Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The South Carolina Primary and Voting Machine Fraud

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the good-ol'-politics dept.

Crime 467

cSeattleGameboy writes "South Carolina sure knows how to pick 'em. Alvin Greene is a broke, unemployed guy who is facing a felony obscenity charge. He made no campaign appearances and raised no money, but he is the brand new Democratic Senate nominee from South Carolina. Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com does a detailed analysis of how a guy like this wins a primary race, and many of the signs point to voting machine fraud. There seem to have been irregularities on all sides. 'Dr. Mebane performed second-digit Benford's law tests on the precinct returns from the Senate race. ... If votes are added or subtracted from a candidate's total, possibly due to error or fraud, Mebane's test will detect a deviation from this distribution. Results... showed that Rawl's Election Day vote totals depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence. In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance. ... An unusual, non-random pattern in the precinct-level results suggests tampering, or at least machine malfunction, perhaps at the highest level. And Mebane is perhaps the leading expert on this very subject. Along with the anomalies between absentee ballot v. election day ballots..., something smells here.' Techdirt.com points out that South Carolina uses ES&S voting machines, which have had strings of problems before; and they have no audit trail."

cancel ×

467 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

He Won! (3, Funny)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575170)

This is all a bunch af HOOEY to justify tossing out a legit candidate that none of the BIG MONEY wanted. Too bad, so sad, HE WON!

Re:He Won! (4, Insightful)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575188)

The problem I see with this being some kind of fraud - is what kind of idiot would choose, as their puppet, this person. There must be hundreds of people who, in return for a hefty sum, would do your bidding, all while looking a whole lot more respectable. This looks to me more like a case of people voting for the 'other guy' without actually knowing who the other guy is.

Re:He Won! (4, Interesting)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575252)

The problem I see with this being some kind of fraud - is what kind of idiot would choose, as their puppet, this person.

The kind of "idiot" who wants a Democratic candidate that's sure to lose. The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.

Re:He Won! (5, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575274)

The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.

It would be a silly scheme though considering that this is a safe Republican seat anyway. Ok if we are going to be throwing conspiracy theories around, how do you know that this is not a scheme by the Democrats to create a scandal that they could blame on the Republicans?

Re:He Won! (2, Interesting)

Berkyjay (1225604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575316)

No matter how you want to look at it, this whole mess is very very irregular and makes no sense at all. It smells of fraud and if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.......chances are that it's a duck. I also wouldn't put it passed the Republican party in SC to want to insure that DeMint beats down a black Democratic candidate by a very large margin. That would give him plenty of angles to spin this as an anti-Obama victory.

Move along: (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575570)

Nothing to see here, this seems just like any of the projects that seem to go ahead at my work, so move along, nothing to see. No rubber-necking please.

Re:He Won! (2, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575396)

Because if the scandal issue would have worked, there would have been a revolt in 2000 and 2004.

Re:He Won! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575446)

It would be a silly scheme though considering that this is a safe Republican seat anyway.

It would indeed be a silly scheme, which is how you know it came from South Carolina politics.

Ok if we are going to be throwing conspiracy theories around, how do you know that this is not a scheme by the Democrats to create a scandal that they could blame on the Republicans?

That would be completely ineffective and stupid plan: without a smoking gun, there's no way this would overturn the coming election. Which, now that I think about it, kind of adds credibility to your conspiracy theory.

Re:He Won! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575504)

This is usually a safe republican seat, but in this election, the incumbent was in real danger of losing the seat. This most likely a republican scheme because they have a history of pulling these kinds of dirty tricks in that state.

Re:He Won! (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575848)

It would be a silly scheme though considering that this is a safe Republican seat anyway.

Maybe they wanted to make sure anyway, seeing how it's the middle of a huge recession and all.

Re:He Won! (5, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575990)

What if it's actually the Republicans making a scheme to make us think that it's the Democrats trying to make us think it's the Republicans trying to make us think it's the Democrat candidate?

Re:He Won! (4, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575628)

The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.

That makes no sense. Even the left-leaning fivethirtyeight blog [fivethirtyeight.com] listed the South Carolina Senate seat as safely Republican back in late April, with a 95+% chance to be won by the Republican candidate.

The seat is considered safely Republican (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575900)

so what would they have to gain by doing this?

Re:He Won! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575306)

The problem I see with this being some kind of fraud - is what kind of idiot would choose, as their puppet, this person.

Niggers. That's what kind of idiots.

Re:He Won! (2, Funny)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575460)

Michael Richards, stop posting on /. dammit!

Re:He Won! (5, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575640)

According to TFA, these voting machines have a large number of problems and no audit trail. Who's to say this wasn't just a fuckup, rather than deliberate malice on anyone's part?

If this shows anything, though, it's the need for a non-electronic audit trail. I've often had people find it odd, given that I'm a programmer, that I'm so against purely electronic voting. I don't find it odd-I know exactly how easy it is to manipulate data on a large scale, even data that's supposedly secure and tamper-resistant. It's a whole lot harder to tamper with thousands or millions of paper ballots than it is to tamper with thousands or millions of electronic records.

That doesn't mean electronics have no place. An electronically generated human-readable ballot would be fine. In that case, the speed and reduced human error of electronic voting could be realized, but the voter would still have the ability to verify their choices after printing, and if wrong, go to an election judge, say "I didn't intend to vote this way", and have their ballot scrapped and recast. Backup paper systems should always be available at every precinct in case of a total failure of the machines, electrical failure, or just people who are not comfortable using them.

Having that type of mechanism in place would prevent exactly this type of scenario. It would allow for the result either to be overturned, or to say with certainty that, while unlikely, it is indeed the outcome.

Re:He Won! (2, Informative)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575764)

>>If this shows anything, though, it's the need for a non-electronic audit trail. I've often had people find it odd, given that I'm a programmer, that I'm so against purely electronic voting.

Indeed. In fact, it has been demonstrated to be so easy to own some of the electronic voting machines (many years back) that the fact that people are still using these atroicities is a disgrace. My county (San Diego County) scrapped the electronic voting machines, or at least it looks that way. They weren't in existence at the local Registrar of Voters, but they were four years ago... and those even those would just print a paper ballot that you would be asked to visually confirm.

Re:He Won! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575710)

Maybe some joker wanted to demonstrate how to tamper with the election precisely by picking the least likely candidate?

Re:He Won! (0, Flamebait)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575236)

Were the candidates listed alphabetically by first name? Maybe people just selected the first name on the list. Normally I wouldn't think people would do something as dumb as that, but SC is pretty close to Florida.

Re:He Won! (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575582)

I was surprised to see that listed as a theory without anyone providing actual statistics on how often the first guy on the ballot won.

Surely it's not that hard to figure out where candidates are listed in alphabetical order and how often the first name wins in those cases.

Re:He Won! (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575948)

Surely it's not that hard to figure out where candidates are listed in alphabetical order and how often the first name wins in those cases.

It is hard because it's not a fixed percentage of people who vote alphabetically, it depends on the demographic distribution that's shown up at the polls this year, how knowledgeable those voters are on the candidates in the race, what their present feelings are about their party (are they apathetic? are they voting for anyone who isn't the incumbent?) etc.

Re:He Won! (2, Funny)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575250)

Anyone who has seen the post nomination interviews and is honest knows this guy doesn't have the brains to pass a blood test much less successfully run for office. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. The one bright spot: the Democrat who lost to him is calling for an investigation.

Re:He Won! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575574)

Anyone who has seen the post nomination interviews and is honest knows this guy doesn't have the brains to pass a blood test much less successfully run for office.

Bush Jr. was president. Twice.

Re:He Won! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575600)

Having never heard of this guy before, I just searched for him on Youtube and clicked on the first link [youtube.com] .

...Holy shit. It's the male Sarah Palin!

Couric: What magazines did you read?
Palin: Most of them.
Couric: Which ones?
Palin: Er... all of them.
Couric: Can you name them?
Palin: Alaska isn't some foreign country, Alaska is like a microcosm of America!

...contrast...

Quinn: How did you get your name out?
Greene: Simple, old-fashioned campaigning.
Quinn: You went door to door?
Greene: All across the state.
Quinn: Anything official?
Greene: Nothing formal.
Quinn: Which towns did you visit?
Greene: I traveled all across the state.

Quinn: Why have you not been active in the Democratic Party?
Greene: I have been active, just not at any events.
Quinn: Active how?
Greene: I meet voters wherever they are.

I feel a little bad for comparing him to Palin. Greene is humble at the very least. Palin was proud of her ignorance... a dangerous combination.

Alvin Greene wishes to comment on his success (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575806)

Well, I'm not sure why people say I'm not qualified to be in office, 'cause according to my own Wikipidea article [wikipedia.org] I have an advanced degree in Political Science (more than most political yahoos have), and I served as an intelligence specialist and a unit supply specialist in the U.S. Army and has served in the Air Force and Army national guards. I have received the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the Korea Defense Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.

As for the felony obscenity charge; I was charged for showing porn to an 18 year old girl and asking her if she wanted to do it with me. I always thought the legal age of consent in South Carolina was 12, so I thought there was plenty of leeway (she looked well over 14 to me).

I know I'm poor, black, unemployed, uncultured, and I made a sexual advance towards a white teenage girl who was 18, which is why my own (Democratic) party wants me disqualified and aborted as if I never existed. I know I don't fit in, but the white and the black trash of South Carolina democratically voted me into office, and I believe that votes should count, no-matter how uneducated and unqualified the voting public is at making decisions.

I guess people are jealous because I'm the first popularly elected African-American Senator from the South. It don't matter to me, cause I'm moving out of the mountains and taking my kin along. You know what they say:

Fish don't fry in the kitchen;
Beans don't burn on the grill.
Took a whole lotta tryin',
Just to get up that hill.
Now we're up in the big leagues,
Gettin' our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it's you and me baby,
There ain't nothin wrong with that.

Well we're movin on up...
We finally got a piece of the pie!!

Signed,

Al

Re:He Won! (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575938)

The election of Greene is quite plausible.
All it would take is word of mouth among kinfolk, in churches, and other offline channels.

Voting is along racial lines (reasonable given history!) and actual qualification has never been relevant to either side. It's about race and
affirmation.

I live in SC and find this hilarious. Folks might as well vote for their homeboy. He can hardly do worse that what they have.

Re:He Won! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575970)

He apparently DID win.

I live in SC people. There was no shadowy evil GOP conspiracy. This is what happened: The state Democrat party, knowing that whoever they nominated would have almost no chance against Jim DeMint, spent little to no money on the race. That resulted in a slate of unknowns that most folks didn't know who were. People are stupid & don't take the time to educate themselves about the candidates they're voting for, so they voted for the first name (Alvin Greene). It's as simple as that. Even if Rawls had won the primary he'd still not have a snowball's chance in Hell against DeMint.

PEBVMAC

a match made in heaven (-1, Troll)

ncohafmuta (577957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575172)

Sounds like Mr. Greene will fit into the Democratic party quite well.

