Is the elction method/procedure a partisan issue?

scr4 · August 12, 2004, 1:44am

As far as I can tell, it’s mostly Democrats complaining about potential problems with voting machines. It was also the Democrats who suggested the UN monitor the election.

I don’t get it. Why is this a partisan issue? Is it just a few fringe liberals making noise and ignored by the majority of both parties? Do the Republicans have any motive not to comply with all the demands (e.g. paper trails on all machines)?

Zagadka · August 12, 2004, 1:46am

If companies run by Democrats were in charge of making the voting machines, software, counting systems, etc, do you think the Republicans would purr like kittens and drink some warm milk for a nap by the fire?

5_time_champ · August 12, 2004, 2:04am

:eek:
Can you imagine how Rush, Ann Coulter & FOX News would have reacted had O’Dell been supporting Democrats?

Gest · August 12, 2004, 3:02am

What’s wrong with plain old ballot papers with checkboxes to be numbered or ticked?

buns3000 · August 12, 2004, 3:17am

Were you living in a cave during the 2000 election?

scr4 · August 12, 2004, 3:27am

What’s that supposed to mean? The way I see it, uncertainties in vote counting led to the result being questioned by both sides. So shouldn’t both parties be working together to fix the problems? Why would Republicans be against paper trails on voting machins, for example?

Or are you saying Republicans did manipulate the election results and they want to do it again? (I’m not talking about the role of the Supreme Court, I’m talking about the chads and butterfly ballots and voting machines.)

scr4 · August 12, 2004, 3:45am

Are you saying Republicans are promoting voting machines for the benefit of voting machine manufacturers? Then why not demand (and pay for) the additional capability of paper receipts? And why not allow more scrutiny (strict certification standards, etc.) to allay suspiscion of voting fraud?

I want to believe nobody is actually trying to manipulate election results, but they’re not making it easy.

UDS · August 12, 2004, 3:52am

At least some defects in voting procedures make voting a hassle. You may have to queue for longer, ballot papers may be more difficult to understand than they need to be, etc, etc. The upshot of this is that, the more committed you are to voting, and the more comfortable and confident you are with dealing with bureaucratic procedures, the more likely to you are to vote, and vote effectively. The more hesitant you are in such a situation, the more alienated you are by the unnecessary hassle of voting, the less likely you are to vote, or to cast a valid vote.

You might conclude from this that hasslesome voting procedures will tend to favour parties and candidates with more middle class, establishment, confident, comfortable support, at the expense of parties and candidates who appeal to poorer, more marginalised, less confident voters.

Identifying the parties and candidates who might therefore be less enthusiastic about simpler, easier, clearer, more effective voting procedures is left as an exercise for the student.

2sense · August 12, 2004, 6:11am

Federal voting money is contentious because it supplements money raised in the voting districts themselves. Suburbanites have segregated ourselves into districts that can afford decent voting systems ( and schools and public safety and so on ). Those too poor to abandon the urban core are left behind to make tough spending decisions with a reduced tax base. Decayed electoral infrastructure leads to more voting errors. Federal funding can make more of an improvement there and urbanites are more likely to vote Democratic. Don’t forget that if Republican votes had been discounted at the same rate as Democratic votes in 2000 then Bush would have lost Florida by a hell of a lot more than 500 votes.

Equipoise · August 12, 2004, 7:01am

Some Republicans are worried too.

GOP flier questions new voting equipment

As Gov. Bush defends touch screen machines, his party urges using absentee ballots to “Make sure your vote counts.”

By STEVE BOUSQUET, Times Staff Writer
Published July 29, 2004

BOSTON - While Gov. Jeb Bush reassures Floridians that touch screen voting machines are reliable, the Republican Party is sending the opposite message to some voters.

The GOP urged some Miami voters to use absentee ballots because touch screens lack a paper trail and cannot "verify your vote."

That’s the same argument Democrats have made but which Bush, his elections director and Republican legislators have repeatedly rejected.

“The liberal Democrats have already begun their attacks and the new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount,” says a glossy mailer, paid for by the Republican Party of Florida and prominently featuring two pictures of President Bush. “Make sure your vote counts. Order your absentee ballot today.”

The GOP tactic is the reverse of what Bush and state elections experts have said as they have repeatedly opposed Democratic moves, in the Legislature and courts, to require a paper trail on the machines.

