We live in a Kakistocracy

[Gunny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy,_voting_machines


"Election Systems & Software (ES&S) (40-50%) and Diebold Election Systems (DES) (30-35%) are responsible for the integrity and processing of around 80% of United States election voting. Between them, these two companies alone provide voter registration, printing of ballots, the programming of the voting machines, the counting and tabulation of the votes, and the final reporting of the results for over 150 million Americans."

What's your point?

 

[Truthmatters]

Note to gunny ,this is a very large atricle and this is but a small part of it even though its long



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Un...oting_machines




Note: As with all statistics, it is very important to consider other causes of apparent anomalies, and to provide verifiable and neutral source data that can be checked in a neutral way by third parties. All the information and sources below appear prima facie to be statistically reasonable in terms of both analysis and assumptions, and to be based upon verifiable public data.

An analysis of Florida counties with 80,000 - 500,000 registered voters concluded (with a few caveats of a usual kind) that machine type (E-Touch vs Op-Scan) was a "significant predictor" of vote at the p < 0.001 level (less than one chance in a thousand of this degree of anomaly happening by chance) [38],[39],[40]Source data and calculations [41]. Contrarily, the New York Times ran a story stating that "...three political scientists, from Cornell, Harvard and Stanford... [pointed out] many of those Democratic counties in Florida have a long tradition of voting Republican in presidential elections". [42] All these analyses show Bush with a higher percentage of the vote in areas using optical scan ballots (as opposed to touch screen machines). (This study was later used as a basis to test the "Dixiecrat / Op-Scan" hypothesis in smaller counties: [43])
An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus according to election officials. [44] Franklin County was the only Ohio county to use this particular electronic voting system. [45]
One thread on the "democraticunderground" website discusses the results in Gahanna, Franklin Co. Ohio and notes that:
Gahanna has some 20,000 people elegible to vote and the reported turnout was around 70%. On a casual reckoning approximately 14,000 people voted, and yet nearly 21,000 votes were reported by voting machines.
The 3,893 extra individuals who are said to have queued to vote for Bush, and were therefore presumably Republican, did not appear to vote on any other matter bar the Presidency. (These other matters included the Senate race, County Commissioner, several county and state officials, and the infamous Gay Unions vote, issues of great importance in the election.)
Source: [46], source data from govt website pdf
An analysis reported in the New Zealand press looks at the differences between exit polls and reported voting in more detail. It identifies that in a selection of non-swing states, the exit polls and final results match. However in a large proportion of what were identified before the election as key swing states (Wisconsin, Pennysylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, etc.), the exit polls and final votes do not match.
The error was in each case a statistically anomalous and electorally critical 4 - 15% swing (change between exit polls and electronic voting) and furthermore the anomalies were not random. In each of the above swing states, this variation between what voters said they voted and what the machines reported was in favour of Mr. Bush. Source [47], article discussing here, graphs here.
An article comments that:
Exit polls into the evening of Nov. 2 actually showed Kerry rolling to a clear victory nationally and carrying most of the battleground states, including Florida and Ohio, whose totals would have ensured Kerry's victory in the Electoral College.
The exit polls covered both the Presidential and Senate races. The votes reported by voting machines for the Senate races were in line with the exit polls for the Senate race, however the votes reported by the same voting machines for the Presidency often significant disagreed with the exit polls for the Presidency.
It also comments that "Democratic suspicions also were raised by Republican resistance to implementing any meaningful backup system for checking the results on Diebold and other electronic-voting machines."
There were additional reports of significantly large data irregularities with the "optical scan" type voting machines in at least Florida. In one county using optical scan voting machines for example, election records showed 77% registered democrats but Bush received 77% of the vote.
Wired Newshas examined this issue and reports that, "...according to academics, the internet pundits are reading the data out of context. Demographic figures and vote trends over several years show the numbers to be consistent with previous elections. According to University of California at Berkeley political scientist Henry Brady, the Republican vote share has been going up in Florida's rural optical-scan counties for years."
Wired further reports that, "[t]hree professors of government also examined the numbers after being pressured by many people, including lawyers for the Democratic Party, and concluded the same thing." but that they also warned this "doesn't mean that nothing went wrong in this election. It just means this particular thing is not what went wrong."
Nov. 27 Oklahoma media report:
"The respectable, conservative "Tulsa World" newspaper reported Nov 3rd that Kerry was winning in 57 of the states's rural counties, with 70% of the vote counted ... The "official" State of Oklahoma Election Board vote totals released later show Kerry not winning; but, losing in all the state's 77 counties, including the 57 rural counties. A simple comparison of total votes for Kerry between the staid establishment mouthpiece, the "Tulsa World" newspaper and the so-called "official" final vote totals at the State Election Board show fewer votes for Kerry in 57 counties than the "Tulsa World" does ... Sen Kerry lost 37,982 votes to the ES&S Optech Machines. During the same time period President Bush gained a whooping 393,825 votes. In other words, Kerry lost votes already cast [and counted] by voters ... Who programs these things, eh? ... It turns out every vote in the state ... were counted on the same type of flawed machine, programmed originally by the Hagel's ES&S company..."
[48] examines Ohio counties and notes:
"...over 20,000 absentee ballots were added to Franklin County's total twice [Source: official canvas report] ... Some candidate totals are identical in the two counts, and some differ by just one vote. Still others are reported as zero in the second count, which implies that only certain races were recounted..."
Most of Ohio use punch cards. Most Ohio counties showed "dramatic increases" in voter turnout. Franklin and Mahoning counties showed fewer voters. Franklin and Mohoning are two of the few to use touch voting. Likewise the same two counties bucked the other trend: the normal pattern was for the increase in reported voters to be much higher than the increase in registered voters. In these two counties the opposite was true. Anectodtal evidence suggests rather puzzlingly that these were not undervoted, as they experienced the same extensive lines and intensive "get out the vote" as other counties. (Figures and stats in article)
"Out of all these counties, only Franklin and Mahoning use DRE voting systems. Out of all these counties, only Franklin and Mahoning show the odd pattern of having a greater increase in registered voters than in reported voters. Out of all these counties, Franklin and Mahoning have the lowest increase in turnout rate from 2000; the others average a much higher turnout rate increase of about 13-14%. Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? It is especially fishy when you consider the strategic importance of these two counties...If Franklin and Mahoning experienced the same 13-14% increase in turnout rate as the other blue states ... together that's about 108,000 votes ... I think we need to try to figure out where those votes went."
"Warren County made the news twice... First, it was the last county in Ohio to complete its vote count. Second, the ballots were counted in secret by its Republican election officials. The media were not allowed to observe the counting process and were relegated to an area two floors below where the count was taking place. The justification Warren officials gave was that they had received a report of a terrorism threat, namely a level 10 (out of 10) warning specifically for Warren County. That was a lie. It was denied outright by both Homeland Security and the FBI. So just what were those Republican Warren County officials doing with the ballots they kept to just themselves all night long? One possibility is that they were destroying ballots..."

