NationStates Jolt Archive

...but they're even more so when you got an outright authoritarian/proto-facsist movement running the show.

go check out this article (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen).

Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,'' Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

*yawn*

*yawn*

that the best you can do?

I don't agree with F.S. often, but on this I see eye to eye 100%.

that the best you can do?

Its about all the interest I can muster for Robert Kennedy Jr saying that Republicans stole an election from Democrats.

see the thing is, we all know the US is moving towards a facist police state, wether its a conspiracy or just the fact that we're that stupid.

see the thing is, we all know the US is moving towards a facist police state, wether its a conspiracy or just the fact that we're that stupid.

worse, we're that stupid, and they still feel the need to cheat

Its about all the interest I can muster for Robert Kennedy Jr saying that Republicans stole an election from Democrats.

how about dealing with the arguments made by others then?

bump

Isn't this fun?


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050802b.html

Report: More Democrat than Republican Operatives Involved in Voter Fraud
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 02, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A report by a voting rights group regarding allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and suppression during the 2004 presidential election has found that "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election."

The report by the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that thousands "were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain 'nonpartisan' organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states."


http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=6994
Logan clerk to plead guilty in election fraud case

Story by The Associated Press

Logan County Clerk Glen Dale Adkins plans to plead guilty in the ongoing probe of election fraud in southern West Virginia.
Like those former officials, Adkins is a Democrat. That party dominates both counties, and the election fraud charges largely focus on Democratic Party primaries.

Utterly shocking... that election was disgraceful, but I didn't know it was as bad as this... cripes...

i thought you employed dimpled West Africans to steal elections in the US

Isn't this fun?


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050802b.html

Report: More Democrat than Republican Operatives Involved in Voter Fraud
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 02, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A report by a voting rights group regarding allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and suppression during the 2004 presidential election has found that "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election."

The report by the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that thousands "were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain 'nonpartisan' organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states."

even accepting that there were instances of democratic party fraud, which there certainly were, a report that essentially hand waves all the accussations of republican voter fraud away (and doesn't deal with the statistical evidence that the rolling stone article relies on in the slightest) written by an organization whose "key bios" are of two members of the bush campaign and transition team and one that runs the virginia conservative action pac isn't exactly the best counter argument in the world.

even accepting that there were instances of democratic party fraud, which there certainly were, a report that essentially hand waves all the accussations of republican voter fraud away (and doesn't deal with the statistical evidence that the rolling stone article relies on in the slightest) written by an organization whose "key bios" are of two members of the bush campaign and transition team and one that runs the virginia conservative action pac isn't exactly the best counter argument in the world..

uh huh. Those were just from the first two links. Lots more come up when you google democrat voter fraud. They must be part of that "proto fascist movement that's running the show" even if you neglect to mention thier contributions.

But of course an ad hominem is better especially from one whos linked article was written by Bobby Kennedy Jr. Can we say hypocrite?

Cute, but probably not true.

I too say *yawn*
Some people just can't handle losing.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65896,00.html

A study by Berkeley grad students and a professor showing anomalies with electronic-voting machines in Florida has been debunked by numerous academics who say the students used a faulty equation to reach their results and should never have released the study before getting it peer-reviewed.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index.html

There's little question that the American election process is a mess, and needs to be cleaned up. But even if this particular election wasn't perfect, it was still most likely good enough for us to have faith in the results. Salon has examined some of the most popular Kerry-actually-won theories currently making the rounds online, and none of them hold up under rigorous scrutiny. For instance, there's an easy explanation for the odd results in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Olbermann insists there were 93,000 more votes than voters. According to Kimberly Bartlett, a spokeswoman for the county, the reporting software the county uses to display the unofficial summary of election results on its Web site is simply buggy. For some reason, the software combines absentee ballots from several voting precincts into one precinct, and therefore makes it appear as if there were more votes cast in a particular area than there were registered voters there. But this bug does not affect the final election results, because the more detailed "canvass" of all the votes cast in the county shows the correct count, Bartlett told Salon. For example, this canvass indicates that in Fairview Park, where Olbermann says there were 18,472 ballots cast by 13,342 registered voters, there were actually only 8,421 votes cast in the presidential race -- fewer than the number of registered voters.

Other theories pointing to a Kerry win are similarly brittle. It is extremely unlikely that there are enough spoiled punch-card ballots in Ohio to hand Kerry a victory there, as Palast asserts. Meanwhile, there are reasonable-sounding sociological and demographic explanations for the high number of registered-Democrat Bush voters in some counties in Florida. There is, in other words, simply no compelling proof that there were enough irregularities in enough areas affecting enough voters to cast doubt on Bush's commanding popular vote count lead, or even his thinner margins in key swing states such as Ohio or Florida.

. uh huh. Those were just from the first two links. Lots more come up when you google democrat voter fraud.

that's nice. care to deal with the actual statistical evidence presented in the rs article?

