Hey rjung...

[Bruce_Daddy]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5180088&postcount=9

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271820

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5118471&postcount=9

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5080975&postcount=8

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5075108&postcount=4

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5078434&postcount=8

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5055120&postcount=36

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5055120&postcount=36

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4963008&postcount=10

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4901039&postcount=17

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4887605&postcount=25

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4786149&postcount=5

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4851656&postcount=30

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4800542&postcount=20

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4755125&postcount=92

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4628652&postcount=6

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4533058&postcount=8

There were more. We get it. You don't like Diebold. Please pick a new "Bush is a poopy pants" topic. Thanks.

[GaWd]

Wow, how's that for a powerful OP?

[World Eater]

Had some spare time on your hands Bruce? :p

[Liberal]

Yikes! I hope no one ever looks up my usage of the phrase "peaceful honest". :D

[Lord Ashtar]

Wow.

[Brutus]

Heh.

[UrbanChic]

rjung's pitting is long overdue. I've been meaning to do it myself but it's an election year and I'm a Republican. I'm far too busy trying to keep elderly Black people from the polls.

[Debaser]

:D

Well done, Bruce.

[silenus]

Bravo!

Smartly done!

[Genghis Bob]

Ah-ha! Caught you, Bruce_Daddy! You listed this one:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...20&postcount=36

Twice!

You big exaggerator, you.

[World Eater]

Ah-ha! Caught you, Bruce_Daddy! You listed this one:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...20&postcount=36

Twice!

You big exaggerator, you.

Your link is teh busted.

[beagledave]

:D

Yep.

[Bruce_Daddy]

Ah-ha! Caught you, Bruce_Daddy! You listed this one:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...20&postcount=36

Twice!

You big exaggerator, you.
Sorry 'bout that. Here's two more to make up for it.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4584585&postcount=16

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4469361&postcount=25

[Aro]

Considering it is a perfectly rational concern to wish to have free and fair elections and there is certainly some controversy concerning the veracity of electronic voting, I fail to see how bringing attention to this issue is considered pit-worthy. (Especially when the majority of the linked comments are one-liners in threads, not threads opened specifically for the purposes of discussion of this issue) I think it should be brought up on many more occasions until such times as the general populace at large actually begin to take serious attention of this issue.

The fact that many of you think this is a non-issue and attempt to belittle the very mentioning of it leads one to believe it needs to be raised again and again until you finally do wake up and take notice. People must be made aware of the importance of fair practices in voting and the damage unfair practices, whether intended or not, can do to the reputation and acceptance of said election results.

[World Eater]

So what are they going to do? How exactly will they program the machines to steal votes?

[andros]

Well, to make the case that all he's on about it Diebold, I'd think you might work up the percentages. What proportion of his total posts ofer a given time are only about Diebold?

See, rj talks about a lot of things as I understand it, and the Diebold debacle is only one--but one which he finds important. I find it important too, personally, though I'm not as prolific a poster.

[Aro]

So what are they going to do? How exactly will they program the machines to steal votes?I never said anyone specific was going to 'steal' votes. Maybe that is Rjung's contention, but I'll leave that for him to answer. I'm saying that, as the machines stand, they most certainly have the capability of being either misused or malfunctioning in their counting of votes. With no verifiable and checkable paper trail, they can spout out any result and noone would be the wiser. The machines could end up failing to register all republican votes made after 6pm (or some other fundamental mistake) that would royally fuck up the legitimacy of the result.

It is certainly an important issue and worthy of a lot more investigation and press coverage than it seems to be getting. I'm not here to suggest a particular party will hi-jack them to suit their needs, but it needs to be watched very carefully, and the processes need to be recheckable and recountable by human means, if necessary (in the event of a close race). At present they are not.

[Spree]

So what are they going to do? How exactly will they program the machines to steal votes?

I don't need to understand exactly how a hacker programs a virus to know that my computer is at risk if I don't enact safeguards.

But let's turn the question around. How exactly will they be able to guarantee that mistakes/fraud/inaccuracies won't occur? Can someone explain why, exactly, a paper trail is such an (apparently) abhorrent idea?

[Spree]

I will add that I'm not concerned so much about intentional tampering, as I am about the documented errors and inaccuracies that have happened in previous elections using these machines (many of which were caught during audits and recounts by examining the paper trail).

[World Eater]

Every method has it's pitfalls, what about those stupid hanging chads? I'm not defending the electronic machines either, so don't go after me on that.

What concerns me more is that any method which doesn't produce the desired results will be called fraudulent. (thanks election 2000)

[Spree]

I agree with you to a point, and that point ends at the paper trail. Yes, every system has its pitfalls, and thus the cry of fraud can and will go up, by each side depending on the result.

