No one is laughing this time.

More than seven years after the 2000 nightmare, and nearly four years after the 2004 nightmare, suddenly the idea of a recount doesn't seem like the insane ramblings of a sore loser. It has come out of the dark recesses of the conspiracy theorists' basements into the light. The TFH loonies now have some company on this side of the deep river which divides those who always knew there was a problem from those not willing to believe there was a problem.

Finally. It feels like Spring has sprung.

But why this sudden awakening? Is it a burning desire for election integrity? Or the magnetic charisma of Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul? Perhaps it is the demand of the citizens of New Hampshire to see their votes be counted properly?

No, it's nothing so noble or complicated. The answer is much more simple. The exit polling failed by too large a margin to ignore, and the media was made to look like fools on the night of the primary.

So, while they could certainly lambaste the pollsters, or discuss samples or other factors, they couldn't ask for a recount; only a candidate can do that. Since a recount helps them to determine who was at fault here, conveniently, there's not a word about the absurd waste of time and effort a recount would entail. Amazingly, no whining about how the only people who believe this are the crazy left-wing bloggers.

No one is laughing this time.

Funniest thing is, see, they could have helped all along. But, no; there was no reason to do it then. But this time, exit polling they paid for, and on which their reputations and paychecks depend, failed. It seems the presidency isn't as important to them as their jobs after all. Now that their reputations, such as they are, are on the line, a recount is a good thing. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Whether or not the recount shows chicanery, the idea of election integrity is front and center where it belongs, and it's being addressed in a bi-partisan fashion and with the true implications of its failure understood. No matter which candidate you support, that's a good thing, no matter what the reason.

To Dennis Kucinich: Thank you.

To the media: Screw you.

If the recount shows no fraud or miscounted or changed votes, we can't let that be used to silence our concerns about these flawed, dangerous machines.

It's an ongoing fight, but one of the most important.

they began when the computers came in during the mid-1960's . . .
and by the late 1960's . . . there were people concerned about what was happening ---
people like Jim & Ken Collier, journalsits.

The idea that it would be easier to get a recount on a primary than a general election might be hard to sell. This could be the standard.

It is because the media's personal ox is getting gored that they care as much as they do this time out. Well, good!

Being here in Ohio, and especially in Cuyahoga County, I really appreciate the fact that someone cares about whether or not my vote will count this year, at a time when there's still time to do something about it.

You know? There are times when I get so frustrated with this Congress that I sometimes feel that voting in 2006 was a waste. But then I remember: I didn't just vote for members of Congress (although I don't really have huge complaints to make about the ones I voted for, anyway). I also voted to make sure Ken Blackwell got nowhere near the governor's office, and I also voted for Jennifer Brunner. And if she has anything to say about it, election results in this state are going to be so pure they float.

And without that, what would be the point of casting a ballot this year at all?

"...Whether or not the recount shows chicanery, the idea of election integrity is front and center where it belongs, and it's being addressed in a bi-partisan fashion and with the true implications of its failure understood. No matter which candidate you support, that's a good thing, no matter what the reason..."

--we would not be having all these threads on this issue. I'm glad that Kucinich is pushing this, but I'd like to see it be about more than just this one primary election.

I think opscan is a good way to go--its measured error rate is almost as good as handcounting for a single race, and better when you do more than one race. There is an auditable paper ballot that can be checked by the voter. People get tired and crabby after too much of a repetitive task, and computers don't.

BUT--computers make mistakes, and they can be hacked. They have to be constantly checked for performance, and not just with one "logic and accuracy test" before use, or only in the event of close elections.

It makes no sense for me to do a bunch of experiments demonstrating the many ways that someone could conceivably be messing with my laboratory scales, or to post a schematic of its innards nearby. The only thing that makes sense is to have a set of standard weights and check the scale daily. And keep on doing it--it matters not the slightest that scales, when maintained well, can easily pass this daily test for five years and longer after the purchase date.

Statistically meaningful random audits--ALWAYS!

"First they ignore you
then they ridicule you
then they fight you
then you win."

--Gandhi

Seems to me like we're moving through those steps, and in some places we're already on #3.

k&r

As far as I can tell, the Kucinich recount is getting about the same amount of attention as the Nader recount: very little.

If media outlets had called the race for Obama, then you might have a point about the exit polls. As it stands, we have lots of speculation about what the exit polls actually said, but I haven't heard any that would yield an exit poll discrepancy as large as the 13.6 points it was in New Hampshire in the 2004 general election.

As for the issue being front and center, my impression from scanning GD is somewhat different. I think it's very possible that election integrity went backwards this week. But I will hope that you are right in the long run.

I'm sure someone will congratulate you. If you are true to form, you will presently be congratulating yourself.

:rofl: I love you, Kurovski! :loveya:luckily getting a smile from your posts is also predicable and it helps balance the other stuff.

Thank you.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: I love you more! You are a rare and precious gem....or something like that! :loveya:

counter arguments made against her campaign on chat boards.

