Vote Fraud Allegations Gathers Steam

[jimnyc]

i guess i am trying to post on topic here. i notice there are many tangents.

here is a mathematical analysis of the exit poll discrepancy, and intriguing to make you wonder what exactly went on with this 'election'.

in particular the paragraph on page 7:

The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one (referring to the low percentage of votes Kerry received in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida). As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 elections could have been due to chance or random error.


here's a question for those of you who condone fraudulent votes: how many votes have to be fraudulent until you feel like it is a disgrace to our country? it's only 1 for me.

Spilly, please tell me you aren't part of the 'election was stolen' crowd. You come back with your first post after the election with this? LOL

 

[UsaPride]

I remember him sitting there - I didn't know the name off the book till much much later. But him sitting there dazed and confused was infuriating. Later I learned it was for 7 minutes, and that floored me.

Try to let go of the hate, it's really bad for you and very unnecessary. I found the link, try reading it without the blinders on.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14678&highlight=minutes

Liberals say they can't see where you're coming from because you "red states" have so much hatred. Liberals think Conservatives are all hate mongering asses.

Well, we're not all hate mongering asses. Some of us are just fed up with the attacks from the left these past few years.

No. You're reaching, attempting to justify his actions. I'm not interested in justifying the actions of any political leader. If they screw up, say so. One of the reasons people consider Pubs "ignorant" is their adherence to justifying everything that guy does, as if he's the second coming. Well, he's NOT the second coming - he's a simple man and he's misguided and he makes lots of mistakes. You don't have to justify everything he does to support him.

I'm not trying to justify his actions. Just trying to see the big picture and give him the benefit of the doubt. Damn common sense again!
The second coming? LMAO!! Too funny!

We'll see how screwed up the country is in 4 years. If it's really screwed, as I fear it maybe, then the liberals are going to be able to shove whatever far left pinko down our throats they want to. Hillary? I shudder. But if Bush screws up as bad as I expect, we're going to get hit with a left hook that'll knock us cold.

Well don't worry. He's done a good job, he's doing a good job, and he'll continue to do a good job.

All three. I oppose Bush, his policies, and his administration.

So sad! I'll Pray for you!

Thanks for the discussion - now it's time for bed!

You sleep well, Bush is doing a good job keeping your ass safe in your cozy little bed.

 

[spillmind]

Spilly, please tell me you aren't part of the 'election was stolen' crowd. You come back with your first post after the election with this? LOL

stunning rebuttal.

i'm telling you, you guys need a :spin: emoticon. maybe it could look like a pittsburgh steelers logo?

 

[jimnyc]

stunning rebuttal.

i'm telling you, you guys need a :spin: emoticon. maybe it could look like a pittsburgh steelers logo?

I notice you didn't answer the question. Do you think the election was stolen/rigged?

 

[krisy]

For Civil Liberty whenever he comes back(if his study isn't over yet). A couple of questions:

1. Have you ever read "Bias" or "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg? Being in the journalism business,I would think these books might be worth your reading if you truly don't favor one side over the other.I haven't read "Arrogance yet,but "Bias"is a great book. Goldberg was there and saw and heard with his own eyes and ears what goes on. Have you ever seen Farenhype 911? It's great proof of MM's lies.

2. If John Kerry would have won,would you be questioning our voting system quite so much? Would you still be concerned?

3. I still don't understand why major news outlets and others would depend so much on exit polling. Seems so unofficial to me. I live in Ohio,and no one asked me,my neighbors,or any of my family on the way out who we were voting for. We span from Cincinnati to Columbus here,so who were they asking? They obviously weren't asking everyone. Maybe they were only counting the people that gave the answers exit pollers wanted to hear? I have heard this a lot. If you put out in the exit polls that a certain candidate is winning,people won't even bother to go vote for the loosing one,or just vote for who they think is winning,because it won't matter anyway. Your opinion?

 

[Mr. P]

After reading the whole thread one thing stands out for me, Bush sat there for 7 minutes.

Wow! Bush sitting for 7 minutes on the morning of 9/11 is still
sticking with the left wing to this day. I guess that's normal, I mean after all how
do you explain it? They the left wing Bush haters, make claims of all sorts
but being as wise as they claim they are can't explain it.
So we hear them say he's incompetent, shocked, confused etc...Shocked? What a revelation!
Did it ever dawn on you mental giants there was a reason for that 7 minutes?
To this day I've never heard anyone, especially on the left, suggest that he may have sat there because he was told to by the Secret Service. He was safe. Possible? Hell yes! With obvious attacks on the Country, I know (don't ask me how) the Secret Service activates plan X, Y or Z to protect the President. Once they have all in place they move...in this case it took 7 minutes. Get over it folks.

