T Nation

The Crux of Rove's Genius Revealed

Statistical analysis of exit poll data indicates the 2006 elections were rigged in favor of Republicans by about 4%.

Apparently Republican strategists believed their own lousy polling and miscalculated their margin of fraud. My heart gushes purple peanut butter.

Read it and weep. The Democrats had so great a majority that even cheating couldn’t prevent Republican losses this time. So that’s what the vaunted permanent Republican majority was really based on: voter suppression and electoral fraud. What a bunch of losers.

All we need do is reform elections in this country, and by 2008 Republicans won’t be able to be elected as dog-catchers in most of the country.

A good start would be a nation-wide mandate for the system we use for voting here in Oregon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701592.html

I’d really like to see a voting system that doesn’t leave itself open to abuse.

I have no ability to say whether anything funny ever has gone on with these machines, but the fact of the matter is that the issue is too important to leave so wide open.

As a programmer myself, you absolutely have to know that trusting someone to distribute “fair” software is entirely too much to trust. Honestly, to draw an analogy, if you leave the bank vault unguarded the odds are someone will walk away with the money.

Regardless of partisan issues, members of any political party as well as independents should be clamoring for a system that CANNOT be tampered with instead of accepting a system they can’t prove was or was not tampered with.

Leaving it so that it eventually can be tampered with virtually ensures that it eventually will… that is the nature of mankind.

If the Opednews said it’s true, it has to be!

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’d really like to see a voting system that doesn’t leave itself open to abuse.
[/quote]

Here’s a proposed one, from Ron Rivest (yes, the “R” in RSA public key encryption):

It’s rather interesting.

[quote]doogie wrote:
If the Opednews said it’s true, it has to be![/quote]

They are just reporting the news. The actual source is this watchdog organization that did the statistics. The great thing about this story is that eventually somebody will check the math, and then we’ll just find out, won’t we?

Oh right, I forgot: exit polls have traditionally had a strong liberal bias.

[quote]doogie wrote:
If the Opednews said it’s true, it has to be![/quote]

If I were you I’d be more worried about whether the potential for abuse existed than where the idea is being reported.

Does the potential for abuse, now or in the future, exist, or not? If so, then it’s a problem…

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’d really like to see a voting system that doesn’t leave itself open to abuse.
[/quote]
In Oregon’s system, every single vote is signature verified. The voter rolls are self purging, because outgoing ballots are not forwarded, but only returned to the electoral authority. The process has implicit in it a paper trail that can be independently verified. Voter intimidation is impossible. The system is convenient to use, and anybody, even my dear old PC-fearing Grammy, can use it.

Altogether, it’s about as far as it’s possible to get from “open to abuse,” while still being open to the public. You don’t have to be a PhD in Computer Science to verify one of our elections. All you have to do is count the ballots.

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’d really like to see a voting system that doesn’t leave itself open to abuse.

In Oregon’s system, every single vote is signature verified. The voter rolls are self purging, because outgoing ballots are not forwarded, but only returned to the electoral authority. The process has implicit in it a paper trail that can be independently verified. Voter intimidation is impossible. The system is convenient to use, and anybody, even my dear old PC-fearing Grammy, can use it.

Altogether, it’s about as far as it’s possible to get from “open to abuse,” while still being open to the public. You don’t have to be a PhD in Computer Science to verify one of our elections. All you have to do is count the ballots.

[/quote]

True enough. The mail-in system is quite effective.

However, counting is not as simple as counting. In 2000, ballots were interpreted as both Gore and Bush votes by two different people. SAME ballot. WIthin about an hour.

Thats a shitty system.