New study challenges black support for Proposition 8

[Newsjock]

Source: Sacramento Bee

A new study of voting patterns on Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that would outlaw same-sex marriage, concludes that African American support, reported by exit pollsters at 70 percent, was at least 10 percentage points lower.

The high reported support levels among black and Latino voters for the measure, which won voter approval but is now being challenged in court, led to post-election controversy and conclusions that non-white voters provided the margin of victory for Proposition 8.

The new study, commissioned by the San Francisco-based Evelyn and Walter Hass Jr. Fund and released by a consortium of gay rights groups, was conducted by two New York college researchers. It concludes that party affiliation, political ideology, frequency of attending church and age "were the driving forces behind the measure's passage" rather than ethnicity.

When voting results were adjusted for those factors, the researchers concluded, "support for Proposition 8 among African Americanss and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups." They put overall black support for Proposition 8 at "no more than 59 percent" rather than the 70 percent found in exist polls of voters.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/018318.html?mi_rss=Latest%20News

[provis99]

1. 59% is still 59%

Civil rights is a case of "I've got mine" just like everything else in society.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

7. You can do anything with numbers.

Alameda County has 2X the black pop of the CA average. H8 went down in flames there.

The bottom line is, the cable channels couldn't WAIT to blame black voters for Prop H8 and we bought it.

[bliss_eternal]

20. Some of the blame was heaped on latinos, too.

:grr::mad:

When will progressives learn, when the powers that be don't want the public to see the real issues, the easiest thing to do is blame brown people (or some other minority group)? Get them all fighting each other, so no one can blame the man who started the mess.

[EFerrari]

23. So true.

[ZombieHorde]

3. K&R

[slackmaster]

4. I thought exit polls were reliable and accurate

Amazing result.

Somebody voted for Proposition 8, that's for sure. Maybe it was just a slight majority of the voters. All of the voters.

[bliss_eternal]

22. Just curious, but why would you think that...?

Given what they base the data of exit polls on (usually race and/or gender)? I don't know about you, but I know people of various racial backgrounds that don't share the beliefs of others in their group. As such, I don't put a lot of stock in "exit polls." They seem to think that polling people based on race is appropriate, and an accurate way to gauge how people vote--it's not.

If nothing else, I'd consider the poll results presented after the 2000 election. They were clearly flawed, and later shown to be so publicly.

[slackmaster]

24. I agree that the 2000 exit polls were flawed

That's actually the point I was trying to make.

There are people on this forum who will jump all over your shit if you criticize in any way the use of exit polls as evidence of election fraud.

[bliss_eternal]

29. Really...? Yikes.

Sorry slackmaster, I didn't know that. :hug::hi:

Didn't mean to contribute (by jumping on you)--sorry I misunderstood the point you were making.
I do appreciate it.

[EFerrari]

28. Older voters but also, the language was confusing. It was one of those

were you had to vote "yes" to oppose equal marriage rights and "no" to affirm.

The good news is that in minority communities, voters are younger, especially among the largest one, Latino. And the kids are on board.

[justsomeguy1973]

5. 60% or 70% who cares that's still a majority and supporting discrimination and hatred is wrong

It's wrong or anyone to support discrimination and hatred. But for some reason it bothers me even more when you see such behavior from a minority community that has been the victim of such things themselves. The hypocrisy is hard to swallow.

[slackmaster]

8. I don't buy into the idea that 52% of the voters of California hate LGBT people

Some do, but the number is not over half of the voting population. I don't believe labelling everyone who voted yes on 8 as hateful is a constructive way to approach the core problem.

There were other factors at play in Proposition 8. I voted against it, donated to No on 8, and kept a No on 8 sign in my yard for several weeks before the election. But I have to admit, even now I am ambivalent about it.

The idea of what constitutes a legitimate marriage is deeply engrained in our culture. Some of that is driven by religion. It's also tradition. A lot of people are just ignorant and believe that homosexuality is the result of a choice.

I voted with my head, because I know that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. If I didn't know better, I could easily have voted yes.

[kwassa]

10. Most probably never thought of it as a civil right issue.

as there was little to no effort to reach out to minority communities in the Stop Prop 8 effort. There is also the giant assumption that everyone understands the issue the way the gay community does, which is, of course, not true.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

43. Study found it's NO MORE than 59%, meaning it could be much lower

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

6. Thank you. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Because 60% is SOOO much better than 70%

Oh, please! :eyes:

[EFerrari]

26. 58% means that of every ten votes, we only need to swing one in

that community. I'd say that's "better". And now we know it has to be the oldest voter in the ten.

[bliss_eternal]

30. Great point...!

I recall the first time this crap was voted on. The hateful prop passed by a much larger margin. I don't know if awareness has increased, or more people can say they "know" someone glbtq that may be affected. Whatever the reason, it's progress for the better.

[Divine Discontent]

9. surely there's hearty support for civil rights for all from a community that is judged for their

skin tone. The numbers still seem to back up the proof that a strong majority of AA's voted to strip Gays of marriage rights and vote against their fellow black citizens who support those very rights.

[bliss_eternal]

16. Of course...

...as there would also be support w/in the glbt community for issues that affect other minority groups.........oh wait--forgot about those Log Cabin Republicans. Also forgot about the existence of Alan Keyes, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and other prominent black republicans.

;)


As much as many would like to assert that the experience of past discrimination has deemed black people somehow less apt to discriminate, this is not the case. They have not ceased to be human. As such, there are many individuals that make up the whole community and some of those individuals aren't supportive of glbt rights (unfortunately), nor affirmative action, women's rights, and other issues that progressives would like support for. Issues that support members of their community.

Case in point, Alan Keyes who refuses to acknowledge his lesbian daughter and voted (I think) against affirmative action (he's spoken against it), as well as abortion.

Just like any other group that faces discrimination, there are those that don't support "equality" as we (progressives)define it. Underneath the 'color' is a human being, an individual with ideas that may or may not be shaped by their experiences, or those of people that look like they do.

I don't believe it is appropriate to hold an entire group of people to a certain standard, based on their skin color--but that's just me (my personal standard). You are of course, entitled to your opinion and may feel it's entirely appropriate. To each his/her own.

cheers. :hi:

[Terran]

25. Your post is far too reasonable

A lot of people found their scapegoat for Prop 8 and they don't want to give that up.

Someone else is to blame for the loss, and the 'gay community' is in no way at fault itself. :sarcasm:

[Divine Discontent]

36. the "gay community" (what's with the quotes around the term?!!?) did plenty of outreach

if you were here you know this - otherwise, the "gay community" says you're a smart alec insulting ALL of the "gay community" for somehow being responsible for OTHER people's desires to block civil rights for them - somehow that's OUR fault - you're a piece...

[Terran]

37. Try reading these items

http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/no-on-8-reportedly-thought-black-vote.html
http://twodown48togo.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/prop-8-town-hall-it-was-almost-a-dismissive-response/

It's well known, aside from the above, that the community in California did very little to counter Prop 8 until it was too late, and as you can see from the above, the so-called organizers of the anti-Prop 8 efforts rejected help from an agency that might have helped with the infamous African-American vote.

Being at DU has nothing to do with anything. I've been here, and the efforts of a few people here are to be lauded, but the "leaders" of the gay community in California are idiots, and are as much responsible for the loss as anyone else.

[robcon]

12. Headline is EXTREMELY misleading.

It doesn't challenge black support for Proposition 8. It confirms it, although placing it at 58%, not the 70% shown elsewhere.

The "explanation" of black support, i.e., that some of it was 'explained' by religious belief, cuts no ice with me.

[kwassa]

13. Do the other explanations cut ice with you?

since you mention one out of the four?

"It concludes that party affiliation, political ideology, frequency of attending church and age "were the driving forces behind the measure's passage" rather than ethnicity"

Black voters were a tiny percentage of the overall Prop 8 vote, and to blaim passage on them is to ignore the vast majorit of the voters who voted for the proposition.

[noiretextatique]

27. of course not...it's more important to feel victimized

by black people. it doesn't matter that black voters were a small percentage of total voters. clearly a lot of people believe every black voter in california should have voted NO on 8. that is an unrealistic view, but what the hell do i know. i just a black person who voted NO on 8.

[bluestateguy]

14. Gay rights is one of the few issues where whites have more progressive views than blacks & Hispanics

And that is a difficult pill for a lot of people on the Left to swallow.

[bliss_eternal]

18. Perhaps...

...but personally, I'd like to see these discussions based on something other than "ethnicity." The basis for these polls needs to be changed, in my opinion.

I get that for a long time in the united states--little was known about the ways people develop the views they held, including how they decided who to vote for. As such, racial background could provide some insight as racial groups tended to live in the same areas and voted on the same issues collectively. This is no longer the case (and hasn't been for a very long time).