If something wrong occured there would have been an election in to it by the FEC. They certified it and the attorney generals of each state verified their state results (including the Democratic states), so therefore the election was neither a scam nor was it rigged. Did localized problems occur? Absolutely. But that's not enough to show the election was rigged...voting discrepancies have been going on since the election of 1800 and it's almost impossible to fix them due to the nature of the system; the goal is to minimize them, but it's impossible to catch all of the glitches, registration fraud, and dead voters.

Until someone can create a watertight case for election fraud, present it before the required authorities and have the data independently verified and have those authorities declare their findings to be accurate, I am 100% certain that the 2004 and 2000 elections were fully legitimate. No one has brought a single major case before the courts or before the FEC surrounding election fraud, so until they do so and their results are proven it is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

*yawn*

Why can't people just accept the fact that they lost? I mean we got '06 midterm election coming up and yall are still bitching about the '04 election.

*yawn*
Why can't people just accept the fact that they lost? I mean we got '06 midterm election coming up and yall are still bitching about the '04 election.

You don't win elections by dwelling on the past...and looking like a sore loser does not endear you to the voters.

You don't win elections by dwelling on the past...and looking like a sore loser does not endear you to the voters.

and you don't win elections at all when the vote is rigged.


does anybody want to try to explain what the pollsters and statisticians can't?

and you don't win elections at all when the vote is rigged.


does anybody want to try to explain what the pollsters and statisticians can't?

What, that the Democrats are sore losers? You Lost Get over it!

and you don't win elections at all when the vote is rigged.

The vote wasn't rigged. No one ever presented a case to the FEC or the attorneys general of the various states, nor did they go to the courts. If the vote really were rigged, we would have seen a real attempt to get these accusations verified and brought before the FEC two years ago and not in mid-2006.

does anybody want to try to explain what the pollsters and statisticians can't?

Why bother? If there is widespread voting fraud, build a solid case and submit it to the FEC; get the data independently verified and prove to the election authorities that fraud did occur. Those accusations and data haven't been independently verified or examined in court, they haven't been subjected to a peer review by political scientists and statisticians and they haven't been brought before a public investigation so they are not objective proof by any stretch of the imagination.

and you don't win elections at all when the vote is rigged.


does anybody want to try to explain what the pollsters and statisticians can't?

Sure. Read something written by someone other than a Kennedy.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/11/105550.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/politics/12theory.html?ei=5088&en=4d92304c5edc7155&ex=1258002000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&adxnnlx=1149264076-wYpp77KY2t1PunD+Bo6jng
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/11/MNG2P9PJ5M1.DTL
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4174657
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed/


The "pollsters" need a reason to justify themselves since they've been shown to be wrong several times.

The "statisticians" can show whatever they want w/ statistics.

The "pollsters" need a reason to justify themselves since they've been shown to be wrong several times.

The "statisticians" can show whatever they want w/ statistics.

so that's a no, then?

so that's a no, then?

Only if you ignore every other link that has been posted.

Here's some more for you to ignore:

http://election04.ssrc.org/research/ExitPollReport031005.pdf

Three points:


I don't think the election was rigged.
Ditto to all those who say something like this needs to be brought before a court.
It would be a lot harder to rig an election if we had popular vote.

Isn't this fun?


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050802b.html

Report: More Democrat than Republican Operatives Involved in Voter Fraud
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 02, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A report by a voting rights group regarding allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and suppression during the 2004 presidential election has found that "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election."

The report by the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that thousands "were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain 'nonpartisan' organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states."


http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=6994
Logan clerk to plead guilty in election fraud case

Story by The Associated Press

Logan County Clerk Glen Dale Adkins plans to plead guilty in the ongoing probe of election fraud in southern West Virginia.
Like those former officials, Adkins is a Democrat. That party dominates both counties, and the election fraud charges largely focus on Democratic Party primaries.

Thanks Kecibukia for setting the record straight.

*yawn*

Why can't people just accept the fact that they lost? I mean we got '06 midterm election coming up and yall are still bitching about the '04 election.

Because the democrats don't know how to move on nor come up with a plan to retake the government.

When I search for credible studies of electoral systems and results, an article in Rolling Stone authored by an individual with partisan motives does not rank very high on the list. That said, of course elections in the United States are rigged. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duverger's_law) Unfortunately, partisan bickering over who rigged what isn't going to solve anything, when the cheating is essentially built into the system and would exist even if everyone involved operated with perfect honesty. The solution exists and is well known to other countries and political systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/proportional_representation), if and when the American people and elite decide that they are ready to actually solve problems for once.

Please don't use wikipedia as a source for this type of discussion.

Isn't this fun?


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050802b.html

Report: More Democrat than Republican Operatives Involved in Voter Fraud
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 02, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A report by a voting rights group regarding allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and suppression during the 2004 presidential election has found that "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election."

The report by the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that thousands "were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain 'nonpartisan' organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states."


http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=6994
Logan clerk to plead guilty in election fraud case

Story by The Associated Press

Logan County Clerk Glen Dale Adkins plans to plead guilty in the ongoing probe of election fraud in southern West Virginia.
Like those former officials, Adkins is a Democrat. That party dominates both counties, and the election fraud charges largely focus on Democratic Party primaries.

*yawn*

*yawn*

Exactly. Isn't it fun?

and you don't win elections at all when the vote is rigged.


does anybody want to try to explain what the pollsters and statisticians can't?

You for one do not. On either side. I just yawn at both sides.

Exactly. Isn't it fun?

Yes it is!

*passes around the alcholal to all the legal people in the thread*

Yes it is!

*passes around the alcholal to all the legal people in the thread*

*sniffs* What is this alcholal?

*sniffs* What is this alcholal?

*gives Kecibukia a non-alcholic beverage*

*gives Kecibukia a non-alcholic beverage*

*scratches head*

*wonders what this new concoction is*












Hint: Alcohol

:p Exactly. Isn't it fun?

*nods vigorously*

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/UnblessedOmega/georgewbush-26896.jpg

Yes it is!

*passes around the alcholal to all the legal people in the thread*

Don' worry *hic* I caint shay alcho....inkahol....alkyhoo....I caint shay booze when Im pished either.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/UnblessedOmega/georgewbush-26896.jpg


Cool. Maps that dont match.

Its about all the interest I can muster for Robert Kennedy Jr saying that Republicans stole an election from Democrats.

Or are you just prejudging the item because it has a Kennedy's name on it. Please take a look at the statistically analysis done in this article (not by Kennedy). It at least begs some inspection of you before you throw it away as some leftist conspiracy (anything which disproves the Bush "story."). Read it over and examine the factual analysis given, and then do all the yawning you want. Or is your intellectual curiosity in the Bush range?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/UnblessedOmega/georgewbush-26896.jpg


Oh, look. Another case of BDS.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Or are you just prejudging the item because it has a Kennedy's name on it. Please take a look at the statistically analysis done in this article (not by Kennedy). It at least begs some inspection of you before you throw it away as some leftist conspiracy (anything which disproves the Bush "story."). Read it over and examine the factual analysis given, and then do all the yawning you want. Or is your intellectual curiosity in the Bush range?


I read this. I read the ones saying Democrats rigged the elections. You'll get to thoose by and by after you read the entire thread. Unless your attention span is too short to read entire threads.

I yawned at em both as the same old boring rubbish.

Or are you just prejudging the item because it has a Kennedy's name on it. Please take a look at the statistically analysis done in this article (not by Kennedy). It at least begs some inspection of you before you throw it away as some leftist conspiracy (anything which disproves the Bush "story."). Read it over and examine the factual analysis given, and then do all the yawning you want. Or is your intellectual curiosity in the Bush range?

Or maybe he's yawning at the obvious bias involved and the manipulation of data that has been debunked over and over again yet keeps being vomited up by those w/ severe cases of BDS.

Edit: as well as those w/ Shrubophilia.

Oh, look. Another case of BDS.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

I demand that you immediately cease and desist from bringing any more balanced material to this thread. Or else. Have a cookie.

I demand that you immediately cease and desist from bringing any more balanced material to this thread. Or else. Have a cookie.

*Puts on tin hat, grabs cookie and scuttles away into corner*

*Puts on tin hat, grabs cookie and scuttles away into corner*

Ive brought spare tinfoil to patch my hat. If yours springs a leak you can use it.

Please don't use wikipedia as a source for this type of discussion.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11044509&postcount=23

The URL above contains information on academic sources referenced by the Wikipedia article on Duverger's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duverger's_law). The Wikipedia link I provided to the article on Proportional Representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/proportional_representation) also provides references to the following:


* John Hickman and Chris Little. "Seat/Vote Proportionality in Romanian and Spanish Parliamentary Elections" Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Vol. 2, No. 2, November 2000
* Martin Linton and Mary Southcott. "Making Votes Count: The Case for Electoral Reform", Profile Books Ltd, London, 1998.


Wikipedia also presents a multitude of external links to other sources of information for Proportional Representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#External_links), all of which an be examined and compared to the information in Wikipedia in order to gauge and ensure accuracy. One is also perfectly free to conduct one's own research in order to confirm the information presented.

Until one shows that the information presented in the articles in question is actually inaccurate, dismissing Wikipedia entirely because "anyone can edit it," or whatever other reason, is a fallacy of logic and reasoning. Dismissing Wikipedia entirely without actually demonstrating cause to distrust the information presented in the relevant articles is also a too convienient way to dismiss or dodge the issue without consideration. One does not need to be a Ph.D. before one can collect and present useful information on a given topic.

true or false

1. exit polls have historically been taken to be accurate enough to be used as independent checks against official misconduct, even by the bush administration in places like ukraine.

2. exit polls have apparently stopped working for certain races in the united states.

3. exit polls still work in many places in the country - and for most of the other races that are polled, even in the places where they don't work for certain contests.

4. the differences between the exit polls and the official results are overwhelmingly skewed in a particular direction, rather than randomly.

5. the pollsters and statisticians, upon reviewing their methodology, couldn't come up with a flaw in the nature of the survey - particularly not one that had only shown up since the exit polls apparently stopped working.

6. the bush movement has publicly declared that certain laws doesn't apply to them and that dear leader gets to determine what those laws are.

Its about all the interest I can muster for Robert Kennedy Jr saying that Republicans stole an election from Democrats.

And the world thanks you for taking your precious time to show you have no interest in this thread by posting a reply in it.

Utterly shocking... that election was disgraceful, but I didn't know it was as bad as this... cripes...
If you are believing this crap, I feel sorry for you. Oh wait, you are the idiot who was saying the US gov committed 9/11. You are a moron who obviously believes anything he wants to believe even if it involves shitty logic.

The article was written by a Kennedy so he was probably drunk driving while writing it.

true or false

1. exit polls have historically been taken to be accurate enough to be used as independent checks against official misconduct, even by the bush administration in places like ukraine.

2. exit polls have apparently stopped working for certain races in the united states.

3. exit polls still work in many places in the country - and for most of the other races that are polled, even in the places where they don't work for certain contests.

4. the differences between the exit polls and the official results are overwhelmingly skewed in a particular direction, rather than randomly.

5. the pollsters and statisticians, upon reviewing their methodology, couldn't come up with a flaw in the nature of the survey - particularly not one that had only shown up since the exit polls apparently stopped working.

6. the bush movement has publicly declared that certain laws doesn't apply to them and that dear leader gets to determine what those laws are.
Exit polls fail because usually the people who are more pissed off with the situation are more likely to stop and take the time to talk to the pollsters. In the 04 election, the Dems were the pissed off party.

true or false



FS bothers to read any linked articles.

Answer: False

http://election04.ssrc.org/research/ExitPollReport031005.pdf

The elections are rigged. In both parties, the elections are rigged. This is why people don't really think their votes matter - that, and because of the corruptoral college.

...but they're even more so when you got an outright authoritarian/proto-facsist movement running the show.

go check out this article (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen).

Question: does it even matter what party wins the elections?
They're both obsessed with power and have differences mostly on superficial issues.

Question: does it even matter what party wins the elections?
They're both obsessed with power and have differences mostly on superficial issues.

HOMOS CAN'T MARRY OLOL.

Exit polls fail because usually the people who are more pissed off with the situation are more likely to stop and take the time to talk to the pollsters. In the 04 election, the Dems were the pissed off party.

which explains why response rates in heavily republican precincts was higher than in heavily democratic ones how, exactly?

Question: does it even matter what party wins the elections?
They're both obsessed with power and have differences mostly on superficial issues.

when one party is tilting heavily towards fascism and the other is merely weak and incompetent, then yes

What a coincidence..> Greg Palast just sent out this email to his readers:

How They Stole Ohio
And the GOP 4-step Recipe to 'Blackwell' the USA in 2008
Abracadabra: Three million votes vanish

A Buzzflash Exclusive

June 1, 2006

By Greg Palast

[Sorry if you're receiving this email a second time; we're in the process of some massive tech upgrading and apologize for any inconvenience!]

[Heads up! Catch Robert Kennedy Jr., Mike Papantonio and Greg Palast this Saturday on Air America's 'Ring of Fire' on the shoplifting of the last election … and the next one.]

This is a fact: On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.

And not just anyone's vote. Dive into the electoral dumpster and these "spoiled" votes have a very dark color indeed.

In another life, I taught statistics. And these statistics stank: the raw data tells us that if you are a Black voter, the chance of you losing your vote to technical errors in voting machinery is 900% higher than if you were a white voter.

Any guesses as to whom those African-Americans chose for president on those junked ballots? Check Ohio's racial demographics, do the numbers, and there it is: Kerry won Ohio. And that, too, is a fact. A fact that could not get reported in the USA.

But the shoplifting of those votes in Ohio was just the tip of the theft-berg. November 2, 2004 was a national ballot-box bonfire. In total, over three million votes (3,600,380 to be exact) were cast -- marked, punched, pulled -- YET NEVER COUNTED. I'm not talking about the Ukraine or Uganda. I'm talking about the United States of America "with liberty and justice for all."

Well, not "all." The nine-to-one Black-to-White ballot spoilage rate is a national statistic -- not just an Ohio trick. Last year, I flew to New Mexico to investigate the 33,981 cast but not counted ballots of that state in the 2004 race. George Bush "won" New Mexico by 5,988 votes. Or did he? I calculated that, of the all the ballots rejected and "spoiled," 89% were cast by voters of color. Who won New Mexico? Kerry won -- or he would have, if they had counted the ballots.

But they didn't count them. And that was deliberate. It's in the plan. It's the program. And the program for 2008 is simple. Two million ballots were cast but not counted in the 2000 race. (Over half, 54%, were cast by African-American.) In 2004, the GOP kicked it up to THREE million. Get ready, these guys aim high: "four in '06" and "five in '08" looks to be their game plan.

How will they pile up five million un-voters in 2008? Let's start with the three million "disappeared" of 2004:

Step 1: "Spoiling" ballots -- 1,389,231 of them. In the vote-count game, these are called "undervotes" and "overvotes." You can recognize these lost ballots by their hanging chads, punch cards without punches (an Ohio specialty), paper ballots eaten by scanners, and touch screens that didn't know you touched them.

Step 2: Rejecting "provisional ballots"-- 1,090,729 in this pile. Voters finding themselves at the "wrong" precinct, or wrongly "scrubbed" from voter rolls get these back-of-the-bus ballots first inaugurated in 2002. In '04, provisional ballots were passed out like candy to voters in the poorest precincts. They handed them out -- then threw them away -- one million dumped in all. In Ohio, Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell changed state rules, allowing him to toss out the ballots of legal voters who cast ballots in the wrong precinct although these citizens were told their vote would count after confirming their registration.

Step 3: Not counting absentee ballots -- 526,420 of them. At least, that's what we figure from official stats. But it's anyone's guess how many mailed-in votes were dumped. (However, in one case, in Palm Beach, Florida, Jeb Bush's candidate for Elections Supervisor, Theresa LaPore, counted more absentee votes than absentee ballots mailed in. Not the brightest bulb in the vote-fix biz, that Theresa.)

Step 4: Scrub'm, Purge'm, Block'm. These are the voters who never got to vote at all. This group includes those who found their registrations were never entered on the voter rolls. In Ohio, about one-fourth of those registered by Jesse Jackson's 2004 voter drive, found their registrations delayed beyond the election date or lost.

Add to this un-voter group, those who were wrongly "scrubbed" from registries as "felons." For example, there was Bernice Kines, purged in Florida in 2004 because she was convicted of a felony on July 31, 2009. I repeat: 2009. There was something especially odd about the Ohio felon purge: ex-cons are ALLOWED to vote in that state, Mr. Blackwell.

How many lost their chance to vote by scrubbing, purging and blocking? That's anyone's guess, but one million would not be an unfair estimate -- and that's not included in the 3.6 million tally of ballots uncounted.

Was it deliberate? Oh my God, yes. I'd like you to take a look at the "caging" lists the Republican National Committee concocted to challenge voters with "suspect" addresses. It included page after page of African-American soldiers, like one Randall Prausa, shipped overseas. Mission accomplished, Mr. President?

And there's some new tricks for these old dogs. For the 2006 and 2008, the GOP is pushing new Voter ID requirements. Your signature won't be good enough anymore.

What's wrong with the new ID laws? This: in the 2004 election, 300,000 voters were turned away from the polls for "wrong" ID. For example, in the "Little Texas" counties in New Mexico, if your voter registration included a middle initial but your driver's license had none, you were kicked out of the polling station. Funny, but they only seemed to ask Hispanic voters. We should see the number of voters rejected for ID to quintuple by 2008 based on the new "voting reform" laws recently passed in several states.

Also, coming to a polling station near you: more caging lists, scrub lists, ID challenge lists and more. Exactly why do you think they are compiling those "War on Terror" and War on Immigration databases? Behind the 2000 felon purge lists and behind the 2004 caging lists were databases from the same companies that now have those homeland security contracts. Are they saving us from Osama -- or from Democrats?

I wish I could give you a book on a page, because information is our weapon: Turn on the lights and the cockroaches scatter. That's why I'm asking you to read RFK's article on the Theft of Ohio -- and GET ANGRY. Then read, "Armed Madhouse: … The Scheme to Steal '08' -- AND GET READY.

lol - I like his style

which explains why response rates in heavily republican precincts was higher than in heavily democratic ones how, exactly?

Your source for this?

THe NEP disagrees.

"The NEP report concludes that the most likely source of the errors is differential response patterns by Kerry and Bush voters leaving the polls- that is, Kerry voters were more likely to agree to be interviewed where Bush voters were less likely."

The NEP, you know, National Election Pool. The people who do the exit polling.

How many of you self-righteous, indignant morons are just leaping to Google to find your sources?

How many of you actually know something about what you're talking about here (rather than what someone else wrote on the Wikipedia entry)?

My guess? 0. Which is why I say you're all wasting your time. You won't Google an answer up - thats like googling "Real Vampires" and hoping you'll uncover everything through a single link.

Kerry did not fight the election results for a reason. Maybe we should trust him on that, deal with the next two years and suck it up?

FS bothers to read any linked articles.

Answer: False

http://election04.ssrc.org/research/ExitPollReport031005.pdf

the issue is not about the leaked afternoon exit poll results, which is what that report mainly talks about. the issue is that at the end of the day the exit polls didn't match up to the official counts.

"On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush's 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)

As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states -- including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida -- and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush's neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina.(30) Against these numbers, the statistical likelihood of Bush winning was less than one in 450,000.(31) 'Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,' a Fox News analyst declared, 'or George Bush loses.'"


do at least attempt to stay on topic.

Your source for this?

the article. you know, what this thread is about. you should read it sometime.


"In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology -- so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) -- displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry's favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's 'reluctant responder' hypothesis is 'preposterous.'(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: 'It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.'(37)

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) 'The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,' observes Freeman, 'but actually contradicts it.'"

the issue is not about the leaked afternoon exit poll results, which is what that report mainly talks about. the issue is that at the end of the day the exit polls didn't match up to the official counts.



do at least attempt to stay on topic.

Do attempt to read the rest of the paper where it details the problems w/ the exit polling, the wide spread it had, the changes in voting patterns, and that the NEP itself recognized a Democratic bias in the polling.

The intial leaks were just part of the problem.

the article. you know, what this thread is about. you should read it sometime.


"In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology -- so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) -- displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry's favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's 'reluctant responder' hypothesis is 'preposterous.'(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: 'It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.'(37)

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) 'The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,' observes Freeman, 'but actually contradicts it.'"


So you're taking a report written by a political pundit and printed in Rolling Stone over the reports written by those who actually did the polling?

They're taking a number based on "stongholds" to determine who stopped and who didn't.

Can they reach any farther?

Edit:

You kept crying that you wanted a counter arguement to why the polls were off. When provided w/ one from the very people who did the polls, you still cry foul, instead desperately clinging to your original post.

Here's the NEP paper in full:

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

' 'Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,' a Fox News analyst declared, 'or George Bush loses.'"


do at least attempt to stay on topic.


Why dont you do some research on the 1992 British general election, where polls leading up to the election were giving labour a 5% to 8% lead, exit polls gave a slim labour majority or a hung parliment with labour the biggest party.
When the votes were counted the <spit> tories ended up with a 20 seat majority.

The polling companies put it down to 2 things, non tory voters would say ' I voted for X" Tory voters answered " f*** off and mind your own business" and the other thing was.... just plain out and out lying by the voters because they were ashamed to have to vote for the tories because labour was such a useless party at the time

Lets face it...... the demoprats could'nt get a decent campaign organised even if the repulickon candidate was Charles Manson

Thanks for the very interesting link. I knew 2004 elections were not clean, but I didn't know it was cheated in such a massive way.

Thanks for the very interesting link. I knew 2004 elections were not clean, but I didn't know it was cheated in such a massive way.
Congratulations, you are a moron who just got manipulated by Free Soviets. Read the rest of the thread.

Let me sum up this thread and most other conspiracy threads. Especially considering that many of the people buying this are the same people who posted in the 9/11 conspiracy threads.

Conspiracy theories are like Jedi mind tricks, they only manipulate the weak minded.

So you're taking a report written by a political pundit and printed in Rolling Stone over the reports written by those who actually did the polling?

They're taking a number based on "stongholds" to determine who stopped and who didn't.

Can they reach any farther?

Edit:

You kept crying that you wanted a counter arguement to why the polls were off. When provided w/ one from the very people who did the polls, you still cry foul, instead desperately clinging to your original post.

the problem is that the counter arguments haven't been very good or very relevant, or have been preemptively counter-countered in the original article i linked to (a fact which seems to escape most posters, leading me to think they didn't actually bother reading it).

it's gotten so bad that you are now denying the existence of precincts that are strongholds for particular parties. which is just silly.

What a coincidence..> Greg Palast just sent out this email to his readers:

greg palast is great

What, that the Democrats are sore losers? You Lost Get over it!

You are very annoying, not only in your obnoxious bolded comment, but in your desire to cling to political associations.

This isn't about winning or losing an election, this is about government whitewashing the input of the people it is supposed to be responsible to. It doesn't matter who won or who cheated more. All that matters is that the government, which has a vested interest in securing their own power and livelihoods, are in control of how the voters are registered, how voting takes place, and how votes are counted.

That is called a conflict of interests, and the article FS posted gives statistical evidence that the conflict is very problematic.

Exit polls fail because usually the people who are more pissed off with the situation are more likely to stop and take the time to talk to the pollsters. In the 04 election, the Dems were the pissed off party.

If you read the article, you would know it's just utterly false: the answer rate to exit polls was HIGHER in Rep strongholds than in Dem strongholds, meaning that Bush voters answered MORE often to them than Kerry voters.

the problem is that the counter arguments haven't been very good or very relevant, or have been preemptively counter-countered in the original article i linked to (a fact which seems to escape most posters, leading me to think they didn't actually bother reading it).

it's gotten so bad that you are now denying the existence of precincts that are strongholds for particular parties. which is just silly.

Show me where I denied that? Can we say strawman?

The counter arguements that I've presented are completely relevant. If you don't consider the reports from the sources that you're saying were wrong as "not very good" in comparison to an article written by a Dem. politician, your tin hattery has gone beyond the scope.

Congratulations, you are a moron who just got manipulated by Free Soviets. Read the rest of the thread.

I just read, and it conforted me in my position. Opponents to Free Soviet's article just failed to have any single valuable argument, and seeing how illogical or unrelated to the amount of fraud those arguments are confort me in believing the election was stolen.

Just to keep a bit of perspective: you're fighting over an election in a two-party system, where both parties have near-identical policies, except perhaps, in regards to homosexuals.

Conspiracy theories are like Jedi mind tricks, they only manipulate the weak minded.

Refusing to ever believe that official results may be wrong and yelling at "conspiracy theories" each time someone suggests it is much a more a weak minded attitude than looking at the facts and recognizing that conspirations can exist, some times. It's as stupid to refute everything that sounds like a conspiracy than to accept everything that sounds like a conspiracy.

Show me real arguments, not "consiparcy theory" rant.

that the best you can do?
*yawns as well*

Just to keep a bit of perspective: you're fighting over an election in a two-party system, where both parties have near-identical policies, except perhaps, in regards to homosexuals.

hey, i'm just doing my best to undermine whatever slim levels of trust in the system are left. can't have the revolution if people still believe in the old myths.

If you read the article, you would know it's just utterly false: the answer rate to exit polls was HIGHER in Rep strongholds than in Dem strongholds, meaning that Bush voters answered MORE often to them than Kerry voters.

And if you'ld read the other articles, the OP claims that is all just lies made up by the pollers but "they" know the truth.

So the polls were accurate but the pollers can't examine their own data accurately according to the tin hats.

So you're taking a report written by a political pundit and printed in Rolling Stone over the reports written by those who actually did the polling?

Perhaps you didn't see where John Zogby called the theory preposterous.

Zogby is the most respectable opinion in polling, period.

Perhaps you didn't see where John Zogby called the theory preposterous.

Zogby is the most respectable opinion in polling, period.

of course they didn't - they haven't read it at all. which means they also missed the bit where louis harris (of the harris poll) said,

''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen... You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

hey, i'm just doing my best to undermine whatever slim levels of trust in the system are left. can't have the revolution if people still believe in the old myths.People don't still believe in the old myths. That's why they don't bother to vote.
Face it; America is the land of Apathy & unfree peoples.

All the more evidence that I should and probably am going to move to Canada....

Perhaps you didn't see where John Zogby called the theory preposterous.

Zogby is the most respectable opinion in polling, period.

Even though the entire "interview" wasn't available. Convienient.

Once again. Why hasn't it been brought to the FEC? Why has even Kerry, NPR, etc. not stood up for the "stolen election"? Because it's a load of tin hatted nonsense that is taken so seriously, it's published in Rolling Stone.

The entire point is based on this:

"In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology -- so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate."

If you read the reports, they clearly DID find flaws in their methodology and are working to fix it.

Keep trying folks.

of course they didn't - they haven't read it at all. which means they also missed the bit where louis harris (of the harris poll) said,

''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen... You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

From someone who ignores contradictions in his own article about the very sources their citing.

You keep citing an article that states that the GOP "stole" the election when it is a fact that there have been more Dems convicted of voter fraud that Repubs. But of course those sources are "biased".

This is amusing. The level of BDS in this forum is the highest I've seen lately.

Even though the entire "interview" wasn't available. Convienient.

when has any article anywhere ever done anything of the sort if it wasn't merely a transcript of a live interview?

If you read the reports, they clearly DID find flaws in their methodology and are working to fix it.

the flaws talked about in their report have to do with differential response rates between democrats and republicans, and poor weighting in early reports that weren't officially released and aren't at issue here.

I just read, and it conforted me in my position. Opponents to Free Soviet's article just failed to have any single valuable argument, and seeing how illogical or unrelated to the amount of fraud those arguments are confort me in believing the election was stolen.
You must be illiterate because there have been over a dozen articles by neutral sources that have refuted the idiotic assertations of Free Soviet. You are foreign so you probably have no idea how biased the magazine and author are. They aren't credible sources.

Show me where I denied that? Can we say strawman?

so what did you mean by your comment

"They're taking a number based on "stongholds" to determine who stopped and who didn't.

Can they reach any farther?"

?

if we look at precincts that are historically strongholds for one party or the other, and we find that more people stop to do exit polls in precincts that are vast majority republican than in vast majority democrat ones (and in both cases more than half of the people selected do in fact take the survey anyway), then clearly things should be tilted towards the republicans. so either party strongholds don't actually exist, or democrats in republican strongholds have a predisposition to be every 10th voter (or whatever number they use to select people in that precinct).

You must be illiterate because there have been over a dozen articles by neutral sources that have refuted the idiotic assertations of Free Soviet. You are foreign so you probably have no idea how biased the magazine and author are. They aren't credible sources.
Up to 6000 posts, and you still haven't learned that flaming can get you modsmacked? Surely there are better ways to express your ire?

Cool. Maps that dont match.

Actually they do. It shows that the Republican Party has the old confederate states and the undeveloped territory +alaska and this control most of the country :D

Or are you just prejudging the item because it has a Kennedy's name on it. Please take a look at the statistically analysis done in this article (not by Kennedy). It at least begs some inspection of you before you throw it away as some leftist conspiracy (anything which disproves the Bush "story."). Read it over and examine the factual analysis given, and then do all the yawning you want. Or is your intellectual curiosity in the Bush range?

Oh puhlease. We already went through this. Its bunk and those of us who have a brain knows it.

*snipo*

Oh get off your biased horse and look forward to 2008.

Exit polls have not worked for years and they have proven themselves incompitently in many races and not just US races but in foreign races too.

The elections are rigged. In both parties, the elections are rigged. This is why people don't really think their votes matter - that, and because of the corruptoral college.

Corruptoral College? Where did that come from?

when one party is tilting heavily towards fascism and the other is merely weak and incompetent, then yes

Tilting towards Fascism. That's a good one.

*dies of laughter*

Thanks for the very interesting link. I knew 2004 elections were not clean, but I didn't know it was cheated in such a massive way.

I hope you read all the links. It shows the Dems were doing the worse of everything.

I've always thought only a wingnut could contest the results of 04, but if the claims made by the article writer are, in fact, true, then I need to rethink that.

I think the best recourse would be to refer the issue to the IEC and ask them to investigate. After all, if there was no election fixing, the Republicans needn't worry, and if there was eleciton fixing, it should be revealed. As the Right says to defend warantless wiretaping: you need not worry if you are not guilty.

Why are they so worried about this then?

I just read, and it conforted me in my position. Opponents to Free Soviet's article just failed to have any single valuable argument, and seeing how illogical or unrelated to the amount of fraud those arguments are confort me in believing the election was stolen.

Then I suggest you read the NEP's report which would....blow your mind up. Not to mention the other links that show without a doubt the Dems were doing all they can to unseat Bush that violated the law.

Exit polls have not worked for years and they have proven themselves incompitently in many races and not just US races but in foreign races too.

evidence?

evidence?

Palestinian elections. Exit poll data showed that fatah should've won it. Guess what? they didn't.

Palestinian elections. Exit poll data showed that fatah should've won it. Guess what? they didn't.

well, i guess that's at least one more thing hamas and republicans have in common

but seriously (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114010181773775897.html?mod=2_1125_1),
Still, Dr. Said blames himself for committing a fundamental error in data analysis: He changed his methodology in the face of surprising results. Logic dictated that, with or without Hamas interference, many mainstream voters who backed Hamas as a protest vote wouldn't reveal their choice to a stranger conducting an exit poll, Dr. Said says. And a greater refusal rate than usual -- his was 10%, above his norm of 8% -- would be expected in such a controversial contest. So he initially planned to assign more of the refusals to the Hamas ledger.

But Dr. Said let himself be influenced by the conventional wisdom surrounding the election. "Everyone here, as well as the CIA, Mossad -- everyone thought the best Hamas could do was a tie," he says. So he threw out his plan to assign the nonrespondents to Hamas.

"We should have added to Hamas in the final analysis, but we didn't because we thought the data made sense"

over there they had the dual problem of a major party that many people actually would reasonably not admit to voting for, and a lack of prior data to properly calibrate for that fact. the republicans just don't have that excuse here - we're rather notably lacking in sectarian violence, even when significant numbers of people strongly suspect that two elections in a row were stolen.

What, that the Democrats are sore losers? You Lost Get over it!

Uh...Free Soviets isn't a Democrat. He's an anarchist-communist.

Actually they do. It shows that the Republican Party has the old confederate states and the undeveloped territory +alaska and this control most of the country :D
And the Democrat Party controls cities where many of the people are high school dropouts or were poorly educated due to the shortcomings of intercity schools. See, 2 people can play at this game.

well, i guess that's at least one more thing hamas and republicans have in common

but seriously (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114010181773775897.html?mod=2_1125_1),


over there they had the dual problem of a major party that many people actually would reasonably not admit to voting for, and a lack of prior data to properly calibrate for that fact. the republicans just don't have that excuse here - we're rather notably lacking in sectarian violence, even when significant numbers of people strongly suspect that two elections in a row were stolen.

Despite the fact that the elections WERE NOT STOLEN! It is only in the minds of those who lost that it was stolen. No evidence has surfaced that the Republicans stole it. In fact, there is more evidence that the DEMS tried to steal it.

Why has even Kerry, NPR, etc. not stood up for the "stolen election"?

Kerry is a spineless opportunistic coward.

Despite the fact that the elections WERE NOT STOLEN! It is only in the minds of those who lost that it was stolen.

well done missing the point.

Despite the fact that the elections WERE NOT STOLEN! It is only in the minds of those who lost that it was stolen. No evidence has surfaced that the Republicans stole it. In fact, there is more evidence that the DEMS tried to steal it.

Corny, you crack me up. Read the damn article that FS posted and read the article he posted in the first thread. They constitute plenty of reason for concern. Clearly, the best course of action is to have a neutral third-party investigate the election just in case. If no one did wrong, no one would be harmed. If a group did wrong, legal action would be taken. If the Republicans are as innocent as you suggest (And as their attempts to protect all syncophants in election-mongering have suggested is false), then they cannot be harmed.

Put your money where your mouth is.