LandShark's ZogbyPoll - It's Unanimous! Great News 4 Election Detection!

[Land Shark]

In democracy, 51% wins. So what is 92%???

92% political support would be something like domination. Annihilation of the purported opposition. A nearly irresistible political force.

So what is this force or principle that's on the side of election protection and election detection?

92% would be the percentage of likely voters in a Zogby telephone poll who answered a certain question the same way.... The poll was commissioned by Paul Lehto with partial support for the poll provided by Michael Collins and www.electionfraudnews.com, Democracy for New Hampshire, and other election detection patriots out there.

And what question did essentially all americans agree on??

Well, first a clue.

It doesn't matter more than a few percentage points whether you're black or white, hispanic or asian, republican or democrat or independent, catholic, protestant, jew, union or not, red state or blue state, very conservative or liberal, armed forces or nascar fan, walmart shopper or walmart boycotter, old or young, male or female, married or single, rich or poor. It just doesn't matter what demographic you're from because 86% is the lowest amount of support from any demographic and that's the youngsters 18-24 who're still in school (probably) and therefore "still learning."

So EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP SUPPORTS THIS PRINCIPLE BY A MINIMUM OF 86% AND AN AVERAGE OF 92%. And that includes a lotta people you don't agree with, too.

And the question involves voters having a choice of state laws regarding transparency of vote counting:

18. In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process. Which of the following two statements are you more likely to agree with – A or B?

Table 1.

Statement A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes.
92%

Statement B: Citizens do not have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes.
6%

Neither/Not sure
2%

Most all likely voters (92%) agree that citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes (Statement A). Just 6% feel citizens do not have this right (Statement B).

Eighty-six percent or more of people within every demographic group agrees with Statement A. This includes overwhelming majorities of Democrats (93%), Republicans (87%), and independents (97%). Furthermore, no more than 10% of people in any sub-group – with the sole exception of 18-29 year-olds (13%) – agree more with Statement B.

Almost since day one (for me, around November 2004) I've been stressing that the "secret vote counting" frame is the best one, because the process is undeniably secret and there's broad public support for transparency. The results of the Zogby poll I commissioned came in even stronger than I had dared hope for.

IMO, activists who are talking against secret vote counting and in favor of transparency should know that they are about as politically bullet proof as you can get under conditions of free debate.

And you REALLY better Watch out for Asian Americans and folks in civil unions where support for transparency is 100%.

Anyway, we will be working with Zogby and so forth to do a press release to Zogby's 35,000 press contacts with the results of this poll, tentatively set for Tuesday of this coming week. For purposes of the Zogby press release, I will need to come up with or raise $3500 for Zogby's fee on that, I've got a pledge for $1000 so far. I went into the hole about three grand of the initial five grand for the poll (but got almost two grand in help from white knights of the election community).

One idea is to do local press releases Tuesday to show precisely how out of touch your various local officials are with EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC IMAGINABLE by withholding documents about vote counting, for example.

Are your local officials "public servants" when they shill for and carry water for Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad, Danaher and the like instead of going with 92% on average of every political persuasion in America????

When it comes to anti-secret vote counting and pro-transparency, activists should be walking around like they are invincible and can't lose. Because they can't.... !!! The only way we can lose is by letting the subject change away from the transparency and anti-secret vote counting frames.

Please "lock and load" for early this week in terms of getting ready to blast the media in your local area with a press release, or encouragement to cover this poll as news, or with blogging support or email list support. Cross tabbed results are available for people working on this, but hey you hardly need them since the numbers are so univerally high!! We won't get many opportunities to plug a story like this and get a big chance for a splash in the media, so please consider whether or not this might be the best possible use of your activist time in the upcoming week. [e-mail] for more info.

Paul Lehto

[rumpel]

1. Thanks, Landshark

In your face CA-50 - and many others

:)

[GuvWurld]

2. #5 here - glad to see this is already public

I'll have a WDNC post up before the night is out

[Land Shark]

3. well sorta public, wait till you see the real data and the hard news

as it gets written up by folks. Hmm, like guvwurld, autorank, and other writers of probity and discernment. ; ) The big releases will still be on Monday for initial blogs and tuesday for MSM.

