Posted on 11/03/2010 2:03:15 AM PDT by Lexinom
pinging fraud
Brooke your take is interesting. I enjoyed reading your analysis. I don’t disagree with you entirely but let me make a few points I think you might want to consider.
First off it’s too early to rule out election fraud. As election fraud expert Bev Harris (blackboxvoting.org) says, you have to wait a week or two before the irregularities make themselves manifest.
Second, you’re building you’re assumptions on top of a very problematic assumption. Namely that you can trust the e-machines. There’s no reason to think so. Look at their record. They’re notoriously unreliable. Subject to (frequent) malfunction, manipulation and eminently hackable, often by remote control. In the case of Nevada the problem’s particularly serious given that the votes are cast on Sequoia machines which have a terrible record, even for voting machines.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the people who serviced Nevada’s e-machines were the corrupt pro-Reid SEIU
Perhaps they did their job honestly and didn’t tamper with them. We don’t know. But their record and allegiance to Reid gives me serious cause for concern regarding the vote integrity and I think it should do the same to you
Consider this as well, Sequoia was until recently owned by a multinational, Smartmatic, a company previously embroiled in serious election fraud controversy in Venezuela 2004
http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559
Sequoia is now owned by another foreign company Dominion a company out of Canada. Turns out Dominion is problematic too and not just because they’re foreign. They lied about their acquisition of Sequoia and lied about their connections to Chavez just like Sequoia did. Recall the Venezuela 2004 vote?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7906
Does the ownership of Sequoia prove election fraud? No. But it should give reason enough to pause before arriving at confident conclusions about the integrity of the Nevada vote.
A) You also haven’t considered the potential problems with the absentee vote count. There has been no shortage of absentee vote scandals and irregularities over the years including a recent relatively minor one here in Nevada
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/15/elections-officials-sued-for-mailing-late-overseas-absentee-ball/
B) There’s already a dangerous lapse in the integrity of the Nevada vote. As if the reliance on Sequoia machines weren’t problematic enough there is the troubling issue of crucial data retention. Federal Law requires the machines’ hard drives, flash memory chips and memory cartridges be kept for 22 months after the election so that a record exists of how people voted and how the e-machines functioned during the election. But sadly Nevada election officials are violating this law leaving no way (such as there was) to determine the
integrity of the vote
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8157#more-8157
The larger issue imo is the question of why the Republicans and Democrats are doing nothing about this...
Second I don’t know what you mean by ‘filtered likely voters’ but if you meant excluded or edited likely voters in their polls I’d like you to elaborate because every poll I saw before the election included likely voters
Third, there’s no reason to think the effect of Reid’s ground game or Angle’s relatively weak campaign was not reflected in the polls going into the election
Fourth regarding the Time/CNN poll you say shows Reid carried the under 35 demographic, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/27/topstate8.pdf
I don’t know what you think makes it instructive. Unless I’m looking at it incorrectly I see only N/A with Reid carrying the under 50 demographic on one question and Angle carrying the crucial over 50 demographic decisively on another
Fifth, you’re being a little naive dismissing Angle’s complaints on the basis of the Secretary of State’s rejecting her complaints. You can’t really use this as evidence. He’s conflicted. Miller’s a life-long democrat. Now I grant you that doesn’t make Angle’s complaints legitimate but it does make his rejection of them suspect, wouldn’t you agree.
Sixth, regarding the cell phone issue I agree with you that it’s important and the pollsters are making a mistake not factoring it into their surveys.
To your point specifically, and its important, about the number of you under 35 that use cell phones exclusively, well, respectfully Brooke, you’re incorrect that “most” of you use cells only.
According to the CDC and Nielsen (2009) just over a fifth of all US households use cell phones exclusively.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/one-fifth-of-us-households-use-wireless-only-phones-11552/
Regarding your age group the numbers are significant but nowhere near the “most” figure you claim:
“Nearly half of adults ages 25-29 (45.8%) live in households with only wireless telephones. More than one-third of adults ages 18-24 (37.6%) and approximately one-third of adults ages 30-34 (33.5%) live in households with only wireless telephones.”