My only point is that, if we accept that mistakes and pitfalls will happen, then we need to be open to an audit trail. I don't much like the voting machines, but I would be much more accepting of them if there were a paper receipt/vote verification system in place that would make a recount at least possible, if not necessary.

[Aro]

There may always be some moppets who will complain about any system, I agree, but what the heck was wrong with putting a great big X on a page beside your chosen candidate? And then having local volunteers count the posted ballots?

So what if you don't get the result until a day or two later - at worst it is poor TV election ratings and less funky graphics for presenters to mess with. But at least if anyone queried the result you could point at the pile of marked ballots and say "count them yourself if you have a problem with the result." It is there, it is verifiable, it is physical. It is recountable if within a certain percentage. A candidate can also maintain the legal right to a vote recount which is denied with other methods of vote collection. It's not, like any system, foolproof, but it undeniably better than the machines.

I sound like a total technophobe, but this is definitely one instance where the introduction of technology is not proving to be better, at least not yet.

[ElvisL1ves]

Can someone explain why, exactly, a paper trail is such an (apparently) abhorrent idea?To the "Bush's election was legitimate because I want it to be" faction, any suggestion that a better system might be available would inevitably cast doubt on the 2000 election results.

To the OP: If the problem is known to exist and isn't being addressed, it would be irresponsible not to discuss it, fool. What topics do you claim would be more appropriate?

[Lord Ashtar]

What concerns me more is that any method which doesn't produce the desired results will be called fraudulent. (thanks election 2000)
Not only that, but I think we're going to see a lawsuit that goes all the way to the SCOTUS each time as well.

[World Eater]

Not only that, but I think we're going to see a lawsuit that goes all the way to the SCOTUS each time as well.

I agree, I feel the 2000 election changed everything, for the worse.

[Ethilrist]

Would somebody please tell me what kind of a world we're living in where a Pit thread can degenerate into a civilized discussions of the issues that spawned the thread in the first place? Take it back to GD, people. We're trying to flame, here.

[BobLibDem]

I am shocked. rjung should be posting MORE about the Diebold scandal. Every national newscast should lead with this story until there are some indictments handed down. Any attempt to interfere with the integrity of our electoral process deserves all the scrutiny and outrage that we can muster. Keep up the good work, rjung.

[Excalibre]

What concerns me more is that any method which doesn't produce the desired results will be called fraudulent. (thanks election 2000)
So some bunch of fringe lunatics complain about the results of the election. So what? I fail to see how this is even slightly relevant, since there's always someone who'll start a conspiracy theory over anything the government does. Look at the Area 51 crowd and the "moon landing was a hoax" nutjobs.

If you mean the Democrats in particular, given how quickly and pathetically Gore folded in 2000, I doubt they'll cause too much of a stink no matter what happens. Let's face it, the Democrats are wusses nowadays.

And besides, there should be people checking on the validity of every election. I fail to see how any amount of scrutiny here could possibly be harmful. And if a few people get their jollies by complaining that the election was stolen (assuming the rest of us can agree it was fair) then let 'em have their foaming-at-the-mouth good time.

[Oy!]

Amen to the latter posters! It is impossible for too much attention to be paid to this issue! Bravo, rjung, and the others who keep raising it to our attention.

If you're sick of hearing about it, I suggest you write your state congress persons and demand that they require a paper trail for all ballots. How anyone could be against this simple solution, unless they want the potential for fraudulent or erroneous results is beyond me!

Bruce, I don't normally have anything against you, but this was a stupid pitting. The only good thing about it is that, despite your best efforts, it turned into a rational discussion.

[Bruce_Daddy]

To the OP: If the problem is known to exist and isn't being addressed, it would be irresponsible not to discuss it, fool. What topics do you claim would be more appropriate?
This thread: Diebold machines, scary or not (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4533058), start by rjung is just fine with me. Think there is something fishy going on with voting machines, let's talk about it. rjung, however, is apparently obsessed.

Poster1: I'm getting a pony for Christmas
Poster2: Hey, that's awesome!
rjung: Not if Diebold has anything to do with it!

I mean, it had to be a pattern for me to notice it, and I don't frequent GD.

Especially when the majority of the linked comments are one-liners in threads

That's my issue. Let's have a reasonable discussion/debate, fuck this constant drive by shit.

[Uncommon Sense]

Amen to the latter posters! It is impossible for too much attention to be paid to this issue! Bravo, rjung, and the others who keep raising it to our attention.

If you're sick of hearing about it, I suggest you write your state congress persons and demand that they require a paper trail for all ballots. How anyone could be against this simple solution, unless they want the potential for fraudulent or erroneous results is beyond me!



Conservative here, and I agree. I also think it should be harder to vote, aiding in the elimination of vote fraud along the way.

