Exit poll versus vote results, paper ballot versus electronic voting machine

[D_Raay]

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif
This chart makes the trend obvious. In states with paper ballots and audit trails, the exit polls accurately predicted the vote results. In states using electronic machines, the vote results were distorted in favor of Bush.

Concerned citizens are calling for a thorough investigation into the discrepancies identified in the election results between exit polling data provided by independent polling organizations and the data supplied to the national networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International in the final electoral vote analysis, which awarded Bush the presidency on November 3, 2004. Sen. John Kerry conceded the election to Bush, but a growing number of concerned citizens believe the votes in this election are not his to concede. The votes belong to the legal voters who cast them, and existing discrepancies may point to possible wrongdoing by those who counted them. Organizations or individuals who support this public outcry are encouraged to get involved.

Exit polling on election day as reported by John Zogby of Zogby International and other independent exit polling organizations show a different result earlier on in the contest than what was reported later on by 6 national networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and The Associated Press, who received their exit polling data from Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, a consortium formed after Voter News Service was disbanded and blamed for the networks' error in prematurely calling Florida for Gore in the 2000 election. Exit polling using statistical analysis is an important part of our election process, providing necessary checks against the tabulated results, and a reasonable amount of protection against vote fraud.

According to the networks, Edison Media Research had a direct connection to county election results across the nation via computer modems. Although early polling data obtained by Edison/Mitofsky appear to be accurate, as the situation unfolded later into the night, the exit polls were combined with and therefore contaminated by the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. Jonathan Simon of Alliance for Democracy notes, "Statistical discrepancies were identified in key battleground states that exceeded the margin of error of the exit polls. In Ohio, for instance, a shift of 3.1% toward Bush converted a 52% - 48% exit poll "victory" for Kerry into a 51% - 49% electoral "victory" for Bush. Other critical states showed similar anomalous results, each of which should occur less than 5% of the time. In the group of 12 critical states selected for analysis, exit poll vs. tabulated vote shifts exceeded the polls' margin of error in 4 cases, which according to statistical analysis would occur only 0.2% (or one five-hundredth) of the time in the absence of significant mistabulation of votes." Simon also notes that exit polling appears inexplicably to have been significantly more accurate in nonbattleground states, than in the states that were crucial to a Bush victory.

Rather than objectively exploring reasons for these identified discrepancies, the networks now glibly claim exit polling based on scientific methodology is completely unreliable, and have all but forgotten that there was a deep and widespread concern about the reliability and security of the vote tabulating apparatus leading up to this election.

A statement by Wally O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold, providers of Ohio's electronic voting equipment in August 2003, may have foreshadowed the November 2 results, at least in Ohio. O'Dell, acting as a Republican fundraiser at the time wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." This statement fueled even greater concern among Americans about the trend toward use of electronic voting equipment without paper receipts, and central tabulation equipment owned, operated, and protected from scrutiny by partisan corporations. George Bush seemed to take O'Dell's pledge at face value, hardly deigning to campaign in Ohio, which was a confusing strategy to many pundits given the state's cliffhanger closeness and critical importance.

Additional anomalies have been recognized, such as a record voter turnout witnessed in the November 2 election, a fact which typically promises a positive outcome for the Democratic Party, having had no such effect, again perplexing analysts across the political spectrum. Problems with continued voter disenfranchisement in this election through questionable "caging lists" and vote "spoilage" have been reported by BBC investigative journalist, Greg Palast, in Florida, Wisonsin, and Ohio. The nation is divided, but it is believed that Americans have been trending toward change in the White House since the 2000 election, not toward greater conservatism or support of George Bush's policies, and that exit polling by independent pollsters on November 2 reflected this change.

Americans concerned about voter fraud in Election 2004 are urged not to concede their vote to George Bush, and to prepare for further pro-active measures designed to empower millions of legal voters who continue to be disenfranchised by party politics.

[ASsman]

Meh, there is no way in hell to prove this or dispprove it. That is what E-Voting is for. No hard evidence, WHATSOEVER. Unless you can prove that the machines themselves are suceptable to fraud, but hell we knew that before we instituted them. What so different about now?