For an average of 38% roughly
Now the CDC claims that the overall percentage rises by 5% per year. I think it’s safe to say that percentage applies to your demographic specifically. So as of now almost 2011 the overall cell phone only use by household must be around 33% for safety and your demographic average is approx 41%.
41% is a large group of people to not survey I grant you, particularly in a demographic that typically swings one way – Democrat, sometimes as much as 60/40. But I’m not sure how much this omission on the part of the pollsters affected their accuracy. For one thing there’s no guarantee this demographic would have swung for Reid. Given the level of disillusionment with Obama and the Dems it’s a safe bet that this demographic was up in the air, perhaps might have tilted toward Angle. If it did swing for Reid it would be interesting to know by how much. We could then factor that percentage into the overall Reid vote. As you know any margin for Reid would only be a small percentage of the overall Reid number. And that brings up another difficulty with your analysis - the issue of turnout. In order to properly weigh the impact this demographic had we need to know how many of them actually voted.
The pollsters also missed the other cell only demographics which are not typically democratic or vote republican. According to the Nielsen CD surveys the percentage of cell phone only households in the 35+ demographic is smaller than yours but significant still and increasing:
“21.5% for adults ages 35-44; 12.8% for adults ages 45-64; and 5.4% for adults ages 65+. However, the percentage of wireless-only adults within each age group has increased over time.” The average comes to 15%. Now if we apply the same percentage the CDC uses to estimate increase per year 5% we get an average of about 18% How much of that 18% would have swung for Reid is hard to say but again given Obama’s and the Dems low popularity it may well have swung for Angle.
Seventh the 200,000 registered voters the union GOTV reached are a question mark imo and I have a couple questions about them. How do you know that A) many of them would not be considered likely. That sounds like a very large missed or ‘unlikley’ demographic for a state with just over a million registered voters
B) the union calculations were accurate and they would mostly vote for Reid. Following on from A, I find it hard to believe that this 20% of the Nevada voter population would be mostly untapped Reid voters
C) How effective were the union efforts at i) getting these people to vote and ii) getting them to vote for Reid?
That’s my first take on your (worthy) comments. Any more and we’d have to get into deeper research and statistics and quite frankly I don’t feel like it right now. I don’t pretend to be 100% correct on all of this or logically airtight but I hope you’ll think about what I’ve said.
As you say everyone is entitled to their opinions but I think we need to inform them as best we can using the information available and thoughtful analysis as best we can :)
Those are good questions, Lex.
> “why the Republican for governor received 60,000 more votes than Angle”
Brian Sandoval, the Republican who won, is Nevada’s first Hispanic Governor.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval-s-victory-a-first-106597198.html
If I were to venture a guess, I’d bet there were 60,000 completely legal voters who would choose Republican Brian Sandoval for Governor, but absolutely would not under any circumstance vote for Sharron Angle.
According to exit polling, Hispanics accounted for 15 percent of the Nevada electorate in 2008, up from 12 percent in 2006 and 10 percent in 2004. (In 2008, Hispanics accounted for about 26 percent of Nevada’s population, according to Census Bureau statistics.)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/hispanic-vote-key-in-nevada-se.html
68 percent of the Hispanic vote went to Democrat Harry Reid
http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-english/2010/November/20101105185027esiuol0.2705347.html?CP.rss=true
Did I mention the Spanish TV and radio stations gave Sharron Angle the kind of beatdown generally reserved for Mel Gibson’s girlfriends?
“The Wave” ad and Ms. Angle’s comments about students at Rancho High’s Hispanic Club looking “a little more Asian” undoubtedly made an impact.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/sharron_angles_wave_ad.html
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/18/angle-hispanic-children-some-you-look-little-more-/
She had a chance to respond, but chose instead to avoid the press, saying she would answer questions “When I’m the Senator.”
> “why the senate race received 18,131 more votes than the race for governor”
I’m not sure how you arrived at that number. There were a total of 719,830 votes cast in the U.S. Senate race, and 716,528 votes cast in the Nevada Governor race, a difference of 3302 votes.
http://www.silverstate2010.com/USSenateStateWide.aspx#AllRace2
I can’t explain why 3 thousand people voted in the Senate race but made no choice for Governor. I also can’t explain why 16,174 votes were cast for “None of these candidates” in the Senate election, or 12,231 people voted for “None of these candidates” in the Governor election.
