Replies

> “You also haven’t considered the potential problems with the absentee vote count.”

Actually, I have. There’s no evidence of widespread absentee ballot fraud, or *ANY* absentee ballot fraud in Nevada. Period.

If you have something that shows otherwise, produce it.

> “you’re being a little naive dismissing Angle’s complaints on the basis of the Secretary of State’s rejecting her complaints.”

No, I’m not. In order for the complaint to be valid, at least one individual would need to come forward and, under penalty of perjury, state a specific violation of elections law which they had personally witnessed. None did. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence. That’s not “being naive,” that’s black-letter law.

I gave your disparagement of Ross Miller all the consideration it deserved. Which is to say, “None.” I didn’t vote for Ross Miller, in fact I voted “none of these candidates.” Still, you have absolutely nothing to base your suspicions upon other than to say he’s a lifelong Democrat.

In my America, lifelong Democrats can still be honest. Lifelong Democrats can still be patriots. In my America, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Miller has never even been formally accused of election irregularities, so if it’s all the same to you, I’m completely uninterested in sliming Ross Miller with tinfoil hat bullsh1t conspiracy nonsense.

> “Before the vote machines the polls had a MUCH better record for accuracy.”

We’ve been using the Sequoia voting machines with a voter verified paper record system in Clark County for well over 10 years. I think they actually rolled them out 15 or more years ago.

The problem isn’t the voting machines. The problem is an outdated telephone polling method that fails to take into account the transient nature of the Las Vegas population, and the simple fact that a large percentage of people under 40 here do not have landlines.

Maybe you missed it, but Reid and Angle were statistically tied in every poll except for the final PPP poll. With a margin of error of +/- 4 points, Angle’s 49/45 lead could easily have been a 45/49 loss — which is pretty close to the way it played out.

> “there is no scientific data (yet) to support he contention that the omission of cell only people compromises poll integrity”

Okay. Well you got me. You’ve cited a national survey on cell phone use, which while informative, doesn’t actually give the numbers for Nevada generally, or Las Vegas in particular, where the majority of Nevada residents live.

> “given Obama’s and the Dems low popularity it may well have swung for Angle.”

Yes, Mr. Obama does have low popularity in Nevada, but I didn’t see a candidate named “Obama” or “the Dems” on the ballot. This was a race between Harry Reid, a known brand in Nevada for 40+ years and Sharron Angle, a unknown ultra rightwinger from rural Nevada who hasn’t won a race since 2004.

Sadly, during the week of early voting, Ms. Angle lost the race. It was close until she was videotaped 5 days before Election Day running from reporters, saying that she would answer questions only after she was Senator. Add that to her complete lack of any door-to-door GOTV effort and you have a statistical tie that turned into a Reid win.

I understand it’s upsetting that Mr. Reid won re-election; however, failing to properly attribute the loss to its true causes does absolutely nothing to help Republicans win next time.

To: MikeJ561

>>“You also haven’t considered the potential problems with the absentee vote count.”

>Actually, I have. There’s no evidence of widespread absentee ballot fraud, or *ANY* absentee ballot fraud in Nevada. Period.

If you have something that shows otherwise, produce it.

Brooke, It’s too early to know for sure whether there was absentee vote fraud. Second, you’re erecting a false standard. You don’t need ‘widespread’ absentee vote fraud in order to swing an election. A few hundred votes in just a couple places can influence an outcome

>>“you’re being a little naive dismissing Angle’s complaints on the basis of the Secretary of State’s rejecting her complaints.”

>No, I’m not. In order for the complaint to be valid, at least one individual would need to come forward and, under penalty of perjury, state a specific violation of elections law which they had personally witnessed. None did. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence. That’s not “being naive,” that’s black-letter law.

OK fair enough. If that’s the standard and it wasn’t met then OK. However I would caution that an absence of complaints under penalty of perjury is not evidence of absence. It’s possible some voters experienced election fraud and chose to say nothing. It’s much easier for most to just let it go then it is to go to the trouble of complaining particularly when it involves placing themselves in legal jeopardy – penalty of perjury. Yes that sounds like a weak argument at first glance but the context here is important. We’re talking about a demonstrably corrupt election system almost nationwide, Nevada being no exception, and a corrupt system in Nevada facilitated by equally demonstrably unreliable voting machines

>I gave your disparagement of Ross Miller all the consideration it deserved. Which is to say, “None.” I didn’t vote for Ross Miller, in fact I voted “none of these candidates.” Still, you have absolutely nothing to base your suspicions upon other than to say he’s a lifelong Democrat.
In my America, lifelong Democrats can still be honest. Lifelong Democrats can still be patriots. In my America, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Miller has never even been formally accused of election irregularities, so if it’s all the same to you, I’m completely uninterested in sliming Ross Miller with tinfoil hat bullsh1t conspiracy nonsense.

OK Brooke let’s get a few basics straight here First, I have no idea how you got to this conspiracy category but it has no place in this discussion Second, let’s do some vocabulary. ‘Conspiracy’ requires more than one individual. Last I checked Miller was ONE individual. For him to reject the Angle complaints would require no more than his decision.

