Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2008 Landslide Denied: Uncounted Votes and the Final National Exit Poll (TIA)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:57 PM
Original message
2008 Landslide Denied: Uncounted Votes and the Final National Exit Poll (TIA)

2008 Landslide Denied:  Uncounted Votes and the Final National Exit Poll

TruthIsAll      source: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/Uncounted2008.ht...

Nov 7, 2008

With almost 100% of precincts reporting, the latest election results show Obama leading by 6557m votes (5346%). Thats a very solid mandate, but his True Vote is better than that. The tremendous GOTV and new registration effort has not resulted in an increase in the recorded vote from 2004. Remember the 17m net increase from 2000 to 2004 (105m to 122m)? The media should be asking the questions. Why is the recorded count at 123m, when a 140m+ turnout was forecast? How many voters were told they had to complete provisional ballots?

Historically, about 75% of uncounted votes (spoiled, lost, provisional and absentee) are Democratic. Therefore, if 143m votes were actually cast, Obamas current 8 million vote margin would increase to 18m 8062m a landslide rivaling Johnson (64), Nixon (72) and Reagan (84). View the Election Calculator projection below.

But we will have to wait until the Census Bureau 2008 vote survey to know how many votes were cast.

Obama must have done better than the 5346% share as indicated by the Final National Exit Poll (NEP). The margin is probably closer to 5543% (as projected by a few national pre-election polls).

In order to match the vote count, the Final NEP adjusts demographic category weights and vote shares. The 'Voted in 2004' category indicates a TOTALLY IMPLAUSIBLE  46%-Bush 37%-Kerry returning-2004-voter split of the 2008 electorate! Analysts would like to know what the split was in the earlier NEP update before the Final was matched to the vote. We have the preliminary numbers from 2004 and the 2006 midterms. Changes to the How Voted mix of returning-voters from the Preliminary to the Final NEP were to the advantage of the GOP. The goal was to MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE COUNT. This election is no different. Landslide denied.

In 2004, the Final NEP 'Voted in 2000' 43/37% Bush/Gore returning-voter mix was impossible;
in the 12:22am Preliminary NEP it was 41/39%.  Election stolen.

In 2006, the Final NEP 'Voted in 2004' 49/43% Bush/Kerry returning-voter mix was implausible;
in the 7pm Preliminary NEP it was 47/45%.  Landslide denied.

The BIG question is this: How does the official 2.4% Bush 2004 margin equate to the 9% Bush margin in returning voters? It doesnt. The anomaly is even more ridiculous, since Kerry won the True Vote (see the 2004 Election Calculator, below).

Uncounted votes are always an important factor in the discrepancy between the polls (pre-election and exit) and the recorded vote. The Democrats always do 13% better in the polls than in the vote count.  In 2004, Bush won the "official" vote by 50.748.3%.  Kerry won the adjusted, preliminary National Exit poll ( 12:22am  13047 random sample)  by 5148%.  The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) is always 'forced to match' the states-reported vote count, without consideration of uncounted and/or switched votes. Therefore, Bush won the Final NEP in 2004 by 5148%.

In the 2000 election, 105.4m votes were recorded out of 110.8m cast. The 5.4m uncounted ballots were a combination of provisional, spoiled, lost and absentees. Therefore, we estimate that Al Gore won by at least 3m votes, not by the 540k recorded.

In 2004, 122.3m votes were recorded out of 125.7m cast (3.4m were uncounted). That is a 1.5m net votes to Kerry, cutting the Bush margin in half. And thats before vote suppression, stuffing and switching. The Election Calculator (see below) indicates that Kerry won by 6757m, based on a feasible (and plausible) number of returning Gore and Bush 2000 voters (4.9% mortality, 95% turnout), 3.45m uncounted votes and 12:22am NEP vote shares.

Once again, we need the unadjusted precinct exit poll data, not the Final National and State exit polls that are adjusted to match the recorded vote count. The media never releases that information, claiming the need for voter confidentiality. But we dont want to know the names; we just want the pristine precinct exit poll data.

An analysis of Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Discrepancies from 1988-2004 reveals some very interesting information. From 1988-2000, the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate vote share was within 1% of the recorded vote, after it was adjusted to include uncounted votes. But in 2004 that was not the case: adding the uncounted votes was not enough to make up the difference. Was it just a coincidence that HAVA (Help America Vote Act) was passed during the first Bush term? After HAVA, many new touch screen voting machines were installed nationwide.

The vast majority (90%) of vote-switching incidents at touch screens are from the Democrat to the Republican. We must assume that vote-switching also occured on the central tabulators which sum the precinct vote totals (for all voting machines, including optical scanners). The touch screens have no paper trail, so a vote recount is impossible. But this analysis will focus on uncounted votes.

In Jan. 2005, exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky reported the unadjusted state exit poll deviations (WPE) from the recorded vote. These discrepancies indicated that Kerry won the 2004 State Exit Poll Aggregate by 5247%.

The 2004 Election Calculator model indicated that Kerry won the True Vote by 53.245.8%.  NEP 12:22am vote shares were assumed with feasible 'voted in 2000' weightings.

In 2006, the pre-election Generic polls indicated that the Democrats would win by 5642%. The 7pm National Exit poll had the Democrats winning by 5543%. The Final NEP was forced to match a 5246% vote count. The Democratic 12% margin was cut in half.


Summary of Election Model (EM) and Election Calculator (EC) results

Obama won the 2008 Final NEP "Voted 2004" category by 53.145.1%. Although this closely matched the EM (60% UVA) split, "Voted 2004" weights and shares were implausible.

Obama won the 2008 EC True Vote by 54.444.6%.
NEP 12:22am vote shares were assumed with feasible 'Voted-2004' weightings.

Obama won the 2008 EC estimated Recorded Vote by 52.146.9%.
Assumptions: 3% of votes cast were uncounted; 3% of Obamas votes switched to McCain.
The 70.263.3m estimated recorded vote is very close to the official vote.

Obama won the 2008 EM True Vote by 53.144.9%.
Assumptions: Obama won 60% of the uncounted votes; 2% to 3rd parties

Obama won the 2008 EM True Vote by 54.344.7.
Assumptions: Obama won 75% of the uncounted votes; 1% to 3rd parties



2008 FINAL National Exit Poll

Voted

2004 Mix Obama McCain Other Notes
Kerry 37% 89% 9% 2% 37% too low; should be 42%
Bush 46% 18% 81% 1% 46% too high; should be 36%; 18% too high
Other 4% 66% 24% 10% 4% too high; should be 1% (third party vote)
DNV 13% 71% 27% 2% 13% too low; should be 21%

Total 100% 53.1% 45.1% 1.9% Obama did better than 53.1%

DNV 2004
First-time Vote?
Yes 11% 68% 31% 1% Obama won 68% of first-time voters
No 89% 50% 48% 2%

DNV04 2% 88% 11% 1% Obama won 88% of others who Did not vote in 2004
DNV 13% 71% 27% 2%

-------------------------------------

2008 Election Calculator

138.9m votes cast

Obama wins the True Vote by 76-62m (54.4-44.5%): a 14m vote margin.
Obama wins the Recorded Vote by 70-63m (52.1-46.9%): a 7m vote margin.


2008 True and Recorded Vote
............ Obama McCain Other Total
True Vote 75.6 61.9 1.4 138.9
Vote Share 54.4% 44.5% 1.0% 100%

Uncounted (3.1) (.96) (.08) (4.17)
Switched (2.3) 2.3 0.00 0.00

Recorded 70.2 63.3 1.3 134.7
Vote Share 52.1% 46.9% 1.0% 100%


2004 Calculated True Vote
 
 
 
2008 Calculated True Vote
Feasible 'Voted-2004'  Mix 
 
 
12:22am NEP  ('13047')
'Voted in 00/04' Shares

Total Votes
Cast in '04


Kerry
Bush
Other

125.8
million
 
Calculated
True Vote

66.9
57.1
1.7

125.8
 

Deaths

3.2
2.8
0.1

6.0
 

Alive

63.7
54.3
1.7

119.7
 
Est '08 Turnout
of 'Voted 2004'

DNV
95%
95%
95%


113.7
 
Total Votes
Cast in '08
25.1
60.6
51.6
  1.6

138.9
True Vote
 
'Voted 2004'
Weight
18.1%
43.6%
37.2%
1.1%

100.0%
138.9

2-pty
 

Obama
57%
91%
10%
64%

54.4%
75.6


55.0%
 

McCain
41%
8%
90%
17%

44.6%
61.9


45.0%
 

Other
2%
1%
0%
19%

1.0%
1.4 

 


Refer to source for more on 2008 Election Calculator.

-------------------------------------
 

2004 Election Calculator


2000:  US Census Votes-Cast and State Records of Votes-Counted
 
 
 
2004 Calculated True Vote
 True  'Voted in 2000'  Mix 
 
 
12:22am NEP  ('13047')
'Voted in 2000' Shares

Total Votes
Cast in '00


Gore
Bush
Nader/Other

110.8
million
 
Recorded
Vote-Count

51.00
50.46
3.96

105.42
 
Uncounted
Allocation

4.04
1.08
0.27

5.38
 
Vote-Count
Adjusted

55.04
51.53
4.23

110.80
 

Deaths

2.72
2.48
0.21

5.41
 

Alive

52.32
49.06
4.02

105.39
 
Est '04 Turnout
of 'Voted 2000'

DNV
95%
95%
95%


100.13
 
Total Votes
Cast in '04
25.62
49.70
46.60
  3.82

125.74
True Vote
 
'Voted 2000'
Weight
20.4%
39.5%
37.1%
3.0%

100.0%
125.74
 

Kerry
57%
91%
10%
64%

53.2%
66.9
 

Bush
41%
8%
90%
17%

45.4%
57.1
 

Other
2%
1%
0%
19%

1.37%
1.73 
 


Sensitivity  Analysis
Kerry National Vote

Kerry Share of
Gore Voters


Share of New Voters (DNV in 2000)
53.2%
53.0%
55.0%
57.0%
59.0%
61.0%
95%
93%
91%
89%
87%
54.0%
53.2%
52.4%
51.6%
50.8%
54.4%
53.6%
52.8%
52.0%
51.2%
54.8%
54.0%
53.2%
52.4%
51.7%
55.2%
54.4%
53.6%
52.8%
52.1%
55.6%
54.8%
54.0%
53.3%
52.5%

 

Kerry Margin (millions)
9.87
53.0%
55.0%
57.0%
59.0%
61.0%
95%
93%
91%
89%
87%
11.8
9.8
7.8
5.8
3.8
12.8
10.8
8.8
6.9
4.9
13.8
11.9
9.9
7.9
5.9
14.9
12.9
10.9
8.9
6.9
15.9
13.9
11.9
9.9
7.9
 


Refer to source for additional Sensitivity Analysis on Kerry National Vote.





 

Refresh | +20 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. The difference is that in 2004 there were 7 MILLION votes CONJURED up to pad popular vote total
and done so across the country.

Does anyone really believe the 3000 extra votes for Bush submitted in Gahanna precinct that had less than 1000 voters registered was the ONLY vote padding operation that occurred by GOP officials, or that it was the only one that just happened to get CAUGHT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Congrats to TIA for his relentless persistence all these years!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. No, all the votes aren't counted yet is all.
Your flawed model wrongly predicted a Kerry win in 2004. It projected too large a win for Obama, who managed to outdo all expectations except yours. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nonsense. That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. the rest is, he can't accept that exit polls can be wrong
This year, the New Hampshire exit poll had Obama up by 20. Hey, whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. The same model you slam as "flawed" for an '04 'wrong prediction' matches '08 current 53%
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 10:48 PM by tiptoe

share for Obama, and the EM(75% UVA) and independent EC project > 54% share (which is along lines of a few of the pre-election polls).

See TIA's 2008 FINAL Election Model, posted Nov 3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Would you agree "Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election"?


Do you believe Bush won fairly in 2004, or did he steal it?


(If you don't believe Bush stole 2004, then end of discussion. If you do think the '04 election was stolen, then TIA's model wasn't "flawed".)






