has this graphic been proven wrong?

[ccarter84]

if you scroll to the bottom of this article, (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm)
right above Simon's extended footnotes-where he critiques the 4 pm exit polls-there is state by state breakdown of said 4 p.m. exit polls, but this data isn't the source for the graphic above...specifically FL, NH, PA seem too far off from what even the 4 pm data should show let alone later data with a more accurate sample of men v. women.

I know i'm splitting hairs here, because I do believe there was fraud in this election to a relatively large degree, but if we are to win the public opinion war I think we should shore up our sources first, and that is merely what I am trying to do here.

thanks
-cc

[Patchuli]

1. You aren't splitting hairs...that's true

Kerry 1! I've seen NO evidence to the contrary that fraud was NOT used,
only blowhards who don't want to believe that it is possible
to steal an election. They did it in 2000, they did it in 2002 and
they perfected it for 2004. It is now up to U.S. (that means all folks
who are fed up with this) to do something about it. NO more election
fraud and it's time to get a leash on corporate America. We the People
can do it too, if we pull together. We are bigger and we hold the
pursestrings that enable the thieves to keep stealing from us!

On 1/20 'coronation day' don't spend any money.
That will send a HUGE message to corporate America
and corporate America owns the media. Let's tell
the media that too!

http://www.notonedamndime.com/boycott/ Hope that link works!

[righteous1]

5. Prove that and you'll be a hero n/t

[Patchuli]

9. KKKarl Rove

made sure there was no way to trace the vote theft. I think there was more than enough evidence of fraud to prove a spoiled election but MSM kept silent, as usual.

Our next big hope is that * will trip and fall just like Tricky Dick in 1974...

[flintdem]

2. Controlled for county patterns?

The main question I would have about this analysis is did Simon control for county differences? Wealthy counties (also more republican?) would be able to buy newer machines and would also explain these graphs. Poorer counties with more minorities (more Democratic?) would use older machines. Do you have the link to these graphs? I couldn't find it on the one you gave.

Just a thought...the county type could also be invalidated by federal money to buy new voting machines regardless of county wealth or partisanship...

[ccarter84]

3. afraid I don't even know where this chart came from

thats my issue, I'd give it a 1 in 3 chance TruthIsAll (DU member) did it considering the amount of work he has put into this and his abilities with excel, but with regards to placement of older voting machines in more minority districts...I have read this is true (ones with higher error rates were allocated to more predominantly Dem. districts) but sadly sources arent' my strong suit and I can't find the link in my jumbled favorites.
I will keep looking though googledesktop search here I come
*edit
see if this link works
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/10/17/20041017-A1-02.html

[rdmccur]

8. I saw that graphic

soon after the election.
Don't recall where it came from.
BTW: Regarding reply bedow about NH, only a few precincts were
recounted (4 I think). So fraud could have been perpetrated elsewhere or at a higher level (e.g. statewide, in terms of tabulation). I think Andy Stephenson would be a good person to address this.

[righteous1]

4. Well obviously the New Hampshire exits were seriously flawed

as illustrated by the recount. The GliBs acknowledged that the recount was a good one and that the vote appeared accurate

[theresistance]

6. This has been well established...

In states that used systems with a paper audit trail, exit polls matched actual results. In states with no paper audit trail, Bush gets a big surge above the exit polls.

[JoMama49]

7. I just saw it again when I tuned into the Guy James Show

He's on right now if anyone is interested in streaming his audio, you can find it here:

http://www.theguyjamesshow.com/

[Ms. Toad]

10. Yes.

Ohio is not an electronic voting jurisdiction. The vast majority of votes in Ohio were cast by punch card. I believe this same error was made with respect to other states in the graphic.

[FreepFryer]

11. Ohio votes were mostly cast by punch, but counted by opti-scan.

[KaliTracy]

12. I thought optiscan was like a standardized test -- fill in the bubbles?

Punch cards go into a different type of tabulator, don't they?

[Ms. Toad]

13. Yes.

Punch cards and fill in the bubble ballots are read by two different readers. The former are read by a reader designed to read holes in paper (punch card reader); the latter are read by a reader designed to read marks on a paper (optical scanner).

To respond to FreepFryer, ballots in each of the states listed as "Paper Ballots" in the graphic were also read by the appropriate reader and tabulated electronically, just like Ohio - so whatever you call the category, Ohio should be in the same category as the others currently listed as "Paper Ballots" - not with the others listed as electronic voting.

The graphic was designed to show relationships between method of voting and exit poll/vote count discrepancies. Because Ohio is listed as "Electronic Voting" but is really "Paper Ballots" the graphic is wrong because Ohio (at least) is in the wrong method of voting category. Don't know whether the other information is accurate or not (once the states are recategorized), but for what it was designed to show it has been proved wrong.

