Matthew Yglesias: Tinfoil Hats

Tinfoil Hats

So could I just ask commenters to stop alleging that the election was stolen by Diebold in some mysterious manner for which there seems to be no evidentiary support? Your concern on this front is duly noted, and I'm open to examining any evidence people may have, so please email me with it if you feel you have some. The mere fact that the early exit polls were out of line than the apparent vote totals has little probative value. Polls are polls and have margins of error. Early exits, of course, may have to be revised because more people vote later on. See Ruy and posts that are sure to follow tomorrow on this topic.

November 3, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421aa5b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tinfoil Hats:

» Four more years? from The Liferaft of Love
It looks like a fair kill, and hopefully folk won't spend the next four years fretting about how the election was stolen. Will they? Maybe not. [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 4:50:15 AM

» Try to Remain Calm and Give Up from JunkieWire - The Joe Hill Dispatch journal of news for political junkies.
Lawrence Lessig on the questions surrounding bad exit polling data and bad voting machines: First, there is Morris’ point —... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 6:15:08 PM

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 6:16:38 PM

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 6:17:41 PM

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 6:21:54 PM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 2:04:03 PM

Comments

In addition to being irritating, unfounded conspiracy theories are also bad politics. The GOP strategy--if Ohio ends up within plausible range of provisional ballots--will be to conflate legitimate demands to count legal votes with tinfoil hat consipracy theories. Nattering about Diebold plays into their hands.

Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 3, 2004 2:28:41 AM

You are the the IT guy at a third-rate Atlantic City casino chain. Your casinos' slot machines have a level of information security comparable to county tabulating systems all over the country. What would happen if somebody was really looking at your IT security? YOU WOULD BE OUT ON YOUR ASS!!! Tinfoil hat or not, the suspicion generated by the low level of security is enough to shift the burden of proof.

Posted by: cool blue reason | Nov 3, 2004 2:55:00 AM

As long as we have voting machines that (A) can be rigged with incredible ease, and (B) leave no record by which such tampering can be proven, the possibility that they've been tinkered with IS always definitely worthy of investigation -- even if it may not take long to disprove it. In any case, these damn things are an abomination and a danger to democracy as long as they're allowed to exist.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 3, 2004 3:03:05 AM

With all due respect, it now appears Ruy has been feeding us a steady diet of bullshit for weeks. I'd say there's an opening on the Democratic side for a polling expert who simply isn't going to give his readers what they want to hear.

Posted by: Charlie T. | Nov 3, 2004 3:06:30 AM

None of this can make a difference in this election, but for fuck's sake, let's hope we have learned our lesson, and are prepared to lay down the first marker of the next election.

WE GOTTA HAVE PAPER RECEIPTS.

The first battle must be an amendment or clarification of HAVA, before Rehnquist's replacement, before God knows what else.

If it upsets David Adesnik, if not looks untoward, so be it. The fight we are in is as serious as it gets. Matt, I respect you, but a serious fight just got more serious. Don't let the frivolousness of some on the left cloud your judgement. Paper receipts before all else.

Posted by: cool blue reason | Nov 3, 2004 3:08:30 AM

SL: Yeah, let's just shut up about paperless electronic voting. That's what we did in Georgia 2002, when people woke up the morning after, looked at the numbers, and said, "wtf?" And did nothing.

Problem is, two years down the road, when we finally got a group of people together to look at the county returns for that election, there were some very interesting findings. Like counties with 60% GOP registration advantage voting upwards of 90% GOP. And that's only the tip of the iceberg as far as the story that we're uncovering in Georgia.

On one score you're right--you're never going to get the American people to second-guess paperless returns, because there's absolutely no way to PROVE anything was amiss. BUT THAT IS THE POINT.

Already we've got people pouring over this exit polling data like it's some kind of holy grail--the same people that have spent months now analyzing what everybody is now calling these "idiotic" pre-election polls. The question is, where is the check on the validity of the exit polls? Well, that would be good old-fashioned ballot-counting, right?

Problem is, we have 6 paperless counties in Ohio, 14 in Iowa, the big Demo stronghold counties in SE Florida and nearly all of New Mexico. I'm here to tell you that there is nothing resembling "ballot-counting" going on in any of these critical counties.

