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 #20: Your comments indicate some confusion and a touch of desperation [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
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Your comments indicate some confusion and a touch of desperation


Thanks for using the word "believe". That's honest. Belief, while limited, is all we have.

No, we have evidence and mathematical analysis. Belief is for those who are faith-based and in denial.


As much as you might decry a poly-sci perspective, understand your notion of what represents suspicious gains is a case study in itself. Do you ever factor for the intelligence of those who are then identified as swing voters? Or their party commitment?? Meanwhile, I've not seen you connect precinct level data in support of the theory you advocate.

Who is decrying a poly-sci perspective? The analysis presented is based on verifiable facts. That is what the scientific method is all about. Its not faith-based belief.

Factor in swing voter intelligence? Please explain in the context of the statistical analysis of recorded data.

Party commitment? Please explain in the context of the statistical analysis of recorded data.

Precinct level data on 5703 precincts? We dont need to drill-down to that level of detail. It would be sufficient to just have the raw precinct exit poll data. But the exit pollsters (i.e. the media) wont release it. Their excuse is the need for confidentiality. Do you ever consider what the real reason might be?

A statistical analysis based on county-level vote recorded vote data in conjunction with the state exit poll timeline is more than sufficient to conclude that the NY recorded vote is bogus.


Similarly, you may find your dogma revealed by the fact I believe the election was stolen. Believe. I don't know. I can't prove it. But it's what I think happened. For similar reasons that have me doubting the official election results I'm no more comfortable with exit polls as a verification. Not, anyway, to the degree I'd consider them smoking gun proof. And when someone comes along hawking that, smoke isn't what I smell.

What dogma are you referring to? The facts presented? I dont believe that Im falsely recalling that someone else used that term in this thread. Is Dogma the new catch-all talking point? Something like Exit Poll Fundamentalism?

Are you calling the statistical correlation between Bush percentage vote gains and NY county size dogma? Are you questioning the use and results of the correlation analysis because it confirms that the Urban Legend is a myth: Bush could not have improved his vote share in Democratic areas while breaking even or losing share in Republican rural areas and small towns. Professional misinformationists and media shills want you to believe that occurred.

However, if you believe the math, you will have to agree that the Urban Legend is a myth and therefore so is the NY recorded vote.

You answered my question and stated that you believe the election was stolen. But you dont know and you cant prove it. That is a cop-out. I asked you what you believed based on ALL the available evidence, not on some faith-based notion. In other words, I asked you to evaluate the evidence. No one asked you to prove anything. The best that we can do is make probability estimates based on available recorded AND exit poll data. If the historical NY recorded and exit poll data were presented in court, the prosecution would easily win a civil case in proving votes miscounting is endemic. They only need to prove at least a 50% probability. In fact, the probability that the Democratic vote margins were reduced by hundreds of thousands of votes is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The probability is much greater than that threshold.

The exit polls are indeed a Smoking Gun, especially when viewed in conjunction with the 500,000 late votes AND the Urban Legend correlations. To suggest that the exit polls should not be considered as evidence and do not represent screaming RED FLAGS is FAITH-BASED DENIAL that there are problems with the Levers - whether caused by mechanical failures or the humans who transcribe the results.

But you dont smell the smoke. But at the same time you believe that Bush stole the election. Thats a contradiction that you cannot reconcile. So what are you smoking?


Do you realize the lever voting machines are handled in bi-partisan fashion? Some of your assumptions don't fit with that reality. I actually believe that a significant "Stuck on Bush" reality to go along with those EIRS reports would have triggered local Dems investigation. And if it didn't, do you believe HCPB or optical scan would be safer?

What assumptions Be specific.
So what if the NY election commission is bi-partisan. What does that prove? Who said that only one party has a dog in this? Do you have any information as to who may be profiting, directly or indirectly, on keeping and maintaining the Lever machines?

Since when did the Democrats ever investigate anything on their own? And why should they investigate for Kerry when he won NY by over a million votes? The election was over. So what if Kerrys True margin was 2 million? No one cared, except for Rove. He needed to manufacture a mandate for Bush.

As for EIRS being fixed by those opposed to Levers, that is called reaching. You are just grasping for an explanation.


I do think there is a maintenance problem with levers and other systems. But I wouldn't be surprised if vendors were loading the EIRS. Or if troublemakers were behind reports of:
"11) 33495 ps 158 46-35 oceania st
THE JOHN KERRY CHAD WAS HARD TO PUNCH. None of the other chads for the democratic party candidates were hard to punch."

Anything stand out for you there? Here's a hint, it's a little like that lever machine vote switching problem.

You are reaching again. Troublemakers? Who are those vendors who are doing the EIRS loading? The opti-scanners? The HCPB advocates? You are joking, right?

I remind you that NY lever problems have gone unnoticed for 100 years, long before your aforementioned troublemakers.

Lever-machine vote-switching problem? If the fact that votes cant be mechanically switched on levers constitutes the thrust of your case, then you have nothing. There are many ways to skin a cat. Election officials can place defective machines in highly Democratic precincts and then miscount the votes.

Is verification possible? Of course not.
Is there a corresponding paper ballot? Of course not.
Are the NY election officials emphatic about avoiding full recounts? Of course they are.
Did election officials fix the vote in Ohio in full view? Of course they did.
Would NY election officials fix the vote behind closed doors? What do you think?

It is not a question of what voting system you can TRUST.
It is a question of what system enables you to VERIFY.

By the way, how come Lever activists never mentioned the NYC EIRS reports and the stuck on Bush anomaly? Heres a hint: Is it because they are facts that you would rather not discuss - like the 500,000 late PAPER BALLOT votes?

That reminds me of the fact that the MSM would rather not discuss Election Fraud in fact they never have.
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