[GuvWurld]

5. I PM'd you - please check ASAP.

I'm just about ready to pop with this story.

[autorank]

4. Well, this looks familiar.

How about that!!! People want to know what is going on with their votes and the tabulation of all votes.

Wait until they ask to see that and all they get is a look at some plastic or metal casing of a
touch screen machine.

It's what they call UNACCEPTABLE.

The American people have been right all along on voting rights...they supported, overwhelmingly, the Voting Rights Act back in the 1960's and they support solid foundations of transparency now.

If the press and the politicians would just get the information out, then we'd have a really first rate election process. Lou Dobbs Catherine Crier will love this stuff. Maybe their brethren will get hip to the new deal - free, fair, transparent, inclusive elections.

[Surya Gayatri]

6. K & R...

for ELECTION PROTECTION.

The whole democratic experiment begins & ends here. If the people's voice cannot be reliably heard, all the rest is "sound & fury, signifying nothing". Thank you for your tireless travail, Landshark. SG

[snot]

7. k und, if i still can, r. nt

[Stockholm]

8. K&R Paul

Good post!

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. Kicked and recommended...

First of the day...

[Melissa G]

10. Excellent work , Landshark and others! K&R! n/t

[kpete]

11. I want to see this on the front page of the NYT

Thanks -
This proves we are not alone...

[Mr_Spock]

12. Who are the 6% who are heiling der Furor.

Do we really have 6% of the population who are total morons?

[Land Shark]

15. The 6% may just be the "confused answerer" percentage

whatever it is, I wouldn't worry about them too much...

[ladym55]

37. Umm, consider it lucky it's only 6%

Remember Chimpy's approval ratings are still in the 30's.

I'm just excited that so many happy Chimpy supporters also want transparent elections.

[Mr_Spock]

38. I suppose...

I just can't beleive there are any people who would not want access to their elections.

[ladym55]

42. I know it's hard to believe that

But there are lots of really, really gullible folks out there. They aren't particularly bright, not very well educated, and will do what they're told. So if their pastor or the pretzeldent tells them that transparent elections are dangerous or unpatriotic, they'll line up and sign away their rights.

I see it enough to be very worried.

[FighttheFuture]

77. More than that... they are actually breeding! Repuglicans, no doubt!

[glitch]

13. Ha! Americans say no to faith-based vote counts.

Reminding Americans that some people want to take their count away sounds like a very good use of activist time. k & r

[Gregorian]

14. Time is of the essence. We're already voting again, on the national level.

Thanks for the vigilance and constant pressure on the corporate voting scamming.


In a social structure with a government, voting integrity is like having a house with, or without a roof.

[tomp]

16. the democratic party must be challenged with this info

whot in god's name has been keeping them away from vote reform? i find it incredibly suspicious that they have not jumped all over this issue AS A PARTY.

[Pawel K]

17. Yeah, but I'm afraid you won't hear a word about this from elected

democrats.

Its almost as if they want to lose.

It is sad that regular citizens like you have to do this but thank you for trying to save our elections.

[bvar22]

23. Who loses?

A few seats change hands every now and then. Repubs get the White House for a few years and move the country toward One World Corporate Fascism, then it rotates to the Dems who move the country toward One World Corporate fascism. The illusion of elections are mintained. The LAST THING the people who run this country want are free elections. When its time for a particular politician to "Lose" their seat, they are guaranteed a higher paying job with the Defense Industry or a "Lobbying" firm with LIFETIOME perks. Who is going to mess with THAT system?

The SILENCE from the Democratic Party on this issue is DAMNING!!!

Who loses?
The American People!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

ADDED:
8. Over 60% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[cascadiance]

18. K&R to help with THE most important issue before November!

We're counting on you Landshark to help us out here in CA50!

[loudsue]

19. HOLY CRAP!!! LandShark -- count me in for a DONATION!!!

How do I get some $$ to you for this??

:bounce: It's about damned time this kind of news starts getting around!! :bounce:

:loveya: :hug: Thanks for doing this!! :grouphug:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[midnight]

43. Me too.

Please let us know how we can get you a donation.

[lonestarnot]

20. Yes but how many are willing to fight the good fight?

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. It seems the Dems have their "can-do" people, too, at least here

on DU. And It always seemed to be preserve of the far right. Organised crime in the narrower sense, too, come to that.

But how wonderful it is to see that the Democrats have leading bloggers here on the side of the angels, who are at least as astute, resourceful and determined. And with truth on their side!

As a furriner, I'm always being surprised by the brilliance, commitment and determination of your progressive gurus/heavy-weight activists, such as Autorank, landshark, kpete, the 'Crisis Papers' guys, et al.

Only in the US! Pues, tal vez a Mehjcjkhjico y Venezuela, tambien... (uttered with the best Spanish 'bandido' lilt, I might add).

[autorank]

86. You have a Spanish "bandido" lilt to make Joaquin Murieta envioius;)

Muchos Gracias to one of my favorite debaters on the forum!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

87. Muchas gracias, tu mismo, Tuco!!!! My wife loves the guttural

'j' in Meccjchikco!

[GuvWurld]

22. I've blogged this story; please support thread in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1948363

[pat_k]

24. Sometimes, the hardest to reach are the most technical. . .

Secret Voting Counting is Intolerable

DRE's are Secret Vote Counters

When I assert these simple truths, the people I have the most trouble with are highly technical folks who know there are reliable ways to secure network transactions ("Yeah, but. . .").

Unless we work on them, these folks make this a battle of the experts that leaves the voters on the sidlelines.

Not many of us are computer scientists specializing in transaction security, so even if some perfectly secure and accurate system were created, we would be dependent on the word of the few who could make sense of the system.

Depending on experts may be practical and necessary in countless other endeavors, but when it comes to elections, every voter -- my grandparents, my plumber, the artist next door, the drop-out down the street -- must be able to MAKE SENSE OF and judge the processes FOR THEMSELVES.

Insecure and unreliable systems are a problem because they undermine PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in election results. No system, no matter how secure or reliable the experts claim it is, will be acceptable if it is not capable of instilling public confidence.

"No More Secret Vote Counting" defines the most basic requirement for confidence -- the ability to judge a process for ourselves because it can be witnessed.

"No More Secret Vote Counting" moves the debate from the experts to the citizens.

----------------------
Of course computers have a role, but only if the role promotes confidence. For example, if computers are used to record votes and minimize errors (e.g., over- or under-votes), our right to have confidence demands that the output of the computer voting process be an official printed ballot that is validated by the voter. If voters record their choices directly on paper ballots, they can use computers to check their ballots for errors before submitting them for tabulation. Such a use of computers would enhance, rather than diminish confidence.

If computers are used to record or check ballots, they can provide preliminary results, but our right to have confidence demands that official results be obtained by counting the official paper ballots in open view. If optical scanners are used to count votes, independent observers must be allowed to validate the results by counting the ballots on their own tabulators.

[Land Shark]

40. the overall theme of democracy is THE PEOPLE SHALL JUDGE

and there's a great series of books on the treatises of democracy by that very title: THE PEOPLE SHALL JUDGE.

note that in the JUDICIAL BRANCH on Juries the PEOPLE directly decide innocence, guilt, and financial liability.
Note that in the LEGISLATIVE branch the PEOPLE are entitled to a public recording of every roll call vote so that they may know how their representatives vote.

note that in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH with the most important function of all and the one and only check the PEOPLE have against oppressive government, the government today purports to X the PEOPLE out of any meaningful supervision or check and balance on the election vote counting, whatsoever.

No free people will stand for that, for long, or they won't be free, for long.

[bleever]

25. This sounds very powerful.

:patriot:

[Wilms]

26. What was the MOE?

:D

That's fantastic, LS.

So now we know that the American people, if not the vendors and SCOTUS, want Open Software.

Thing is, Open Software won't do a thing for us because few could feel confident that it is the "Open Software" that's loaded in the machine. And then there's the Ballot Definition Files to worry about...I don't think HR550 closes that loop-hole.

How many Americans would be willing to dump the machines in favor of hand-counts, no matter that it may take a little time, and in some cases may cost a bit more?

Thanks for this work, Paul.

Donations can be sent where????

[pat_k]

27. Open source is great for sw dev, but can't instill public confidence

. . .when it comes to elections.

I have no doubt that if you ask people whether they want (1) election results reported immediately because the ballots are counted in secret and aren't available for review or (2) elections results reported later -- even a couple days -- because the ballots are counted in the open and are available for review, they'll overwhelmingly pick (2).

Speed of results is not a value when it comes to preserving our constitutional democracy.

With regard to specific legislation -- we have been far too hung up on specifying processes. We must shift our focus from the process details to the inputs and outputs. Input and output requirements do not dictate specific processes, but processes that fail to yield the required inputs and outputs are unacceptable.

A mandatory "output" of an election that subsumes all others is confidence in the results.

"No More Secret Vote Counting" defines the most basic requirement for confidence -- the ability to judge a process for ourselves because it can be witnessed.

Our right to have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. The definition of a "free and fair" election describes the mandatory "inputs." A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

No process that is incomprehensible to a vast majority of the public is capable of instilling confidence. We cannot have confidence if the processes are hidden from us, forcing us to depend on the word of experts

Few of us are statisticians, so statistical sampling to verify secretly tabulated results is not acceptable.

Few of us are software developers. Open source or not, our democracy can't afford an incremental process of system development in which this or that election serves as the "beta test."

Computers have a role play, but that role must be a supporting one -- as noted at the end of my post above. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=446445&mesg_id=446520

Of course computers have a role, but only if the role promotes confidence. For example, if computers are used to record votes and minimize errors (e.g., over- or under-votes), our right to have confidence demands that the output of the computer voting process be an official printed ballot that is validated by the voter. If voters record their choices directly on paper ballots, they can use computers to check their ballots for errors before submitting them for tabulation. Such a use of computers would enhance, rather than diminish confidence.

If computers are used to record or check ballots, they can provide preliminary results, but our right to have confidence demands that official results be obtained by counting the official paper ballots in open view. If optical scanners are used to count votes, independent observers must be allowed to validate the results by counting the ballots on their own tabulators.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Land Shark]

30. MOE is + or - 3.1%

Due to the size, it has a 3.1 % (+/-) margin of error.
95% of Zogby's political polls have come within a 1% margin of
accuracy in predicting election outcome.

[NVMojo]

29. yes, we must jump on this and our Party must jump on this!

[Kurovski]

31. Wow! So 8% are diggin' the Stalinist Russia thing?

K&R! Thank you LandShark!

[Land Shark]

32. Nah, maybe 1% at most, the other 7% consist of

4% undecided, and 3% contrarians who just like to be alone in their thoughts.

[aquart]

33. Sneaky phrasing.

As Americans, we believe we have the "right" to do damn near anything.

If you'd phrased it without saying it's a "right," what response would you get? Because that's how Republican polls will do it.

So don't crow yet.

But, yeah, I damn well do believe we have that right. AND THAT OBLIGATION which is even more vital.

[Land Shark]

34. Gee, I thought I was saying "here's a frame that's broadly accepted"

We sure can't stop the other side from counter-framing or twisting words. So, I'm not sure there's any point in bemoaning anything. I'm trying to hand out a tool and way to handle an issue, it's not a meaningful response to say "but the other side will fight back." They always do.

I also don't think any side that doesn't have something to crow about ever wins a political debate because they don't have the energy or motivation to communicate with undecideds or even reinforce their own, so here again I have trouble understanding what possible utility to transparency there could be in advice to "not crow about it."

Actually, aquart, I figure you're probably very smart and hopeful and just protecting yourself against future disappointment because the final numbers after the war is over probably wouldn't be 92% any more. i grant you that after they kick in their MSM distortion machine. But you still gotta fight from a position of strength, not from a point of "better not crow yet". My view is, let's crow, and make them fight us on the plains of transparency and anti-secret vote counting.

[Stevepol]

35. K&R!! Extremely important.

[file83]

36. Soon you'll hear Rove saying "Secret Votes are vital to National Security"

...I'm waiting.

"Only Terrorists want transparent elections. Which side are you on?"

[Mythsaje]

76. Too bad for them!

They don't get transparent elections EITHER!

muhahahaha...

[BillORightsMan]

39. OHIO: SAVE THE BALLOTS!

Thanks, LandShark, for this INCREDIBLE EFFORT!!!

As a reminder (and in light of this Zogby Poll) the remaining proof of what really happened in Ohio in 2004 is about to be DESTROYED!

Save the Ballots!

The ballots are the smoking gun to explain what happened in Ohio in 2004. They were not made public until earlier this year, and after September 2, 2006, election officials across Ohio are legally allowed to destroy them. We have been told by election officials in the most problem-plagued counties they can't wait until Sept. 3rd, because then people asking questions will go home.

Don't let the ballots be destroyed. Don't let Republican partisans bury the truth before the history can be told. Destroying the ballots is destroying the evidence at a crime scene. It is our civil right to know that U.S. election are free, fair and honestly counted. Help us preserve this critical public record and raise the bar for accountable elections.

(donation link at website...)

We only have TWO WEEKS to preserve the ballots in Ohio, to preserve "the evidence at a crime scene." I hope you can help out this important cause.

Thanks again, LandShark, for putting this together. Absolutely AMAZING!!!

imbillorightsmanandiapprovethismessage

[Land Shark]

41. thanks, but I'd love it if you'd get ready to badger your local

media into covering this story on Tuesday....

And, 42 USC 1974 says they MUST preserve the evidence for 22 months, it does NOT say it must be destroyed at that point. So, while I agree some or many jurisdictions will, consider framing it so that it doesn't seem like it's a mandatory duty to destroy, which it is not.

THERE CAN be and ARE OTHER EVIDENTIARY REASONS THAT GIVE RISE TO DUTIES TO PRESERVE. If there's a potential case and the local jurisdiction is on notice of it, they would in most states be under a common law duty to preserve the evidence.

[BillORightsMan]

44. I'm on it, Land Shark...

I've been hounding the local "movers and shakers" that I know in OH about this. There is that perception, though, and the BoE's say they don't have the space to store them. Worse yet, is the paper VVPB is on (iirc) THERMAL paper, which, if left near a heat source, would make the VVPB USELESS (ever look at your thermal paper receipts from the store after a few days in your pocket?).

The BoEs here are SO BLIND to what they have (not necessarily complicit but rather of the ilk "we've always done it this way" from the "old days" of 100% paper ballots) that they will most likely trash whatever paper audit trails they have; the electronic votes on the cartidges will simply be erased, for use in the next election.
:wow:

Wasn't trying to take away from your VERY IMPORTANT POST or change the subject. Just trying to bring awareness of what is happening @ Ground Zero GOP Culture of Corruption State (remember SoS Blackwell is running for Guv'nor here, too).

FYI, I've sent out a preliminary note to my short email list (link to this permalink), with more to follow on my big list. Making the rounds to the message boards I visit, too.


Thanks for the advice -- you may want to contact the website directly with your observations, too.

[kster]

45. I am 100% with you, when you say

"When it comes to anti-secret vote counting and pro-transparency, activists should be walking around like they are invincible and can't lose. Because they can't.... !!! The only way we can lose is by letting the subject change away from the transparency and anti-secret vote counting frames".

GODAMN RIGHT!!!!!! GO LANDSHARK!!!!!! KICK AND RECOMMENDED!!!!!1

[Kurovski]

46. Kick.(nt)

[jen4clark]

47. Thank you, Land Shark!!

Locked, Loaded, and ready to Fire!!! We Will do this!

[Land Shark]

51. Cool, thanks!

[noamnety]

48. I don't like the phrasing at all

"In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working."

Which states just let me go watch the counting if I, as a private citizen, decide to?

"In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process."

I agree with that. It's not asking if it should be that way, it's asking if you agree with the statement that people are being barred from viewing the process. I think they are being barred, and I think it's a crap policy.

The question should have asked which POLICY we agree with, not which statement.

The first statement is a more desirable policy, the second statement is more true. The question as depicted here is worthless, imho.

[Wilms]

49. That's a logical assessment of the inaccuracy.

Still, if the participants viewed the question as a logic test they would have had to agree with both statements. That may have been the ones who were "unsure". :D

I think most figured out what was being asked and gave a democratic opinion.

[noamnety]

50. I would have voted for B

Because I'm not sure that, as a private citizen, I can just waltz into the election room and demand to watch as votes are counted. But I AM convinced that people were barred from watching - and especially it's that word "effectively" that would have made me vote B. It implies that legally they have the right, but election officials have found a way to skirt around the law to prevent it from happening.

I appreciate that you understand my logic though - I read through all these reponses and looked at the number of votes, and I'm confused that I'm in the vast minority here.

[Land Shark]

52. I don't believe you would be confused by a flashing red light, so

I don't think you're truly confused by the wording of the question, (if you'd been telephone polled) but upon close analysis IN WRITING almost any question or statement develops confusing and ambiguous qualities. Moreover, if you take almost any given word and repeat to yourself it will even start to sound like meaningless nonsense after a while...

Obviously, with such high poll numbers like 92%, we have a totally nonrandom process of everyone "getting it" and answering the same way. Thus, the 92% number shows that the question is nearly uniformly interpreted in the same way by all listeners.

The question does use indeed use the term "right" so technically it is inquiring about individual belief as to the law. You may be right that there is a fraction of a percent that answered the question like a Graduate Record Exam logic question, and based on information well outside the question itself concluded along the lines you specify.

Paul

[noamnety]

53. I have a different theory

You're interpreting the results as everyone "getting it." I think it's also possible that people with different ideologies read it to be what they want the question to be, rather than what it actually says. So you might have democrats hearing "should the counting be open to observers?" because that's what they want a chance to voice, and republicans hearing "is it already open enough?" because they don't want to say the law's not being enforced. I think you're jumping to optimistic conclusions when you saw the high number shows it's interpreted the same way by all listeners. The high number tells you nothing about how people interpreted it.

This is kind of like the value voter issue of 2004 - they kept portraying republicans as voting based on values. In the zogby poll. I was always listing myself as a "values voter" - my values being that we should be taking care of the environment, health care, basic needs, rather than all the stuff we actually do.

As for the definition of "right" - I think you've just done the same thing I was talking about - read into the definition what you wanted to hear.

Right could be: a question about "individual belief as to the law." But I think that phrase "in effect" in the question makes it clear we aren't talking about the law, we're talking about what actually happens at the man in the street level. So it's "right" as in "an accurate/correct description of reality."

(My FIRST reading of the question led me to answer B. I find your flashing red light comment condescending, btw.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. I think you've said the smartest thing yet on this thread

"The high number tells you nothing about how people interpreted it."

It's not just the question of how people interpreted "right." If one wants to assess the effectiveness of secrecy/transparency as a "frame" for discussing electronic voting (as many posts have suggested), well, obviously this question doesn't address that issue directly.

[Land Shark]

59. People vote for * or Kerry for hundreds of different reasons

once the choice is framed, the voting proceeds according to many different motivations and considerations, but each vote still counts the same and points only in one direction.

The question of opinion research, about which OTOH claims some expertise, is different than the question of controlling or influencing the political behavior of pulling a lever or casting a ballot for a given candidate. OTOH why don't you start a thread on this as I'm sure you've got a lot to teach. "Smartest thing yet": was there another comment made by someone you agreed with as well, though not as strongly?

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. generally I agree with all the people who have said

in effect, 'Well, doh, of course people think citizens should have the right to know how the votes are counted.'

I'm inclined to agree that it is an important line of argument against electronic voting, esp. paperless DREs. I just don't see how this result sheds any light on it. So, that's where it rests.

[Land Shark]

62. are you suggsting that there's no difference between 60% support and 92%

or something substantially higher than 60%? Why is it an "important" line of argument, in any event?

