You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #113: Honest answer... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. Honest answer...

We are biting off way too much at once....

Follow the logical thread I just had with TfC. The answers to most of your practical questions are in there. Residual voting rates have been fairly stable (officially between 2.0 and 2.5%) in modern elections until 2004. There is some "conservative inference" included because there is no consistent reporting (13000 voting jurisdictions, etc.). If I was "feeling controversial", I might argue that "spoilage" is, in fact, much larger than that.

The guys at CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project are shills for the machine companies, but they are smart shills. They declared "victory" way too early but there is no reason NOT to believe that spoilage was reduced by one third in 2004 or that "1 million votes" were counted that would not have been in previous years. Interestingly, they only hold DREs responsible for half that gain. The rest is attributed to increased interest in the 2004 election (i.e. more people "looking").

As far as the exit polls go, the error is real. It is, presumably, reflected in every exit poll (but because it has been a 'constant' for so long, it makes me suspicious). I don't really believe it accounts for "all" of the red-shift in 3 of the last 5 elections. The magnitudes are correct but the geography is not. It must account for "much" of it, though... I think '96 is a special case and, in our discussion, will become a "red-herring". I have no problem contrasting the other 3 years with '04.

The mechanics of this type of "fraud" are subtle, imprecise, and decentralized. It is known what types of voting technology produces what kinds of error rates given certain maintenance schedules, voting processes, etc. Then those factors are "innocently" or "unintentionally" introduced. The Republicans teach Workshops on this (with the intention of "avoiding spoilage", of course). Often, it can be a budgetary process alone and it can happen at several levels of government.

As for the rest of your question, let's ask it again once we have common assumptions.

Finally, all physical problems are "games" or puzzles, by definition. Only meta-physical problems are not. They are "religions".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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