1968-2008: True Vote vs. Recorded Vote (TIA)

[WillE]

The Democrats have done much better than the official vote counts indicate....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514392

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Didn't that guy get banned from DU for some reason?

:shrug:

[WillE]

2. The Truth never dies. Show us your analysis.

It's the CONTENT of the post that matters... not TIA's banning.

Do you have a problem with the ANALYSIS?

[billh58]

3. As Stalin

said: "It's not who votes that counts -- it's who counts the votes." The "analysis" may indeed be correct, but is it verifiable and provable beyond it's current conspiracy theory stage?

[WillE]

7. The numbers speak for themselves.

Proof? You want proof?

Well here it is: Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Know these facts.

Millions of people vote in every election but their votes are not counted (3-10%).
Millions of voters (5%) die before the next election.

It is standard operating procedure to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the vote-count.
But the vote count cannot be correct since millions of votes are never counted (over 10 million in 1988).

The 2004 Final National Exit Poll like all others, was forced to match the official vote count.
To do so, 6-7 million phantom Bush voters had to be resurrected.
Here is the "proof".

Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000.
But according to the Final NEP, 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004.
Impossible.

Approximately 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to 2004.
That means only 48 million were alive.
But the NEP said 52.6 million voted.
Impossible.

Of the 48 million living, approximately 46 million voted.
But the NEP said 52.6 million voted.
Impossible.

Do the math: 6.5 = 52.5 - 46 million phantom Bush voters were required to match his recorded vote.
Impossible.

Want more "proof"?

[billh58]

8. It isn't me

that you need to convince bubba, it's the legal system. The "proof" you provided, however, would not satisfy a "probable cause" investigation of petty theft (and obviously hasn't). Conspiracy theories usually fall flat when someone calls for the same level of "proof" as required by the legal system -- either a "preponderance of the evidence," or "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And, as with most CT-ers, you expect someone else to prove your version of the "facts" wrong (prove a negative) but that's not how it works. The onus is on you (as the accuser) to "prove" your facts to an unbiased group of your peers who can actually take action on your claims. So far, you get a grade of "fail."

And lastly numbers do not, and can not, "speak for themselves" -- they are the result of someone's manipulation and interpretation. There are ten different kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary notation, and those who do not.

Try again...

[WillE]

25. Refute the "proof" line by line.

Show us proof that millions of votes do not go uncounted in every election.

Show us how ALL voters from a prior election could still be alive four years later.

Show us how there could have been 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters in 2004 when he had just 50.5 million recorded votes.

Given that the National Exit Poll is ALWAYS "forced to match" the recorded vote count and used an impossible number of returning Bush voters in 2004, show us how the recorded vote count could still have been correct.

The onus is on you to refute the logic.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. .

[billh58]

30. No, the

onus remains on you to try and convince someone who can do something -- anything -- about whatever in the hell you are running around in circles and incoherently rambling on about. Do you believe that you are the only one to attempt to prove election fraud over the years? Do you think that you have uncovered some earth-shaking conspiratorial scoop? Better minds than yours have tried, and have gotten nowhere with the Federal Elections Commission, the Congress, or the courts.

The bottom line, bubba, is that all of your ranting and raving does zilch to get anything meaningful accomplished for anyone. No one has the time, or the inclination, to try and "refute" any of the mind-numbing statistics you have prepared, because it just is not worth anyone's effort. If your statistics happen to be correct -- big fucking deal, and if you happen to be wrong -- who the fuck cares?

If you have any actionable, solid, evidence of election fraud, do you really believe that an Internet political discussion board is the best place to present it, or that posting this esoteric bullshit on DU will somehow further your "cause?" The motives for your posts are fairly transparent, and believe me, disrupters and baiters never last very long on ANY moderated board. But, then again, I suspect that you may have been booted for this type of obnoxious behavior before.

You've made your tedious point-by-point presentation and no one seems very impressed, so chill out, and try to get over yourself...

[WillE]

31. You have totally freaked out..

The preponderance of the evidence is one-sided. Bush stole it.

