the election part 3

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:49:32 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
I, and many other folks, stated before the election that the only way
to know if the machines were cheating was to see if the vote count
differs from the exit polling. It did. The exit polling looked very
good for Kerry, and the voting went the other way.

It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted for
Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit polling
methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was tampered with.

Or it's possible (and now verified) that Kerry operatives "leaked" the "good
news" to those all-too-anxious to hear it. Yet another dirty trick to try
to discourage swing-state Bush supporters from voting.

Not to mention, of course, machines with votes on 'em before the polls even
opened.

Bill "Bush was behind at 6:59 AM in Philly" S.


Well if we had a paper trail then we would know. But who blocked the
paper trail? It sure wasn't our side. We knew they would cheat, and I
think they did.

Where is the paper trail? Don't change the subject, don't tell me that
votes were in before the machines opened. Where is the paper trail?

"B i l l S o r n s o n" wrote:

dgk wrote:
I, and many other folks, stated before the election that the only way
to know if the machines were cheating was to see if the vote count
differs from the exit polling. It did. The exit polling looked very
good for Kerry, and the voting went the other way.

It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted for
Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit polling
methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was tampered with.

Or it's possible (and now verified) that Kerry operatives "leaked" the "good
news" to those all-too-anxious to hear it. Yet another dirty trick to try
to discourage swing-state Bush supporters from voting.

There were several other problems. At least one batch of forms was
said to have left "Terrorism" off the list of selections as Most
Important Issue. This might explain why "Moral Values" topped the
list.

Exits were never meant to predict the outcome, but simply explain that
outcome.

Since the actual vote matches pre election weekend polls VERY closely,
it is obvious the exits were off.



Not to mention, of course, machines with votes on 'em before the polls even
opened.

Counties with more registed voters than there were living,
non-fictional adults. ("Cartoon characters for Kerry!").

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:49:32 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
I, and many other folks, stated before the election that the only
way to know if the machines were cheating was to see if the vote
count differs from the exit polling. It did. The exit polling
looked very good for Kerry, and the voting went the other way.

It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted
for Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit
polling methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was
tampered with.

Or it's possible (and now verified) that Kerry operatives "leaked"
the "good news" to those all-too-anxious to hear it. Yet another
dirty trick to try to discourage swing-state Bush supporters from
voting.

Not to mention, of course, machines with votes on 'em before the
polls even opened.

Bill "Bush was behind at 6:59 AM in Philly" S.


Well if we had a paper trail then we would know. But who blocked the
paper trail? It sure wasn't our side. We knew they would cheat, and I
think they did.

Where is the paper trail? Don't change the subject, don't tell me that
votes were in before the machines opened. Where is the paper trail?

Dude, the Dems had ten /thousand/ lawyers ready to disperse throughout the
country at every /hint/ of cheating. Give it up already...

Bill "results were clear and clean" S.

dgk

wrote in part:

One problem is that I don't really know if we lost fairly. We feared
for over a year that the opposition would rig the machines, which are
made by Republican leaders. Being a computer programmer, I know just
what they could have done. Hey, every 20th Kerry vote gets changed to
a Bush vote. Who would know?

----snip----

Alternatively, every 20th Bush vote could be changed to a Kerry vote but absent
any evidence that they were, your "point"- such as it is- is, well....
pointless.

How could anyone oppose a receipt, a paper trail, that can be observed
by the voter? The only reason for opposing such a system would be so
that cheating is impossible to detect. The opposition to such a system
makes me very suspicious.

---snip---

Does the phrase "secret ballot" sound familiar?

I, and many other folks, stated before the election that the only way
to know if the machines were cheating was to see if the vote count
differs from the exit polling. It did. The exit polling looked very
good for Kerry, and the voting went the other way.

---snip---

So you trust polls over a vote count conducted under the eyes of election
judges both Democrat and Republican?

It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted for
Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit polling
methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was tampered with.

---snip---

It's also "possible" that Kerry was a deep cover double agent of a conspiracy
designed by GMC's Cadillac Motor Division to enslave the American public and
force us all to but land barge SUVs. Unlikely but "possible".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

dgk says...

It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted for
Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit polling
methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was tampered with.

The Dim's party platform: vote for us or you are stupid, A.K.A. how to
make friends and influence people. Keep it up, it worked like a charm
this time against a weak and vulnerable Bush. Should work even better
next time against someone who doesn't have any baggage.

VBadJuJu none@ says...

Counties with more registed voters than there were living,
non-fictional adults. ("Cartoon characters for Kerry!").

