Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP will try TO STEAL THE VOTE AGAIN - Details Here (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know. I don't get it. I have been (44+ / 0-)

    studying this for a long time and it seems obvious to me but not so much to most people, I don't think. I have puzzled over this for years. Some of it is the Democratic politicians refusal to look like "bad losers" (Gore and Kerry) and some of it just seems to be the result of a strange cognitive dissonance. Time after time the results are wildly off from the exit polling and polls going in (always to the detriment of Dems). Time after time, the result makes absolutely no sense in light of the demographic in the individual districts and the voting result. Voter suppression and intimidation are in plain sight. More  voting machines for Repugs and less for  Dem districts (with a fairly even number of voters at each). Harassment of every kind against people of color, the elderly and students (mostly Dems). I could go on and on.  

    Scott Walker's recall election is the most recent glaring example. The race was called while people were still voting, the percentages on the Sect. of State's polling results online remained static for ten minutes with the same percentage (59.7%) for Walker over three districts (mathematically impossible) and then without those numbers moving even by one vote they called it for Walker. This was with something like 42% of the votes being reported. The results wildly differed from the exit polling. The Democrats should have stormed in there and investigated everything immediately, but they did nothing.

    I think that the Repugs know that spending massive amounts of money does not always work but they keep doing it so that people will say (like they did about Walker's recall election) the Dems were outspent by whatever huge percent and that gives them cover for massive election theft that they keep getting away with. (sorry to blather)

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 12:40:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There is a manual recount of scanned ballots (24+ / 0-)

      underway in WI, but we won't know the results for a while. Certain 'red' counties are making doing the recount work unnecessarily difficult and some tried to evade being made subject to this effort.  Even if the scanned paper ballots turn out to 'add up' to machine totals, it doesn't mean there wasn't adding or subtracting of counted ballots.  The DRE counts have paper tape but there's really no manual way to go back and verify them.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "What is the advantage of reporting vote tallies (26+ / 0-)
      minutes after the polls close, if the announced winner is not who the majority voted for? Canada votes with paper ballots, and the votes are counted by hand publicly with all sides observing."
      Republicans lie, cheat and steal. Why would voting machines
      be off limits to them...they aren't.

      The corrupt members of the GOP will stop at nothing to remain in power.

      "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

      by Mr SeeMore on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 03:12:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amen!!! (11+ / 0-)

        When they call the election early like they did for Walker it sets the contender up as the loser (whether he/she was or not) and forces them to fight an uphill battle. This is exactly what they did in Florida in 2000 and it worked beautifully for them, so they continue it where necessary. They have pretty much figured out that the Dems are not going to go in there swinging on behalf of a accurately verified vote.  

        In answer to your rational question -- there is no advantage to it for anyone who is really interested in a fair, open election where the voter's ballots are properly counted and accurately reflect the wishes of the electorate.

        I'm with you, why can't we just count votes like Canada does? Well, there was the chad thing and that didn't go well but if all participants were interested in accuracy that kind of crap just would not happen.  

        "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

        by rubyr on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 03:45:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Paper ballots w/ all sides observing: and internet (19+ / 0-)

        We could add something to the Canadian method: Webcams watching the whole process, everything webcast and visible in real-time over the internet, so EVERYONE can watch the count.  

        That's the place for "high-tech."  To provide the means by which anyone who wants to watch the entire process, can do so, end-to-end, including chain-of-custody of the ballots.  

        With all the surveillance in daily life (Facebook, Google, Smartphones, security cameras, etc.), and people acquiescing in being watched like a herd of barnyard animals (sheep and cows come to mind), it's time to turn that around:  it's time for us to start watching, rather than just being watched.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 03:58:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  AND they can get it done in a night... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Puddytat, Mr SeeMore, sb, Catskill Julie

        with dogsleds, on occasion. I'm sorry, but Canada rocks :-)

    •  Possiblities: liberal guilt and hippiephobia. (6+ / 0-)

      I have felt similar bewilderment about why the Democratic leadership doesn't debunk the Republicans' favorite lie that the media's biased against them.

      I think the possibilities can be narrowed down to 2: liberal guilt and hippiephobia. The first is that many Democrats have feelings that they've benefitted from unwarranted luck. Republicans manipulate this with their deck of victim cards, especially the ones about how they're the working classes.

      The second is that, as someone on Salon.com said early this year, where the Republicans fear their base, Democrats despise theirs. In this view, the leadership would be less afraid of losing to the GOP than they are of truly representing their constituents.

      The results wildly differed from the exit polling.
      Funny how Ukraine can conduct exit polls--back when Kuchma had dictatorial powers--but we can't. Republicans say it's because their voters lie to pollsters. If they actually believed the media's biased against them, they'd see that they're pissing upstream of their water source.

      Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? -Paul Krugman

      by Judge Moonbox on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 06:46:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We do exit polling (6+ / 0-)

        The media just stopped reporting on it when it became obvious that the results were wildly different.

        The exit polls showed a tossup between Walker and Barrett in Wisconsin and the MSNBC predicted a "long night".  Half an hour after the polls closed (with people still standing in long lines to vote) everyone called it for Walker.

        We need to ask how shit like that still happens.

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 12:08:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  been here, done this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, Puddytat
          The media just stopped reporting on it when it became obvious that the results were wildly different.

          The exit polls showed a tossup between Walker and Barrett in Wisconsin and the MSNBC predicted a "long night".

          Given your second sentence, I can't tell what you meant by your first. The media kept reporting exit poll results.

          A useful starting point might be a diary I wrote four years ago: "Election Fraud Myths: The Exit Polls." I could update it for 2012, but not much has changed.

          Election protection: there's an app for that!
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 05:59:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's the connection (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error

            between those 2 sentences.  You don't hear exit polling very much (like those election nights of 2000 and before) except as a mention tossed in not to predict results, but to predict how long before a winner is announced.   And nobody, but nobody in the media points out when the exit polls don't match the election results.

            Exit polling is different from regular polls because it's not predictive - it doesn't ask about a future event;  it's asking people about something they just did (who did you vote for) so it's always been a reliable indicator of the results.  When they don't match or the results are vastly different, it indicates a problem with the results.  And exit polling during the Walker recall showed a toss up which was not reflected in the "official" results.  In other words, the results should have been much closer than they were.

            Election observers in countries where elections are not terribly reliable use exit polling data to validate results.  We stopped using them here after the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco because they were pointing to serious problems in our own elections.

            There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

            by Puddytat on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:27:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, but crucial pieces of this are untrue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Judge Moonbox
              Exit polling... [has] always been a reliable indicator of the results.
              In my experience, people who were knowledgeable about exit polls before 2004 don't agree with this statement. For one thing, it's known that there were substantial exit poll discrepancies in 1992. For another, it's questionable in principle: no matter how hard one works to randomize the exit poll sample, it's up to voters to decide whether to participate, and there is no way to ensure that participation isn't biased.

              The 2004 exit poll showed John Kerry winning Minnesota by 14 points, New Hampshire by 15 points, Pennsylvania by 14 points. None of those margins made any sense. Frankly, Kerry's exit poll margin of 6.5 points in Ohio didn't make much sense. (Many people don't realize how large these margins were, because the margins depicted on websites used "composite" projections that factored in pre-election polling.) Here in New York, the exit poll had Kerry winning by 31 points.

              And exit polling during the Walker recall showed a toss up which was not reflected in the "official" results.  In other words, the results should have been much closer than they were.
              The nominal margin of error on the difference hasn't been reported (it can't be calculated directly from the number of respondents), but I would guess it was at least 6 points. That's disregarding experiences like the ones I mention above. I don't think any seasoned observers were hugely shocked to see Walker win by 7.
              Election observers in countries where elections are not terribly reliable use exit polling data to validate results.
              Well, Sumate used an exit poll to argue that Hugo Chavez had rigged an election in Venezuela, but that doesn't get shouted out too often here. Neutral election observers generally don't use exit polls to validate results; the Carter Center explicitly has recommended against it.
              We stopped using them here after the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco because they were pointing to serious problems in our own elections.
              I don't know what you mean. The network-sponsored exit polls actually haven't changed much since 2000.

              Election protection: there's an app for that!
              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 11:11:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps a subject for a ProPublica investigation (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, Puddytat, Judge Moonbox

          because AP and the rest of the big media are most interested in rapid results that THEY can break first.

          Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

          by Catskill Julie on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 06:21:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "It can't happen here" syndrome. (4+ / 0-)

      Disbelief and denial allow SO many evils.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site