Comments on: How to Hack an Election https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3235 2002-2015 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:59:44 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 By: directorblue https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3235#comment-14568 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:59:44 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/how_to_hack_an_election.html#comment-14568 The RFK article was entirely unconvincing – a tiny precinct’s 98% turnout was cited as evidence of fraud. He didn’t mention, however, that the precinct was in the low hundreds of voters and it appeared they all _did_ show up.

More concerning is what happened in Wisconsin, which Kerry won by a tiny margin. Mystery voters were bused in from Illinois to a state where no ID was required to cast votes. There is credible evidence that the entire state turned on this sort of “no ID required” vote fraud.

If the Democrats really wanted to fight voter fraud, they would endorse the requirement for identification at the polls. Anything less puts our system at risk for rampant abuse.

]]> By: angela https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3235#comment-14567 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:14:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/how_to_hack_an_election.html#comment-14567 350,000 votes (RJK Jr.’s claimed Ohio disenfranchisement) would not have gone only to Kerry in 2004, and actually even if they all did, that is quite a small number, considering the spread nation-wide was over 3 million in Bush’s favor. Along with worrying about dirty hackers, Dems need to stop crying and come up with something persuasive enough so they don’t have to care about the margins.

]]> By: John Dowdell https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3235#comment-14566 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:09:26 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/how_to_hack_an_election.html#comment-14566 There are reasons to be terrified, but not, I think, from this issue… the media campaign from the Kennedy machine hinges, despite its length, on the argument “final results differed from exit polls”. Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal has the most extensive debunkings:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/exit_polls/index.html

The Diebold hacks seem less serious, to me, than the “dead people voting” problem, but I’m not losing much sleep over either.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dead+people+voting%22

We *do* need to worry about being manipulated, though… this week’s rent-a-riots over what the Pope was *said* to have said join the debunked “koran desecration” story and the debunked “mohammed cartoon” story, and yet real people are coming to harm, and the actual facts — even in developed societies — do not raise above the level of the initial lies.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/bavaria06/message9.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=koran+desecration+fraud
http://www.google.com/search?hq=mohammed+%22three+cartoons%22

There’s danger in how commercial memes are not sufficiently questioned. I believe we’ll rise past this stage, though.

]]> By: Karl-Friedrich Lenz https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3235#comment-14565 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 06:37:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/how_to_hack_an_election.html#comment-14565 In an article about the 1948 primary between Lyndon Johnson and Coke Stevenson, the author says:

“Johnson not only ordered his men to watch the voting stations but also instructed his men to outdo Stevenson’s men in accumulating fraudulent votes”.

(Texas Bandits, by Jason Matheson, at http://www.eiu.edu/~historia/1999/texas99.htm).

Stealing votes might have become much easier compared to Johnson’s times.

But just as then, close contests will be decided by which side is stealing more. At least, that will be the impression for neutral observers with a voting system wide open for anyone to hack at will.

]]>