Re:a match made in heaven (-1, Offtopic)

Berkyjay (1225604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575322)

Yeah, and the Republicans did such a smart job during their 8 years of majority control. How's the Gulf, the economy and those two wars working out?

Re:a match made in heaven (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575336)

The gulf happened on the Dems' watch, and I don't see them rushing to do everything in their power to fix it. Far from it.

Re:a match made in heaven (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575448)

Party politics aside - I don't really know what anyone from any govt. could have done about this. Once the thing blows all you can do is make sure the people responsible are doing all they can do fix it, and are adequately punished. After all they know best how to fix the mess, and have plenty of reason do to so (i.e. the quicker they fix it the less they pay over all).

Re:a match made in heaven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575974)

And if the government did get more involved, GP would be screaming about "commyanizzum!".

Checksum failures... (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575176)

You know an election has gone seriously wrong when the total number of votes reported in the Republican primary is not equal to the total voter Republican turnout in the same area.

Re:Checksum failures... (4, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575522)

Voters in S.C. are allowed to vote for the Democratic or Republican primary regardless of party affiliation. One of the theories was that Republicans crossed and voted in the Democrat primary to try to shaft them with a bad candidate. But if you look at the election results [enr-scvotes.org] , you'll see that 424,893 people voted for the Republican primary while 197,380 voted for the Democrat primary. The electorate there is so strongly Republican that if 30k Republicans crossed over to give Greene his minimum 100k vs 70k margin of victory, the Democrats are looking at having to overcome a 2.7:1 margin of voter registrations against them to win, instead of "merely" 2.1:1. If you assume Greene is a nobody and should've gotten 10k votes max, then that means over half the people who voted in the Democrat primary were Republicans, and so the Democrats would need to overcome a 6.4:1 margin to win.

All in all, none of this makes any sense. There's no motive on either side. Why would Republicans poison a Democrat primary for a safely Republican seat? Why would Democrats not want to put forth the best candidate? Something does smell, but the most plausible explanation is simple voting machine tallying error with no nefarious purpose behind it.

Re:Checksum failures... (1, Insightful)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575592)

What's that old saying?...Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Yeah, I think that sums it up pretty good.

Donkey vote (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575198)

Was he listed under "A" or "G"? Were the other candidates listed around "Z", "Q" and "U"?

to all sides in So. Carolina (-1, Flamebait)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575204)

Either you were complicit in this fraud, or you alienated so many that your attempts to prevent this were for naught. Either way, SUCK IT.

I can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575206)

for the first AI so all this nonsense can stop once and for all.

Re:I can't wait (1)

ncohafmuta (577957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575222)

s/this nonsense/humanity/

Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575208)

One day, talking non-ironically of a "Voting machine" will attract the same kind of contempt as talking seriously about a Perpetual Motion machine does.

The only people trying to convince you that they are worthwhile right now are shysters - just as it has been for perpetual motion since before the 1800s.

Both are just as impossible; one because it defies the laws of physics as we know them; the other because it defies human behavior as we know it.

Re:Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (2, Insightful)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575302)

How is it impossible to build a voting machine again? I have quite a bit of experience with secure systems, and while I grant you that extant voting machine makers need to be dragged out and shot, I don't see any evidence to conclude what you do.

Re:Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (4, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575558)

    I had an in-depth discussion with several people years ago about doing electronic voting. That was before the whole electronic voting fiasco started.

    On the site that I was the Sr. SysAdmin for, and I did a good bit of programming for, it had a voting system. The original programmer couldn't handle the number of votes coming in, so he randomly took 1 in 10 votes and counted it. Sampling is fine and dandy, but in my world I like completely accurate numbers. The final system stayed in place for years. It very typically maintained millions of votes for thousands of items. It had some primitive components, but that was by design. The votes were stored in flat files, as it would bog down the database server trying to insert the votes in real time. The end user submitted their vote, and it was counted immediately (like milliseconds). The entire vote database was retabulated every 15 minutes. Two people had root access to the server, and it required root access to be able to view the voting information.

    In that system, it wasn't a simple "pick a candidate". It was a scoring system (1 to 5) for the item being voted on. For years, one lonely dual 400Mhz machine with 512Mb RAM handled the tabulation and reporting. We did on occasion have someone question the results. It was usually on something that they were responsible for. "Why did my score drop from 4.5 to 3 in a hour?" It was simply that as the voting numbers rolled in, it adjusted their score. The preliminary numbers were favorable, but subsequent votes weren't so favorable. I could generate reports off of it for that specific item (it took about 10 seconds), where you could see the votes, and how it adjusted the score.

    After a while, we had more robust equipment, and I began storing the voting information in a database. A replica of the database was used for tabulation, so the tabulation machine didn't slow down the vote recording process. That, and a better tabulation machine, brought processing tens of millions of votes down from 5 minutes to less than 1 minute.

    So we talked about what else we could do with such a system. Real political voting could be managed in such a way. We ran into the same problems that are being questioned with the voting machines in use. Only two people with no interest in the outcome of the voting had access to the system. To manipulate the votes would be a very cumbersome task (by design). What if we did the voting for real politics.

    Problem 1) How would we prove to the voting public that the people running the servers had absolutely no interest in manipulating the votes. There's no way to prove that.

    Problem 2) How could we provide for anonymity of the voters. We stored the IP and identifying information with the votes, so we could eliminate voting fraud. Those who voted multiple times on the same item were categorically eliminated from all voting. Their records were stored, but ignored for tabulation. Real political voting requires anonymity. We could provide pseudo-anonymity by storing an ID number with the vote, that would associate with the voters registration. It would then be traceable back to the voter, which is illegal/immoral/just bad. For our application, no one cared.

