North Carolina vs. California

[Boredtodeath]

Compare and contrast Bev Harris in California and Joyce McCloy in NC:

In NC where activists spent all their time doing the grunt work of activism and not wasting their time with "fundraising", grandstanding, writing reports, and constantly smearing critics.

- S223 was passed to protect voters from paperless voting.

- 76% of the state is now OpScan.

- Diebold tried to get the law overturned. Activists sued and won.

- Diebold left the state and refuses to sell to NC (S223 required the CEO to sign a sworn affidavit that the code certified by the state would be used in the election. Violation of the law is a felony, so Diebold left).

- Any vendor selling to the state must reveal its source code.

- Any vendor selling to the state must reveal any bug/defect in their code as soon as it is discovered (failure is a criminal offense).

- Mandatory VVPB for DREs

- Manadatory random hand-eye recounts of precincts after the election.

- If paper and digital count differ, paper is the vote of record.

- Number of people smeared to accomplish this: ZERO
- Number of reporters attacked: ZERO
- Number of election officials supporting our view: 76%
- Number of legislatures who voted for S223: Unanimous passage in both houses.
- Amount of money raised for this effort: ZERO


Bev's accomplishments in California.

- She filed a lawsuit against Diebold, and she, Jim March and her lawyer Lowell Finley walked away with about $75K a piece. Diebold promises to be a good voting machine company and never do that again.

- Diebold and DREs still in California.

- No new law.

- Source of critical information for Bev's lawsuit facing three felony charges.

- Lawsuit settled WITH prejudice, meaning evidence brought to suit may never be used against Diebold in the future.

- Nationally, the only law to come out of the whole anti-BBV effort is OPPOSED by Bev.

- Amount of money raised for this effort: At least $1 million

- People smeared (accused of working for Diebold, accused of self-enrichment, accused of lying, fired, harassed, etc): Andy Stephenson, Avi Rubin, Doug Jones, David Dill, Rebecca Mercuri, Randi Rhodes, Skinner, John Kerry, BartCop.com, Democrats.com, DU, Joyce McCloy, Maddy McCall, TroubleinWinter, Roxanne, and dozens more.

- Reporters abused: Kim Zettner (Wired), Rachel Konrad (AP), John Schwartz (NYT), Keith Olberman (MSNBC) and many others from smaller newspapers.

[BeFree]

1. Nice comparison

However, you were wrong to call it mandatory recounts. Anyone following the procedures needs to be educated with the proper terms and actions.

The paper trail is to be used for a mandatory audit, not mandatory recounts.

Too, NC had a really big screw-up in one or more counties' election systems. It was called, at the time, a Florida style screw-up. It was huge, and made it so the state could not ignore the importance of having a paper trail.

Then of couse was the analysis done by ignatzmouse that clearly uncovered some kind of screw-up in the vote count.

Many people played a very active roll in North Carolina, and Joyce was, indeed, a great leader in that endeavor.

But the act of dividing activists into one camp or another hurts our cause, and reflects poorly on those doing the dividing. Two wrongs do not make one right, unless one is an extremist. Then it fits the bill rather well.

[autorank]

2. This is all about distraction and division. Ignore it, as in IGNORE;)

BeFree, can you for one moment imagine a state NAACP organization deriding the NAACP of another state in their most public forum for not "doing as well?"

[BeFree]

4. No, I can't imagine that

It would be like burning your house down in order to kill the roaches in it. Crazy.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

10. My message to you...

From the DU Rules: "You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so."

You are on IGNORE.

[Boredtodeath]

12. Oh, goody.

Thank you.

[kster]

18. The games people will play to distract us from

This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=429176&mesg_id=429176

:thumbsup:

[Boredtodeath]

24. kster, what makes you think

the truth is a game?

Could it be because Bev's "new" discovery isn't "new" at all?

[kster]

39. My message to you...

From the DU Rules: "You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so."

You are on IGNORE

[Boredtodeath]

40. Oh Goody.

Thank you.

[Boredtodeath]

8. No division here - just the truth.

The truth only seems to bother the BevBots.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. fact check

I can explain some facts about North Carolina to you, but I can't force you to read them or to think about them. Nonetheless, for other people's reference, my response to ignatzmouse's analysis is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=429093&mesg_id=429247

ignatzmouse claimed that the closeness between the absentee/early and election day returns in the governor's race proved that "Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls." (That might literally be true, albeit irrelevant.) But according to his own numbers, the governor's and lieutenant governor's races were the only two races where the early and election day margins were within a point. I don't think he intended to cherry-pick, but he sure as heck did. It's true, however, that the differences were greater in the Senate and presidential race, which is the point I address in the other post.

[BeFree]

16. These are the facts

What ignatzmouse showed was that the early voters, measured as a percentage of Dems going to vote, was no larger than the amount of Dems voting on the final day, by looking at the governor race.

When you take a sample of 30% and compare it to the remaining 70% a large difference appears. You didn't clearly explain how that difference came about.


