[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[Kathy Dopp]

Rob,

I noticed that you did not try to answer one of my sincere questions
to you (I am a highly skilled teacher whose college classes always had
the highest score of all the classes taught by all the professors and
other TA's on any department-wide final mathematics exams. I did this
by questioning my classes and making them think, although some
students reacted antagonistically by being forced to learn to think
rather than being able to simply memorize.)

Your entire email (below) disparaged me personally and
mischaracterized me rather than trying to honestly communicate on the
issue, so I will waste no more time or effort trying to teach you how
to think logically about the issues concerning how to or why to assure
the accuracy of election outcomes.

I am sorry that my teaching style of asking questions to get people to
think about the topic offends you so much.

Cheers,

Kathy


On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM,  > Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:25:45 -0700
> From: "rob brown" <rob at karmatics.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines
> To: kathy.dopp at gmail.com
> Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Message-ID:
>        <feac5e6f0808162225y7094157bg6a0f221a2efe1607 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob,
>>
>> You can tell when someone has absolutely no facts to back them up when
>> they attack and disparage the person rather than the issue that is
>> under discussion. So anyone who has done actual research on the issue
>> that clearly mathematically shows that the available data is
>> consistent with vote fraud must be a "crazy conspiracy theorist" or
>> lack a "balanced perspective if they disagree with your imagined
>> beliefs about U.S. elections?
>>
>
> You came in swinging, Kathy.  Your constant references to "rabbit holes"
> etc.  Your constant implications that everyone who doesn't consider your
> issues all-important is insane.
>
> I did not call you a crazy conspiracy theorist, either, I simply said that
> your logic could be applied to justify any crazy conspiracy theory.  And I
> don't think that saying you are blowing things out of proportion or that you
> don't have a balanced perspective is a personal attack.
>
>> I'm sure a degree of electoral fraud happens in the US (but much moreso in
>> > other places).
>>
>> Are you saying that if everyone is doing electoral fraud, that makes it OK?
>>
>
> No.  How on earth did you get that?
>
> I said that it is a problem like other problems, but I happen to not elevate
> the problem to the level you do.
>
> Maybe you can give me your estimate of what percentage of US elections would
> have different outcomes if it were not for fraud.  I would expect the number
> to be very low.
>
> Doesn't make it "ok" when it happens, obviously.
>
> Your logic is ridiculously black and white on this.  And completely full of
> straw men.
>
>>But murderers get away with murder, police are being bought
>> > off by criminals, government employees steal office supplies.  No one
>> knows
>> > exactly how much any of things happen.  We try to limit them (balancing
>> the
>> > degree of the problem and the cost of addressing it), and we go on with
>> our
>> > lives.
>>
>> OH. So you see it as no big problem to pretend to live in a democracy
>> (where you can pretend to yourself that most election outcomes are
>> accurate) and continuing to let elections be the only major industry
>> where insiders have complete freedom to tamper because 49 US states
>> never subjected their election results to any independent checks,
>> except the wholly unscientific ones in NM.
>>
>
> Your words "pretend top live in a democracy" pretty much show where you are
> coming from.  That is the kind of thing that actual tempts me to actually
> call you a crazy conspiracy theorist now (but I'm not, of course...).  Or at
> least I feel justified in saying you are blowing things out of proportion.
>
> Voting is the one right that protect ALL OTHER RIGHTS.  Tell me, just
>> how do you think that people can solve all the other problems if they
>> do not have the ability to select the decision-makers who spend all
>> our tax dollars, decide how many taxes we pay and what to spend it on,
>> whether or not to wage war, how many police to hire, what youth
>> programs to implement, and make all the laws, and so on?
>>
>
> Yes, and are you saying that if one person cheats the system by, say, adding
> a single fake vote, that the whole system falls apart?  (that would be black
> and white thinking) Either that, or you think that this is happening on a
> much grander scale than most mainstream people do.
>
> Either way, it still appears to me that you are blowing things way out of
> proportion.  And I stand by that, whether you think it is a personal attack
> or not.
>
>
>> > I do object to your expectation that others on this list
>> > consider it so, since that is not the core issue of the list.
>>
>> I was *not* the person who began this thread.
>
>
> It sure appears to me that you were.  Maybe not, but your name shows up
> first on it for me.
>
> Are you claiming that my
>> expertise and knowledge about the issues of vote fraud which is
>> extensive since I have studied this issue and read widely on it and
>> written dozens of papers with PhD statisticians and mathematicians on
>> it - using actual election data - are not welcome on this list if a
>> thread that someone else introduces touches on a topic on which I have
>> considerable knowledge?
>>
>
> I am impressed with logic and a coherent argument, not with claims of
> authority.
>
>
>> > What I care about, and my understanding of what this list is about, is
>> the
>> > problems due to plurality voting and how to fix them.
>>
>> So when the facts are not on your side then:
>>
>> 1. make personal attacks and
>>
>
> Would you like me to paste in each and every attack you have made?  You are
> pretty thin-skinned for someone who likes to hurl ridicule around like you
> do.
>
>
>> 2. say that the topic should not to be discussed on this list?
>>
>
> I did not say that.  I said that if you come in here expecting us all to
> care so much about your pet issue, that is not the core topic of the list,
> you are being unrealistic.
>
>
>> Really?  Well that may not be true for everyone on this list Rob.
>> Perhaps some people on this list *may* want to consider the effects of
>> particular voting methods on the ability to effect transparently
>> verifiably accurate election outcomes.
>>
>
>> I mean let's climb out of the rabbit hole
>
>
> Can you stop with the rabbit hole thing?  It's not cute.  Really.   It's
> tiresome, and totally inappropriate for someone crying "personal attack" to
> be using such expressions to ridicule people who don't prioritize your pet
> issue as highly as you do.
>
> -rob
>