Quote:
At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

[Starry Messenger]

17. I'm blaming the guy who helped put it on the ballot to begin with:

Ultimate White Dude, Ron Prentice

"Ron Prentice Gets Rich Fighting Gay Marriage"

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/9/11/84434/6357

(from the link)

" Con Artist Exposed As Heading Prop 8 Campaign

As Justin McLachlan exposes, Ron Prentice has been operating a scam - raising money from good religious people - but using it to line his own pocket instead of using the money as he said he would. He is nothing but a con-artist. And now he is trying to con the people of California into bashing gay and lesbian families - so he can add another million or so to his bank account.

Anti-Gay Organization is Personal Money Machine

I have long held that a great many of the "pro-family" organizations have as their main agenda making a nice comfortable living for their founders and "ex-gay" for pay employees. True, there is also the political agenda of keeping alive the choice myth, but the real goal is money. Emerging facts about the Riverside, California-based California Family Council which claims to have a mission to protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California's laws, for the benefit of its families is a case in point. These charlatans continue to prey on their sheep-like contributors to finance their comfortable life style and no doubt laugh all the way to the bank."

[bliss_eternal]

19. This is the dude...?!

:puke:



Thanks for the link and information, appreciate it.

[Starry Messenger]

21. No problem!

Guys like him need to be exposed. Spread it around. :hi:

[Peace Patriot]

31. Here is a rundown on the three major election theft corporations...

ES&S: Initial funder and major investor, rightwing billionaire recluse Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). They got into hot water with our new Sec of State Debra Bowen, for failing to participate in her top-down review of the CA voting systems, and I don't know what happened with their recent status--not sure if they were involved in the vote tabulation--but they have been front and center in heavy-duty lobbying for 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting with no audit/recount controls, and in legal defense of their "right" to profit from our elections with 'TRADE SECRET' code (which they maintain trumps the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted), and they are a spinoff of...

DIEOBLD: CEO until 2005, Wally O'Dell, a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer" right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush/Cheney in 2004." ES&S and Diebold were until recently run by two brothers, Tod and Bob Urosevich.

SEQUOIA: Hired former CA Sec of State, Republican Bill Jones, and his chief aide, Alfie Charles, to peddle their machines to unwary voters and corrupt election officials, after they had brought the curse of electronic voting to California--an egregious example of "revolving door" employment.

California's votes, like those of about half the nation, are tabulated by optiscan voting machines or touchscreens manufactured mostly by these corporations--(in ES&S's case, manufactured in sweatshop conditions in the Philippines. Don't know about the others)--with, in California's case, a required paper ballot backup or receipt--something that California election reform activists have had to fight tooth and nail for (against ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia lobbyists and their county registrar shills)--but only 1% of these ballots or receipts is ever seen by human eyes. According to experts that I respect, 1% is not even close to being adequate to detect election fraud (or error), especially in a 'TRADE SECRET' code system run by private rightwing corporations. (A 10% automatic audit is needed--the minimum needed. Venezuela does a whopping 55% audit, and they use OPEN SOURCE code--code that anyone may review.)

California is one of the "better" states. Half the systems in the country have no paper trail whatsoever. But, despite being "better," in California, 99% of the ballots (or receipts) are never counted, but are dropped into boxes to gather dust and are never seen again, and the votes become 'votes'--bundles of electronic information that is easily manipulated. A few lines of self-erasing code, and millions of votes can be changed without detection.

99% of the ballots (or receipts) that contain votes for or against Prop 8 are still in those boxes. No one has counted them. No human eyes have seen them, since they left the voters' hands. We don't know what they say. We are almost completely reliant upon the word of electronic machines programmed with 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by the corporations described above, to tell us the outcome.

So what do you think the odds are that these Bushwhack corps did just that, on Prop 8--fiddled yet another election? Then the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies got busy, stirring up hatred between blacks and gays, and between Latinos and gays--three core progressive constituencies, and Democratic/Obama voters. It would not be the first time that the election theft corporations and the corpo/fascist media worked together to steal an election, and to carry out agendas of war and of 'divide and conquer' designed in some fascist think tank.

Democratic/Obama voters--who came out in droves in California to vote for change--also voted to undo gay marriage rights, and deny this civil right to gay couples?? It's a stretch, to say the least. And the conditions in our election system--near complete non-transparency--make it impossible for us to know.

