Which is more credible: exit polls or Diebold?

[Guest guest]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/04741/7055

 

Which is more credible: exit polls or Diebold?

by Alexander

Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 at 04:47:41 GMT

 

What is puzzling everyone at the moment is the discrepancy between the

exit polls and the votes that are being reported. The way the pundits

are framing this issue is: what went wrong with the exit polls?

 

But what reasons do we actually have for thinking the exit polls were

wrong? Previously, exit polls have reflected fairly closely the

finally recorded vote. (On MSNBC, I heard Matthews suggesting that

Republicans not liking to talk to pollsters explained the discrepancy:

that's a new one to me.)

 

The technology of exit polling has not changed. There has been a

change in voting technology, however -- namely, electronic voting

machines. Neither electronic voting machines nor exit polls leave a

paper trail. (Actually, exit polls do leave a paper trail, but it has

no legal import.) So why should we believe electronic voting machines

more than exit polls?

 

 

Diaries :: Alexander's diary ::

 

I remember reading already at the time of the 2002 election that if

electronic voting machines were used to defraud an election, the way

you would be able to tell is that there would be a mismatch between

the exit polls and the reported vote.

 

Two states are critical now: Florida and Ohio. Both states make

significant use of electronic voting machines. Both states have Bush

ahead, even though exit polls indicated a definite Kerry victory.

 

Because electronic voting machines do not leave a paper trail, we

simply have to take the word of the people and corporations that

program the machines that they accurately register votes. But why

should we take their word for it? Elections are based on transparency,

and there is nothing less transparent than a computer running

proprietary software.

 

Kerry must not pull a Gore. Until it can be shown that counties that

use electronic voting machines produce comparable results to counties

that don't, he should concede neither Florida nor Ohio.

 

Update [2004-11-3 1:44:27 by Alexander]: In another diary,

Neverknowsbest points out that the only two states in which exit polls

differ markedly from the recorded vote are Florida and Ohio: both

critical battleground states, and both states with widespread use of

electronic voting machines. In that thread, I note that the normal way

of confirming that an election was properly conducted is by noting

that exit poll results match the number of votes officially recorded.

 

Exit polls are what made Jimmy Carter declare that the recent vote

conducted in Venezuela to reject a recall of their president was

properly conducted. The Dem establishment put themselves in this

position. They simply did not take seriously warnings by activists

about the dangers of electronic voting machine fraud. But that still

does not mean that Kerry needs to take this as a done deal.

 

The basic thing to keep in mind is: if they were going to steal the

election a second time around, this is exactly how they would do it.

And the way it would show up is that the exit polls wouldn't match the

officially recorded votes.

 

Update [2004-11-3 4:58:27 by Alexander]: This thread covers the same

ground.

 

We definitely seem to be entering into a new period of history. No one

is going to be able to say that the US is a stable democracy after

this. We are coming up to one of those decisive moments, like the

lead-up to the Civil War. This is defenitely not business as usual.

 

Kerry isn't ready to concede. What is he going to do? How willing is

he to speak the truth: that the republic is rotten to the core, and a

little under half of the population with privileges to vote in

national elections is certifiably insane?