Here is what has just been posted: re: Digital Vote Theft

"Remains" implies that it always HAS been (for practical purposes in the context) no more than a serious threat! Whereas ONLY a visiting alien from outer space (i.e. not just your typical Forbes 500 type) would be unaware that the threat was indeed realized in the last presidential election - nay, realized with bells on! In fact, alarm bells that are still ringing... for those that have ears to hear.

It's not difficult to prove, intrinsically. Just unnecessarily more difficult than it need have been, while the man in the airport customs lounge, shown the closest interest by the sniffer dogs, won't allow the officers to inspect his baggage.... Some baggage!

But what am I saying? The circumstantial evidence - in all its voluminous quantity and variety, and with its compellingly unequivocal signification, is far more reliable than any so-called "hard" evidence could be.

you need to provide a link.

You also need to quote it verbatim, not a paraphrase.

Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=435843&mesg_id=436168

Here is what I said:




I did not not say that machine vote-stealing is "just" a threat. Indeed I said in a post to you, BeFree:



Nor did I say that we should not talk about digital voting systems. I think we should. I think it is vital that we do. What I said was that we should not base our case on the assertion that they were the occasion of multi-million vote theft in 2004, because I think that assertion is not well-founded, and I think it is foolish to base a good case on an unfounded assertion.

And yes, I think digital theft on a multi-million vote scale IS difficult to engineer on a scale that would not be detected by the kinds of analyses that has been carried out on the vote-return and exit poll data from 2004.

You seem to enjoy misreading my posts, BeFree. But please do not misquote them.

All will be revealed here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=436098&mesg_id=436159

:banghead: I thought, then...:rofl:

Rules clearly state: "And anyone who even dares to challenge me is corrupt, too."

:sarcasm:

We'll survive.

...because it sure would make me feel better knowing that digital theft is not something to be concerned about.

"I fear the emphasis on digital vote theft, though serious as a threat, remains a threat,"

Remains a threat? That's all? It is just a threat?

"I think it is shooting ourselves in the foot to be seen to be arguing against digital voting systems

You aren't arguing against the threat, but we are. Were do you get off telling us we shouldn't argue against machine theft?

"If widespread digital fraud is still difficult, as I believe 2004 indicates it was,

Hell, the least wise amongst us knows that digital theft is as easy as clicking a mouse. And you still consider it to be "still difficult"?

Where is your proof that digital theft is: Just a threat, still difficult, and that it is wrong to alert people to the idea or talk about the facts of digital theft?

Where is your proof?

I wrote:



And let me clarify, as you seem to have completely missed the point:

I think we should be arguing against digital voting systems, whether or not we think the election was stolen on them.

In other words, the arguments against them (or at any rate against their vulnerability to tampering, their unreliability, their non-transparency, their non-auditability) are completely independent of the degree to which they affected the election in 2004.

I want to strengthen the arguments, not weaken them by making them seem dependent on the case for a stolen election.

...I read your posts all to well. You don't fool me. I know where you stand. Once again let us use your quotes:

"...and I think it is foolish to base a good case on an unfounded assertion.

Foolish, eh? Well, we've been called worse, but have been proven, time and again to not be foolish.

As too the "unfounded assertions" all I can say is that you must be reading an alternate world DU.

Then of course, is the self-serving:
"...would not be detected by the kinds of analyses that has been carried out on the vote-return and exit poll data from 2004."

Yeah, your one-sided analysis can't find the needle in a haystack, but others have found a truckload of needles in that same haystack. TIA!

I have to ask myself: What, and who, do I believe? Do I believe and trust someone who calls my arguments "foolish" and "unfounded"? Or do I believe in what I have discovered from my own reading, writing, and arithmetic?

Sigh.

I said it was foolish to base a case on an unfounded assertion, and it is.

I don't believe the assertion is well-founded, therefore I would be foolish to base a case on it.

If you think the assertion is well-founded, you would not be foolish to base a case on it.

What we need to discuss is whether the assertion is well-founded, not whether either of us is foolish.

I assume neither of us is.

1. If widespread digital fraud is still difficult, as I believe 2004 indicates it was, then it means there is much more hope for November this year - and that Democrats should not be discouraged from voting. I think the sense of despair that the belief that millions of votes were stolen in 2004 engenders is itself a problem for democracy, even were it to be well-founded, and of course I think it is not.

Obvious disagreemnets:
Widespread fraud is not difficult.
You say our belief of widespread fraud is not well-founded.



