Feed Sign in with OpenID OpenID

Simon Willison’s Weblog

Let a thousand conspiracy theories bloom

I’m about to hit the sack, but current indications are that Bush has won Ohio by a couple of percentage points and thus has been re-elected as President of the United States.

Ohio. Isn’t that the state that Diebold president Walden O’Dell promised to deliver to the Republicans?

I don’t know if Ohio voters used Diebold machines. If they did, I’m certainly not about to say that the machines were fixed in any way. But the problem with voting machines without a paper trail is that there’s no way anyone can be absolutely certain that the election wasn’t stolen. In a modern democracy, that just ain’t healthy.

Posted 3rd November 2004 at 6:18 am

This is Let a thousand conspiracy theories bloom by Simon Willison, posted on 3rd November 2004.

View blog reactions

Next: Open source license help needed

Previous: Election endorsements

41 comments

  1. And before the inevitable flaming begins: I don't think that the election result was fixed! I'm just pointing out that were someone to make an accusation to that effect the nature of paper-less voting machines would make it impossible to disprove.

    Simon Willison - 3rd November 2004 06:39 - #

  2. Well, 16,000 votes were almost lost in Florida when an electronic voting machine died. They "scrambled" to collect the receipts as proof of votes! Thank God the Irish Government backed down on their plans to introduce electronic voting without a paper trail!

    Donncha - 3rd November 2004 09:06 - #

  3. I'm with you. There *has* to be a paper trail. (I don't know of the status of Diebold machines in Ohio, btw.)

    Keith - 3rd November 2004 09:16 - #

  4. I just read that article you linked. I think you mischaracterized O'Dell's statement. He didn't "promise" to "deliver the state" of Ohio to the President. Here's what the article said:

    The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

    Keith - 3rd November 2004 09:37 - #

  5. Keith: you're right; it was 7.30am and I was paraphrasing - I googled for the link without double checking the quote. His actual wording is still enough to spark people's suspicions though.

    Simon Willison - 3rd November 2004 10:46 - #

  6. It's one of those phrases that can be taken either way. Does he mean 'the president' as Mr Bush, or does he mean 'the president' as the newly elected (thanks to his machines) candidate?

    Con-tra-ver-seeey! (sings)

    Andrew - 3rd November 2004 11:07 - #

  7. Interesting day indeed. Bush looks to be relected properly. I wonder what the rest of the world will make of this?

    leon - 3rd November 2004 11:17 - #

  8. Howdy from Ohio, the land of punch card voting. Although I love conspiracy theories, there were no electronic voting machines used anywhere in the state of Ohio. While it proves technophobes run the state, it also means that we will have recount after recount.

    If you want to look for controversy, there's still the possibility of dimples and hanging chads.

    Ben - 3rd November 2004 12:02 - #

  9. Hey there! What's your feeling on the Ohio vote?

    leon - 3rd November 2004 12:11 - #

  10. The rest of the world is very disappointed.

    Adam Bramwell - 3rd November 2004 12:31 - #

  11. Amazing that if Kerry was ahead you wouldn't even have thought of this idea. Funny peoples reaction when they feel they have lost something.

    A.Sleep - 3rd November 2004 13:03 - #

  12. Adam, some of us aren't too thrilled, either.

    Ethan - 3rd November 2004 13:25 - #

  13. It doesn't matter how Ohio was won or lost, there isn't a wide majority of Americans who are awake to the implications of Bush having 4 more years driving both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government (soon to be followed by the Judiciary upon some supreme court appointments). Let's hope the constitutional airbags haven't been deliberately disconnected before this thing hits a tree.

    Brent Ashley - 3rd November 2004 13:29 - #

  14. I just read a rather disturbing idea: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t= 93429

    leon - 3rd November 2004 13:48 - #

  15. A.Sleep: if Kerry was behind in the exit polls but ahead in the real results AND the manufacturer of the paper-trail free voting machines used to elect him had made a similar statement then you can be sure that someone would be crying foul. That's my point: no paper trail means no certainty. My post wasn't about claiming there was a fix, it was about demonstrating that in the absence of a paper trail there's no way of dispelling conspiracy theories by proving that there wasn't a fix. Hence no paper trail damages people's trust in the democratic process, and through that damages democracy itself.

    Simon Willison - 3rd November 2004 14:21 - #

  16. It's ain't over until the fat lady sings... nothing's decided yet, most of the votes are projected, so despite what the White House would like to have you believe there's still everything to play for!

    The BBC seem to have the best, most objective coverage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/04/ vote_usa/map/html/default.stm

    Marcus Tucker - 3rd November 2004 14:35 - #

  17. In particular, this is a good read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3977851. stm

    Marcus Tucker - 3rd November 2004 14:41 - #

  18. Excellent link, added it to my blog: http://lg-domain.blogdrive.com/

    leon - 3rd November 2004 15:18 - #

  19. Its all over, Kerry has just conceded: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0, 13918,1342574,00.html

    leon - 3rd November 2004 16:29 - #

  20. Who cares about US elections anyway? It's just change of face - while the secret mafia that sit behind the face remain the same. Why do we never hear about Indian elections, far more exciting and important ;) Or even Mexico or Brazil, etc.

    Amit - 3rd November 2004 16:40 - #

  21. A question; of the nations you mention which one is the most powerful? How many of them are catagorised as a super power?

    leon - 3rd November 2004 16:49 - #

  22. His actual wording is still enough to spark people's suspicions though.

    Could be. My question is how he could have said what he intended to say differently without still being subject to that interpretation.

    It's one of those phrases that can be taken either way. Does he mean 'the president' as Mr Bush, or does he mean 'the president' as the newly elected (thanks to his machines) candidate?

    He meant the President, as Mr. Bush. He was writing to Republicans, and he supports Bush personally, AFAIK. Think about it this way... he's trying to sell them voting machines, and he says that he's committed to having his machines deliver Ohio's votes. Do you choose to interpret that as saying that he's promising publicly to the Republicans to commit election fraud, or that he wants to sell them his voting machines?

    Keith - 3rd November 2004 16:51 - #

  24. Aren't the Diebold machines the one that vote for Bush by default? http://blogs.slashstar.com/tim/archive/2004/11/02/ 1061.aspx

    I'm unclear what the paper trail helps for, unless it involves some tracking process: the machine can print the vote you wanted and still cast a vote you didn't want, no?

    Julien Couvreur - 3rd November 2004 17:08 - #

  25. Simon: You have a point. Just wanted you to know the packets used to display this page weren't lost ;)

    A.Sleep - 3rd November 2004 17:47 - #

  26. It has always been my contention that automation creates a larger oportunity for fraud. Look what happended in Philly DA where the voting machines pre-set with over 1,500 votes for Kerry before the polls opened! Even small steps like in Los Angeles, California where they replaced the punch cards with their easy to punch out chads (there was a long punch used, so we did not have the problems of Florida 2000) with the ink-a-dot system. After making a selection I had to look to see if my selection was marked. In the middle section of the ballot I had to reselect my vote three times because they did not get marked. I wonder how many people who were not a careful as I was didn't look and didn't get their vote counted? Also the dots did not line up with the circles on the voting cards. They were slightly off and could not be adjusted.

    Tanny O'Haley - 3rd November 2004 18:14 - #

  27. U__U this is a sad day

    Mathieu 'P01' HENRI - 3rd November 2004 19:15 - #

  28. Simon,

    How hard is it to get British citizenship? ;-)

    Levi - 3rd November 2004 19:37 - #

  30. Listen to all of this whining. Machines machines machines. C'mon off it.

    The real problem here is that the silent, quiet, family oriented conservatives of America got off their duff and voted. Kicked tail too. Fear them, for they are mighty.

    I think that's what's sticking in your throat so bad. Didn't see it coming, did you? Neither did Katy Couric, poor thing.

    You people are in shock because you failed to consider what others were considering. The liberal media failed to ask the right questions as to what was important. So now you're questioning the machines. You need to realize that the rest of the country has different values than you. You may not like it, but they do. And it seems there were more of them this time.

    I have a renewed faith in America.

    Perry - 3rd November 2004 20:59 - #

  31. I am a self admitted right wing nut who was pleasantly surprised by the election last night.

    But I agree -- there are some things about an election that people of any reasonable, thinking political stripe should be able to agree about (and yes, I believe I can be a right wing nut and still have thought processes). One of those is that when you cast a vote it actually goes to the person you voted for. Electronic voting without a paper trail is a major worry for me -- I frankly think that for the first few uses of electronic machines WITH paper trails it should be an automatic count comparison, with perhaps spot checking on an ongoing basis.

    So don't imagine that this is completely a liberal issue. Would you hear more of it from our side if we had lost -- unfortunately, probably. But there are already people with concerns on this side of the aisle.

    Scott - 3rd November 2004 21:26 - #

  32. I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in the Germany of the 30's. And that's not hyperbole. I weep for the Constitution.

    David Ryan - 4th November 2004 00:47 - #

  33. I've been concerned about a voting method that leaves no paper trail since the debate over the Florida election. What is needed is a system where voters can have their ballot read using the same method that will be used to count the votes. Voters wanting to check their ballot would enter the ballot check booth and see on a display a summary of their ballot. A computer, punch card reader, and screen could eleminate any question of the ballot being properly read. In Sacramento, CA the courts required us to stop using punch cards, so we filled in numbered bubbles instead...that's much better because it's easier to read a number you scribled on than on you punched out of a piece of paper. I don't think that the election was rigged and I do like that a majority of voters voted for the winner...I'd like to see an end to the Electorial College too.

    David Robarts - 4th November 2004 01:21 - #

  34. When Two People contest one has to win and the winner is decided by the voters, what the majority thinks. The great american People thought Bush was a better choice and war for terror is not over yet. So Bush was the choice. Now 4 more years to him. CONGrats MR Bush.

    Jitendra Jain - 4th November 2004 16:35 - #

  35. ... The great american People thought Bush was a better choice...

    That's not true. "The greater number of Americans who voted thought Bush was a better choice" would be more correct, though I think the closest thing to correct and is "The greater number of Americans who voted thought Bush's stance on moral values was closer to their own." But maybe I'm cynical and biased...

    Levi - 4th November 2004 21:26 - #

  36. how is it that some senators were re-elected with the same difference in votes? that must be something like a million-to-one, especially given that the states in question were using voting machines.

    scotbot - 5th November 2004 14:33 - #

  37. The rest of the world is disappointment with the low IQ of every Bush-voting American. What idiots!

    botscot - 9th November 2004 11:29 - #

  38. Both Jitendra and Levi are wrong... the popular vote does not determine who becomes president. Each state has a number of electoral votes that are cast one way or the other depending on the majority rule in that state. For the purpose of deciding who becomes president, most voters are ignored - only the voters in swing states matter. You can easily have a situation where the majority of USA voters vote one way, and the presidential election goes the other way, it's just how the system was designed.

    I wish people would stop trying to hijack this post though, Simon was very clear that this wasn't an argument against any particular party, but a questioning of the fidelity of the voting process. You mindless loons that are cheerleading your own party only serve to make your party look stupid for having supporters that are severely lacking in reading & comprehension skills.

    Jim - 10th November 2004 09:26 - #

  39. Wall Street and Tel-Aviv control USA, so it doesn't matter Bush or Kerry.

    Sebhelyesfarku - 10th November 2004 15:09 - #

  40. Speaking as someone from Ohio and as someone who did not vote for Bush, I'd have to say that I was saddened by Kerry's loss. This does not mean that I'm a conspiracy theorist, that I think that the "conservative" right was out to fix the vote, or that I think the vote was fixed.

    Rather, I think that the Democratic party did not have the best possible candidate for President. As a whole, we voted for the candidate we thought was most likely to win when we voted in the primaries. Unfortunately, the most likely to win does not mean the best candidate for the job. Case in point, look at our current President.

    Rather than looking at the current President and feeling regret or anger, I am resolved to do my part and make sure that I am not sold on the "winningest" candidate and that will vote for the best candidate. The Democratic party has some work to do. We scared "Middle America," which is notoriously xenophobic, with our image as fancy-pantsed liberals with our noses in the air. I should know--I live in "Middle America" and the majority of my family voted for Bush. They didn't necessarily think that he was the better man for the job, with a few notable and scary exceptions, they merely thought he was a better man than Kerry. While I disagree, I cannot say that one was necessarily better than the other. Both had their fair share of blunders.

    Perhaps next time we'll have a better battlecry than "Anyone but Bush."

    Tina Vance - 16th November 2004 02:18 - #

  41. The rest of the world is disappointment with the low IQ of every Bush-voting American. What idiots!

    botscot - 9th November 2004 11:29

    From your statement then, I suppose would you consider my 172 IQ low. Not all conservatives have a low IQ.

    And from my previous comment, I agree with Simon. I just don't trust electronic voting machines that don't have a paper trail. I've been programming since 1980, I've invented two programming languages, written several interpreters, code generators, written middle-ware for many years, and have prior art on a paging patent that Motorola owns. I'm am not an idiot. I believe that there is an oportunity for fraud when there isn't an audit (paper) trail.

    Tanny O'Haley - 29th November 2004 03:21 - #

Comments are closed.

Previously hosted at http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2004/11/03/conspiracies

A django site