# I Remember some were saying Election 2004 was stolen... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039 "2005-04-06T14:47:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/141 "2005-04-11T19:15:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that no one who can convene a grand jury - Democrat or Republican - buys your argument. Call me cynical, but I strongly suspect that Grand Juries are rarely convened – or not convened – purely on the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/142 "2005-04-11T19:39:45Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > To continue the hijack, has a system been studied that would meld the paper and electronic ballots? > > You’d fill out a Scan-tron, then feed it into the system, which would then show you on the screen who you planned to vote for. If you agreed with that, you’d be able to then enter your vote, and leave the paper somewhere where there is a paper trail. If it was inaccurate, you’d have to start the process over (at some point where there is enough security to make sure you weren’t double-voting.) > > It would take more time, but if it takes too MUCH time due to bad marks showing up, it’s evidence electronically-scanned paper ballots were never that good in the first place. But it would avoid the downfalls of both the electronic counting and paper counting, providing a paper trail along with preventing errors in tabulation. To further continue the hijack, I’m really not sure what’s so difficult about this? It seems such an obvious solution. Though I’d prefer it the other way around, with the voter pressing a key on the computer which in turn causes a machine to physically punch a hole in an actual paper ballot, or mark a scantron or something. The vote would be recording on a server, with all servers in the country on a network for an instant tally, and the paper ballots would then be counted as usual. If the 2 results differed significantly there would be strong clear evidence for the necessity of an investigation. If they didn’t, I’d feel a hell of a lot more secure in the validity of the results. BTW, in case anyone needs just a bit more evidence of problems with the current system, I actually voted twice this passed election. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/143 "2005-04-11T20:22:17Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I would argue that the sharp disparity between the exit polls in some states and the vote count constitutes a form of hard evidence, certainly hard enough to justify an investigation. It is nothing more than a dead body, you haven’t established a cause of death. Cause. You have proposed an impossible cause, Diebold electronic voting machines. Propose a possible cause, and back that up with evidence. I would be horrified if they actually stole the election, I didn’t vote for him and don’t think he’s the right guy, but you need to back this stuff up with evidence. > [@](#): > > Especially worrying is the fact that almost all the disparities in the Ohio election were in favor of Bush. You would think randomly fucked up election results would tend to favor both candidates about evenly. Or perhaps slightly in favor of one. But overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate? The link in our OP shows that disparities in the vote/tally seem to be overwhelmingly pro Bush in every state. Even states where Bush had a 25 point lead, and in states where Kerry had a 25 point lead. The only explanation that provides for a wide variety of states showing a large pro-Bush disparity is an inherent poll discrepancy. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/144 "2005-04-11T20:25:51Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > \ but you need to back this stuff up with evidence.\ **Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/145 "2005-04-11T20:57:15Z") Never mind, I forget this was GD, and not Misc. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/146 "2005-04-11T21:19:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Impassioned is a good description. While I sympathize with her for her loss, “passion” is not a substitute for reason in debate. How specifically is this relavent to whether or not the last election was stolen? Well, **John** , she raises the very issue that’s being discussed here: > [@](#): > > all the while they are busy here at home overseeing the emplacement of an electronic voting system that invites fraud at every turn, an electronic vote-counting system that provides no way to validate the votes cast, and that, by it’s very design, prohibits recounting the votes. Which brings a simple question to mind: is there a way to validate/recount the votes on e-machines? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/147 "2005-04-11T22:33:41Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Which brings a simple question to mind: is there a way to validate/recount the votes on e-machines? Not on the Diebold ones. Yeah, I consider that criminal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/148 "2005-04-11T23:37:32Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Well, **John** , she raises the very issue that’s being discussed here: > > Which brings a simple question to mind: is there a way to validate/recount the votes on e-machines? She’s upset at Bush, and that can be understood. But she doesn’t seem to understand that elections are run but the individual states, not the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/149 "2005-04-12T02:57:37Z")
Even though I didn’t post the OP, may I be so bold as to attempt to hijack this