Devils advocate;
When was the last time you heard of a slot machine being corrupted from the outside? And they're networked together.

I think these vote machines could be built so tight that tampering is out of the question.
It's not like they'll be running Windows or anything.

[Squink]

It's not like they'll be running Windows or anything.I thought that they were running under Windows CE. (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59874,00.html) Has that changed?

[ElvisL1ves]

Means nothing. If the casinos ever have a security issue of any kind, they're damn sure not going to tell the public about it.

Do you know of any system that is hacker-proof? Or of one that would be a more tempting target? What could be as safe, or as inexpensive for that matter, as a paper ballot, even if it takes a day or two to count them? Is that worth sacrificing credibility?

[Lute Skywatcher]

We get it. You don't like Diebold.Did Diebold merge with Microsoft (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=238913&highlight=rjung+macs) or something? ;)

[UrbanChic]

Poster1: I'm getting a pony for Christmas
Poster2: Hey, that's awesome!
rjung: Not if Diebold has anything to do with it!

I mean, it had to be a pattern for me to notice it, and I don't frequent GD.

That's my issue. Let's have a reasonable discussion/debate, fuck this constant drive by shit.This is my problem with rjung. It's annoying as all fuck.

[Uncommon Sense]

Means nothing. If the casinos ever have a security issue of any kind, they're damn sure not going to tell the public about it.
I thought that too,.... after I posted.

Do you know of any system that is hacker-proof? Or of one that would be a more tempting target? What could be as safe, or as inexpensive for that matter, as a paper ballot, even if it takes a day or two to count them? Is that worth sacrificing credibility?

The problem with paper is it's ease of duplication, destruction, alteration, etc.

I think you'll have lots of people complaining about forged documents.
Each one could have a unique bar code specific to each person, but again that relys on software, computers, and human interface. We're nearly back to square one.

I think a machine that would have a seperate reciept that the voter would then take and enter into another machine to verify the vote would work. IOW - you vote, get an encrypted reciept feed it into another machine to verify your vote. Both machines would keep track of the votes and you eliminate the possibility of one machine or the other screwing up. The first machine would have a screen that would verify your votes, "You have voted for Nader, would you like to stop voting and recieve your receipt" You click yes and remove the receipt.
The second machine would accept the receipt and the screen would say, "Your vote was cast for R Nader, click yes to end voting" If you click NO then you need to vote over again to make it official. The second machine keeps the receipts, both machines track the voting data and everything should come out EXACT.
If you fail to do both machines properly then you get a chance to repeat the process otherwise your vote is void. Each vote will have a specific ID so that no two votes will get crossed or left out.

At the end of the night, when the votes need to be counted and verified, the two machined will be connected together and the data compared, verified and counted. The receipts can be collected and stored for future reference or hand counting.

[stpauler]

I think a machine that would have a seperate reciept that the voter would then take and enter into another machine to verify the vote would work. IOW - you vote, get an encrypted reciept feed it into another machine to verify your vote. Both machines would keep track of the votes and you eliminate the possibility of one machine or the other screwing up. The first machine would have a screen that would verify your votes, "You have voted for Nader, would you like to stop voting and recieve your receipt" You click yes and remove the receipt.
The second machine would accept the receipt and the screen would say, "Your vote was cast for R Nader, click yes to end voting" If you click NO then you need to vote over again to make it official. The second machine keeps the receipts, both machines track the voting data and everything should come out EXACT.
If you fail to do both machines properly then you get a chance to repeat the process otherwise your vote is void. Each vote will have a specific ID so that no two votes will get crossed or left out.

At the end of the night, when the votes need to be counted and verified, the two machined will be connected together and the data compared, verified and counted. The receipts can be collected and stored for future reference or hand counting.
All of the districts in Minnesota I've voted in have had a similar thing as to what you're proposing. You go to the booth with the sheet with all of the candidates on it and a pen. You fill in the gap between the arrows for the candidate you want like so:

Kerry (D) <-- -->
Bush (R) <-- -->
Nader (I) <-- -->
Cecil Adams (SD) <------->
(Write in) _____________

After all of that is done, you take it over to the optical scanner in a concealed open ended envelope. You feed it into the scanner that registers your votes and you get a sticker. So, it's recorded by a computer as well as a paper trail. Seems to be the best of both worlds to me.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I am shocked. rjung should be posting MORE about the Diebold scandal. Every national newscast should lead with this story until there are some indictments handed down. Any attempt to interfere with the integrity of our electoral process deserves all the scrutiny and outrage that we can muster. Keep up the good work, rjung.

In your view, maybe. I've been reading all the links, and to me this is a smear campaign equivalent to what the Republicans are pulling on Kerry with their "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Just as in this case, a little truth couldn't hurt.