[bigkidpants]

These facts must be burned into the consciousness of every decent human being: That the US political and economic system is deeply criminalized. It thrives on war and oppression. It is sustained by collusion, fraud, lies, and cover-up, and the indoctrination and manipulation of minds. It does not, and never has, represented its people.

[paulk]

These facts must be burned into the consciousness of every decent human being: That the US political and economic system is deeply criminalized. It thrives on war and oppression. It is sustained by collusion, fraud, lies, and cover-up, and the indoctrination and manipulation of minds. It does not, and never has, represented its people.

It all boils down to the self-evident truth that Government of any kind is inherently oppressive.

[Ace42]

It all boils down to the self-evident truth that Government of any kind is inherently oppressive.

Heh... Yeah right. "If government can't be non-oppressive in America, land of the free, where can it be non-oppressive" - that is your reasoning, right?

Nevermind the fact that America is also the land with 30% complete retards, and another 40% of lazy / apathetic retards, off set by 30% who might well be seen to be well intentioned retards...

[paulk]

Heh... Yeah right. "If government can't be non-oppressive in America, land of the free, where can it be non-oppressive" - that is your reasoning, right?

I was merely making a statement about the nature of government in general.

Nevermind the fact that America is also the land with 30% complete retards, and another 40% of lazy / apathetic retards, off set by 30% who might well be seen to be well intentioned retards...

The ratios are similar in most countries, industrialized or otherwise.

Corruption, oppression, etc. are just the unavoidable by-products of having a ruling class, regardless of location, language, or whether the proletariat eat hamburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches three times a day.

[Ace42]

I was merely making a statement about the nature of government in general.

Corruption, oppression, etc. are just the unavoidable by-products of having a ruling class,

The term you are looking for, I would propose, is "Oligarchy"

And while oligarchies are *traditionally* the form governments take, it is wrong to say that "governments are flawed" simply because there are no ready examples of non-oligarchical government.

It would be like me saying "I can't name any warm-blooded fish, therefore warm blooded fish can't survive"

[DroppinScience]

The ratios are similar in most countries, industrialized or otherwise.

Exactly. Until voting turnout in other countries is more than 50-some percent (pretty much the average of free nations), how can the US's retardation be any more unique than anybody else?

[Ace42]

Because, unlike most countries, the US had a simple and clear choice between a lame politician, and a derranged war-monger?

That's quite different to having a wide variety of indifferent local parliamentary candidates to choose from.

It's one thing not to be able to choose between half a dozen strange and unknown faceless politicians, quite another to NOT be convinced that getting Bush out of power is incredibly important.

[Ace42]

Exactly. Until voting turnout in other countries is more than 50-some percent (pretty much the average of free nations), how can the US's retardation be any more unique than anybody else?

The UK's 2001 election was the lowest in half a century with 57% - probably due to Labour's massive majority creating a sense of it being "unassailable" and thus not worth turning out.

However, the GE before that it was 69%, and before that generally over 75%.

So in your face America for that.

France has only twice gone under 70% in the last 50 years, neither went below 68%.

Germany not under 72%

Spain not under 71%

Italy not under 84%

Greece not under 82% since the 60s

Sweden not under 77%

So, I think you might want to recheck your statement that 50% turnout is "average" Even the US's 60% is well below average in Europe for the last half-century.

http://www.idea.int/vt/western.cfm

[paulk]

It would be fun to have a warm-blooded fish for a pet, but they exist only in my fantastic dreams.

What are you looking for? Collective anarchy or socialist libertarianism?

How incredibly factional would a 100% democratic system be? The phrase "a 100% democratic system" is contradictory. It couldn't be a system in which all parts contribute to the whole. Yes, the checks and balances and so on.

Is there any way to protect the supreme sovereignty of the individual over his/herself? Can you guarantee the rights of the minority and the majority in all cases?

