A Plea for Critical Thinking: Answering the charge that the "election was stolen"

[StJacques]

Like so many others here, I have been watching the post-election meltdown among the Democrats with fascination. Some of it I find understandable. I knew that when John Kerry decided in September to cease speaking to voters about who he is and what he planned to do as President -- not that he ever really discussed who he is -- and to instead pursue a strategy for victory that would rely upon raising public anger over Iraq, lost jobs, and whatever else the media produced for his benefit, that an election loss would be difficult for a group of supporters driven by rage alone. I also expected that we would see this anger vented at Bush supporters in the press and by the press, though I could not have predicted the full extent and intensity, and I should add "idiocy," with which it would be expressed. But what I have found to be truly surprising is the way in which charges of vote fraud have been circulating among Democratic activists since November 2, because it not only represents a complete reversal of their pre-election focus upon "voter suppression" -- vote fraud was and continues to remain a Republican issue -- it also is being presented in a format that is almost entirely devoid of demonstrable argument and is instead founded upon a symbolic form of communication among the most hardened Democratic activists that presents itself as a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I want to post some comments on this because I see real dangers for our domestic social and political peace arising out of this development which could lead our country into a new era of internal conflict that will be far worse than what we have known over the past several years.

Note: All web links in this post are "pop up" links which you can open without leaving this page.

The first argument: "Kerry wins Ohio if all the votes are counted."

The first important charge that Kerry was robbed of victory was put forth by Greg Palast at TomPaine.com who pointedly wrote that Kerry won. Palast focused on Ohio and presented the number of total ballots not yet counted which, as the sum of provisional ballots and "spoiled" punch card votes, came to 247,672 and compared that against the 136,483 margin of victory for George Bush and argued that Kerry had actually carried the state. But the evidence Palast used to make his argument was that early exit polls showed Kerry had won among both men and women and, according to Palast, this made his victory certain "unless a third gender voted in Ohio" and the difference between Bush and Kerry would be reversed in the latter's favor if all the provisional and uncounted punch card ballots could be included in the final totals. Palast went to great pains to argue the acceptability of the exit polls, of which he says that later adjustments were "contaminated by -- the tabulated results." As a rant for the Democratic faithful Palast's arguments struck a chord, his article became the subject of numerous forum discussion threads at the Democratic Underground web site, where there was nearly unanimous agreement that Bush had "stolen another election." But as an exercise in critical thinking and sound analysis Palast failed the test since his arguments relied almost entirely upon "external" evidence outside of the actual uncounted votes and contained no examination of the uncounted votes in their own right nor did he attempt to mathematically weight their supposed impact on the final vote totals.

The first thing to examine is the reliability of the exit poll data. Almost every major news network has found problems with the election day exit polls, but Palast insists that they are "accurate." The simple fact of the matter is that, even if we ignore the historical problems of using exit poll data from recent elections, exit polls are not votes. With a six point advantage among women and a two point advantage among men in the exit poll results, Kerry's margin of victory should have been in the eight or nine point range in Ohio, given that women outvote men. Even if you include all 247,672 outstanding votes in Ohio for Kerry, which is a ridiculous assumption of course, he would still be six or seven points outside the predicted spread from the exit polls, which is beyond their margin of error. And these facts can be gleaned from the figures Palast himself presents in his article, though he never analyzes them in such a comparison, which establishes that the "external" evidence, i.e. evidence presented outside of the counted votes themselves, fails the test of believability.

