First and foremost: The press still refuses to discuss this study! I suspect that you won't see The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times acknowledge it until they can quote dismissive commentary from "experts" on the other side. (Of course, they did not treat Mitofsky's volley in that fashion.) Which means we may have to wait quite a while -- the facts are pretty damned hard to dismiss.
When talk turns to the exit poll discrepancy, many still parrot the "chatty Dem" theory, which holds that NEP pollsters received greater feedback from Kerry supporters in 2004. But no pundit has tried to reconcile that allegation with the fact that the same respondents said that, in 2000, they had voted for Bush over Gore, 43% to 37%. (Gore, as I never tire of repeating, actually won the popular vote.) Neither do the pundits address the fact that the discrepancy was at its widest in Bush strongholds. These two facts prove that Bush supporters, not Kerry supporters, were over-represented by the NEP poll.
Mention these inconvenient pieces of evidence to any conservative and watch how quickly they switch the subject: "Your qvestions haff become tiresome. Now is ze time on Shprockets ven ve dahnce!"
What troubles me is that even the really liberal media -- Salon, the Nation, American Prospect and so forth -- refuse to mention this report. They won't acknowledge it even to snarl at it. (To be fair, Salon just now got around to mentioning the Gannon-Gosch rumor, which most bloggers -- or at least this blogger -- laughed out of court weeks ago. By the way, Cannonfire was mentioned in a Des Moines Register article on the Gosch-2-Gannon conspiracy theory.)
Why does the very idea of vote fraud make so many people -- even Kerry supporters -- feel so uncomfortable? Perhaps because the ramifications are too frightening. If our democracy is a sham, the ghosts of our forefathers urge us to take action. But who wants to do that? As one British respondent put it:
So what are you going to do? Live with it. You can't do otherwise. You don't have half the character that other countries have when their elections go bad.And so we become a nation of Hamlets, convinced that the times demand rebellion but unwilling to play the rebel.
Grab your remote, a bag of fat snacks, a case of beer or some drug laced diet pop, and a cryin' towel and watch the soaps like all Americans do. Get back to real livin'.
Just for the record, here are some contributors to the study in question:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathan Simon, J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
Ron Paul Baiman, PhD. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
Not enough PhDs for you? Apparently, the New York Times considers the brainpower behind this report insufficiently hefty.
What the hell can we do to make sure more people read the work of these scientists? Not to mention the previous studies indicating that vote fraud is no mere theory?
I'm open to suggestions! If dancing in my underwear on an overpass overlooking the Hollywood freeway will help generate publicity, I'll dig out my cool black Calvin Klein briefs.
By the way: In previous posts I neglected to mention that this study was conducted pursuant to the National Election Data Archive Project.
8 comments:
Look, it has been known for several years now that there is no "quantum nonlocality" in physics, yet physicists ignore this and spend fortunes researching the nonexistent. They even are toting "quantum encryption," supposedly unbreakable, on the basis of the nonexistent "nonlocality." When physicists can be rid of their prejudices about "nonlocality," try copying whatever did the trick.
My own opinion, having observed such impasses, that you have to keep on trying but try to stay relaxed and patient. It helps a lot if you believe we are only a few steps beyond the neolithic, socially. Look at the people around you -- most of them actually believe in myths, exactly as our neolithic ancestors did. Never, ever, laugh at the ancient Greeks for their silly myths, unless you are also going to laugh at modern Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. If we cannot rid the world of belief in fairy tales, then don't expect much of people. Most of them, even the educated, are Stone Agers in modern dress.
See http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+kracklauer/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=2be18eaab758f4ca if you are inclined towards physics.
When I mentioned the obvious fraud to a Liberal Democratic friend, she said "And just how do you think Kennedy won? Wasn't it stuffing the ballot box in Chicago?"
My history is too poor to answer that, but her comment gets at the "truth" about U.S. voting. It's always been dishonest! In the sixties, my husband and I moved to Cambridge, MA. We registered as Dems and were asked if we'd like to vote in Brookline too. We declined, but we could have said yes!
Let's begin with the truth: You can't control voting when 1) you can register the day of the election (here in Maine) 2) don't need to report to your old place that you've moved and registered somewhere else, and 3) the voting lists have people on them that you KNOW MOVED AWAY FIVE YEARS AGO!!! (And that's just scratching the surface of our voting bullshit!)
Judy Down Maine
You are confusing two very different issues.
There may have always been small-scale fraud, but it was largely unorganized and not statistically significant on a national level. The incident you retail almost certainly resulted from a misunderstanding (yours) and wouldn't, in any case, throw a national election.
Whether or not Illinois stuffed ballots for Kennedy, he would have won anyway, which is why Nixon never contested the election.
By contrast, Kerry gave up quietly because he knew it was hopeless trying to fight in Florida and Ohio (given the political leadership) and because he's a "team player", believing all that nonsense about "the good of the country", etc.
The scope of the current fraud, on a national level, is unprecedented. In any case, past fraud, of whatever scope, doesn't excuse current fraud, particularly given the extremism of the current ruling party, and the relatively few Americans who support its policies.
Let me take issue with your contention that "Kerry gave up quietly because he knew it was hopeless..."
After watching his behavior through the campaign, and then walking away at the end, I am sure he was in on the scam from the gitgo. The real shame of this thing is that it is so hard to find anyone in power who is not going along with it.
My personal take is that blackmail has a lot to do with this, but that is a larger topic for another day.
You are absolutely correct on all counts. I did not mean to minimize the horror of the present voting debacle. It has truly frightened me. I send information on to everyone I know, asking them to read and forward. I write to my Congressman and Senators.
Having lived a long time, however,(age 70) I am also distressed by the way we have always routinely ignored the treatment of our votes. Another example -- the nonchalant manner in which a huge percentage of votes is usually "thrown out." An ATM machine dealing with the dollar would never be accepted so cavalierly!
Over the years we the people have come to expect sloppy, incorrect, inefficient, dishonest elections, and hence consider the present horror to be a ho-hum problem. It's obviously not even considered news!
In fact, all such problems should be publicized and corrected at the time -- whether or not the election would be changed!
Our attitude of disinterest has made us ripe for take-over.
Judy Down Maine
Kerry really pulled his punches.
He could have pointed out Bush's and Condi's
responsibility for 9/11 through failure to act on warnings from 11 countries.
He could have pointed out that Bush shut down FBI investigations before 9/11 of
Saudi financing of terrorism.
He could have pointed out that 9/11 never
would have happened under Gore because
Gore would have implemented Richard Clarke's plan to "roll back " al Qaeda,
a plan that was ready to go in 12/00 but
was ignored by Condi.
He could have responded to the charge of
the flip-flop on the $87 billion simply by pointing out that he voted for a tax-funded bill and against a deficit-funded bill, but I guess he
thought the American people weren't smart
enough to understand that.
He could have responded to the charge on
the $87 billion by pointing out that Bush threatened to VETO the very same bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html
He could have charged that by derailing
legislation that would have required
verifiable voting machines, and by
sabotaging the Election Assistance Commission through inadequate funding, the
Republicans were deliberately trying to
make the 2004 election a dishonest one.
He could have pointed out PNAC's plan for
global domination (see their "statement
of principles") and their wish to invade
Iraq in 1/98.
All in all, it appears Kerry was more
interested in being a proper gentleman to
a fellow bonesman than he was in
representing the interests of his party or
of the American people.
No one disputes that Kerry was a lousy and often spineless and pandering candidate, but that's not at issue here. It looks like he won the 2004 election, but you'll notice he's not sitting in the Whitehouse.
As for all he could have said and done -- yeah, well, he *is* a corporate candidate and, worse still, he seems to have internalized a lot of those interests. But also consider the price one pays, in America, for telling the truth about the world. Look at what happened to Al Gore, when he spoke out, and he said nothing that wasn't obvious to anyone with eyes and ears.
Also, I think it's important to remember that Kerry wasn't fighting for your vote, he already had it. The sort of arguments which appeal to people on the left don't necessarily move swing voters, which he needed. In retrospect he had nothing to lose by attacking Bush from the left rather than from the right, but who would know that in advance.... Ralph Nader didn't too well, if you'll recall.
Good points, Anonymous (are we talking to ourselves, here?)
Kerry's weaknesses are not the point; election fraud is.
But truth shouldn't be a left/right issue. Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 and the dishonesty-by-design of the voting machines should not be right/left issues. That the pragmatic politics of the Republicans have made them so is truly alarming.
Someone said (I believe it was Richard Clarke) "these days, truth is controversial." These are dangerous times.
Post a Comment