Kyle Mcallister wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 05 March, 2006 04:04 PM
Subject: OT: Looks like it's over, folks.
<snip conspiracy theory-related 'news' on how the White House was stolen>
This wasn't "news" on 2000 and 2004. This was "news" on the use of
hazardous machines in future elections.
I think it is perhaps worth noting that had a Democrat been elected under
the same circumstances in 2000, and then re-elected under the same
circumstances in 2004, that there would have been none of this outcry of
"stealing the White House" and that counts were rigged.
I disagree. Elections have been stolen any number of times in the past
by both sides, and it isn't only the liberals or the left who point it
out. But that's not the primary issue here. Nixon lost to Kennedy
through the shenanigans of Mayor Daley, for example; there's not much
debate about that.
But the problem with the new voting machines goes far, far beyond the
issue of party politics and who's dirtier than whom. The use of voting
machines which are apparently easy to rig and which are impossible to
audit means the incumbent party, _whichever_ it is, has the opportunity
to lock itself in power. If California goes with these machines, then
even if the Democrats win in 2008 we will still be in grave danger. A
1-party system is bad no matter which party it is, and those machines
make such a thing possible.
Immediately after the last election, I heard serious assertions that
exit polls should be banned because they are so inaccurate. Whether
they are inaccurate or not, the combination of that kind of thinking
with audit-free machines is a recipe for disaster.
Those who screamed
"revote" in Florida would have been labeled as neo-con right wing
extremists.
As a matter of fact I analyzed the available data on Florida pretty
carefully and the pattern was not obviously different from historical
voting patterns in the state. The evidence of fraud in 2004, such as it
was, was mostly anecdotal and came primarily from Bev Harris at Black
Box Voting. The statistical data didn't show it. Here's the page,
rather disorganized and mostly of historical interest:
http://physicsinsights.org/elec04.html
A lot of the early suspicion on Florida came from the very weird pattern
of votes: who voted for Bush correlated very well with what kind of
machine they used, which seemed very wrong. It took careful analysis to
determine that the correlation didn't indicate causality: the kind of
machines and the way people voted were _both_ correlated to a third
factor, which correlated with the demographics and political makeup of
the counties.
Here's a quote regarding the analysis of the _1996_ election, which I
think sums up a lot of the confusion:
"Notice, in particular, machine type is a significant predictor of the
Dem vote ratio, even though those machines won't be used for another 8
years."
As I said, in this case correlation did _not_ indicate causality.
It's worth remembering that Kerry's people did _NOT_ challenge the
results in Florida. They _did_ join the challenge in Ohio.
Gore's people challenged in Florida, and as the very late recount by the
press showed, they had good reason: Gore should have carried the state.
Nixon's people did not challenge the results in Illinois because, IIRC,
Nixon didn't want a long bitter divisive fight over the election. And
he came back to win in a later election, anyway (and played his share of
dirty tricks, too, of course).
The mass media's role would be handily reversed, always jumping
at the defense of the president who's legal election was called into
question. If the president is a Republican or Independent, it is a-ok
however to make such arguments.
Don't think this means I like Bush; I do not. I hated Kerry, I nearly detest
Bush and Cheney, and there is not much other choice. It really sucks to not
have anyone to vote for.
On a different note: a coworker and I were discussing alternative fuels
(like hydrogen) and such, at which he laughingly concluded the conversation
by stating "Its not going to do me any good, so who really cares about what
happens later. Lets just use up what we have left right now and the hell
with it. Who cares."
...Needless to say, my day was pretty well trashed from that point on.
--Kyle, your resident hopelessly hoping Independent
