snip> SO NOTHING WAS NEFARIOUS? Re: Wi. Election

[ooglymoogly]

see rest of article at

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/81631.html?1302494155

snip> I'd like to quote an excellent letter by election law scholar Paul Lehto, in regard to Nate Silver's editorial in the New York Times. Lehto nails it:



"A major reason (besides being apologists) why people can "see nothing nefarious" in election results is that it is so difficult to see anything whatsoever...

"Remember it is secret black box voting boxes we are talking about. Data is extremely hard to come up, except for the conclusory election results numbers that pop out of the black boxes ...he 'sees nothing nefarious' because he can see so very little (much like the rest of us) because of the very nature of the voting system.
"...those who implicitly advocate "trust and confidence" in elections have put the cart before the horse: trust and confidence is a state of mind that should only be earned and must be re-earned with each election, and only after investigation reveals that all necessary checks and balances were in place in a properly designed voting system and that the checks and balances, including transparent observability and others, worked as they were intended to work. snip>

"..But we can't have confidence right now just a few days after an election when we are missing so much information from Wisconsin, and much of what we do know stinks or is suggestive of mistakes and fraud. But Nate Silver simply, and erroneously, takes an entirely different approach that ignores accountability and instead looks for a silver lining of the "numbers jibing" and the like upon which to attach his presumed and pre-existing trust and confidence."

Good stuff, Paul Lehto.

[Ellipsis]

1. She's saying revote.

[catnhatnh]

2. Go Landshark, GO! N/T

[fasttense]

3. Exactly.

It's not that Nate is wrong. It's that Nate is looking at numbers when it's not about the numbers. It's all about trust and there is nothing to trust about the whole debacle.

[alfredo]

17. Right, he can only comment on the data he has

[madrchsod]

4. one should never link to any site that bev is associated with....

here are two reasons why she is banned from this site...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x466588

to say the least she is hated by all that were here at that time

[Lisa0825]

5. +1000

[ooglymoogly]

18. Yes, I remember the Bev brouhaha well...and I hesitated to post from that site

I posted for the much more important and well respected Paul Lehto content who has indeed nailed the situation, but I had to post the site it came from...I gather it was an email to her. It was sent to me in a Mark Crispin Miller email. Sides its time to let up on Bev, it was a long time ago and I believe her heart was in the right place and she does come up with good info from time to time.

And yes I too sent money and have long ago let go the anger.

[murielm99]

6. Thanks for reminding us.

Many people forget how horrendous this was, especially the behavior toward Andy. Others were not here at the time.

[blondeatlast]

8. And there's 10 reccs for it. She has <zero credibility, IMHO. nt

[ooglymoogly]

21. This post is not remotely about Bev Harris...It is about Paul Lehto's

Critique of a silly, straw man, apologist's article by Nate Silver in the NYT which in many ways is letting the stink of what has and is happening in the elections off the hook.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

9. HOWEVER - the org that shall remain unnamed has VERY GOOD info on election fraud

I was here during the Bev issues, but missed some of the threads. Many of us donated money to her org to help the cause. She bitched at me once as one of her sock puppets when I asked what they were doing with all the money we donated.

I do not love her, and do not care to get into their soap opera.

HOWEVER. Is it reasonable to ignore or disregard all the information that was gathered by BBV?

[madrchsod]

10. there in lies the problem...but i`m sure there`s other sites

[eowyn_of_rohan]

12. just use the good stuff (that WE paid for) but not link to it? or...

I havent gone to bbv lately. They used to have COMPREHENSIVE info on all voting equip and state problems etc. Perhaps their info is not needed anymore, and other sites would be as good or better sources. If so it might help to post them here!

[madrchsod]

13. i`m retired with nothing to do...google is my friend!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

16. lol- I am also a googleholic

I really dont even use that old site, and you are right, many more are out there with plenty of good info. I just had to raise the issue of not throwing babies out with bathwater.

[Truth2Tell]

14. Paul Lehto is credible

I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Harris is worthless (to put it mildly), but summarily dismissing anyone or anything remotely associated with her doesn't serve anyone well IMO.

[ooglymoogly]

20. +1 exactly my thoughts

[blondeatlast]

7. A Bev Harris ste? Not just "hell no," but "hell-fucking-the-Flying Spaghetti Monster-no." nt

[drm604]

11. I recced without realizing it was Bev Harris.

Even so, it's hard to dispute the idea that we shouldn't blindly trust electronic voting just because there's no visible evidence of fraud.

[blondeatlast]

15. Agreed, and therein lies the rub. I just cannot trust her and that extends to BBV

by extension.

It's a damn shame, but I can't help it.

[ooglymoogly]

19. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would disregard good

and important information (Paul Lehto) because it came from a site for which many still have a sour taste in their mouths. We are all here to learn.