    Problem 3) How would the general public know that our tabulation program gave an honest result. When the votes don't go your way, people assume there had been some tampering with the results. Really, it would have been easy to lower votes ($vote = $vote -1), and make someone score poorly. Who would you trust more, a couple computer experts, or the government. I know I don't trust the later, but the general voting public wouldn't know if we were trustworthy. If presented with $100 million in cash, who's to say we wouldn't subtly adjust the results in favor of the group who paid us. Again, I believe in honesty in voting, but the general public doesn't know I won't accept bribes.

    We went through various scenarios on how to prove would be legitimate in a real political election. We never resolved a way to prove it though. The two party hand holding doesn't prove anything other than we gave a good show. If we made the source to the entire system available for judicial review (to the experts of their choice), who's to say we gave the actual code, or a sanitized version that didn't contain our illegal activities.

    I was also responsible for managing a database of hundreds of thousands of personal records which included credit card numbers, and their associated data (name, address, email address). The proof in my honesty to my employer was that I didn't steal any of that data. I could have. A $10 charge to a few hundred thousand accounts would make me a very rich man. Some people suggested that I should. I am not the kind of person who does this, which is why I'm not several million dollars richer. I know if I were to do such a thing, I'd get caught, and spend an awful lot of time in jail, which isn't an acceptable result for any of my actions.
Now I'm unemployed and broke, but I still have my integrity. Apparently some other people who followed behind me didn't have the same integrity, so they're broke, dishonored, and looking at jail time.

    Being that we wouldn't be able to prove our honesty, the idea was dropped. Now big companies get the contracts for the voting machines, and they get to sway the votes.

    We had a brilliant plan for increasing the number of voters, but that will never see the light of day. Instead, we'll have the question of voting fraud lingering over every election.

Re:Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575578)

While you might be able to show a statistical confidence with such a hypothetical voting machine, the device is still interacted with, in private, by many many individuals. Unless you sent in a bipartisan team of expert technicians after EVERY vote, and audited the machine to ensure results, there is no way to guarantee against voter fraud, and even then, you still really couldn't.

The reason is simple: there is absolutely no such thing as a secure system, especially when multiple users are involved.

Now, what *I* personally would like to see, would be a "Double Ballot" type election, in randomly selected districts:

Essentially, it's a statistical sampling test to ensure against voter fraud. What you do is have the voter vote BOTH with a paper ballot, AND with the electronic voting machine. (Only one counts, the other is for checksum purposes.) The districts in which this occurs is selected using a hard random generator, (perhaps something based on nuclear decay.) who's output is also statistically vetted.

The idea is that any divergence from the two voting schemes would indicate either voting machine malfunction, or tampering with the vote.

The random selection system ensures that there is insufficient time to make sure "rigged" machines go to the places you want them, and also helps to ensure that at least some non-trivial percentage of the time that "High stakes" districts would be checked.

All this would help to create a very accurate confidence score for a given election, without having to resort to paper ballot in EVERY district. It would slow up the election tally somewhat, but would drastically increase "confidence" in the accuracy of digital voting machines, because it would make it much easier to catch fraud.

Re:Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575624)

The problem is that these systems were sold by people with the right connections rather than the people who had the right employees.

Watching a company bail on a 2 million dollar project because of scalability issues caused by the programmers using MS SQL for a comms system because they didn't know about sockets convinced me that the vast majority of people who call themselves programmers .. well aren't.

What we have are hordes of people who's entire skill set is around building apps are either a combination of windows components or in the web2.0 world: writing pretty wrappers around databases.

Re:Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575718)

It's not impossible to build a voting machine ; but it is impossible to drag the average high school graduate off the street and have him audit the thing.

In general, people understand ballot boxes but find computers to be a delirious mystery. Don't build voting computers. Use a pencil.

Re:Voting machine = Perpetual Motion machine (2, Interesting)

grumbel (592662) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575862)

How is it impossible to build a voting machine again?

The voting process has to be verifiable by the average citizen, when a voting machine is involved it almost certainly isn't. You could of course build a voting machine that prints out paper and make the process transparent that way, but then why would one want to go to all that trouble and buy a voting machine for thousands of dollars when a one dollar pen could make the cross just as easily.

If you are going to cheat, at least be smart... (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575210)

Here's the problem... if this was a "dirty trick" by the Republican side.... why in this much of an already red district? This was a safe seat that's now in jeopardy if this scandal goes much further.

Re:If you are going to cheat, at least be smart... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575260)

This was a safe seat that's now in jeopardy if this scandal goes much further.

Unless this is a frame up by the Dems...

Puts tin-foil hat on

Re:If you are going to cheat, at least be smart... (4, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575266)

People do weird things some times. Why did Nixon commit felonies in the 1972 race against McGovern (and thereby destroy his Presidency) when it was obvious to almost everyone that McGovern had no chance of winning anyways?

Re:If you are going to cheat, at least be smart... (4, Funny)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575434)

What are you talking about? Nixon committed no crimes at all related to the election. Some of his subordinates who were so used to committing felonies on a daily basis did it without his knowledge. What he did that was a felony was to hear their confession and then, rather than turning them in for their felonies, violated a large number of laws to cover up the stupid acts. I would bet that if G. Gordon Liddy had asked first, Nixon would have told him to not do it. It was senseless, but Liddy is a "patriot" in that anyone that he thinks will do something that is bad for the US deserves death, or at least a listening device so he can spy on them.

10% chance? (4, Insightful)

s-whs (959229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575216)

In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance.

In other words, the observed vote pattern is something you will expect to see a lot when checking various machines and various elections over time.

An unusual, non-random pattern in the precinct-level results suggests tampering, or at least machine malfunction, perhaps at the highest level.

A 10% chance of a pattern in no way suggests any tampering. Perhaps together with other evidence it is a tiny indicator. It's hard to take any article seriously that doesn't examine the facts properly. Now if the chance was one in a million it might suggest tampering, but one in 10? I'll put it bluntly: Give me a fooking break

10% chance with no audit trail, NO AUDIT TRAIL!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575334)

Yes, its an indication there might be tampering, but since there is NO WAY TO PROVE IT because there is NO AUDIT TRAIL, ASSUME IT INDICATES TAMPERING, because when you can't prove fraud, because a machine which is purposefully designed to make tampering easy, PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED FOR EASY TAMPERING, you must assume tampering.

Re:10% chance with no audit trail, NO AUDIT TRAIL! (3, Insightful)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575402)

Of cause, if the other side won, it's still only 90% chance. I don't think 9 times the chance is sufficient to say that no tampering was involved.

Re:10% chance? (1)

TouchAndGo (1799300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575378)

It's an unusual indicator that suggests something is not right. If there was only a one in a million chance of it happening, that'd pretty much be a confirmation that something was broken, not a suggestion. You can have an indicator suggest that something is off without it being wildly improbably.

Re:10% chance? (4, Insightful)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575418)

The Mebane test used does not compare good elections to bad elections, but rather an arbitrary set of measurements whose logarithms are uniformly distributed vs known tampered data. Significance at 10% is very significant for an election as closely monitored as first world elections are- in the original paper Mebane only got 5% in an election that was subject to extreme voter intimidation. Combining that with the enormous deviation between absentee/provisional ballots and election day results, I suspect that Nate Silver is on firm ground here when he says that something smells.

Re:10% chance? (2, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575982)

Significance at 10% is very significant for an election as closely monitored as first world elections are

No it isn't. If you test 10 elections you would expect one of those to fail this test *even if they are all 'good' elections*. There are more than 10 primaries aren't there? Nothing can be concluded from this result in isolation, however when taken with other *independent* evidence it can strengthen the whole case.

Re:10% chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575486)

I agree with the general idea, but this is just as ridiculous as the summary:

if the chance was one in a million it might suggest tampering

So only statistics with P=0.000001 are valid? That's a rigorous testing scheme, I'll give you that...

Re:10% chance? (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575696)

"In other words, the observed vote pattern is something you will expect to see a lot when checking various machines and various elections over time."

Problem: They are NOT "checking various machines and various elections over time". They are only checking this one, right now. In other words: Clue #1 was whatever caused anyone to investigate the fishiness of this election in the first place and decide to run this test. Clue #2 was this test then indeed coming back positive for non-randomness at the 90% confidence level. Thus, it's further-building evidence.

If you think that we're experiencing "Publication bias" [wikipedia.org] , that "lots" of these tests are being run routinely on elections all the time, and all of the uninteresting ones being shelved, then that's a separate argument. I highly doubt that's the case; I'd need to see evidence of it occurring, and I don't think you have that. The idea that this just happened to occur in this already highly fishy election, and therefore should be entirely discounted -- you'd need some pretty pliable sheep to believe that one.

Re:10% chance? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575818)

...you'd need some pretty pliable sheep to believe that one.

Welcome to America 2.0, the result of 100 years of dumbing-down the populace.

Strat

Poor research (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575220)

The P value of this test is 0.1, pretty much all research I read demands a P value of 0.05 to justify a hypothesis. How many elections are there in the USA every year? By this standard even if all of them were not tampered with and totally legitimate 1/10th of them would be found to have been tampered with. That's a large percentage of false positives for such a serious accusation.

Basically, bullshit, either do better research to get a lower P value or stop drawing such spurious conclusions.

Re:Poor research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575328)

Yeah, especially considering that there are roughly 468 members of congress up for election every two years--this result would occur normally over forty-five times.

Re:Poor research (5, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575398)

If you're picking unremarkable campaigns at random out of a hat, then yes, this result signifies nothing.

But if you're interested in one *particular* campaign, because that campaign has other irregularities which indicate possible fraud, then a statistical test with a 10% P-value is worthy of note.

To put it another way: if the guy next to you at the blackjack table gets two blackjacks in a row, you shouldn't be alarmed, that happens all the time. But if the guy is also winking at the dealer and has a suspicious bulge in his sleeve, it's time to find another table.

Re:Poor research (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575430)

but there is nothing else suspicious. this just sounds like bullshit to me.

Re:Poor research (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575506)

but there is nothing else suspicious. this just sounds like bullshit to me.

Nothing else suspicious?! The "winner" of the primary is unemployed, is facing a felony charge, and made no campaign appearances! Does any of that sound suspicious?

Re:Poor research (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575934)

So besides the way the voters voted, what are the "other irregularities," and what is the probability of identifying them in any given election provided a bunch of people did like the outcome and have sat down to find anything that can be considered irregular?

Election process is not innocent until convicted (5, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575496)

Would you say to meteorologist that 9 out of 10 of hurricanes like this one were destructive, "That's meaningless unless it's 19 out of 20"?

The threshold for statistical significance is an arbitrary convention, not some ironclad law that lets you ignore evidence. As a guideline it is more appropriate in some circumstances than in others. Something does not stop being evidence simply because it does not reach that threshold. I read scholarly papers all the time that say "while X does not achieve the threshold of significance, it is suggestive and worthy of more research." When there is other evidence to support it, such a result can be valuable. And there is such evidence: this calculation was done precisely because the election looks fishy.

You have it exactly wrong when you say "that's a large percentage of false positives for such a serious accusation." The election process is not innocent until proven guilty. We apply the presumption of innocence to human beings. An election is treated in the opposite way. It is not enough for it to be fair: it must be seen to be fair. It must be must be demonstrably legitimate. We do not let suspicious elections slide simply because the accusation is "serious." On the contrary, that is why we investigate them. This needs to be investigated precisely because of its seriousness.

Rawl didn't campaign either . . . (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575230)

South Carolina voter registration is close to 50% AA according to NPR. Greene is black. Greene had the first position on the ballot. Rawl did not raise money or campaign. Rawl did not do basic opposition research to find out Greene's shortcomings before the election. It sounds like Rawl should have lost because he is a terrible candidate and basically assumed he would just win because he was the "establishment candidate". In case people have not noticed the "establishment candidates" haven't been doing particularly well lately.

No (2, Informative)

TranceThrust (1391831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575246)

depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence. In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance.

Just no. There's 10 percent chance of a type 1 error, assuming the null hypothesis (no cheating) is true.

He won! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575248)

Just like Bush did, amirite? uknowimrite.

Re:He won! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575278)

no urwrung! u kno urwrung!

I've figured it out. It's very simple. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575280)

Ya'll racists can't accept that Mr. Greene, a popular African-American, won the election fair and square so you guys undermine the integrity of our very system that is so great so you can throw out the will of the voters that elected him.

Why don't you guys put on the white robes, toss the bed sheet on the horse and chase this guy out of town you bunch of racists!

Re:I've figured it out. It's very simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575478)

Why don't you guys put on the white robes, toss the bed sheet on the horse and chase this guy out of town you bunch of racists!

That's the best idea I've heard all day. When can we start?

Open Source Government - Daily voting possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575320)

hey guys,

Been stuck on Grepolis.net the past few months.

Anyways I feel that daily voting can fix lots of this. I am wondering if an open source software system could be made.

-anon voting while preventing double voters (craigslist email style, only system knows yer identity)
-330 million Americans, 30 million Canadians, 60 million UK residents, all downvoting "RIAAtarded" laws no one wanted in the first place

Hoping "iVote" will take the lead someday.

If voting is so important every 5 years why do we not do it everyday? With secure voting systems the military would use to protect THEIR systems (heard they run varities of Linux b/c Windows is too insecure)

My big question is can this even be done? You guys are the smart ones on here. I await the idea of online 24/7 voting on some website to be cut up and reverse engeneered for the betterment of man. :P

I just thought the ideals of Linux could port over to our corrupt government, easily bought. They should ref the game, not give home team advantage....

Anyways I felt enough about this issue to buy up:

http://www.opensourceg.com

Just a place to rant and save ideas about the possibility of voting each day like e-mail of facebook.

Thanks for reading. :)

FreeSCV

Re:Open Source Government - Daily voting possible? (2, Insightful)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575502)

There are two problems with everyday voting, you are only trying to solve one: the technology. The other problem is that to make important informed decisions every day you need to do research and think about the issues. Most of us have jobs and family to keep us busy and many of us aren't really interested in "researching and thinking". The realistic expectation is that everyday voting would lead to ultra-low participation, rampant sensationalism (as that would be the only way to make people actually vote on specific issues) and hiding important issues as "everyday stuff".

In other words you are attempting to solve a human problem with technology. It will not work.

Alvin Greene isn't unknown (-1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575354)

The basis of this article seems to be that it's impossible for an unknown such as Alvin Greene to get voted in.

Here's the thing. Alvin Greene isn't unknown! I'm not an American and i know who he is. He posts on a ton of internet forums. He is well known on Digg, reddit etc.

There have been threads about him with 1000+ Diggs.
http://digg.com/search?s=Alvin+Greene [digg.com]
If you consider any publicity to be good publicity Alvin Greene is the most well known politician after Obama. It seems to me this is a case of a politician discovering an entirely new way to promote themselves- Log into social media sites and start posting.

Re:Alvin Greene isn't unknown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32575492)

The basis of this article seems to be that it's impossible for an unknown such as Alvin Greene to get voted in.

Here's the thing. Alvin Greene isn't unknown! I'm not an American and i know who he is. He posts on a ton of internet forums. He is well known on Digg, reddit etc.

There have been threads about him with 1000+ Diggs.
http://digg.com/search?s=Alvin+Greene [digg.com]
If you consider any publicity to be good publicity Alvin Greene is the most well known politician after Obama. It seems to me this is a case of a politician discovering an entirely new way to promote themselves- Log into social media sites and start posting.

All of the threads that have on the social news sites you point out have been created since he won the nomination. He did not post or promote himself on any of the popular social media sites.

Re:Alvin Greene isn't unknown (4, Informative)

xylix (447915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575562)

There were threads about him with 1000+ Diggs *** AFTER *** the election, due to an interview with Keith Olberman (AFTER the election) where he appears to be several bricks short of a load. What does his becoming known after the election have to do with Alvin Green being unknown prior to voting in SC? Illogical argument.

Refreshing (2, Funny)

TheRealQuestor (1750940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575358)

I don't know, to know all the crap the fellow in office is going to jail for ahead of time quite refreshing really. Saves a lot of drama later.