Instead of insinuating that Diebold, a long respected company noted for its security products, is in the back pocket of the Republicans and is therefore throwing the election to Bush, could you provide some actual proof of that? Like smoking gun proof? Because until then you're just doing the old monkey-flinging-feces thing, and that really gets tiresome.

So have at it. PROVE that they are "interfere(ing) with the integrity of our electoral process".

[BobLibDem]

Diebold's CEO (http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/optakingsides.html) pledges to deliver Ohio for Bush. Sort of like the umpires union vowing to deliver the World Series to the Yankees. That's enough for me to not believe they are a "long respected company."

[Algernon]

All of the districts in Minnesota I've voted in...You fill in the gap between the arrows for the candidate you want like so:
Kerry (D) <-- -->
That's the way I've done it here in Wisconsin for as long as I can remember too. I don't understand why the whole country doesn't use this sytem. I really like it, and it seems pretty foolproof.

[Logan84]

Instead of insinuating that Diebold, a long respected company noted for its security products, is in the back pocket of the Republicans and is therefore throwing the election to Bush, could you provide some actual proof of that?


Diebold or people affiliated with the company made more than $325,000 in political contributions since 2000, mainly to President Bush or Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, according to the independent Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics.

In August, O'Dell [Diebold CEO] said in a fund-raising letter for the Ohio Republican Party that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to Bush.
Cite: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/05/13/dented.diebold.ap/

[Nightime]

So have at it. PROVE that they are "interfere(ing) with the integrity of our electoral process".

Did you even read Rjung's thread, or link? Diebold themselves don't have to be evil in order for their system to be an invitation to fraud and conspiracies. What's more, it already happened.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm


According to Diebold themselves, there is a good chance that there was in fact a deliberate conspiracy to rig the 2000 election.


It's easy to scoff at any mention of the word "conspiracy".


But in the 2000 election an unknown second memory card WAS uploaded, and it DID reduce Gore's total by 16,022 votes and add several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates.


Despite Gore losing 16k votes, the total votes remained the same, balanced by additions to Bush and other candidates. That can't happen by chance. And the card was not corrupted. Again... not chance.


This is all confirmed by Diebold.




In this case, the discrepancy was noticed. But that was a lucky break. Had the official called at a different time, it would not have been noticed.

And there would have been no way to notice it anymore, because the total number of votes remained the same.



It is absurd to suggest that the Diebold system is secure, given that it has ALREADY been confirmed that it failed in one case, and only a lucky break caught it.

Who knows how many similar events were not noticed? What are the chances that it was pure luck that Gore lost 16k votes, and Bush and others got that exact amount to balance out the votes and avoid suspicion?

What are the chances that Bush followers will actually take a look at the facts, rather than brushing even Diebold's own admissions off as "conspiracy theories"?

Not good.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Diebold's CEO (http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/optakingsides.html) pledges to deliver Ohio for Bush. Sort of like the umpires union vowing to deliver the World Series to the Yankees. That's enough for me to not believe they are a "long respected company."

So what you're telling me is that you can't prove it, you're just assuming it. Well, if Iraq has taught you nothing, it's that assumption is the mother of all fuckups. If Kerry loses Ohio (where he has a substantial lead, although still within the margin of error, something like 5 percentage points) by the same kind of margin as there was in Florida AND it can be demonstrably proven that there were some shenanigans going on that caused Bush to win, then you might have a case. Will you still claim shenanigans if Kerry wins (which I now think he will), or is this just a setup for a challenge if Bush wins? That's what it seems like to me. It's like a manager that challenges something before a game to set up an appeal later, and it all goes away after they win. And to me, that's just not kosher.

[Enderw24]

Here's another issue that I've yet to see addressed. Diebold makes ATMs. At a number of ATMs I've used around town, it will say

Deposit =====>

Withdrawl ====>

but the electronic arrows pointing to their corresponding button are off by just a little bit. Consequently, I'll mean to make a withdrawl but instead an envelope will pop out and it will ask me to put money in. It's only then that I realized I pushed the wrong button and have to cancel the transaction out.

Imagine a situation like that at the voting booth. The electronic arrows pointing to the candidates are off from where they should be. You press the button, vote for the wrong person, and you have nothing telling you you're voting differently from your intention. Now what?

[elucidator]

Well, no, its not "kosher", Dave, boychik. Assuming that such as you imply is the fact, and assuming that things go as you suggest, and assuming that the Dembs react as you predict...

"...it's that assumption is the mother of all fuckups...."

Hi, Mom!

[Nightime]

There is some evidence of something rotten in Diebold.


After the second memory card subtracted 16k votes from Gore, and balanced the total by adding to Bush and others, the card vanished.

Diebold brushed off the whole thing as a "faulty card".



However, internal Diebold memos show that they were lying.


They never thought it was a "faulty card", and in fact they knew that the card was not corrupt.



Now, this can be explained in two ways:

1. Diebold favored Bush in the election, and used their power over the voting systems to help him.

2. Diebold didn't want anyone to find out that their security had failed.




Personally, I don't care which is the case. Either way, we should NOT be handing over the next election to these guys, with no seperate way of verifying the results.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Did you even read Rjung's thread, or link? Diebold themselves don't have to be evil in order for their system to be an invitation to fraud and conspiracies. What's more, it already happened.

Yes, I did. That is different from implying that Diebold's CEO is colluding with Bush to throw the election, which is what BobLibDem is hinting at.

According to Diebold themselves, there is a good chance that there was in fact a deliberate conspiracy to rig the 2000 election.

So who was responsible for this rigging of the election? Diebold? The company that makes 56%-80% of all voting equipment (according to the article quoted in the original thread) knew that Florida was going to be that close so they conspired in advance to fix the state for Gore and hoped nobody would notice the loss of 16,000 votes? Please. Wouldn't that make every vote ever cast from a Diebold machine suspect?

And you thought we had problems with the butterfly ballot. :rolleyes:


It's easy to scoff at any mention of the word "conspiracy".

Sure is, especially when it's about as proven as JFK and the grassy knoll. Sure, it could have happened, but it can't be proven.


But in the 2000 election an unknown second memory card WAS uploaded, and it DID reduce Gore's total by 16,022 votes and add several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates.

Did it ever enter your mind that the first card might have been corrupted, or any number of possibilities like that? The only thing beyond reproach is the alleged rigging of the second data card? Please. In a case like that NOTHING is beyond reproach. The results should have been tossed altogether.

This is all confirmed by Diebold.

What is confirmed is that something or someone may have screwed with the results. They didn't say that it happened. You're drawing a conclusion not necessartily warranted by the facts.

It is absurd to suggest that the Diebold system is secure, given that it has ALREADY been confirmed that it failed in one case, and only a lucky break caught it.

I didn't suggest it was secure. I did say that before you start claiming a fix you better have more than this. There was more evidence than this on the Black Sox, and that wasn't much to begin with.

What are the chances that Bush followers will actually take a look at the facts, rather than brushing even Diebold's own admissions off as "conspiracy theories"? Not good.

Who's a Bush supporter? Surely not I.

I brush off conspiracy theories when they look like conspiracy theories. Come back when it looks like the truth.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Well, no, its not "kosher", Dave, boychik. Assuming that such as you imply is the fact, and assuming that things go as you suggest, and assuming that the Dembs react as you predict...

"...it's that assumption is the mother of all fuckups...."

Hi, Mom!

Touche. :)

[Stoid]

So what are they going to do? How exactly will they program the machines to steal votes?


Irrelevant questions. The fact that the machines have been proved so horribly vulnerable is more than enough reason to object to their use.

[Brutus]

There is some evidence of something rotten in Diebold.


Hey, I have an idea! FUCK THE HELL OFF! It really doesn't matter how much purported 'evidence' there is regarding this matter or any other; Mentioning something dozens of times (including in unrelated threads) is just moronic. Granted, good ol' 'One-liner' rjung is the epitome of 'moronic', but the boy really should try to expand his horizons some.

[elucidator]

I am mindful how this might be troublesome for someone like you, Brutus, with your delicate sensibilities, and all. In the matter of Deibold, I'm more inclined to suspect stupidity than malice, but the evidence as offered clearly indicates that there is enough reason to suspect a problem, that ought to be enough to alarm anyone who gives a shit. As do I. As do you.

I can certainly empathize with your criticism that friend rjung is a bit obsessed with this issue, but its the obsessives who get things done, then we anal-retentives get to point out how badly.

And, of course, it is nowhere near as important as the epidemic of cognitive dissonance currently amok in the Republic....

[Brutus]

I am mindful how this might be troublesome for someone like you, Brutus, with your delicate sensibilities, and all. In the matter of Deibold, I'm more inclined to suspect stupidity than malice, but the evidence as offered clearly indicates that there is enough reason to suspect a problem, that ought to be enough to alarm anyone who gives a shit. As do I. As do you.


That's great! Super! Super-duper, even! But it doesn't need to be repeated like a SDMB topic-metronome. The lad needs to give it a rest; Start a thread on the topic and stick with it. No need to glurge about and insert a 'Diebold OMG!' in every thread.

[Governor Quinn]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4851656&postcount=30


Continuing the trend in this thread (a Pit thread behaving like a GD one), I would like to challenge rjung's implications involving the races in the link.