By the time you get down to the next statewide race, Lt. Governor, only 703,494 votes were cast. So ... I guess that means people vote top of the ticket and don’t have as much interest down-ballot. Even voters dragged to the polls en masse.
> “I wonder if it is the case that an unusually high number of people in NV have no representation.”
As mentioned previously, Jon Ralston of the Las Vegas Sun looked at the polling as it was being reported over the last month or so and pointed out the obvious flaws.
Esquire Magazine also did a write up on Election Day, and they make several valid points about the transient nature of the Nevada population and why those polls might have been off.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/nevada-election-results-2010
It’s definitely worth the read. Author Mark Warren addresses your question directly.
Hope this helps :)
Just to follow up Brooke.
I’d like to make an additional point.
I don’t think you should be so cavalier about the glaring disparity between the pre-election, exit polls and the election results. Before the vote machines the polls had a MUCH better record for accuracy. This record began to deteriorate only AFTER the introduction of these vote machines and continued to get worse as more and more machines were imposed. Do you think that a mere coincidence?
Is it mere coincidence that these polls became so inaccurate only after the imposition of the vote machines?
I know you have suggested that the omission of the cell only households was an important factor in the polls (ostensible) inacurracy. However as I said in my previous post it is difficult to determine whether the impact this demographic might have had on the election.
In addition I did some digging into this cell phone issue and fwiw there is no scientific data (yet) to support he contention that the omission of cell only people compromises poll integrity
> “You also haven’t considered the potential problems with the absentee vote count.”
Actually, I have. There’s no evidence of widespread absentee ballot fraud, or *ANY* absentee ballot fraud in Nevada. Period.
If you have something that shows otherwise, produce it.
> “you’re being a little naive dismissing Angle’s complaints on the basis of the Secretary of State’s rejecting her complaints.”
No, I’m not. In order for the complaint to be valid, at least one individual would need to come forward and, under penalty of perjury, state a specific violation of elections law which they had personally witnessed. None did. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence. That’s not “being naive,” that’s black-letter law.
I gave your disparagement of Ross Miller all the consideration it deserved. Which is to say, “None.” I didn’t vote for Ross Miller, in fact I voted “none of these candidates.” Still, you have absolutely nothing to base your suspicions upon other than to say he’s a lifelong Democrat.
In my America, lifelong Democrats can still be honest. Lifelong Democrats can still be patriots. In my America, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Miller has never even been formally accused of election irregularities, so if it’s all the same to you, I’m completely uninterested in sliming Ross Miller with tinfoil hat bullsh1t conspiracy nonsense.
> “Before the vote machines the polls had a MUCH better record for accuracy.”
We’ve been using the Sequoia voting machines with a voter verified paper record system in Clark County for well over 10 years. I think they actually rolled them out 15 or more years ago.
The problem isn’t the voting machines. The problem is an outdated telephone polling method that fails to take into account the transient nature of the Las Vegas population, and the simple fact that a large percentage of people under 40 here do not have landlines.
Maybe you missed it, but Reid and Angle were statistically tied in every poll except for the final PPP poll. With a margin of error of +/- 4 points, Angle’s 49/45 lead could easily have been a 45/49 loss — which is pretty close to the way it played out.
> “there is no scientific data (yet) to support he contention that the omission of cell only people compromises poll integrity”
Okay. Well you got me. You’ve cited a national survey on cell phone use, which while informative, doesn’t actually give the numbers for Nevada generally, or Las Vegas in particular, where the majority of Nevada residents live.
> “given Obama’s and the Dems low popularity it may well have swung for Angle.”
Yes, Mr. Obama does have low popularity in Nevada, but I didn’t see a candidate named “Obama” or “the Dems” on the ballot. This was a race between Harry Reid, a known brand in Nevada for 40+ years and Sharron Angle, a unknown ultra rightwinger from rural Nevada who hasn’t won a race since 2004.
Sadly, during the week of early voting, Ms. Angle lost the race. It was close until she was videotaped 5 days before Election Day running from reporters, saying that she would answer questions only after she was Senator. Add that to her complete lack of any door-to-door GOTV effort and you have a statistical tie that turned into a Reid win.
I understand it’s upsetting that Mr. Reid won re-election; however, failing to properly attribute the loss to its true causes does absolutely nothing to help Republicans win next time.
To: MikeJ561
>>“You also haven’t considered the potential problems with the absentee vote count.”
>Actually, I have. There’s no evidence of widespread absentee ballot fraud, or *ANY* absentee ballot fraud in Nevada. Period.
If you have something that shows otherwise, produce it.
Brooke, It’s too early to know for sure whether there was absentee vote fraud. Second, you’re erecting a false standard. You don’t need ‘widespread’ absentee vote fraud in order to swing an election. A few hundred votes in just a couple places can influence an outcome
>>“you’re being a little naive dismissing Angle’s complaints on the basis of the Secretary of State’s rejecting her complaints.”
>No, I’m not. In order for the complaint to be valid, at least one individual would need to come forward and, under penalty of perjury, state a specific violation of elections law which they had personally witnessed. None did. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence. That’s not “being naive,” that’s black-letter law.
OK fair enough. If that’s the standard and it wasn’t met then OK. However I would caution that an absence of complaints under penalty of perjury is not evidence of absence. It’s possible some voters experienced election fraud and chose to say nothing. It’s much easier for most to just let it go then it is to go to the trouble of complaining particularly when it involves placing themselves in legal jeopardy – penalty of perjury. Yes that sounds like a weak argument at first glance but the context here is important. We’re talking about a demonstrably corrupt election system almost nationwide, Nevada being no exception, and a corrupt system in Nevada facilitated by equally demonstrably unreliable voting machines
>I gave your disparagement of Ross Miller all the consideration it deserved. Which is to say, “None.” I didn’t vote for Ross Miller, in fact I voted “none of these candidates.” Still, you have absolutely nothing to base your suspicions upon other than to say he’s a lifelong Democrat.
In my America, lifelong Democrats can still be honest. Lifelong Democrats can still be patriots. In my America, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Miller has never even been formally accused of election irregularities, so if it’s all the same to you, I’m completely uninterested in sliming Ross Miller with tinfoil hat bullsh1t conspiracy nonsense.
OK Brooke let’s get a few basics straight here First, I have no idea how you got to this conspiracy category but it has no place in this discussion Second, let’s do some vocabulary. ‘Conspiracy’ requires more than one individual. Last I checked Miller was ONE individual. For him to reject the Angle complaints would require no more than his decision.
Third, exercise a little discernment. This is not a personal attack on Ross. It’s a structural criticism. I’m not sure where you are on Ethics but there is a moral requirement standard in law and politics in pretty much every professional endeavour that proper execution of one’s office demands that one not be affected personally politically or financially by issues about which you make decisions. In other words you can’t have a vested interest in a situation over which you wield influence. If you do your judgment is suspect. That’s why (responsible) people eg judges recuse themselves so as to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Ross should have done that here. I know that’s wishful thinking given almost every critical office is occupied by conflicted Democrats and republicans but boy wouldn’t it be nice see a little more ethical responsibility exercised somewhere sometime in this country.
While we’re on the subject of conflict of interest let’s talk bout Reid’s son being County Commissioner. He’s a lifelong Democrat and he oversees the vote ‘tally’. That seems unremarkable to you??
Let’s also talk about the other point I mentioned in my first post since it relates to conflict of interest (not to mention common sense)- The fact that a pro-Reid and demonstrably corrupt services the demonstrably corrupt unreliable and unverifiable Seqoia machines. Again I have to ask does that not seem somewhat remarkable to you??
>> “Before the vote machines the polls had a MUCH better record for accuracy.”
>We’ve been using the Sequoia voting machines with a voter verified paper record system in Clark County for well over 10 years.
Your faith in the vote verified paper record is misplaced to put it mildly. The sequoia machines and the company itself have been the subject of countless scandals. As long as the vote ‘count’ is unverifiable, recorded on scandalized and failed machines and concealed from the public, there is no election
Also your faith in “voter verifiable paper audit trail”, is misplaced. First a verifiable trail is a far cry for a “voter verified paper audit trail”. See the difference?
Second, these paper printouts are rarely counted, and even if they are they can be easily be manipulated so as to flip an election with little or no likelihood of detection. As UC Santa Barbara found during California’s “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all of Nevada’s voting systems, those computer printed paper trails can be gamed in a couple minutes time. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6369
Did you know that these Sequoia systems are so susceptible to tampering that last month white-hat “hackers” were able to replace the voting software on one of them with Pac-Man - without even disturbing the system’s so-called “tamper evident” seals.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7998
>The problem isn’t the voting machines.
I’m not sure why you keep saying this. Tell me what it is about the voting machines and their history that gives you such confidence?
>The problem is an outdated telephone polling method that fails to take into account the transient nature of the Las Vegas population, and the simple fact that a large percentage of people under 40 here do not have landlines.
This is indeterminate. You can’t base an argument on ambiguity (alone). As I said in my first post, we don’t know how much impact, if any, this cell only demographic had on the election. And remember the same uncertainty applies to the 35+ non-democratic cell only demographic which you have failed to consider.
I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘transient’ however it is most likely an ambiguous factor if it means what I think you intend it to
>Maybe you missed it, but Reid and Angle were statistically tied in every poll except for the final PPP poll. With a margin of error of +/- 4 points, Angle’s 49/45 lead could easily have been a 45/49 loss — which is pretty close to the way it played out.
Maybe you missed it Brooke, but statistically for (almost) every poll to show a 3-4 point lead and be wrong is, while not impossible statistically, somewhere in the neighbourhood. It’s even more unlikely given the exit polls were showing a clear advantage to Angle as well. You combine the failure of BOTH the pre-election polls and the exit polls and you get an anomaly that can’t be explained by cell only households. Not by any stretch. The anomaly becomes all the more salient when you consider that it was no small margin by which (most of) the polls were wrong. It was a 10 point swing in some cases.
Again, why the pandemic inaccuracy after the imposition of unverifiable unreliable voting machines and the solid record for accuracy before? It can’t just be cell only households.
Second you don’t know that that that was pretty close to the way it played out and you won’t as long as the votes are cast on unreliable unverifiable e-machines in a conflicted corrupt environment such as exists in Nevada
>>“there is no scientific data (yet) to support the contention that the omission of cell only people compromises poll integrity
>”Okay. Well you got me.
I do have you :) This is the crux of your argument. In the absence of HARD evidence you’re assertion re cell only households is, while interesting and warrants further inquiry, indecisive.
>You’ve cited a national survey on cell phone use, which while informative, doesn’t actually give the numbers for Nevada generally, or Las Vegas in particular, where the majority of Nevada residents live.
That’s true and it occurred to me after that I should have added that qualification to the data as the absence of Nevada specific numbers make national references instructive only in a general sense.
However the absence of Nevada specific numbers is just additional ambiguity. It neither proves your case nor disproves mine. And since you’re the one arguing for vote integrity, whose argument hinges (incorrectly) on cell only people in Nevada it is you who must make the adjustment.
>>“given Obama’s and the Dems low popularity it may well have swung for Angle.”
>Yes, Mr. Obama does have low popularity in Nevada, but I didn’t see a candidate named “Obama” or “the Dems” on the ballot. This was a race between Harry Reid, a known brand in Nevada for 40+ years and Sharron Angle, a unknown ultra rightwinger from rural Nevada who hasn’t won a race since 2004.
I concede this point to you with a qualification. It is quite possible is it not that the national anti-Dem sentiment was felt in Nevada, that it had an impact on the Nevada vote?
>however, failing to properly attribute the loss to its true causes does absolutely nothing to help Republicans win next time.
Failure to address the obvious systemic failures and corruption in the country’s election system and Nevada’s in particular will do nothing to restore functioning democracy to the Republic which I assume is your first concern…
I misquoted you on the section about accuracy. You said voter ‘verified’ not ‘verifiable’. That’s my mistake.
Reminder bump.
Dems live by fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.