To base any political analysis on 'TRADE SECRET'code statistics is bullshit. To assume anything at all from such a system--even that Obama was, in truth, elected (and I think he was)--is bullshit. My suspicion is that Obama didn't just win, he won by a landslide, something like 5% more than is reflected in the "official totals" (brought to us by ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia), and that his mandate was deliberately and fraudulently reduced, to curtail any serious reform. (And we are certainly seeing the outlines of that curtailment in Obama's major appointments.)

At the least, this egregious non-transparency in our vote counting system should be mentioned in every article that purports to analyze the results of such elections. In academic circles, it would be a major intellectual crime not to mention such a research condition. The bottom line information of our democracy--how people voted--has not been verified. In CA, it could be verified, if the ballots were actually counted in sufficient numbers, but that is not done. In half the systems in the country, with no paper at all, it cannot even be verified. The voters are compelled to "have faith" in these far rightwing corpos for election results, with no recount even possible. And that was the case in some areas of California before Debra Bowen became SoS and enforced the paper ballot regulation (--which has been fought by corrupt county officials and these rightwing vendors, who are even now plotting Bowen's defeat in the next election).

Pockets of fascism and hostility to progressive voters pepper the map of California--in San Diego, in Riverside, in San Bernardino and other places--where collusion with the vendors is still occurring. The above-mentioned county registrars actually sued SoS Bowen to prevent even the mildest of reforms in CA's vote counting system. They lost that suit, but it gives you the tenor of things in those counties. Would they let a vendor tech get at the voting machines or central tabulators with a malicious "patch" before the election, and not tell anybody? They are very secretive and hostile to the public, and that is exactly the sort of thing they might do. And even in the counties with honest officials, electronic fraud by the vendor can go undetected.

Upshot: We do not know if Prop 8 won, nor who voted for it. So why do so many people comment on these matters as if we DO know?

[fascisthunter]

32. kicking this post

[slackmaster]

33. Slim to none

So what do you think the odds are that these Bushwhack corps did just that, on Prop 8--fiddled yet another election?

And Slim just left on the last stagecoach headed out of town.

Denying the well-documented fact that a majority of voters (even in Cali) are not yet on board with same-sex marriage is a waste of time and energy.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Sorry, but it's NOT documented by their votes, 99% of which were not counted

in any verifiable way.

Opinion polls? Is that what you mean by "well-documented"? I'd have to see the polls, the questions asked, the methods used--and the range of answers among the different polls--and which ones talked to actual voters, not just the general population or some demographic of the general population.

Another problem: Once you have a stolen election, does that then influence poll answers?

The lack of transparency in our voting system creates a whole range of problems as to determining what the majority wants. It can screw up how questions are asked, and how they are answered. It can screw up analysis. It can dictate what the corpo/fascist media focuses upon, and what they don't ask about--the questions and issues they toss into the river of forgetfulness--which can in turn influence how people answer pollsters' questions. Voting counting is the bottom line--the very basis--of sovereign democratic rule by the people, and when you screw with that, and render it non-transparent, you screw with everything attached to it.

So on this issue, I am not going to yield to your point ("well-documented") without convincing proof. I think the whole system has been manipulated and royally fucked up, from the use of what was once a progressive measure, the peoples' initiative, to take away civil rights, to the corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies (and their pollsters), to the 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. I am convinced enough that Rove put anti-gay measures on state ballots in order to use this issue for his pre-written narratives for stolen elections that I trust nothing to do with this issue, as it filters to us through many layers of fascists and tainted and unreliable systems.

I think it's possible that a majority of California voters voted for Prop 8. I have seen NO convincing proof that that is the case. I certainly don't want to be living in la-la land on this or any issue. But until the actual ballots filled out by California voters are actually counted by human beings, in a way that everyone can see and understand, I think any analysis is highly subjective bullshit.

[slackmaster]

35. The 52% result in California is convincing enough for me

We have a strong Democratic Secretary of State here. She did de-certify systems that didn't meet her standards for accountability and auditability.

It's easy for anyone to set a higher arbitrary standard than Debra Bowen's and then claim the vote was rigged, but the real motivation is that you don't agree with the result. Yet you have no proof at all that the vote was tampered with. The fact that it might be does not establish that it was. Any system, even hand-counted paper, can be fucked with or just provide ambiguous results because of shit happening. The US Senate election in Minnesota provides a reminder of that.

