On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Marta Russell wrote:
>
>> It seems they focus on the poll system only not the tabulation of
>> votes. This email is from Marcy
>> Winograd who ran for congress against Jane Harman.
>
> I don't get this. Did Hillary manipulate the Diebold count? I thought
> Diebold was a Republican company. Did the Republicans manipulate it
> because they thought Hillary is the weaker candidate?
>
> Doug
> ____
Marcy wrote: UPDATE 11:06pm PT: As we know, the presumption is always that the polls were wrong. Never the results. Despite how much less transparent the system used to count votes is than the system used to collect polling data. With that in mind, Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic, makes the following point, in a post headlined "How Wrong Were the Polls?", suggesting that the only numbers that changed here were Clinton's. She surged. Everyone else, even Obama who just had an historic victory in Iowa five days ago, did not..----------------
I am raising this RESULTS issue because the whole electronic voting debacle has not been resolved nationally. If you count on the results as though that were a sound tabulation, you just may be wrong. Debra Bowen, the Sec of State in CA, for instance has decertified the electronic machines as are many counties and states. They are using fill in the holes on a paper ballot and using optical scanners as a more tried and true way to get accurate counts.
Any Goodman covered the topic this morning. I only caught part of it but her expert who had the cover story in the New York Times Mag on the voting matter said these electronic voting machines are made cheaply and the error rate alone - no manipulation at all -- was 10% as far as can be determined.
Diebold has changed its name to something else now.
Marta
>