Ohio, I'd be happy to join your call for a recount. But of course if we're going to recount Ohio (118,000 vote margin for Bush), we'll also need to recount New Mexico (6,000 votes, Kerry), Wisconsin (11,000 votes, Kerry), and New Hampshire (9,000 votes, Kerry).

The situation in Washington is entirely distinct from those in the Presidential race. The margin of victory was far closer, and that came only after several recounts, during the course of which King County seemed to keep "discovering" previously uncounted ballots. Dino Rossi has followed all the proper legal mechanisms to challenge the results as being the product of fraud. Several public officials have admitted under oath that they failed to perform their duties... duties which, if performed correctly, would almost guarantee that no fraud occurred.

My first (of only 4 thus far) post on my own blog lays out why I strongly support the challenge efforts in Washington State.

Mathew, good point. I can't remember the last Republican Senator from Washington, and don't know about their gubenatorial track record, but suspect it probably aint much better.

You're right about Dornan being a dead man walking long before the 1996 defeat to Sanchez-- in fact, moderate Republicans had attempted a palace coup in 1992 with Judge Judy Ryan in the primary, but were narrowly defeated. Still, had he accepted his defeat more gracefully, I do believe that a moderate Republican would have emerged and quite possibly knocked her off in 1998. Instead, she became the liberal darling and her campaign war chest grew exponentially from liberal contributors around the country. Now she's a formidable election opponent, and I suspect that Orange County will be stuck with her until she retires.

Well, Pat, the problem is that the main reason for recounts isn't the closeness of the vote (though that runs a close second) but the evidence of fraud. In Washington's case, the "found" votes weren't really found--they were legitimate votes that the machines had kicked out; that's why a hand recount is the most accurate (though time consuming) way to go.

I'll leave aside Tully's assertation that the Dems are experts at vote fraud--for one thing, while I've heard many accounts of Kerry votes that were changed to Bush votes, I've yet to hear
of a Bush voter complaining that his/her vote was changed to a Kerry vote. What are the odds of that happening, especially with such alleged "expert" vote tamperers as the Dems?

As for the Dems robbing graveyeards, that's been a tried and true trick of both sides, However, the "dead" votes that have been called to account in Washington, all of them have been found to have been cast by a relative in accordance with the recently departed's wishes. Hardly massive evidence of conspiracy.

What is more, Gregoire's election was certified by a Republican secretary of state, while Bush's margin in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 were both certified by secretaries of his own party, who just happened to be the chairs of his campaign in their respective states.

But here's what sends my tinfoil hat to buzzing. and it's this quote from Jim Lampley;

It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not."

It still blows me away that a moderate blog still gets so much mileage out of "stolen election" discussions. I'd say lets "Move On" but unfortunately that phrase has been copyrighted.

It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity.

The problem with that idea as a basis for slamming the exit polling as indicative of rigged elections is that the evolving problems with exit poll sampling have been known for several election cycles. The continued increase of advance and absentee voting skews the demographics of those who actually arrive at the polls to be sampled. Advance and absentee voters skew heavily towards demographic segments that lean GOP in presidential elections.

There's other factors. Savvy Dem activists are known to have sought out exit pollers to purposely skew the numbers (as did Perot voters in '92). If the sample's not random, it's worthless. The pollers themselves are becoming a younger and less experienced group, as the polling agencies try to cut costs. Lampley's ignoring some of the wild swings that have led to bad assessments in the past, such as wildly inaccurate figures for Perot in the 1992 Presidential elections. It didn't get the attention then because the margins were bigger and the errors didn't lead to calling the wrong winner anywhere, but the error margin was horrendous. In addition, many of the inaccurate 2004 reports were of leaked raw data, before it could be adjusted for known factors, which made the gaps look bigger. Technically speaking, the unprocessed data can not fall outside the error margins because until it's collated and adjusted, it's just raw data, not a statistical sampling.

The assumption of any poll is that the sampling is a truly random and representative sample of the demographic being assessed. And in this case, both of those conditions are known to not be true. Bad assumptions, bad results.

The Dems are better at cheating than the Republicans not necessarily because of more effort or less virtue (that I know of) but simply because the most effective high-yield techniques work best in areas of monolithic partisan blocs, and the Dems are concentrated in heavily urban areas. It's tough to bus fifty "voters" around to multiple precincts in the boonies without it being noticed. It's tough to "vote" the names of those who didn't show up at the polls after the doors close in a rural county where everyone knows everyone. It's tough to spread "walkin' around" money or meal rewards to much effect in affluent areas, not so tough in poor neighborhoods. Philly and East St. Louis are ongoing examples of this process at work.

IOW, the "Party Machine" political structure that facilitates modern poll- and box-stuffing techniques is mostly a big-city structure and the effective techniques a poor-neighborhood affair. Giving the Dems a natural advantage in the high-yield techniques, and a better chance to deliver a larger number of votes through using them. It's not a surplus of virtue on the part of Republicans, they just have a natural disadvantage in that regard. My theory, anyway.

And a good theory it is, too.

The problem with one side accusing the other of widespread voting fraud (and yes, Dems do it too, as wells as GOP), is that it allows the "injured" side to let its own cheat close on the edges. Hey, if everybody's doing it, why not?

The solution is not to shoot the messenger, or to tell one side (or both sides) to shut up. The solution is to reform the system, so both sides can see everything is done open and above board.
Personally, I favor the clear plexiglass boxes used in some European countries, where representatives of both parties can watch the casting of votes, then at the end of the day, watch all the paper ballots being counted. (Yes, paper ballots. We've used paper ballots for decades in Missouri and never had any problem with them.)

But never fear, Hillary's here! Her Senate bill, S450, dovetails with efforts in the House, led by Rep. Rush Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, to make elections fairer and more transparent. Among other things, Holt's bill allows for random, surprise vote counts, while Hillary's mandates a paper trail. Both sound good to me.

The solution is to reform the system, so both sides can see everything is done open and above board.

Huzzah! I agree. Arguing (for partisan point-making) about who's better or worse at cheating is always pointless when both sides do it. "He's cheating better than me, Mommy!" LOL.

Verifiable vote counts. Verifiable LEGAL voters, with one ballot each. With systemic transperency. Oh my, yes.