At a minimum, I believe the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were both swung by GOP fraud. Such fraud makes me very sad about American “democracy.”
I think Bricker’s response is predictable: The legislated rules and other government decisions that steered voting machine contracts to fraudsters were all implemented by bodies that, at least once-upon-a-time, were the products of “democracy.” Even the rules that prevented Black votes were imposed by “democratic processes.” Democracy at its finest! My side wins!! Ha ha ha!!!
I’m sure he’d deny it. (That’s why I posted his true feelings for him.) Certainly my conclusion is an easy extrapolation from his lack of concern about obvious cheating during voter registrations.
I will concede that Bricker is somewhat less detestable than my posts make him out to be. I’ll admit to taking message-board discussions too personally. Back when I still respected Bricker, he hijacked my thread, treating me with utter contempt and disrespect. I’ll treat him with less contempt if he ever properly apologizes for the contempt he showed me.
You are talking about a guy who just scored 4,000 non-partisan cred points, by forthrightly defending Hillary, and never mentioning it. OK, maybe once. Couple of times. Fifteen, tops!
This is an interesting tactic. You announce that my response is predictable, make it for me, and then inveigh against it.
As to the linked story, I have no objection to the analysis sought by the statistician in the story. And if there emerges strong evidence of some kind of election fraud, I oppose it, no matter which side it purported to benefit.
Oddly, you can’t seem to mentally reconcile that some oppose voter barriers, no matter which side happens to benefit. To you, it must be a lefty-liberal thing.
Nationwide, it is the Democrats that push for audits and other measures to thwart voting-machine fraud; and the GOP which consistently opposes them.
Will you condemn the GOP for this? Or just hide behind your usual “Ha ha ha. You lost”? (Or, most likely, ignorantly reject the fact that it is the GOP that refuses to investigate such frauds?)
I have in the past, and I’ll certainly do so again. I have always said that voting machine algorithms should be auditable, although I understand the reluctance to make them public. But a state can engage a third party auditor with a non-disclosure clause in the contract, and should before approving any machine or method.
Obviously I’d have to know what “other methods” you mean before endorsing or opposing them, but audits of algorithms is something I have already said should be done, and I’m happy to say so again.
Not that it matters, but what do algorithms have to do with anything? I don’t see why a voting machine would require much in the way of programming, and would likely prefer that they did not have much.
As for why exit polls differ from voting stats, I’m going with shame and embarrassment, people vote Republican, but don’t want to admit it.
The basic functions of a voting machine are: accurately capture each single vote, and accurately report voter totals as well as aggregate votes cast for each ballot item. It should prevent a single ballot containing multiple votes for single-office candidates.
An audit tests each of these features, both by code review and by actual test of results. The machine should also have sanity check features: if there were 16,034 total voters, then the total number of votes for each single-office position cannot exceed 16,034.
A paper trail, preserved until the period to call for a recount is expired. I.e., the machine scans the paper ballots and then they go in a sealed box.
Yes, that sounds acceptable. Or a Voter-Verified Paper Trial type solution, where the electronic machine captures the choices and prints a physical replica which the voter checks and acknowledges as correct.
If (touchEvent.where == DeweyDemocrat) CountD++;
else If (touchEvent.where == RonnieRepub) CountR++;
else touch.Event.Ignore();
with
If (touchEvent.where == DeweyDemocrat) CountD++;
else CountR++;;
I recall a case where that was reported to be the algorithm. I can’t find a cite now, but you can use a variation of the search I did to find various problems.
Of course he’s against it. If you register people when they get their license then they automatically also have a picture ID (the license). That’s unacceptable! It creates a large class of people who don’t face the extra obstacle that voter ID laws are supposed to create.