[Chi]

14. Not 100% accurate...

Heya Ms. Toad <waves>

"Because Ohio is listed as "Electronic Voting" but is really "Paper Ballots" the graphic is wrong because Ohio (at least) is in the wrong method of voting category."

Not quite accurate as stated.
Ohio had 7 counties with E-voting, that would give enough data to formulate a graph.

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?&topic_string=5estd&state=Ohio

[FreepFryer]

15. I'm not sure how that answers the question. Ohio's votes were optically

counted, using electronic computers.

I have no love for this or any other homespun graphic, but I'm still unclear how this is 'proven wrong'.

For details of Ohio's voting technology and usage patterns, see the EIRS at http://voteprotect.org

Ohio's page is visible here: http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?state=ohio&topic_string=5std

(Just realized, same link as another post)

[Ms. Toad]

16. Because

The creator of the graphic divided states into paper ballots or electronic voting. Although it may not be a perfect division, that was the division that the creator of the graphics chose to use. I am not aware of any state voting by paper ballots that counts the ballots by hand - they all use some kind of electronic reading and counting. Given the choice between those two categories, Ohio belongs in the same category as the other states that voted on paper (bubble or punch card) and had the votes read and/or counted electronically - which in this graphic are labeled "Paper Ballot."

Yes there were a few touch screen counties in Ohio. My original response said "the vast majority of votes in Ohio were cast by punch card." There was no mixed category in the original graphic. If Ohio has to be put in one category or another - the paper ballot category is more accurate.

Let me give you a simple example as to why I say that makes the graphic wrong:

I want to illustrate that a higher percentage of people like red fruits than like yellow fruits, so I gather data and make 7 charts, which I assemble together as a single graphic (you'll have to use your imagination here, since I'm too tired to actually put a graphic together):

Lemon
Yellow Fruit
20% like

Grapefruit
Yellow Fruit
30% like

Cranberries
Yellow Fruit
35% like

Bananas
Red Fruit
90% like

Apples
Red Fruit
85% like

Raspberries
Red Fruit
72% like

Strawberries
Red Fruit
80% like

Unfortunately, I accidentally categorized cranberries as yellow fruits when they are red, and bananas as red when they are yellow. Even if the numbers in each individual chart are 100% accurate, my graphic as a whole doesn't show the relationship I intended it to show. When I put the fruits in their correct categories, the correlation between fruit color and percentage of people who like it falls apart. Similarly, when I properly categorize Ohio (and other states which I recall were also miscategorized), the relation between type of voting and vote count/exit poll correlation shown in the graphic as it was originally constituted no longer exists (or is considerably weakened).

In addition, my categories aren't black line categories (just like paper ballot/electronic voting categories aren't). What about apples - some are red and some are various other colors, including yellow. Are they really red fruits? (States with mixed balloting)?

What about red grapefruits - which are red on the inside and yellow on the outside (paper ballots counted electronically)?

Bottom line, the numbers in each small chart may be 100% accurate - I don't know - but as a whole the graphic doesn't show what it was initially created to show.

Personally, if I believed the numbers in this graphic were correct and needed to use them to support a point I would find another source - no point in giving someone an easy target to blow out of the water.

[Chi]

18. Omission is not indicative of error

No Offense
You answered the question...
"has this graphic been proven wrong?"
with a yes (in short).

Then you say
"the graphic is wrong because Ohio (at least) is in the wrong method of voting category."

Then you acknowledge that Ohio DOES in fact use E-voting in a number of counties.
So the only conclusion I can draw is that you feel the 'graphic' is wrong because it does not include ALL the methods in Ohio.
Which bodes the question...does this mean the 'graphic' is wrong because it does not include ALL the states?

If you are after truth, like I am, you really should stop right now and reflect on what you have said to this point. Your not being logical, your defending a position.
If you are NOT after truth....carry on, your doing just fine. ;-)

[Ms. Toad]

19. Omission has nothing to do with it

The graphic was designed to show a correlation between three variables: Method of voting, exit polls, and recorded votes. The underlying facts in one of three variables were incorrect. There were two choices for method of voting (I didn't choose those, the author of the graphic did). Ohio doesn't fit exactly in either (which introduces some invalidity, but is probably not fatal given the rough level of correlation it was trying to show)- but 86 of the 88 counties (including most of the most populous counties) voted by paper ballot of one sort or another. Given the choice between paper ballots and electronic voting for Ohio, the most correct choice is paper ballot. To say Ohio is an electronic voting state is stretching reality beyond belief (in defense of the graphic author - Ohio had intended to switch to electronic, and if the newspaper articles were not followed closely it was easy to believe Ohio had actually switched.) There were other states (based on my recollection) that were similarly miscategorized.

Because the states were not put in the proper method of voting category any correlation between the three variables that depends on the accuracy of the identification of voting method also wrong. It's like plugging the wrong number into an equation you are trying to solve - you can get an answer, but the answer will be wrong because you plugged the wrong number into the equation. Or, to put it another way, a three legged stool cannot stand if one of the legs is broken.

The underlying facts of the other two legs may be 100% accurate - but even if they are, it does not make the overall graphic correct because of the broken "method of voting" leg.

That is all I have tried to answer - whether the graphic is valid (or "wrong" in the words of the initial poster). It is not valid for what it was intended to show (even if its purpose is limited to showing the relationship for the few selected states - as you point out, that is another limitation of the graphic although it would not in my mind prove it wrong).

When I search for the truth, as you suggest you are, I want to know whether information I receive is reliable. If I have a document with a whole collection of facts (whether or not they are put together to show a relationship) when I discover that the thing I can most easily check is wrong, I don't rely on any other facts in the document without independent verification. (It may be a valuable tool for starting additional resource, but that is about the extent of my use for any other information in such a document)

If you want to use it for other purposes - or believe it is not correct. Just expect an early response from anyone not already convinced of the truth you say you are seeking to be, "That doesn't even show the correct method of voting - why should I believe anything else in the graphic?"

[Chi]

21. It is a graphic...

It is a graphic , likely part of a report with other graphics.
How can you know for sure that this graphic does not come with other graphics, which give other categories for Ohio voting?
You can't..unless you are the author, of you have the original document/post this came from.
Without this, you have no context for which to conclude it is 'wrong' (except if the numbers the graph illustrates are wrong).

The graphic does not say the E-voting was the only method of voting in Ohio, just as it doesn't say there are only 9 states in the country.

[Ms. Toad]

24. You may not have been around

for the original distribution of this graphic, or may not have noticed it when it was distributed. I was, and was one of the individuals providing the information that Ohio (and I believe other states as well) was mis-categorized. I don't have be the author or to possess the original document in order to remember the discussions that surrounded it - or to answer a question as to whether this graphic was proved wrong based on those discussions or other information.

The graphic was one of the early ones that came out shortly after the election in support of an assertion that the votes collected on electronic voting machines badly matched the exit polls unlike those cast using paper ballots. Ohio was a bad match, and putting it in the electronic voting category appeared to support that hypotheses. (This was likely based on the pre-election publicity that Ohio was moving to electronic voting - the delay in implementation until after the election was not nearly so well publicized.)

Later results, based on more refined information, seemed to indicate that electronic voting matched exit polls better than paper ballot voting. This later discovery was based, in part, on a second look at Ohio and how it really voted once the dust settled.

[Chi]

25. Up to this point....

Up to this point I had no idea you had seen/read the posting in question. If that information was posted from the start I would have never questioned your original post.

From my vantage point, you were interpreting the authors intent without any info beyond what was in this thread.

If I offended, irked, or annoyed you, I offer a sincere apology.


"I don't have be the author or to possess the original document in order to remember the discussions that surrounded it"

My intent was to say if you have not read the original post, you can't interpret the authors intent, I did not intend to convey possession of the document as a requirement.
Since you have read it, it's a moot point anyway.

[magellan]

20. Opscan and e-votes were counted using the same

tabulation software, is what I read here somewhere. I don't know if that's true. If I can find the link I'll post it.

[Chi]

22. Probably Triad. (I hope that helps your search) N/T

[Chi]

17. Here is a link for you

If your looking to validate the numbers in the graphic, try here....
http://www.exitpollz.org/
They have a collection of exit poll screen shots from much later that night.

If your interested in sharing with others, you might wanna try this....
http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf
It's worth the read, here is a graf.

"However, to use the misleading terminology anyway, if “the screen” was off by
half an inch, it remains unexplained why the machines that were taking Democratic votes
to be Republican votes (the line just below Democrats), were not also taking Republican
votes and making them Libertarian votes, (the line just below Republicans) with similarly
large numbers of complaints from Republicans about “screen calibration issues”. Indeed,
it might also be asked why no Republican votes were recorded as Democratic, though a
true screen calibration defect would not produce errors in both directions at the same
time, one would expect a calibration issue to occasionally go in the up direction and not
just the down direction. Interestingly, the reports of these screen calibration problems
were virtually all on major ticket races, and not on the various issues and candidates that
were lower on the ticket, even though some of the lower races are in the same position on
the screen as the earlier major ticket races, and thus should be subject to the same
“miscalibration” problems, even if the miscalibration was somehow isolated to one
portion of the screen."

[emcguffie]

23. I've been wondering where that was.

It seems to me that that, taken together with the "battleground" states with their wide divergences, should up the odds another notch, or another million, no?

I'm no statistician. This has to go in our packet. I'm new at this, how do I save it? May I save it?