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 #27: for what it's worth [View All]

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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-05-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. for what it's worth
In the 2004 U.S. election, the largest modeled exit poll discrepancies were in Vermont, Delaware, New York, New Hampshire, and Mississippi. Pennsylvania tied for sixth with New Jersey. Freeman's claim isn't wrong, but I would construe it as misleading. Were the forces of darkness frantically stealing votes in Vermont, Delaware, and New York? (Or even New Hampshire, for that matter -- considering that the final result was close to that indicated by pre-election polls?) Freeman is remarkably selective in his discussion of this subject.

I've seen no evidence that exit poll evidence has been used to overturn election results anywhere, and in Ukraine, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't. It did help to rally demonstrators, but it wasn't the evidence cited by international observers or relied upon by the Supreme Court. Likewise for Yugoslavia in 2000, asserting that exit polls were "sufficient evidence to INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE ELECTION" doesn't make it true. As for the rest of that sentence, the country didn't recast its ballots. Maybe you were thinking of Ukraine in that respect? (It's hard to tell whether exit polls offered prima facie evidence of fraud in any of these elections, given that there was other evidence of fraud in all of them.)

RFK Jr. was a bit off the wall there, too: the figure is derived from a study of Cuyahoga County. The study estimated that 26.5% of new registrants in the county had to vote provisionally. It also found that a roughly equal proportion of Bush and Kerry voters in Cuyahoga County had to vote on provisional ballots. So, it's at best speculative that "GOP efforts" contributed to the high provisional rate among new registrants in the county. Nevertheless, I agree with your broader point. We've seen all kinds of schemes to keep people from voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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