Sitting around the office checking poll results today, and it looks like the Republicans might really get knocked out of power in the House--not likely, but possible. That raised the topic of an October surprise, a dramatic, possibly orchestrated development in the days or weeks before the elections, to scare voters back to the GOP.
I've expected them before and been wrong.. It reflects the tenor of the times, though, that a lot of people around the table assume the administration is capable of it: If things are still looking bad for them on Oct. 20, they'll announce that Osama was killed in an air stirke or that coalition forces have captured another dozen Al Qaeda No. 2 men or something.
So, what's everybody think?

Sitting around the office checking poll results today, and it looks like the Republicans might really get knocked out of power in the House--not likely, but possible. That raised the topic of an October surprise, a dramatic, possibly orchestrated development in the days or weeks before the elections, to scare voters back to the GOP.
I've expected them before and been wrong, maybe because when they control both the companies that make the voting machines and the Supreme Court, the Repubs don't NEED surprises. It reflects the tenor of the times, though, that a lot of people around the table assume the administration is capable of it: If things are still looking bad for them on Oct. 20, they'll announce that Osama was killed in an air stirke or that coalition forces have captured another dozen Al Qaeda No. 2 men or something.
So, what's everybody think:

I think it would be a good thing for Osama to be killed and for another 20 or 100 Al Qaeda leaders or middle men or whatever to be sent to Paradise along with him. Whenever it can happen. What do you think?

I think it would be a good thing for Osama to be killed and for another 20 or 100 Al Qaeda leaders or middle men or whatever to be sent to Paradise along with him. Whenever it can happen. What do you think?

Indeed it would be a good thing, but that's not what Cory was asking.

I think more likely, the terror alert will be raised for a few days before the elections, and then will mysteriously drop again a few days later, for no apparent reason.

Indeed it would be a good thing, but that's not what Cory was asking.

I think more likely, the terror alert will be raised for a few days before the elections, and then will mysteriously drop again a few days later, for no apparent reason.

Didn't something like that happen in '04? I remember there was some scare in NYC and then it just vanished. It seemed pretty cheap at the time.

The author of this poll did a good job. I voted for the DNA thing simply for it's creativity. I wouldn't be the least bit surprized by an Oct surprize. There is always one. Both parties use them.

It's just in '04 Dan Rather screwed up the Dem's version.

and bravo to rove for doing it. got the public's mind off Bush's draft dodging, absentee service and using family connections for non combat service. It also cost rather his career. Score 2 for Herr KArl.

I agree, it was brilliant. the part where he got all those Democratic bonifides was masterful, Dan would have never bought it without the camoflage. Poor Dan. Good Karl.

Regardless, we're sure to see weekly airport evacs and airline diversions due to "suspicious" activities.

Fear, fear, and more fear.

The number two guy in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Somalia will be killed/captured every two weeks.

GWB will mistakenly award OBL the Presidental Medal of Freedom for evading capture for so long because GWB doesn't understand the word "freedom." Dee DEE Dee!

:idea: Karl Rove will be indicted. Only, this time it will be for running a gay escort service out of the WH. :idea: (How do you think he keeps the GOP in line?)

My vote was "No need, the "GOP has the SCOTUS & voting machines" rigged.

No kidding. Really? I am surprised that you of all people would think that.

Try the extra thick aluminum foil as it does an even better job of protecting from the evil rays that Karl Rove is shooting down.

and bravo to rove for doing it. got the public's mind off Bush's draft dodging, absentee service and using family connections for non combat service. It also cost rather his career. Score 2 for Herr KArl.

I can appreciate that. Of course he was setup.

But, if Dan was an objective journalist that wasn't out to get W, he would have recognized the setup and behaved like a professional. I don't fault Herr Karl or anyone other paritsan for setting up Rather. I blame Rather for being one of the centuries biggest phonies.

Try the extra thick aluminum foil as it does an even better job of protecting from the evil rays that Karl Rove is shooting down.

Can you give any good reasons for electronic voting machines that do NOT have paper trail? I'd like to hear it.

They're leading with some Poll results suggesting that there is a serious anti-incumbant sentiment out there in the electorate. I wonder when the surprise will come. Knowing Rove-mania, it'll be one every other week for 6 weeks and one biggy, about 5 days before the elections....

Wow, do I sound negative?!

BT

Can you give any good reasons for electronic voting machines that do NOT have paper trail? I'd like to hear it.

Why have electric machines at all? Why are punch cards bad? If not that, just take a pen and put an X beside the candidate of your choice? Whose idea was this electronic voting anyway?