"There is one more point to be examined here. The idea promoted by the media is that Bush won because "red" voters showed up in greater quantities than "blue" voters. But looking at Ohio, we see that the opposite is actually true. Blue counties in Ohio had a larger increase in turnout rate than red counties. Even dividing counties up into smaller and smaller groups does not change this: Strongly blue counties have better turnout rate increases than moderately blue counties. Moderately red counties have better turnout rate increases than strongly red counties. Where did all those votes for Bush come from? The election in Ohio stinks. Badly."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

NOPE that is not true!

go find me ANYTHING to prove that.

The Dems were asking for the votes to be counted.

Gore asked for counts where things looked fishy.

The Rs fought it tooth and nail.

Then after the elections the R congress passed laws to have the elections "upgraded" to electronic machines.

Your simply lying now or ignorant of Florida law and the conditions and actions in November/December 2000.

Florida LAW required a recount. That was done. Gore insisted on another recount of certain counties, THAT to was done.

Remind us again who designed, approved, made and issued the ballots in those counties.

Gore demanded the following for the third recount...

1. Any card that was a vote for the Independent candidate be counted as a vote for him, because as a democratic district he knew those were really his votes.

2. Any card disqualified that had a vote for him be counted anyway. But none that were disqualified that voted for Bush should be counted.

3. Absentee ballots be disqualified ( the reason for this being he believed most would be military voters and vote for Bush)

4. Any card with any mark of any kind on his hole punch be counted as a vote for him. Even if another candidate on that card had been voted for.

5. Bush requested that if a third recount was to occur it be across the entire State, Gore demanded and went to court to ensure only the heavily democratic districts he chose be recounted a third time.


Furthermore AFTER the fact it has been shown with numerous Liberal and independent recounts that BUSH won.

 

[Annie]

As tm says, very long without space. How about going through and highlighting what you think relevant?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What's your point?

He is claiming that evil rightwingers run those companies and rigid the vote.

 

[Gunny]

Note to gunny ,this is a very large atricle and this is but a small part of it even though its long



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Un...oting_machines




Note: As with all statistics, it is very important to consider other causes of apparent anomalies, and to provide verifiable and neutral source data that can be checked in a neutral way by third parties. All the information and sources below appear prima facie to be statistically reasonable in terms of both analysis and assumptions, and to be based upon verifiable public data.

An analysis of Florida counties with 80,000 - 500,000 registered voters concluded (with a few caveats of a usual kind) that machine type (E-Touch vs Op-Scan) was a "significant predictor" of vote at the p < 0.001 level (less than one chance in a thousand of this degree of anomaly happening by chance) [38],[39],[40]Source data and calculations [41]. Contrarily, the New York Times ran a story stating that "...three political scientists, from Cornell, Harvard and Stanford... [pointed out] many of those Democratic counties in Florida have a long tradition of voting Republican in presidential elections". [42] All these analyses show Bush with a higher percentage of the vote in areas using optical scan ballots (as opposed to touch screen machines). (This study was later used as a basis to test the "Dixiecrat / Op-Scan" hypothesis in smaller counties: [43])
An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus according to election officials. [44] Franklin County was the only Ohio county to use this particular electronic voting system. [45]
One thread on the "democraticunderground" website discusses the results in Gahanna, Franklin Co. Ohio and notes that:
Gahanna has some 20,000 people elegible to vote and the reported turnout was around 70%. On a casual reckoning approximately 14,000 people voted, and yet nearly 21,000 votes were reported by voting machines.
The 3,893 extra individuals who are said to have queued to vote for Bush, and were therefore presumably Republican, did not appear to vote on any other matter bar the Presidency. (These other matters included the Senate race, County Commissioner, several county and state officials, and the infamous Gay Unions vote, issues of great importance in the election.)
Source: [46], source data from govt website pdf
An analysis reported in the New Zealand press looks at the differences between exit polls and reported voting in more detail. It identifies that in a selection of non-swing states, the exit polls and final results match. However in a large proportion of what were identified before the election as key swing states (Wisconsin, Pennysylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, etc.), the exit polls and final votes do not match.
The error was in each case a statistically anomalous and electorally critical 4 - 15% swing (change between exit polls and electronic voting) and furthermore the anomalies were not random. In each of the above swing states, this variation between what voters said they voted and what the machines reported was in favour of Mr. Bush. Source [47], article discussing here, graphs here.
An article comments that:
Exit polls into the evening of Nov. 2 actually showed Kerry rolling to a clear victory nationally and carrying most of the battleground states, including Florida and Ohio, whose totals would have ensured Kerry's victory in the Electoral College.
The exit polls covered both the Presidential and Senate races. The votes reported by voting machines for the Senate races were in line with the exit polls for the Senate race, however the votes reported by the same voting machines for the Presidency often significant disagreed with the exit polls for the Presidency.
It also comments that "Democratic suspicions also were raised by Republican resistance to implementing any meaningful backup system for checking the results on Diebold and other electronic-voting machines."
There were additional reports of significantly large data irregularities with the "optical scan" type voting machines in at least Florida. In one county using optical scan voting machines for example, election records showed 77% registered democrats but Bush received 77% of the vote.
Wired Newshas examined this issue and reports that, "...according to academics, the internet pundits are reading the data out of context. Demographic figures and vote trends over several years show the numbers to be consistent with previous elections. According to University of California at Berkeley political scientist Henry Brady, the Republican vote share has been going up in Florida's rural optical-scan counties for years."
Wired further reports that, "[t]hree professors of government also examined the numbers after being pressured by many people, including lawyers for the Democratic Party, and concluded the same thing." but that they also warned this "doesn't mean that nothing went wrong in this election. It just means this particular thing is not what went wrong."
Nov. 27 Oklahoma media report:
"The respectable, conservative "Tulsa World" newspaper reported Nov 3rd that Kerry was winning in 57 of the states's rural counties, with 70% of the vote counted ... The "official" State of Oklahoma Election Board vote totals released later show Kerry not winning; but, losing in all the state's 77 counties, including the 57 rural counties. A simple comparison of total votes for Kerry between the staid establishment mouthpiece, the "Tulsa World" newspaper and the so-called "official" final vote totals at the State Election Board show fewer votes for Kerry in 57 counties than the "Tulsa World" does ... Sen Kerry lost 37,982 votes to the ES&S Optech Machines. During the same time period President Bush gained a whooping 393,825 votes. In other words, Kerry lost votes already cast [and counted] by voters ... Who programs these things, eh? ... It turns out every vote in the state ... were counted on the same type of flawed machine, programmed originally by the Hagel's ES&S company..."
[48] examines Ohio counties and notes:
"...over 20,000 absentee ballots were added to Franklin County's total twice [Source: official canvas report] ... Some candidate totals are identical in the two counts, and some differ by just one vote. Still others are reported as zero in the second count, which implies that only certain races were recounted..."
Most of Ohio use punch cards. Most Ohio counties showed "dramatic increases" in voter turnout. Franklin and Mahoning counties showed fewer voters. Franklin and Mohoning are two of the few to use touch voting. Likewise the same two counties bucked the other trend: the normal pattern was for the increase in reported voters to be much higher than the increase in registered voters. In these two counties the opposite was true. Anectodtal evidence suggests rather puzzlingly that these were not undervoted, as they experienced the same extensive lines and intensive "get out the vote" as other counties. (Figures and stats in article)
"Out of all these counties, only Franklin and Mahoning use DRE voting systems. Out of all these counties, only Franklin and Mahoning show the odd pattern of having a greater increase in registered voters than in reported voters. Out of all these counties, Franklin and Mahoning have the lowest increase in turnout rate from 2000; the others average a much higher turnout rate increase of about 13-14%. Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? It is especially fishy when you consider the strategic importance of these two counties...If Franklin and Mahoning experienced the same 13-14% increase in turnout rate as the other blue states ... together that's about 108,000 votes ... I think we need to try to figure out where those votes went."
"Warren County made the news twice... First, it was the last county in Ohio to complete its vote count. Second, the ballots were counted in secret by its Republican election officials. The media were not allowed to observe the counting process and were relegated to an area two floors below where the count was taking place. The justification Warren officials gave was that they had received a report of a terrorism threat, namely a level 10 (out of 10) warning specifically for Warren County. That was a lie. It was denied outright by both Homeland Security and the FBI. So just what were those Republican Warren County officials doing with the ballots they kept to just themselves all night long? One possibility is that they were destroying ballots..."

"There is one more point to be examined here. The idea promoted by the media is that Bush won because "red" voters showed up in greater quantities than "blue" voters. But looking at Ohio, we see that the opposite is actually true. Blue counties in Ohio had a larger increase in turnout rate than red counties. Even dividing counties up into smaller and smaller groups does not change this: Strongly blue counties have better turnout rate increases than moderately blue counties. Moderately red counties have better turnout rate increases than strongly red counties. Where did all those votes for Bush come from? The election in Ohio stinks. Badly."

Note to TM ... if you post only the bolded portion and link the rest, it tells the reader what the article is about. How much you post is not relative to the size of the article.

Journalism 101 for TM: The first paragraph should be a synopsis of the article that attracts the reader's attention with subsequent paragraphs supporting it.

If the first paragraph or two does not attract the reader's attention, odds are good the reader is not going to continue reading it.

Secondly, except for basic, general stuff, wikipedia is not known for being the best nor most accurate source of information, and not accepted by a lot of people. Just thought I'd point that out given your fondness for linking to it.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your simply lying now or ignorant of Florida law and the conditions and actions in November/December 2000.

Florida LAW required a recount. That was done. Gore insisted on another recount of certain counties, THAT to was done.

Remind us again who designed, approved, made and issued the ballots in those counties.

Gore demanded the following for the third recount...

1. Any card that was a vote for the Independent candidate be counted as a vote for him, because as a democratic district he knew those were really his votes.

2. Any card disqualified that had a vote for him be counted anyway. But none that were disqualified that voted for Bush should be counted.

3. Absentee ballots be disqualified ( the reason for this being he believed most would be military voters and vote for Bush)

4. Any card with any mark of any kind on his hole punch be counted as a vote for him. Even if another candidate on that card had been voted for.

