Election-Fraud Skepticism
Eric Partridge, in his 2004 election-fraud essay Don't Get Over It, writes some very good things about the possibilities of fraud in the 2004 election. It's worth reading.
I distrust the current administration almost as much as any other right-thinking individual, but–perhaps because I'm a scientist–I have a healthy aversion to conspiracy theories about election fraud: there are way too many fanciful, paranoid thoughts going around. However, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean we're not right.
There is at least enough evidence now to lead me to healthy skepticism that there was fraud committed in this election, possibly even wide-spread conspiracy. There are two things that I find compelling. The first, to quote from Partridge:
Eleven million more votes were cast in 2004 than were cast in 2000. We are expected to believe that of these Bush got eight million (73%) and John Kerry three million.
The second is learning from the statistical analyses of Steven Freeman that exit poll results were "adjusted" at the end of the day to bring them into line with vote tallies. In other words, the statistics were manipulated to support the apparent vote count. This is wrong. Those who know me and have heard me rage against faulty (and deceptive) manipulation of statistics know that I consider this a very serious offense.
Let's be explicit. We heard during the election day that exit polls, which initially showed a majority support for Kerry, through the course of the day and particularly late in the evening and overnight, "veered" towards Bush. One was easily led to believe from this presentation of the results that, somehow, more Bush supporters were showing up later in the day. What we learn now is more interesting and alarming: the actual exit-poll results did not "veer" towards Bush late in the day; instead, the exit-poll resuls were "adjusted" (i.e., manipulated) to bring them into line with vote tallies that apparently favored Bush. They were made to "veer" towards Bush by the poll analysts.
These two facts lead to more than enough skepticism on my part to support the idea that the elections absolutely must be thoroughly investigated, must remain under as many independent microscopes as possible until all questions are uncovered and then settled the best that they can be. This is made even more difficult since, in the face of so many unauditable votes cast on unverifiable computerized voting machines, the exit-poll results that provide one of the few independent measures of the vote are now seen to have been corrupted.
Unfortunately, I don't think any investigation or other actions can take place in so short a time that we will know the actual intention of the electorate before the current incumbant is inaugurated again (but keep in mind that they can still be prosecuted later).
Nevertheless, the process will still yield valuable results that will improve all elections that come after this:
- We must bring back confidence that our elections are fair and open;
- We must end non-democratic efforts to disenfrancise groups of voters;
- We must halt the move towards privatization of the voting process.