In no real order:

Illinois Governor: The result is wrong. Blagojevich beat Ryan 52%-45%- the exact amount, btw, in the poll quoted.

New Hampshire Senate: Of the last two statewide polls I found*, the American Research Group poll of 11/2-11/3 gave Sununu a 48%-44% lead, with a 4% margin of error, while the Rasmussen poll of 11/3 gave Shaheen a 47%-44% lead, with a 4.5% margin of error. In short, a statistical draw.

Minnesota Senate: The Rasmussen poll of 11/3 gave Mondale a 48.1%-47.9% lead with a 4.5% margin of error, while the Zogby poll of 11/3-11/4 gave Mondale a 51%-45% lead, with a 4% margin of error.

Colorado Senate: The Survey USA poll of 10/31-11/2 gave Allard a 50%-46% lead, with a 3.7% margin of error.

Georgia Senate: The Zogby poll of 11/3-11/4 gave Cleland a 50%-48% lead, with a 4% margin of error.

In short, of the six races, one (Illinois) was a Democratic win, another (Georgia Senate) was closer than implied, and three (New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Colorado) had contraditory polling, leaving just one (Georgia Governor) with a large swing.

* All polls used were taken from D.C. Political Report, in a members-only section.

[Lord Ashtar]

Start a thread on the topic and stick with it. No need to glurge about and insert a 'Diebold OMG!' in every thread.
Remember folks, this thread is not about Diebold or the 2000 Presidential Election or the fuckups in Florida.

If you want to discuss Diebold's election machines, I'm sure rjung has a thread somewhere in GD about it.

[elucidator]

But I don't want to beat up on poor ol' rjung. Still feel bad about the times I took his lunch money.

[Brutus]

But I don't want to beat up on poor ol' rjung. Still feel bad about the times I took his lunch money.

More of that bleeding-heart 'redistribution of wealth' I keep hearing about?

[Brainiac4]

More of that bleeding-heart 'redistribution of wealth' I keep hearing about?
It would be the thuggish conservative 'redistribution of wealth' in this instance, methinks.

[duffer]

It would be the thuggish conservative 'redistribution of wealth' in this instance, methinks.

Well if he was conservative, he'd hand back the money and teach him how to stand up for himself next time.

[elucidator]

But it would be me he was standing up to! And maybe I wouldn't get his lunch money! No, that runs directly counter to the entreprenuerial spirit that has made America......what it is.

[rjung]

<Looks at OP>

Geez, you call that a pitting? I've had stronger stuff than that for lunch at 7-11.

*Ahem*

The fundamental need for fair and impartial elections should be a major obsession for everyone who believes in the idea of an open and democratic society, regardless of where they stand on the issues and candidates.

After reading the (lame-ass) OP, I can only conclude that Bruce_Daddy doesn't believe in democracy, and suggest he enroll in a civics class or three.

[duffer]

rjung, I still can't think of a thread you've started that offered a fool-proof plan for elections. Can you link to the thread you started on that subject?

[Brutus]

After reading the (lame-ass) OP, I can only conclude that Bruce_Daddy doesn't believe in democracy, and suggest he enroll in a civics class or three.

If that is the only conclusion you can come to, you need to have that head-wound reexamined.

[rjung]

rjung, I still can't think of a thread you've started that offered a fool-proof plan for elections.
I wasn't aware I was obligated to provide one. But give me the grant and I'll bang out a preliminary requirements proposal for ya.

If that is the only conclusion you can come to, you need to have that head-wound reexamined.
I never know how I should respond when Brutus attacks -- it's like being assaulted by damp tissue paper.

[Zoe]

Airman, I don't even address the specific subject of Diebold. What matters to me is that there be a reliable paper trail that will allow for the recounts that are surely to come in close states no matter who wins.

Considering the state of the nation today, the decisions that were contested by both parties in 2000, the 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS regarding that election, it would behoove us to take every step possible in every state to insure a fair and certifiable election.

I do not understand why these concerns are not being addressed more "out there." That is probably one of the reasons that the issue is brought up more and more often in here.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you and other fair-minded people of all parties would cry foul at any attempt at rigging.

I believe that rjung is also one of those fair-minded people; he has a specific concern about Diebold's role based on what has been said and done in the past. That doesn't mean that he would turn a blind eye if there were evidence that a Democrat with similar power and similar claims and a similar record was in a position to rig an election.

[duffer]

I wasn't aware I was obligated to provide one. But give me the grant and I'll bang out a preliminary requirements proposal for ya.


I agree with almost nothing you post. Hell, if you told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside to confirm it. But, in fairness, I've tried to see things from your point of view. I have. But this response shows you're just using the Diebold thing as a reason to spew invective.