I'm no Kerry supporter, but having more registered voters than adults
residing in a county is common, because voter registration lists don't
get purged of the dead and those that move. Of course, this just enabled
the Kerry drive to get out the dead and illegal alien vote. In the 2000
election, an obviously leftist judge ordered the polls in St. Louis to
be open an additional 3 hours and the downtown voting precincts to be
open till midnight because of a voter complaint. It was discovered later
that the name given on the complaint was from a dead person. The Jesse
Jackson machine made thousands of phone calls to get out the word for
the new hours and Al Gore went on the radio to do the same.

dgk wrote in message . ..
It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted for
Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit polling
methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was tampered with.

Or afraid that they would be physically attacked if they admitted to
voting for Bush. There were plenty of examples of Bush supporters
having tires slashed, being boo'ed in line, etc. If it weren't for
the fact that I currently live in one of the most republican counties
in America, I might have felt the same. I know I would have felt that
way, had I been questioned where I used to live, and might have lied
to a pollster to prevent anyone from coming after me or yelling at me.

I think the real answer though is that the exit polls made some
assumptions about sample weighting that have been true in the past,
but were not true this time around. Republicans have never done a
massive get out the vote drive like they did this time around; usually
thats only the Democrats field of play. Pollsters can't weight
something they've never seen before.

"Hunrobe" wrote in message
...
dgk
wrote in part:
[...]
How could anyone oppose a receipt, a paper trail, that can be observed
by the voter? The only reason for opposing such a system would be so
that cheating is impossible to detect. The opposition to such a system
makes me very suspicious.

---snip---

Does the phrase "secret ballot" sound familiar?

I'm not certian what dgk had in mind but having a paper trail does not
require the renunciation of the secret ballot.

-You vote on the electronic machine.
-The machine records and transmits your vote.
-It also spits out a printed ballot with your vote recorded; much like a
lottery ticket
-This also gives the voter the opportunity to verify their choice.
-This ballot is put into a ballot box
-If there is any question about the vote the ballot boxes provide a
non-electronic audit trail and method to recount and scrutinize the votes
without the issues of overvotes, undervotes, hanging chads and what not.

Who voted for whom is not recorded.

--
'They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.' -joni mitchel

On 7 Nov 2004 09:04:02 -0800, (rwwff) wrote:

dgk wrote in message . ..
It's possible that folks were embarrased to admit that they voted for
Bush, I sure would have been. It's possible that the exit polling
methodology was wrong. It's possible that they vote was tampered with.

Or afraid that they would be physically attacked if they admitted to
voting for Bush. There were plenty of examples of Bush supporters
having tires slashed, being boo'ed in line, etc. If it weren't for
the fact that I currently live in one of the most republican counties
in America, I might have felt the same. I know I would have felt that
way, had I been questioned where I used to live, and might have lied
to a pollster to prevent anyone from coming after me or yelling at me.

I think the real answer though is that the exit polls made some
assumptions about sample weighting that have been true in the past,
but were not true this time around. Republicans have never done a
massive get out the vote drive like they did this time around; usually
thats only the Democrats field of play. Pollsters can't weight
something they've never seen before.

I'm going to say it again because it seems not to have penetrated
well. I keep getting "well, Democrats did this..". Not the point. Both
sides have cheated in the past.

Computerized voting is a wonderful thing. Touch screens are great. The
problem is, there is no way of knowing, short of receipts being
printed, that the software is not making mistakes, intentional or
otherwise. Touch screens, in particular, present a calibration problem
to insure that the area on the screen is correctly correlated with the
candidate.

It was NOT Democrats who produced these machines, they were produced
by a company owned by Republicans, whose head, campaign chairman for
Bush in Ohio, promised to deliver the state for the Bush.

Now if that was a Democrat, you wouldn't feel a bit apprehensive if a
close election tipped to the Democrat? Especially since there is no
way of knowing if he did cheat?

What is the objection to printing receipts? The voter looks at the
receipt through a windows, and oks the vote and the receipt drops in a
bin to be saved for a recount if needed, or just spotchecked to verify
that the vote total is the same as the program output.

I can only think of one objection, and that is a desire to cheat.

07 Nov 2004 05:35:07 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

It's also "possible" that Kerry was a deep cover double agent of a conspiracy

It was all a bonesman's prank.
.. . . or so it goes.

They're both holding those oaths of secrecy above any other
allegiance. How long do you think either of them could hold out in a
Syrian jail?
--
zk