Was fraud really responsible for Bush's '04 "victory" in Ohio?

[The Doctor.]

I've been told there is no 'proof' that fraud gave Ohio to Bush. While I understand that no one from the Bush administration stood up and said "We stole the election in Ohio", I understand that the vast mountain of many types of evidence is fairly conclusive enough to determine that fraud was responsible for Bush's 'victory'.

Can someone say that there is not enough evidence to make that detemination?

What would constitute 'absolute proof'?

Is it realistic to demand such proof before making a determination?

Cannot the same be said for the mountain of evidence for Global Warming that does not constitute 'proof'?


I have invited them to comment here.

[hobbit709]

1. 3000+ votes for bush

in a town with 700+ registered voters-Gahanna and the results were certified by Blackwell.

[The Doctor.]

4. I understand. The aggregate margins were more than sufficient to account for

Many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of votes. But that alone isn't enough, it's the combined methods of suppression and fraud that, when quantified, ad up to no other conclusion than 'Bush won through fraud'.

[bluestateguy]

2. we don't have to worry about Blackwell this time

Jennifer Bruner will take care of it.

[OhioChick]

3. I Truly Believe That Kerry Won Ohio in 2000....

Seems there is no way to "prove" it, however. I can tell you though, while the MSM was calling Ohio for Bush.....here in Cuyahoga County, lines of people were still wrapped around buildings waiting to vote after midnight. Cuyahoga County is very, very blue.

[The Doctor.]

7. Right, there is no way to "prove it" anymore than there is a way to "prove" Global Warming is

caused by humans.

Some people can't extrapolate. Usually those are the sort who would neither believe election fraud or AGW, but apparently there are a few.

[L. Coyote]

22. Easy to prove. But, who has done an analysis of Ohio 2000. n/t

[fairfaxvadem]

5. Coin-Gate...

I believe that little scandal had a lot to do with how the Ohio vote was bought and paid for. No proof. But the stories coming of the papers, especially the Toledo Blade, led me to believe early on that this was the GOP payola scheme to make sure Ohio "went" for Bush.

Go back and read some of the stuff on that mess. It is surreal.

And just my opinion.

[Rene]

6. Learn about how the Ohio state election computing servers were

switched to an RNC server in Tennessee when Kerry was ahead. When the server addresses were switched back to ACTUAL Ohio servers....bush was now ahead. Failing over the servers to other i/p addresses is a very easy process to set up and accomplish(it's done for DR failover all the time in companies). It was prepared in advance to have control for altering figures....the appearance on the screens would be the same look as the official Ohio web site....the switch over and then back would be two simple blips the lay person wouln't even notice. It's the same RNC computers/servers(data center) in Chattanooga where the White House emails were going when they weren't using official White House email system.

[The Doctor.]

8. Oh believe me... I know... but that's merely "evidence", not "proof".

[L. Coyote]

23. That is not true. The facts have been much discussed here on DU.

A server was used to report the totals. That's how the internet works. Nothing there except a clever distraction from fraud.

[kster]

9. Depends who you ask some people in here swear

that a 3% hand count audit of the paper ballots can determine that the machine counted the ballots accurately, then in that same breath they tell you that TIA using numbers is crazy. Like 16 states being outside the margin of error all favoring Bush is not good math, but counting just 3% is good math.

Some here are like lawyers. :)

[The Doctor.]

10. I was just told that the only "proof" of who won the OH election was the "actual votes".

I'm sure by now that this person is ignorant beyond reason.

[kster]

13. We are kicking their asses on DRE's, Dre's ZAP the ballots

out of our control, common sense prevails, when they are forced to use optical scan in the precinct then the crooks have to find a way to get all them paper ballots that are locked in them machines out of the precinct and out of our view.

The ELECTION crooks love to hate the optical scan paper ballot machines because, they can still fix the election with optical scan machines but they still have to get all them ballots out of the neighborhood and out of our view, otherwise we will have proof of election fraud.

They don't want that.

Once you allow them to take your ballots out of your neighborhood before they are hand counted, your proof/evidence of election fraud is gone PERIOD

[The Doctor.]

15. Here's where I was told that Kerry 'really' lost;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6074987#6078220

No, he doesn't make the claim directly, but he refuses to believe it's true that fraud handed the election to Bush, and he refuses to come to the appropriate thread to discuss/learn more.

I gave you the link not to berate him or anything, but so you could see what this is about.

Some people are just comfortable in ignorance.

[L. Coyote]

60. One must account for vote-switching of punch card ballots and

cross-voting.

The question is, "What is an 'actual vote' in the context of Ohio punch card balloting?"
The answer is, with an alarming percentage, an "actual vote" is the opposite of the "intended vote."

Definitions from:
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"cross-vote" ... a vote counted other than as intended.
"vote-switching" ... major candidate cross-voting.

A fundamental understanding for Ohio punch card voting is that

ballots did NOT bear precinct marks AND switching a
ballot to a different precinct can change the vote.

Frankly, this was a system ripe for, if not designed specifically for, undetectable fraud.

However, post the 2004 election, someone discovered a method to detect that fraud.
Read the article linked above and view the PowerPoint for more information.

[L. Coyote]

34. The recount recounts switched ballots exactly the same.

Once you understand that ballots were switched to the wrong precinct,
where they count differently, the recount is seen as a futile exercise AND
as an possible intentional cover-up of the real fraud, vote-switching.

One of the most impressive aspects of the Ohio 2004 post-election discourse
is the effectiveness with which seemingly everyone was totally brainwashed.
The brainwashing seems to remain totally effective, because the same fallacies
are still being expressed ad nauseum, and new evidence seems to be irrelevant.

ONCE BALLOTS ARE SWITCHED TO THE WRONG PRECINCT, A MILLION RECOUNTS ACCOMPLISH NOTHING!!!

ONCE BALLOTS ARE SWITCHED TO THE WRONG PRECINCT, YOU DO NOT NEED TO "FIX" THE CENTRAL TABULATOR!

[Bill Bored]

79. Good points kster. The difference is that TIA doesn't use ballots. Hand counts do. nt

[Botany]

11. I live in Columbus, OH and I worked for John Kerry too.

I saw "it" w/ my own eyes I heard "it" with my own ears.

To this day I live w/ the nightmare of what happened in Ohio.

W/out putting my first hand experience down here let me
put down these FACTS:

Ohio had more registered dems then repugs in 2004 (not many but
still more)

Ohio's new voter registration went almost 10 to 1 for Kerry

Ohio lost more jobs from 2000 to 2004 than any other state in America
economic factor are # 1 for voting behavior

Exit polls showed Kerry winning by 4 points

Ken Blackwell ran the data through Smartech ... in Chattanooga, TN
Smartech had 3 other accounts ... the RNC, bush/Cheney 04, & gwb43.com

In Cuyahoga County people were convicted of "fixing the recount"

55 of the 82 BOEs in Counties in OH destroyed the data, ballots, poll books,
and spare ballots after a federal judge told them to "keep the records"

[The Doctor.]

14. Here's the guy who doesn't believe Kerry won;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6074987#6078220

No, he doesn't make the claim directly, but he refuses to believe it's true, and he refuses to come to the appropriate thread to discuss/learn more.

I gave you the link not to berate him or anything, but so you could see what this is about.

[L. Coyote]

35. All these factors (except Smartech) is relevant, and there are others too.

It is the mosaic, the multiplicity of strategies, that produced
the Bush "win" in Ohio 2004, and in previous elections too likely!!

I like to characterize the situation as, "If you did not get purged, and
you waited in the rain long enough to vote, and you did not get challenged,
then when you voted, there was still a 3% chance your Kerry vote counted for Bush!"

The leaves out Sproul and Co. throwing away registrations of Dem, and a few other factors, of course.
It also does not account for the 1/4 of Ohio voters not using punch cards. Black box is another matter entirely.

There are ways to deal with this, and the analyses are easy, just very time consuming.
What is lacking is having someone actually do the work. It should not fall to Internet activists!!

[L. Coyote]

65. You must be familiar with the exceptional work of Joe Knapp, jmknapp on DU.

Joe did some of the first work on Cuyahoga County. This disscusion is not complete
without presenting a bit of the evidence he presented as a DU poster in 2004/2005.

Joe made the Cuyahoga data available online to everyone else. He is the person who
alerted everyone, with indisputable methodology, to irregularity patterns. He also
added the latitude and longitude of each precinct to the data, enabling a demographic
analysis of the county, and illustrating how the irregularities were concentrated in
areas with minority voters.

Joe brought new meaning to "VOTING WHILE BLACK."

Here is some of the best of that:

Certified Cuyahoga Results spreadsheet (Excel) = Dec-02-04
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x106743#117088

Ballot Shuffle in Ohio
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=108132

Distribution of Cuyahoga provisional ballots -- map
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=105452

Ballot spoilage in Cuyahoga County
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=92747
sub-thread - OK -- here's a map of the 3rd party vote

Fairfield County: Ballot mix-up causes Bush to lose votes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x177045

'Burbs have more pcts per polling place on average (in):
Chaos in Cuyahoga? 49,000 Votes Disappear into the Ether ...then found?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x166913











Scroll to post 134 for larger images.



In the Ohio ballot orders, candidate rotation was not linked to party for ballot measures and judges. So, vote-switching has the opposite effect in some precincts, meaning a Kerry-Bush vote switch might produce a right-left switch down ticket:



Ohio's 'CATERPILLAR BALLOT': As bad as Florida's Butterfly?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x147718



Warren County, Ohio
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=114120

Vote suppression by machine
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x289247

MORE: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=jmknapp&num=50&as_sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[whistle]

12. Yes and in 2000 also

[The Doctor.]

16. Right, but the guy doesn't want to believe it....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6074987#6078220

...Or learn more about it in order to understand it's a virtual impossibility for Bush to have won.

[kster]

17. We don't have time to teach people that don't

want to learn, our kids future depends on getting as much information to people who want to know and understand what is going on with the counting of ballots, so that we can build an army of people that blows election theft people out of the water.

[L. Coyote]

45. Indeed. Trying to counter intentional deception is a waste of time if one's effort

is directed at trying to convince the deceiver of the truth. What matters is making sure everyone else sees the reality behind the deception, in this case, the theft of democracy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. political scientists generally think Kerry lost

It isn't a matter of "absolute proof" -- as far as we can tell, the preponderance of the evidence points against your position.

The analogy to global warming is inappropriate because, in the case of Ohio 2004, the weight of expert opinion is against you, not with you. Expert opinion of course could be wrong, but it's sort of unnerving if you don't know what it is.

(edited for clarity)

[The Doctor.]

19. Interestingly, no 'expert opinion' you speak of effectively diminishes

the case made by the people, expert or otherwise, that massive fraud occured.

First, let's get this out of the way; Do you understand/believe that massive fraud occured in Ohio in '04? This includes suppression, caging, disfranchisement, misdirection, and vote manipulation and rigging.

If you can't acknowledge at least that, then you either have not studied the issue in the very least, or you're simply an operative trying to sow doubt. Yes, we have those around here if you hadn't noticed.

To answer your questions in the other thread;

I knew Ohio was being manipulated before the election, let alone before RFK Jr.s' article came out. I knew it was stolen the day after the results were reported.

So what's your answer. There's a chance this is about as worth talking to you about as it is trying to convince James Inhofe humans are causing Global Warming. After all... it's also his position that the 'preponderance of evidence' points against it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. hmm...

I have little idea what your first sentence means. "the people"?

There are many reports of vote suppression of various forms (purges, long lines, intimidation, misinformation), but little serious effort to demonstrate that these could have provided Bush's margin or even a substantial proportion of it. The DNC VRI's voter experience survey indicates that they probably didn't, although that is far from conclusive.

Similarly, there are reports of machine problems and miscounted votes (caterpillar crawl, DREs in Mahoning, etc.), but little serious effort to demonstrate that these provided the margin. Mebane and Herron's analyses here (plus a few other things by Mebane here -- you might appreciate the TomPaine.com piece) are pretty much the state of the art.

You seem to be saying that if I do not agree with you, I am either ignorant or bought. That implies something about your aptitude for reasoned discussion, but I try to avoid hasty inferences.

I knew it was stolen the day after the results were reported.

That's not a good sign, unless you can present the evidence that would justify offering this as a statement of knowledge.

As I noted, your analogy to global warming is inapposite. Inhofe stands against the weight of expert opinion; I stand with it. You don't have to care about that, but I don't have to allow you to misrepresent it, and I won't.

Are you interested in the content of your OP, or not?

[The Doctor.]

21. When someone behaves as dissmissively as you did out of the gate,

I also question their aptitude for reasoned discussion. It is then that I might suggest that someone may be 'ignorant' or 'bought'.

Now, if you can refrain, you can be assured that I will too. I hope that is not too much to ask.

"The People" that I'm referring to are those that are "expert or otherwise". If I must clarify; that means people who are experts such as statisticians, programmers, computer technicians and others with the requisite training and/or experience to understand the intricacies of whatever issue they apply themselves to with respect to their expertise, 'or' people who are otherwise not experts in dealing with a particular issue that they make otherwise factual observations or contributions to in the course of discovery. 'The case' means the vast body of evidence that supports the conclusion that massive fraud and suppression took place.

While I have no problem clarifying for the sake of expediting the discussion, having to do so repeatedly with what should otherwise be self-explanatory statements such as "Interestingly, no 'expert opinion' you speak of effectively diminishes "the case made by the people, expert or otherwise, that massive fraud occurred".", will become cumbersome. I shall assume, for the moment, that the meaning did indeed escape you rather than the possibility that it was a deliberate diversion.


As for your suggestion that I could not or should not have 'known the election was stolen' the next day, let me explain the basis for that opinion;

I and perhaps millions of others have been following the machinations of fraud perpetrated by Republicans since 2000 and earlier. Leading up to the 2004 election, the geographical locations and concentrations of all the requisite equipment and organizations necessary to perpetrate fraud in key counties and precincts across the US were identified… easily. Ohio was one of the ‘red flag’ states where fraud was determined ‘most likely to occur’ by virtue of the preponderance of machines quite literally http://www.openvotingfoundation.org/tiki-index.php?page_ref_id=1 "> designed for fraud , the GOP make up of the state’s election oversight body, and the crucial ambivalence of a state that could go to either candidate.

During observation of the activities of the various operatives in Ohio leading up to the election, it became apparent that fraud was underway. I’ll be happy to provide links and describe those activities in detail later.

At that point, the prediction that any anomaly that might give Ohio to Bush would be the result of fraud was more than sound as anomalies bear a very low probability by nature. One does not ‘predict’ an anomaly, for if one has reason to ‘predict’ an anomaly, that means the anomaly has become part of the model and is therefore no longer an ‘anomaly’, but part of the design. In this case, the design that would most likely yield an anomaly was fraud.

I do hope I’m not losing you.

When the predicted anomaly occurred, it validated the theories of fraud. Not only that, but the anomaly itself was demonstrative of the scope of fraud necessary to hand Ohio to Bush.

All trends and exit polls showed Kerry winning, then, mysteriously, the tabulating servers and the SoS server went down. When they came back up again, the results had been reversed.

Here’s the point; When you’re expecting something unusual to happen based on the evidence of fraud, and then it happens, you can be darn sure that it was the fraud, and not some remarkably improbable anomaly, that was responsible.

I’d like to go more into detail, but I’m up against the clock.

There will be more.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. projection much?

As far as I can tell, the premise of your OP is to dismiss people out of the gate. Take that away, and there isn't much left. Ready to start over? OK, let's do it.

No, you've added a lot more words, but I still can't tell what you're saying. Basically it seems to boil down to this: you know lots of people who are convinced that the election was stolen. OK. I know lots of people who think it wasn't. Moving on....

As I must assume you know, most of Ohio voted on punch cards in 2004. At what point did you determine that punch cards are "quite literally designed for fraud," and based on what evidence?

All trends and exit polls showed Kerry winning...

That is buncombe. There was no clear trend in Ohio; seven of the last eight pre-election polls put Bush (slightly) ahead there. (I'm counting the final polls from Opinion Dynamics, Zogby, Strategic Vision, Survey USA, Gallup, U Cincinnati, Rasmussen, and Mason-Dixon.) There was one exit poll in Ohio, which showed the election too close to call. I do know a thing or two about the exit poll controversy.

then, mysteriously, the tabulating servers and the SoS server went down. When they came back up again, the results had been reversed.

O RLY? What does this mean, "the results had been reversed"? (For that matter, what are "the tabulating servers," and how do you know they "went down"?) Are you asserting that the early returns showed Kerry ahead, but then at some time all the Kerry votes went to Bush and vice versa? Pray tell, what was that time? and what is your supporting evidence?

We can't consider causes of a "remarkably improbable anomaly" until someone demonstrates the existence of the remarkably improbable anomaly. I do hope I'm not losing you.

[The Doctor.]

38. Not at all. I tend to dismiss those who are dismissive.

If I say, "Fraud gave the election to Bush" and the response is "no it didn't" from someone unacquainted with the information I am, then yes, I dismiss them for their dismissivness.

It's not simply a matter of disagreeing with me, it's the fact that these people are dismissive and unwilling to listen. As you seem to be.

I'll give you every opportunity to prove your sincerity, but when you claim you can't grasp the meaning of a phrase so simple as; "Interestingly, no 'expert opinion' you speak of effectively diminishes "the case made by the people, expert or otherwise, that massive fraud occurred", it's very difficult to believe you are dealing in earnest.

If you'd like to actually do that, you'll find I change my tune right away.

This is too busy of a day right now, my son's birthday+appointments+Speed Racer+their waiting in the car for me to take them to dinner.

I'll be back later.

[Febble]

40. Perhaps because

its not a "simple" statement at all. Unless you say what you mean by "the case made by the people {which people?}, expert or otherwise, that massive {how massive?} fraud had occurred", and you don't.

What you do say, however, are things that are simply wrong:

All trends and exit polls showed Kerry winning, then, mysteriously, the tabulating servers and the SoS server went down. When they came back up again, the results had been reversed.

I don't know what you mean by "trends" because you do not say, but the pre-election polls did not have Kerry "winning", and what you say about the exit polls suggests that you know virtually nothing about the exit polls.

And who are you alleging are "dismissive and unwilling to listen"?

If you've got a case, then make it. But don't asssume that those of us who like assertions backed up by evidence are being "dismissive and unwilling to listen". My own view is that the case for electoral injustice is not best made by claims that are demonstrably unfounded.

[BeFree]

129. There you go again. Febble

The exit poll trends up to the after midnight 'cooking' indeed showed a trend toward a Kerry victory. And afterwards TIA showed the recipe for that 'cooking'.

The only assertions read here that TIA was in error were from someone who was privvy to the data from Mistofski. You. And no one else has seen the privately held data. You and you alone have seen the data and your assertions have never been proven by anyone else. It is a case of one side holding the cards and to hell with anyone else looking at the cards.

So. Since your assertions have never even been peer reviewed or has any independent backing your 'evidence' is useless. And from that uselessness flows more of the same.

Thanks, but no thanks. Your claims are demonstrably unfounded.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. what information is that?

You may claim to be familiar with information I am not, but so far you haven't managed to support any of your assertions. You ventured a weird claim about global warming, another apparently about punch cards, another one about trends, a fourth about servers -- and now, apparently, you are declaring victory. Good luck with that.

You might get someone to believe that this is all because I'm mystified by how you think you and "the people" have overthrown or transformed or nullified or (?) expert opinion. Good luck with that, too.

I'll be honest. Your disrespect for me and my colleagues is merely familiar. But your disrespect for the possibility of rational argument is disheartening.

[L. Coyote]

42. Well stated. And I agree with all this except for this one statement:

"All trends and exit polls showed Kerry winning, then, mysteriously, the tabulating servers
and the SoS server went down. When they came back up again, the results had been reversed."

TTBOMK, there was no server going down. They update at intervals, nothing more. Reversals happen
all the time in election tabulation due to great disparities in communities. Nothing suspicious per se.

What's suspicious, and not mysterious at all, is the people creating this "Smartech"
distraction out of thin air after new evidence of vote-switching was published.
It was certainly another case with all the characteristics of "information dominance" characterizing propaganda.

Once people realize that moving a ballot from one pile to another switches a Kerry vote to Bush, the facts
will overcome the "disinformation dominance" that pops up every time more real evidence is offered.
I'm willing to play the wack-a-troll game until I expire :rofl:

[BradBlog]

48. hmmm...indeed...Shouldn't you identify yourself here?

The irony in this turn of phrase of yours is something to behold, Mark:

I have little idea what your first sentence means. "the people"?

Little idea, indeed.

That said, I'll stay out of this particular fight, other than to note that, given you have a dog in this fight, don't you think the ethical thing to do would be to identify yourself in posts that concern issues of election integrity in general, but certainly issues of Ohio '04 (and other controversial, exit poll related swing states from that same year?)

As a political <i>scientist</i>, I'd think such transparency, both here and over at dKos where you blog by a different name, would be the ethical, appropriate thing to do. No?

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. whom are you trying to confuse about what?

As you know, I'm identified in my profile -- and I've linked to my work in this very thread. I try not to pound on my own credentials when they are irrelevant, as they usually are, and as they ought to be here.

The premise of the OP is that the evidence that Kerry won Ohio is akin to the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. But, as I assume you also know, there is strong expert support for anthropogenic global warming, whereas I'm not sure I've ever seen a peer-reviewed article arguing that Kerry won Ohio. I think election integrity advocates ought to know that, and maybe ought to think about why that is.

