Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 355/667
(07-Nov-2004 at 04:13)


Bush is the clear winner...Or is he?

The exit polls clearly showed Kerry winning by a large margin, and exit polls are almost never wrong. So what happenned? Conservatives contend that a liberal media conspiracy caused the exit polls to point to a Kerry victory. However, some see it as a sign that the election results we're tampered with. For an in depth analysis, take a look here:

http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm

The above link shows counties with a massive majority of democrats registering and the resulting vote shows that Bush won by an equally massive margin in these counties. Now that wouldn't normally be significant, except that all of these counties employed optically scanned paper ballots which are fed into a central tabulator. In the counties that used touchscreen machines which had no central tabulator succeptable to hacking, there was a significant correlation between registration and actual voting results.

In FL:
E-Touchscreen correlation was 0.78
Optical Scan correlation was 0.09

I also went to this website to watch a video about the Optical Scan machines and noticed that the video was unfortunately hacked so that no one could watch it . The video supposedly shows someone changing the results of the election with the same software used by the centreal tabulator in 90 seconds. WTF, is this really another huge conspiracy?

There is alot more to the story here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

here is an excerpt from the above link:

Quote:
According to congressional candidate Fisher, it makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.

And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states.

So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.
what do you guys think? I know the conservatives will say 'another crackpot liberal conspiracy theory', but are we really able to ignore this evidence?

Last edited by cdndude83, 07-Nov-2004 at 04:15.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by cdndude83 Add cdndude83 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3414/4208
(07-Nov-2004 at 04:16)


even if it's not evidence of a conspiracy, someone should look into the cause of such alarming discrepencies between people registered and people who voted.

Sygnalor the Accountinator
Able to file 1040's faster than a speeding bullet
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sygnal Add Sygnal to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 798/1061
(07-Nov-2004 at 05:19)


Exit polls are not reliable. Refer to election 2000.

Avatar courtesy of MAPS
"Light travels faster than sound, so
some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak."


Middle Class Pride
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dilbert Add Dilbert to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 70/81
(07-Nov-2004 at 05:36)


exit polls have never been that accurate at all. i can't remeber an election where they where 50% accurate.

I don't have problems. Everyone else has problems.
The report of my death was an exaggeration.
Mark Twain.
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by fspikec Add fspikec to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 12/842
(07-Nov-2004 at 05:44)
in exit polls.. what you first get the info you just get from certain places. This is why at first it was strongly beleived that Kerry was going to win....as most of these were coming from heavy democratic areas. Look at the New England states and you get the idea why. But as the day progressed the numbers became more accurate. Also, I heard on tv that the numbers were exactly the percanteges of what the election was. Go figure
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by tylerrrrr Add tylerrrrr to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 902/1988
Donated $2.08
(07-Nov-2004 at 06:29)


Ok, but this you can't ignore:

Machine errors give Bush extra votes in ohio: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041105/D865R1DO0.html

From ( http://www.dailyrotten.com/ ):

E-voting machines caught switching votes
InfoWorld | Submitted by: Reid Fleming
"U.S. voters calling in to a toll-free number had reported more than 1,100 separate incidents of problems with electronic voting machines and other voting technologies by late Tuesday during the nationwide election. In more than 30 reported cases, when voters reviewed their choices before finalizing them, an electronic voting machine indicated they had voted for a different candidate... In a majority of cases where machines allegedly recorded a wrong vote, votes were taken away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, or a Democratic candidate in another race, and given to Republican President George Bush or another Republican candidate, said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation... 'We're only hearing from people who caught it,' Cohn said during a press conference... 'It gives us this uneasy feeling we're seeing the tip of the iceberg.'"



E-voting machines lose 4,531 votes in North Carolina precinct
WNCT-TV 9 Greenville | Submitted by: Reid Fleming
"Ed Pond says when the numbers didn't match up, manufacturers told him: 'Of the votes we have, 3,006 is all we can recover. We said, "What do you mean?"' What that means is: of 7,537 voters, every one made after 3,005 were not saved in the computer memory. The Carteret county board of elections say their electronic voting system is owned by Unilect. Initially they told the board 10,000 votes could be stored in these computer systems. In actuality, it was 7,000... Luckily, Pond says this slip up was not large enough to change elected leaders... Both sides agree a backup or alert system should be in place for next election."


E-voting machines lose 37 votes in Florida precinct
Bradenton Herald | Submitted by: Reid Fleming
"Nine voting machines ran out of battery power and nearly 40 votes may have been lost in Palm Beach County, the first major problem reported on Election Day... The nine machines at a Boynton Beach precinct weren't plugged in properly, and their batteries wore down around ##:## a.m., said Marty Rogol spokesman for Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore. Poll clerk Joyce Gold said 37 votes appeared to be missing after she compared the computer records to the sign-in sheet. Elections officials won't know exactly how many votes were lost until after polls close... U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat, unsuccessfully sued to add a paper trail to the machines, which he says cannot meet a state requirement for manual recounts."


E-Voting machines lost 245 votes in Florida precinct
St. Petersburg Times | Submitted by: Reid Fleming
"Rob MacKenna, Democratic challenger for supervisor of elections, accused incumbent Buddy Johnson Friday of providing an 'inaccurate and misleading account' of his office's loss of 245 votes in the August primary and suggested Johnson 'should be drawing a paycheck elsewhere.' In a noon news conference, MacKenna backed his charges with evidence from an internal report on 245 votes lost when an elections worker mistakenly left a touch screen voting machine in the 'test' mode. The report and a Friday St. Petersburg Times story detailing it say the Supervisor of Elections' staff looked for the lost votes for 13 days without ever informing Johnson or state election officials of the 245-vote discrepancy... It was inaction by Johnson' office, MacKenna said in calling for Johnson's resignation, that allowed a statutory 10-day period for challenging an election to expire while his staff was still trying to hunt down the missing 245 votes."

"Why should I have to work for everything?! It's like saying I don't deserve it!" - Calvin.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Stewie Add Stewie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 160/201
(07-Nov-2004 at 06:44)


No one doubts that there were problems with the election, but none were big enough to prevent a Kerry victory. Bush won. Even I am willing to admit it.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by prolix Add prolix to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 903/1988
Donated $2.08
(07-Nov-2004 at 06:48)


You never know how many of these "problems" won't be discovered.

"Why should I have to work for everything?! It's like saying I don't deserve it!" - Calvin.
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Stewie Add Stewie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 162/201
(07-Nov-2004 at 06:58)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Stewie)

You never know how many of these "problems" won't be discovered.
And your point is what, exactly? That because the possibility exists that maybe, somehow, somewhere, some kind of malfunction caused John Kerry to lose just enough points in a state with just enough electoral votes to give him the win, we should use these piddly examples to refute Bush's claim to the throne?

As my uncle use to say: "If a problem is never discovered, then it's not a problem."
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by prolix Add prolix to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1732/2231
Donated $14.28
(07-Nov-2004 at 07:09)


Quote:
(Originally posted by prolix)

And your point is what, exactly? That because the possibility exists that maybe, somehow, somewhere, some kind of malfunction caused John Kerry to lose just enough points in a state with just enough electoral votes to give him the win, we should use these piddly examples to refute Bush's claim to the throne?

As my uncle use to say: "If a problem is never discovered, then it's not a problem."
Who's to say that it didn't make a difference in another race though? Maybe a senate race or something. Who knows rather it would have made a difference with kerry or bush but still, it should be accurate, I mean damn, if we can't even elect our officals right what kind of country are we.

I say we go back to marking it on paper, none of this computer crap for voting. You mark who you want with a pen thats that.


The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Tack Add Tack to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Jarlaxle Baenre)
Posts: 252/1693
(07-Nov-2004 at 07:12)


Yeah, screw chads. Take a pencil, and pencil in a circle. If there's evidence of erasure, or multiple circles filled in, discount it. No worry about a hanging chad, it can be counted electronicially in a closed system, and it's so-bloody-easy.

Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated
Do the impossible
See the invisible
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER
#11  
View Public Profile Visit Eltargrim's homepage Find more posts by Eltargrim Add Eltargrim to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2219/4829
(07-Nov-2004 at 07:42)


I looked into it by going to the official voter registration and results.

Indeed almost three times as many people voted republican as registered republicans.

However, that isnt very meaningful for a number of reasons.

First, every one of the counties mentioned voted for Bush in the 2000 elections which was a considerably closer election. This is despite the almost exact same overwhelming number of registered democrats. Given the scrutiny applied to Florida in the last election, I think they would have discovered if there was fraud.

Second, During voter registration many more people register as Democrats than republicans regardless of their tendancy to vote. This pattern is evident in most counties throughout the U.S. New York is a good example. 40% voted for Bush, yet only 12% were registered republicans. 68% are registered Democrats.

People change their voting preferences without re-registering to correct their party affiliation.

Third, The bulk numbers are important. Total registered voters were only significantly above 10,000 in one of those counties. With so few voters, significant percentages of the population can be pursuaded to vote in a certain way with minimal campaign efforts.

Last edited by Royal Assassin3, 07-Nov-2004 at 07:43.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1738/2231
Donated $14.28
(07-Nov-2004 at 08:00)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Jarlaxle Baenre)

Yeah, screw chads. Take a pencil, and pencil in a circle. If there's evidence of erasure, or multiple circles filled in, discount it. No worry about a hanging chad, it can be counted electronicially in a closed system, and it's so-bloody-easy.
Thats exactly how I did it this election in my not so advanced community. Except we used pens, marked in the circles, then pushed the paper into a little machine that counts the marks. Pretty dang simple.


The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Tack Add Tack to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 73/81
(07-Nov-2004 at 08:17)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Tack)

Thats exactly how I did it this election in my not so advanced community. Except we used pens, marked in the circles, then pushed the paper into a little machine that counts the marks. Pretty dang simple.
Haven't you realized it yet. With the American way, nothing can or ever will be simple. We take everything and make it 10x more complicated than it needs to be. There are at least 10-20 easier, almost full proof ways that could be used for elections. Bet yet we have to use the more complicated and flawed system.

I don't have problems. Everyone else has problems.
The report of my death was an exaggeration.
Mark Twain.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by fspikec Add fspikec to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 552/554
(07-Nov-2004 at 08:43)
Re: Bush is the clear winner...Or is he?

Quote:
(Originally posted by cdndude83)

The exit polls clearly showed Kerry winning by a large margin, and exit polls are almost never wrong. So what happenned? Conservatives contend that a liberal media conspiracy caused the exit polls to point to a Kerry victory. However, some see it as a sign that the election results we're tampered with. For an in depth analysis, take a look here:

http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm

The above link shows counties with a massive majority of democrats registering and the resulting vote shows that Bush won by an equally massive margin in these counties. Now that wouldn't normally be significant, except that all of these counties employed optically scanned paper ballots which are fed into a central tabulator. In the counties that used touchscreen machines which had no central tabulator succeptable to hacking, there was a significant correlation between registration and actual voting results.

In FL:
E-Touchscreen correlation was 0.78
Optical Scan correlation was 0.09

I also went to this website to watch a video about the Optical Scan machines and noticed that the video was unfortunately hacked so that no one could watch it . The video supposedly shows someone changing the results of the election with the same software used by the centreal tabulator in 90 seconds. WTF, is this really another huge conspiracy?

There is alot more to the story here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

here is an excerpt from the above link:



what do you guys think? I know the conservatives will say 'another crackpot liberal conspiracy theory', but are we really able to ignore this evidence?
It is a trend in the voting habits of US citizens that the number of people who register, a large minority do not vote. And further more, Democrats tend to not wote, somehow Republicans are more "loyal" to the party.
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yangmang Add yangmang to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1116/7006
(07-Nov-2004 at 10:05)


Quote:
what do you guys think? I know the conservatives will say 'another crackpot liberal conspiracy theory', but are we really able to ignore this evidence?
A conspiracy on that scale is a little to large to take seriously; Bush really did scrape through.

But keep in mind that it is by the smallest margin of any incumbent since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Reagan, for instance, got 59% of the vote for his second term and both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon got 61%.