If you feel so strongly about Diebold being evil and unfair, I insist you tell us a better way of doing things. So far, every system I've seen and heard about has flaws. But you seem to think Diebold is somehow inherently evil and unfair.

So what is the best way? You seem such an expert on voting systems, how would you propose we conduct elections?

[RedFury]

So what is the best way? You seem such an expert on voting systems, how would you propose we conduct elections?

No expert here, but conducting them fairly would appear to be a good start. As in not having known Republican boosters in charge of computerized voting systems that can be easily hacked.

Would that irk you terribly?

[duffer]

No expert here, but conducting them fairly would appear to be a good start. As in not having known Republican boosters in charge of computerized voting systems that can be easily hacked.

Would that irk you terribly?

Did you even read the post from me you quoted? Maybe you can answer it in another post, because this one didn't do it. It's little more than a post-count booster. How would you propose we hold a fair election? :dubious:

[Typo Negative]

How would you propose we hold a fair election? :dubious:What have we been using before? Are you saying we never had a fair election till these new gizmos came out?

[RTA]

Diebold, Diebold. Better that people know about it than not, it's an important topic and worthy.

From my perspective, if you don't see anything wrong with the Diebold system, it's simply because you A) really want Bush to get elected but B) can't be bothered with the details of whether or not that happens legally and fairly.

[Bruce_Daddy]

After reading the (lame-ass) OP, I can only conclude that Bruce_Daddy doesn't believe in democracy, and suggest he enroll in a civics class or three.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Bruce: rjung, STFU about Diebold. Start a thread about it, quit the driveby shit.
rjung: Why do you hate democracy?

[World Eater]

What have we been using before? Are you saying we never had a fair election till these new gizmos came out?

Right on.

[Governor Quinn]

Any comment about my points, rjung?

[Mojo]

<Looks at OP>

Geez, you call that a pitting? I've had stronger stuff than that for lunch at 7-11.

*Ahem*

The fundamental need for fair and impartial elections should be a major obsession for everyone who believes in the idea of an open and democratic society, regardless of where they stand on the issues and candidates.

After reading the (lame-ass) OP, I can only conclude that Bruce_Daddy doesn't believe in democracy, and suggest he enroll in a civics class or three.
You've got to be kidding me- when confronted with evidence that you're continually posting the same shit over and over and over to different threads, your response is to claim that the person who pointed it out must "not believe in democracy"- :rolleyes: . This has little to do with Diebold itself and everything to do with net etiquette. We're well aware of your feelings on this subject and, unless you have anything new or susbstantial to say, STFU. I don't like the Diebold machines but you don't see me shitting all over a dozen different threads because of it.

[Jackmannii]

Will you people please stop picking on rjung and his Diebold obsession?


At least it's a break from his maniacal "The right-wing media/talk radio are penetrating my tinfoil hat" obsession, which has resulted in endless posts and drivebys,

Over (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=270233")

and over (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269163")

and over (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=265238")

until (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261861")

the mind reels (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254845")

and the stomach rebels. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246742")

It just (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262226")

never ends. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259171")

Gaack. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254178")


Ad nauseum.

[rjung]

If being concerned about the fairness and accuracy of our nation's elections is a crime, then let me be found guilty, halleujah!

Bruce: rjung, STFU about Diebold. Start a thread about it, quit the driveby shit.
I have started threads on the topic. And you'll doubtlesssly continue to bitch about those, too.

Any comment about my points, rjung?
Not really. I agree the numbers are inconclusive, which is why I don't make much of a fuss about them nowadays. I still find the correlation between "surprise upsets" and the use of electronic voting machines to be suspicious, however.

I don't like the Diebold machines but you don't see me shitting all over a dozen different threads because of it.
Pardon me for being more concerned about the issue than you, then.

[World Eater]

Will you people please stop picking on rjung and his Diebold obsession?


At least it's a break from his maniacal "The right-wing media/talk radio are penetrating my tinfoil hat" obsession, which has resulted in endless posts and drivebys,

Over (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=270233")

and over (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269163")

and over (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=265238")

until (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261861")

the mind reels (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254845")

and the stomach rebels. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246742")

It just (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262226")

never ends. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259171")

Gaack. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254178")


Ad nauseum.

Rjung has almost 10,000 freaking posts and you dig up a dozen or so in which he says the same thing? Whoop-de-fucking-do!

We need to repeat ourselves because it appears to be the only way to get through to all your thick skulls. Kind of like when Bush convinced half the friggin country SH and AQ where in bed.

[ElvisL1ves]

Over half (54%) do, even today (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/20/poll_finds_many_still_believe_iraq_had_weapons_of_mass_destruction_al_qaeda_link/).

