Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

ok I'll go. Wait who do you consider to be a troll?

Who is a 'troll" here? And why get into name calling of other posters, which is a violation of the TOS?

I take it that if Gore had won in 2000 and Kerry in 2004,

1) with paperless, non verifiable result voting machines developed by companies that financially backed Dems,

2) with large discrepencies between registered Republicans voting for a democratic president, (as in 20-30% Repubs voting dem)

3) and with Democrats in charge of the elections in key battleground states

4) and if there was openly publicized attempts to keep Christians from voting

there would be no question of the results of the election?



Riiiiight! I believe that!

Squinney
I think one of the first priorities of voters in each state, regardless of Party, is to pursue an investigation of the accuracy and security of their voting machines. This will have to be done on a state-by-state basis.

Secondly, I advocate a national minimum standard for voting machine accuracy and security and mininum standard procedures for voting. Individual states can adopt higher standards, but at least mininum standards should be set so that voters can have confidence in the process.

All of our future efforts will come to nothing and our Republic will be threatened if the machines can be rigged. This quest should be major priority obligation to reassure our voters.

BBB

If you want to stick to the exit polls, maye the people questioned voted for Kerry before they voted against him?

Exit polls are meaningless.

Exit polls have nothing to do with it. It's the numbers that matter, and they are not adding up.

Amen!

Funny how a shady looking land deal in Arkansas, set off an investigation that eventually led to an impeachment trial over an extra-marital affair, But we're the ones who are grasping at straws...

According to the posts they have everything to do with it. The story I get from reading the articles is that the exit polls and the final tallys are not the same so it must be voter fraud. Am I reading into this wrong?

lol

Mmm... I think you might be stating that a bit strongly. Exit polls do not have "everything" to do with it.

I cited exit polls as one of a number of reasons why people are so vociferous about this election. Others have posted figures about more votes tallied than were actually cast in precinct.

Exit polling is was merely a red flag that something may be wrong. Exii polls have been accurate in the past and accurate in 2004 where paper ballots were used.

The funny thing is, it's where the exit polls where wrong which sticks out....

Not that this is surprising, after all; there's no point in messing around anywhere except for where it matters....

Cycloptichorn

Or the exit polls were simply erroneous. Especially the early data. You will have noticed, if you have dug into the exit polls, that they were updated during the day (before the actual poll counts), and that the later batch of data often already showed clearly smaller margins for Kerry than the earlier batch. So the exit poll numbers were already correcting themselves to what the eventual result turned out to be as they got to be based on more of a complete sample. That seems to suggest to me that the early data were off-center and that the actual results are not all that unlikely, considering the exit polls were already lurching in their direction as the day progressed.

Furthermore, exit polls can still easily be wrong, no reason why they couldnt. Its not like exit polls interview every single voter. They are based on the results of precincts that in the past provided a representative reflection of how a state as a whole voted. At least, thats how it works here. But of course, from election to election the make-up of the electorate and the balance between precincts can change, and the "representative" precincts in result become less representative.

I.e., if some constituencies - say, the urban Republican constituency, or the rural conservative constituency, which will be more strongly represented in one kind of precincts than in another - turns out significantly more strongly than in the previous elections, then the "representative" sample of precincts the exit polls are based on doesn't work properly anymore. That would also explain why "the exit poll results are not scattered about the mean", as the author you quote observes ominously.

And then there's the question of how many voters were willing to answer the exit pollsters questions and whether there was a skew involved there.


How very conspirative - but there's just one hitch - it's not true.

The author shows that exit polls were considerably further off in 7 states than in 10 other states - suggesting, I guess, in his mindset, fraud in those 7 states. And those are "all target states in play"!, he notes - surely cant be a coincidence. But is that so?

The 7 states include North Carolina - in fact, that was the state where the "skew" was second-largest -- which hadnt been considered in play by either campaign for a long while already. The 10 states, on the other hand, include Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada - some of the most closely contested states, which all merited campaign stops till almost the very end. So? Another contention falls through.

Articles like this are invariably riddled with such blatant inconsistencies. I get around to signalling a handful and by then really no longer can muster up the faith to even think about whatever assertion comes next.

Basically, to quickly save a screenshot of preliminary raw exit poll data and uncritically assume that those must be right, even as one is questioning every detail about the actual voting results, evidences a highly selective application of critical thought - lets put it that way. I mean - to quote the page with exit poll data the author refers to - what exactly is so difficult to understand about its warning that "it's also important to consider that early polls are routinely unreliable"?


Odd but hardly unusual at all. "Previous polling data up until the 2nd" in 2000, for 8 out of 11 pollsters, showed Bush winning by 2-9%; yet he lost the popular vote. In their final polls/projections, eight out of nine pollsters predicted Clinton would win the '96 elections by more than 8% (numbers ranging up to a 18-point victory) - yet 8% was what he won by. Every pollster in 1992 had Clinton winning by more than 6%, yet that was what he won by. Likewise, four out of five pollsters predicted Bush Sr. would win by 9-12% in 1988, but he won by only 7%.

Polling is an approximate art. It roughly indicates the range the result will be in. But the actual results will always throw in some surprises. And the polls don't count, in the end.



{One thank-you though: for pointing out that the currently published exit polls have been reweighed in order to fit the actual results. That makes perfect sense (considering exit polls are intended for analysing voter breakdowns with, not second-guessing the actual result) - and I had suspected as much - but I hadnt included that in my previous posts, when I was still blasting at people who said the exit polls were off so much by pointing them to how wholly correct the published results now are. Shame on me.}

And thats one assumption that's based on mere rhetorical bull (in the article you posted earlier). See post above, after the second quote.

Re: Squinney


Echo that, for sure.

Nothing wrong with pushing for better voting procedures and machines. I find the current disorder concerning them in America bewildering for such a rich country.

'F course, that push probably stands a lot better chance if its not cloaked in the rhetorics of "stolen elections".

No objection here to gettin' to the bottom of allegations of election irregularities, and no expectation that, should, as I expect, full and open investigation reveal no systemic problem, The Left will consider the investigation result anything other than a whitewash, confirmin' their worst suspicions. That's the way those things go. Don't like a result? Contest the result. Don't like the result of the challenge? Reject it.

And certainly, by all means, electronic voting must be made dependable, reliable, accurate, secure, user-freindly, and universally available. Do it, and do it right, and do it as quickly as can be done. That is the only way once and for all to bring an end to the sort of nonsense on which The Democrats now rely to shield themselves from the magnitude of their losses, and acceptance of their own role in structuring those losses.

Some. Democrats. Some Democrats, please, Timber. Not, say, eh ... John Kerry.

One thing I gotta blame the Reps for: they had the chance to improve the system after the 2000 elections, and they didnt. A federal law to create voter databases was passed at the recommendation of the bipartisan Ford-Carter Commission (HAVA), but Congress did not oblige states to act on it and 41 state legislatures promptly took waivers and put the databases on hold till 2006. See here.

Good point nimh ... I apologize to all the Democrats who don't cling to the "We wuz robbed" notion ... and in particular, those who might be participating on this thread. Assuming that applies to any Democrat on this thread

And I certainly fault The Republicans for a whole buncha squandered opportunities to effect meaningful and much-needed change over the years of their ascendency. If they don't get off their butts now and start doin' what they've assured their base they're gonna do, and in short order, the Democrats are gonna get a helluva gift in 2006.

The Left? When are you going to see that there is no "The Left" in the U.S. Or are you now conceding that Reagan was part of "The Left" at the time of his presidency?

Good grief. None so blind, blah blah blah.

and this piece of hoo-hah
. It was clearly the way to do things in 2000. It would seem that what's acceptable for the Republicans to do, is not acceptable for the Democrats.

At another forum I go to, people were recommending getting and reviewing their electronic voting receipts. They were ragged on at the time for being paranoid. Then two of the posters came back confirming that they'd had to complain as their receipts showed them as having voted one way, when they'd in fact voted the opposite. It's in one of the areas that's under investigation now in Texas.

Still a marvel that getting accurate vote results is such a difficulty in the U.S. Maybe it has to match the bizarrely lengthy campaigning process?

Have they even started counting the last batch of votes yet?