All the e-mails about that disappeared, unfortunately. Tragic mishap.
The federal government is capable of investigating this kind of thing. I suspect that those actually in the government don’t mind some cheating. They probably see it as just another part of the game, like lying about your opponent and making promises you won’t keep. Actually doing real investigations would upset some apple carts for minimal gain. Plus I suspect this kind of thing only actually influences elections at the local level and in some primaries.
This woman has not found fraud.
Nobody has found fraud.
Your question presupposes voter fraud.
People have suspected insider electronic vote fixing, but haven’t proved it. People have suspected people voting as someone else, or multiple times, but haven’t proved it.
Voter fraud is not the issue here, this is electoral fraud. And you’re right, no fraud has been discovered. But what HAS been discovered is a statistical anomaly that consistently favors Republicans against Democrats and which also favors mainstream Republicans against tea party Republicans in elections everywhere they’ve looked in the US. The cause COULD be electoral fraud, or it could be something else. Carlson is just looking to eliminate (or prove) the electoral fraud angle. Then she can go on to something else.
True enough; however, she claims it happens countrywide, across multiple elections.
Unless she can demonstrate how the fraud is consistent across states with several different voting methods (some paper ballots, some electronic (with different pieces of software, some mail-in), I don’t see how she’s going to support any conclusion other than Republicans tend to congregate in bigger precincts.
Imagine how large the conspiracy would have to be if she claims the same bias has been executed (in different ways) in every state.
She certainly appears open to alternate explanations.
BTW – for some reason BlackBoxVoting.org has not been updated since 2014 and BlackBoxVoting.com has not been updated since 2010 – have people been losing interest?
That seems counter-intuitive to me. It seems to me that Democratic precincts would have more voters, since Democrats do much better in urban areas.
More importantly, in most states elections are administered by county-level elected officials over whom even the secretaries of state have little authority. This “hyperfederalized” system is very definitely a problem for democracy (see The Voting Wars, by Richard Hasen), but it would also pose a problem for anyone trying to game the system nationwide or statewide.
I agree. I also love to read anything about voter suppression, and would welcome any proof that, for instance, Ohio in 2004 was hacked. I’m willing to be paranoid and meet in shadowy rooms to bring down the man.
But I just don’t see how this trend could be accomplished by evil machinations - nationwide in every precinct > 500 people.
I don’t know that we can conclude this from the data. Without a base line it could just as easily conclude that it is an anomaly which favors Democrats and Tea Partyists in small districts. My money is on some factor other than voter fraud accounting for this. For example it may be that super PAC money is spent more, in the big rather than small districts. Chances are its going to be really hard to tease out, I wish her luck.
Actually the thing I find most interesting looking at her datais the U shaped variance. I would expect the low sized precincts to be more variable since they are based on smaller sample size, but the large districts are also highly variable which is surprising.
Diebold is no longer in the voting machine business. They sold it off to ES & S several years ago. They’ve gone back to concentrating on their core business, which is ATMs.