A coalition of liberal and civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit seeking to force state elections officials to create a system for manual recounts of touch screen results.

Miami-Dade is one of 15 counties that switched from punch-card ballots to touch screens after the 2000 recount. But absentee ballots are filled out on paper and tallied on optical scan machines because the ballot is sent through the mail.

The Republican flier is part of a hard-fought GOP primary for a state House seat in Miami where absentee ballots could make a difference.

The mailing surfaced at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday and stirred outrage by Florida delegates and elected officials.

“I’ve seen that advertisement. It’s appalling,” said Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. “It is an acknowledgement that there are excessive error rates with touch screens even by the party in power.”

“That is awful. That is disgusting. Despicable,” said state Sen. Ron Klein, D-Delray Beach. “Why use dirty tricks to scare people?”

“It’s unbelievable,” said state Sen. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston. “They’re the ones who won’t certify a machine to attach a paper trail.”

A Bush spokeswoman said the governor had not see the flier beforehand and did not approve of the criticism of the touch screen machines.
…

These are some problems that have been documented.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
Backgrounder 3. Known errors — They knew about it. They admitted it was their own fault. But they never told us about it — not when making sales presentations to local county commissions, not when answering questions from the press. Voting machine errors in the range of 20 to 100 percent are not uncommon. (You heard me). Who are “they?” The voting machine manufacturers, who had a duty to disclose, but didn’t. Now, it’s time for us to grab the reins!

We can’t know how often the machines get it wrong, because: We aren’t allowed to compare the actual vote with the machine-counted vote. Even when there are recounts, we often aren’t allowed to compare the actual vote with the machine-counted vote.

But we do know that the machines have gotten it wrong. Manufacturers knew about the errors, but did not disclose them to buyers or regulators.

Following are just a few of the errors manufacturers knew about before the 2002 election cycle. Yet, in the minutes of dozens of recent county meetings, where sales reps made presentations to persuade officials to buy their machines, nowhere were these problems disclosed — even when officials asked direct questions about error rates and problems!

McLennan County, Texas:
Better than a pregnant chad — these machines can actually give birth! In one precinct, about 800 votes were tallied, although only 500 ballots had been ordered. “It’s a mystery,” declared McLennan County Elections Administrator Linda Lewis. Like detectives on the Orient Express, officials pointed fingers at one suspected explanation after another. One particular machine may have been the problem, Ms Lewis said. That is, the miscounted votes were scattered throughout the precincts with no one area being miscounted more than another, Ms. Lewis also explained. Wait — Some ballots may have been counted more than once, almost doubling the number of votes actually cast. Yes! That could explain it! (Er…excuse me, exactly which ballots were counted twice?)

“We don’t think it’s serious enough to throw out the election,” said county Republican Party Chairman M.A. Taylor. Size of error: 60 percent.

Honolulu, Hawaii:
Tom Eschberger, a vice president of ES&S, said a test conducted soon after the election on the software and the machine that malfunctioned in a Waianae precinct showed the machine worked normally. He said the company did not know that the machine wasn’t functioning properly until the Supreme Court-ordered a recount, when a second test on the same machine detected that it wasn’t counting properly. “But again, in all fairness, there were 7,000 machines in Venezuela and 500 machines in Dallas that did not have problems,” he said.

Dallas, Texas:
Over 41,000 votes were not counted due to software programming errors. A recount was done and ES&S took the blame. A recount showed the error size was about 10 percent. Democrats picked up over 1,000 votes, not quite enough to overturn the election.

Caracas, Venezuela:
Venezuela’s highest court suspended elections because of problems with the vote tabulation. Venezuela sent an air force jet to Omaha to fetch computers and experts in a last-ditch effort to fix the problem before the delay was ordered. Dozens of protesters chanted “Gringos get out!” at ES&S technicians. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who U.S. officials would very much like to see unseated, accused ES&S of trying to destabilize the country’s electoral process. Chavez also asked for help from the U.S. government because, he said, the United States recommended ES&S.

Crozet, Virginia:
“When I pushed the button beside ‘No’ the machine registered my vote as a ‘Yes.’ I tried this a couple of more times and got the same result. Finally, I poked my head outside the curtain and asked the attendant what I should do. He suggested then that I should intentionally push the wrong button…”

Clay County, Kansas:
A squeaker — no, a landslide — oops, we reversed the totals — and about those absentee votes, make that 72-19, not 44-47. Software programming errors, sorry. Oh, and reverse that election, we announced the wrong winner — The machines said Jerry Mayo ran a close race but lost, garnering 48 percent of the vote, but a hand recount revealed Mayo won by a landslide, earning 76 percent of the vote.

Memphis, Tennessee:
Computer problems halted the voting process at all 19 of Shelby County’s early voting sites during the 2000 Republican presidential primary, forcing officials to use paper ballots (supposed to be provided by the voting machine company as a backup, but for some inexplicable reason, they were unavailable when they were needed). Election officials had to make voters wait in line or tell them to come back later. Because early voting turnout in this election was six times normal, this snafu affected about 13,000 voters. If there was a beneficiary of the problem, it was George W. Bush, who needed to defeat John McCain in Tennessee - Shelby County, which contains the urban Memphis population, usually votes less conservatively than the rest of the state.

Chicago, Illinois:
Size of error: 25 percent — One hundred and eight of 403 precincts were not counted. A pin from the cable connecting the ballot reader to the counting computer apparently got bent, after three-fourths of the precincts were counted correctly. No one could explain how a pin inside a cable became bent during the middle of the count. Democrats requested a full recount; a judge disallowed it.

[Illinois will not be using electronic voting for the coming elections]

Newport Beach, California:
The voting machine programmer reversed the “yes” and “no” answers in the software used to count the votes, discovered only because California had a law requiring a random sampling of votes by hand. (The new touch-screen machines, however, have no voter-verified audit trail.) Size of error: 100 percent.

Polk County, Florida:
A machine count said that Republican Bruce L. Parker won the election, but after a hand recount, Democrat Marlene Duffy Young turned out to be the winner. The manufacturer (ES&S) denied that its machines were responsible for the miscount.
Backgrounder 4. Top 10 Ways to Rig a Voting Machine — Computer and accounting experts tell us that there are not 10, not 20, but literally hundreds of ways to rig the system. Faster than the best programmer can create computerized safeguards, new scoundrels will think up ways to beat the system. To conceptualize this, think virus: every time we get protected, a new one is created. With hundreds of millions at stake in getting the “right” candidate into office, the motive is already in place. (The candidate need not even know that his election was rigged!) Here are just 10 of the methods that our sources have identified:

Methods to rig —

Optical scan machine: Create a dummy ballot using a special configuration of “votes” that launches a program when put through the machine. This is called a “back door,” it takes just ONE programmer to insert this, it uses very short code and is almost undetectable even if certifiers actually look for it, though indications are the the software examination is not rigorous during certification, and even if it was, nothing guarantees that the software that’s certified is the same as what’s in the actual machines at every precinct.

Help the machine pass testing by creating a program to tamper with the day and time. Make sure it can’t be triggered to execute the program until the actual election.

Replace certified files with new ones during a “technical servicing.” Most of these machines carry service contracts, and the technician goes through a set of diagnostic steps. Technicians are often given software patches or “upgrades” to install that do NOT got through any official approval policy. And again, even if they did, there is no guarantee that the software patch used in the machine is the one that was examined.

Include a layer of software that is insulated from certification testing. There are two ways this can be done: First, by incorporating Microsoft Windows into the system. Bypass the testing on the Microsoft portion (and embed malicious programs in the Microsoft operating system instead of the voting software). Another way is to patent a layer of the software and sell it to other voting machine manufacturers. This way, the mischief lies with a vendor, not the manufacturer. A single vendor could compromise many companies at once.

Build in a “diagnostic” tool that lets technicians add or change programs just before, during, or after Election Day. Some of the new DRE machines have a panel that, when removed, allowed access to the very bowels of the machine, potentially erasing all the votes and replacing them with a brand new cartridge.

Have your technicians obtain their files from an internet site. Tell them how to troubleshoot using a batch of replacement files and patches on a server. Anyone who gains access to the server can replace one with another, for example, replacing the central counting program with a file of the same name which contains a variation of the program.

On the way to tabulating the votes, substitute one memory cartridge with another. In Georgia during Eletion 2002, dozens of memory cartridges were “misplaced,” representing tens of thousands of votes. There was no documented chain of custody during the time they were missing.

Tell county commissioners that they don’t need to see you demonstrate or test an “upgraded” system, because they saw the demonstration before with the previous version.

Get hold of targeted e-mail lists and send a fast-spreading worm to military voters of your opponent’s party. When they try to vote on the Internet, they’ll experience problems.

Buy a tech and plant him as a poll worker. Have him go through the training (this works best when the precinct uses your competitor’s machine) and then have him flub the election, by preventing machines from booting up on time and then blaming it on the manufacturer. If things really get messed up, have him call the press and grant interviews.

Voting errors have not always benefited Republicans. Democrats have gotten votes they didn’t deserve too. It should be a non-partisan issue that every American should be concerned about.

Shodan · August 12, 2004, 12:40pm

It is going to be a very close election again, and those who are complaining about voting methods are laying the groundwork to challenge the results if they lose.

Come November 3[sup]rd[/sup], the instant their side wins, any and all complaints about irregularities will be treated as sour grapes. If their side loses, it will be an excuse to say that the winner was not elected legitimately.

Regards,
Shodan

Jackmannii · August 12, 2004, 12:54pm

If either Republicans or Democrats really cared about avoiding the mess of 2000 again, they would have singly or jointly made a serious effort to eliminate the Electoral College, without which none of the hanging chad and associated business would have mattered.

Neither side did - so the obvious conclusion is that neither cares all that much. A lot of the chatter now about election reform is jockeying for political advantage and laying the groundwork for politically profitable protests later.

Giles · August 12, 2004, 2:03pm

No, if you change the system from electoral college to popular vote, then the problem just gets bigger. In a close election, instead of just fighting over one or two close states, you have to fight over the ballot in every precinct across the country At present, if a state is 60% Republican or 60% Democrat, you don’t have to worry about hanging chads or defective computers in that state. But in a close national election, moving that 60% to 59% or 61% is just as important as moving a 50% state to 49% or 51%.

Diogenes_the_Cynic · August 12, 2004, 2:21pm

Did you read the examples in the post right above yours? Are you seriously contending that Diebold does not have problems?

All I want is accuracy. What do you have against accuracy?

Precisely.

Shodan · August 12, 2004, 3:48pm

I’m seriously contending that objections to the alleged problems will disappear overnight if Kerry wins. And that any Republican objections will be rejected out of hand as “sour grapes”.

No, I don’t believe you do.

If Kerry wins a close election, it will be regarded as a sweeping refutation of everything Bush did or stands for. If Bush wins a close election, the same people who claim the former will dismiss the results as meaningless because so many voters stayed home, or there were irregularities in the voting, or Democrats couldn’t figure out how to vote, or something.

As I said, this is partisans getting their excuses ready in case they lose. Democrats made a mistake last time, when they approved the ballots in Florida before the election. They they looked stupid objecting to a ballot format that was perfectly fine before Sore-Loserman lost the state.

They are laying the basis for challenges to the election. It is going to be close. Maybe they can get an advantage if they start complaining now.

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes_the_Cynic · August 12, 2004, 4:18pm

I don’t care what you’re contending, the fact remains that these machines are unreliable. Do you care about that are don’t you?

I’ve spoken to you before about telling me what I think and don’t think. I assure you, accuracy is more important to me than winning. That is what I think. If you have any more questions about what I think then ask me. Telling the other side ,“you really believe x” is a dishonest and fallacious form of debate.

You know this how? Fucking CITE?

You’re calling everyone in this thread who says they want an accurate count a liar. Retract that garbage or back it up.

FYI, Kerry has a decisive lead in Florida right now. An accurate count will not be a close count. There is no need to lay any groundwork for a loss. Florida is in the bag for Kerry already as long as the count is accurate.

And I’ll say it again. Accuracy is more important to me than winning. I’d rather lose legitimately than win illegitimately.

Do you want an accurate count or don’t you? And if so, do you acknowledge that there are problems with these machines?

rjung · August 12, 2004, 6:39pm

Have there been any instances of electronic voting machine errors that have tilted an election in favor of the Democratic candidate/cause? Because all the stuff I’ve heard about (including those listed in Equipoise’s post) end up with errors that give the win to the Republicans. Or do you seriously believe this is no cause for concern?

BrainGlutton · August 12, 2004, 10:59pm

Fuck yes, it’s a partisan issue! From “How They Can Steal the Election This Time,” by Ronnie Dugger, in The Nation, July 29, 2004 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=dugger):

Around the States

Not surprisingly, the starkest resistance to the voter-verified paper trail comes from Florida, where more than half the citizens will have to vote on touch-screen systems in November. The President’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush, and Jeb’s Secretary of State, Glenda Hood, express unqualified confidence in the trustworthiness of the DRE systems and militantly oppose providing a paper-ballot trail for them. Hood has denied that the electronic voting machines can be tampered with in the software, saying: “The touch-screen machines are not computers. You’d have to go machine by machine, all over the state.” A spokeswoman for her says flatly that “a manual recount is unnecessary.”

This past spring a powerful state senator proposed to make it illegal to recount votes in the DRE systems, but she backed down when called on it by activists. Then Ed Kast, director of Hood’s division of elections, who has since resigned, sought to achieve the same purpose by diktat, issuing a formal ruling that, despite the extant state law requiring recounts under certain circumstances, supervisors of elections do not need to recount DRE ballots. The ACLU and other groups have sued to invalidate that ruling; a spokesperson for the state Republican Party excoriates the suit as a left-wingers’ “ploy to undermine voters’ confidence.”

Representative Robert Wexler, a Democrat from the southern tier of the three big counties on the Atlantic, which for election scandals is to Florida what Cook County is to Illinois, sued state and county election officials in state and federal court to require the VVPAT on DREs. He argues that allowing some voters to have manual recounts but not others violates the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore compelling equal treatment of voters (although the majority specified it was only for that election). To date his suits, opposed at every step by the Bush Administration in Tallahassee, have gotten nowhere. If he loses, half the voters in Florida, those voting on DREs, will be denied the manual recounts that the other half can have.

<snip>

“What are we going to do if there’s a close race?” Wexler asked in the Orlando Sentinel. “The voting records of these machines will have disappeared in cyberspace.” He told me angrily: “Apparently their motives are to suppress the vote in Florida in a number of different ways. They are refusing a paper trail on a computerized voting machine. They are again preparing on the felons–they’ve got a new and improved process. I don’t trust 'em to do the right thing.” This summer, Representative Alcee Hastings, whose district includes Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, exclaimed, “Any way we cut it, these people are going to try to steal this election.”

The Miami-Dade Reform Coalition asked Jeb Bush to audit the touch-screen machines this summer. Bush’s spokesperson rebuffed that as “an accusation du jour.” Undeterred, Democratic US Senator Bill Nelson of Florida demanded, “Why not do an audit when so much is at stake?.. The national election for President could ride on the results coming out of Florida.” Senator Nelson even sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking that the federal government audit the machines.

<snip>

A paper trail will not assure that elections won’t be stolen in the DREs. “The only thing the VVPAT will do is give us the ability to prove that it happened,” says Roxanne Jekot of Cumming, Georgia, a self-taught computer specialist who has become one of the most effective activists against paperless computerized voting. “There is nothing to deter that single outsourced information-technology worker [from manipulating the machine]. Nobody can prove that he did it.”

Many states require recounts if an outcome in a computer-counted race is within a margin of less than 1 percent or a half or quarter percent, but that invites crooked programmers, if any such be at work, to jimmy their rigged outcomes to fall outside the recount-triggering spreads.

Furthermore, a paper trail isn’t an audit unless the ballots are recounted. Even before the advent of touch-screen systems, obtaining actual recounts of elections was becoming more difficult. Election officials, election companies and state laws have often combined to block recounts or discourage narrowly losing candidates from getting them. Incredibly, in 2002 the legislature in Nebraska, the home state of Election Systems & Software, outlawed recounts of the paper ballots in the ES&S optical-scan computerized ballot-counting systems that tally 85 percent or so of the votes in that state. Colorado requires that for elections conducted on DRE machines, recounts must be conducted on the very same machines.

In Alabama two years ago, during a controversy over an election for governor conducted mostly on op-scan machines, Attorney General Bill Pryor, backing up the sheriff in one questioned county, ruled officially that under state law anyone recounting the ballots would be subject to arrest. This year President Bush, circumventing Senate hearings, elevated Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a recess appointment.

<snip>

Voting Machines Stolen in Georgia

In 2000 five out of six Georgians cast a paper ballot that could be recounted on ES&S systems. In January 2001, in a speech to the Democratic-controlled legislature, Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox, a Democrat who is expected to run for governor in 2006, declared that considering all the recent problems down in Florida, Georgia should adopt one “uniform electronic voting system by November 2004.” Upon Cox’s fervent recommendation of the just-born Diebold Election Systems, in May 2002 Georgia agreed to pay Diebold $54 million for 19,000 DRE voting systems. The counties and cities of Georgia had chosen their own voting machines for the last time, and, less obviously, Georgians had lost their ability to recount their votes in contested elections.

At once Diebold set to manufacturing 282 of its AccuVote TS voting systems a day. Some of the earliest ones arriving in Georgia, sent out for use in the training of election workers, were left in a hotel conference room overnight, stolen and never recovered. Late that June the secret vote-counting codes inside nine to fourteen more of the Diebold machines were stolen. Diebold made an uncounted number of apparently illegal changes in the election-conducting code between June and November. The memory cards on which the votes on each of the computers were recorded on election day all over Georgia had no encryption. According to Rob Behler, who served as Diebold’s production deployment manager in Georgia during the first half of that summer, those cards could be used to change the results manually, precinct by precinct.

Incumbent US Senator Max Cleland and incumbent Governor Roy Barnes, both Democrats, were odds-on favorites to win re-election. A week before the voting an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll showed Cleland ahead by five points, 49-44, but on election day he lost to his Republican opponent, Saxby Chambliss, by seven points, 53-46, a twelve-point swing. The loss of Governor Barnes to Sonny Perdue was even more remarkable: a one-week switch of fourteen percentage points. These were suspicious anomalies, and subsequently in a Peach State Poll one in eight Georgia voters were “not very confident” or “not at all confident” that the DREs had produced accurate results; another 32 percent were only “somewhat confident.”

In his front parlor at home in Georgia, Rob Behler told me that just before or just as he took over the Atlanta warehouse for Diebold, some of the voting machines had been sent out to “do demos,” and in one southern county “somebody broke in and stole…[nine or] fourteen of the machines and, I think, one of the servers.” He says the vote-counting programs in the stolen computers could have been completely reconstructed by reverse engineering and employed to jimmy the election.

“Quality-checking” the AccuVote machines as they arrived from Diebold at a warehouse in Atlanta, Behler and his crew found problems, he says, with “every single one” of them and about a fifth of them were shoved aside as unusable. When Diebold’s programmers wanted “patches,” that is, changes, inserted into the voting-system software, Behler says, they sent them to him via the company’s open, insecure File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site in cyberspace. On his own unsecured laptop (resting on his desk as he spoke), Behler made twenty-two or twenty-three of the cards that were used to change the programs in the machines.

The night of the November 2002 election, sixty-seven of the memory cards used in Fulton County (Atlanta) disappeared. Running his laptop with a dual battery, Behler says, in six or seven hours he could have changed the totals on those sixty-seven cards. “There’s no technical problem. There was absolutely zero protection on the card itself. You throw the card in, you just drill down into its files.”

Shodan · August 13, 2004, 1:18pm

I am contending that you don’t care if the machines are unreliable, if Kerry wins. IOW, the only circumstance under which you will dispute the election is if Bush wins. Regardless of the accuracy of the count.

As I said before, I don’t believe you.

Your posts in the past have not led me to conclude that you are a fair-minded person, equally ready to conclude an issue in favor of Republicans as for Democrats. Far from it.

I don’t have any questions about your motivations in this issue.

My “fucking CITE” is what I referred to in the quoted text - the events of 2000. That’s why I mentioned it.

My “fucking CITE” for the reactions of the Left on the SDMB (which is what I was referring to, as well as among the chattering classes from which many liberals take their cue) is my experience in Great Debates. You people flip-flop on issues with a great deal more facility than you like to admit. Obviously you deny that is what you are doing. But, as above, I reserve the right to snicker condescendingly at what I consider to be the hypocrisy of the Left.

Not everyone. I am saying I don’t believe you. Certainly there are other partisans on the SDMB for whom a Democratic victory is more important than a legitimate one. FTR, I don’t believe them when they say otherwise either.

If you think I am under some obligation to take your own estimate of your fair-mindedness at face value, I must respectfully decline to agree. Maybe you think you are the most non-partisan poster on the boards, and that you never let partisanship cloud your judgement on an issue.

I disagree.

Deal with it.

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes_the_Cynic · August 13, 2004, 4:37pm

Shodan, it’s obvious you have no interest in an honest debate on this issue but by repeatedly calling me a liar about my own opinions (simply because my opinion is inconvenient to your personal worldview) you have forced me to call you out here.