5. Bush requested that if a third recount was to occur it be across the entire State, Gore demanded and went to court to ensure only the heavily democratic districts he chose be recounted a third time.


Furthermore AFTER the fact it has been shown with numerous Liberal and independent recounts that BUSH won.

go get me proof !

 

[Gunny]

go get me proof !

Dude, all of the above is/was common knowledge. Gore wanted any mark on the paper that was not clearly a vote for Bush counted as a vote for him. he also tried to include late votes from one county that was known to be largely dem while challenging the attempt to include late, write-in military votes in Duval County (Jacksonville).

Demanding someone prove common knowledge is an act of desperation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do a google or are you to stupid to do that? How old were you in 2000? Were you living UNDER a rock, in a foreign country? Unable to read? Unable to watch TV?

Where were you in mid 2001 when several newspapers published the results of recounts done that year after the ballots were unsealed?

Why, if Gore REALLY won wasn't it headline news in every paper and in the MSM? The New York papers all said they would do a recount when the ballots were unsealed. I wonder why they didn't publish the results, leaving it to others to do?

Do continue to baffle us with your ignorance. I suggest a name change to Truthmatters(if it agrees with me).

 

[Truthmatters]

wiki has links to where the information comes from and get sabotaged now and then.

It corrects and scans and articles and will remove anything that cant be verified.

They are updated constantly.

Now if you truely dont believe they are as good as any encylopedia go look up well know facts from history and compare them to any one else.

The reason they get dinged is they are Up to the minute in information.

They have no bias because they can be called to the carpet by all sides.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do a google or are you to stupid to do that? How old were you in 2000? Were you living UNDER a rock, in a foreign country? Unable to read? Unable to watch TV?

Where were you in mid 2001 when several newspapers published the results of recounts done that year after the ballots were unsealed?

Why, if Gore REALLY won wasn't it headline news in every paper and in the MSM? The New York papers all said they would do a recount when the ballots were unsealed. I wonder why they didn't publish the results, leaving it to others to do?

Do continue to baffle us with your ignorance. I suggest a name change to Truthmatters(if it agrees with me).

I give you links like the GAO and wiki what have you supplied in the line of fact gathering?

 

[Truthmatters]

Dude, all of the above is/was common knowledge. Gore wanted any mark on the paper that was not clearly a vote for Bush counted as a vote for him. he also tried to include late votes from one county that was known to be largely dem while challenging the attempt to include late, write-in military votes in Duval County (Jacksonville).

Demanding someone prove common knowledge is an act of desperation.

proof please?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I give you links like the GAO and wiki what have you supplied in the line of fact gathering?

Shall I link to a math book if I tell you 2 plus 2 equals 4?\

Everything I said is COMMON KNOWLEDGE for anyone that was old enough and intelligent enough to read and or watch TV in 2000 and 2001.

 

[Gunny]

proof please?

Feel free to go find some. I haven't forgotten what the facts are. They were in justa bout every media source available at the time. Scrounging around for some 7 years old stuff to appease someone who keeps trying to refight battles long since lost isn't my style.

But your effort here is SO typical loony-left. Perpeutate the lie into myth, no matter how long it takes.

 

[Annie]

In only one scenario, which would go against all election laws, does Gore win the popular vote.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

 

[Gunny]

In only one scenario, which would go against all election laws, does Gore win the popular vote.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

http://www.covenantnews.com/election.htm

 

[Truthmatters]

http://covenantnews.com/election.htm

some help to make it easy on you guys

 

[Gunny]

http://covenantnews.com/election.htm

some help to make it easy on you guys

You're a bit slow. Look one post up. And it supports RetiredGySgt's and my arguments, not yours.

 

[Truthmatters]

why is it I have to try and provide your facts when you make a bogus claim and I also have to provide Facts fo what I assert?

It is just too wierd that even when I provide facts you people deny them yet you expect me to just lap up whatever YOU say as fact?

 

[Gunny]

why is it I have to try and provide your facts when you make a bogus claim and I also have to provide Facts fo what I assert?

It is just too wierd that even when I provide facts you people deny them yet you expect me to just lap up whatever YOU say as fact?

Dude, is the world moving too fast for you, or what? I provided the same link you did, BEFORE you provided it, and it backs up my assertions, not yours.

It is just too weird that you would actually post a link that backs up my argument and shoots yours to shit.