[World Eater]

Over half (54%) do, even today (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/20/poll_finds_many_still_believe_iraq_had_weapons_of_mass_destruction_al_qaeda_link/).

Thanks Elvis

You want to get pissed at someone for repeating something a million times? Get mad at Bush!

[Mojo]

If being concerned about the fairness and accuracy of our nation's elections is a crime, then let me be found guilty, halleujah!
Pardon me for being more concerned about the issue than you, then.
What makes you say that? Because I don't post "Diebold is an evil Repug plot!!!" in every other thread?

Once again, this isn't about Diebold or your level of concern, it's about message board etiquette, pure and simple. Read through the links in the OP, there's very little that you're bringing to the table in 'em.

[Bruce_Daddy]

I have started threads on the topic. And you'll doubtlesssly continue to bitch about those, too.What do I win? A pack of gum? A beer? Come on, I get something.

[rjung]

What do I win? A pack of gum? A beer? Come on, I get something.
You get a visit from the Tooth Fairy Godfather, who's going to come take your teeth whether you want to part with them or not... ;)

[RedFury]

Did you even read the post from me you quoted? Maybe you can answer it in another post, because this one didn't do it. It's little more than a post-count booster. How would you propose we hold a fair election? :dubious:

Alzheimer's or cognitive dissonance? You tell me.

But you seem to think Diebold is somehow inherently evil and unfair.

So what is the best way? You seem such an expert on voting systems, how would you propose we conduct elections?


My response: "[by]not having known Republican boosters in charge of computerized voting systems that can be easily hacked"

Let me know if you're still having problems understanding my reply -- I'll type slower next time.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Over half (54%) do, even today (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/20/poll_finds_many_still_believe_iraq_had_weapons_of_mass_destruction_al_qaeda_link/).

Don't misrepresent the poll you quoted. It is not true that 54% believe that Saddam and Al-Qaida "were in bed". That polling number was 35%. Over half still believe that there was a WMD program or actual weapons. With a margin of error of 3.5% in the poll it's pretty much 50% on the money, which is how it should be because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent stuff. Thanks.

[RedFury]

Don't misrepresent the poll you quoted. It is not true that 54% believe that Saddam and Al-Qaida "were in bed". That polling number was 35%. Over half still believe that there was a WMD program or actual weapons. With a margin of error of 3.5% in the poll it's pretty much 50% on the money, which is how it should be because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent stuff. Thanks.

Jebus H Christ, Doors, for someone whose publicly stated on a number of times that he'd gone over to the Light, you sure seem to spend an inordinate amount of time defending any criticism of your (former?) idol and his cabal.


Fact is, a full 50% of those Americans polled still believe the bogus Iraq/AQ connection. It says right there in black and white that:

Half believe Iraq was either closely linked with al-Qaida before the war (35 percent) or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country (15 percent).

So yeah, if 35 + 15 still equals 50, you have at least half of America believing in Bushit according to said poll. IOW, your argument has to do with how many Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a program to develop them not the AQ/Iraq connection as laid out bellow:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Yeah, and I say you're pedophile. Go ahead, prove me wrong :rolleyes:

Know what? It'd probably more honest of you to come out and say that you're gonna vote for your idol. Your "Bush fooled me" crap appears to be quite garbled.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Know what? It'd probably more honest of you to come out and say that you're gonna vote for your idol. Your "Bush fooled me" crap appears to be quite garbled.

So what you're saying is that I have to start sucking Democratic tit or I'm voting for Bush? :rolleyes:

Kerry is the lesser of the two evils this year. No more, no less. Every time either of them make a speech I end up yelling at the TV/radio about how ridiculous they are.

And furthermore, just because I don't care for someone or something does not mean that I will allow blatant dishonesty about that person. Especially when the question at hand is not yet conclusively answered.

[Mojo]

Don't misrepresent the poll you quoted. It is not true that 54% believe that Saddam and Al-Qaida "were in bed". That polling number was 35%. Over half still believe that there was a WMD program or actual weapons. With a margin of error of 3.5% in the poll it's pretty much 50% on the money, which is how it should be because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent stuff. Thanks.
Poll is here, (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Report08_20_04.pdf) (PDF), see for yourself. Part in question is on page 6.

[World Eater]

Read this on CNN a few minutes ago, I found it interesting.

"Vote count at mercy of clandestine testing"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/08/23/evoting.labs.ap/index.html


Over half still believe that there was a WMD program or actual weapons. With a margin of error of 3.5% in the poll it's pretty much 50% on the money, which is how it should be because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You know the only person you're fooling when you invoke pathetic Rumsfeldian semantic nitpicking is yourself. There has not been one shred of WMD found, do yourself a favor and simply except that you were wrong.