county clerk in West Virginia invited a video crew to watch his demonstration of the reliability of the disputed voting machines but instead he saw the machine flipping the votes, as critics claimed. He put this down to the faulty calibration of the voting machine. However, even after he recalibrated the machine it continued to flip votes. Watch the video here:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/10/the-vote-grab-1.html

Krugman, 2003:

Why isn't this front-page news? In October, a British newspaper, The Independent, ran a hair-raising investigative report on U.S. touch-screen voting. But while the mainstream press has reported the basics, the Diebold affair has been treated as a technology or business story -- not as a potential political scandal.

This diffidence recalls the treatment of other voting issues, like the Florida ''felon purge'' that inappropriately prevented many citizens from voting in the 2000 presidential election. The attitude seems to be that questions about the integrity of vote counts are divisive at best, paranoid at worst. Even reform advocates like Mr. Holt make a point of dissociating themselves from ''conspiracy theories.'' Instead, they focus on legislation to prevent future abuses.

But there's nothing paranoid about suggesting that political operatives, given the opportunity, might engage in dirty tricks. Indeed, given the intensity of partisanship these days, one suspects that small dirty tricks are common...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE2DF1E3AF931A35751C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV4M12w6tY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

Until that scrutiny occurs and satisfactorily addresses the many questions out there about their performance, I will continue to question their utility.

I agree, and it is amazing to me (although it should not be, I realize) that the news media have not dug in here. In congressional testimony, it has been demonstrated that such machines can be hacked in less than 10 minutes, easily. The motive for vote manipulation is equally obvious--it is the same motive behind vote suppression practices.

In an environment in which national elections with 5 point spreads are considered landslides, the lack of forensic vote-manipulation investigation is frustrating. Without it, it is hard to see how voters regain trust in the vote.

Thanks for your coherent response. Can you point me to the investigative report or reports looking into vote manipulation (as opposed to suppression) that helped you reach your conclusion?

Somehow, coverage of these thefts is NOT considered fertile ground for stories, careers, and/or circulation numbers.

more coffee please.

"Why didn't they do it in 2006?"

Greenwald's dismissive and cryptic comment may serve as useful illustration.

I share your sentiment. Somehow, the vote manipulation made famous in Florida and Ohio has been viewed as unworthy of coverage. How else does one explain the lack of investigative reporting on this. Why else would the lavishly documented Kennedy article in Rolling Stone have fallen off the edge of the earth, never to be seen again? Somehow, coverage of these thefts is considered fertile ground for stories, careers, and/or circulation numbers.

I agree with you completely that "the math" doesn't matter if you have ways of changing the raw numbers themselves.

1. vote suppression/caging

2. inappropriate distribution of voting machines within districts and among districts

3. voter roll purging @ state level

4. rejection of voters at the polls

5. tally manipulation w/in electronic voting systems

6. conflicts of interest among vote officials at local and state levels

7. politicization of DOJ and USA attorney scandal re: vote suppression

Vote manipulation has, like so many other issues, become just one more evil banality that flies beneath the radar, largely ignored by journalists and bloggers alike, with very few exceptions.

Why? I guess it's just not a trendy topic, and it's so very unserious. It's where the lunatic fringe hangs out, and by all means one must be careful how one is perceived. The product of this inattention and lack of focus has led to the same problems again rising, even after two national elections have been completed. It is a national disgrace.

Why would Morris cast it in such an unrealistic way?

Not because he is deluded, imo. But rather he and others are trying to preserve their base. It's no longer about winning, for much of the GOP. It's about trying to ensure that something is left after the defeat. By treating an Obama victory as an unusual, weird, once-in-a-lifetime-voter-turnout event, they are trying to isolate and insulate their 'herd' from the coming blow.

Simon Rosenberg and Joe Trippi had a very useful discussion televised yesterday on C-Span. Not only about how undecided might break (and many other horse-race issues) but also what happens after Obama's election. I believe their point was that not only must McCain move up a few points, but Obama must also move down some, to below 50. And as Moris himself says, Obama isn't moving down. He's stable.

One of the more interesting structural points was what Obama would do with his huge list of millions of contributors. Trippi is of the opinion that they will come right along with Obama to the WH, in the form of a White House web-based outreach. "Mywhitehouse.gov" or some such. Only, instead of 3 or 4 million members, it could well be 30 or 40 million, all vertically integrated via the toobz. The WH clearly has the technology to do this right now, but there's never been a president who cared to use it in this way.

Trippi stressed the usefulness of such an organization to Obama. If some core group of congress members was blocking health-care, for example, Obama could unleash literally millions of citizens on those selected members--filling mailboxes, jamming phone lines, bringing pressure in all sorts of ways.