Don't Back Down

It is hard to speak the truth when grave consequence flows from it. But it is wrong to respect the official reports of the recent national election. The only reliable data, exit-poll results, indicate that George Bush did not win. There are no other creditable data.

Digital voting machines are not locked boxes. They are highly flexible processors obedient to everyone in position to deliver data or instructions. They do not preclude error. They do not preclude tampering. They do preclude verification, by eliminating traces of inputs. So how would we know whether to credit the results? The one reliable calibration is the exit poll. If the official result varies far from the exit poll, then the new system has failed to deliver an honest, accurate count.

This is a stark and simple matter. We must protect it, and ourselves, from the inevitable cloud of cacaphony deployed to distract attention away from the central issue. In this, it is most important that we not offer up any theories about what actually did happen. We don't know. We only know that the offical story is clearly and materially false.

•  I have seen a lot diaries

  on this topic but no one has framed the issue of the vote count in its most basic form better than you

  Thank You

  by fabacube on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:57:58 PM PDT

•  The exit polls were flawed.

  See here:

  http://electionlawblog.org/archives/002324.html

  I agree we need to fight for safeguards for the next election.

  by Eternal Hope on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:59:28 PM PDT

•  The exit poll issue is the key

  I've said this in several posts over the last week.  The exit polls are what make me suspicious of the reported outcome.  The reasons offered as explanations for the anomolies don't make sense.  I don't fully accept the arguments about the difference between the party affiliations of regular voters and the votes as counted, but at least in that case there is a plausible explanation (that many southern voters registered as democrats decades ago and never bothered to change their registered affiliation), although even here the numbers seemed greatly skewed.  But still, it's a plausible explanation.  The exit polling discrepancies are much harder to explain.  In fact, there is no satisfactory explanation for them.  

  by tompaine2004 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:38:43 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    In addition, it strikes me as significant (not probative, but significant) that the exit polls were one of the only things that were beyond anyone's control, except for the willingness or not of the exiting voters to share how they voted, but even here the exit polls would only be useless if people lied to pollsters in large numbers about how they voted, which seems very unlikely, although I've heard it argued (with no evidence) that many did lie. It would be helpful if someone pulled together all the existing information that we know about the exit polling issue into one place.  

    by tompaine2004 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:44:45 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    In my first post above, when I said "regular" voters, I mean "registered" voters.

    by tompaine2004 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:45:57 AM PDT