Palast does even worse when you go to the internal evidence, which means that we look at the votes themselves; where and how they were cast, who cast them, what are the numbers revealed from their tabulation, and how all of the above relate to the final vote totals. Palast makes only one observation that can be described as reviewing internal evidence, when he writes that most of the uncounted punch card ballots "come from African-American and minority precincts." I suspect this is true, but Palast neither examines the likely percentages of those votes that would go to each of the two candidates nor does he weight their overall impact on the final vote totals, which is what really matters since he is arguing that Kerry actually won Ohio. One of the things we all learned from the Florida recount in 2000 is that the recounting of ballots, even under the most liberalized counting methods and in the most heavily-Democratic areas, do not entirely favor one candidate and, unless one wants to argue that the future will not resemble the past, this should hold true in Ohio. But one must also look at the distribution of uncounted punch card ballots to provisional ballots, because the real issue is how much of an impact they would have on the total vote. The 92,672 "discarded" punch card ballots account for only 37.4% of the total uncounted ballots in Ohio, but Palast's argument seems to suggest that knowing that those votes would be "overwhelmingly Democratic" means that Kerry would win if they were all counted. But Palast does not discuss the provisional ballots at all, and I would suggest for good reason, since this is where the mathematics of counting votes is really stacked against him. Let's put some of that simple arithmetic up for examination. With a current margin of 136,483 votes in Bush's favor in Ohio and 247,672 total uncounted ballots outstanding, John Kerry would have to win the remainder by a minimum margin of 192,078 to 55,594 or 77.6% to 22.4%. When you realize that 62.6% of all the outstanding votes are provisional ballots and you examine the official statistics of their distribution, which is still incomplete in some areas but nonetheless shows that in many of the counties Bush carried there are a significant number of provisional ballots to be counted, it becomes painfully evident for Kerry supporters that the Bush lead is out of reach. And none of this takes into account the fact that some of these provisional ballots will be ruled invalid, which only raises the percentage of the remainder Kerry would have to win to even more unreasonable levels. These must be the facts that stared the Kerry campaign in the face on November 3 when they owned up to reality and conceded the election. Palast's piece was not only misleading, it was irresponsible and divisive and if TomPaine.com wants to retain any credibility they should disavow its content.

The second argument: "The electronic voting machines in Florida were deliberately rigged in Bush's favor."

As far removed from reality as this charge sounds, Democratic activists are making it with a fury. One web site has posted an examination of the results for counties in Florida highlighting precincts which used optical scanners to count votes, and has suggested that those scanners may have been "fixed" in Bush's favor. The following table is taken from that web site. Please pay attention to the "Percent Change" figures in the two columns at the far right, representing the difference between "Expected" and "Actual" votes by party affiliation. Positive numbers in those columns suggest percentages above what is expected, negative numbers suggest percentages below, and there is no control for Independent voters, which can lead to instances where both parties receive percentages above the expected vote:

Vote Returns in Florida from Counties Using Optical Scanners to Count Votes

Op-Scan Precinct								(%Regist)*(TotalVotes)		(Actual-Exp)/(Exp)
COUNTY	vendor	REGISTERED VOTERS			ACTUAL RESULTS			EXPECTED_VOTES		PERCENT CHANGE
		%REP	%DEM	TOT_REG	REP	DEM	TOT_VOTES	REP	DEM	REP	DEM
Alachua	Diebold	27.8%	50.5%	142,358	47,615	62,348	111,022	30,887	56,111	54.2%	11.1%
Baker	Sequoia	24.3%	69.3%	12,887	7,738	2,180	9,955	2,415	6,895	220.4%	-68.4%
Bay	ES&S	44.2%	39.2%	101,315	53,305	21,034	74,890	33,079	29,351	61.1%	-28.3%
Bradford	ES&S	28.3%	61.4%	14,721	7,553	3,244	10,851	3,072	6,663	145.8%	-51.3%
Brevard	Diebold	44.8%	36.5%	338,195	152,838	110,153	265,075	118,772	96,860	28.7%	13.7%
Calhoun	Diebold	11.9%	82.4%	8,350	3,780	2,116	5,961	709	4,911	433.2%	-56.9%
Citrus	Diebold	41.5%	38.9%	90,780	39,496	29,271	69,457	28,809	27,039	37.1%	8.3%
Clay	ES&S	56.5%	25.6%	106,464	61,813	18,887	81,144	45,877	20,794	34.7%	-9.2%
Columbia	Diebold	31.3%	56.5%	34,282	16,753	8,029	24,984	7,825	14,119	114.1%	-43.1%
DeSoto	Diebold	25.4%	59.3%	14,901	5,510	3,910	9,493	2,413	5,630	128.4%	-30.6%
Dixie	Diebold	15.0%	77.5%	9,676	4,433	1,959	6,440	968	4,988	358.1%	-60.7%
Duval	Diebold	36.9%	46.2%	515,202	218,476	157,624	378,330	139,605	174,965	56.5%	-9.9%
Escambia	ES&S	43.8%	40.7%	189,833	93,311	48,207	142,895	62,602	58,149	49.1%	-17.1%
Flagler	Diebold	40.7%	38.1%	47,068	19,624	18,563	38,455	15,669	14,657	25.2%	26.6%
Franklin	ES&S	15.9%	77.3%	7,620	3,472	2,400	5,930	943	4,586	268.1%	-47.7%
Gadsden	ES&S	11.2%	82.9%	26,884	6,236	14,610	20,948	2,347	17,361	165.7%	-15.8%
Gilchrist	Diebold	30.4%	58.6%	9,035	4,930	2,015	7,007	2,133	4,106	131.2%	-50.9%
Glades	Diebold	24.8%	64.8%	5,963	1,983	1,434	3,434	852	2,227	132.8%	-35.6%
Gulf	ES&S	26.6%	67.1%	9,627	4,797	2,398	7,259	1,928	4,874	148.8%	-50.8%
Hamilton	ES&S	14.9%	78.9%	7,645	2,786	2,252	5,065	755	3,994	268.9%	-43.6%
Hardee	Diebold	26.7%	63.8%	10,399	5,047	2,147	7,245	1,936	4,619	160.7%	-53.5%
Hendry	ES&S	30.8%	56.5%	17,144	5,756	3,960	9,774	3,010	5,523	91.3%	-28.3%
Hernando	Diebold	41.3%	38.8%	109,656	40,137	35,006	75,832	31,303	29,428	28.2%	19.0%
Highlands	ES&S	44.5%	39.8%	60,176	20,475	12,986	33,687	14,976	13,401	36.7%	-3.1%
Holmes	ES&S	21.3%	72.7%	10,982	6,410	1,810	8,298	1,771	6,036	261.9%	-70.0%
Jackson	ES&S	22.0%	71.5%	27,138	12,092	7,529	19,750	4,339	14,127	178.7%	-46.7%
Jefferson	Diebold	20.7%	72.3%	9,300	3,298	4,134	7,477	1,551	5,408	112.7%	-23.6%
Lafayette	ES&S	13.2%	82.8%	4,309	2,460	845	3,325	440	2,755	459.3%	-69.3%
Leon	Diebold	26.6%	57.1%	171,182	47,902	79,591	128,316	34,165	73,214	40.2%	8.7%
Levy	Diebold	27.6%	59.7%	22,617	10,408	6,073	16,649	4,594	9,940	126.5%	-38.9%
Liberty	ES&S	7.9%	88.3%	4,075	1,927	1,070	3,021	237	2,667	712.3%	-59.9%
Madison	Diebold	14.9%	79.5%	11,371	4,195	4,048	8,306	1,238	6,605	238.8%	-38.7%
Manatee	Diebold	44.3%	33.0%	191,635	81,237	61,193	143,469	63,489	47,394	28.0%	29.1%
Marion	ES&S	43.2%	39.7%	184,257	81,235	57,225	139,581	60,279	55,427	34.8%	3.2%
Monroe	Diebold	38.7%	36.1%	51,377	19,457	19,646	39,517	15,286	14,278	27.3%	37.6%
Okaloosa	Diebold	57.2%	24.7%	127,455	69,320	19,276	89,288	51,059	22,085	35.8%	-12.7%
Okeechobee	Diebold	29.7%	58.5%	18,627	6,975	5,150	12,184	3,622	7,124	92.6%	-27.7%
Orange	ES&S	35.1%	40.2%	531,774	191,389	192,030	385,547	135,299	154,938	41.5%	23.9%
Osceola	Diebold	32.8%	40.2%	129,487	32,812	30,295	63,440	20,804	25,508	57.7%	18.8%
Polk	Diebold	39.0%	42.6%	295,742	123,457	85,923	210,642	82,059	89,651	50.4%	-4.2%
Putnam	Diebold	28.1%	57.7%	45,344	18,303	12,407	30,960	8,690	17,878	110.6%	-30.6%
Santa Rosa	ES&S	55.9%	28.1%	96,359	51,952	14,635	67,175	37,543	18,880	38.4%	-22.5%
Seminole	Diebold	44.6%	32.3%	241,230	107,913	76,802	185,762	82,869	60,037	30.2%	27.9%
St.Johns	Diebold	53.3%	28.3%	109,635	58,802	26,215	85,699	45,678	24,272	28.7%	8.0%
St.Lucie	Diebold	36.6%	41.4%	137,951	38,919	43,367	82,798	30,272	34,288	28.6%	26.5%
Suwannee	ES&S	26.8%	63.6%	21,930	11,145	4,513	15,785	4,236	10,035	163.1%	-55.0%
Taylor	Diebold	18.9%	75.6%	11,481	5,466	3,049	8,580	1,622	6,486	237.1%	-53.0%
Union	ES&S	18.3%	75.5%	7,063	3,396	1,251	4,675	855	3,529	297.4%	-64.5%
Volusia	Diebold	35.9%	40.8%	309,930	100,209	106,853	208,410	74,891	85,000	33.8%	25.7%
Wakulla	Diebold	24.2%	66.9%	15,396	6,777	4,896	11,763	2,850	7,864	137.8%	-37.7%
Walton	Diebold	50.1%	36.8%	32,777	17,526	6,205	23,939	11,987	8,802	46.2%	-29.5%
Washington	Diebold	25.4%	67.0%	14,421	7,367	2,911	10,363	2,634	6,947	179.6%	-58.1%
				4,725,026	1,950,213	1,445,675	3,419,852	1,337,242	1,432,425

Now what the above table purports to present is evidence that the actual vote totals for John Kerry returned from counties where optical scanners are used is so far below what one would "expect" to find in light of the numbers and/or percentages of registered Democrats on the rolls that there must be something wrong since these same relationships are not so pronounced in Florida counties where some system other than optical scanners are used. Let us put that explanation in terms of the logic it presents for a moment, because this is how it goes: After seeing that the disparity between actual and expected votes for Bush and Kerry recorded in counties using optical scanners is more pronounced to Bush's advantage than in those counties using some other form of vote counting, we must conclude that the disparity is evident because optical scanners were used. We only need to bring in a Logic 101 professor to address this argument because it is a classic example of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc informal fallacy of "False Cause," being constructed as "after the fact therefore because of the fact." On its logical format alone, this argument fails the test.

There is a second problem with the underlying logic of what is presented in the above table that relates to the use of party affiliation numbers and percentages as meaningful statistics suggesting voter preferences for one presidential candidate over another. To put this differently, it is arguable whether presenting voter registration data qualified by party affiliation represents an objective fact that is relevant to determining voter behavior in Florida in the recent election as opposed to a subjective preference that is irrelevant and indeterminate. I believe there is external evidence outside the voting statistics shown in the above table that suggests that the use of party affiliation is irrelevant and I would like to present some of that as an important part of this discussion.

The following table uses voter current voter registration data and election returns from the state of Louisiana, regarded as a nearby southern state in regional proximity to Florida, chosen because its voter registration records are both current in terms of registered voter totals and also contain comparable information on voter party affiliation. An examination was conducted for Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi that found that voter registration data from these states either did not contain party affiliation information and/or was not current to 2004. This data is presented using the same format as the preceding table and source links are available in the footnotes that follow to check the accuracy of the numbers and calculations.

Vote Returns from Louisiana Displaying Differences Between "Expected" and "Actual" Votes

								(%Regist)*(TotalVotes)		(Actual-Exp)/(Exp)
STATE		REGISTERED VOTERS			ACTUAL RESULTS			EXPECTED VOTES		PERCENT CHANGE
		%REP	%DEM	TOT_REG	REP	DEM	TOT_VOTES	REP	DEM	REP	DEM
Louisiana		24%	55%	2,921,714	1,102,169	820,299	1,943,106	466,345	1,068,708	136.3%	-232.4%

Source data for voter registrations in Louisiana can be found at this first link. Voting statistics for the recent election for Louisiana can be found at this second link. Louisiana's ballot contained seven minor candidates, which will explain the extra votes included in the total found under "TOT_VOTES".

So if the disparity between the "expected" and "actual" votes for Bush and Kerry alone is a matter that should raise a red flag for Florida counties that use optical scanners to count votes, then an immediate investigation also should be undertaken for the entire state of Louisiana. The problem with this is that almost all voting in Louisiana is done on mechanical voting machines that cannot be programmed. I submit that the above table presents relevant external evidence that the Florida counties using optical scanners to count votes are more alike unto the rest of the South than those counties employing a different method of counting votes. And it offers what I consider to be a compelling example that undermines the notion, implicit in the first table presented above, that party affiliation can be presented as an objective and meaningful fact when applied to southern voters in the recent presidential election. It is rather a subjective preference that is largely irrelevant to voter choices. And the significance of that conclusion is that the entire argument, which is fallacious as an example of "False Cause," is undermined further in that is based upon irrelevant relationships presented as assumptions. In Logic, all inferences must be drawn from truthful premises, so this argument fails a second time, and I'll skip my presentation of the Modus Ponens rule of inference that applies here.

There is other external evidence relating to the counties employing optical scanners that has been brought forth in the media to discount the argument that the machines were rigged against Kerry, in which the historical record of these counties in presidential elections is examined. In a recent article on the ABC News web site, ABC News pointed out that the historical record of one of the counties using optical scanners, Lafayette County, established it as decidedly pro-Republican. This fact is worth knowing since it identifies important evidence omitted in the presentation of the argument that the vote returns in those Florida counties using optical scanners cannot be trusted. In addition to being fallacious and flying in the face of logical inference, the evidence offered is not tested against past history, which makes the possibility of anomalies in the recent returns from these counties less likely, unless one argues that the present does not resemble the past.

Now to be completely fair to those who presented their "evidence" of untrustworthy returns from Florida counties using optical scanners, they also argued that the returns from those counties had to be compared with others using different systems for counting votes, specifically electronic counting. Regardless of the problems of logical argumentation discussed above, this comparative analysis only has validity if the fifteen counties using electronic voting are more alike unto those using optical scanners than they are different. I submit that they are not, most are in the southern portion of the state or on its eastern coast. Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin counties all run south to north from Miami and are only separated in this run from Indian River County by a small distance. Collier, Lee, Charolette, and Sarasota counties run in a southeast to northwest direction from Miami-Dade. Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Sumter, and Lake counties extend from the Tampa area northward into south central Florida. The only Florida county using electronic voting machines to count its ballots that is not in the general area of the others just mentioned is Nassau, located north of Jacksonville on the Georgia border, which interestingly enough shows the greatest disparity among all the counties using electronic voting in its "Percent Change" figures to the advantage of Bush, which reads as +48.0% Bush to -28.9% Kerry, a result not at all unlike other counties in its vicinity using optical scanners. Most of the southern and eastern Florida counties just mentioned have demographic profiles significantly different than the rest of the state, in that they have larger percentages of Hispanic, Jewish, and African-American voters. And we should naturally expect that these counties, owing to their distinct demographic profiles, would exhibit voter behavior at odds with other counties more alike unto the rest of the southern states, specifically in terms of the "relevance" of party affiliation, the key assumption in the collection of evidence by those who are making the argument that the vote in Florida is rigged.

Note: You can view a Florida county map by clicking this link.

So to sum up my analysis of the argument about the vote being rigged in Florida to Bush's advantage, it is fallacious by its very construction as a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc argument, it is further based upon erroneous assumptions about the meaningfulness of party affiliation as an objective fact in determining voter behavior, it ignores the evidence of past voting behavior in the counties using optical scanners, and it draws a false comparison between counties using electronic voting versus optical scanners. It is a weak argument on all counts.

Some final comments on the significance of the absence of critical thinking in this controversy:

All of us understand how divisive and destructive of the political peace it can be for one side in American politics to put forth an argument that a presidential election was "stolen," whatever the reasons may be. I think it is also worthwhile to ask the question "why is such a weak argument advanced without proper scrutiny?", given that its destructive capability is so well understood. I want to suggest that this is part of the new "Age of Michael Moore," who has shown the left how to omit key evidence and ignore logical inference when presenting a damning case against the right and to overcome any opposition to it by turning up the volume in the rant it produces. Under past circumstances we should have depended upon the press to act as a referee and keep the facts in order, but that saving grace is no longer present. So we are forced to slug it out on our own. Remember that as Republicans, we never should fear to face these problems head on, because the pursuit of truth is in our nature.

[BenLurkin]

Every time someone brings up the subject, take this out . . . . . . and tear off enough for them to make a tin foil beanie.

[StJacques]

Yeah Ben, I've seen Randi Rhoades [sp?] in her tin-foil garb. None of the ranting will work, no matter how hard they try.

[onyx eyes]

Hey, babe, they aint the only ones having meltdowns.... there is cBS, who is planning to have a new expose by the CIA anonymous author who has just retired, to be shown on "60 planets", there is: Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, who is extremely pasty faced and keeps trying to make like we are being mean to the murdering B--td, Arafat, There is ...well I could go on and on but you get the picture...

[StJacques]

I have an uncorrected error in my original post. In my third paragraph you will find the following sentence:

". . . Kerry's margin of victory should have been in the eight or nine point range in Ohio . . ."

That should read:

". . . Kerry's margin of victory should have been in the four or five point range in Ohio . . ."

After writing this blog down in Notepad on my PC I corrected this error as a last edit, but I posted the earlier version. My bad. Sorry.

[CedarDave]

Thanks. Good research!!

BUMP for later complete read.

[Darkwolf377]

Very informative post.

Things are starting to worry me, though. (I know! I know!) I've read that a recount in OH may happen now. The Dems are trying to pull this out after the game's been called...though technically it hasn't not yet at least.