 

[dilloduck]

As I often say on my blog About Civil Liberties,</a> the right to vote is among the most important civil rights we have. But that right is meaningless if the vote is not counted accurately.

I have avoided falling into the community of conspiracy theorists by claiming "vote fraud" just because I am personally unhappy with the election results. I'm not interested in what aluminum - foil - hat wearing kooks have to say on the subject. However, in view of mounting evidence, vote fraud is coming mainstream, and it's important that we discuss this topic.

First of all, let's consider exit polls. How could they be so wrong in certain battleground states? Either the exit polls were very wrong, or the vote count was very wrong. Wrong by <i> more than the margin of error</i> of the polls.

In Florida, the exit poll was off by 5% in Bush's favor, and in Ohio, the exit poll was off by 6.7% in Bush's favor. 6.7% is a huge difference, and far far past the margin of error for the poll.

So then, are the exit polls valid? What could account for such a statistical difference? A recent examination of exit polls in light of this election is presented <a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf"> here by Dr. Steven Freeman </a> of the University of Pennsylvania. In his study, Dr. Freeman shows that exit polls have historically been a very accurate indicator of election results.

If polls have been historically accurate, what then accounts for the many discrepancies in this election? And why were these discrepancies isolated to specific key battleground states?

In the 10 key battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Bush received an average of 4.7% more votes than the exit polls indicated. In NH it was a whopping 9.5%. In 8 of these states the poll was off by more than the margin of error. On the other hand, the swing state of Wisconsin, and in many other states, the exit poll was exactly accurate.

In some of the battleground states, the difference would not change the election outcome. But in Florida, Ohio, and <i>many others</i>, the difference swings Kerry into the winner's seat - and in a big way.

Now, perhaps one could dismiss these 8 very unusual anomalies where the poll was off by more than the margin of error as some sort of statistical freak accident. Perhaps one could, were it not for the many thousands of reports of malfeasance relating to the vote in these states.

In both Ohio and Florida, computer touch screen machines <a href="http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4154"> miscast votes for Bush</a>, which were intended for Kerry. A machine in an Ohio precinct awarded Bush an <a href="http://ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=919"> additional 3,893 votes</a>, Thousands of votes were lost by machines <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1713242,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594"> in North Carolina, </a>and Florida machines <a href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html"> miscounted absentee ballots. </a>And these are just a few of the problems we know about today.

A second oddity is that in many of these states, Diebold electronic voting machines are used. These machines do not leave a paper trail of verifiable votes. More curious is that the CEO of Diebold said that he'd "give Ohio to Bush". While it may be inconceivable that such a bold fraud would actually be perpetrated, there have been reports that Diebold machines came "pre-loaded" with 2000 votes for Bush.

And a final concern is over the manner that the elections were carried out. As an example, in Ohio's more Democratic precincts, voter lines were 10 hours long. This is because Democratic leaning precincts were given only 1 voting machine per 1000 voters, while Republican precincts had 1 voting station per 184 voters.

So then, where is Kerry in all of this? He made his concession speech, sure - but a concession speech is not legally binding in any way. What if a recount in Ohio or Florida gave Kerry a majority of the electoral college? Then yes, he would become president.

So is Kerry walking away? I wouldn't be so sure. As <a href="http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm"> Betsy Vasquez writes</a>, Kerry is waging a smarter war on the recount issue - instead of falling into the trap that Al Gore did, igniting the passions of the nation in 2000, Kerry and his team are quietly gathering evidence and seeking the truth. Meanwhile, Nader and Cobb are calling for recounts. With third parties calling for recounts, the focus is shifted off Kerry, who will not come forward unless there is evidence that will change the out come of the election. And if there is, then you can bet that Kerry will become <i>very</i> visible indeed.

For an additional point of view, see <a href="http://www.opednews.com/swanson_111004_media_black_out.htm"> this story from David Swanson.</a>



Best Regards,

Andy Somers

I realize that it is difficult for "elitists" and "intellectuals" to accept a loss. We saw it in 2000 and it continues to this day. Do you realize that you have now spent over 4 years either crying foul or criticizing EVERYTHING Bush has done (even to a 7 minute time slot as Mr.P has pointed out). I'm really curious as to what it is about us "red" people that scares you so. Although you deny an "aluminum-foil-hat" mentality, you fear consistanlty leads you in that direction. Your denial extends to issues which have been disproven over and over yet you still pound your head against the same door.
The latest form of denial (red people are stupid) would offend me if I wasn't aware that it is a last ditch effort by losers to somehow squeeze some dignity out of a sound trouncing. A "smart" population should easily manipulate the "stupid" ones into voting the "correct" way. A "smart" population should be far more adept at stealing votes and cheating machines. A "smart" population would have learned from their loss in 2000 that the best way to win an election is to have the best candidate instead of relying on the belief that the "anyone but Bush" would actually work. EVERYONE knew that Hillary was the best candidate the Dems had but instead of drafting her they honored her wishes to run in 2008 so her chances of winning would be greater.
Don't blame the "red" people, CL. Acccept the mistakes you made and the fact that the Clintons destroyed Kerry's chances by pursuing their own selfish desires.
You will get nowhere by looking for some strange conspiracy to save you. "Red" people won this election by chosing the right candidate and working hard for him. We didn't wait for him to be coronated by someone who thinks they are "smarter" than us. I am STILL waiting for all these "smart" people to tell me how their plan is better and have yet to hear one even present me with something to think about.

 

[Mr. P]

:rotflmao: Who do you think your fooling CL..I looked at your site. You're one of the Holly-wood gang! A journalist? What a laugh! You're just a wanna be..just a GRIP as the say out there in holly-weird. Dismissed, you left winger with your disguise as a journalist..No damn wonder you couldn't figure out how to conduct research here without pissing people off, you don't have a clue what you're doing! :rotflmao:

I knew that stench, from the start.

 

[CivilLiberty]

CL:

I count four references to me in this thread alone.
Somebody's not sporting a crush, is he?

You're an interesting study; prototypical of how the left views neocons. Just for the record, do you consider yourself to be an evangelical Christian?


Kindest Regards,


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

As many as it takes for Bush to win!

Are you saying you condone election fraud if it helps your candidate to win?



A

 

[dilloduck]

You're an interesting study; prototypical of how the left views neocons. Just for the record, do you consider yourself to be an evangelical Christian?


Kindest Regards,


A

read my post and analyze me when you get the time---I just love stuff like fortune tellers and stuff.

 

[UsaPride]

You're an interesting study; prototypical of how the left views neocons.

You sure do know an awful lot about how the left "views" and "feels" to be a "conservative".
I don't know any conservatives that can understand liberals that much.

 

[CivilLiberty]

If John Kerry would have won,would you be questioning our voting system quite so much? Would you still be concerned?

Yes, I had been planning a series of articles on Kerry's civil liberty related failings had he won. The issue is moot now, though. If there were mainstream discussion of vote fraud had Kerry won, I would have been discussing that too.

I still don't understand why major news outlets and others would depend so much on exit polling. Seems so unofficial to me. I live in Ohio,and no one asked me,my neighbors,or any of my family on the way out who we were voting for. We span from Cincinnati to Columbus here,so who were they asking? They obviously weren't asking everyone.

Polls never ask everyone - polls ask a statistically significant random sample.

Having done my share of focus groups and audience research, we know that with a random sample one can get results within a very narrow margin of error. I won't get pedantic on the methodology, but for a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, you need a random sample of around 1500

See:

http://whyfiles.org/009poll/math_primer.html

http://www.questaresearch.com/calc_conf_int_prn.php?percentage=true

So, it's unlikely that you or anyone you know personally will have encountered a pollster.

To be accurate, the polls need to be "true random", which meant that people are selected by some mathematical standard, such as every 10th person out the door, etc. Judgment cannot be used as it will taint the results.

In the case of exit polls, it is equally important that precincts be chosen randomly, or else choosing certain geographic areas over others will also result in statistical inaccuracies.

People who say the polls are wrong are claiming that the pollsters were unprofessional and had personal agendas. It's useful to point out though that exit polls are conducted by two separate and highly respected, professional polling firms.



Regards,


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, I had been planning a series of articles on Kerry's civil liberty related failings had he won. The issue is moot now, though. If there were mainstream discussion of vote fraud had Kerry won, I would have been discussing that too.




Polls never ask everyone - polls ask a statistically significant random sample.

