New at Reason
Dave Weigel dives into the Election 2006 muck, looking for evidence of fraud, dirty tricks, and devilish chicanery -- and comes up empty-handed.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Dave B. | November 14, 2006, 12:37pm | #
We may never know whether the electronic voting machines counted votes fairly or not. There are plenty of sources on the internet detailing how the programming on Diebold machines can be changed in just a few minutes of private access to the machine. Even if no one changed the code during this election, no one outside of these companies even knows what the original code is. These machines may pass pre-election tests, but it wouldn't take much sophistication to differentiate between these tests and a real election. A clock would do the trick.Just because people haven't found any large scale evidence of fraud doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And there is some evidence that the voting machines may not be behaving how they should.
J sub D | November 14, 2006, 12:55pm | #
Just because people haven't found any large scale evidence of fraud doesn't mean that it didn't happen.Dave B - Show me a large scale election that there hasn't been some fraud and I'll buy you dinner at a restaurant of your choice. The practical goal is to reduce fraud as much as possible.
Just because people haven't found large scale evidence of space aliens performing anal probes on mentally disturbed farmers doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
joe | November 14, 2006, 1:06pm | #
Dave writes that the "tone" of the anti-Democratic robo-calls makes it unlikely that anyone was fooled into thinking they were from the Democrats, but the link he provided to the story on Daily Kos contains this quote:'Consider, for example, Florida's 13th District, where Christine Jennings is currently locked in a recount battle. The final tally shows her down 386 votes. In the last three weeks of the election, the NRCC spent $58,326.78 on robo calls against Jennings, according to FEC reports. At five to fifteen cents a call, the NRCC bought itself between 388,000 and 1.17 million calls in the district. Approximately 250,000 people voted in the 13th on Tuesday.
Voters there report being inundated with calls -- so much so that some decided not to vote for Jennings. From The Herald Tribune:
"We're just glad it's all over," said Betty Beatty...
"They bugged us with their phone calls something terrible," said Betty, who voted for Buchanan because "with all her calls, Jennings, Jennings, Jennings, I wouldn't have voted for that woman if she were the only one running."'
I supposed it's possible that the Herald Tribune found the only voter in the district who was confused about the source of the calls, but I find that unlikely.
alkali | November 14, 2006, 1:07pm | #
The focus is the National Republican Congressional Committee, which sponsored calls in close districts that began with the phrase “I’m calling with information about (Candidate X)” and hit targeted homes as many as one dozen times. Democrats allege that the calls flipped voters in four (or more) close races after voters listened to the first sentence and assumed the forces of Pelosi were pestering them during dinner. But listen to the calls, and the tone of the robo-caller gives away the game. It doesn't excuse the trick, but it reveals how lame it was, and how impactful it wasn't.I'm not sure what the argument is supposed to be here. Yes, if you actually take the time to listen to the recorded message all the way through -- which is more than two minutes long -- it's clear that it's not a Democratic robo-call.(*) In fact, the recording explicitly says so at the very end. But the trick depends on the fact that people will hang up on the calls without listening to the end, and will be irritated when they are repeatedly called back. The fact that Democratic campaign offices received so many complaints from voters who were under the impression that the calls were made by the Democratic campaign demonstrates the impact of the calls.
(* The rule requiring disclaimers on political ads can be found here. It provides that:
A disclaimer ... must be presented in a clear and conspicuous manner, to give the reader, observer, or listener adequate notice of the identity of the person or political committee that paid for and, where required, that authorized the communication. A disclaimer is not clear and conspicuous if it is difficult to read or hear, or if the placement is easily overlooked.11 CFR 110.11(c)(1). The loophole is that there is nothing in the regulation expressly requiring the disclaimer for a robo-call to come at the beginning of the call.)
cjp | November 14, 2006, 1:38pm | #
Dave B - Show me a large scale election that there hasn't been some fraud and I'll buy you dinner at a restaurant of your choice. The practical goal is to reduce fraud as much as possible.Straw man. The difference with electronic voting machines is that massive fraud becomes possible at the hands of very few, with very little effort.
With physical ballots, you have to toss out/burn/"lose" entire ballot boxes to make a large swing in the tally. Or you have to stuff the box with lots and lots of false votes. Lots of people representing various conflicting interests are watching those boxes. It's hard to do, and takes a big conspiracy to pull off. Even if you can do it at a local level, it's near impossible to do on a massive scale.
With electronic ballots, a Diebold technician, a poll worker with custody of the machine, or a tricky voter can all change the entire machine's count arbitrarily. Every machine is a ballot box. Some machines represent entire boxes full of other ballot boxes. None of these boxes come with any good reason to have confidence in their contents.
A single unwatched, unaccountable person is easily capable of massive, undetected vote-rigging. Tell me why this is better that physical ballots.
Eric Dondero | November 14, 2006, 1:58pm | #
Look harder. The Democrats are masters at stealing votes. 5 ACORNers have been indicted in St. Louis for registering dead people. Can't believe you overlooked that story.I'm here in Alaska. In this State the Dems get adults who can hardly speak English or any other language to vote. The only thing they can mutter is "Yes, I vote Democrat." On the college campuses they pass out flyers, "Not registered to Vote; No problem, Vote anyway Contested Ballot."
In far southern California Dems register illegal aliens and threaten them with deportation if they don't Vote Absentee. (I spent 4 months there, am fluent in Spanish, and witnessed this first hand.)
It's only Voter Fraud if Republicans are alleged to engage in it. If it's for the Democrats, hey, that's business as usual.
joe | November 14, 2006, 2:10pm | #
"In this State the Dems get adults who can hardly speak English or any other language to vote."Oh my goodness! They let citizens with poor educations vote! Perhaps they should be given literacy tests.
Lemmee guess - the people you're talking about are generally blonde-haired, blue-eyed townspeple with last names like "Smith" and "O'Reilly." Am I right?
cjp: See www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/30/A01-365796.htm for a description of massive voter fraud using old fashioned paper. Fortunately the voters tosser Jackie Currie out las year. Our new city clerk, Janice Winfrey, ran the most transparent and honest election this city has seen in decades.
Steven Andrew Miller | November 14, 2006, 4:04pm | #
Of course there wasn't any fraud! Democrats won this time!Three elections in a row the Left lost and they screamed bloody murder about "stolen elections" and suddenly they win one and the fraud vanishes!
Eric Dondero | November 15, 2006, 1:32pm | #
Surely there's some sort of minimum educational level for voting required? Do you honestly support allowing severely mentally handicapped people the right to vote? You don't think that opens up voting to massive fraud?And illegal aliens voting? Do you support that too?
There's also some inherent unfairness about the fact that Military Personnel who serve their country honorably have only the same amount of voting privledges as couch potatos who avoid Military Service.
And now Democrats are pushing for Felons to Vote.
Great. Some 20 year Veteran who has fought for his country, gets his vote counted the same as a Child Molestor, Murdering Drunk Driver, or Bank Robber.
Something wrong with this picture.
joe | November 15, 2006, 3:42pm | #
Steven Miller,Not so much, really.
"Down in Florida, an epic battle is brewing over the electronic Diebold voting machines that ate 18,000 votes for Democrat Christine Jennings in FL-13 and cost her the election.
Not only is an expensive recount in the cards, but campaign and DCCC lawyers are flocking down, demanding the state freeze the machines for inspection.
These are the opening salvos in what will be the battle to end Diebold."