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. "If you don't believe Bush stole 2004, then end of discussion."
There ya go. That's candid, at least.

Maybe you would be so kind as to point out to TIA that the vote count isn't complete yet, so it's a bit early to argue about turnout or the number of uncounted votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. "Maybe you would be so kind as to point out to TIA...it's a bit early..." Tell it to Ohio experts :
Edited on Sat Nov-08-08 10:20 AM by tiptoe

Experts confounded: Turnout higher in Ohio in 2004

Friday, November 7, 2008 3:20 AM
By Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
DispatchPolitics

Despite a record number of registered voters this year, intense interest in the presidential election and the historic outcome, Ohio's voter turnout was lower Tuesday than in 2004, unofficial statistics show.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is reporting 67 percent turnout, compared with 72 percent in 2004. She had been predicting 80 percent turnout this time. The percentage could increase as provisional ballots, overseas ballots and other outstanding votes are included during the official canvass in the coming weeks. But overall turnout still is expected to be lower than in 2004, leaving experts at a loss to explain it -- especially because the number of registered voters increased by 319,000 from four years ago.

"That's rather puzzling, given the activity level," said Paul Beck, a political-science professor at Ohio State University.

The total number of votes cast Tuesday declined in 69 of Ohio's 88 counties when compared with official totals from 2004. In Franklin County, for example, about 10,000 fewer votes were cast this year.
...

"I'm perplexed," said Herb Asher, professor emeritus of political science at Ohio State University.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news...






 
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. you're obfuscating
There's no disagreement among serious observers here. If the turnout is lower in 2008 than in 2004, we will all wonder why. But -- as the article you cite makes clear -- we don't know yet what the turnout was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. CAn you tell me where a specific phrase came from:

Historically, about 75% of uncounted votes (spoiled, lost, provisional and absentee) are Democratic.
I ask because we are looking at the uncounted votes here (huge numbers), and I would like to quote this from the source, if you know it.

Thank-you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. TIA has linked to this Greg Palast article in the past: "Abracadabra: 3 Million Votes Vanish"
http://myvoices.blogs.com/blog/2006/06/greg_palast_abr....

...
In another life, I taught statistics. And these statistics stank: the raw data tells us that if you are a Black voter, the chance of you losing your vote to technical errors in voting machinery is 900% higher than if you were a white voter.
...
In total, over three million votes (3,600,380 to be exact) were cast -- marked, punched, pulled -- YET NEVER COUNTED. I'm not talking about the Ukraine or Uganda. I'm talking about the United States of America "with liberty and justice for all."

Well, not "all." The nine-to-one Black-to-White ballot spoilage rate is a national statistic -- not just an Ohio trick. Last year, I flew to New Mexico to investigate the 33,981 cast but not counted ballots of that state in the 2004 race. George Bush "won" New Mexico by 5,988 votes. Or did he? I calculated that, of the all the ballots rejected and "spoiled," 89% were cast by voters of color. Who won New Mexico? Kerry won -- or he would have, if they had counted the ballots.

But they didn't count them. And that was deliberate. It's in the plan. It's the program. And the program for 2008 is simple. Two million ballots were cast but not counted in the 2000 race. (Over half, 54%, were cast by African-American.) In 2004, the GOP kicked it up to THREE million. Get ready, these guys aim high: "four in '06" and "five in '08" looks to be their game plan.


54% of uncounted votes are African-American.
89% of spoiled ballots in New Mexico "were cast by voters of color".
90% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics are democrats.


Also, see the numbers here:

Gore won Florida by 30,000 votes!
...
There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called "spoiled ballots." About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate's name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount...The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention.
...
Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there's not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they're unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida's eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore's name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush's name was marked on only 17,000.
...
One of the things I found that hadn't been reported anywhere is, if you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida, these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark.
So you can understand why African Americans would be so careful, checking off Gore's name on the list of candidates and also writing Gore's name in the space for write-in votes. But because of the way the vote-counting machines work, this had the opposite effect: the machines threw out their ballots. ...


46,000/63000 == 73% Gore, 27% Bush.


And here: MIT-CalTEch study:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/16/voting.p...