Bush supporters may make a big issue of him getting more votes for him than any other President, but he also got more votes *against* him than any other president as well.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1213/1474
(07-Nov-2004 at 10:10)
Quote:
Haven't you realized it yet. With the American way, nothing can or ever will be simple. We take everything and make it 10x more complicated than it needs to be. There are at least 10-20 easier, almost full proof ways that could be used for elections. Bet yet we have to use the more complicated and flawed system.
hahahah, what an irony of irony.....i cant believe people actually wish to revert back to old methods?..i thought democrats are those who believe in new things, and those electric stuff are new things, new things that need to be embrace? if the result is different, i believe people will not even bring this out...

though there are some discrepancy in the result, come to think of it, if there is fraud in the election of USA, the all mighty champion of democracy having fraud, who will believe in democracy then?

whether it is electronic voting or pencil voting or pen, there will always be mistakes or problems, we cant simply solved it instantly.


i have to say again, if it is the wish of the people of america to vote bush out, then he will be voted out overwhelmingly, i believe democrats, antiwars and antibush have come out in full force to try to dislodge bush but it is still not enough against the other half of the people who voted for bush not that they are voting for bush but voting for issues that is of interest to them specially morality and religions.

forget about it...it is really dumb whether people will ever read it...
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by peipoh Add peipoh to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 356/667
(07-Nov-2004 at 15:13)


Quote:
(Originally posted by prolix)

No one doubts that there were problems with the election, but none were big enough to prevent a Kerry victory. Bush won. Even I am willing to admit it.
well if the central tabulator votes we're altered, than the votes for each of those counties could have been changed in FL to give a huge advantage to Bush. I think around 80% of the counties of FL used those machines, so it just takes one person opening up the voter registry on the central tabulator and taking a couple minutes to change the votes into Bush's favor. A Kerry win in FL means 279 Kerry, 259 Bush. The fact that Jeb Bush is the governor of the state doesnt ease my fears either.

Take a look at what happenned in 2000:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by cdndude83 Add cdndude83 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 627/689
(07-Nov-2004 at 16:20)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Voice of Reason)

A conspiracy on that scale is a little to large to take seriously; Bush really did scrape through.

But keep in mind that it is by the smallest margin of any incumbent since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Reagan, for instance, got 59% of the vote for his second term and both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon got 61%.
Wow you cherry picked your data. I seem to remember an incumbant president named Clinton only managing to get 49% of the vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3686728.stm

To add on to RA3's arguement, most of the south considers themselves as democrats, or rather we did until Clinton.
As you can see in the link below, People from my state of Louisiana are registered as Democrats at well over a ##:## margin over the Republican party. Despite this wide margin in voter registration, Bush won Louisiana by a landslide, 57-42%. The democratic party has so alienated its base in the south that they no longer stand a chance there.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by gregorclegane Add gregorclegane to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1629/5486
Donated $11.20
(07-Nov-2004 at 18:39)


The reason this thread exists is the result of some bloggers out there having insufficient health care coverage. Clinically, I believe their conditions is known as denial.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Voice of Reason) But keep in mind that it is by the smallest margin of any incumbent since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Reagan, for instance, got 59% of the vote for his second term and both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon got 61%.
Thanks for at least admitting Bush won the election. I'm not going even look it up, but Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in '96 as an incumbent. LBJ's spread might be a throwout considering he wasn't elected the first time around. These are terribly misleading stats anyhow they're spun.

Quote:
Bush supporters may make a big issue of him getting more votes for him than any other President, but he also got more votes *against* him than any other president as well.
Anyone talking more than raw vote data or raw margin/percent is just trying to blow smoke you know where. If any 'mandate' exists it is to the extent that:

Bush was elected, so get over Florida 2000 already once and for all...

Clearly, we all agree that continuing the prosecution of the war on terror, finishing the job in Iraq, and solving the impending implosion of Social Security are issues Bush was elected to act upon, not ones that he has no right to tackle.

The House is slightly more Republican and the Senate majority is now 55%. It seems both bodies are roughly broken down as are the citizens. Truly a representative Republic. It it can get through Congress, it's probably consistent with the views of America.
#20  
View Public Profile Visit Michael1's homepage Find more posts by Michael1 Add Michael1 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 05:31.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.