[paulk]

Also, among the countries you listed, several have made voting compulsory. In Greece it may be difficult for a non-voter to obtain a driver's license. Other countries enforce compulsory voting to different extents. So the voter turnout numbers don't necessarily correspond with the percentage of the population that is not apathetic.

[Ace42]

You said "Without oppression, corruption, etc"

"op·pres·sion Audio pronunciation of "oppression" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-prshn)
n.

1.
1. The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power
2. The state of being oppressed."

"op·press Audio pronunciation of "oppressed" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-prs)
tr.v. op·pressed, op·press·ing, op·press·es

1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
2. To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit."

Why must any government of necessity be "arbitrary and cruel" ?

Surely, that can be no "justice" *WITHOUT* government? Thus any use of force (not being adjudicated by a government) is "oppressive" ?

"cor·rupt Audio pronunciation of "corrupt" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-rpt)
adj.

1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation. "

Surely, also, morality is merely a consensus, and thus no government means that can be no "corruption" solely because there is nothing to corrupt. That is only semantics, not actually suggesting the state of affairs is any more desirable, nor that the inverse is true, and that there being something to corrupt means it must be so.

Literally, why can a government not be honest, where all other occupations often hinge on a good reputation which can only come about through perceived honesty?

I'd say there is nothing inherantly "dishonest" about "government" - nor is there necessarily anything that says governments have to unjustly use force in a cruel way.

I could be a one man dictator (a form of government, admittedly undesirable) and yet be totally honest about what I say and do, and not use force in a cruel way.

Yeah this is far from desirable and an inherantly flawed form of government, but it would certainly disprove the charges, even if it resulted in widespread dissatisfaction.

[DroppinScience]

It would be fun to have a warm-blooded fish for a pet, but they exist only in my fantastic dreams.

What are you looking for? Collective anarchy or socialist libertarianism?

How incredibly factional would a 100% democratic system be? The phrase "a 100% democratic system" is contradictory. It couldn't be a system in which all parts contribute to the whole. Yes, the checks and balances and so on.

Is there any way to protect the supreme sovereignty of the individual over his/herself? Can you guarantee the rights of the minority and the majority in all cases?

100% democratic system to me means that if the entire populace is engaged that translates into a stronger government. The government can't pull stupid shit so easy because everyone is getting informed and cares how their tax dollars are being spent.

Ok, so most of you Europeans have caught on that voting rocks the house. Now can someone do something about us lazy ass Canadians?

[Ace42]

Also, among the countries you listed, several have made voting compulsory. In Greece it may be difficult for a non-voter to obtain a driver's license. Other countries enforce compulsory voting to different extents. So the voter turnout numbers don't necessarily correspond with the percentage of the population that is not apathetic.

A number of the countries I listed do NOT have compulsory voting, and still consistantly shit on the US's figures.

Exactly. Until voting turnout in other countries is more than 50-some percent (pretty much the average of free nations),

I was merely illustrating that is mistaken, irrespective of reasoning. And while the country might be apathetic, if they are obliged to go to the polls anyway, it does not logically follow that their vote would be arbitrary.

Eitherway, these countries have not been presented with a choice between Bush and "not-Bush" and had 70% of *REGISTERED VOTERS* not be able to pick the obvious answer.

Let's put this into perspective, an equal proportion of US registered voters *did not pick kerry* as turns out to most international elections.

[paulk]

I didn't carefully choose the words "corrupt" and "oppressive". I vaguely remembered similar words in the bigkidpants post I originally was responding to.

I am simply not aware of any viable system involving any form of central government, on whatever level, in which all members' rights are preserved.


\Gov"ern*ment\, n. [F. gouvernement. See Govern.] 1. The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation;.

[Ace42]

I am simply not aware of any viable system involving any form of central government, on whatever level, in which all members' rights are preserved.


\Gov"ern*ment\, n. [F. gouvernement. See Govern.] 1. The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation;.

Surely, rights are given by government, and thus rights cannot be preserved without it?

[paulk]

freedom isn't given.

it's an undisputed right bestowed upon (supposedly) every human being.

From the Gay Marriage thread.

[Ace42]

From the Gay Marriage thread.

Bestowed is a synonym for given.

Syn: To give; grant; present; confer; accord.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bestowed

For it to be bestowed, it has to be bestowed by someone or something, in this case, government.

The only reason freedom is generally considered a right is because representative governments have legislated to make it so.

[paulk]

If I was telling someone about getting some bean burritos at the Del Taco drive through, I wouldn't say "The mexican lady bestowed unto me two bean burritoes."

Bestowed usually refers to something conferred by a "higher power", if you will. I don't want to throw religion into this, but the "God-given inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property" etc. This applies from a secular standpoint as well, the idea is that it is not in the human nature to allow oneself to be dominated.

I believe that ideally, the purpose of government (contrary to the term "government" itself) is strictly to preserve/uphold the fundamental rights of the People. It does not create rights. It exists exclusively at the People's pleasure.

You may reject this idea entirely. As I am American we seem to be fundamentally different on the topic of freedom.

[Ace42]

Bestowed usually refers to something conferred by a "higher power", if you will. I don't want to throw religion into this, but the "God-given inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property" etc. This applies from a secular standpoint as well, the idea is that it is not in the human nature to allow oneself to be dominated.

And yet if you remove God from the equasion, what "Higher power" does that leave? From an aethiest / agnostic / phenomenological point of view, that higher power can only be government.

You may reject this idea entirely. As I am American we seem to be fundamentally different on the topic of freedom.

Even as American, you are left with the proposition that it is either "God-given inalienable rights" or "man-given inalienable rights".

As an American, you do not have the right to go around killing other people as you see fit, and yet that is the logical extension of "freedom" - this extension is natural because the same people that tell you what you are entitled to do also tell you what you can't.

The fact that rights are abstracts invented by and applied by a government, doesn't make them "privileges"

A right is still distinct from a privilidge, in that rights are conveyed to all until repealed (incarceration for breaking a law) and that privileges are granted to individuals specifically.

[yeahwho]

Because, unlike most countries, the US had a simple and clear choice between a lame politician, and a derranged war-monger?

That's quite different to having a wide variety of indifferent local parliamentary candidates to choose from.

It's one thing not to be able to choose between half a dozen strange and unknown faceless politicians, quite another to NOT be convinced that getting Bush out of power is incredibly important.

(y) Great job. I've read perhaps a thousand different responses to what happened on Nov. 2nd, 2004...your response sums it up quite Succinctly. Great writing.

Instead of Decision 2004, to be honest they should of called it, "Dilemma 2004"

In the Netherlands they have an 87.2% voter turnout. In the Netherlands they're smoking hash in the streets.

[catatonic]

Crap! The vote was hacked! Why didn't Kerry sue?

The Republicans winning Congress was probably hacked too!

[Whois]

It all boils down to the self-evident truth that Government of any kind is inherently oppressive.

(y)

"Governments should not possess instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens." - Edgar A. Suter




p.s. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

http://www.quotegarden.com/government.html

[paulk]

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them." ~Karl Marx

Haha, a most excellent garden of quotes.

But the "logical extension of freedom" is You can do what you will so long as you aren't denying someone else their freedom.

Why can't inalienable rights/freedom exist without being created by someone or by some body? I don't necessarily believe in "God", and yet it is simply natural and evident to me that no one can make me (or anyone else) do anything or do anything to me against my will.

[Ali]

Crap! The vote was hacked! Why didn't Kerry sue? Why doesn't he? I hope this is going to be taken further... my heart sank when I saw those electronic voting machines!

[catatonic]

The vote wasn't hacked!

I talked to someone who knows people in Ohio and he says there were a lot of people who were afraid to say they voted for Bush in front of friends and family so they lied to the Exit poller and said they voted for Kerry. He says he knows two such families who were intimidated and that 5% difference is believeable.

:(

[ASsman]

This isn't the only information backing up this argument. There have been many posts about other articles, and the such.

Oh, and they should be ashamed. Serves them right. They shouldn't only be ashamed, but guilty for the deaths they will help cause.