Can you give any good reasons for electronic voting machines that do NOT have paper trail? I'd like to hear it.

Privacy. Aren't all you bleeding heart libs concerned about your privacy?


Possible NYTimes headline, "Big Brother's Tracking Your Votes!"

If you get a sharpie you can write your name on your tin foil hate and it won't come off when you rub it.

Privacy. Aren't all you bleeding heart libs concerned about your privacy?

Paper trails don't have to record who voted, just the vote. Machines, punch cards, optical scans, none of those show WHO voted, but all retain a permanent and unalterable record of HOW people voted.

Try again.

Privacy. Aren't all you bleeding heart libs concerned about your privacy?


Possible NYTimes headline, "Big Brother's Tracking Your Votes!"

If you get a sharpie you can write your name on your tin foil hate and it won't come off when you rub it.


Brummsky,

You can do better than that.

Can you give any good reasons for electronic voting machines that do NOT have paper trail? I'd like to hear it.

Tin foil hat my ass... Every MAC machine in the world gives you a receipt, why doesn't every voting machine?

When the news hit about Bush's drunken driving record in October 2000 I recall feeling more sympathetic to him since the blurb described Bush as being "quiet and cooperative." Though I did end up voting for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne.

Also the closest thing to an "October Surprise" in 2004 was when Rev Pat Robertson revealed that Bush reassured him that the Iraq invasion would cost few American lives.

Paper trails don't have to record who voted, just the vote. Machines, punch cards, optical scans, none of those show WHO voted, but all retain a permanent and unalterable record of HOW people voted.

Try again.

The machines have to show the results some how. If it's such a problem where's the outrage from actual politicians.

The outrage is from the cook fringe websites.

Why have electric machines at all? Why are punch cards bad? If not that, just take a pen and put an X beside the candidate of your choice? Whose idea was this electronic voting anyway?

This thread should have ended after this post. Because it sums it up perfectly. The fact is the only reason we "need" these machines is to get the figures to the networks quickly so we can know who our next corporate shill (aka president) is before mom and pop Q public have to go to sleep.

Go back to the basics...if it takes a few days to count...fine.

The machines have to show the results some how. If it's such a problem where's the outrage from actual politicians.

The outrage is from the cook fringe websites.


The outrage is from anyone who has looked into the problems with the machines. Why is there less of a record of voting than at an ATM made by the same company, diebold? it makes no sense.

Lever machines show the results. When you open the curtain, the levers reset. A paper trail could print out so the person can see their votes, then scroll past a window so they can't be seen when the booth is opened. Paper opscan, people mark their votes and then stick them in a reader that feeds them to a locked box.

So, you still have not provided a SINGLE reason for NOT having a paper trail that is not bogus. Keep trying if you want.

The outrage is from anyone who has looked into the problems with the machines. Why is there less of a record of voting than at an ATM made by the same company, diebold? it makes no sense.

Lever machines show the results. When you open the curtain, the levers reset. A paper trail could print out so the person can see their votes, then scroll past a window so they can't be seen when the booth is opened. Paper opscan, people mark their votes and then stick them in a reader that feeds them to a locked box.

So, you still have not provided a SINGLE reason for NOT having a paper trail that is not bogus. Keep trying if you want.


Well if you really don't want the hassle of actually having to go back and count the votes but would rather just have the election handed to you by the secretary of state then you go with no paper trail. And there won't be an October surprise with regard to terrorists it will come in the form of $2.00 gas. And of course then there will be the November surprise when all the pre-polls and exit polls show that the Dem's should win but for some reason the electronic vote counts are exactly the opposite down to the same percentage.

I see you're fishing for a sturgeon to print in you column. October surprise? "a lot of people around the table assume the administration is capable of it" What table might that be? Pleople that think like this are usually projecting. Guess you worked on a few libby campaigns, hey Cory?

When the news hit about Bush's drunken driving record in October 2000 I recall feeling more sympathetic to him since the blurb described Bush as being "quiet and cooperative."

You felt sympathetic for a drunk driver?

This thread should have ended after this post. Because it sums it up perfectly.


Electronic machines make it easier to accomodate the disabled (big text as needed, etc). They also make it cheaper to provide instructions in multiple languages.

I have no problem with them so long as they have a voter verifiable paper trail and are open source so that the code can be examined by anyone and problems corrected. Proprietary software is not needed nor required for the counting of votes application.

I would be all for paper in a locked box counted on site by workers overseen by representatives of the parties.

The outrage is from anyone who has looked into the problems with the machines. Why is there less of a record of voting than at an ATM made by the same company, diebold? it makes no sense.