thread back to addressing it? The report he links to makes what seem to me to be reasonable mathematical arguments that something is screwy with the numbers and that it _appears_ unlikely to be the exit polls that are at fault. I really would like to see an intelligent discussion of the report. Stating that it’s a “rehash of the ‘We need to trust the exit polls more than the votes’ argument” doesn’t cut it. Neither do remarks about “lies, damn lies, and statistics”. If you think it’s wrong, say why. Read the damn thing and say what’s wrong with it! Are they interpreting the data wrong or being selective in it’s presentation? Did all the statisticians and mathematicians who reviewed it miss something? Is it a deliberate misrepresentation for partisan purposes? Did they make some dumb arithmetic error? Is it a true and correct presentation of the data and the statistics? Do they overstate their case? I’d really be interested in seeing some intelligent discussion _of the report_. Should I just start a new thread of my own and lay down some ground rules? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/150 "2005-04-12T03:07:06Z")
Personally, I would love to see it, but I’ll bet that Bush’s supporter will redefine what people where originally saying about exit polls into the “We need to trust the exit polls more than the votes’ argument” ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/151 "2005-04-12T16:48:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now it’s not just Diebold? Now ANY corporate entity is suspect? > > The vast majority of Ohio counties - 69 - used punch-card ballots. I’m sure they are counted by machine, and I’m sure a company made that machine. Are they suspect as well? Why or why not? Most e-voting machines, and most optical-scan vote counting machines, are made by the same three companies. All three are run by people who appear to prefer the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/152 "2005-04-12T17:13:16Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > We would know if the ballots were all there or not by matching the original scan count and the follow-on scan/manual count. I don’t get your objection here. Are there states where it’s permissable to throw away the ballots before the protest/recount period has ended? As I’ve said above, this isn’t a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical. The county I live in did this successfully in 2000. Original optical count and hand-recount matched perfectly. If cheating occured, an attempt would cirtainly be made to cover it up. Suppose optical scanners were used to produce a false result. The paper ballots are kept, as required by law. If the false result is accepted, no problem. The cheaters got away with it. Eventually, when the required amount of time has elapsed, the ballots are disposed of. Suppose a hand count is ordered. It’s my suspicion that the correct number of paper ballots would be produced. They’d be hand counted. The hand count would be a perfect or near-perfect match to the orginal machine count results. This result would be obtained because a sufficient number of the ballots counted by hand were not the same ballots that the machine counted. The cheaters will have discarded as many of the original ballots as they needed to, and substituted conterfeit ballots that will produce the desired results. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/153 "2005-04-12T17:24:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > She’s upset at Bush, and that can be understood. But she doesn’t seem to understand that elections are run but the individual states, not the federal government. This is a major part of the problem: partisan state and local officials in charge of national elections in their states and localities. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/154 "2005-04-12T17:31:37Z")
I agree with davidm. We have what appears to be a respectible, well-qualifed group of experts who are saying that they see good reasons to doubt that that the offical results of the 2004 Presidential election are valid. This should not be ignored. If those who are pleased with the Bush victory believe that the election was fair, what reason could they have to object to an investigation? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/155 "2005-04-12T18:01:14Z")
> [@Hazel](#): > > If cheating occured, an attempt would cirtainly be made to cover it up. Suppose optical scanners were used to produce a false result. The paper ballots are kept, as required by law. If the false result is accepted, no problem. The cheaters got away with it. Eventually, when the required amount of time has elapsed, the ballots are disposed of. > > Suppose a hand count is ordered. It’s my suspicion that the correct number of paper ballots would be produced. They’d be hand counted. The hand count would be a perfect or near-perfect match to the orginal machine count results. This result would be obtained because a sufficient number of the ballots counted by hand were not the same ballots that the machine counted. The cheaters will have discarded as many of the original ballots as they needed to, and substituted conterfeit ballots that will produce the desired results. That’s quite a little conspiracy theory you’ve assembled. What’s to stop this from happening with any type of ballot including those marked and counted solely by hand. You’re postulating that everyone involved in handling the ballots is in on the plan and capable of keeping quiet about it. I would offer that there’s little evidence that any group of people of the size needed to pull this off has ever been able to keep it a secret for any length of time. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/156 "2005-04-12T18:05:21Z")
