what's our M.O.T. in this election (Margin of Theft)

[nashville_brook]

How "big" must we win in order to beat the M.O.T.?

:evilgrin:

I've been wondering this since reading this Alternet story that states in the lead paragraph, "Progressive Democrats are saying, 'we need to... win BIG... to make sure the congressional elections are not stolen.'"

It bugs me that Dems have to "win big" in order to win at all. But, I'm game. I'm a believer in the fact that we DOUBLE-DIGIT leads and the "math" is on our side regardless of what math old KKKarl thinks he has.

But I'm just wondering... how big. If we get 60 percent of the popular vote in contested races? Will we need more? 75 percent maybe?

thoughts?

[greeneyedboy]

1. 8%, say researchers.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/25/13291/514 .

so once we're past 54-46 apparently we're golden.

[nashville_brook]

3. and i thought i was being baaaad. damn. we actually have a MOT.

just kill me now.

does this not seem absurd on the highest order?

does it not undermine the whole premise of Democracy??

ack!

[nashville_brook]

6. so, we need 58%... who's to say that won't change?

[greeneyedboy]

13. 54% = 8-point buffer. 58%=16-point buffer.

[meldroc]

2. I'd say 3%.

You have to stay close to the margin of error to make an election theft plausible. In previous elections, (like the one that removed Max Cleland from power) the theft margin was higher because too many voters didn't suspect election fraud, but now, the known problems with election machines and voter suppression are making the majority of the public suspicious. If they try to steal more than 3% of the votes, theft will be obvious, and the voters will be up in arms.

Though it is possible that the Repubs will steal by a large margin, and not care whether they piss off the public - Bush can declare martial law and try to suppress protests that way.

[nashville_brook]

4. thank you for this and the Max Cleland example!

see my response above...

here's my thing: if they can steal by 3% or 8% (as above), then why wouldn't they be able to steal by whatever margin is necessary?

my underlying point being... it's a ghost we are chasing when we go down this road.

call me crazy... but, elections are either transparent and fair or worthless.

[nashville_brook]

5. yikes, here's more!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=455846&mesg_id=455846

[leftofthedial]

7. conservative estimate is about 7%

but it varies location-by-location

my opinion is more like 17%

[nashville_brook]

9. okee... 17%... sheesh... am i the only one who

feels whacked on both sides of the head with this?
on the one hand, i'm not supposed to talk negatively about the potential for election fraud b/c i will supposedly DRIVE people away from the polls... on the other hand... doesn't it seem like if we DON'T talk about it we are doing an even bigger diservice given 2000, 2002 and 2004?

i mean, we need anywhere from 4% to 8% to 20% M.O.T.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

[leftofthedial]

11. 0.001% is too much

we have to fix this.

The USA is no longer a democracy (or a democratic republic for you anal-retentive quibblers).

[nashville_brook]

12. thaaaaaaaaaat's what i'm talking about!

[greeneyedboy]

15. 17 seems a bit extreme. if we needed to win 57.5 - 42.5, we would have very few seats.

but the good news is that we are that far ahead in many places. :kick:

[leftofthedial]

25. we need to be ahead 15% to 20% in reality

for the corporate media's "polls" to show us ahead 5% to 10%.

If the corporated polls are within 10%, the repukes feel they can steal it without complaint (they use the media to sell us evangelical turnout, late surge, etc. explanations).

The technical reality is the repukes can flip any Diebold machine no matter what the margin of difference is. The issue is how wide can the difference be and still have the repukes think they can get away with stealing it without triggering a serious reaction. They've been ratcheting that percentage higher each election. So far, they have rigged at least three and probably five elections and have not triggered a serious response.

[shooga]

8. theft is right!

Wired News: Search: Wired NewsWire service news & photos

Con Job at DIEBOLD Subsidiary
See Also
Group Seeks E-Voting Standards
For Sale: The American Voter
DIEBOLD Backs Off Legal Challenge
Suspect Code Used in State Votes
Pull the lever on Machine Politics

Associated Press Associated Press | Also by this reporter 2003-12-17 18:23:00.0
SAN FRANCISCO -- At least five convicted FELONS secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software.

Voter advocate Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of DIEBOLD, one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a COCAINE trafficker, a man who conducted FRAUDULENT STOCK TRANSACTIONS and a programmer JAILED for FALSIFYING COMPUTER RECORDS.

The programmer, Jeffrey Dean, wrote and maintained proprietary code used to count hundreds of thousands of votes as senior vice president of Global Election Systems, or GES. DIEBOLD purchased GES in January 2002.

According to a public court document released before GES hired him, Dean served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."

"You can't tell me these people passed background tests," Harris, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century, said in a phone interview.

DIEBOLD spokesman Michael Jacobsen emphasized that the company performs background checks on all managers and programmers. He said many GES managers -- including Dean -- left at the time of the acquisition.

"We can't speak for the hiring process of a company before we acquired it," Jacobsen said. He would not provide further details, saying company policy bars discussion of current or past employees.

The former GES is DIEBOLD's wholly owned subsidiary, Global Election Management Systems, which produces the operating system that touch-screen voting terminals use.

Dean could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) announced a bill last week that would require stringent background checks on all electronic voting company employees who work with voting software. The bill, which Boxer plans to introduce in January, would toughen security standards for voting software and hardware, and require touch-screen terminals to include printers and produce paper backups of vote counts by the 2004 presidential election in November.

Harris and Andy Stephenson, a Democratic candidate for secretary of state in Washington, conducted a 10-day investigation in Seattle and Vancouver, where the men were convicted. Harris and Stephenson released the findings in a 17-page document online and at a news conference in Seattle.

Also Tuesday, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed announced legislation that would require electronic voting machines in the state to produce a paper trail.

If the legislature approves it, touch-screen machines in the state would be required to produce paper receipts by 2006.

Voters would get to see but not touch or remove the receipts, which would be kept in a county lock box. Computer programmers say software bugs, hackers or electrical failures could cause more than 50,000 touch-screen machines used in precincts nationwide to delete or alter votes.

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said last month that touch-screens in the nation's most populous state must provide paper receipts by 2006.



Wired News: Contact Us | Advertising | Subscribe We are translated daily into Korean and Japanese © Copyright 2005, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Lycos® is a registered - trademark of Carnegie Mellon University. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions

[nashville_brook]

10. rock the felonious vote

[SoCalDem]

14. It won't matter.. The machines can be calibrated to work with any turnout

If they are "set" to flip 51-49, it doesn;t matter how mant people vote ..

[greeneyedboy]

16. please explain. do you think every single race can and will be stolen?

if so, why are you bothering to post about elections? and why should we bother to vote?

just curious.

the thieves can get away with a significant amount of shaving, suppressing, flipping, etc.--but they can't and won't push it to where they'll get caught.

compare the number of people paying attention now to 2002: this issue is in Time Magazine this week. in 2002, the rob-georgia files hadn't been publicized yet, and more races were closer then.

the playing field is not level, but it does exist, and we are poised to win big, even with one hand (a few fingers?) tied behind our back.

[SoCalDem]

17. That's why they specifically "target" a few states

where they can get away with it..

Look at the "mandate" of '04

110K x 31 states "won" = 3.41 million

Did they take 110k in EVERY state?...nope

they carved out larger margins in states where there would be no question, and "just enough" in the contested states..

the overall result was a 3.41 million "victory" that no one would dare to contest..and in the areas that were starting to be contested, the well-placed replublican officials and media shut that down pretty fast..

I wanted to think that '00 was a fluke, but after '02, and '04, I can no longer have much faith in our "faith-based, vapor-voting system"..:cry:

[greeneyedboy]

18. and there aren't many places where they can get away with it this time.

[SoCalDem]

19. I have my fingers crossed...bigtime

:hi:

[nashville_brook]

21. Ohio and Florida are the ones to watch as usual

Will a shocking new GOP court victory and Karl Rove's attack on Ohio '06 doom the Democrats nationwide?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_harvey_w_061031_will_a_shocking_new_.htm
by Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis

COLUMBUS---With a major GOP federal court victory, the Ohio 2006 election has descended into the calculated chaos that has become the trademark of a Karl Rove election theft, and that could help keep the Congress in Republican hands nationwide.

Through a complex series of legal maneuvers, and now a shocking new decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the GOP has thrown Ohio's entire process of voting and vote counting into serious disarray. The mess is perfectly designed to suppress voter turnout, make election monitoring and a recount impossible, and allow the Republican Party to emerge with a victory despite overwhelming evidence the electorate wants exactly the opposite.

The disaster in Ohio began immediately after the theft of the presidential election here in 2004. Though the majority of Ohioans are registered Democrats, the gerrymandered state legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. Soon after John Kerry conceded, it passed House Bill 3, a draconian assault on voter registration drives, voting rights and the ability to secure reliable recounts of federal-level elections.

more at link

[nashville_brook]

20. got a "just wonderin'" question for you...

given the double-digit leads we have right now; and
given the overwhelming negative trending toward the Repugs,

what would it take for you to entertain an election fraud scenario next Wednesday?

not getting the House?
not picking up 30% of the predicted seats?
not picking up 50%?

and assuming you get on board with an election stealing scenario, what are you willing to do?

i ask, because i'm thinking that a LOT of people won't entertain the Stolen Elections Scenario because it's just TOO MUCH TO DEAL WITH. like, if we indeed live in a world where it doesn't matter... well, what then.

the thing is, I believe you never get to "what then" until reality is dealt with.

[greeneyedboy]

24. i think of it this way

fraud is not monolithic. this is not one election, it's many.

there will be dirty tricks, and there no doubt already have been dirty tricks in this election--probably at least a little bit on our side, too, just given statistics (though certainly nowhere near the systematic fraud the GOP is known for).

you sound like you are eagerly waiting to have your dire prediction come true.
i want the Democratic Party to win, fair and square. do you? if so, what's the best course of action for the time remaining until the polls close?

forewarned is forearmed, and i am all in favor of all of us staying familiar with the resources at electiondefensealliance.org, votetrustusa.org, blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf , verifiedvoting.org , ep365.org , etc.; and being *organized* in our responses--in the media, in the courts, and in the streets--if/when we see foul play.

at the same time, words have power, and images have power. if we operate in fear, uncertainty, doubt, and dread, feeling hopeless and helpless, that creates a blueprint for failure. if we operate with confidence and a sense of community, feeling powerful, secure, and connected, we will move toward that vision of success.

during the home stretch, do we want to be projecting and reinforcing images of failure or images of success?

how much do you want to win?

[nashville_brook]

26. 2000, 2002, 2004.... if not monolithic, then no response?

you realize you didn't answer my question and set upon an ad homenim attack. what would it take for you to embrace the fraud scenario? would it take a MONOLITHIC LOSS? like, ALL races? such that, if just one Dem wins, you're cool. go back to the drawing board and figure out a better campaign strategy... maybe blame the fraud-watchers for spreading gloom and keeping people from the polls.

btw -- what do you mean with this? "certainly nowhere near the systematic fraud the GOP is known for"... are you suggesting that you anticipate fraud on the part of the Repugs, but "just a wee bit" of it? i don't get your reasoning here.

i'm not operating in fear. those who won't/can't see the reality in front of them are. don't examine *that* -- something baaaaaaaaaaad might happen.

something bad has already happened or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. turning a hairy eyeball toward ME and *questioning* my party loyalty... well, that just proves my point. something bad has already passed thru.

[greeneyedboy]

27. i am not on DU to argue with or discourage Democrats. are you?

do you want to win or not? if so, what is the best strategy?

[nashville_brook]

28. there you go again -- either answer my questions or

move along my friend.

[greeneyedboy]

29. sure, if you will do me the courtesy of responding to mine.

strategically, where should our time and attention be spent now, while voting is still happening?

and which attitude is more helpful at this time, defeatism and fatalism, or confidence and eagerness?

[KoKo]

22. Kick....it would be good to know this, indeed......n/t

[nashville_brook]

23. lots of good info in this thread and crossposted in election reform n/t