Your explanation, as long winded and convoluted as it was, confused the hell outta me, as I noted. But ignatz's presentation was clear as day.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. no, it didn't

You can't look at the returns in the governor's race to determine the percentage of Dems going to vote, any more than you can look at the auditor's race, or the labor commissioner's race, or any of the other races in which the Republican candidate did substantially better on election day. (If you aggregate the North Carolina house and senate races, the gaps are quite large.)

There is no warrant for choosing the governor's race as the reference race -- no reason why hackers (if there were hackers) couldn't steal votes on each and every race. In fact, if you think ignatzmouse proved that the presidential race was hacked, then he must have proved that the state house and senate races were hacked too, and the auditor's race, and, well, pretty much every race except the governor's race.

You have a right to be confused. But then you should not pretend to know the facts. If you think I am lying about something, well, most of the numbers you can check against ignatzmouse's post yourself, except for the NC house and senate ones. That would require someone who can figure out how to download and analyze the election returns -- which was not very hard.

[BeFree]

26. I didn't say you are a liar

I said you didn't explain anything. You gave no reason for the differences, thats all.

The difference being, of course, that not only were ALL the polls different from the results, there was a huge difference between early and final day results.

I read all your stuff. It made no sense. No big deal, really, don't sweat it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. welcome to the amazing world of science

If you want to argue that the differences are caused by fraud, then you need actually to argue it. Otherwise, you are like a creationist pointing to someone's elbow and saying, 'Explain that, huh? If you can't explain an elbow, then admit that God made it!'

If you think I haven't explained anything, check yourself. What have you explained? I guess you think that the Republicans hacked two races and left the others alone, but why would you think that? In science, we try to generate testable hypotheses and then actually test them, not to gather anomalies and blithely assert that they point to fraud, or God, or whatever.

Your argument, as far as I can see one at all, depends on the assumption that early voters and Election Day voters ought to be alike. But who says they should be? Obviously, early voters are people who, for some reason, decided to vote early. (FogerRox suggested one such reason: because the Kerry campaign told some of them to vote early.) We don't get to assume that these people are just like the rest. We need to test the assumption. In fact, ignatzmouse presents data from a total of twelve partisan statewide races we can use to test it. The problem is, he didn't notice that his data didn't support his assumption.

If you really, truly don't see the problem with ignatzmouse's post, just reverse it. Every partisan statewide race except for governor and lieutenant governor shows the Republican doing at least two points better on Election Day than in absentee voting. Can you explain why the governor and lieutenant governor races are different -- why the Democrats didn't show the usual Election Day decline? If not, why don't you just admit that obviously the Democrats stole votes in those races?

Right: because that would be silly.

ignatzmouse started with an assumption no political scientist would make (that early voters and Election Day voters ought to be alike), opened his post with a result that supported it, and downplayed the eight partisan statewide races (not including U.S. Senate and president) on the other side. When an assumption flunks eight out of ten tests, we generally junk it. (It does even worse when we fold in the NC House and NC Senate figures.)

There are several possible explanations of why election day voters were different in this particular way. One reasonable surmise is that Election Day voters were more often ticket-splitters -- the early voters were more likely to vote straight-party. That seems plausible on its face. It is compatible with data from the Edison/Mitofsky survey. (Unweighted, 21.4% of self-reported Bush voters in the telephone poll of early voters said they voted for the Dem for governor, compared with 25.9% of Bush voters in the Election Day poll. Similarly, 7.5% of early Bush voters said they voted for the Dem for Senate, compared with 11.1% of Election Day Bush voters.) It is also compatible with results from the history files: the proportion of Democrats on election day was two points lower, but the proportion of Republicans was practically the same; it's the proportion of unaffiliated voters that was higher on election day. So, several strands of evidence point in this direction. But I do not claim to have a Complete Explanation. That's not how science works. I do claim that the analysis doesn't support an inference of fraud.

And yes, I think reality is a big deal.

[BeFree]

30. Amazing

You claim:

"We don't get to assume that these people are just like the rest."

But every poll does just that: assume the tiny percentage of those polled, are just like the rest. It is a basis of the science of polling.

You bring up the two point differences in the other races. Fine. But we are talking about a nine point difference in the presidential race. And that is the difference that has only been explained by ignatz.

Look, we both agree that the Miscountski exit-polls were screwed up. So why interject that screw-up into this discussion? This discussion is all about the early versus final day results.

Lets stick to the facts, shall we?

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. no, this is quite ignorant

Polls are based on random samples. Early voters are not a random sample of the electorate; they are self-selected.

It's the same reason one can't responsibly calculate "margins of error" for call-in polls.

ignatz has not explained the nine-point difference. ignatz has not explained the entire spread of differences across twelve or more races. ignatz has not explained much of anything. You have not offered any alternative explanations for the data presented in the preceding post. You quite obviously ignored most of the content.

The clue phone rings. Who will answer?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. disclaimer

For the record, I do not want to be put in the middle of a "me" verses "bev"
thing.

Thank you.

[BeFree]

5. Very good of you, Will

Our unity is a critical dimension in election reform.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. let me make this clear

I am stating that I do not want to be in the middle of this thread.

That does not mean that I support or oppose what is being said.

This is not about Be Free or Boredtodeath.

It would be wrong to read more into what I have said than what is there.

While I do not wish to be put in the middle of this discussion,
that does not in any way whatsoever mean that I agree with anyone.

What it specifically means is - I don't want to be part of it.

I do not consent!
I am not consenting to anyone to attribute thoughts or ideas or
agreement (to such ideas or arguments) to me.

Speak for yourself, and not for me.

I do not believe that Unity can be forced anymore than we can
bomb Iraq into Democracy.

[JimDandy]

9. Perhaps, then, the professional standard of civil

discourse? For those of us who consider themselves professionals, of course.

[Boredtodeath]

11. Perhaps you could discuss that standard with Bev?

It might be a good place to start.

[JimDandy]

14. She doesn't post on this board.

Most of the uncivility I've seen in the election reform community occurs mainly on this board. Or perhaps I just notice it more here, because there is such a large volume of it and in a fairly constant stream.

[Boredtodeath]

15. ROFL, you're really funny.

But that's OK, WE know why she was banned here.

[autorank]

17. JimDandy, what I noticed about th intensity and volume is this...

...when a certain mega poster, TIA, was here there would be periods of conflict surrounding his latest work. I always thought that that the conflict got the hottest when TIA's work got the hottest. After he no longer posted here, things were quiet for a very long tims. It's cyclical.

[JimDandy]

19. Thanks. I'm looking for the next cycle to start, then.

:eyes:

I'll just try riding it out 'til then.

[kster]

20. You are in the middle

of a cycle right now. Let them play, they will never be able to accept the fact that we are ON TO THEM.

Remember this? They are trying to divert your attention from it. It won't work but thats what they are trying to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=429176&mesg_id=429176

[hunter]

21. Who's THEM??????

I'm very curious...

[Boredtodeath]

23. Hunter, Hunter, Hunter.....

THEM is the folks telling the truth.

Their on to us!!!!!!!!

Whoooo hoooooo!!!!!

Isn't it funny that not one reply on this thread has even attempted to debate the facts in the first post?

[BeFree]

29. imo, THEM

They are those who hardly ever post regular in the ER, but come around every time an attack on an activist slithers onto these pages.

Or, if they are regulars, have nothing new to say, just the same old crap of supporting the thieves who steal elections. Like the recent thread where an obvious Diebold site is used to tear the movement a new one. Or those threads over the past two weeks that attempted to claim new, damning info, was irrelevant.

We've dealt with THEM since this forum was begun, and while they have done damage, eventually they scurry away with their tails between their legs, back to their hidey-holes, leaving the movement, sadly, scarred, but growing ever more resilient.

Hope that helps.

[Boredtodeath]

31. One more time - Is the BEV MP3 A LIE?

Seriously, how many times do I have to ask this question before I get an answer from even ONE BevBot?

[hunter]

33. The people Bev has pissed off don't all work for Diebold.

Or ES&S or Sequoia.

Bev often acts as a sort of a vaccination against rational discussion of this issue.

:tinfoilhat: Maybe Bev works for Diebold.

I meant very well what I said elsewhere about the quality of discussion here. It sucks. Maybe that's because I've never enjoyed internet RPGs. If I'm gonna RPG, I bloody well want a costume and a strong woman by my side. Drooling on a keyboard is not my style.

Oh bother. Now I guess I've got a blistering exposé of Hunter to look forward to. If you happen to find the naked pics, could you PM me? I've been looking for them.

[BeFree]

34. Don't all work for Diebold!?!?

Do you think some of them do? -Work for Diebold?

Good lord man, if you have info that some of THEM work for Diebold, or ES&S, spill the beans, man. Spill 'em!

[Boredtodeath]

25. Not to worry, Ole Jim

As long as Bev keeps sending her Bots over here to defend her lies, we'll keep answering the lies.

[JimDandy]

35. Just curious...

Why aren't you posting all of this on your own website? :shrug:

It hasn't been updated in months. Why?

The time you spend posting over here could be better spent updating your neglected site. If your purpose is still to promote election reform (and you wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, right?) and your info is credible, you should be disseminating info like mad over there.

Over here you are simply reacting constantly to the actions of others, instead of being pro-active yourself. It's a waste of your talents, judging from what you tried to accomplish several years ago in Georgia.

At least start a thread here called Georgia vs Washington (where BBV is located)?

[Boredtodeath]

36. What website?

I don't have a website.

[JimDandy]

37. OK...........

Too bad, though... The person connected with the site I read had posted credible and interesting info there in the past, but, since you don't have any website at all, I'm back to having to judge the contents of your posts, and therefore the contents of your character, solely on what's posted here at DU. *sigh*

I'll call the person who is connected with that site and see what's going on with it. Thanks anyway and sorry for the confusion.

I'm signing off for the holiday. Enjoy yours, and *see* you all next Wednesday!

JD

[Boredtodeath]

38. Whatever.

.

[Boredtodeath]

27. Ignore function must be out of order

Upthread, you said you put me on ignore.

So, can you explain how you're responding in a thread you can't SEE? You know, of course, if you put someone on ignore, you can't see the threads THEY start.

Oooops!