Election questions for Bush supporters

Great Debates
21

A bit over four years ago I would have scoffed at the mere suggestion that someone could steal a presidential election in the US. But, unfortunately, your country has gone batshit insane since – so no, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this one was stolen as well.

After all, these are the same people that brought you a war based on false pretenses and outright lies. Clearly, morality is not at the top of their priority list. There’s irony for you right there – provided these results stand.

BTW, about these electronic machines, does anyone happen to know if the hardware/software manufacturers of same are openly partisan? And if so, which Party do they favor?

I’ve done my research and let’s just say that the answers weren’t exactly unexpected…

22

RedFury

One of the major manufacturers is Diebold whose CEO is a strong Republican. In fact, last year he promised that Bush would win Ohio (or words to that effect).

23

In all respect, the likelihood of an “attack of conscience” is greatly tempered by the scourge of cognitive dissonance and possibly rational ignorance (as per SimonX, whom I know you respect as least as much as I do) in our society. Are you factoring these pesky problems into your calculations?

Again with respect, but are you really up on all that “new-fangled technology” to make this pronouncement with any degree of certainty?

I submit that the bar for stupidity has been greatly lowered as of late. You only need to be less stupid than your marks, and not by much. Besides, people have been known to embrace a comforting lie over an inconvenient truth, every time. Most of our current truths are quite inconvenient, wouldn’t you agree? Or are you perhaps one of the “lucky duckies” who are benefitting from them?

None of your caveats seem insurmountable, sorry to say.

24

OK, “promise” is a bit strong. I just looked up the quote, here it is:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/technology/election_diebold/?cnn=yes

25

This makes a great deal of sense.

I could see conspiracy on a small level—a local election, for instance. But this would have had to have been a pretty big undertaking. Too many people involved. Too much risk for a leak.

26

If not for your benefit, than for anyone else reading along:

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/news/die_bold.htm

Diebold is more familiar, but this doesn’t pass my smell test by a long shot:

This was the company involved in that “4,000 extra votes go to Bush in one precinct” report last Tuesday.

27

With our discusison of exit polling:

  1. First of all, I recall that the polls that gave Kerry the largest margins were the ones released earliest in the day, which had higher margins of error and/or lower sampling pools.

  2. Exit-polling is meant to be adjusted later, for demographical and other reasons.

  3. Exit polling also is meant to explain why people vote in a certain way, and not in the way that some have interpreted.

  4. The exit polls that I’m finding now tend to be close to the actual results. The ones for Ohio and Florida, for example, both show Bush winning.

In short, the commentary of Stoid (and, for that matter, Dick Morris) don’t really hold water.

(BTW, I voted for Kerry, so please don’t accuse me of being a partisan shill.)

28

No, not insurmountable, one by one, one at a time. But as a practical matter, the complexities compound each other, not in an arithmetical, but a geometric progression. As was pointed out elsewhere, election shenanigans work best on the smallest scale, the bigger the scale, the more intractable the problem.

Lets say my opinion is mostly formed, but not immutable. I think a conspiracy on this scale is very unlikely, but, of course, not impossible. On the other hand, I used to think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, until I found about the connection between the Illuminati and Skull and Bones.

And be advised: the dread scourge of Cognitive Dissonance does not respect party affiliation or even moral clarity. It is, therefore, far more of a threat to the Republic than RI (rational ignorance), despite what you may have heard from otherwise intelligent and well-informed persons. (A registered and self-admitted Republican, I hasten to point out…)

29

Pointed out, but not proven by any reasonable standard. This is precisely what I question, in the face of current (albeit inconvenient) realities. I still submit that:

The bigger the conspiracy, the easier it is to hide.

To spare my eyesight, you wouldn’t happen to have a reasonable cite to debunk my assertion, would you? Sincerely, I would appreciate it.

yosemite, I would submit again that: The bigger the conspiracy, the easier it is to hide. Simply because it’s the most implausible, and therefore the most difficult to debunk (as your post idea defends). There are other reasons, but I’m trying to keep it simple here.