2. As I think that the millions-of-stolen votes argument is demonstrably hollow, I think it is shooting ourselves in the foot to be seen to be arguing against digital voting systems because of election theft, as it makes it too easy to dismiss the argument. I think the argument against digital voting systems (at least against the flawed ones you have) is independent of what actually happened in 2004, and needs to be seen to be independent. Quite apart from anything else it should increase its chances of bipartisan support.

Obvious disagreements:
You think our arguments about millions-of-stolen votes is demonstrably hollow.
You think that arguing against digital voting systems is "shooting ourselves in the foot", because it's easy to "dismiss" our argument about digital voting system theft.
You think we have "flawed" arguments about digital voting systems.
You think digital voting systems had no bearing on 2004. "independent of what.... happened",


3. I think if American democracy is to be restored, the problem needs to be precisely defined. There were certainly terrible abuses in 2004 (as there were in 2000) but as I see it, the most egregious ones were the old-fashioned ones, and I fear the emphasis on digital vote theft, though serious as a threat, remains a threat, whereas voter suppression and high residual vote rates in Democratic precincts are here now and are endemic.

Obvious disagreements:
Digital vote theft is just a threat.... "remains a threat" and are not to be included in the "here and now"

There, do you agree those are your points that we disagree on?

Perhaps I'm wrong but I'm hoping I don't need to present you with a CV of my anti-digital views. In fact, I'm so anti-digits that I forget/rely on others to fight the other methods elections are stolen with.

If you are knocked off the voter roll, told to vote on the day after the election, presented with a 3 hour wait to vote, refused a recount, etc., you could rightly argue that there are a mountain of problems IN ADDITION to e-Voting and e-Vote Counting.

Perhaps you agree.

For instance, the Voting Rights Amendment is under threat right now. I think you'd agree that the VRA is both important and aside from digital issues.

Correct? :shrug:

But still no cigar.


"You think that arguing against digital voting systems is "shooting ourselves in the foot", because it's easy to "dismiss" our argument about digital voting system theft."

No. I think arguing against digital voting systems because the 2004 election was stolen is shooting ourselves in the foot. I think it would be better to argue against digital voting systems because they are unreliable, non-transparent, insecure and unauditable. Better argument.

"You think we have "flawed" arguments about digital voting systems."

Not exactly. I think the arguments that millions of votes were digitally stolen in 2004 are flawed. I think we have good arguments about digital voting systems.


"You think digital voting systems had no bearing on 2004. "independent of what.... happened","

I think digital voting systems had considerable bearing on 2004, I just don't think (for reasons I gave you in the other thread, and elsewhere) that millions of votes were stolen on digital systems in 2004.

"Digital vote theft is just a threat.... "remains a threat" and are not to be included in the "here and now""

I think the biggest threat to elections remains voter disenfranchisement and high residual vote rates in democratic areas, especially areas with large black or hispanic populations. I think that vote theft by digital systems was a smaller factor in 2004, although it remains a threat. Clearly major fraud could be implemented. I simply argue that major fraud (by which I mean multi-million vote fraud) did not occur in 2004.

It is obvious that we disagree, duh.

I think the biggest threat remains the electronic recording and tabulation of votes on machines that are programmed by partisan programmers and can be electronically accessed by remote users.

My belief is reinforced by an examination of the numbers from early voting, a comparison of the 2000 to 2004 vote, and the acknowledgement of rules, laws and regulations put in place by republican lawmakers that make it nearly impossible to recount the votes.

My belief is reinforced by the facts that the beneficiaries of the altered vote patterns are the same people who went to war based on lies, and who use all manner of public relations to otherwise decieve an unwitting public.

It is, all in all, a pattern of corruption that can't be washed away by simple internet based arguments focused solely on feeble assertions that are uneducated, uninformed, and of a partisan nature.

You shall never convince me that massive vote stealing did not occur, but I have a feeling that even if we never do have a full hearing on the matter, one day, you too will come to realize that you have been mislead into looking the other way while the vote stealing bastards yanked millions of votes away from Kerry.

We disagree, for now. That's all.

Peace.

Except that I have to take issue with this:

"It is, all in all, a pattern of corruption that can't be washed away by simple internet based arguments focused solely on feeble assertions that are uneducated, uninformed, and of a partisan nature."

I am not uneducated, I am not uninformed, and though I admit to being partisan, my political affiliations are entirely on the side of the Democrats.

I may, nonetheless be wrong.

But if you retract your allegation that my conclusions arise because I am "partisan", then we are done. I pray daily for a Democratic administration in America. Actually, I pray daily for President Gore.

It is not, in your case, a political partisanship, your partisanship, imo, is of a professional nature.

