click here

by Robert Singer (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 138 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:23:03 PM

Confidence in elections can be dealt with very simply:  

Create a paper ballot

Have the voter make selections on the ballot

Count the selections.

Ask why we need exit polls or computerized voting and the finger points in one direction:  toward the media.  What would MSM do on Nov 4 if there was not a predicted result within a few hours or minutes of the polls closing?  They'd actually have to wait a few days until the ballots were counted.  Oh My God!  Instant Gratification denied!

What's more important?  MSM being able to "call" the race before bedtime EST?  Or getting the count right. 

This is an election, folks.  It's a show of hands on a larger scale.  First graders do it.  Put an X on a piece of paper and count the X's.  Complicating it results in the ability to  alter voter's choices and reduce the confidence of the voters.

by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM

but you can do even better by collecting affidavits at the exit poll.  By doing so, you have evidence which is accepted in both civil and criminal proceedings, and you are in a position to pursue both avenues if there is a discrepancy between the affidavits collected in the exit poll and the official results.

If you want to know how a few people in each county can take action to make sure that we can throw the bums out, see How to Stop Election Theft and How Not to Stop Election Theft?

by Mark Adams (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM

It's hard to take seriously this love for the concept of exit polls, when these same folks, or at least most of their fellow travelers, had no interest for them a few years ago in Venezuela:

One weapon against such fraud is the exit poll. As Doug Schoen of Penn Schoen points out, his firm has conducted exit polls in Mexico and, just a few days ago, in the Dominican Republic, which produced results very close to the election results. His partner Mark Penn points out that the firm conducted two previous exit polls in Venezuela, both of which were on the mark."

Does this mean that the exit polls were correct in the U.S. in 2004, and Bush somehow cheated? I guess that would depend on the quality of the exit polls. I seem to remember some doubts about that quality back then, but I'm not sure about that. Exit polls themselves can also be part of the problem if they're trumpeted before everybody votes. They can either be inspirational or depressive to people's decision to finally actually go to the polls. Same goes for calling states on the east coast before those on the west have voted. I know that if I hadn't voted early in the morning where I live in Hawaii in 2000, I probably wouldn't have bothered to vote after seeing a likely Gore victory at hand on the TV at work. Even calling Florida for Gore BEFORE the polls in the panhandle of that state had closed may have depressed thousands of potential Bush voters from going to the polls. And I'm sure the grievances would be similar for Democrats if the results had been reversed. I think the media is our worst enemy when it comes to the purity of voter intention. We would have been spared weeks of indecision and years of resentment had the media not called Florida way too early:

Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

But somehow I'm also having a hard time taking seriously the notion that Republicans are somehow more likely to cheat, when the Democrats are so adamantly opposed to someone being required to simply provide reliable identification before voting, and are forever pushing for all kinds of on the fly registering and voting laws, making fraud much easier to carry out. I mean, can we at least employ some common sense standards regarding identification and reasonable time periods for registration verification, before we start talking about some kind of new national exit poll procedure?

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:46:37 PM

We don't "deserve" fair and accurate elections, but we certainly have a right to them.....if we assert that right.

Unfortunately, U.S. Citizens have ceased asserting their rights, and not just in the matter of elections.

Exit polls can provide useful information, but fair and accurate elections will only happen when Citizens count their own votes right there on the premises of the voting precinct which are open to any and all who care to observe.

And I see no alternative to paper ballots marked by the voters.

As Stalin said, it is not who you voted for that counts, but who counts the votes. We must count our own votes.

by B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 119 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:45:15 PM