Unfortunately, in order to convince you, you would need to do a lot of reading on the background of modern political stategic methodology, classic philosophy, logic, and the background of these e-voting machine corps.

I mention this because of the pit thread where you disparaged those who were “assholes” about politics. I’m just trying to get you to understand the anger and frustration behind those rants. I’m not getting paid to do all this reading up on all these topics - it’s my time and my dime. And yet I’ve been attacked by some here for merely questioning the political process as it exists.

Not trying to persuade you of any particular ideology; just would like you to take the time and trouble to learn enough to enable you to think for yourself.

If you won’t do that, then I ask you: On what basis should I respect your opinion?

30

I’m 95% sure that there were no organized shenanigans affecting the voting tallies, and I’m 95% sure that if there were, they didn’t change the ultimate outcome.

But it is troubling to me how any report or suggestion of irregularity is immediately written off by the Bush supporters as whining. This is the attitude that prevented a lot of real reforms to the election process in the last four years, despite the fact that Bush demonstrably won the office because of voting irregularities. (I’m talking about the Jews for Buchanan here. It was an honest mistake, and there probably wasn’t anything to do about it after the fact. But I’ve seen very few Bush supporters willing to admit the error, much less take steps to fix it.)

Heck, there were a lot of suggestions that even if it had been close and there had been concerns about significant abnormalities, that Kerry should just concede anyway rather than contest it just to avoid looking whiny. Can you imagine Republicans doing the same? That’s why I really wanted Kerry to win it in a squeaker–so that the claims about the whiny Democrats could be shown for the BS they are.

31

Sorry, I’ve got to go with elucidator on this one.

Hey—assholes are assholes. They’re assholes because they’re assholes. Doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong or barking mad. They’re still assholes when they behave like assholes. And this applies to both sides of the aisle. I’ll never say it doesn’t.

Well, I’m not attacking you. I just don’t find it plausable. I could be wrong, of course. I’m not adamant about it.

Yeesh. Condescending much? Do you know how you sound? Do you?

Uh, calm down.

I am not losing sleep worrying about whether or not you respect my opinion on this matter. I am not soliciting your good opinion either. You can disagree with me and spend a great deal of time doing research—that’s just fine. No problem and no skin off my nose.

I doubt elucidator is losing sleep either worrying about your good opinion, and it looks like we both don’t agree with you on this subject. :shrug:

32

Sure. But experience with you suggests you will ignore any information that doesn’t fit in Leftsville’s Creed. So I write for the readers, not you.

I can’t speak for all Bush supporters, of course. My personal reaction was that no serious problems were being reported. The most serious problem that I heard was the lack of a paper record, which I regarded as sub-optimal, but not severe. The second problem was the allegation that code for the machines stolen from a web site indicated it was easy to hack. But such hacking would be obvious when the machines were examined, so I felt it was an unlikely event.

I haven’t heard of any such events from a source I trust.

I’m aware of discrepancies between early exit polls and the final result. The early polls were clearly marked not for publication, because they were unreliable; early voters skewed towards Kerry.

Of course. I’d be outraged.

I suspect it’s because most Kerry voters understand that they lost, and that this business is clearly desperate people unwilling to accept reality.

But that’s just my opinion.

33

This is the very mindset I struggle against - even in myself.

Elucidator is someone I basically trust and respect too - BUT I will go with facts over his analysis if the facts go against him. I don’t depend on his endorsement for my own opinion.

Sorry if it rankles you or makes you feel I’m “condescending”. I’m not perfect, and I’m nobody special here, or in real life. I’m trying to think for myself, and if I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. I’d actually appreciate finding that out sooner rather than later. I wasted a lot of my own time being wrong in the past.

What I’d like to leave you with is this: Think whatever you like, but let it be fact-based, and let it be the result of thinking for yourself, regardless of peer or societal pressure.