Lever machines show the results. When you open the curtain, the levers reset. A paper trail could print out so the person can see their votes, then scroll past a window so they can't be seen when the booth is opened. Paper opscan, people mark their votes and then stick them in a reader that feeds them to a locked box.

So, you still have not provided a SINGLE reason for NOT having a paper trail that is not bogus. Keep trying if you want.

Have a paper trail for all I care. Each machine has a read out. For all I know there is a trail, electronic or otherwise. I don't know all the ins and outs of a diebold machine. I dare say you do either.

If there is some evil voting conspiracy I would like to see some proof. Where is it? Not having a paper trail, as you say, is a far cry from all electronic machines are potentially rigged for republicans. That is simply absurd.

Well if you really don't want the hassle of actually having to go back and count the votes but would rather just have the election handed to you by the secretary of state then you go with no paper trail. And there won't be an October surprise with regard to terrorists it will come in the form of $2.00 gas. And of course then there will be the November surprise when all the pre-polls and exit polls show that the Dem's should win but for some reason the electronic vote counts are exactly the opposite down to the same percentage.

The reason probably has something to do with the fact that actual election results come from actual voting and not a telephone poll. Exit polls are not the actual vote either.

Lets say the Dems win majorities this November. Are we still going to be discussing these cooky conspiracy theories then?

The reason probably has something to do with the fact that actual election results come from actual voting and not a telephone poll. Exit polls are not the actual vote either.

The question is, are the DIFFERENCES between the polls and the results different in districts with electronic machines versus other technology. If there is no bias in the machines, the error between polls (pre election or exit) should be the same regardless of technology. But if there is a systematic difference in them by type of voting machine...

Have a paper trail for all I care. Each machine has a read out. For all I know there is a trail, electronic or otherwise. I don't know all the ins and outs of a diebold machine. I dare say you do either.


Yes, a paper trail makes sense, doesn't it. So why not have one? What is the POSSIBLE reason?

I know a bit about the machines. I know that with a screwdriver, you can open a panel and flip a switch and make the machines run off an external flash drive programmed with whatever you want. I know the motherboards for diebold machines have been seen on e-bay. I know there are many documented problems with the software on the machines. I know the those with access can change the vote totals at their whim in a matter of minutes with a bit of knowledge about the "audit" mode.

Why do I know? Because I read technology websites. Not wacko insider liberal websites, but tech websites where programmers write about programming.

, to scare voters back to the GOP.

The fact that a San Fransico liberal like Pelosi would be in line for the presidency is enough to scare voters.

The reason probably has something to do with the fact that actual election results come from actual voting and not a telephone poll. Exit polls are not the actual vote either.

Lets say the Dems win majorities this November. Are we still going to be discussing these cooky conspiracy theories then?


Another swinganamissss........

Yes, a paper trail makes sense, doesn't it. So why not have one? What is the POSSIBLE reason?

I know a bit about the machines. I know that with a screwdriver, you can open a panel and flip a switch and make the machines run off an external flash drive programmed with whatever you want. I know the motherboards for diebold machines have been seen on e-bay. I know there are many documented problems with the software on the machines. I know the those with access can change the vote totals at their whim in a matter of minutes with a bit of knowledge about the "audit" mode.

Why do I know? Because I read technology websites. Not wacko insider liberal websites, but tech websites where programmers write about programming.

Where is the Democrat investigation? Where is the media coverage of this? Lots of programming sites believe the moon landings were faked too. Where's the credible mainstream reporting on this?

Not buying it.

The question is, are the DIFFERENCES between the polls and the results different in districts with electronic machines versus other technology. If there is no bias in the machines, the error between polls (pre election or exit) should be the same regardless of technology. But if there is a systematic difference in them by type of voting machine...

I don't see how that would be the case. The machines are a differeny animal, so it's logical that the differences wouldn't be the same. Also the statistical analysis that you are talking about is prone to wide variations. The types of voters, types of machines, etc. Those criteria are alot more probably that some "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory. Do you really believe Republicans are rigging elections with the use screwdrivers and flash drives. You sound crazy.

I'm just not buying it.

I don't see how that would be the case. The machines are a differeny animal, so it's logical that the differences wouldn't be the same. Also the statistical analysis that you are talking about is prone to wide variations. The types of voters, types of machines, etc. Those criteria are alot more probably that some "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory. Do you really believe Republicans are rigging elections with the use screwdrivers and flash drives. You sound crazy.

I'm just not buying it.