I'm sorry, but until we are counting ballots, those exit polls are worthless, and so are our elections.

Now if tactically you want to put those concerns on the back burner for now, my point would be that you do so at your own risk. Now is PRECISELY the time to mount a public dialog over the unacceptability of unverifiable election results.

Posted by: GAPublius | Nov 3, 2004 3:19:20 AM

Well I feel pretty burned by some optimists out there. I was not optimistic 3 months ago, and this disappointment hurts worse and is relieved with tin foil. But your blog. and only a part of your community and I will let it go by here.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 3, 2004 3:22:21 AM

GAPublius, as important as everything else on the country's agenda is, nothing trumps this. Thank you.

Posted by: cool blue reason | Nov 3, 2004 3:25:08 AM

"So could I just ask commenters to stop alleging that the election was stolen by Diebold in some mysterious manner for which there seems to be no evidentiary support? Your concern on this front is duly noted, and I'm open to examining any evidence people may have, so please email me with it if you feel you have some."

Sorry, Matthew. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You prove to ME that these returns are valid.

How the self-congratulatory "reality-based community" puts up with faith-based paperless voting, I will never know.

Posted by: GAPublius | Nov 3, 2004 3:39:41 AM

The possibility of errors is not a tinfoil hat scenario, as is the possibility of hackers.

Errors can be traced to several causes. I did testing of the Georgia units, and I feel that in my area, which was the machines themselves, there were two main areas where errors could occur. I was expected to deal with hardware errors, which would make one single unit's results invalid, and cause us to decertify that specific machine. However, a transient error which would only appear one out of every few thousand votes would only be picked up on maybe one percent of the machines, which is about the order of magnitude that I remember failing.

The systems in use are not high security. If a person wished to change the vote, it would be much easier to break into the database system than it would be to hide such code inside the system. This needs to be found and fixed immediately no matter who it helps. If the votes were to be in our direction, Republicans would use that to make Kerry's presidency impossible, and if they were to benefit, then Bush would be in office for another four years, but this time with quite visible fraud having put him there.

We need to see the source code and all pertinent files on every one of the voting machines in order to make sure that there are no anomalies, and we need to make sure that the servers have not been compromised, which I'm already seeing rumors milling about in that regard. These need to be verified or quashed now.

Posted by: psetzer | Nov 3, 2004 3:42:56 AM

"We need to see the source code and all pertinent files on every one of the voting machines in order to make sure that there are no anomalies, and we need to make sure that the servers have not been compromised, which I'm already seeing rumors milling about in that regard. These need to be verified or quashed now."

The fact that these suggestions are utterly impractical (we're talking proprietary software here) just reinforces the complete unacceptability of paperless electronic voting.

For some quick and dirty circumstantial evidence, I'd like to see a comparison of yesterday's vote with Dem/Repub registration data for all the paperless counties in the swing states.

Posted by: GAPublius | Nov 3, 2004 3:52:53 AM

Oh, would you please yake off your tinfoil hat?!

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | Nov 3, 2004 3:57:52 AM

Incredible.

Tell me, Matthew, what did you think of the Johns Hopkins report? SAICA? RABA Technologies? Dug through those footnotes, did you?

Can you name a single legitimate study or authority that would back up the security of these machines?

Or maybe it's your high opinion of those principled operatives in the GOP that explains your confidence in paperless voting.

Posted by: GAPublius | Nov 3, 2004 4:12:29 AM

Here's the problem, MY -- those early exit polls that are so radically different from the vote totals we're seeing now? They also just about NAILED all the close Senate races, including wins by Thune, Bunning and Salazar.

Curious, no?

Posted by: Erik | Nov 3, 2004 4:34:57 AM

Polls matched, except FL and OH:

http://tinyurl.com/4lbgm

Posted by: MattB | Nov 3, 2004 6:35:25 AM

I don't understand why complaints about an unauditable system qualifies one for a tinfoil hat.

Posted by: JackD | Nov 3, 2004 7:41:43 AM

Neither do I, JackD. Is it likely that the election was rigged this way? No. Should we make some minimal effort to find out if it might have been rigged this way -- that is, look for any seriously suggestive evidence to that effect? Why, yes. Otherwise, of course, if a future election IS rigged this way -- which is entirely possible (as Mark Kleiman points out) -- our Matthew will presumably oppose any attempt to look into the matter.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 3, 2004 7:50:20 AM

It doesn't, so long as one realizes that lack of evidence that the election wasn't stolen, isn't quite the same as evidence that it was.

Personally, I voted by optical scan, and I don't see what's supposed to be so difficult about filling in little circles next to the candidates' names. It's the perfect system: Cheap, easy to use, electronic counting, paper audit trail.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 8:09:56 AM

Guys, the way to fix the voting machines is to come up with some policy ideas that appeal the the electorate and nominate a candidate who can sell those ideas.

Posted by: Robert Brown | Nov 3, 2004 8:11:48 AM

Republicans fought successfully to keep a voter-verifiable, auditable paper trail out of the mix.

Now, we're stuck with a system that, in effect, lets Republicans take approx. 1/3 of the ballots into a big back room, count them, shred them, and then announce vote totals, saying, "Trust us."

So, here's a big thanks to the legislators, lawyers, judges and journalists who let this obvious vote-stealing apparatus in through the back door. Way to keep your eyes on the ball.

Check out:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040816&s=dugger

Posted by: yesh | Nov 3, 2004 9:00:23 AM

Hey, let's spread the luv around a little--it's not just the GOP we have to thank, but Dems too. In Georgia we've fought for 2 years against the Democratic Party establishment, which has lined up 100% behind our evidence-free system.

Posted by: GAPublius | Nov 3, 2004 9:18:03 AM

In the words of the esteemed Donald Rumsfeld, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The whole point of the black-box voting issue is that there is no evidentiary trail. Especially in counties with partisan election officials, it would be easy to inflate the figures in already safe districts with no recourse possible. Factor in the fact that the manufacturers of this technology are strong partisans who would have an easy time passing along cheating techniques to said election officials, certainty gets to be a long way off.

For someone who actually bothered with ontology, you're awfully quick to your conclusions.

At this point, the shenanigans, if they took place, are a fait accompli, and attempting to correct for them are as pointless as they are impossible. But that's the whole point.

Given the results of yesterday's election, and barring some forthcoming proof of cheating, we're unlikely to see failsafes introduced into the voting process for the foreseeable future, so we'll just have to find a way to eat what they give us.

Posted by: David Yaseen | Nov 3, 2004 9:38:25 AM

Matthew, blogs are NOT journalism (even if I believed in something called objectivity). Consider the brave words of Zephyr Teachout in a comment she posted at bopnews.com.

"I don't believe that an election decided without counting provisional ballots is done. I don't believe that an election in which people are forced to stand hours because of delay tactics is a just, and complete election. I don't believe that an election in which thousands of decisive voters were sent away without provisional ballots or knowing their rights is a just election. I don't believe that an election where eligible voters without ID -- who had the right to vote without ID -- is a just, and complete election.

I'm a death penalty lawyer, so I'm a realist -- including the very real knowledge that with persistence, difficult but just things can happen."

The key word is "belief." What does your gut say? How many ultimately successful ventures begin with gut feelings? How many dreams go unrealized because of fear?

Posted by: jsrutstein | Nov 3, 2004 9:39:16 AM

Not to pick a fight here, but why would machines be rigged to throw the Pres. race to the Republicans, but not most of the Senators as well?

Posted by: Chris K | Nov 3, 2004 10:10:44 AM

"Not to pick a fight here, but why would machines be rigged to throw the Pres. race to the Republicans, but not most of the Senators as well?"

Because Republicans are like Lex Luthor. Their leadership is way too smart for so obvious a tactic. We all know that GWB is a genius, or at least Karl Rove. You see, it all starts with the Tri-Lateral Commission. Any moron can see that they directed the Jew Bankers that run America to rig the election believably. It's obvious! OBVIOUUUUS!!!

Posted by: Jason Ligon | Nov 3, 2004 12:23:15 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.