And, the un comments were not directed at you so much as directed at the Manjoos, et al, that spew allegations without discussion or much background. If only they had the guts to come here, as you have, and openly discuss the situation, they would go away better informed and educated... alas, all they do is internet their feeble assertions and go back into their little hidey-holes.

Just to be clear.

And if I'd had the option of doing the work for Mitofsky outside of a contract, I'd have taken it. As it was I had the invoice paid directly into my American college niece's account, because a) I didn't want to benefit directly and b) I didn't want the money to leave America (I'm British, BTW).

But your point remains good. I could not avoid that vested interest.

Re Manjoo: Check out these articles

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/10/15/riverside_voting_machines/index.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/02/09/voting_machines/index.html

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_harris/index_np.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/23/ohio_vote/index.html

before you write him off!

But thanks for the clarification.

Cheers

Lizzie

If you can't bring yourself to say, and to mean, "Febble, I think you're honest," then I think you still have some work to do. Just to be clear.

Thing is, after everything that I've read, I just can't twist things into that frame. Frankly, you've been of little help in that regard, tho I know you gave it your best shot.

I have been upbraided, rightly, for appearing to grant "fairness" to your implication that my contract with Mitofsky renders me partisan.

I will concede that it is understandable; it is not, however "fair". And the reason it is not "fair" is, as my good friend OTOH points out, simply that it isn't true. I am, in fact, honest. I am so damned honest that on occasions I find myself conceding that an attack against my integrity may be fair, when it is merely theoretically plausible.

Because I can say, hand on heart, that I strive in all that I do to be as honest and impartial as I know how, and that in my work for Mitofsky, my honest endeavour was to find out what caused the exit poll discrepancy, and whether there was any indication that it could have been caused by fraud.

And in order to keep myself honest, I have spent the last year* not only trying to think of ways in which that data could yield information that might further the investigation into the injustices of November 2004, but hanging around DU despite frequent attacks on my views and integrity, precisely to try to develop, with the help of DUers, ideas as to what patterns of vote theft might have occurred, and what patterns they might have left in the exit poll data.

The fact that not only did I fail to find those patterns, but came to conclusions that the patterns actually indicated that it was unlikely that millions of votes were stolen, is, as far as I am concerned, a result of my honesty, not a reason to doubt it.

I cannot prove that I am honest, any more, unfortunately, than you can prove that the machines counted your vote correctly. But I can, simply, tell you that I am, and that my analysis of the exit poll data suggests, strongly, that though the vote-counting machines may have been unreliable, insecure, unauditable and non-transparent, it is extremely unlikely that they switched millions of Kerry votes to Bush.

And if I am right, and I think I am, while that information makes not one jot of difference to the case for election reform, it makes a heck of a lot of difference to the strategies we need to effect reform, and a heck of a lot of difference to the strategies Democrats need to develop to win the next election.

But whether I am right or not, the fact is that I am honest.

Just to be clear.


on edit
*I should clarify that my contract with Mitofsky was concluded many months ago.

...life is unfair.

What I see is that your study is unverifiable.

What I see is the vendors of the miscounting vote collecting machines saying they are honest.

What I saw was the raw numbers from the exit-polls showing only one-in-a-very-large-chance of being wrong, and the well paid Miscountski trying like hell to cover his ass by using unverified studies purporting to show that his was an honest mistake.

I've seen it all before, but never in a situation with so much money, fame, fortune, and death hanging in the balance. So you will excuse my not being sucked into your argument?

implying that I am a shill.

As I've said, whether you believe it is up to you. I happen to think it is rather important information.

Anyway, I've tried to explain it on the other thread.

...see this analysis of your scatter plot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=437075&mesg_id=437757

Your setup is incomplete. If you are looking for a relationship of machine theft of votes, data which includes the kind of voting system used needs to be a part of that listing of data.

The scatter plot you use to buck-up your findings is a very narrow set of data and is one which does not discern all the different voting capture devices used throughout the country.

So.... what is presented is incomplete and NOT scientifically sound. What you have done is like looking in just one stall in a hundred stall horse barn, and upon finding no horse therein, proceed to claim that there are no horses to be found in the whole barn.

Nice try.

I don't conclude something before I've looked at the data. The scatterplot IS my finding.

I don't conclude something before I've looked at the data. And I see that the little bit of data that you have shown us is not enough to make a conclusion. But other data that I have looked at, besides your meager plots, does lead me to a conclusion that is contrary to your's.

You have, in effect, looked at just one stall and come to a conclusion, whilst I am looking at nearly all. And nearly all the data I have looked at has been seen and studied by many others, unlike your's. And we've all been lead to conclusions contrary to your's. You are pretty much all alone.

is just a "a little bit of data" that is "not enough to make a conclusion"?

OK.

If millions of votes were stolen, but stolen primarily on one kind of machine -- and if the exit poll discrepancies reflect that vote theft -- then the fraudulent precincts should show up in the analysis, period. It would take a further step to realize that they show up because of the machine type, but they would show up regardless.

It isn't at all like looking in just one stall in the barn; it is looking at all the stalls together.

...that any theft is uniform, or from one particular machine, or from one vote stealing process.

That assumption is wrong-headed. There were many possible variations of vote theft.

The point is that the plot shown could have more data included, but it doesn't. It's just bad science to push such an incomplete analysis.

quite the reverse. If fraud was uniform, it wouldn't show up. Non-uniformity is what will produce a positive correlation (the one that isn't there). I think it is fairly safe to assume that any form of fraud would be non-uniform. After all it is patterns in the data that have led other people to infer fraud. If it was uniform, there would be no patterns.

Tell me what other data you think should be included.

Why do you do that? Where do you get off telling me what I assume?

arguing and or debating for 2 years over who stole the money from the corner store, rather than going out and getting the evidence.

This debate is, I think over, its time to go get the evidence, or in our particular case, its time to go after the people who are preventing us from getting at the evidence.

Unless we do that, this debate will go on and on and on......... and thats what they (the crooks) want.

Those people FEAR On TV discussion and debate because the majority of Americans will DEMAND that they either open up the f.... machines, or the machines will no longer be used.

All Americans have the Common sense to know, that if they will not let you see inside the vote counting and tabulating machines (which would settle this and most other debates), that they (the crooks) must have something to hide. Its as simple as that.

on Voting system Security just published, "The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in An Electronic World". A must read for anyone debating the electronic voting issue and I might add, it's a page turner, full of all the ways the researchers found that evoted elections can be hacked and stolen. The chapter "Software Attacks on Voting Systems," which is what I'm going through now, basically confirms all our suspicions.

"...attacks using Trojan horses or other Software Attack Programs provide the least difficult means to affect the outcome of a statewide election using as few informed participants as possible. This conclusion runs counter to an assertion that many skeptics of these attacks have made, namely that it is not realistic to belive that attackers would be sophisticated enough to create and successfully implement a Software Attack Program that can work without detection. After careful study of this issue, we have concluded that, while operationally difficult, these threats are credible." p. 30.

Inserting the attack programs can be done in COTS software, COTS patches and updates, and ballot definition files. None of these are subject to inspection by independent testers.

For those who want to read this report, you'll find a pdf copy to download under the heading "Resource Highlights" at http://www.brennancenter.org .

And point about finding or not finding the evidence is the wrong point. We don't need any evidence other than that evoting is not secure and not transparent. The mechanisms are there for elections to be stolen in ways that can't be detected, as is detailed in the Brennen Center report. That's all we need to know. Add to that the fact that paperless evoting is not auditable. Bottom line: evoting is missing critical elements necessary for democratic elections: security, transparency and auditability.

Even DRE voting with a paper trail must have audits of the paper, as suggested in the report, to be of any value as a security mechanism.

the same points under the same re frame, that tells us that are election really weren't stolen with the same people who want to tag team us back to the same conversation. Don't you get it? We need to do this exact exercise for at least a couple of years.. that is what makes it good science.

This is how we are going to save democracy. Have you NOT figured this out yet???


And you, You want to stop arguing and actually Look inside the machines.. How..How.. unscientific of you.. when it has already been scientifically proven that Nothing could have happened there???

You must be reading those rfk jr articles again and working on getting those lawsuits filed..
Shame on you!!!

I mean, wow, who is it that is tag-teaming us back to the same conversation about whether the 2004 election was stolen? I would have thought that would be the people writing books and articles about it.

Febble in particular has written post after post disparaging DREs -- I think she has written more to disparage DREs than Freeman has. Why are you so hung up on portraying us as defending DREs? Are you really that confused, or do you just not care?

Because I really do not like having my views stood on their head so that you can feel you are scoring debating points -- but certainly not hers.

desire to chat with you but if you want to ask a question please ask and cite what you are referring to so i can answer not that i generally find it all that helpful to converse with you.

This post I am replying to is an example of why i find it so challenging to make heads or tails of what you are saying...

was your post about?

the Dems are going to get a major screwing by republicans supressing
the vote, as in caging lists, revocation of the Voting Rights Act
making them legal.

Folks, we need to be focused on this voting rights act - it is
going to keep millions from voting.

I have a feeling that we are running out of the usual options....