What dog do you think I have in this fight? Are you really that confused about how academics operate? or are you just hoping that other people will be?

[BradBlog]

76. Trying to confuse nobody, that's why you should identify who you are...

Mark wrote:

I try not to pound on my own credentials when they are irrelevant, as they usually are, and as they ought to be here.

You have put your academic credentials quite publicly on the line in writing a paper that argues the Exit Polls were wrong, and that Bush legitimately won Ohio.

Arguing here against those who have averred otherwise is fine, of course. But given that your reputation would take a pretty severe beating were the consensus to emerge that you were simply wrong in your apologistic paper on the Exit Polls, it seems appropriate to note that you have such a conflict of interest when you are arguing against the notion that Bush "won" Ohio (and elsewhere) legitimately.

You show up (here as "OnTheOtherHand" and at dKos as "HudsonValleyMark") to poo-poo almost all threads where the possibility of Election Fraud is discussed. You are welcome to do so, of course, but as a self-proclaimed <i>scientist</i> one would think you'd understand the ethics of arguing against something pseudonymously in which you have an interest.

If you think that looking up your user name is a substitute for transparency, I suspect your fellow scientist-colleagues would disagree with you. I certainly do.

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. I can't let this go unchallenged

...in writing a paper that argues the Exit Polls were wrong, and that Bush legitimately won Ohio.

Brad, I just have to ask flatly: have you actually read the paper? If so -- or, for that matter, if not -- could you please point me to the passage that argues that "Bush legitimately won Ohio"?

If truth be told -- and I, for one, think it should be -- the paper isn't about who legitimately won Ohio. It's about whether the exit polls can be used to answer the question. That really ought to be obvious to anyone who read the first page of the paper. Have you? If so, how do you account for this bizarre interpretation of it?

Brad, do you ever deign to engage people's actual arguments? Or is that simply not in your repertoire?

I, once again, invite anyone who actually cares about Ohio 2004 to read the effin' paper, see what I said, and see what he or she thinks about it. Or, in the alternative, one might just accept that there are knowledgeable people on all sides, although political scientists generally think Bush got more votes.

(last s. edited for clarity)

[BradBlog]

150. But you can challenge it pseudonymously, Mark Lindeman?

Brad, I just have to ask flatly: have you actually read the paper?

Of course I have. Long ago, when you first published it.

If so -- or, for that matter, if not -- could you please point me to the passage that argues that "Bush legitimately won Ohio"?

Given your dishonest representation of who you are (as you deceptively post pseudonymously both here and at dKos, using different names in each place and fail to identify yourself in either) and your loathsome personal, ad hominem attacks both publicly (if pseudonymously) and via private email to those who've subsequently sent me your comments, I'm not particularly inclined to offer your the courtesy of a legitimate public debate.

I'll be happy to note, however, that where your paper argues Exit Polls, in and of themselves are not "iron clad" proof of anything, including the theft of Ohio, I've never disagreed. You might have come to learn that had you spent more time engaging in the professional discussion that one would expect from a "political scientist" rather than the despicable ad hominem attacks you have chosen to embarrass yourself by engaging in.

If so, how do you account for this bizarre interpretation of it?

As mentioned, your shameful, dishonest, unprofessional, un-scientist-like behavior has put your thoroughly amongst those who do not deserve the decency of a legitimate reply. Note that's not the case for many of your colleagues such as Blumenthal, etc. with whom I may disagree from time to time, but who has the decency and professionalism to engage in honest debate. Something that you, sir, are wholly lacking.

Brad, do you ever deign to engage people's actual arguments? Or is that simply not in your repertoire?

As you would know, if you bothered to read The BRAD BLOG, or most of my discussions here, I do so all the time. But when you arguments are based on "Brad has books to sell" (or similar such nonsense, as you post later in this thread) and when you use ad hominem attacks behind the cowardly shield of pseudonymity and private email that you believe will not be shared with me, you no longer have the respect to merit such a respectful reply.

[OnTheOtherHand]

156. this still can't be taken seriously

Most people here post pseudonymously at best. I'm fairly certain that if I identified myself in my sig, as you ridiculously demand, I would be roundly criticized for trying to flaunt my credentials. I'm even cynical enough to suspect that you would lead the charge. I've certainly never seen you call out the other people who post here without identifying themselves at all (unlike me). Do you really expect me to believe that you actually care?

You're making all sorts of accusations against me without an iota of proof. Again, it's an interesting use of your time. It suggests to me that you suspect you're whipped on the merits of the arguments.

[BradBlog]

162. Your "scientific" argument/logic is exceedingly unimpressive (and disgraceful)

I'm fairly certain that if I identified myself in my sig, as you ridiculously demand, I would be roundly criticized for trying to flaunt my credentials.

Wow. That's pathetic. And also contradicts your previous case that everyone knew who you were, or could find out "in 20 seconds".

Adding your name to your sig -- transparently noting your conflict of interest in "debunking" concerns about election fraud -- is the appropriate and ethical thing to do for a self-proclaimed "political scientist". That you'd argue otherwise is rather astounding, and reminiscent of the pathetic GOP "voter fraud" scammer Hans von Spakovsky who published in favor of his argument, pseudonymously, as "Publius".

You're making all sorts of accusations against me without an iota of proof.

Ironic, that charge. Given that your absurd allegations of my profiting from selling books (which I don't have) and speaking engagements (which I do on my own dime, at the benefit of others).

But pray tell, what "accusation" have I made "without an iota of proof"? I am unaware of any, Mark.

Again, it's an interesting use of your time. It suggests to me that you suspect you're whipped on the merits of the arguments.

Merits of what "arguments", Mark?

The argument that it's unethical for you to post anonymously/pseudonymously both here and at dKos on the issue of Election Integrity when you have a dog in the hunt as a "political scientist" who has previous made the case *against* such Fraud?

It's an interesting use of your time. It suggests to me that you suspect you're whipped on the merits of the argument when you need to create such strawmen with no basis in fact or substance.

Again, not a particularly impressive argument from a "political scientist".

[OnTheOtherHand]

166. hey, it's hard to choose one Wrong to respond to

You've misrepresented my views; you've misrepresented my "interest"; you've ignored the fact that I'm identified; you've ignored the fact that I've linked to my work in this very thread; you've ignored that you don't hold any other DUer to this phony standard.

Considering that you're bashing my credentials, I don't think it's a big stretch to think you would continue the abuse if I put them in my sig. It's true that at this point the regulars don't care either way: people have made up their mind about me one way or another. So, should I change my sig because you say I'm ethically obligated to do so? I'm not remotely ethically obligated to do it, and that alone is a pretty good reason not to do it.

I never alleged that you profited from selling books. You really ought to try reading the posts I actually write. Just like, if you read the papers I actually write, you would have to let go of this canard about my interest in debunking concerns about election fraud. Brad, it's disgraceful. You really should stop now.

[BradBlog]

239. You never seemed to have trouble choosing between wrongs in the past...

Considering that you're bashing my credentials,

I didn't bash your credentials. I bashed you for not having the ethics to disclose them, under your imaginery notion that "the regulars" all know who you are. I've been reading your sock puppetry here for years and at Kos, and had no idea who you were.

Ethics. Please keep searching for some.

I don't think it's a big stretch to think you would continue the abuse if I put them in my sig.

What abuse? Challenging you for not disclosing who you are and that you have a dog in the hunt? That's abuse?

If you really feel folks here are confused about "abuse", why don't you show them some of the private email you've sent to others about me when you didn't suspect they'd be sharing it with me?

Again. Ethics. Find some. And by all means, don't simply add who you are to your sig, as that would be far to upfront and appropriate.

[OnTheOtherHand]

243. same misinformation over and over

I don't have a "dog in the hunt," and I haven't practiced "sock puppetry."

I have no clue what private email you're talking about -- and, considering your inability to support any of your other accusations, I suspect you like it that way. Or maybe, as in this thread, and you're convinced I wrote things that anyone can see I actually didn't. Fish or cut bait, dude: what are the terrible things I've supposedly said about you behind your back?

It just amazes me that you can't find anything better to do than to post this crap over and over.

[yowzayowzayowza]

171. After sElection 2k legal professors expressed their....

disdain for USSC BvG in massive petitions. Could you please point me to a similar display regarding the 2004 presidential election from any relevant professional group(s)? Statisticians? PoliSci? SocSci? ??

[OnTheOtherHand]

173. hang on, depends on what you mean by "disdain"

I appreciate the intervention, but it's important for people to understand how these arguments play out.

Anyone who reads Walter Mebane's work on Ohio will find plenty of "disdain" for the election, although I doubt he would use that word. (And anyone who has heard Mebane talk about DREs knows of his disdain for them -- not that DREs were in wide use in Ohio in 2004.) I point to Mebane because he has done a lot of work on Ohio, but his views are mainstream.

What one won't find in the professional literature(s) is arguments that Bush clearly should have lost in 2004. One does find those arguments about 2000. You mention the legal scholars, but the political scientists had a field day, too. Mebane actually wrote a paper titled "The Wrong Man Is President!" (Yes, the exclamation point is in the original title.)

We need to make distinctions. Brad Friedman seems to be trying to convince people that since I wrote a paper debunking exit polls, I'm professionally committed to believing that the election was fair and square. It doesn't work that way. By the way, here's an excerpt from page 1 of the paper:

Note well: "exit poll fundamentalism" does not refer to the hypothesis that Kerry received more votes, nor the belief or hypothesis that the exit polls evince fraud. These are empirical issues amenable to rational debate, and reasonable people may disagree. Still less does it refer to any and all criticisms of the 2004 election or of election systems.

I go on to say, "Exit poll fundamentalism merits incisive critique –- not to discourage serious inquiry into election integrity or to block election reforms, but to support them." That's how wonky idealists like to think: that better arguments lead to better decisions.

(edit to remove possible gibe)

[BradBlog]

240. Depends on what ya mean by "disclose", or what the meaning of "is" is, I guess...

Brad Friedman seems to be trying to convince people that since I wrote a paper debunking exit polls, I'm professionally committed to believing that the election was fair and square.

Seriously. As a "political scientist", I'd expect you'd at least try to feign legitimacy in a debate.

No, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, other than YOU. That YOU ought to disclose who you are, in a fully transparent manner, so folks can take that into account when deciding whether you've got a dog in the hunt or not.

Keep that a secret, as you do here and at dKos where you use yet another phony name, and then act as if "gee, golly, gosh, everyone knows me, I don't have to say who who I am, even when I'm arguing about something in which it's reasonable to believe I have a professional stake in the outcome of the argument. But gosh, let's not disclose that easily, so folks can't decide for themselves."

I become more unimpressed the more I get to know ya, Mark.

[OnTheOtherHand]

245. Brad, you're moving the goalposts

No, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, other than YOU.

Well, maybe you aren't trying to convince anyone, but you did claim, "You're career as a 'political scientist' has been predicated, at this point, on your assertions that Bush won Ohio (and the other swing states) fairly and squarely." An interesting move, since I've never asserted that Bush won Ohio fairly and squarely, much less predicated my career on it.

I'll grant that you may not be trying hard to convince people of your misinformation, but it's misinformation just the same. Shame on you.

In reality, it's not reasonable to believe that I have a professional stake in the outcome of an argument on DU. Conceivably you actually believe that, but that doesn't make it reasonable. It is -- I am trying to be polite here -- very far from reasonable.

Are your posts intended as self-parody? (News flash: DKos poster uses phony name!)

[BradBlog]

78. Why are you having such a difficult time being ethical, Mark?

Mark again wrote:

As you know, I'm identified in my profile

No, you're not "identified in (your) profile". Your profile says only:

Gender male
City Kingston
State NY
Comment I teach American politics and environmental studies at Bard College.

Gosh, that really tells those who happened to be signed in, and who happen to click on your profile link a lot. Except for your specific name, your specific relationship to Election Fraud (and the debunker thereof), and how much of a career and personal stake you have in poo-pooing any such evidence thereof.

I'm Brad Friedman, I'm the creator and editor of The BRAD BLOG. People can judge my opinions and reporting based on so much that is out there for them to learn what biases I have or don't.

Who are you, Mark? And why, as professed "scientist" do you have such a difficult time adhering to scientific ethics like transparency when writing about something in which you have a personal stake? Why is that so difficult to answer and to do the right thing by correcting the ethical lapse (both here, and at dKos where you do the same thing, but under a different name?)

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. Brad, this can't be taken seriously

Granted, people who trust you in all things may give it credence. But it takes about 20 seconds for anyone who cares to find my name. (In this case, less, since as I already pointed out, I've linked to one of my papers in this thread. Doh.) I figure that's the difference between a steady stream of crap from people who come across my posts and decide I'm the Dark Lord, and people who are willing to work for it a bit.

Brad, you tell me: how much of a career and personal stake do I have in this issue? Do I go around the country giving speeches about this? Do I sell books about it? Do I have a "Donate" button on my web site? Or would that be other people? You are totally off the wall here. You have no clue how much work I've given away in the hope that election integrity activists might actually care about facts. Many do.

There's no secret about who I am; there's no secret about what I do. But if you keep asking loaded questions as if there were, I'm sure you get some people to assume otherwise. It's an interesting use of your time.

(On edit: it's not fair to treat Brad as representative of election integrity activists)

(On further edit: As a reminder to all, just because some armchair critics like to pretend that I spend all my time arguing against any and all evidence of election fraud doesn't mean that it is remotely close to the truth. I do spend some time cautioning people about specific arguments that don't hold water. I'm open to reasoned dialogue on those issues, but unfortunately, a lot of people aren't. If people like Brad spent less time making stuff up about me and more time marshaling facts, we could get farther.)

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

157. you're right: I'm not ashamed of my posts here

I've never questioned your sincerity. I'm sure that you are sincere. It's interesting that you fly into a rage when I mention your Donate button, but it doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument on my part -- whereas I'm hard-pressed to find anything but ad hominems in your posts here.

Sincerity is not enough, in my opinion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. I guess I need to qualify this

I don't question your sincerity about election integrity. I do sometimes have a hard time accepting the sincerity of your selective outrage -- but I suppose that is human.

Dunno. In the end, I don't think it matters much whether you are sincerely misrepresenting my work and motives, or not.

[BradBlog]

163. You need to qualify just about everything at this point...

In the end, I don't think it matters much whether you are sincerely misrepresenting my work and motives, or not.

And if you followed the ethics of your profession, by being transparent and identifying yourself when arguing in favor of your political theories which you have a professional stake in, then it wouldn't matter at all.

Neither your work or motives have been "misrepresented". At least not by me. You, on the other hand, do so each time you post without identifying who you actually are.

I don't care if you agree or disagree with my position on anything (and I don't even think there's been anything in this thread that I've asserted for you to take exception to in regard to the original substance of the OP.) If you were honest in your representation of yourself, the merits of such issues could be honestly discussed, instead of unethically and unprofessionally hidden from the public.

Doing the right thing is helpful for everyone. Please consider it.

Thank you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

167. 'political theories"?

With due respect and tattered reserves of patience: repeating the same old lame complaint doesn't make it truer.

I don't care if you agree or disagree with my position on anything

Indeed you don't. Derail, first to last.

[BradBlog]

161. Mark Lindeman can't be taken seriously...

I have no clue why the Mods deleted my original reply to Mark Lindeman. Further, I didn't keep a copy of it, so can't repost it, or re-examine it to figure out what the hell they must of been thinking which sent Lindeman into rage enough that he'd complain to the Mods about it.

Nonetheless, Lindeman has charged me with "making stuff up about" him. In other words, he's called me a liar. I thought that was an offense worth deleting his post, but apparently not?

One response I know I *did* have in my post was to this extraordinarily obnoxious and inaccurate comment from the ethically-challenged "political scientist" Mark Lindeman (who goes psuedynomously by "OnTheOtherHand" here, and as "HudsonValleyMark" at dKos, where he also fails to expose his conflict of interest in trying to "debunk" concerns about election fraud.)

Brad, you tell me: how much of a career and personal stake do I have in this issue? Do I go around the country giving speeches about this? Do I sell books about it? Do I have a "Donate" button on my web site? Or would that be other people?

You're career as a "political scientist" has been predicated, at this point, on your assertions that Bush won Ohio (and the other swing states) fairly and squarely. So, yes, showing up (anonymously/pseudonymously) as you do all over the net to inject doubt into investigations of election fraud are at great career and personal stake to you.

As to your shameless and appalling insinuations about me, clearly you haven't bothered to do much more research before making them then you have in making your other ill-considered assertions in regard to legitimate concerns about election fraud.

Personally, I'd be delighted to return to my previous career, where I was able to easily earn a living and NOT do any of this nonsense. But for obstructionists like yourself, I might have been able to do that long ago.

Yes, I "go around the country giving speeches about this", when I am asked to do so. Usually as a fundraiser for a local election integrity advocates who are similarly combatting the misinformation of folks like yourself.

I have never been paid for my appearances, which are more frequently at my own (considerable) expense, though occasionally the local organizers are kind enough to reimburse the cost of a hotel or some gas money.

As well, I "sell" no "books about it", because I don't have any book to sell! I wish I did, because I could use some income, but I generally need to spend my time debunking bullshit from folks like yourself on the Internet, such that I don't have time to stop for 3 months and write a book. Again, you prove clueless, disrespectful, obnoxious and unprofessional.

As to my "Donate" button, if you interpret me being "enraged" by your mention of it, you are again asserting horseshit. I have a "Donate" button (and encourage folks to press it) because I do need to do stuff like eat and pay the rent. While few people actually push that button, and I've got to find other ways to make enough money for the food and the rent, I'm not sure why you'd feel I'm not allowed to ask folks to help me in doing what I do for FREE, simply because I believe it to be a public service to my country and a duty to my nation.

I suspect that your university pays you an annual salary, and encourages you to publish papers (good ones or otherwise), and that while on salary you're able to spend much of your day trolling the internets anonymously/pseudonymously both here and at dKos without bothering to identify your professional conflicts of interest with those things you attempt to "debunk".

You have challenged others (with inaccurate information) and all the while withheld, unethically and unprofessionally, your conflict of interest in these matters. You'll pardon me if I find *that* appalling, if not your mention of my having a "Donate" button.

Shame on you, Mark. Your behavior here (as elsehwere) continues to be shameless.

[OnTheOtherHand]

165. uh, no

The mods' enforcement of DU rules doesn't hinge on my emotional state.

Brad, you've alleged that my paper makes an argument that it doesn't make. If I can't call that "making stuff up," what am I supposed to say about it?

You're career as a "political scientist" has been predicated, at this point, on your assertions that Bush won Ohio (and the other swing states) fairly and squarely.

Status: False (with apologies to snopes.com). That isn't even my position, much less something I have predicated my career on.

What is it that you think I insinuated about you? You've accused me, repeatedly and without support, of having some sort of "interest" in proving that Bush won. I pointed out that I have less of an "interest" than many other people (yes, including you) who write on this subject. You're the one who injected the notion of "interest." I think it is a red herring: arguments should be assessed on their merits. Your reaction to a statement of fact (actually, a series of rhetorical questions) makes my point.

By the way, I think it's kinda funny that you're making a big deal about not having written a book. Brad, not everything is about you. Internalizing that fact might save you some grief.

You may sincerely believe that for me to express opinions related to my professional research constitutes a "conflict of interest," but I have no idea why. I suppose it comes back to the premise that I'm invested in proving that Bush won. I'm not. Professionally, I'm judged on the quality of the arguments I actually make. At any rate, I have the same right to offer my opinions as every other DU poster. I've chosen to provide more identifying information than most, which is my prerogative; I don't have to offer a special disclaimer or apology for my job, any more than anyone else here. I don't have a vested interest in posting here and subjecting myself to rants like yours -- far from it. I do it in case someone else out there actually wants to talk about topics such as the OP. There have actually been good substantive discussions here, so I know they are possible, however far away they may seem at any given moment.

[BradBlog]

241. Uh, yeah...

I think it is a red herring: arguments should be assessed on their merits.

Cool. That's just what Hans von Spakovsky thought when he published his paper on "voter fraud" as Publius. By all means, I expect next paper you write will not have have your name on it, so your arguments can "be assessed on their merits".

Your disingenuousness grows more remarkable with every post here.

You may sincerely believe that for me to express opinions related to my professional research constitutes a "conflict of interest,"

No. As I've stated over and over, I believe that your lack of disclosure makes it impossible for folks to judge for themselves. That you continue to justify such an obvious failure is simply amazing.

By the way, I think it's kinda funny that you're making a big deal about not having written a book. Brad, not everything is about you.

Were you born with that kind of slime in your veins? Or has it come to you later in your secret career as a "political scientist"?

As a reminder, here's what you wrote far up thread, emphasis in the slimy original:

"Brad, you tell me: how much of a career and personal stake do I have in this issue? Do I go around the country giving speeches about this? Do I sell books about it? Do I have a "Donate" button on my web site? Or would that be other people?"

I've chosen to provide more identifying information than most, which is my prerogative; I don't have to offer a special disclaimer or apology for my job, any more than anyone else here.

True. And I will defend your right to be dishonest until the death, even as I will continue to be as unimpressed by it.

Amazing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

246. yawn

I have no idea what von Spakovsky thought, nor do I care, nor is it pertinent. The distinction between a law review article and a bulletin board post is not very subtle. But even that isn't the right standard of comparison. I don't know what, if any, identifying information "Publius" included in his article, but I'm sure it was less than I've included in my DU profile.

As far as I can tell, the only reason for mentioning von Spakovsky is... so you can mention him. Repeatedly. There are names for that tactic, but we all know them, so I won't bother to use any.

In fact, you seem fundamentally confused about the difference between professional work and DU posts. In a nutshell, most professional work is named; most DU (and DKos) posts are pseudonymous, even when the writers' identities are widely known.

There's nothing slimy about what you've quoted. I don't apologize for being puzzled that you contrive an "interest" on my part -- an interest in asserting or defending opinions some of which aren't even mine -- while ignoring the tangible interests of others. The part that seems beyond your imagination is that I haven't attacked people on the basis of those interests. I think your whole "interest" argument here is bogus. I did hope to startle you into awareness of how bogus it is. But you can't even get past the notion that "other people" doesn't equal "Brad" -- even when I included something that couldn't possibly refer to you! That's weird.

[troubleinwinter]

175. Hahahaha!!!! The comedy writer finally made me laugh!

"Mark Lindeman can't be taken seriously" Hahahaha!

"I'd be delighted to return to my previous career" Ya mean your "career" as an actor?

Filmography - Brad Friedman

Actor:
Rugrats Go Wild! (2003) (VG) (voice) .... Spike, Piko Doll, Parrot
A Girls' Guide to Sex (1993) (TV) .... Clint
Rivalen des Glücks - The Contenders (1993) .... Andre the Cinematographer ... aka The Contenders
Dead Boyz Can't Fly (1992) .... Goose

Or your "career" as a comedy writer for a one-show-a-week local theater troupe?

You don't mind me using quotation marks around descriptions of your "career", do you? You used such marks in reference to Dr. Lindeman's status as an educated researcher and college instructor of political science.

Your posts in this thread make me sad. You claim to have been unaware of Dr. Lindeman's user-name for years? Those of us who have spent much time in this forum have known well and clearly of the identities of Mark, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle and a number of other respected and admired election integrity activists who participate here. Maybe you should participate in this forum more often (well, if you can tone down your ignorant attacks).

It is saddening because you have attacked someone who is ON OUR SIDE ... someone who has devoted tremendous effort, expertise and commitment to our goal of legitimate elections.

We may not all agree on all points, but your attacks calling a forum member "unethical", "unprofessional" have been ugly and are truly worthy of deletion, but, like OTOH, I do not alert on such posts (I prefer to have them remain up for all to see).

Your claim of "I generally need to spend my time debunking bullshit from folks like yourself" is a mystery to me, as you have never done any such thing, but only manage to attempt to smear someone that you apparently think deflates some of your bloviating thunder. I think you do quite a bit of good work, but maybe you should educate yourself rather than cutting off the collective nose of election integrity experts, activists and supporters who don't fit precisely into the shape of Brad's shadow. Most of us are on the same team. You have already said that I "have an agenda", meant as a vague smear of me. It's true... I do: Election integrity. Maybe it's time you quit trying to burn down and oppose those not shaped to your celebrity shadow and try to work with those who sincerley work towards the goal.

[Wilms]

177. I think there are a number of unnecessary posts on this thread.

To that group I'd add yours.

Was he supposed to be a neurosurgeon, a janitor, a house-husband, a rocket science before being allowed to spend time on Election Reform (and you know that kind of time) and proclaiming a desire to see the Voting Systems made verifiable so he could get back to what he had been doing?

Or is it only certain members (drama queens) who get to cry about how hard they work?

[Ellipsis]

178. Amen

"I think there are a number of unnecessary posts on this thread."


Edited to add:


...not taking a potshot at troubleinwinter.

[BeFree]

220. Your comedy is not funny Ms. Trouble

And i take it you were serious?







Your posts in this thread make me sad. You claim to trust Dr. Lindeman?

Those of us who have spent much time in this forum have known well and clearly of the identities of Mark, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle and a number of other dis-respected and useless election integrity activists who participate here. Maybe you should participate in this forum more often?


It is saddening because you have attacked someone (Brad) who is ON OUR SIDE ... someone who has devoted tremendous effort, expertise and commitment to our goal of legitimate elections.

We may not all agree on all points, but your attacks berating Brad have been ugly and are truly worthy of deletion, but, unlike OTOH, I do not alert on such posts (I prefer to have them remain up for all to see).

Your needing to spend time debunking good members like Brad is awful. As you always do such things, but only manage to smear yourself.

I think you do very little good work, and maybe you should educate yourself rather than cutting off the collective nose of election integrity experts, activists and supporters who support Brad. Most of us are on the same team. You have already said that you have an agenda, I have seen it...

We do: Election integrity. Maybe it's time you quit trying to burn down and oppose those not darkened by winter and try to work with those who sincerley work towards the goal?

Not good to see you again, Trouble.

[L. Coyote]

61. Your statement is FALSE.

You write, "There are many reports of vote suppression of various forms (purges, long lines, intimidation, misinformation), but little serious effort to demonstrate that these could have provided Bush's margin or even a substantial proportion of it."

I would call your attention to the Conyers Report. I consider Rep. John Conyers and the report to be serious. For example,

"... we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities
and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by
intentional misconduct and illegal behavior...."

"... it is imperative that we examine any and all factors that may have
led to voting irregularities and any failure of votes to be properly counted."

Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, Jan. 2005.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

If you are claiming this is not a "serious effort" or that it fails to demonstrate
that irregularities made a difference, I must take exception. Simply FALSE.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. ah, you are mounting a campaign now

Your quotations, obviously, do not establish or even assert that vote suppression provided a substantial portion of Bush's margin.

Do you have any relevant evidence to support your attack?

[L. Coyote]

66. NO, I was just showing that your statement was FALSE. Which you do not deny.

Why are you changing the subject?

Why don't you address the question posed--albeit indirectly?
Are you claiming the Conyers Report is not a "serious effort"?

Why ask the irrelevant question,
"Do you have any relevant evidence to support your attack?" when there is
no attack, just an assertion that you fail to respond to?

In a discussion, pointing out falsehoods is discourse, not "an attack".

Why are you moving into ad hominem mode? It it to distract from your false claim?

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. of course I deny it

I don't question that the Conyers Report is a "serious effort" -- that is blatantly selective quotation on your part (verging on misquotation -- you stripped the context). Everyone, including you, can see what I actually wrote. So, cui bono?

(edit to correct brain fart)

[L. Coyote]

62. Again, your statement is FALSE.

Your argue, "... there are reports of machine problems and miscounted votes (caterpillar crawl, DREs in Mahoning, etc.), but little serious effort to demonstrate that these provided the margin."

Are you saying this effort is not serious?

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"Simply put, Ohio votes were NOT all counted as cast. Many votes were miscounted, and Kerry votes were counted for Bush....."

"Precinct level analysis indicates cross-precinct voting is not randomly distributed,..."

"Third-party voting and non-voting was not randomly distributed. The percentage of ballots not counted as votes increases with Kerry support. The precinct-level correlation of non-votes to Kerry votes is 0.423, while to Bush votes it is negative, at -0.50 ..."

"In Cuyahoga County, Kerry lost a very high, non-random proportion of the uncounted votes. This cross-voting/undercounting concentration where it lowers Kerry's tally the most raises suspicion of irregularities..."

"seven-eights of voters in Cuyahoga County—including more than one of every eight Ohio Kerry voters—could have voted at an adjacent precinct using the wrong ballot order. Of the 525,172 possible cross-voters, 260,988 could vote-switch Kerry-Bush at an adjacent precinct...."

"Non-random distribution of ballot order combinations skews the cross-vote outcome probabilities, heavily favoring ... Kerry to Bush vote-switching."

"Something is very wrong with this election's design. If the designers
had wanted to limit switched votes, they did everything possible wrong!
If they wanted to hide switched votes, they did everything right!"

"T-tests applied to Kerry and Bush vote results ... support the evidence of Kerry-Bush vote-switching."

"The 2004 Ohio Presidential voting results do not accurately reflect voter intentions."

"... the Kerry-Bush margin shifts six percent when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

Your reasoning, proclaiming negatives, is flawed and obviously fallacious when the contradictory examples are common knowledge.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. I asked you before, but you failed to answer:

How many votes statewide, L. Coyote?

Don't blame me for your omissions.

ETA: I mean, really, I understand that you think your work is the best thing since sliced bread, but how about a modicum of consideration for the rest of us?

[L. Coyote]

67. Can you address the question or not? "Are you saying this effort is not serious?"

I simply asked, "Are you saying this effort is not serious?"

Not only do I think sliced bread is a bad idea, but I also do not
think of pasting a few quotes on DU as "work." It is just lots of FUN!
It is a lot more fun when some real discourse evolves, of course.

So, back to "your omissions" instead of changing the subject.
Can you answer simple questions on the substance of your own proclamations?

[OnTheOtherHand]

70. asked and answered

Go back, read the post again, and back away from the squirt gun.

Soon I will be off to graduation and then off to Vermont, so I leave you with this.

(1) Again, while it may be cathartic to wrangle with me about your work, it would be more fruitful to work out the kinks through peer review. I do sincerely resent your imputation that I sought to dismiss your contribution. I have a specific criticism, and I stand by it.

(2) What is relatively lacking is not efforts to document anomalies and worse, but efforts to quantify -- even crudely -- their aggregate impact.

[L. Coyote]

73. The article I quoted is just one example of serious effort, I posted more above by Joe Knapp.

You wrote "little serious effort to demonstrate that these provided the margin" and I offered an example.

Do you require many examples? I'm just countered your pronouncement.
One counter example is sufficient to discount a negative claim.

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "little" which could be construed
as your claim that there IS "serious effort." But I got a different impression.

[OnTheOtherHand]

94. not at all

With respect, you are being obtuse. I have great respect for Knapp's work, but it comes nowhere near showing that caterpillar crawl in Cuyahoga provided Bush's margin of victory -- nor did Knapp ever claim that it did.

I'm sure you are capable of distinguishing among evidence of miscount, evidence of fraud, and evidence that Kerry should have won Ohio. Why aren't you? :shrug:

[L. Coyote]

106. We all have great respect for Knapp's work, only you use it to launch an ad hominem

and to extrapolate what others think, are or are not capable of, and there level of intellect.

obtuse, lacking quickness of perception or intellect, a lack of intelligence or sensitivity

Ad hominem attack is the refuge of those losing a debate and typically fallacious,
often intended to distract from the issue at hand. Why are YOU going there? :shrug: :shrug:

I've offered an example of "serious investigation" in response to your comments.

And this is what I get. A simple, "Thank you for pointing this out," would suffice.
You don't have to insult me just for offering an example of serious investigation.

I suggest you reaquaint yourself with Joe Knapp's studies,
to avoid confusion about what others may or may not think about them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. no, you are misrepresenting my comments

If you can point me to the passage where Knapp claims to show that Kerry probably won Ohio, please do. Otherwise, you are off topic.*

As anyone who actually reads the posts can verify, I never denied that people have offered serious investigations of Ohio. If you intend to misquote me, I think it would be cleverer to misquote a different thread. If you don't, well, please fix it. Annoyance now wars with boredom.

*ETA: Ah, heck, I'll be more rigorous: if Knapp claimed that caterpillar crawl accounted for a quarter of Bush's apparent winning margin, that would still be on topic.

[L. Coyote]

111. Quoting your post #20. "little serious effort to demonstrate...even a substantial proportion"

As they might say in courts of law, you opened this floodgate. And, seemingly forgot the gate was open.
That might work behind the bar, but it can be a huge problem behind the barn!! :rofl:

"... little serious effort to demonstrate that these could have provided Bush's margin or even a substantial proportion of it ...
Similarly ... machine problems and miscounted votes (caterpillar crawl, DREs in Mahoning, etc. ..."

[OnTheOtherHand]

112. what does that have to do with Knapp's work?

You aren't actually responding to the post you're responding to. I don't know why. It seems as if I have to do all the work on both sides of this 'conversation.'

Did Knapp demonstrate that caterpillar crawl contributed a substantial proportion of Bush's margin? Where?

[L. Coyote]

114. The assertion is that Knapp's work is a serious investigation, and relevant to

the questions posed. It is a serious analysis that belongs in the conversation.
That is why it was brought up when the claim as made that serious efforts were lacking.

It stands alone. Can we move back to the questions at hand?

[OnTheOtherHand]

116. as soon as you stop misquoting me, certainly

Perhaps you need to refamiliarize yourself with my actual views (I apologize if I misattributed authorship there), and then reread this thread with those views in mind. I have praised Joe Knapp's work, more than once. It offends me that you persist in attempting to represent otherwise.

One only has to read to the end of the sentence -- or, better yet, begin at the beginning of the post -- to understand my point, which hinged on whether miscounted votes provided Bush's margin. And yet, I've twice invited you to provide evidence that Knapp addressed that issue, and you've dodged twice. What gives?

[L. Coyote]

118. Why ask impertinent questions? Why not stick to the topic.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. when you make the same mistake repeatedly, it is pertinent

I want to know whether it is possible to have a serious conversation with you, or not. If you intend to pretend that I am out to argue against (to paraphrase someone else on this thread) the very possibility of election fraud, and that I ignore or disparage other people's work, and if you intend to twist anything and everything I say to that end, then there isn't much point in attempting to communicate. I do spend time here sparring with people who are hell-bent on misrepresenting me (as can be seen elsewhere on this thread), but it takes much more time for much less reward. So it is useful to know whether you will be one of them.

If you simply misunderstood what I said as a dismissal of all prior research, I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion, but I'm happy to start over.

[L. Coyote]

36. So, we need a paradigm shift, which is not ever easy, but it happens when facts are

confronted which cannot be disputed. It takes time explaining it to the non-believers.
It takes time to overcome false assumptions. Once the skeptics see that the preponderence
of evidence indicates the election was fraudulent, there will be a complete analysis,
as there was in Florida 2000 after the results were forced upon the nation by five Supremes.

I take exception with your use of "expert" opinion. Who are these experts? It seems everyone
who is venturing a belief is an armchair observer and has done no actual analysis of merit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. who AREN'T they?

You're welcome to believe that political scientists are all indifferent to whether Bush actually won in 2004, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

[BradBlog]

49. It should also be said...

...That "political scientist" does not equal "election expert".

As there are <i>many</i> election experts who believe that Bush did not win Ohio, your suggestion fails on that ground as well.

But again, you've got a dog in this hunt, and a reason to fight for the case that Bush won Ohio. You should disclose that when discussing this topic. That's the ethical thing to do which, as a political scientist, I'd think you would know without my having to be the one to point this out.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. really, I'm startled

Many political scientists are not election experts, certainly. But if there is good evidence that Kerry won Ohio, one ought to be able to get it into the poli sci journals. It's the curious case of the dog that didn't bark.

You assert that there are "many election experts who believe that Bush did not win Ohio," but you don't name a single one. If you want to play the authority card, then we can consider their credentials and lay them aside other people's. Better yet, if you want to weigh the evidence, then we can do that. And yet, I strongly suspect that you won't bother to do either.

You may actually believe that I "have a reason to fight for the case that Bush won Ohio," but that's bullshit. In fact, from a careerist standpoint, I would love to find good evidence that Kerry won Ohio. Your 'argument' here is something like arguing that doctors don't use Laetrile/homeopathy/antifreeze to treat cancer because they have a reason to deny that it works.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. incidentally...

As you may or may not have noticed, whether or not I have "a reason to fight for the case that Bush won Ohio" (I don't), I'm not. I'm fighting against the case that we Know that Kerry won -- that anyone who thinks Bush won Ohio is either ignorant or complicit.

People can think, or strongly suspect, that Kerry won Ohio; conceivably at some point they can even figure out how to convince skeptics. Sitting around in an echo chamber isn't going to do it.

[L. Coyote]

56. Now you need to READ your own posts. You are simply stating a falsehood here.

Read what you have argued so far throughout this thread.

You are even arguing about a single word's meaning as used by one
author in one article, in a vain attempt to say there is no evidence!

You give the impression that you unwilling to consider any evidence a priori.

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. bullshit

"in a vain attempt to say there is no evidence!"

I don't want to trade snark about reading comprehension, but that is a wild misrepresentation of what I wrote. If you are hellbent on making honest discussion impossible on this board, by all means carry on. Otherwise, maybe you might quote whatever you think supports this interpretation, so I can set things straight.

[BradBlog]

77. But not accidentally...

As you may or may not have noticed, you spend hours on this site and on dKos arguing against those who suggest their may be election fraud here or there.

As you also may have noticed, you a sig-line on each and every post, where you could post your real name, and your credentials with a link to the paper you offered in which you stake your reputation on a number of states in 2004 NOT having been stolen.

That would offer a great deal of transparency, so folks could just whether or not you've got a dog in this hunt for themselves.

While I realize only "peer-reviewed academic papers" mean anything to folks like you (which would also be clearer to others if you bothered to exercise appropriate scientific ethics by identifying yourself when you post on things about which you are interest-conflicted), some of us believe that evidence put forward by those who do not publish in such journals nonetheless offer valuable, and independently verifiable information.

Experts like Bob Fitrakis and Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips are certainly far more expert in Ohio elections than you are. As well, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the staff of the Democratic Judiciary Committee (and many others) have compiled an enormous body of convincing evidence to suggest that John Kerry would have won Ohio in a fair election and/or a fair count of the ballots as cast.

For my part, I don't particularly have a position on the matter, though from the evidence that I have seen, I believe a compelling case has been made that Kerry likely would have won Ohio had all of the ballots been counted transparently and *certainly* had all of those who wished to vote actually been allowed to vote.

Nonetheless, while I'd fight for your right to argue against that case -- honestly or otherwise -- it's a simple fact that you have staked no small part of your reputation on the notion that neither Ohio, nor any of the other states in question were stolen in 2004.

When you argue otherwise, and/or when you forward arguments that marginalize the ease of fraud capacity elsewhere (which, in turn, might have easily applied to 2004) you ought to identify yourself.

That's what a responsible <i>scientist</i> would do. You have, decidedly, for years not done so when posting here, at dKos, and probably elsewhere.

If your work was a solid as you obviously believe it to be, there would be no reason for you to hide who you are. I have seen your posts for years both here and at dKos, and had no idea until only recently, who you actually were.

That's both disgraceful and unethical. It's not my job to go hunt down who you might be. It's your job to be transparent in the first place. Period.

Brad

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. regrettable

I expected that instead of bringing facts to the table, you would double down on the ad hominems. But it saddens me nonetheless. I doubt you set out to be this way.

Brad, you are misrepresenting my work. I haven't staked my reputation on any state not having been stolen. Why are you making shit up? If you can't be bothered to read it, why write about it as if you knew? Aren't you supposed to be a journalist? Wow.

Why is it certain that Fitrakis and Phillips know more about the Ohio election? Why is it even relevant whether they know more about the Ohio election? Wouldn't it be relevant to actually assess evidence? Or is that for the little people?

You cannot possibly believe that I am hiding who I am, so I have to wonder at your motives for saying so repeatedly. Or maybe you are operating under faulty assumptions about who I am. I don't know, Brad. Who do you think I am? Do you really find it suspicious that I seem to care so much about the 2004 election? Do you suppose I might find it suspicious that you seem to care so little about the 2004 election? Apparently you just want to wrap yourself, selectively, in other people's expertise. I think that's lame. So sue me.

[BradBlog]

153. incidentally in response, Mark Lindeman

I'm fighting against the case that we Know that Kerry won -- that anyone who thinks Bush won Ohio is either ignorant or complicit.

Had you been less obnoxious and deceptive and a bit more professional, you might have found you had an ally in me in that argument. But apparently, you'd rather shovel out ad hominem personal attacks, anonymously at at least two different websites (despite the dog you have in the hunt) and via personal email to others where I'm unable to respond.

I have never argued that "anyone who thinks Bush won Ohio is either ignorant or complicit", I have never even argued that Bush stole Ohio. I have, however, argued that your behavior and extraordinary lack of professional ethics is both dishonest and insipid.

[OnTheOtherHand]

158. what are you talking about?

None of my posts is "anonymous" -- time to learn English. That aside, still, what are you talking about?

(Edit to correct instant-karma grammar mistake)

[BradBlog]

164. Huh?

To most folks, yes, you are anonymous. As you were to me for years here before I was tipped off to who you actually were. At which point, your "arguments" were in an entirely new light, as they would be to anyone who was transparently informed of your professional conflicts of interest on these matters.

Beyond that, I have no clue what "what are you talking about?" even refers to.

[OnTheOtherHand]

214. I missed this one

I'm surprised that you carried on for years here without knowing who I was. I have to infer that you didn't care very much, since my profile hasn't changed since maybe June of 2005 -- and I've often cited my own work -- etc. I think it's fine that you didn't care very much, but I don't think it reflects upon my ethics.

I don't know why my arguments here would appear in an "entirely new light" based on my name. I think that is, at best, irrational. If you refuse to address the substance of my arguments, there's nothing here except innuendo.

You've repeatedly asserted that my exit poll paper makes an argument that it doesn't make; you've repeatedly asserted, wrongly, that I have a professional stake in reaching a predetermined conclusion about Ohio in 2004. When I strip away the errors, I can't find anything but animus, and I don't know what it's about.

