Re: Election fraud - why does the burden of proof

[the other one]

Why does the burden of proof lie with those who suspect election fraud, and not with the vote-counters to prove that the election was carried out fairly, accurately and legally?

Yesterday I posted suggested that the Ohio election results were suspect merely because they came from Ohio. I was taken to task by some DUers because I was not presenting hard evidence. But! Shouldn't it be up to the board of elections in the counties in question to prove they conducted a fair election before I have to prove that they didn't? Isn't that the whole concept behind hand-written and publicly countedallots? That the results of any election should not be accepted until the ballots have been freely and publicly examined? (And even that won't answer questions regarding voter-registration and polling access issues...)

So to those DUers who are satisfied with the results in Ohio yesterday, what proved to you that said results were fairly and accurately arrived at, especially in light of previous shenanigans widely suspected of taking place their?

[kevsand]

1. The assumption of many is that there was in fact a great deal

of scrutiny there, both from Hackett's people on the ground, and from both the local and national media. This is what we were given to believe by people close to the Hackett campaign. Unless you can prove that there wasn't, then that assumption stands (for now).

As to why the burden of proof is on those who claim wrongdoing, there's this little thing called "innocent until proven guilty." That's just how we do things in this country. It's what sets our criminal justice system apart from many others in the world, and it's by design. We like it that way, and always have, because it's more fair.

I seriously doubt how many people here at DU would be willing to say conclusively that nothing funky happened in this election. Without being physically present ourselves, I suspect that most of us would reserve final judgment until there is a definitive, trustworthy accounting one way or the other.

What irritates a lot of folks here is the automatic assumption that something MUST have been wrong because "we" lost. If you're going to accuse someone of a felony, you'd damn well better be able to back it up with something that'll stand up in court, at least as probable cause.

[annabanana]

2. This is not just an "innocent until proven guilty" case...

This is the point at which power is transferred from the people to the government. (There are lawyers on this board that will probably back me up). In this case, the onus must be on those who defend the security and veracity of the system. Here's one poster who "gets it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4256521&mesg_id=4256788

[kevsand]

14. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on tv,

but I can't imagine any legal basis whatsoever for your argument. In fact, exactly the opposite: it is precisely at the point where power is granted (i.e., control of the government) that the law must be most scrupulously upheld. That is what the "rule of law" in society and government is all about. If we suspend the law in that particular instance, then all bets are off for everything else.

As to the other poster, I can tell you that my experience entirely denies their essential premise. Elections that I have observed directly are not conducted in secret. In my home county of Champaign, every step of the process (including the collection, accumulation, and counting) is done in full public view, with monitors actually in the room for those actions which take place in spaces too small to allow general access, as in the computer room.

If there are places where this is not the case, then obviously that needs to be changed. I'm not saying we ever need to be anything less than vigilant. Quite the opposite. We need to work constantly to maintain transparency, and accountability, and trust. We need more of the type of testing they performed recently in California. We need ongoing questioning of vendors for every variety of voting equipment. And we also need to have independent access and review of the source code for any computer systems.

And we need to stick to the facts. This is one of the essential differences between us and the bad guys. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and Bush and Rove et al are the ones who spout allegations without any proof. They feel like they never have to prove anything. We are the ones who insist on proving everything.

I like us better.

[wli]

3. as far as I'm concerned it's fraud until proven otherwise

[Talismom]

4. Given the findings about the last 3 major elections, I totally agree

with you! This voting system is a debacle and I have NO FAITH that the peoples' vote,rather than the corporate interest, is putting people into office, as was intended.

Lots of people, including DUers appear to be heavily in denial and quite angry at any suggestion that the final tally be questioned. Posting a bunch of lawyers at the voting site does NOTHING to rectify computer tampering--I saw that first-hand in Cleveland, 2004. Our ACT group had plenty of lawyers who were the first to call us conspiracy theorists when we questioned the results. Yet I still believe the OH vote, and probably the vote from many other states, was messed with and flipped to favor the repukes! I will 'til the day I die, no matter what the MSM and the other right-wing koolaid drinkers say!

[theHandpuppet]

5. How many of you making the assumption of fraud...

... in the 2nd District race are actually FROM that area?

I was born and bred in Scioto County and went to college in Cincy for eight years. That road between Portsmouth and Cincy *is* the 2nd District and my home turf. I have to tell you, though I'm not discounting the possibility of fraud (especially in a place like Warren County) the results of this election didn't surprise me in the least. What surprised me was that it was even that close, considering the historically rabid Republican nature of Clermont and Warren counties.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. You will never convince them...

Don't let mu handle confuse you. I used to be Jeff in Cincinnati and was a Democratic Party Ward Chairman in Hamilton County. It would be difficult to find a more conservative congressional district that the Ohio 2nd CD. Democrats have been getting their asses kicked there for more than a generation. For the Democratic Party to find a candidate and put together a campaign in just a few short months -- and to get the results they did -- is nothing short of remarkable.

I wish that those screaming foul would concentrate on what we accomplished and start preparing themselves for the next election cycle. These unsubstantiated accusations do nobody any good, they give the impression that we're a bunch of sore-loser crybabies, and they diminish and claims of genuine fraud in future elections (the boy who cried wolf?).

[theHandpuppet]

8. I'm in total agreement with you

...and nice to meet you, BTW. Anyone who has served as a Dem Ward Chairman in Hamilton County has to have balls of steel.

Like you, one of my concerns is that knee-jerk unsubstantiated claims of fraud in every and any Ohio election may diminish legitimate claims of fraud in future elections. This is not to say that I don't believe fraud exists; it was widespread and blatant in the 2004 elections and Blackwell is as corrupt as they come. But the results of this election are only surprising to me for how very close Hackett came to taking a rabidly Republican area like Cincy. Equally surprising (pleasantly so) were the gains made in Adams and Brown counties; I was pretty certain that Pike and Scioto would go blue, which they did by a substantial margin.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. The rural counties were stunning...

Going into the race I thought, "Well you can write off Anderson Township and pretty much all of Clermont and Warren Counties. And that leaves -- shit -- the rural counties." I honestly thought Hackett was in for a terrible whipping.

That he did so well among those NASCAR dads is very, very encouraging. I personally think it was his stand on guns. If Democrats can adopt a "prosecute criminals" attitude toward gun control (with as little new regulation as possible), I think the country folks are reachable -- in Ohio and everywhere else.

[theHandpuppet]

10. I think you underestimate the "rural counties"

We are not NASCAR country (I bristle at that description) so much as Appalachian country and traditionally strong for Dems. It is born from a strong support for unions, historically based on a coal-steel-railroad economy which no longer exists but whose influence still reverberates in the political arena. I have NEVER gotten the impression that guns are a major issue in the eastern 2nd, despite what some folks wish to believe, perhaps based on some stereotype. This might be explained a bit because the region was originally settled by Quakers, I don't know, but I wish pro-gun folks would stop superimposing their agenda over any election in which a candidate who is "pro-gun" makes a strong showing in an election. Sometimes the influence of a pro-gun stance is overestimated and in the 2nd's eastern counties I don't think it was nearly as important as you might believe.

Further, I believe it was not DADS so much as MOMS and educators who made for Hackett's comfortable win in places like Pike and Scioto, which had major education levies and issues on the ballots, which also encouraged a high turnout. From what I read in the Portsmouth Daily Times, there were huge turnouts for these education rallies in Scioto County at least. These issues passed with strong support of the people and education issues always bring out the Moms and teachers.

So no, perhaps where you are now a pro-gun platform would play an important role in the local elections, but where I come from jobs and education issues take priority.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. That's interesting...

I know that my friends among the building trades unions (the political organizers) say that we lose lots of union votes in places like Adams, Brown and Scioto county because of gun control. It makes them alternatively scratch and bang their heads -- you can't buy bullets unless you have a job!

I'm now in the Wisconsin equivalent of Butler County -- and I have quite possibly the only Congressional Representive who a bigger jerk that Steve Chabot (Jim Sensenbrenner). Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire! Guns aren't a huge thing in my district, but if you get into the more rural areas of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota (lots of hunters), it's a very big deal.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. I have a calculator! You must listen to me!

I see all of these people attempting to prove fraud via statistics. It makes me laugh. They don't even take the demographics or history of a place into account. Ah, but it's so exciting to have a little group of followers that one can rile up from time to time with randomly dispersed nonsense accusations.

It's really quite sad. I never thought that our reaction to the mainstream media's failures in 2000 would actually be worse than the mainstream media.

Edit: I need an editor.

[Cocoa]

12. because the country has to function

[Strawman]

13. Well usually the person making an accusation has the burden of proof

Not saying you're wrong or right. I don't know enough about the specifics. But would you tell someone accused of a different crime that it was their burden to prove themselves innocent? Why is this any different? You can't just shift the notion of the presumption of innocence to suit your political preferences. Not if you want to appear reasonable.

[the other one]

15. Clarifying my post

I am not making specific accusations of fraud. And I really don't mean to be impugning anyone associated with yesterday's election. My gripe is with elections in general, and my question is: why do we have a knee-jerk reaction to believe the "results" when history tells us to be skeptical? Elections are the life-blood of democracy, yet we seem to dwell on campaigns without concentrating on the election itself. I think this rush to have a winner on election night deprives us of the ability to really examine the votes in a public way. I admit that chosen representatives can avail themselves of the process if they try to, but I don't see any means for the public to know except to take the word of those who say they know.

This is about cynicism, deeply rooted and flourishing in today's climate. When they lay the hand-written ballots out on a table in a stadium and count and recount them for a week before the public agrees on what it has seen counted before their eyes, well then I will have faith in election results. Until then, my lack of faith in the honesty of people prohibits me from accepting ANYTHING as important as election results the way they are arrived at today.