Reps Cheated again Voter fraud just didn't work this time
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Friday, November 17, 2006 19:55
VIEWED: 9623
PAGE 3 of 7
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