Skip to comments.Hard Data Supporting Fraudulent Activity in Nevada Election - ACTION NEEDED
Posted on 11/03/2010 2:03:15 AM PDT by Lexinom
click here to read article
What happened in the Nevada State House races? State Senate? Assembly?
“She said, I just talked to Senator Reid and I congratulated him - I guess thats a concession.”
Didn’t Gore concede then take it back?
Well, we've put the information out there for everyone to see so that we have a specific reference point to back up what most believe is a legitimate grievance.
It may, in fact, take a "martyr" in the sense of someone who is willing to run and who will concentrate a significant arsenal of resources otherwise used for campaigning instead upon catching, documenting, and publicizing fraud. Most candidates enter races to win them. This would take someone willing to sacrifice winning, to sacrifice themselves in effect, in the interest of something more systemic.
In this case, the abundance of agreeing polls is in effect hard evidence (multiple agreeing polls within one race off the final result by more than seven points), but polls are not really hard evidence. Someone willing to make the move above, and to go public afterwards, could shake the public confidence in the system, foment dissatisfaction, and ultimately effect reform.
They vast majority went the way the most recent polls predicted according to real clear politics.
shenangigans. probably. reid’s response may include the phrase “ no controlling legal authority “. btw happy to see no election win by mr gore.
There may be some action from other politicians later in week, so thanks for heads up.
64.5%... usual turnout around 38%... numbers based, presumably, on ballots counted...
Any other suspicious circumstances, please post/link on this thread to consolidate.
Why don’t we try to make this data go viral? Start cutting and pasting this info. into each and every discussion forum on the web about the elections, especially the lefty sites, politico, cnn, nyt, cbs, etc. We need to delegitimize ried’s win NOW.
“Didnt Gore concede then take it back?”
Yup. There is precedent. However, she’s down by 5 or 6 points (several 10s of thousands of votes) and the SoS in NV claims very little complaint of vote fraud...
I guess we should just slink off an ignore the Harrah’s issue, the bussing in of employees, the voting machine issues, the power outage and who knows what all else!?
What I'd like to do, or would like help with, is a comparison of the total number of votes in Nevada statewide office. I would be interested to know what the curve looks like. Was there a statistically-significant spike in votes for only senator versus governor versus other statewide offices versus measures/propositions/initiatives? The answer would be rather intriguing.
But your evidence is only in polling. Look at the voting in NV by county. It also points to possible voter fraud.
Reid only wins big in Clark County. 54% to 41%.
He is shellacked in every other county but two, in which he narrowly wins.
While I know the population is strongest by far in Clark, that’s not what I am noticing. I am noticing that his win was so far out of proportion, it would be as if Las Vegas and environs are FILLED with Reid lovers, while everyone else in the state hates him. I just think it’s strange.
I live in Las Vegas, NV, I voted for Sharron Angle, and I understand your frustration. However the variance between telephone polls of likely voters and the actual Election Day results is not, in and of itself, hard evidence of election fraud.
I'm gonna throw out some facts and an alternative theory, and I genuinely hope you give it some thought.
Telephone surveys of likely voters conducted during the week of early voting showed the Senate Majority Leader, a long time friend of the SEIU, the Culinary, and the teachers’ unions in a statistical tie with a staunchly anti-union Bircher who has never held statewide office.
Friends, that's enough to put the unions in panic mode.
Reid and his allies spent millions of dollars for thousands of paid campaign workers to knock on doors. Meanwhile, Angle spent millions of dollars on high-priced D.C. consultants.
Reid's paid campaign workers ID’d the voters who would vote for their guy weeks before the voting started. Angle's team did not.
Reid's paid campaign workers were canvassing door to door every single day, from before the primary right up to Election Day. The AFL-CIO had a girl on my doorstep in July, as a matter of fact. I never saw a single Angle canvasser. Ever. She relied on mailers instead.
Reid's paid campaign workers were on autodialer phone banks from 8am to 8pm, non-stop, from the beginning of early voting all the way through Election Day. They kept calling until they contacted every voter they had ID’d, and they said anything and everything to get that voter into the booth. Angle had some volunteers on the phone, cold-calling Rs on the registered voter list.
During the 10 days of early voting, the Ds and the unions went all out with every old-school, machine politics trick they could legally use: Free food, free rides to the polls, gift cards, you name it. Some of it was close to vote buying, most of it was not. Either way it doesn't matter because no one produced evidence of anything illegal. Where was Team Angle during all of this? I honestly don't know.
Oh wait. Yeah I do. Her campaign was b1tching about it all being so unfair.
When the Secretary of State reviewed her evidence-free complaint and essentially told her to STFU, Team Angle decided to float the ridiculous allegation that Reid's name was preselected on the Sequoia voting machines. Then some jackhole thought it would be a good idea to lay the blame on the union representing the Clark County employees.
