Classical Values :: Hillary And The Diebold Effect

January 16, 2008

Hillary And The Diebold Effect

American Digest has a post up about Hillary's Diebold effect.

It seems that in areas where the Diebold machines are used Hillary's vote totals are up about 5% over other areas even when confounding factors like race, gender, and economics are taken into account. The math whizzes on the problem calculate the odds that it is a chance happening at 1 in 1,000.

The guy who did the analysis has a post explaining his work. Here is a pdf of the study done on the New Hampshire results. The pdf seems to show that Romney and Clinton had the biggest statistical variance. With Romney up 7% and Clinton up 5%.

In the good old days (Chicago, November 1960) you used to have to have operatives on the ground "lose" and then "find" the ballot boxes. Labor and organization intensive. Now a days all you need is a couple of computer geeks and a bank of modems.

Of course it could be just random chance. Such things do happen. Occasionally.

Election Defense Alliance has hand count vs machine count results. They appear to mirror the statistical analysis. Hmmmmmmmm. A full recount will take place starting 16 Jan. Dennis Kucinich is paying for the Dem recount. I wonder who will pay for the R recount?

Update: I have been doing some checking and it appears that Romney, who got a 7% Diebold boost in NH, would be the easiest Republican for Hillary to beat. Make of that what you will.

H/T linearthinker

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 01.16.08 at 03:26 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6072

Comments

You can't in principle secure electronic votes, even if you have access to all the vote counting software souce code.

See Ken Thompson's Turing Lecture http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

With enough motivation, you can do anything.

Control of the US economy is plenty of motivation.

Ron Hardin · January 16, 2008 07:06 AM

Remember, you're not talking about ordinary corruption; you're talking about the Clintons.

Eric Scheie · January 16, 2008 08:38 AM

The Diebold Effect was also evident in Ohio and other battleground states in 2004. When it's Hillary Clinton as the beneficiary the rightwingers start to wake up from their deep slumber.

Anonymous · January 16, 2008 01:58 PM

Anon.,

I woke up to this instance because linearthinker provided a link.

In any case I always thought the paper ballot/electronic scan was a good idea. I never liked the electronic only systems.

In fact I posted on it over at Power and Control. Many times.

I commented on it in many places.

As far as I know Right Wingers never liked the electronic only voting systems. As I recall the electronic only machines were bought in Democrat counties mostly.

I have a friend from KOS who has been on this for a while. I'm trying to get him to do a write up on it.

M. Simon · January 16, 2008 04:43 PM

M. Simon, I agree. This isn't a rightwing-leftwing debate. A touchscreen is fine. Then have it print a scanable ballot. You check for mistakes, then place it in a slot that scans and collects the paper ballots.

Anonymous · January 17, 2008 12:29 AM

Anon.,

That is not a bad idea. I could go for that kind of paper trail.

M. Simon · January 17, 2008 12:59 AM

Touch screens, scanable ballots, all ballyhoo. Just print up some controlled distribution, plain English, agreed upon format PAPER BALLOTS. Mark 'em with a #2 pencil. Collect and count. If you gotta have some whizbang hightech gizmos in the mix, tally with OCR equipment, but SAVE THE ORIGINALS. And provide a defensible chain-of-custody. This ain't rocket science.

It looks like the chain-of-custody in New Hampshire was so cavalierly handled that the new risk is that a recount will validate a tampered electronic talley because the original ballots [may]have been tampered with, but no one can prove anything one way or t'other.

linearthinker · January 17, 2008 02:50 AM