If you have an argument with that sentiment, then let’s hear it. Otherwise, let it go already. It reads to me like the very whining you claim to abhor. Even self proclaimed “centrists” can be assholes, right?

34
  1. Why were no Bush supporters, here or in the country at large, or among pundits…concerned at all about the demonsrated problems with the voting machines? Why was it only Kerry supporters?

It wasn’t only Kerry supporters. I, someone who voted for Bush, wasn’t alone in expressing concern here at the SD that this was a Really Bad Idea. Although I had less fraud by one party or the other in mind that the temptation for this being the utimate hack given at one point they said the machines would be networked (as well as four more years of whining as being the inevitable result of this foolish system). They should have switched to optical scans, and failing that, built in a paper trail and kept them off line so malicious hackers couldn’t get into the computers without going to each and every one of them. The hackers stayed home from the looks of it, though.

  1. Why is it that no one has yet reported voting for Kerry on a machine and having the machine ask for confirmation of their Bush vote, yet we have dozens if not hundreds of reports for the reverse? And why is this being accepted?

Um…I have no idea what you’re asking. What reports? And were these people being asked to confirm their Bush votes able to decline? Maybe people voting for Bush were more more careful to push the right buttons…it’s easy to push the wrong button when you’re nervous and excited, and unused to the techology.

  1. Why are the most Outrageous disparities between the exit polls and the final tallys in swing states with voting machines, and why do they show a complete switch from Kerry to Bush, but never the other way?

There was only one state that was called by some networks for one candidate, then had a retraction. That was my state. Which, sadly, eventually went for Kerry. To be honest, I don’t think exit polls count for much, it’s not as though they have pollers at all voting sites, so how can they give an accurate picture? And who do you think had a greater need to proclaim who they voted for, rather than decline comment? IMHO, Kerry voters were far noiser about declaring their politics this year than Bush voters. Well, every year.

  1. If it can be clearly shown that the machines and the votes were rigged to give the election to Bush, will this bother you at all?

Sure, that’s why I’ve said in the past that all things turning out equally, I’d rather Bush have lost states that are using these stupid machines and picked up ones that used less controversial methods instead - then everything would have been above reproach. Given there’s no paper trail, though, how could they ever show anything “clearly”?

35

That’s just dandy. You go do that. I wouldn’t for a second dream of discouraging you from doing that.

Neither would I. It just so happens that he expressed exactly what I was thinking about the issue. No need to rephrase it myself, I just quoted him. I agree with him. I agreed with him before I knew he held the opinion. (Does that make sense?)

Okay.

Neither is anyone else.

Okay . . .

Sheesh, another “pearl of wisdom” from you? How did I get so lucky? :wink: (That’s sarcasm. Dry wit. It’s not meant to be mean-spirited. Really. ;))

I have every intention of thinking whatever I like. I usually do.

Sheesh, now we get back into “condescending” again. Add a little dollop of “sanctimonious” this time too. Goodie. :wink:

Look—I’m sure elucidator will be the first to tell you that he and I don’t know each other very well, and that we don’t necessarily agree very often. (Not that I’m keeping track.) If I were to feel any “peer pressure,” (which I don’t), it would not be from him. I do think for myself, thankyouvery much.

Sorry, but once someone starts up with the earnest and somewhat zealous “I just want you to think!” schtick, I roll my eyes. It often looks like they assume that I haven’t thought about it, merely because I don’t agree with their vast wisdom or interpretation of things. Or, even if they are right—and I haven’t thought about it that much—it still smacks of condescension. People can sense when they’re being treated with condescension, and it usually doesn’t make them react favorably.

Let what go? The issue discussed on this OP? I really haven’t got a whole lot more to say about it.

Uh, “whining”? I don’t think my current beef is about “whining,” it’s about assholes. Different thing.

Assholes are assholes are assholes.

Let’s look at it a different way. I’m sure Ann Colter has thought about many issues, and I’m sure that occasionally, she’s dead-on right. But because of her attitude and her tone, she’s an asshole. It’s not just about how right you are—you can be completely right and still be an asshole. But really, that’s a subject for one of the Pit threads.

