But Troll only because Elephant already has a primary meaning in this context.
Here’s what’s bothering me, starting with Steve Benen on the left:
It’s not yet clear why so many polls painted a misleading picture this election season. The industry leaders will no doubt spend the next several months scrutinizing the problem from every possible direction, just as they did after a similar miss in 2016, and try to make adjustments ahead of the next cycle.
But there’s no denying the fact that as Election Day 2020 comes and goes, pollsters confront the most significant credibility problem the industry has ever had. For the foreseeable future, every time a new poll is released, a significant percentage of the political world will pause and say, “Yeah, but….”
And Erick Erickson (email) on the right:
Lastly, there are some really good pollsters out there. Trafalgar, who I have been deeply skeptical of, is coming off way better than a lot of mainstream media pollsters. Ann Selzer in Iowa continues to outperform everyone. But yes, increasingly it is clear the polling industry is not going to survive. Also, I think the traditional media is probably going to die off too. It is clear that the American press last lost touch with those they supposedly report on.
We are in the realignment I expected would happen, but it is happening faster than I expected and the media and polling industry, so inside a secular progressive bubble, probably won’t hold up well even as the country comes out on the other side just fine.
And what does neither acknowledge? Voting machine subversion. I don’t know why Benen doesn’t bring it up, but, for Erickson, it would ruin his story of how the world works, so he ignores it.
But, as an engineer, I look at this and I ask What are all the ways we can explain a situation where professional pollsters, many with decades of experience, could be this wrong?
There are many interesting explanations. Maybe there were undetected technical problems with their approach to polling, such as not surveying certain groups adequately. Maybe their sample sizes were too small.
Perhaps, as was reported in the media, enough Trump supporters simply lied when they were called. This would fit neatly into the cult of the Father of Lies, and, as an aside, if you run into someone who is boasting about that, do not do business with them as a matter of self-preservation. Quite frankly, you can’t trust them to honor their word. If you’re feeling adventurous, tell that to their face. Remind them that honesty is a core American value. Maybe take a large person with you when you do that.
Maybe there’s other explanations besides subversion and Erickson’s potentially self-serving remark, but let’s skip those because I can’t think of them, and let me get back to the point.
When it comes to subversion, all I have are circumstantial observations, and no solid legally valid evidence. So? Many investigations that end in legal action begin with circumstantial evidence, compiled by investigators with investigative legal powers. That makes it worth talking about this. Let’s list them:
- The polls turned out to be off, in the direction of the Republicans.
- Most jurisdictions use voting machines of one make or another.
- Both hardware and software are compromisable, either through malicious external entities or corrupt internal design. To the latter point, I mean both hardware and software backdoors, which can be impossible to detect through simple examination. The former point has more meat here. Or you can look at the work of Dr. Beth Clarkson, who was denied the chance to verify deliberate cheating in the 2016 primaries in Kansas.
- Most or all voting machine manufacturers are owned by Republicans, last I looked. Has this changed? This is more difficult to determine than one might think, because the age of the voting machines in use are the determining factor, not the current owner. I don’t have access to that data.
- Most or all voting machines are legally protected from examination of their internals. Sheer madness. And, in at least one isolated case of examination, the design was described as “… this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts.”
- And the USPS, responsible for delivery of mailed ballots, is run by a Republican, recently appointed to the job, whose business acumen resulted in degradation of service. What happened there? Why, Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered USPS to conduct sweeps to find the location of ballots recorded as received by USPS, but not delivered – and USPS refused. According to WaPo, 300,000 ballots are involved. I sincerely hope someone ends up in the hoosegow for this one.
Right, there’s nothing legally actionable in there, excepting perhaps #6, which is really not relevant to my thesis – I mention it only for completeness. But, besides #6, they all point in the same direction, don’t they? Subversion of the voting machines is certainly congruent with the situation. Nothing proven – but all very, very interesting.
There are three conclusions to draw here:
- SCOTUS should grant an exception to proprietary protections for any machine involved in the voting process. This won’t happen, of course, because the conservatives control SCOTUS, and the sanctity of the free-market and its productions will not be violated, at least not by conservatives. The universal utility of the free market is a conservative religious tenet on the order of the divinity of Christ. But it is, in my opinion, a major mistake that we use private machines to conduct a critical piece of political public business.
- A detailed analysis of the areas of the country in which polling was egregiously off, cross-referenced with the make & model of the voting machines used in those areas, should be performed. It’s quite possible that only one manufacturer is cheating, and this would be clarify who needs to be examined – and possibly sued.
- Stop using voting machines. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Just stop it.
Corrupt people are adders of corruption. Corrupt computers are multipliers of corruption.
Which do you want?