But this is not a court of law, Mr. Defense Attorney.

I was not being obnoxious when I posted the thread. YOU are the one who is being very obnoxious in your response. YOU should get over yourself. You have debunked nothing. Your phony admonitions stink of agenda.The post was for informational purposes only. HOW CAN I DISRUPT MY OWN THREAD? What a joke to call the kettle black when YOU and others are the ones doing the disrupting.

YOUR motives should be questioned for bringing up the "that is not proof" straw man in the first place. It is the same crap argument used by freepers and trolls in 2004-2005 whenever evidence of fraud was presented. You're not only wrong, you are a throwback to those early disruptors. It's 2009 buddy; you're late to the party.

I posted a Recursive True Vote analysis which only confirms what election activists have claimed from Day One. I would think that as an intelligent DUer, you would appreciate the effort put into it. But the model goes further than just Bush Jr in 2000 and 2004.

It provides a logical analysis using historical uncounted votes, mortality and National Exit Poll vote shares. It indicates that election vote miscounts are nothing new - they are par for the course.

Probably 95% of DUer believe that Bush stole the election. Why don't you do a poll?

You and your buddies on this thread still don't get it. What are you afraid of? That the analysis will bring disrepute to all election activists who are saying the same thing? That was another lame argument used by the trolls FIVE years ago. They had it exactly backwards. The "tinfoil" is what got the election integrity movement started in the first pace. And it started right HERE on DU.

In 2004, the so-called "liberal" sites wouldn't even touch election fraud, much less the mainstream media. Some pf them would not allow discussion. They do now. But you won't dare touch it today - FIVE years later. Han=ve you been sleeping for five years?

Get over to Election Reform. You will see tons of evidence that the machines are still rigged and that voters are still being disenfranchised by corrupt voting machine manufacturers and corrupt election officials.

You and others in this thread thrash TIA, but are you aware that he was one of the first to question the 2004 theft on DU - and has continued to provide reams of confirming analysis ever since. TIA attracted scores of people to DU from all over the NET. That was 5 years ago. Where were you? He has contributed to the election integrity movement from the beginning. What have YOU ever done?

I can post TIA's analysis as I see fit. If you don't like it, that's your problem.
If the facts bother you, that's your problem.
If you want to throw up straw men, that's your problem.
If you cannot rebut the analysis and the data, that;s your problem.
If you are against sunshine, that's your problem.
If you are for darkness, that's your problem.
If you still believe Bush won, that's your problem.

People die, people don't return to vote, votes are uncounted, election officials are corrupt.
If you disagree, that's your problem.

If you believe Bush stole it, then where's the beef? You agree with TIA! So, what's your problem?

If you want folks believe there was no fraud and that Bush won, that would explain your demand for "proof".

What is the point of your demanding "proof" when you don't accept the simple arithmetic which proves it?

[joeglow3]

33. Why stop at posting this on DU?

If the "facts" are so solid, start a press tour. Write a book. You will make millions as the person who uncovered 2-4 election frauds.

[WillE]

34. TIA did not "discover" election fraud. It's well known by now that 2000 and 2004 were stolen..

There have been a number published on the stolen elections. Here are a few. There are many others.

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen" by Steven Freeman and Joel Bleifuss

"Loser Take All", edited by by Mark Crispin Miller (compendium of essays on 2000-2008);
"Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One" by Mark Crispin Miller

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast
"Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast

"What Went Wrong in Ohio: The Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election" (House Judiciary Committee)

But there is not one book that purports to show that Bush won the election fairly.

Maybe TIA should also write a book. It would probably have lots of numbers and graphs.
It should also contain a review of the essential DU debates from 2004. Like these:

The Clincher
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x379573

The Game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x390193

Generic Polls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2775205

[billh58]

35. Once again

you have regurgitated your tired, old, "facts" that no one gives a shit about. Everyone in the Democratic Party agrees that there has most likely been election fraud, and your "research" has uncovered absolutely nothing with which to change that, nor prevent it from happening in the future. That is, unless you can convince someone in a position to actually do something about your "interesting facts" to take action.