Just between friends, I don't honestly think Reid's name was pre-selected on any voting machine. Worse, the union representing the Clark County employees just happens to represent TENS OF THOUSANDS of hotel workers, health care workers, government workers ... you name it. A third of the freakin’ state.
Simply put, trotting that nonsense out in the middle of early voting was a PR disaster. People don't care much for candidates that toss around unsubstantiated charges of vote fraud, especially against a 40 year veteran politician who's built a brand as Mr. Clean.
Anyhoo, once you go out of your way to make it personal like that, there is no way in hell the SEIU, the Culinary, the Teachers, or those thousands of paid campaign workers are gonna let their boy lose. No way. In hell.
On Election Day, the Reid campaign and their union allies put a ground game into play that can only be described as “shock and awe.”
The unions know where you work. They know where you live. They check the Registrar of Voters and they know who has voted and who hasn't. When the sun came up on Election Day, there was a fleet of buses staged in the parking lot at Larry's Villa, not far from the Strip and the Downtown hotels. That fleet was running from before the polls opened till well after they closed, taking people from work to go vote, then dropping them off back at their cars or at their homes when they were done.
I'd be willing to venture that a lot of those voters they delivered are not “likely voters” in the telephone surveys.
Another minor detail: A fifth of those voters are Latino. Legal immigrants who were registered to vote the day they joined the union.
And that's another factor in play. See, the ground game was only part of the reason Reid won. The 800 lb gorilla in the room, the fact that everyone chooses to ignore, is our Bircher candidate, Sharron Angle, decided to make an enemy out of the entire Latino community.
She ran a stupid commercial portraying Latino immigrants as criminals. She then compounded the error two weeks ago by going to a high school Hispanic Club and inexplicably joking with the kids in defense of her racist anti-immigrant ad, saying “Are you sure you're Hispanic? Some of you look Asian to me.”
I understand the point she was trying to make, however in todays age of cellphone video recorders and YouTube, that was one goddamned stupid comment.
Apologies if the truth offends.
If there was an ounce of sense in the Angle campaign, they might have noticed a Hispanic R running for governor and kept their race-baiting anti-immigrant ads in the can. Instead, they gave Univision, Telemundo, and every Spanish radio station in town reason to label Sharron Angle as a racist 24/7 for the last 2 weeks.
I cannot emphasize this point enough.
If it was massive vote fraud, as the Angle camp has suggested, how is it Republican Brian Sandoval pulled off a big win, beating Harry's son, Rory, in the Governor's race by 12 points?
Meanwhile, exit polls show that 90% of the Latino vote went for Harry. In other words, quite a few of those Latino voters split the ticket, voting Sandoval (R) for Governor, and Reid (D) for Senate.
Quite a trick, when you think of it.
I think anyone who honestly reviews the tabs on those surveys will find that Latino voters were under-represented, and no one took into account the intense personal dislike Sharron Angle cultivated among Hispanics in the final weeks of the campaign.
One final point, and this is where she lost the undecideds: Angle decided to play hide-and-seek with the media. She refused to give press conferences, ever, and was actually videotaped running from the TV reporters the last day of early voting. After that incident, whatever possessed her to announce that she was banning 2 Las Vegas TV stations from election night coverage at her headquarters is truly beyond me.
Yeah, I understand she got ambushed paparazzi-style at McCarran, but that is simply not a legitimate reason to freeze out the TV news. Every time those two stations mentioned the Senate race, which was every single news broadcast 5, 6, and 11, they pointed out that Sharron Angle was avoiding them and wouldn't answer their questions.
Not. Really. Smart.
Bottom line: Clark County delivered Harry a 40,000 vote margin for the win. The guy won fair and square. Reid is old, he's an azzhole, and somehow he's been able to amass a fortune while serving in the Senate, but Harry is a known brand. He had a better ground game and his opponent imploded at the 11th hour.
The fact Sharron Angle came as close as she did is, IMO, a freakin miracle.
Sorry for being long-winded, but I live in Nevada, I voted for Angle, and that's the way I saw it.
Hit me on twitter @brookedunne
I also appreciate your vents about Sharron Angle and how she could have better handled the press. Leaving aside debate about the candidate herself and her conduct... I am not so sure (to put it mildly) that these factors would not appear in polled voters' opinions, esp. with the preponderance of other races' polling-to-results ratios as given. Statistically, this race is clearly an outlier. Reasonable probability of one or two polls being off? Understandable. But all of them? That's like winning the jackpot several times in succession.
From Time, "A TIME/CNN/Opinion Research poll last week found Reid trailing Angle among likely voters, 45% to her 49%, just outside the margin of error, with independent candidate Scott Ashjian pulling in 2%. Strikingly, those poll numbers are reversed among registered voters 43% for Reid, 39% for Angle and 5% for Ashjian which means Reid's success depends on turning out his supporters."
That's one motherload of a turnout of registered voters to swing the election that far in Reid's favor, again stretching the bounds of credulity on the legitimacy of this result.
Historically, voter turnout is 30%, high-end 45%. Probabilities, probabilities...
Check the tabs on the Time/CNN poll. Harry carried the under 35 demographic, and that group was underrepresented.
Regarding the issues with the polling, there’s a good article in today’s Las Vegas Sun
Again, I cannot emphasize this enough. The polls excluded cell phones, underrepresented Latinos, and filtered likely voters.
The majority of us under 35 in Las Vegas don’t have land lines, we only use cells. Latinos are hesitant to respond to political surveys. Finally, the union GOTV reached 200,000 registered voters, many of whom would not be considered “likely.”
Leaving aside the debate about the candidate, the issues with the local news stations in Las Vegas occurred on 10/29 AFTER all but the Rasmussen & PPP polls.
This incident, occurring the final weekend before the election, was the dealbreaker.
I could be wrong, but a good indicator that something went sideways for Angle individually is the results from Washoe County, her home turf. Dean Heller (R-CD2) carried Washoe County with 80,000 votes and won his race. Angle only pulled 63,000. Again, more evidence of ticket splitting as opposed to fraud.
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions; however, I think a reasonable person would look at all of the facts and conclude Angle got beat by her own negatives and a better organized campaign.
Did you see this link to your post?
Did you see this news story link to your post?
Sure did! :)
The "enlightened" youngsters would not then be represented.
To support this theory, however... I wonder if it is the case that an unusually high number of people in NV have no representation. And I'm wondering why the Republican for governor received 60,000 more votes than Angle. I'm also wondering why the senate race received 18,131 more votes than the race for governor. I can understand a large block not voting on an obscure and highly obfuscated state measure, but usually those voting for one high-profile office en masse would vote for the other ones as well.
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 Nevadas 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
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?
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
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
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, youre 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, wouldnt 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.
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 its 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.
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.)
68 percent of the Hispanic vote went to Democrat Harry Reid
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.
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.
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.
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 havent 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.
> “youre being a little naive dismissing Angles complaints on the basis of the Secretary of States 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 Obamas 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.
>>You also havent considered the potential problems with the absentee vote count.
>Actually, I have. Theres 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, Its too early to know for sure whether there was absentee vote fraud. Second, youre erecting a false standard. You dont need widespread absentee vote fraud in order to swing an election. A few hundred votes in just a couple places can influence an outcome
>>youre being a little naive dismissing Angles complaints on the basis of the Secretary of States rejecting her complaints.
>No, Im 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. Thats not being naive, thats black-letter law.
OK fair enough. If thats the standard and it wasnt met then OK. However I would caution that an absence of complaints under penalty of perjury is not evidence of absence. Its possible some voters experienced election fraud and chose to say nothing. Its 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. Were 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 didnt 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 hes 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 its all the same to you, Im completely uninterested in sliming Ross Miller with tinfoil hat bullsh1t conspiracy nonsense.
OK Brooke lets 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, lets 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. Its a structural criticism. Im 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 ones office demands that one not be affected personally politically or financially by issues about which you make decisions. In other words you cant have a vested interest in a situation over which you wield influence. If you do your judgment is suspect. Thats why (responsible) people eg judges recuse themselves so as to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Ross should have done that here. I know thats wishful thinking given almost every critical office is occupied by conflicted Democrats and republicans but boy wouldnt it be nice see a little more ethical responsibility exercised somewhere sometime in this country.
While were on the subject of conflict of interest lets talk bout Reids son being County Commissioner. Hes a lifelong Democrat and he oversees the vote tally. That seems unremarkable to you??
Lets 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.
>Weve 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 Nevadas 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.
>The problem isnt the voting machines.
Im 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 cant base an argument on ambiguity (alone). As I said in my first post, we dont 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 dont 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, Angles 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. Its 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 cant 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 dont know that that that was pretty close to the way it played out and you wont 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 youre assertion re cell only households is, while interesting and warrants further inquiry, indecisive.
>Youve cited a national survey on cell phone use, which while informative, doesnt actually give the numbers for Nevada generally, or Las Vegas in particular, where the majority of Nevada residents live.
Thats 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 youre 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 Obamas and the Dems low popularity it may well have swung for Angle.
>Yes, Mr. Obama does have low popularity in Nevada, but I didnt 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 hasnt 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 countrys election system and Nevadas 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.
Dems live by fraud.