Open Source Government - Daily Voting... (2, Funny)

freescv (1642459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575370)

hey guys, Been stuck on Grepolis.net the past few months. Anyways I feel that daily voting can fix lots of this. I am wondering if an open source software system could be made. -anon voting while preventing double voters (craigslist email style, only system knows yer identity) -330 million Americans, 30 million Canadians, 60 million UK residents, all downvoting "RIAAtarded" laws no one wanted in the first place Hoping "iVote" will take the lead someday. If voting is so important every 5 years why do we not do it everyday? With secure voting systems the military would use to protect THEIR systems (heard they run varities of Linux b/c Windows is too insecure) My big question is can this even be done? You guys are the smart ones on here. I await the idea of online 24/7 voting on some website to be cut up and reverse engeneered for the betterment of man. :P I just thought the ideals of Linux could port over to our corrupt government, easily bought. They should ref the game, not give home team advantage.... Anyways I felt enough about this issue to buy up: http://www.opensourceg.com/ [opensourceg.com] Just a place to rant and save ideas about the possibility of voting each day like e-mail of facebook. Thanks for reading. :) FreeSCV

Re:Open Source Government - Daily Voting... (1)

theTerribleRobbo (661592) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575842)

I... What.

This can't be a troll. Has anyone *seen* opensourceg.com? Not even /b/ has this much free time.

Both sides are the same (0, Flamebait)

davmoo (63521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575394)

I do have a problem when listening to the Democrats and the Republicans argue over who's to blame for this election result and why. And that problem is that both parties are so full of shit and cannot be believed. So the challenge now is to figure out which party is lying about this story the least.

If there is no cheating, then I weep (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575412)

I saw an interview with the guy. There are no words. If he won fair and square, then I weep for my children.

Re:If there is no cheating, then I weep (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575452)

That depends on his opponent... after all, if a Ficus tree can win an election then anyone can if run against the right opponent.

Re:If there is no cheating, then I weep (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575518)

if a Ficus tree can win an election then anyone can if run against the right opponent.

We had a plant (an actual plant, green leaves and stuff) win an executive position in student association elections at Victoria University of Wellington a few years ago.

The good thing about plants is that they say nothing, and won't blow money on stuff the voters don't want.

A couple of basic information pieces (4, Informative)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575464)

It's worth noting that in some precincts, Mr. Greene received more votes than were cast. As in, he got 115% of the votes. In others, he won the election day votes by 20 points but lost the absentee votes by 60. There are major, major discrepancies in vote tallies in this election. You can quibble about confidence intervals and statistics all you want, but it won't change the fact that *something* went wrong here. While it's probably not malicious, it absolutely should be investigated.

Re:A couple of basic information pieces (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575614)

It's worth noting that in some precincts, Mr. Greene received more votes than were cast. As in, he got 115% of the votes.

I can't believe you're being so negative about such a high voter turnout.

Re:A couple of basic information pieces (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575846)

>>>>he won the election day votes by 20 points but lost the absentee votes by 60.

From TFA:
"The result in the Senate election is highly statistically significant: Rawl performs 11 percentage points better among absentee voters than he does among Election Day voters."

In other words, not at all what you're talking about.

While an 11 point swing is interesting, it's not the smoking gun that TFA makes it out to be - absentee ballots are not an independent sample of an electorate. They're well known to have statistically different compositions than the general populace, in various ways.

Overall, the investigation just has a bit of hand-waving going for it, along with a lot of unsubstantiated skepticism. For example, TFA can't understand why lots of Republican voters turned out this year ("From eyeballing the GOP primary totals, it seems like turnout in that elections was almost ludicrously high..."), meaning that the idiot probably isn't aware that there is currently a very active movement based upon the consumption of a certain type of caffeinated beverages. (Though in South Carolina, I guarantee you it would be sweet tea. /shudder)

Open Primary (2, Interesting)

jayveekay (735967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575524)

South Carolina uses an open primary system where any registered voter can vote in the Democratic primary, not just registered Democratic Party members.

Is it possible that thousands of Republicans decided to vote for Alvin Greene not because they want him to be their next Senator, but because he is such a hopeless candidate that he will be crushed by the Republican nominee?

On the face of it, this open primary system seems open to abuse. If you vote for candidate A in the primary, and he wins the primary to move onto the general election ballot, shouldn't your vote be "locked in" to support him in the general election?

Re:Open Primary (2, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575552)

Is it possible that thousands of Republicans decided to vote for Alvin Greene not because they want him to be their next Senator, but because he is such a hopeless candidate that he will be crushed by the Republican nominee?

Sorry to repost, but this seems a better place. If you look at the election results [enr-scvotes.org] , you'll see that 424,893 people voted for the Republican primary while 197,380 voted for the Democrat primary. The electorate there is so strongly Republican that if 30k Republicans crossed over to give Greene his minimum 100k vs 70k margin of victory, the Democrats are looking at having to overcome a 2.7:1 margin of voter registrations against them to win, instead of "merely" 2.1:1. If you assume Greene is a nobody and should've gotten 10k votes max, then that means over half the people who voted in the Democrat primary were Republicans, and so the Democrats would need to overcome a 6.4:1 margin to win.

All in all, none of this makes any sense. There's no motive on either side. Why would Republicans poison a Democrat primary for a safely Republican seat? The stronger you advocate the "Republicans voting in Democrat primary" theory, the safer the Republican seat becomes. Why would Democrats not want to put forth the best candidate? Something does smell, but the most plausible explanation is simple voting machine tallying error with no nefarious purpose behind it.

Re:Open Primary (2, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575594)

That may seems so only on the first glance. In reality, the Republican candidate had a 19 point lead in the polls over the Democrat leading candidate (the guy who lost to Alvin Green): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/sc/south_carolina_senate_demint_vs_rawl-1579.html [realclearpolitics.com] This is in a seat that has been comfortably Republican since the 70s. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to fear and no reason to risk a scandal. On top of that, the Republican primary was very heavily contested and it seems unlikely that many Republicans would choose to vote in a Democrat primary instead (you can't vote in both of course). I have a feeling this is something personal, somebody wanted to embarrass Rawl for whatever reason.

Re:Open Primary (5, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575664)

That point is actually made in the originally cited FiveThirtyEight post and then somewhat undermined.

The Republican crossover theory debunked. In addition to many smart comments from 538 readers to the previous post on the SC race, I received an email from one particularly astute reader named Harrison Brown. Complete with an excel spreadsheet to back up his conclusions, Brown basically argues that there's neither any logic to, nor statistical evidence to support, the idea of Republicans crossing over to infiltrate the Democratic primary. Here are the key sections from his email to me, verbatim:

1. Suppose people were being brought into the Democratic-primary voting pool (from unregistered voters, the Republican faithful, or wherever) for the sole purpose of voting for Greene. Imagine a variable encapsulating the proportion of primary voters in each county who are Greene partisans; this (hidden) variable ought to be strongly positively correlated with both Greene's final results and with the participation rate in each county. In particular, this implies that Greene's vote share and the participation rate, both of which we can measure, would be correlated. But this is not the case -- under either linear or rank correlation! The R-squared and rho-squared are both effectively 0.
2. Even if that effect didn't show up, there should still be other signs. For instance, we can see if there are any counties where turnout for the Democratic primary exceeded the number of votes Barack Obama received in 2008; those would be prime suspects for Republican influence. And, in fact, there are three such counties: Hampton, Lee, and Union. But these are all fairly small counties where McCain/Palin received under 30% of the vote -- hardly Republican-dominated...
A more robust analysis of turnout levels reveals similar patterns. Although I didn't collect data for Republican voters (except for the McCain vote share), I came up with a rough estimate of GOP voters in 2008 by assuming the two-party share was 100% in each county. Running a linear regression to predict the number of Democratic primary voters from the number of votes Obama and McCain received, we find that the McCain raw vote total is statistically significant--but it has a negative coefficient. If anything, this points to voter suppression (no real surprises) rather than ballot box stuffing.
3. Finally, there's the simple question of where the Republican voters would have come from! From eyeballing the GOP primary totals, it seems like turnout in that elections was almost ludicrously high, which seems more-or-less corroborated by what Google's told me. But barring widespread voter fraud and/or corruption by local election officials, high turnout in the GOP primary should be incompatible with infiltration into the Democratic primary.
In conclusion, while the voting patterns in the D-Senate primary are strange and may not be totally legitimate, they don't bear the expected hallmarks that would arise in the case of a Republican plant.

With all that now added to the record, so to speak, how does the matter now stand?

Well, I think it's safe to say that the third possibility I raised in the previous post--GOP cross-primary infiltration--can be eliminated. There doesn't seem to be any direct or circumstantial evidence for that, and there were sufficient motives to participate in the very contentious GOP gubernatorial primary (especially with Nikki Haley running). So we can almost certainly eliminate the idea that there was a coordinated GOP effort to get Republican and/or conservative voters to pick up Democratic ballots with the intent of selecting Greene as DeMint's general election opponent.

Not "Fraud" (3, Insightful)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575534)

Fraud would be if the candidate or someone on their behalf tampered with the results or the machines to get them elected. If the voting machines are defective and produce a illegitimate outcome then it's something else. Not to mention beating 1 in 10 odds isn't that suspicious.

No conspiracy.. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575702)

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

--Halons razor [wikipedia.org]

Re: Not "Fraud" (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575732)

Fraud would be if the candidate or someone on their behalf tampered with the results or the machines to get them elected. If the voting machines are defective and produce a illegitimate outcome then it's something else.

Yeah... it's fraud on the part of the people who make the machines.

Funny (2, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575538)

It's funny that everyone is up in arms about a nobody winning this race. If there's fraud, may it be found and dealt with (not fabricated). But couple this with Bob Ethridge's behavior http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2010/06/rs-_etheridge.html [washingtonpost.com] and the arrogance of the professional politician is revealed, it would seem. I recall some local podcasters being called to a "meeting" to discuss new media with some journalists from our local newspaper (a major city newspaper, mind you). Essentially they were sat down and told who the real journalists were. Arrogance generally reveals more stupidity than mastery.

typical politician (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575786)

Alvin Greene is a broke, unemployed guy who is facing a felony obscenity charge.

So not really any different from the typical politician.

Apart from being broke, but I'm sure that'll fix itself soon enough.

Re:typical politician (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575972)

So not really any different from the typical politician.

Typical politicians don't get charged. Everyone might be equal before law, but the pigs are more equal than others.

Apart from being broke, but I'm sure that'll fix itself soon enough.

Well, the first use for money would be some actor lessons [youtube.com] .

Let us democratize you (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575854)

Hey Mr Foreigner, let us free you from evil by invading your country and giving you democracy! Oh yes, it's great - look how well it works in our world! Oh, hang on...

Snow Job (4, Informative)

mgbastard (612419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32575912)

Stop the snow job. He's a military intelligence vet and a man with a Poly Sci degree. So what if he's unemployed after he leaves the service? It's tough out there. The ABC interview was a butchering.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?