I sound crazy? I am just pointing out a better analytical technique than just comparing polls/votes in a simple way. I did not say reps DID any of those things, I am saying it is EASY to do and FAST to do and POSSIBLE to do. With a well designed system, it would be none of those things.

Opscans, lever machines, punch cards.... those are different technologies. Are there differences between the poll data and those machine results, or are the differences only for electronic machines? If technology creates variation, it should show up as a range across all the technologies. But if it is A=B=C wildly different than D (diebold) then there would be something to look into.

Don't try to get into stats with me. You don't have the chops and I am not getting paid to teach them to you. I know more about "variations" and their multiple causes (including the technical definition of words like "variance") than you likely ever will, so let's not get into it unless you want to pay me to teach you about it.

For the record, in OH I think good old fashioned voter supression was the culprit, not diebold. The evidence for that is a lot clearer. By the nature of NOT having a paper trail, looking into the diebold effect can never be conclusive. THAT is the problem with them.

Anyone should be all for simple, verifiable, permanent, UNALTERABLE records of votes in this country. There is no reason for it to be otherwise.

I sound crazy?

Don't try to get into stats with me. You don't have the chops and I am not getting paid to teach them to you. I know more about "variations" and their multiple causes (including the technical definition of words like "variance") than you likely ever will, so let's not get into it unless you want to pay me to teach you about it.

Yes you sound crazy? And now you sound angry too?

Yes you sound crazy? And now you sound angry too?

And you sound like you don't know what you are saying, what with the "?"s and all.

And you sound like you don't know what you are saying, what with the "?"s and all.


Yeah, I messed up with those question marks. Geez, What was I thinking? :idea:

Where is the Democrat investigation? Where is the media coverage of this? Where's the credible mainstream reporting on this?

Not buying it.

Under the thumbs of these sly crooks who run OUR country right now, the mainstream media has been stiffeled! The New York Times, for Crissake, has been loudly accused of 'terroist sympathies' by Bush's lackeys...A significant number of journalistic careers have suddenly been ended, shortly after they've published something Bush and Rove didn't like. When you control the power and have shown repeatedly that you are willing to ruthlessly use it to squash your opposition, even huge networks begin to "pull their punches". When you control the legislation, how do the Dems get any investigation? How bout Jo Wilson's case? They have to now try that one in court, after all the wonderful investigating the Republicans did, once they were forced into it.. Heck, Dubya has come right out and said the law doesn't apply to him, and that he doesn't have to and just flat won't follow it..

As for the October surprise? I'd be surprised if there weren't one, staged and managed by Rove in order to keep 'Fundamentalist Republicans" in power in the house and senate. Can you just imagine Bush's behavior if he didn't have a 'rubber stamp' from "our" lawmakers? That pugnacious little bully would go further off the deep end than he is right now. It'll be interesting to see what kinda move Karl comes up with..He's started repeating his "smear/fear" tactic too obviously lately..he needs a new ploy or two..

If you came back from 100 year in the future and read all this about Bush's political reign, ya think it'd all sound believable? I live here and now and I can't believe they've pulled this off, repeatedly.

Don Hanson

it has to be voted on by a bipartisan panel (with one more Con on board) and then pass the House with a çon majority. it amazes me how little you know about the process.
when every ethics/ judicial review, etc.. cmmitee and sub-commitee is headed by a Con why do you think that
a) when democrats raise questions their mics are conveniently turned off
b) they can have a discussion board in a basement room where they can't even use proper protocol and it is unofficial

the fact that W has gotten away with all these things is because of the Con majorities in Congress who do nothing but stifle and investigation, simple.
They put their party above the law of this nation which is truly sad.

That's just plain BS. The poor dumocrats are being stiffled. :cryin:

Besides there are independant groups who monitor such things. If there were any truth to this crap, they would be the ones pressuring for investigations. The libs in the press would be all over it. These types of slanderous allegations are put out their so the dumb and uneducated would bite. I see it's working.

sorry quick C&P's
"That process began in earnest, last week, when John Conyers (Michigan), the House Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, gathered a group of Democratic leaders and legal experts in the basement of the House’s Rayburn building to hold hearings on the illegal spying.
It was widely underreported.
Surprise.
Conyers’ group met two days after the Justice Department issued a 42-page legal justification for the sinister surveillance. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was unimpressed by the report. “Making their argument longer didn’t make it any better,” he said.
Von Hollen added: “I have to say that any first-year law student would, after reading this, quickly conclude that the arguments were specious. And I think that if you had a private attorney in Washington, D.C., or anywhere in this country provide their client with this kind of advice, they would be sued for malpractice. And I believe that this opinion is malpractice on the American people.”
A panel of experts, including Reagan Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, spying expert and author James Bamford (who’s written extensively on the NSA), ACLU DC Director Caroline Frederickson, Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies and peace activist Richard Hersh, all testified under oath. (That’s a refreshing change, isn’t it?) All came to the same conclusion.
Bush broke the law with his soopah-spy routine. Surprise redux.
Huddled in the basement because the Republican leadership wouldn’t convene bi-partisan hearings (“I’m delighted that we’re all here again in the basement of the Rayburn Building,” Conyers winked to the assembled, “like we were in the Downing Street Memo hearing, perhaps in a little more upscale part of the basement area.”), the group was quick to swat down Bush’s main legal justifications for avoiding the FISA court and allowing the NSA to wiretap without any warrants: that the whole deal was authorized by the Afghanistan use-of-force resolution passed by Congress and that the President is allowed to do so because the Constitution allows it in a time of war.
Said Conyers: “As Justice O’Conner famously wrote, the President does not have a blank check because of the state of war.”

oh and Democratic Conressmen have had their mics turned off by the SOH when dealing with both the Gitmo and Tom Delay issues. you can look it up yerself

Not that steam or jbrumm will believe any of the assertions in this editorial, but here it is anyways:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/opinion/05tue1.html


It’s hard to believe that nearly six years after the disasters of Florida in 2000, states still haven’t mastered the art of counting votes accurately. Yet there are growing signs that the country is moving into another presidential election cycle in disarray.

The most troubling evidence comes from Ohio, a key swing state, whose electoral votes decided the 2004 presidential election. A recent government report details enormous flaws in the election system in Ohio’s biggest county, problems that may not be fixable before the 2008 election.

Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, hired a consulting firm to review its election system. The county recently adopted Diebold electronic voting machines that produce a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast. The investigators compared the vote totals recorded on the machines after this year’s primary with the paper records produced by the machines. The numbers should have been the same, but often there were large and unexplained discrepancies. The report also found that nearly 10 percent of the paper records were destroyed, blank, illegible, or otherwise compromised.

This is seriously bad news even if, as Diebold insists, the report overstates the problem. Under Ohio law, the voter-verified paper record, not the voting machine total, is the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The error rates the report identified are an invitation to a meltdown in a close election.

The report also found an array of other problems. The county does not have a standardized method for conducting a manual recount. That is an invitation, as Florida 2000 showed, to chaos and litigation. And there is a serious need for better training of poll workers, and for more uniform voter ID policies. Disturbingly, the report found that 31 percent of blacks were asked for ID, while just 18 percent of others were.

Some of these problems may be explored further in a federal lawsuit challenging Ohio’s administration of its 2004 election. Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who has been criticized for many decisions he made on election matters that year, recently agreed to help preserve the 2004 paper ballots for review in the lawsuit.

Ohio is not the only state that may be headed for trouble in 2008. New York’s Legislature was shamefully slow in passing the law needed to start adopting new voting machines statewide. Now localities are just starting to evaluate voting machine companies as they scramble to put machines in place in time for the 2007 election. (Because of a federal lawsuit, New York has to make the switch a year early.) Much can go wrong when new voting machines are used. There has to be extensive testing, and education of poll workers and voters. New York’s timetable needlessly risks an Election Day disaster.

Cuyahoga County deserves credit for commissioning an investigation that raised uncomfortable but important questions. Its report should be a wake-up call to states and counties nationwide. Every jurisdiction in the country that runs elections should question itself just as rigorously, and start fixing any problems without delay.

The solution to the problem is an easy fix that the libs have turned down - National voter registration cards with picture IDs. Gee I wonder why they don't want these? Hmmm? Well it would be difficult for Inmate #3526654 to vote. It would also be difficult to pay people in cartons of butts to vote multiple times. No they don't want this fixed, 'cause it would obviously fix the real problem.

Steam, how does this affect voting machines whatsoever?

This is akin to saying that photo ID driver's licenses reduce racial profiling...

You're not making sense.

Silas

I see you're fishing for a sturgeon to print in you column. October surprise? "a lot of people around the table assume the administration is capable of it" What table might that be? Pleople that think like this are usually projecting. Guess you worked on a few libby campaigns, hey Cory?
I can't think of any other reason Cory would be asking for anyone's opinion. And, as is his usual MO, you'll note that after his initial post, he disappears into the night.

You felt sympathetic for a drunk driver?

Gotta understand the context here. Maybe i'm just paranoid but where did this story come out of nowhere like a bombshell? What was the motivation? Why at this time? I can understand maybe the guy who planted it was thinking "yeah people are going to hate him now."