But you're right, like most of the DU membership, I can choose to ignore your inane rantings. Thanks for the advice.

As another poster advised, write a book bubba...;-)

[WillE]

36. Everyone in the Democratic party, but not everyone on DU...

There is at least one poster on this thread who has been arguing since 2005 that Bush won the 2004 True Vote. In other words, that there was little or no fraud.

Just imagine this: A DU poster who has been trying to convince all the Democrats on DU that Bush won the election fairly and that any and all election activists and analysts who have provided convincing evidence that Bush stole it are FOS.

How's THAT for a major disconnect?

WTF!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. This isn't proof.

You people have a serious problem with the entire concept of "proof." A bunch of unsupported statements and unsourced numbers does not constitute "proof." We have been here before.

[WillE]

27. "You people"?

CIP, you appear to have a serious problem with simple arithmetic.

Either that or you believe that Bush voters were not only immortal, they were also phantoms from nowhere - just like your bridge to nowhere, Palin.

[WillE]

28. I see you have skipped out.. wonder why?

Could it be you are throwing in the towel?
Are you incapable of proceeding further?
Of course, you had nothing to begin with.

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

You just lost.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Because your thread sucks. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Right.

It's telling that the only home this fuckwit could find on the whole of the interweb is the place where people think Bush caused the Boxing Day tsunami with nuclear weapons.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Yeah.

Like his insistence on personally attacking everyone who disagreed with his nonsense doctored "statistics."

[WillE]

6. Could you address the content of the post rather than just spout ad hominems?

Probably not.
You are exposed by your lack of substantive response.

But we will give you another chance to critique the analysis.
Line by line.
If you dare.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. hey, you first

The OP contains a single sentence, an unsupported assertion. The analysis at the crosslink is characteristically unreadable.

If you'd like to try explaining it, line by line, if you dare, that might be amusing. Maybe you could skip the Mays shtick.

[WillE]

10. Ah, the last of the Mohicans...

Where 'ya been?
On the road again?

I don't need to waste any more time with you.
You have no cred.
You lost it a long time ago when you made your biggest blunder: The TIA FAQ.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514141

You have been exposed a thousand times.
Yet you still persist, Mr. Other.

Keep digging.
You should be at the center of the earth by now.

Why don't you come over to ER and whine over there?
You can even UNREC the post. Hell, you probably did already.

How many UNRECers did you line up?

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. ah, there goes another irony meter

You need a good stern talking-to from WillE on the subject of spouting ad hominems.

Oh, wait. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

16. OTOH has a lot more "cred" than you do...

dude.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. No.

I don't argue with people who got banned from this site for being insane, nor do I argue with the people who insist on bringing his crap back onto this site after he got banned. Go away.

[WillE]

14. Of course you have nothing, just like your namesake Palin.

You can't refute a thing.

Sorry, Bush lost.
That's what the model tells us.
If you don't agree with the model, then show us YOUR numbers.

But you won't.
Cause you can't.

This is not about TIA.
It's not about you.

It's about proving that our ekections are corrupt.
Don't believe they are?

Then you live in dreamland.
Educate yourself, if you can.
Read the model description.

If you have problems with the data or the calcs,
we can talk about it.

Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. I'm not going to play statistical games with someone who pulls numbers out of their ass.

Again, there is a reason why the only home this idjit has found on the web is the same site that hosts the Bush-caused-the-boxing-day-tsunami people. It's because they're all a bunch of fucking idiots.

[WillE]

15. Stop the jargon. Refute the model if you can.

You have one chance.

I'll give you 24 hours to come up with a flaw in the model.

That's a challenge.
It should keep you busy.

But you won't do it.
You are apparently incapable of rational analysis.
Just bad-mouthing.
You're good at that.

So far you are all talk. No action.

Come on Palin. Show us that you are smarter than Sarah.
Go through the numbers.
Pick any year from 1968 to 2008.
I dare 'ya.

You have 24 hours.

That's a challenge.
Are you up to it?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. There's no need to go through the numbers. His entire premise is wrong.