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. uh, no, I'm not

What a strange question. Slow day at the office?

[Land Shark]

58. One should not, once again, analyze something and find more than one

interpretation possible and consider there to, therefore, be some kind of big problem. It is elementary lawyering, and a daily experience multiple times a day, that ANY language can be interpreted and deconstructed in the manner in which you are describing.

The flashing red light creating a stop/go/stop/go logic is not meant to be condescending, though I understand you take it as such, it rather shows that even the simplest symbols can be shown to have ambiguity. Actually, it is a bit condescending, if you deny my point that everything is ambiguous IF YOU WANT IT TO BE, because if you deny that, then I suppose I do consider that the better view is that all things are subject to some ambiguity, and that includes the red light comment, too. THere are still better meanings, and courts decide and make holdings on these better meanings all the time.

and no court would interpret the question VERBALLY DELIVERED as in the poll here, to mean what you suggest based on a written analysis of it, even though your interpretation is apparently rational

[noamnety]

66. The court comment makes no sense to me.

You seem to be saying that the question's interpretation changes depending on whether it's read outloud, or read silently. I don't believe any court would stand with you on that.

This wasn't a matter of me looking for ambiguity intitially - my first and immediate reaction to the question, without analysis, was that B was the right answer. It was only when I read your interpretation and people's comments in this thread that I had to analyze it to see why on earth anyone would believe states DON'T effectively ban people from viewing the counting in an open and direct way. To me it's obvious that they do!

Instead of taking the question at face value: which statement is right? (which statement is correct?); you read additional meaning into it - which statement is right? (which statement do you wish were correct?).

[noamnety]

67. misunderstanding! (on my end)

The way this was phrased in another thread clicked in my head for some reason where it didn't in the OP here.

"In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. (I read that as statement A.)
In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process. (I read that as statement B.)

Which of the following (<-- I skipped that word because I apparently can't read without coffee) two statements are you more likely to agree with A or B?"

It was that "table 1" that threw me, I didn't realize the stuff after that was still part of the interview question as read. I thought someone did some creative interpreting of the answers in "Table 1."

(I still think the statements would be more clear if they said Citizens should have the right/should not have the right.)

[Land Shark]

68. OK, I'll mention it to the zogby organization n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

85. The wording seems confusing and ridiculous to me

I haven't been to this forum in quite a while and this is my first view of this thread, but immediately upon reading the question I was struck at the senseless inconsistencies.

"In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process"

Where is the verify aspect in the second sentence? It should say "would like to view and verify the process."

That's hardly the major flaw. Notice in the lead-off sentences it's very clear that viewing refers to counting of the votes. The word view or viewing is two words preceding counting. However, in the money questions for some inane reason it turns into "right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes." Why don't we squeeze a few dozen more words in there, so view and count can be on separate pages like the Florida ballots in 2000?

I'm not a total dummy and initially I read that to mean right to view and obtain information about how the process would be done, not right to view the vote count itself. I knew that couldn't be correct based on the hoopla regarding the findings but when I read it again I came up with the same thing.

It makes no sense to me why a simple term like verify was replaced by obtain information. Far superior and simpler phrasing would be:

A. Citizens should have the right to view and verify the vote counting process.

B. Citizens should not have the right to view and verify the vote counting process.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. well, isn't that still part of the problem?

It seems to me that the majority interpretation is that in the question proper ("Citizens (have)(do not have) the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes"), "right" refers to an inherent right, whether or not that right is presently legally protected -- or, in your formulation, a right that people should have.

Simply by looking at a statement of the form "Citizens have the right to X," I don't see how one can say what the "face value" interpretation of "right" is. But when the question introduction seems to demand that it refers to legal protection ("In some states, members of the public have the right..."), that would seem to settle the matter.

So, it's pretty interesting that apparently the vast majority of respondents nonetheless interpreted the q as referring to inherent or normative rights.

[whistle]

54. This is great information, where can we sign up to view and obtain ...

... information about how our local and state election officials count the votes?

[Land Shark]

55. what state and county are you interested in?

maybe somebody else knows of a specific interactive website but i could look it up, probably. But once you know what kind of machines (or not) you vote on, that pretty much determines most of it.

[whistle]

56. I am in Florida and Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties

...would be great.

[Land Shark]

64. this interactive map is good, not sure if it's up to date all the way

though http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

[McCamy Taylor]

61. I love Zogby! He will never let Selection 2004 rest!

:loveya:

[flyingobject]

63. playing the Opinion Poll Game & what states have public viewing of count

Shock! Landshark knows how to manipulate polls.
I suppose its a case of turnabout is fair play.
Perhaps we should blanket the country with opinion polls slanted
our way, so as to counterbalance the ones going against us.

WHAT states actually have public viewing of the vote counting?

It would be cool to send a video of those states having publicly
observed counting of the votes sent to the Lou Dobbs show.

Opinion polls are a double edged sword.

BY playing the opinion poll game, are you conferring legitimacy to opinion polls?

How about when they don't go our way?


How about when surveys come up with this result:

"Most voters enjoyed voting on the new touchscreen machines."

[Kurovski]

70. Well, of course you get another poll

that says they changed their opinion when they realized how prone to fraud, malfunction and "glitches" those fun little machines are.

[Kurovski]

71. Kick.(nt)

[livvy]

72. I got my first email referencing the survey. Woot! Woot! 8/21/06

Here's the first bit of it...

"PRESS RELEASE August 21, 2006, Park City, UT

92% of Americans Oppose Secret Vote Counting; Favor Public's Right to
Know In Elections
By Kathy Dopp

A new Zogby poll will be released on Tuesday reveals that fully 92%
of every single demographic group in American favors the public's
right to observe vote counting and to obtain any information regarding
vote counting, according an August 12-15 Zogby telephone poll of
approximately 1200 likely voters nationwide."

It's on its way! Well done!
:toast:

[kster]

73. kick.nt

[Bill Bored]

74. Well for what it's worth here's what I think.

I think Autorank wrote a nice piece on Scoop.

I think that this poll is a good way to get folks to think about the issue.

I think a lot depends on whether the media picks up on it and becomes an echo chamber as they do for the Republicans. Without that, it won't work.

However, there are still differences in what each of us considers to be an acceptable degree of transparency. And just because 92% say they want some, it doesn't mean they all want the same thing Land Shark wants, or for that matter the same thing Rush Holt and his supporters might want.

The important thing is that perhaps this work will serve to get people to THINK -- if they become aware of the poll. But many may flock to an HR 550 type of solution, or some deceptive optical scan solution whereby paper ballots could just as easily be stuck into paper shredders as long as the shredding isn't too obvious.

I think realistically, we've got a long way to go and a solution of voter-verified paper records (preferably ballots), open source software and meaningful audits is probably the best that can be done in the short term in many areas of the country. And like it or not, HR 550 may be the best way to get there.

[kster]

75. I am an American, and I want to see the votes --BEING--counted

can you help me out?

[Bill Bored]

78. Then you will want hand counted paper ballots.

Also permitted under HR 550, HAVA and elections laws in many, but probably not all states.

I would suggest you avoid voting in Florida or any other state that does not allow hand counts. Activists have been trying to change that for years and they have so far not been successful. A federal law might make it possible. So may a lawsuit like Land Shark's. We can only hope.

But meanwhile, I don't think we should continue to subject the people of FL and a number of other states to fake elections when significant improvements are possible.

[kster]

79. Then Florida BEWARE because we aim to see our vote's being counted

in EVERY state, one state WILL NOT decide our elections.

[Bill Bored]

80. Really?

Then you should also look here:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

Because at the moment, one state can decide who gets to be Pres!

[kster]

81. True, but if Florida won't let the other states

view how the votes ARE being counted in their State , why should the United States of America accept their (Floridas) election result?

[Bill Bored]

82. We didn't. The Supreme Court wouldn't let them count the votes.

And that was on PAPER! (In 2000 that is.)

[Kurovski]

83. Kick.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

84. well done, and www.Electionline.org picked it up in their newsletter.

This is the kind of work I like to see you doing, this was
very creative and out of the box.