"The paperless machines were (probably) not rigged"-SALON

Lefty Web sites are buzzing with a supposed "statistical analysis" that they say proves that Republicans stole the election by rigging paperless touch screen machines. According to the analysis -- the link is here, but the site's down at the moment due to high traffic -- performed by a Democratic Underground regular who goes by the handle SoCalDemocrat, states that use electronic machines were all showing strong Kerry support in exit polls, but when the results came in, the states went to Bush. The polls (which are based on interviews with voters as they leave the polls) indicate that voters in the state really voted for Kerry, the lefties say; the machines distorted or changed their votes. "Maybe Dubayah believes God will see him through this, but it's going to take more than blind faith to pull the wool over the data and the facts," SoCalDemocrat writes.



But as we see it, SoCalDemocrat's evidence is quite thin. For one thing, he appears to be wrong on the facts. While he's correct that exit polls showed a Kerry victory in many states that actually went to Bush, this didn't only happen in states that use paperless touch screen machines.

~ snip ~

Read rest of piece in:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

(second paragraph from top)

bullshit media scumbags

"The most obvious example here is Nevada, the only state in the nation to use what many computer scientists consider to be the safest touch screen machines -- machines that print a paper ballot that is reviewed by the voter as each vote is cast, a so-called voter-verified paper trail. In Nevada, the last exit polls showed Kerry leading Bush by 49 to 48 percent, with 1 percent for Ralph Nader. The actual result was a win for Bush by 51 to 48 percent."

Touch screen machines with a paper trail are not any more trustworthy in their initial count that those without paper trails. They are only more trustworthy if those paper receipts are counted. Everyone knew NV would not be counted.

EDIT:
To clarify, these are not true paper BALLOTS that are used to count the votes. They are RECEIPTS that are only used in recounts. And it was a safe bet that Nevada would never be recounted -- but maybe it should be.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2003/dec/10/515999082.html

There had to be a back-up plan.

"And even in states that do use paperless touch-screen machines, it's not clear that Bush made his gains in touch-screen areas of the states, rather than regions that use other machines. For instance, in Florida, it's the state's large South Florida counties that use paperless touch screens. But Bush did worse in these regions in 2004 than in 2000. In the 2000 race in Miami-Dade, Bush got about 47 percent of the two-party share of the vote, while Al Gore received 53 percent; this year, Bush only got 46 percent of the two-party vote there, while Kerry got 54 percent. What this means is that in the move from punch-card machines (which, as everyone remembers, Miami-Dade used in 2000) to paperless touch screens, Bush actually did worse, not better."

His basic argument is this:
1. In Miami-Dade, they use paperless touch screens.
2. Bush did very slightly better in Miami-Dade in 2000 than in 2004.
3. Therefore, there was no cheating in Miami-Dade or in any other place that uses touch screens.

First, there is the logical fallacy that if Miami-Dade is honest, all touch screen counties must be honest. But he hasn't even shown that Miami-Dade is honest. Just because Bush got a certain percentage in 2000 doesn't mean he should expect to get that exact same percentage in 2004. (Even here he fudges his numbers by going with something he calls the "two-party vote" instead of the real vote. Bush got 46% in Miami-Dade in BOTH 2000 and 2004. Gore got 53% in 2000 and third-party candidates -- mainly Nader -- got 1%. Kerry got 54%.) So despite the massive outrage over the last election, Miami-Dade did almost exactly the same as last time -- except Nader votes went to the Democrat this time. I think that is suspicious in and of itself. Isn't it possible that the machines WERE rigged and that's why Kerry didn't take the county by an even larger margin?

Here are the 2000 FL results by county:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/flcbcnov7.htm

"At the same time, the president gained in Orange County, Florida. In 2000, Gore beat Bush in Orange County, whose largest city is Orlando; this year, Kerry lost to Bush there. And Bush didn't need rigged machines to do it -- Orlando uses paper-based optical scan voting machines, which computer scientists consider more reliable than the touch screen systems."

But the votes still are counted by computer. I think this guy is confusing "reliable" with "verifiable". Any system that produces a paper trail is more VERIFIABLE because the papers can be counted. But it is not necessarily any more reliable. The votes can still be changed within the computer.

But it brings up another interesting point. Why did Orange County have a 40% increase in votes while Miami-Dade had less than a 14% increase? As one of the counties at the center of the 2000 controversy, you'd think turnout in Miami-Dade would be very high.

small margin in states with no paper trail...I would rig it to win by enough votes that would not trigger a recount. and...I believe that is what they did.

Proprietary software and no means to recount is insane.

I think we at DU should lobby every possible avenue to get paper trail nationwide. We can't allow this bbv ever again. Does anyone know of a national campaign to do this?