Exit polls do not behave the way he claims that they behave. That is why he is unable to cite anyone else who claims that exit polls behave the way he claims they behave. That is why nobody takes it seriously.

[WillE]

19. No one agrees with TIA, eh? How about these people..

How about these DUers?
Ion Sancho, Election Supervisor of Leon County FL ( Sancho ) and Paul Lehto ( Landshark ).

Or byronius and autorank who created: http://www.truthisall.net/

Or DUer Dr. Debug who compiled the “2004 Election Collection”:
http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/845

Or the following election activists: Jonathan Simon, Alistair Thompson, “Scoop News”), Kathy Dopp and Ron Baiman of Election Data Archive (formerly “US Count Votes”), Greg Palast, Thom Hartman, Steven Freeman, Rep. John Conyers (Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee), Jim Lampley, Robert Koehler, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Mark Crispin Miller, Brad Friedman (“BradBlog”), Sen. Barbara Boxer, Ion Sancho, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman and many more...

Or these DUers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=621028&mesg_id=621028

tiptoe, Bleever, FULL_METAL-HAT, PeacePatriot, anaxarchos, Kurovski, goclark, Octafish, eomer, H2O Man, stella-noir, Melissa G, Mom Cat, Tandalayo_Scheisskopf , sfexpat2000, Swamp Rat, fooj, glitch, cleita, FogerRox, OzarkDem, bpilgrim, MissWaverly, liam_laddie, Dr_Eldritch, tom_paine, Old and In the Way, Lydia Leftcoast, texpatriot2004, PATRICK, oasis, Hissyspit, helderheid, nicknameless, opihimoimoi , Vidar, leftchick, meganmonkey , BrklynLiberal, mzmolly, DeepModem Mom, KCabotDullesMarxIII, garybeck , Chi , Jack Rabbit, Karenina, Magic Rat, Botany, Beetwasher , etc……

....

Now show us your list...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Thanks.

I haven't updated my ignore list in a while. This will make it easy.

Also, +100 points for ascribing acceptance of TIA's bullshit to people who've never supported it. Very classy shit, that. I'm waiting for a link saying that Barbara Boxer supports his bullshit. Seriously, show me. Should be easy, since you had all of these names on the tip of your tongue.

[WillE]

21. No one will take YOU seriously after this...You have failed the test.

You are all talk.
You failed to take up the challenge to refute the numbers.
You have just shown all of DU that you have nothing...

You've been on DU all these years and you still call a rational election analysis "tinfoil" conspiracy talk? Are you aware that the naysayers and trolls who claimed that Bush won fairly were totally refuted years ago.

Would you answer this:
a) Do you believe Bush won fairly in 2000 and 2004?
If you do, hasta la vista, baby.
Now we know why you can't stand TIA's models.

but On the Other Hand...
b) if you believe Bush stole it, then you must also believe that the True Vote model is essentially correct since that is what it comes up with.

So if it's b) and you believe Bush did steal it, where's the beef?
You agree with TIA!

Bet you won't bother to give us an answer.

Cause you lose both ways.
It's a Hobson's choice.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't

I can understand why you won't give us an answer.
You would look foolish either way.

See, no ad hominems were necessary to take you down for the count.
Just simple logic.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. No, it's really fantastically simple.

Your model is crap. That's why nobody believes it. That's why you won't even answer my extremely simple question about giving some background on one of the people you claim believes it. Because there is none. And because she doesn't. And you're just another sock puppet, so good day.

[WillE]

32. You didn't answer. Is it (a) or is it (b)?

It's very simple question.

Maybe I should add
c) I don't know who won.
In that case, you should not be opposed to viewing the evidence.

As for Boxer, she apparently believed that the election was stolen. That's why she was the only Senator (along with the Black congressional Caucus) with balls enough to vote against confirming the election results. She wanted an investigation. Or did you forget?

[Arkana]

22. What are you, Taki from Soul Calibur?

"Are you ready?"

"Come get me...if you can."

[WillE]

23. This is great....

It's fun to see all of you guys converge.

Thanks for all the UNRECS.
Keep kicking the post.