Not necessarily.
I'm a little disconcerted by the speed of Allen's concession (scheduled for just a few hours from now). A recount might have uncovered a telling discrepancy between the electronic tallies and the paper trail, as gleaned from absentee ballots, provisionals and so forth. Perhaps Allen decided to concede early to keep national observers from studying every jot and tittle of the Virginia results. Some of those jots and tittles might have been suspicious.
We see a very similar situation in this story about the strange count in the Florida 13 Congressional race. Pay attention:
Democrat Christine Jennings lost to Republican Vern Buchanan by 368 votes, making it the second closest congressional race in the country.Here's the telling detail:
More than 18,000 voters who showed up at the polls voted in other races but not the Buchanan-Jennings race.
That means nearly 13 percent of voters did not vote for either candidate -- a massive undercount compared with other counties, including Manatee, which reported a 2 percent undervote.
In addition, absentee voters, who didn't have to use the voting machines, had only an estimated 1.8 percent undervote.Touch screen voters had a bizarre 13% undervote, while paper voters had a normal undervote of less than 2%. So startling a difference between the paper vote and the compu-vote constitutes prima facie evidence of vote fraud.
(By the way, I keep hearing that term mispronounced, even by lawyers. It's PREEma FAHkia.)
The Webb/Allen situation may parallel the 2004 Snohomish County (Washington) vote studied in exquisite detail by Paul Lehto. The extremely close gubernatorial race between Republican Dino Rossi and Democrat Christine Gregoire led to a recount. Those recount results revealed that the paper and electronic voting patterns were at a sharp variance.
In that race, in Snohomish, two thirds of the electorate used paper; they went for the Democrat, 97044 to 95228. One third of the voters used touch screens; they went for the Republican 10,400 to 42,145 -- enough to give the Republican candidate an overall edge in the county. That edge disappeared during the statewide recount, which gave Gregoire a miniscule 129-vote lead.
Because "their" candidate won the overall race, few progressives cared about the odd results in Snohomish County. But just because a candidate you favor managed to squeak out a victory does not mean that the other side refrained from underhanded tactics.
Someone ought to make sure Jim Webb gets that message.
By the way: A Kos poster has uncovered an interesting oddity. In the 2000 senatorial race in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman's Republican opponent received 448,077 votes. In 2006, Ned Lamont received...wait for it...448,077 votes.
Co-inky-dink...?
23 comments:
What we need to do is pressure elected representatives to ensure that casting a vote is at least as reliable and as auditable as withdrawing $20 from an ATM for playing a slot machine.
Absolutely foolproof technology has been available for many years. There is no excuse for not using that technology, and with uniform baseline standards throughout the entire country. If costs $5 billion, so be it. Cheap at the price.
Everyone, get on the phone, don't be comforted by these results.
(Lawyers may pronounce it PRY-muh-fay-shuh because of this)
I think you are right- Allen is conceding becuase he knows he could be exposed as a fixer, and he is still under the delusion that he may pull out a presidential run.
The DKos thread linked gets distracted, and I think loses the point.
The important number to look at is how you factor in Schlesinger and the GOP votes.
This year (and I'm going to round out pretty broadly), Lieberman lost about 275 thousand votes compared to what he got in 2000. It's not farfetched to assume they could have gone directly to Lamont.
But where did the 450k Republican votes from 2000 go then? Did most of them say this year, "I hate Lieberman, I'm gonna vote for Lamont"? That's not particularly plausible.
Schlesinger and the minor candidates only got about 120k. Did a couple of hundred thousand Republicans just sit this one out, or vote for someone more liberal than Lieberman?
This really smells funny.
I still believe the machines where rigged to give a few % vote increase to the Repubs and Rove & Co. underestimated Dem. turnout plus the 30% of Evangelical vote that turned on the Repubs.
The thing I love about these "happy Dems" is that (1) they will excuse fundamentally defective conditions like secret vote counting on electronic machines, as long as they win, just like Republicans excuse their own tactics and wins, (this may be the dominant form of human nature) and (2) if these happy dems are due 10,000 dollars one can always rip them off by giving them 9,500 dollars because that's all 9,500 dollars more than they had yesterday.
Whether or not there is fraud depends on the baseline of what one should have received in the first place. It appears in fact that the people had a real tidal wave of change on their minds, and the system, both gerrymandering and voting, acted to mute that tidal wave.
sofla said...
The dictionaries I've referenced today on how to say prima facia disagree with your claim and give something close to the version you say is wrong.
Of course, the phonetic version doesn't show a Y to indicate the first vowel sound, but instead a long 'I,' which is the same thing. And they offer the last consonants as an 'sh' sound, followed either by the schwa symbol (an 'uh' sound), or the long E sound.
One of my five past Latin instructors explained that Church Latin had picked up Italian pronunciation for things like using 'ch' sounds for 'c's, etc., and that this probably most common way to speak Latin was mistaken compared to how it was done originally. But yet the HRCC continues that practice when or if they still use Latin (as in singing, for one area).
Similarly, Latin in common use in English speaking countries has picked up its own pronunciations, which are deemed correct in English. We know how this works. We don't say Munchen (umlaut over the 'u'), we say 'Munich;' we say Turin, not Torino. In general, we ignore how things are said in their original setting, and use some standardized English version instead, and it's entirely correct to do so when we're speaking English here in America. Those are NOT mispronunciations, but the correct way to say them IN ENGLISH.
How would you say Herman Hesse's last name? Dropping the last e sound (making it silent) is correct in English conventions. Some prefer to pronounce it 'eh' since he's foreign, and presumably would pronounce that last e that way. But in Switzerland, where he came from, it was pronounced with a long E sound at the end.
Wow! This is the most breathtaking coincidence I've ever encountered! Trust those guys at the Daily Kos.
In 2000, Giordano received 440, 306 votes. On Tuesday, Ned Lamont got 478,751. Imagine: Both totals contained six digits! Both totals began with the number "4"!!
I couldn't be more amazed if Giordano and Lamont received the same number of votes, which, you may have noticed, they didn't.
Sometimes you have put aside mindless partisanship and just take a deep breath. When a guy loses and declines to contest an extremely close contest, you really shouldn't accuse his side of vote fraud. That is beyond insane.
If Webb had lost by seven thousand votes, race-baiting frauds like Sharpton and Jackson would already be marching and hundreds of frivolous lawsuits would be filed. A little self-awareness, please.
sofla, I am truly impressed.
pomeroo, I am not.
I don't expect anyone here to be impressed. You must acknowledge, however, that I am right.
Apparently pomeroo wants us to believe HIM rather than the Federal Elections Commission:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/senparty.htm
Hint: Don't lie about small points and people will be more ready to believe the lies on big points.
As for prima facie, the Websters in my house -- as well as the website cited previously -- support my pronunciation.
http://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2005/06/latin-pronunciation.html
(Hard K sound, not a soft c)
sofla raises a good point. When do we change the pronunciation when a word enters the English language? We don't pronounce the Orleans in New Orleans the way the French do...
I should add that the Lieberman thing probably IS just a coincidence. Hell of a coincidence, though!
Minor discrepancies are just that: my figures, taken from Connecticut Secretary of State's office now show Lamont with 480,481. His total will go a little higher.
My larger point remains valid. Lamont and Giordano did not receive the same number of votes. If they had, it would have been a truly extraordinary coincidence.
I tip my hat to Joseph, who has allowed me to argue for unpopular views. If everyone shared his sincere respect for free speech, the country would be a better place. Tolerance connotes disapproval.
My personal theory is that the Republicans "threw" the elections, with the help of the MSM, thus enabling them to blame the Democrats for the harvest and the whirlwind of desolation which is ready to descend upon the country.
MSM contribution? Anybody else think it was kinda "funny" how the Main Stream Media seem to jump on a lotta stories in the last few weeks that weren't very complimentary to Republicans?: They had no qualms about blasting the Foley business all over the front pages. There was the Cheney "waterboarding" comment that received a lot of publicity, the Rev. Ted Haggard "immorality incident", the deflating housing bubble, the high G.I. death toll for October, etc. Funny. So yeah, maybe there was a conspiracy. To lose.
pomeroo said: "Tolerance connotes disapproval."
eh? connotes means "to suggest or convey, to imply..."
So, "Tolerance suggests or implies disapproval?"
WTF?
Look buddy, like most Republicans you have a weak gene when it comes to logic and meaning. I have tried not to be mean to you, because you can ALMOST fake being reasonable. Not quite, but almost.
We are on a different level than you are here, or for that matter any of the lurking hecklers who from time to time manifest and insinuate themselves into our discussions with the claim that they are, like you, Republicans "by default".
Whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the Democrats, why not vote Libertarian? Green? You don't become a Republican by default, and PLEASE don't present some ludicrous rationalization of that which you didn't literally mean in the first place. You are not a Republican by default. You are a Republican because you live in fear and self-hatred. Really. Deal with it. Get help.
But please, go away.
No. Don't answer. Go.
Ouch!
Jen said:
"Unirealist--you have disappointed me. But you go ahead and play it the way you need to as well.
# posted by Jen : 7:12 PM"
Please re-read what I said, Jen. I have the utmost respect for your comments, which are on point, passionate, and incisive. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.
COS (Change of subject)
This from Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican just defeated in the midterm election:
(snip)
"The people have spoken all across America. They want the Democrats and Republicans to work together," he said. "I think the president now is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that's going to be good for America."
Chafee added that he stayed with the GOP largely because it helped him bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island.
(snip)
Let's edit both paragraphs into Wikipedia under CLUELESSNESS.
Sorry, but mine is not the weak logic gene. Tolerance connotes disapproval. There is no need to tolerate what we approve of. This concept is not difficult for most people once they've thought about it. And yes, I frequently vote for the libertarian.
Really now, pomeroo, we had this discussion years ago. You either have too much time on your hands, or you're deaf.
Let's make it very simple: you're either interested in fair and verifiable voting, or you're not. The current system is incoherent, unverifiable, and unsecure. No bank or casino would get near this "new" technology, and no consumer would risk a dime on it. Who would make make deposits at the local ATM, if there was a 13% chance the money would never be credited?
There is absolutely no need to argue here (with you) over whether election fraud did or didn't occur in any particular race or election. Republican dirty tricks (and law-breaking) are already a matter of public record, and anyone with eyes and ears over the course of the last 6 years knows Republicans were (at the very least) *trying* to steal elections and suppress the vote, from Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell to the convictions in New Hampshire to the robo calls this time around. And much lese.
Now, you either support free and fair elections or you don't. The current technology doesn't begin to guarantee the fairness of the result, even forgetting the potential for suppressing votes and willfully misleading voters.
If you're for perpetuating the current technology, terrible as it is, fine. But kindly don't waste anyone's time here.
If you don't like the current system, it doesn't matter whether you agree with claims of election fraud made on this blog. The real issue is, COULD such fraud have occurred, and is the voting public entitled to some assurance that its votes count?
That's all we're concerned about it here, whether a secure and reliable voting system leads to more Democrats or more Republicans.
You don't share this concern. You don't think fraud, and apparently don't care whether it COULD argue, with present technology.
Fine and well. Just masturbate someplace else.
Diebold has now taken steps to use an outside organization, Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego, to take responsibility for security issues within their software. But this presents yet another conflict of interest. A majority of officials on the board are former members of either the Pentagon or the CIA, many of whom are closely allied with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Members of the board of directors include: Army Gen. Wayne Downing, Former CIA Director Bobby Ray Inman, Retired Adm. William Owens,Robert Gates.
That kind of lineup is a virtual declaration that the military-corporate complex fully supports rigged elections.
pomeroo said:
"If everyone shared his sincere respect for free speech, the country would be a better place. Tolerance connotes disapproval."
In context, that last sentence either misuses the word "connote" or is a WTF non-sequitor. You pick. Either way, it's your gene, not mine.
BTW, anon 5:09 very patiently explains to you what I also did in a previous post. I suppose that this time you'll avoid making the choice, too.
In the county in which I live - and voted - in Texas, the undervote in most races in which there was a candidate from each major party on the ballot was in the 1.5-4% range. The only time the undervote was significantly larger than that was when a Democrat wasn't running in the race...as was the case in many of the judicial races. In those races, the amount of the undervote correlated very closely to the number of people who voted straight Democratic Party right off the top. Most of those people didn't bother to cast a vote in those races, which is understandable. The percentage undervote in these races was often in the 20-25% range.
The 13% undervote in FLA-13 does seem unusually high in a race featuring a Republican and a Democrat. On one hand, one could argue that the relative contentiousness of the Republican primary a few months back might have left a significant number of Republicans unable to vote for the winner of that primary - Vern Buchanan - and unable to vote for a candidate from another party - either Democrat Christine Jennings or someone else. That would be about the only viable explanation...aside from one involving chicanery.
Please keep us posted on any new developments with this story.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'll be brief as I have no interest in raining on anyone's parade.
Tolerance connotes disapproval. A truism, very simple to comprehend. If you don't get the point, your problem is with the English language. When we say that we tolerate something, we imply that we disapprove of it, e.g., I tolerate smoking in my favorite sports bar. If I were a smoker, I wouldn't merely tolerate it: I would heartily approve of the activity. Anyway, this is really not difficult.
Clean elections may be a desirable goal for you and me, but it is irrelevant to the two major parties. Democrats resist all efforts to reduce vote fraud because the present situation favors them. They benefit from unregistered voters and illegally cast provisional ballots. There is no incentive for them to back any measures that would promote an honest count. The Republicans happen to find themselves on the lawful side of the issue because the illegal votes are overwhelmingly Democratic. I can assure you that if Republicans were getting most of fraudulent votes, the Dems would be the ones complaining and making highminded points about fairness.
If you doubt my analysis, just ask yourself how complicated this process of voting actually is. You register, then you vote. This ain't rocket science. When I vote, I have to produce an ID and sign the book. Anyone who claims that this procedure is somehow suppressive is conning someone. Show me one person who can truthfully say that he or she attempted to register to vote but was prevented from doing so and I'll start to listen. All of this crap about vote suppression is a cynical effort to allow thousands of illegal votes.
Bob Beckel said of the internet frenzy concerning magic voting machines that "these people need to get their heads out of their asses and do some real work if they want to help us" (the Democratic Party). I suppose it's fun to pretend that sinister Republican operatives are lurking behind every bush (pardon the pun), but reality is quite different. The reason top Democrats ignore all of the nonsense about "hackable" voting machines and the like is that they know better. The machines are not hackable, despite the false alarms sounded by overimaginative ignoramuses: they are not connected to the internet. I've referenced Mark Blumenthal's site as the one-stop shopping center for all the information about exit polls you could ever want. Enough said.
Post a Comment