Whether statistician Beth Clarkson, PhD, head of Wichita University’s National Institute for Aviation Research, is ultimately proven correct, today’s must-listen, in-depth interview with her on The BradCast should remind us all, once again, why neither election officials nor voting systems are simply to be trusted.
Without the ability to carry out public oversight, democracy vanishes. That’s what’s happening right now in the state of Kansas, where Sec. of State Kris Kobach is attempting to block Clarkson’s legal attempt to audit touch-screen voting system “paper trails” in Sedgwick County (Wichita), the state’s most populous county.
Confirming a theory initially reported by two other statisticians in 2012 [PDF], Clarkson has found that computer-reported results from larger precincts in the state, with more than 500 voters, show a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections (and even a similar increase for establishment GOP candidates versus ‘Tea Party’ challengers during Republican primaries). Those results run counter to conventional political wisdom that Democrats perform better in larger, more urban precincts.
The larger the precinct size, she explains on today’s program, the higher the percentage of the vote for the GOP candidate. Clarkson finds “that is the case, and that is a relationship that is unexplained and very troubling.” Previously, statisticians Francois Choquette and James Johnson found a similarly unexplained relationship while examining reported vote totals in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Even more disturbing, in hopes of further testing her theory, Clarkson has filed a lawsuit under the state’s public records act in hopes of auditing some of the so-called “paper trails” from the state’s unverifiable touch-screen voting systems, but Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach (a long-time GOP vote suppression champion) is fighting her access to those records in court. Kobach’s full response is here [PDF]. The response from the Sedgewick County Election Commissioner Tabatha Lehman is here.
Clarkson tells me she believes the statistical pattern she confirms in KS is evidence of rigged elections.
“There have been a few theories advanced,” to explain the statistical pattern. “The one I find most probable is that the voting machines are being manipulated. Their vulnerability seems to me a fairly high-probability explanation for this particular pattern. It fits exactly what you’d expect to see if people are flipping the votes within voting machines.”
While I’ve been skeptical of the general theory for some time, for reasons that I explain during the program, Clarkson makes a compelling case, particularly for the ability of the public to oversee their own elections by examining the voting systems in question. If the public is not allowed to examine the so-called “paper trail” of these god-forsaken machines, what good are they?
“Suspicion isn’t proof,” Clarkson is careful to note. “The reason I’m suing for the paper records is because an audit can provide proof. Statistics are not going to be convincing to most people over the long term because they don’t understand the math, and you don’t believe what you don’t understand. But an audit is fairly straightforward and the results should be fairly definitive.”
She adds that Kobach’s attempt to keep her from examining paper logs and tapes makes little sense, particularly when they concern elections which are long enough ago that the results may no longer be officially contested. “Voting is important and we want to keep those records secure so we can be assured of the accuracy of the count. But they’re so secure now, nobody gets to see them.”
Also today, as if we needed yet another reminder of why neither electronic voting systems nor election officials are simply to be “trusted”, on Friday, New Mexico’s Republican Sec. of State Dianna Duran — like Kobach, also a long time “voter fraud” fraudster — was charged with 64 criminal counts related to embezzlement, fraud, money laundering, violations of the Campaign Practice Act, tampering with public records, conspiracy, and a Governmental Conduct Act violation.
(For longtime BRAD BLOG readers, the new charges against Duran may sound vaguely familiar.)
Vintage Brad Blog.
Good stuff !
Thanks for the follow-up on this, Brad and for replaying the classic Tony “Trust Me” Achundo’s “faith based” voting remark.
“Voting” is a bad idea even if the elections were not rigged. All you are doing is choosing your next master and there are a dozen other levels of corruption to elections to make sure you stay enslaved.
Here is what voting really is:
Larken Rose The Jones Plantation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXiLGaiUuRM
Terrific interview, Brad, and I’m thrilled that the State of Kansas is being held accountable. You are absolutely correct that election officials should not be trusted–there is no place in elections for trust. Results must be verified. Don’t forget, though, that there is one county in this US of A that counts all its scanned ballots: Columbia County, New York. It’s not that big a deal to do and it doesn’t cost all that much. What we gain in terms of voter confidence, however, is invaluable. And what an insurance policy against tampering it is!
Dredd @ 1:
Gracias, amigo! Glad there are still “6 or 7” who remember! 😉
InalienableWrights @ 3:
Thanks! It’s been a while since anybody’s posted such lazy knee-jerkery here. Thanks for the reminder that there are still clueless dupes out there willing to fall for it! Keep up the bad work!
Virginia Martin @ 4:
Thanks, much, Virginia! Not just for the compliment, but for your continuing great work in Columbia County! We still need MANY more like you guys out here!
Need to have you back on the show soon, too! Expect me to pester you before long. You’ve been warned! 🙂
As much as I try I cannot believe that a country that trout’s to be the beacon of democracy and experts in technology allow a voting system that can be so easily manipulated. And the federal system is worst as it has no paper trail. Wakeup, this should be a national issue that require monitoring and definitely a paper trail requirement.
moplus @ 8:
Paper trail: yes; but that’s just where you start. You MUST have a requirement to look at a valid statistical sampling of ballots and then you MUST have a process for escalating if discrepancies are discovered.
Of course you could just agree to count all the ballots, which is uncomplicated (everyone can understand the logic of doing so), not that difficult, and not that expensive.
Taking that route, there are no obscure algorithms to fling in voters’ faces–there’s just a simple understandable process. And, when a winner is declared, there’s nothing to argue about. The loser accepts that s/he has lost, because the count was so clearly and publicly demonstrated to be accurate and fair.
I notified Beth Clarkson sometime ago about this criticism of her work:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/gr...messages/16982
but she never replied.
IOWA
“A calculation error at the Warren County auditor’s office resulted in an incorrect winner being named in the Indianola school board election Tuesday night.
Results posted on the auditor’s website showed Tim Gauger as the top vote-getter with 513 votes. Gauger actually received 154 votes and finished second from last in the seven-person race. The top four vote-getters earned seats on Indianola’s seven-member school board.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.co...tion/71960508/
ballot is optically scanned…this was a order of magnitude mistake…this weak explanation needs to be exlopred by the BRAD BLOG experts