end of thread more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002Elections from RISKS

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:21:42 -0700
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: FW: <[IP]> more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002Elections
from RISKS

Since I was specifically challenged by name by Dana Blankenhorn, I
am directing this response to her.


At 12:54 PM 11/10/02 -0500, Dana Blankenhorn wrote:

> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Dana Blankenhorn <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> Reply-To: Dana Blankenhorn <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:53:54 -0500
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: <[IP]> more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002Elections from
> RISKS
>
> Dave:
>
> I don't know whether what Lynn wrote is correct or not.
>
> We both know, however, that electronic systems are very easy to tamper with.
> I also know that the results in Georgia and Florida, where the electronic
> systems were used exclusively, were 10% off from what the polls showed
> before the election.

What the polls showed before the election have almost nothing to do with
whether the poll was accurate.  There are entirely too many ways in which
polls are *much* less reliable than even the sloppiest election.  Perhaps it
would be better for Lynn and Dana to challenge the pollsters.

> It's also true that there were reports from Florida on Election Day of
> people trying to vote Democratic, who found out that the machines recorded
> their votes as Republican.

Yes, and there were other jurisdictions in which the opposite claim was
made.
These allegations make neither of them true.  But also please note that the
biggest flap was over the butterfly ballot which somehow manage to confuse
voters.  The only machine in this case was a tablet which held the ballot in
position for hand punching.

> If a program automatically cast 1 in 10 votes for one party, regardless of
> what the voter intended, then you have your difference.

Any program which arbitrarily cast 10 percent of the votes for one party
would be very easy to spot with a test run of as few as 10 votes.

> The problem is, how do you prove it? If it's true, I consider it treason.
> Yes, treason. No crime can be as serious as stealing an American election.
> No crime goes deeper to the heart of the American system.
>
> But how do you prove it? Rogue programs can be erased and removed.
> Irregularities can be attributed to underlings. The conspiracy itself could
> be very small, and politicians would no doubt (if it were true) isolate it
> to Diebold, the vendor.

While the assertion by Dana that it is easy to tamper with electronic
systems is true, it is *much* more difficult to tamper with them in such
a way that the tamperer doesn't get caught.  And getting caught would
completely undo the rationale for tampering in the first place.  Consider
that it would be necessary to tamper with a very large number of systems
in numerous jurisdictions to have any significant effect without being
noticed.  (The reason that Duval county and Mayor Daley got caught was
their egregious cheating.)  Just think of the scrutiny that the hanging
chads
got in Florida.  How do you get rogue programs in the hundreds of voting
machines used in Dade County alone and then get them erased again?

While there might be a rogue programmer in some vendors establishment,
the likelihood that a major vendor instituted such behavior is absurdly
unlikely given that, if discovered, they would be out of business in a flash
and those responsible would be behind bars.  If the machines don't do the
right thing, my opinion is that it is overwhelmingly likely that a
programming
error (ie bug) or other form of stupidity is to blame.

> Then, how to you guarantee it won't happen again? You have to create
> print-outs of everyone's vote, and drop them into a box, just as before, and
> hand count those votes, just as before, for a post-election audit. It would
> be a major mess.

As I noted in my earlier post, paper ballots guarantee nothing.  The above
paragraph is simply naive to even propose such.  But I do agree, it would
be a mess.

> But democracy isn't designed to be simple or neat.
>
> In other words, it's very wrong to dismiss this charge as mere partisanship,
> or as "everybody does it." The former claim is disingenuous, the latter
> extremely cynical.

A charge may be dismissed if it is so obviously partisan that the motives
of the writer are called into question unless serious evidence is shown.
In the original ariticle, nothing was shown except speculation.

> Let me repeat this. If this election was stolen it's the gravest crime to
> our democracy ever.

If stolen, I agree that it is one of the gravest of crimes.

> Doesn't the impact of the charge by itself require an investigation on the
> merits?

Depends upon whether there is any credible evidence whatsoever, not
mere speculation.  After the 1960 election, even though a lot of evidence
was shown to Richard Nixon that he had gotten the short end of the stick,
he chose not to contest the election on the ground that uncertainty about
the outcome of the election would do more damage to the country than
winking at a flawed election.  He may or may not have been right about
that, but it did put a damper on the speculation that Kennedy was an
illegitimate president. and that was probably a very good thing.

> Let me ask Bob McClure -- if it were Democrats who stood accused, would you
> still say ignore it? Be honest.

I don't ignore any real evidence of malfeasance on either side.  To quote
from
my earlier post:  The best that we can do is try as hard as we can to get
it right.
Since I believe in full disclosure, let me say that I don't trust either of
our two
major parties, and in the last presidential election did not vote for
either.

Bob McClure




------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/