Too good to check: Statistical analysis shows “Diebold effect” in Hillary NH win?
posted at 2:05 pm on January 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Someone at Science Blogs did check, though, and pronounces himself amazed at what he found. Trutherism for conservatives (or armed liberals)? Possibly, so let me tear a page from the Sullivan playbook and say that I’m not endorsing it, just “airing it.” In fact, SB has made its data public so consider this an invitation to HA readers to crunch his numbers. Any challenges, debunkings, or — gasp — confirmations will be duly added as updates.
Hillary’s margin of victory in NH: 39% to 36.5%. The alleged Diebold effect? 5.2%.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Actually, no, not wrong. The cards and the machines are checked before hand. Before the cards are taken out, before the machines go online and send the results into a central database, before the machines go anywhere, they print out the vote tallies so there is a paper record. If someone suspects fraud, they can check the paper record against the digital record.
The weakness in the system is the people running the precincts and whether or not the adhere to the processes. But that same weakness exists with every voting method. That’s my point.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Furthermore, yes, the cards can be “pre-programmed” to throw votes to a candidate, but the culprit wouldn’t know which candidate. Again, there are processes to prevent fraud. Which candidates appear in which order is rotated by precinct and that order is not determined until after the cards are sent out.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM
LOL! Yes, I realize all this. You didn’t watch the video, did you. It shows you that exact procedure and how it’s meaningless.
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I don’t know if you read what I wrote just before your post, but I spent a lot of time on the phone with a lot of people looking into this and for every concern they had, it turned out someone had thought of it and put a process in place to prevent fraud.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Really? I’m not sure about New Hampshire yet, but not true in Kansas:
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Yeah, that’s pretty dumb. But again, it’s a process weakness. I looked into this in 2004 when most states didn’t have the machines yet and there was a movement to prevent them from buying them or which machines to buy. The counties I spoke with were rotating the names.
p.s. Not I didn’t watch the film. Which film? Can you post the link.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Wait… I just re-read the Kansas site. It referred to printed ballots. Do they even use machines? Because if not, then it’s not a counter example.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
So much for THAT theory.
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Yes. HERE IT IS
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Pass the No-Doz, and the Aspirin.
franksalterego on January 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM
re: VERDICT
BlackBoxVoting.org yikes, do some research on these folks, lot’s of threads at DU and conservativeunderground
it’s my understanding that these are electronic scanners which can surely be hacked but they do have actaul paper ballots that can be checked.
a level headed summary can be found here:
http://www.correntewire.com/even_more_voting_follies_nh_ed
windansea on January 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
windansea on January 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Dude! I just watched half the film and stopped. We’re talking about two different things. They’re talking about optical scanners that count paper ballots. I was talking about actual voting machines like touch screens. If New Hampshire used optical scanners than order on the ballot is not a fraud-prevention process. (Your article quote goes toward another issue, which is top billing on a ballot gives that candidate an advantage.)
p.s. the ballots in question in the video are the ones that were being promoted by the people against voting machines.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Exactly. There’s a paper record. If Obama supporters suspect fraud, they can sue for a recount. In fact, they should audit specific counties regardless. That should be part of their processes.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM
not that it matters to those who are so self-confident that facts are irrelevant, but for the others, take a look:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gocC_456PzI&feature=related
number9 on January 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM
You mean like these?
Look, I’m not saying the election was hacked. I’m simply saying that it’s absurd to just rule it out off-hand. As long as there are elections, there will be groups of people with large bank accounts who will spend millions of dollars toward figuring out how to fix an election. I simply don’t understand why citizens are so willing to put so much faith in a machine when it comes to something so important.
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM
You do realize he said you could check for fraud, right? He says you can look at the source code. Also, he said you can check the paper record versus the electronic record. Exactly what I said above. So you don’t have to guess or wonder if it was hacked… you can check.
Now… explain to me how paper ballots are more secure. If you can rig a machine, can’t you also stuff a ballot box? And with the latter… how can you detect the fraud?
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM
You shouldn’t put your faith in the machine. What the profressor said in your quote, I’ve heard that before. But it has to be done on each machine where you want to rig the vote. And, if the right processes are in place (like rotating the candidate names) any attempts to rig a vote can be thwarted. Unfortunately, it all comes down to the election officials and whether or not the can be trusted. And if you cannot trust them, than — as I’ve asked before and no one has ansered — what makes paper ballots more safe?
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM
But that’s the point. Up until this year, New Hampshire rotated ballots. THIS YEAR THEY DID NOT. What a coincidence.
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM
They used scantron ballots, not voting machines.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 6:07 PM
You’re bouncing around the topic.
Your original point was that they rotate the ballots. They do not.
You then said you were referring to voting machines/touch screen ballots. I showed you evidence that touch screen ballots can be hacked.
You then again went to your rotation defense, which isn’t the case in New Hampshire because they DO NOT rotate the ballots.
Now you answer that by saying they used scantrol ballots instead of voting machines.
The facts remain that New Hampshire does not rotate ballots. All voting machines and electronic machines have been shown to be open to fraud.
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I’m done here. Not going to waste my time anymore. Have fun.
Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I’m not bouncing back and forth. I explained earlier that we were talking about two different things. You can prevent voting machine fraud by rotating the name on the ballot. Most voting machines pose a unique challenge because there is not a paper record of each individual vote. They are the ones considered most vulnerable to fraud for that reason.
You’re complaining about an election where they used a scantron ballot — considered by experts to be the most secure ballot. You have a paper record of each individual vote. It would be very easy to audit the machine count and see if it has been rigged. In fact, the counties should do automatic audits — count the ballots by hand and check against the machine count in random precincts. If they’re not, question those election officials. I’ve said all along that the machines have vulnerabilities, but they can be compensated with a procedure. You’re complaigning about an official who changed the procedure. That’s not an indictment against the machine. It’s an indictment against that official. I pointed out at the beginning every election is vulnerable to crocked officials.
What you’re failing to acknowledge is that, while someone might be able to hack a machine and program it to throw votes, it’s still much easier to stuff a ballot box as people accuse Kennedy of doing in Chicago.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 6:28 PM
re: “…you can look at the source code”
re: “you can check the paper record versus the electronic record”
——-
1) diebold and the other major vendors, do not release their source code to outside parties, including academic institutions.
.
2) you are correct – sort of. the paper trail is only secure if the original ballots are publicly secured. in the case of ohio, the paper ballots were destroyed, which was a criminal act at the time. also, the ballots, as is currently the custom in some places, are handled by third party contractors to the state.
.
essentially, any system can be corrupted to a degree, but the custom of preventing, or making it difficult for the first count to be a public hand count, at the whim of state election officials, sets the process of secrecy and the temptation for fraud in motion.
.
in nh, according to the secretary of state, the machines were not networked to each other, but that is not a limitation for self-executing code. i actually will be surprised if a significant difference in the recount pops up, as i feel the storage and possession of the physical ballots during the past two weeks is a far more susceptible link.
.
i have no opinion over the controversy. ron paul is not an advocate of the recount in spite of those who are zealous (perhaps with good reason or intentions) to follow through.
.
of course, i’m not addressing dead people, pets, or illegal residents who vote and commit fraud. but that’s a whole ‘nother oprah…
number9 on January 16, 2008 at 6:40 PM
That’s basically my point. I understand the distrust of the voting machines, but when I looked into it, I didn’t see how they were any more vulnerable to fraud than any other system.
re: 1) diebold and the other major vendors, do not release their source code to outside parties, including academic institutions.
I’m not sure whether or not representatives of the state are allowed to see the code, but I would have to think if there was a case that fraud may have occurred, they would be forced to allow a rep to audit the code.
re: of course, i’m not addressing dead people, pets, or illegal residents who vote and commit fraud. but that’s a whole ‘nother oprah…
Nicely put.
Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 6:53 PM
The bottom line here is that I’m betting my house that the voting was rigged in favor of the bi**h. I don’t know how they did it and to me it is irrelevant. This is the way the Clintons win elections and nothing will ever be done about it. they will say or do anything (ANYTHING) to win.
BTW, (off subject) why has no one ever challenged her about all of her accomplishments during her “35 years of experience”? Why can’t just one of the TV interviewers ask her to list all of the many things she has done during those 35 years. That ain’t gonna’ happen either.
OBX Pete on January 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Activist Dems who truly believe that Bush stole two elections (2000 and 2004) would be willing to do anything to win the 2006 and 2008 elections, even if it meant cheating to do so. They would feel justified because they think they are the “good guys” stealing it back. How much confidence do you have in the 2006 elections that resulted in Democrat control of the House and Senate? Do you really believe that the slimeball child pornography author Webb beat the honorable “Man of Steele”? I don’t. I think that election was stolen. How much different would the Senate (and Judiciary committee) be if Steele had been announced the winner of that Senate seat?
ITookTheRedPill on January 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM
uh, that’s the guy i was talking about. the man who claims he was paid money by an associate of a gop politician to rig florida’s voting machines in 2000. florida didn’t have electronic voting machines in 2000.
jummy on January 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM
If the Clinton camp hacked the machines, or if Diebold itself tried to throw the election to Clinton somehow, I would think either of their methods would be so sophisticated that the video people are referencing would look like child’s play. I can’t imagine there would be any way to prove anything.
flutejpl on January 16, 2008 at 9:51 PM
re: “…florida didn’t have electronic voting machines in 2000”
——-
i’m not familiar with all of the details in that fl case or the disagreements here, but the programmer’s statement was that he worked on a prototype in sept-october 2000 for the speaker of the house in fl, who was also a lobbyist and corp attorney for a voting machine company (yang). the election center of interest was in south florida.
.
i believe that since it was prototype software (beta), it was perhaps not used in the november 2000 florida presidential election, and probably not at all since the programmer quit his job. not sure if fl, similar to nh, allowed counties to choose their own voting/counting method at that time.
.
but that’s not really why i replied. a voting machine is no more susceptible to fraud than a scanner would be. the essential difference between a voting machine and scanner is only the input method. flipping votes can be accomplished in either apparatus.
.
but again, if the original ballots are not locked up and secured, even the paper trail can be compromised. i think here is where old 20th century methods of publicly counting votes before all party representatives served us well… it just gives everyone a bit more “miller time“
number9 on January 17, 2008 at 3:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2