Same-sex marriage has more support in California than it does in most states. The fact that it lost here just shows how much work it's going to take to get thing set right nationwide.

Education is the key IMO.

[Peace Patriot]

38. Your mindset on non-transparent voting--that no fraud proven means it's okay--

is gravely dangerous to our democracy.

One insider hacker, a few lines of code, and MILLIONS of votes can be changed, at lightning speed, without detection--without anyone ever knowing.

This is many orders of magnitudes more insecure and more dangerous than paper ballot counting. Paper ballots are TANGIBLE objects. They have to be thrown in the river or changed. To do this on a scale of millions, or even thousands, involves considerable risk of detection. To do it electronically is EASY and almost completely undetectable, if the code is just a bit clever and erases itself.

Having faith in such a system of 'TRADE SECRET' vote tabulation, with the code owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with a 1% audit, is INSANE.

And in critical elections, where important rightwing candidates or ideas are at issue, it is absolutely nuts to presume innocence. To have "faith." To not insist that 100% of the ballots be handcounted by human beings, not 1%!

Or, at least 10%. Venezuela does 55%, and they use OPEN SOURCE code. Why? To be sure, that's why. We do 1% in Californa (and ZERO PERCENT in half the systems in the country) and we cannot be sure of the results of any such election.

Debra Bowen is edging toward more oversight, better procedures, more openness, and in my opinion that's all she can do without getting whacked, in this goddamned Buswhacked country. But what she has done is not nearly enough. Why should there be any uncertainty? Hm? And why should there be 99% uncertainty?

These systems should never have been put in place without 100% audits for the first 3 to 4 national cycles, and more than the minimum audits needed after that. They never have been put in place with 'TRADE SECRET' code, in the first place. Now well-intentioned people like Bowen are trying to patch up a ruined, privatized, corrupt, SECRET vote counting system. Patch it up; save the billion dollar contracts. Or get run out of office in a Rovian career-ruination campaign, or worse.

Smug faith in Bushwhack-run private vote counting. That's what I'm getting from your reply. You want to trust Deborah Seiler to count your votes (former Diebold chief salesperson in California, now San Diego county registrar)? You want to trust Howard Ahmanson? Well, go peddle this crap in another country. I don't want it in my country. It is not democracy. It is tyranny.

"It's easy for anyone to set a higher arbitrary standard than Debra Bowen's and then claim the vote was rigged."

100% transparency is not an "arbitary standard." It is the only standard.

I did NOT say that the vote "was rigged." I said, COUNT ALL THE BALLOTS. We. Do. Not. Know. Who. Won. Prop 8.

The vote was NOT verified by an even minimally adequate audit. And it was a far rightwing campaign with a typically Rovian "divide and conquer" issue.

[slackmaster]

39. The systems in use in California all have paper audit trails that the voter can inspect

If the voter chooses to do so.

I always do.

[Peace Patriot]

40. That is not enough. There needs to be systematic handcounting of the paper ballots,

in sufficient numbers to GUARANTEE an accurate count. And, given the history of this, we should START with a 100% audit. The extensive, corrupt lobbying by these election theft corporations in Sacramento and elsewhere is WHY we don't have an adequate audit.

They seek total SECRET control over our election results. They have been lobbying for that all along. We, the People, have to fight tooth and nail just for MINIMAL protection, such as a paper ballot backup. This is the venomous evil force that has been unleashed within our election system: PRIVATE corporations, with HAIR-RAISING TIES to RIGHTWING causes, counting all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code, and getting billions of dollars of taxpayer money to do it--and to lobby AGAINST transparency.

Your private, personal action is laudable. If everybody did it, CA's election system would be more secure. But that's not how things work. With these election theft machines, counties have shut down citizen oversight of vote counting. They have closed many precincts, and enforced mail-in voting, with the ballots scanned into electronic machines (NOT counted by human beings) at faraway locations. They have taken many actions that repel public oversight and withdraw vote counting behind layers of secrecy. The attitude toward public participation, of many county registrars, has been heavily influenced by corporate secrecy. They behave in a "them vs. us" way. Their job, in their view, is to protect the contract, not the voters. Resources are poured into corporate pockets that should be used to educate and involve the public. Cost-cutting never cuts into corporate profits, and always cuts into public participation. They pay ten million dollars to Diebold, and close neighborhood precincts because they say they can't afford them. Priorities are all screwed up. It's too easy to say, go check your ballot. A lot of people don't have time to do that, or don't even know that they can or should.

Democracy has specific requirements--TRANSPARENT vote counting being NUMBER ONE. But democracy is also a mind-set, involving public service, public oversight, public spaces and our common ground as a people. All of these have been gravely compromised by the corporate invasion of our election system, most recently with direct control of the SECRET code by which votes are tabulated, but in many other ways as well, including the message that you, as a citizen, are not welcome to oversee the actions of public officials, and are just another "consumer" of voting technology. You may have the self-confidence to overcome that attitude, or you may be blest with a county registrar who acts like a public servant, and not an Overlord, but many people do not have those blessings, and need our collective help to understand and assert their rights. In many CA counties, they do not get that help. They are considered hostiles and aliens when they enter a county registrar's office.

I'm very glad that Debra Bowen is working to change the culture. But it is an uphill battle, when private corporations are involved, especially RIGHTWING corporations--for godssakes. And every advance can be undone by the next election, or by other dirty means, such as we saw with the bogus charges against SoS Kevin Shelley. Shelley had guaranteed the right of every California voter to a paper ballot upon request. When he was driven from office, that right evaporated--and some county registrars were defying that rule, even before they ganged up with Connie McCormack to drive him out. Connie McCormack, who was doing sales brochures for Diebold!

Bowen may have these kinds of county registrars on notice that no such crap will be tolerated. And McCormack herself got driven out by election reform activists in Los Angeles. But the system is still rotten with corporate influence--and it is still highly riggable. What is that riggability--that near total non-transparency--FOR? Hm? Why not just be transparent? Why not count all the ballots in a way that everyone can see and understand? Why are there ANY secrets in our voting system?

There is only one purpose for secrecy in our vote counting system, and that is fraud. How the holders of that power are using it, we do not know--and cannot know--for sure. That is the whole point--to keep us from ever knowing for sure. Thus, selective fraud is as possible as total fraud. The passage of Prop 8, in the midst of an Obama landslide. The shaving of 5% off Obama's national mandate. The reversal, in Ohio, of election reform initiatives in 2005 (the 'TRADE SECRET' vendor preventing reform of the very government system that it profits from). Or the fraudulent re-election of Bush/Cheney, and four more years of war and massive looting.

Why should there be ANY secrets in the counting of our votes?

[slackmaster]

41. I agree, but even full hand-counting of paper ballots is subject to fraud

There is no foolproof system.

[Peace Patriot]

42. Hundreds of paper ballots could be trashed or changed, even thousands, and with

every one, the chances of getting caught increase. MILLIONS of e-votes can be changed--one insider hacker, a couple of lines of code, that's all it takes--invisibly, at the speed of light, without detection.

That is the BIG difference. You state the obvious--any system can be gamed. So the important point is to REDUCE the possibility of that happening, both in actuality, and including the deterrent factor of potential election fraudsters knowing that they can get caught, when they dump the ballots in the river or re-write them in a basement and try to substitute phony for real ballots. E-voting--whether with optiscans or touchscreens--dramatically INCREASES the insecurity of voting systems, and gives election fraudsters--especially corporate insiders--near perfect assurance that they cannot be caught. Electronic voting, with 'TRADE SECRET' code and with virtually no audit/recount controls, is DESIGNED for fraud. You could not create a more inherently fraudulent system unless you were to have Josef Stalin or Adolph Hitler fill all the ballots out themselves. And, considering the hair-raising rightwing connections of these e-voting corporations, that's just about what we had in 2004, and that condition--rightwing corporations 'counting' all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code--has not substantially changed since that time.

Yours is the fallback defense of numerous apologists for this INHERENTLY fraudulent voting system--that votes can be stolen with paper ballots as well. I have seen/heard this argument time and time again--often as they last thing they say, their parting shot--from people who refuse to look at the facts: The near perfect non-transparency of privately run, 'TRADE SECRET' code vote counting. You ignore the plain facts of the system. You ignore these corporate dragons' lavish lobbying for total non-transparency. You ignore the insidious influence of corporate secrecy throughout the system. You also ignore the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars WASTED on these glitchy, unreliable, insecure, riggable machines. And then you say, 'No system is perfect.'

Did I say that paper ballots hand-counted in the public venue was perfect? I did not. Only an idiot would say that. You attribute to me an idiotic position--and use that 'straw man' bullshit in defense of a truly idiotic position--that we should accept the results of a 99% unaudited system run on 'TRADE SECRET' code by rightwing corporations.