1
   

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

 
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 03:12 am
Weird. Surprised ...it's funny how all those "computer errors" seem to only benefit George W. Bush. And you didn't think he was that smart. Razz
Conspiracy theories die hard.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 04:16 am
We do deserve a description of what security procedures are in place.

Joe
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 05:19 am
Quote:
Though early, incomplete, essentially unauthorized, leaks of exit polling data appeared to favor Kerry, the final tally of the full day's exit polls all but mirrored the recorded vote total in every state.


Got a link to the "Final Tally"?

Thanks for your help.

I know this all seems very partisan and futile to some, but I believe there is no better vitamine for the Republic than solid answers to good questions. The question here is "Is it possible to change election results?" not whether it was done, can it be done? IF it can then we must take steps to prevent such tampering.

Joe
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 05:46 am
It should not be labeled as a Democrat effort, but election officials doing their job to ensure a proper vote gets tallied. Why should any honest person mind?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 06:35 am
While I agree that we are stuck with Bush for the next 4 years, it is imperative that we know the election results are accurate since this is the first time such wide use was made of new machines.

Here's another analysis: http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm#FL

EXCERPT:

Broward County

Early Thursday, as Broward County elections officials wrapped up after a long day of canvassing votes, something unusual caught their eye. Tallies should go up as more votes are counted. That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone . . . down.
Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward. Why a voting system would be designed to count backward was a mystery to Broward County Mayor Ilene Lieberman. She was on the phone late Wednesday with Omaha-based Elections Systems and Software.

Collier County

Voter Turnout was 127,409. 128,352 votes were cast for president.

Duval County

Voter Turnout was 379,257. 379,614 votes were cast for president.

Glades County

Voter Turnout was 3,446. 4,188 votes were cast for president.

Highlands County

Voter Turnout was 33,996. 41,491 votes were cast for president.

Lake County

Voter Turnout was 123,751. 123,938 votes were cast for president.

Miami Dade County

Voter Turnout was 716,574. 768,553 votes were cast for president.

Okaloosa County

Voter Turnout was 89,485. 89,707 votes were cast for president.

Orange County

Voter Turnout was 386,104. 387,752 votes were cast for president.

Osceola County

Voter Turnout was 63,589. 82,178 votes were cast for pres
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:29 am
Perhaps a better mathmatician than I can help me understand these numbers for my own county - Home of John Edwards.

Wake County


Population

2003 Population : 695,681
Voter Age Popul: 521,066

Approx. Percent of Voter age population: 75%


11/1/04 Reg. voters:

Democrats: 203,655 (42.14%)
Republican: 169,440 (35.06%)
Unaffiliate: 108,576 (22.47%)
Libertarian: 1,623 (.33%)
Total Reg : 483,294 (92.75% of pop. old enough to vote are registered)

2004 Official Vote Totals

Kerry: 162,750 (48.34%)
Bush: 172,563 (51.26%)
Libtrn: 1300 (.4%)
Total 336,613 votes cast for president - 70% of those registered to vote actually voted)


Break Down of Voting Results:

70% Voter turnout overall.

162,750 Kerry Votes / 203,655 Regestered Dems = 80% Dem turnout with all voting Kerry

172,563 Bush votes / 169,440 Registered Repubs = 100% Repub. turnout with all voting Bush + another 2%

1300 libertarian votes / 1623 Registered Lib. = 80% Libertarian turn out with all voting Badnarik
Either none of the 108,576 Unaffiliated came out to vote or 2% did and cast their votes for Bush.

Another way to look at it just from party registration and assuming loyalty is:

40,905 fewer registered Dems voted than registered
3,123 MORE Repubs voted than registered
323 fewer Libertarians voted than registered.


BUT, the difference between Kerry and Bush was only 9,813 votes.

Am I missing something in these numbers? Is there a way for this to be possible?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:30 am
I'm sure someone will be along any minute....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:21 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Got a link to the "Final Tally"?


Sure ... lotsa links. Here are a few.

First, a bit of background:

Quote:
Reuters: Exit Polls Come Under Post-Election Criticism

Incomplete results from preliminary exit polling were leaked to the freewheeling world of the Internet, where online political pundits known as bloggers misread or took the information out of context, creating the false impression of an early groundswell for Kerry in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio.

That view was telegraphed to the public through the mainstream media but proved wrong.

a similar pattern emerged four years ago, when preliminary exit polling gave an early edge to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) in numerous states where it never materialized.

Quote:
Slate: In Defense of Exit Polls
You just don't know how to use them.


And indeed on Tuesday, the network experts used exit polls as they're supposed to. Exit-poll surveys in some 29 states showed margins for George Bush or John Kerry great enough to conclude that the chances the leading candidate losing was essentially zero. On that basis, when the polls closed in those states and before any votes were counted, 16 of them were placed in the president's corner and 13 in the senator's. They tended to be places like Kansas and Rhode Island.

In quite a few of other states, though, the exit polls were less conclusive. That's where the trouble came in.

... About 4 p.m., the pool statisticians met with the network reps and gave them a rundown on the exit-poll surveys and indicated which ones might be called when the polls closed (the 29 above) and which ones to be wary about. The networks were advised against drawing any conclusions from the second group and to air none of them. They followed that advice.

But while these figures never got on the air, they did get around.

But the real problem is not that the exit polls were wrong. They were about as accurate as they usually are. The problem was that in the age of the Internet the exit polls were being seen by thousands of people who didn't know how to read them. Like any sophisticated weapon, they are dangerous in the hands of the untrained.

Quote:
CBS: Shortcomings Of Exit Polls

In future elections, political analysts may put a bit less stock in the inside track data from exit polls.

That's because some of the early numbers that got into circulation Tuesday turned out to be misleading.

... "The first wave of data has a smaller sample size and is only interviewing people that voted that morning,'' says Lenski. "So they're not necessarily going to accurately reflect the entire day."

Election experts have warned for years that poll numbers are given too much credibility by a nation eager for quick information. This year it was Internet bloggers who learned the hard way not to consider those numbers a snapshot of voter attitude when they are really just a small part of a much larger picture.

Quote:
Zogby on Exit Polling

But exit polls become problematic when they are used to project a winner. No matter how good the sampling process involved in an exit poll, it is still sampling, which means that there is a margin of sampling error. This matters less if the election is a landslide, but in a close election, a one- or two-point margin of error looms large.

Quote:
Knight-Ridder How did exit polls start avalanche of inaccuracy?

Don't blame the exit polls, said Joe Lenski, co-founder of Edison Media Research, the Somerville, N.J., company that conducted the surveys nationwide at the behest of major media companies.

Generally, exit polls are used to get at the demographics behind an election, to quantify where candidates got support and to break the vote down by age, race, gender and other factors.

But determining winners?

Not in these close elections, he said.

Most of the exit poll questions asked Tuesday had an error margin of 3 percent to 4 percent.

In many states, the actual results were much closer than that.

Quote:
NYT: Report Says Problems Led to Skewed Surveying Data

Millions of people viewing those sites may not have approached the data with enough skepticism, the report said, in part because many of the sites did not include specific or detailed caveats that the results were preliminary and many fell within margins of error.

The report saved some of its harshest words for the networks and subscribers, whom it accused of allowing the data to leak.

"If it were not for leaks we would not have much of the problem forced on us by the leakees: the nonsubscribing media and the politicos,'' the report said. "They don't know how to evaluate what is being leaked, and then they demand that the leaked results be accurate in midday before it is vetted and before it is complete."


An excellent analysis of exit polls and what they mean:

Blumenthal on Exit Polls

And finally, to answer your request, the actual final, officially-reported-election-result-mirroring, exit polling data:

CNN - Final Edison/Mitofsky Numbers

Perhaps it might be said "Its not the polls, its the stupid"

Actually, that was said. Wish I could claim it, but it came from a blog article I stupidly did not bookmark and now can't find, so I can't credit the actual author.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:28 am
Republicans struggled to get Republicans to vote. Democrats struggled to get any and every one to vote. Registering carloads of crack heads looked more effective than it really was. Turns out; even crack heads have minds of their own.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:38 am
squinney wrote:

Am I missing something in these numbers? Is there a way for this to be possible?


Perhaps what you are missing is that when the curtains closed behind the voters, The Footnotes underperformed your performance expectations while Bush The Greater exceeded your performance expectations. Perhaps, just perhaps, might not the flaw exist in your demonstratedly unmet expectations?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:52 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Republicans struggled to get Republicans to vote. Democrats struggled to get any and every one to vote. Registering carloads of crack heads looked more effective than it really was. Turns out; even crack heads have minds of their own.


tremendous cliche and stereotype and not even clever or original.... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:06 am
booblehole wrote:
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/images/articles/20041106050814453_1.jpg
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/images/articles/20041106050814453_2.gif

Some things just never change, I guess...


Actually in the 1860's the southern states voted for a democrat, then we woke up and started voting republican. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:10 am
edgarblythe wrote:
It should not be labeled as a Democrat effort, but election officials doing their job to ensure a proper vote gets tallied. Why should any honest person mind?


I don't mind, investigate away. If it will find a way to keep voter fraud out of the system please go for it. But you realize that means you'll never have another democrat in office?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:14 am
Gee Bear; I'm sorry my post didn't meet your high standards. Btw, do you know what most clichés and stereotypes have in common? (Try not to get hung up on the tree. :wink:)
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:17 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gee Bear; I'm sorry my post didn't meet your high standards. Btw, do you know what most clichés and stereotypes have in common? (Try not to get hung up on the tree. :wink:)


No one said it violated my standards so the meowww.... isn't necessary...however it is what it is and it is as I described...........
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:23 am
Bill: I think bpb is saying it wasn't up to your usual standard, I kinda thought so too, but then I know you're so tired from laughing yourself giddy with glee over the election result that I gave you pass for being off a step or two.

(One clique added purposely to fit in better with the tenor of the debate.)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 12:00 pm
Joe; "crack heads" represent a tree in the forest of "less informed voters". Substitute "less informed voters" for crack heads in my original statement and you should see my point.

Watch:
Quote:
Republicans struggled to get Republicans to vote. Democrats struggled to get any and every one to vote. Registering carloads of "less informed voters" looked more effective than it really was. Turns out; even "less informed voters" have minds of their own.


See what I mean? I think the point is relevant either way, but I thought the original was more amusing. <Shrugs>
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 12:10 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe; "crack heads" represent a tree in the forest of "less informed voters". Substitute "less informed voters" for crack heads in my original statement and you should see my point.

Watch:
Quote:
Republicans struggled to get Republicans to vote. Democrats struggled to get any and every one to vote. Registering carloads of "less informed voters" looked more effective than it really was. Turns out; even "less informed voters" have minds of their own.


See what I mean? I think the point is relevant either way, but I thought the original was more amusing. <Shrugs>


It was ... and cleverer.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 12:11 pm
Nah, that won't work. Turns out Bush got the majority of both the 'no college' vote and the ' high school drop out' vote. And one in three Bush voters thinks we found WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam and Osama were in cahoots. How about you change it to 'badly informed' voters.**


Joe

** I thought about making it 'voters who were lied to' but decided I'd be a prince amongst men.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 12:12 pm
Just the pattern of those who found the post clever is telling......but let's not get bitchy girls....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 07:13:20