Third, exercise a little discernment. This is not a personal attack on Ross. It’s a structural criticism. I’m not sure where you are on Ethics but there is a moral requirement standard in law and politics in pretty much every professional endeavour that proper execution of one’s office demands that one not be affected personally politically or financially by issues about which you make decisions. In other words you can’t have a vested interest in a situation over which you wield influence. If you do your judgment is suspect. That’s why (responsible) people eg judges recuse themselves so as to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Ross should have done that here. I know that’s wishful thinking given almost every critical office is occupied by conflicted Democrats and republicans but boy wouldn’t it be nice see a little more ethical responsibility exercised somewhere sometime in this country.

While we’re on the subject of conflict of interest let’s talk bout Reid’s son being County Commissioner. He’s a lifelong Democrat and he oversees the vote ‘tally’. That seems unremarkable to you??

Let’s also talk about the other point I mentioned in my first post since it relates to conflict of interest (not to mention common sense)- The fact that a pro-Reid and demonstrably corrupt services the demonstrably corrupt unreliable and unverifiable Seqoia machines. Again I have to ask does that not seem somewhat remarkable to you??

>> “Before the vote machines the polls had a MUCH better record for accuracy.”

>We’ve been using the Sequoia voting machines with a voter verified paper record system in Clark County for well over 10 years.

Your faith in the vote verified paper record is misplaced to put it mildly. The sequoia machines and the company itself have been the subject of countless scandals. As long as the vote ‘count’ is unverifiable, recorded on scandalized and failed machines and concealed from the public, there is no election

Also your faith in “voter verifiable paper audit trail”, is misplaced. First a verifiable trail is a far cry for a “voter verified paper audit trail”. See the difference?
Second, these paper printouts are rarely counted, and even if they are they can be easily be manipulated so as to flip an election with little or no likelihood of detection. As UC Santa Barbara found during California’s “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all of Nevada’s voting systems, those computer printed paper trails can be gamed in a couple minutes time. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6369

Did you know that these Sequoia systems are so susceptible to tampering that last month white-hat “hackers” were able to replace the voting software on one of them with Pac-Man - without even disturbing the system’s so-called “tamper evident” seals.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7998

>The problem isn’t the voting machines.

I’m not sure why you keep saying this. Tell me what it is about the voting machines and their history that gives you such confidence?

>The problem is an outdated telephone polling method that fails to take into account the transient nature of the Las Vegas population, and the simple fact that a large percentage of people under 40 here do not have landlines.

This is indeterminate. You can’t base an argument on ambiguity (alone). As I said in my first post, we don’t know how much impact, if any, this cell only demographic had on the election. And remember the same uncertainty applies to the 35+ non-democratic cell only demographic which you have failed to consider.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘transient’ however it is most likely an ambiguous factor if it means what I think you intend it to

>Maybe you missed it, but Reid and Angle were statistically tied in every poll except for the final PPP poll. With a margin of error of +/- 4 points, Angle’s 49/45 lead could easily have been a 45/49 loss — which is pretty close to the way it played out.

Maybe you missed it Brooke, but statistically for (almost) every poll to show a 3-4 point lead and be wrong is, while not impossible statistically, somewhere in the neighbourhood. It’s even more unlikely given the exit polls were showing a clear advantage to Angle as well. You combine the failure of BOTH the pre-election polls and the exit polls and you get an anomaly that can’t be explained by cell only households. Not by any stretch. The anomaly becomes all the more salient when you consider that it was no small margin by which (most of) the polls were wrong. It was a 10 point swing in some cases.

Again, why the pandemic inaccuracy after the imposition of unverifiable unreliable voting machines and the solid record for accuracy before? It can’t just be cell only households.

Second you don’t know that that that was pretty close to the way it played out and you won’t as long as the votes are cast on unreliable unverifiable e-machines in a conflicted corrupt environment such as exists in Nevada

>>“there is no scientific data (yet) to support the contention that the omission of cell only people compromises poll integrity

>”Okay. Well you got me.

I do have you :) This is the crux of your argument. In the absence of HARD evidence you’re assertion re cell only households is, while interesting and warrants further inquiry, indecisive.

>You’ve cited a national survey on cell phone use, which while informative, doesn’t actually give the numbers for Nevada generally, or Las Vegas in particular, where the majority of Nevada residents live.

That’s true and it occurred to me after that I should have added that qualification to the data as the absence of Nevada specific numbers make national references instructive only in a general sense.

However the absence of Nevada specific numbers is just additional ambiguity. It neither proves your case nor disproves mine. And since you’re the one arguing for vote integrity, whose argument hinges (incorrectly) on cell only people in Nevada it is you who must make the adjustment.

>>“given Obama’s and the Dems low popularity it may well have swung for Angle.”

>Yes, Mr. Obama does have low popularity in Nevada, but I didn’t see a candidate named “Obama” or “the Dems” on the ballot. This was a race between Harry Reid, a known brand in Nevada for 40+ years and Sharron Angle, a unknown ultra rightwinger from rural Nevada who hasn’t won a race since 2004.

I concede this point to you with a qualification. It is quite possible is it not that the national anti-Dem sentiment was felt in Nevada, that it had an impact on the Nevada vote?

>however, failing to properly attribute the loss to its true causes does absolutely nothing to help Republicans win next time.

Failure to address the obvious systemic failures and corruption in the country’s election system and Nevada’s in particular will do nothing to restore functioning democracy to the Republic which I assume is your first concern…