That factoid seemed appropriate to insert at this juncture...

And party favors, too.

I've been doing it for free. I'm missing out.

Well, almost all.

We have a number of new readers of and participants in this forum, for one thing.

For another, despite the few, the loud and the ugly, there were a lot of people in GD asking questions, up to and including Skinner. Imho, that's very valuable.

I was thinking that the ER forum might do well to prepare an "Election Integrity Rating" for each primary. An Op that describes the equipment, a short history of that state, any concerns or anamolies, and some kind of rating.

Instead of being event driven, we could get out ahead and become part of the landscape. :shrug:

ETA: if you guys think this is a good idea, I'd be willing to quarterback SC. . .

I think back in 2004 elections@moritz had something like "fifty questions for five (swing) states," which kind of illustrates how many angles this ER business really has -- but something more accessible could be very educational.

I especially like the idea of talking holistically and proactively about what could go wrong, instead of getting sort of numerological afterwards.

It's here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=493017&mesg_id=493017

It would be nice to use the opportunity and not always be reacting for once.

And I'm willing to help out however I can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=493017&mesg_id=493017

If most people hate it, that's cool.

I was just thinking, why not get ahead of the curve?

We know this sh#t is going to happen. Why not anticipate it, gather our peeps and deal with it in a useful way?

I'd love to hear counter opinions, arguments, objections. Or, expansions, refinements, whatever. Let's just MOVE.

:)

I'll be there in a flash.

in this forum have taught me one thing: If you didn't disagree, I would be worried you weren't feeling well.

As for scanning GD, I don't put too much weight on that as an indicator of anything. First, all the threads were moved here, and second, these are the people who can argue about breastfeeding and 24 for three weeks.

The point I was making is after 2004 anyone who wanted a recount, or some kind of verification, was seen as some kind of crazy. This time, at least for the past few days, the media is just as interested in what went wrong. Having them on the correct side of the fight is a plus, and a rare one to boot. I've heard Rush Holt on Countdown, talk all over MSNBC, discussions on Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, and even a few "voting machines are evil" jokes on NPR this morning. FOX isn't making fun of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. Look at the comments on this FOX story, more than I expected are positive:

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/11/new-hampshire-to-conduct-recount-of-presidential-primary/

Anytime this is looked at, it is good. I think that's the part you'd agree with, and you'd be right.

(BTW, if you look closely, I'm not all that disagreeable, except that I tend to look for what's missing, so I don't have a lot of K&R high-five posts.)

My point about GD is exactly that the threads were moved here. The vast majority of the ER regulars wrote sensible things, but some of the wild claims (generally not by regulars) and the ensuing flame wars evidently wore out the mods. EI got a lot of attention, but much of it wasn't favorable.

At this moment I have no idea how MSNBC has covered the recount story -- any links I should check out? Good on KO for having Rush Holt. The stories I've seen have mostly been along the lines of "why were the polls so wrong?", which is partly an occupational hazard for me.

Lots of people have worked hard to establish that these machines are intrinsically unsafe, for real. That's good. I hope we will all keep it real.

in times of heated debate, GD likes to take it outside, to the sidewalk in front of the club, so everyone can see the fight. There are times I've cringed at what was out there. Frankly, I don't know how the Mods do it. The discussion belongs here, and here it shall stay.

Here's a link to the Countdown video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x83309

I wouldn't say disagreeable. But ya gotta admit, you often disagree. :)

BTW, I like your sig.

It's a tough road also to get an actual recount ---
Nader didn't actually get it --

There a selection process which can be controlled ---
and also difficult to establish a chain of evidence re sanctity of the votes ---

:hug: :thumbsup:

wit'cher bad self!

:hug:

It is also the main reason that I disagree so strongly to the view that asking for NH recount just brings discredit to our party. On the contrary, it shows that those who distrust corporate owned proprietary voting machines are not primarily driven by party partisanship.

Democrats should be about election integrity. There's no better way to walk the walk than to insist that we practice it among ourselves.

Once you get to the point of recounting, you also have to prove the chain of custody and guess what, usually everything that's been counted by the private companies have been in THEIR custody, away from public view. So they can certainly do whatever it takes to make the recount closely match the initial count. And if there are no paper ballots of course it's even easier.

I wish I'd written it myself.

My main concern at this point is that this recount, no matter what it reveals, needs to be the beginning and not the end of the national conversation.

Those who frame this recount as a do-or-die "gotcha" moment for the election integrity movement have it all wrong. It furthers the mistaken notion that finding no problems in NH will lay to rest all the crazy questions about voting machines, and make those with concerns look like kooks.

But if you're correct (and I think you are), the genie isn't going back into the toothpaste tube.

:thumbsup:

At 8PM the exit poll had a 1 point lead for Obama. That final result was well within the poll's margin of error.

The exit poll validates the final results. It indicates that all those pre-election polls that had Obama up by an average of 8% were wrong.

The exit polls were indicating Obama was ahead all day. The crappy media built all of the stories around them, whether they were right or wrong. If the polling was correct, why would Hillary's internal polls make the campaign think she was down by something like 11% on Tuesday night? Obama's had him up, but only by a few points. These numbers were based on exit polls during the day, I would imagine, and not polling from days before.

If the polling is right, so be it. If the machines are right, so be it. Just let me know for sure.

If the 8PM results were adjusted, they could have been only adjusted slightly. The exit polls are adjusted as election results come in, and few precincts reported before 8PM.

The exit data before the polls close is quarantined. So there were no valid reports of Obama being ahead during the day. If there were, they would have been based on incomplete data.

The internal polls conducted by Hillary and Obama were not based on exit polls. They were traditional polls where voters were contacted by telephone before the election.

I'd like to know why the pre-election polls were so off the mark too.

from now on as a seminal event that changed the way polls (pre-election and exit) are seen, and that made the question of the trustworthiness of the voting machines a topic that was ready for prime time.

you are correct.

The votes don't match the exit polls so something MUST be wrong with the vote count? On what does anyone base that? Do you know who was doing the exit polling, how it was being done, what questions were asked, how people were selected, and whether the data were reported completely or selectively? Or do you just assume that the exit pollers know what they're doing and that their sampling is accurate? Again, based on what? What empirical basis does "too large a margin to ignore" have, other than that it makes Obama supporters feel like they got hosed? I guarantee that whatever questionable thing you might think you've found in vote counting can be balanced by equally questionable things in the reliability of exit polling.

I don't know which, if either, really failed. I assume nothing, because I can't confirm anything. I know the media and the candidates themselves had bad numbers. They admit the polls were off. Polling samples and methods may have to be adjusted if they are wrong in order to obtain more accurate results.

At the same time, a recount of the ballots audits the voting process. Until now, to my knowledge, there has never been a complete recount of a state. Nader stopped NH because it was close enough to right at 3%, and there are still a lot of uncounted ballots in Ohio.

The two pieces have to occur together so the inaccuracies, on whichever end, can be addressed and corrected. The time is right for this to happen because the media isn't shouting it down.

This is not about a candidate, this is about the process. Ensuring the vote is safe benefits everyone.

that if the exit polls had matched the vote counts (or been closer than that "too big to ignore" thingie), you would have assumed that everything was fine with the vote counts?

This post started in the Election Reform Forum. Because it's about Election Reform.

(and my past reading of the poster's posts), the poster is saying that it is good that we look at the data, piece by piece, and come to a table of totals that is highly reproducible.

All of the hypotheses that are posited on the basis of pre-election polls, exit polls, and tallies of the ballots that use short cuts (such as optical scanners with unknown error rates) are not scientific and not verifiable.

They were heavily relied on and seemed accurate for a long time ---
However, as the steals needed to be increased, the exit polls had to go --
and they came under attack ---
Yeah, we might question the exit polls --- but why not question the vote counting first?
Cause it sure looks like we have a problem there!!!

when you say the exit polls "seemed accurate for a long time"? Do you have data for the last 20, 30, 40 years on what percentage of exit polls were closer to the vote counts than their margin of error, which were further away than their margin of error and which were different by "too large a margin to ignore" (again, whatever the freak that means)? Or are you just taking for granted that the exit pollers know what they're doing? How many people who have actually been at the door doing an exit poll have you talked to or watched? And what is the accuracy of the exit polls being measured against? The vote count, which you claim is even less reliable?

Evidently, the idea of the exit polls was so that the media could more quickly predict and announce "winners" based on smaller estimates of the vote --- much earlier than they could previously.

Exit polls helped them to do that ---

And, Why?

Who needed to know "winners" by bedtime --- ???

I love the photo at the top of your journal; I think it's the funniest scene in Annie Hall.

Clean voting is the most important issue in this election, as well as all others. I wish that somehow the topic would make its way into the debates. In other threads it's been noted that if there's been any hanky-panky this time, the same parties who screw with all our elections would be responsible, i.e. Karl Rove and his friends. The Repukes do own the machines and the software.

If somehow it comes out that the vote was stolen from Obama to put Hillary over, I do hope the Clinton campaign will go after the true culprits like gangbusters. If they lay down like Kerry, we will know that they have some sort of agreement with the vote allocators. The same goes for Obama who doesn't seem fazed about his loss or any perceived inconsistencies.

Let's watch them all and let the chips fall where they may.

"You live in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding." :)

Thanks for the props!

I'd love to hear the candidates address it too. I pray there isn't another "down to the wire" scene where it all revolves around the machines. I'm not sure I could take it a third time.

after all this time, it is kind of funny.

:toast:

Here's to all the people who cared and kept caring.

I have to say, although it's far from perfect, it's getting better all the time.

:toast:

Funny like a Sun-
Day, when it's a three day week-
End. Just about right.

:toast: