Perhaps there is one thing worse than a voting system we cannot trust, outsourced, and unaudited. It is a media we cannot trust, downsized, outsourced, bent only on profits, oligarchical, and failing to actually do the work necessary to do the research and reporting necessary for democracy.
Updates:
Brad Friedman defends us all against false accusations <read>
Sometimes its politically correct to believe the exit polls <read>
NH Secretary of State’s Press Release On Recount
Starting 1/16: <read>
Dennis Kucinich statement: <read>
Oberman + Rush Holt, Excellent Video <watch>
Will the recount be satisfactory? Questions raised <read>
Perhaps there is one thing worse than a voting system we cannot trust, outsourced, and unaudited. It is a media we cannot trust, downsized, outsourced, bent only on profits, oligarchical, and failing to actually do the work necessary to do the research and reporting necessary for democracy.
As I have written on Englehart’s Comments at the Courant:
It seems from the Courant articles and editorial yesterday, and now this cartoon, that the machines are infallible and the past proven accuracy of polls is completely disregarded.
The cartoon should be showing the Crystal Ball as a Diebold optical scanner and a trusting media expressing complete faith in its unchecked results.
There are legitimate questions about the discrepancy between the polls and the machines. The way to resolve these questions is not through faith, but through science by actually counting the paper.
There is no proof the machines were inaccurate. There is no proof the polls are inaccurate. What there is, is an absence of solid investigation to give us confidence.
Yesterday we had a flurry in the Courant all focused on the idea that the polls were wrong. Two articles, the lead editorial, an op-ed, and four letters to the editor:
Big Loser In N.H. Race: The Pollsters <read> Where with no evidence arguments are developed to explain the discrepancies in the polls – except any acknowledgement of the possibility that the machines did not count accurately.
Clinton’s ‘Cry’ Resounds in Presidential Campaign <read> Where the argument that it was Clinton’s crying that moved the voters.
Editorial: Only Pollsters Are Upset <read> Confirming the case made in the earlier articles. Surprisingly the Courant ignores all the voting advocates that are concerned with the lack of auditing of the machines and the unanswered questions. I would say we are not surprised at the lack of investigation yet we are more than concerned with the state of election integrity <read> <read> and the media’s rush to judgement.
Letters to the Editor <read> Four letters to the editor, in their own box in the print edition serve to reinforce the same theme.
Op-Ed: Is U.S. Ready For Obama <read> An op-ed, more than hinting that the voters in N.H. are racist and lied to the pollsters to cover that up.
Remember that the Courant Editorial Board has a reputation to keep. They must stick to their earlier claim that “So far, no one appears to have figured out how to tamper with the machinesâ€. <read> Completely discrediting the vast majority of computer scientists, the Carter-Baker Commission, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Secretary of the State of California, and Dr. Shvartsman and his team at the UConn Voter Center.
Update: David Lindorf article <read>
Jonathan Simon, an attorney and co-founder of the group Election Defense Alliance, says that the vote discrepancies between machine and hand counts in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary are troubling, and defy easy explanation.
“The trouble is, whenever you have a surprise result in an election, and it runs counter to the polls, the media always say the problem is the polling, not the counting.” But he adds, “The thing is, these things always work in one direction-in favor of the more conservative candidate, and that defies the law of quantum mechanics.”