Having done my share of focus groups and audience research, we know that with a random sample one can get results within a very narrow margin of error. I won't get pedantic on the methodology, but for a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, you need a random sample of around 1500

See:

http://whyfiles.org/009poll/math_primer.html

http://www.questaresearch.com/calc_conf_int_prn.php?percentage=true

So, it's unlikely that you or anyone you know personally will have encountered a pollster.

To be accurate, the polls need to be "true random", which meant that people are selected by some mathematical standard, such as every 10th person out the door, etc. Judgment cannot be used as it will taint the results.

In the case of exit polls, it is equally important that precincts be chosen randomly, or else choosing certain geographic areas over others will also result in statistical inaccuracies.

People who say the polls are wrong are claiming that the pollsters were unprofessional and had personal agendas. It's useful to point out though that exit polls are conducted by two separate and highly respected, professional polling firms.



Regards,


Andy

so you're still gonna persue the fraud issue, huh?

 

[CivilLiberty]

After reading the whole thread one thing stands out for me, Bush sat there for 7 minutes.

Yea, it stood out to me on 9/11, and I can tell you, I haven't felt this insecure in a leader since living though the LA Riots, and the Clinton Administration's murder of the Branch Davidians.


Bush failed to do his job, he failed to protect America, and today his misguided foreign policy is creating even greater risk for our nation and people.


A

 

[UsaPride]

Yea, it stood out to me on 9/11, and I can tell you, I haven't felt this insecure in a leader since living though the LA Riots, and the Clinton Administration's murder of the Branch Davidians.

Bush failed to do his job, he failed to protect America, and today his misguided foreign policy is creating even greater risk for our nation and people.

This would be funny if you weren't so sad. You are extremely ate up in hate.

 

[dilloduck]

Yea, it stood out to me on 9/11, and I can tell you, I haven't felt this insecure in a leader since living though the LA Riots, and the Clinton Administration's murder of the Branch Davidians.


Bush failed to do his job, he failed to protect America, and today his misguided foreign policy is creating even greater risk for our nation and people.


A

Insecure???-Interesting--maybe the red and blue doesn't represent the smart and dumb but the secure a and insecure.---Look into that for me will ya?

 

[UsaPride]

Insecure???-Interesting--maybe the red and blue doesn't represent the smart and dumb but the secure a and insecure.---Look into that for me will ya?

Hey, that makes sense!

 

[CivilLiberty]

Try to let go of the hate, it's really bad for you and very unnecessary.

I'm working on it.

I found the link, try reading it without the blinders on.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14678&highlight=minutes

Okay, blinders off. What were you expecting me to see there? I mainly saw alot of vitriolic comments from the far right contingent of this forum, and mostly alot of excuse making for Bush inactions. And here's a gem:

"You and others who speak out against our country are the REAL ones putting us in danger from terrorists, who feed off of just this kind of thinking and division. "


Oh please. This is the same kind of comment people made in Nazi Germany in the 30s - "if you don't love hitler you're evil".

Bull. If you're an American state your opinion clearly - and if it's dissent, so be it. Only a mindless drone would kowtow in blind obedience to a leader without questioning his actions.

Did you guys kowtow to Clinton? Give him your undying support? No? Then the word hypocrite springs to mind.

Well, we're not all hate mongering asses. Some of us are just fed up with the attacks from the left these past few years.

Not all the left are hate mongering asses, and they are just fed up with attacks from the right all these years.

I'm not trying to justify his actions. Just trying to see the big picture and give him the benefit of the doubt. Damn common sense again!
The second coming? LMAO!! Too funny!

I'm not willing to give him the benefit off the doubt - it's our nation's security at stake, and he's not up to the job.

Well don't worry. He's done a good job, he's doing a good job, and he'll continue to do a good job.

He didn't, he isn't, and he won't.

So sad! I'll Pray for you!

Don't. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe in god. I don't accept your "prayers", and I consider it an insult that you would project your religion onto me.

You sleep well, Bush is doing a good job keeping your ass safe in your cozy little bed.

It's hard to sleep here in Los Angeles knowing that N. Korea has missiles capable of striking us. Thanks Bush for spending 138 Billion to fight some unwarranted was in the desert and ignoring the communist threat of a Kim Jong II nuclear tipped missile pointed at my bedroom. Safe? I think not.


Best Regards,


Andy

 

[musicman]

You're an interesting study; prototypical of how the left views neocons. Just for the record, do you consider yourself to be an evangelical Christian?


Kindest Regards,


A

I'll be happy to answer any question you've got, liberal. But do me a favor first. Define "neocon".