Reps Cheated again Voter fraud just didn't work this time
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Friday, November 17, 2006 19:55
VIEWED: 9647
PAGE 1 of 1
the voting machines were working in favor of the republicans again. The voting machines flipped votes in favor of republicans over Democrates, the reason why it didn't work this time and the Democrates were able to squeak by and win the senate is because in Places like Virgina and Montana the machines didn't flip enough votes, because of high voter turn out in favor of democrates.
The exit polling in Virgina showed D-Webb up 5% over R-Allen but the machine only had him up by 7,000 votes
In Montana the Democrate Tester I believe is his name in that state according to the exit polls had an 8% lead over the Rep Burns and yet he only squeaked by a couple of thousand votes ahead
The exit polls have been right on target with only a 1% diffrence in every other state but in the two states that the Reps were relying on to get the senate are the ones where the exit polls and the actual vote count didn't add up, this is not a coincidence as we are all aware, its the same old cheating that has been going on all along, only this time it didn't work out.
Next time around I doubt if we'll be so lucky!!
of course there were voting problems all over the country with the diebolt machines and black box voting, by some miracle the democrates were able to overcome the cheating and get in, so I hope they really take care of this problem, its not like these machines are skewed in favor of Democrates for the most part they aren't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a
ddress=203x457571
http://www.bradblog.com/
also listen to the Tom Hartman audio on Bradblog
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wondered why Allen suddenly conceded after ramping up a fight. I figured Warner told Allen that the vote count wouldn't stand scrutiny.
The other thing I heard - and I hope it's true - is that democrats who lost will be challenging the count.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well kudo's to them here in California thanks to Debra Bowen we do have some from of paper trail for the black box voting, but I don't know how democrates in other states are going to be able to contest, unless they are counting the paper ballots and mail in ballots, alot of Democrates chose to use paper ballots and mail ins because of the cheating, so actually if that is the route it makes sense because I get the feeling alot of those ballots have not been added into the equation
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am concerned that this election was an outlyer (that public sentiment was so strongly against the GOP that all the structural biases they had put in place weren't enough to overcome the will of the people).
I'm especially worried about the disenfranchisement that happens before people even get to the ballot box. The phone calls and flyers giving false polling addresses. The threats that you will be arrested if you vote. The use of ID card laws to disenfranchise senior citizens and the poor (in a stupid attempt to crack down on something that isn't even a documented problem). The hiring of private companies to purge voter rolls. Limited equipment in low income neighborhoods resulting in long lines. Running out of ballots. Malfunctioning machines. And on and on.
We need to put up or shut up. If voting is as important as everyone says it is, then to try to disenfranchise someone should be a serious crime. How about thirty years in prison if you knowingly give someone a false polling location? How about a million dollar fine if you distribute flyers with incorrect polling information? How about providing free picture IDs to every registered voter as soon as you pass an ID law? How about any company that is shown to have wrongly removed a voter from the voting rolls is fined fifteen million dollars? How about if you have to wait longer than an hour to vote the property taxes in your precinct go down? How about the ability to print official ballots in any language we choose at each polling location (or at least one per precinct)?
We put a man on the motherfucking moon in less than ten years and we can't get this right? Or is it just that those in power don't want to get this right? Well, there's a remedy for that, it's called hard time in prison. Let's put our money where our mouth is. Let's show we value voting.
* edited to add: I'm irritated in party because I've been watching videos over at http://videothevote.org/ . You should check some of them out. It amazes me what some of these people had to put up with in order to vote. And it's a true testament to how important they think voting is, that they're willing to put up with all this crap.
* edited to add one more thing: I never really got around to the actual vote hacking in my post. I think we need to treat any attempt to change the votes of the people as treason. Plain and simple. You change votes, you're a traitor. And this would be one of those cases where I would have no problem with the death penalty. If you take away someone's vote you are killing their American dream. It's a murder of the soul.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soupcatcher,
I agree with you. I hope that democrats push for investigations everywhere they lost. That would give the US a shot a finding the fraud and cleaning up her elections.
I've been really curious about this year's exit polls. Ever since I heard the pollsters were sequestered I've been intrigued. I was hoping that 'uncorrected' results would be available and I've been looking for them. But, according to this one website, the only results that are being released are the 'corrected' official ones. DRAT!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bob_fitr_061108_stop_blackwell
_2c_what.htm
Atop the list is exit polling, which the GOP has delegated to the trash heap. Exit polls have evolved into an exact science, and have served to protect the democratic process and to overturn stolen elections throughout the world.
In Germany, exit polls accompany and monitor every election to within 0.1 percent accuracy. In Ukraine, just prior to the 2004 US presidential election, exit polls showed a presidential election had been stolen. The resulting uproar led to a new election and a different outcome. In Mexico, the Philippines, former Soviet Georgia and elsewhere, exit polling has become the indispensible check and balance against election theft.
Which is exactly the purpose it served in the United States in 2004. A consortium of the major networks and Associated Press paid millions to the Edison/Mitofsky organization to provide exit polls that would be within 1.0% accuracy. The findings were clear: John Kerry won the national vote count by a substantial majority, and carried nine of the eleven key swing states, giving him a very significant victory in the electoral college.
But the official vote count said otherwise. After winning in the exit polls at around 12:30am election night, Kerry somehow became the loser nine hours later. Against odds in the 200 million-plus range, in ten of eleven swing states, the exit poll margin went to an official vote count for Bush with a swing well outside the margin of error. Four of those states---Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico---left the Kerry and went to Bush, giving Bush the presidency.
Had this happened in a third world country, the world community would have demanded a new election. Some might even have sent troops.
But the reaction of the GOP has been to decimate the exit polls. This year, for the first time, exit poll results will not be published, or made accessible to the general media. Instead, exit poll data will be held in locked vaults. Access by the media will be strictly limited. There will be no publication of the exit polls until they are "adjusted" to match the official vote counts.
No other country in the world is doing this. But the GOP has made it clear to the corporate media that it will not tolerate another "fiasco" like 2004, where the exit polls showed clearly that John Kerry was the rightful winner not only in Ohio, but nationwide.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Soupcatcher,
I agree with you. I hope that democrats push for investigations everywhere they lost. That would give the US a shot a finding the fraud and cleaning up her elections.
I've been really curious about this year's exit polls. Ever since I heard the pollsters were sequestered I've been intrigued. I was hoping that 'uncorrected' results would be available and I've been looking for them. But, according to this one website, the only results that are being released are the 'corrected' official ones. DRAT!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bob_fitr_061108_stop_blackwell
_2c_what.htm
Atop the list is exit polling, which the GOP has delegated to the trash heap. Exit polls have evolved into an exact science, and have served to protect the democratic process and to overturn stolen elections throughout the world.
In Germany, exit polls accompany and monitor every election to within 0.1 percent accuracy. In Ukraine, just prior to the 2004 US presidential election, exit polls showed a presidential election had been stolen. The resulting uproar led to a new election and a different outcome. In Mexico, the Philippines, former Soviet Georgia and elsewhere, exit polling has become the indispensible check and balance against election theft.
Which is exactly the purpose it served in the United States in 2004. A consortium of the major networks and Associated Press paid millions to the Edison/Mitofsky organization to provide exit polls that would be within 1.0% accuracy. The findings were clear: John Kerry won the national vote count by a substantial majority, and carried nine of the eleven key swing states, giving him a very significant victory in the electoral college.
But the official vote count said otherwise. After winning in the exit polls at around 12:30am election night, Kerry somehow became the loser nine hours later. Against odds in the 200 million-plus range, in ten of eleven swing states, the exit poll margin went to an official vote count for Bush with a swing well outside the margin of error. Four of those states---Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico---left the Kerry and went to Bush, giving Bush the presidency.
Had this happened in a third world country, the world community would have demanded a new election. Some might even have sent troops.
But the reaction of the GOP has been to decimate the exit polls. This year, for the first time, exit poll results will not be published, or made accessible to the general media. Instead, exit poll data will be held in locked vaults. Access by the media will be strictly limited. There will be no publication of the exit polls until they are "adjusted" to match the official vote counts.
No other country in the world is doing this. But the GOP has made it clear to the corporate media that it will not tolerate another "fiasco" like 2004, where the exit polls showed clearly that John Kerry was the rightful winner not only in Ohio, but nationwide.
I agree the Dems now have two year to try and fix this problem if they don't do anything I really think democracy in this country is over.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, you Democrats can't even win without being sore losers.
Clearly the Democrats have been planning this all along. Endless accusations of cheating and fixing as well as Democratic operatives conducting "exit polls" to support your preconceived conclusion that the Republicans cheated even though they lost all in an effort to distract attention from the largest voter fraud in history as millions of dead and/or illegal persons turned up to vote or sent in absentee ballots. There is no evidence and that itself is proof.
Or maybe more people voted for Democrats then for Republicans...we just don't know which is true, but clearly we should not certify this election until we know for sure.
I don't know if it was fraud, but my provisional ballot (because I recently moved to a bigger house reflecting my rising income and social status) didn't include the local library levy and it passed by only 40 votes...and I would have voted against it (we don't need libraries). I'm considering suing...but what kind of person would sue to overturn an election?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero,
people on this board have cited at nausium much evidence of election fraud in the past. Quit pretending they're making shit up out of the blue.
It isn't at all the same as you saying millions of fake voters turned up on the rolls, because you couldn't cite a lick of evidence for that.
Look, the democrats are in power now. I don't want them to use the broken system in their favor, now that they have control. I want them to fix the system. I don't want them to have the ability to cheat any more than I want the Republicans to.
What about that disgusts you, exactly?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good point. A non-transparent system only serves the powerful.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
It isn't at all the same as you saying millions of fake voters turned up on the rolls, because you couldn't cite a lick of evidence for that.
I have studied the Democratic playbook. Lack of evidence is proof. For example, George Bush's visit to Iran in the back of an SR-71 in 1980 to secure a hostage deal for Reagan and undermine Carter...the original October surprise. The Democratic Speaker himself said that the lack of evidence was what warranted continued investigation. They had hearings...HEARINGS!
And these sources for the supposed Republican cheating are often the same sources that prove the WTC was intentionally demolished and that the planes hitting them were empty and controlled by remote.
Does fraud happen? Yes. Is it systematic or orchestrated? No. Fraud comes in all shapes and colors (red and blue) and generally amounts to little or nothing. In some places a white person is intimidated, saw that on CNN, in other places a machine is tampered with, saw that on MSNBC, in other places dead people vote, saw that on Fox, in some places the lines are long, saw that on CBS, in some places the ballots are misprinted, saw that on ABC, and in some places the emergency rooms are full of people needing help, saw that on NBC (ER).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...and I would have voted against it (we don't need libraries)...
Hero:
I'm disappointed in you! I'm a pretty conservative fellow, but I disagree strongly with your statement about not needing libraries. We need them now more than ever! The information age is upon us and there are millions of americans who are unable to take advantage of it because they don't know how or haven't the means to do so. Libraries, in some cases, are their only avenue for gaining access to what so many of us take for granted. Of course, as a public librarian I may be a bit biased. What makes you think we don't need libraries anymore?
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Lack of evidence is proof.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Stick with stand-up comedy, Zero.
You're way better at it than politics.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Hero:
I'm disappointed in you! I'm a pretty conservative fellow, but I disagree strongly with your statement about not needing libraries.
Believe me, this was not an easy choice. I had to consider many different factors.
Quote:
What makes you think we don't need libraries anymore?
Actually you sum up my answer very nicely...
Quote:
The information age is upon us and there are millions of americans who are unable to take advantage of it because they don't know how or haven't the means to do so. Libraries, in some cases, are their only avenue for gaining access to what so many of us take for granted.
So by eliminating libraries we limit opportunity for the up and coming younger generation to follow me into the job market and compete with me for future employment. As the number of skilled workers decrease wages, benefits, working conditions, and bargaining power increases for those of us already in the skilled worker pool.
As those wages increase more persons will be encouraged to use other means to gain access to the skilled worker pool, means that don't necessarily cost me directly in taxes. Those persons will have bettered themselves and society in a manner that does not cost society as much in frivilous social spending and in a way that delays competion for my own piece of the pie until I've more then had my fill.
Quote:
Of course, as a public librarian I may be a bit biased.
Well, there you go.
Turns out I was right: http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/13/news/economy/fisher_workers.reut/index
.htm?section=money_latest
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So by eliminating libraries we limit opportunity for the up and coming younger generation to follow me into the job market and compete with me for future employment. As the number of skilled workers decrease wages, benefits, working conditions, and bargaining power increases for those of us already in the skilled worker pool.
These kinds of frank statements are one thing I like about you Hero, you say what you think without reservation, but it also makes you seem a bit callous some times. That sounds like social darwinism to me, I take it you don't agree with the compassionate conservative approach?
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
As those wages increase more persons will be encouraged to use other means to gain access to the skilled worker pool, means that don't necessarily cost me directly in taxes. Those persons will have bettered themselves and society in a manner that does not cost society as much in frivilous social spending and in a way that delays competion for my own piece of the pie until I've more then had my fill.
Does that mean you don't use the library at all? If not, why? You could save yourself a great deal of the money you seem to covet so much, by using the library regularly. Books are getting more and more expensive each year, and using the library would save loads of cash on that score alone. If you take a look at the electronic research resources available to you, you could probably also cancel any of your subscriptions to newspapers or magazines and save even more money. If you have kids, most public libraries offer some great kids programs that usually cost you absolutely nothing.
As far as "frivilous social spending" goes, I don't think libraries fall into that category. They offer valuable services to every sector of the population, how many social programs can proclaim that? If you look into the percentage of your taxes being spent on local public libraries, I think you would be surprised at how small a percentage it is given all they have to offer. Again, I'm biased, but as a conservative I see the benefits of this frivilous endeavor everyday and like what I see.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration." ~Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bullpuckies. Statisticians figured out the odds of exit polling always being "wrong" in the same direction, not conspiracy theorists. And it was the private firm in FLA that created the no-vote rolls that flagged the problems to Katherine Harris.
And these sources for the supposed Republican cheating are often the same sources that prove the WTC was intentionally demolished and that the planes hitting them were empty and controlled by remote.
Quote:So why do you resist closing whatever loopholes remain and making the system transparent and accountable? I thought the GOP was the party of accountability? Give me ONE good reason NOT to improve the voting system.
Does fraud happen? Yes. Is it systematic or orchestrated? No.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Statisticians figured out the odds of exit polling always being "wrong" in the same direction, not conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy types take advantage of a correct statement to draw a false conclusion.
It is statistically impossible for the exit polls to be consistantly "wrong" in the same direction, correct. So must be something going on...and there is: The reason is because we're dealing with folk, not statitistics. Many Republicans don't answer polls and some that answer, like myself, deliberately give incorrect information. I suspect some people will also tell the pollsters what they are expected to say, "yes, I voted for so and so" when in fact they got in there, closed the curtain, and voted the other way. It only takes a few of all these folk put together to throw off an exit poll.
Perhaps the real unfair voter intimidation is the person demanding to know your vote the minute you leave the booth. That aint right.
The only polls that count on election day are the ones that take place in the voting booth. Maybe we should get rid of the exit polls because they are always so wrong.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- there is no reason to think that Republicans in one state behave very differently than they do in other states or in previous elections, but your hypothesis is that Republicans in select states suddenly and simulatenously mass-decided to goof the exit polls? Wow, and you think I'M a conspiracy theorist? 
I noticed that you didn't address the Katherine Harris issue.
But you still have not given me ONE good reason not to revamp our voting systems to make them less prone to error and manipulation.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym:
I have to agree with Hero where exit polls are concerned. While I don't lie to exit pollers, I would definitely not participate in one, and if forced would lie out of annoyance. I think most conservatives feel the same way. We don't, as a rule, trust pollsters and would tend to try and undermine them rather than help them. I also don't think Hero has taken a concrete position on the need to reform the electoral process one way or another. I think he has correctly pointed out that election fraud is not the sole pervue of the one political party. Dems and Reps are both guilty.
Hero:
Sorry to get on a tangent about libraries, just wanted to say that I think you are right. Democrats would have cried serious foul if they had not swept the elections. As it is, they are still going to cry foul, but imagine what it would have been like if they had lost. I think it would have been a good thing overall, however. Anytime you shine an intense light on an issue, its a good thing. We would've learned if they were just sore losers or if they had a real beef.
Soupcatcher:
I agree with the general tone of your post in the thread. We should look more closely at how we vote, and there is no reason we shouldn't be able to get it right, and give everyone full confidence in the outcome. Unfortunately, in the current partisan charged atmosphere, I don't think it's likely we would get a resolution that would be satisfactory to both parties. I worry that any efforts to do so would only undermine confidence in the process even more, and make things worse. Maybe I'm being too cynical.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza:
Quote:You haven't addressed my point: Do you think conservatives in 2004 Ohio would behave very differently than convervatives in 2004 Oregon or in 2000 Ohio? That's the hypothesis that you're proposing: that conservatives in SOME states behaved very anomalously compared to how they behaved four years earlier and how they behaved in other states at the same time.
I have to agree with Hero where exit polls are concerned. While I don't lie to exit pollers, I would definitely not participate in one, and if forced would lie out of annoyance. I think most conservatives feel the same way.
Quote:Why not? Vote accuracy is a technical issue, not an ideological one. There is no reason whatsoever -except intended vote fraud - not to get behind an accurate vote and a tranaparent process.
Unfortunately, in the current partisan charged atmosphere, I don't think it's likely we would get a resolution that would be satisfactory to both parties.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- there is no reason to think that Republicans in one state behave very differently than they do in other states or in previous elections, but your hypothesis is that Republicans in select states suddenly and simulatenously mass-decided to goof the exit polls? Wow, and you think I'M a conspiracy theorist?
Not every exit poll was off by the same amount. I suggest that some Republicans don't answer. Say 2% of the total electorate. Now your poll is off 2%. Some lie, add another .5%, now your off 2.5%. Some independents or Democrats lie, say another .5%, now your at 3%. Now add a margin of error of 2.5-5% depending on the poll and add or subract a couple percent for various differences by state. Its easy to get to a 5% difference and even higher if all the factors break high.
Thats a whole lot more believable then some dark conspiracy.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm leaving my personal vote/party affiliation/etc. out of this, but I am a bit surprised no one caught this one.
From Hero:
"I'm considering suing...but what kind of person would sue to overturn an election?"
Well, George W. Bush in 2000, for one. Now, to be fair, he actually sued to have the vote counts stopped -- which I don't think anyone could honestly argue did not have an effect on the election, possibly even overturning it. Al Gore did some suing as well, so there are at least two kinds of people (Republican and Democrat) who would sue to overturn an election.
http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:HAHAHAHAHA!!! I guess you really DO pull numbers out of your *ss! Hero, would you like to look at a study where the numbers WEREN'T made up out of thin air?
Not every exit poll was off by the same amount. I suggest that some Republicans don't answer. Say 2% of the total electorate. Now your poll is off 2%. Some lie, add another .5%, now your off 2.5%. Some independents or Democrats lie, say another .5%, now your at 3%. Now add a margin of error of 2.5-5% depending on the poll and add or subract a couple percent for various differences by state. Its easy to get to a 5% difference and even higher if all the factors break high.
Anyway, thanks for a laugh!
BTW- do you see any reason NOT to improve our vote accuracy?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You haven't addressed my point: Do you think conservatives in 2004 Ohio would behave very differently than convervatives in 2004 Oregon or in 2000 Ohio? That's the hypothesis that you're proposing: that conservatives in SOME states behaved very anomalously compared to how they behaved four years earlier and how they behaved in other states at the same time.
You seem to have more knowledge of the polls than I. As I said, I don't trust polls in general, and tend to discount them as useless information for the most part. Do I think it's possible that people would behave differently from four years ago or from an analagous group in a different region of the country? Of course I would! Our world changes constantly and to assume that people act the exact same everytime they take a poll is just absurd.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why not? Vote accuracy is a technical issue, not an ideological one. There is no reason whatsoever -except intended vote fraud - not to get behind an accurate vote and a tranaparent process.
Well, that would depend on which technical "experts" you use wouldn't it? Are you saying there is no difference in opinion on technical issues in the scientific community? But that's neither here or there. I agree with you for the most part, we should do more to assure vote accuracy and transperancy in our process. I'm just not as sure as you are that it's possible in the current political atmosphere, as I've stated before.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:However, exit polls are used thew world over to judge whether vote fraud has occurred. It's an independent check on the vote counting process.
You seem to have more knowledge of the polls than I. As I said, I don't trust polls in general, and tend to discount them as useless information for the most part.
Quote:Yes, but...no. Like all measurement methods, exit polling has an error rate. But the error rate has been well-studied through literally decades of elections in ALL kinds if circumstances not only within the USA but outside of the USA. Not only is the method well-studied but the polling organizations themselves have a history, where their exit poll results have been thrown against the wall of election results to see what sticks. They ALWAYS stick. Except... except the 2004 election, and then only in certain states. Elsewhere, the results (even in "red" states like Utah and Colorado) were within 1% or so. But in some states the results were off by a an unheard-of 6-8%. That is the basis for the statistical analysis which was done by well-respected professors from all over the country. And basically they said it was statistically impossible.
Do I think it's possible that people would behave differently from four years ago or from an analagous group in a different region of the country? Of course I would! Our world changes constantly and to assume that people act the exact same everytime they take a poll is just absurd.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Believe it or not, there are ways to determine vote counting accuracy, and that is to take a "dummy" set of votes either thru punch card counting, or optiscan, or what-not, do that multiple times on a random set of machines and then tabulate the error. (Some methods like punch cards tend to deteriorate w/ recount.) Experts may quibble about a few tenths of percent here or there... but some methods are vastly superior to others. CLEARLY, an unauditable vote-tabulating process with no chain of custody is unacceptable. (My So is a computer geek. He could hack into a voting machine in a heartbeat)
Well, that would depend on which technical "experts" you use wouldn't it? Are you saying there is no difference in opinion on technical issues in the scientific community?
As far as ballot organization/ clarity... in this day and age when everything is focus-grouped, are you saying that various ballot formats and recording devices can't be tweaked for clarity?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, but...no. Like all measurement methods, exit polling has an error rate. But the error rate has been well-studied through literally decades of elections in ALL kinds if circumstances not only within the USA but outside of the USA. Not only is the method well-studied but the polling organizations themselves have a history, where their exit poll results have been thrown against the wall of election results to see what sticks. They ALWAYS stick. Except... except the 2004 election, and then only in certain states. Elsewhere, the results (even in "red" states like Utah and Colorado) were within 1% or so. But in some states the results were off by a an unheard-of 6-8%. That is the basis for the statistical analysis which was done by well-respected professors from all over the country. And basically they said it was statistically impossible.
Polls have an error rate? Are you sure?
(Just poking at you)Yes, I can see where you are going with this, because all of these experts think the exit-polls were off by too much, the election must have been fixed. Statistics is not an exact science and polls are even less so, which is why I choose not to rely on them. Surely there is a better method for assuring the accuracy of election results than exit polls. I don't subscribe to the notion that exit polls are the only method available to us.
If, as you say, the 2004 election was full of widespread voter fraud, intimidation, and general skullduggery; then where are all the lawsuits from supposedly disenfranchised voters who never got a fair shake? Are you saying that there are no groups in the left wing blogosphere who could come up with the cash to fund all the lawyers for these folks? Why did John Kerry just lay down and take it if Ohio was stolen from him? Surely he and Theresa could of afforded at least one lawyer to get themselves a fair hearing in the courts. Why are democrats just letting this happen without a peep (except in the blogosphere)? It couldn't be because they have a stake in maintaining the status quo could it? Perish the thought!
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Believe it or not, there are ways to determine vote counting accuracy, and that is to take a "dummy" set of votes either thru punch card counting, or optiscan, or what-not, do that multiple times on a random set of machines and then tabulate the error. (Some methods like punch cards tend to deteriorate w/ recount.) Experts may quibble about a few tenths of percent here or there... but some methods are vastly superior to others. CLEARLY, an unauditable vote-tabulating process with no chain of custody is unacceptable. (My So is a computer geek. He could hack into a voting machine in a heartbeat)
As far as ballot organization/ clarity... in this day and age when everything is focus-grouped, are you saying that various ballot formats and recording devices can't be tweaked for clarity?
Signym:
I agree about the unauditable trail. I think we jumped way too fast into the breach going all electronic. As a conservative, I find it troubling that we changed what worked in most cases just because of the cry for better technology. Okay, paper ballots are difficult to use sometimes, but at least you have physical evidence of someone's intent to vote! The fact is that if we weren't so impatient to know who was elected, we could easily use paper ballots and assure every election with mandatory recounts. It might take longer, but at least we'd be sure! And how transparent can you get than two seperate stacks of paper? I know, hanging chads, etc... Surely, we can develop a better ballot to eliminate such ridiculous problems.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"where are all the lawsuits from supposedly disenfranchised voters who never got a fair shake? Are you saying that there are no groups in the left wing blogosphere who could come up with the cash to fund all the lawyers for these folks?"
You have fallen victim to two false ideas: all democrats are left wing; and all left-wingers are rich.
Aside from that there are procedural problems with your assumptions.
Which are: without PROOF of fraud there are no lawsuits. Without an investigation, there is no proof. And without democrats, there is no investigation.
Do you think the winners - republicans - would investigate the very process they corrupted in order to win ??
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You have fallen victim to two false ideas: all democrats are left wing; and all left-wingers are rich.
No, you are the only one making assumptions. I never said all left wingers are rich or that all democrats are left wing. You assumed I did. I simply postulated that if George Sauros can provide millions of dollars to left wing blog websites, then perhaps he could spare some ducats for a poor downtrodden disenfranchised voter. And if John Kerry and Theresa Heinz do not qualify as rich then who does?
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Aside from that there are procedural problems with your assumptions.
Which are: without PROOF of fraud there are no lawsuits. Without an investigation, there is no proof. And without democrats, there is no investigation.
Do you think the winners - republicans - would investigate the very process they corrupted in order to win ??
So, let me get this straight. Republicans rule every state, county, and city in the United States of America and are doing so with such an iron fist as to make any liberal leaning politician impotent? Again, you make wide sweeping assumptions which have no basis in fact. The electoral districts in question are for the most part run by democrats! Are you telling me that in a democratic district, there are no officials capable of bringing forth a lawsuit in the entire country? Wow, I thought conservatives were supposed to be the wacko conpiracy theorists. I think you give the GOP way too much credit!
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good grief. This site is like The Daily Kos Lite. Buncha people still trying to find reasons why they lost in '00 and '04 because they just can't accept that there are more than 5 people in this universe that would have the audacity to think differently than them. We lost - fraud! We won - fraud, but we beat it this time!
Whatever it takes to keep you entertained, I guess. My suggestion is, if you make the tin foil hat just a little bit bigger than you think it should be, then your aura will more freely interactivate with your bio-waves. Might help with the pounding headaches, too. And oh yeah, there is life after college.
"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:YOUR tinfoil hat is about the size of a thimble. And there's room left over. Troll.
My suggestion is, if you make the tin foil hat just a little bit bigger than you think it should be, then your aura will more freely interactivate with your bio-waves. Might help with the pounding headaches, too. And oh yeah, there is life after college.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza:
Quote:HUH? The acceptable voting and tabulating procedures, policy, the distribution of voting machines, the availability of voter registration materials and voter rolls etc. are determined by the Secretary of STATE, not some local commissioner.
The electoral districts in question are for the most part run by democrats!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
I thought you were talking about bloggers filing lawsuits when you said this "(are there) no groups in the left wing blogosphere ...?". Remembering that bloggers blog b/c they are by far poorer than the people who own and run corporate media.
Be that as it may - it comes down to lack of evidence. Until an investigation is done, nothing can happen. There can be no criminal charges or civil lawsuits.
----------------------------------------
Let's take Ohio as an example of a potential civil suit. You'd have to have people in say Cleveland file the lawsuit, b/c to have standing you have to have damages. In other words, Soros couldn't come in and file a lawsuit on his own. So somehow the people in Cleveland would have to get a hold of Soros and prevail on him to dish out the cash - a LOT of it.
Because, in order to have evidence of damages, you'd have to fund a ballot study at $50M plus dollars (that was the cost of the limited study a newspaper consortium did on the 'real' 2000 Florida vote.) For that to happen, you'd (probably) have to sue for access to voter registration rolls, emails and other electronic records, original vote tallies etc.
This is no small matter. By the time it was over, the multiple layers of lawsuits and lawyers fees alone could cost roughly $100M plus. Then add to that the cost of actually doing the study.
So Soros would have to agree to bankroll a civil lawsuit to the tune of roughly $150M. Now maybe you think he or Kennedy are rich enough to not miss that much money. I somehow don't think they are.
----------------------
Congress OTOH has the ability to compel evidence.
---------------------
What I don't get is why you would be against the idea of Congressional investigations into electoral fraud? If there was none, then it reassures the voting public. OTOH if there was massive fraud (as shown by the statistics) then it should be cleaned up.
Don't you agree?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh my God!
It's truly insurmountable! We'll never be able to get to the truth! Whoa is me! Chicken Little is right, the sky is falling and there isn't enough money in the world to fix it! (being seriously sarcastic here)
What are you talking about? $150million dollars simply to determine if one individual was denied their right to vote? You are telling me that there is not one individual in a country with a populace of 300million who can come forward with a credible story about being denied their right to vote that can be proven in a court of law without spending $150million? I'll go with Occam's Razor on this one, if you can't produce such a person, then the more likely explaination is that they do not exist. If you would rather believe in some all emcompassing conspiracy theory instigated by right wing conservatives and lead by the Republican party, then by all means have a nut! Don't expect me to waste my time worrying over it, however. I'm done with this line of arguement.
I'd be happy to discuss possible election reform, but not becasue I believe in wacko conspiracies, but because I truly believe we could do better as a nation, and share some of your concerns about the process currently in place.
BTW, I don't have a problem with investigations at all. As I said earlier, when you shine an intense light on an issue it is always a good thing. If you are under the false impression that congressional investigations are particularly effective then I'd have to disagree. They are generally a lot of hot wind and political grandstanding. I prefer a local investigation of a credible plaintiff, even one in a distict dominated by Democrats would be fine with me. Why isn't there one currently ongoing? I'll ask again, could it be that democrats have just as much stake in the current electoral process as republicans? Could it be that Hero was correct to point out that election fraud is systemic and not party specific? These are better reasons in my view for looking more closely at our electoral processes.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
"$150million dollars simply to determine if one individual was denied their right to vote?"
If all you are looking to do is win an individual lawsuit it wouldn't take much. You'd have to assign some nominal value for damages (for rights violations the Supreme Court sets the value at $1.00 - that's right, one 1 dollar.) And if that individual won their suit they'd get - $1.00.
However, if you are looking to investigate the election process through a civil lawsuit, which is what I presume you're angling for - after all, we ARE talking about MASSIVE electoral fraud, right? - you'd have to file a class action lawsuit. And that's what would run into $150M. Because you'd have to show an intentional pattern.
Please don't tell me you're stupid enough to make these kinds of bogus arguments, along with a heavy dollop of personal attacks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
HUH? The acceptable voting and tabulating procedures, policy, the distribution of voting machines, the availability of voter registration materials and voter rolls etc. are determined by the Secretary of STATE, not some local commissioner.
Yep, like the ones around here that win by 18,111 votes, every election.
Weird, innit ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, Hero is very quiet.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza,
"$150million dollars simply to determine if one individual was denied their right to vote?"
If all you are looking to do is win an individual lawsuit it wouldn't take much. You'd have to assign some nominal value for damages (for rights violations the Supreme Court sets the value at $1.00 - that's right, one 1 dollar.) And if that individual won their suit they'd get - $1.00.
However, if you are looking to investigate the election process through a civil lawsuit, which is what I presume you're angling for - after all, we ARE talking about MASSIVE electoral fraud, right? - you'd have to file a class action lawsuit. And that's what would run into $150M. Because you'd have to show an intentional pattern.
Please don't tell me you're stupid enough to make these kinds of bogus arguments, along with a heavy dollop of personal attacks.
Let's forget a civil lawsuit, how about a criminal one? Election fraud is currently illegal, so why aren't there any such cases in the courts? A campaign of "massive" fraud should produce at least one credible criminal investigation, why hasn't it?
What personal attacks? Didn't take you long to start your ad-hominem attack defense I see. Can't be focusing on the basic point afterall.
Must distract the arguement away from the possible line of reasoning that election fraud was bipartisan and thus neither party is interested in actually investigating it, resulting in the complete lack of any court action. Both parties use it as a get out the vote tactic afterall. Democrats to motivate folks by saying they will be denied it, and Republicans use it convince their folks to counterbalance all the dead people that vote. Can't you at least agree that both parties are guilty of it? Or you blind to the possibility?
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza- I seem to recall you starting with "Chicken Little". Before you start calling ad hominem make sure you're not guilty of the same thing.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza - these are quotes from your posts. Please explain to me how they are part of the topic.
--------------------------------------
"Wow, I thought conservatives were supposed to be the wacko conpiracy theorists."
"Oh my God!
It's truly insurmountable! We'll never be able to get to the truth! Whoa is me! Chicken Little is right, the sky is falling and there isn't enough money in the world to fix it! (being seriously sarcastic here)"
And then you wrote this -
"What personal attacks? Didn't take you long to start your ad-hominem attack defense I see ..."
Indeed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
"A campaign of "massive" fraud should produce at least one credible criminal investigation, why hasn't it?"
Who would order the investigation? Then please explain to me in detail HOW criminal charges are filed without an investigation or grand jury.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to drive the point home- HERO has not come up with a single argument why we should NOT clean up our election process as much as possible.
So I'm going to presume that HERO AGREES that we need to clean up our election process.
Right HERO?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, to carry Rue's point further: It is unlikely that the Federal DOJ will conduct any investigations on the 2004 election because even tho Congress has changed hands the DOJ is still headed by a Bush appointee approved by the GOP-Senate. However, the FBI IS conducting investigations on this past election partly because of the stink raised by respected professors and officials about the 2004 election so the fuss was not entirely wasted. I think the left-wing blogosphere should be congratulated for keeping the issue alive and shining a bright light on the problems.
Also, since many governorships just changed hands to Democratic you may now see some STATE investigations going forward. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on election fraud.
One more comment: Rue, you had posted a very discouraging article about the effectiveness of negative campaigning. Even tho I'd like to think of myself as resistant to suggestion, I've felt the effects of negative campaigning even on candidates that I strongly support! Since I can't find that post I'm ging to reply here:
Maybe the answer is to require that partisan groups the support an candidate can only advertize about their candidate, not about anyone else. Wouldn't THAT twist everyones' panties??? heh heh heh
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Elsewhere, the results (even in "red" states like Utah and Colorado) were within 1% or so. But in some states the results were off by a an unheard-of 6-8%. That is the basis for the statistical analysis which was done by well-respected professors from all over the country. And basically they said it was statistically impossible.
Its not impossible cause its happening. Now we just have to figure out why...evil conspiracy or inaccurate polling.
Having a higher degree of error in blue states is understandable. Red states don't attach the same social stigma to voting Republican. People are less afraid to express their opinions and so on.
I also note for the record that the election process in blue states and blue districts of red states is most often almost always entirely controlled by Democrats. If there is fraud, its fraud of their own making, such as absentee ballots and such.
I also note for the record that I have voted in every election every year since I turned 21...and I have never, ever seen or know anyone who has seen an exit pollster. I asked around. All the folk I've talked to agree that they have never seen one themeselves or know anyone whose been polled and that they, Republicans, would not answer if asked because its nobody's business who they voted for. Perhaps all the pollers are all hanging out at the wrong polling places.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Meanwhile, Hero is very quiet.
Yeah, Hero cuts out early from his govt. job to drive his new car home to his new house where his hot girlfriend is waiting.
Lucky fella, he is.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just to drive the point home- HERO has not come up with a single argument why we should NOT clean up our election process as much as possible.
So I'm going to presume that HERO AGREES that we need to clean up our election process.
Right HERO?
Yes. We should start with requiring a valid ID to vote and require that persons pick up absentee ballots in person and with a valid ID.
There should be strict fines for things like registering dead folk and fines for the election officials if dead or otherwise inelidgable folk are allowed to vote and jail if such fraud leads to the wrong person winning.
Then they should move my polling place cause its really hard to get to and the parking sucks. And more bake sale goods. Its not fair that the early voters get the pumpkin bread and peanutbutter cookies and I get stuck with a dried up brownie. Then we can move on to campaign finance reform. Since we can't dictate what people can donate, we should dictate what people can spend. Make it an ethics rule for the House for example for a member or incoming member to spend in excess of $X, if its an ethical rule, the Court can't review it. And then there's the whole voting on Tuesday thing...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza - these are quotes from your posts. Please explain to me how they are part of the topic.
--------------------------------------
"Wow, I thought conservatives were supposed to be the wacko conpiracy theorists."
As I understand your arguement, it is your belief that there is a conservative cabal lead by the Republican party which controls every level of law enforcement across the entire country which is unwilling to investigate and prosecute possible election fraud. Stated another way, there is not one liberal democrat in a position of authority in a law enforcement position at the federal, state, county, or city level in the entire country capable of investigating or prosecuting possible election fraud.
If my understanding of your arguement is correct, then, as I stated in my previous post, that sounds a great deal like a wacko conspiracy theory. If I misunderstand your arguement, then I humbly apologize and hope to understand it better.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
And then you wrote this -
"What personal attacks? Didn't take you long to start your ad-hominem attack defense I see ..."
Indeed.
Yes I did say that because I have noticed that you are incapable of carrying on a conversation without claiming to be the victim of an ad hominem attack.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Razza- I seem to recall you starting with "Chicken Little". Before you start calling ad hominem make sure you're not guilty of the same thing.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Huh? What does chicken little have to do with me saying that it did not take Rue long to claim she is a victim of ad hominem attacks? Are you saying that I called her "chicken little"? If you had read the post, you would have seen that it was part of pitiful attempt at sarcastic humor and was not a direct reference to Rue in any way.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just to drive the point home- HERO has not come up with a single argument why we should NOT clean up our election process as much as possible.
So I'm going to presume that HERO AGREES that we need to clean up our election process.
Right HERO?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
And just for the record, neither Rue or Signym is williing to admit the possibility that both parties are guilty of election fraud, and believe that only the evil GOP is capable of such behavior.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Troll", eh? If you like. Sigh.
"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, actually, I know of many past instances where the Dems were accused of, and probably committed, massive (successful) election fraud, most famously in the Nixon/ Kennedy race. Chicago was notorious for that.
And just for the record, neither Rue or Signym is williing to admit the possibility that both parties are guilty of election fraud, and believe that only the evil GOP is capable of such behavior.
I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that SOME Democractic election fraud was committed in this past race. The reason why the GOP is getting smacked with the charge right now is because they happened to be in substantial power for almost a decade and they followed the Karl Rove "dirty tricks" playbook. But if left in power too long, ANY Party can be corrupted. That's why I'd like to take possible manipulation tools out of the hands of ANY politician. Just create a straight-up procedure that any boob can audit.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's not the way I read it, and I suspect most people would have read it my way.
Are you saying that I called her "chicken little"? If you had read the post, you would have seen that it was part of pitiful attempt at sarcastic humor and was not a direct reference to Rue in any way.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking is statistics, studies, and polls.... I supervise a regulatory analytical section and I'm often called on to audit both internal and external reports. And I'm pretty good at looking at reams and reams of data and actually making sense of it, altho the work makes my eyes roll back in my head. Sometimes I use statistics (altho not my strongest area) and sometimes I dig very deeply into the rawest of raw data and find very obscure problems. I have to pat myself on the back for having been given a table of several hundred values representing about a dozen different analyses, and realizing that (1) the refinery used three different laboratories to perform the analyses and (2) one of those labs conistently screwed up one analysis (and I even know what the screwup was). Anyhoo, I happened to find this in my inbox this ayem... made me think of the whole exit poll controversy and how much scrutiny was behind the charge of vote fraud:
Quote:
Many of the medical research papers you read will be wrong, not as a result of methodologic flaws, poor design, or inappropriate statistics, but because of typing errors.
Exhibit 1
I was doing some research on sample size calculation and was reading up on how such calculations were reported in the very best journals. The very first paper I read was in the prestigious British Medical Journal: the authors stated that they were looking for the drug to improve pain by 16 points on a pain scale that had a standard deviation of 8. Now you may notice that this is a difference of 2 standard deviations, an absolutely massive effect (indeed, an adequately powered trial would require only 12 patients). When I emailed the authors, they apologized and said that they meant to give a figure of 18 rather than 8 for the standard deviation. The second paper I read, which was also published in the British Medical Journal, was also somewhat confounding: anxiety, depression, and fatigue had improved in the treatment group, but quality of life was worse. After investigating the issue with the authors, it turned out that quality of life was indeed better after treatment but that a minus sign had been omitted from the table of results.
Exhibit 2
I had provided advice to a researcher about a trial and promptly forgotten about it until he sent me a copy of the final manuscript: Could I read the final version and sign the copyright form before he submitted it with my name as an author? I told him that I usually do not put my name to a paper unless I had personally checked the statistical analysis and so asked for a copy of the study database. Although I reproduced the analyses described in the paper, something still felt odd, so I asked for copies of the actual questionnaires on which patients had reported their symptoms. My caution was vindicated: I found 4 data entry errors in the record of the very first patient I checked; I also noticed that the study codes had been handwritten on the questionnaires such that the data for Patients 14 and 19 were likely reversed. I suggested repeating the data entry from scratch. When the paper was eventually published, the results were very different from those included in the paper I had originally seen.
Exhibit 3
A colleague showed me a paper pointing out that I could conduct a secondary analysis that would interest me. The authors generously sent me the raw data, but when I started my analysis, I immediately noticed some anomalies. The results included data on 2 biomarkers that are inversely correlated -- that is, you normally see high levels of one or the other, but not both. Yet a small number of patients did indeed have high scores for both biomarkers. When I asked the investigators about this, they said that they had checked the records for these patients, had found the data to be correct, and that double-positives sometimes happened. So I finished my analysis and presented the results to my colleague. She pointed out that the results were difficult to interpret without information on clinical stage. Now it turns out that very few early-stage patientsNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:No, actually, I know of many past instances where the Dems were accused of, and probably committed, massive (successful) election fraud, most famously in the Nixon/ Kennedy race. Chicago was notorious for that.
And just for the record, neither Rue or Signym is williing to admit the possibility that both parties are guilty of election fraud, and believe that only the evil GOP is capable of such behavior.
I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that SOME Democractic election fraud was committed in this past race. The reason why the GOP is getting smacked with the charge right now is because they happened to be in substantial power for almost a decade and they followed the Karl Rove "dirty tricks" playbook. But if left in power too long, ANY Party can be corrupted. That's why I'd like to take possible manipulation tools out of the hands of ANY politician. Just create a straight-up procedure that any boob can audit.
Signym:
Good, now we are making progress. What we both agree on so far:
1) Both political parties are responsible for election fraud both now and in the past
2) We should make our election process more transparent and accountable
It's amazing! Even two people with highly divergent points of view can manage to agree on something once and while. Maybe there is hope for our future afterall.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with ya Dems are sore winners. Boy I can't believe a browncoat board would have politics. My oppinion is the same people who watch firefly and rave on think confederates are racists and republicans are nazis. Joss Whedon and Richard Dean Anderson must of went to the Jane Fonda pr school of bull. Both of them on dvd box sets go on about how they appaul the use of firearms. But of course thats how they make their paycheck. In NM the biggest registered republican precinct had 4000 reps but was delivered only 120 ballots. The dems run Albuquerque and the state yet we have graff. Luckly the congresswoman won for the reps it was close though. Every soldier I have talk to and I am from NC has said were doing good in Iraq and need to stay. I see Dems who don't fight for nothing so they are not browncoats to me.
Shepherd Book preaches and then shoots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Evidence of republican cheating can always be found, as can evidence of democratic cheating. As long as the stakes are high, there will be people cheating for their side to win. My own grandmother bought votes for JFK in Illinois in '60 for $5 a piece, which led to the defeat of Richard Nixon. The result was a disaster for america and the world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This image was on Newsbusters.org a few days before the election:
Even when Dems win, you claim you were cheated. This libertarian finds that pathetic. At least the Republicans aren't out crying about voter fraud and their base being disenfranchised.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wouldn't you want a good electoral check-up? For heaven sakes - why not ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/opinion/16thur1.html
In a Congressional race there (Florida) between Vern Buchanan, a Republican, and Christine Jennings, a Democrat, the machines in Sarasota County reported that more than 18,000 people, or one in eight, did not choose either candidate. That “undervote” of nearly 13 percent is hard to believe, given that only about 2.5 percent of absentee voters did not vote in that race.
Partisan secretaries of state continue to skew the rules to favor their parties and political allies. States are adopting harsh standards for voter registration drives to make it harder for people to register, as well as draconian voter identification laws to make casting a ballot harder for poor people, racial minorities, the elderly and students. Some states have adopted an indefensible rule that provisional ballots cast at the wrong table of the correct polling place must be thrown out.
Election reform has tended to be a partisan issue, with Democrats arguing for reform and Republicans resisting it. It shouldn’t be. Congressional Democrats should make fixing this country’s broken system of elections a top priority, and Republicans should join them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
Election reform has tended to be a partisan issue, with Democrats arguing for reform and Republicans resisting it. It shouldn’t be. Congressional Democrats should make fixing this country’s broken system of elections a top priority, and Republicans should join them.
Spot on.
Any time you have an entrenched majority in power there will be corruption. Rigging the system to maintain power is one manifestation.
It has happened. It happens. It's going to happen in the future. But it shouldn't be easy. We should make it as hard as we possibly can to rig elections (and, by rig, I'm including all efforts from limiting who can register to vote all the way through to stealing votes with electronic machines). How is that not an American value?
Fighting voter fraud shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue. There are posts in this thread that basically are saying, "Both sides do it. So just be happy when your party wins." That's a defeatist attitude.
I agree that both parties engage in voter fraud. I think you need to look in different areas to find the fraud: local big city for Democratic, statewide for Republican. There are certain Democratic machine politicians that are absolutely corrupt (William Jefferson comes to mind). There are certain recent Republican Secretaries of State who are absolutely corrupt (Katherine Harris comes to mind). If there is any difference it is that the Democratic Party has different local pockets of corruption in some of the big cities while the Republicans are working on a broader scale (going after entire states). The Republican efforts to tip the balance are, in my opinion, part of a broad nationwide strategy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was just sent to me by a colleague..
Major Miscount of the Vote in 2006 Election: Reported Results Skewed 4 Percent Toward GOP; Election Defense Alliance Calls for Investigation
BOSTON, Nov. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Election Defense Alliance, a national election integrity organization, issued an urgent call today for an investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic voting equipment after analysis of national exit polling data indicated a major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in congressional races across the country. These findings are an alarming indictment of the American election system in which 80 percent of voters used electronic voting equipment.
As in 2004, the Exit Poll and the reported election results do not add up. But this time there is an objective yardstick in the methodology that establishes the validity of the Exit Poll and exposes the inaccuracy of the election returns. These findings are detailed in a paper published today on the EDA website.
The Edison-Mitofsky media Exit Poll, posted Election Night on CNN.com, had a sample base of more than 10,000 voters, and showed Democratic House candidates winning over Republicans by an 11.5 percent margin.
The reported vote count showed Democrats winning by a 7.6 margin, 3.9 percent less than the Exit Poll and far outside the poll's +/-1-percent margin of error. This discrepancy entailed at least 3,000,000 votes.
The Exit Poll was then adjusted, by a process known as "forcing," to match reported election vote totals. The final result, posted at 1 p.m. Nov. 8, showed Democrats winning by a 7.6 percent margin, exactly mirroring the reported vote totals.
The objective yardstick was the proportion of respondents who indicated they had voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004. The sample in the already weighted Election Night Exit Poll had 47 percent Bush voters and 45 percent Kerry voters, a valid sample given the very conservative assumption that Republicans and Democrats turned out with equal enthusiasm in 2006. However, after the forcing process, the sample contained 49 percent Bush voters and only 43 percent Kerry supporters. This 6 percent gap is more than twice the size of the 2004 Bush win of 2.8 percent. It indicates a significant over-sampling of Republican voters in the adjusted 2006 Exit Poll.
Such a gross oversample of Republicans was necessary to match the actual vote counts, which therefore could not have been an accurate count of the actual electorate. Had the intended votes been accurately tallied, this election would have produced a Democratic landslide of epic proportions.
http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org.
Rue and I idependently had thought that the reason why Republican candidates didn't demand a vote recount in close elections was because the national committe told them sotto voce "Ixnay on the ecountray" knowing that a full recount would only expose the bias.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME