Reply #17: well, I strongly agree with most of that

[OnTheOtherHand]

Most of all, we need transparent election systems.

But if you want to call for independent exit polls, then you have to wrestle with some facts. One of those facts is that almost no polling experts regard the 2004 exit polls as evidence of fraud. Never mind "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" -- most of them don't even think the exit poll discrepancy is especially interesting.

Now, setting aside what this does or doesn't imply about 2004, it raises some questions for the future. Some folks here seem to be convinced that if Americans only Knew The Truth about the exit polls, they would believe that the election was stolen. I think that is a triumph of hope over experience. It is awfully hard to win that sort of argument if the experts don't agree with it. Maybe exit polls can help to support transparent elections, but we would need to exercise some intelligent judgment about what they can and cannot do. I would love to have a serious conversation about that; it is often very hard to have serious conversations on this board.

Also (a separate issue from the one you raised), people should reflect on why DRE problems are getting more press attention than exit poll evidence. There are lots of reasons, but an important one is that when reporters ask computer experts about DREs, they basically get a range of opinion from 'iffy' to 'catastrophic.' The range of expert opinion on the exit poll arguments is less favorable. Again setting aside what this does or doesn't imply about 2004, it influences a strategic analysis of media opportunities.

Folks are certainly entitled to believe that the world would be a better place if all the experts agreed with Peace Patriot. But I don't see how that is a useful basis for political analysis.