[Stevepol]

74. Fitrakis isn't an "expert"?

His book supposedly analyzes in detail how OH was stolen. I haven't seen the book yet, but have seen him numerous times pointing out obvious discrepancies and problems with the vote totals.

How many so-called experts have analyzed "in detail," precinct by precinct, the results? How many have waded thru the 900+ pg report from Conyers made up of thousands of complaints and on-the-ground observations of how the vote was stolen?

I told a "political scientist" (PhD) a few years ago about the fact that GES (later GEMS) when it was acquired by Diebold in Jan 2002 had 5 ex-felons working in upper management positions, and I pointed out that Jeffrey Dean (the senior vice-pres of the company) had spent 5 years in prison for embezzlement from a law firm by using very sophisticated fraudulent computer programming, and this political scientist said, "Well he knows a lot about programming I guess." In other words, it meant nothing to him.

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. Fitrakis is not the weight of expert opinion

A hint is that his books are self-published. Of course that doesn't mean they are wrong -- and a lot in them is right, although he seems to be convinced that Kerry won, and he sure hasn't convinced me and many others of that.

I know you've cast your lot with Fitrakis and that isn't likely to change. Actually directing you (again) to Mebane and Herron's precinct-by-precinct analyses probably won't do much good. (Since when is the Conyers report 900+ pages? Whatever.)

It's one thing to make up excuses why political scientists are wrong. It's another thing to pretend they don't exist, which was pretty much the MO of the OP.

ETA: Do you think that Dean's criminal history is evidence that Kerry won Ohio? If so, why? If not, then what is your beef, exactly?

[BradBlog]

154. Goal posts moved...Typically...

"Weight of expert opinion" was not the question. You have moved the goal posts again, and without identifying yourself, when your argument was called out.

As to your shot at Fitrakis because his books are "self-published", I suspect had he made your arguments about Kerry in '04 he could have found a publisher without a problem.

Given those who had "unpopular" things to say over the last few years -- like "Bush lied about WMD in Iraq", "Bush lied about his administration outing a covert CIA operative", "Republicans stole the 2000 election" -- have been denied publishing by corporate outlets for years, even though they were right on virtually every score, your pseudonymous/anonymous slime of Fitrakis for him having the courage to publish such "unpopular" information on his own dime, is even more insipid.

Are you *truly* that out of touch with what has gone on in this country over the past 7 years, Mark Lindeman, that you would use that as an argument against Fitrakis? Or are you own actual arguments so without substance that you have to continue to stoop to such low roads?

Your previous comments in this thread, and hundreds of others, I believe, answer that question fairly clearly.

[OnTheOtherHand]

155. what, is this satire?

Brad, you're just running up the score on yourself now.

Everyone here knows who I am. I linked to my own work. In fact, next to you, I may be the most clearly identified poster on the thread -- as if that mattered. I prefer to argue on the merits. If it makes you happy to use my name, go ahead.

In post 18, I said that the weight of expert opinion was against the OPer. In post 74, Stevepol asked whether Fitrakis was an expert. I pointed out that Fitrakis is not the weight of expert opinion. How did I move the goalposts? I didn't.

Where did I slime Fitrakis? I didn't. The fact that his work is self-published underscores that he hasn't won the expert debate. If he had, he wouldn't have to self-publish.

Now, if you are insinuating that all the political scientists who appear to think that Bush won merely lack Fitrakis's courage, well, again, that is an interesting use of your time.

[truedelphi]

169. On the Other Hand has been decried by many of the independent

Analysts of the voting reform movement, Kathy Dopp among them.

A big point is that he refuses to acknowledge the extremely wide spread existence of the many many problems - votes that electronically switched (A person voted for Kerry, but saw Bush's name appear as the voter moved on to vote for the next candidate) the lack of the electronic machinery in heavily D districts, the purging (unfairly) of many Ohioans. And then discredits those who took the time to examine all these elements.

[Wilms]

170. Who in the voting reform movement hasn't Kathy Dopp decried?

:shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

174. excuse me, but can you support that criticism?

truedelphi, I've chatted extensively with you. You don't need to be saying stuff about me behind my back.

Anyone interested in what I actually think might find my review of Uncounted as good as any a place to start. I can't keep explaining myself from scratch every time.

[truedelphi]

179. Well, you expect those of us who believe that the 2004 election was a "steal" to explain

Ourselves from scratch every time the subject is brought up.

And in reading your remarks in your earlier posts on this topic, you are suggesting that to "prove" one way or the other, we need to examine every precenct and every County in the state of Ohio.

Of course there was more than Ohio involved, so actually according to your logic, we would have to examine every precinct and every County in the USA.

Now the problem is (And I have made the SAME remarks to my friend Autorank) IF THE ELECTION WAS INDEED STOLEN, no examination of anything will prove that it was stolen! At least not by examining numbers at the individual County level, and since the thieves were in charge and had the capability of switching the votes electronically.

There is simply NO WAY at all to take the electronic summaries of the vote tallies in every County in the USA and be able to decide anything.
At one time I had thought that finding the overall vote tallies on the national level might be a good way to start. I soon gave up because, again, if there was a theft, with the thieves in charge, if that is among my hypotheses, then my conclusion has to be that I cannot come up with an overall national total.

If your house is ransacked, and the thieves not only swipe your valuables, but replace your video of what you owned with a video that they created showing you owned far less, what can you prove?

One place I can point to to use as my defense of this syllogism is the state of New Mexico. When you have little tiny precincts where there should have been 67 votes for President and there ended up only being 8 or so, it indicates that the Powers that Be managed to put in place of the voters' choice 61 blanks. (I am using these figures off the top of my head, but they are similiar to the figures quoted in "Stealing America" the coumentary by DForothy Faddiman.) Because of the mismanagement of the vote theft in New Mexico, and the tireless work of the activists, New Mexico now has PAPER BALLOTS!

[OnTheOtherHand]

182. hmm...

If you think about it, and if you check the record, I usually don't say anything when someone says that the election was stolen. I even generally don't say anything when someone says 'anyone with half a brain realizes that the election was stolen' (a pretty close paraphrase of a post I saw yesterday on GD) -- dangerous though I think that notion is.

So it seems to me that instead of supporting one faulty assertion, you're offering another one. OK, I resort to hyperbole too. But the way this thread has gone, I don't think any more hyperbole is needed right now! Yes, when people say they're sure that Kerry won, I sometimes ask why they are sure.

"And in reading your remarks in your earlier posts on this topic, you are suggesting that to 'prove' one way or the other, we need to examine every precenct and every County in the state of Ohio."

I don't know where I've suggested that, either (and I'm not sure what you mean by "examine"). Maybe if you work from my actual words, things will go better.

I agree that it is hard to "prove" much, if anything, from vote totals at the county level. However, if (for instance) 50,000 Ohio votes were stolen on DREs, while the punch card counts were relatively accurate, that would be pretty obvious from county-level returns. Some things are easier to detect after the fact than others, even if the evidence doesn't rise to the level of proof.

I don't think that the results in New Mexico necessarily prove anything about "the Powers that Be," but I do think it's clear that a lot of people's votes (or intended votes) weren't counted. I think Kerry may have won New Mexico if the machines worked right. I think Jennings certainly would have won Florida 13 if the machines worked right. It's not all just an undifferentiated blur.

[truedelphi]

184. Regarding a stolen election, I like the word "indication" better than "proof"

It's not as satisfying, but unless Barbara Bush Sr, Ken Blackwell, Or "W" himself confess, I think it is the most we can get.

[truedelphi]

180. Now in a report issued in response to the Edison/Mitofsky report

US COUNT VOTES issued this report to be found at their website "USCountVotes.org" (Alternately to be found at "VerifiedVoting.org" and "VoteProtect.org")

Among the contributers and reporters to the report were Josh Mittendorf PhD, Kathy Dopp MS in Math, Steven FFriedman PhD, Brian Joiner PhD, Frank Stenger, PhD, Richard G SHeehan, PhD, Paul Vellman PhD, Victorie Lovegren, PhD, Campbell, PhD, PhD.

The report takes the Edison/Mitofsky report to task because although it would be plausible to state, as the Edison/Mitofsky defenders did, that the exit polls were biased for Kerry, that particular hypothesis is only valid if FIRST it is ruled out that the official election results were NOT distorted. And since Edison/Mitofsky did NOT first rule out that important leg on the ladder of reasoning, then the report is seriously flawed.

The report summarizes: "The Edison/Mitofsky report fails to substantiate their hypotheseis that the difference between their exit polls and official election results shhoul dbe explained by problems with the offical exit polls. They assert without supporting evidence (Page four) that 'Kerry voters were moreliley to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.' In fact, data, included within the report suggest that the opposite might be true."
#####

[OnTheOtherHand]

183. why are we rewinding to the spring of 2005?

I actually helped to produce that report, so I feel that I have standing to be unimpressed.

Say we have two alternative hypotheses: "the exit polls were right and the results were wrong" or "the exit polls were wrong and the results were right." (It's not that simple: I'm sure both the exit polls and the results were at least somewhat wrong.) One way of trying to sort this out is to ask: which makes more sense, the results or the exit polls? For instance, does it make more sense that Kerry won New Hampshire by double digits (exit polls), or that NH was very close (the results)?

[truedelphi]

187. I'd have to know more.

Was NH under the control of a Republican Secretary of State, or a Democrat?

That would be my first question.

Then:
Are the ballot methods trustworthy? If electronic, I have no confidence in the vote results, especially given that the exit polls were such that Kerry should have won by double digits.

[OnTheOtherHand]

189. no, I think the question can be addressed without knowing those things

It's legitimate and sensible to start with the question: what would one expect to happen in New Hampshire? Would one expect a very close race, or not?

(It isn't necessary to single out New Hampshire; one can carry this analysis across all the states.)

In 2004 as in 2008, most New Hampshire voters used optically scanned paper ballots; many used hand-counted paper ballots. Many of the optical scan ballots were recounted after the election, so one would have to postulate not only massive hacking of the scanners, but massive ballot tampering after the fact. But setting that aside, the question remains: what would one expect to happen in New Hampshire? If we don't ask that question, we can make the general point that electronic vote-casting and -counting isn't trustworthy, and then we're stuck -- which is fine, if we decide not to argue about what happened in 2004.

[truedelphi]

191. No I think my question is quite legitimate.

Asking about the influence of the Republican party in the one state where Republican officials actually had to serve jail time for their shenanighans ssems quite appropriate to me.

In Case you've forgotten:
Allen Raymond, the President of the Republican consulting group Marketplace LLC, was sentenced to five months in jail and fined $15,600 for jamming Democratic phone lines in several New Hampshire cities during the 2002 election.

Court records indicate that Raymond and co-conspirators plotted to jam Democratic phone lines that offered voters rides to the polls in at least four New Hampshire cities. Additionally, the Republicans disrupted the phone line operated by the nonpartisan Manchester Firefighters Union, according to the AP. The Executive Director of the New Hampshire Republican Party Chuck McGee also pleaded guilty, and James Tobin, the regional chair of Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign was also indicted in the 2002 scheme.

In Ohio or Florida, instead of being indicted, the GOP would have nominated them for Secretary of State.

[OnTheOtherHand]

194. I didn't say your question wasn't legitimate

I said, in short, that mine was. And you appeared to ignore it. It's hard to advance a conversation that way.

If we're trying to figure out whether to place any credence in the exit polls, but we aren't willing to evaluate whether the exit poll results make any sense, then... well, then we're not trying. That's OK, but then I see no reason to mention the exit polls at all.

I don't know whether New Hampshire SoS Bill Gardner is a Democrat or a Republican. I've seen sources that say he was a Democratic legislator in the 1970s, but I don't know if that is right. I do know that the state legislator has reappointed him Secretary of State many times, so that suggests that he has broad bipartisan support. However, an election hack in New Hampshire probably woudn't require Gardner's support, so I don't think that gets us very far.

What Republican party leaders and operatives did in New Hampshire was lousy, but I don't see how it has any bearing on whether the scanners were hacked.

[BeFree]

222. Exit poll problem!!!

We haven't seen the exit poll data in it's entirety. Only one person here has. TIA hasn't. Have you?

What we have seen of the exit poll data shouts out PROBLEM! And any 'expert' who comes on here claiming that we shouldn't mention exit polls at all are very much against finding the truth of the exit polls, don't you think?

After all, have you been paid for examining exit poll data? Of course not, right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

223. who might that be?

And any 'expert' who comes on here claiming that we shouldn't mention exit polls at all ...

With all the straw you haul in, I hope you stay away from matches.

[BradBlog]

242. Can you support that *review*?

Anyone interested in what I actually think might find my review of Uncounted as good as any a place to start.

I concur. I just wanted to take the rare moment to agree with Lindeman.

Just about everything you need to know about him, including his name for a refreshing change (but not his previous disagreements with Jonathon Simon which he fails to disclose, as per his wont, even while spending most of the review sliming him) can be found in that "review".

It's all there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

244. "disclose"?

I state my disagreements with Simon. I often disagree with Simon. It isn't a conflict of interest.

Brad, you can't support that I spent "most of the review sliming" Jonathan Simon, because it isn't true. Shame on you.

Since you're interested (heh), here is my critique of "Landslide Denied". And here is my critique of "Fingerprints of Election Theft." I fully expect that your responses to those articles will be every bit as substantive and serious as your response to the Uncounted review.

[Bill Bored]

80. If the expert opinion about Ohio is based on previous election results, there is insuffient data.

The same vote switching "algorithm" that existed in 2004 has been around the state since the 1970s when the constitution was amended to require ballot order rotation and the law was written to require that to be done within polling places. If the same punch card systems were used for recent elections (the ones without so much as a precinct ID on the voted cards), then I submit that results from past elections using such an insecure system should not be used as a benchmark by political or any other kind of scientists.

This isn't about exit polls. It's about a dysfunctional, high risk voting system, poor poll worker training on how to use it correctly, uneducated voters who may not know the risks their votes have been exposed to so they could try to mitigate them, etc.

I doubt whether a few scatter plots comparing present and past elections are going to indicate this and I'm sure the exit polls won't (they are much too crude to detect such a subtleties). The scatter plots are only valid if the past elections are valid as benchmarks for comparison. If past results were not as close as 2004, anomalies due to this design would go unnoticed for many election cycles, but they may have been around for 3 decades, giving Repubs an edge in Dem strongholds, and vice versa. But if there were more Dem strongholds with co-located precincts that allowed vote switching, which even if random would favor Republicans, then the Dems have been at a disadvantage ever since 1970s when this ballot order rotation scam went into effect.

If you ask Ohioans who wrote this law and the bill to require it to be implemented within polling places, they don't seem to know. But you have to admit, it's a recipe for rigged elections, and therefore the fact that current results may track well with past ones does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling that all is well in the Buckeye State.

[L. Coyote]

113. Looking at long-range trends, with punch card voting, Ohio turned Republican.

And, in the first election without the punch cards, the Republicans were swept from every major state office!

Thank you Diebold, for at least being the lessor of two great evils!! :rofl:

Seriously, all punch card elections in Ohio need to be analyzed, from the first to the last, on a state-wide basis.
This can be done initially by the sort of sampling in How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes and the analyses such as in Joe Knapp's work.
The large subsets in How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes argue that this MUST be done if ever we are to understand Ohio politics in the last decade.

Was Marc Dann working on this?

[eomer]

212. Hey, OTOH, I think this is the topic that you and I left pending a long time ago.

I made the point that the way to evaluate this question is to add up estimates of votes lost or switched by way of each of the different areas of concern and then to see whether that total is more or less than the official margin. I believe we left it that neither of us was aware of any study like that, or at least not by any of the political scientists who think that Kerry lost. Is that still the case (and am I remembering correctly)?

[OnTheOtherHand]

213. I think that's still the case

Right now, coincidentally, I'm catching up on a promise I made (to someone else) to work through Richard Hayes Phillips' estimates. My first move was to reduce his estimate of the "Connally anomaly" by about 3/4 as an upper bound; I don't really think there is a "Connally anomaly" as such. But trying to figure out the fine-grained stuff.... There are big error bars, especially when it comes to the vote suppression side. I'm sure there is an alternate universe somewhere where Kerry wins, but I can't tell how many counterfactuals away it is. (For instance, how does one go about deciding how high turnout in Cleveland 'should have' been?)

[eomer]

215. Exactly,

And how does one go about deciding how many votes may have been switched by old-fashioned punching parties -- in the Warren County lockdown in particular but also everywhere else? I believe that the standard control mechanism of controlling and accounting for the unused punch cards broke down in many (maybe most) counties. For this one concern alone, I don't see how anyone can demonstrate that the election wasn't stolen. The best case is, IMO, that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the election wasn't stolen. In other words, I believe the converse of what you said (that's where we usually start from, isn't it?).

[OnTheOtherHand]

216. they're completely compatible

As you know, there's no contradiction between saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that the election was stolen, and saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that it wasn't stolen. I think they're both true. I probably say it with a different valence than you do, but that doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother you.

I don't think it's a 50:50 proposition. Even in Warren, I don't have direct evidence, and I don't see indirect evidence, to persuade me that the Democratic members of the county board were in any sense complicit in election-night ballot tampering. We can conjecture punch card tampering throughout the state, but it seems tenuous to me.

[eomer]

217. I don't think that Democratic board members had to be complicit.

I believe the allegation is that the ballots were taken to an unsecured location and stuffed. The combination of a broken chain of custody for the ballot boxes and the inability to account for the unused ballots (the official claim is that they destroyed them even though there was a court order requiring them to be preserved) is enough to make it impossible to demonstrate the election wasn't stolen. It doesn't matter how many people observed the count if the ballot box had already been stuffed.

I think I agree with you on your statement of the big picture, and that's not the part that bothers me. The problem I have is that if, as you say, essentially all political scientists believe that the election wasn't stolen, then that belief is mostly on faith, isn't it, rather than being a conclusion that the evidence forces them to come to? I'd be (relatively) happy if most political scientists said that the result of the 2004 election can't really be determined. I don't see where they get off saying they do know that Kerry lost.

[OnTheOtherHand]

218. OK

I don't see any obvious connection between the lockdown and the hypothesis of off-site stuffing, but that may be moot; we'd have to assess the latter on its merits. Even if one doesn't suppose that Democratic board members were actually complicit, one has to figure out how the system broke down to the extent that massive ballot-stuffing could happen -- presumably in many counties -- without them catching on.

Later on I'll be staring closely at what RHP says about this in his book, but the idea seems to have been that some ballots were punched for Bush only.
http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2006/1355
The thing about that is that the drop-off from president to Issue 1 in Warren County was about 3.2%, just a bit above the statewide average of 2.8%; the drop-off to Chief Justice was 22.2% compared with 20.2%. All sorts of things are possible, but one wouldn't have flagged these results as anomalous a priori.

Who said that most political scientists say they know that Kerry lost? I can't enter into the interior mental states of other political scientists; I can only tell you how I reason about it. Knowledge (scientific or other) is inherently provisional. In Ohio, we've got Bush leading in most of the pre-election polls; the vote counts indicate that in fact he won; I think that justifies at least a weak a priori presumption that he won, at least with respect to ballots cast. Mebane and Herron went through the results with one fine-tooth comb, Phillips went through with another, and to the extent that their conclusions disagree, I find Mebane and Herron more persuasive. It doesn't mean I'm pounding the table for the infallibility of the punch card counts.

I do worry that my opinions have been influenced by the crappiness of (1) some of the arguments and (2) some of the meta-arguments.

[eomer]

219. I think the broken chain of custody occurred during the lockdown.

So it's the combination of locking out the media and the public and, while they were locked out, moving the ballots to a location under the control allegedly of just a single "Republican hack", the failure to account for the unused ballots, and, finally, an indication of foul play punches on some of the ballots when they were later inspected by Phillips. The lockdown may have been a necessary component because it would have limited the number of potential observers who had to be kept out of the way or who might otherwise have protested ballot boxes disappearing out of public view.

Regarding the weak a priori presumption, there was a time when the official count would have gotten that from me, but that was before all the droppings that the ratfuckers (pardon my Latin) on the GOP team have left behind in 2004 and other recent elections.

If you do get a chance to look further at the ballot stuffing, a couple of points. I'm not sure it needs to be massive because, of course, we don't need to overcome the entire margin with this one cause since it is just one of many. Also, if your analysis includes comparing with prior election results, there is my other pet contention, which is that some of this fraud may well have been institutionalized and in place for a long time. Ballot stuffing is a good candidate for that, as is the caterpillar crawl. Both of these causes could have been in place just in certain compromised counties or precincts and repeated over multiple election cycles.

_{Edit: improved clarity}

[OnTheOtherHand]

221. sure, maybe

To argue that the lockdown was essential risks proving too much, if it tends to rule out similar tampering in other counties, which might be necessary if we are to find sufficient miscounted punch card votes. (Of course you're right that one needn't net 120,000 votes from this source alone.) But certainly shutting out public observers could facilitate hanky-panky.

I see your point about presumptions. All I can say -- not intended by way of rebuttal -- is that the evidence from Ohio 2004 is nowhere near as strong as the evidence from Florida 2000 or Sarasota 2006.

I agree that we can't assume that any election result is a fraud-free baseline. At the same time, if people want to talk about "anomalies," they need to consider empirical baselines somehow.

[L. Coyote]

236. Warren could be a ruse to distract from the larger counties with fraud.

If you are stealing Kerry votes, you go to counties with lots of Kerry votes!

Like, D'oh, right!! It sure was used to distract from other issues!!! But, it voted the same as always.

County      % Kerry    Population
Warren        27.22     181,743

Cuyahoga      65.12   1,363,888
Hamilton      45.68	823,472
Montgomery    49.41     552,187
Stark 	      49.55	377,519
Lorain 	      55.02	291,164
Trumbull      60.19	221,785

On edit: pre tags added

[OnTheOtherHand]

237. ruse, maybe; distraction, certainly

I can't tell whether there was some ballot-stuffing in Warren or not, but as you say, its Kerry vote share was right in trend vis-a-vis 2000, and a lot like every other election I can find.

Cuyahoga is right in trend, too, which is one of the reasons I'm skeptical about some of the high-end estimates of vote-switching there. But it does make sense to steal votes where there are lots of votes to steal.

[L. Coyote]

238. The Oho trend changes with the intrduction of punch cards, from Dem to R

so one has to take the trend inferences with a grain of skepticism.
It is possible a decade of punch card voting was vote-switched.
And, then came Diebold, and the state voted Dem!!

[L. Coyote]

24. How did you all get to this point in the thread w/o mention of the evidence?

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts six percent when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. well, I think you know what I think of this

The problem is real, but I'm skeptical that the effect was six percent even in these precincts.*

That said, I give you big props for actually doing some work.

*EDIT TO ADD: I wish I thought it were unnecessary to add this, but: when I say, "The problem is real," I mean among other things that it stinks when people's votes are suppressed or miscounted -- whether it altered the outcome or not.

[L. Coyote]

28. What do you think the "effect" was then, and why are you skeptical?

Are you also skeptical of the third-party rates in those precincts?
"Badnarik votes increase five-fold and Peroutka votes jump over nine-fold."

You do realize what percent was needed to alter the outcome? Far, far less than 6%!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. IIRC, across all those precincts, about 2%

If you have a countywide estimate, we can see in what respects we even disagree.

Per Leip, Badnarik and Peroutka combined for 3674 votes in Cuyahoga, or 0.55%. I realize that the miscounted votes aren't limited to Badnarik and Peroutka votes, but this statistic underscores how one can believe that the problem is real and still not believe that it affected the outcome.

[L. Coyote]

30. I don't estimate. I use actual data. Your approach is inadequate and obfuscates vote-switching.

The third-party cross-votes are concentrated in specific precincts,
at locations where switching Kerry votes to Bush is NOT possible, a fraud pattern

In precincts where all Kerry cross-votes count only for the third-party
candidates, the rate is from 0.81 to 1.43% for Badnarik and Peroutka respectively:



So your belief "that the problem is real and still not believe that it affected
the outcome" is ill-founded on a misperception and lack of analysis of the data.

Secondly, the vote-switching rate is NOT determined by the third-party cross-vote rate.
That is particularly so in a fraud scenario, where the idea is to switch Kerry votes to Bush.
In fact, lower third-party irregularites help obfuscate the real crime, vote-switching.

What impact do these facts have on your skepticism, and your estimate?

Also, one has to account for non-votes!

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. oh, c'mon

"I don't estimate. I use actual data." That's silly. Do we really have to go another round on the relationship between descriptive and inferential statistics?

"Your approach is inadequate and obfuscates vote-switching." That's silly, too. I didn't offer an "approach" at all. I just pointed out that there actually weren't very many Badnarik and Peroutka votes in Cuyahoga. I also noted that those weren't the whole story -- so I'm not sure why you trot out Bush votes and non-votes as if I somehow had denied their existence.

However, I see no evidence that there were a lot more switched Bush votes and non-votes than there were switched Badnarik and Peroutka votes. If you think you have it, by all means present it, but the abusive rhetoric doesn't really help your cause.

[L. Coyote]

32. The approach of using one statistic to conclude what another statistic is is wrong.

I don't care whose approach it is, it is wrong (and this is nor personal, its political).

The same reasoning has been trotted out as a proof that we should "just move on." That is why I react as I do.
That the third-party cross-vote rate indicates what the vote-switch rate is is fallacy. These are independent statistics.

You write, "I see no evidence that there were a lot more switched Bush votes and non-votes."

The evidence you ask for is in the article. This IS descriptive statistics, eemploying
every vote as counted, not a sample, rather descriptions of subsets:

"In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts six percent when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

"In a subset of 47,404 votes, the Kerry-Bush margin shifts 6.3%
when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

Now, compare those rates to the 1.43% Peroutka and 0.81% Badnarik rates in the subsets
where Kerry cross-votes only count for these third party candidates.

Is 6% (/2) in one subset, and 6.3% (/2) in another subset, sufficient evidence
to conclude that "there were a lot more switched Bush votes" or not?

Where inferential statistics enters considerations is in expressing a confidence level
about these 3% differentials. Likewise for the third-party rates. Precisely the same
actual vote for the candidates is not expected, as the article states. However, the
study has a very robust character in this regard, not using sampling and analyzing a very large numbers of votes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. no, the evidence is not in the article

"Shifts" implies that we somehow know that any difference between Bush and Kerry vote shares in the two sets of precincts must be explained by miscounted votes. We don't. A matching analysis might help.

[L. Coyote]

47. Shift means to go through a change. Are you the author of the article?

Or did you ask the author what the word implies?

So, now, the evidence is not there because of the choice of vocabulary?
Actually, I think a quibble about a choice of vocabulary is rather silly, so I'll move on.
Shall we talk about the 6% "change" or "mis-match" instead, or can we agree to use the same term as the author?

If the Kerry % did not go through a "shift" then there would be no evidence, right?
And, when the Kerry % does go through a "shift" there may be evidence, right?

Or, do I have this confused?

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. a CHANGE? who demonstrated a CHANGE?

The table demonstrates a difference, not a change. The problem is the same even if we dispense with "shifts" entirely.

At least part of this difference surely is attributable to miscounted votes, but it does us no good to pretend that we know that it all is, or to practice strategic ambiguity as to whether we know that.

[L. Coyote]

54. You need to READ the article. The same voters are sorted several ways and the shift results

when comparing these sorts.

On reading you will notice:

"Sorting precincts by cross-vote outcome produced direct evidence of cross-voting"

"The average Kerry vote is equal for the 2\3 and 3\3 locations when subsets are sorted by K-b cross-vote probability.
A significant, 6.0% disparity in Kerry margins emerges with the alternate K-B probability sort."

Let me assist you in understanding this, in case you are not a political scientist.

First, ALL 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, are sorted by one probability
outcomes of wrong-precinct voting, whether or not Kerry cross-votes count for Badnarik.

Second, ALL 166,953 votes are sorted by a different probability
outcomes, whether or not Kerry cross-votes count for Bush.

Exactly the same voters, exactly the same votes, exactly the same locations and precincts,
are sorted several times by distinct criteria. That is why it IS a SHIFT, a change.

NOW, the important EVIDENCE you are either missing or in denial about.

WHEN SORTED BY THE PROBABILITY OF VOTE-SWITCHING,
"Bush support increases 3.09% where Kerry cross-votes count for Bush,
and Kerry support increases 2.91% with no Kerry-Bush vote-switch probability"
as compared to the sort by probability of cross-votes counting for Badnarik.

Let me know if this is still above your reading level. I can try to make it more simple for you.

The PowerPoints illustrate this also.
Download ohio_figures.ppt featuring graphics from the article.
Download precinct_switching.ppt featuring evidence of election fraud.

ON EDIT: Quotes from,

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Download vote_switching.ppt featuring highlights from the study.
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/vote_switching.ppt



Download ohio_figures.ppt featuring graphics from the article.
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio_figures.ppt

Download precinct_switching.ppt featuring evidence of election fraud.
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/precinct_switching.ppt

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. sorry, no

The same data can be partitioned in any number of possible ways, but it isn't possible to use one partition to demonstrate the unbiasedness of another partition.

Again, abuse will not help your cause. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person on DU who actually has read the substance of your analysis; if one is too many, I can move on to better uses of my time.

[L. Coyote]

57. sorry, no

The same data can be sorted by different probability outcomes to demonstrate precisely
the difference that outcome makes.



You are simply arguing that if cows and horses are distinguished to
determine how often the horses win horse races, the result will not shift!

Let me explain.
Horses have a 1.0 probability they can win a horse race.
Cows have a 0.0 probability they can win a horse race.

I'm now quite certain who your horse is!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. this has nothing to do with cows and horses

Offering crap analogies won't help your cause, either.

If I were pounding the table for zero miscount, then you would have a legitimate gripe. But in fact, you are pounding the table that your point estimate is a change measure. To which I can only say: stop taking the easy path of slamming me on DU, and go submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

[L. Coyote]

68. Which journal would accept a simple article about my cow and horse analogy,

It might be fun to submit it. Can you recommend a journal?
Would you recommend a political science or a statistics journal?

I can see it now "Cows have zero probability of winning horse races" :rofl:

Maybe Science would be the best journal for such innovative thinking.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. I'd recommend getting back to work

I think if you submit your paper (not your analogy, doh) to a professional journal, you may find some of the referees' suggestions strangely familiar.

[L. Coyote]

72. What paper?

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. ah, who knows?

If you're an admirer rather than the author, then you should encourage Jacobs to submit his work. I think it would make it into print eventually, probably after substantial revision.

[L. Coyote]

100. Cows and horses is the best analogy this old farmer has.

If you know that 5% of your barnyard animals have won horse races,
and you want to know what percentage of the horses have won horse races,
first you separate out the horses, then you compare the number of horses
with the number of races your barnyard animals have won.
Simple enough for us old farmers!! :rofl:

If you want to know what percentage of possible cross-votes Kerry-Badnarik or Kerry-Peroutka did cross vote,
first you separate out the voters who have some probability of cross-voting Kerry-Badnarik or Kerry-Peroutka (horses)
and you compare that to those who had zero probability (cows). Otherwise the cows dilute the statistics!



If you can understand this much, then it is possible to move on to the next corral in the barnyard (subset of voters).
That is the really big corral (with one of every 25.4 Ohio Kerry voters). Here you have 166,953 horses in a big race ......

[L. Coyote]

115. There are several analysis in the article. I'm rereading now and found even more to add here.

What is a matching analysis? In my graduate-level quantitative methods instruction, that term was not used for this type of inquiry. If you mean optimal matching analysis, isn't that sequence analysis? I do not see how it would be applied to voting fraud. I think you are referring to paired analysis, which is employed in How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes in several ways. In fact, pairing is important because cross-voting happens when precincts are paired. The analysis also accounts for pairing in comparing precincts at the same locations, and in probability sorting those precincts. The pairing of specific probability outcomes is even discussed. This graphic illustrates which probabilities are paired.



Have you read How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes? Here is another excerpt:

A t-test quantifies difference in a standardized, easy-to-compare, probability format. A paired t-test of all 1,255 cross-voting precincts indicates an astounding 0.862 probability Peroutka and Badnarik voters are the same population. The actual probability so many voters for different candidates test probable as the same populations is infinitely miniscule. The test results positive with such high probability because the Peroutka and Badnarik vote patterns are largely the same population, Kerry cross-voters. Kerry cross-votes counted as Peroutka and Badnarik votes out weights their actual vote patterns. For every K-b precinct, an adjacent precinct cross-votes K-p, and at locations where one precinct cross-votes, this unusual application of a t-test evidences the other is likely doing so also. T-tests comparing location-paired precinct data reinforce evidence of a strong correlation between locations and Kerry to third-party cross-voting.

T-tests applied to Kerry and Bush vote results in Table 20 and Table 22 support the evidence of Kerry-Bush vote-switching. T-test results and more subset comparisons are highlighted in the spreadsheets.

Have you done graduate studies in quantitative methods? If so, you must realize how robust n = 1,255 is.

Can you read spreadsheets and use Excel? There is a lot more there, including paired t-testing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. try here:

www.stanford.edu/class/polisci353/2004winter/reading.html

I've read the Jacobs study repeatedly; thank you for your concern, I guess.

If you are talking about the robustness of n = 1,255, then you are back on the other side of the descriptive/inferential divide. And yet you rarely speak clearly about the leap from one to the other.

Let me ask you this: What is your point estimate of the net number of miscounted votes (net gain to Bush) in the 2\3 and 3\3 precincts? How would you characterize the statistical error associated with that estimate?

[L. Coyote]

119. I'm sorry if I assumed you know the difference between the two.

I'm sorry if leaping between the two is a problem.
If you want me to make each instance clear for you, I certainly can.

You seem so certain of your conclusions, and you lay claim to being
a "political scientist" so why don't you answer these questions:

What is your "point estimate" of the Kerry-Bush vote-switching?
In the subsets where methodology allows estimation?
In the subsets where no known methodolgy can be applied?
In Cuyahoga County 2004?
In Ohio 2004?
In the other elections in Ohio 2004?
In all the other punch card elections in Ohio before 2004?

If you cannot give a precise answer, please explain why.

[OnTheOtherHand]

121. I don't have a point estimate

I don't have enough data to have a good point estimate of Kerry-Bush vote switching. Apparently you don't, either. That's OK. But if you refuse to answer a straightforward question about the study that you are touting, then I don't see how progress is possible.

[L. Coyote]

122. You write: "I don't have enough data to have a good point estimate of Kerry-Bush vote switching"

Well, there you have it. Now, are you going to do anything about that?
Will you make the determination? How will you proceed?

Are you willing to say, "I don't know if the Ohio 2004 Presidential voters elected Kerry or Bush, I don't have enough data"?

Returning to just that in How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes?

"The 2004 Ohio Presidential election remains to be fully investigated. The blatant evidence of irregularities and
unfairness of organization continues to be ignored by most jurisdictional authorities informed of the evidence."

It seems that "election activists" should be added to this list.
Brad, have you bothered to read the article? At least one poster did.
I'm wondering if anyone, anyone at all, will take any action at all,
in light of the known evidence, instead of quibbling ad nauseum like in this thread.

"The results herein bring into question all past Ohio punch card voting."

"The number of Ohio Kerry votes switched to Bush votes remains to be fully quantified state-wide.
While a precise answer may not be attainable everywhere, statistical analysis can provide a useful answer."

"Many individual ballots resulted in a vote-switch, a two-vote margin difference from the intended result. Switched-votes cast for Kerry and counted for Bush had twice the impact as their actual occurrence, by each subtracting one from Kerry and adding one to Bush. Bush and Kerry votes also went uncounted as non-votes or were miscounted as minor candidate votes."

So, do the math. The evidence for third-party cross-votes is around 1% in precincts where that was the only way a Kerry vote could be switched. In precincts where they could be switched to Bush, the impact of the same switch rate doubles, both subtracting and adding!! And the same rate of vote-switching would have altered the election outcome if it happened at that rate in all precincts.

Then, in the precincts where there is a probability of Kerry-Bush vote-switching, a 6% shift is in evidence.
I'm asking "Who is going to do something?" instead of quibbling about a "point estimate."

What is it going to take? A video of the ballots being moved from one pile to the next pile?
That 5 second slight of hand is long past, but the evidence is in plain sight now!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

123. well...

I'm one of the few people here who has actually researched Ohio 2004. I'm sorry if I don't live up to your exacting standards.

I've never claimed to know for sure who won or should have won Ohio. You may have me confused with some of the other posters on this thread, such as the OPer. There are many on this board who brook no dissent on the matter: Kerry won, and that's that. I don't think that outlook equips them for life beyond DU.

I understand your frustration that more attention isn't paid to the caterpillar crawl issue. I think the obsolescence of the voting technology has something to do with that. Analytically, there are some other issues; I've mentioned some of them, and may return to others.

[L. Coyote]

125. The issue is obfuscated by those calling it "caterpillar crawl"

What is "caterpillar crawl" anyway? That misnomer obfuscates the real issues of concern, ballot switching and cross-voting.

In Ohio, voters did not punch the adjacent option, "crawling" the ballot. They either cross-voted, punching their ballot using the wrong precinct's device with a different candidate order, or ballots were fraudulently switched to the wrong precinct pile to alter the vote in a specific intended way, from Kerry to Bush.

Recount observers in Cuyahoga County noted that Bush votes occurred in a long series for just one candidate. That can be the hallmark of ballot switching with a specific outcome intended, as if Kerry votes are first sorted, and then the ballots are moved to a precinct where they count for Bush. That certainly is not "caterpillar crawl."

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. go slug that out with Richard Hayes Phillips

I can only warn you about your sectarian antics so many times before I just tune you out.

[L. Coyote]

130. I thought the topic was Ohio 2004.

Why not stick to the issue? What purpose does continual misdirection serve?

Why not discuss the topic instead?

Why not allow someone to make a comment without an ad hominem retort?

[OnTheOtherHand]

131. projection much?

You're the one who decided to make an issue out of the phrase "caterpillar crawl." I don't think you intended this as misdirection; you just can't seem to help yourself. I characterized the behavior, and I think it is justly characterized as sectarian. You may not like the phrase, but I don't see how it is worth breaking a sweat over.

In all seriousness, if you think that the use of "caterpillar crawl" constitutes obfuscation, then to be consistent, you should take the issue up with Richard Hayes Phillips. If you aren't that serious about it, well, maybe you aren't that serious about it. :shrug:

[L. Coyote]

133. Yes, using the phrase "caterpillar crawl" is an obfuscation issue, and why not discuss it

wherever it is used?

Why attack someone for discussing something, instead of just pursuing the discussion?

Is it an obfuscator or not. That is the issue.

Misdirection characterizing raising a pertinent topic as one or another form of behavior is just more obfuscation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

134. suit yourself

Please cc: me on your letter to RHP.

[Wilms]

135. Wasting our time, are you?

Consider the advice a poster gave above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=503122&mesg_id=503586

[L. Coyote]

137. More like making sure no one reads the whole thread??

Very old tactic! It only seems to happen when something of significance is being presented. I know, well d'oh!!

[Wilms]

141. WTF are you talking about?

Some are REALLY trying to follow this. You're doing much to get in the way of your own assertions.

Lacing it with paranoid notions ruins it. Quibbling over definitions and "moving goalposts", as you seem to be doing seems the more likely source of disruption.

You want people to follow what you are saying? Stay on the topic and consider the lessons learned in College 101 Logic...(You know the one. True or false question. "A bank robber likes vanilla ice cream, therefore all people who like vanilla ice cream are bank robbers." Show us what you learned, L. It'll inform other's decisions on continuing to try following this.)

[Ellipsis]

143. Many are.

Agreed... stay on topic.

[L. Coyote]

25. The question needs to be far more complex. "What was responsible for Bush's 'win' in Ohio 2004?"

Any analysis of Ohio 2004 requires consideration of a multiplicity of factors. What would you add to this list?

"In 2004, Ohio's failure to replace punch card voting with improved systems is just one of many issues raised with regard to the Ohio 2004 Presidential election. Other Ohio fairness, fraud, and irregularity issues include politicization of process, voter registration fraud, voter purging and suppression including racial discrimination and unfair voting machine distribution, the exit poll inaccuracy, electronic voting security, paperless e-voting, e-vote flipping, the high percentage of and unequal distribution of undervotes, uncounted provisional ballots, vote count secrecy, recount crimes and irregularities, and official loss of and/or destruction of evidence."

from: The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

[FogerRox]

33. In general terms

The level of evidence available equals the level the Feds/cops would need to investigate. Which didnt happen at the state or federal level. The fact we got 2 convictions seems like luck.

[L. Coyote]

37. And look how easy it was to overturn those. That too was a ruse, a deliberate

obfuscation. The idea was to convict DEMS of election fraud crimes. YEAH!! It was a setup.
Doesn't anyone see through that, especially after the DoJ politicization scandals?

It also served the purpose of distracting from vote-switching, very effectively too.
But that front fell silent the say this was published (also discussed on DU):

OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259620#263679

Look at who the actors are in that prosecution, Republican politicos.
Time to review one of the longest and longest-lived threads on DU:

Cuyahoga Co. Elections Director Resigns (OH)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2719564

I won't repeat all that here again. You have to go read it yourselves!!

[The Doctor.]

82. They won't.

Comfort precludes knowledge.

I'll be in this thread soon enough... but I really wanted to spend more time with the family this weekend.

I have to thank you for bringing the facts.

[tiptoe]

39. Just 'cuz 56 of 88 counties destroyed ballots --against court order-- doesn't mean there was fraud.

:silly: :sarcasm:

[L. Coyote]

41. Again, this is not accurate while also a very good point. That misinformatkion was

promulgated by the litigants in a biased piece of untrue journalism.

The fact is that the this number of counties on that list did not comply fully with
the required submissions of election materials, in some form or another. One has to
look at the details to understand what the implications are in each county's case.

But again, what difference does it make if the ballots were switched before counting! NONE!!!!
This concern is largely premised on the idea that a recount would make a difference. FALSE!!!!

SWITCHED BALLOTS RECOUNT THE SAME

[yowzayowzayowza]

75. And told again.

I've seen "no 'proof' that fraud gave Ohio to Bush." Certainly enuf smoke there to duly alarm the bucket brigade. The evidence leads me to *believe* Ohio was stolen, but I would not pass is off as proven fact, unlike Florida 2000.

[L. Coyote]

81. I find no study of the entire State of Ohio "yet." What would happen if someone

actually did the work? Given the evidence so far known, jail time and a Republican meltdown, I expect.

"The degree of vote-switching exceeding the election margin in several large subsets is especially alarming. "

from: How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"Given the number of miscounted 2004 votes in Cuyahoga County, results in other Ohio counties and other elections need to be analyzed for irregularities, especially wherever more than one ballot order was employed at a punch card voting location. The same needs to be accomplished for past Ohio elections. The results herein bring into question all past Ohio punch card voting. The methods presented enable a review of past punch card voting for ballot-box stuffing as discussed herein, either casting at or switching ballots to the wrong precinct."

.....

"The number of Ohio Kerry votes switched to Bush votes remains to be fully quantified state-wide. While a precise answer may not be attainable everywhere, statistical analysis can provide a useful answer. Cross-vote outcome probability sorting quantified obvious chain of custody error in the results. The degree of miscounting is far more than I initially thought, more than would be expected under random circumstances, and not random at all. The degree of vote-switching exceeding the election margin in several large subsets is especially alarming. Given the Presidential election hinged on the Ohio result, cross-voting certainly deserves further investigation for all precincts in Ohio. Until all previous punch card elections in Ohio are analyzed, how flawed Ohio elections were remains a mystery."

[Votergater]

83. There was evidence presented in court in Cuyahoga County...

...during the trial of the three election officials who helped rig the 2004 presidential recount. The strategy for avoiding a full county wide recount of all the ballots/votes for president was to identify - by pre-counting in secret - precincts which matched the original vote count on election night (originally counted by the punch card computerised tabulators).

The court in Cuyahoga heard that precincts chosen for the hand recount which did not match were purposely suppressed and kept out of the staged public hand recount. As far as I know no one has ever established how many votes were wrong in those precincts which were kept from being recounted in public. But from the trial we do know that even the small batches of precincts (just 3%) which were secretly counted by the election staff showed that the original election night count was wrong by some degree.

As a journalist I'd say that was enough evidence to question the entire Cuyahoga County '04 election (and therefore Ohio's presidential results) and sue for a full and proper hand recount of every single ballot. That's over 600,000 ballots.

[L. Coyote]

149. And where are the SoS and Ag on this matter?

For some reason the Dems seem no better than Blackwell when it comes to responding to the evidence at hand. They have done NOTHING AT ALL!!!

[The Doctor.]

84. Right, but by that same measure

Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't "proven" either.

There are just a mountain of coincidences that experts tell us make the case.


So we add an extra 3% co2 to the atmosphere every year, and so the average temperatures are going up... that could just be a phenomenal coincidence.

In nearly every case where results significantly exceeded the exit poll margin of error, it was on electronic voting machines and it always favored Republicans. Again, that's not 'proof' fraud, but it really is too compelling to think anything else could have caused it.

[yowzayowzayowza]

85. I'm not seein much of a requirement for ...

belief in the case for a human cause to global climate change. The strength of the evidence for election fraud in Ohio 2004 izn't even in the same ball park. Yet as a matter of political reality I'm willing to project the Conyers report thru the cockroach rule and believe that successful election fraud was more likely than not.

[L. Coyote]

86. I wonder about your assertion:

"The strength of the evidence for election fraud in Ohio 2004 izn't even in the same ball park."

I guess we have to first define "the strength" and "ball park" and "cockroach rule" and
"successful election fraud" in this context, leaving a lot of ambiguity for your readers.

Are you claiming there is less than convincing evidence?

Are you saying global warming is easier to accept than election fraud in Ohio 2004?

Are you saying the known evidence falls short of establishing the election outcome was altered?

I know this much, the cockroaches did not play by the rules in that ball park! :rofl:

[yowzayowzayowza]

88. Lol and yes X 3. n/t

[L. Coyote]

91. So, evidence in several subsets of miscounting way in excess of the margin

isn't enough to alarm you? And those subsets total hundreds of thousands of voters, near half of Cuyahoga and 5% of Ohio voters!!

Don't you, at the very least, want an analysis and an investigation of the entire state?

"Given the number of miscounted 2004 votes in Cuyahoga County, results in other Ohio counties and other elections need to be analyzed for irregularities, especially wherever more than one ballot order was employed at a punch card voting location. The same needs to be accomplished for past Ohio elections. The results herein bring into question all past Ohio punch card voting. The methods presented enable a review of past punch card voting for ballot-box stuffing as discussed herein, either casting at or switching ballots to the wrong precinct."

How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

[The Doctor.]

87. Right, but the character of the evidence is very similar if not the scope...

and the scope was managed by operatives committing prima facie fraud. Blackwell's hand-picking of precincts and blocking of log access was in direct violation and prevented us from having the most compelling evidence possible; a verified vote count.

Obviously without that, there are people that can pretend that the whole process was legitimate despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[yowzayowzayowza]

89. I'm certainly of no illusion...

"that the whole process was legitimate despite all the evidence to the contrary."

A major difference twixt the evidence sets is a layer of sentience in the process being probed, ie. humans are not wholly rational.

[The Doctor.]

90. Indeed...

"Rational", in this case, involves allowance rather than dismissal.

Those that insist fraud did not occur despite the evidence, or that humans are not responsible to some degree for GW despite the evidence, are not 'rational'.

In this case, the most 'rational' contrary position is uncertainty.

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. but you yourself said

that the day after the election, you knew it had been stolen.

The issue here is not about people who "insist fraud did not occur." You're moving the goalposts. Think about it.

[The Doctor.]

103. No, re-read my post;

"In this case, the most 'rational' contrary position is uncertainty."

It is rational to look at all of the conditions aligned to allow fraud, witness one or more anomalies consistent with fraud, and conclude that fraud occurred as 'coincidence' bears too high a level of improbability under the circumstances.

It is also rational to observe the above and remain uncertain.

It is not rational to observe the above and dismiss the likelyhood, let alone the possibility.


My high level of certainty is therefore rational.


The point that I've been making, I guess poorly, is that in many cases one can have a high level of certainty without absolute proof... which is what you appear to be looking for. There is no absolute proof that man is responsible for Global Warming, otherwise the Oil industry would not have the ability to fool so many people. There is a mountain of evidence behind AGW. That leaves only two rational positions on the issue; a high degree of certainty, and a degree of uncertainty.

You and I both know that uncertainty over AGW is alleviated through study. As one compiles and correlates all the available research, it becomes more evident that humans are responsible in the face of the highly improbable explanation that 'it's all just coincidental'.

The same goes for election fraud in Ohio. Once the vast scope of the fraud and suppression is taken into account, and the very precise manipulations and measures taken to prevent accurate counts, it becomes evident that it is more probable that fraud met or surpassed the threshold necessary to hand Bush the election.

It seems you agree that massive fraud did indeed occur. Therefore it is rational for you to be uncertain that fraud was responsible for Bush's 'victory'. It is not, however, rational to assume that it was not unless you have compelling evidence that demonstrates the scope of fraud only affected a few tens of thousands of votes or less. In this case, the evidence suggests that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of votes were affected/switched/suppressed. Are you not familiar with the scope I'm talking about? Do you not believe that fraud could have had that far-reaching effect?

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. hmmm...

That's internally consistent, but it hasn't been well supported, to say the least. The last time I pressed you to support your substantive claims, you changed the subject. So that's where things stand.

Your analogy to AGW apparently makes subjective sense to you. From your standpoint, as far as I can tell, it's inexplicable that expert opinion on Ohio 2004 doesn't parallel expert opinion on AGW. I think you would learn some things if you thought about that question some more.

I really don't know what you mean by "massive fraud," so I can't say whether I agree or not. I think that various forms of vote suppression probably, but not certainly, outweighed miscounting. How much of that was "fraud"? Depends on definitions. My impression is that you've accepted a lot of weak evidence for fraud/error, but until you offer more specifics, it is hard to tell.

Do I believe that fraud could have affected hundreds of thousands of votes? Sure. But that gets me nowhere near where you are.

(edit to change meaningless subject header)

[The Doctor.]

144. No, I'm not changing the subject. I'm addressing the rationale first.

Now that you can acknowledge that fraud "could have" affected hundreds of thousands of votes, would you be willing to consider the likelyhood that fraud handed the election to Bush once the numbers are in front of you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

145. "now"?

I've always acknowledged that, and I've always been willing to consider whether it was likely. In fact, I have often all but begged people to provide supporting evidence.

What I'm not willing to do is to pretend to be convinced by weak evidence. That has been a sticking point for many here.

[L. Coyote]

92. Once the punch card ballots were switched to the wrong precincts

log access and a verified vote count were meaningless.

Recounts count switched ballots the same as the first time!
The recount did accomplish one good thing, it evidenced presorted
ordering of votes, blocks of Kerry and Bush votes in sequence.
Just what is expected if Kerry votes are moved to the precincts where
they count as Bush votes instead, literally counting twice, minus one for Kerry and plus one for Bush!!

Just 60,000 switched votes results in a 120,000 "shift" in the margin!! That's only one percent of Ohio ballots.

"In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts six percent when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

"In a subset of 47,404 votes, the Kerry-Bush margin shifts 6.3%
when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

PLUS, the excess third-party vote, and the excess non-votes, and the purged voters,
and the long line suppression, and the uncounted provisional ballots.

Vote-switching was the big, hidden trick. And, now we have a method to reveal it.

Has the State of Ohio stepped up to it's responsibility and investigated?
Was Marc Dan pursuing this? Is Jennifer Brunner doing anything at all?

Or, has everyone just rolled over so they can do it again and again?

Past is prologue, especially when you just let them get away with crimes!!!!
WE are no longer a nation of equality under law. So why obey the law at all?

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. nonsense

I realize that the exit polls convince you. But you might want to think about why the exit polls don't convince political scientists. Or you might prefer to go on pretending that political science doesn't exist, so you can keep up this analogy with global warming.

In nearly every case where results significantly exceeded the exit poll margin of error, it was on electronic voting machines and it always favored Republicans.

If you define your terms broadly enough, nearly everyone in the country voted on "electronic voting machines." Otherwise, you have a problem.

So, will you support your assertions? Do you care enough about facts to present some? (You might want to consult this paper by Charles Stewart before replying.)

[L. Coyote]

101. Ohio was 3/4 punch cards, and we have the vote tallies for analysis.

so the exit polls are not needed. Exit polling has a margin of error, and vote tallies have polled everyone in the population, so results analysis is descriptive statistics instead of inferential statistics, and at least up to a point analysis is free of margin of error uncertainty.

I agree that this assertion is incorrect and also vague relative to the facts, but it is not nonsense:

In nearly every case where results significantly exceeded the exit poll margin of error, it was on electronic voting machines and it always favored Republicans. Again, that's not 'proof' fraud, but it really is too compelling to think anything else could have caused it.

For a more detailed view of some exit poll data, see:
2004 Presidential Election Results, the Exit Polls vs. the Vote Counts
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/exit_poll.xls

9 States with % Disparity favoring Kerry
Mean Disparity = -1.65%
Mean StDev = -0.30
Mean Kerry Votes = 42.80%
17,284,719 voters

27 States with % Disparity favoring Bush
and StDev < 1.0
Disparity Range 0.13% - 2.65%
Mean Disparity = 1.26%
Mean Kerry Votes Reported = 46.78 %
Mean Kerry Exit Polls = 48.04%
69,799,246 voters

15 States with % Disparity favoring Bush
and StDev > 1.0
Disparity Range 3.03% - 4.83%
Mean Disparity = 3.65%
Mean Kerry Votes Reported = 48.37 %
Mean Kerry Exit Polls = 52.02%
33,982,586 voters

Ohio falls in the middle of the latter group, the only group of real concern bcause it is roughly the group outside the margin of acceptable error for sample polling.

In the OHIO 2004 context, "electronic voting machines" have been a huge distraction, if not an intentional and very successful ruse, to distract from the punch card vote-switching (and now we are adding global warming, aaarrrrgh!! and barnyards ;-).

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. yes, election data are more useful

(For the benefit of anyone else following along: this isn't to say that exit poll data are utterly useless. It's sad that I may need to say that, since it's implicit in the prior statement.)

The move from descriptive to inferential comes when one tries to figure out how a correct vote tally would have turned out. One can indeed get a long way with descriptive stats alone.

It certainly isn't nonsense that the largest exit poll discrepancies favored Bush (i.e., Bush received more votes in the official count than the exit poll interviews indicated). What's nonsense is the link to electronic voting machines. Whether or not one thinks that the DRE and/or op-scan counts were accurate, they didn't evince the highest exit poll discrepancies.

I agree: in the Ohio 2004 context, "electronic voting machines" have been a huge distraction. This has nothing to do with thinking the machines are safe or reliable.

[The Doctor.]

104. Hehehe....

When I say "electronic voting", I'm talking also about optiscan machines with central tabulators.

Now there are barnyards? :silly:

[L. Coyote]

107. Post 57 is where barnyards enter as analogy.

[L. Coyote]

110. Let's focus on the three questions asked, and only on the three questions asked.

1. Can someone say that there is not enough evidence to make that determination?

2. What would constitute 'absolute proof'?

3. Is it realistic to demand such proof before making a determination?

IN THIS CONTEXT:

I've been told there is no 'proof' that fraud gave Ohio to Bush. I understand that the vast mountain
of many types of evidence is fairly conclusive enough to determine that fraud was responsible for Bush's 'victory'.

OKAY THEN:

Now, let's not attack a post that discusses one or another aspect of the topic
just because the post fails to constitute 'absolute proof' or some arbitary criteria.

To discuss aspects of the "the vast mountain of many types of evidence"
with the intention of moving towards greater understanding seems fair enough.

Enough of the distractions from the facts.
We've already had too much of that post-2004!!
It only serves those who do not want to arrive at truth.

[The Doctor.]

124. Does anyone believe that there is not such a 'mountain of evidence'?

That really is what this would boil down to.

Anyone that does not believe that either has not studied the issue, or otherwise refuses to do so.

The next point would be; "Is that enough evidence to conclude that fraud was responsible for Bush's "victory"?"

In order to answer that, it would be necessary to quantify all of the various factors, assign (preferably conservative) values, and extrapolate to arrive at a number of votes that would ostensibly overturn the 'official' results.

[L. Coyote]

126. And even if the fraud fell short of that criteria, there is not excuse for inaction

by the new Dem officials. The State of Ohio is falling down on the job, little better than Blackwell on this score!! Past is prologue, and if you do not want fraud repeated, you don't just ignore it. Even Rep. Conyers has done nothing since becoming Committee chair. What is the lesson for the fraudsters? Frankly, it is like saying, Go ahead and do it again!!

[mod mom]

128. 4 Steps to how the GOP Stole the '04 Election (my 1st journal posting):

4 STEPS TO HOW THE GOP STOLE THE '04 ELECTION (and will repeat again)
Posted by mod mom in Election Reform

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mod%20mom/1

Tue May 23rd 2006, 10:54 AM

I have attempted to define how the GOP stole the '04 election in the most simplistic terms and provided links to support the premises:

1. MISALLOCATION OF MACHINES (and less reliable machines) in high Dem Precincts.
2. MANIPULATION OF VOTER REGISTRATIONS and PURGES
3. UNCOUNTED VOTES
4. GOP DIRTY TRICKS

I believe we are heading for a train wreck with the upcoming election, and hope this will help define areas to concentrate our efforts in the future. The use of electronic voting machines will allow more methods for stealing. I am an advocate of Hand-counted paper ballots (with strict procedures) and public witnessed counting at the precinct level.


1. MISALLOCATION OF MACHINES (and less reliable machines) in high Dem Precincts:

Fixing America's Broken Elections
Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
February 08, 2005

My staff reviewed thousands of pages of primary source materials, including copies of actual ballots, voter registration databases, and poll books. They also met with several individuals having firsthand knowledge of irregularities. What they found indicated problems in multiple areas, from machine tampering and malfunction, to the intimidation and caging of minority voters in urban and rural areas, to the purposeful misallocation of voting machines and the unjustifiable restrictions that were placed on the use of provisional ballots.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/fixing_am...






Ohio 2004 election thief grabs Gov nod while (surprise! surprise!) voting machines malfunction
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
May 5, 2006

Ohio's Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has grabbed the GOP nomination for governor in a vote count riddled with machine breakdowns. In Franklin and Delaware Counties, election officials had to "shut down and recalibrate throughout the day," according to the Columbus Dispatch. Election officials use recalibration as a code word when machines are malfunctioning including the recording of votes for wrong candidates.
<snip>
http://www.freepress.org/departments/displ...



2. MANIPULATION OF VOTER REGISTRATIONS and PURGES:


Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White House?
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
February 28, 2006

<snip>

It turns out, we missed more than a few of the dirty tricks Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell and their GOP used to get themselves four more years. In an election won with death by a thousand cuts, some that are still hidden go very deep. Over the next few weeks we will list them as they are verified.

One of them has just surfaced to the staggering tune of 175,000 purged voters in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), the traditional stronghold of the Ohio Democratic Party. An additional 10,000 that registered to vote there for the 2004 election were lost due to "clerical error."

As we reported more than a year ago, some 133,000 voters were purged from the registration rolls in Hamilton County (Cincinnati) and Lucas County (Toledo) between 2000 and 2004. The 105,000 from Cincinnati and 28,000 from Toledo exceeded Bush's official alleged margin of victory---just under 119,000 votes out of some 5.6 million the Republican Secretary of State. J. Kenneth Blackwell, deemed worth counting.

<snip>
http://www.freepress.org/departments/displ...





“Finally on Voter Registration Mr. Chairman, as the Committee is well aware, there were innumerable political parties and 537’s spending tens of millions of dollars on voter registration drives. In Franklin County alone, we processed more than a quarter of a million voter registration forms between January 1, 2004 and the close of registration in early October. This was twice the registration activity as compared to the same period in 2000.”

Bill Anthony testimony on March 21 2005
http://cha.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.as...

Mr Anthony’s testimony stated that in Franklin County alone, more than a quarter million voter registrations forms were processed between Jan. 1 2004 and the close of registration in early October. Yet when the registered voter numbers are compared from 2003 to 2004, we see a change of 120,869.

google: Ohio voter registration historical data
http://elections.ssrc.org/data/voterreg /

Ohio Election Data - Registered Voters before Certification
The Feminist Majority Foundation
Detailed chart of annual changes in Ohio voter registration numbers from 2000 to 2004. The data demonstrates a large voter roll purging in 2002 and relatively high numbers of new registrants from 2002-2004.
voters in 2004 = 845,720
voters in 2003 = 724,851
# Changed
from 03-04 = 120,869

http://www.feminist.org/pdfs/OH_election_p...




-October 4, 2004 was filing deadline for new voter registrations. At that point there were approximately 20,000 unprocessed voter registration applications with less than a month before the election. One mail tray containing 4,500-7,000 (estimates vary) unprocessed “Project Voter” registrations were discovered on or about October 18,2004.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation pg 10

***Of interest here is information obtained from the SOS website entitled ElectionsVoter/results 2003 and 2004 which show the # of registered voters number change from ‘03-’04 was 11,947 in Lucas County: reg voters 2003 in Lucas=288,190 ; registered voter in 2004=300,137.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/l...




3. UNCOUNTED VOTES:

Cranks and Kooks: Kerry won in '04
by Greg Palast
May 11, 2006

Answer: The Uncounted.

In Ohio, there were 153,237 ballots simply thrown away, more than the Bush "victory" margin. In New Mexico the uncounted vote was fives times the Bush alleged victory margin of 5,988. In Iowa, Bush's triumph of 13,498 was overwhelmed by 36,811 votes rejected. In all, over three million votes were cast but never counted in the 2004 presidential election. The official number is bad enough-1,855,827 ballots cast not counted, reported to the federal government's Election's Assistance Commission. But the feds are missing data from several cities and entire states too embarrassed to report the votes they failed to count. Correcting for the under-reporting of the undercount, the number of ballots cast but never counted goes to 3,600,380. And there are certainly more we couldn't locate to tote up.

Why doesn't your government tell you this? Hey, they do. It's right there in black-and-white on a U.S. Census Bureau announcement released seven months after the election -- in a footnote to the report on voter turn -- out. The Census tabulation of voters voting "differs," from ballots tallied by the Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2004 presidential race by 3.4 million votes.

This is the hidden presidential count which, excepting the Census' whispered footnote, has not been reported.

Unfortunately, that's not all. In addition to the 3 million ballots uncounted due to technical "glitches," millions more were lost because the voters were prevented from casting their ballots in the first place. This group of un-votes includes voters illegally denied registration or wrongly purged from the registries.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/displ...




November 2, 2004 Election

Iowa New Mexico Ohio

Ballots “spoiled” 18,847 21,084 103,660

Provisional Ballots Uncounted 7,368 6,593 33,998

Absentee Ballots Uncounted 10,596 4,217 15,519

Ghost Votes & blocked votes unknown 2,087 85,950

Total Uncounted* 36,811 33,981 239,127

Bush “Victory” Margin 10,059 5,988 118,599

*Totals here include ghost vote only for New Mexico and machine shortage only for Ohio. Registry purges etc., would increase these totals.



-U.S. Civil Rights Commission reports that ballots of “non-black” voters were rejected: 1.6% (1 in 63 did not count); while black voter ballots were rejected 14.4% or 1 in 7 African American votes went uncounted.

-The rejection of provisional ballots were cast over-whelmingly in Democratic precincts.

-In New Mexico, 9 out of 10 votes uncounted were cast by non-Anglo voters. (90% of this population vote Democratic.

-Nationally, the total numver of voters voting provisionally was 3,107,490 and the rejection rate was 1,090,729.

SOURCE: Greg Palast "Armed Madhouse"




1,597 Provisional Ballots from Franklin Co categorized as Status 200-”Not Registered”, yet voters were registered

http://my.core.com/~rhh/index.htm



Study of Provisionals in Cleveland


From a recent Cleveland study on ‘04:
Almost 1,000 provisional ballots may have been wrongfully rejected because of registration problems alone. At least 944 rejected provisional ballots, mostly classified as “not registered”, were apparently mistakenly purged from the registration lists. Since this error was detected by only one type of search, which did not detect other voters who claimed similar errors, the true number of provisional ballots wrongfully rejected is likely to be higher.
We estimate that 2 out of every 5 provisional ballots that were rejected should have been accepted as legitimate. If we combine incorrectly purged provisional votes, projected votes rejected because of initial registration errors, provisional ballots lost through polling place misinformation and innocent errors filling out the provisional application, it appears that over 41% of rejected provisional ballots (or 14% of all provisional votes) may have been unnecessarily rejected.
We estimate that simply changing residence exposes voters to a 6% chance of being disenfranchised. Youth, the poor, and minorities are disproportionately affected. In fact, with respect to just provisional ballots, we found a two-fold increase in rejection rate in predominantly African-American compared to predominantly Caucasian precincts.
Full text: http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports...
from Feb 2005-but important, in case you missed it.




Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A28:


A Defense Department survey on military voting found that 79 percent of military personnel tried to vote in the 2004 presidential election and that 73 percent of those actually voted .

But the survey obscured an important fact: Disenfranchisement of military and overseas absentee voters remains high. Between 30 and 45 percent of these potential voters failed to receive their absentee ballots or received them too late to matter, according to surveys by the National Defense Committee and the Overseas Vote Foundation.

About 1.4 million active-duty members of the uniformed services and 1 million spouses and family members are eligible for absentee voting. In addition, an estimated 4 million U.S. civilians who live abroad are eligible. Yet most states still conduct absentee voting through U.S. mail via a cumbersome three-step process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...


4. GOP DIRTY TRICKS:

Busheviks connected to New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme
by The Ostroy Report
April 14, 2006

Every day brings new surprises in the wild and wacky world of the Bush Monarchy. One day its WMD lies, the next day illegal wiretappings, the next day leaks of classified data, and now news that the Busheviks and the GOP may be central figures in the 2002 phone-jamming scheme that kept New Hampshire Democrats from voting in that year's midterm elections, according to court documents.

Phone records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin made dozens of calls to the White House in the immediate days leading up to New Hampshire's election for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Robert C. Smith. Tobin and two others were convicted in December 2005 of hiring Virginia-based GOP Marketplace on behalf of the New Hampshire GOP to jam another phone bank being used by the state Democratic Party and the firefighters' union to get-out-the-vote for then-governor Jeanne Shaheen. John E. Sununu, the Republican candidate, won 51% to 46%. The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004.

<snip>
http://www.freepress.org/departments/displ...







GOP SUPPRESSION FLYERS
http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/...





Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
February 08, 2005

My staff found substantial evidence, admitted by a Triad voting machine company employee—in public, videotaped testimony— that he developed documents and manipulated voting machines for the purposes of allowing county officials to forgo a legally required full hand recount of ballots. Other instances of inappropriate political advocacy by voting machine company officials are well known.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/fixing_am...



Free Press uncovers evidence of ballot tampering in Warren County, Ohio
April 19, 2006

After locking out all media observers and declaring a Level 10 Homeland Security Alert, the Republican-dominated Warren County, Ohio reported the vote tally in the wee hours of the morning on November 3, 2004 -- and gave George W. Bush a surprising 14,000 vote boost. Two election workers told the Free Press that the ballots had been diverted to an unauthorized warehouse where they had been possibly stuffed. That is, punched for Bush only. Maps were supplied to the Free Press showing the locations of the warehouse and the Board of Elections.

Warren County officials refused to allow the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism to handle the ballots, but they did allow us to photograph a few. Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., has analyzed the ballots for the Free Press and concluded that there is evidence of fraud in Warren County. The ballots as photographed with Dr. Phillips' commentary below each ballot are included here for the first time.

The Free Press predicted early on that the ballots would be found punched only for Bush in Warren County. The Moss v. Bush lawsuit pointed to Warren, Butler and Clermont Counties as the three counties that provided more than Bush's entire margin in the Buckeye State: Bush won Ohio by 118,000, and 132,000 votes were supplied in these three southwestern Republican counties.

Now, for the first time, the Free Press is releasing images of the obvious election fraud in Warren County. The Free Press will continue its ongoing investigation in Ohio despite stonewalling by Republican state officials. See the images by clicking on the link below.

<snip>
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3...


Ohio GOP Challenges 35,000 Voters
Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page A09



The Ohio Republican Party challenged the eligibility of 35,000 newly registered voters yesterday, an action that party officials said was unprecedented but necessary to prevent election fraud in a state where polls show President Bush and John F. Kerry in a statistical tie.

Most of the 35,000 voters live in urban, Democratic areas, party spokesman Jason Mauk said. Local party officials, joined by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie at a news conference, said the voters were mainly registered by "shadowy" Democratic-leaning groups and were chosen after the GOP sent them mail that was returned as undeliverable.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...

[L. Coyote]

132. An excellent contribution. The sum of all the fraud, tricks, abuses, and irregularities

are what proves most convincing.

Each issue should be weighted in the context of the entirety.

From the journal post:

153,237 ballots simply thrown away
308,000 canceled Ohio voter registrations
175,000 purged voters in Cuyahoga County
10,000 that registered to vote in Cuyahoga County lost due to "clerical error"
20,000 unprocessed voter registration applications
Ohio GOP challenged 35,000 newly registered voters (to create long lines in Dem precincts)

In Ohio, also include in the whole picture:

Kerry-Bush vote-switching
High percentage of non-votes in Dem strongholds
Third-party cross-votes
Registration fraud (Sproul tactics)
Uncounted provisional ballots
E-vote flipping
Recount crimes

I'm probably leaving out some factors!!
What tricks are not in evidence? With black boxes in some areas, none knows!

[The Doctor.]

136. That's still just a fraction.

[L. Coyote]

138. And Cuyahoga is just one-tenth of Ohio. Some areas have received little

attention. Why hasn't someone applied the probability sorting method to the punch card
counties where the down-ticket ballot measures and judgeships were so contrarian?

No doubt, there are some big surprises to come!!

[The Doctor.]

139. Yep. How many was it that voted for Ellen Connoly...

but not for Kerry?

When do people go our by the tens of thousands to vote for a state Supreme Court judge, but not for President?

I'm inclined to think that doesn't happen much in real life.

[L. Coyote]

140. What was the ballot order. Down-ticket non-partisan votes can reveal Kerry-Bush vote-switching

because those measures are not party linked. One ballots where Bush is first in order, likely other Republicans are too. But, that won't be the case for initiatives, referendums, and judgeships. Someone needs to do this analysis, and that someone is either the Ohio Secretary of State or the Ohio Attorney General. Where are these people?? Why no action??

Of course, anyone can do this. Maybe the people who got all the activist's money for the recount might?? Right!!!!

[The Doctor.]

142. I agree, but I thought there were NO votes for president on those ballots.

[L. Coyote]

146. C. Ellen Connolly, the Dem for Ohio chief justice, 5,000 more votes than Kerry!

Went online to check the spelling of Ellen Connolly, and found the quote below.
First the votes in three counties cited ands the method of voting.

Clermont  185,799    ES&S op-scan
Butler    343,207    ES&S op-scan
Warren    181,743    Triad Punch Card

Here follows another example of how the disinformation either gets parroted or propagandized. None of the three counties mentioned is touch-screen, yet this author discusses hacking the voting mahines:

"If voting machines were hacked, skeptics argue, that could explain some improbable results in three Bush strongholds near Cincinnati. In Warren, Butler and Clermont counties, Kerry got 132,685 less votes than Bush did. But Kerry also got 5,000 votes less than C. Ellen Connolly, the Democratic candidate for Ohio chief justice."

Was Ohio Stolen in 2004 or Wasn't It?
Mark Hertsgaard = Mother Jones, Nov 1, 2005 = http://www.markhertsgaard.com/articles/184

Someone needs to tell Mark Hertsgaard about punch card vote-switching! And how op-scan works!!

And someone needs to compare Ellen Connolly voting with Kerry voting on a precinct level.

[L. Coyote]

148. OHIO 2004: Precint-By-Precinct Data from Ohio SoS website

Home / Elections & Ballot Issues / Election Results / 2004 Elections Results / Precint-By-Precinct Data: November 2, 2004

This excel file contains raw precinct-by-precint data from the 2004 General Election. Within the excel file, there are three worksheets. One with the data and two with descriptions. Please note: this data does not include write-in candidates.

Click here to download the excel file (.ZIP) = http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/2004/gen/precincts.zip

[Stevepol]

151. Optiscans can be hacked as easily as touchscreens.

They have paper so there's always the possibility the hacking will be discovered but since audits aren't done as regular practice in most places, the danger is minimal to those trying to hack the machines.

In fact, IMO the optiscans have been responsible for more irregularities than the touchscreens (not counting the central tabulators). I base that on the reading of the precinct results in the 04 eleciton in FL where the greatest discrepancies between the new Dem registrations and the changes in the voting occurred in the optiscan precincts and not the touchscreen precincts.

[L. Coyote]

230. Neither are as easy as Ohio punch cards. Just move the ballot to the next precinct

and a Kerry vote becomes a Bush vote. DAMN that was easy! No wonder punch card voting turned Ohio from a Dem state to a Republican state.

And, all it took to switch Ohio back to the Dems was Diebold touch screen voting!!
That's the biggest damn condemnation nail in the Ohio punch card system that could ever be imagined to most integrity activists!

[blm]

160. You should also add the Carville tip-off to WH on election night. That assured Kerry would not have

access to the number of provisional ballots he'd need to mount a challenge.

[eridani]

147. No proof. There can't possibly be proof without a real investigation

However there fucking well is PROBABLE CAUSE.

[truedelphi]

168. Months if not years were spent here at DU debating whether the

Exit polls vs the actual reported vote discrepancy had any meaning.

I have enjoyed the documentary video - "Stealing America", by Dorothy Faddiman and think it provides a concise exploration of the many things that went wrong. You can purchase it at
www.stealingamerica.org/

Here on DU those who were considered by themselves and by outside forces to be the experts sadly did not want to include in the discussion any of the other "glitches" that impacted Kerry's being trounced by Bush in Ohio.

But the fact remains that when voting rolls are unfairly purged before an election, when not enough machines are provided (always in a D precinct, never in an R precinct), when people are not allowed to vote and also refused Provisional ballots, et cetera, it becomes quite difficult for the abused candidate to pull off a victory. Add to that the fact that it was the networks that announced the victory (Relying on information provided by Andy Card of the WH and by Blackwell whos erved as Sec of State for Ohio and as the Republican Chairman for the State of Ohio) and it shouldn't surprise anyone that many Democrats have a bad taste in their mouths abt the 2004 relection. In the documentary "Stealing America" there were more than a few Ohioans who watched their vote get electronically switched from Kerry to Bush when they moved on to vote for the next candidate on the ballot.

[OnTheOtherHand]

172. who are you talking about?

Here on DU those who were considered by themselves and by outside forces to be the experts sadly did not want to include in the discussion any of the other "glitches" that impacted Kerry's being trounced by Bush in Ohio.

One has no way of knowing what this is supposed to mean. I can only hope that it in no way is intended to refer to Febble, who did post a lot of information here about the exit polls. Febble actually was a pioneer in analyzing "other 'glitches.'" She and Joe Knapp are recognized by Greg Palast in Armed Madhouse for their work on voting machine (mis)allocation in Franklin County. Other researchers have essentially confirmed their findings using different methods.

This board has seen wide-ranging discussions of all sorts of "'glitches'" in Ohio. I don't understand the assertion that there are "those" here who wanted to exclude some of those issues from the discussion -- as if anyone had that power anyway. If you think that TIA's exit poll arguments tended to distract from more important issues, I certainly agree with that.

As far as I know, no one here thinks the Ohio election was conducted fairly. Everyone here has a bad taste in his or her mouth about it. I hope that everyone here is working to make future elections better. These are not things about which we disagree, to my knowledge.

[troubleinwinter]

176. Yes

I think we must all remain vigilant regarding all aspects of election problems. I am sure we all are aware of the miriad of issues, any/all are important.

Caging
Misallocation of Resources (machines, workers, polling places & etc.)
Purging
Unverifiable DREs
Voter ID Laws
Pollworker Training
Ballot Design
Partisan Officials
Robust Random Audits
Voter Verified Paper Ballots
(and many more)

I DO think we are all pretty much on the same page. ANY/ALL are issues and concerns.

Sadly, we did not band together to take a first step towards an improvement because it wasn't 'perfect'. I hope we can do better and not shoot ourselves in our collective foot again.

[truedelphi]

181. In all my discussion with Febble (Who I enjoyed as a PM friend

And I think to be a lovely and charming and fun human being), I could never get her to realize/admit that the data that she was fed by Edison/Mitofsky may or may not be the real data.

She was over in England, the County records are here in this country.

It is good to find out that "She and Joe Knapp are recognized by Greg Palast in Armed Madhouse for their work on voting machine (mis)allocation in Franklin County. Other researchers have essentially confirmed their findings using different methods." I stopped corresponding with Febble not because of any dislike for her or her determination to crunch the numbers according to her training but due to family crisis I experienced during the winter of 2006-07.


The raw data used by Febble, however, still has not, as far as I know, been made available to anyone outside of a small circle of people. (Febble has nothing to do with who can or can't see the raw data.) As far as I know, the independent researchers (I list some of the researcher names in my reply # 174) have never been allowed inside whatever research facility/library where the data from that election is held as proprietary information by Mitofsky/Edison.


Now with regards to this end of your statement:
As far as I know, no one here thinks the Ohio election was conducted fairly. Everyone here has a bad taste in his or her mouth about it. I hope that everyone here is working to make future elections better. These are not things about which we disagree, to my knowledge.
###
That is true. We all need to work to make the next election cycle better. It may already be too late. But perhaps if Obama has the fortitude to stand up for himself, and if we activists can stand up and make sure that the election is not decided by the networks and the WH chief of staff in the wee hours of the morning, (I am well aware that Ohio has been cleaned up, my worry now is Indiana and several other Repug held states) We can all hope that it will be more difficult for McCain to steal.

However it will be far from impossible to steal. FOR ONE THING - THIS IS AN OLIGARCHY WITH A PROPAGANDA STYLE MEDIA HOLDING ALL THE VIDEOS AND TALKiNG HEADS IN PLACE TO SPIN FOREVER FORTH THE MILITARY INDUSTRIALISTS' CHOICE OF CANDIDATE.

And since the election machinery that runs electronically has only proliferated since the election of 2004, I remain frightened and unhappy about what may be down the pike for this country.

[OnTheOtherHand]

185. a fair point, but state level data are available

Even if one conjectures that someone at E/M redid all the raw data from scratch in order to lead Febble astray, we still have the state-level results -- and it's still evident that the states with the biggest red shifts generally weren't states where Bush did surprisingly well.

Of course, if someone at E/M did redo all the raw data from scratch, then it makes no difference whether E/M releases it or not, as far as I can tell. (I don't think this happened.)

I agree that there is a lot to worry about, and a lot to work for.

[truedelphi]

186. State-level results

"State level results" in a race wherein electronic memory cards were used are not all that valuable.

Again, indications might be perceived, but proof is not obtainable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

188. you're right, although I think you missed my point

My point was that we have state-level exit poll results (albeit weighted together with pre-election expectations), so even mangling the raw exit poll data wouldn't make analysis impossible. Certainly one couldn't prove anything from it.

(We also have projections based on the exit polls without pre-election expectations, but those could have been mangled, too, although I don't think they were.)

(edited for emphasis)

[truedelphi]

190. Today I confess to being distracted by

My hope that Senator Clinton will concede.

And I cannot really concentrate, thinking that I just mis-heard her entire speech. Apparently, she didn't concede?? <sigh> if only she had cared this much about helping out Mr Popular Vote himself, Al Gore, back in 2000.

[OnTheOtherHand]

195. yeah, that was a 'remarkable' speech

Please don't ask me to explain Hillary Clinton. ;) (Wrong forum anyway.)

[truedelphi]

199. I did realize an "upside" to her failure to concede

I would actually prefer that NO candidate concede for a full forty eight hours after any election.

(Well okay, I won't have a problem with McCain conceding within 2 minutes of an Obama victory)

But the rush to get results in and then the networks pressure to have a person concede is part of what allowed Kerry to concede within 24 hours of the 2004 election.

SO in a sense, this might be a good precedent.

[Febble]

196. You say:

...I could never get her to realize/admit that the data that she was fed by Edison/Mitofsky may or may not be the real data.

Of course it might not be the real data.

However, by exactly the same reasoning, the exit poll data from the Edison-Mitofsky evaluation document, on which USCV based their report and their conclusion, and which was analysed by Steve Freeman in his book, is not the real data either.

You can't really have it both ways.

[Wilms]

197. Tah-Dah!

We're not supposed to trust election machine corporate vendor voting data but we're supposed to trust corporate exit poll vendor data. :crazy:

What's crazier, writing books based on that premise, or buying them?

Anyone else think it's time to work on election reform. :shrug:

-edited for grammar-

[Febble]

198. Yes

What we know is that there was large scale voter suppression in 2004, as in all elections, and that that the suppressions disproportionately affected black voters.

If you want to see Obama elected president, make sure that every voter, black or white, who wants to vote, gets that opportunity to vote and have that vote counted.

And the best of luck!

[truedelphi]

200. Hi Febble!!

The exit poll vendor data always was dependable before 2004.

Whereas the election counts have been off as long as there have been elections (I grew up in Chicago, where you vote early and vote often!)

And it's always time to work on election reform. Hope that someday that won't be true.

[Febble]

201. Can you explain?

How do you know the exit poll vendor data was dependable before 2004?

Especially if the election counts were off?

I don't quite understand your point.

[truedelphi]

202. You and Mark question exit polls and their reliability

And seem to indicate that they have no validitiy.

Freeman doesn't, nor do many others who investigate the issue. I found his comments reassuring
http://www.oregonvrc.org/2008/01/answers_frequently_asked_questions_about_exit_polls


As far as stolen elections, they have a history going back at least to Tammany Hall, and probably further. (But you know that.)

[Febble]

203. Well, that's why I'm asking you

You seem to think the polls were accurate before 2004, but that there was lots of fraud. So how do you know they were accurate? Did they match the count? How could they, if the count was fraudulent? And if they didn't, how do you conclude they were accurate?

And I thought the point was that they WERE accurate in 2004, which was why they were discrepant from the count. That's Freeman's point, isn't it?

So why do you think something is wrong with the data I was given? It matches the data Freeman used to establish the discrepancy. Do you think that Freeman is analysing fake data?

FWIW - I think the exit polls are a reasonably valid way of finding out quite a lot. What I don't think is that they can be used to ascertain whether an election is fraudulent. It's not what they are designed to do, and it's not what they can do.

[OnTheOtherHand]

204. since you mentioned me...

First of all, let me mention that in the 1992 presidential election, the exit poll discrepancy was almost as large as in 2004 (the average "within precinct error" was 5.0 points in 1992, 6.5 points in 2004). There were smaller but significant discrepancies in 2000, 1996, 1988, and probably earlier years (it is hard to tell in retrospect). So, that's another reason to be puzzled that you say the exit poll data were "dependable" before 2004. You seem to mean that you think they previously matched the official returns; in fact, they didn't.

Like Febble, I wouldn't say that exit polls "have no validity." If I thought they had no validity, I would ignore them entirely. The first step in analysis is to get past a false binary about whether the exit polls are valid or invalid, Right or Wrong. (Letting go of false binaries is the first step in lots of things, isn't it?)

I don't entirely agree with the way Febble put her last point, but it's really hard to talk about these issues without getting into the specifics. I will leave that alone. I don't think she and I really disagree about it.

It's interesting that you say you found Freeman's comments "reassuring," and also allude to unnamed "many others" who agree with him. Forgive me, but I don't think we should set out to be reassured, one way or another. If you want to defer to expert opinion, then I should think it would make sense to go looking for experts -- not for the subset of experts who say what you may be predisposed to believe on other grounds. If you want to assess evidence, then I should think it would make sense to scrutinize Freeman's arguments and see what evidence of exit poll accuracy he offers.

---

Following the first path of looking for experts, I invite anyone to look through political science journals for arguments -- based on any combination of evidence -- that Kerry got more votes than Bush in 2004. It may be possible to explain away the dearth -- utter absence, as far as I know -- of such articles. For instance, one might conjecture that political scientists are all Republicans (although this is false), or are afraid of losing their jobs if they tell the truth (although many are tenured), or are reluctant to take such a controversial position (although many argued that Bush should have lost in 2000). But if we're simply deferring to experts, you can probably find more experts to argue that the earth is under 10,000 years old than to argue that the exit polls were right. Both are, at best, minority positions.

But suppose we are assessing evidence, which I think is more useful.

The article to which you linked presents no evidence whatsoever about the accuracy of exit polls. (Maybe we are meant to infer that the exit polls were accurate in Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia, but there is no way of knowing.) It doesn't even mention the large U.S. discrepancy in 1992, or the smaller significant discrepancies in other presdidential elections.

Instead, the article basically argues that exit polls should be accurate. Freeman draws an analogy between exit polls and measuring snowfall. The analogy does make a reasonable distinction between predictions and measurements. However, it doesn't take us very far, because voters, unlike snowflakes, decide whether they want to be measured! If Democrats are more willing to participate in exit polls than Republicans are, then changes in method might help or hurt, but there is no reason to assume that even perfect methods will yield unbiased results.

So we still need a way to judge whether the exit poll results or the official results were more accurate. As I suggested elsewhere, one approach is to consider which results made more sense given our other knowledge -- for instance, does it seem more likely that Kerry won New Hampshire by about a point and a half, or by 15 points? We can extend and formalize that question, but first we have to be willing to ask it.

---

Here is an interesting consideration. I've spent at least 20 minutes trying to make this response reasonably clear, accurate, informative, and possibly thought-provoking. Someone, somewhere is thinking, 'How does that evil OTOH find the time to write such posts? I bet he's paid to do it!' (I'm tempted to say, "If only!", although that isn't a job I want.) I could have dashed off a response in 30 seconds, and then someone would be thinking, 'Why is that evil OTOH so brusque and rude?' (It's not just me, of course; I happen to be the person writing this particular post.) Also, if I had said little about the exit polls, I would be accused of ignoring that evidence; since I've talked about the exit polls, I can be accused of ignoring other evidence; and if I start talking about other issues, I can be accused of being a know-it-all, of trying to poo-poo the possibility of election fraud, of demanding that people start over from scratch.... Even if I agree with folks on half-a-dozen points, I'll probably get clobbered when we move to the 7th. Sometimes it feels like playing a rigged carnival game.

So, I might conclude that there is really no point in talking with people who have made up their minds that the 2004 election was stolen. At most I can offer reminders that the rest of us exist -- in this case, that the OP doesn't represent what most citizens or experts believe.

I think it's fair if people want to believe that 2004 clearly was stolen and don't want to assess the evidence. We can't assess all the evidence for everything we believe, all the time. But I don't think it's fair if such people attack people like me for being interested in questions that they aren't interested in. And I think it could really be a problem if such people start making up stories to explain away the rest of us (they're ignorant, they're scared, they're corrupt...). We all make up stories about each other, too (stereotypes, etc.), but the more we rely on those stories, the more harm we can do.

I don't really know any more why I try to talk with people about 2004, except that I feel someone ought to.

[troubleinwinter]

205. Why do you attack carnival games?

[OnTheOtherHand]

206. ya got me all wrong -- I LOVE carnival games!

That's why I keep coming back!!

Thanks for the laugh.

[Wilms]

207. I think there are a number of unnecessary posts on this thread.

But that's pretty funny. :evilgrin:

[troubleinwinter]

208. I probly oughtta

give btmlndfrmr another chance at a potshot, too!

[Ellipsis]

209. *cough*

:smoke:


What?


:hug:


Truth be known I sent an alert to the mods before Wilms mentioned it requesting they "otta" delete some sub threads. I just reaffirmed it when he brought it up.

Your better off "debaitng" the late William F. Buckley the OTOH.

[Ellipsis]

210. Lets change the frame a bit.

I think the more pertinent perspective is 2004 COULD HAVE BEEN STOLEN.

While punch cards rest in peace the circumstances revolving around what happened in Ohio 2004 from caterpillar crawl, caging, inadequate voting equipment in highly reliable democratic precincts, intimidation, vote challenging, NOE and disappearing funds (who just happened to be one of the key figures in the implementation of HAVA), a lock down in one county with a central tabulator by the FBI, (oh wait it was only someone posing as someone from the FBI), the writing on the wall in a recount strategy so the recount matches the original votes, the dumping of unused ballots when ordered by the state not to, to the specifics generated by RH Phillips who's interpretation you qualified as "Weird" (I may be paraphrasing your words there so don't bust my chops)

What are the chances of all of this happening in one sate during one election?

Vegas wouldn't take the Odds!


Nah... 2004 was straight up - couldn't have been fraud. No way.

You don't need the TIA to examine what the odds are of all of this happening in one state, in one election, to think fraud did happen.

So here we are 4 fuckin' years later... about to go through another major election.

Do we learn from Ohio and implement a thoughtful reliable method of voting or not.

Will it be Pennsylvania this year or maybe Florida again?

Segue:

Can tabulating equipment be hacked. We know for a fact it CAN. It's been proved.

Can we get back the last year four years... obviously not.


It's the next four years we should all be worried about at this time and fail-safes should be set in place for the national election.

How many states have abandoned voting equipment under the suspicion of vulnerability or lack of reliability?

How many more refuse to consider replacing equipment because the admins. that purchased it are more concerned about their political future or professional career because they got schmoozed by some "used car salesman" posing as a technology expert (As they say... What the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman? The used car salesmen knows when he lying.) or some palms got greased in the process. Rather then face up to the fact that they invested prematurely or unwisely they bring no objection to the argument or even worse subdue it.


A separate HAND COUNTED ballot for the national election is easily achievable and SIMPLE to implement. Do I give a rats ass if some podunk county in Ohio ratifies a new community swimming pool on the ballot this year? Hell No.

The bottom line is if we don't look at Ohio with the scrutiny of a father (or mother to be politically correct) eyeballin' a young man on the front porch asking his daughter out on her first date we will have learned nothing from OHIO in 2004, let alone Florida in 2000.

[OnTheOtherHand]

211. OK, here's what I think

First and most important, I think you're absolutely right about the change of frame: 2004 could have been stolen, and we need to work on securing people's right to vote and to have their votes counted accurately. It's democratic bedrock, oughta be a no-brainer.

A lot of bad things happened in Ohio, some of which were illegal, some of which should have been. There's no need to invoke the "odds" of them all happening in one state -- they could be completely independent, and it wouldn't necessarily matter. For instance, the misallocation of machines in Franklin County doesn't become more or less suspicious, more or less harmful in light of the evidence of voter intimidation.

I do think some people overinterpret the stories about rigging the 3% recount. Since that recount was conducted under the insane rule that a one-vote discrepancy would lead to a full recount, even basically honest election officials had strong incentives to make sure the 3% recount came out right. To me, that's just another thing Blackwell did wrong. It made the 3% recount close to useless -- worse than useless, from the standpoint of public confidence -- but it doesn't tell me anything about the original counts.

You mention RHP. I happen to be working on his book right now, so without any chop-busting, let me elaborate a bit. As you know, RHP is very prolific, and has more than one "interpretation." His extrapolations aren't reliable; the big example is that it isn't clear that a "Connally anomaly" exists, much less that it accounts (or even might account) for a net change of some 120,000 votes as he argues in his book. RHP seemed to think that he could infer this "anomaly" based on his gut assumptions about the implausibility of voting for both Connally and Bush, rather than checking historical evidence. It's a huge mistake, probably one he would have corrected long ago if he spent more time with political scientists other than Fitrakis. (I'm not saying that we are the font of all knowledge, just that RHP's approach seems to have been pretty insular.) But that mistake doesn't invalidate everything else he has done. The work has to be sifted, point by point.

Maybe this is a quibble, but we don't even have to scrutinize Ohio 2004 in order to realize that the machines stink; in fact, the best evidence for that comes from other settings. What we really ought to learn from Ohio 2004 is that the machines are only part of the problem. If people never get to vote, it doesn't matter what method they didn't use. And of course, if they're using hacked DREs, it may not matter if they do vote.

[Ellipsis]

224. "A lot of bad things happened in Ohio" --- A bit of an understatement.

Just a little back up DATA


November 2004 - Ohio:



Mahoning County - Machine registers negative 25 million votes early on Election Day!



Mahoning - A dozen machines just freeze. Twenty to thirty ES&S Touch Screens needed recalibration during the voting process due to votes going to the opposing candidate voters selected. The actual administrative password was reported publicly on the ES&S website as "1111".



Mahoning - Touch Screens in as many as 16 precincts awarded unknown numbers of improper votes to President Bush before the error was caught.



Mahoning- Baskets full of uncounted votes reported by County observers.



Columbus - An estimated 5000 to 15,000 voters left without casting ballots because of long lines. Many Democratic districts were supplied with only one half the machines that they’d had during the Primaries, despite warnings of the biggest voter turnout ever.



Franklin County - 77 Voting machines broke down. They used older Touch Screens. Long lines due to insufficient numbers of machines reported, despite the fact that 39 of the machines ordered ended up unused and warehoused.



Franklin - where only 638 people had voted -- according to the Tabulator program, Bush received 4258 votes to Kerry’s 260. (The actual Bush vote was determined to be 365.)**see below



Miami County- Over 13,000 votes appear in the Bush column after all the precincts had already reported in. (See TECHNOLOGY; How GEMS Works- “the Witching Hour”)



Cuyahoga County - 10,000 voters’ registrations were “botched” by the Board of Elections and they could not vote. 8000 provisional ballots were ruled “invalid.”



Cuyahoga - Voter reports of paper ballots pre-punched (for Bush).



Cuyahoga - One precinct (4F) predominantly African American and Democratic, gave Peroutka, the ultra-Conservative Constitutional Party candidate, nearly as many votes as Kerry (Kerry 290, Petroutka 215). Petroutka strongly opposed Affirmative action, Abortion, Federal funding for Health Care, and supported the death penalty as well as supporting lower taxes for the wealthy. Two other precincts had 3rd party candidates receiving the bulk of the votes… in Cleveland.



Mercer County - On one machine alone, 289 voters cast ballots, but only 51 votes were recorded that voted for President. It appears 7% of the entire County also did NOT vote for President



Montgomery County - In two precincts there was no Presidential vote recorded on 25% of the ballots. One tabulator credited 600 straight Democratic votes to Libertarian candidates



Warren County - (the county which produced near 1/3 of Bush’s Ohio margin) --The Center where tabulation (vote count) took place was “locked down” by Republican election officials election night citing “FBI Terrorism threat” (which both the FBI and Homeland Security deny having issued). Bi-partisan observers and even the AP reporter were refused admission as the Presidential votes were counted under secret lockdown.



Sandusky - 2600 Ballots got counted twice



Kenyon College - Students waited up to 10 hours in lines to cast a ballot due to machine shortage



Lucas County - Diebold technicians dismantled and reprogrammed the central tabulators after the election, and before the recount.



Hocking County - Per affidavit of County election employee: Post election and pre-recount, a Triad technician dismantled the central tabulator, replaced parts, modified software, and posted on the wall a self described “cheat sheet” for election officials, to prompt them to match each precincts vote totals in the recount to those the technician had devised on the sheet . Officials were told it would be in “code” so as not to be obvious.

Auglaize County - Oct. 21st, 2004, Board of Election Deputy Director, Ken Nuss, reports that an ES&S employee violated election protocol via unauthorized access to the main tabulation computer the weekend of October 16, 2004. The date of his letter, October 21, he is suspended from his job for one day -- and then promptly resigned that very same day. On November 6, Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell’s office said they were too busy counting provisional ballots to investigate at that time...



**It was later determined that Franklin County’s problem that gave Bush the thousands of extra votes was that the laptop had been completing another task just as the numbers from that precinct were being fed into it. Thus, the laptop didn’t “receive the data as fast as it was sent,” said the elections board report. In a classic Deus ex Machinas illustration, on February 13, 2005 -- The Cleveland Plain Dealer excused the “glitch” with this comforting analogy...



”Just like any overworked and distracted human, the machine was trying to do too much at once.” -- Cleveland Plain Dealer


http://www.whoscounting.net/Glitches,%20Hitches,%20Anomalies%20and%20Irregularities.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

226. touch screens in Franklin County?!

Umm, no. They misallocated the pushbutton DREs that they already had. The true story is bad enough. (One wonders whether the writer realizes that "Columbus" is actually in "Franklin County"; the long lines and the discouraged voters go together.)

There's no evidence of fishy late votes in Miami County. Votes were added for both Bush and Kerry; without them, the turnout from Miami County would have been bizarrely low -- somewhere in the mid-40s, instead of 71.7% (a bit above the statewide average -- Cuyahoga came in at 67%).

I could keep going, but I'm not sure it will lead anywhere worth going. Why, in 2008, is it still necessary to wade through lists like this sorting out what is relevant, what isn't, and what isn't even true?

[L. Coyote]

229. Cuyahoga County, Peroutka voting increased near ten-fold in locations

where Kerry cross-votes could only be switched to Peroutka votes.



However, in locations where Kerry votes could be switched to Bush, Peroutka cross-votes practically do not happen, even if possible/

In locations where Kerry-Bush vote-switching is possible, the disparity (shift) to Bush is double the near ten-fold increase rate to Peroutka!

Doesn't anyone understand the significance of these statistics, and the non-randomness of the patterns???????

[Ellipsis]

225. 11:00 PM. the “GEMS Witching Hour”.

A little back up data on GEMS
http://www.whoscounting.net/Technology.htm#B1.%20About%20GEMS%20-%20How%20GEMS%20work;%20How%20Database%202%20works

[L. Coyote]

228. Recounts are absolutely useless if the ballots are already switched to the wrong precinct

before the first count.

There is the no-brainer in all this!!!!

[L. Coyote]

227. "what happened in Ohio 2004 from caterpillar crawl" completely misses the real fraud, vote-switching

First, "caterpillar crawl" is a misnomer. There was no butterfly ballot in Ohio!

Second, "caterpillar crawl" is a term applied to cross-voting: using the wrong precinct machine punches the wrong candidate.

Cross-voting happened, as unequivocally demonstrated by various researchers.

I view "caterpillar crawl" as a big disinformation ruse, covering up the real fraud, albeit well-meaning activists were caught in the deception, and still are as evidenced by assumptions expressed in this thread.

What nearly everyone seems to overlook is that ballots can be moved to the wrong precinct fraudulently, thereby changing a Kerry vote to a Bush vote.
What noone bothers to do is examine this possibility by considering the ballot order of the Connally race of the ballot measures with respect to Bush and Kerry.

Would switching Kerry votes to Bush votes add votes to Connally or to the ballot measures?
What would the impact be on down-ticket races that are not party matched to the Kerry and Bush ballot orders?

All the time spent in argumentation on this thread alone might be sufficient time to do that.
Meanwhile, a participant on this thread said (in a PM) he doesn't have time to read an article discussed.
But he has spent more time here flaming a poster than required to read the article!
Meanwhile, the "proof" is right there for all to see!!!

[Ellipsis]

231. To reinforce your point ...Because they would rotate the candidates names on the ballot.

X-Bush then Y-Kerry or however (doesn't matter to further illustrate your point)


Punch cards were then run through counters set up to read X for Kerry and Y for bush - because multiple precincts were in the same building yet the ballots for the precincts within the same physical location had a different order.

Thats what I meant by caterpillar crawl, and forgive me for never hearing the term until OHIO 04...nor do I wish to ever hear the Damn term again.




My understanding of the term comes from how RH Phillips applied it




http://www.witnesstoacrime.com/contents.htm

CATERPILLAR CRAWL IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Identifies fifteen multiple-precinct polling places where Kerry votes
were shifted to Badnarik, Peroutka, Bush or Nader, due to voters
casting ballots on the wrong machines, intended for another precinct.

[L. Coyote]

232. That's 1,255 precincts and 525,120 voters, NOT "at least 16 precincts"!!

Precincts at multiple ballot locations: 1,255 precincts and 525,120 voters.

From: How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"Multiple ballot order locations constituted 87.6% of the Cuyahoga precincts."

"Seven of eight ballots were cast at precincts with possible cross-voting, and over 525,000 votes were recorded, 9.2% of Ohio's vote reporting 64.6% Kerry support after the cross-voting. The Cuyahoga County multiple ballot order locations represent 12.75% of Ohio's reported Kerry votes. "

THAT'S "12.75% of Ohio's reported Kerry votes" in just this one county!!!

RHP stating "at least 16 precincts" stinks of a cover-up and huge obfuscation of the real fraud!
RHP not only ignores other research, he ignores other methods, such as statistics.
RHP seems to do a disservice to the magnitude of the problem in several ways,
first by delimiting the problem to several precincts, and
secondly, by ignoring the real problem, the vote-switching fraud.

If someone steals your car, you don't complain that they used your gas. :rofl:

[Ellipsis]

233. Post that data again, would you?

Tis a deep forest.


I just put up a link to his book... AS you were posting... not because you posted this.

Just, so you know.

[L. Coyote]

234. On edit link added, plus there are these links to the data files, database, PowerPoints

Access Database: Cuyahoga Results with Probability Sorts
All Cuyahoga Precincts with Probability Sorting - 912 Kb
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/cuyahoga_precincts.mdb

Updated Spreadsheets with Probability Sorting:
Cuyahoga County Official Results, with Location Subsets
Excel spreadsheets displaying results of statistical analysis.
* All Precincts, with charts - 4 Mb - http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/cuyahoga_probability.xls
* Extended Analysis of Probability Subsets - 4 Mb - http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/cuyahoga_precincts_subsets.xls
* Tests of Population Means - 28 Kb - http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/cuyahoga_t_tests.xls

FROM: Ohio 2004 Presidential Elections: Results, Summary, Charts and Spreadsheets
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio_spreadsheets.html

-----------------
Highlights of the article are now available in a PowerPoint presentation:

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/vote_switching.ppt

Download precinct_switching.ppt featuring evidence of election fraud.
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/precinct_switching.ppt

[truedelphi]

235. Currently Dennis Kucinich is having the last word

See him here discussing his accusations against Bush/Cheney/Blackwell that the election was conducted illegally in the state of Ohio.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x145469

[companionnow]

192. I think so

Something fishy went on in Ohio.

[Ellipsis]

193. *poof*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=221715

Damn! That was quick!

Mods are in top form tonight.

[goclark]

247. I am so concerned about this issue

and don't see it being addressed in a way that I can understand.

Thanks for your post.
Please see my frustration in this thread that I posted in the Elections Forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=504345&mesg_id=504345

They seem to be light years away from my degree of understanding.

[Awsi Dooger]

248. What the hell was that?

It activated my motion sickness, all the needless circles.

I'm trying to imagine reaction on this site if the GOP were claiming rightful victory in a state we won officially by 118,000+ votes? Ya think there might be some hysteria? We carry Montana and Virginia by a tiny fraction of that to retake the senate and don't think anything of it, moving on as rightful majority. Well, other than TIA who insists the margin should have been whatever the exit polls indicated, plus anything it takes to arrive precisely at his Monte Carlo spit out.

There's heavy burden to that 118,000. That's what I see, as someone who deals in applied probability every day. The fraud screamers have no trouble allocating heavy doses of every category in the same direction until it topples the known number. If the known number were to change, they'd simply allocate more. It reminds me of gamblers here content to run off a list after every lost bet, "if it weren't for that penalty, that fumble, that dropped pass, that terrible bounce..." They have no idea it's long since become a parody.

BradBlog's posts here were nothing but parody. I honestly couldn't believe he wanted to come across like that, so desperate to condemn user names, of all things. Newsflash: you sign up for places like this with no idea what you might discuss, what you might be known for, if anything. Then once you've established an identity it's silly and a hassle to re enlist.

When TIA was posting all the 99.9% estimates in '04, and already asserting massive fraud in '02, were we really supposed to dismiss him or ridicule him because he wasn't posting under his real name? I still have no idea who he is, and don't care. Good guy from Florida who I normally disagree with on applied political math, that's all.

Florida 2000, New Mexico 2004 and Florida congressional seat 2006 were all extremely tight, with logical application of a reasonable percentage of the flawed or missing ballots toward the Democrat, enough to reverse the result, more likely than not. I've yet to see how Ohio fits. The pre-election polling favored Bush. The logical relationship of Ohio to the national vote, and to states with the vote not in dispute, fell in line with Bush winning Ohio. In this thread we were treated to a comparison of Ohio 2006 to previous years, as if they were at all comparable, as a method of proving the elimination of punch cards finally revealed true Ohio partisanship. That passed without comment. Unbelievable. Find another year with an Ohio GOP incumbent senator trailing in pre-election polls by double digits for more than a month leading to election day. 2006 was a second term midterm, the GOP doomed to self-inflicted avalanche. In 2004 Bush was a pre-Katrina incumbent at war time and basically 50/50 in approval rating with his party in power in power only one term, facing a blase New England senator. Kerry had every birthright to lose, and succeeded. I don't mind comparisons, in fact I utilize them heavily. The ones I see on this site are generally idiotic, from the fraud crew and elsewhere.

If you squeezed every digit out of cleansed voter rolls, insufficient machines in heavily blue areas leading to no vote at all, phony challenges, forfeited punch card votes, and of course the ever popular 2-for-1 flopped vote, you might threaten that 118,000 burden. Actually I doubt it, in real world application. Ohio is not a standalone and realities like the white female national security mood in '04 indicate Kerry couldn't carry the vital swing states. This is like a game I senselessly jump into once in a while when insomnia prevails. But really, you wouldn't want to bet that way or need it to be true if something actually depended on it, a mindset capable of dismissing the 118,000 as if it were nothing. I trust it's merely reserved for here, moving tinker toys wherever they're needed.

[althecat]

249. You've convinced me... nothing to see in Ohio... move on people