> [@Hazel](#): > > The cheaters will have discarded as many of the original ballots as they needed to, and substituted conterfeit ballots that will produce the desired results. Gee whiz, I never realized that fixing an election was that easy! WRT the article, they are claiming 3 possibilities for the poll/tally difference. 1. random error - discounted by everyone 2. systematic error in the poll, namely that Bush voters refused to be polled more often than Kerry voters - discounted by the authors 3. stolen election Now, on #2, the authors discount it because the necessary behavior is contrary to their experience. It is the explanation offered by the polling agency who have the raw data to work with and are, presumably, also knowledgable about the polling process and statistics. On #3,if you put the same rigorous tests that the authors applied to #2, would it stand up? A nationwide consipiracy to fix the election in multiple states, altering millions of votes, with not a single shred of direct evidence showing even a single vote was changed. The idea that a big consipiracy like this would stay 100% silent is far more improbable than #2, IMHO. Sherlock Holmes said “when you eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable must be true.” The authors consider #2 impossible, which is nothing but arrogance, because others who are also experts in the subject consider #2 not just possible, but the correct answer. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/157 "2005-04-12T18:44:58Z")
> [@Hazel](#): > > If those who are pleased with the Bush victory believe that the election was fair, what reason could they have to object to an investigation? Because looking for malfeasance where there’s none to be found just raises suspicion and mistrust, and causes people to doubt the result. And people need to trust the result unless there’s clear reason not to, since democracy depends on there being a winner who everyone regards as legitimate. By your theory, all of my suspicions and distrusts about Hillary Clinton ought to be investigated right away. After all, if she’s innocent, it wouldn’t do any harm. And, really, what right does she, or you, have to object? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/158 "2005-04-12T18:49:04Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > A nationwide consipiracy to fix the election in multiple states, altering millions of votes, with not a single shred of direct evidence showing even a single vote was changed. The idea that a big consipiracy like this would stay 100% silent is far more improbable than #2, IMHO This is incorrect on a few points: - Altering _millions_ of votes were not necessary to win the EC vote. If Kerry had won Ohio it would have been enough to change the outcome. It takes a certain kind of arrogance to fight the EC results when you haven’t won the popular vote. Bush obviously possessed that type of arrogance in 2000, but perhaps Kerry did not in 2004. - There certainly was/is direct evidence showing that votes were changed - the discrepancies that were caught and corrected. From these examples, it is not so far-fetched to speculate that there were other discrepancies that were not caught - not hard evidence of fraud, but certainly enough to warrant a full investigation. You posted in the threads where evidence was presented so you should know better than to make a claim like that. - It is too early to assume that silence = no conspiracy: > [@Zakalwe](#): > > I would offer that there’s little evidence that any group of people of the size needed to pull this off has ever been able to keep it a secret for any length of time. How many people would be needed? And what length of time for exposure of any possible conspiracy? How long did it take for Watergate to break? Again, too soon to dismiss the possibility of exposure in future. Meanwhile, exit poll studies are not enough, simply because the raw data is still unavailable. Yes, Mitofsky released some additional data awhile back, but not _precinct level_ (supposedly to protect privacy). Barring the release of _full_ exit poll data, another statistical study possibility is to run the _actual results_ through a fraud detection program based on Benford’s Law (The IRS uses this type of program to sniff out tax cheats). AFAIK, this is still in the works. Perhaps the exit poll argument is a red herring. There are other avenues of investigation. Keep in mind that the Cobb and Badnarick legal team is still working on this. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/159 "2005-04-12T18:59:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > By your theory, all of my suspicions and distrusts about Hillary Clinton ought to be investigated right away. After all, if she’s innocent, it wouldn’t do any harm. And, really, what right does she, or you, have to object? Yes, you as a civilian, are free to investigate any matter you like, or to hire a Private Dick to do so. Just don’t start harassing here, or stalking her, or you will be in trouble. Now, you might feel it is unwarented for all and sundry to start getting paranoid about people they don’t like, but that’s too bad. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/160 "2005-04-12T19:00:10Z")
Another thing to keep in mind is that _there was **not** a **full** recount_ in Ohio. Nothing at all in New Mexico or Florida. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039.md?page=9)