Yeah, that’s my feel too. You, me and elucidator and a few others seem to be in agreement about this. :wink:

Well—I’m of two minds. I think a desperate hope that any shenangigans really affected the outcome (if there was no concrete or credible evidence indicating that) would be whining. Or tin-foil hattery. But if there are irregularities (and I don’t doubt that things did go amiss), then they need to be discussed and corrected. No argument from me there.

36

But of course.

This is a falsehood. incorrect. Hyperbolic. Mostly though it is lame. I in fact was concerned. I stated such concern, IIRC. There was a time on these boards when Rjung was bringing this up quite often, and I found his concerns over the company’s commtiment to Bush and to the lack of paper printouts to be both valid and disturbing. Many of my friends agreed with this viewpoint. Fraud can work both ways. A safe and accurate vote is in the best of interests of those who hold democracy dear. I do not like to see my right to vote, or that right of others tampered with.

I recall reading sober concerns about these machines in both the left and right leaning press.
I think that this question is a made up charge, hyperbole, delusional and dishonest, because you probably no that your premise is false.

I don’t know. I have not heard this. I suspect delusion and hyperbole again but let’s see if we can’t produce a cite for this with more information for evaluation please.

I don’t know. Do you know? I have suspicions and speculations, though.

If it could be demonstrated that such was the case and it effected the outcome I would demand and fight for one of two things:

1: If the original vote could be conclusively reconstructed with accuracy we should abide by that result.

2: If it cannot we should revote, even if that means Bush would have to stay in office for an extra 3-4 months to let the process take place. We just hold the election again, move the inauguration to April or May and start the four year term there.

Though I am no a Kerry supporter, I’ll answer this one too. It seems that most people recognize that the evidence points to a highly scrutinized election that went off with few hitches.

I think that most rational people regardless of politics tend to think that the massive conspiracy of fraud you posit absent evidence is out there on the lunatic fringe.

37

I agree that there are various ways that exit polls could be biased. However, your explanation doesn’t explain why this bias would be more pronounced in states with electronic voting than with other states. (Not that I am saying that this claim has been well-established; I’d like to see it on a less partisan website with more sourcing given before I believe it. However, if one takes that statement as being factually true, your explanation is at best incomplete. So, what you would really have to posit is that the correlation that was claimed to exist between electronic voting and errors between exit polls and final results either doesn’t exist, is explained by other factors, or is just an extraordinary coincidence.)

In general, I tend to be with elucidator in finding it hard to imagine how such a conspiracy to rig the vote could be carried out. On the other hand, I am disconcerted at how buggy those electronic machines seem to be. And, the lack of a paper trail and other protections against fraud and error just seems no good for anybody as far as I am concerned.

It almost leaves me hoping that these conspiracy theories gain enough traction, even if they are wrong, that they leave enough of a question of legitimacy that they will motivate the Republicans to also become more concerned with having a paper trail and other such protections just so there is less room for the legitimacy of the election to be questioned.

38

Because typical Democratic election tactics is to dredge the populace and to get them to vote for Democrats. When the normal Chicago “vote early, vote often” tactics aren’t enough, they pay vote registers with crack.

Because there haven’t been reports of either. Best as I can tell what you have is a bunch of Kerry-ites left incredulous that someone dare disagree with them.

Easy. These "early exit polls were taken during the normal business day. Kerry voters want jobs. Bush voters have them.

As much as it would bother you that the machines were rigged to give Kerry the election.

Because he did.

39

“Bush” “Fair and square”

Yeah, I guess that’s it. Kinda jarring to see those words so close together like that, like seeing Charlie Manson and Jesus sharing a beer…

40

Yes, because we all know that any reasonably inteligent person would vote fo r Kerry right?

It is exactly that kind of arrogance and contempt that is killing the Democratic party.

Lose the conspiracy folks. Your party is two steps away from landing in Naderland.