Surely, if the Democrat lawyers could prove anything, they would go to court? Or not, if they were also fiddling figures (just not to the same extent as the Republicans). SURELY they wouldn't be allowed to get away with this, if it was at all provable?
Imho it stretches the bounds of credibility to believe that it's a coincidence that a (critical, and similar in each area) percentage of voters changed their minds in all areas which used one particular type of (non-auditable) voting process, where no such shift took place in any of the nearby areas which didn't use said process.
From what I've read it seems that the exit polls match up to the registered voter affiliation too - so when two sets of numbers match, and a third doesn't, which one do you look suspiciously at?
There are some links to data sources in the article which ciphergoth was quoting the description of, I don't know if they're what you are looking for?
Those percentages show the change between proclaimed intentions of voters when they registered, and the actual outcome of the vote - they're not absolute figures, they're relative. Did you actually read the page? The numbers are generated by a very simple formula which is explained in a single sentence.
I really want the primary data. The by-county voting numbers aren't too hard to get hold of. Verified Voting is trying to get per-county information on the voting equipment used. I don't know where best to get information on the exit polls.
Would it not be possible for an independent technician to examine the voting machines and software? I can't imagine that no journalist would be interested in the outcome - if anything were found it would be bigger than Watergate...
It certainly would be possible, but Diebold refuse all such requests, and indeed even the states that use their equipment have to sign a contract promising not to investigate what's inside.
I should add that despite all Diebold's efforts to prevent investigation of their security measures, flaws are often found. Googling for "Diebold security" finds gems like this:
Also, it's generally agreed among security experts that there is *no* purely electronic way of having an election that matches the security and verifiability of a paper-based election.
In a well-run, properly monitored and fully auditted election, fraud would be comparatively easy to prove, and would end up in court.
However (as the OSCE preliminary report states) this was not one of those. *Many* gaps were created in the process in which improper actions could be taken without a clear chain of proof.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 05:45 am (UTC)Or am I just very, very naive?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 05:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 05:52 am (UTC)Is there a link anywhere to the primary data behind SoCalDem's analysis?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:08 am (UTC)From what I've read it seems that the exit polls match up to the registered voter affiliation too - so when two sets of numbers match, and a third doesn't, which one do you look suspiciously at?
There are some links to data sources in the article which
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:53 am (UTC)Sorry ... I though the data on the referenced page was satire e.g. Calhoun County: Republican 741% Democrat-23%. Verified voting is much better.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 10:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:27 am (UTC)http://gort.ucsd.edu/mtdocs/archives/laz/001866.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=diebold+security
Also, it's generally agreed among security experts that there is *no* purely electronic way of having an election that matches the security and verifiability of a paper-based election.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:18 am (UTC)However (as the OSCE preliminary report states) this was not one of those. *Many* gaps were created in the process in which improper actions could be taken without a clear chain of proof.