"Some cities, including Chicago and New York, had rates of unmarked, uncounted and spoiled ballots well in excess of the state of Florida."

New York City: more than 3-to-1 registered Dems than Repubs in NYC.


I vaguely recall mention of a UCLA study re uncounted votes (but vague...can't find reference now. Someone on DU may know).














Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. National, State, and County Disparities in Disfranchisement Through Uncounted Ballots

Democracy Spoiled: National, State, and County Disparities in Disfranchisement Through Uncounted Ballots

July 12, 2002

Executive Summary

* Whether A Vote Is Counted Depends On Where It Is Cast.
The findings in this report point to significant variations in the effectiveness of election administrations and disparities that could be resolved with modest and often inexpensive improvements, including ballot design, poll worker training, and voter education. These disparities are a form of vote dilution -- in other words, your vote is worth less depending on where you live.

* Spoilage Rates Vary Greatly From State To State And County To County. In the 2000 election, almost 2 million votes went uncounted - about 2 percent of all ballots cast - and the percent of uncounted ballots ranged from less than 1% to over 4% depending on the state. Fifteen states had residual ballot rates above the national rate of 1.9%. And even states with moderate or low overall spoilage rates contained counties with high rates of uncounted ballots; in some counties, over 12% of the ballots cast went up in smoke.

* Spoilage Rates Are Most Prevalent In Counties With High Concentrations Of Minority Voters. Of the 100 counties with the highest spoilage rates, 67 have black populations above 12%. Of the top 100 counties with the lowest spoilage rates, the reverse is true only 10 had sizeable black populations, while the population of 70 of the counties was over 75% white. There is also a strong correlation between uncounted ballots and black population; specifically, as the black population in a county increases, the uncounted ballot rate correspondingly increases.

* Various Factors Cause the Substantial Disparities in Ballot Spoilage Rates And Mere Technological Improvements Will Not Sufficiently Address These Problems. Evidence from various studies note that while improved voting technology reduces the percentage of discarded ballots across the board, these improvements still do not fully address the disparities between voting precincts, particularly between high-minority and low-minority districts. Indeed, despite popular belief, punch card machines had low ballot spoilage rates in many jurisdictions in 2000, refuting the notion that machine engineering is the critical issue.

* The Problem is Solvable: State and local advances in reducing ballot spoilage for local elections in 2001 were effective and came at a minimal cost. Reforms could cut the residual ballot rate by half by the next presidential election with voting equipment that is already available.

* The New Federal Legislation Provides Helpful Resource and Minimum Standards, But Falls Short of Promising a Solution to Vote Dilution Through Disparities in Spoilage. The legislation fails to make states accountable for narrowing the disparities, and calls for further study of the problem. Some new provisions, such as provisional ballots and federal funding for equipment and training, provide needed tools for states that choose to act.

http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/elector...


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. you know what's strange? you nailed the EV projection, but you're distancing yourself from it
Edited on Sat Nov-08-08 03:04 AM by foo_bar
Obama 365.3
McCain 172.7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ("Monte Carlo Simulation Expected Electoral Vote")

Obama Wins Omaha, NE Electoral Vote; Final Tally Looks to be 365-173

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Why is the recorded count at 123m, when a 140m+ turnout was forecast?

How was your EV simulation accurate to within 0.3 of an EV if we're missing 17m (presumably Democratic) votes? You're saying a landslide was denied, but:

FINAL PROJECTION: Obama wins by 7664 million votes 367171 EV 5345% vote share margin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

One post later:
Obama must have done better than the 5346% share as indicated by the Final National Exit Poll (NEP). The margin is probably closer to 5543% (as projected by a few national pre-election polls).

So let me get this straight: you projected 53-45% in your "Final Projection" on eday, but now you're saying the margin is probably closer to 55-43%, because NEP got the same figure as you? And these extra +2 million voters wouldn't change the electoral college by a single delegate? It seems like you have to keep moving the goalposts to keep the hypothesis alive, doesn't it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. Cheers TIA... good to see this...
:yourock:

And so do your friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kick.
Too late to Rec. Many thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MNReformer Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. The Election Defense Alliance Analysis (so far)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC